OPR-K356-KR-23 Approaches to Calcasieu, Louisiana Calcasieu Leidos H13820 5 12 NM South of Joseph Harbor Bayou Louisiana United States 20000 2023 Bridget W. Bernier Navigable Area 2023-07-13 2023-09-27 2023-12-08 Multibeam Echo Sounder Side Scan Sonar Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Atlantic Hydrographic Branch Contract: 1305M220DNCNJ0056/TO-04. Contractor: Leidos, 221 Third Street, Newport, RI 02840 USA. Subcontractors: OARS, 8705 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 109, Austin, TX 78757. Leidos Doc. 24-TR-008. All times were recorded in UTC. Final data are corrected to 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, Mean Lower Low Water. 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 Leidos conducted hydrographic survey H13820, within the assigned area 12 NM South of Joseph Harbor Bayou Louisiana (Figure 1). The survey was conducted in accordance with coverage requirements listed in the Project Instructions (PI) OPR-K356-KR-23 and the Statement of Work. Additionally, the survey data were acquired in accordance with Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), March 2022. 29.519725555555553 93.01178988888888 29.322672194444444 92.76534105555555 H13820 Survey Bounds file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_01.jpg Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the PI and the HSSD. The resulting survey limit is shown in Figure 1. The Survey Purpose as defined in the PI: “The area offshore of Calcasieu Lake and Port Charles, Louisiana have been identified as an area in critical need of updated hydrographic data by NOAA's Hydrographic Health models and the Lake Charles Pilot's Association. The Port of Lake Charles is ranked fourteenth by tonnage for U.S. Ports (1), and the region is expected to see an expansion in marine commerce due in part to an increase in LNG distribution, as well as offshore wind-energy development. Since 2020, the Louisiana Coast has been hit by six hurricanes and two named tropical storms, several of which caused serious damage to the Ports of Lake Charles and Calcasieu. Many parts of the coverage area have not been charted since the 1930s. 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: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2023. https://www.bts.gov/content/tonnage-top-50-us-water-ports-ranked-total-tons 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 1305M220DNCNJ0056 reflects the state of the sea floor in existence on the day and at the time the survey was conducted. H13820 was surveyed in accordance with the following documents: 1. 1305M223FNCNJ0326 signed.pdf, received 13 July 2023 2. Hydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD), March 2022 3. NOAA provided Project Reference File (PRF) OPR-K356-KR-23_PRF_FINAL.000, received 13 July 2023 4. NOAA provided Composite Source File (CSF) OPR-K356-KR-23_CSF_FINAL.000, received 13 July 2023 5. OPR-K356-KR-23 Project Brief, held 26 July 2023 All waters in survey area Complete Coverage (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.3) All waters in survey area where 75-meter range scale is utilized on the side scan sonar. Side scan may be acquired at an altitude of 6-20% of the range scale. Leidos chose to achieve the coverage requirement using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam) over the entire survey area. Multibeam Backscatter was logged continuously during data acquisition. Feature Disprovals were conducted in accordance with defined disproval radii from the NOAA provided PRF, HSSD, and PI. Per HSSD Section 5.2.2.3, H13820 depth data fell within one resolution surface (1-meter). Refer to the Data Processing and Acquisition Report (DAPR) for additional information; the DAPR was previously delivered with H13817. Survey coverage achieved was in accordance with the requirements in the PI and the HSSD (Figure 2). Final Bathymetry Coverage for H13820 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_02.jpg R/V Sea Innovator I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1676.55 0.0 67.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1676.55 0.0 67.96 0.0 4.05 2 0 0 0 86.12 2023-09-27 2023-09-28 2023-09-29 2023-09-30 2023-10-01 2023-10-05 2023-10-06 2023-11-04 2023-11-05 2023-11-06 2023-11-07 2023-11-08 2023-11-09 2023-11-10 2023-11-11 2023-11-12 2023-11-16 2023-11-17 2023-11-18 2023-12-05 2023-12-06 2023-12-07 2023-12-08 A detailed description of the systems and vessel used to acquire and process these data is included in the DAPR. There were no variations from the vessel or equipment configuration described in the DAPR. The Leidos owned and operated R/V Sea Innovator I was utilized as the survey platform. The R/V Sea Innovator I was used to collect multibeam echo sounder (MBES) (RESON SeaBat T50), side scan sonar (SSS) (Klein 4000), and sound speed data during twenty-four hours per day survey operations. As detailed in the DAPR the data acquisition was logged through Leidos ISS-2000 software and Klein SonarPro; side scan sonar (SSS) only. Post processing and review of MBES and SSS data were conducted in Leidos’ SABER