OPR-K371-KR-15 Alex T. Bernier Gulf of Mexico Leidos H12838 5 29 NM South of Calcasieu Pass Louisiana United States 40000 2016 Alex T. Bernier Basic Hydrographic Survey 2015-08-21 2016-04-24 2016-06-18 Multibeam Echo Sounder Side Scan Sonar Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch Contract: EA-133C-14-CQ-0033/T-001/M0001. Contractor: Leidos, 221 Third Street, Newport, RI 02840 USA. Subcontractors: Divemasters, Inc., 15 Pumpshire Road, Toms River, NJ 08753 and OARS, 8705 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 109, Austin, TX 78757. Leidos Doc 16-TR-026. All times were recorded in UTC. Data were collected in UTM Zone 15. Contractor The area surveyed was a section of the Gulf of Mexico South of Calcasieu Pass, LA (Figure 1). 29.304647 093.455459 29.252108 093.255495 H12838 Survey Bounds file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_1.jpg Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the NOS Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD). The purpose of this survey is to update existing NOS nautical charts. This project is located in a highly trafficked critical area south of the Louisiana coast as designated in the 2012 NOAA Hydrographic Survey Priorities. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. Leidos warrants only that the survey data acquired by Leidos and delivered to NOAA under Contract EA-133C-14-CQ-0033 reflects the state of the sea floor in existence on the day and at the time the survey was conducted. H12838 was surveyed in accordance with the following documents: 1. Project Instructions, OPR-K371-KR-15, dated 21 August 2015 2. NOS Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), May 2015 3. OPR-K371-KR-15 Statement of Work, dated 21 August 2015 All waters in survey area. Either A) Complete MBES with backscatter, OR B) 100% SSS with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter. Note: Complete MBES is sufficient for both determination of least depth identified with SSS and for disproving a feature – 100% SSS is insufficient to disprove a feature. Refer to Section 6.1.2 of the HSSD to confirm proper SSS acquisition parameters. Gaps in SSS coverage should be treated as gaps in MBES coverage and addressed accordingly. Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using 100% side scan sonar with concurrent set line spacing multibeam echo-sounder with backscatter. Survey coverage was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. Final Bathymetry Coverage for H12838 file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_2.jpg M/V Atlantic Surveyor 0 0 0 0 0 807.25 0 34.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 807.25 0 34.13 0 4.23 5 0 0 0 31.97 2016-04-24 2016-04-25 2016-04-26 2016-04-27 2016-04-28 2016-04-29 2016-05-01 2016-05-02 2016-05-03 2016-05-04 2016-05-05 2016-06-06 2016-06-18 Leidos used their ISS-2000 software on a Windows 7 platform to acquire these survey data. Survey planning and data analysis were conducted using the Leidos SABER software on Red Hat Enterprise 6 Linux platforms. L-3 Klein 3000 side scan sonar data were collected on a Windows 7 platform using L-3 Klein’s SonarPro software. Subsequent processing and review of the side scan sonar data, including the generation of coverage mosaics, were accomplished using SABER. A detailed description of the systems and vessel used to acquire and process these data is included in the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) revision 1 for OPR-K371-KR-15, delivered on 11 August 2016. There were no variations from the equipment configuration described in the DAPR Rev 1. M/V Atlantic Surveyor 110 9 The M/V Atlantic Surveyor was used to collect multibeam sonar (RESON Seabat 7125 SV), side scan sonar (L-3 Klein 3000), and sound speed data during twenty-four hours per day survey operations. A detailed description of the vessel used is included in Section A of the DAPR Rev 1. RESON SeaBat 7125 SV MBES L-3 Klein 3000 SSS Applanix POS/MV 320 V4 and POS/MV 320 V5 Positioning and Attitude System Trimble Probeacon Positioning System ODIM Brooke Ocean MVP-30 Sound Speed System A detailed description of the equipment installed is included in Section A of the DAPR Rev 1. There were 34.13 linear nautical miles of crosslines and 807.25 linear nautical miles of mainscheme lines surveyed on H12838. This resulted in crossline mileage of approximately 4.23% of the mainscheme mileage which meets the requirement (Section 5.2.4.3 of the 2015 HSSD) to achieve at least four percent for a complete coverage multibeam survey. H12838 requirements were for complete coverage based on the classifications defined in Section 5.2.2 of the 2015 HSSD (“…100% side scan sonar coverage with set line spacing bathymetry and complete coverage multibeam developments of significant contacts”). The mainscheme lines were orientated 90°/270° and spaced 80 meters apart. Crosslines were oriented 0°/180° and generally spaced 1950 meters apart. Refer to the “Multibeam Processing Log” section within Separates I for information