Canadian Arctic Bathymetry Data: Compilation

Transport Canada’s Northern Transportation Adaptation
Initiative (NTAI)
Canadian Arctic Bathymetry Data:
Compilation, Assessment and
Prioritization
Client
Transport Canada
March 2014
-1-
Avis :
Les opinions exprimées dans ce rapport sont celles des auteurs et ne reflètent pas
nécessairement celles du Gouvernement du Canada ou de Transports Canada, et sont propres
au CIDCO, prestataire et auteur de ce rapport. Le CIDCO se réserve les droits de propriété
intellectuelle de ce rapport.
Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in this report reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the
official views or policies of the Government of Canada or Transport Canada, and are specific to
CIDCO, author of the report. CIDCO reserves the intellectual property rights of this report.
Ce rapport est disponible en ligne sur le site internet du CIDCO :
http://www.cidco.ca/liste_publication.php
This report is available online on the CIDCO website:
http://www.cidco.ca/liste_publication.php?langue=en
Equipe de recherche / Project team:
-
Nicolas Seube, Directeur Scientifique du CIDCO
Mathieu Rondeau, géomaticien
Jean-Guy Nistad, géomaticien
Sylvain Gautier, géomaticien
-2-
Sommaire:
Ce rapport tente d’expliquer le développement de la cartographie marine dans le Nord Canadien
ème
au vu des différents moyens technologiques disponibles du début du 20
siècle à nos jours. On
s’intéresse ensuite aux différentes routes maritimes existantes ou à venir dans le Nord Canadien,
et on explique les besoins associés de cartographie afin d’améliorer la sécurité de navigation.
On explique la faible qualité des données hydrographiques et produits cartographiques dans
certaines zones à un manque d’infrastructures de positionnement, à une connaissance imparfaite
de la géodésie et des niveaux d’eau, qui sont des préalables essentiels pour une cartographie de
qualité.
On passe ensuite en revue différentes solutions envisagées à l’heure actuelle (déploiement de
systèmes autonomes, bathymétrie collaborative) pour combler le déficit de données
hydrographiques pour assurer la sécurité de navigation, et on propose une analyse critique de
l’emploi de ces systèmes dans le contexte du Nord Canadien.
On synthétise le point de vue de transporteurs opérant des navires dans le Nord Canadien, en
terme de besoins cartographiques à des fins de sécurité de la navigation.
Enfin, on compare deux approches de priorisation de campagnes de levés hydrographique :
l’une a été développée par le Service Hydrographique du Canada, et l’autre est une adaptation
du schéma développé par le Land Information New Zealand aux spécificités du Nord Canadien.
Summary:
This reports aims to explain the dynamics of North Canada marine charting development, in
relation with the availability of technological resources, from the early 20th century. We detail the
development of maritime corridors, routes and the associated requirements in terms of marine
charts, taking into account the specificity of arctic waters navigation constraints.
We explain the weakness of historical hydrographic data quality and related marine charting
products in terms of lack of positioning infrastructures and accurate knowledge of both geodesy
and water levels, which are essential pre-requisites for meeting modern hydrographic and
cartographic quality standards.
We summarize the different interviews of Northern Canada transport companies, which describe
their needs in terms of availability of nautical charting products.
Then, we compare two different approaches for the prioritization of hydrographic surveys. The
first one has been proposed by the Canadian Hydrographic Service, and the other one is an
adaptation of the Land Information New Zealand prioritization scheme to Canada’s North areas.
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-4-
TABLE OF FIGURES
-6-
GENERAL INFORMATION
-8-
1.
INTRODUCTION
-9-
2.
CONTEXT
-9-
2.1
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SHIPPING ROUTES
- 10 -
2.2
OVERALL STATE OF CARTOGRAPHY
- 14 -
3.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGRAPHY IN NORTHERN CANADA
- 16 -
3.1
PRECONDITIONS OF QUALITY HYDROGRAPHY
GEOREFERENCING
KNOWLEDGE OF TIDal Fluctuation
SUMMARY
- 16 - 16 - 21 - 22 -
3.2
- 22 -
BATHYMETRIC METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
3.3
DEPLOYMENT OF HYDROGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT
POSSIBLE CONVENTIONAL SOLUTIONS
UNCONVENTIONAL SOLUTIONS
CROWDSOURCED BATHYMETRY
AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS
METHODOLOGICal ASPECTS
HYDROGRAPHIC AND CARTOGRAPHic DATA
- 23 - 23 - 24 - 24 - 27 - 29 - 30 -
4.
- 39 - 43 -
5.
PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE LACK OF CARTOGRAPHY IN NORTHERN CANADA
SUMMARY
PRIORITIZATION METHODS SUITABLE FOR NORTHERN CANADA
5.1
PRIORITIZATION AS defined BY THE CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE
ANALYSIS OF THIS METHOD
-4-
- 43 - 43 - 46 -
5.2
“PARTICIPATORY” prioritization
PRIORITIZATION CONCEPTS
STEP 1a: DATA COMPILATION
STEP 1b: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
STEP 2: RISK ASSESSMENT
STEP 3: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
STEP 4: HYDROGRAPHIC TECHNICAL VISIT
STEP 5: DEFINITION OF PRIORITY HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS
SUMMARY
Conclusion
- 48 - 48 - 49 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 54 - 55 - 56 -
REFERENCES
- 57 -
APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLE OF IDENTIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MARINE ACCIDENT
INVOLVING A SOLAS PASSENGER VESSEL
- 59 -
APPENDIX 2: EXAMPLE OF IDENTIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MARINE ACCIDENT
INVOLVING A CARGO SOLAS VESSEL
- 60 -
-5-
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Canadian Arctic: The red dots represent the locations of communities and the purple
lines represent marine traffic density (2010 data). Map available on the geographic portal
http://geoportal.gc.ca (Arctic Voyage planning guide) ......................................................... - 9 Figure 2: Shipping routes according to AIS data in Northern Canada (Source ArkGIS)........... - 10 Figure 3: Leyzack, Economic Benefits of Hydrography in the Canadian ArcticA case Study, Lighthouse Ed 77, 2011 .............................................................................. - 11 Figure 4: Potential projects for deep water harbours, in relation to mining projects (source: St.
Lawrence Shipoperators, 2011 CIDCO Symposium) ........................................................ - 11 Figure 5: Map of the major mineral projects in the Canadian Arctic in March 2012. Source:
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. ..................................................... - 12 Figure 6: List and map of mining projects in development. Source: St. Lawrence Shipoperators,
2011 CIDCO Symposium ................................................................................................... - 13 Figure 7: Points of gravity measurements used for the CGDV28. We can see that Northern
Canada is relatively uncovered and, therefore, not modeled............................................. - 17 Figure 8: Distant Early Warning in the Arctic. We find that only very partial coverage can be
achieved when using this system, for given the linear configuration of the network, you have
to be situated between two radar beacons in order to obtain an accurate position. .......... - 19 Figure 9: Principle of horizontal positioning using two radar beacons. ..................................... - 19 Figure 10: Permanent GNSS network (CACS). Yellow indicates the regional network stations,
green indicates the national network stations. It is clear that the network density is too low to
allow for positioning via quality PPP. ................................................................................. - 20 Figure 11: Permanent tide gauges, paired with a permanent GNSS station operated by the CHS.
Note that only 4 stations were installed. ............................................................................. - 22 Figure 12: Several hydrographic vessels, having different consistent measurement uncertainties.
The blue ship has a positioning uncertainty greater than the vertical uncertainty; the reverse
is true for the green ship. The red ship is the least effective. The surveys are consistent if
every datum (centre of the cross) belongs to the intersection of uncertainty domains of every
other sounding. In classical statistical theory of measurement error, the crosses correspond
to the small and large axes of an ellipse (in 2D) or an uncertainty ellipsoid (in 3D). ......... - 25 Figure 13: Critical situation where the measurement uncertainties are inconsistent between
different hydrographic surveys conducted by different vessels. The blue and green vessels
are inconsistent, for their most probable measurements (centre of the crosses) are located
beyond their respective uncertainty ellipses. ..................................................................... - 26 Figure 14: In crowdsourced bathymetry, no uncertainty can be assessed, for the set-ups are not
rigorously studied and integrated. Therefore, it is impossible to define a notion of consistency
-6-
between hydrographic measurements. In the case of measurements repeated by a large
number of small crafts, it is possible to define a statistic in relation to a purely descriptive
statistic of the seafloor, but this would most certainly be impossible for scattered and
infrequent measurements, as would be the case in Northern Canada. ............................. - 26 Figure 15: Drifter from the Seafloor Sounding for Polar and Remote Regions (SSPARR) project .. 28 Figure 16: Approach maps; above, electronic charts, below, paper charts. The locations of
communities are indicated in red. The ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper
charts by the pink rectangles.............................................................................................. - 32 Figure 17: Coastal charts; above, electronic charts, below, paper charts. The locations of
communities are indicated in red. The ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper
charts by the pink rectangles.............................................................................................. - 33 Figure 18: General maps; above, electronic charts, below, paper charts. The locations of
communities are indicated in red. The ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper
charts by the pink rectangles.............................................................................................. - 34 Figure 19: ENC ports: Northern coast of Baffin Island and the Dease Strait. ........................... - 35 Figure 20: ENC ports: Vicinity of Prince Charles Island. ........................................................... - 36 Figure 21: Paper port maps: Only Churchill and a few ports on the northern coast of Baffin Island
are indicated. ...................................................................................................................... - 36 Figure 22: Every ENC in Northern Canada ............................................................................... - 37 Figure 23: Areas for which the CHS possesses modern hydrographic data, Source Christopher
Wright, Navigability of the Canadian Arctic, CHS 2012, Niagara Falls .............................. - 37 Figure 24: Correlation between the DEW line (black line on the map above) and coastal paper
charts (pink rectangles on the map below). ....................................................................... - 38 -
-7-
GENERAL INFORM ATION
CLIENT
Company/ministry
Transport Canada
Person responsible
Contact information
Frédéric Sirois
Tel.: (613) 949-8793 Email: [email protected]
CIDCO
Project leader
Jean-Guy Nistad
Information compiled by
Mathieu Rondeau
Sylvain Gautier
Jean Laflamme
Report drafted by
Nicolas Seube
DELIVERABLES
-
1 electronic version of the final report (in Word format) for the client
-8-
1. INTRODUCTION
Acquiring hydrographic data poses difficult problems in Arctic regions. In fact, the possibility of
compiling hydrographic data of cartographic quality does not depend exclusively on deploying
hydrographic ships equipped with sophisticated sounders, but largely on having a) prior
knowledge in the field of geodesy, b) precise positioning equipment requiring a land-based
infrastructure, c) excellent knowledge of the coastline, d) measurement equipment, and e) tidal
models.
In the current state of Arctic cartography, we demonstrate why these methods are cost-prohibitive
and not well suited in Northern Canada, not only due to the extent of the region, but also to the
presence of complex geophysical phenomena.
First, we discuss the various methodologies employed in Northern Canada, providing a brief
historical perspective in order to understand why charting and mapping the North poses
numerous problems. Then, we provide an overview of the hydrographic methods and equipment
that have been used in Northern Canada since the 1930s, and discuss the current status of
cartographic products for mariners. Finally, in order to coordinate the cartographic development
of Northern Canada with its economic development potential, we present a prioritization method
used by the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS). We analyze this method, before proposing a
method we believe is more suitable for the North.
2. CONTEXT
Figure 1: Canadian Arctic: The red dots represent the locations of communities and the purple lines represent
marine traffic density (2010 data). Map available on the geographic portal http://geoportal.gc.ca (Arctic Voyage
planning guide)
-9-
Figure 2: Shipping routes according to AIS data in Northern Canada (Source ArcGIS)
2.1 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SHIPPING ROUTES
According to two separate sources, the figures above represent the most frequently used
navigation routes in the Arctic. It is relatively clear that the main routes link the city of Churchill
(Manitoba), the only port in the Arctic connected to the Canadian rail network, and otherwise
include the Northwest Passage. The chart in Figure 1 seems to underestimate the traffic in the
Foxe Basin. It is also apparent that the Northwest Passage is now increasingly used, and its
economic potential (less than 4,000 km for a Europe-Asia crossing compared to the Panama
Canal) is very significant. As an approach route to the Northwest Passage, the eastern coast of
Baffin Island also experiences relatively significant marine traffic.
It should be noted that the Port of Churchill, the only deep water port in this region, can receive
Panamax vessels (vessels with draughts of up to 12 meters). An oil terminal project in Churchill is
currently under study and the security of the navigation route for eventual oil exports is certainly
an important question.
The development of mining projects also serves as motivation for opening or securing
commercial shipping routes. Finally, tourism development, mentioned in Publication C-55 of the
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), is a factor in marine traffic development
presenting a significant risk. 100 cruise ships visit the Canadian Arctic each year. 69 boats took
the Northwest Passage between 1906 and 2009. In 2010, 24 ships passed through in seven
months, a high proportion of which were cruise ships.
- 10 -
Figure 3: Leyzack (2011), Economic Benefits of Hydrography in the Canadian Arctic A case Study, Lighthouse Ed 77, 2011
Traffic density in the Northwest Passage has increased from 7 vessels in 2007 to 16 in 2010,
13 of which were cruise ships. Currently, no cargo vessel takes the Northwest Passage.
The traffic in Northern Canada has increased from 119 commercial vessels in 2005 to 220 in
2010, which can be partly explained by the population increase in the North (100,000 people
today), with a high growth rate (+20 % per year). The number of fishing vessels increased from
30 in 2005 to 220 in 2010.
Figure 4: Potential projects for deep water harbours, in relation to mining projects
(source: St. Lawrence Shipoperators, 2011 CIDCO Symposium)
- 11 -
Figure 5: Map of the major mineral projects in the Canadian Arctic in March 2012. Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
- 12 -
Figure 6: List and map of mining projects in development. Source: St. Lawrence Shipoperators, 2011 CIDCO Symposium
- 13 -
It seems relatively clear that marine traffic in Northern Canada is related to:




Procurement activities (supplying communities that have a growing population). This
traffic uses a network of secondary shipping routes and is currently the most extensive;
The very rapid development of mining projects in Northern Canada, which is creating a
great need for deep water ports, particularly along the eastern coast of Baffin Island and
the western Hudson Bay;
Commercial traffic from terminal ports (such as Churchill, MB);
Northwest Passage routes representing high international traffic (avoiding the Panama
Canal), the dynamic of which could be very strong in the medium term.
2.2 OVERALL STATE OF CARTOGRAPHY
In September 2013, according to IHO Publication C-55, the aim of which is to provide an
estimation of areas covered by modern hydrographic surveys, Canada supplied the following
information concerning international region A:
Regarding the status of hydrographic surveys (hydrographic data serving as a basis for
cartographic production):
Status of hydrographic
surveys
Percentage
A1
30
Adequately surveyed 0-200m
A2
15
Adequately surveyed >200m
B1
10
Requiring re-survey 0-200m
B2
10
Requiring re-survey >200m
C1
30
Never been systematically surveyed 0-200m
C2
25
Never been systematically surveyed >200m
Areas
- 14 -
Comments:
1. “The high proportion of inadequately surveyed waters is predominantly due to the
large areas of Arctic waters that are unsurveyed or covered by frontier surveys
only.”
2. “Ecotourism, climate change and resource development are increasing demand for
surveys in Arctic and frontier areas.”
Concerning the status of nautical charts available to mariners:
Status of
marine
cartography
Percentage
small scale,
offshore
Percentage
medium scale,
coastal
passage
Percentage
large scale,
ports,
approaches
A
100
75
75
Paper (INT)
B
100
75
100
Digitized from
paper charts
(RNC)
C
100
100
100
Electronic charts
(ENC)
Areas covered by
charts in format
Comment:
“Arctic and other frontier areas are not covered by electronic chart products due to lack of
demand.”
A few comments concerning these data:
1. The percentage of INT charts is inferior or equal to the percentage of ENCs, which is
most surprising. In fact, international regulation requires the presence of paper charts
onboard vessels.
2. The percentage of available charts is very high relative to the quality of hydrographic
data. For example, concerning the coastal areas (0-200m), the A1/B1/C1 percentages
are 30%, 10% and 30% respectively. This means that 30% of coastal areas are
considered adequately surveyed, 10% of these require new hydrographic campaigns,
and 30% have never been surveyed.
3. Therefore, we can conclude that a large percentage of data assimilated into nautical
charts is of poor quality, and that charts contain areas devoid of any hydrographic data.
- 15 -
Concerning region N (Arctic Regional Commission), the member countries of which are Canada,
Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States, Canada provides no aggregate data. However,
the 2012 report from Canada indicates that 18 ENCs, 1 INT chart and one RNC chart were
produced in the Arctic region. In August, 2011, the CHS conducted a campaign in the Victoria
Strait, in Nunavut. 520 km² were surveyed using modern methods and equipment.
Therefore, it seems clear that the Canadian Arctic has been subject to inadequate hydrographic
and cartographic coverage in view of the economic growth in the North, the opening of the
Northwest Passage, and the relatively high increase in tourism in the Arctic regions and
territories.
According to the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), 10% of waters in Northern Canada and
40% of waters in the Northwest Passage have been accurately surveyed.
The following sections detail the history of hydrography and the status of marine cartography in
the Canadian Arctic.
3. HISTORICAL
CANAD A
DEVELOPMENT
OF
HYDROGRAPHY
IN
NORTHERN
3.1 PRECONDITIONS OF QUALITY HYDROGRAPHY
As we mentioned in the introduction, a hydrographic survey does not consist solely of submerging
a water depth measurement device in water to obtain a sounding. A significant infrastructure is
required to georeference each sounding so as to allow for consistent cartographic production.
Georeferencing is done by referencing the so-called “horizontal” and “vertical” positioning of the
sounding. In other words, it has to be referenced in geodetic coordinates (longitude, latitude) and
height.
In order to understand cartographic development in the Arctic, we must return to these basic
notions and examine how various historical campaigns, using limited technology, produced
certain approximations leading to the current situation. Needless to say, we do not provide an
exhaustive description of each campaign (which would be pointless); rather, we examine the
fundamental reasons as to why the production of hydrographic data in the Arctic is difficult and
limited.
It is equally important to mention that some fundamental data, such as coastline data, were
incorporated into charts relatively early and based on old data. This is not purely hydrographic
data, but geographic, which is quite difficult to update. Hence, given the complexity and effort
involved in updating nautical charts, poor-quality historical data are ever present and constitute
significant error sources. Therefore, understanding the origin of the data is fundamental to better
recognizing their impact on the nautical documentation available today.
GEOREFERENCING
- 16 -
Geodetic systems: Before the advent of satellite positioning, local geodetic models were
approximated by reference ellipsoids, which had the advantage of approximating the geoid
surface. Therefore, differences between normal (according to local gravity) and ellipsoidal
(according to the ellipsoidal normal chosen) altitudes were somewhat negligible. Historically,
geographical and geodetic data measured in the Canadian Arctic were referenced to different
datums. For planimetric data, the NAD27 was used. It relies on the Clarke ellipsoid of 1866 which
adapts particularly well to North America. For altimetric data, the CGVD28 system presented a 60
cm error relative to the mean level of seas from the East to the West of Canada. The NAD27
datum underwent many updates and is now known under the name NAD83. Numerous nautical
charts reference this datum (Craymer, 2006).
The Northern Horizontal Network (in 2D) is a network referenced to the NAD83 system which
includes a benchmark every 20 or 100 km, but has a positioning uncertainty of 1 m (at minimum).
Today, two geoid models prevail: the CGG 2010 and the EGM08. In certain areas, such as the
eastern coastline of Baffin Island, they present differences of 0.8 m. Therefore, it remains
relatively tricky to accurately georeference hydrographic data and connecting marine and land
data continues to be problematic.
Figure 7: Points of gravity measurements used for the CGDV28. We can see that Northern Canada is relatively
uncovered and, therefore, not modeled.
Chart datum: Every hydrographic (or geographic) measurement is relative and the origin of
altitudes and planimetric coordinates must be specified. A change of geodetic systems can
produce planimetric variations, since the reference ellipsoids do not necessarily have the same
- 17 -
center. Therefore, when using historical data, this must be taken into account in order to
accurately locate data in cartographic projection. Nevertheless, the planimetric variations are
simple to manage if we use metadata related to historical surveys, which allow us to perform
accurate transformations.
Altimetric references are related to a geoid (or rather a geoid model). In Northern Canada, in
addition to the lack of dense gravity data, the relatively rapid nature of the uplifting of the Earth’s
crust would require significant geodetic campaigns so as to refine a reliable geoid model.
Hydrographic datum is more problematic, for it requires an intimate and historical knowledge of
the tide. Hydrographic datum is defined at the national level: it is the Lower Low Water Large Tide
(LLWLT).
Today, some countries invest in models “separating” (separation models) chart datum and an
ellipsoid reference (generally ITRF). These models relieve hydrographers from relating data to
geodetic references, which can be complex and repetitive, thus costly. Therefore, a simple GNSS
ellipsoid height measurement (if the former is presumably of minimal quality) allows the user to
relate each sounding to a physical geoid model or nautical chart datum. Unfortunately, no such
model exists in the Arctic, and the complexity and vastness of the territory would require a
substantial investment in such models. We will see the consequences that the lack of separation
models has on the practice of hydrography in Northern Canada.
Positioning: The positioning equipment used in the Arctic was, successively, astronomical
positioning equipment (hydrographic circle), radio-electric or electromagnetic (RADAR)
positioning systems, such as the Distance Early Warning (DEW) system used in the Northern
Arctic to detect Soviet aerial intrusions during the Cold War era.
This type of positioning allowed a number of bathymetric measurement campaigns to be
conducted, notably those by the USS Tanner and USS Baffin. The system was decommissioned
in 1963.
- 18 -
Figure 8: Distant Early Warning in the Arctic. We find that only very partial coverage can be achieved when using
this system. Given the linear configuration of the network, it is necessary to be situated between two radar
beacons in order to achieve an accurate positioning.
Between the two world wars and up until 1957, radio navigation was used
vessels and aerial reconnaissance planes flying aerial photography missions
charting the coastline. The positioning methods and equipment, other than
traditional aerial navigation aids of the time, used radar beacons that allowed
between two beacons (similar to the principle of the DEW).
Figure 9: Principle of horizontal positioning using two radar beacons.
- 19 -
by hydrographic
with the goal of
gyroscopes and
for a positioning
This system, used for the aerial reconnaissance of Canadian coasts with the goal of charting the
coastline, is the source of numerous positioning errors. In fact, because airplanes in the 1930s
were poorly positioned when flying these missions, the aerial photographs are poorly
georeferenced and as a result, the coastline can suffer from georeferencing errors of 3 or 4
nautical miles. The result is that many nautical charts are still drawn with an inaccurately
positioned coastline. This is also true for numerous islands in the North, which are very poorly
georeferenced on nautical charts.
Currently, satellite positioning systems (GNSS) are widely used and referenced to the geodetic
system defined by the ITRS. However, the level of precision depends on the infrastructure
available on land so that real-time differential or real-time kinematic solutions, or even PPP
(Precise Point Positioning) post-processing solutions, can be used.
Real-time GNSS positioning requires a land base, which must be positioned relative to a known
geodetic point or connected to the geodetic network. Post-processing solutions require the use of
permanent GNSS stations that are part of a data dissemination infrastructure and allow for a
post-processed correction by merging data from the hydrographic instrumentation and the station
data. Figure 10 clearly shows that it is very difficult to achieve precise GNSS positioning in the
Arctic given the lack of a permanent GNSS infrastructure. Indeed, there would need to be a
permanent station approximately every 100 km to allow for correction of raw GNSS data, allowing
for an absolute-centimeter positioning.
Figure 10: Permanent GNSS network (CACS). Yellow indicates the regional network stations; green indicates the
national network stations. It is clear that the network density is too low to allow for a positioning via quality PPP.
- 20 -
However, positioning solutions requiring fewer infrastructures can be implemented by connecting
GNSS land based stations to the geodetic network and with knowledge of vertical references
(nautical chart datum, therefore knowledge of the tide). The current methodology consists of
installing a differential GNSS base station connected to the geodetic network and using an RTK
(Real Time Kinematic) positioning technique to retrieve data referenced precisely to the ellipsoid.
However, given the rapid advancement of PPP positioning, one would think this positioning
technique, heretofore reserved for offshore applications (beyond the range of land-based
stations) would allow for a sub-decimeter positioning according to the vertical component
anywhere in the world. In September 2013, Fugro announced a vertical absolute positioning in
ellipsoidal height precision of less than 8 cm.
KNOW LEDGE OF TIDAL FLUCTUATION
The Canadian Arctic was the subject of study in the field of large-scale harmonic tide modeling.
On the regional scale, certain tide prediction models achieve performances of 20 cm for the M2
component and 5 cm for the N2, S2, K1 and O1 components. However, certain regions, like the
south-central and southeast regions, Frobisher Bay and Boothia Bay, cannot be accurately
modeled. Furthermore, these models are sensitive to the frictional drag of the tide wave with the
ice and, therefore, their performance varies according to the season.
The main issue concerning the tide in the Arctic is the overall nature of the studies that have been
dedicated to it. It is perfectly clear that, given the complexity of the Canadian Arctic archipelago,
the friction phenomena caused by coasts and estuaries play an important role. Therefore, it is
rather hazardous to rely on a harmonic tide model to reduce hydrographic soundings to nautical
chart datum.
Furthermore, the lack of a dense network of tide gauges poses an infrastructure problem, for it is
impossible to reduce a set of soundings relative to measurements that are too remote, or to a
model that seems very approximate in certain regions. This poses another hydrographic
methodology issue, for soundings achieved by GNSS vertical positioning are to be excluded (due
to the lack of a separation model, as previously discussed). Consequently, there must be a
systematic use of old tidal reduction methods, taking into account the settling of the vessel in
relation to the water level, heave, and non-tidal water level variations, which are uncertainties that
add to the total uncertainty of soundings.
- 21 -
Figure 11: Permanent tide gauges, paired with a permanent GNSS station operated by the CHS. Note that only
4 stations are installed.
SUMMARY
To summarize this section, we can conclude that hydrographic surveys in the Canadian Arctic
require an effective positioning infrastructure and some basic geodetic knowledge in order for
data acquired by a hydrographic platform to be adequately georeferenced. Additionally,
knowledge of tidal fluctuation is essential to conducting hydrographic surveys with a view to
navigation safety in coastal areas. From these viewpoints, Northern Canada does not currently
have such an infrastructure; therefore, it should be a priority to implement one before conducting
systematic or opportunistic surveys.
3.2 BATHYMETRIC METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
At the beginning of the century, soundings were carried out using lead lines, in accordance with
well-known historical sounding line and optical or astronomical positioning methods. These
unproductive methods were replaced by the use of echosounders in the 1940s and up until 1990
the majority of missions were undertaken using single-beam echosounders. Therefore, the
cartographic data do not represent an exhaustive coverage of the seafloor like the multi-beam
sounders of today do. Nevertheless, they allow for the compilation of useful and reliable data
(within the limits of positioning errors, as we previously discussed).
Beginning in the 1960s, under the Polar Continental Shelf Program, an echosounder capable of
operating through the ice sheet was developed. Such equipment allowed scientists to avoid
cutting sounding holes and not be limited to survey in ice-free waters.
From the 1930s to the 1970s, a large quantity of data acquired by the CHS came from KelvinHughes sounders, for which we provide the precision characteristics according to Hare, 1997
(see below):
- 22 -
The bathymetric surveys conducted today combine data from single-beam and multi-beam
sounders. They can be deployed either from large vessels or from small surveyor launches
carried by a larger hydrographic vessel. Vessels navigating in the Arctic need first and foremost
to be adapted to constraints due to the immensity of the territory and particular navigation
conditions. Vessel adaptation for mounting of acoustic sounders is of secondary importance.
3.3 DEPLOYMENT OF HYDROGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT
Every hydrographic platform must, at minimum, integrate positioning equipment (GNSS),
orientation measurement (inertial sensor), depth measurement (echosounder) and acquire and
process this data in quasi real-time. Below, we provide a list of possible solutions and their
applicability in Northern Canada.
POSSIBLE CONVENTIONA L SOLUTIONS
Today, we distinguish between manned platforms (vessels, boats) and autonomous platforms
(AUVs, drifters).
As for airborne methods, LiDAR equipment can be implemented, but we must consider the fact
that it is limited by relatively shallow water penetration (10-30 metres maximum). However, it is
perfectly suited to coastal areas and covers large spaces very quickly when sea conditions are
good. In rough seas, the precision of the water surface measurement by optical means
decreased.
Manned vessels can support the integration of multi-beam sounders, even when small in size,
given the current miniaturization of sounders. Multi-beam sounders installation and operation is
well understood, even if it requires a certain expertise in hydrography.
Autonomous equipment (AUV) is still in the exploratory stage in hydrography, the problem being
(yet again) the long-term underwater positioning of these machines. Either they require long
baseline acoustic positioning systems, which are very expensive to install and that limit the range
of operability of AUVs, or their integrated navigation system drifts and does not allow for
georeferencing data to be acquired with a precision that is in accordance with current
hydrographic standards.
Drifters can be an interesting alternative, but their main inconvenience is that it is impossible to
spatially plan a hydrographic survey using such tools, because it is obviously impossible to
control their trajectory. Furthermore, soundings measured acoustically cannot be corrected using
a water column sound speed measurement, as is necessary for any echosounding device.
- 23 -
We provide a more detailed comparison of various types of systems and their integration. We
also discuss crowdsourced bathymetry, which involves using soundings of opportunity surveyed
by mariners (not hydrographers). We will see how this solution is difficult to apply in Northern
Canada.
UNCONVENTIONAL SOLUT IONS
CROWDSOURCED BATHYMETRY
In theory, crowdsourced bathymetry is an alluring concept due to its simplicity and extremely
low cost, but it raises a number of issues. Before analyzing its relevance to potential applications
in the Arctic, let us briefly review its principle.
In general, for navigation safety purposes, every vessel is equipped with acoustic sounding
instrumentation. The idea of crowdsourced bathymetry is to allow mariners to disseminate their
own water-depth data to organizations whose role is to assimilate this data in order to produce
hydrographic information that could aid in cartographic production.
Several projects exist all over the world:








Opensea map (www.openSeaMap.org)
Teamsurv (www.teamsurv.eu)
ActiveCaptain (www.activecaptain.com)
Navionics (www.navionics.com)
GoogleOcean (http://earth.google.com/ocean)
IceWatch (www.naturewatch.ca)
Olex (www.olex.no)
SURVICE Engineering (argus.survice.com)
First, we should mention that contrary to common belief, crowdsourced bathymetry data are not
free. Certain Internet communities (or professional communities) reserve usage (i.e.
confidentiality) rights to these data.
The most advanced of these projects is the Teamsurv project (European), whose objective is to
chart coastal areas. A comparison was made between the data published by TeamSurv and the
data from the UKHO in order to determine the reliability of crowdsourced bathymetry data. Two
pilot regions were chosen and reference data were tracked along isobaths (contour lines). The
isobaths from soundings provided by Teamsurv allow for easy detection of inconsistencies, by
comparing sounding values to adjacent contour lines.
The conclusion of this study shows that, for relatively high-traffic areas (the English Channel),
notable gaps appear on one of the two sets of data. These errors are not isolated and reach
30 metres.
Another issue raised by crowdsourced bathymetry is the statistical nature of hydrographic data.
All hydrographic data taken separately contains an error relative to the true value. This error is
modeled statistically as a total propagated uncertainty, resulting from the propagation of every
error source along the measurement system employed. Therefore, an isolated piece of
- 24 -
hydrographic data (such as that supplied by a single-beam sounding along the sounding line) has
no meaning unless the uncertainty measurement is known.
Moreover, it is very rare for two hydrographic measurement systems (i.e. two hydrographic
vessels) to produce systematically consistent results on the same seafloor. This can be explained
by the complexity of hydrographic measurement systems, the complexity of their calibration, the
precise knowledge of exact positions of sensors and the potential distortions of mounted
mechanical equipment on which sounders and various antennas are fixed. However, two
hydrographic vessels producing quality data will produce consistent measurement uncertainties
with the bias observed between the two datasets. And that is what is important, as figure 12
illustrates.
In comparison, inconsistent datasets are produced in the situation depicted in figure 13.
Figure 12: Several hydrographic vessels, having different, yet consistent, measurement uncertainties. The blue
ship has a positioning uncertainty greater than its vertical uncertainty; the reverse is true for the green ship. The
red ship has the greatest horizontal and vertical unicerity. The surveys are consistent if every sounding value
(centre of the cross) belongs to the intersection of uncertainty domains of every other sounding. In classical
statistical theory of measurement error, the crosses correspond to the small and large axes of an ellipse (in 2D)
or an uncertainty ellipsoid (in 3D).
- 25 -
Figure 13: Critical situation where the measurement uncertainties are inconsistent between different
hydrographic surveys conducted by different vessels. The blue and green vessels are inconsistent, for their most
probable measurements (centre of the crosses) are located beyond their respective uncertainty ellipses.
In crowdsourced bathymetry, it is impossible to control the uncertainty of multiple measurement
systems onboard ships of opportunity and it is unlikely that mariners calibrate and correct their
acoustic data accurately, and reliably reduce their soundings to a common vertical reference (in
short, executing the complex work of a hydrographer).
Figure 14: In crowdsourced bathymetry, no uncertainty can be assessed, for the set-ups are not rigorously
studied and integrated. Therefore, it is impossible to define a notion of consistency between hydrographic
measurements. In the case of measurements repeated by a large number of small crafts, it is possible to
calculate purely descriptive statistics of the seafloor, but this would most certainly be impossible for scattered
and infrequent measurements, as would be the case in Northern Canada.
Basically, the principle of crowdsourced bathymetry is to conduct a statistical estimation of a
seafloor from a multitude of soundings measured by different measurement systems, thus
submitted to different metrological biases. Needless to say, if several measurements are taken at
the same location, and if we consider that measurement system biases have zero-mean (which
cannot be justified), the sounding will be accurately estimated. However, if a sounding is
determined by an insufficient number of measurements, and it is evident that measurement
system biases have a very low probability of being zero. Thus, the sounding will be error ridden.
- 26 -
It should be noted that the above mentioned errors of 30 m concern seafloors measuring 30 m in
depth in relation to nautical chart datum in the Teamsurv-UKHO comparative example. Therefore,
the sounding error is 100%!
It is thus not possible to apply this technique to the Arctic, for it goes without saying that marine
traffic, including intercoastal vessels operated by communities (e.g. fishermen), does not produce
sufficient statistics for preventing measurement biases. Therefore, data collected via these means
in Northern Canada would evidently be very dangerous.
Given the navigation hazard, marine traffic remains confined to narrow waterways, making
crowdsourced bathymetry irrelevant, as this technique would only be productive if a large number
of vessels were to follow routes covering vast territories, which will not be the case in the
medium-term.
Therefore, we can conclude that crowdsourced bathymetry is not a suitable solution for
cartography in the Arctic, since it does not guarantee the absence of significant sounding biases
in the case of low sample measurement (from a statistical point of view).
AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS
Autonomous systems may seem like viable alternative solutions, allowing for large spaces to be
covered without any human intervention. Below, we discuss the case of AUV (Autonomous
Underwater Vehicles) and drifters in greater detail.
As we previously mentioned, every water depth measurement system must be positioned
horizontally and vertically in order to accurately georeference the sounding data after reducing
the tidal fluctuation. AUVs do not escape this universal rule; therefore, conducting an AUV-based
hydrographic survey requires the machine to be well-positioned underwater. However, there is a
possible alternative:
1. Use an acoustic network of Long Base Lines (LBL) mounted on the seafloor, whose
position is determined once for every surface vessel.
2. Position the AUV on an Ultra-Short Base Line (USBL), carried by a surface vessel
following the AUV.
In both cases, we see that it is the positioning infrastructure that creates the difficulty because it
either requires the range of operation to be reduced to the envelope of long base line positions
(which are very expensive to install), or the presence of a surface vessel positioning the AUV.
In fact, AUV-based solutions are only being developed in the oil and gas industry, for conducting
ultra-high-resolution surveying of areas that are limited in space and very deep (a sounding from
the surface would be too low-resolution). This type of application has nothing in common with the
task of providing extensive coverage of large areas in Northern Canada.
The second tempting alternative is to use drifters. This has been done for about ten years in the
Arctic. It is possible and relatively inexpensive to equip a buoy with an echosounder, positioning
equipment and attitude compensation. We can cite the example of the SSPARR Project
commissioned by the National Science Foundation (Rognstad et al., 2005); (Hall, 2006).
Similarly, CIDCO developed a prototype for a hydrographic buoy fitted with an inclinometer, a
- 27 -
single-beam sounder and an L1/L2 GNSS system. For now, this buoy is reserved for shallow
waters (< 80 m) and specifically designed for river hydrography.
Figure 15: Drifter from the Seafloor Sounding for Polar and Remote Regions (SSPARR) project
In the SSPARR Project, tests were performed on the Yermark Plateau in northern Spitzberg in
2010 and 2011. The data was used to improve the bathymetric grid produced by the IBCAO
(International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean) for this region. This autonomous buoy has a
5-year battery life and an Iridium modem allowing for data transfer via satellite. Another example
is the SOFAR drifters, deployed under the European project DAMOCLES, fitted with low
frequency acoustic emitters for the purpose of positioning a network of profiling floats.
The use of such drifters poses problems on two fronts: survey planning (drifters are at the mercy
of currents, winds and ice drifts); and acoustic measurement calibration, which relies heavily on
the average water sound speed.
Concerning the survey planning problem, without the use of an oceanographic circulation model,
it is impossible to predict the trajectories of buoys and the spacing between the sounding lines of
each buoy. With uncontrolled trajectories, the data can only be scattered; therefore, it will not
meet international hydrographic standards in terms of sounding line spacing according to map
scales.
The second major problem is the futility of correcting data related to environmental conditions,
particularly regarding the average water sound speed. Because oceanographic data and ocean
circulation models in Northern Canada are as rare as hydrographic data, they do not serve as a
reliable basis for predicting water stratification. Moreover, some straits experience major changes
in current patterns, particularly in the sub-Arctic regions. Therefore, it would be impossible to
- 28 -
correct acoustic returns of the average water column sound speed value, rendering the
hydrographic data relatively unreliable, even for medium depths (a 1% error in average sound
speed produces an equivalent sounding error).
We should also mention that automatic bottom detection algorithms (without any human
intervention) require the implementation of algorithms allowing for distinction between multiple
reflections caused by ice and icebergs. Moreover, thanks to swath bathymetry sondeurs, it is
possible to cover a relatively significant seafloor swath (45 degrees, i.e. 0.8 times the water
height). However, in shallow water, this benefit is somewhat lost.
Finally, the deployment and recovery of these machines requires the use of aerial equipment,
which would be relatively expensive to implement, given the extensive areal coverage in which a
network of hydrographic buoys would be located.
METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
The lack of positioning and tide gauge infrastructure in the North, as well as the geoid modeling
uncertainties, cause problems that go well beyond choosing a hydrographic platform. Indeed, the
hydrographic methodology is greatly restricted.
As there are practically no permanent tidal and GNSS measurement stations in the whole of
Northern Canada, tide gauges must be installed before every hydrographic campaign; otherwise,
soundings would have to be reduced to a global harmonic model that, as we have seen, is
relatively inaccurate. Also, GNSS bases stations that enable accurate positioning for coastal
surveys (0-200 m), allowing for a horizontal accuracy of soundings for depths less than 2 m, need
to be installed prior to commencing a survey. This is not a problem for offshore surveys (>200 m,
whereby a tidal reduction is not necessary for ensuring safe navigation).
From this observation, it is relatively clear that the deployment of autonomous AUVs and drifters
is a solution restricted by its range of operation, since it depends on accurate tidal and GNSS
information. Therefore, these are very poor solutions in terms of deployment, for the autonomy of
these machines is merely relative. Extending their autonomy significantly increases the
complexity of their use while diminishing their reliability in extreme conditions (presence of ice).
Mobilizing systems with high coverage capabilities, like multi-beam sounders on ship-based
platforms (whether of-opportunity or not), remains the soundest solution. From a methodological
1
perspective, sounding reduction should be systematically done from tide gauges installed
specifically for each hydrographic mission.
Therefore, hydrographic surveying of Northern Canada must rely on a conventional methodology
in order to be effective. Any use of autonomous systems (which is tempting, given the extreme
conditions of operations), would incur significant costs for data of an inferior quality.
1
Preferably submerged and equipped with acoustic release systems allowed them to surface
after use.
- 29 -
HYDROGRAPHIC AND CARTOGRAPHIC DATA
It seems relatively clear that vessel traffic in Northern Canada is increasing, even if the intensity
of the said increase is currently very limited. Moreover, it would be unrealistic to set a short-term
goal of producing cartography of quality comparable to that of the large shipping routes in the
South. Even the concept of quality cartography (or accurate hydrography) must be adapted to the
unique Northern context.
It should also be noted that the relationships between hydrography (in the sense of hydrographic
surveying, i.e. the collection of georeferenced bathymetric data) and cartography are complex.
For example, the use of a nautical chart does not ensure that bathymetric data are accurate, or
even adequately cover the area delineated by the chart. A substantial number of nautical charts
contain erroneous or outdated data, geographic areas without any data, or even data that is too
scattered to actually indicate an isolated hazard. Take a map of the Red Sea, for example, where
we can read a note indicating the “presence of blooming coral reefs” in the middle of an area
where every sounding indicates a depth greater than 600 meters. In this case, the hydrographic
th
data dates back to the beginning of the 19 century.
In the case of Northern Canada, there is not an abundance of old data; rather, it is the lack of
data that poses a problem. Furthermore, the data acquired and integrated into nautical charts of
the North can be considered as having been georeferenced rather inaccurately.


