S-O922-RA-12Vicinity of Ward Cove, AKVicinity of Ward CoveNOAA Ship RAINIERF006141Ward Cove is the priority area for this survey. Begin acquisition in Ward Cove and progress towards Gravina Island, as schedule permits.Ward CoveAlaskaUnited States50002012CDR Richard T BrennanNavigable Area2012-05-292012-06-082012-06-08Multibeam Echo SoundermetersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCPacific Hydrographic BranchThe purpose of this survey is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charts. All separates are filed with the hydrographic data. Revisions and notes in red were generated during office processing. The processing branch concurs with all information and recommendations in the DR unless otherwise noted. Page numbering may be interrupted or non-sequential. All pertinent records for this survey, including the Descriptive Report, are archived at the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and can be retrieved via http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/.NOAAWard Cove, AK is a village and body of water located northwest of Ketchikan, Alaska and just east of the Tongass Narrows . The area is home to a small fleet of vessels primarily used for fishing and seasonal logging, but also serves as a refuge for transient vessels as the cove itself is deep and well protected from the elements. 55.4072041667131.71885055655.385715131.7621363891F00614 Assigned Area Survey Limitsfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Assigned_Area.pngThe purpose of this project is to provide contemporary surveys to update National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products. Data will also be acquired in the location of a possible new joint Alaska Marine Highway System/NOAA marine facility and pier in Ward Cove. This facility would replace the current unsafe NOAA facility and allow the NOAA Ship FAIRWEATHER and other NOAA vessels to consistently home port in Ketchikan. This project will cover approximately 1 square nautical mile. See Supplemental Correspondence in Appendix V.2Current NOAA Pier Location (see S.1307 Word document in Supplemental Correspondence in Appendix V)file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Survey_Purpose1.png3Proposed NOAA Pier Location (see S.1307 Word document in Supplemental Correspondence in Appendix V) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Survey_Purpose2.pngThe entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Data acquired on survey F00614 met complete multibeam coverage requirements. It should be noted that a 25cm surface was created and submitted alongside the standard 2m, and 4m surfaces that were applicable to the depths in this survey. A 1m surface was initially compiled for data QC and analysis, but omitted from the deliverables and replaced by the 25cm surface. It is understood that the 25cm surface did not have to meet density or IHO layer standards, but that it is being used so that the surface will better honor acquired soundings in lieu of designating excessive soundings. This 25cm surface was compiled to specifically address an issue that was discussed where numerous submerged logs were discovered in the MBES and 7k data. A 25 cm CUBE parameters entry was made in the Cube parameters XML file, to grid data 20 meters and shallower. The XML file required modifications to the Capture Distance Minimum as described in the Field Procedures Manual. Capture Distance Scale and Horizontal Error Scalar remained static as they do for all resolutions and have a value of 0.5 and 1.96, respectively. Capture Distance Minimum value was set to 0.177 meters. In order to extract some descriptive statistics of the data density and IHO achievements, the density and IHO layer of each finalized surface was queried within CARIS and then exported to Excel. 4F00614 Data Density file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Density.tif5F00614 Data Density Statistics. 25cm surface was not used in "Totals".file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Density_Stat.tif6F00614 IHO (F00614_FinalCombined_4m Surface) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_IHOness.tif7F00614 IHO Statistics. file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_IHOness_Stat.tifSurvey limits were not acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. Time limitations only allowed for approximately 4 hours of acquisition with priority being Ward Cove and working out to Tongass Narrows. The project, in its entirety, was not completed as instructed.8F00614 Coverage Area (Large Scale) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Coverage_Area.png9F00614 Selected Soundings and Depth Contoursfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_SelectedSoundings_DepthContours_Overlay.tif10F00614 Coverage Area (Small Scale)file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Coverage_Area_2.pngComplete MBES coverage was achieved in the survey area up to 4 meters. There was a deviation from instructions for areas of 4 to 8 meters depth in that 