FEASIBILITY AND DESKTOP STUDIES REGARDING HA 04 FINAL 03.1 Summary and Recommendations
P repa red f or:
P repa ra t ory C om m i s s i on f or t h e C om preh e n s i v e N u c lea r - Te s t - Ban T r e at y O rg a n i z a t i on ( C T B T O ) P rov i s i on a l T e c h n i c a l S ec ret a ri a t
C T B T O , Vi e nna I nte r na ti o na l C e ntr e
P . O . B ox 1 2 0 0 , W a g ra m ers t ra s s e 5
A - 1400 V i e n n a , Au s t r i a
P repa red b y :
M a l l i n C o ns ul ta nts L t d .
3 3 0 T em pe C res c en t
N ort h V a n c ou v er B . C . V 7 N 1 E 6
C an ad a
12 A pri l 2012
Summary and Recommendations - Page 1
GLOSSARY:
AC Air Conditioning
ATP Acceptance Test Plan
BMH Beach Manhole
CAT Commission Acceptance Tests
CD 1.0 Continuous Data Format and Protocol
CD 1.1 Formats and Protocols for Continuous Data (CD1.1)
COTS/NDI Commercial Off-The-Shelf/Non-Development Items
CRF Central Recording Facility
CRL Certificate Revocation List
CRS Cable Route Survey
CTA Cable Termination Assembly
CTBT Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty
CTBTO Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (Commission)
DASS Data Acquisition and Storage Segment
dB Decibel
dBV/µPa Decibels with respect to one volt per micro Pascal
DDFI Digital Data Formatter and Interface
DSA Digital Signature Algorithm
DSS Digital Signature Standard
ESA European Space Agency
FAT Factory Acceptance Test
hrs. 9 FIT Failures in Time in units 1 0
FMECA Failure Modus, Effects and Criticality Analysis
GCI Global Communications Infrastructure
GPS Global Positioning System
HDAS Hydroacoustic Data Acquisition System
HOT Hughes Olivetta Telecom
Summary and Recommendations - Page 2
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
HVPS High Voltage Power Supply
Hz Hertz (Cycles per second)
IDC International Data Centre
IMS International Monitoring System
ISM International Safety Management
M Meter(s)
M(Number) Milestone(Number)
MLDT Mean Logistics Delay Time
MTBF Mean Time Between Failures
MTBCF Mean Time Between Critical Failures
MTTR Mean Time To Repair
NDC National Data Centre
NDI Non Development Item
NMS Network Monitoring System
OSP Outside Plant
OTDR Optical Time Domain Reflectometer
PAD Packet Assembler Disassembler
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PEP Preliminary Evaluation Process
PLGR Prelay Grapnel Run
PLIB Postlay Inspection and Burial
PMDR Pre-Manufacturing Design Review
PRC Primary Reference Clocks
PTS Provisional Technical Secretariat
QMS Quality Management System
RH Relative Humidity
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
Summary and Recommendations - Page 3
RPL Route Position List RWG
Route Working Group
SAT System Acceptance Test
SERNAP Chilean Fisheries Service
SIT System Integration Test
SLD Straight Line diagram
SLLI System Load and Lay Instructions
SO Station Operator
SOFAR Sound Fixing and Ranging
SOH State Of Health
SOR Specification of Requirements (Part II of TOR)
SOW Statement of Work (Part I of TOR)
SSI Standard Station Interface
ST Shore Terminus TOR
Terms of Reference
TS Technical Secretariat
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
UTC Universal Time Coordinated
UWS Underwater Segment
VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal
Summary and Recommendations - Page 4
FEASIBILITY AND DESKTOP STUDIES REGARDING HA 04 FINAL 03.1 TOPIC 1 Logistics, Environment and Administrative Requirements
P repa red f or:
P repa ra t ory C om m i s s i on f or t h e C om preh e n s i v e N u c lea r - Te s t - Ban T r e at y O rg a n i z a t i on ( C T B T O ) P rov i s i on a l T e c h n i c a l S ec ret a ri a t
C T B T O , Vi e nna I nte r na ti o na l C e ntr e
P . O . B ox 1 2 0 0 , W a g ra m ers t ra s s e 5
A - 1400 V i e n n a , Au s t r i a
P repa red b y :
M a l l i n C o ns ul ta nts L t d .
3 3 0 T em pe C res c en t
N ort h V a n c ou v er B . C . V 7 N 1 E 6
C an ad a
1 2 A pri l 2012
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Topic 1 - Logistics, Environment and Administrative Requirements
Contents
Topic 1 - Logistics, Environment and Administrative Requirements...... 3
1 Logistics ...... 5
1.1 Crozet ...... 5
1.2 Île Amsterdam ...... 6
2 Environment, General ...... 8
2.1 Meteorology ...... 9
3 Environment, Crozet ...... 9
3.1 Geologic and Tectonic Setting, Crozet ...... 9
3.2 Bathymetry, Crozet ...... 11
3.3 Currents and Tidal Streams, Crozet ...... 12
3.4 Sea and Swell, Crozet ...... 12
3.5 Climate and Weather, Crozet ...... 13
3.5.1 History...... 13
3.5.2 Forecasting ...... 14
3.5.3 Analysis - Background ...... 14
3.5.4 Analysis - Methodology...... 14
3.6 Fishing, Crozet ...... 22
3.7 Anchoring, Crozet ...... 23
3.8 Flora and Fauna, Crozet ...... 24
5 Administrative Requirements, ...... 34 5.1 Crozet ...... 34 5.2 Île Amsterdam...... 34
Topic 1 - Page 6
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
6 Conclusions...... 35
6.1 Logistics ...... 35
6.2 Environment, General ...... 35
6.3 Environment, Crozet ...... 35
6.4 Environment, Île Amsterdam ...... 36
6.5 Administrative Requirements ...... 36
Topic 1 Appendix A...... 37
Topic 1 Appendix B...... 39
Figure 1 Dock in Baie du Marin showing the R/V Marion Dufresne at anchor ...... 6
Figure 2 Offloading packages in Baie du Marin showing sandy foreshore ...... 6
Figure 3 The Quay in Île Amsterdam ...... 7
Figure 4 The Quay in Île Amsterdam in less favourable weather...... 7
Figure 5 The Quay in Île Amsterdam from offshore showing rocky foreshore...... 8
Figure 6 Île Amsterdam quay and R/V Marion Dufresne standing off...... 8
Figure 7 Map of Île de la Possession ...... 11
Figure 8 Crozet monthly wind maxima 2002-2011 ...... 16
Figure 9 Consecutive days of less than 25 knot maximum wind...... 18
Figure 10 Consecutive days of less than 20 knot maximum wind...... 19
Figure 11 Periods with wind less than 25 knots, 2002 - 2003 ...... 19
Figure 12 Periods with winds less than 25 knots, 2008 - 2009 ...... 20
Figure 13 Periods with winds less than 25 knots, 2010-2011...... 20
Figure 14 Map of fishing and anchoring exclusion zones as per ARRETE N° 01-508...... 23
Figure 15 Detail of navigation chart showing anchorages ...... 24
Topic 1 - Page 7
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
1 Logistics
The Crozet Islands and Île Amsterdam belong to the French Antarctic and Austral Territories (TAAF), along with the islands of Kerguelen.
Administratively, these territories, together with Adélie Land on the Antarctic continent, come under the authority of the TAAF, an organisation run by the French Ministry of Overseas Departments and Territories.
The only inhabited parts of these territories are the scientific bases, which are staffed by 16 to 60 persons depending on the site. The staff is composed, principally, of research personal for geophysical, biological, deep-sea fishing, meteorological and ornithological observatories of research.
The Crozet Islands are situated 2,850 km to the south-southwest of the French island of La Réunion, which serves as a back-up logistic base for the three scientific bases on islands belonging to the TAAF. The Crozet base, the Alfred Faure or Port Alfred research station, is the only settlement on the island, is home to between 15 and 60 research personal involved in meteorological, seismic, biological and geological studies. The closest significant port to Crozet is 2,800 km away at Durban in South Africa.
Île Amsterdam is situated 2,780 km to the southeast of La Réunion. The Île Amsterdam base, the Martin-de-Viviès research station, first called Camp Heurtin, then La Roche Godon, and the only settlement on the island, is home to about 30 research personal involved in biological, meteorological and geomagnetic studies. Durban in South Africa is located 4,300 km away. The closest significant port is Perth, Australia which is 3,500 km east.
There is no airport anywhere in the TAAF region.
1.1 Crozet
The Crozet Islands are uninhabited, except for the research station Alfred Faure (Port Alfred) on the East side of Île de la Possession, which has been continuously manned since 1963. The other islands are nature reserves only visited during planned scientific campaigns, generally at intervals of several years.
The Alfred Faure base which is located at the eastern end of the island on a plateau 143 m (460 ft.) above sea level. There is a 1.6 km road that connects the research station to the coast. The territory is an ecological and ornithological reserve. Any new installation would require an environmental impact study submitted for approval by the TAAF and the Scientific Committee of the I.F.R.T.P. (French Institute for Polar Research and Technology). However it is understood that a repair of the existing Crozet HA04 Station would not present significant permitting issues.
A characteristic of all the Austral islands, and a complication for the logisticians, is that there are no natural ports or airstrips. The Alfred Faure base has VSAT communications, and can accommodate up to 10 visitors1.
Crozet is visited four times a year by the 120 m R/V Marion Dufresne, bringing supplies and rotating crews of scientists at the permanent base (Alfred Faure) on Île de la Possession. These visits generally occur in the Austral summer, and are part of oceanographic cruises in the Antarctic Ocean which also include supply runs to the two other island bases of the TAAF. The round trip takes about one month and the transit to Crozet is five days. Crozet is also visited once a month by a patrol vessel, and once a month by long liners of around 55 m in length. Visiting vessels anchor in the designated anchor area where there is some protection from the sea state and the weather.
There is a small dock where a lighter can come alongside, and a crane to offload packages. All transfers must be done by lighter or the helicopter on board R/V Marion Dufresne, which can lift
1 ANNEXE A LA LETTRE TAAF/DAIMA-11-n° 189 du 15 novembre 2011: Informations nécessaires pour le mouillage d’une station hydroacoustique sur les sites de CROZET et AMSTERDAM
Topic 1 - Page 8
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
750kg.2The water depth at the dock face is unknown, but appears to be approximately 3 m at high water. The foreshore adjacent to the dock and the seabed around the dock are sedimented and unlikely to pierce a hull in the event that a lighter touches bottom. The dock is in a relatively protected site in the Baie du Marin, and is only occasionally subject to significant waves. Speed boats and zodiacs can also be used between anchored vessels and the dock.
Figure 1 Dock in Baie du Marin showing the R/V Marion Dufresne at anchor
Figure 2 Offloading packages in Baie du Marin showing sandy foreshore
2 Environment, General The Final Report HA046 by the independent experts recommended that this study be undertaken on the basis that Île Amsterdam appeared to offer improved weather and more predictable sea states, and hence lower installation risk and maintenance cost. In addition, the report identified weather as the 7 primary cause for the failure of the 2003 installation attempt at Crozet.
6 Section 5.7; The Final Report of the Independent Expert Evaluation of the Hydroacoustic Station HA04, Crozet Islands, France; 7 Section 2.2.4; The Final Report of the Independent Expert Evaluation of the Hydroacoustic Station HA04, Crozet Islands, France;
Topic 1 - Page 9
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
It is therefore appropriate to attempt a detailed analysis of available weather data to better understand the difference between the two sites, and the weather constraints at Crozet.
2.1 Meteorology
The Southern Ocean is the term generally adopted for the circumpolar body of water lying north of the Antarctic continent. The Southern Ocean is divided into two main hydrological zones by the Antarctic Convergence which is defined as the line along which the cold north going Antarctic surface water sinks beneath the warmer sub-Antarctic water. It forms a physical boundary between the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic zones and is fairly constant in position. The resulting zones are significant because they determine the properties of the air masses above them and therefore directly affect the meteorology of the Southern Hemisphere.
The Circumpolar Trough is a belt of low pressure spanning latitudes 60º S and 70º S. It is present as a result of the large number of depressions that have either moved polewards from mid-latitudes or developed in the Antarctic coastal zone. To the north of the Circumpolar Trough in the sub-Antarctic zone there is a wide belt of mainly strong winds known as the roaring forties within which the Crozet Archipelago lies.
Île Amsterdam lies south of the sub-tropical high pressure belt and north of the sub-Antarctic zone in a region of strong westerly winds.
3 Environment, Crozet
3.1 Geologic and Tectonic Setting8, Crozet
The Crozet archipelago is situated on the Del Cano Plateau, which has an average water depth of 2,000 m. This east west oriented plateau extends for about 800 km and is 300 km wide. Its eastern part consists of a raised plateau (Crozet Bank) at a water depth of 1,000 m, on which the five islands that comprise the Crozet Archipelago are built up. The Del Cano ridge was formed at the eastern branch of the Indian mid-ocean ridge, which is now located at more than 1,000 km from the Crozet Archipelago. Associated magnetic anomalies indicate that the Del Cano Plateau formed ca. 50 million years ago.
The two larger eastern islands, Île de l'Est and Île de la Possession are separated from the smaller western Île aux Cochons, Île des Pingouins and Îlots des Apôtres (a series of 14 small islands and steep rocks; maximum size 1.2 sq. km, 290 m alt.) by the Indivat Basin.
All the islands are clearly volcanic in origin. The oldest ages for Île de l'Est and Île de la Possession are respectively, 8.8 and 8.1 million years, but there is basalt of undoubtedly older age. Analysis of magnetic anomalies on the sea floor indicates that the Crozet Plateau formed some 50 million years ago. There is little evidence for extensive glaciation.
Île de la Possession is made up entirely of volcanic rocks and derived products. Erosion is very active and rocks are covered by very sparse vegetation (moss and lichens).
The island was built up in five main volcano-tectonic phases:
Phase I: Late Miocene (>8.7 Ma) characterised by the accumulation of submarine formations later exhumed during phase V;
Phase II: Late Miocene-Pliocene (8.7-1.6 Ma), which saw the construction of an extensive stratovolcano in the west of the island, then the emplacement of a very dense network of intrusive bodies;
8 HYDROACOUSTIC SITE SURVEY REPORT IMS HA4
Topic 1 - Page
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Phase III: Pleistocene (1.6-0.7 Ma), primarily volcano-detritical sedimentation resulting from the dismantling of the previous massif building with intercalated lava flows;
Phase IV: Pleistocene (0.7-0.5 Ma), with plateau basalts erupted from an Hawaiian type rift- zone striking N 135° (Pétrels and Jannels plateaux);
Glacial period producing the characteristic land forms (0.5-0.4 Ma), and
Phase V: Late Pleistocene (0.4 Ma to 10,000 BP), characterised by subsidence tectonics and localised volcanic activity (Stromolian cones).
Possession Island is about 18 km long by 15 km wide, with an area of 150 km². The highest point is Mount Mascarin (934 m) in the southern part, but the panoramic summit is Mount Mischief (921 m) which is situated in the south-western part.
The overall morphology is controlled by a major topographic feature oriented NNE-SSW broken up by recent volcanic cones (line of craters). This feature extends from Roche Carrée in the south-west to Cap Vertical in the north, thus dividing the island into two sub-areas, the eastern sub-area and the western sub-area.
The eastern sub-area is made of plateaux and ridges sloping with shallow angle towards the coast, separated by wide valleys. This terrain represents the remains of a much larger volcanic structure that was probably circular in outline. The missing three-quarters of this massif have collapsed beneath sea level and can now be found to the west and south of the island.
The western sub-area has a very rugged relief and is composed of a tilted compartment containing layers dipping at 40° towards the west (known as "Capuches de Moines"). A collapsed zone is situated between the eastern and western sub-areas, containing the “Mont des Cratères” and the “Grande Coulée”.
Where the valleys do not come down to the coast, there are basalt cliffs, several hundreds of meters high in the south and a few tens of meters high in the north. These cliffs are eroded and cut up into sea-caves, initially formed as lava tubes, into which the waves rush with great force. When the valleys come down to the coast, they form bays with 1-2 km width. The waters in these bays are several tens of metres deep, while the bays themselves are generally also bordered by cliffs. The back of these bays is the only part of the coastline where there are beaches of black sand. The feet of the cliffs bordering these bays also provide a suitable environment for giant seaweed of the type Macrocystis, which makes up a vegetal mat more than 25 m thick coming right up to the water’s edge.
The beaches are located downstream from these large valleys of glacial origin, in the bays of Petit Caporal, Hébé and Américaine along the Northeast coast, as well as in Lapérouse Bay to the Southwest, the only beach with pebbles. The sand consists of rolled fragments of basalt and derived minerals. The morphology of these beaches can change abruptly when breaking waves are produced by the rare easterly winds. On the beaches of Hébé and Américaine, there are pebbles of floated white pumice brought by westerly marine currents. To the north-east and east, the beaches of “Crique du Navire” (Baie du Marin), Américaine and Hébé, are located 2 to 3 m above sea level, sometimes forming a micro-cliff (landing at Baie du Marin). They are cut into by the action of the watercourses. These beaches are probably the equivalent of a level located at +4 m described more fully farther west on Cochons Island and representative of the climatic optimum dated at 5,500 BP. As has been confirmed on other Austral islands, the current period is probably one of falling sea level and rejuvenation of relief by river erosion.
