OPR-K356-KR-22 Louisiana Approaches to Calcasieu David Evans and Associates H13677 8 Expansion Area 6 NM SW of Lower Mud Lake Expansion Louisiana United States 20000 2022 Jonathan L. Dasler, PE, PLS, CH Navigable Area 2022-08-11 2022-10-02 2022-12-04 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter Side Scan Sonar 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 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. CC0-1.0 (NOAA Contractors) CC0-1.0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode These data were produced under contract with NOAA and any potential copyright was assigned to NOAA. NOAA waives any potential copyright and related rights in these data worldwide through the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0). Contractor David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a hydrographic survey of the assigned area in the vicinity of Calcasieu Pass and Cameron, LA. Survey H13677 was conducted in accordance with the Statement of Work and Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions dated August 11, 2022. The Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions reference the National Ocean Service (NOS) Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables Manual (HSSD) (March 2022) as the technical requirements for this project. 29.674181 93.05380288888888 29.528151694444443 92.82922688888888 Survey limits were surveyed in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. The assigned survey areas are outlined in Figure 1. OPR-K356-KR-22 Assigned Survey Areas file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/OPR-K356-KR-22_Survey_Area.png The purpose of this survey, defined in the Project Instructions, is as follows: "Since 2020, the Louisiana Coast has been hit by six hurricanes and two named tropical storms, several of which caused serious damage to the Port of Lake Charles. The Port of Lake Charles is ranked in the top 15 US ports based on annual cargo Tonnage. This cargo includes petroleum products, rice, flour, other food products, as well as a variety of bulk cargoes utilized in manufacturing (1). The proposed survey area was identified in NOAA's Hydrographic Health Model as an area of significant need, and correspondence with the Lake Charles Pilot's Association revealed a critical need for updated hydrographic data and charting products in the approaches and anchorages to the Port of Lake Charles. In addition to undiscovered hazards to navigation from hurricanes that still may exist in the survey area, new LNG terminals are proposed for the Port of Lake Charles which will benefit from updated charts of the channels and surrounding waters. This survey will provide contemporary data to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products and services, improving the safety of maritime traffic and services available to the Port of Lake Charles by reducing the current risk that is present due to outdated bathymetry. Survey data from this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area." (1) https://www.bts.gov/content/tonnage-top-50-us-water-ports-ranked-total-tons The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. All waters in survey area Acquire backscatter data during all multibeam data acquisition (refer to HSSD Section 6.2). All waters in survey area Complete Coverage (refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3). Complete Coverage using 100% side scan sonar (SSS) coverage was collected concurrently with multibeam echosounder (MBES) data over the entire survey area. Backscatter was logged during all multibeam acquisition. This coverage type follows Option B of the Complete Coverage requirement specified in Section 5.2.2.3 of the 2022 HSSD. In all cases, the inshore limit of hydrography was the Navigable Area Limit Line (NALL) as defined in Section 1.3.2 of the HSSD; however, for this survey, the inshore limit was not encountered and the full extent of the assigned boundary was met. Survey coverage for feature disprovals followed disproval radii as depicted in the Project Reference File (PRF). Figure 2 shows the H13677 survey outline in relation to the assigned survey area. H13677 Survey Outline file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_Outline.png S/V Blake 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1238.78 0.0 58.03 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1238.78 0.0 58.03 0.0 4.64 2 0 0 0 51.68 2022-10-02 2022-10-03 2022-10-04 2022-10-05 2022-10-06 2022-10-07 2022-10-08 2022-10-09 2022-10-13 2022-10-14 2022-10-15 2022-10-17 2022-11-07 2022-12-04 The OPR-K356-KR-22 Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR), submitted with survey H13644, details equipment and vessel information as well as data acquisition and processing procedures. There were no vessel or equipment configurations used during data acquisition that deviated from those described in the DAPR. The S/V Blake is an 82-foot aluminum catamaran with a 27-foot beam and a draft of 4.5 feet (Figure 3). S/V Blake 82.0 4.5 S/V Blake file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/OPR-K356-KR-22_SV_Blake.jpg