100% coverage was achieved while project instructions advised 25m line spacing for these depths . There were five (5) total holidays, four (4) of which were the result of vessel(s) or log boom(s) prohibiting acquisition and one (1) downslope acquisition holiday.11F00614 Holidaysfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Holidays.png12Down Slope Holidayfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Holiday_DEF.tif2012-06-080001001.4262803010.620000000280408.200000000018.8200000000Crosslines were not acquired as a trade off for obtaining as much coverage as possible in time allottedJGDRefer to the Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of data acquisition and processing systems, survey vessels, quality control procedures and data processing methods. Additional information to supplement sounding and survey data, and any deviations from the DAPR are discussed in the following sections.2803293.52804293.5Reson7125MBESResonSV-71Sound Speed SystemSea-BirdSeacat 19, 19+Conductivity, Temperature, Depth SensorTrimble/ApplanixPOS-MV V4Positoning and Orientation SystemTrimble/ApplanixPOS-MV V4Positioning and Orientation SystemCrosslines were not acquired as a trade off for obtaining as much coverage as possible in time allotted.00.08528033.000.15028043.000.150Uncertainty values of submitted, finalized grids are calculated in CARIS using the "Greater of the Two" among Total Propagated Uncertainty and standard deviation (scaled to 95%).One junction survey (H10967) complemented F00614. H10967 was completed by Terrasond, LTD in 2000. H10967100002000Terrasond, Ltd.NThe junction survey H10967 is observed to be in relative agreement with F00614. When viewing the two surfaces on top of one another it appears that the color maps of H10967 (0-80m) and F00614 (0-80m) overlap relatively seamlessly. H10967 was compared to F00614 using a 4m surface. Statistics and a plot of the values used to derive the statistics were analyzed. The plot was skewed slightly showing a difference of approximately 0.2m where the largest number of samples were taken. The mean difference between the 2 surfaces was 0.28m and standard deviation was 0.75m. The differences can most likely be attributed to steep slopes of ledges and the decreased resolution, thus increased uncertainty of outer beams of the MBES swath. At the foot of each ledge and the outer edges of the survey, there are increased differences between F00614 and H10967. These differences are most likely not reconcilable without increased overlap and time, which would be in excess of NOAA standards for hydrographic surveys and also inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, the general terrain from one to the other flows into the other without any major visual discrepancies. However, it can be noted when viewing the difference surface that they disagree at the adjointment up to about 50cm. Overall, the surfaces are in agreement at the junction. 13F00614 Final Combined 4m surface with Bounding Polygon and 4m H10967 surface (0-80m color range scale for both surfaces)file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_and_H10967_Junction.tif144m Difference Surface (F00614 & H10967) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_to_H10967_DifSur_4m_Surface.tif154m Difference Surface (F00614 & H10967) Plot file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_to_H10967_DifSur_4m_Plot.tifThere are no current surveys that junction with F00614. H10967 is a prior survey.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.None ExistThere were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness.None ExistThere were no other factors that affected corrections to soundings.CTD cast frequency (3) exceeded the NOAA requirements and were taken in slightly less than 2 hour intervals at a shallow, medium, and deep depths in a geographically linear pattern so as to best temporally and spatially represent sound velocity throughout the cove. The SV casts were applied to the data using the nearest in distance within a 4 hour period.SSV from SV-71 and CTD had less than 1m/s difference in sound velocity for 2803. SSV from SV-71 and CTD were not recorded by HIC in acquisition log for 2804.16F00614 SVP Casts file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_SVP_Casts.pngAll Equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPRJGDData acquisition projection errorData was acquired in the incorrect UTM zone (Zone 8N), but when processed in the same UTM zone (Zone 8N), the positioning was correct. The sheet manager created Hypack projects using UTM zone 8 instead of UTM zone 9. Because Hypack creates a Northings and Eastings origin and limit based on the geodetic parameters, the raw, converted, and processed data could not be transformed to UTM Zone 9. Although it is an issue that needs to be noted, it does not appear to have caused any issue with the geographic positioning of data on NOAA charts or when comparing F00614 data to that of previous surveys.All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.JGDBackscatter