OPR-Z394-KR-21 Whitefish Bay, MI Vicinity of Whitefish Point Ocean Surveys H13522 1 Point Iroquois to Whitefish Point Michigan United States 5000 2021 John R. Bean Navigable Area 2021-06-02 2021-07-23 2021-08-20 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 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 This survey provides hydrographic data for Lake Superior waters in the vicinity of Whitefish Point. The general locations of the survey limits are presented in Table 1. 46.785632 84.959978 46.494103 84.58868799999999 Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. The following text is quoted from the Purpose and Location section of the Project Instructions: The survey area is located in Whitefish Bay, near the Southeast corner of Lake Superior. The total survey area is estimated to be around 300 SNM. Vessels entering or leaving Lake Superior must pass through the Soo Locks, located due East of Whitefish Point, making this survey area a very highly trafficked location. The survey area has reports of charting discrepancies and migrating shoals and the source data dates back to 1958 and predate modern survey methods. The data from this project will identify dangers to navigation and address a data gap in the National Bathymetric Source (NBS). The survey area was nominated as Shipwreck Coastal National Marine Sanctuary in 2017 and is known by the name "Shipwreck Coast". Whitefish Point remains one of the most dangerous shipping areas in the Great Lakes (1). Known as the graveyard of the Great Lakes (2), more vessels have been lost in the Whitefish Point area than any other part of Lake Superior. Commercial fishing is also very prevalent in this area and takes place year-round, except when ice conditions are prohibitive. Further development of this area may have navigational, cultural as well as commercial significance. This survey will provide contemporary data to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products and services, improving the safety of the maritime traffic and services available to the area by reducing the current risk that is present due to outdated bathymetry. Sources: 1) Stonehouse, Frederick (1985, 1998). Lake Superior’s Shipwreck Coast, pp. 13 & 267, Avery Color Studios, Gwinn, Michigan, U.S.A. ISBN 0-932212-43-3 2) "Chapter 4: The Watery Boundary". United Divide: A Linear Portrait of the USA/Canada Border. The Center for Land Use Interpretation. Winter 2015. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. The HydrOffice "QC Tools" application was used to calculate data density in the finalized surface for Survey H13522 and confirmed that the survey meets the HSSD data density requirements. Survey H13522 grid data density. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522_MB_VR_LWD_Final.QAv6.density.png All waters in survey area Complete Coverage (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3) Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements listed above and in the HSSD. Survey H13522 MBES coverage. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-Survey-Coverage.jpg MV Northstar Challenger 0.0 466.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RV North Cove 0.0 163.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RV H.F. Stout 0.0 417.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 1047.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 5.4 0 0 0 0 67.7 2021-07-23 2021-07-24 2021-07-25 2021-07-26 2021-07-27 2021-07-28 2021-07-29 2021-08-02 2021-08-03 2021-08-05 2021-08-07 2021-08-10 2021-08-11 2021-08-12 2021-08-13 2021-08-14 2021-08-15 2021-08-16 2021-08-17 2021-08-18 2021-08-19 2021-08-20 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, and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections. MV Northstar Challenger 28.0 2.6 RV North Cove 11.1 0.8 RV H.F. Stout 9.1 0.76 MV Northstar Challenger configured for survey operations. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/CH-Overview.jpg RV North Cove configured for survey operations. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/NC-overview.jpg RV H.F. Stout configured for survey operations. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/ST-overview.jpg Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R MBES Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Positioning and Attitude System Trimble NetR9 Positioning System AML Oceanographic MVP30 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MVP30-350 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic AML-3 LGR Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic Micro SV-Xchange Sound Speed System Crossline mileage totaled 5.4% of mainscheme survey miles. Agreement between crosslines and mainscheme data was very good, with no geographic pattern of discrepancies. H13522 crossline tracks overlaid on a coverage surface. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-Crossline-Layout.jpg Depth differences between H13522 mainscheme and crossline data. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-main-H13522-XL_depth_delta.png ERS via VDATUM 0.0 0.045 MV Northstar Challenger 4 1 RV North Cove 4 1 RV H.F. Stout 4 1 The HydrOffice "QC Tools" application was used to calculate TVU QC, determined by a ratio of uncertainty to the allowable error per NOAA and IHO specifications. A variable resolution surface was finalized in CARIS HIPS using the "greater of the two" option to select the greater value of either the uncertainty or standard deviation for the uncertainty source. The surface passed the uncertainty check, with 99.5+% of nodes meeting the uncertainty standards. H13522 MBES surface uncertainty standards. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522_MB_VR_LWD_Final.QAv6.tvu_qc.png Three surveys junction with Survey H13522, 1 prior survey and 2 contemporary surveys. The prior survey is a shoreline topobathy lidar project collected as part of the USACE National Coastal Mapping Program (NCMP). Survey junctions for Project OPR-Z394-KR-21. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/OPR-Z394-KR-21-Survey-Junctions.jpg 2019 USACE NCMP 0 2019 JALBTCX Lidar W OSI received a preliminary digital elevation model of a recent topobathy lidar dataset that was undergoing review at Coast Survey at the time of the PI. The dataset has since been made publicly available, and the published data downloaded for the junction comparison. There are two separate areas where lidar data overlap with Survey H13522, a section in the northwest and a section near the southern end of the survey. The northern junction of Survey H13522 to the topobathy lidar was small, approximately 0.04 SNM. Bathymetry in this area is shoal near Whitefish Point but rapidly deepens away from the shore with complex ridges and ripples visible in the survey data. Only a few larger ridges are visible in the lidar surface, so agreement between H13522 and lidar data is poor over these features. The southern area of Survey H13522 showed good agreement with the topobathy lidar data, with a consistent bias of 0.13m throughout the 0.9 SNM of overlap. Greater differences were only found along a steep slope in the center of the northern boundary of the junction area, where bathymetry drops sharply by 10-20 m. Survey H13522 to NCMP lidar junction areas. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/Junction-H13522-NCMP-Lidar.jpg Depth differences between Survey H13522 and NCMP lidar, northern area. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-North-Junction-USACE2019_superior_dem_2_depth_delta.png Depth differences between Survey H13522 and NCMP lidar, southern area. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-South-Junction-USACE2019_superior_dem_1_depth_delta.png H13523 5000 2021 Ocean Surveys, Inc. N The junction with contemporary survey H13523 is addressed in the DR for that survey. H13524 5000 2021 Ocean Surveys, Inc. W Contemporary Survey H13524 shares a border with Survey H13522 which is approximately 23 km in length and has a data overlap of 2.2 SNM. The mean depth difference between the two surveys was 0.03 m with most discrepancies found in deeper waters. 99.5+% of junction nodes passed the allowable error fraction check. Survey H13522 to H13524 junction area. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/Junction-H13522-H13524.jpg Depth differences between Surveys H13522 and H13524. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-2m-H13524-2m_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. Thermal Layering Thermal stratification was observed throughout the survey area, causing sound speed variations that correlate to factors including the day, time, water depth, and bathymetric features such as slopes or sand waves. In data processing, sound speed profiles that did not adequately reflect the surrounding water mass were identified and removed, edited, or replaced. Sound speed casts were primarily applied using the CARIS HIPS "Nearest in Distance within Time" method, so removing a profile collected on a steep slope would allow deeper and shoaler casts on either side to be applied instead. Some casts that did not measure deep enough to reach the hypolimnion were edited by appending the lower portion of a nearby deeper cast. Casts that were empirically found to represent a large water zone were added at additional locations within that zone to ensure proper corrections given the cast selection options available in the CARIS sound speed tools. Bathymetry, uncertainty, and standard deviation surfaces were used to direct editing and determine the accuracy of sound speed cast selection. MVP casts were taken at intervals of approximately 20 minutes on the MV Northstar