Hydrographic Risk Assessment Throughout New Zealand Waters Jennifer Roberts John Riding SWPHC Workshop, Nouméa

Contents Methodology Developments for NZ Project Traffic Analysis Risk Result Highlights Charting Benefit Highlights Conclusions

Hydro Risk Methodology Update for NZ Assessment

Variable GIS Cell Sizes Introduced Allows Refined Analysis to take account of Routes to Berths and Berth Pockets Sounds simple, but adds considerable complexity to analysis Cells 3km2 offshore (12nm limit to EZ) Cells 1km2 inside territorial waters Cells 500m2 inside harbour limits The Risk Model For NZ Waters took 4 hours to run.

Benefit Module Considerable Improvements made to the Charting Benefit Module This is now a separate computer model, which takes the results of the Risk Assessment as its input The Charting Benefit Module now attaches directly to ENC Attributes as well as charting scale change

Charting Adequacy – the Problem Overall Both developed and developing countries have adequacy margins in their charting portfolios! Source : Marsh 2016

Charting Adequacy – Clarity Provided Chart Adequacy has been defined and is broken down like this:- A combination of Chart Scale; Extents and Quality The clear relationship makes a significant difference to Charting benefit calculations Benefit is what should drive decision making

Risk Matrix – Familiar, But Very Different

Risk Matrix Criteria – New Zealand The NZ Assessment was far more data driven than other assessments For NZ, a total of 39 Criteria were used within each GIS cell to derive the hydrographic risk result Each criteria is a standalone data-set, with each criteria having its own unique scale Four risk criteria were attached to each vessel, different date for different vessel types:- Potential Loss of life Pollution Damage to Vessels Economic Each risk criteria factor was triggered by the adjacent presence of vessel tracks

Review Modifications – Risk Model Pollution Response plan datasets from Regional Councils added into the risk model Additional data layers were added for Aquaculture; Tourism Data, Recreational (Marinas), Wetlands CATZOC records were updated to latest hydrographic standards (July 2016), as opposed what was presently in charts – reflected charting status being rolled out An new criteria added ‘Proximity to sites of Low Economic Contribution’ (includes Marinas and Whale/Dolphin Watching centres) Traffic risk for Domestic Passenger vessels added in relation to the actual passenger volumes on a route as well as the capacity of vessels engaged

NZ CATZOC – Corrected to June 2016 CATZOC and Survey age are the Drivers of Benefit!

NZ Survey Age

Traffic Examples

Taranaki – Tankers and Anchorages Unofficial Anchorages became part of the assessment

Profile known in great detail Waikato -Traffic Profile known in great detail Shows the accuracy and detail of the traffic record – Marico AIS receivers.

Results – Key Areas

Risk Overall

Benefit Overall

Priority areas Eleven North Island priority area candidates for charting improvements Twenty-one South Island areas candidates for charting improvements

North Island Eleven North Island priority areas : Whangarei Kawau Bay Auckland – Inner Harbour Auckland – West Harbour Auckland – Tamaki Strait Tauranga Approaches and Inner Harbour White Island Gisborne Approaches Napier Approaches Wellington Harbour & Approaches Taranaki Harbour & Approaches

South Island 21 Priority Areas Bluff Approaches Stewart Island – East Coast Dusky Sound Doubtful Sound Caswell, Charles & Nancy Sounds George Sound Bligh Sound Poison Bay Milford Sound – Fresh Water Basin / Sandfly Point Milford Sound Approaches Westport Approaches Tasman – Rabbit Island Nelson Approaches D’Urville Island Marlborough Sounds & Approaches Kaikoura Lyttelton Harbour Banks Peninsula Akaroa Approaches Timaru Harbour & Approaches Otago Harbour & Approaches

Auckland Harbour and Approaches Point out Benefit Window Auckland Harbour and Approaches

Conclusions Summary

Overview Conclusions Areas of Positive Charting Benefit have been successfully identified Areas have been identified where Charting Reorganisation will benefit navigation A number of Harbour Approach charts would benefit from changed scales or extents Sea bottom data in informal and designated anchorages is needed – IHO Swept standards for anchorages Harbour Limits not showing on all charts

North Island Overall North Island presents a good result for Hydrographic Risk Colville Channel and Cuvier Island show traffic presence including tankers close to navigation hazards Mercury Islands show traffic passed close to Nature Reserves Taranaki informal Tanker anchorages need addressing and advice on charting recommended

South Island Marlborough Sounds area and approaches would benefit from charting reorganisation Some Queen Charlotte Sound survey data dates from 1942 Banks Peninsula and Akaroa Approaches could benefit from chart extent/scale review Fiordland inlets show positive charting benefit due to high passenger volumes, presence of marine reserves and charting scales/extents

Thanks for Listening! Questions Jennifer Roberts John Riding 01 December 2016