OPR-P136-RA-14North Coast of Kodiak Island, AKNorth Coast of Kodiak Island, AKNOAA Ship RainierH126892Afognak Strait and Whale PassageAlaskaUnited States150002014Edward J. Van Den Ameele, CDR/NOAANavigable Area2014-04-012014-05-062014-07-08Multibeam EchosounderMultibeam Echosounder BackscattermetersUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM)UTCPacific Hydrographic BranchDates of survey above are incorrect. Actual dates of survey are between 5/7/2014 to 7/9/2014.NOAAThe survey area is referred to as Sheet 2: "Afognak Strait and Whale Passage" within the Project Instructions. The area encompasses approximately 21.0 square nautical miles of Afognak Strait and Whale Passage, and the eastern portions of Dry Spruce Bay and Kupreanof Strait (Figures 1-2).58.0157702778152.73772555657.8904852778153.0732675Overlay of H12689 sheet limits (blue) and the acquired survey coverage (red) on Chart 16594.SupportFiles\Survey Limits.jpgSurvey Limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD.This project is being conducted in support of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey to provide contemporary hydrographic data in order to update the nautical charting products and reduce survey backlog in the area. The nautical chart updates will support Kodiak's large fishing fleet and increasing levels of passenger vessel traffic.The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data.Data acquired on survey H12689 met complete multibeam echosounder (MBES) coverage requirements outlined in Section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD, including data density requirements. Overall, the required data density was achieved in 99.928% of nodes.During review at the Branch, a density analysis was conducted on each of the finalized surfaces. The requirement of five soundings per node was achieved in: 99.94% of nodes in the 1m surface, 99.99% of nodes in the 2m surface, 99.96% of nodes in the 4m surface, and 99.72% of nodes in the 8m surface. There was an overall compliance rate of 99.95%.Complete multibeam echosounder (MBES) coverage was achieved within the limits of hydrography as specified in the Project Instructions with the following exceptions: Survey coverage did not meet the sheet limits along many portions near the shoreline and islets; conditions in these areas were deemed unsafe due to currents and proximity to shore (Figure 3). Survey coverage also did not meet the sheet limits in The Slough and The Narrows surrounding Little Raspberry Island since they were considered largely unnavigable. Pushing survey operations further inshore in this area would have brought upon unnecessary safety risks (Figure 4). A roll-stabilization issue with the Reson 7125 SV2 sonar on Launch 2804 resulted in degradation of some H12689 bathymetric data (see Section B.2.5). The affected line (2804_2014RA1902300) ,which was run just north of Ostrovka Point, was removed resulting in an approximately 9 square meter holiday. The surrounding data was examined; no navigationally significant features were present (Figure 5). Four small holidays measuring 4 to 7 meters long appear in Fox Bay. Data over this area was acquired by both Launch 2801 and 2802 on days 156 and 158 respectively. The acquisition log for Launch 2801 on day 156 indicates issues with Hypack software crashes and associated gaps occurring in the matrix. The acquisition log for Launch 2802 on day 158 indicates several Reson time synchronization errors and the associated "roll blowouts," the same problem seen with the Reson 7125 SV2 on Launch 2804 described previously. As noted in the Final Feature File, the rocks assigned for investigation in this area were not found. The surrounding data was examined; no navigationally significant features were present (Figure 6).Multibeam coverage did not reach the shoreline due to currents and proximity to shore (Chart 16594).SupportFiles\Survey Coverage_Currents and Shore.jpgMultibeam coverage did not reach the sheet limits in the unnavigable areas surrounding Little Raspberry Island.SupportFiles\Survey Coverage_Slough and Narrows.jpgHoliday resulting from removing line affected by Reson 7125 SV2 roll timing issue.SupportFiles\Holiday from deleted line.jpgHolidays located in Fox Bay.SupportFiles\Fox Bay Holidays.jpgIn addition to the areas outlined above, coverage did not meet the NALL in a majority of the area between Shoal Pt. and Head Pt. H12689 depth-colored MBES coverage overlay on Chart 16594.SupportFiles\Coverage