software. R/V Sea Innovator I 135.0 9.0 R/V Sea Innovator I file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_03.jpg MBES Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R MBES Backscatter Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R SSS Klein Marine Systems System 4000 Positioning and Attitude System Applanix POS MV 320 v5 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MVP30 Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic BaseX2 A detailed description of the equipment installed is included in the DAPR. MBES crosslines acquired 4.05% of H13820 and were distributed spatially and temporally across the sheet and survey duration per HSSD. The resulting crossline to mainscheme percentage met the requirement to achieve approximately four percent of mainscheme mileage for a complete coverage multibeam survey (Section 5.2.4.2 of the HSSD). H13820 requirements were for Complete Coverage, Option B, based on the classifications defined in Section 5.2.2.3 of the HSSD. Refer to the DAPR, Section D.1.5 for details for Leidos conducting the repeatability analysis of mainscheme and crossline data. Crossline analysis was conducted within SABER, utilizing a 1-meter difference grid between the CUBE depth of mainscheme data and CUBE depth of near nadir cross line data. The SABER Frequency Distribution Tool was used to statistically analyze the difference grid created from the mainscheme and crossline PFM grids; results are summarized in Figure 4. Section 5.2.4.2 of the HSSD states that the depth difference values are to be within the maximum allowable Total Vertical Uncertainty [TVU]. For H13820, 100% of the comparisons were within TVU for crossing analysis as summarized in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Summary of Crossing Analysis file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_04.png Tabular Results Crossing Analysis, Crosslines vs. Mainscheme Lines file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_05.png Plot of Crossing Analysis Crosslines vs. Mainscheme Lines file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_06.png ERS via VDATUM 0.012 0.2 R/V Sea Innovator I N/A 1.0 N/A 1.0 For 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 Interval (CI). 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 6th Edition, Order 1a were flagged as invalid during the uncertainty attribution. As referenced in the DAPR, Leidos analyses the grid surface several ways to verify that the data meet IHO S-44 6th Edition, Order 1a. The first is to analyze the range of derived uncertainty across the sheet and second is to compare each CUBE depth’s allowable uncertainty. The second method utilizes a statistical tool within SABER which outputs a designation if the allowable uncertainty exceeded IHO 6th Ed. Order 1a based on node depth. The final uncertainty surface contained vertical uncertainties from 0.280 meters to 0.460 meters. The IHO Order 1a maximum allowable vertical uncertainty was calculated to range between 0.518 to 0.548 meters, based on the minimum CUBE depth (10.537 meters) and maximum CUBE depth (17.214 meters). Further analysis was conducted to compute statistical analysis on the vertical uncertainty surface using SABER’s Frequency Distribution Tool; results showed that 100% of all nodes had final uncertainties less than or equal to maximum allowable vertical uncertainty of 0.548 meters. When conducting comparison of node depth and allowable uncertainty, there were no nodes which exceeded allowable uncertainty. A thorough review of the final gridded surface in post-processing showed no artifacts in the data and that all nodes which had an elevated CUBE uncertainty in the CUBE depth data agreed well with coincident data. Per the Project Instructions, junction analysis was performed between H13820, and the surveys listed in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 7; results are discussed below. General Locality of H13820 with Junctioning Surveys file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_07.jpg H13819 10000 2023 Leidos W Repeatability analysis was conducted by comparing the H13819 1-meter BAG depth surface to the H13820 1-meter BAG depth surface. The overlapping area was approximately 14,300 by 186 meters. Within the common area, observed depths were 13.213 – 15.825 meters which resulted in a calculated allowable TVU range of 0.529 – 0.541 meters. Results, shown in Figure 8, indicate that 100.00% of the comparisons were 0.333 meters or less, within the calculated allowable TVU range. The distribution is centered about zero as presented in Figure 9. Tabular Results Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13819 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_08.png Plot of Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13819 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_09.png H13678 20000 2022 DEA N Repeatability analysis was conducted by comparing the H13678 1-meter BAG depth surface to the H13820 1-meter BAG depth surface. The overlapping area was approximately 10,450 by 140 meters. Within the common area, observed depths were 