OPR-Y395-KR-20 Vicinity of Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Geodynamics H13367 5 Vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor Indiana Michigan United States 5000 2020 David J. Bernstein, CH, PLS, GISP Navigable Area 2020-03-27 2020-06-16 2020-08-12 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch 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 WGS84 UTM 16N, Low Water Datum 577.5 ft IGLD-1985 L Michigan,Huron. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit. Contractor Geodynamics LLC conducted a hydrographic survey in the assigned area of H13367 located in the vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. Within H13367, all survey operations were conducted in accordance with the provided Statement of Work (SOW), Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions (PI), and the May 2020 National Ocean Service (NOS) Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD). Any deviations from the aforementioned guidelines have been approved by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hydrographic Survey Division (HSD) Operations (OPS) branch and are documented in the survey correspondences. 41.785239999999995 87.19959 41.631575 87.030997 Data were acquired to the survey limits in accordance with the requirements listed in the PI and the HSSD. Overview of project survey limits, overlaid onto Chart 14905 with H13367 shown in blue file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Survey_Overview_H13367.png H13367 object detection (blue) and complete coverage (black) survey limits overlaid onto Chart 14905 file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Sheet_Limits_H13367.png This project is located in the most southern region of Lake Michigan, which includes the Chicago Harbor and much of the Indiana and Michigan shoreline. The Chicago Harbor, located in one of the largest cities in the country, is the northern entrance to the Mississippi River and has a tremendous amount of local barge traffic moving commodities throughout the year. Much of the survey area within the project limits has not been surveyed since the late 1940s, and many throughout the Lake Michigan community, including tug and barge operators and recreational boaters, have been forced to predict the hazards and depths associated with the area near shore. This survey provides critical data for the updating of NOS nautical charting products and contributes to increased maritime safety near the Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois shoreline. Survey data from this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Survey quality in H13367 meets or exceeds requirements set forth in the HSSD. Survey quality was assessed through visual inspection, the analysis of crosslines, and the utilization of QC Tools to assess uncertainty and density. For more information on methods and results of the survey data quality assessments for this survey, refer to section B.2 of this report. All waters within the Project Reference File (PRF)-designated anchorage areas. Object Detection Coverage All waters outside the PRF-designated anchorage area. Complete Coverage Object detection coverage was obtained in all waters within the designated anchorage areas in H13367 in accordance with HSSD 5.2.2.2. In all waters outside the designated anchorage area, complete coverage was obtained in accordance with HSSD 5.2.2.3. See Figure 3 for an overview of coverage. All efforts were made to acquire survey data to the sheet limits or to the Navigable Area Limit Line (NALL), as defined in section 1.3.2 of the HSSD. In all areas where the 3.5 meter depth contour or the sheet limits were not met, the NALL was defined by the inshore limit of safe navigation for the survey vessel due to risks associated with maneuvering the vessel in shallow and/or hazardous areas. An example of such an area is shown in Figure 4. H13367 survey coverage overlaid onto Chart 14905 file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Survey_Coverage.png Area where NALL was defined by the inshore limit of safe navigation file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/NALL_Data_Final.png R/V Benthos 0.0 856.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.91 0.0 R/V Chinook 0.0 442.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.03 0.0 0.0 1298.