The discharge of sand at these bays has resulted in some sediment on the seabed, in particular in Baie du Marin, which accounts for the good anchor holding in the bay. The seabed outside the bay can be expected to be a mixture of exposed rock and sediment.
Among these bays, Baie du Marin on the east coast is the most sheltered from the prevailing winds. This bay is situated off the mouth of the Rivière du Camp and forms a black sand beach which is 160 m long and 50 m wide. The beach and the stream bank are occupied, as for the other bays, by a colony
Topic 1 - Page 10
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
of approximately 100,000 king penguins. The Alfred Faure base overlooks Baie du Marin at an elevation of 140 m.
The bottom topography of this bay seems to be regular but slopes rapidly away from the beach until a depth of about 10 m, and then flattens off towards the outlet at 60 m, approximately 1 km further offshore. The bay is 300 m across at the level of the beach, then opening out rapidly to a distance of 1.5 km between Pointe Lieutard and Pointe Max Douguet. Although sheltered from prevailing winds, it is often affected by cross swells which oblige boats anchored in the bay to leave their moorings quickly. When the rare but very strong easterlies are blowing, large breaking waves come onshore and are channelled in the narrow part of the bay towards the beach.
There is a record of some seismic activity in the Crozet Islands region. There are occasional earthquakes reported up to magnitude 5 in the region, but their reported epicentres are about 800 km from Île de la Possession and it is not anticipated that seismic activity of this magnitude will be an issue for the marine cable.
3.2 Bathymetry, Crozet
The western part of the Crozet Bank is 60 nautical miles wide, with an average water depth of 500 m. The eastern part of this plateau, forming the Île de l’Est and Île de la Possession, is separated from the western part by the Indivat Basin with a depth of 2,000 m. The eastern segment of Crozet Bank, where Île de la Possession lies, is much narrower, being only 27 nautical wide miles with depths of less than 500 m. The northern flank of Possession Island becomes steep seaward of the 150 m isobath, falling off to a depth of 1,000 m in less than 10 km; 25 km off the northern coast of the island a submarine plain reaches a depth of 2,300 m.
Figure 7 Map of Île de la Possession
By contrast, the southern flank extends onto a wide plateau that slopes regularly to a depth of about 500 m over a distance of 40 km, continuing westward to the Duclesmeur plateau which joins up with the western segment of the Crozet Bank on the other side of the Indivat Basin.
Possession Island is separated from Île de l’Est by the Canal des Orques, at a depth of 100-200 m, which connects up with two relatively narrow canyons situated to the north and south. The submerged part of the Île de l’Est massif is considerably narrower since it does not extend onto any submarine plateau.
Topic 1 - Page 11
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
The 200 m isobath represents the boundary of a 5-7 km-wide terrace to the north of Île de la Possession. Beyond this limit, the slope appears to steepen abruptly down to the 1,000 m isobath.
3.3 Currents and Tidal Streams, Crozet In general9, south of 40º S, the currents mainly set towards the east and are collectively known as the Southern Ocean Current. The Southern Ocean Current tends to fluctuate in direction between north east and south east with low to moderate constancy, with an average rate of ½ to 1 knot. There is insufficient data to determine whether there are seasonal variations of the current.
After prolonged periods of strong winds from a constant direction a wind drift current may be generated where the rate varies according to the speed of the wind and its duration. These wind drift currents may strengthen, weaken or reverse the surface current and cause major irregularities in the set of the current across the region.
In the region lying west and north west of Iles Crozet, approximately between parallels 44˚ S and 46˚ S and meridians 40˚ E and 56˚ E, the general flow is not in accordance with the usual direction of the Southern Ocean Current. While north west, east or south east sets may be experienced the predominant sets are between north west and north east throughout the year. The normal east set is found between 120 and 150 nautical miles farther north.
Local effects may also be experienced closer to shore and within the various channels between the islands. For instance during the 2003 installation, during the cable landing currents of over 1.5 knots were experienced in Baie du Marin. It is understood that from time to time a strong current flows between the islands.
3.4 Sea and Swell, Crozet Sea waves10 are generated locally by the wind and can be variable in direction. Wave conditions in the Southern Ocean throughout the year are similar to those experienced in the Northern Part of the North Atlantic in winter, with the worst conditions likely to occur between latitudes 45º S and 60º S. Within this region (Crozet lying close to the northern limit of this general belt) rough seas are common in all seasons becoming very high or even phenomenal during the passage of the numerous deep east moving depressions. Maximum wave heights are thought to be around 25 m over this mainly westerly wind region but can attain greater heights in some areas (e.g. 35 m near Isles Kerguelen) in winter.
The Southern Ocean is a stormy region and therefore there is a very real possibility of abnormally high waves developing. Waves generally become steeper and higher with an opposing current, and there is some evidence that large waves become even higher on the approaches to submarine banks (e.g. the Aghulas Bank). This increase in wave height may be due to the both opposing currents and the effect on the waves as they move toward shallower water.
Swell data for summer months is limited and almost non-existent for large areas in winter and therefore should be used with extreme caution. The British Admiralty note that the percentage frequency of swell heights of 3.5 m and above is considered to be higher than indicated in their Swell Distribution Charts and in the region between latitudes 45º S and 60º S may be present for around 35% of the time in Summer and about 65% of the time in winter and are, in the majority, from a south westerly or north westerly direction.
Wave data has been provided by IFREMER. The data file received provides a visualization of significant wave heights throughout the world which occurred during the month of January 2009. This visualization serves to confirm that storms with wave heights of 10-12 m do disturb the ocean around Crozet fairly regularly, even during Austral summer. These events are followed by periods of
9 Admiralty Sailing Directions, NP9 and NP39 10 Admiralty Sailing Directions, NP9 and NP39
Topic 1 - Page 12
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
2-4 m wave heights lasting 12 to 96 hours. This data tends to confirm results of the analysis of the Meteo (France) wind data.
3.5 Climate and Weather, Crozet
Lying as they do in the path of the "Roaring Forties" (between 45°95' and 46°50' S, 50°33' and 52°58' E), the islands are invariably windy, and the frequent depressions arriving from the west bring cold, wet and cloudy weather. On average it rains 300 days per year, and winds exceed 100 km/hr more than 100 days of the year. The climate is typically Austral with a mean annual temperature of +5° C. The temperature rarely exceeds 64° F (18° C) in summer. Frost or snow is rarely recorded (89 days per year, on average). Most winds are in the north-westerly quadrant, the prevailing direction being westerly and the strongest winds coming from the north. The following is a quote from the Final Report11:
“In generally, it can be said that this phase of the installation was thoroughly disrupted by the weather. The forecasts and weather maps sent to us every 12 hours were very precise and we relied totally on these when initiating operations that could last anywhere from 7 to 20 hours, depending upon the sequence that was to be carried out.
Unfortunately, periods of high winds (>35 knots) lasting approximately 4 hours occurred virtually every 24 hours. Following such winds, the sea could be moderate to rough, making cable-laying impossible. It was not feasible to sequence the various operations as planned and various procedures had to be interrupted after the portion of the array already in the sea was secured. No operational sequence could be performed as originally planned without enormous loss of time, attachment of buoys, and the subsequent pick-up of mooring lines. The only period of calm seas occurred between 10:00 hours on 24 March and 20:00 hours on 27 March, i.e. a period of 3 days and 10 hours over the entire period between 15 March and 5 April, these being the dates of commencement and termination of the operation in the South zone, i.e. 20 days.”
It is important to quantify the duration and frequency of unworkable weather. The duration and frequency of unworkable weather will impact the technology solution, the cost estimate and the risk analysis as they apply to Crozet.
3.5.1 History From 2000 installation presentation12:
• Date Range: 20 Feb 2000 – 17 March 2000; • Weather forecasting service : 2 forecasts per day; • Gales of 45/50 knots (fairly common during the mission) created 11 to 12 metres high waves when combined with low-pressure systems arriving from south; • R/V Marion Dufresne : 25 days on site, 3 days declared weather stand-by (12% weather); • N/O La Curieuse: 24 days of on site, 3 days declared weather standby.
From 2003 installation presentation13:
• Date Range:15 Mar 2003 – 20 Apr 2003; • Reliable weather forecasts and weather maps received every 12 hours; • 36 days on site;
11 HA04 Hydroacoustic Station CTBTO N° 99/30/6010 Installation Files October 2003 Final Report (2) Version 1.0 – Index A 12 Installation of HA04 station 1999-2000, Independent Expert Review – HA04 station, Vienna – 10/14 May 2010 13 Installation of HA04 station 2002-2003, Independent Expert Review – HA04 station, Vienna – 10/14 May 2010
Topic 1 - Page 13
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
• Weather stand-by: 14 days (wind >30 knots or swell >11 m) (39% weather); • CS René Descarte.
3.5.2 Forecasting
During the 2003 installation, a custom weather service was procured for the vessel with 12 hour updates. Weather forecasting was found to be reliable, and was relied on throughout the work.
Topic 1 Recommendation 1 Commence discussions with the selected weather forecast agency well in advance of the work, so that the forecasters have the opportunity to test their models against actual weather for several seasons prior to the vessel arriving on site. It is also noted that a “Box and Whiskers” type of forecast, where the error bars and likelihood are provided with the forecast, could assist the site crew.
3.5.3 Analysis - Background
The intent of the analysis of weather data at Crozet is threefold:
• To determine the optimal months for the work; • To estimate the number of hours of consecutive work time that can reasonably be expected by the Contractor; and • To estimate the percentage of downtime that should be allowed for in the cost estimating.
It is acknowledged that the outcome of this (and any) weather analysis will always be a greatly simplified solution to a very complex problem.
For instance, the ability of a vessel to maintain station in high winds and seas depends on wind speed, but also swell, duration of high winds, and the relative directions of wind, sea and swell and current. A vessel will aim to stem the strongest influencing force, normally the wind in this circumstance, but often the resultant force, with due regard for the sea and swell state, direction and period will affect the ability to maintain position. In addition the master must consider the safety of crew working on deck. The vagaries of the operation also have to be taken into account, in particular when working with cable outboard which may potentially lead under the stern and/or into propulsion machinery.
A vessel may not always be unable to do any work during bad weather. During the 2003 installation, work was rescheduled so that tasks with less weather dependency or in areas offering some protection could be done during periods of bad weather.
However, despite all of these limitations that apply to a weather analysis, it is necessary to undertake analysis of the data that are available, in this case wind records, in order to provide justifiable approximations of likely consecutive work hours and percentage downtime.
3.5.4 Analysis - Methodology
The analysis of weather at Crozet was undertaken using weather data from the Meteo web site, and the daily reports from the France Telecom (FT) Final Report on the 2003 installation program.
The first part of the analysis was decadal, to determine the months during the Austral summer when the weather would be least hostile. This analysis is in Section 3.5.4.1.
The second step in the analysis was to try to determine a suitable relationship between land wind speed as reported by Meteo and Sea State scale sea state that could be anticipated for a vessel working at sea. The method used to develop this relationship was to compare the hourly weather reports from the FT daily reports with the Meteo weather data. Unfortunately, the weather station on Crozet did not record the wind speed for much of the time that the FT ship was present during the 2003 installation. However, the data which were recorded were used to make a reasoned approximation of times when a vessel could be expected to stop work based on Meteo wind speeds. The second stage analysis is in Section 3.5.4.2.
Topic 1 - Page 14
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
The third stage of the analysis compares daily maximum data for one Austral summer (2010-11) and compares it to the selected cut-off speed. The intent of this analysis is to determine whether the cut- off is reasonable, and to determine the sensitivity of the analysis to cut-off speed. This third stage analysis is in Section 3.5.4.3.
The fourth stage of the analysis was to review hourly data for December-February for several years. The intent of this analysis was to determine the number and length of weather windows that could reasonably be anticipated during any one month period on site.
3.5.4.1 Austral Summer
The first step in the analysis was to determine the most favourable period in the Austral summer for installation. The Austral summer period at Crozet was identified in the Survey Report14 as running from December to February, when the risk of weather stand-by was said to be minimal but not entirely negligible. The survey report also observed that certain weeks in autumn or spring can be favourable, “with a little luck”.
An analysis of weather records for Crozet has been undertaken in order to confirm the duration of the best weather period. The data for this analysis was purchased from the Meteo France web site.
The monthly data sets for wind velocities and direction were downloaded for the decade 2002 to 2011. Two data sets were downloaded, for maximum instantaneous wind speed during each month (FXIAB) and for the highest daily average wind speed for each month (FXYAB). The intent of reviewing this data was to define the optimal weather months for installation. Figure 8 summarises the data and the conclusions of this analysis: that the optimal months for installation are December to February, and that the chance of severe storms with wind speeds over 70 knots is significantly higher in March to November than in December to February. However, the Climatic Table for Alfred-Faure Station, Isles Crozet15 compiled from 13 years of observations between 1980 and 1995 also indicates that the Austral summer winds have a lower average speed, 17 – 20 knots, during January and March (18- 21 knots in February) than at other times of the year and an average occurrence of gales on only 7 days of the month in each of the months between December and March, inclusive; the Austral winter average peaking at 14 days in July. For example the average wind speed shows January and March as slightly better than February and December. The prevailing winds are south-westerly to north with north westerly winds slightly dominating over south-westerly although winds from all directions were observed.
14 HA04 Hydroacoustic Survey Report 14 august 1998 CEA/DAS 15 British Admiralty Sailing Directions NP Seventh Edition 2009
Topic 1 - Page 15
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Figure 8 Crozet monthly wind maxima 2002-2011
Topic 1 Conclusion 1 The most favourable weather window for installation activities is approximately December 01 to March 01. However the month of March may also offer weather windows, and if the work extends into March it is unlikely that the weather risk will increase significantly.
3.5.4.2 Comparison of 2003 March-April data
The second step in the analysis was to determine a reasoned relationship between land wind speed as reported by Meteo and the time when vessels have to cease work due to weather.
The ability of a vessel to operate and undertake cable work is determined by the judgement of the vessel’s Master, supported by his/her experience and knowledge of the vessel. A commonly used measure of workability of the sea state is the Sea State scale. The Sea State scale takes into account wind speed and sea state.
The Meteo data provides readings of wind speed as the wind crosses the island. It is always a challenge to compare land wind speed to Sea State scale sea conditions and to come up with a meaningful prediction of workable time. However in this case there is some vessel data for 2003 that can be compared to the Meteo data. Unfortunately, while there are vessel data for 868 hours, the corresponding Meteo data are very sparse, and there are only one hundred and seventy four hourly readings for the same period.
The data downloaded was wind speed, averaged over ten minutes, and reported as the maximum 10 minute average in each hour. This data eliminates short gusts, but is conservative in that ten minutes of wind will not excite waves unless the high winds persist.
Of these 174 readings, 59 are during the time that the vessel was delayed by weather, and the remaining 115 are during times that the vessel was working. A review of the wind speeds from Meteo during those times is detailed in Table 1. If an arbitrary limit of 25 knots wind speed is used for the work cut-off, during 14 one hour periods the vessel did not work although the wind speed was below 25 knots, and in 20 one hour periods the vessel worked even though the wind speed was over 25 knots.
A review of the 14 hours when the vessel was on standby and the wind speed dropped to below 25 knots were hours during a major storm event; i.e. the adjacent times were stormy, and the sea had not had time to settle.
Topic 1 - Page 16
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
A review of the 20 hours when the vessel was working in over 25 knots of wind shows that 11 of the 20 hours were associated with the weather event that resulted in the failure of the N1 cable; the remainder occurred when the vessel was in transit, or when the vessel recorded limited swells. These numbers suggest that a wind speed cut-off of 25knots is reasonably representative of the experience on site.
If the wind speed cut-off is increased to 30 knots, the number of occasions when the work was suspended when the weather was less than the wind speed cut-off increases to 26. These periods are still generally during a major storm event. The number of periods when the vessel worked in winds higher than the wind speed cut-off drops to 12. These numbers suggest that a wind speed cut-off of 30 knots is as representative of the experience on site as a wind speed cut-off of 25 knots.
cut-off 20kn 25kn 30kn Hours when work stops with 4 14 26 wind speeds less than cut-off Hours when work continues with wind speeds greater than 41 20 12 cut-off
Table 1 Cut-off speeds
If the wind speed cut-off is reduced to 20 knots, the number of occasions when the work was suspended when the weather was less than the wind speed cut-off is 4. These periods are still generally during a major storm event. The number of periods when the vessel worked in winds higher than the wind speed cut-off increases to 41. These numbers suggest that a wind speed cut-off of 20knots is not representative of the experience on site.