on the delineation of mainscheme and crossline data files. In the field, hydrographers conducted daily comparisons of mainscheme to near nadir crossline data to ensure that no systematic errors were introduced, and to identify potential problems with the survey systems. After the application of all correctors and completion of final processing in the office, separate one-meter grids were built. One grid contained the full valid swath (±60° from nadir) of mainscheme multibeam and the other included only the near nadir swath (±5° from nadir) crossline data. Difference grids were then generated by subtracting one grid from the other. The SABER Frequency Distribution Tool was used to analyze the difference grids. All comparisons fell within the requirement defined in Section 5.2.4.3 of the HSSD, which states that at least 95% of the depth difference values are to be within the maximum allowable total vertical uncertainty. Figure 3 summarizes the comparison results. See Separates II for a complete discussion of the analysis and tabular results. Summary of Crossing Analysis file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_3.jpg The Total Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) model that Leidos has adopted had its genesis at the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), and is based on the work by Rob Hare and others (“Error Budget Analysis for NAVOCEANO Hydrographic Survey Systems, Task 2 FY 01”, 2001, HSRC FY01 Task 2 Final Report). Once the TPU model is applied to the Generic Sensor Format (GSF) bathymetry data, each beam is attributed with the horizontal uncertainty and the vertical uncertainty at the 95% confidence level. For specific details on the use and application of the SABER Total Propagated Uncertainty model, see Section B.1 in the DAPR Rev 1. The vertical and horizontal uncertainty values that were estimated by the TPU model for individual multibeam soundings varied little across the dataset, tending to be most affected by beam angle. During application of horizontal and vertical uncertainties to the GSF files, individual beams where either the horizontal or vertical uncertainty exceeded the maximum allowable IHO S-44 5th Edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid. As a result, all individual soundings used in development of the final CUBE depth surface had modeled vertical and horizontal uncertainty values at or below the allowable IHO S-44 5th Edition, Order 1a uncertainty. During the creation of the CUBE surface, two separate vertical uncertainty surfaces are calculated by the SABER software. One surface contains the standard deviation of all soundings that are contributing to the CUBE hypothesis (Hyp. StdDev), and the other contains the average of the vertical uncertainty of all soundings contributing to the CUBE hypothesis (Hyp. AvgTPE). A third vertical uncertainty surface is generated from the larger value of these two uncertainties at each node and is referred to as the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty. For specific details on this process see Section B.2 of the DAPR Rev 1. The final one-meter PFM CUBE surface contained final vertical uncertainties that ranged from 0.470 to 0.933 meters. The IHO Order 1a maximum allowable vertical uncertainty was calculated to range between 0.516 to 0.551 meters, based on the minimum CUBE depth (9.826 meters) and maximum CUBE depth (17.828 meters). The SABER Check PFM Uncertainty function was used to highlight all instances in the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty surface where a given node exceeded the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty for the CUBE depth at that node. The final one-meter PFM CUBE surface contained 36 individual CUBE nodes with final vertical uncertainties that exceeded IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty. The nodes that exceed the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty for the CUBE depth are primarily located around features where there is a high variability in the depth soundings. The SABER Frequency Distribution Tool was used to review the Hypothesis Final Uncertainty surface within the final one-meter PFM grid. The results show that in the final one-meter PFM grid, 99.43% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to 0.480 meters. An analysis of H12838 junctions with contemporary surveys was performed. Figure 4 shows the general locality of H12838 as it relates to the contemporary sheets for which junction analysis was performed. Table 6 provides details for each contemporary sheet junction analysis performed. See Separates II for a complete discussion of the junction results and tabular listings. General Locality of H12838 with Contemporary Surveys file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_4.jpg H10890 20000 1999 C and C Technologies, Inc. E H12838 junctions with H10890 to the east; 98.35% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.40 meters. H10891 20000 1999 C and C Technologies, Inc. E H12838 junctions with H10891 to the east; 96.90% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.30 meters H12730 40000 2015 Leidos N H12838 junctions with H12730 to the north; 95.82% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.30 meters. H12731 40000 2016 Leidos N H12838 junctions with H12731 to the north; 96.49% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.30 meters. Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in Section A.5, Multibeam Systems and Operations, of the DAPR Rev 1. There were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness. During localized weather events, an artifact resulting from a difference in water levels between the survey area and the water level gauge (Calcasieu Pass, LA) was observed in the multibeam CUBE surface. The artifact generally ranged between 10 to 30 centimeters when present (Figure 5). In addition, some of these adverse weather conditions resulted in a visible heave artifact in the final CUBE surface of H12838. The occasional vertical offsets and heave artifacts observed within H12838 were within the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical and horizontal uncertainty for these water depths. CUBE Depth Delta and Heave Artifact Resulting From Local Weather Events file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_5.jpg On the M/V Atlantic Surveyor, the MVP-30 was used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data. SSP data were obtained at intervals frequent enough to meet depth accuracy requirements. Section 5.2.3.3 of the HSSD requires that if the sound speed measured at the sonar head differs by more than two meters/second from the commensurate profile data, then another cast shall be acquired. There were times when the sound speed values exceeded the two meters/second threshold due to the local temporal and tidal variability. During these times, several profiles were acquired and reapplied in an effort to reduce these effects. The product of this effort resulted in the final data bearing no significant artifacts due to sound speed differences. All sound speed profiles that were applied for online bathymetry data collection were acquired within 250 meters of the bounds of the survey area. Please refer to the DAPR Rev 1 for specific details regarding acquisition (Section A.7) and application (Section C.1.3) of sound speed profiles. Confidence checks of the sound speed profile casts were conducted by comparing at least two consecutive casts taken with different Smart SV and P sensors. Seven sound speed confidence checks were conducted during H12838 and the results can be found in Separates II within the “Comparison Cast Log” section. All individual sound speed profile files are delivered with the H12838 data and are broken out into sub-folders, which correspond to the purpose of each cast. Also, all individual sound speed profiles for H12838 have been concatenated into four separate files based on the purpose of the cast, provided in CARIS format files (.svp), and delivered under (H12838/Data/Processed/SVP/CARIS_SSP) on the delivery drive. Refer to Separates II for more details. All equipment and survey methods are detailed in the DAPR Rev 1. Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using 100% side scan sonar with concurrent set line spacing multibeam echo-sounder with backscatter. To achieve this coverage, the M/V Atlantic Surveyor used a towed L-3 Klein 3000 side scan sonar set to a 50-meter range scale. Mainscheme line spacing was 80 meters, which ensured 100% side scan coverage. Both the Project Instructions and the HSSD stated that 100% side scan sonar was insufficient to disprove a charted feature. Therefore, Leidos reviewed the BSB and ENC charts and completed an additional 100% side scan sonar coverage with resulting multibeam coverage over common charted objects not found during survey in order to verify disproval. A search radius for each charted feature disproval was determined from the Project Instructions, which stated, “In the case of the unassigned offshore oil platforms within the survey area, should the field unit observe that the feature is not visible, then a formal disproval is required. For the purposes of disproval, charted features labeled with a “PA” will have a search radius of 160 meters, a “PD” will have a search radius of 240 meters, and all other features without a position qualifier will have a search radius of 80 meters.” Backscatter data were acquired for all water depths. The SABER Gapchecker routine was used to flag data gaps within each of the 100% side scan sonar coverage mosaics, as well as the multibeam CUBE surface. Additionally, the entirety of each SSS and MBES surface was visually scanned for holidays at various points during the data processing effort. Additional survey lines were run to fill any holidays that were detected. A final review of each 100% side scan sonar coverage mosaic showed that there were no holidays, as defined by Section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD to be three by