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.94 0.0 4.77 7 0 0 0 49.9 2020-06-16 2020-06-17 2020-06-18 2020-06-19 2020-06-26 2020-06-27 2020-06-28 2020-07-06 2020-07-07 2020-07-08 2020-07-09 2020-07-11 2020-07-13 2020-07-14 2020-07-15 2020-07-17 2020-07-18 2020-07-20 2020-07-21 2020-07-25 2020-08-07 2020-08-09 2020-08-12 Refer to the OPR-Y395-KR-20 DAPR for a complete description of survey equipment and configurations, data acquisition procedures, data processing methods, quality control measures, and survey reporting methods. Additional information to supplement survey data and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections. R/V Benthos 9.14 0.61 R/V Chinook 9.44 0.61 Kongsberg Maritime EM 2040C MBES AML Oceanographic BaseX2 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV Sound Speed System Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System R/V Benthos and R/V Chinook utilized a dual-head Kongsberg EM 2040C multibeam system, a POS MV 320 v5 positioning and attitude system, an AML MicroX surface sound speed system, and an AML BaseX2 sound speed profiling system. Multibeam crosslines acquired for H13367 totaled 4.77% of mainscheme acquisition. H13367 crosslines were collected and analyzed in accordance with section 5.2.4.2 of the HSSD and guidance from the HSD OPS Project Manager (see DR Appendix II). Crosslines were evaluated in CARIS HIPS with a detailed visual inspection followed by a thorough statistical analysis. To conduct the statistical analysis, a 1 m CUBE surface was generated with strictly mainscheme data and another, separate 1 m CUBE surface was generated with only crossline data. The mainscheme and crossline surfaces were analyzed using the Compare Grids tool in Pydro Explorer, which generated a difference surface and associated statistics. In addition to the direct statistics from the surface differencing, the tool assessed the difference surface statistics and computed the proportion of NOS total allowable vertical uncertainty (TVU) consumed by the mainscheme-to-crossline differences per surface node. The statistical results of the difference comparison show 95% of nodes falling within +/- 0.15 meters, with a mean difference of 0 meters (Figure 5). Additionally, 99.5+% of the difference surfaces nodes met or exceeded TVU specifications, as described in section 5.1.3 of the HSSD. The complete results and associated images from the Compare Grids tool were submitted within the Crossline Comparison folder of the Survey Separates II. H13367 crossline to mainscheme difference comparison file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13367_Crossline_to_Mainscheme_Difference_Stats_depth_delta.png ERS via VDATUM 0.045 0.0 R/V Benthos 2.00 0.05 R/V Chinook 2.00 0.05 All finalized CUBE surfaces were analyzed using the HydrOffice QC Tools Grid QA tool to assure 95% of the surface grid nodes meet TVU specifications. The results of the Grid QA tool determined all finalized CUBE surfaces met or exceeded the TVU specifications. 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. Sound Speed The spatio-temporal variability in temperature of the water column created complex sound speed conditions throughout the survey. These complexities often created challenges for the field team and resulted in occasional refraction artifacts in the survey data and resultant surfaces, as shown in Figure 6. The hydrographer made considerable efforts to reduce the impact of sound speed issues during acquisition. These efforts included increasing the frequency of casts, closely monitoring real-time swath "smiling" or "frowning", utilizing alerts for surface-to-profile sound speed deviations, observing the real-time standard deviation map display, and utilizing Sound Speed Manager to track spatial changes in surface sound speed along with profile location. Additional efforts in post-processing to minimize refraction artifacts included outer beam filtering, manual outer beam editing, and strategic application of sound speed profiles. The convex or concave trend in the across-track sonar data, as a result of refraction, is most prevalent on the outer beams and is noticeable in the surface as a striped line-to-line artifact. H13367 surface artifacts as a result of refraction in the sounding data file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/SV_Profile.png Sound speed casts were acquired at least once every four hours. Casts were often conducted more frequently (~every two hours) than this time interval because of the dynamic water properties in the survey area. Surface sound speed was compared in real-time to the current sound speed profile. When the comparison differed by more than 2 m/s, a new sound speed profile was acquired. Additionally, QPS Qinsy and Kongsberg SIS provided a real-time visual assessment of data quality (standard deviation grids, bathymetric grids, swath views), aiding the hydrographer in determining when a new cast was required. For more detailed information on sound speed methods, refer to the DAPR. All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. Density All finalized CUBE surfaces were analyzed using HydrOffice QC Tools Grid QA tool to assure data met the required density specifications. The 1 m and 2 m complete coverage surfaces both had 99.5+% of surface nodes containing at least five or more soundings. The 1 m object detection surface had 99.5+% of surface nodes containing at least five or more soundings while the 50 cm object detection surface had 98% of surface nodes with five or more soundings. All surfaces exceeded the specifications required by sections 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Holidays