OPR-K371-KR-19Port Arthur Traffic LanesPort Arthur, TXSAICH1321539 NM South of Star LakeTexasUnited States400002019Alex T. BernierNavigable Area2019-02-212019-05-052019-09-28Multibeam Echo SounderSide Scan SonarMultibeam Echo Sounder BackscattermetersUTCAtlantic Hydrographic BranchContract: EA-133C-14-CQ-0033/TO-0005. Contractor: Leidos, 221 Third Street, Newport, RI 02840 USA. Subcontractors: Divemasters, Inc., 15 Pumpshire Road, Toms River, NJ 08753; OARS, 8705 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 109, Austin, TX 78757. Leidos Doc. 20-TR-001. All times were recorded in UTC. Data were collected in North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 2011 realization 2010 (NAD83(2011)2010.0), UTM Zone 15N.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 15N, MLLW. All references to other horizontal or vertical datums in this report are applicable to the processed hydrographic data provided by the field unit.ContractorThe area surveyed was a section of the Gulf of Mexico south of Star Lake, Texas (Figure 1).29.58211994.19632129.41759894.007938H13215 Survey Boundsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_01.jpgSurvey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD) March 2019.The purpose of this survey is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. Port Arthur, located on the Gulf of Mexico Intra-costal Waterway in Texas, is home to a large refinery network (1). The Port of Port Arthur hosts the Motiva refinery, the largest oil refinery in the United States (2). Traffic flow through the Port is heavy and in 2010, an oil spill occurred from an oil tanker and barge collision spilling 450,000 gallons of oil into the Sabine/Neches waterway (3). This busy seaport has also been hit by several hurricanes. On August 29, 2017, Hurricane Harvey hit Port Arthur bringing upwards of 40 inches of rainfall and widespread flooding to the area (4). This Hurricane had the potential to change the seafloor of the Port which sees over 35 million tons of vessel traffic (5). To continue to promote safe passage of traffic through the Port, this project will survey 286 square nautical miles (SNM) of seafloor in Port Arthur. The survey will address concerns of migrating shoals and exposed hazards by updating bathymetry and positions of hazards and reducing the risk to navigation. Survey data from this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area and will provide contemporary data to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. Citations 1. https://www.portarthurtx.gov/236/About-Us 2."Tropical Storm Harvey Closes America's Biggest Refinery". Maritime Executive. 30 August 2017. Retrieved 31 August 2017. 3. Gonzalez, Angel (24 January 2010). "Oil Spill Hits Texas Port". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 January 2010. 4. Harrington, Rebecca. "Flash floods send Texans into 'survival mode' as Harvey hits Port Arthur with 26 inches of rain in one day". BusinessInsider.com. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 August 2017. 5. The U.S. Waterway System, 2016 Transportation Facts & Information. Navigation and Civil Works Decision Support Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.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. H13215 was surveyed in accordance with the following documents: 1. Project Instructions, OPR-K371-KR-19, dated 21 February 2019 2. Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), March 2019 3. Waiver_2019 HSSD_signed.pdf, dated 05 November 2019 4. OPR-K371-KR-19 Statement of Work, dated 21 February 2019All waters in survey areaComplete Coverage (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3). Complete 6443 LNMs. Transit mileage and data which do not meet HSSD specifications shall not count towards the completion of the LNM. Notify the Project Manager/COR upon nearing completion. The final survey area shall be squared off and ensure the full investigation of any features within the surveyed extent. Project Manager/COR may adjust survey prioritization based on observed shoaling. Additional or fewer sheets may be assigned based on survey area achieved.Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam). Survey coverage achieved was in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD (Figure 2 through Figure 4).Final Bathymetry Coverage for H13215file:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_02.jpgFinal Side Scan Coverage for H13215 (100% coverage)file:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_03.jpgFinal Side Scan Coverage for H13215 (disproval coverage)file:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_04.jpgM/V Atlantic Surveyor00000972.20046.37000000972.20046.3704.776000452019-05-052019-05-142019-05-152019-05-162019-05-172019-05-252019-05-262019-05-272019-05-302019-05-312019-06-012019-06-022019-06-032019-06-042019-08-032019-09-262019-09-272019-09-28Leidos 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 7 Linux platforms. Klein 3000 side scan sonar (SSS) data were collected on a Windows 7 platform using Klein’s SonarPro software. Subsequent processing and review of the SSS 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) for OPR-K371-KR-19, delivered previously with the Descriptive Report for H13213. There were no variations from the equipment configuration described in the DAPR.M/V Atlantic Surveyor1109M/V Atlantic Surveyorfile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_05.jpgThe M/V Atlantic Surveyor (Figure 5) was used to collect multibeam echo sounder (MBES) (RESON SeaBat T50), side scan sonar (SSS) (Klein 3000), and sound speed data during twenty-four hours per day survey operations. A detailed description of the vessel used is included in the DAPR.Teledyne RESONSeaBat T50-RMBESKlein Marine SystemsSystem 3000SSSApplanixPOS MV 320 v5Positioning and Attitude SystemAML OceanographicMVP30Sound Speed SystemAML OceanographicMicroX SVSound Speed SystemA detailed description of the equipment installed is included in the DAPR.Refer to Separates II for details about how the crossing analyses were performed and a complete discussion of each analysis and tabular results. Figure 6 summarizes the crossline comparison results.Summary of Crossing Analysisfile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_06.jpgERS via VDATUM0.000.122M/V Atlantic SurveyorN/A1.01.0For specific details on the use and application of the SABER Total Propagated Uncertainty (TPU) model, refer to the DAPR. Once the TPU model was applied to the GSF bathymetry data, each beam was attributed with the horizontal uncertainty and the vertical uncertainty at the 95% confidence level. The vertical and horizontal uncertainty values, estimated by the TPU model for individual multibeam soundings, varied little across the dataset, tending to be most affected by beam angle. Individual soundings that had vertical and horizontal uncertainty values above IHO S-44 5th Edition, Order 1a were flagged as invalid during the uncertainty attribution. As discussed in the DAPR, SABER generates two vertical uncertainty surfaces; the Hypothesis Standard Deviation (Hyp. StdDev) and the Hypothesis Average Total Propagated Uncertainty (Hyp. AvgTPU). 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 (Hyp. Final Uncertainty). The final H13215 one-meter PFM CUBE surface contained final vertical uncertainties that ranged from 0.260 meters to 0.520 meters. The IHO Order 1a maximum allowable vertical uncertainty was calculated to range between 0.504 to 0.529 meters, based on the minimum CUBE depth (5.079 meters) and maximum CUBE depth (13.369 meters). Results from the SABER Check PFM Uncertainty function identified that there were no nodes in the final H13215 one-meter PFM CUBE surface with final vertical uncertainties that exceeded IHO Order 1a allowable vertical uncertainty. The SABER Frequency Distribution Tool was also used to review the Hyp. Final Uncertainty surface within the final H13215 one-meter PFM grid, and the results showed that in the final one-meter PFM grid, 100.00% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to 0.520 meters.Per the Project Instructions, analyses of the H13215 junctions with adjacent surveys were performed. Junction analysis was conducted between H13215 and the surveys listed in Table 7. Figure 7 shows the general locality of H13215 as it relates to the sheets to which junctions were performed. Comparison results between H13215 and H13216 were reported in the H13216 Descriptive Report. Comparisons were not conducted to H13220, as processing efforts for that sheet were still on-going. Refer to Separates II for details about how the junction analyses were performed and a complete discussion of each analysis and tabular results.General Locality of H13215 with Junctioning Surveysfile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_07.jpgH13214400002019LeidosEH13214 junctions with H13215 to the east; 100% of the comparisons were within ±0.197 meters, completely within the calculated maximum allowable TVU of 0.526 meters.H10894200001999Fugro Pelagos, Inc.SH10894 junctions with H13215 to the south; 99.99% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.529 meters, the calculated maximum allowable TVU.H10836200001998Fugro Pelagos, Inc.SEH10836 junctions with H13215 to the southeast; 100% of the comparisons agreed within ±0.373 meters completely within the calculated maximum allowable TVU of 0.526 meters.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the DAPR and quality control checks conducted during H13215 are reported in Separates I.None ExistThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.On the M/V Atlantic Surveyor, the MVP30 was the primary system used to collect sound speed profile (SSP) data, refer to the DAPR for additional details. 