OPR-Y390-KR-21Southern Green Bay, WIGreen Bay, WIeTracH134671Entrance to Fox RiverWisconsinUnited States100002021David Neff, C.H.Navigable Area2021-04-262021-06-092021-08-17Multibeam Echo SounderMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchAll times are UTC. The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. H13467 covers approximately 27 square nautical miles in the entrance to Fox River, Wisconsin.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 Low Water Datum. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit.ContractoreTrac Inc. conducted hydrographic survey operations in the entrance to Fox River, Wisconsin. H13467 covers approximately 27 square nautical miles of survey area. 1790.39 linear nautical miles were acquired during the survey. Survey was conducted within these limits between June 09, 2020 (DN160) and August 17, 2020 (DN229).44.754569444488.019905555644.538819444487.7682361111Survey Limits Overview (light blue area) SupportFiles\H13467_SurveyLimits_Overview.PNGSurvey Limits (black line)SupportFiles\H13467_SurveyLimits.PNGAll data were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and specifications set forth in the Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables 2021 Edition (HSSD 2021). 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 H13467 is accurate to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a as required per the HSSD 2021.All water in survey areaComplete 8370 LNM. Transit mileage, system calibration mileage and data which do not meet HSSD specifications shall not count towards the completion of the LNM requirement. Notify the COR/Project Manager upon nearing completion of LNM requirement. The final survey area shall be squared off and ensure the full investigation of any features within the surveyed extent.Sheets 1, 4, 6, and 7Complete Coverage (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3)Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD. Note: Survey coverage did not extend to the entire assigned survey boundary as the Navigable Area Limit Line (NALL) was reached.Survey CoverageSupportFiles\H13467_SurveyCoverage.PNGSurvey Coverage with 3.5m NALL displayedSupportFiles\H13467_SurveyCoverage_NALL.PNGR/V Endeavor0804.63000002.080R/V Rapid0881.190000000R/V Voxel028.710000073.79001714.50000075.8604.421100002021-06-092021-06-102021-06-112021-06-122021-06-132021-06-142021-06-152021-06-162021-06-172021-06-182021-06-192021-06-202021-06-222021-06-232021-06-252021-06-262021-06-272021-06-282021-06-292021-07-022021-07-032021-07-042021-08-042021-08-052021-08-062021-08-17Refer 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, and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections.R/V Endeavor13.40.8R/V Rapid8.50.6R/V Voxel14.00.6The R/V Endeavor is a 13.4 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with an over-the-side Pitman Arm with secondary tie point. The R/V Rapid is a 8.5 meter aluminum monohull equipped with both a Universal Sonar Mount (USM) starboard and port multibeam pole mount. The R/V Voxel is a 14.0 meter aluminum catamaran equipped with an electro hydraulic actuated moonpool accessed adjustable aluminum and stainless steel custom mount.R2Sonic2024MBESR2SonicI2NSPositioning and Attitude SystemApplanixPOS MV 320 v5Positioning and Attitude SystemAML OceanographicSmartXSound Speed SystemAML OceanographicBaseX2Sound Speed SystemAML OceanographicMicroX SVSound Speed SystemAML OceanographicMVP-XSound Speed SystemNote: R/V Endeavor utilized a dual head R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML/eTrac MVP-X for the sound speed system, an AML Base.X2 as a spare for the sound speed system, and a POS MV 320 V5 for the positioning and attitude system. R/V Rapid utilized a dual head R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML Base.X2 for the sound speed system, and a R2Sonic I2NS for the positioning and attitude system. R/V Voxel utilized a single head R2Sonic 2024 multibeam echosounder system, an AML Micro.X for the surface sound speed system, an AML Smart.X for the sound speed system, and a POS MV 320 V5 for the positioning and attitude system.A beam-to-beam statistical analysis was performed using the Cross Check tool in Qimera. 1 meter Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetric Estimator (CUBE) weighted dynamic surfaces were 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. Below is a histogram of the crossline comparison statistics showing IHO Order 1a compliance per beam. Note: A 1m sheetwide surface was unable to be created due to technical issues within Qimera, therefore the surface was divided into multiple parts. These surfaces were created for QC only and are not submitted as a surface deliverable. H13467 Crossline Comparison (Surface 1 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_1m_1of5_Crosscheck.jpgH13467 Crossline Comparison (Surface 2 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_1m_2of5_Crosscheck.jpgH13467 Crossline Comparison (Surface 3 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_1m_3of5_Crosscheck.jpgH13467 Crossline Comparison (Surface 4 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_1m_4of5_Crosscheck.jpgH13467 Crossline Comparison (Surface 5 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_1m_5of5_Crosscheck.jpgERS via ERTDM0.045R/V Endeavor0.050.2R/V Rapid0.050.2R/V Voxel0.050.2Standard 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 99.5+% to 100% of the nodes. The uncertainty of each finalized Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG) was generated through the NOAA QC Tools and an image of the results is located below. For H13467 the following percentages represent the results of the TPU calculation: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (1 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (2 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (3 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 100% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (4 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (5 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface in NOAA QC Tools) = 99.5+% of nodes are within the allowable TVU.H13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (1 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_1of5_TVU.