Topic 1 Conclusion 2 Based on this analysis, it seems reasonable to propose a cut-off for vessel work of 25 to 30 knots wind measured on shore, provided that the average wind in a 9 hour period is more than 25 knots to eliminate short duration breaks during a storm event. In order to err on the side of conservative, a wind speed of 25 knots (represented by Beaufort Scale 616) is used as a suitable indicator of unworkable weather, provided that the average wind in a 9 hour period is more than 25 knots.
3.5.4.3 Maximum Wind Speed – 10 Minute Period in 1 Day The third stage was to analyse the maximum average wind speed for any 10 minute period in a day17, reported by the day for the selected installation period. The data for 15 Nov 2010 to 15 March 2011 was downloaded, and an analysis carried out using a wind speed cut-off of 25 knots. This cut-off showed the following continuous work periods of over 24 hours during these 17 weeks:
• 6% of the time there were 4 full consecutive days of less than 25 knot winds; • 10% of the time there were between 3 and 4 full consecutive days of less than 25 knot winds; • 6% of the time there were between 2 and 3 full consecutive days of less than 25 knot winds; and • 10% of the time there were between 1 and 2 full consecutive day of less than 25 knot winds.
To summarise, in 17 weeks of the Austral summer 2010-11, when considering days from 00:00 to 24:00:
• 40 days had no ten minute period where the wind averaged over 25 knots;
16 See Appendix A 17 Vitesse vent quotidien maxi moyenne sur 10 min
Topic 1 - Page 17
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
• for 33% of the days average wind in any 10 minute period was under 25 knots.
Figure 9 Consecutive days of less than 25 knot maximum wind
To determine sensitivity to the wind speed cut-off, a further analysis was done with the cut-off reduced to 20 knots. This analysis is summarised in Figure 10. This 20 knot cut-off showed the following continuous work periods of over 24 hours:
• 6% of the time there were 2 full consecutive days of less than 20 knot winds, and • 6% of the time there was 1 full day of less than 20 knot winds (but less than 2 full days).
To summarise, in 17 weeks of the Austral summer 2010-11, when considering days from 00:00 to 24:00:
• 16 days had no ten minute period where the wind speed averaged over 20 knots; • for 13% of the days average wind in any 10 minute period was under 20 knots.
This sensitivity analysis shows that the analysis is very sensitive to wind speed cut-off, with the number of days with wind speeds below the cut-off halving for a 20% reduction in wind speed.
However this analysis is coarse, since it is based on fixed one day periods, and makes no allowance for weather periods that extend beyond one day but less than two days, or for brief high winds that affect a day’s total but would not affect sea state.
Topic 1 - Page 18
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Figure 10 Consecutive days of less than 20 knot maximum wind
3.5.4.4 Maximum Wind Speed – 10 Minute Period in 1 Hour
The fourth stage of the analysis reviewed the maximum wind speed for any 10 minute period in an hour, reported hourly. These data were downloaded for November 1 to April 30 for 2002-3, 2008-9 and 2010-11. 2010-11 was selected to match the stage 2 data; 2008-9 was selected because there appeared to be storms in Jan-Feb for that winter; and 2002-3 was chosen to validate assumptions by correlation with reports from the 2003 installation as per Section 3.5.4.2.
Figure 11 Periods with wind less than 25 knots, 2002 - 2003
Topic 1 - Page 19
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Figure 12 Periods with winds less than 25 knots, 2008 - 2009
Figure 13 Periods with winds less than 25 knots, 2010-2011
The above graphs provide 30 weeks of Austral summer weather. On the basis of a 25 knot cut-off, the following table has been prepared:
2002-3 2008-9 2010-11 Average % Working
Average hours per week 84 hrs 111 hrs 115 hrs 103 hrs 61%
Maximum hours per week 111 hrs 129 hrs 151 hrs 130 hrs 78%
Minimum hours per week 82 hrs 91 hrs 51 hrs 75 hrs 44%
Topic 1 - Page 20
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Average duration 33 hrs 35 hrs 39 hrs 36 hrs
Maximum duration 94 hrs 115 hrs 131 hrs 113 hrs Table 2 Durations of workable windows based on a 25 knot cut-off
Considering the historical experience of weather downtime of 12% for R/V Marion Dufresne in late February and early March 2000, and 39% for C/S René Descartes in late March to mid-April 2003, the average working hours per week of 63% (downtime of 37%) for the period 1st Dec to 1st March seems realistic.
Weather dependent tasks should, if possible, be designed to be completed in less than the average duration of weather windows, in order that there will be a reasonable probability of a suitable weather window occurring without undue delay. On the basis of Table 2 it is recommended that the system be designed such that weather dependent tasks can be completed in less than 24 hours. There were several occasions in most weeks in the months analysed when the wind was less than 25 knots for more than 24 hours.
If a task cannot be completed in 24 hours, it is recommended that it be feasible to complete it in 36 hours. There is one period of 36 hours with the wind less than 25 knots in most of the weeks analysed. However, tasks which take 36 hours will probably require approximately 2 days weather delay while waiting for a suitable window.
If a task requires 48 hours of continuous good weather, a week of weather time should be allowed for prior to the weather being suitable.
Tasks which require more than 48 hours uninterrupted good weather are not likely to be economically feasible at Crozet.
3.5.4.5 Weather Analysis Conclusion, Crozet
Topic 1 Conclusion 3 The approximation that the installation vessel will experience downtime when the wind averages over 25 knots in a ten minute period in several consecutive hours seems to reasonably represent the experience in 2003.
Topic 1 Conclusion 4 A suitable vessel installing a suitable system design should allow for an average of 63% work time for the installation duration, provided installation occurs between Dec 1 and March 1;
Topic 1 Recommendation 2 Optimum maximum duration for any weather dependent task: 24 hours;
Topic 1 Recommendation 3 Maximum economic duration for any weather dependent task (will require additional 2 days weather delay): 36 hours, and
Topic 1 Recommendation 4 Maximum feasible duration for any weather dependent task (will require additional 7 days weather delay): 48 hours.
These recommendations are based solely on analysis of the wind data, but are supported by the experience during the 2003 deployment. However if additional data was available, greater emphasis would be placed on the variable effect of wind, sea, swell and current on the feasibility of operations and the general sea state that may arise for any given wind condition.
Topic 1 Recommendation 5 All equipment to be deployed offshore should be designed for deployment in Sea State 6 weather conditions;
Topic 1 - Page 21
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Topic 1 Recommendation 6 Vessels used for system deployment offshore should be capable of working in Sea State 6, and of maintaining station in Sea State 7;
Topic 1 Recommendation 7 A conservative approach should be taken when storms are approaching, and weather time accepted rather than risking operations, and
Topic 1 Recommendation 8 It is recommended that work be scheduled within the Dec 1 to March 1 window, although work that extends into March will not significantly increase weather risk.
3.6 Fishing, Crozet
There is a rapidly expanding long-line fishing industry directed at the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the Southern Ocean, which is marketed as Chilean sea bass. This fish, for which there is an extremely lucrative market, was only discovered and named in the early 1990s. It has a wide range, which covers a number of political zones. Since 1996, there has been widespread illegal fishing of this resource using long line gear. Many fishing boats fly flags of convenience or are un-flagged. It is understood18 that some of the illegal catch may be processed in Chile.
Severe overfishing (principally for Patagonian toothfish) led France to declare a 370-km exclusive economic zone around Kerguelen, the Crozets and Amsterdam/St-Paul in 1978. This zone is patrolled by French Naval vessels, and by Greenpeace, which is concerned about the exploitation of the toothfish and the effect on albatross populations.
In 2001 a fishing exclusion zone was put in place around Crozet by ARRETE N° 01-508 (See Topic 1 Appendix B).
18 http://www.eoearth.org/article/Iles_Crozet_(Crozet_Islands)
Topic 1 - Page 22
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Figure 14 Map of fishing and anchoring exclusion zones as per ARRETE N° 01-508.
3.7 Anchoring, Crozet
Ships anchor in the Baie du Marin, since it offers some shelter from the prevailing winds, and a suitable seabed for anchorage. There are two designated anchorages marked on the charts for Baie du Marin. On two occasions the HA04 cables have been damaged by vessels retrieving their anchors.
Topic 1 - Page 23
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Care will be required to control the cable locations in the Bay to keep the cables well clear of the designated anchorages, in particular the large vessel anchorage.
Figure 15 Detail of navigation chart showing anchorages
The two designated anchorage areas are19:
• a circle of radius of 240 metres centre on the point:
46 ° 25.55’ S-051 ˚52.79’ E
• a circle of radius of 80 metres centre on the point:
46 ° 25.45’ S-051˚52.5’ E
The use of these anchorages is regulated and requires prior authorization of the head of the District of Crozet. However, the degree to which this regulation is enforced is not clear.
It has also been reported that, in certain weather conditions, vessels will anchor just north of the two designated anchorages. This unofficial anchorage negatively impacts the viability of any cable route between the designated deep water anchorage and the shore.
It is noted that there is a difference between GPS and chart datum in this area. Ships will therefore locate anchorage based on the line of sight bearings to shore marks provided on the chart, and not by GPS positioning.
3.8 Flora and Fauna, Crozet
The Crozet Islands are home to four species of penguins. Most abundant are the Macaroni Penguin, of which some 2 million pairs breed on the islands, and the King Penguin. The Eastern Rockhopper Penguin also can be found, and there is a small colony of Gentoo Penguins. Other birds include Black-faced Sheathbills, petrels, and albatross, including the Wandering Albatross.
Animals living on the Crozet Islands include fur seals, and Southern Elephant Seals. Killer whales have been observed preying upon the seals. The transient killer whales (Orcas) of the Crozet Islands are famous for intentionally beaching (and later un-stranding) themselves while actively hunting the islands' breeding seal population. This is a very rare behaviour, most often seen in the Patagonia
19 PREFECTURE DE LA REUNION; Action de I'Etat en Mer; Saint Denis, Ie; ARRETE N° 01-508, SG/AEM: Portant interdiction de mouillage et de pêche a proximité de Crozet dated 7 March 2001, renewed May 2006
Topic 1 - Page 24
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
region of Argentina, and is thought to be a learned skill passed down through generations of individual Orca families.
The rocky shores of Baie du Marin are populated with giant kelp. Forests of this vegetation form a barrier that extends from the seabed to or close to the surface. This kelp generally grows on rocky substrates in 10-20 m water depth. However it has been observed in over 60 m water in certain locations.20 The extent of the kelp forests varies with season, and with storms. The kelp can be expected to be an impediment during cable landing.
The Crozet Islands have been a nature reserve since 1938. Introduction of foreign species (mice, rats, and subsequently cats for pest control) has caused severe damage to the original ecosystem. The pigs that had been introduced on Île des Cochons and the goats brought to Île de la Possession—both as a food resource—have been exterminated. The following is from the Survey Report21:
“Otherwise, as regards the fauna, we should remember that the Baie du Marin and its beach serve as an ornithological and biological observatory for the scientists at the base. This observatory should be disturbed as little as possible, particularly in the penguins' nesting season. …The nesting period of the king penguins extends from December to March. …
The arrival of the colony of sea elephants takes place in October, with a peak around October 15. After that date, the sea elephants begin reproducing on the beach.
The killer whales and other cetaceans arrive in the Baie du Marin from mid-October onwards. While they do not attack humans, they would certainly disturb the work, particularly if the cable is to be buried by divers.”
These issues relating to the disturbance of fauna appear to only affect the timing of the work in the relatively protected waters of Baie du Marin. In order to make use of the good weather for the offshore work, it may be necessary to lay shore ends in September/October, prior to the penguin nesting season, and then return in the Austral summer to complete the work. Alternatively, it may be possible to work around the fauna.
The significance of these issues is unclear. For instance, the work in 2000 took place between 15 Feb and 23 March, during the nesting season. With appropriate planning, it may be possible to complete the ship work during the Austral summer, despite the identified fauna concerns.
For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all work beyond 1 km from the beach can be carried out during the Dec 1 to March 1 Austral summer. Depending on local concerns and permitting issues, it may be required to do nearshore work as a separate operation to avoid disturbance of fauna. Close cooperation between the Commission, the Contractor and TAAF in scheduling the work will be required. However, on the basis of the previously scheduled work at Crozet, for the purposes of this study it is assumed that all work can be done in the Austral summer work window of December 1 to March 1.
Topic 1 Recommendation 9 The Commission continue to work closely with TAAF to avoid disturbance of the fauna during installation.
5 Administrative Requirements31, 32
5.1 Crozet
Any work on or around Crozet requires a permit issued by the Prefect of TAAF.
While access to certain areas, as defined by Decree, is prohibited, except for scientific and technical research, the territorial waters of Île de Possession are not a marine protected area. The protected areas on land, which include most of the undisturbed parts of the island, are a natural reserve of the French Southern Territories.
Topic 1 - Page 25
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Permitting for Crozet will be simplified because reinstatement of the HA04 station is likely to be classified as maintenance of existing infrastructure as opposed to construction of new infrastructure.
30 TAAF web site 31 ANNEXE A LA LETTRE TAAF/DAIMA-11-n° 189 du 15 Novembre 2011: Informations nécessaires pour le mouillage d’une station hydroacoustique sur les sites de CROZET et AMSTERDAM 32 Decree Number 2007-01 of January 5, 2007
Topic 1 - Page 26
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Françaises33. The protected areas on land, which includes most of the island, are a natural reserve of the French Southern Territories.
Based on a letter from TAAF to CEA that was available at the meetings of 21 and 22 November 2011 in Brest, it is likely that there will be resistance during the permitting process to allowing any installation on Île Amsterdam unless it can be demonstrated that Île Amsterdam is the only viable option.
6 Conclusions
6.1 Logistics
Topic 1 Conclusion 6 The only access to either island is via small vessel from a ship or via helicopter from a ship. Neither island has an airport;
Topic 1 Conclusion 7 Crozet has better facilities for offloading cargo than Île Amsterdam, though neither is without risk;
Topic 1 Conclusion 8 Both islands have a permanent presence of scientists and support staff, and
Topic 1 Conclusion 9 Île Amsterdam is approximately 1500 km further than Crozet from Durban, SA, which is the most likely mobilisation point.
6.2 Environment, General
Both Islands are unprotected from ocean swells and weather. However Crozet is in the wide belt of very strong winds known as the roaring forties, whereas Île Amsterdam lies south of the sub-tropical high pressure belt and north of the sub-Antarctic zone in a region of strong westerly winds.
6.3 Environment, Crozet
Topic 1 Conclusion 10 The seabed in Baie du Marin is likely mostly sediment. The sediment may continue along the route, with outbreaks of rock;
Topic 1 Conclusion 11 There are two designated anchor areas and one casual anchorage in Baie du Marin that must be avoided;
Topic 1 Conclusion 12 The landing in Baie du Marin is relatively straightforward, although constrained by the anchorages;
Topic 1 Recommendation 13 Allow 40% weather allowance for the duration of installation at Crozet;
Topic 1 Recommendation 14 Use of surface buoys to mark cable ends should be avoided. In the event surface buoys may be used, buoy design and rigs suitable for the conditions should be prepared;
Topic 1 Recommendation 15 No risks have been identified that would require cable burial;
33 Décret no 2006-1211 du 3 Octobre 2006 portant création de la réserve naturelle des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises
Topic 1 - Page 27
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Topic 1 Recommendation 16 A conservative approach should be taken when storms are approaching, and weather time accepted rather than risking operations, and
Topic 1 Recommendation 17 Actively pursue fishers to disseminate station location data.
6.5 Administrative Requirements
Topic 1 Conclusion 16 No permitting issues are anticipated at Crozet, providing that the various fauna nesting and nurturing seasons do not become an issue.
Topic 1 Conclusion 17 Permitting is anticipated to be challenging on Île Amsterdam, and is likely to impact the schedule.
Topic 1 - Page 28
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Topic 1 Appendix A
Beaufort scale (Wikipedia)
Beaufort Wind Wave Description speed in height in Sea conditions Land conditions number knots metres
Calm. Smoke rises Calm < 1 0 Flat. 0 vertically.
Smoke drift indicates
1 Light air 1–2 0–0.2 Ripples without crests. wind direction and wind vanes cease moving.
Wind felt on exposed Small wavelets. Crests of Light skin. Leaves rustle and 3–6 0.2–0.5 glassy appearance, not 2 breeze wind vanes begin to breaking move.
Large wavelets. Crests Leaves and small twigs Gentle 7–10 0.5–1 begin to break; scattered constantly moving, light 3 breeze whitecaps flags extended.
Small waves with breaking Dust and loose paper Moderate 4 11–15 1–2 crests. Fairly frequent raised. Small branches breeze whitecaps. begin to move.
Moderate waves of some Branches of a moderate Fresh 5 16–20 2–3 length. Many whitecaps. size move. Small trees breeze Small amounts of spray. in leaf begin to sway.