MBES Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R SSS EdgeTech 4205 SSS EdgeTech 4200 Positioning and Attitude System Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MVP30-350 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic SmartX The Edgetech 4205 failed on October 7, 2022 (DN280) because of a broken pin. The Edgetech 4200 was used for the remainder of the project. Multibeam crosslines were run across 4.64% of the entire survey area to provide a varied spatial and temporal distribution for analysis of internal consistency within the survey data. Crossline analysis was performed using the CARIS Hydrographic Information Processing System (HIPS) Quality Control (QC) Report tool, which compares crossline data to a gridded surface and reports results by beam number. Crosslines were compared to a 1-meter Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetry Estimator (CUBE) surface encompassing mainscheme, fill, and investigation data for the entire survey area. DEA performed an additional crossline analysis using the NOAA Pydro Compare Grids tool to analyze the differences between gridded mainscheme depths and gridded crossline depths. Input grids were 1-meter resolution CUBE surfaces of mainscheme and crossline depths. Results from the crossline-to-mainscheme difference analysis are depicted in Figure 4, with units represented in meters. H13677 Crossline Difference file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW_XL-H13677_MB_1m_MLLW_MS_depth_delta.png ERS via VDATUM 0.05 0.12 S/V Blake n/a 1.0 n/a 0.5 Additional discussion of these parameters is included in the DAPR. The S/V Blake used an AML MVP30-350 with integrated Micro SVP&T to acquire sound speed measurements. The measurement uncertainty for these sensors is listed in the Moving Vessel Profiler (MVP) column in Table 8. During surface finalization in HIPS, the "Uncertainty" option was selected, where uncertainty values from the source surface are applied to the finalized surface uncertainty. This method, which incorporates grid uncertainties computed during the TPU process, was deemed to better reflect actual grid uncertainty when compared to the option to use standard deviation values scaled to 95% confidence interval. To determine if the surface grid nodes met the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Order 1a specification, a ratio of the final node uncertainty to the allowable uncertainty at that depth was established. As a percentage, this value represents the amount of error budget utilized by the Total Vertical Uncertainty (TVU) at each node. Values greater than 100% indicate nodes exceeding the allowable IHO uncertainty. The resulting calculated TVU values of all nodes in the submitted finalized surface are shown in Figure 5. Node TVU Statistics - 1 meter, Finalized file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW_Final.QAv6.tvu_qc.png Survey H13677 junctions with current surveys H13649 and H13678, and prior surveys H11829, H11830, H13314, and H13319. Figure 6 depicts H13677 and the junctioning surveys. Survey Junctions with Registry Number H13677 file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_Jxns.png H13649 20000 2022 David Evans and Associates, Inc. W The mean difference between H13677 and H13649 is 0 centimeters, shown in Figure 7. Distribution Summary Plot of Survey H13677 1-meter vs. H13649 1-meter file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW-H13649_MB_1m_MLLW_depth_delta.png H13678 20000 2022 David Evans and Associates, Inc. S At the time of writing, data from survey H13678 was still being processed. The DR for H13678 will include the junction analysis with H13677. H13314 40000 2019 OSI E The mean difference between H13677 and H13314 is 12 centimeters (H13677 deeper than H13314), shown in Figure 8. Most of the differences can be attributed to differences in tide correction methods for these surveys. While both surveys were corrected using modern ERS methods, prior survey H13314 used a MLLW separation model based on GEOID12 while survey H13677 used a separation model based on GEOID09. To evaluate the differences between the two separation models, a separation model for survey H13314 was reconstructed by creating a difference surface between the survey’s MLLW referenced and ellipsoid referenced bathymetric grids which are published on NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) website. The mean difference between the two separation models over the area of junction overlap is 8 centimeters which accounts for the majority of the depth differences observed between the two surveys. Applying the separation model used to correct survey H13677 to the prior survey would result in deeper prior depths and reduce the overall junction discrepancy to 4 centimeters. The separation model used for project OPR-K365-KR-22 was revised by NOAA during the survey to reference GEOID09 to better match the NOAA water level station Calcasieu Pass, LA (8768094). Further discussion on this issue can be found in Section C.9 of the DAPR and Appendix II of this report. Distribution Summary Plot of Survey H13677 1-meter vs. H13314 1-meter