OPR-Y395-KR-20 Vicinity of Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Geodynamics H13368 6 3 NM East of Chicago Harbor Illinois United States 20000 2020 David J. Bernstein, CH, PLS, GISP Navigable Area 2020-03-27 2020-07-13 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 WGS 1984 UTM 16N, LWD IGLD-1985. 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 H13368 located 3 nautical miles (NM) east of Chicago Harbor, IL. Within H13368, 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. 42.064021999999994 87.59464547222221 41.898942777777776 87.45749711111111 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 H13368 shown in blue file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Survey_Limits_Overview_H13368.png H13368 survey limits overlaid onto Chart 14905 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Sheet_Limits_H13368.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 H13368 meets or exceeds requirements set forth in the HSSD. Survey quality was assessed through visual inspection, the analysis of crosslines, utilizing QC Tools to assess uncertainty and density, and a junction analysis between overlapping data collected on this project. 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 in survey area Complete Coverage The entirety of H13368 was acquired with complete coverage in accordance with section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. H13368 survey coverage overlaid onto Chart 14905 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Survey_Coverage_H13368.png R/V Endeavor 0.0 1120.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.84 0.0 R/V Benthos 0.0 14.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.15 0.0 0.0 1134.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.99 0.0 4.49 7 0 0 0 34.8 2020-07-13 2020-07-14 2020-07-15 2020-07-17 2020-07-18 2020-07-20 2020-07-21 2020-07-22 2020-07-23 2020-07-24 2020-07-25 2020-07-26 2020-07-29 2020-08-01 2020-08-07 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 Endeavor 13.41 0.76 Kongsberg Maritime EM 2040C MBES AML Oceanographic BaseX2 Sound Speed System Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV Sound Speed System R2Sonic 2024 MBES AML Oceanographic SmartX Sound Speed System R/V Benthos utilized a dual-head Kongsberg EM 2040C multibeam system, a POS M/V 320 v5 positioning and attitude system, an AML MicroX surface sound speed sensor, and an AML BaseX2 sound speed profiling system. R/V Endeavor utilized a dual-head R2Sonic 2024 multibeam system, a POS M/V 320 v5 positioning and attitude system, an AML MicroX surface sound speed system, and both an AML SmartX and BaseX2 sound speed profiling system. Multibeam crosslines acquired for H13368 totaled 4.49% of mainscheme acquisition. H13368 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 +/-0.20 meters, with a mean difference of -0.09 meters (Figure 4). 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. H13368 crossline to mainscheme difference statistics file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Crossline_Stats_H13368.png ERS via VDATUM 0.045 0.0 R/V Benthos 2.00 0.05 R/V Endeavor 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, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Finalized 1 m CUBE surface TVU statistics for H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/TVU_1m_Stats_H13368.png Finalized 2 m CUBE surface TVU statistics for H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/TVU_2m_Stats_H13368.png H13368 junctions with two adjacent surveys from this project: H13364 and H13366 (Figure 7). Data overlap between H13368 and each adjacent survey were attained. To conduct the junction analyses, similar to section B.2.1 of this report, the Pydro Compare Grids tool was utilized. The inputs for this tool were the CUBE surfaces for each individual survey at matching resolutions. The statistical results of the junction analyses are displayed below in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In both junctions, 99.5+% of the difference surfaces nodes met or exceeded TVU specifications, as described in section 5.1.3 of the HSSD. In addition to the statistical results of the junction analyses, the resultant difference surfaces were visually inspected and CARIS Subset Editor was used to examine overlapping data for consistency, agreement between surveys, and confirming data met TVU specifications. H13368 junction overview file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Junction_Overview.png Junction analysis between H13364 and H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Junction_Difference_between_H13364%20and%20H13368_depth_delta.png Junction analysis between H13366 and H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Junction_Difference_between_H13366%20and%20H13368_depth_delta.png 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 10. 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 deviation, 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, was most prevalent on the outer beams and was noticeable in the surface as a striped line-to-line artifact. H13368 surface artifacts as a result of refraction in the sounding data file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Surface_SV_Artifact_H13368.