All CUBE surfaces were analyzed using HydrOffice QC Tools Holiday Finder to determine if the surface contained holidays, as described in sections 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. The tool scanned the CUBE surfaces to identify any holidays and generated an S-57 file to represent the locations of holidays. In the 50 cm object detection CUBE surface, all holidays identified were outside the sheet limits. In the 1 m object detection CUBE surface, there were no holidays identified. In the 1 m complete coverage CUBE surface, all holidays identified were outside of the sheet limits or inshore of the NALL (Figure 7). In the 2 m complete coverage CUBE surface, there were no holidays identified. Another method of holiday evaluation was to visually pan the CUBE surfaces to identify holidays. The hydrographer would often alter the surface display (color ranges, symbology, shading) to help identify coverage gaps. The results reflected the same outcome as the tool. H13367 1 m complete coverage surface showing areas identified as holidays within the NALL file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Holidays_Nall.png Flier Finder In addition to visual inspection, all CUBE surfaces were analyzed using HydrOffice QC Tools Flier Finder tool to assure data does not contain fliers (anomalous data as defined by QC Tools flier finding algorithms #2-6). While the Flier Finder tool flags surface fliers meeting a set criteria, it will also flag real surface features that meet the same criteria. This was especially prevalent around hard structures and high-slope areas along the shoreline. Spurious soundings flagged by Flier Finder were cleaned until only the remaining flagged fliers were deemed valid aspects of the surface. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. Raw backscatter data were collected and stored within the .ALL files from vessels utilizing Kongsberg MBES systems. Although no processing or analysis of backscatter was required, backscatter data were processed for quality assurance purposes in QPS FMGT. Additionally, mosaics were created to assure the coverage and quality of the backscatter (Figure 8). Hydrographers in the field monitored backscatter intensities in real-time and made efforts to collect quality backscatter without hindering bathymetric data quality. Refer to the DAPR for more information on backscatter data acquisition and processing procedures. H13367 backscatter file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Backscatter.png CARIS HIPS 10.4.22 QPS FMGT 7.9.3 NOAA Profile Version 2020 H13367_MB_1m_LWD_1of4_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 1.06 20.0 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13367_MB_2m_LWD_2of4_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 2 18.0 27.02 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H13367_MB_50cm_LWD_3of4_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 0.5 1.04 20.0 NOAA_0.5m Object Detection H13367_MB_1m_LWD_4of4_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 18.0 20.44 NOAA_1m Object Detection H13367_MB_1m_LWD_1of4 CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 1.06 27.48 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13367_MB_2m_LWD_2of4 CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 2 1.11 27.02 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H13367_MB_50cm_LWD_3of4 CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 0.5 1.04 20.69 NOAA_0.5m Object Detection H13367_MB_1m_LWD_4of4 CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 1.06 20.44 NOAA_1m Object Detection All surfaces submitted are in compliance with object detection and complete coverage MBES requirements per sections 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Note: Gridded surfaces no longer match what is reported in DR Section B.5.2: Surfaces due to Branch processing. Designated Soundings H13367 contains designated soundings in accordance with section 5.2.1.2.3 of the HSSD. These designated soundings were created to facilitate feature management and best represent the least depths over features in the Final Feature File (FFF). In the finalized CUBE surfaces, the CARIS HIPS Apply Designated Soundings function ensured designated sounding depths are retained in the finalized surfaces. 