file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW-H13314_MB_1m_MLLW_1of1_depth_delta.png H13319 40000 2019 OSI SE The mean difference between H13677 and H13319 is 12 centimeters (H13677 deeper than H13319), shown in Figure 9. Most of the differences can be attributed to differences in tide correction methods for these surveys. While both surveys were corrected using modern ERS methods, prior survey H13319 used a MLLW separation model based on GEOID12 while survey H13677 used a separation model based on GEOID09. To evaluate the differences between the two separation models, a separation model for survey H13319 was reconstructed by creating a difference surface between the survey’s MLLW referenced and ellipsoid referenced bathymetric grids which are published on NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) website. The mean difference between the two separation models over the area of junction overlap is 8 centimeters which accounts for the majority of the depth differences observed between the two surveys. Applying the separation model used to correct survey H13677 to the prior survey would result in deeper prior depths and reduce the overall junction discrepancy to 4 centimeters. The separation model used for project OPR-K365-KR-22 was revised by NOAA during the survey to reference GEOID09 to better match the NOAA water level station Calcasieu Pass, LA (8768094). Further discussion on this issue can be found in Section C.9 of the DAPR and Appendix II of this report. Distribution Summary Plot of Survey H13677 1-meter vs. H13319 1-meter file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW-H13319_MB_1m_MLLW_1of1_depth_delta.png H11829 10000 2008 C&C Technologies NE The mean difference between H13677 and H11829 is 14 centimeters (H13677 deeper than H11829), shown in Figure 10. Differences are likely caused by a combination of factors including natural bottom change since the prior survey was conducted 14 years ago, and differences in tide correction methods for these surveys. Prior survey H11829 was reduced to MLLW using a tide zoning scheme relying on water levels from the NOAA National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) station at Calcasieu Pass, LA (8768094). Survey H13677 used GPS Tides computed from post-processed navigation using Real Time Extended (RTX) methods and a VDatum-based separation model. Distribution Summary Plot of Survey H13677 1-meter vs. H11829 1-meter file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW-H11829_MB_2m_MLLW_Combined_depth_delta.png H11830 10000 2008 C&C Technologies NW The mean difference between H13677 and H11830 is 21 centimeters (H13677 deeper than H11830), shown in Figure 11. Differences are likely caused by a combination of factors including natural bottom change since the prior survey was conducted 14 years ago, and differences in tide correction methods for these surveys. Prior survey H11830 was reduced to MLLW using a tide zoning scheme relying on water levels from the NOAA NWLON station at Calcasieu Pass, LA (8768094). Survey H13677 used GPS Tides computed from post-processed navigation using RTX methods and a VDatum-based separation model. Distribution Summary Plot of Survey H13677 1-meter vs. H11830 1-meter file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW-H11830_combined_depth_delta.png Quality control is discussed in detail in Section B of the DAPR. Multibeam data were reviewed at multiple levels of data processing, including CARIS HIPS conversion, subset editing, and analysis of anomalies revealed in CUBE surfaces. Side scan data were reviewed at multiple levels of data processing, including during the initial SonarWiz import and preliminary stages of bottom-tracking, navigation review, and contact identification. Data were also reviewed during the final stages of mosaic generation, data coverage and quality assessment, and contact correlation and attribution. Sea Grass on MVP Towfish During H13677 survey operations, floating sea grass would frequently catch on the MVP towfish causing the fish to fly slightly lower in the water column and affect sensor readings. The additional weight of the sea grass also caused stress to the cable, leading to re-terminations of the towfish and impacting efficiency of survey due to downtime for equipment repairs. The towfish would be brought onboard and cleared of sea grass while underway. Any sound speed casts that were unable to complete a full measurement of the water column, or were otherwise affected, were rejected. This issue did not impact the accuracy or quality of the sounding data. None Exist There were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings. Approximately 20-minute intervals For H13677 survey operations, casts were distributed both temporally and spatially based on observed changes in sound speed profiles. Sound speed readings were applied in CARIS HIPS using the "nearest in distance within time" option with a two-hour interval. All sound speed profiles were acquired within 500 meters of the survey limits. During survey operations on November 7, 2022 (DN311), the AML Oceanographic SmartX was used as the primary sound speed