OPR-X388-KR-19 Straits of Mackinac, MI Lake Huron; Lake Michigan eTrac H13257 6 South Channel Michigan United States 5000 2019 David Neff, C.H. Basic Hydrographic Survey 2019-05-15 2019-07-25 2019-09-15 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. H13257 will cover approximately 30 square nautical miles in the South Channel, 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, IGLD-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 both the western Lake Michigan and the eastern Lake Huron regions. H13257 covers approximately 30 square nautical miles of survey area. 1053 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. H13257 is located in South Channel, MI. Survey was conducted within these limits between July 25, 2019 (DN206) and September 15, 2019 (DN258). 45.79523947222222 84.68910980555556 45.67802063888889 84.3812161111111 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/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurveyLimits_Overview.PNG Survey Limits (black line) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurveyLimits.PNG The purpose of this survey is to update existing National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charts. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Survey H13257 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2019. All water in survey area. Object Detection Note: There are 4 holidays within the survey limits of H13257. Images of the holidays and their location can be found below. Survey Coverage file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurveyCoverage.PNG 2 Holidays within the 50cm surface limits file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurveyCoverage_Holiday_50cm.PNG 2 Holidays within the 1m surface limits file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurveyCoverage_Holiday_1m.PNG R/V 505 0.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R/V Endeavor 0.0 592.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 WAM-V 1 0.0 178.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WAM-V 2 0.0 170.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 997.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 5.63 16 0 0 0 30.87 2001-07-25 2019-07-27 2019-07-28 2019-07-29 2019-07-30 2019-07-31 2019-08-01 2019-08-02 2019-08-03 2019-08-04 2019-08-05 2019-08-06 2019-08-07 2019-08-21 2019-08-22 2019-08-23 2019-09-02 2019-09-07 2019-09-08 2019-09-15 Bottom samples for H13257 were acquired on DN 236 (8/25/2019) and DN 237 (8/26/2019). 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 505 10.0 0.6 R/V Endeavor 13.5 0.8 WAM-V 1 5.0 0.15 WAM-V 2 5.0 0.15 The R/V 505 is a 10 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a Universal Sonar Mount (USM) starboard multibeam pole mount. The R/V Endeavor is a 13.5 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with a Universal Sonar Mount (USM) starboard multibeam pole mount. The WAM-V 1 and WAM-V 2 are Wave Adaptive Modular Vessels (WAM-V) which are an innovative class of watercraft using unique suspension technology to radically improve seagoing capabilities. The WAM-Vs were equipped with custom sonar mounts. R2Sonic 2022 MBES R2Sonic 2024 MBES Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System R2Sonic POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System AML Oceanographic BaseX Sound Speed System Note: R/V 505 utilized a dualhead R2Sonic 2022 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system and a R2Sonic I2NS for the positioning system. R/V Endeavor utilized a dualhead R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system and a POSMV 320 V5 for the positioning system.The WAM-Vs utilized a RSonic 2022 multibeam echosounder system, an R2Sonic I2NS for the positioning system and used the SVP from R/V Endeavor which used an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed 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. H13257 Crossline Comparison file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_XL_histogram.png ERS via VDATUM 7.6 R/V 505 0.05 0.2 R/V Endeavor 0.05 0.2 WAM-V 1 0.05 0.2 WAM-V 2 0.05 0.2 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 H13257 the following percentages represent the results of the TVU calculation: Object Detection MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Object Detection MBES (Finalized 2m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. H13257 Finalized 50cm Object Detection MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_TVU_50cm.png H13257 Finalized 1m Object Detection MBES TVU Statistics (NOAA QC Tools) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_TVU_1m.png The Qimera-exported BAG uncertainty values originate solely from the standard deviation of the soundings that contributed to each CUBE hypothesis, scaled to the 95% CL, and do not use total propagated vertical uncertainty estimates in this calculation. This in not in compliance with NOS HSSD 5.2.1.2.4, where the uncertainty value for the grid node shall be the greater of 1) standard deviation of the soundings contributing to the depth solution, or 2) the a priori computed uncertainty estimate. Furthermore, it is also not in compliance with NOS HSSD 2019 5.1.3, which requires the uncertainty estimates for depth values to support Total Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) estimates. The uncertainty values in the submitted BAGs do not adequately provide enough information to verify if the survey meets uncertainty requirements outlined in NOS HSSD 2019 5.1.3. 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. H13255 5000 2019 e-Trac N Note: The junction comparison between H13257 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 505 and R/V Endeavor casts were applied in QPS QINSy acquisition software at the time of the cast. On the WAM-Vs, casts were copied from R/V Endeavor and applied in QPS QINSy acquistion software at the time of the cast. Note: The WAM-Vs always recorded data near R/V Endeavor. 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 H13257 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Object Detection MBES (Finalized 50cm CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.5241% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Object Detection MBES (Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface ) = 99.9661% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. H13257 Finalized 50cm Object Detection MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_DensityTrac_50cm.PNG H13257 Finalized 1m Object Detection MBES Density Distribution file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_DensityTrac_1m.