three nodes in the surface at the required one-meter resolution (see Section B.5.3 for more details). A final review of the CUBE Depth surface of the one-meter PFM containing all multibeam showed that there were a few instances where a three by three node gap exists. These gaps generally resulted from either the holiday line data being slightly offset from the original line due to vessel line steering, or the swath width of the holiday lines being reduced compared to the original line due to water level differences. One additional instance of a three by three node gap, 29° 16’ 56.93”N 093° 22’ 16.16”W, exists on a crossline where data were turned off, and additional crossline data were not needed, as the crossline percentage requirement had already been met. The one-meter PFM (containing all multibeam) was examined for the number of soundings contributing to the chosen CUBE hypotheses for each node by running SABER’s Frequency Distribution Tool on the Hypothesis Number of Soundings (Hyp # Soundings) surface for the one-meter PFM. The Hyp # Soundings surface reports the number of soundings that were used to compute the chosen hypothesis. Analysis of the H12838 final one-meter PFM grid revealed that 98.55% of all nodes contained five or more soundings; satisfying the requirements for complete coverage surveys, as specified in Section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR Rev 1. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR Rev 1. 2016-04-08 In accordance with the HSSD and Project Instructions, Leidos collected multibeam echo-sounder backscatter with all GSF data acquired by the RESON Seabat 7125 SV. The multibeam settings used were checked to ensure acceptable quality standards were met and to avoid any acoustic saturation of the backscatter data. The multibeam backscatter data acquired were written to the GSF in real-time by ISS-2000 and are delivered in the final GSF files for this sheet. Backscatter was not processed by Leidos. Leidos SABER 5.2.0.14.19.02 Leidos SABER 5.2.0.14.19.02 NOAA Extended Attribute File V5-4. The primary data processing software used for both bathymetry and imagery was SABER. There were no software configuration changes after the DAPR Rev 1 was submitted. H12838_MB_1m_MLLW BAG 1 9.826 17.828 N/A Concurrent set line spacing MBES H12838_ss_1_100_mosaic SSS Mosaic (.tif;.tfw) 1 0 0 N/A Complete Coverage (100% SSS) H12838_ss_2_100_mosaic SSS Mosaic (.tif;.tfw) 1 0 0 N/A 200% SSS Charted Object Disproval A PFM CUBE Depth surface was used to assess and document multibeam survey coverage. The CUBE depth is populated with either the node’s chosen hypothesis or the depth of a feature or designated sounding set by the hydrographer, which overrides the chosen hypothesis (see Section D.2.11 for details of the GSF feature and designated sounding flags). The range of CUBE depths in H12838 was from 9.826 meters (32.237 feet, 0.470-meter uncertainty) to 17.828 meters (58.491 feet, 0.558-meter uncertainty). Section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD requires a one-meter grid resolution for depths ranging from zero meters to 20 meters for Complete Coverage. The final gridded bathymetry data are delivered as a Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG). The BAG file was exported from the CUBE PFM grid as detailed in Section B.2.5 of the DAPR Rev 1. For all details regarding side scan sonar data processing, see Section B.3 of the DAPR Rev 1. The Project Instructions required 100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent set line spacing MBES with backscatter. Both the Project Instructions and the HSSD stated that 100% side scan was insufficient to disprove a charted feature. Therefore, 100% side scan sonar coverage was collected and verified for the entire survey area, and an additional 100% side scan sonar coverage was collected over charted objects that were not found to verify disproval. Leidos generated two separate 100% coverage mosaics at one-meter cell size resolution as specified in Section 8.3.1 of the HSSD. The first and second 100% coverage mosaics were independently reviewed using tools in SABER to verify data quality and swath coverage. A final review of each 100% side scan sonar coverage mosaic showed that there were no holidays, as defined by Section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD to be three by three nodes in the surface at the required one-meter resolution. Both coverage mosaics are determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the Project Instructions, and the HSSD. The mosaics are delivered as TIFF (.tif) images with accompanying world files (.tfw), refer to Table 7. Side scan sonar contacts were investigated and confirmed using SABER Contact Review. All side scan sonar contacts and accompanying images are delivered in the Side Scan Sonar Contacts S-57 file; for specifics refer to Section D.2.13. No vertical or horizontal controls were established, recovered, or occupied during data acquisition for OPR-K371-KR-15, which includes