profiler after the loss of the MVP towfish. Survey speeds were maintained to meet or exceed along-track sounding density requirements and side scan sonar ensonification requirements. Multibeam data and side scan mosaics were thoroughly reviewed for holidays and areas of poor-quality coverage due to biomass, vessel wakes, or other factors. Significant side scan sonar contacts were developed with multibeam sonar to obtain a least depth, meeting the survey’s coverage requirements. Survey coverage for feature disprovals was acquired inside disproval radii to meet the coverage requirement for the area. Additional discussion of coverage methods can be found in the DAPR. For one obstruction (DtoN 03), the least depth was obtained without an independent feature development line oriented perpendicular to the mainscheme hydrography as the result of a platform being in close proximity to the feature. The least depth was confirmed with overlapping data from adjacent survey lines. Density The sounding density requirement of 95% of all nodes, populated with at least five soundings per node, was verified by analyzing the density layer of the finalized surface. Surface results are stated in Figure 12. Node Density Statistics - 1 meter, Finalized file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13677_MB_1m_MLLW_Final.QAv6.density.png Data reduction procedures for survey H13677 are detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. Multibeam time series backscatter data (RESON 7058 normalized backscatter datagram) were logged in HYPACK 7K format and are included with the H13677 raw digital deliverables. Backscatter data were referenced to processed multibeam bathymetric data and processed in QPS FMGT. A 2-meter backscatter mosaic is included with the H13677 processed deliverables. For data management purposes, the names of multibeam crosslines have been appended with the suffix _XL. This change was made to HIPS files only. The original file names of raw data files (HYPACK HSX and 7K) have been retained. A GSF export containing the final bathymetry and backscatter with edits retains the original file names of the raw data files but with the postfix "_merged." CARIS HIPS/SIPS 11.4.13, GSF export only: 11.4.16 beta QPS FMGT 7.10.1 Chesapeake Technology, Inc. SonarWiz 7.09.05 Beta B (64-bit) NOAA Profile Version 2022 A detailed listing of all data processing software is included in the OPR-K356-KR-22 DAPR. H13677_MB_1m_MLLW.csar CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 7.813 12.408 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13677_MB_1m_MLLW_Final.csar Finalized CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 7.828 12.498 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13677_MBAB_2m_BL_350kHz_1of1 MB Backscatter Mosaic 2 0.0 0.0 N/A Complete MBES H13677_SSSAB_1m_540kHz_1of1 SSS Mosaic 1 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% SSS Bathymetric grids were created relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in CUBE format using Complete Coverage resolution requirements as specified in the HSSD. Grid resolution for the backscatter mosaic was determined by the HSSD frequency-dependent resolution requirement. A summary of the horizontal and vertical control for survey H13677 follows. Mean Lower Low Water ERS via VDATUM OPR-K356_KR-22_VDatum+_NAD83(2011)-MLLW_Geoid09.csar North American Datum 1983 (2011) Projected UTM 15 RTX The separation model listed in Table 13 was provided with the Project Instructions and used for sounding correction within the assigned survey area. Real-time navigation for all MBES survey lines were overwritten with post-processed navigation solutions in SBET format. Additional discussion on post-processing methods and survey control is included in the DAPR. The chart comparison was performed by comparing H13677 survey depths to a digital surface generated from a Band 4 electronic navigational chart (ENC) covering the survey area. A 60-meter product surface was generated from a triangular irregular network (TIN) created from the ENC’s soundings, depth contours, and depth features. An additional 60-meter HIPS product surface was generated from the 1-meter CUBE surface. The chart comparison was conducted by creating and reviewing a difference surface using the ENC surface and survey surface as inputs. The chart comparison also included a review of all assigned charted features within the survey area. The results of the comparison are detailed below. The relevant chart used during the comparison was reviewed to check that all United States Coast Guard (USCG) Local Notice to Mariners issued during survey acquisition, and impacting the survey area, were applied and addressed by this survey. The ENC used in the chart comparison is listed in Table 14. Figure 13 shows the magnitude of differences along the comparison area. Depth Difference Between H13677 and US4LA14M file:///H:/OPR-K356-KR-22/Surveys/H13677/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/NOAA37_Chart_Comp_H13677-US4LA14M.png US4LA14M 80000 32 2022-01-10 2023-01-24 Three Danger to Navigation (DtoN) reports were submitted for this survey - H13677 