data was acquired, but was not formally processed by Rainier personnel. Backscatter was logged as a .7k file and included in the data submitted to NGDC.NOAA Feature Catalog25cm_DAPR_MethodCUBE0.25020N/AComplete MBES2m_DAPR_MethodCUBE21840NOAA_2mComplete MBES4m_DAPR_MethodCUBE43640NOAA_4mComplete MBES25cm_DAPR_Method_FinalCUBE0.25020N/AComplete MBES2m_DAPR_Method_FinalCUBE21840NOAA_2mComplete MBES4m_DAPR_Method_FinalCUBE43680NOAA_4mComplete MBES4m_DAPR_CombinedFinalizedCUBE4080NOAA_4mComplete MBESMultiple surfaces were created for this project.'Resolution'_DAPR_Method surfaces were created for initial surface cleaning. The 25cm surfaces were created at the direction of and after discussion with various parties on the ship and onshore. It was used to create a more detailed surface of an area in question that was covered by submerged features such as logs, obstructions, and a wreck; moreover, it allowed the hydrographer an opportunity to generate a surface that honored the bathymetry instead of designating unnecessary soundings. The customized Cube Parameters file, CUBEParams_F00614.xml, is located provided with this survey. The 'Resolution'_DAPR_Final surfaces include IHO and density layers and were used to generate the 4m_DAPR_CombinedFinalized surface.All information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey is found in the DR. An accompanying HVCR was not applicable to this survey since there were no horizontal or vertical controls installed by NOAA Ship Rainier. Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningKetchikan, AK94504609450460.tidFinal ApprovedO922RA2012CORP.zdfFinal2012-06-062012-07-03Tide Note is appended to this document.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)UTM Zone 9Smart BaseAnnette Island 5AIS5Due to time constraints NOAA Ship Rainier did not install a base station for this project. The nearest CORS station was Annette Island (AIS5) which was located more than 20km away from survey area. Due to this spatial difference between the F00614 and AIS5 it was decided that a SmartBase solution would be the prudent option for processing a PPK horizontal control solution. SmartBase uses a network of stations, but Annette Island was flagged as the primary station while the others were simply ancillary station used to create the network. The maximum North, East, and Down RMS values on day 160 for launches 2803 and 2804 respectively, are 0.0536m and 0.0780m. The maximum Roll, Pitch, and Heading RMS values on day 160 for launches 2803 and 2804 respectively, are 0.7026/0.6966/2.5289 meters and 0.6720/0.6680/2.5450 meters. 17428274610000102007-042007-04-212007-04-10Chart 17428 kapp 2746 is one of 2 large scale charts that covers the area at a scale of 1:10,000. The other is Chart 17430 kapp 2748, which will be discussed later in this section, covers a larger area. Kapp 2746 only covers the innermost section of Ward Cove, where it is most protected and has a very dynamic bottom that is the result of both natural and anthropogenic influences on the local environment. The compiled soundings and charted soundings are in general agreement within 1 fathom.17Overview of Chart Inset 17428 Kapp 2746 file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2746_Overview.tif18The charted 20 fathom depth curve seems to disagree most drastically with the CARIS generated depth contours (20 fathom contour in purple). The disagreement is in the approximate range of 10-140m as seen in the screen capture and denoted by a red square.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2746_20ftmCurve.tif19The charted 10 fathom depth curve is in general agreement with the hydrographic data. An exception to this statement is the deeper depths that extend North between an isolated curve on Bolles Ledge and the landward 5ftm curve to the East. This area is highlighted by a red circle around the 10 fathom contour in green.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2746_10ftmCurve.tif20The charted 5 and 3 fathom depth curves are also in general agreement with the data. There are some inconsistencies in the CARIS contours when encompassing all soundings withing defined depth parameters (ie: 5 or 3 ftm soundings,as well as many other depths). There is also, what now seems to be a 5 fathom "bridge" between to chart labels "Log Storage Area" and "Bolles Ledge" as designated by the smaller red box.