[Robert A Cook PE]

But no "mountain" (no land or "seamount" or shallow water or island or anything else) was on the chart.

How is the CO supposed to miss something that's not there?

The undersea plain was marked at regular intervals with 5000-6000 feet soundings in the nearby 30 mile area. One dashed circle (near, but not across the sub's path) was marked "reported discolored water" - but no soundings changed, no date, no report what (or who) reported the "discolored water."

It is now suspected that this "discolored water" was a space (satellite) report that was caused by the seamount.

Still no actual soundings or undersea survey of the area is reported in the unclassified reports at least.

Guam isn't an "old" sub repair or staging area - there's not been enough budget or time yet to fully survey that area -> There was no Russian sub activity, and the Chinese didn't go that far. So our boats didn't either.

[Boot Hill]

8	“The undersea plain was marked at regular intervals with 5000-6000 feet soundings in the nearby 30 mile area. One dashed circle (near, but not across the sub's path) was marked 'reported discolored water' - but no soundings changed, no date, no report what (or who) reported the 'discolored water'.”

This may be the chart you were thinking of. I thought posting it again might help clarify the matter.

Note:   This is a portion of the 1989 DMA chart number 81133, that has been annotated by the New York Times. It was originally posted by "neverdem" here: "Submarine Crash Shows Navy Had Gaps in Mapping System".

I can't tell for sure just how much the NYT altered the chart. Did they add the dashed circle? Did they add the course line? Did they add the notation about "Discolored Water Rep"? Nevertheless, the depth markings (fathoms?) clearly show the area to be very deep water and free from any designated shoaling.

Since this issue is not going away for awhile, it might be in our (FR's) interest to contact the NGA (nee, DMA) and procure a copy of this chart.

--Boot Hill