DtoN 01, submitted October 18, 2022, reported an uncharted obstruction located within the survey area. - H13677 DtoN 02, submitted October 28, 2022, reported four uncharted obstructions within the survey area. After processing this DtoN, the Marine Chart Division (MCD) elected not to chart two of the obstructions based on guidance given in the Nautical Chart Manual. - H13677 DtoN 03, submitted November 28, 2022, reported an uncharted obstruction within the survey area. After processing this DtoN, the Marine Chart Division (MCD) elected not to chart the obstruction based on guidance given in the Nautical Chart Manual. The hydrographer recommends updating the charts to depict the DtoNs as portrayed in the Final Feature File (FFF). All DtoNs submitted for this survey appear to be exposed sections of pipeline which have also been reported to BSEE (see Section D.2.5 Submarine Features). The hydrographer recommends that NOAA follow up with BSEE to determine if corrective action has been taken to repair the exposure which could allow for the removal of the obstruction from the charts. All assigned features included in the project Composite Source File (CSF) have been addressed by the survey and are included in the FFF. All disproved features have been included in the FFF with a description of "Delete." All new features have been included in the FFF with the surveyed feature depicted and a description of "New." Contact heights included in the side scan contact .000 file have been sourced from the shadow height measurement obtained from SonarWiz. Due to the limitations in computing accurate heights from side scan shadow lengths, contact heights may not match heights from correlating contacts or feature heights measured from multibeam data included in the FFF. The height field for contacts created on baring features observed in side scan data have been intentionally left blank. All uncharted features are portrayed in the FFF as surveyed and attributed with the description of "New." Refer to the FFF for additional information. No channels exist within the survey limits. No Aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. Two bottom samples were acquired on December 4, 2022. The bottom sampling plan followed suggested sample locations included in the PRF. No overhead features exist for this survey. Assigned submerged pipelines that are within the survey area are included in the FFF. Multiple sections of exposed pipeline were reported to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) on November 8, 2022 and January 30, 2023. Correspondence related to this reporting is included in Appendix II. Charted platforms whose position was more than 40 meters (2mm at survey scale) from the surveyed position of the platform are included in the FFF with the description of “Delete”. The surveyed positions of these platforms are included in the FFF with the description of “New”. This process was approved by Hydrographic Surveys Division (HSD) and Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB) staff. Correspondence related to this process is included in Appendix II. During survey operations a jack-up rig was observed next to a charted platform, and it appeared that sections of the platform superstructure had been removed and work was underway to dismantle the platform. After contacting staff from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), DEA was informed that the platform (Complex ID 20506-1) has a platform decommissioning application currently under review. DEA was provided with a link to the BSEE Offshore Infrastructure Dashboard which provides details on platform decommissioning activities in the Gulf of Mexico. According to this dashboard, in addition to platform 20506-1, there are four other platforms (20507-1, 23387-1, 27044-1, and 2224-1) within the H13677 survey area with open decommissioning applications with proposed removal dates of April 2023. All five platforms were observed during survey operations and are included in the FFF. The hydrographer recommends that NOAA follow up with BSEE and request any post removal survey data that could be used to delete the platforms from the charts. The temporary jack-up rig was not added to the FFF. Remarks have been added to the FFF detailing the presence of a temporary rig. No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey. No abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions exist for this survey. Other than the sighting of potential platform removal discussed in Section D.2.6, no other construction or dredging activities were observed during survey operations. 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 and Specifications 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. Jonathan L. Dasler, PE, PLS, CH NSPS-THSOA Certified Hydrographer, Chief of Party 2023-04-14 Jason Creech, CH NSPS-THSOA Certified Hydrographer, Charting Manager / Project Manager 2023-04-14 James Guilford NSPS-THSOA Certified Hydrographer Cat-A, Lead Hydrographer 2023-04-14 Jason Dorfman Lead Hydrographer 2023-04-14 Sam Werner Data Processing Manager 2023-04-14 Data Acquisition and Processing Report 2022-11-18