OPR-S327-KR-24 Kotzebue, AK Kotzebue, AK Terrasond H13917 6 na 3 NM Northwest of Kotzebue Alaska United States 20000 2024 Andrew Orthmann Navigable Area 2024-05-01 2024-09-01 2024-10-10 Multibeam Echo Sounder Multibeam Echo Sounder Backscatter meters UTC Pacific 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 WGS84 UTM 3N, 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 The survey area is located in Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Kotzebue Sound is located in northwestern Alaska. The Arctic region is unnavigable for most of the year due to sea ice, with open water from approximately July through October. At the time of this survey, most of the area was poorly charted, with some areas uncharted altogether. The remote area is off the road system, and the bulk of supplies (including fuel) necessary for local communities are transported here by barge during the short ice-free season. Nearby communities are relatively small, consisting primarily of Shishmaref, Kivalina, Deering, and Kotzebue. Members of these communities commonly engage in various subsistence activities throughout Kotzebue Sound, usually traveling by skiff. Kotzebue is the largest community, with a population of 2,979 (2023). Limited services, including daily jet service to Anchorage, are available here. However, only shallow-draft vessels can navigate directly to Kotzebue due to a shoal of approximately 2 meters depth about 9 NM west of town, which necessitated relatively long transits to Nome—at least a 60-hour round trip—for most rotations and resupplies on this project. The Port of Red Dog is located on the north side of Kotzebue Sound. The Port serves as the terminal for Red Dog Mine, one of the largest zinc and lead mining operations in the world. Ore is mined year-round and stored at the Port for transport out during the limited ice-free season. Shallow-draft vessels lighter the ore from the Red Dog dock to deep-draft bulk ore carriers, which typically wait at least 3 NM offshore. On-site field work for project OPR-S327-KR-24 was carried out from July through October 2024. The overall project consisted of thirteen individual surveys. Final processing and reporting occurred from October 2024 through January 2025. Work was completed in accordance with the Hydrographic Survey Project Instructions (dated May 1, 2024), the accompanying Scope of Work, and the NOAA Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables (HSSD, 2022 edition). 67.01915202777778 162.96563049999997 66.8009176111111 162.47343211111112 Figure showing the survey extents. SupportFiles\H13917_Survey_Extents.png Survey limits were acquired in accordance with the requirements in the Project Instructions and the HSSD. The purpose of this survey is described as follows in the Project Instructions: This project will provide modern bathymetric data within Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Kotzebue acts as the service and transportation center for all villages in the northwest region of Alaska, as well as the transfer point between ocean and inland shipping. Portions of Kotzebue Sound were last surveyed between 2011 and 2015, however a majority of the area has not been surveyed to modern standards. The area experiences significant vessel traffic, particularly near the approaches to Kotzebue and Deering. The survey will focus on collecting data in the highly trafficked corridors, as well as for vessel lightering areas identified by the Western Alaska Tanker Lightering Best Practices Committee. These areas are used for ship-to-ship transfers of oil products, including fuel, which is of key importance to local residents. Conducting a modern bathymetric survey in this area will address Seabed 2030 data gaps, identify hazards and changes to the seafloor, provide critical data for updating National Ocean Service (NOS) nautical charting products, and improve maritime safety. Survey data from this project is intended to supersede all prior survey data in the common area. The entire survey is adequate to supersede previous data. All waters in survey area Complete a minimum of 12,896 LNM. Unlogged transit mileage, system calibration mileage, and data which do not meet HSSD specifications shall not count towards the completion of the LNM requirement. Notify the COR/Project Manager upon nearing completion of LNM requirement. The final area shall be squared off and ensure the full investigation of any features within the surveyed extent. All waters in survey area Set Line Spacing MBES (Refer to HSSD Section 5.2.2.4 Option A) Sheet H13917 Run preliminary investigation