Area.jpg28010190.8000007.92028020152.200000002803097.20000028.6028040231.60000033.400685.300000108.3015.87000021.02014-05-062014-05-072014-05-082014-05-092014-05-102014-05-122014-05-132014-05-142014-05-182014-05-192014-05-202014-05-212014-06-022014-06-032014-06-042014-06-052014-06-062014-06-072014-06-092014-06-142014-06-162014-06-282014-06-292014-07-08Table 2: The "Number of DPs" is incorrectly reported as 0 and should be approximately 85. Table 3: Dates of survey acquisition were compared to the HDCS data and should include all of the following: DN 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 166, 168, 180, 181, and 190.Refer to the 2014 Data Acquisition and Processing Report (DAPR) for a complete description of 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.28018.81.128028.81.128038.81.128048.81.119055.70.319065.80.3All data for H12689 was acquired by NOAA Ship Rainier's four survey launches (2801, 2802, 2803, and 2804) and two skiffs (1905, 1906). The survey launches acquired MBES depth soundings, sound speed profiles, and bottom samples. The skiffs acquired bottom samples and conducted shoreline verification.ResonSeaBat 7125-BMBESResonSeaBat 7125 SV2MBESResonSVP 71Sound Speed SystemApplanixPOS-MV V4Vessel Attitude and Positioning SystemSea-Bird Electronics, Inc.SBE 19 and 19plus SEACAT ProfilerConductivity, Temperature, and Depth SensorMultibeam crosslines were acquired using the Reson 7125-B on launches 2801 (RA-4), 2803 (RA-3), and the Reson 7125 SV2 on Launch 2804 (RA-6) (Figure 7). A 2-meter CUBE surface was created using only mainscheme lines, a second 2-meter CUBE surface was created using only crosslines, and a difference surface was generated from these two surfaces in Caris at a 2-meter resolution. This difference surface was compared to the allowable uncertainty values within the HSSD for the observed depths and statistics were calculated in Excel. In total, 99.702% of the depth differences between H12689 mainscheme and crossline data are within the requirements of the HSSD (Figure 8). In a portion of two crosslines east of Chernof Point, the outer swath did not meet the HSSD requirements (Figure 9). SBETs were not applied to these lines, and may be the cause of this issue (see Section C.3).Depth-colored MBES overlay of acquired H12689 crossline data.SupportFiles\Crosslines Overview.jpgSummary table indicating percentage of difference surface nodes between H12689 mainscheme and crossline data that met HSSD requirements for associated depths.SupportFiles\Crossline IHO table.jpgArea east of Chernof Point in which depth differences between H12689 mainscheme and crossline data do not meet the HSSD requirements for the associated depths.SupportFiles\HSSD compliance failure.jpg00.1222801, 2802, 2803, 28043.00.15Uncertainty values were measured and applied in accordance with Section B.4 of the DAPR. Uncertainty values of submitted final grids were calculated in Caris using the "Greater of the Two" of uncertainty and standard deviation (scaled to 95%). To visualize where uncertainty accuracy requirements were met, for each surface a custom "HSSD compliance" layer was created based on the difference between the calculated uncertainty of the nodes and the allowable uncertainty defined in the HSSD. To quantify the extent to which accuracy requirements were met, the HSSD Compliance layers were queried within Caris and examined in Excel. Overall, 99.928% of the nodes of survey H12689 met the uncertainty requirements specified in the HSSD (Figure 10). These HSSD Compliance layers were retained in the submitted surfaces.H12689 met HSSD uncertainty standards in 99.928% of all nodes.SupportFiles\HSSD Compliance.jpgFour junction comparisons were completed for H12689 (Figure 11). One survey (H12690) was acquired concurrently with this survey, and three surveys (H12512, H12495 and H12496) were completed in 2012 by NOAA Ship Rainier. Depth comparisons were performed using Caris difference surfaces.Overview of junctions with survey H12689.SupportFiles\H12689 Junctions.jpgH12690789002014NOAA Ship RainierWOverlap with survey H12690 was approximately 300 to 600 meters wide, covering an area of 0.59 square nautical miles along the western boundary of H12689 (Figure 11). Depths in the junction area range from approximately 4 to 110 meters. For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable TVU (Total Vertical Uncertainty) standards specified in the HSSD. In total, 99.031% of the depth differences between H12689 and junction survey H12690 are within allowable uncertainties.H12512789002012NOAA Ship RainierSOverlap with survey H12512 was approximately 130 to 440 meters wide, covering an area of 0.03 square nautical miles along the southern boundary of H12689 (Figure 11). Depths in the junction area range from 4 to 37 meters. For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable TVU standards specified in the HSSD. In total, 96.230% of the depth differences between H12689 and junction survey H12512 are within allowable uncertainties.H12495789002012NOAA Ship RainierNEOverlap with survey H12495 was approximately 220 to 300 meters wide, covering an area of 0.14 square nautical miles along the northeastern boundary of H12689 (Figure 11). Depths in the junction area range from 5 to 15 meters. For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable TVU standards specified in the HSSD. In total, 99.653% of the depth differences between H12689 and junction survey H12495 are within allowable uncertainties.H12496789002012NOAA Ship RainierSEOverlap with survey H12496 was approximately 300 to 900 meters wide, covering an area of 0.62 square nautical miles along the southeastern boundary of H12689 (Figure 11). Depths in the junction area range from 4 to 128 meters. For the respective depths, the difference surface was compared to the allowable TVU standards specified in the HSSD. In total, 97.464% of the depth differences between H12689 and junction survey H12496 are within allowable uncertainties.The scale of all four junctioning surveys listed in Table 8 should be 1:40000, not 1:78900.During review at the Branch, a difference surface was created for each junction by differencing the 8-meter Combined surface of H12689 with the 8-meter Combined surface of the junctioning survey. Areas where differences exceeded allowable uncertainty limits were investigated and could be attributed to the steep and/or rocky nature of the seafloor. Statistics were generated from each difference surface which indicate: for junctioning survey H12690, 95% of nodes were within +/-0.51 meters; for junctioning survey H12512, 95% of nodes were within +/-0.63 meters; for junctioning survey H12495, 95% of nodes were within +/-0.27 meters; and for H12496, 95% of nodes were within +/-0.55 meters.Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR.Reson 7125 SV2 Roll-Stabilization IssueAn equipment issue with the Reson 7125 SV2 sonar resulted in degradation of some H12689 bathymetric data (Figure 12). High frequency lines from DN190 on Launch 2804 (RA-6) were affected resulting in brief periodic loss of accurate bottom detection (refer to the 2014 DAPR for more information regarding this issue). All affected lines were examined in Caris subset mode and the affected lines were deleted as per Hydrographer-in-Charge recommendation. Although the affected lines were deleted, vertical offsets still remain in this area near Ostrovka Point which are most likely due to a less than accurate tidal zoning (see Section B.2.6 for further details). The vertical offsets that remain where lines have been deleted meet HSSD requirements.Subset view of Reson 7125 SV2 roll-stabilization issue.SupportFiles\Reson SV2 Roll Artifact.jpgVertical OffsetVertical offsets ranging from approximately 0.20 to 0.60 meters were observed in various areas of the survey area. In order to determine whether this offset was due to a less than accurate tidal zoning model, the affected multibeam data was referenced to the WGS84 ellipsoid by applying GPS tides in Caris. Once referenced to the ellipsoid, the vertical offset between overlapping lines was greatly reduced (Figures 13-15). Areas affected include those around Deranof and Nachalni Islands, Dry Spruce Bay, Ostrovka Point, Chernof Point, and Fox Bay (Figures 16-19). Some data in these areas exceed HSSD TVU standards. Strong currents were encountered in these areas creating tidal complexities, which could have caused these offsets. In the most extreme cases east of Chernof Point and to the north and northwest of Ostrovka Point, where the vertical uncertainty breaches accepted limits, the data does not meet the requirements set forth in the HSSD. Soundings from the outer beams of lines in these areas were filtered to limit the occurences of HSSD non-compliance. Moreover, these extreme cases of veritcal offsests have been deemed not to be navigationally significant. In areas not adversely affected by these vertical offsets, which encompasses the majority of the survey area, the data meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the HSSD.Section of H12689 1-meter surface showing artifacts caused by vertical offset. Vessel track lines shown in green. Note: surface exaggeration value of 15.SupportFiles\Tidal Offset_Overview.jpgExample of vertical offset in subset view with final zoned tides applied. Data colored by day.SupportFiles\Tidal Offset_Final Tides.jpgSubset view of data with GPS tides applied, which reduces the vertical offset.SupportFiles\Tidal_Offset_GPS