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2746_5and3ftmCurves.tifChart 17428, Kapp 2743, is a 1:40,000 scale chart which covers the entirety of Ward Cove and beyond. Chart 17428, Kapp 2746, is a 1:10,000 inset which covers the head of Ward Cover. Chart 17430 is a 1:10,000 scale chart which covers all of Ward Cove.17428274340000102007-042007-04-212007-04-10Chart 17428 kapp 2743, the smallest scale chart and kapp of those designated for comparison by the Project Instructions, covers the entrance of Ward Cove up through the narrowest part but refers the user to an inset (kapp 2746) once the innermost, fully protected section is reached. The compiled soundings and charted soundings are in general agreement within 1 fathom.21Chart 17428 Kapp 2746 and 2743 Overlap: The charted 10 and 20 fathom depth curves are offset by approximately 10-20 meters between the two kapps. The data set closely follows the 20 fathom depth curve on kapp 2743 at the overlap between the chart and inset on the Eastern portion of the chart. The inset is offset from kapp 2743 to the northwest by 10-15m at the overlap. file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Comparison_Kapp2746_2743.tif22All charted depth curves, with one exception, are in general agreement with CARIS generated contours. The red circle to the SE of the Ward Cove entrance exemplifies approximately 30-100m offsets between the charted curve and the CARIS contours. Another area, just inside the the entrance on the NW side of the channel, varies significantly from chart to data set. However, this is most likely due to cartographic generalization due to scale and inclusion of nearby isolated soundings.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2743_AllCurves.tif23R N "2" Buoy Compilation Error: magenta tint was not deleted after "burning" to raster.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_RN2_17428_CompBlunder.tif17430274810000112005-052005-04-262005-05-14Chart 17430 kapp 2748, as discussed earlier, is the same scale as the inset chart on 17428 (kapp 2746) but covers a larger area that includes Ward Cove and the Tongass Narrows. The two kapps are essentially identical. The depth curves and soundings match both in position and value. However, the Tongass Narrows is part of chart 17428 kapp 2743 and also overlaps chart 17430 kapp 2748. The compiled soundings and charted soundings are in general agreement within 1 fathom.24Chart 17428 kapp 2746 and 2748 Overlap. The two kapps are essentially identical. The depth curves and soundings match both in position and value.file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Comparison_Kapp2746_2748.tif25There is one minor discrepency where there is overlap. The 20 fathom depth curve does not overlap where highlighted by a red circle. file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Comparison_Kapp2746_2748_Discrepency.tif26Chart 17428 Kapp 2748 and 2743 Overlap: The same issue that was dicussed previously between kapps 2746 and 2743 exists with kapp 2743 and 2748. " The charted 10 and 20 fathom depth curves are offset by approximately 10-20 meters between the two kapps. The data set closely follows the 20 fathom depth curve on kapp 2743 at the overlap between the chart and inset on the Eastern portion of the chart, but follows kapp 2746 at the overlap. The inset is offset from kapp 2743 to the northwest by 10-15m at the ovelap."file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Comparison_Kapp2746_2743.tif27Similar charting of all charted depth curves, with one exception, are in general agreement with CARIS generated contours. The red circle to the SE of the Ward Cove entrance exemplifies approximately 30-100m offsets between the charted curve and the CARIS contours file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Kapp2748_AllCurves.tifUS5AK47M40000752012-08-012012-08-01falseUS5AK47M is a 1:40,000 scale ENC, but is very accurate and precise when compared to all the charts previously discussed in this section. Depths and contours, soundings with designations (IE: rk) are present on the ENC, and notable features such as charted log booms and house floats are in same locations as the charts. There are two significant similarities that should be noted with equal precedent on the ENC as they were on the RNCs. The compiled soundings and charted soundings are in general agreement within 1 fathom.2820 Fathom Curve on ENC Compared to Generated Contours (as seen on RNCs) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_ENC_20ftmCurve.tif29Similar charting of all charted depth curves, with one exception, are in general agreement with CARIS generated contours. The red circle to the SE of the Ward Cove entrance exemplifies approximately 30-100m offsets between the charted curve and the CARIS contours (as seen on RNCs)file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_ENC_AllCurves.tifBecause US5AK47M is digitized, in large part, from the 1:40,000 scale RNC, it does not compare exactly with the 1:10,000 charts of Ward Cove, especially outside of the inset (M_CSCL) area. This is especially evident with nearshore contours which are more generalized outside of the inset.No AWOIS items exist for this survey.