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. Intermittent minor sound speed deltas were observed in the survey area throughout the course of acquisition. Additionally, there were significant periods of time when the sound speed values exceeded the two meters/second threshold due to the factors discussed in Section B.2.6. During these times several profiles were acquired and reapplied, often the MVP towfish would be continuously redeployed as soon as it had finished winching in from the previous cast, in an effort to reduce these effects. Even with this aggressive approach for collecting new SSP data to reduce the delta between the values measured at sonar head and the commensurate profile data, the delta was still not able to always be maintained below the two meters/second threshold. As a result of these environmental impacts, new bathymetry data were either re-acquired, or post processing efforts were employed to mitigate an impact of the sound speed data. The product of these efforts resulted in the final data bearing no significant artifacts due to sound speed. All sound speed profiles applied for online bathymetry data collection were acquired within 500 meters of the bounds of the survey area as specified in Section 5.2.3.3 of the HSSD. Confidence checks of the sound speed profile casts were conducted by comparing at least two consecutive casts taken with different SSP sensors. Five sound speed confidence checks were conducted during H13215 and the results can be found in Separates II within the “Comparison Cast Log” section. All individual SSP files are delivered with the H13215 data and are broken out into sub-folders, which correspond to the purpose of each cast. Also, all individual SSP files for H13215 have been concatenated into four separate files based on the purpose of the cast, provided in CARIS format files (.svp), and delivered under (H13215/Processed/SVP/CARIS_SSP) on the delivery drive. In addition, sound speed data for the entire OPR-K371-KR-19 project will be submitted to NCEI following the NetCDF template format as specified in Section 8.3.6 of the HSSD.All equipment and survey methods are detailed in the DAPR.Multibeam Coverage AnalysisLeidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using 100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam bathymetry. To achieve this coverage, the M/V Atlantic Surveyor used a towed Klein 3000 SSS set to 50-meter or 75-meter range scales. Mainscheme line spacing was 80 meters and 120 meters respectively, which ensured 100% SSS coverage. The HSSD stated that 100% SSS coverage was insufficient to disprove a charted feature. Therefore, Leidos reviewed the Composite Source File (CSF), BSB charts, and ENC charts and completed an additional 100% SSS coverage, and resulting MBES coverage over charted and assigned objects not found during survey in order to verify disproval in accordance with Section 7.3.4 in the HSSD. A disproval search radius was developed as specified in the Project Reference File (PRF), Final_OPR-K371-KR-19_PRF.000 provided on 18 March 2019 or following best practices if not specified. The radius is documented within the H13215 S-57 FFF. For all charted objects within the assigned H13215 Statement of Work (SOW), each object’s disproval data covered an area of at least the assigned disproval search radius. The SABER Gapchecker program was used to flag MBES data gaps within the CUBE surface. Additionally, the entire 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 the CUBE Depth surface of the H13215 one-meter PFM showed that there were no holidays as defined for complete coverage surveys in Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. The final H13215 CUBE PFM 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. The Hyp. # Soundings surface reports the number of soundings that were used to compute the chosen hypothesis. Analysis of the H13215 Hyp. # Soundings surface of the final H13215 one-meter PFM, revealed that 99.57% of all nodes contained five or more soundings; satisfying the requirements for complete coverage surveys, Option B, as specified in Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.Side Scan Sonar (SSS) Coverage Analysis: For all details regarding SSS data processing, see the DAPR. Leidos chose to adhere to the coverage requirements in the Project Instructions using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam). The HSSD stated that 100% SSS coverage was insufficient to disprove a charted feature. Therefore, 100% SSS coverage was collected and verified for the entire survey area, and an additional 100% SSS coverage was collected over CSF assigned objects to verify disproval. Leidos