lines. Provide a recommendation and reasoning of what line spacing or coverage would be suitable for delineating the navigationally significant area, taking into account the surveyed depths, features, local traffic and mariner's needs. Upon agreement of the target area with the COR and CO, acquire sounding lines with spacing adequate to collect data at an interval of at least 120 meters. This would support a sounding selection grid spaced at 120 meters. The inshore depth contour definition of the depth NALL is modified to the agreed area. All Shoreline Sheets SDB Checklines Within each shoreline sheet, acquire four geographically dispersed sounding lines that extend to the inshore limit of safe navigation. The field unit will choose the location for the safe and efficient acquisition of shoal depths. Coverage requirements were met. Additional clarification on specific requirements are provided below. LNM requirements: A minimum of 12,896 LNM was required project-wide. 12,932 LNM were actually acquired. The excess was collected to compensate for incidental data collection such as crossline mileage that exceeded requirements, data acquired during run-ins or run-outs (including in shallow water while scouting depths between lines), and excess overlap (if any). LNM quantities do not include transit or calibration data, or data that doesn't meet HSSD requirements. Investigation lines and results: Per the Work Instructions, investigation (recon) lines were initially conducted in H13917. Results and recommendations were forwarded to NOAA. The recommendations provided to NOAA based on the results of the recon were as follows: 1) Survey the channel to Kotzebue with a 480 m / 240 m zigzag pattern in to a 2 m NALL. 2) survey the "bar", or western approach to the channel, with a denser 240 m / 120 m zigzag line pattern to ensure least depths were captured at the navigationally significant approach, 3) survey the area north of the channel with a conventional line pattern of 120 m spacing, 4) collect no additional data south of the channel due to depths in this area agreeing well with prior survey data, and 5) survey the NE part of the area with a 480 m / 240 m zigzag pattern in to a 2 m or 3.5 m NALL, depending on conditions (as a continuation of the channel survey). The NOAA COR provided concurrence with the recommendations, and the mainscheme survey was subsequently carried out. Refer to the survey correspondence titled "H13917 recon results / recommendations" for more details, specific recommendations, and concurrence. Note that all recon data, which is of the same quality as mainscheme data, is incorporated into the final surface along with the mainscheme data. SDB Checklines: The recon data also serves as the SDB checklines for this sheet as the recon data was collected as shallow as safely possible and has good geographic distribution. Many of the mainscheme soundings along the channel also achieved relatively shoal depths on channel edges and will likely be useful for SDB calibrations. Figure showing the line spacing carried out by area. SupportFiles\Areas_Subdivided.png Figure showing minimum depths achieved during the recon and mainscheme survey, which serve as SDB checkline soundings. SupportFiles\SDB_Soundings.png Figure showing coverage achieved on this survey. SupportFiles\H13917_Survey_Coverage.png ASV-LR1 0.0 456.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.04 0.0 0.0 456.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.04 0.0 8.33 8 0 2 0 25.9 2024-09-01 2024-09-02 2024-09-10 2024-09-11 2024-09-16 2024-09-17 2024-09-29 2024-09-30 2024-10-01 2024-10-02 2024-10-03 2024-10-06 2024-10-07 2024-10-09 2024-10-10 This area was surveyed late in the season due to the desire to avoid subsistence activites that occur earlier in the summer. Refer 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. ASV-LR1 7.6 1.0 The ASV-LR1. SupportFiles\ASV-LR1_2024.png The ASV-LR1 (LR1) was utilized on this survey. It was deployed and transited to this area from the mothership R/V Poseidon, which could not survey in H13917 due to its draft. The LR1 is a 7.6 m aluminum-hull Autonomous Surface Vessel (ASV). The vessel was configured to be "optionally crewed", enabling it to operate with or without a crew as operations required. However, it was utilized with a crew for the entirety of this survey due to distance from the Poseidon (up to 16 NM), and complexity of the area. MBES Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R MBES Backscatter Teledyne RESON SeaBat T50-R Positioning and Attitude System Applanix POS MV OceanMaster Sound Speed