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

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

3. Hydro Risk Methodology Update for NZ Assessment

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

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

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

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

8. Risk Matrix – Familiar, But Very Different

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

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

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

13. NZ Survey Age

14. Traffic Examples

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

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

20. Results – Key Areas

21. Risk Overall

22. Benefit Overall

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

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

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

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

30. Conclusions Summary

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

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

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

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