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, please 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. Density requirements were achieved for the finalized surfaces in H13368 with 99.5+% of the 1 m surface nodes (Figure 11) and 99.5+% of the 2 m surface nodes (Figure 12) containing at least five or more soundings, exceeding the specifications required by section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Finalized 1 m CUBE surface density statistics for H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Density_1m_Stats_H13368.png Finalized 2 m CUBE surface density statistics for H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Density_2m_Stats_H13368.png Holidays All CUBE surfaces were analyzed using HydrOffice QC Tools Holiday Finder to determine if the surface contained holidays, as described in section 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. The tool determined no holidays were present within the 1 m and 2 m CUBE surfaces. 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 aid the hydrographer in identifying coverage gaps. The results reflected the same outcome as the tool, no holidays were identified. 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. 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. For R/V Endeavor, which utilized a dual-head R2 Sonic 2024, the raw backscatter data was stored within the QPS Qinsy .db files and submitted as GSF files exported from QPS Qimera. The submitted GSF files for the R/V Endeavor contain backscatter data and raw bathymetry. These files were not used for bathymetric data processing. 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 13). 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. H13368 backscatter file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Backscatter_H13368.png CARIS HIPS 10.4.22 QPS FMGT 7.9.3 NOAA Profile Version 2020 H13368_MB_1m_LWD_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 8.45 20.0 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13368_MB_2m_LWD_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 2 18.0 25.73 NOAA_2m Complete MBES H13368_MB_1m_LWD CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 8.45 25.75 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13368_MB_2m_LWD CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 2 8.49 25.73 NOAA_2m Complete MBES All surfaces submitted are in compliance with the complete coverage MBES requirements per section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Image representing both 1 m and 2 m finalized CUBE surface resolutions as well as surface overlap in H13368 file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Surface_Resolutions_H13368.png Designated Soundings H13368 contains 19 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 soundings depths are retained in the finalized surfaces. Additional information discussing the vertical and 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 between H13368 and ENC US4IL10M using CARIS HIPS. A sounding layer was generated from the 1 m CUBE surface and overlaid onto the ENC to assess differences between the surveyed depths and charted depths, as shown in Figure 15. An area containing a higher concentration of depth differences was identified and highlighted below in Figure 16. A contour layer was also created from the surface and overlaid onto the ENC, which showed general agreement. In addition to a detailed visual inspection in CARIS, all charted depths were downloaded as a shapefile and differenced with the nearest surveyed depth from H13368 in ESRI ArcPro. A statistical analysis of the difference comparison is shown in Figure 17. The surveyed depths from H13368 generally agree with the charted depths from ENC US4IL10M, with a mean difference of 0.54 m. H13368 overview of the surveyed depths (in red) and the charted depths (in black) file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_H13368.png H13368 area containing higher concentrations of depth differences file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_Inset_H13368.png H13368 statistical analysis of surveyed depths to charted depths file:///B:/Redaction_Working/H13368_SENSITIVE/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/Chart_Comparison_Stats_H13368.png US41L10M 60000 10 2020-10-01 2020-09-18 There were ten Dangers to Navigation (DtoNs) reported in H13368 that were added to the FFF with special feature type as "DTON". Refer to the FFF for the remarks and recommendations for each feature. All DtoNs were submitted in the following DtoN reports: H13368 DtoNs #1, and H13368 DtoNs #2-11. DtoN 08 was reported but not submitted in the H13368 DtoNs #2-11 report. It should be noted that least depths and positions changed slightly for some DtoNs after the data were further post-processed. No charted features exist for this survey. There were 12 new features found within H13368 and are detailed in the FFF 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. No Aids to navigation (AtoNs) exist for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. Five 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. No submarine features exist for this survey. 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. The hydrographer recommends increasing the scale of the affected ENC to reflect a larger chart scale. The reasons for the recommendation include the sparse soundings on the current ENC and the proximity of the area to highly trafficked waters. 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 2020-11-19 Data Acquisition and Processing Report 2020-11-23 Horizontal and Vertical Control Report 2020-11-23 Coast Pilot Report 2020-11-02