H12838. Therefore, a Horizontal and Vertical Control Report was not required. Mean Lower Low Water Discrete Zoning Calcasieu Pass, LA 8768094 8768094_verified_01April16_to_30June16.tid Verified Observed K371KR2015CORP.zdf Final 1957-08-13 1957-08-15 No final tide note was provided by the NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). Leidos is not required to have a final tide note from CO-OPS for H12838 however, a final tide note has been provided by Leidos in Appendix I. The Tides Statement of Work specified NOAA tide station 8768094 Calcasieu Pass, LA as the source for water level correctors for OPR-K371-KR-15. A full explanation of the tide zone assessment is detailed in Section C.4 of the DAPR Rev 1. For H12838, 8768094 Calcasieu Pass, LA was the source of all final verified water level heights for determining correctors to soundings. All data for H12838 were contained within three tide zones (WGM400, WGM401, and WGM407) which were provided from NOAA. Leidos did not revise the delivered tide zones for tide station 8768094 Calcasieu Pass, LA as the water level zoning parameters in the file K371KR2015CORP.zdf, provided by National Ocean Service (NOS) were deemed adequate for the application of observed verified water levels. As a result, they were accepted as final and applied to all H12838 bathymetry data. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) UTM Zone 15, North Smart Base English Turn, LA (293 kHz) Angleton, TX (301 kHz) Aransas Pass, TX (304 kHz) Please refer to the DAPR Rev 1 for details regarding all antenna and transducer offsets. During survey data acquisition, the ISS-2000 real-time system provided a continuous view of the positioning comparison between the POS/MV and the Trimble DGPS. An alarm was triggered within ISS-2000 if the comparisons were not within an acceptable range. Any soundings with total horizontal uncertainties exceeding the maximum allowable IHO S-44 5th Edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid and therefore were not used in the CUBE Depth calculations. The chart comparisons were conducted using the Leidos SABER software to view the BSB raster charts with overlain data for H12838 such as the CUBE gridded surface, selected soundings, contacts, and features. Charting recommendations for depths follow Section 5.1.2 of the HSSD where depths and uncertainties are to be rounded by standard arithmetic rounding (round half up) and accompanying chart depth units are rounded using NOAA cartographic rounding (0.75 round up). For ENC comparisons, a combination of CARIS’ EasyView and SABER were used. United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 8 Local Notice to Mariners publications were reviewed for changes subsequent to the date of the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions and before the end of survey (as specified in Section 8.1.4 of the HSSD). The Notice to Mariners reviewed were from week 16/16 (20 April 2016) until week 27/16 (06 July 2016). H12838 data meet data accuracy standards and bottom coverage requirements. Recommend updating the common areas of all charts using data from this survey. Charting recommendations for all features are provided in the S-57 Final Feature File. 11341 124 80000 44 2013-03 2016-07-19 2016-07-16 Chart 11341 covers the H12838 survey area west of 093° 19’ 00.88”W. CUBE depths within sheet H12838 agreed with the charted depths across most of the survey area and were generally within ±5 feet of the charted depths. There were discrete areas where the depths varied as much as 10 feet such as in 29° 15’ 46.26”N 093° 24’ 35.26”W. The charted dangerous wreck labeled PA in approximately 29° 16’ 30.35”N 093° 20’ 35.87”W was not found. A search radius of at least 160 meters was covered by 200% side scan and resulting 100% multibeam coverage around this position. See Section D.1.4 for more details. The charted 53-foot dangerous wreck labeled Wk in approximately 29° 15’ 37.08”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W was found with a CUBE depth of 53.550 feet in 29° 15’ 37.08”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W (Feature 03, DTON 01). See Sections D.1.6 for more details. Additional charted objects such as submarine pipelines and platforms are discussed in the sections below. All new uncharted features found, and updates to charted features, are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). 