System Valeport SWiFT SVP Sound Speed System AML Oceanographic MicroX SV The LR1 utilized a pole-mounted Teledyne Reson Seabat T50-R MBES system, with surface sound speed measurements provided by a AML Oceanographic Micro-X sensor. An Applanix POSMV with submersible IP-68 rated IMU provided attitude and position measurements. QPS QINSy software, running on a Microsoft Windows 10-based PC, was used for multibeam data logging and vessel navigation. Sound speed profiles were collected using a Valeport SWiFT sensor, which was deployed by hand. The percentage of crossline to mainscheme miles is 8.33%. Effort was made to ensure crosslines (XLs) had good temporal and geographic distribution, were angled to enable nadir-to-nadir comparisons, and that the required minimum percent of mainscheme LNM was achieved. The crossline analysis was conducted using CARIS HIPS “Line QC Report” process. Each crossline (with all associated file segments) was selected and run separately through the process, which calculated the depth difference between each accepted crossline sounding and a "QC" BASE (CUBE-type) surface’s depth layer created from the mainscheme data. The QC surface was created with the same parameters and resolution used for the final surface, with the important distinction that the QC surface did not include crosslines so as to not bias the results. Differences in depth were grouped by beam number and statistics were computed, including the percentage of soundings with differences from the QC surface falling within IHO Order 1a. When at least 95% of the sounding differences exceed IHO Order 1a, the crossline was considered to “pass,” but when less than 95% of the soundings compare within IHO Order 1, the crossline was considered to “fail.” A 5% (or less) failure rate was considered acceptable since this approach compares soundings to a surface (instead of a surface to a surface), allowing for the possibility that noisy crossline soundings that don't adversely affect the final surface could be counted as a QC failure in this process. Lines selected as crosslines and their percentage (%) of soundings passing IHO Order 1a, sorted from highest passing to lowest, are listed below. Note that lines used as crosslines have their "Line Class" attribute set to "Check" within the CARIS HIPS projects provided with the survey deliverables. For this survey, lines ran as recon and/or channel lines were commonly used as crosslines, where applicable, due to good spatial distribution and numerous intersections with mainscheme data. 1331-JD276-LR1-F2XL1000 -- 100.0% pass 0545-JD245-LR1-F1Recon -- 100.0% pass 0547-JD245-LR1-F1Recon -- 100.0% pass 1380-JD277-LR1-F2XL1001 -- 100.0% pass 1121-JD261-LR1-F2EW11880 -- 100.0% pass 1153-JD273-LR1-F1Recon -- 100.0% pass 1381-JD277-LR1-F2XL1001 -- 100.0% pass 0998-JD254-LR1-F1XL1000 -- 99.9% pass 1002-JD255-LR1-F1XL1001 -- 99.3% pass 1122-JD261-LR1-J1Recon -- 98.4% pass Results: Agreement between them mainscheme surface and crossline soundings is excellent. At least 95% of all crossline soundings compare to the mainscheme surface within IHO Order 1a for all crosslines. Refer to Separate II: Digital Data for the detailed Crossline QC reports. ERS via ERTDM 0.14 0.0 ASV-LR1 0 5 0 0.025 The uncertainty layer of the final surface was examined in CARIS HIPS software, as well as analyzed in Pydro QC Tools V3.10.20 Grid QA v6. This area exhibited greater variability between sound speed profiles, resulting in higher sound speed uncertainty, than most of the other sheets in the overall project. This was due to the area being heavily influenced by fresh water influx from major rivers funneling through the area into Kotzebue Sound here. The computed uncertainty of the final grid cells range from 0.351 to 0.614 m. Greater than 99.5% of grid cells have TVU that fall within the allowable range by depth. Areas with elevated TVU were examined and found to be in deeper pockets of the channel. Depths in these areas were examined and determined to be within allowable TVU. During field operations, effort was made to ensure sufficient overlap was achieved between this survey and any overlapping surveys for junction analysis. This included extending survey lines into overlapping sheets, and often running lines along junction boundaries. The "Gridded Surface Comparison V24.6" utility within Pydro was used to compare survey junctions. The utility differences the surfaces from the two surveys and generates statistics that include the percentage of grid cells that compare to within allowable TVU for the depth. 