Tides.jpgExample area of vertical offset near Nachalni and Deranof Islands. SupportFiles\Vertical_Offset_Nachalni_Deranof.jpgExample areas of vertical offsets near Chernof Point of Kupreanof Peninsula.SupportFiles\Vertical Offset_Chernof Point.jpgExample areas of vertical offsets in the south end of Dry Spruce Bay.SupportFiles\Vertical Offset_Dry Spruce.jpgExample area of vertical offset in Fox Bay.SupportFiles\Vertical_Offset_Fox_Bay.jpgData exceeding HSSD specifications is limited to small areas and does not exceed specifications by more than 0.2 meters. The surveyed data is sufficient to supersede charted data. Sound Speed ArtifactIn the nearshore area surrounding Nachalni and Deranof Islands, the CTD cast frequency was unable to sufficiently characterize changes in sound speed within the water column. As a result, refraction error artifacts occur in the BASE surface where the outer beams "smile" or frown." (Figure 20). The survey data meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the HSSD. Sound speed artifact found south of Nachalni Island. Data colored by line number.SupportFiles\Sound Velocity Artifact.jpgKelpKelp was encountered in some shoal areas of the survey. Some of the thickest kelp patches were in the shoals at the east end of Afognak Strait (Figure 21). MBES data in these areas was examined using Caris Subset Editor. Soundings that obviously represented kelp and not the seafloor were rejected. When unable to clearly distinguish between kelp and the seafloor, the soundings were retained.Subset view showing seafloor obscured by kelp and the affected reference surface. Subset taken at 57-59-54.97N, 152-46-02.75W.SupportFiles\Thick Kelp.jpgAll launch sound speed profiles were acquired using the SBE19 and SBE 19Plus SEACAT CTD probes at discrete locations within the survey area at least once every four hours, when significant changes in surface sound speed were observed, or when surveying a new area. A sheet-wide concatenated sound speed file was created and applied to survey lines using the "Nearest in distance within time (4 hours)" profile selection method, with the following exceptions: 5 hours was used for "Nearest in distance within time" for Launch 2804 (RA-6) high frequency lines 2040 through 2116.All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR.Delayed Heave could not be applied to Launch 2804 DN181 low-frequency crosslines 2123 through 0000 (line 0000 acquired on DN182 according to UTC). The survey data still meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the HSSD.All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR.Backscatter data was acquired, but not formally processed by Rainier personnel. Two backscatter lines per boat, per day were reviewed to ensure quality. Backscatter was logged as .7k files and submitted to NGDC, but is not included with the data submitted to the Branch. NOAA Extended Attribute Files V_5_3_2All data was processed using Caris HIPS and SIPS 8.1.H12689_MB_1m_MLLWCUBE1-0.57128NOAA_1mComplete MBESH12689_MB_2m_MLLWCUBE2-0.50128NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12689_MB_4m_MLLWCUBE40128NOAA_4mComplete MBESH12689_MB_8m_MLLWCUBE80128NOAA_8mComplete MBESH12689_MB_1m_MLLW_FinalCUBE1-0.7020NOAA_1mComplete MBESH12689_MB_2m_MLLW_FinalCUBE21240NOAA_2mComplete MBESH12689_MB_4m_MLLW_FinalCUBE43680NOAA_4mComplete MBESH12689_MB_8m_MLLW_FinalCUBE872160NOAA_8mComplete MBESIn accordance with section 5.2.2.2 of the HSSD, the depth range of the 2-meter finalized surface was increased from 18-40 meters to 12-40 meters and the 1-meter finalized surface was increased from 0-20 meters to -1-20 meters in order to prevent apparent holidays resulting from the gridding algorithm in the bathymetry found in H12689.Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR.Mean Lower Low WaterDiscrete ZoningKodiak Island9457292Seldovia9455500Uzkosti Point, AK9457376Nachalni Island, AK94574079457292.tidFinal Approved9457376.tidFinal Approved9457407.tidFinal ApprovedH12689CORF.zdfFinal2014-07-102014-10-19The NWLON primary tide stations on Kodiak Island, AK (9457292) and in Seldovia, AK (9455500), as well as the subordinate tide stations installed by Rainier personnel at Uzkosti Point, AK (9457376) and Nachalni Island, AK (9457407) served as the controls for datum determination and water level reducers for survey H12689. A complete description of the vertical and horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying OPR-P136-RA-14 Horizontal and Vertical Control Report (HVCR), submitted under a separate cover.North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)Smart BaseKOD5KODIAK 5KOD6KODIAK 