10.537 – 15.021 meters which resulted in a calculated allowable TVU range of 0.518 – 0.537 meters. Results, shown in Figure 10, indicate that 99.98% of the comparisons were 0.3 meters or less, within the calculated allowable TVU range. The larger differences are associated with H13820 Feature 10. The distribution is centered about zero as presented in Figure 11. Tabular Results Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13678 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_10.png Plot of Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13678 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_11.png H13319 40000 2020 OSI N Repeatability analysis was conducted by comparing the H13319 1-meter BAG depth surface to the H13820 1-meter BAG depth surface. The overlapping area was approximately 14,700 by 220 meters. Within the common area, observed depths were 13.832 – 17.046 meters which resulted in a calculated allowable TVU range of 0.531 – 0.547 meters. Results, shown in Figure 12, indicate that 100.00% of the comparisons were 0.489 meters or less, within the calculated allowable TVU range. The distribution is skewed positive of zero as presented in Figure 13. Tabular Results Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13319 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_12.png Plot of Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13508 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_13.png H13318 40000 2019 OSI E Repeatability analysis was conducted by comparing the H13318 1-meter BAG depth surface to the H13820 1-meter BAG depth surface. The overlapping area was approximately 11,500 by 310 meters. Within the common area, observed depths were 14.092 – 16.740 meters which resulted in a calculated allowable TVU range of 0.533 – 0.545 meters. Results, shown in Figure 14, indicate that 99.99% of the comparisons were 0.500 meters or less, within the calculated allowable TVU range. The distribution is skewed positive of zero as presented in Figure 15. Tabular Results Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13318 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_14.png Plot of Junction Analysis H13820 vs. H13318 file:///B:/OPR-K356-KR-23/Surveys/H13820/01_HDR/Reports/Descriptive_Report/SupportFiles/H13820_DR_Figure_15.png Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the DAPR. RESON SeaBat T50-R As discussed in the DAPR the RESON SeaBat T50-R exhibited degradation during OPR-K356-KR-23 and was replaced. Data acquisition was able to continue until the unit was swapped as data quality was not impacted and data acquired were validated. Refer to the DAPR for when the RESON SeaBat T50-R transducer was replaced. Factors Affecting Soundings Dense biological interference were observed during discrete areas and during various days of survey which required numerous holiday reruns. There were no significant impacts to the final sounding data. Collection of SSS data at 75-meter range scale was a challenge in this area due to the soft sediment, abundant marine life, and frequent thermal refraction. Leidos endeavored to utilize the weather to optimize data collection at 75-meter range scale, large areas were re-planned and run at reduced range scale to collect compliant data, see Section B.2.8. On the R/V Sea Innovator I, 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. 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. All individual SSP files are delivered with the H13820 data and are broken out into sub-folders, which correspond to the purpose of each cast. Also, all individual SSP files for H13820 have been concatenated into two separate files based on the purpose of the cast, provided in CARIS format files (.svp), and delivered under (H13820/Processed/SVP/CARIS_SSP) on the delivery drive. In accordance with HSSD Section 8.3.6, SSP files were also converted to NCEI format, as detailed in the DAPR, and provided as a separate delivery to NCEI on 25 March 2024. All equipment and survey methods are detailed in the DAPR. For H13820, Leidos chose to achieve the complete coverage requirement using Complete Coverage, Option B (100% side scan sonar coverage with concurrent multibeam). To achieve this coverage and to continue to conduct survey during periods of weather and interference (see Section B.2.6); the SSS was set to either 75-meter or 50-meter range scale. 