Large branches in
Long waves begin to form. motion. Whistling heard
Strong White foam crests are very in overhead wires. 21–26 3–4 6 breeze frequent. Some airborne Umbrella use becomes spray is present. difficult. Empty plastic garbage cans tip over.
Topic 1 - Page 29
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Beaufort Wind Wave Description speed in height in Sea conditions Land conditions number knots metres
Sea heaps up. Some foam High wind, from breaking waves is Whole trees in motion. Moderate 27–33 4–5.5 blown into streaks along Effort needed to walk 7 gale, wind direction. Moderate against the wind. Near gale amounts of airborne spray.
Moderately high waves
with breaking crests Some twigs broken from forming spindrift. Well- Gale, trees. Cars veer on road. 34–40 5.5–7.5 marked streaks of foam are 8 Progress on foot is Fresh gale blown along wind seriously impeded. direction. Considerable airborne spray.
High waves whose crests Some branches break sometimes roll over. Dense off trees, and some foam is blown along wind small trees blow over. Strong gale 41–47 7–10 9 direction. Large amounts of Construction/temporary
airborne spray may begin to signs and barricades reduce visibility. blow over.
Very high waves with overhanging crests. Large Trees are broken off or
patches of foam from wave uprooted, saplings bent
crests give the sea a white and deformed. Poorly Storm, 48–55 9–12.5 appearance. Considerable attached asphalt 10 Whole gale tumbling of waves with shingles and shingles in heavy impact. Large poor condition peel off amounts of airborne spray roofs. reduce visibility.
Widespread damage to Exceptionally high waves. vegetation. Many Very large patches of foam, roofing surfaces are driven before the wind, Violent damaged; asphalt tiles 56–63 11.5–16 cover much of the sea 11 storm that have curled up surface. Very large and/or fractured due to amounts of airborne spray age may break away severely reduce visibility. completely.
Very widespread
damage to vegetation. Huge waves. Sea is Some windows may completely white with Hurricane break; mobile homes ≥ 64 ≥ 14 foam and spray. Air is 12 Force and poorly constructed filled with driving spray, sheds and barns are greatly reducing visibility. damaged. Debris may be hurled about.
Topic 1 - Page 30
,m.a//in, consultants ltd
Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012
Topic 1Appendix B
Topic -
4 octob re 2006 JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA REPUBLIOUE FR AN<;AISE Texte 24 sur 112
Decrets, arretes, circulaires
TE XTES GENERAUX
MINISTERE DE L'ECOLOGIE ET DU D VELOPPEMENT DURABLE
Decret n• 2006-1211 du 3 octobre 2006 portant creation de Ia reserve naturelle des Terres australes fran aises
NOR : DEVN06400450
Le Premier ministre, Sur Je rapport de Ia ministre de l'ecoJogie et du developpement durable et du roinjstre de l'outre-mer, Vu le code de l 'environnement, notamment ses articles L. 332-1 a L. 332-1 4, L. 332-16 a L. 332-27, L. 640-1 et R. 242-1 a R. 242-25 ; Vu Ia loi n• 55-1052 du 6 aoOt 1955 modifiee conferant l'autonomie administrati ve et finandere aux Terres australes et antarctiques fran aises ; Vu Ie decret n• 93-740 du 29 mars 1993 portant creation du comi te de l'environnement polaire ; Vu le decret n• 2003-768 du 1er avril 2003 relatif a Ia partie reglementaire du livre ll du code rural ; Vu le decret n• 2005-935 du 2 avril 2005 relatif a Ia partie reglementaire du code de l 'environnement, notamment son article 8 ; Vu le decret n• 2005-1 514 du 6 decembre 2005 relatif a !'organisation outre-mer de !'action de l'Etat en mer; Vu les avis du Conseil nat ional de Ia protection de Ia nature en date du 1 5-16 octobre 2003 et du 16 juin 2005 ; Vu les avis des ministres interesses,
Decrete :
CHAPITRE }u
Creation et delimitation de Ia reserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes fran ses
Art. 1". - Sont classees en reserve naturelle na tionale, sous Ia denomination de «reserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes fran aises » les parties ten·estres et maritimes ci-apres definies des archipels de Crozet , de Saint-Paul, d'Amsterdam et de Kerguelen :
A Saint-Paul et Amsterdam : eaux interieu res et mer teJTitoriale. A l 'archipel de Crozet : eaux tenitoriales a !'exception de celles de l'ile de la Possession. A Kerguelen (carte de reference SHOM 6741) :
Zone J cap d 'Estaing au cap Cotter comprise entre Jes points suivants (coordonnees geographiq ues): Point A cap Coner (49" 03' 01 " S/070" l 9' 44" E). Point B 48• 30' 00" S/069" 20' 00'' E. Point C 48• 30' 00" S/069· 02' 00'' E. Point D cap d'Estaing (48• 30' 30" S/069" 0:?.' 00" EJ.
Zone 2 iles Nuageusecomprise dans le triangle forme par Jes points suivants (coordonnees geograpbiques) : Point E 48• 32' 00'' S/068• 52' 30" E. Point F 48• 36' 00" S/068• 33' 00' E. Point G 48• 47' 00'' S/068• 43' 00" E.
Zone 3 presqu 'lle RaJJier du Baty comprise entre Jes points suivants (coordonnees geographiques) : Point H Pointe de Terre (49• J 7' J 8" S/068• 48' 28" E).
4 octobre 2006 JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA R PUBLIOUE FRAN AISE Texte 24 sur 112
Point I 49" 18' 00" S/068° 40' 00" E. Point J 49" 21' 00'' S/068• 36' 00" E. Point K 49" 47' 00" S/068° 42'00' E. Point L 49" 43' 00" S/069" 05' 00" E. Point M cap Dauphin (49" 41 ' 27" S/069" 05' 19" E). La superficie totaJe de Ia partie terrestre de Ia reserve naturelle est d 'environ 700 000 hectares.
CHAPITR.E 11 Gestion de Ia reserve naturdle
Art. 2. - Le representant de l'Etat, administrateur superieur des Terres australes et ant.arctiques franr;ruses, ci-apres denorome « le representant de I 'Etat », est charge de Ia gestion de Ia reserve naturelle. Art. 3. - Le consei1 consultatif des Terres australes et antarctiques franr;aises institue par Ia loi n• 55-1052 du 6 aoOt 1955 tient Lieu de comite consultatif de Ia reserve. Le comite consultatif donne son avis sur le fonctionneroent de Ia reserve, sur sa gestion et sur les conditions d 'application des mesures prevues par la decision de classement. D est consulte sur le projet de plan de gestion mentionne a )'article 5. D peut demander au representant de l 'Etat Ia realisation d 'etudes scientifiques et recueiJii r tout avis en vue d'assurer Ia conservation, Ia protection et !'amelioration du milieu nature! de Ia reserve. D peut deleguer I 'examen d 'une question particuliere a une formation restreinte. Art. 4. - Le comite de l 'environnement polrure institue par le decret n• 93-740 du 29 mars 1993 tient lieu de conseil scientifique de Ia reserve. Le conseil scieotifique est consulte sur le projet de plan de gestion mentionne a !'article 5 et peut etre sollicite sur toute question a caractere scientifique touchant Ia reserve. Art. 5. - Dans les trois ans qui suivent Ia creation de la reserve, le representant de I'Etat elabore on projet de plan de gestion de Ia reserve naturelle qui s'appuie sur une evaluation scientifique du patrimoine naturel de Ia reserve et de son evolution et decrit les objectifs qu'il s'assigne en vue de Ia protection des espaces naturels de Ia reserve. Le plan de gestion est arrete pour une duree de cinq ans par le representant de I'Etat. Le premier plan de gestion est soumis pour avis au Conseil national de Ia protection de Ia nature. n est transmis pour information au ministre charge de I a protection de Ja nature. A !'issue de Ia premiere periode de cinq ans, Ia mise eo reuvre du plan fait !'objet d 'une evaluation et le plan est renouvele, et le cas echeant modifie. Le nouveau plan est transmis pour information au ministre charge de Ia protection de Ia nature. Si des modifications d 'objectifs le justifient. le representant de I 'Etat consulte le Conseil national de Ia protection de Ia nature.
CJ-lAPI TRE lJJ Reglementation de la partie terrestre de Ia reserve naturdle Art. 6. - II est interdit :
1• D'introduirel 'interieur de Ia reserve des animaux d 'especes non domestiques quel que soit leur stade de developpement, sauf autorisation delivree par Je representant de l 'Etat ; 2° D'introduire dans Ia reserve des animaux d 'especes domestiques, a ]'exception de ceux qui participent a des missions de service public et de sauvetage ; 3• De porter atteinte de quelque maniere que ce soit aux arumaux d 'especes non domestiques ainsi qu'a leurs reufs, couvees, ponees ou nids, de les emponer hors de Ia reserve, d 'utiliser ou de vendre ces especes. qu·eues soient vivantes ou mortes. runsi que toute partie ou tout produit de ces especes, sauf autorisation delivree des fins scientifiques ou sanitaires par le representant de I'Etat. et sous reserve de J 'exercice de Ia regulation des especes introduites prevu rarticle 8 ; 4• De troubler ou de deranger les animaux par quelque moyen que ce soit, sous les memes reserves que celles prevues ralinea precedent. Art. 7. - Jl est interdit :
1• D'introduire danIa reserve tous vegetaux sous quelque forme que ce soil. sauf autorisation delivree par le representant de I'Etat. Cene disposition ne s·applique pas au ravitaillement dans les bases australes; 2• De porter attcinte de quelque maniere que ce soit aux vegetaux non cultives, sauf a des fins d 'entretien de Ia reserve, ou de les emporter en dehors de Ia reserve. sauf autorisation delivrec a des fins scientifiques, medicales ou paramedicales par Je representant de l 'Etat. Art. 8. - La regulation d 'especes non autochtones et la peche en eau douce dans Ia reserve sont reglementees par le representant de l 'Etat, en conformite avec le plan de gestion de Ia reserve. Art. 9. - Les activites agricoles, pastorales et aquacoles sont reglementees par le representant de l'Etat, en conformite avec le plan de gestion de Ia reserve.
4 octobre 2006 JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA REPUBLIOUE FRANCAISE Texte 24 sur 112
Art. 10. - D est interdit:
J • D'abandonner, de deposer ou de jeter tout produit quel qu 'i1 soit de nature a nuire a Ia qualite de l 'eau, de !'air, du sol ou du site ou a l'integrite de Ia faune et de la flore; 2• D'abandonner, de deposer ou de jeter en dehors des lieux specialement prevus a cet effet des detritus de quelque nature que ce soit ; 3• De troubler Ia tranquiJJite des lieux en utilisant tout i nstrument sonore, sous reserve de l 'exercice des activites autorisees au titre du present decret ; 4• De porter attcinte au milieu naturel par le feu ou par des inscriptions autres que celles qui soot necessaires a Ia gestion de Ia reserve ou a !'information du public et du personnel des bases. Art. 11. - Toute activite de recherche ou d'exploitation miniere est interdite dans Ia reserve. Art. 12. - La collecte de mineraux et de fossiles est interdite sauf autorisation delivree a des fins scientifiques par Je representant de l'Etat.
Art. 13. - Toute activite industrielle ou commerciale est interdite. Sont toutefois autorisees par le representant de l'Etat Jes activites commerciales liees a Ia gestion, a Ia decouverte et a ) 'animation de Ia reserve naturelle et compatibles avec les objectifs du plan de gestion. Elles s'exercent dans des conditions fixees par Ie representant de I'Etat. Art. 14. - Les activites de decouverte du milieu et Ies activi tes sportives sont reglementees par le representant de l'Etat. Art. 15. - L'utilisation, a des fins publicitaires, de toute expression evoquant directement ou i ndirectement Ia reserve, est soumise a autorisation deli vree par le representant de I 'Etat. Art. 16. - Les activites professionnelles touchant a Ia pbotograpbie, Ia ci nematograpbie, ) 'enregistrement du son, Ia radiophonie et la television peuvent etre reglementees par Je representant de I'Etat.
Art. 17. - La circulation et Ie stationnement des personnes peuvent etre reglementes sur tout ou partie de Ia reserve par Je representant de I'Etat. Art. 18. - La circulation des vehicules a moteur est interdite sur toute l 'etendue de Ia reserve. Toutefois, cette interdiction n'est pas applicable aux vehicules: 1• Utilises pour l 'entretien et Ia surveHlance de Ia reserve; 2• Utilises pow- des missions de service public ; 3• Utilises pour les acti vi tes pastorales et les activites d e decouve11e du m iJieu ; 4" Dont !'usage est autorise par Je repJesentant de rEtat.
La ci rculation est limitee aux routes et pistes. Art. 19. - Le survol de Ja reserve naturelle a une hauteUJ inferieure a 300 metres est interdit. Cene disposition ne s·applique pas aux aeronefs d'Etat en necessi te de service, aux operations de police, de logistique, de sa u vetage, de gestion de Ia reserve naturelle, ou aux aeronefs au decollage ou a l'atterrissage ou effectuam les manreuvres s'y rattachant. Art. 20. - Les bases sont deli mitees et cartographiees. Leurs delimitations peuvent etre modifiees pa1 le representant de I'Etat apres avis du conseil consultatif du territoire et dans les conditions fixees par le plan de gestion. De nouvelles bases peuvent etre creees en nombre limi te par decision du representant de I 'Etat si les programmes inscrits dans le plan de gestion Ies rendent necessaires. Les bases sont soumises aux dispositions generales du present decret, a )'exception des activites necessaires a leur bon fonctionoement telles que Ia gestion des dechets, les travau:x publics, )'exploitation de carrieres, J'usage d'appareils tels que eoliennes ou groupes electrogenes qui s'excrcent conformement a Ia reglementation territoria le.
CHAI'IJRE JV Zones de protec-tion integrate Art. 21. - Toutele!'> acuvite!> humaines som interdites dans Jes zones de protection integra le. L·acces a une zone de protectwn integrale est inte1dit a toute personne sauf cas de force majeure ou de necessite d 'exercice de Ia souverainete. Toutefois. des derogations peuvent etre accordees par le representant de I'Etat au vu d'un dossier de demande p1ecisant notamment les raisons de Ia demande d'acces et les activites prevues. Art. 22. - Sont classees zones de protection integrale : A Kerguelen : Cote ouest de Ia peninsule Rallier du Baty, lirnitee par l'arete Jeremine depuis Ia rote sud de Kerguelen, Ia Jigne de crete passant par le pic Saint-AIIouam, Jes moots HenJi et Raymond Ra1Jier du Baty, Je Bicome, Je
4 octobre 2006 JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA REPUBLIOUE FRANCAISE Texte 24 sur 112
glacier Cuvier, le col Glace, le mont Porthos, le mont Double, Ia table de I'Institut, le pic Joliot-Curie, le col de Ia Tuyere, le mont Gay-Lussac, le pied du glacier Lavoisier, le Podium, le pied du glacier Descartes et jusquI'a cOte de !'entree est de Ia baie du Young Williams; nes Nuageuses ; nes Leygues ; lle Clugny; Ue de !'Ouest; De Saint-Lanne-Grammont; De Foch; lles du golfe du Morbihan (Hoskyn, Pender, Bryer, Blackeney, Greak, Suhm, Antares).
A Crozet: Ue de !'Est ; De des Pingouins ; llots des ApOtres ; Tie aux Cochons.
A Saint-Paul : L'integralite de l'ile.
CHAPJTRE v R.eglementation de Ia partie marine de la reserve naturclle
Art. 23. - La p&:he peut etre reglementee ou interdite par le representant de I'Etat.
Art. 24. - Soot interdits en tous temps, Ia destruction, Ia mutilation, Ia capture ou l 'enlevement, Ia naturalisation des cetaces, ou, qu'ils soient vivants ou morts, leur transpon, leur colponage, leur utilisation, leur mise en vente ou leur achat, sauf derogation accordee a des fins scientifiques par le representant de l'Etat, en conformite avec Je plan de gestion.
Art. 25. - Le representant de I 'Etat en mer definit les zones de mouillage, les modalites et les durees d 'utiHsation, en accord avec le plan de gestion. En dehors des points de mouiJlage autorises. racces aux navires dans Ia zone marine definie par le present decret est limite au simple passage.
CHAPJTRF VI
Dispositions diverscs
Art. 26. - Sauf mission de defense ou de souverai nete, Ia presence des forces armees dans Ia reserve est soumise aux dispositions du present decret. Toutefois, le representant de I'Etat peut autoriser cenaines activites des fins d'exercice ou d'entrainement. Le cas 6cheant, ces activites sont conduites dans le respect des articles 6, 7, 8 et 9 du present decret.
Art. 27. - Le decret du 27 octobre 1938 ponant creat ion d'un Pare national de refuge pour cenaioes es¢ces d'oiseaux et de mammiferes dans les Possessions australes est abroge. Art. 28. - La ministre de l'ecologie et du developpemeot durable et le ministre de !'outre-mer sont charges, chacun en ce qui le conceme. de !'execution du present decret, qui sera pubHe au Joumal officiel de Ia Republique franyaise et au Joumal o.fficiel des Terres australes et antarct iques franyaises. Fait a Paris. le 3 octobre 2006.