generated two separate coverage mosaics at one-meter cell size resolution as specified in Section 8.2.1 of the HSSD. The first 100% and second 100% disproval coverage mosaics were independently reviewed using tools in SABER to verify data quality and swath coverage. The SABER Gapchecker routine was used to flag data gaps within each of the 100% SSS coverage mosaics. Additionally, the entirety of each SSS 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. Both coverage mosaics are determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the Project Instructions and HSSD. The mosaics are delivered as single georeferenced raster files for each 100 percent coverage, as floating point GeoTIFF format as specified in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.3.3 in the HSSD. Multibeam Echo Sounder Seafloor Backscatter: In accordance with the HSSD Section 6.2, Leidos collected MBES backscatter with all GSF data acquired. The MBES settings used were checked to ensure acceptable quality standards were met and to mitigate acoustic saturation of the backscatter data. The MBES 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. Per HSSD Section 6.2.1, as the Project Instructions did not state to evaluate the backscatter data; backscatter data were not processed by Leidos and no additional products were produced.LeidosSABER5.4.0.22.3LeidosSABER5.4.0.22.3NOAA Extended Attribute File V5-4The primary data processing software used for both bathymetry and imagery was SABER. There were no software configuration changes after the DAPR was submitted.H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_Final-1_of_3BAG112.37513.369N/AComplete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam)H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_Final-2_of_3BAG110.18912.764N/AComplete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam)H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_Final-3_of_3BAG15.07912.983N/AComplete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam)H13215_SSSAB_1m_100kHz_1of2SSS Mosaic (.tif)10.000.00N/A100% SSSH13215_SSSAB_1m_100kHz_2of2SSS Mosaic (.tif)10.000.00N/ASecond 100% SSS For Object DisprovalComplete Coverage Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD requires one-meter node resolution for depths ranging from zero meters to 20 meters. Leidos generated CUBE PFM grids for H13215 at one-meter resolution. The CUBE Depth surface of the final H13215 one-meter PFM (containing all valid depth data) was used to assess and document multibeam survey coverage. SABER populates the CUBE depth 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. The range of CUBE depths of the H13215 one-meter PFM was from 5.079 meters (16.663 feet; 0.260 meters Total Vertical Uncertainty [TVU]) to 13.369 meters (43.861 feet; 0.260 meters TVU). The final gridded bathymetry data are delivered as a Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG). The BAG files were exported from the CUBE PFM grid as detailed in the DAPR.For the purposes of grid management, the Branch has created a single H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_1of1.bag that replaces the H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_Final-X_of_3 multibeam bathymetry grids submitted by the field unit. The H13215_MB_1m_MLLW_1of1.bag is the final deliverable to be used in charting products and for archive.Additional information discussing the vertical and horizontal control for this survey can be found in the DAPR.Mean Lower Low WaterERS via VDATUMOPR-K371-KR-19_NAD83_VDatum_MLLW.covRefer to the DAPR for details regarding the application of VDatum to the MBES data files. No final tide note was provided from NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). While a final tide note was not required, a final tide note has been provided by Leidos in Appendix I.North American Datum 1983Projected UTM 15The vessel kinematic data (POS/MV files) were post-processed in Applanix POSPac software using the Applanix PP-RTX solution to generate the Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) solutions which were applied through SABER to the multibeam data. Refer to the DAPR for additional information and for details regarding all antenna and transducer offsets. 