4 m resolution surfaces were used for all sheets completed under this project. H13921 20000 2024 TerraSond E These two surveys were completed under the same project. Significant overlap was achieved along their boundary. Agreement is excellent. The mean difference is 0.03 m (H13917 is shoaler), with a standard deviation of 0.04 m. 100% of grid cells agree within allowable TVU by depth. H13916 20000 2024 TerraSond NW These two surveys were completed under the same project. Significant overlap was achieved along their boundary. Agreement is excellent. The mean difference is 0.05 m (H13917 is shoaler), with a standard deviation of 0.06 m. 100% of grid cells agree within allowable TVU by depth. H12349 15000 2011 NOAA Ship Fairweather S A variable resolution (VR) BAG surface was downloaded from NOAA NCEI and used for the comparison with the final surface from this survey. Significant overlap was achieved, with much of the area in common between the two surveys, including the channel to Kotzebue. Agreement is mixed. The mean difference is 0.10 m (H13917 is deeper), but there is a large standard deviation of 0.92 m. 91% of grid cells agree within allowable TVU by depth. Most of the grid cells that exceed allowable TVU are in the channel. Although the channel's general location was relatively stable between the two surveys, there is bottom change evident in many areas, especially along channel banks. Changeability of the channel is not unexpected due to the current discharge and sediment transport from the numerous rivers that empty into Kotzebue Sound through this area. Sandwaves are also present in the channel in various areas, indicating bottom change. An example of sandwaves in the channel is shown below. Sandwaves in the channel near Kotzebue, indicating sediment transport and bottom change. The larger sandwaves are up to 1 m height. A 1 m resolution surface at 5x vertical exaggeration is shown. SupportFiles\Sandwaves.png Figure showing survey junctions. SupportFiles\H13917_Survey_Junctions.png Sonar system quality control checks were conducted as detailed in the quality control section of the DAPR. None Exist There were no conditions or deficiencies that affected equipment operational effectiveness. Bottom Change effect on Backscatter As discussed previously in this report, bottom change was apparent on this survey. This was evident in 2011 versus 2024 data, but this was also observed over the course of this survey. This also had an effect on backscatter intensity in the MBAB mosaic in some areas. Lines run earlier in the project in the channel as recon and crosslines have a higher intensity than lines run later in the project as mainscheme. No settings or sonar changes explain the difference, which did not occur elsewhere in the project where there were similar differences in times of acquisition. This is therefore suspected to be due to a different sediment profile at the surface resulting in different backscatter return. Image showing MBAB mosaic in the channel. Lighter colored lines were run earlier in the project on JD254 and JD275. Darker colored lines were run later on JD284. Sediment changes at the surface are suspected to be the cause of the intensity difference. SupportFiles\MBAB_Intensity_Change.png Sound Speed Error Sound speed error, which is normally characterized by a general upward or downward across-track cupping of sounding data that increases in magnitude towards the outer beams, is evident sporadically in the dataset. Profiles were taken frequently, usually not exceeding two hours, and whenever changing areas, but some residual error remains. In processing, beam filters were applied to reject outer beams greater than 65 degrees from nadir on most lines in order to reject soundings most subject to sound speed error. The dataset was also systematically examined and additional filters were applied to individual lines where outer beam error appeared to approach or exceed specifications, removing the erroneous data. The effect on the final surfaces is relatively minor, normally less than 0.20 m where it occurs. Final data is within specifications. 