11344 123 80000 40 2014-08 2016-07-19 2016-07-16 Chart 11344 covers the H12838 survey area east of 093° 21’ 00.47”W. CUBE depths within sheet H12838 agreed with the charted depths across most of the survey area and were generally within ±3 feet of the charted depths. The charted dangerous wreck labeled PA in approximately 29° 16’ 29.98”N 093° 20’ 36.25”W was not found. A search radius of at least 160 meters was covered by 200% side scan and resulting 100% multibeam coverage around this position. See Section D.1.4 for more details. The charted 53-foot dangerous wreck labeled Wk in approximately 29° 15’ 37.08”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W was found with a CUBE depth of 53.550 feet in 29° 15’ 37.08”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W (Feature 03, DTON 01). See Sections D.1.6 for more details. Additional charted objects such as submarine pipelines and platforms are discussed in the sections below. All new uncharted features found, and updates to charted features, are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). US4LA10M 80000 10 2016-07-21 false 2014-11-03 ENC US4LA10M covers the H12838 survey area, west of 093° 21’ 00.53”W. CUBE depths within sheet H12838 agreed with the charted depths across most of the survey area and were generally within ±2 meter of the charted depths. Additional charted objects such as submarine pipelines and platforms are discussed in the sections below. All new uncharted features found, and updates to charted features, are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). US4LA14M 80000 16 2016-07-22 false 2012-09-05 ENC US4LA14M covers the H12838 survey area, east of 093° 21’ 00.53”W. CUBE depths within sheet H12838 agreed with the charted depths across most of the survey area and were generally within ±2 meter of the charted depths. The charted dangerous wreck with least depth unknown in 29° 16’ 29.21”N 093° 20’ 36.29”W (from ENC) or 29° 16’ 29.21”N 093° 20’ 36.30”W (from CSF) was not found. A search radius of at least 160 meters was covered by 200% side scan and resulting 100% multibeam coverage around these positions. See Section D.1.4 for more details. The charted 16.1-meter dangerous wreck in 29° 15’ 37.10”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W was found with a CUBE depth of 16.322 meters in 29° 15’ 37.08”N 093° 20’ 08.90”W (Feature 03, DTON 01). See Sections D.1.6 for more details. Additional charted objects such as submarine pipelines and platforms are discussed in the sections below. All new uncharted features found, and updates to charted features, are documented in the Final Feature File (S-57). No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. There was one charted dangerous Wreck PA within the survey bounds of H12838 in 29° 16’ 29.21”N 093° 20’ 36.29”W (from ENC) or 29° 16’ 29.21”N 093° 20’ 36.30”W (from CSF) which was not found. A search radius of at least 160 meters was covered by 200% side scan and 100% multibeam around these positions. There were no significant contacts or features identified within the coverage of the search radius. This charted dangerous Wreck PA falls on raster charts 11341 and 11344, as well as ENC US4LA14M, and is recommended to be deleted from all charts as stated in the H12838 S-57 Final Feature File (FFF). See the S-57 Final Feature File (FFF) for all the details and recommendations regarding new uncharted features investigated. 2 2016-07-12 2016-07-13 Leidos submitted two Danger to Navigation Reports (DTON) in S-57 format to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB) for H12838. AHB did not submit DTON02 to the Nautical Data Branch (NDB)/Marine Chart Division (MCD), but rather submitted a Navigation Manager Report to the to the Office of Coast Surveys (OCS) Navigation Manager. AHB did submit DTON01 to MCD. Copies of the AHB verification email and AHB DTON report, in PDF format, submitted to the Nautical Data Branch (NDB)/Marine Chart Division (MCD) are included in a sub-directory within Appendix II of this Data Report. Also included is the Navigation Manager Report, which AHB submitted for DTON02. Figure 6 provides a list of DTONs and their associated Feature number and object class in the H12838 S-57 FFF. DTON Feature Numbers file:///SupportFiles/H12838_Figure_6.jpg All hazardous features were discussed in Sections D.1.1 and D.1.2 for each chart, Section D.1.6, and the H12838 S-57 Final Feature File (FFF). There were no channels within the area covered by H12838. In accordance with both the Project Instructions and Section 7.1 of the HSSD, bottom characteristics were obtained for H12838. Bottom characteristics were acquired at the five locations proposed in the Project Reference File (PRF) by NOAA. Leidos did not modify any bottom sample locations from the locations provided by NOAA. Bottom characteristics collected during H12838 are included in the H12838 S-57 FFF, H12838.FFF.000, within the Seabed Area (SBDARE) object and are classified according to the requirements set forth in Appendix H of the HSSD. All features within the Composite Source File (CSF) were resolved. There were no assigned features inshore of the NALL. Junction analysis with prior surveys H10890, H10891, H12730, and H12731 (collected in 1999, 2015, and 2016, respectfully) were conducted, and the results are presented in Section B.2.3 of this Data Report and Separates II. There were no aids to navigation that fell within the area of H12838. There were no overhead features within the H12838 survey area. One pipeline (PIPSOL) object is delivered in the S-57 FFF (Feature 02) to represent a section of exposed pipeline found, utilizing both multibeam