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 a combination of SABER and CARIS’ HIPS and SIPS. United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 8 Local Notice to Mariners publications were reviewed for changes subsequent to the date of the 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 13/19 (27 March 2019) until week 52/19 (23 December 2019). H13215 data met data accuracy standards and bottom coverage requirements. Recommend updating the common areas of all charts using data from this survey. Charting recommendations for new features, and updates to charted features, are documented in the H13215 S-57 FFF. Additional charted objects such as submarine pipelines and platforms are discussed in later sections.US4TX71M80000372019-11-082019-11-18falseENC US4TX71M covers H13215 survey area in its entirety. CUBE depths within the northeastern corner of the survey area H13215 were generally in agreement or were slightly shoaler than the charted depths (Figure 8) while the depths in the southern extents of the survey area were generally deeper (Figure 9). There were no depth contours from ENC US4TX71M within H13215 survey area. ENC US4TX71M Charted Soundings (red) with H13215 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (black) Within the Northeastern Corner of the Survey Areafile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_08.jpgENC US4TX71M Charted Soundings (red) with H13215 CUBE Depth Selected Soundings (black) in the Southern Extents of the Survey Areafile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_09.jpgNo Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.There were three charted features which were assigned in the final CSF, Final_OPR-K371-KR-19_CSF.000, within the SOW of H13215. See the H13215 S-57 FFF for all the details and recommendations regarding these features. There were two assigned charted obstructions with assigned disproval radii of at least 160 meters and one assigned wreck with an assigned disproval radius of at least 500 meters. The obstruction charted as always under water/submerged with a value of sounding of 4.2 meters was found within the disproval radius. The remaining assigned obstruction disproval radius was covered with 200% SSS and resulting MBES data. No objects were identified within the assigned disproval radius. The assigned wreck disproval radius was covered with 200% SSS and resulting MBES data. No wreck was identified within the assigned radius. There was a wreck found approximately 900 meters to the north of the charted wreck, outside the disproval search radius. The observed wreck feature was developed and a DTON in conjunction with an Anti-DTON (DTON 01) were submitted. As a result, an obstruction with a least depth of 8.8 meters was charted and the assigned charted wreck was removed. See section D.1.5 and H13215 S-57 FFF for further details and recommendations. Two additional obstructions are charted within H13215 survey area, identified as exposed pipelines, with least depths of 10.8 meters and 11.2 meters. These two charted features were not assigned as they resulted from H13215 DTON 02 and 03. See section D.1.5 and H13215 S-57 FFF for further details and recommendations.See the H13215 S-57 FFF for all the details and recommendations regarding new uncharted features investigated.There were no significant shoals or hazardous features within the area covered by this survey other than those discussed in Section D.1.4. Leidos submitted four DTONs for H13215. Each DTON was submitted in S-57 format to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB). 1. DTON 01 was submitted on 21 May 2019 and consisted of a DTON for an uncharted wreck and an Anti-DTON for a charted dangerous wreck which was disproven. This DTON was submitted to Nautical Data Brach (NDB) and Marine Chart Division (MCD) on 22 May 2019. Per Section 1.6.1 of the 2019 HSSD, the DTON submission package for this uncharted wreck was submitted with the DTON attributed as an obstruction to ensure that a potentially sensitive feature was not added to the chart without undergoing review by the State Historic Preservation Officer. 2. DTON 02 and 03 were submitted as a single submission on 17 June 2019 and consisted of two sections of uncharted exposed pipelines. This was submitted to NDB and MCD on 20 June 2019 for both uncharted exposed sections of pipeline. 3. DTON 04 was submitted on 20 December 2019 for an obstruction. This DTON was submitted to NDB and MCD on 02 January 2020. A copy of the email correspondence for Leidos’ submissions of H13215 DTON Reports, as well as the DTON recommendation file and verification email from NDB, are included within Appendix II of this Descriptive Report. Figure 10 details the submitted DTONs and the associated Feature number and object class in the S-57 FFF. One additional exposed pipeline was observed within the H13215 survey. This exposed pipeline feature was located within the overlap with the previously delivered H13214 survey. The feature was also developed during H13214 and was submitted as DTON 03 for H13214. The shoaler depth of the exposed pipeline object was observed during H13215 and is captured as Feature 27 in the H13215 S-57 FFF.DTON Reportsfile:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_10.jpgThere were no channels within the area covered by this survey.In accordance with both the Project Instructions and