2 hours Sound speed profiles or "casts" were acquired aboard the LR1 by hand, lowering a Valeport SWiFT sound speed profiler to the seafloor and back. Surface sound speed at the sonar head on the LR1 was monitored continuously and a new cast was collected when the surface speed varied from the previous profile's speed at the same depth by greater than 2 m/s, leading to a cast interval of approximately 2 hours. The cast data was used to correct the sounding data using the "nearest in distance within time" (set to 2 hours) within CARIS HIPS. All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. All data reduction procedures conform to those detailed in the DAPR. All sounding systems were calibrated as detailed in the DAPR. All equipment and survey methods were used as detailed in the DAPR. NOAA Profile Version 2024 The most current version of NOAA's Extended Attribute Files available at the start of survey operations was utilized for this project. H13917_MB_4m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 4 1.167 18.647 NOAA_4m MBES Set Line Spacing H13917_MB_1m_MLLW_Final CARIS Raster Surface (CUBE) 1 4.489 18.563 NOAA_1m Complete MBES H13917_MBAB_2m_LR1_400kHz_1of1 MB Backscatter Mosaic 2 1.167 18.647 N/A MBES Set Line Spacing The final depth information for this survey was submitted as a 4 m resolution CARIS BASE surface (CSAR format), computed with the CUBE algorithm, which best represents the seafloor at the time of the 2024 survey. The surface was created from fully processed data with all final corrections applied. The surface was created using NOAA CUBE parameters and resolutions in conformance with the 2022 HSSD. The surface was finalized with a 0 to 80 m depth limit, "Uncertainty" selected as the final uncertainty source, and designated soundings were applied (if present). Horizontal projection was selected as WGS84 / UTM zone 3N. A non-finalized version of the CSAR surface is also included with the survey deliverables for reference. This does not have the "_Final" designation in the filename. The Multibeam Acoustic Backscatter (MBAB) surface(s), produced with QPS Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox (FMGT), is also provided. NOTE: A 1 m resolution surface is also provided to demonstrate that Complete Coverage was achieved in the vicinity of assigned feature investigation locations. To create this, a 1 m resolution surface was first created over the general area of the feature investigations. This surface was created in accordance with HSSD specifications for Complete Coverage. Next, this version was finalized in CARIS HIPS, with designated soundings applied and "Uncertainty" selected as the final uncertainty source. Lastly, the finalized version was clipped using a Coverage Area polygon (cvrage object) so as to exclude area not surveyed to Complete Coverage standards. The finalized (but non-clipped) surface is included with the survey deliverables with "_F" designation in the filename. The HOB file used for clipping is included with the survey deliverables in the "Surfaces_Mosaics" directory. Refer to the FFF for feature investigation results. Figure showing the final 1 m resolution coverage demonstrating Complete Coverage at item investigation locations, with clipping boundaries. SupportFiles\1m_Coverage.png Additional information discussing the vertical or horizontal control for this survey can be found in the accompanying HVCR. Mean Lower Low Water ERS via ERTDM OPR-S327-KR-24_AK_ERTDM_2023_WGS84(G2139)-MLLW.csar All soundings were reduced to MLLW using the ERTDM WGS84 to MLLW separation model grid file provided by NOAA using ERS methodology. The uncertainty stated for the model in the Project Instructions was 0.14 m. Note all altitudes are relative to the WGS84 datum, therefore the WGS84 to MLLW ERTDM model was utilized to reduce soundings to MLLW. World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 Projected UTM 3 RTX Post-processing of all navigation data for final positions was done in Applanix POSPac MMS (v9.1) software. Trimble PP-RTX was used as the primary processing methodology within POSPac. Exceptions (if any) were noted previously. Real-time positions were primarily RTK. The POSMV was configured to receive Trimble CenterPoint RTX corrections using NTRIP protocol over the internet via a Starlink Maritime receiver. This allowed the POSMV to operate in RTK mode, assisting with real-time positioning in the field. Real-time positioning sources in the raw MBES records are therefore normally RTX. However, all real-time positions were replaced in post-processing, as described previously. The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was used for real-time horizontal control during data acquisition only if issues with reception of CenterPoint RTX corrections were experienced. These are usually noted in the Survey Line Logs, included with the survey deliverables. HSSD Section 2.2 (NAD83) A waiver to HSSD Section 2.2 was was granted for this project. All products are submitted with horizontal positions as WGS84 instead of NAD83(2011). This was done to provide a consistent dataset from raw data, which