0oMTN10tJE Dl! Vu.LEPJ N PaJ le Premier ministre .
La ministre de l'ecologie et du developpement durable•. NH I) OJ IN Le ministre de /'outre-mer. FRAN<;:OlS BAROJN
Riltrve Naturelle des Terre• Aultraltl Fran aises
ARCHIPEL CROZET
"/////////////1'//,/,. //////}//// /7/h.
Rhervt Naturelfe des Ttrrt& Australes Fran a11es
ILES KERGUELEN
R6serve Naturelle des Terres ·.,.-.... ,...... • Aultralta Fran al•••
ILE AMSTERDAM LE SAINT PAUL
La reserve naturelle des terres australes fran aises, creee par le decret du 3 octobre 2006, s'etend sur une partie terrestre de 700 000 hectares et une partie marine de 1 570 000 hectares (soit 2 270 000 ha) qui oomprend les eaux inteneures et lamer territoriale autour de Saint Paul et Amsterdam, les eaux territoriales de l 'Archipel de Crozet, a l 'exception de celles de I 'ile_ de Ia Possession, et une partie des eaux interieures et de La mer territoriale des lies Kerguelen.
Arrete n° 2007-01 du S janvier 2007
modiflant l'arrfte D0 n° 2006-26 du ler jaillet 2006 fhaat les coadltioDS de mo•lllage des navires de plaisaaee dans Ia mer territoriale des arcbipels de Crozet, Kergaelen et Saiat-Paul & Amsterdam et les coaditioas d'acces aces nes
Le prefet, administrateur superieur des Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises, charge de !'administration des iles Eparscs de I'ocean Indien,
Vu Ia loi n° 55-1052 du 6 aofit 1955 modifiee conferant l'autonomie administrative et financiere aux Terres australes et antarctiques fran ses ;
Vu Ia loi n° 66-400 du 18 juin 1966 relative a l'exercice de Ia peche maritime eta I'exploitation des produits de Ia mer dans les Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises;
Vu )'ordonnance n° 2000-374 du 26 avril 2000 relative aux conditions d'entree et de sejour des etrangers dans les Terres australes et antarctiques ses ;
Vu Ie decret du 27 octobre 1938 portant creation d'un Pare National de refuge pour certaines especes d'oiseaux et de mammiferes dans les Possessions australes et abrogeant le decret du 30 decembre 1924 ;
Vu le decret n° 56-935 du 18 septembre 1956 modifie portant organisation administrative des Terres australe_s et antarctiques fran aises;
Vu le decret n° 2006-1211 du 3 octobre 2006 portant creation de Ia reserve naturelle des Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises ;
Vu l'arrete o0 14 du 30 juillet 1985 cream des zones reservees a Ia recherche scientifique et technique; Vu !'arrete 0° 15 du 30 juillet 1985 fixant les zones a acces reglemente;
Vu l'arrete n° 2001-41 du 6 novembre 2001 portant approbation du schema directeur de Port Jeanne d'Arc;
Vu l'arrete n° 2002-16 du 25 juin 2002 classant l'ile Saint-Paul en zone prottgee au titre de l'environnement et du patrimoine ;
Vu !'arrete n° 2002-42 du 18 decembre 2002 classant l'ile du Chateau en zone protegee au titre de I'environnement ;
Vu )'arrete n° 2003-32 du 25 septembre 2003 modifiant l'arrete o0 2001-19 du 29 juin 2001 instituant une taxe de mouillage dans les Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises ;
Vu }'arrete n° 2003-33 du 25 septembre 2003 modifiant l'arete no 2001-20 du 29 juin 2001 instituant une taxe de sejour dans les Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises ;
Vu I'arrete D0 2003-36 du 30 octobre 2003 interdisant l'acces aux bitiments de Port Couvreux (Kerguelen);
-
Vu l'arrete n° 2006-11 du 4 fevrier 2006 fixant les points de mouillage de I'Aventure II ;
Vu l'arrete n° 2006-22 du 20 avril 2006 renouvelant pour une duree de cinq ans le classement des sites proteges pour l'exercice d'activites scientifiques et techniques au sens de l'artic1e 1er de !'arrete n° 14 du 30 juillet 1985 ;
Vu !'arrete n° 1798 du 5 mai 2006 portant interdiction de mouillage et de peche 8 proximite de Crozet.
Vu !'arrete n° 2006-26 do I er juillet 2006 fixant les conditions de mouillage des navires de plaisance dans Ia mer territoriale des archipels de Crozet, Kerguelen et Saint-Paul & Amsterdam et les conditions d'acces a ces iles;
Vu Ia decision n° 108 du 16 join 1989 classant divers sites proteges;
Vu Ia decision n° 147 du 13 septembre 1990 classant les sites de l'ile Haute et de l'ilc do Cimetiere ;
Vu Ia decision n° 81 do 19 juillet 199I classant Ie site de l'ile Australia ;
Sur proposition du secretaire general,
ARRETE :
I - Le mo•illage
Art. ler : Pour mouiller dans Ia mer territoriale autour des archipels de Crozet, Kerguelen et Saint-Paul & Amsterdam, les navires de plaisance doivent en faire Ia demande aupres du chef de district tors d'une escale prealable dans l'un des ports suivants: district de Saint-Paul et Amsterdam : La Cale (base Martin-de-Vivies); district de Crozet: Port Alfred (base Alfred Faure); district de Kerguelen : Port-aux-Fran s.
Art. 2 : Une taxe de mouillage doit etre versee au chef de district, dont le tarif est defini par llll'Cte en fonction de Ia taille du navire.
Art. 3 : A Crozet, les zones de mouillage soot autorisees et d6fmies par lll1itC du pr6fet de Ia Reunion, d616gue du gouvemement pour Paction de I'Etat en mer.
Art. 4 : A Kerguelen, des points de mouillage sur coffre entretenus et utilises en prioritt par Ies navires Taaf sont definis par llll'Cte.
Art. 5 : Les zones de mouillage en mer territoriale autour des iles Saiat-Paul et Amsterdam ne sont pas restreintes. L'acces et le mouillage dans Je cratere de l'ile Saint-Paul est interdit.
Art. 6 : La pratique de Ia che est strictement interdite dans Ia mer territoriale autour de chaque ile.
II - Acces an iles au. trales
Art. 7: Toute personne se rendant sur les iles est tenue de s'acquitter d'une taxe territoriale de sejour dont le montant est fixe par arrete.
Art. 8: Pour entrer dans les Terres australes et antarctiques fran ises, tout ressortissant etranger doit etre muni des documents et visas exiges par les conventions intemationales et les reglements en vigueur.
-
Art. 9 : Tout deplacement sur les iles est soumis a autorisation prealable du chef de district conceme.
Art. 10 : Surles iles Crozet, l'acces a certaines zones, defmies par decret et arrete, est interdit ou reserve a Ia recherche scientifique et technique.
Art. 11 : A Kerguelen, l'acces a certains sites est interdit par decret et arrete, pour Ia preservation du patrimoine historique. Des zones definies par arrete sont reglementee ou reservtes a Ia recherche scientifique et technique.
Art. 1l : L'ile Sablt-Paul est classee en zone de protection intCgrale et son acces est interdit, sauf derogation. Une seule zone de debarquement y est autoris6e : debarcadere represent6 par un gros rocher portant un poteau d'amarrage, situ6 a l'extremite nord du bassin (S 38° 42,855' E 077° 31,872'). Sur l'ile d'Amsterdam, le debarquement n'est possible qu'a La Cale (S 37° 47,718' E 077° 34,394'). L'acces A certaines zones, defmies par arrete, est interdit ou reserve ala recherche scientifique et technique.
Art. 13 : Le secretaire general des Terres australes et antarctiques fran ses et les chefs de districts sont charges, chacun pour ce qui le conceme de !'execution du present arrete, qui sera publie au Journal officiel des Terres australes et antarctiques fran ses.
- 3
. ,.,.,.
. ."'-'tid
PREFECITJRE DE lA REUNION
CABINET ACilONDE L'ETATENMER
portant interdiction de mouillage et de peche a proximit.e de Oozet
LE PREFET, Delegue du Gouvemement pour I'action de l'Etat en mer dans Ia zone sud de I'ocean Indien Olev:ilier de Ia Legion d'honneur, Cbevalier de l'Ordre National du mente
VU le decret no 2005-1514 du 6 decembre 2005 relatif a !'organisation outm.mer de !'action de I'Etat en mer;
VU l'article 63 de la loi du 17 decembre 1926, modifiee, portant Code Disciplinaire et Penal de Ia marine marchande;
VU !'article R 61(}.5 du Code Penal;
VU !'arrete n°ll du 16 aoOt 1997 modifie cream des secteurs statiques de peche dans les eaux rerritoriales et Ia zone economique de Oozet;
VU !'arrete n"'l-508 SG/ AEM du 7 mars 2001 portant interdiction mouillage et de peche a proximire de Gozet modifie ;
vu l'arrere n° 212/'du 11 aout 2005 portant interdiction de mouillage et de peche a proximire de Oozet; ·
Sue proposition du commandant de zone maritime, assistant du delegue du Gouvemement pour I'action de I'Etat en mer; ·
ARRETE:
Article ler: L'arret.e n° 01-508 SG/ AEM du 7 mars 2001, susvise, portant interdiction de mouillage et de peche a proximite de Oozet modifie par !'arrete n° 2126 du 11 aout 2005 est reactive avec son libelle initial.
Article 2: 6 L'arrere n° 217,1 du 11 aout 2005, susvise, portant interdiction de mouillage et de peche a proximit.e de Oozet est abroge.
Article 3: Le prefet adminisfr.lteur superieur des TAAF, le commaildant de Ia marine et de l'aironautique navale en zone Sud de )'ocean Indien et commandant Ia zone maritime Sud de l'ocean Indien, assistant du delegue du Gouvemement pour )'action de I'Etat en mer, le directeur regional et departemental des affaires maritimes de Ia Reunion, le directeur du CROSS Reunion, soot charges, chacun en ce qui le conceme, de l'applicacion du present arrete.
Article 4: Le present arrete sera publie au recueil des acres adminisfr.ltifs de Ia prefecture de Ia Reunion et au Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antaretiques Fran es.
Fait a Saint Denis, 1e 0 5 M A 1 ZOO&
Laurent CAYREL
• ARRETE N° 887-2010 PORTANT DELEGATION DE POlNOIR AU PREFET ADMINISTRATEUR DES TERRES AUSTRALES ET ANTARCTIQUES FRAN<;:AISES EN MATlERE D'ACTION DE L'ETAT EN MER LE PREFET DE LA REUNION CHEV ALlER DE LA LEGION D'HONNEUR DELEGUE DU GOUVERNEMENT POUR L'ACTION DE L'ETAT EN MER DANS LA ZONE MARITIME DU SUD DE L'OCEAN INDIEN VU la loi no 55-1052 du 6 aout 1955 modifiee, portant statut des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Franyaises, vu la loi nO'Jl-1060 du 24 decembre 1971 relative a la delimitation des eaux territoriales franyruses, VU le decret n°96-774 du 30 aoftt 1996 portant publication de la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer signee a Montego Bay le 10 decembre 1982, VU le decret n 005-1514 du 6 decembre 2005 relatif a !'organisation outre-mer de l'action de l'Etat en mer, Vu le decret du 21 janvier 2010 portant nomination du prefet de Ia region Reunion, prefet de la Reunion, Michel LALANDE VU l'arrete du premier ministre du 22 mars 2007 etablissant la liste des missions en mer incombant a 1'Etat, VU !'arrete du ministre de la defense du 20 aoftt 2007 relatif a la delimitation des zones maritimes, ARRETE : Article ler Delegation de pouvoir est accordee au prefet administrateur des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Franyaises, pour exercer les competences du delegue du Gouvemement pour l'action de I'Etat en mer, dans les eaux territoriales et wnes economiques bordant les Terres australes et antarctiques franyaises, dans les seules matieres et missions en mer incombant a l'Etat et dans les limites enumerees en annexe. Cette delegation exclut Ia mise en reuvre des mesures de coercition relevant de la competence du d.elegue du Gouvernement, prevues par le decret n<>gS-411 du 19 avril 1995 relatif aux modalites de recoursIa coercition et de l'emploi de la force en mer. Article2 Cette delegation ne prejuge pas des attributions relatives a la gestion des aires marines protegees existantes ou a creer dans l'Ocean Indien et dont les impacts sur Ia delegation pouvant etre consentie par le detegue du Gouvemement a !'action de I'Etat en mer font l'objet d'une delegation distincte, le cas echeant. Article3 La mise en oeuvre des competences deh!guees fait )'objet d'tme evaluation l'annee suivant la publication du present arrete. Article4 L'arrete no 2123 du 11 aout 2005 du Prefet de Ia Reunion portant delegation de pouvoir au prefet des TAAF en matiere d'action de l'Etat en mer est abroge, ainsi que toutes dispositions anteriemes contraires au present arrete. ArticleS Le present arrete sera publie aux recueils des actes administratifs de la prefecture de La Reunion et au journal officiel des TAAF. FaitSaint-Denis, le 19 avril2010 Annexe a l'arrete n° 887-2010 du 19 avril2010 Listes des matieres et missions en mer entrant dans le champ de la delegation de pouvoir accordee par le Delegue du Gouvemement pour l' AEM au prefet des TAAF LIMITES POUVOIRS DELEGUES EN MER REFERENCE Decret no 91-1110 du 22 octobre Autorisation d'occupation et etablissement 1991 relatif aux autotisations des reglements de police de zones de Eaux territoriales d'occupations de mouillage mouillage et d'equipements Iegers. tempora:ire sur le domaine public maritime. Reglementation du droit de passage Dreret no 85-185 du 6 fevrier 1985 inoffensif des navires etrangers et du Eaux territoriales article 6. mouiHage. ------Autorisation de mouillage des navires de - Eaux territoriales commerce et de plaisance etrangers -- .Reglementation liee aux activites nautiques, baignade , plongee, chasse sous ZEE marine et aeriennes en mer Gestion des ressources marines ZEE energetiques et minerales et plateau continental Lutte contre les pollutions en mer, y compris les rejets des navires en mer Notas: - Cette mission s'execc6e en conformite avec le dispositif ORSEC Maritime (plan POLMAR Mer) de la zone maritime sud de l'octan Indien, adopt.C ZEE par le del gue du Gouvememcnt ; - Le prefet des TAAF precise les modalites locales d'organisation et de conduite des operations dans une instruction particuli re approuvre par le d&.6gue du Gouvemement Loi 0°61-1262 modifiee do 24 novembre 1961 relative a la police des epaves maritimes. Protection des epaves maritimes. ZEE Decret n°6l -1547 modifie du 26 decembre 1961 fixant le regime des epaves maritimes. Reglementation des activites en mer en vue Eaux territoriales et Decret nl -1226 du 5 decembre de proreger sites et les biens les contigues 1991 archeologjques en mer. Reglementation des activites en mer en vue ZEE de proreger certaines especes marines Reglementation des activites en mer a Eaux territoriales et proximite des sites de travaux sous marins contigues R glementation des activites de prospection ZEE et d'exploitation mini re en mer Reglementation locale relative aux immersions et incin rations ZEE PREFECTURE DE LA REUNION I . .. ,l I f jll ' ,) , .:i I Action de I'Etat en Mer Saint Denis, le ARRETE No 01 - 5 0 (\ SG/AEM Portant interdiction de mouillage et de p he a proximite de Crozet LE PREFET DE LA REUNION, DELEGUE DU GOUVERNEMENT POUR L'ACTION DE L'ETAT EN MER, CHEVAUER DE LA LEGION O'HONNEUR VU le dtkret 79-413 du 25 mai 1979 relatif a !'organisation des actions de I'Etat en mer au large des Departements et Territoires d'Outre Mer ; VU !'article 63 de Ia loi du 17 decembre 1926, modifiee, portant Code Disciplinaire et Penal de Ia Marine Marchande ; VU !'article A 610-5 du Code Penal ; vu !'arrete no 11 du 16 aout 1997 modifie creant des secteurs statistiques de peche dans les eaux territoriales et Ia zone economique de Crozet ; SUR proposition de I'Administrateur Superieur des TAAF, SUR proposition du Commandant de Ia Marine et de I'Aeronautique Navale en zone Sud de I'Ocean lndien et Commandant de Ia zone maritime de I'Ocean lndien ARRETE Article 1., : L'exercice de Ia peche, qu'il soit a but commercial ou dans le cadre d'une mission scientifique et quelle que soit Ia technique employee, est interdit dans te perimetre delimite par les points suivants : 46° 00 S - 051o 30 E - 46° 00 S - 052° 30 E 46° 45 S - 052° 30 E 46° 45 S - 052° 00 E 47" 00 S - 052° 00 E 47" 00 S - 051 c 30 E 2 Article 2: Le mouillage de tout navire au tout support maritime est interdit dans le perimetre delimite par les points suivants : 46° 21 S - 051o 48,35 E 46°22,5 - 051°51 S E 46 o 23,5 S - OS1 o 51 E Ia cote, 46° 28,1 S- 051o 48,35 E 46° 29 S - 051° 48, 35 E 46° 29 S - 051o 55 E 46° 21 S - 051o 55 E Article 3: Deux zones de mouillage sont toutefois creees : a l'interieur d'un cercle de rayon de 240 metres centre sur le point : - 46° 25,55 S- 051° 52,79 E l'interieur d'un cercle de rayon de 80 metres centre sur le point : a - 46° 25,45 S - 051o 52,5 E L'utilisation de ces mouillages est reglemenh e et soumise a l'autorisation prealable du Chef du District de Crozet. Article 4: Les infractions au present arrete exposent leurs auteurs aux poursuites et peines prevues par !'article 63 du Code Disciplinaire et Penal de Ia Marine Marchande et par I'article A 610-5 du Code Penal. Article 5: Le Directeur Regional et Departemental des Affaires Maritimes de Ia Reunion, le Commandant de Ia Marine' et de I'Aeronautique Navale en Zone Sud de !'Ocean lndien et commandant Ia Zone Maritime Sud de !'Ocean lndien, I'Administrateur Superieur des TAAF sont .charges, chacun en ce qui le conceme, de !'application du present arrete. Article 6: Le present arrete sera publie au Recueil des Actes Administratifs de Ia Prefecture de Ia Reunion et au Journal Official des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Franr;aises. Le Prefet, LIMtl • • ,.,_Ill laPuJuQIJI PIANtAJS TERRES AUSTRALES ET ANTARCTIQUES FRAN<;:AISES Rue Gabriel Dejean - B.P. 400 97458 SAINT-PIERRE CEDEX Saint-Pierre, le mardi 15 novembre 2011 Le Prefet, administrateur superieur des Terres australes et antarctiques fran aises Ref. : TAAF/DAIMA-11-no 189 Objet : Etudes sur la station HA04 de Crozet, dans le cadre du Traite d'lnterdiction Complete des Essais nucleaires. Reference: Votre courrier en date du 26 octobre 2011 . Pieces jointes : Un tableau, un decret et trois arretes. Monsieur le directeur adjoint, Vous avez bien voulu me demander de vous apporter les elements necessaires a une etude sur Ia possibilite d'installer un nouveau systeme a Crozet, ou la station HA04 sur l'Ile d'Amsterdam. Votre point de contact pour obtenir ces elements est M. Philippe Gahinet, charge des questions maritimes au sein des TAAF, [email protected] , 02 62 96 78 44. Sans attendre, je vous prie de bien vouloir prendre connaissance des elements dont je dispose, a Ia fois pour une etude sur Crozet et sur Amsterdam. Je joins en copie de ce courrier un tableau recapitulatif repondant en partie a vos questions, ainsi que les arretes reglementant le mouillage et Ia p&he pour ces deux districts. En premiere analyse, le site de Crozet paraitrait le plus approprie pour accueillir la station, notamment en raison du classement des eaux entourant Amsterdam en reserve naturelle, ce qui n'est pas Ie cas autour de l'fle de La Possession. D'autre part, une pScherie raisonnee