6SELDSELD_AKDA_AK2000AC08CAPDOUGLASAK2007AC18Ushagat_IsAK2008AC24KINGSALMONAK2006AC26CAPE_GULL_AK2008AC27AC27MNeil_AK2004AC34OldHarbor_AK2006AC38QUARTZ_CRKAK2005AC39SHUYAKISSPAK2006AC67PILLARMTN_AK2006Vessel kinematic data (POS files) were post-processed with Applanix POSPac and POSGNSS software using Smart Base processing methods described in the DAPR. SBET and RMS data was applied to all survey lines with the exception of those described in Section C.3.3.1.Kodiak 313 kHzKenai 310 kHzLines without SBETsSBETs could not be applied to line 2358 acquired by Launch 2803 on DN158, line 2359 acquired by Launch 2801 on DN158, and lines 2123 through 0000 and 1633 acquired by Launch 2804 on DN181 and DN141 respectively due to time extents not overlapping with the lines (Figure 22). On DN181 the POS file for Launch 2804 stopped logging some time before 2123 due to the hard drive being full. No error message was given to indicate any issue. As a result, all lines acquired from that launch after that time could not have SBETS applied. The survey data meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the HSSD.Lines that could not be applied with SBETs.SupportFiles\Lines without SBETs.jpgChart comparisons were performed using a Caris sounding and contour layer based on the 8-meter combined CUBE surface. The contours and soundings were overlaid on the charts and compared for general agreement and to identify areas of significant change.16594255378900131998-042014-12-152014-11-28H12689 derived soundings in Kupreanof Strait agreed with charted depths within 2 fathoms except as noted below. (Figures 23-24). The derived 50-fathom contour at the west end of the survey area is disjointed in comparison with the one charted. Along the southern shoreline of Kupreanof Strait, the derived 10-fathom contour tends to lie inshore from where it has been charted. Along this same shoreline, the derived 3-fathom contour generally agrees with the chart, however, the derived 5-fathom contour is not thoroughly charted in this area and the Hydrographer recommends updating the 5-fathom contour based upon the derived contours and soundings from the survey data. At the east end of Kupreanof Strait and to the west of Occident and Chiachi Points, the derived 10-fathom contour differs significantly from the charted contour (Figure 25). The derived soundings through the main waterway of Dry Spruce Bay agreed with charted depths within 2 fathoms, however, along the shoreline of the bay the derived soundings are deeper and tend to disagree with the charted contours (Figure 26). In some cases there are derived soundings ranging from 10 to 19 fathoms lying in-between the charted 3 and 10-fathom contours. These discrepancies continue inshore of the charted 3-fathom contour with derived soundings ranging from 4 to 14 fathoms. The derived 5-fathom contour was overlain on Chart 16594 rather than the 3-fathom contour due to this deepening trend towards the shoreline. During the chart comparison analysis the derived 3-fathom contour, when overlain on the chart, follows tightly along the derived 5-fathom contour, so it has also been omitted for visual clarity purposes. Derived soundings in Afognak Strait agreed with charted depths within 2 fathoms except as noted below (Figures 27-30). The charted 10-fathom contour has not been thoroughly distinguished in this area, yet shoaling occurs to where the chart should be updated with the derived 10 fathom contour. The derived 5-fathom contour generally tends to lie inshore of the charted 5-fathom contour. The derived 3-fathom contour tends to agree with the corresponding charted contour, however, a thorough comparison is hindered by the discontinuities of the derived contour. Overview of Kupreanof Strait with an overlay of derived soundings and contours. Note: The chart has been darkened slightly to enhance derived contour and sounding visuals.SupportFiles\Kupreanof Soundings_Contours.jpgAreas in Kupreanof Strait where derived soundings are shoaler than charted depthsSupportFiles\Kupreanof Soundings Diff.jpgDifferences in the derived 10-fathom contour west of Occident and Chiachi Points.SupportFiles\Occident Contour Diff.jpgOverview of Dry Spruce Bay with an overlay of derived soundings and contours.SupportFiles\Dry Spruce Soundings_Contours.jpgOverview of Afognak Strait with an overlay of derived contours. SupportFiles\Afognak Contours.jpgArea at the west end of Afognak Strait where derived soundings are shoaler than charted depths.SupportFiles\West Afognak Sounding Diff.jpgA central area of Afognak Strait where derived soundings are shoaler than charted depths. SupportFiles\Central Afognak Sounding Diff.jpgArea at the east end of