was acquired in WGS84, through final processed data. See project correspondence for the waiver. An overview of this survey overlaid on the largest scale chart(s) covering the survey area is shown below. At the time of this survey much of the area was uncharted. This survey overlaid on affected large scale ENCs. SupportFiles\Chart_Overlay.png US4AK6YT 40000 1 2020-09-03 2020-09-03 US4AK6ZT 40000 1 2020-09-03 2020-09-03 US4AK6ZS 40000 1 2020-09-03 2024-01-26 US4AK6YS 40000 1 2020-09-03 2024-01-26 As discussed earlier in this report, the western approach to the Kotzebue channel is navigationally significant and received survey with increased line density to ensure least depths of the area were adequately captured. This shoal is the shallowest part of the channel, and determines the draft of vessels that can navigate to or from Kotzebue. Existing charted depths over this shoal on US4AK6YS are in the range of 1.5 to 2.1 meters. This survey found the shoal to be slightly deeper than charted, in the range of 2 to 2.6 meters, depending on how the channel is approached and navigated. No depths less than 2 meters were found over the shoal. No DTONs were submitted for this survey. Soundings from this survey (blue) overlaid on chart US4AK6YS at the western approach to the Kotzebue channel. All soundings in meters. SupportFiles\Channel_Approach.png Feature investigations were assigned for this survey. Refer to the FFF submitted with the survey deliverables for results. No uncharted features exist for this survey. No maintained channels exist within the survey limits. No Aids to navigation (ATONs) exist for this survey. No Maritime Boundary Points were assigned for this survey. Eight bottom samples were acquired under this survey. Ten samples were planned, but two were reallocated to other sheets in the overall project due to the limited survey area achieved in this sheet. This was done in accordance with the Project Instructions with concurrence from the COR (see survey correspondence). Samples were not acquired in the channel from Kotzebue westward due to the presence of charted telecommunication cables. Most samples returned mud or sand as primary constituents. Samples were examined, photographed, and then discarded overboard. An overview of their locations is shown below. Detailed results are provided in the project FFF. No overhead features exist for this survey. Three telecommunication cables are charted extending through the channel to Kotzebue through this sheet. An inspection of the dataset where the charted positions intersected survey data was conducted and revealed no evidence of these cables. Two of the cables have relatively recent dates reported as August 2023, and had surface expressions visible in datasets from some of the other sheets in this overall project, but it is likely that the sediment movement common through this area has hidden evidence of the cables or their burial. Note that only one of the cables was assigned for investigation in the CSF. It was agreed that an examination of MBES data that intersected this feature was sufficient as an investigation. Refer to the project correspondence for related discussion and correspondence. Image showing three charted cables in the channel to Kotzebue. Only the center cable (highlighted) was assigned for investigation. No indication of these cables was observed in this sheet. SupportFiles\Cables.png No platforms exist for this survey. No ferry routes or terminals exist for this survey. Ice scour is evident in some areas of this sheet, including in the channel. These long, linear seafloor features indicate the direction of movement of sea ice in contact with the seafloor as it was dragged by wind and/or current. Ice scour, along with river and tidal currents, contributes to the changeability of the channel. Due to the changeable nature of the channel, mariners should be warned to navigate the area with caution. Ice scour in the Kotzebue channel. Water depth at this location is about 7 m. SupportFiles\Ice_Scour.png 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 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 Specifications and Deliverables, Hydrographic Survey 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 with the exception of deficiencies, if any, noted in the Descriptive Report. Andrew Orthmann, CH Charting Program Manager 2025-01-25 Survey Outline Submittal 2024-11-11 Final Progress Report 2024-11-15 Trained Marine Mammal Observer Log 2024-12-02 Marine Mammal Sightings Forms 2024-12-02 NCEI Sound Speed Data Submittal 2024-12-23 Coast Pilot Report 2025-01-16