a Ia langouste est effectuee de maniere tres encadree sur la premiere bande des cent metres de profondeur autour d'Amsterdam, ce qui est porteur d'un risque de degradation des cables sous-marins. Mes services, et particulierement M. Gahinet, se tiennent a votre entiere disposition pour tout element d'information complementaire. ministrateur superieur es et antarctiques franfaises Commissariat a l'energie atomique et aux energies alternatives Monsieur le directeur adjoint Centre DAM be de France - Direction des applications militaires Bruyeres-le-Chatel 91297 Arpajon Cedex Copie : Prefet DGAEM COMSUP DIY AEM ANNEXE A LA LETTRE TAAF/DAIMA-11-no 189 du 15 novembre 2011 Informations necessaires pour le mouillage d'une station hydroacoustique sur les sites de CROZET et AMSTERDAM ELEMENTS / SITES CROZET AMSTERDAM Autorisotions Necessite d'un permis Oui, delivre par le prefet des Oui, delivre par le pretet des TAAF TAAF Zones protegees Regles environnementales a Non, pas les eaux territoriales Oui, reserve naturelle marine respecter, zone protegee,en de l'ile de Ia Possession,mais mer les eaux territoriales des autres iles de l'archipel sont classees en reserve naturelle marine. Regles environnementales a Oui, reserve naturelle des Oui, reserve naturelle des respecter, zone protegee, a Terres australes francaises Terres australes francaises terre Donnees sur les navires et Ia peche Points de mouillage detinis Oui Non pour les navires Tailles des navires et frequence Palangriers de 55 m, 1lmois Caseyeur80 m, en permanence des escales Logistique 120m, 4lan sur site 5 moislan Patrouilleur de 55 a 90 m, Logistique 120 m, 4lan 1lmois Patrouilleur de 55 a 90 m, 1lmois Systeme VMS (Vessel Oui pour les navires de peche Oui pour les navires de peche Monitoring System) Dechargement de materiel a Oui Oui terre depuis Ia mer Activites de peche, zones et Uniquement dans Ia ZEE et au- Oui pendant six mois de restrictions dela des 500 m de fonds, et au- l'annee dela des limites de I'arrete Depuis Ia laisse de basse mer WOl-508 SGI AEM sans aucune autre restriction du710312001 (1) de zone Type de peche Palangres et casiers Palangres et casiers Logistiques et liaisons de communication Hebergement 10PAX 10PAX Communications VSAT (voix et datas) I lnmarsat VSAT (voix et datas) I lnmarsat en secours en secours Facilites d'acces sur l'ile depuis Ia mer Par vedette ou zodiac Acces possible dans un site Acces difficile et non garanti: relativement protege« (Baie du site expose a Ia houle et au Marin» vent. Pour un radeau afin de deposer Acces possible dans un site Acces difficile et non garanti : du materiellourd relativement protege « (Baie du site expose a Ia houle et au Marin» vent. NOTA : (1)-Les deux anciens moyens immerges a Crozet le sont dans les limites de protection de cet arrete. FEASIBILITY AND DESKTOP STUDIES REGARDING HA 04 FINAL 03.1 TOPIC 2 Underwater System (UWS) Design and Cable Route Engineering P re p a r e d f o r: P r e p a r a t or y Com m i s s i on f or t h e C o m p r eh en s i v e N u c l ea r - T e st - B a n T re a t y Or g a ni z a t i o n (C T B T O) P r o v i s i o n a l T e c h ni c a l S e c r e t a r i a t C T B T O, V i e nn a I nt e r n a t i o na l C e nt r e P . O . B o x 1 2 0 0 , W a g ra me rs t ra s s e 5 A - 1400 V i e n n a , A u s t r i a Pr ep a r ed b y : M a l l i n C o ns ul t a nt s L t d . 3 3 0 T em p e C r es c en t No r th V a n c o u v e r B .C . V 7 N 1 E6 C an ad a 1 2 Ap r i l 20 12 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 - Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Contents Topic 2 - Underwater System (UWS) Design and Cable Route Engineering ...... 8 5.2 Shore Landings ...... 58 5.2.1 Crozet ...... 58 Figures Figure 39 Baie du Marin ...... 58 Figure 40 Sidescan data from 1998 survey ...... 59 Topic 2 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 - Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 5.2 Shore Landings 5.2.1 Crozet 5.2.1.1 Baie du Marin The shore landing at Crozet is straightforward, and has been accomplished several times. The cable is trenched across the beach and protected in shallow water with cast iron protectors. There have been no occurrences of faults at the beach. Figure 39 Baie du Marin The challenge at Crozet, however, has been to avoid the anchor zone just offshore of the Port Alfred landing. This challenge is made more difficult by the presence of giant seaweed (possibly bull kelp), and strong currents. Previous installations have made use of Zodiac inflatable boats to attempt to move the buoyed cable into position prior to removing the buoys. However, these efforts have resulted in poor cable control, and the cable has drifted out close to or into the anchor zone before settling on the seabed. Significant difficulties occurred during the 2003 installation with positioning of the floating cable when cutting away. This operation is very weather sensitive, since current and/or wind can push the floating cable off line. The availability of a suitable weather window for the shore end landing with some certainty of lighter winds or shelter remaining later in the day will be necessary to achieve the cable positioning required for a secure route. Not having such a suitable weather window in 2003 Topic 2 - Page 16 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 - Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 made positioning of the shore end extremely difficult, and may well have been a significant factor in the subsequent damage events that occurred within the bay. A new technique has been developed for this type of lay, where the floating cable is under-run by a more powerful vessel that can follow the designated cable route and remove the flotation as it goes. Strong points on shore, and an adequate number of small powerful vessels to push the cable, may also assist in cable placement. The ideal route for the cable would be close to or in the seaweed bed. A careful review of sidescan data will be required since kelp generally thrives on hard substrates including rocky escarpments and boulders. It may be necessary to bring both cables offshore on the same side of the anchor zone, and then alter course in deep water. Figure 40 Sidescan data from 1998 survey Topic 2 - Page 17 FEASIBILITY AND DESKTOP STUDIES REGARDING HA 04 FINAL 03.1 TOPIC 3 Acoustic Modeling P repa red f or: P repa ra t ory C om m i s s i on f or t h e C om preh e n s i v e N u c lea r - Te s t - Ban T r e at y O r g a ni z a ti o n ( C T B T O ) P rov i s i on a l T e c h n i c a l S ec ret a ri a t C T B T O , Vi e nna I nte r na ti o na l C e ntr e P . O . B ox 1 2 0 0 , W a g ra m ers t ra s s e 5 A - 1400 V i e n n a , Au s t r i a P repa red b y : M a l l i n C o ns ul ta nts L t d . 3 3 0 T em pe C res c en t N ort h V a n c ou v er B . C . V 7 N 1 E 6 C an ad a 1 2 A p ri l 20 12 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Topic 3 - Page 2 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Contents 1 Acoustic Modeling ...... 5 1.1 Introduction...... 5 1.2 Section Layout ...... 6 1.3 Potential Sites...... 7 1.3.1 Sites near Île de la Possession, Crozet Archipelago ...... 7 1.3.2 Sites near Île Amsterdam ...... 9 1.4 Acoustic blockage, and acoustic coverage metrics ...... 11 1.5 Ambient Ocean Noise ...... 16 1.6 Hydrophone Depth, Sensitivity Analysis ...... 21 1.7 Network Metrics ...... 26 1.8 Summary of Acoustic Results...... 34 1.8.1 Sensitivity of Acoustic Reception to Hydrophone Depth ...... 34 1.8.2 Ambient Noise ...... 35 1.8.3 Network Improvement ...... 35 1.8.4 Crozet vs. Île Amsterdam...... 35 1.8.5 Crozet ...... 35 1.8.6 Île Amsterdam...... 36 Figure 1 A map of the Indian Ocean...... 5 Figure 2 A map of the annual average depth of the sound channel axis in the Indian Ocean ...... 6 Figure 3 Map of bathymetry near Île de la Possession (left). Map indicating sources of bathymetric data (see text) (right) ...... 8 Figure 4 Map of bathymetric gradients near Île de la Possession, in degrees...... 8 Figure 5 Sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the test sites near Île de la Possession...... 9 Figure 6 Map of bathymetry near Île Amsterdam...... 10 Figure 7 Map of bathymetric gradients, in degrees...... 10 Figure 8 Sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the test sites near Île Amsterdam ...... 11 Figure 9 Map showing the minimum TL from any site on the Earth’s surface to either of the previous HA04 Crozet hydrophone triplets ...... 14 Figure 10 Global maps showing the difference in TL between new and old HA04 configurations..... 16 Figure 11 Wenz curves, showing ambient acoustic noise. (from Wenz, 1962) ...... 17 Figure 12 Power spectra of noise levels at Indian Ocean hydrophones (from Harben and Hauk, 2010) ...... 18 Figure 13 Distribution of acoustic sources within the Indian Ocean (from Hanson and Bowman, 2005) ...... 19 Figure 14 Map of global shipping routes ...... 20 Topic 3 - Page 3 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 15 Map of surface currents within the Indian Ocean...... 20 Figure 16 Mode 1 amplitudes (right) at several frequencies for a sound speed profile corresponding to the annual average values at C10 (left) ...... 22 Figure 17 Data along a path at an azimuth of 60 degrees east of north starting at C10...... 23 Figure 18 Comparison of TL computed at several frequencies for the path indicated in Figure 17..... 24 Figure 19 Difference between TL computed for a hydrophone at 500 m depth and TL computed for a hydrophone at 200 m depth (shown in Figure 18) ...... 25 Figure 20 Difference between TL computed for a hydrophone at 700 m depth and TL computed for a hydrophone at 200 m depth (shown in Figure 18) ...... 26 Figure 21 Maps showing the minimum TL to any IMS hydrophone stations for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the difference in minimum TL for other HA04 configurations (bottom three plots) ...... 28 Figure 22 Maps showing the number of stations within the IMS hydrophone network that could detect a given source for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the additional network coverage provided by other HA04 configurations (bottom) ...... 29 Figure 23 Travel time differences between Cape Leeuwin (HA01) and the southern Diego Garcia station (HA08S) ...... 31 Figure 24 Maps indicating the total area of the source location estimates derived using only arrival times ...... 32 Figure 25 Maps indicating the total area of the source location estimates derived using both arrival times and azimuth estimates ...... 33 Table 1 Metrics for each site tested for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Crozet ...... 12 Table 2 Metrics for each site tested for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Île Amsterdam ...... 13 Table 3 Metrics M1 and M2 for pairs of triplets near Île de la Possession (Crozet) ...... 14 Table 4 Metrics M1 and M2 for pairs of triplets near Île Amsterdam ...... 15 Table 5 Metrics for overall network detection performance...... 34 Table 6 Metrics for overall network source location accuracy ...... 34 Equation 1 Acoustic Coverage Metric (M1 ) ...... 11 Equation 2 Quality of Acoustic Reception (M2 )...... 12 Equation 3 Measure of data redundancy, M3 ...... 27 Equation 4 Measure of the how precisely source locations can be estimated using arrival times only (M4 )...... 30 Equation 5 Measure of the how precisely source locations can be estimated using arrival times and azimuth information...... 30 Topic 3 - Page 4 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 1 Acoustic Modeling 1.1 Introduction Three of the six cabled underwater hydrophone stations included in the International Monitoring System (IMS) are located within the Indian Ocean. Station H01, which lies near the southwest tip of Australia at Cape Leeuwin, consists of a single hydrophone triplet; station H08 at Diego Garcia, in the central Indian Ocean, consists of a pair of hydrophone triplets, one to the north and another to the south of the island. Station H04, originally sited at Crozet in the southwest Indian Ocean, also consisted of a pair of hydrophone triplets. Together, these stations provided good acoustic coverage within the Indian Ocean and extending into parts of the adjoining oceans. However, by February of 2006 the system at Crozet was no longer functional. A preliminary analysis (report of the Independent Expert Evaluation Panel, 2010) indicated that a hydrophone station located at Île Amsterdam might provide comparable acoustic coverage to that for the Crozet site, while its milder environment may create fewer challenges in installation and long-term sustainability. In this section of the report, the acoustic coverage provided by re-locating HA04 to a site near Île Amsterdam is compared to the acoustic coverage afforded by re-installing it near Île de la Possession in the Crozet Archipelago (Crozet). Figure 1 shows the current configuration of the IMS hydroacoustic stations within the Indian Ocean, along with the test H04 locations examined in this section. Figure 1 A map of the Indian Ocean Circles show the location of the IMS hydrophone stations H01 and H08. Potential sites for re-installation of the HA04 station, marked by x’es, are Île Amsterdam in the southern Indian Ocean and Crozet, further to the southwest. Although separated by less than ten degrees of latitude, Crozet and Île Amsterdam are located in markedly different ocean environments. The Crozet archipelago lies at the northern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which flows eastward around Antarctica, unimpeded by continental masses, isolating it from warmer northern waters. Île Amsterdam lies near the South Indian Current, which flows anticlockwise around the Indian Ocean, giving the island a milder climate. The differences in climate are evident in the ocean sound speed profiles at each site. Sound speeds in the ocean are largely controlled by pressure and temperature. As a result, the competing effects of decreasing ocean temperatures and increasing pressures with depth combine to form a waveguide for Topic 3 - Page 5 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 low frequency acoustic energy, called the SOFAR (Sound Frequency And Ranging) channel. The depth at which the minimum sound speed is reached is called the sound channel axis. Figure 2 shows the annual average depth of the sound channel axis, derived from the 2009 World Ocean Atlas (WOA09). As indicated, the sound channel axis is much shallower near Crozet than at Île Amsterdam, reflecting the large differences in ocean surface temperatures. These differences strongly constrain options for the installation of a hydroacoustic station at either site, since optimal performance is generally obtained for hydrophones positioned near the depth of the sound channel minimum. Metres below surface 1 Figure 2 A map of the annual average depth of the sound channel axis in the Indian Ocean IMS hydrophone stations H01 and H08 are marked by circles and potential sites (Crozet and Île Amsterdam) for re-installation of the HA04 station are marked by x’es. 1.2 Section Layout A detailed study comparing the hydroacoustic performance of pairs of hydrophone triplets at Crozet and Île Amsterdam is contained in this Section. In Section 1.3, the hydroacoustic performance of potential site pairs of hydrophone triplets at Crozet and Île Amsterdam is analysed. In Section 1.4 metrics to compare the performances of each pair are developed. That analysis considers each potential site location in isolation from the larger IMS hydrophone network. In Section 1.5 ambient ocean noise at each site is reviewed. In Section 1.6 a sensitivity analysis is performed to find the optimal depth of deployment of hydrophones near Île de la Possession. The issue of bottom mounting hydrophones as opposed to using floated hydrophones is also considered. In Section 1.7 the question of how each of the proposed sites would operate within the larger global IMS hydrophone network is considered, in terms of total hydroacoustic coverage and how each site would contribute to improving the precision and accuracy of location estimates for sources at any given location within the ocean. 1 2009 world Ocean Atlas (2009 WOA) Topic 3 - Page 6 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 For each analysis, the most up-to-date global databases available are used: the WOA09 comprises monthly, seasonal, and annual averaged temperature, salinity and sound speed profiles within the ocean at 1 degree resolution (Locarnini et.al., 2010); the SRTM30_PLUS database gives topography and bathymetry on a 30 arc-second grid (Becker et.al., 2009); a sediment thickness database with 5 arc-minute resolution (Laske and Masters, 1997) is used to model the seafloor for acoustic propagation computations. Where available, fine-scale bathymetry data from multi-beam surveys near Île de la Possession and Île Amsterdam are included. Section 1.8 concludes with a summary of acoustic results. 