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (2 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_2of5_TVU.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (3 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_3of5_TVU.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (4 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_4of5_TVU.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES TVU Statistics (5 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_5of5_TVU.pngSurvey specific sound speed TPU values reported in Table 8 are inconsistent with those applied to the processed sounding data. Both measured and surface sound speed uncertainty vary from 0.03 to 0.05 m/sec. 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% confidence interval, and do not use total propagated vertical uncertainty estimates in this calculation.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 1 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.H13468100002021eTracWThe junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13467 and H13468. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 100% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13467 - H13468 Junction ComparisonSupportFiles\H13467_H13468_JunctionTrac.PNGH13467 - H13468 Difference StatisticsSupportFiles\H13467_H13468_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNGH13469100002021eTracEThe junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13467 and H13469. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 99.9955% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13467 - H13469 Junction ComparisonSupportFiles\H13467_H13469_JunctionTrac.PNGH13467 - H13469 Difference StatisticsSupportFiles\H13467_H13469_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNGH13470200002021eTracNEThe junction comparison was performed using all overlapping data between H13467 and H13470. Below is a histogram of junction comparison statistics showing the difference between the junctioning surfaces and allowable TVU as well as difference statistics. 100% of nodes were within allowable TVU. H13467 - H13470 Junction ComparisonSupportFiles\H13467_H13470_JunctionTrac.PNGH13467 - H13470 Difference StatisticsSupportFiles\H13467_H13470_Junctions_DiffTrac.PNGSonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.None ExistThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistThere 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 Endeavor, R/V Rapid, and R/V Voxel 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 real-time. 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 real-time 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 EvaluationIn 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 H13467 the following percentages represent the results of the density query: Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (1 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.9804% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (2 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.9872% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (3 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.9862% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (4 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.9724% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings. Complete Coverage MBES (Finalized 1m (5 of 5) CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface) = 99.5597% of nodes are composed from at least 5 soundings.H13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution (1 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_1of5_Density.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution (2 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_2of5_Density.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution (3 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_3of5_Density.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution (4 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_4of5_Density.pngH13467 Finalized 1m Complete Coverage MBES Density Distribution (5 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_5of5_Density.pngAll 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 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 H13467 DN183 (R/V Rapid).Raw Backscatter from R/V Rapid (DN183)SupportFiles\H13467_Backscatter.PNGNOAA Profile Version 2021Feature Object Catalog, NOAA Profile Version 2021 was used only in CARIS. Qimera was used as the primary processing software.H13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_1of5BAG18.2711.29NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_2of5BAG16.699.34NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_3of5BAG14.719.12NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_4of5BAG10.389.39NOAA_1mComplete MBESH13467_MB_1m_LWD_Final_5of5BAG10.279.91NOAA_1mComplete MBES1m surfaces are provided meeting complete coverage MBES with backscatter specifications for H13467. Note: A sheetwide surface was unable to be created due to technical issues within Qimera. Therefore, the 1m surface was divided into 5 parts. Together the 5 surfaces cover the entirety of the survey area.H13467 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage (1 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_SurfaceCoverage_1m_1of5.PNGH13467 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage (2 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_SurfaceCoverage_1m_2of5.PNGH13467 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage (3 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_SurfaceCoverage_1m_3of5.PNGH13467 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage (4 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_SurfaceCoverage_1m_4of5.PNGH13467 Finalized 1m CUBE weighted Dynamic Surface Coverage (5 of 5)SupportFiles\H13467_SurfaceCoverage_1m_5of5.PNGTo improve grid management, the five (5) subdivided grids were combined into a single 1m resolution BAG by AHB personnel. The final grid deliverable for use in chart updates and archive at NCEI is H13467_MB_1m_LWD_1of1.bag.Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR and DAPR.Low Water Datum IGLD-1985ERS via VDATUMOPR_Y390_KR_21_NAD83_to_LWD_IGLD85.qgfvomSurvey data were vertically referenced to the ellipsoid. A time dependent, 7 parameter transformation from ITRF-2014 to NAD83_2011 was performed in QPS Qinsy. Using VDatum, a vertical separation model was created to transform the ellipsoidally referenced data from NAD83_2011 to LWD_IGLD85. The transformation and the separation model were applied in QPS Qinsy on the vessels in real-time to achieve LWD_IGLD85 in the field.North American Datum 1983Projected UTM 16RTXApplanix 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 H13467 using Pydro CA tools, Qimera, and Caris HIPS and SIPS. Survey data were compared against the largest scale ENC to accomplish the chart comparison. The largest scale ENC does not cover the entire survey boundary so two other charts were used to complete the chart comparison. Details of the ENCs used are listed below. US5WI01M, scale: 15000, edition: 6, update application date: 09/08/2021, issue date: 09/08/2021 US5WI02M, scale: 25000, edition: 20, update application date: 08/11/2021, issue date: 08/11/2021 US4WI03M, scale: 80000, edition: 26, update application date: 09/16/2021, issue date: 10/06/2021 Throughout survey operations sounding comparisons between the charted depths and the surveyed depths were analyzed to identify depth discrepancies. Using 1 meter CUBE weighted Dynamic surfaces, soundings were generated in the "Sounding Selection" tab of Pydro CA tools. Soundings were displayed against the charted soundings and a visual comparison was made in Caris HIPS and SIPS. Additionally, potential DtoNs and discrepancies were generated using the "DTM vs Chart" tab of Pydro CA tools. The results were displayed through CA tools and investigated in CARIS HIPS and SIPS and Qimera. An overview image of the generated soundings on each chart is included below. Results of the chart comparison are included in the following sections.Generated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US5WI01M)SupportFiles\H13467_ChartComparison_US5WI01M.PNGGenerated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US5WI02M)SupportFiles\H13467_ChartComparison_US5WI02M.PNGGenerated Soundings used for Chart Comparison (US4WI03M)SupportFiles\H13467_ChartComparison_US4WI03M.PNGUS5WI01M1500062021-09-082021-09-08US5WI02M25000202021-08-112021-08-11US4WI03M80000262021-09-162021-10-06There were 2 DtoNs found in H13467, 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 1XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. The DtoNs were submitted in the following Danger to navigation reports: H13467_DtoNs_1-2_USACE_Report H13467_DtoNs_1-2_USACE_Report contains 2 obstructions (subm piles). 1 DtoN has been applied to ENC US5WI01M.There were 146 charted features assigned to H13467 that are included 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 1XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature.9 new features were found in H13467. Each feature in the FFF has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 1XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations 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.1.2. The Green Bay Harbor Channel and Green Bay Harbor Entrance Channel is a maintained channel and has controlled depths between 4.7m and 7.6m . Dredge Area controlled depths in Green Bay Harbor Entrance Channel were compared against soundings derived from our 1m surface as described in section D.1. No discrepancies were found.There were 111 charted AtoNs assigned in H13467. Each feature in the FFF has been given a unique identifier in the "userid" field of the .000 S-57 file (format 1XXXX). Refer to the FFF for determinations and recommendations of each feature. Note: All AtoNs were included in the number of charted features within section D.1.3. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.11 bottom samples were obtained in accordance with section 7.1 of the HSSD 2021 in areas designated by the field through discussions with our COR. Detailed information and images of the bottom samples 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 AX).There were 2 Overhead Features assigned in H13467. Note: Per investigation requirements the features were not included in the FFF. Discussion of the 2 overhead features is below: No discrepancies were found for the bridge and overhead cable. There were 3 Submarine Features assigned to H13467. Note: Per Investigation Requirements, 1 submerged feature was not included in the FFF. Additionally, 2 submerged features were included the FFF and were included in the number of charted features within section D.1.3. Discussion of the 3 submarine features is below: 1 submerged cable was not visible in the MBES data. 1 submerged pipeline was not visible in the MBES data. 1 submerged pipeline was not safe to address due to being inshore of NALL.No platforms exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.In some regions, marine vegetation was picked up by the MBES. The vegetation was investigated by collecting additional lines in various directions in a few different areas throughout OPR-Y390-KR-21. The overlap of the vegetation throughout the investigation lines was not consistent and therefore could be determined to be marine vegetation moving in the water column. After the investigation was complete, the marine vegetation was rejected from the dataset by data processors. Below is an example where this occurred in this survey. No data gaps were observed in the delivered surfaces from rejecting the marine vegetation in this survey. Marine Vegetation RejectedSupportFiles\H13467_Abnormal_Environmental_Conditions.PNGThere were 16 Dredge Areas assigned in H13467. Per investigation requirements the features were not included in the FFF. No discrepancies were found. There were 2 Shoreline Construction Features assigned in H13467. Note: The Shoreline Construction Features were included in the FFF and were included in the number of charted features within section D.1.3. Refer to the FFF for determinations of each feature. 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 NeffChief of Party2021-10-27