The "add on" project area surveyed depths between the 27 and 175 meter depths around St. George Island and St Paul Island in the Central Bering Sea. Full bottom coverage, consisting of 100% multibeam data was achieved within the limits of hydrography for this survey. One hundred percent backscatter data was acquired and stored by TerraSond, Ltd to be processed by the client. The data were collected from the R/V Mount Mitchell by Terrasond, Inc using a Simrad EM710 multibeam echosounder.

The "add on" project area surveyed depths between the 27 and 175 meter depths around St. George Island and St Paul Island in the Central Bering Sea. Full bottom coverage, consisting of 100% multibeam data was achieved within the limits of hydrography for this survey. One hundred percent backscatter data was acquired and stored by TerraSond, Ltd to be processed by the client. The data were collected from the R/V Mount Mitchell by Terrasond, Inc using a Simrad EM710 multibeam echosounder.

The "add on" project area surveyed depths between the 27 and 175 meter depths around St. George Island and St Paul Island in the Central Bering Sea. Full bottom coverage, consisting of 100% multibeam data was achieved within the limits of hydrography for this survey. One hundred percent backscatter data was acquired and stored by TerraSond, Ltd to be processed by the client. The data were collected from the R/V Mount Mitchell by Terrasond, Inc using a Simrad EM710 multibeam echosounder.

The "add on" project area surveyed depths between the 27 and 175 meter depths around St. George Island and St Paul Island in the Central Bering Sea. Full bottom coverage, consisting of 100% multibeam data was achieved within the limits of hydrography for this survey. One hundred percent backscatter data was acquired and stored by TerraSond, Ltd to be processed by the client. The data were collected from the R/V Mount Mitchell by Terrasond, Inc using a Simrad EM710 multibeam echosounder.

The basic project area was between the 200 and 1100 meter depth curves in Pribilof Canyon, south of the Pribilof Islands in the Central Bering Sea. An option to extend the project area to the 2000 meter depth was exercised in accordance with section 1.6.2 University of Alaska Fairbanks Extended Surveyof the Statement of Work. A region of ?erroneous data?, described in section 1.6.1of the Statement of Workwas not surveyed. The final project area was approximately 870 square nautical miles in area and 50 nautical miles in length. Full bottom coverage, consisting of 100% multibeam data was achieved within the limits of hydrography for this survey. One hundred percent backscatter data was acquired and stored by TerraSond, Ltd to be processed by the client. This survey has a minimum depth of 124.27 meters and a maximum depth of 2265.391 meters below the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) tidal datum. The R/V Mt. Mitchellcollected 2660 lineal nautical miles of mainscheme multibeam lines and 215 lineal nautical miles of crosslines between June 2, 2009 and June 15, 2009 for a total of 873.8 square nautical miles of coverage. No bottom samples were collected in the project area.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.