1.3 Potential Sites 1.3.1 Sites near Île de la Possession, Crozet Archipelago In this sub-section, potential sites for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Île de la Possession in the Crozet Archipelago are examined. These sites were selected based on the following criteria: the triplets must lie within a radius of 120 km from a shore station so that a repeaterless FO cable could be used in the installation, at the installation site for each hydrophone, the maximum seafloor depth must be less than 2000 m, and the maximum seafloor gradient must be less than fifteen degrees. The annual-averaged sound channel axis is at 200 m in this region. The conjugate depth – the depth at which the sound speed reaches its value at the sea surface – lies at about 700 m, thus the acoustic waveguide extends from the surface to approximately 700 m in this region. Several shallow sites were selected in order to evaluate the performance of bottom- mounted versus hydrophones floated within the sound channel minimum. The other test sites were selected in regions where seafloor depths are over 700 m, so that hydrophones floated at the depth of the sound channel axis could be at least 500 m from the seafloor – approximately one wavelength at the lowest frequencies of interest. The left panel of Figure 3 shows a map of the bathymetry in the vicinity of Île de la Possession in the Crozet Archipelago. Depth information is derived from three separate bathymetry datasets as indicated in the right panel of Figure 3: in the white region, depths are provided by SRTM30_PLUS; the black regions show where fine scale data provided by IFREMER are used; red regions show where very fine-scale data from the original 1999 site survey are used. The original HA04 north and south triplets, at sites marked 10 and 5 respectively, are the only sites located in areas where fine scale bathymetry data is available. Note that small-scale features on the seafloor are smoothed out in regions where bathymetry is derived from the coarser SRTM30_PLUS data, indicating that an additional bathymetric survey will be necessary to confirm the suitability of a site if the hydrophone triplets are installed at new locations. Topic 3 - Page 7 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 3 Map of bathymetry near Île de la Possession (left). Map indicating sources of bathymetric data (see text) (right) The large white circles show ranges of 40 km, 80 km and 120 km from at Marin Bay. Light gray contour lines indicate bathymetry at 500 m increments, with a darker contour line at 2000 m. The sites marked by small black circles are the locations tested for re-installation of hydrophone triplets in the Crozet archipelago. The red regions in the right figure show where higher resolution data from the original 1999 site survey are used. The original HA04 north and south triplets, at sites marked 10 and 5 respectively, are the only sites located in areas where higher resolution bathymetry data is available. Figure 4 shows approximate seafloor gradients in degrees. Given the relatively low resolution of most of the bathymetric database in this region, site selections were limited to regions where the computed seafloor gradient is less than five degrees. The coordinates for ten sites that fulfill these criteria are listed in Table 1. Sites 2, 4, 7 and 8 are at shallow depths, appropriate for examining the performance of bottom- mounted hydrophones. The remainder of the sites would be deployed as sound channel- floated hydrophones; the optimal depths for sound channel floated hydrophones are examined in Section 1.6. Figure 4 Map of bathymetric gradients near Île de la Possession, in degrees The sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the selected test sites shown are shown in Figure 5. The annual-averaged sound speed profiles are in the panel at left, and the other three panels show the monthly averaged profiles for January, May, and September. Seafloor depths at each test location are Topic 3 - Page 8 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 marked by circles, with site numbers corresponding to those in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Seafloor depths at sites 2, 4, 7 and 8 lie within the acoustic waveguide as defined in the annual average profiles. Seafloor depths at the other test sites are below the acoustic waveguide throughout the year. As indicated, the annual-averaged sound channel axis is at about 200 m depth at each site but varies significantly throughout the year, suggesting some variation in acoustic reception at the hydrophones. During the Austral winter, the sound speed minimum is at the sea surface so that acoustic propagation is surface limited and the depth range of the acoustic waveguide is ill-defined. 2 Figure 5 Sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the test sites near Île de la Possession 1.3.2 Sites near Île Amsterdam In this sub-section, potential sites for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Île Amsterdam, which lies to the northeast of Crozet, are examined. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show maps of the bathymetry and seafloor gradients in the vicinity of the island. These maps are derived from a combination of SRTM30_PLUS data and fine scale bathymetry data provided by IFREMER. Sites were selected based on the same criteria as used for the Crozet sites in Section 1.3.1, but in this case, all sites were selected in areas where fine-scale bathymetry is available. In this region, the acoustic waveguide is much deeper than at Crozet; the sound channel axis lies at approximately 1200m to1300 m depth and the conjugate depth is well below 2 km. Again, several sites were selected in order to evaluate the performance of bottom- mounted hydrophones but, since the sound channel axis is much deeper, the “shallow” sites (sites 3, 4, 10 and 11) are at 1-1.4 km depth. The remainder of the sites would be deployed as sound channel-floated hydrophones, at depths of approximately 1200 to 1300 m in this region. Table 2 lists the coordinates for all eleven sites examined. 2 2009 WOA. These sound speeds are based on statistical temperature fields. See the Locarnini et.al. (2010) reference for details about the data source and quality control. Topic 3 - Page 9 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 6 Map of bathymetry near Île Amsterdam Figure 7 Map of bathymetric gradients, in degrees The large white circles show ranges of 40 km, 80 and 120 km from the AMS base at the north end of Île Amsterdam. Light gray contour lines indicate bathymetry at 500 m increments, with a darker contour line at 2000 m. The sites marked by small black circles are the locations analysed for installation of hydrophone triplets in this region. The sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the selected test sites shown are shown in Figure 8. The annual-averaged sound speed profiles are in the panel at left, and the other three panels show the monthly averaged profiles for January, May, and September. As shown, the waveguide shows little temporal variation at depths below 300 m, suggesting little variability in acoustic reception at the hydrophones throughout the year. Topic 3 - Page 10 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 8 Sound speed profiles corresponding to each of the test sites near Île Amsterdam The annual-averaged sound speed profiles are in the panel at left; the other three panels show the monthly averaged profiles for January, May, and September. Seafloor depths at all sites (marked by circles and labeled as in Figure 6) lie within the acoustic waveguide throughout the year. 1.4 Acoustic blockage, and acoustic coverage metrics The acoustic coverage provided by any given hydrophone triplet location can be represented by a series of geodesic rays that radiate from the receiver and stop where bathymetry is very shallow. To a first approximation, the total ocean area unblocked by any landmass can be used to quantify the effectiveness of any given receiver location. The first acoustic coverage metric for any given site location is a measure of total coverage and is given by: Equation 1 Acoustic Coverage Metric (M 1 ) = M1 100 * dA j E A j where the sum is taken over all areas dAj unblocked by a landmass, and EA is the total surface area of the Earth. Consequently, the first metric gives the percentage of the Earth’s surface that could be “heard” at a given triplet location. Another analysis takes into account the acoustic transmission losses (TL) that occur during propagation where, throughout the remainder of this report, TL is reported in dB re 1 m (Jensen et. al., 2011). As hydroacoustic energy propagates over long ocean paths, it undergoes TL due to the geometric spreading, partial blockage due to shallow bathymetric features, and the intrinsic attenuation of seawater. A simple formulation for TL that takes these features into account makes the assumption that geometric losses are equivalent to spherical spreading for the first 2 km, then cylindrical spreading beyond that, and that the intrinsic attenuation of seawater is 5 × 10-4 dB/km3. 3 All of the parameters for the approximate TL computations are based on trial and error model fitting, and comparisons with a more accurate PE modeling approach. A somewhat higher value for the intrinsic attenuation could have been selected; however, the intrinsic attenuation is nearly negligible. It could have eliminated entirely without affecting the conclusions. Topic 3 - Page 11 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 The attenuation due to partial blockage of acoustic transmission due to bathymetric features depends on the seafloor depth relative to the sound channel axis since sound is ducted near the sound channel axis. Here, TL are approximated by 0.2 dB/km where the seafloor depth is less than 200 m greater than the local sound channel axis depth, and by 0.01 dB/km for seafloor depths between 200m to 1500 m greater than the local sound channel axis. Total acoustic blockage is assumed to occur at depths less than 100 m. The accuracy of this formulation was confirmed against parabolic equation (PE) computations that take into account source depth and frequency, as well as temporal and spatial variability in ocean temperatures. It was confirmed that this simple formulation is reasonable accurate for computation of TL for sources and receivers located at the sound channel axis and for frequencies of 10 Hz or more. At low frequencies, the TL are underestimated, particularly for travel paths over shallow regions like seamounts and ridges. The use of this simplified relation for the TL allows us to quantify the quality of acoustic reception with a single value at any given location within the ocean. A second metric for each hydrophone triplet location is a measure of the quality of acoustic reception and is given by: Equation 2 Quality of Acoustic Reception (M 2 ) dA j = M 2 100 * E A j TL j where TLj is a measure of the transmission loss at each point. M2 units are 1/dB. Higher values of M2 represent improved quality of acoustic reception. The TL computations can be performed for a source at any given latitude and longitude within the ocean. By reciprocity, source and receiver locations are interchangeable so that instead the TL from any site on the Earth’s surface to any given receiver location can be computed. Computations of blockage and TL were performed for each of the test sites near Crozet and Île Amsterdam and metrics for each are given in Table 1 and Table 2. As indicated, the metrics suggest that individual sites near Île Amsterdam would perform better than any individual sites near Crozet. This performance is due to the fact that Île de la Possession is a larger island than Île Amsterdam, which creates a wider acoustic shadow for nearby sites. Site Latitude Longitude Seafloor M1 M2 (decimal (decimal depth Acoustic Coverage Quality of Acoustic degrees) degrees) (m) (% Earth’s surface) Reception (1/dB) C1 -46.95˚ 51.10˚ 850 14.49 0.1344 C2 -46.82˚ 51.22˚ 290 13.96 0.1276 C3 -46.92˚ 51.95˚ 1104 16.08 0.1503 C4 -46.76˚ 51.73˚ 435 11.01 0.1017 C5 -46.84˚ 51.90˚ 1231 15.29 0.1424 C6 -45.73˚ 51.49˚ 1489 10.38 0.0972 C7 -45.67˚ 51.34˚ 548 10.13 0.0935 C8 -45.64˚ 50.92˚ 282 8.83 0.0816 C9 -45.58˚ 51.07˚ 1165 10.47 0.0967 C10 -46.17˚ 51.79˚ 1603 11.15 0.1046 Table 1 Metrics for each site tested for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Crozet Topic 3 - Page 12 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M1 to M5. Site Latitude Longitude Seafloor M1 M2 (decimal (decimal depth Acoustic Coverage Quality of Acoustic Reception degrees) degrees) (m) (% Earth’s surface) (1/dB) A1 -38.13˚ 77.42˚ 1952 16.88 0.1524 A2 -38.42˚ 77.40˚ 2010 17.27 0.1553 A3 -38.28˚ 77.55˚ 1419 17.54 0.1555 A4 -37.53˚ 77.84˚ 1392 16.77 0.1535 A5 -37.29˚ 77.86˚ 1953 18.06 0.1676 A6 -37.10˚ 78.54˚ 1887 17.53 0.1626 A7 -37.60˚ 78.70˚ 1659 17.32 0.1571 A8 -37.71˚ 78.86˚ 1790 17.72 0.1611 A9 -38.53˚ 78.33˚ 1969 17.03 0.1536 A10 -38.71˚ 78.16˚ 1411 17.45 0.1554 A11 -38.85˚ 77.68˚ 1076 17.42 0.1533 Table 2 Metrics for each site tested for deployment of hydrophone triplets near Île Amsterdam Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M1 to M5. The previous configuration for HA04 consisted of a pair of hydrophone triplets, one to the north and another to the south of the island to compensate for acoustic shadows created by Île de la Possession and other islands within the Crozet archipelago. Figure 9 shows the minimum TL between any source location and either hydrophone triplet for the combination of sites used for the original HA04 station, which are designated C5 and C10 in Table 1. As indicated, the previous station locations provided acoustic coverage within the Indian Ocean and parts of the Atlantic Ocean. However, the Kerguelen Plateau shadows regions south of Australia, and the western islands within the Crozet group mask much of the southern end of Africa. Topic 3 - Page 13 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 9 Map showing the minimum TL from any site on the Earth’s surface to either of the previous HA04 Crozet hydrophone triplets Metrics M1 and M2 have been computed for each pair of hydrophone triplets at Crozet and at Île Amsterdam. For metric M1 , any region that can be detected by either hydrophone triplet is included in the summation; for metric M2 , the minimum TL between any source location and either hydrophone triplet is used. At Crozet, only site pairs with one triplet to the north and one triplet to the south of Île de la Possession were considered since sites to the north of Île de la Possession would mainly serve to monitor the Indian Ocean, while the southern sites would mainly monitor the southern Ocean and parts of the southern Atlantic Ocean. Thus each of sites C1 through C5 were paired to one of sites C6 through C10. This pairing led to twenty-five unique site pairs. All possible site pairs were considered at Île Amsterdam; with eleven sites, this pairing led to fifty-five unique site pairs. Only the top nine are listed in each of Table 3 for Crozet and Table 4 for Île Amsterdam, with metric M1 taking precedence in the ordering. Metrics for the previous site configuration are also included for comparison in Table 3. Site pairs M1 M2 Acoustic Coverage Quality of Acoustic Reception (% Earth’s surface) (1/dB) C1 and C10 18.56 0.1741 C2 and C9 18.52 0.1729 C1 and C9 18.52 0.1752 C1 and C7 18.51 0.1751 C2 and C7 18.50 0.1750 C3 and C10 18.50 0.1731 C1 and C6 18.46 0.1703 C2 and C6 18.44 0.1723 C3 and C7 18.44 0.1725 C5 and C10 17.99 0.1682 Table 3 Metrics M 1 and M 2 for pairs of triplets near Île de la Possession (Crozet) Topic 3 - Page 14 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M1 to M5. Site pairs M1 M2 Acoustic Coverage Quality of Acoustic Reception (% Earth’s surface) (1/dB) A5 and A10 19.58 0.1827 A5 and A11 19.57 0.1815 A2 and A5 19.40 0.1804 A1 and A5 19.38 0.1797 A1 and A11 19.38 0.1763 A3 and A5 19.36 0.1790 A6 and A11 19.34 0.1791 A6 and A10 19.30 0.1784 A2 and A6 19.28 0.1800 Table 4 Metrics M1 and M2 for pairs of triplets near Île Amsterdam Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M1 to M5. From Table 3, the best combination of sites for deployment of hydrophone triplets at Crozet is C1 paired with C10. Site C1 would require approximately an extra 50 km of cable compared to relocating the triplet at the former southern triplet site, C5. Sites C6 through C9 would also require significantly more cable than the C10 site, while not offering improved coverage. Figure 10 shows the difference in TL between the previous site locations and two possible new configurations; C1 and C10 are shown at top, and C3 and C10 are shown in the lower panel. As shown, a new configuration involving deployment at sites C1 and C10 would provide better coverage of the area to the west of the Crozet island group up to the southern end of Africa; deployment at sites C3 and C10 would offer only a slight enhancement of coverage. However, site C3 is located only slightly further from Île de la Possession than the former location of the southern triplet. As indicated in Table 2, the Amsterdam sites offer good acoustic coverage; even singly, some hydrophone triplets offer nearly as much coverage as would be provided by pairs of hydrophones near Crozet. Site A5 yields the highest individual metrics; its position to the north of Île Amsterdam allows it good acoustic coverage over much of the Indian Ocean, only regions to south are masked. It also appears often in pairings with other sites, particularly those located to the south of Île Amsterdam. Sites A10 and A11, furthest to the south offer the best metrics in combination with A5, however both are at or near the sound channel axis, so would be deployed as bottom-mounted hydrophones. Sites A1 and A2 have the advantage that they would be closer to the base station and still provide good coverage paired with site A5. One advantage of deploying pairs of hydrophone triplets near Île Amsterdam is that each separate hydrophone triplet offers good coverage of the Indian Ocean and thus provides greater redundancy. Topic 3 - Page 15 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 10 Global maps showing the difference in TL between new and old HA04 configurations Red indicates where a new configuration would provide enhanced coverage; blue shows where the coverage would be worse. The top panel shows results for deployment of hydrophone triplets at sites C1 and C10; the bottom panel shows results for deployment of hydrophone triplets at sites C3 and C10. 