200% SSS coverage was achieved in designated areas in the PRF, as defined in the HSSD, or as noted in the PI. Per the PI if an OFSPLF was not present during data acquisition a formal disproval did not need to be conducted. Leidos utilized SABER’s Gapchecker program to flag MBES data gaps within the final CUBE surface as well as within the SSS mosaics. Surfaces were also visually scanned for holidays throughout the data processing effort. During data acquisition, additional lines were run to fill holidays that were detected. Bathymetric data and side scan sonar imagery were reviewed and bathymetric splits were acquired if deemed necessary per Hydrographer’s discretion, as noted in Section 5.2.2.1 of the HSSD. A final review of the CUBE depth surface showed that there were no holidays as defined for Complete Coverage surveys in HSSD Section 5.2.2.3. Any remaining three by three unpopulated nodes in the final MBES surfaces were along the outer swath data, beyond the side scan nadir coverage gap, and fully covered with 100% SSS coverage. For all details regarding SSS data processing, see the DAPR. Leidos generated two separate coverage mosaics at 1-meter cell size resolution as specified in HSSD Section 8.2.1. The first 100% and second 100% 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. All coverage mosaics are determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the PI and HSSD. Each 100 percent coverage mosaic is delivered as a georeferenced raster file(s) (datum of NAD-83) in floating point GeoTIFF format, as specified in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.3.3 in the HSSD. Multibeam Sounding Density The Frequency Distribution Tool was used to analyze the number of soundings which contributed to the chosen CUBE hypothesis; to verify HSSD Section 5.2.2.3 for 95% of nodes to be populated with at least 5 soundings. Within the final 1-meter CUBE surface 99.45% of all nodes contained five or more soundings. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. For all details regarding MBES backscatter acquisition and processing see the DAPR. 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 under the Processed/Sonar_Data/H13820_MB directory. Leidos followed previous guidance from NOAA to deliver the data in a single directory only as the data files are identical; therefore, the raw directory is not populated. Final MBES backscatter were mosaicked at 2-meter cell resolution. The MBES backscatter mosaics were reviewed for data quality and coverage. All MBES backscatter mosaics are determined to be complete and sufficient to meet the requirements contained within the PI and HSSD. The coverage mosaics are delivered as a georeferenced raster file(s) (datum of NAD-83) in floating point GeoTIFF format, as specified in HSSD Section 6.2.4.2. As discussed in Section B.2.5, the RESON SeaBat T50-R was replaced during OPR-K350-KR-23. For H13820, two different RESON SeaBat T50-R systems were utilized to acquire MBES data, a relative backscatter calibration was not conducted between the separate RESON SeaBat T50-R systems and therefore more than one multibeam backscatter mosaic is included for the same vessel and frequency, listed in Table 12. Leidos SABER 6.0.3.2.2 Leidos SABER 6.0.3.2.2 QPS FMGT 7.10.3 NOAA Profile Version 2023 The primary data processing software used for both bathymetry and imagery was SABER. H13820_MB_1m_MLLW_Final BAG 1 10.537 17.214 N/A Complete coverage, Option B H13820_SSSAB_1m_400kHz_1of1 SSS Mosaic 1 N/A First 100% SSS H13820_SSSAB_1m_400kHz_2of2 SSS Mosaic 1 N/A Second 100% SSS (Disproval coverage) H13820_MBAB_2m_SeaInnovatorI_350kHz_1of2 MB Backscatter Mosaic 2 N/A MBES Backscatter H13820_MBAB_2m_SeaInnovatorI_350kHz_2of2 MB Backscatter Mosaic 2 N/A MBES Backscatter Complete Coverage HSSD Section 5.2.2.3 requires 1-meter grid resolution for depths ranging from 0 meters to 20 meters. Leidos generated the CUBE PFM grids for H13820 at 1-meter resolution. The final gridded MBES data are delivered in Bathymetric Attributed Grid (BAG) format as detailed in the DAPR. In accordance with HSSD Section 2.2, the horizontal datum for this project is NAD83. HSSD Section 2.2 states that the “only exception for the NAD83 datum requirement is that the S-57 Final Feature File (Section 7.3) will be in the WGS84 datum to comply with international S-57 specifications.” As discussed in the DAPR Section C.7, for every feature flag in a MBES GSF file, SABER converts the position from the NAD83 datum to the WGS84 datum to generate the S-57 file and comply with HSSD and IHO requirements. Feature positions meet the precision stated in HSSD Section 7.4 for each respective datum. Depending on geographic reference there may be approximately a 1-meter difference comparing positions between NAD83 and WGS84 datums. Therefore, if the feature overrides from the BAG surface (NAD83) are compared to the Final Feature File S-57 positions (WGS84) it is anticipated that there could be positional differences exceeding those listed in Section 7.4 of the HSSD. Additional information discussing the vertical and horizontal control for this survey can be found in the DAPR. Mean Lower Low Water ERS via VDATUM OPR-K356-KR-23_NAD83_VDatum_MLLW.cov Final MBES data are reduced to MLLW through VDatum; refer to the DAPR for additional information. No final tide note was provided nor was it required from NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). North American Datum 1983 (2011) Projected UTM 15 The 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 MBES 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 6th Edition Order 1a specifications were flagged as invalid and therefore do not contribute the CUBE depth calculations. Chart comparisons were conducted using a combination of SABER and CARIS’ HIPS and SIPS. H13820 data met data accuracy standards and bottom coverage