Section 7.2.3 of the HSSD, bottom characteristics were obtained for H13215 at six separate locations. Bottom characteristics were acquired at the four locations assigned in the PRF by NOAA. Leidos did not modify the bottom sample locations from the location proposed by NOAA in the PRF. In addition to the assigned bottom sample locations, Leidos acquired two additional bottom samples within the H13215 survey area. These additional bottom samples were acquired at the location of charted hard bottom, as the review of the H13215 SSS imagery and MBES data indicated different bottom characteristics than the currently charted hard bottom. Bottom characteristics collected during H13215 are included in the H13215 S-57 FFF, named H13215_FFF.000, within the Seabed Area (SBDARE) object, and are classified according to the requirements set forth in the HSSD. In addition, images of the sediment obtained for each bottom sample are referenced in the H13215_FFF.000 and are included on the delivery drive under the folder H13215/Processed/Multimedia.All features in the CSF within the assigned Survey Limits of H13215 were resolved. There were no assigned features inshore of the NALL.There were no aids to navigation that fell within this survey area.There were no overhead features within this survey area.Refer to Section D.1.5, as H3216 DTON 02 and 03 contained sections of exposed uncharted pipelines. These pipelines are included in the S-57 FFF. One seep was found within the bounds of H13215. In accordance with HSSD Section 1.7, the seep found within H13215 was submitted as a Seep Report. The email correspondence for Leidos’ submission of the H13215 Seep Report is included within Appendix II of this Descriptive Report. The seep identified within the MBES data of H13215 was identified within the MBES data to have a form and morphology typical of ascending gas or bubble plumes. The MBES data associated with the seep have been flagged as invalid and therefore were not used in the CUBE depth calculations. The identified seep was located approximately at 29° 26’ 57.01”N 094° 07’ 07.81”W and was found on the end of a charted pipeline (ENC US4TX71M, RNC 11332), however the H13215 MBES and SSS data did not indicate the presence of a pipeline in the area. Review of the CSF, Final_OPR-K371-KR-19_CSF.000, showed that there were six For Info Only wellhead obstructions (sourced from BOEM) located in the approximate area of this charted pipeline end and observed seep. Analysis of the H13215 MBES and SSS data showed that there were no wellheads at this location or in the immediately surrounding area, however there were two small objects found which had no significant size or height as compared to the surrounding depth areas. The two observed non-significant objects are preserved as SSS contacts only and details of these contacts, as well as those for the observed seep, are included in the S-57 SSCon and Separates I, Side Scan Review Log.There were 28 assigned offshore platform objects in the CSF, Final_OPR-K371-KR-19_CSF.000, which fell within the SOW for H13215. All of the assigned platforms were charted on ENC US4TX71M. Investigation requirements for platforms within the CSF, Final_OPR-K371-KR-19_CSF.000, stated to “Visually confirm feature object existence. If feature exists, include in FFF with descrp=retain. If feature is not visible, conduct a feature disproval (Section 7.3.4).” Of the 28 charted platforms assigned within the survey area for H13215, 20 platforms were visible above the waterline. The remaining eight assigned charted platforms were not found during survey operations therefore disproval surveys were conducted. The disproval survey was conducted by collecting 200% SSS and resulting MBES over an area centered at the CSF platform position with a radius of at least 80 meters. Within the disproval radii there was no evidence of a platform in the SSS or MBES data. For platforms visible above the waterline, the surveyed position was derived from either the SSS or MBES data. Regardless of the source of the position, there were attribution revisions observed from survey data to the data from the CSF. In conjunction with the CSF investigation requirements Leidos also followed direction from HSSD Section 7.5.2: • “Update = Modification to attribution, geometry, and/or feature object class” • “1. Charted feature is found in new position via multibeam… regardless of proximity to charted feature” When the final position was derived from MBES data, the data from H13215 was input into the S-57 FFF with a descrp of New and the corresponding platform from the CSF had a descrp of Delete. When the final position was derived from SSS data only, the positions within the S-57 FFF were retained from the position provided in the CSF. For these platforms, the descrp were set to Update; as there