and side scan sonar data, within the bounds of H12838. See Section D.1.6 for additional information. Additional charted pipelines fall within the H12838 survey coverage; however, the multibeam and side scan sonar data do not show evidence of them. No ferry routes or terminals exist within the H12838 survey area. Eight platforms are charted within the bounds of H12838 and all eight were not found; an area with a radius of at least 80 meters was covered by 200% side scan sonar and 100% multibeam for each charted platform. There was no evidence of the platforms existence in the side scan or multibeam data and no platforms were visible above the waterline. See the S-57 FFF, H12838.FFF.000, Offshore Platform (OFSPLF) objects, for details and charting recommendations on each platform. During data acquisition on H12838, intermittent adverse weather conditions and sea state were observed, in many cases causing the survey to be suspended due to the achievable data quality. Many of these localized weather events caused an observed offset between the survey area and the water level gauge located at Calcasieu Pass, LA. The adverse weather conditions also resulted in heave artifacts visible in the final CUBE surface of H12838. However, the vertical offsets and heave artifacts observed were within the IHO Order 1a allowable vertical and horizontal uncertainty for the H12838 water depths. See Section B.2.6 for more information regarding the water level offsets and heave artifacts. No other significant features as defined in Section 8.1.4 of the HSSD exist within the H12838 survey area. No construction or dredging exists for the H12838 survey. No new survey recommendations are made for the area covered by the H12838 survey. No inset recommendations are made for the area covered by the H12838 survey. Designated soundings are used to help better preserve the shallowest sounding relative to the computed depth surface. Separate flags exist in the GSF (version 3.06) for designated soundings and features. All depths flagged as either a feature or a designated sounding in the GSF override the CUBE best estimate of the depth in the final BAG file. Both the designated sounding and feature flags as defined within GSF are mapped to the same Hydrographic Data Cleaning System (HDCS) flag when ingested into CARIS (PD_DEPTH_DESIGNATED_MASK). Note that there were only three feature flags set within the H12838 data and no GSF “designated soundings” were set. Therefore, there are only three overrides to the CUBE best estimate of the depth for H12838, all of which are also presented in the S-57 FFF, H12838.FFF.000. Included with the H12838 delivery is the S-57 FFF, H12838.FFF.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in Section B.2.6 of the DAPR Rev 1. The S-57 FFF delivered for H12838 contains millimeter precision for the value of sounding (VALSOU) attribute. As specified in Section 8.2 of the HSSD, the S-57 FFF is in the WGS84 datum and is unprojected with all depth units in meters. All significant, and recommended for charting, features found in H12838 are included within the S-57 FFF. In accordance with the HSSD, Leidos addressed all assigned objects within the bounds of H12838 from the provided CSF S-57 file in the delivered H12838 S-57 FFF. Additionally, several charted objects, derived from the largest scale ENCs, were disproven by the results of this survey, and are addressed within the delivered H12838 S-57 FFF. For each feature contained in the FFF (S-57), a Feature Correlator Sheet was exported as an image file (.jpg) and is included in the S-57 FFF under the NOAA Extended Attribute field “images”. Included with the H12838 delivery is the Side Scan Sonar Contact S-57 File, H12838.SSCon.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in Section B.3.5 of the DAPR Rev 1. As specified in Section 8.2 of the HSSD, the S-57 feature file is in the WGS84 datum and is unprojected with all depth units in meters. All side scan contacts are retained within the Side Scan Sonar Contact S-57 File. For each contact included in this S-57 file, a JPEG image of the side scan contact is included under the NOAA Extended Attribute field “images”. 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. The BAG file, 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, Project Instructions, and the OPR-K371-KR-15 Statement of Work. 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 any deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report. Previously submitted deliverables for OPR-K371-KR-15 are provided in the table below. Note that there were no sea turtle sightings and therefore there is no associated deliverable listed. Alex T. Bernier Lead Hydrographer 2016-08-29 OPR-K371-KR-15_DAPR.pdf 2016-02-12 OPR-K371-KR-15_Coast Pilot Review Report.pdf 2016-02-12 H12727_DR.pdf 2016-02-12 H12728_DR.pdf 2016-02-26 H12729_DR.pdf 2016-03-24 H12730_DR.pdf 2016-03-30 OPR-K371-KR-15_DAPR_rev1.pdf 2016-08-11 H12731_DR.pdf 2016-08-11 OPR-K371-KR-15_Marine_Mammal_Observation_Log.pdf 2016-08-29