In planimetry: We already mentioned the positioning problems that continue to pose a
number of difficulties in collecting quality data.
In altimetry: Tidal fluctuations are only modeled very generally; geoid models do not
coincide.
In order to distinguish between a sounding indicated on a nautical chart and its quality, the IHO
introduced the concept of a “zone of confidence,” organized into several categories, called
CATZOC. On the current charts, they are indicated by inverse triangles and the number of stars
(maximum 6, minimum 0) indicates the zone of confidence category, codified from level A1 (very
good) to level U (unassessed).
According to resolution 3.1.8 of the IHO S-52 standard concerning the electronic chart display
and information systems (ECDIS), it is indicated that:
Chart data quality indicator:
A bathymetric data quality indicator by zones of confidence (M_QUAL CATZOC) will cover the
entire area of depth data or bathymetry for the ENC (although not all data will be assessed
initially). The table of "CATZOC" values giving the meaning of each zone of confidence should be
readily available to the mariner.
- 30 -
Thus, it is more important to study the CATZOCs than the presence of nautical charts. First, we
use a graphic to present the portfolio of nautical charts available from the Canadian Hydrographic
Service. We distinguish between paper charts in INT format and ENCs (electronic charts).
- 31 -
Figure 16: Approach charts. Electronic charts (above). Paper charts (below). The locations of communities are
indicated in red. ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper charts by the pink rectangles.
- 32 -
Figure 17: Coastal charts. Electronic charts (above). Paper charts (below). The locations of communities are
indicated in red. ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper charts by the pink rectangles.
- 33 -
Figure 18: General maps. Electronic charts (above). Paper charts (below). The locations of communities are
indicated in red. The ENCs are indicated by the blue rectangles, the paper charts by the pink rectangles.
- 34 -
Figure 19: ENC ports: Northern coast of Baffin Island and Dease Strait.
- 35 -
Figure 20: ENC ports: Vicinity of Prince Charles Island.
Figure 21: Paper port maps: Only Churchill and a few ports on the northern coast of Baffin Island are indicated.
- 36 -
According to the above graphics, it would seem the modern production of ENCs is more centered
on the Northwest passages. There are also very few approach charts and port maps. However,
these communities do not have deep water ports. This explains the lack of port maps. The
presence of general maps tells us nothing about the presence of hydrographic data, which can be
very scattered and come from a wide range of sources. In any case, they are unsuitable for
coastal or approach navigation.
Let us now compare the complete portfolio of ENCs with a diagram indicating the areas where
there is quality “modern” hydrographic data:
Figure 22: Every ENC in Northern Canada
Figure 23: Areas for which the CHS possesses modern
hydrographic data. Source Christopher Wright, Navigability of
the Canadian Arctic, CHS 2012, Niagara Falls
First, we notice that certain areas are accurately surveyed, like the northern coast of Baffin Island
and certain areas in the Northwest passages, for example. We also notice there is no clear
correlation between the availability of hydrographic data and the availability of ENCs, for
incorporating hydrographic data into cartography is a very long process. Curiously, in the Dease
Strait and Coronation Gulf areas, there is a significant density of coastal ENCs available, but no
quality modern hydrographic data.
Let us examine the portfolio of paper charts (based on historical data) in relation to the above
mentioned DEW line. The correlation between the DEW line and a series of coastal charts is
remarkable; it is apparent that the cartography of this area has developed thanks to the
availability of relatively accurate positioning methods and equipment for the time, implemented for
military purposes. Because the Northwest Passage was completely irrelevant during that time
period, it was not charted.
- 37 -
Figure 24: Correlation between the DEW line (black line on the map above) and the paper coastal charts (pink
rectangles on the map below).
- 38 -
4. PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE LACK OF CARTOGRAPHY IN NORTHERN
CANAD A
This section provides an overview of navigation issues relating to the lack of quality nautical
charts in Northern Canada, and summarizes a few recent accident reports relating to
hydrography.
Under this study, discussions were held with transportation companies operating vessels in the
North. These are the following businesses and organizations that were consulted:



St. Lawrence Shipoperators (Martin Fournier)
Groupe Desgagnés (Captain Richard Perron)
Transport Nanuk Inc. (Georges Tousignant)
Below, we summarize the above mentioned discussions and provide a more detailed account of
the analysis conducted by Groupe Desgagnés, which was based on an interview with mariners
having in-depth knowledge of the Eastern Arctic and the Northwest Passage.

Every captain has a guide approximately 600 pages in length, created from CHS paper
charts (waterways, moorings, etc.) and updated with the group’s observations, consistent
with the Groupe Desgagnés internal safety policy.

Currently, no vessel in Canada is equipped to navigate with electronic charts. This
information is somewhat surprising, but really, it seems more prudent to navigate with a
paper chart, rather than with an ECDIS based on a RASTER chart that could generate
excessive trust in data that are, in fact, erroneous or decaying.

Electronic charts do not seem reliable for Arctic navigation and Groupe Desgagnés
addresses a serious problem concerning the georeferencing of charts (positioning biases
easily reach 3 nautical miles).

Remember that if an accident is caused by a hazard indicated on a paper chart, and the
said hazard is not indicated on electronic charts, the captain of the vessel will be held
responsible in an inquiry.

Captains will not use an updated version of an electronic chart to change their trajectory if
this information is not available on paper charts.
Therefore, according to Groupe Desgagnés, the priorities are:
1. Update Arctic paper charts with the bathymetric and positioning information that is
currently available and concurrent with the electronic charts (paper charts have not been
updated for a very long time and Groupe Desgagnés still use American military charts in
certain areas).
2. Increase cartography and positioning efforts in the Arctic; however, human resource and
financial issues at the CHS appear to be hindering the accomplishment of these two
priorities.
- 39 -
3. There lies a danger in creating seaways in the Arctic: it would restrict a captain’s initiative
to deviate from a route in the event that a corridor is blocked by ice. In any case, boat
captains should be consulted regarding any initiative establishing shipping corridors
(which has never been done).
Transport Nanuk made the following observations:

Their vessels exclusively use CHS paper and electronic charts for navigating in the
Arctic. They do not perform autonomous hydrographic data acquisition.

The company has been a member of a consultation committee with the CHS Centre and
Arctic in Burlington for several years, for the purpose of identifying priorities for acquiring
hydrographic data (difficult bathymetry in certain locations), but mainly for identifying
processing priorities. There appears to be a lot of data available, but a lack of resources
at the CHS to process it and incorporate it into charts. It would also seem that validating
hydrographic data poses a challenge (notably due to problems referencing water levels
and inaccurate vertical geodetic references).

Transport Nanuk is very satisfied with the collaboration with the CHS; communications
seem to be transparent.

The Burlington CHS office does not have an acquisition platform dedicated to
hydrography in the Arctic; they perform acquisitions of opportunity on DFO ice-breakers
when possible (when there is free time after other tasks). Acquiring hydrographic data is
not a priority; the CHS does not perform continuous collection in conjunction with their
other activities of assimilating hydrographic data in map databases.

There are well-charted transportation routes in the Arctic and in proximity to
communities. There is a lack of alternative routes allowing mariners to circumvent ice.

The company has a keen interest in a more thorough charting of the Ungava Bay
section, due to very strong tides.

Other areas of interest are Hudson Bay, Foxe Basin, Lancaster Sound and the
Northwest Passage route.
Both professional organizations raise the issue of consistency between charts (paper or ENC)
and modern positioning methods and equipment (GNSS). In fact, GNSS systems undeniably
provide more accurate positions than those of old positioning systems that were used to chart
coastlines on nautical charts. Therefore, it seems there is a very urgent need to correct the
coastlines, using inexpensive current satellite data (at the very least). The two companies also
mention the lack of vertical referencing of hydrographic data, which we also commented above.
Let us now compare these opinions from professionals, who know the navigation conditions in
Northern Canada, with the incident report from the Clipper Adventurer:
The Clipper Adventurer (27 August 2010):
The following passages are excerpts from the Marine Investigation Report “Grounding,
Passenger vessel Clipper Adventurer, Coronation Gulf, Nunavut, 27 August 2010,” drafted by the
- 40 -
TSB, under the reference M10H0006. We have retained only the passages that relate to our
study on cartography.
Summary: On 27 August 2010 at approximately 1832 Mountain Daylight Time, the passenger
vessel Clipper Adventurer ran aground in Coronation Gulf, Nunavut while on a 14-day Arctic
cruise. On 29 August, all 128 passengers were transferred to the CCGS Amundsen and taken to
Kugluktuk, Nunavut. The Clipper Adventurer was refloated on 14 September 2010 and escorted
to Port Epworth, Nunavut. There was minor pollution and no injuries.”
The Clipper Adventurer is a passenger vessel measuring 90.91 m in length, with a forward
draught of 4.5 m and an aft draught of 4.6 m.
“The Clipper Adventurer is also fitted with a forward looking sonar mounted on the head of the
bulbous bow; however, it was unserviceable at the time of the occurrence. Since 1998, the
Clipper Adventurer has been extensively used in adventure cruises.”
“Before departing anchorage, the bridge team prepared courses from Port Epworth to Kugluktuk
using Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) chart No. 7777.”
“The bridge team used the vessel’s Electronic Chart System (ECS) to monitor the progress of the
vessel as displayed on raster navigation chart (RNC) CHS No. 7777. The chief officer who was in
charge of the watch monitored the vessel’s progress using parallel indexing on the starboard
radar and monitored the water depth on the echo-sounder. The master monitored the portside
radar when on the bridge. Once clear of Port Epworth and on course 300°gyro, the vessel was
placed on autopilot and proceeded at 13.9 knots. The quartermaster remained on the bridge, to
take over the steering when required. Shortly after departing Port Epworth, the chief officer
marked a depth of 66 m on the chart in an area near where the chart indicated a depth of 40 m.”
“CHS Central and Arctic is responsible for conducting surveys in the Arctic. According to CHS,
less than 10% of the Canadian Arctic is surveyed to modern standards, and many charts include
information that was obtained more than 50 years ago using less reliable technologies than are
available today. The routes commonly used are those that have been surveyed more
extensively.”
“CHS accepts outside sources of data to issue a chart modification if they consider the
information to be sufficiently accurate and if it will serve to improve safety for mariners, in
accordance with International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), SOLAS Chapter V and CHS
standards and processes.”
“The shoal on which the Clipper Adventurer grounded had been previously discovered on 13
September 2007 by the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier while conducting scientific research. The CCGS
Sir Wilfrid Laurier reported the shoal to MCTS Iqaluit, who then broadcast a NOTSHIP for CHS
o
chart n 7777. The notice indicated that, “…a shoal was discovered between the Lawson Islands
and the Home Islands in the Southern Coronation Gulf at position 67° 58.25′ N, 112° 40.39′ W.
Charted depth in the area: 29 m. Least measured depth:3.3 m. Isolated rock Ref. to NAD 83
datum.” It was still in effect at the time of the grounding.
When the CCG Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s crew first discovered the shoal in 2007 they were aware of the
risks of crossing an island archipelago on a single line of soundings. They were transiting the
area from the north at reduced speed. The bridge team was monitoring the depth sounder and
lookouts scanning ahead for discoloration of the water indicative of shallower water.
On 14 September 2007, CHS Central and Arctic regional office received the information about the
shoal discovered by the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It first established that there was a NOTSHIP
- 41 -
that had been issued. Then, based on the preliminary information received, it determined the
location would require more extensive surveying prior to issuing a permanent chart correction. In
late 2007, there was an exchange of information between the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier and CHS
Central and Arctic regarding the reported shoal. CHS Central and Arctic determined that the
depth surveys conducted by the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier were not up to CHS standards. CHS
standards are based on those of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). In
accordance with IHO Regulation B-611.9, 23 permanent chart updates should not be made
based on a single vessel report, except in the following instances:





They originate from recognized survey vessels, research ships or other vessels/masters
known to be reliable;
They are reports of shoal depths, preferably accompanied by supporting evidence, e.g.,
an unambiguous echo-sounder trace, for areas where it is unlikely that corroboration can
be obtained;
They are the sole source of information in a remote area;
They are of particular significance to navigation; or
The location is in an area where the level of information flow and lines of communication
are poor.
Notwithstanding the above, CHS Central and Arctic requires validated data with systematic
coverage and a sufficient level of confidence before permanently modifying a chart. For example,
it requires 3 types of hydrographic soundings in order to convey an accurate depiction of a hazard
on charts: representational (periphery), significant (depths leading to peaks) and critical (peaks).
In the summer of 2008, a CHS team of hydrographers on board the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier
evaluated the accuracy of the data collected the previous year and confirmed that it was not
sufficient to produce a chart correction according to CHS Central and Arctic practice.
On 4 September 2008, the passenger vessel Akademik Ioffe transited south into Port Epworth
along the same line of soundings as the Clipper Adventurer was to later follow. The vessel’s
logbook recorded a depth of 16 m when passing near the 29 m sounding on the CHS chart No.
7777 in proximity to the shoal at 67°58.4’ N, 112°40.0’ W. The vessel was not aware of NOTSHIP
A102/07. At that time, the NOTSHIP was no longer being broadcast by radio but was available by
other means (see list below).
CHS Central and Arctic has a prioritized list of areas to be surveyed. While CHS does not have
dedicated vessels for surveys, CHS Central and Arctic typically plans to have 1 or 2 teams
conducting surveys in the Arctic for several weeks during the summer navigation season and
takes advantage of situations where CCG vessel routes and activities coincide with planned
survey site locations on an opportunity basis. In 2009, CHS had planned to survey the shoal
based on their prioritized list. However, there was no opportunity at that time to survey the shoal
using CCG vessels. Subsequent to the grounding of the Clipper Adventurer, a team of CHS
hydrographers on board the CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier completed a survey of the area. On 8
October 2010, CHS chart No. 7777 was corrected by a permanent indication of the shoal and a
NOTMAR was issued.”
The analysis of this incident report reveals that a lack of cartography, rather than a lack
hydrography, caused this accident. The seafloor sounding had been surveyed, but not validated
o
or reported on chart n 7777. However, mariners had been notified.
- 42 -
SUMMARY
According to the information we were able to collect, there seems to be a significant amount of
hydrographic or geographical data available (particularly relating to the coastline). But such data
cannot be integrated into existing charts, due to a lack of sufficient cartographic production
equipment. It would seem priorities are more hydrographic in nature (data collection,
improvement of vertical references), rather than cartographic.
5. PRIORITIZATION METHO DS SUITABLE FOR NORTHERN CANADA
According to the preceding analysis, cartography in Northern Canada is undeniably underdeveloped. This is essentially due to the lack of geodetic infrastructures, tidal stations and
nautical equipment. Because marine cartography is a very expensive operation, it is highly
unlikely that in the short-term, solutions regarding the great need of data and sound navigation
equipment in the North will be developed.
Consequently, there is a need to prioritize hydrographic operations in order to provide a better,
more transparent solution to the real needs of mariners in Northern Canada. First, we present two
methods of prioritizing hydrographic surveys. One is defined by the Canadian Hydrographic
Service, the other was developed in the Southwest Pacific region (a region also suffering from a
lack of hydrographic data).
Finally, we discuss the relevance of these prioritization methods and make a few
recommendations.
5.1 PRIORITIZATION
SERVICE
AS DEFINED
BY THE CANADIAN
HYDROGRAPHIC
The approach adopted by the CHS was illustrated by its previous director S. Narayanan with the
Bay of Fundy case, in the Atlantic region. This approach falls under the national program to
prioritize hydrographic surveys, supporting SOLAS directives and pollution prevention in the
Arctic.
The approach involves reviewing the portfolio of CHS charts, developing a prioritization method,
consolidating methods for managing hydrographic and cartographic data and establishing
partnerships with a view to sharing hydrographic survey platforms and producing hydrographic
and cartographic data.
This approach to prioritization is as follows: in the 0 to 50 m band of soundings (sensitive areas),
the type of seafloor (complex or relatively flat) and complex estuary zones (sediment movements,
significant tidal fluctuation) are classified, and the required CATZOC classification is deducted
from that.
The required CATZOC is compared against the existing one; the CATZOC gap represents the
areas needing attention. This is explained in the following graphic (the slides are from a CHS
presentation on this subject).
- 43 -
Here, this method is illustrated for the Bay of Fundy (NB): We find that in order for this method to
function correctly, it requires a priori data, particularly for determining so-called complex areas
(morphological analysis of the seafloor).
The required CATZOCs are created somewhat arbitrarily, by assigning complex areas to
CATZOC A, non-complex areas (but with an a priori depth of less than 50 m) to CATZOC B, and
the rest to CATZOC C.
- 44 -
The existing surveyed CATZOCs can be extracted from CHS databases, depending on what
hydrographic data is available in the area. We then determine the gap between these areas,
which reveals every area that would need to be re-surveyed.
Therefore, the prioritization method analyzes existing marine traffic, by tracing historical AIS
trajectories of vessels according to their identification. The incident response time for a marine
accident is then analyzed. This allows for the consequences of a marine accident to be weighted.
- 45 -
Finally, these two data are projected onto the CATZOC gap prioritization chart and a weighting is
produced to determine:


The intensity and type of traffic;
The consequence of an accident (measured exclusively by incident response time).
Finally, the following chart is produced:
ANALYSIS OF THIS METHOD
- 46 -
The method proposed by the CHS can be formulated as follows:



STEP 1 (Identify the hazards from a hydrographic viewpoint and determine the regions
lacking quality hydrographic data):
a. Determine which areas are significant from a bathymetric perspective,
classifying them according to several criteria:
i. Class A: Complex seafloor (shoal, rocks), changing seafloor (subjected
to sediment dynamics);
ii. Class B: Complex waterway;
iii. Class C: Depths of the seafloor greater than 50 m (these hold no
concern for navigation safety).
b. Assign a potential hydrographic hazard (i.e. a seafloor of type A or B) to a
required CATZOC
c. Search CATZOC data in databases and determine the gap between the
required and existing CATZOC.
STEP 2 Determine the risk associated with marine traffic: Analyze marine traffic intensity
(frequency of passages) and the consequences of a marine accident related to a
grounding.
a. Classify and represent traffic according to:
i. Dangerous cargo and passenger vessels (>50 people)
ii. Other traffic
iii. Lack of traffic
b. Incident response time
c. Weighting between the frequency of traffic and consequence of an accident
STEP 3: Calculate the prioritization value by weighting the risk associated with marine
traffic and the hydrographic hazard of a collision.
This method requires a priori knowledge of bathymetry, for STEP 1 requires such information in
order to categorize areas according to hydrographic hazard. The concept of hydrographic hazard
is intimately linked to seafloor morphology (presence of shoals, rocks, etc.).
We can formalize the notion of risk associated with an event by multiplying the product of a
probability (or a frequency) by the cost incurred from the consequences of the said event. Due to
a lack of documentation available on the risk assessment developed in STEP 2, we are unable to
analyze the method allowing the CHS to estimate the risk associated with a consequence. In fact,
STEP 2 appears to be an empirical method closer to risk analysis, but does not actually refer to
an explicit, transparent calculation of risk.
Nevertheless, for a community of stakeholders to consent to a prioritization method, it is
imperative that the method for calculating risk (and hydrographic hazard) is transparent and
impeccably documented. In fact, every prioritization method produces results that rely heavily on
the risk calculation method, and these results must be obtained using weighting factors agreed
upon by everybody.
Another comment to be made, subsequent to the preceding comment, concerns the lack of
reference to environmental phenomena that could result from collisions with the seafloor (black
- 47 -
tides, chemical pollution that could affect preserved natural areas). Therefore, the environmental
cost of a marine accident does not seem to factor into this risk analysis method.
The method’s applicability in Northern Canadian and Arctic waters is questionable. How can this
approach be applied if there is a complete lack of hydrographic knowledge? How can the notion
of hydrographic hazard be determined?
How can marine traffic be analyzed if it is very low (which is effectively the case in Northern
Canada). We were not able to analyze the simulation result of this prioritization tool in the case of
areas in Northern Canada, but it is fairly evident that given the lack of data for traffic and
hydrographic hazards, it cannot prove relevant.
Nevertheless, an interesting aspect of this approach is the fact that it does not rely exclusively on
past risk associated with the analysis of collisions and various marine accidents, but on the
potential and intrinsic risk of a geographical area. Indeed, it would make no sense to conduct an
analysis solely based on marine accident reports, which do not constitute a risk in regions with
very low marine traffic, such as Northern Canada.
The approach developed by the CHS also suffers from a lack of analysis of the economic impact
of a hydrographic survey. It is obvious that opening and securing seaways optimizes ship loading,
decreases transit insurance rates and, quite simply, allows for the start-up of development
projects that require goods to be transported at the lowest possible cost.
The approach discussed below is inspired by the IMO’s FSA (Formal Safety Assessment)
approach, and takes into account a number of additional parameters for clearly prioritizing
hydrographic surveys. It was originally developed by LINZ (Land Information New Zealand) and is
currently under review by the International Hydrographic Organization.
5.2 “PARTICIPAT ORY” PRIORITIZATION
Here, we present a prioritization method inspired by the one developed by LINZ for the Southwest
Pacific region (a region also suffering from a lack of minimal quality hydrographic data) in order to
ensure feasible marine traffic.
We have adapted the case to Northern Canada, by way of proposing an effective prioritization
method for this very unique region. In fact, the additional parameters to take into account are the
presence of ice, the strong mining potential of the region, the strong dependence of communities
on being resupplied and the impact of transportation costs on the prices of commodities
consumed.
PRIORITIZATION CONCEPTS
The two fundamental parameters to consider in a prioritization approach are:
- 48 -


The current and potential level of economic activity;
The risk of a marine accident and its consequences on the various stakeholders
(transportation companies, communities, economic activity) resulting from loss of life at
sea and environmental catastrophes.
It is important to state that risk analysis in the context of hydrography and marine cartography
differs from risk analysis in the field of marine transportation. In the field of marine transportation,
the goal of risk analysis is to determine a) the cost incurred by a marine accident and b) the ship
safety standards that would minimize this cost. In the field of hydrography, the goal is to estimate
the new economic potential of securing a seaway, from the viewpoint of a navigation aid supplied
by quality cartography.
The proposed general methodology for hydrographic prioritization is as follows:





STEP 1: Compile preparatory data (geographical areas, constraints due to the presence
of ice, identify and consult with stakeholders, compile traffic data (SOLAS or non-SOLAS
vessels), compile data relating to the economy of communities and economic
development projects); identify hazards (marine traffic analysis (SOLAS or non-SOLAS
vessel), areas of risk, areas devoid of any hydrographic data, areas where basic
geographical information is lacking); compile data on the cultural and environmental
impact of an accident and protected areas.
STEP 2: Determine risk: define the risk criteria (frequency and nature of traffic,
consequences of a marine accident and likelihood of these consequences).
STEP 3: Economic analysis of each community or economic development project.
STEP 4: Hydrographic technical visit, including national and international representatives;
review the available hydrographic documentation.
STEP 5: Define the priorities of a hydrographic survey, review the costs/benefits of
hydrographic surveys, and define a hydrographic and cartographic production plan.
As we see here, the economic (economic feasibility and development) and environmental aspects
are taken into account from the very beginning of the process. The stakeholders are also included
from STEP 1 and in STEP 5.
Below is a more detailed description of the five steps. In every step, the use of a GIS is
necessary.
STEP 1A: DATA COMPILATION
In this initial stage, the issues requiring resolution should be clearly defined, by making a list of
the constraints, geographic extents, areas grouped according to their community of economic
interests and areas targeted exclusively for exploitation projects. It will be necessary to
distinguish between areas where traffic must be improved for the viability of communities, and
areas where traffic is prospective and exclusively related to industrial and mining development.
The groups responsible for implementing a prioritization schema should also be selected. They
should be representatives from marine authorities (coast guard), the field of hydrography, the
economic world (communities, mining companies) and marine transportation.
- 49 -
Finally, it is necessary to identify the marine transportation stakeholders that are involved in its
growth and security. These stakeholders may include port authorities and representatives from:
Transport Canada, communities, provincial and territory governments, transportation companies,
Environment Canada, and fisheries.
It is very important to compile information regarding SOLAS vessel traffic, as well as the
movements of local vessels (fishermen) before developing questionnaires, for questionnaires
depend on such information. A questionnaire for marine transportation stakeholders could include
the following:
1. Available nautical information
a. Type of nautical charts used, CATZOC identification
b. Date of last hydrographic survey, technology used, coverage and scale of survey
c. Vertical references used and, in the case of data referenced to the WGS84
geodetic system, is the data recent or was old data modified?
2. Charts used for:
a. Navigation in the Northwest passages (international traffic)
b. Inter-archipelago navigation of Northern Canada
c. Port approaches
d. Community resupplying
e. Mining traffic
f. Tourist traffic
3. Volume transported
a. AIS data (land and satellite-based)
b. Data for ports and communities
c. Mining company data
4. Type of vessel
a. Passenger vessels (tourism)
b. International traffic
c. Cargo for community revitalization
d. Oil transportation
e. Fishing vessels
f. Others
5. Frequency of passage by ship type, indicating dimensions (length, height, tonnage)
6. Marine accidents
a. Official information
b. Proof of patent risk of accident or near-accident
c. Issues raised by local communities concerning marine accidents
7. Infrastructures
a. Deep water ports
b. Project ports (mining)
c. Loading docks
d. Anchorage areas
8. Nature of access and shore-based infrastructures
a. Access channels and ice coverage
b. Depth of anchorage areas
c. Presence of navigation aids (night/day) and trust in these aids according to
season (drift from beacons due to ice melts)
- 50 -
d. Possibility of navigation aids (presence of ice)
e. How are approach areas navigated?
f. Radio communications
g. Presence of areas protected by environmental standards
h. Marine cargo unloading equipment
i. Presence of radar approach
j. Presence of tows, the nearest ice-breaker ships
9. Possible impact of a marine accident
a. Presence of an environmentally protected site
b. Pollution with impact on fishery resources
10. Economic impact (possible development related to quality marine cartography)
a. Arctic tourism (current, potential)
b. Exports (minerals, oil)
c. Impact of a loss of:
i. Cargo, cargo vehicle
ii. Fishing vessel
iii. Environmental interest area
Site visits allow for meetings to be organized with stakeholders and additional information to be
gathered for the questionnaire.
Information on the economic gains/losses related to marine safety or the lack thereof can be
collected independently, for the economic stakeholders (mining companies and marine
transportation companies) are rarely based in the communities. Evidently, the communities
themselves supply data on their own economic development related to the securing (or not) of
marine traffic. The assessment of economic potential generated by hydrography must be realistic
and include an analysis of changes in this economic growth should a major marine accident
occur.
STEP 1B: HAZARD IDENTIFICATIO N
This second facet of STEP 1 is fundamental and is more in line with the CHS prioritization
method. It consists of analyzing data collected during the above-described step, geographically
analyzing marine traffic density (using a GIS), identifying hazardous marine traffic and,
subsequently, analyzing the risk (frequency x consequences) of a marine accident. For this, it is
helpful to quantify risk using a risk matrix accepted by every stakeholder involved in the process.
Indeed, this is the core of the prioritization process, which involves establishing a consensus as to
how to model risk. Below, we briefly describe one possible method of determining risk.
It also consists of identifying navigation hazards (or the supposed hazards) and the likely
consequences of an accident (specifically, a collision with the seafloor). In the appendix, we
provide an example of a decision tree that could be used to determine the consequences of ship
grounding. This decision tree is inspired by the marine accident involving passenger vessel
CLIPPER ADVENTURER in the Coronation Gulf (Nunavut), on August 27, 2010. The
- 51 -
consequences of this accident sit astride the two scenarios described in Appendix 1. Appendix 2
applies the same type of information to a cargo vessel supplying a Northern community.
The assessment of navigation hazards also includes elements relating to bathymetry, when they
can be estimated. Known seafloor morphologies can help actually estimate the likelihood of
potential and uncharted hazards being present.
Finally, the environmental interest areas under study can be assessed according to their
classification. It is also necessary to indicate how these areas would be affected by each type of
accident.
STEP 2: RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk can generally be modeled as the product of a frequency (or probability) of an event by a
measure of the cost of its consequences. A transparent and documented methodology for risk
measurement should be implemented and accepted by every stakeholder. One method currently
used is:
-
Analyze marine traffic using AIS data;
Identify the probable causes of a marine accident;
Identify the cost of each consequence (environmental, loss of human life, cost incurred
by material damages and costs resulting from service interruption).
Each risk factor can be modeled spatially using a layer-based GIS, and the final risk analysis will
involve weighting each layer for every cell of the GIS.
Analysis of marine traffic
As we previously saw, it is imperative to have knowledge of marine traffic in order to determine
the level of risk in a given area. This can be obtained from AIS data, the coast guard, or even
local communities (for non-SOLAS traffic). The data needs to be manually post-processed in
order to be fully and reliably reconstituted, so it can be represented on a GIS. Every type of
vessel possesses an intrinsic risk factor, dependent upon its cargo and tonnage. It is helpful to
use a linear weighting of the tonnage in order to represent the risk potentials associated with
each vessel. In this way, according to the characteristics of the vessel, we can model and
calculate its risk potential.
Environmental risk factor components
Each risk factor component must be quantified according to a scale (from 1 to 5, for example),
indicating the frequency (or probability) for each source of risk.
a. Meteorological and oceanic conditions (winds, visibility, presence and size of icebergs,
sea state) contribute to marine accidents. These conditions can be modeled spatially
according to the coastal exposure to the various prevailing wind sectors in each Northern
region. Tidal conditions also generate risks (the stronger the tide, the stronger the
currents).
- 52 -
b. Complexity of waterway: Here, we indicate the complexity of channels and approach
areas, which require precision manœuvres. This is contrary to ocean navigation, in which
mariners can deviate from a route without incurring the risk of a collision.
c. Navigation aids: These include nautical charts and radar. We already discussed the
notion of CATZOC as defined in the IHO S-57 standard. The equivalent for an ENC is the
M_QUAL, which includes a CATZOC attribute.
d. Bathymetry plays a role in vessel manoeuvrability (in shallow waters, vessels lose a large
part of their propulsion ability). It is frequently noted that the 15 m isobath limits the
navigable area. Therefore, it is possible to determine a risk factor according to the
distance to the 15 m isobaths of each geographical cell. The type of seafloor (mentioned
in the CHS approach) also plays a role. Its hardness and morphology represent a risk
factor (soft, flat seabed or a hard, erratic seabed)
e. It is possible to make a list of navigation hazards (except for those which are,
unfortunately, inaccurately charted) for each area of study. It is necessary to distinguish
surface hazards (ice, icebergs) that could cause a vessel to reroute, subsequent to which
a natural seaway expansion would have to be considered in order to account for these
eventualities; seafloor hazards (irregular seafloors, presence of shoal).
Types of consequences
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Environmental (proximity to protected areas, fishing areas)
Impact on re-rupplying for communities and the local economy
Impact on port access or anchorage area
Impact on tourism development
Impact on economic activity or mining development
With the use of a GIS, risk can be assessed by conducting a spatial analysis of each contribution
to overall risk, taking into account the frequency of an event, by calculating its consequences and
weighting each information layer. It should also be noted that certain criteria could be dispersed
spatially according to the distance of a site (cell analysis) to a potential hazard (for example:
accidental pollution in proximity to a protected area or the presence of navigational hazards).
Every risk factor can be weighted by several coefficients: an inter-class weighting coefficient (risk
factors as mentioned above and consequences) and one coefficient per category (a, b, c, d, e).
This allows for the definition of a transparent, documented method in which each weighting is
clearly defined in relation to other criteria, even if we must concede that all risk quantification is
somewhat arbitrary.
The previous weightings allow for the different GIS layers to be fused and allow us to obtain an
overall risk map, integrating every factor.
STEP 3: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
We have seen that risk is defined as the product of the frequency of an event and the measure of
the cost of its consequences. Evidently, the consequences of an accident are systematically
negative in terms of cost. This is not the case for economic development potential generated by
- 53 -
the opening or securing of seaways, which could have a significant impact on the growth of
communities in Northern Canada.
The goal of prioritizing hydrographic surveys (which are aiming to secure seaways) is to foster
economic development and decrease marine risk. Therefore, economic development potential
should be incorporated into risk in order to define a final prioritization value. For example, an area
presenting an elevated level of risk due to uncertain cartography and the presence of significant
hazards, but presenting economic development potential related to the securement of a seaway,
would be assigned a high level of priority.
In the study conducted by Transport Canada “Multi-Purpose Marine Facilities for Cambridge Bay,
Pond Inlet, and Rankin Inlet” in 2011, it is clearly established that the construction of deep water
ports could have an impact on the development and sustainable economic growth of
communities. It is also reported that mining activity, which requires transportation infrastructures,
could not generate sustainable growth, given its ephemeral nature. Tourism development in
Northern Canada should also be taken into account, for it seems to be experiencing a rather
strong increase.
The economic analysis in connection with cartographic prioritization could be conducted locally
for each coherent group of communities. The important points to be studied are:
a. In-depth analysis of commercial traffic, passenger vessels, tourist vessels
b. Feasibility and growth of community revitalization, study concerning the impact of deeperdraught vessels on the transportation cost
c. Sustainability of mining development and economic impact
d. Tourism potential in Northern Canada and impact on communities
STEP 4: HYDROGRAPHIC TECHNICAL VISIT
This step involves compiling various analyses, organizing technical visits by consulting with
hydrographic experts, and relying on national and international authorities (IHO, OMI). The goal
of these visits is to review prioritization documentation, study the adequacy of cartographic and
hydrographic documentation, as well as infrastructures for disseminating nautical information.
International organizations play a fundamental role in this process, as they guarantee the
independence of the assessment.
STEP 5: DEFINITION OF PRIORITY HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS
This step concludes the process and specifies the hydrographic surveys to be conducted, as well
as their methodology according to the environment, positioning infrastructure, knowledge of tidal
fluctuations and geodetic knowledge of the sites. The type of hydrographic survey
(reconnaissance, regular, control, obstructions search) must be defined for each area, according
to the objectives explicitly defined by the preceding step and depending upon the available
budgets. Needless to say, this conclusive phase of a prioritization process requires the
participation of every stakeholder (every stakeholder should participate from the outset).
- 54 -
The following points seem to be particularly important:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Provide an overview of risk analysis and economic analysis
Specify revision/cartographic production schema
Specify associated hydrographic surveys
Establish charting priorities according to available budgets, risk analysis and economic
analysis (cost/benefit)
e. Planning hydrographic surveys according to environmental constraints (ice), budget
constraints
The overview of information collected during steps 1, 2 and 3 can be rather complex if we seek to
do more than find an empirical solution to the problem. Let us summarize the situation.
Before conducting an analysis, it is necessary to distinguish between the types of information
collected and summarized, according to whether they are:


Spatial and temporal statistics (type of seafloor, site’s exposure to meteo-oceanic
conditions), which is the case for the majority of geographic data;
Influenced by the decision to do a major cartographic update or hydrographic survey
(marine traffic intensity, economic development).
At this stage, we have data for economic development potential (sustainable with regard to
communities, and eventually ephemeral, since it consists of exploiting natural resources that are
limited in quantity). This data is related to certain locations.
We also have specialized data of incurred risk, obtained from step 2, and marine traffic data.
All that remains is to model the impact of a decision to conduct a hydrographic survey or do a
cartographic update of a given area on all of the economic development parameters. In fact, the
decision to conduct a hydrographic survey in a given area would decrease the level of potential
risk to navigation on a route, or a portion of the shipping route. As for the route of a vessel, the
risk incurred during a leg of the journey would be decreased, which would automatically decrease
the transportation cost (part of said cost being directly proportional to technological risk).
Therefore, the destination of the said marine route could experience more intense traffic, at lower
risk. According to the economic development factor of the destination, the growth of effective
economic activity of the destination can be modeled in relation to the decision to prioritize a
hydrographic survey.
The complexity of the issue arises from the fact that prioritizing a given area can have a
cascading effect on numerous destinations. Several destinations can have a common shipping
route, or a part of a shipping route, downstream needed to connect them. Therefore, the
prioritization of one area can impact several destinations. But the reverse situation exists as well:
an approach to a section of route opening up a reliable approach to a given destination can
decrease the risk incurred when linking destinations situated downstream.
SUMMARY
- 55 -
To conclude this section, several prioritization methods were analyzed. It would appear the
method used by the CHS does not take hydrographic risk into account and ignores the impact on
environmental and economic development factors. The second method, inspired by a recent
study undertaken by LINZ, takes these factors into account and proposes a completely
transparent and participatory approach. We tried adapting it to the Northern Canadian context,
accounting for the presence of ice and the unique geographical, sociological and economic traits
of this region.
CONCLUSION
In order to develop a marine transportation network in anticipation of climate changes, it is
necessary to secure routes and maritime approaches using cartography of a minimum quality.
The unique context of the North and its lack of infrastructure allowing for quality hydrographic
surveys to be conducted in recent history explain the deficit of quality nautical information and the
cause of certain serious marine accidents. Hydrographic surveying, which requires positioning
equipment, accurate geodetic knowledge and tide models allowing for the accurate reduction of
soundings, is a major challenge in Northern Canada. Several alternative solutions to so-called
“classical” hydrographic methods were considered (the use of autonomous systems and
crowdsourced bathymetry in particular). We demonstrated the limits to the application of these
two approaches which, unfortunately, cannot provide a reliable and economic solution to the lack
of quality data in the North.
Marine cartography (and hydrography) is necessary for all economic and human development of
a territory. It would appear that, given the immensity of the region and the difficulty of conducting
hydrographic surveys in the North, a prioritization phase that a) harnesses communities,
provincial governments and concerned federal authorities, and b) unites marine experts,
economic stakeholders and experts in hydrography, can serve as a solution leading to
transparent and documented strategies, allowing for sensible planning of hydrographic
campaigns.
Northern Canada, like other regions in the world (the Southwest Pacific, for example), can adopt
an effective prioritization method incorporating economic development factors, as well as marinerelated risk factors (which are the result of a lack of nautical information). If adopted, the
approach we have proposed here should allow for hydrographic survey planning to be
coordinated in conjunction with sustainable economic development, in anticipation of certain
consequences due to climate change.
- 56 -
REFERENCES
Chayes, D. N., J. Ardai, R. Anderson, S. Goemmer, B. J. Coakley, M. R. Rognstad, R. B. Davis
and M. Edwards (1999). Seafloor Characterization And Mapping Pods (SCAMP):
Submarine-mounted Geophysical Mapping. OCEANS-CONFERENCE-, INSTITUTE OF
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS.
Comtois, C. (2010). Bathymetry au travers la glace en Arctic : les aspects humains. Conférence
Hydrographic du Canada. Québec.
Church et al. (2009) Developing Strategies to Facilitate Long Term Seabed Monitoring in the
Canadian Arctic using Post Processed GPS and Tidal Models, Porceeding of the US
HYDRO Conf
Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Pearce, T., and Ford, J. 2011. Emerging cruise tourism economies in
Canadian Arctic: Ulukhaktok case study. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Edwards, M. H. and B. J. Coakley (2003). "SCICEX investigations of the Arctic Ocean System."
Chemie der Erde-Geochemistry 63(4): 281-328.
Fadaie, K. (2012). "Need for Integrated Bathymetric and Topographic Charts in Nothern
Communities." Lighthouse 80: 2.
Forbes, S., J. Verhoef and D. Mosher (2012). "The Clock is Ticking - The Journey for Canada's
Submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf."
Lighthouse(79): 10.
Hall, J. K. (2006). "Autonomous Drifting Echo-sounding Buoys." Hydro International 10(5): 3.
Hare, R.M. (1997). Procedures for Evaluating and Reporting Hydrographic Data Quality, Internal
report, Canadian Hydrographic Service
Hare, R., D. R. Peyton and J. Conyon (2012). "Remote Processing of Ship Based Hydrographic
Multi-beam Data." Lighthouse 80: 7.
Hopkin, D., E. MacNeil, R. Pederson, J. Manning, C. Kaminski, T. Crees and A. Forrest (2010).
The Application of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles in Support of the Canadian
UNCLOS Submission. Canadian Hydrographic Conference. Québec.
Jakobsson, M., N. Cherkis, J. Woodward, R. Macnab and B. Coakley (2000). "New grid of Arctic
bathymetry aids scientists and mapmakers." EOS, Transactions American Geophysical
Union 81(9): 89-96.
Knudsen, P., O. Andersen, R. Forsberg, R. Saldo and H. Skriver (2012). Satellite bathymetry and
other satellite derived data: 36.
Lehmenhecker, S. and T. Wulff (2013). "Flying Drone for AUV Under-Ice Missions." Sea
Technology 54(2): 4.
Muggah, J., I. Church, J. Beaudoin and J. H. Clarke (2010). Seamless Online Distribution of
Amundsen Multi-beam Data. Canadian Hydrographic Conference. Québec.
- 57 -
Savi Narayanan (2012) CHS Chart-related Operational Services Update, Mariner’s Workshop
February 21-22, Montreal
Rognstad, M., R. Anderson, D. Chayes and L. Mayer (2005). Seafloor Sounding in Polar and
Remote Regions (SSPARR) Project-Initial Field Trials. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
Rondeau, M. and S. Roche (2010). Le WikiSIG : un outil de cartography participative appliqué à
l’espace maritime. Conférence Hydrographic du Canada. Québec.
Stewart, E.J., Howell, S.E.L., Draper, D., Yackel, J., and Tivy, A. 2007. Sea ice in Canada’s
Arctic: Implications for cruise tourism. Arctic 60(4): 370–380
Weber, J. (1983). "Charts of the Arctic Basin seafloor: A history of bathymetry and its
interpretation." Arctic: 121-142.
- 58 -
APPENDIX 1: EXAM PLE OF IDENTIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A M ARINE
ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SOLAS PASSENGER VESSEL
Most likely scenario:
Low-speed collision approaching an anchorage area:
-
Too much trust in the ECDIS, faulty marine chart
Route deviated from the regular channel due to the presence of ice or small icebergs
undetectable on the radar
Breakdown or no navigation aid
Positioning problem
Refloating the ship using the machine / ballasting the ship
Most likely consequences
-
Human: minor injuries
Vessel: minor damage, no immobilization or towing required
Environmental: no damage
Stakeholders: loss of tourists’ trust, loss of trust in the port/destination if outdated charts
are the cause. International media attention.
Worst-case scenario:
High-speed collision at sea
-
Too much trust in the ECDIS, faulty chart
Route deviated from regular channel due to the presence of ice, icebergs or small
icebergs undetectable on the radar
Breakdown or no navigation aid
Positioning problem
Significant damage, waterway, vessel sliding from the shoal and sinking, abandonment of vessel
with weather becoming increasingly inclement.
Consequences
-
Human: loss of human life during abandonment of vessel
Vessel: serious consequences or total loss
Environmental: pollution (hundreds of tonnes of fuel oil). Fuel tanks needing to be
refloated.
Stakeholders: loss of company’s reputation. Significant damages, loss of trust in the
region, major international media coverage.
- 59 -
APPENDIX 2: EXAM PLE OF IDENTIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A M ARINE
ACCIDENT INVOLVING A CARGO SOLAS VESSEL
Most likely scenario:
Collision with the seafloor at low speed, approaching an anchorage area:
-
Too much trust in the ECDIS, faulty nautical chart
Route deviated from the regular channel due to the presence of ice, icebergs or small
icebergs undetectable by radar
Breakdown or no navigation aid
Positioning problem
Refloating the ship using the machine / ballasting the ship
Most likely consequences
-
Human: minor injuries
Vessel: minor damage, no grounding or towing
Environmental: loss of fuel oil, coastal damage
Stakeholders: considerable delays in re-supplying a community, loss of reputation at a
shipyard or anchorage area, consequences for local fishing businesses
Worst-case scenario:
High-speed collision at sea
-
Too much trust in the ECDIS, faulty chart
Route deviated from the regular channel due to the presence of ice or small icebergs
undetectable on the radar
Breakdown or no navigation aid
Positioning problem
Significant damage: waterway, partial loss of containers due to excessive listing, very difficult
refloating requiring a large-scale operation, with weather becoming increasingly inclement.
Consequences
-
Human: minor injuries
Vessel: serious consequences and major repairs needed
Environment: pollution (hundreds of tonnes of fuel oil). Fuel tanks needing to be
refloated.
Stakeholders: serious problem revitalizing a community, loss of containers. Major
damages, major international media coverage.
- 60 -