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 OPR-Y395-KR-20_100m_ITRF2014-LWD_IGLD85_geoid12b.csar Real-time positional data were corrected with G2+ Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite corrections provided by the Fugro Marinestar Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS). To improve the accuracy of the real-time data, real-time position and attitude data were post-processed using Applanix POSPac Mobile Mapping Solution (MMS) software. Trimble CenterPoint RTX correction methods were used to create Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) files, which were applied to the survey data in CARIS HIPS. The provided separation model was then utilized to bring the data from ellipsoid heights to chart datum. World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 Projected UTM 16 RTX Real-time position and attitude data were post-processed using the Applanix POSPac MMS software. Post-processed corrections were implemented with Trimble’s CenterPoint RTX service to create SBET files. Real-time position and attitude data were corrected with G2+ GNSS satellite corrections provided by the Fugro Marinestar SBAS. A comparison was performed in CARIS between H13367 and the ENCs listed in Table 13 of section D.1.1. Soundings and contour layers were generated from the 1 m CUBE surface and overlaid onto the ENCs to visually assess differences between the surveyed depths and charted depths. Depth comparisons can be seen in Figures 9 and 10. In addition to a detailed visual inspection in CARIS, all charted depths were downloaded from NOAA's ENC Direct to GIS application as a shapefile and differenced with the nearest surveyed depth from H13367 in ESRI ArcPro. A statistical analysis of the difference comparison is shown in Figure 11. The surveyed depths from H13367 generally agree with the charted depths from the ENCs within the survey area, with a mean difference of 0.34 m. H13367 overview of surveyed depths overlaid onto ENC US4IN11M and US4IN01M file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_Offshore.png H13367 inshore overview of surveyed depths overlaid onto ENC US4IN11M file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_Inshore.png H13367 statistical analysis of surveyed depths to charted depths file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13367_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_Stats.png US4IN01M 120000 13 2018-03-06 2020-07-23 US4IN11M 60000 2 2018-03-05 2020-08-06 US5IN01M 15000 1 2017-02-15 2019-08-15 US5IN11M 15000 15 2018-10-17 2020-10-30 There were three Dangers to Navigation (DtoNs) reported in H13367 that were added to the FFF with special feature type as “DTON”. Refer to the FFF for the remarks and recommendations for each feature. The DtoNs were submitted in the following DtoN report: H13367 DtoNs #1 - #3. It should be noted that least depths and positions may have changed slightly for some DtoNs after the data were further post-processed. There were 19 assigned charted features within H13367 and are detailed in the FFF in accordance with section 7.3 of the HSSD. One assigned obstruction with Special Feature Type as 'Unverified Charted Feature' was disproved during survey operations and is detailed as such in the FFF. There were 29 new features found in H13367 have been added to the Final Feature File (FFF) and are detailed in accordance with section 7.3 of the HSSD. 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. During survey operations, a charted buoy, Burns Harbor Shoal Buoy 1, was observed in H13367. This buoy was not included in the CSF and was pulled from the most up to date ENC US5IN11M to be included in the FFF with a description as 'Retain' (FOID 17851). All other Aids to Navigation within the survey area are detailed in the FFF in accordance with section 7.3 of the HSSD. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. Seven bottom samples were acquired in accordance with section 7.2.3 of the HSSD and are described completely in the FFF. Backscatter data were used to modify bottom sample locations from what was originally assigned in the Project Reference File (PRF). See DR Appendix II Supplemental Survey Records Correspondence for the correspondence with the HSD OPS Project Manager regarding the modification of the bottom sample locations. No overhead features exist for this survey. There were nine uncharted submerged pipelines that were visible as exposed or unburied within H13367. The exposed pipelines are detailed in the FFF and were reported in accordance with section 1.7 of the HSSD and guidance from the HSD OPS Project Manager (see DR Appendix II Supplemental Survey Records Correspondence). An indiscernible object, resembling a snag or line, which appears to be attached to an exposed pipeline, was found in the MBES data and is included in the FFF as an obstruction with a description as 'New' (FOID 00168). All other assigned charted pipelines are detailed in the FFF in accordance with section 7.3 of the HSSD. No platforms exist for this survey. No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey. No abnormal seafloor 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 ENC scales are recommended for this area. As Chief of Party, field operations for this hydrographic survey were conducted under my direct supervision, with frequent personal checks of progress and adequacy. I have reviewed the attached survey data and reports. All 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 J. Bernstein, CH, PLS, GISP Chief of Party 2020-12-14 Data Acquisition and Processing Report 2020-11-23 Horizontal and Vertical Control Report 2020-11-23 Coast Pilot Report 2020-11-02