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.Detached positions (DPs) were acquired by RA-3 for notable charted features while transiting to and from survey area, and while surveying. A charted area feature labeled "House Floats" was surveyed and found to be in ruins and no visible structures remaining except a dolphin and attached floating piers in ruins. The dolphins is recommend for charting while the area feature is recommended for charting as part of the obstruction area with logs in the immediate vicinity. Various mooring buoys were examined and noted as to there status (IE: visible, not visible, or moved). A charted visible wreck was not seen and is recommended for removal from the chart. Numerous charted pile features covered in some capacity by the survey were investigated. The investigated items are described in the Final Feature File. This was not a required objective of the project instructions. Since there were no "assigned" features and there are a multitude of charted features that were not examined, as this was not part of the project instructions, there are a limited number of features that are discussed as part of the features file.30DPs for Notable Charted/Uncharted Featuresfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Detached_Positions.pngBecause approved disproval methods were not used for addressing these features, the piers and two house float structures have been retained, but in ruined condition. The "House floats" area feature, which was mis-digitized from the RNC to the ENC as a LOGPON area, has been deleted from the chart update product.As stated in section D.2, shoreline acquisition was not required for this survey. However, due to obvious discrepancies in the chart, the hydrographer noted items that were incorrect or new and positioned them as appropriate. Detached positions (DPs) were acquired by RA-3 for notable uncharted features while transiting to and from survey area, and while surveying. There were five uncharted wrecks found on the survey. Three were dangerous submerged wrecks and two visible wrecks. Four uncharted floating piers were added (3) or modified (1) in the investigation. There were multiple uncharted obstructions and snags in the northeast part of the survey. An obstruction area was also added due to the inability to reasonably chart singular obstructions that consist of sunken logs near Bolles Ledge (see Shoal and Hazardous Feature section). The investigated items are described in the Final Feature File. This was not a required objective of the project instructions. Since there were no "assigned" features and there are several charted features that were not examined, as this was not part of the project instructions, there are a limited number of features that are discussed as part of the features file. Two visible wreck/hulk features were seen in the ad-hoc shoreline acquisition and were given approximate detached positions. To do this the Hydrographer estimated the range and bearing to these two wrecks during HYPACK acquisition since they were inaccessible by the launch at the time. To more accurately position these features, aerial orthophotography was sought that might include these wrecks. This imagery was found in Bing Maps acquired by GeoEye and is now part of the MapInfo base maps. This imagery was superimposed on the charted shoreline of the area and was found to match well (as seen in Figure 32). The position of the one wreck seen in the imagery was then scaled from this photo since this position was deemed more accurate than the estimated position acquired in the field. 31DPs for Notable Charted/Uncharted Featuresfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_Detached_Positions.png32F00614 Chart vs Aerial Imagery Overviewfile:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/Charted%20wreck%20overview.jpgThe large obstruction feature recommended by the field was not compiled to the chart update product. Instead, two smaller Obstruction areas were compiled, and the Caution Area wording was expanded to: "Log booms are not permanently placed. Locations of log storage areas vary. A general shoaling trend of 6 to 12 feet is evident due to logging operations. Extreme caution should be used while navigating in this area. Due to the profusion of logs on the seafloor, mariners are advised against anchoring." In addition, CAUTION notes on the RNC have been updated similarly. PHB recommended an update to the Coast Pilot 8, Dixon Entrance to Cape Spencer, Chapter 4, Dixon Entrance to Ketchikan, regarding the area of submerged logs. The latest edition Coast Pilot now includes this additional entry under Chart 17430, Ward Cove (294): "...The bottom of Ward Cove is strewn with logs throughout, with the highest concentration near the head. Within these areas of dense log concentration, there are numerous, potentially dangerous snags. Mariners are advised against anchoring in these areas and to use caution anchoring in all other areas of the cove...." The wreck feature discussed in relation to Figure 32 was retained as charted in the chart update product, but with updated attribution.No Danger to Navigation Reports were submitted for this survey.An area at the NE end of Ward Cove near Bolles Ledge contains copious amounts of submerged logs that litter the bottom. The pattern is quite asymmetrical in that there is no pattern as to how the features lie on the bottom. There are logs that are standing upright, sitting flat on the sea floor, and embedded in