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 H13257 DN233, DN234 and DN235. Raw backscatter from R/V Endeavor (DN233, DN234 and DN235) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_DN233_DN234_DN235_EN_Backscatter.PNG 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. H13257_MB_50cm_LWD_Final BAG 50cm 1.51 20.0 NOAA_0.5m Object Detection H13257_MB_1m_LWD_Final BAG 1m 18.0 42.34 NOAA_1m Object Detection A 50cm and 1m surface are provided meeting object detection MBES with backscatter specifications for H13257. Parent surfaces of the 50cm and 1m surfaces are also provided in the Surfaces_Mosaics Folder in this delivery drive package. Note: The 1m surface's depth range value was extended past 40 meters to include all of the data in H13257 in order to avoid creating a superfluous 2 meter surface. H13257 Delivered 50cm CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurfaceCoverage_50cm.PNG H13257 Delivered 1m CUBE Surface Coverage Graphic file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SurfaceCoverage_1m.PNG Final grid deliverables no longer match those reported in Table 10, Section B.5.2, due to additional Branch processing. 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 H13257 using Qimera and CARIS HIPS and SIPS. Contours and soundings were compared against the largest scale ENC US4MI51M to accomplish the chart comparison. The methods and results of the comparison are detailed below. Contour Comparison Method: Using the 1 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 1 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 1-2 images of example areas. Sounding Comparison Method: Using the same 1 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: In the northern area of H13257, there is a 18ft, 24ft and 30ft contour that generally agree with the charted contours. The surveyed contours range from 0 to 100 feet from the charted contours. There is a slight trend of the contours receding shoreward in this region. In the northeast corner of H13257, there is a 24ft and 30ft contour that have receded inward from the charted contours. The 24ft contour changed from a diameter of approximately 700ft to 260ft. The 30ft contour also became smaller in diameter from the charted contour. A full diameter comparison could not be completed as the 30ft contour was not fully surveyed due to the survey limits. In the south eastern area of H13257, there is a 24ft and 30ft contour that generally agree with the charted contours. The surveyed contours range from 0 to 25 feet from the charted contours. There is no directional trend of survey contours in comparison to the charted contours. In the south region of H12357, there is a 30ft contour that has receded shoreward from the charted contour by approximately 0 to 550 feet. The eastern region of this area has also developed a few additional shoal regions defined by the 30ft contour. There is a small section that also include the 18ft and 24ft contour which have receded slightly shoreward from the charted contours by approximately 0 to 75 feet. In the southwest corner of H13257, there is 30ft contour that generally agrees with the charted contour. There is a slight trend of the contour receding shoreward in this region by approximately 0 to 100 feet. Sounding Comparison Results: In areas where shoals have formed, soundings differ from the charted depths. In general for H13257, 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. H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Overview file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_Overview.PNG H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View (north) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_DetailedView_North.PNG H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View (northeast) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_DetailedView_NorthEast.PNG H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View (southeast) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_DetailedView_SouthEast.PNG H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View (south) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_DetailedView_South.PNG H13257 Contour Comparison (US4MI52M) - Detailed View (southwest) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_ContourComparison_DetailedView_SouthWest.PNG H13257 Sounding Comparison (US4MI52M) (Soundings in US Survey feet) file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13257_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13257_SoundingComparison.PNG No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. There were 14 charted features assigned to H13257. 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 7XXX). 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 18 new features found in H13257 and added to the Final Feature File (FFF). Each feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 7XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendation of each feature. Note: DtoNs are not included in the number of new features in this section. DtoNs can be found separately in section D.1.5. There were 3 DtoNs found in H13257, and added to 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 7XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. 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. 16 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 FX). Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work. There was 1 charted AtoN assigned in H13257. The AtoN consists of 3 features. Each feature was given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 7XXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations of each feature. Note: The AtoN was included in the number of charted features within section D.1.3. No overhead features exist for this survey. There were 3 charted submarine cables assigned in H13257. The features were not included in the FFF following investigation requirements. 2 of the 3 charted submarine cables are not visible in the MBES data. No platforms exist for this survey. There was 1 charted ferry route assigned in H13257.The feature was not included in the FFF following investigation requirements. 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 2019-11-21