Afognak Strait where derived soundings are shoaler than charted depths. SupportFiles\East Afognak Sounding Diff.jpg16594255430000131998-042014-12-012014-11-28The Whale Passage inset from Chart 16594 was used for comparisons made in Whale Passage. Derived soundings in Whale Passage agreed within 2 fathoms except as noted below (Figures 31-32). The derived 10-fathom contour generally agrees with and follows the trend of the charted 10-fathom contour. However, an exception to this can be seen around Shag Rocks where the derived 10-fathom contour lies inshore of the charted contour.Overview of Whale Passage with an overlay of derived soundings and contours.SupportFiles\Whale Pass Soundings_Contours.jpgTwo spots in Whale Passage where derived soundings are shoaler than the chart depicts.SupportFiles\Whale Pass Soundings Diff.jpgUS4AK5PM7890042011-07-122014-08-12falseElectronic Navigation Chart (ENC) US4AK5PM coincides with raster Chart 16594. The soundings on the ENC match the raster, however, the contours on raster Chart 16594 tend to be shifted to the northwest by about 40 to 50 meters (Figure 33). Although there is a visible shift in the contours between the raster and the ENC, the contours on the raster and the ENC both follow the same trend and therefore a comparison between H12689 and the ENC is equivalent to the preceding comparison with Chart 16594. Transparent overlay of raster Chart 16594 on ENC US4AK5PM showing the misalignment of contours.SupportFiles\ENC - RNC offset.jpgNo AWOIS items were assigned for this survey.No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey.Complete MBES coverage was obtained over charted rock labeled as PA west of Chernof Point. No feature was discovered.One uncharted, non-dangerous wreck was found near the mouth of Whale Passage (Figure 34). The position and other information for the wreck is attributed in the H12689 Final Feature File submitted with this report.Wreck discovered in Whale Passage.SupportFiles\Whale Pass Wreck.jpg3H12689 Danger to Navigation Report2014-05-17H12689 Danger to Navigation Report2015-03-12Three dangers to navigation were identified during this survey (Figure 35-36). The Danger to Navigation Reports are included in Appendix II of this report. The DTON west of Occident Point and in Whale Passage are reflected in the latest chart update as of 12/16/2014. The DTON located in Afognak Strait has been registered by the Nautical Data Branch and has been directed to Products Branch A for processing as of 3/16/2014.Chart 16594 before (left) and after (right) H12689 DTON were applied.SupportFiles\DTONs.jpgDTON located in Afognak Strait.SupportFiles\DTON 3.jpgAll DTONs have been charted and were included in the chart update product. The DTON report is attached.All shoal and hazardous features were investigated in accordance with the Project Instruction and the HSSD, and are addressed in the Final Feature File submitted with this report.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.Eight proposed bottom sample locations were identified in the Project Reference File. All samples were collected at the proposed sites. Only one of the samples was not collected after three failed attempts. Acquired bottom samples are addressed with S-57 attribution and recorded in the Final Feature File submitted with this reportShoreline verification was conducted near predicted low water in accordance with the applicable sections of the NOAA HSSDM and FPM. There were 370 assigned features for this survey. All features were addressed as required with S-57 attribution and recorded in the H12689 Final Features File to best represent the features at chart scale.No prior survey comparisons exist for this survey.Aids to navigation (ATON) were present in the survey area, but were not assigned for investigation. All fifteen ATON observed in the field appeared correctly charted and serve their intended purpose.No overhead features exist for this survey.No submarine features exist for this survey.No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey.No platforms exist for this survey.No significant features exist for this survey.No present or planned construction or dredging exist within the survey limits.No new surveys or further investigations are recommended for this area.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, 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.Edward J. Van Den Ameele, CDR/NOAACommanding Officer, NOAA Ship Rainier2015-04-03Adam Pfundt, LTJG/NOAAField Operations Officer, NOAA Ship Rainier2015-04-03James B. JacobsonChief Survey Technician2015-04-03Eli R. SmithHydrographic Assistant Survey Technician, NOAA Ship Rainier2015-04-03