RedactedNarrative: Damage and party interviews suggest that vessel 1 was exiting Neabsco creek increasing in speed and vessel 2 was beginning to enter Neabsco creek at a high rate of speed.
  
  Both vessels were on the southern edge of the channel at the time of the incident.
  
  Both vessels were performing evasive maneuvers to their respective port sides. Vessel 1 began engagement with vessel 2 on the starboard side of vessel 2 just forward of the cabin. As vessel 2 rolled from the evasive maneuver it exposed more of the hull. Vessel 1's bow, just above the bow eye, struck vessel 2's hull above the water line.
  
  As vessel 1 continued turning its path of engagement continued to push into the starboard side of vessel 2's hull. The keel of vessel 1 now fully engaged with vessel 2 crushed one of the internal structural supports of the hull of vessel 2. This damage went in as far as to put a dent on the fuel tank of vessel 2.
  
  Both vessels continued to turn as the engagement continued.  The bow of vessel 1 took the path of least resistance up and away from the keel and the anchor engaged on the starboard side aft the cabin and ripped off the starboard stern corner of the vessel. 
  
  As the bow of vessel 1 began to disengage the stern portion of vessel 1 continued to engage vessel 2. As the stern came around the trim tab cut into the now weakened hull of vessel 2. The lower unit of the starboard motor on vessel 1 also engaged with vessel 2 causing significant damage below the water line on the hull. The torpedo of the lower unit damaged the hull and the prop came behind slicing a portion of the lower hull.
  
  All of this caused catastrophic hull failure on vessel 2 causing it to sink immediately. Due to how shallow the river is in this area, vessel 2 came to rest on the bottom which potentially provided vessel 2 occupants enough time to put on PFDs and contact for rescue.
  
  Vessel 1 sustained much less damage being that it began the engagement more head on with its bow. However as the lower unit ripped through the hull it made contact with the aft bulkhead, which tore the out drive off the vessel.
     
  Both vessels appear to have been on the same course on a dark night. Vessel 1 took the typical travel path for a vessel heading out a channel hugging the edge of the channel with its starboard side.  Vessel 1 had an extreme bow high attitude because it was coming up on plane, while vessel 2 was moving at greater rate of speed because it had not come off plane yet.  
  
  While standard operation suggests that operators pass port to port in this instance both vessels went starboard to starboard. Due to the size of both vessels and the distance at which they saw one another complete avoidance maneuvers were not possible. Both operators stated that they saw the navigation lights on the other vessel, and no evidence suggests that the navigational lights were not operational. Both operators also have significant experience operating watercraft.
  
  It is this investigator's belief that the low light condition, it was overcast and was also a last quarter moon phase, is a significant contributor to the cause of this accident and as far as I can prove alcohol was not a contributing factor. I find that both operators acted similarly to avoid this accident and I am not inclined to seek criminal charges against either party.