were attribution modifications observed during H13215. The attributes modified are documented within the S-57 FFF. Figure 11 details the position provided from the CSF as well as each position, when present, from the H13215 data. As described above, the position within the S-57 FFF only differed from the CSF in five instances, listed in the Figure 11 with descrp Delete/New. The descrp Update only refers to attributes being modified within the S-57 FFF. See the S-57 FFF, named H13215_FFF.000, Offshore Platform (OFSPLF) objects, for details and charting recommendations.Platforms within H13215file:///Q:/Survey/H13215_K371_KR_19/AHB_H13215/01_SAR/Reports/Survey/Descriptive_Report/Report/SupportFiles/H13215_Figure_11.jpgNo ferry routes or terminals exist within this survey area.No abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions, as defined in Section 8.1.4 of the HSSD, exist within this survey area except as previously discussed in Sections B.2.6 and B.2.7 of this report.No construction or dredging exists for this survey area.Designated SoundingsSeparate flags exist in the Generic Sensor Format (GSF) for a designated sounding and feature. During data analysis, designated soundings or feature flags are used to help better preserve the shoalest sounding relative to the computed depth surface. All depths flagged as features and designated soundings override the CUBE best estimate of the depth in the final BAG files. Both the designated sounding and feature flags, as defined within GSF, are mapped to the same HDCS flag when ingested into CARIS (PD_DEPTH_DESIGNATED_MASK). GSF feature flags were set on significant features within H13215, and all information is contained in the H13215 S-57 FFF.Final Feature S-57 FileIncluded with the H13215 delivery is the S-57 FFF, H13215_FFF.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in the DAPR. The S-57 FFF delivered for H13215 contains millimeter precision for the value of sounding (VALSOU) attribute. As specified in Section 2.2 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 H13215 are included within the S-57 FFF. In accordance with the HSSD, Leidos addressed all assigned objects from the provided CSF S-57 file that fell within the bounds of H13215 in the S-57 FFF. For each feature set within the H13215 data the 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”.Side Scan Sonar Contacts S-57 FileIncluded with the H13215 delivery is the Side Scan Sonar Contact S-57 File, H13215_SSCon.000. Details on how this file was generated and quality controlled can be found in the DAPR. As specified in Section 2.2 of the HSSD, the S-57 file is in the WGS84 datum and is unprojected with all depth units in meters. Side scan sonar contacts were investigated and confirmed using SABER Contact Review. 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”.Coast Pilot Review ReportIn accordance with the Project Instructions and HSSD Section 8.1.3, a Coast Pilot Review was performed for OPR-K371-KR-19. Within the Coast Pilot Field Report (OPR-K371-KR-18CoastPilotReport.pdf) provided by NOAA to Leidos on 18 March 2019, it indicated that paragraphs 15 through 127 were relevant to the survey area of OPR-K371-KR-19 and there were no assigned investigation items. During survey, Leidos reviewed and updated the assigned and additional Coast Pilot paragraphs as possible for the survey area, port of call, and areas frequently transited. Leidos downloaded Coast Pilot 5 Chapter 10 from the Coast Pilot website, 47th Edition of Coast Pilot 5, dated 17 November 2019. Recommendations were documented using the text from the 47th Edition and are marked following the HSSD Section 8.1.3. Leidos followed NOAA’s strategy for designating omitted paragraphs as provided in the delivered Coast Pilot Field Report (OPR-K371-KR-18CoastPilotReport.pdf). Leidos submitted the Coast Pilot Field Report on 22 November 2019. The email correspondence for Leidos’ submission of the Coast Pilot Review Report is included within the Project Correspondence.No new survey recommendations are made for the area surrounding this survey area.No inset recommendations are made for the area covered by this surveyAs 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.This Descriptive Report, all BAG files, 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 Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables, Project Instructions, and 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. Previously, or concurrently, submitted deliverables for OPR-K371-KR-19 are provided in the table below.Alex T. BernierLead Hydrographer2020-01-06OPR-K371-KR-19_Coast Pilot Review Report.pdf 2019-11-22OPR-K371-KR-19_Marine_Species_Awareness_Training_Record.pdf2019-11-22OPR-K371-KR-19_DAPR.pdf2019-12-06H13213_DR.pdf2019-12-06H13214_DR.pdf2019-12-13H13216_DR.pdf2019-12-20