the bottom. They are of varying height, length, width, and stages of decomposition. The in situ bottom appears to be somewhat soft as the logs have settled in, but the bottom should be considered hard and unstable for anchoring or other activities like trawling. A 25cm surface was created to deal with the inconsistent, cluttered bottom type. The reference surface honors the bathymetry very well and appears to conform to significant features. Communications between CDR. Brennan, LT. Hauser, HST Doroba, and various other relevant customers (HSD, MCD, etc) began with a recommendation from CDR. Brennan for a label on the chart stating: "There are many sunken logs lying on the sea floor within the log storage areas in Wards Cove. Mariners are advised against anchoring in these areas unless absolutely necessary." and creating a 25cm surface. All parties agreed on both parts of the recommendation. The area has been delineated in the Final Feature File and the recommendation has been applied in the metadata. (See WardCove_SubLogArea_Discussion_1_Brennan et al PDF document in Supplemental Correspondence in Appendix V)33Overview of Fouled Bottom Area, Wreck, and Obstructions file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_FoulWithLogs_Opaque.jpg34Defined Obstruction Area Feature file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/F00614_FoulArea.tifMCDs policy is to avoid both large Obstruction areas for characterizing areas that can be safely transited, and use of Foul Ground for areas that are safe for transiting but not for anchoring, ground fishing, etc. Therefore, the large obstruction feature recommended by the field was not compiled to the chart update product. Instead, two smaller Obstruction areas were compiled, and the Caution Area wording was expanded to: "Log booms are not permanently placed. Locations of log storage areas vary. A general shoaling trend of 6 to 12 feet is evident due to logging operations. Extreme caution should be used while navigating in this area. Due to the profusion of logs on the seafloor, mariners are advised against anchoring." In addition, CAUTION notes on the RNC have been updated similarly. PHB recommended an update to the Coast Pilot 8, Dixon Entrance to Cape Spencer, Chapter 4, Dixon Entrance to Ketchikan, regarding the area of submerged logs. The latest edition Coast Pilot now includes this additional entry under Chart 17430, Ward Cove (294): "...The bottom of Ward Cove is strewn with logs throughout, with the highest concentration near the head. Within these areas of dense log concentration, there are numerous, potentially dangerous snags. Mariners are advised against anchoring in these areas and to use caution anchoring in all other areas of the cove...."No channels exist for this survey. There are no designated anchorages, precautionary areas, safety fairways, traffic separation schemes, pilot boarding areas, or channel and range lines within the survey limits.A dredged fairway (DRGARE + FAIRWY) exists in the northwest of Ward Cove, at the northwest extent of the survey area. While the dredged fairway wasn't fully surveyed, shoaler depths than indicated for the DRGARE were evident. A recommendation has been made to MCD to re-evaluate the depth associated with the DRGARE feature on the ENC.No bottom samples were required for this survey.Shoreline was not assigned in the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions or Statement of Work.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.Aids to navigation (ATONs) do not exist for this survey.Overhead features do not exist for this survey.Submarine features exist for this survey, but were not investigated. A Cable Area falls within the Sheet Limits to the southwest, but the time constraints mentioned earlier prohibited data acquisition over the Cable Area.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.Significant features exist for this survey, and were investigated. All significant features such as pinnacles, shoals, and ledges were investigated with 100% MBES. Charted soundings and depth curves were within 1 fathom agreement with MBES data.35F00614 Significant Features (pinnacles, shoals, and ledges) file:///N:/SO922RA12/Surveys/F00614/Compilation/Report/Components/F00614__XML_DR_Archive/SignificantFeatures_Soundings.tifConstruction is in the planning stages for a new NOAA pier in Ward Cove, Alaska. See "Supplemental Correspondence" for further information.New surveys or further investigations are recommended if dredging, environmental cleanup, and/or construction activities for a new NOAA pier are moved into action.No new insets 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 Manual, Field Procedures Manual, Standing and 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 with the exception of deficiencies noted in the Descriptive Report.CDR. Richard T. Brennan, NOAAChief of Party2012-08-17LT. Olivia Hauser, NOAAField Operations Officer2012-08-17CST James JacobsonChief Survey Technician2012-08-17HST John G. Doroba Jr.Sheet Manager2012-08-17