Challenger and approximately 30 minutes on the RV North Cove. AML-3 casts were taken approximately every 1 hour on the RV H.F. Stout. Hydrographers acquired more frequent sound speed profiles if high variability was noted in the surface sound speed from the AML Micro-X installed on the head of the transducer, or when the surface sound speed comparison threshold was exceeded (>2 m/s change) between the profile reading at the draft of the transducer and the Micro-X. On some occasions, the RV North Cove and RV H.F. Stout were operating in close proximity, in which case the MVP30 casts from the RV North Cove were used for both vessels. OSI submitted sound speed data in NetCDF format to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Dec 7, 2021 via the SN2 tool. Locations of sound speed profiles measured in Survey H13522. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13522-Sound-Speed-Casts.jpg The survey area has a wide range of depths and complex bathymetry. To efficiently achieve complete coverage, an adaptive TIN-based workflow was developed to create line plans with variable spacing. The tool was automated (with tweaks) and used charted data, crossline data, and mainscheme data as acquired to generate line plans as the survey progressed. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. NOAA Profile Version 2021 H13522_MB_VR_LWD_Final.csar CARIS VR Surface (CUBE) Variable Resolution 1.473 149.645 NOAA_VR Complete MBES H13522_MB_VR_LWD.csar CARIS VR Surface (CUBE) Variable Resolution 1.473 149.645 NOAA_VR Complete MBES Final grids no longer match those reported in Table 10 due to additional Branch processing. Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR. Low Water Datum IGLD-1985 ERS via VDATUM OPR-Z394-KR-21_Whitefish_Bay_VDatumBuffer1282021_ 100m_NAD83_2011-LWD_IGLD85_Geoid18.csar A VDatum Separation Model (SEP) was provided by NOAA with the original project files and described in the PI. An updated SEP model to increase coverage area was requested and supplied during final data processing. North American Datum 1983 Projected UTM 16 Smart Base LITTLE CURRENT LCUR MICHIPICOTEN MCHN CHARLEVOIX MICX SAULT STE MARIE MILS MUNISING MIMU MINB NEEBISH ISLAND MINB MANISTIQUE MIQE ST. IGNACE MISI POINT IROQUOIS PTIR ROSSPORT ROSS NEWBERRY SUP3 ABRAMS WIAB CRANDON WICR MANITOWOC WMTW Ocean Surveys Whitefish Point OSWP US5MI63M 40000 14 2018-06-20 2021-06-11 US4MI2QS 80000 1 2020-11-10 2020-11-10 US4MI2QT 80000 1 2021-06-11 2021-06-11 No shoals or potentially hazardous features exist for this survey. There were 4 charted features assigned within Survey H13522, as well as an ATON that is addressed below. The 4 features included 1 rock, 2 wrecks, and 1 obstruction. The rock was disproved and the wrecks were located near their charted positions. The obstruction is described as a submerged acoustic receiver buoy, but was not observed. More information about acoustic receiver buoys in the Great Lakes was found on the website of the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation System (GLATOS). An active buoy associated with the Lake Superior East Lake Sturgeon project is approximately collocated with this assigned obstruction. Consequently, OSI recommends retaining this obstruction on the chart. 5 new features exist, see H13522 Final Feature File. Diagrams of trap nets and marking requirements were posted as notices to boaters in the area; an image matching those found on posters is shown below. The positions of fishing gear obstructions were shared with the COR and are included in the FFF as area features. Soundings on the active trap net were rejected and not included in the surface, and soundings on the suspected lost or abandoned gear were suppressed but included in the submitted surface. Diagram of trap nets and marking requirements. file:///H:/Redaction_Working/H13522_SENSITIVE/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/TrapNetGraphic.jpg A portion of the Saint Marys River fairway, Point Iroquois Shoals Channel, and Brush Point Course overlap with the southeast corner of Survey H13522. These items were not assigned and were not investigated due to the small area of overlap with survey data, which was less than 0.1 sq km. Recommended tracks not based on a system of fixed marks are present but were also not investigated. One ATON was present within Survey H13522, the Point Iroquois Shoal Lighted Buoy 39. It was surveyed to be on station and operating as intended. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. No bottom samples were required for this survey. 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. 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, and Letter Instructions. 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. John R. Bean Chief of Party 2021-12-16 David T. Somers Data Processing Manager 2021-12-16