requirements. Charting recommendations for new features and updates to charted features, are documented in the H13820 FFF. Additional charted objects are discussed in later sections within this DR. Review showed that the H13820 CUBE data were generally in agreement with charted depths compared to the ENCs listed in Section D.1.1. CUBE depths generally agreed with the charted depths within ±0.1 – 2 meters and were generally found to be deeper than charted. Leidos recommends updating the common areas of all charts using data from this survey. United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 8 Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) publications were reviewed for changes subsequent to the date of the Project Instructions and through final processing. The LNM reviewed were from week 30/23 (26 July 2023) until week 12/24 (20 March 2024). US4LA14M 80000 34 2024-01-10 2024-01-10 Refer to Section D.1.4 for significant shoals or hazardous features within the area covered by this survey. Leidos submitted the following DTON report to the Atlantic Hydrographic Branch (AHB) in S-57 format per HSSD: -H13820_DTON_01_02.000, submitted to AHB 2023-03-14, AHB chose to not forward this for immediate charting, refer to Project Correspondence. The features represented in H13820_DTON_01_02.000 are submitted as features in the H13820 FFF to be submitted to MCD as part of general chart updates for the H13820 coverage area. Refer to the H13820 FFF (H13820_FFF.000). There were numerous assigned charted features in the final CSF within the SOW of H13820. Per HSSD Section 8.1.4, these charted features are not addressed in this section, refer to the H13820 FFF for all the details and recommendations regarding these features. Assigned features from the NOAA provided CSF were addressed within H13820 and are included in the H13820 FFF. Any charted features that was disproven is also included within the H13820 FFF with assignment flag of Delete. See the H13820 FFF for details and recommendations regarding new uncharted features investigated during this survey. There were no assigned channels within the H13820 SOW from the final CSF. During the transit to and from port throughout OPR-K356-KR-23, Leidos observed shoaling within the Cameron Loop. This was submitted as a DTON to NOAA and is not directly associated with any sheet within this Project; refer to Project Correspondence. There were no assigned Aids to Navigation (ATON) within the SOW of H13820 from the final CSF. There were no ATONs within the surveyed area. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. In accordance with both the PI and Section 7.2.3 of the HSSD, bottom characteristics were obtained for H13820. Bottom characteristics were acquired as assigned from the PRF; Leidos did not modify the bottom sample locations from the location proposed by NOAA in the PRF. Bottom characteristics are included in the H13820 FFF. In addition, images of the sediment obtained for each bottom sample are referenced in the FFF and are included on the delivery drive under the folder H13820/Processed/Multimedia. There were no overhead features within this survey area. Within the final CSF, there were several assigned submarine features for investigation. Within the H13820 SOW bounds there were two assigned CBLSUB features, which had investigation requirements in the CSF “Visually confirm feature object existence. If discrepancy, discuss in DR (see HSSD Section 8.1.4). Do not include feature in FFF”. These CBLSUB features were not found during the H13820 survey, and as such are not included in the H13820 FFF. All other assigned submarine features are detailed within the H13820 FFF. Within the H13820 data Leidos classified nine instances of unburied exposed charted pipelines (PIPSOL). Two of these had heights 0.9m to 1.6m greater than surrounding depth data and were submitted as DTON 01 and 02 following HSSD Section 1.7.2. The remaining observed PIPSOL objects did not have significant height and were submitted to NOAA and BSEE, following HSSD Section 1.7.3. Platforms are addressed within the H13820 FFF. No ferry routes or terminals exist within this survey area. No other abnormal seafloor or environmental conditions, as defined in HSSD Section 8.1.4, exist within this survey area other than those discussed in Section B.2.6 and D.1.2. No construction or dredging exists within this survey area. 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. 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 Hydrographic Survey 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-K356-KR-23 are provided in the table below. Bridget W. Bernier Data Processing Manager 2024-03-27 OPR-K356-KR-23 Final Project Summary Report.pdf 2024-01-05 OPR-K356-KR-23_ Coast Pilot Review Report.pdf 2024-01-09 OPR-K356-KR-23_ Marine_Species_ Awareness_Training_Record.pdf 2024-01-30 OPR-K356-KR-23_DAPR.pdf 2024-03-05 H13817_DR.pdf 2024-03-05 H13816_DR.pdf 2024-03-07 H13818_DR.pdf 2024-03-08 H13819_DR.pdf 2024-03-15 OPR-K356-KR-23 Marine Mammal Sighting Forms.pdf 2024-03-22 OPR-K356-KR-23_20240325.zip (NCEI Sound Speed Data) 2024-03-25