1.5 Ambient Ocean Noise Ocean noise in the frequency range of interest to hydroacoustic monitoring is primarily due to natural sources such as whales, ocean currents, seismic noise, and atmospheric storms, as well as anthropogenic source such shipping noises and airgun surveys. A schematic diagram showing sources of ambient acoustic noise as a function of frequency, known as the Wenz curve, is reproduced in Figure 11. It suggests that the primary sources of sound at the low frequency end of the frequency range of interest would be earthquake noises, which are intermittent. Shipping noises is a significant source of noise throughout IMS hydroacoustic monitoring frequencies. Winds and currents are a significant source of noise in shallow water. Topic 3 - Page 16 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 11 Wenz curves, showing ambient acoustic noise. (from Wenz, 1962) Nearly ten years of ambient noise observations at IMS hydrophone stations within the Indian Ocean have allowed for a close examination of noise spectra at these locations (Harben and Hauk, 2010). Power spectral densities computed for up to five years’ worth of two hour time segments at HA01 and HA08, and over a year at HA04 showed that: a) Noise levels were significantly higher for the HA04 southern triplet than for the northern triplet; b) noise levels are slightly higher at the northern HA08 (Diego Garcia) triplet than at the southern one; c) a narrow band noise peak at 27 Hz, possibly due to whale calls, occurs at all Indian Ocean hydrophones with the exception of the northern triplet at Diego Garcia (HA08N); d) noise levels are high at Cape Leeuwin (HA01). Noise levels for the northern Crozet site were the quietest within the Indian Ocean; those at the southern site were exceeded only by Cape Leeuwin. These results are summarized in Figure 12. Topic 3 - Page 17 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 4 Figure 12 Power spectra of noise levels at Indian Ocean hydrophones (from Harben and Hauk, 2010) Top left – Crozet North; top right – Crozet South; middle left – Diego Garcia North; middle right – Diego Garcia South; bottom left – Cape Leeuwin. Low frequencies noise sources radiate acoustic energy to large distances due to the low intrinsic attenuation of seawater and the efficient ducting of sound within the sound channel. Thus noise levels at a IMS hydrophone stations may be generated at large distances from the receivers. Three main noise sources are considered – earthquakes, ocean currents, and shipping noises – and how they may affect ambient noise levels at Crozet vs. Île Amsterdam is discussed. 4 No more legible image is available Topic 3 - Page 18 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 13 Distribution of acoustic sources within the Indian Ocean (from Hanson and Bowman, 2005) The map of the distribution of acoustic sources within the Indian Ocean (Figure 13) is based on recordings made at IMS hydroacoustic stations (Hanson and Bowman, 2005). It shows significant seismicity along the ridges, as well as sources near the Antarctic, inferred to be from cracking icebergs. Île Amsterdam is located on one of these ridges, as is Diego Garcia, the site of the HA08 station. Since HA08 is not a very noisy station, it is inferred that earthquakes are not a major contributor to ocean noise and so Île Amsterdam’s position within a seismic zone does not make deploying a station there infeasible. Figure 14 shows a map of shipping routes within the Indian Ocean. The ship tracks are compiled from a year of data starting October 2004, collected as part of the U.S. Voluntary Observing Ship project (http://www.vos.noaa.gov/vos_scheme.shtml). The ship tracks represent about 11% of the largest merchant ships at sea in 2005. Since participation in VOS is voluntary, it is possible that the results are biased. However, given that the major ports identified here are the same as shown in Kaluza et.al, (2010), compiled from a much larger database, it seems likely that the high traffic vs. low traffic areas are well captured by the data. As indicated in the figure, Cape Leeuwin (HA01) is located in an area of relatively high shipping activity. This shipping activity probably accounts for its higher noise levels than for other Indian Ocean stations. From this map, it appears that Diego Garcia (HA08) is located quite near a heavily used shipping lane, and that shipping near both Crozet and Île Amsterdam is light. These data suggest that shipping is unlikely to contribute significantly to the noise field at either Île Amsterdam or Crozet. Topic 3 - Page 19 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 14 Map of global shipping routes Figure 15 Map of surface currents within the Indian Ocean Generated at http://www.oscar.noaa.gov/datadisplay/oscar_latlon.php. As mentioned in Topic 2 in the section on Vertical Acoustic moorings, ocean currents typically decrease rapidly with depth, so that deep hydrophones are unlikely to be significantly affected by current-generated noise. Figure 15 shows a map of surface currents within the Indian Ocean, averaged over an eighteen year period. At Diego Garcia and Cape Leeuwin, hydrophones are deployed at depths of approximately 1 km, thus surface currents are a relatively insignificant source of noise at those stations. Therefore, it can be inferred that ocean surface currents would not be a major contributor to noise for hydrophones deployed near Île Amsterdam. However, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is likely the major source of noise at Crozet, particularly for a station to the south of Île de la Possession. The ACC differs from all other major ocean currents in its low stratification and great depth extent; current speeds can be significant at Topic 3 - Page 20 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 depths over 1000 m. Little information is available on the ACC structure in the region near Crozet. However, a study of the vertical structure of the ACC in Drake Passage (Firing et. al., 2011) showed that mean current speeds decrease only very gradually with depth, with speeds decreasing by a factor of two every 800 to 1200 m. This result suggests that noise levels for the southern Crozet triplet would be only marginally improved by increasing the hydrophone depth. In discussions at a meeting with CTBTO personnel (Jan 31, 2012) it was communicated to us that a tidal bore appeared to be a significant source of noise at the previous site of the northern HA04 triplet at Crozet: noise would increase at a single hydrophone within the triplet, then within fifteen minutes at the other hydrophones. Since this excess noise appeared in association with tides and could not be attributed to differences in installation methods, the noise was attributed to a slow moving tidal bore moving between Île de la Possession and Île de l’Est that excited strumming of the cables linking the seafloor moorings to the hydrophones. Although it is extremely difficult to predict hydroacoustic noise in this bandwidth at any given site, it is known that the amplitude of gravity waves – a tidal bore is one type - decreases approximately exponentially with depth. Therefore, there must be some optimal depth at which the noise is reduced without significant reduction in signal strength. It may be noted that the cable strumming frequency may vary with the length and weight of the vertical mooring cables. However, no predictions about that effect are possible here due to insufficient data. In the next section, transmission losses are examined as a function of sensor depth at Crozet and in this way, estimations are made as to the depth at which a hydrophone would be the most sensitive to sources at long ranges. The observations in this section suggest that ambient noise levels for a hydroacoustic station deployed at Île Amsterdam would be quite low. Little is known about whale migratory routes within the Indian Ocean, however, the data from other stations within the Indian Ocean suggest that if whales were present, the whale calls would affect only a narrow frequency band and thus not significantly affect data quality. Deploying the hydrophones at greater depth at Crozet might significantly lower noise levels at the northern triplet, but increased depth would likely only provide a marginal improvement for the southern triplet. 1.6 Hydrophone Depth, Sensitivity Analysis Long-range sound propagation in the ocean is most efficient for sources that excite low order acoustic modes. Conversely, hydrophones are the most sensitive to long range propagation if they are placed at a depth where the low order acoustic modes have their maximum amplitude. In regions where the sound speed minimum is at great depth, low order modes have maximum amplitudes near the depth of the sound channel axis. Thus hydrophones are floated at the depth of the sound channel axis at most IMS hydrophone stations. This depth gives them the greatest sensitivity to sources at long ranges. At Île Amsterdam, the sound channel axis is deep, so hydrophones would be floated at the depth of the sound channel axis. However, the sound speed minimum is shallow at Crozet, particularly during the winter, thus the optimal depth of hydrophone deployment is not necessarily coincident with the depth of the sound channel axis. Figure 16 shows mode 1 amplitudes at several frequencies for a sound speed profile corresponding to the annual average values at C10. The sound speed minimum for this profile is at 200 m depth. As indicated, the depth at which the first mode is a maximum varies with frequency; at 4 Hz, the maximum amplitude of the first mode is at about 700 m depth; and the depth of this maximum becomes shallower with increasing frequency, until it approaches the sound channel depth at 75 Hz. This change in depth suggests that the optimal hydrophone depth at Crozet may depend on the frequency; acoustic reception at low frequencies may be optimal at greater depths than for high frequencies. The ocean sound speed profile changes seasonally, however the depths at which the amplitudes are a maximum vary by only approximately 10% over the year. Topic 3 - Page 21 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 16 Mode 1 amplitudes (right) at several frequencies for a sound speed profile corresponding to the annual average values at C10 (left) The degree to which the acoustic TL for long-range propagation is sensitive to hydrophone depth is examined using a parabolic equation (PE) modeling method (Collins, 1993) along a typical source – receiver path. As before, the principle of reciprocity is used, whereby source and receiver locations are interchangeable, so that the TL between a source at any location and the receiver can be computed by placing a source at the receiver location and computing TL from there. The use of the acoustic PE modeling method implies that the ocean sediments are treated as fluids, i.e. that they do not support shear waves. This treatment is justified by their very low rigidity. An analysis of TL sensitivity to hydrophone depth is performed at several sites near Île de la Possession that were identified in Section 1.3.1 as potential sites for the deployment of hydrophones – site C10 to the north of Île de la Possession and C1, C3 and C5 to the south. The first sensitivity analysis, with fixed location, is performed for a source at the site of the former northern HA04 triplet (C10) for an environmental path extending over 6000 km at an azimuth of 60 degrees east of north. The environmental model showing bathymetries and the annual average sound velocities is shown in Figure 17. The depth and range-dependent ocean sound speeds are derived from the WOA09 database, seafloor depths from SRTM30_PLUS, and sediment thicknesses derived from a global sediment thickness database. The sub-sediment basement was assigned a velocity of 3600 m/s. The sediment density is assigned a value of 1800 kg/m3, compared with 2700 kg/m3 within the basement. The path is primarily a deep water path, with a very shallow region at approximately 4400 km where the path crosses the 90 East Ridge. The sound channel axis varies from a minimum of 200 m at the source to a depth of over 1 km near the end of the path, to the northeast. Topic 3 - Page 22 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 1000 km 2000 km 3000 km 4000 km 5000 km 6000 km Figure 17 Data along a path at an azimuth of 60 degrees east of north starting at C10 (top) Bathymetry map showing a path along a path at an azimuth of 60 degrees east of north starting at C10. (bottom) Bathymetry and annual average ocean sound speeds along the path. The colorscale in the upper plot indicates the bathymetric depth, in the lower plot it indicates the sound speeds within the ocean. The light grey areas indicate sediment; the dark grey areas indicate ocean basement rock. Computations were performed at four frequencies: 4 Hz, 10 Hz, 25 Hz, and 75 Hz for a receiver at 200 m, the depth of the sound speed minimum. Results are shown in Figure 18. Similar computations were done for receivers at a series of increasing depths and results were compared to those for a source at 200 m. The results for a receiver at 500 m depth are shown in Figure 19, which presents the difference in TL between this source and one at 200 m (Figure 18). Red indicates where the TL is greater for a receiver at 200 m than at this depth, (i.e. reception is better at this depth than at 200 m) and blue indicates where it is less. Also shown above each plot are the mean differences in TL for sources within the top km; positive values indicate that reception is better for a hydrophone at this depth. Results for a receiver at 700 m depth are shown in Figure 20. Topic 3 - Page 23 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 18 Comparison of TL computed at several frequencies for the path indicated in Figure 17 The hydrophone is at 200 m depth, the sound channel minimum at CL10. The colorscale in each plot indicates TL. The black line within the ocean indicates the sound channel axis. The PE modeling results confirm that optimal hydrophone depth for acoustic reception is frequency dependent at Crozet. At a hydrophone depth of 700 m, the acoustic reception is optimal at 4 Hz, although it drops off slightly at higher frequencies. For deep water paths, the acoustic reception is relatively insensitive to hydrophone depth between depths of about 400 m to nearly 700 m. Below 800 m, acoustic reception decreases more rapidly with increasing hydrophone depth. Acoustic transmission for a bottom-mounted hydrophone would be severe at all frequencies. The optimal hydrophone depth for the annual average ocean sound speed profiles ranges from 500 m to 700 m depth at C10. Computations were redone for ocean sound speeds corresponding to the Austral summer and Austral winter seasons. Results showed that acoustic TL is more sensitive to hydrophone depth in the winter and less sensitive in the summer. The optimal depths for the winter profiles ranged from 500 m to 600 m in winter and ranged from 400 m to 800 m in the summer. Overall, the optimal hydrophone depth for year round acoustic reception at C10 would range from 500 m to 600 m. Topic 3 - Page 24 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 19 Difference between TL computed for a hydrophone at 500 m depth and TL computed for a hydrophone at 200 m depth (shown in Figure 18) At each frequency the TL difference is shown in cross-section, and the average TL within the top km is shown above. Positive TL values indicate that reception is better for a hydrophone at this depth than at 200 m. The green circles indicate the hydrophone depths. Similar analyses were performed at three sites to south of Crozet: C1, C3 and C5. The optimal hydrophone depth at C1 is in the range from 200 to 300 m depth; at both C3 and C5 the optimal depths range from 400 to 500 m depth. The ocean sound speeds and seasonal variability at each of these test sites are very similar. What accounts for the differences in optimal hydrophone deployment depths is the seafloor depth at each deployment site; the optimal deployment depth is shallower where the seafloor is shallower. A similar analysis suggests that deploying hydrophones at sites where the sound speed minimum is near the seafloor would result in suboptimal acoustic reception at all frequencies. This conclusion rules out sites A3, A4, A10 and A11 at Amsterdam. Thus the optimal site pair at Île Amsterdam would be A2 and A5. Topic 3 - Page 25 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 20 Difference between TL computed for a hydrophone at 700 m depth and TL computed for a hydrophone at 200 m depth (shown in Figure 18) At each frequency the TL difference is shown in cross-section, and the average TL within the top km is shown above. Positive TL values indicate that reception is better for a hydrophone at this depth than at 200 m. The green circles indicate the hydrophone depths. 1.7 Network Metrics The foregoing analysis considers each test site in isolation, and does not address the question of how each proposed sites would operate within the larger global IMS hydrophone network. That is, it does not address how the choice of Crozet vs. Île Amsterdam would affect the capability of the IMS hydrophone network to detect and locate explosions within the oceans. It may be argued, for instance, that even if the Île Amsterdam site provided better detection capabilities than Crozet, it might yield less precise source location estimates due to its proximity to Cape Leeuwin. In this section, several metrics are examined in order to quantify both the ability of the network both to detect sources, and to improve the precision of sources location estimates anywhere in the oceans. The analysis assumes that the hydrophone station at Juan Fernandez is operational. The metrics M1 and M2 , were computed with formulations given in Equation 1 and Equation 2, for 4 different configurations of the IMS hydrophone network: 1) the entire hydrophone network excluding HA04; 2) the previous hydrophone network, with hydrophone triplets located at sites identified at C10 and C11 in this report; 3) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites C1 and C10, identified in Table 3 as the best configuration for sites near Crozet; 4) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites A2 and A10, identified in Table 4 as the best configuration for sites near Île Amsterdam (since A10 and A11 are eliminated as too shallow). Topic 3 - Page 26 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 For metric M1 , any region that can be detected at any IMS hydroacoustic station and has a TL less than 200 dB is included in the summation; for metric M2 , the minimum TL between any source location and any hydrophone triplet in the network is used. A map showing minimum TL from sources within the ocean to any hydrophone triplet within the IMS hydrophone network is shown at the top of Figure 21 for a network configuration that does not include the HA04 station. The other three maps show the difference in minimum TL between each of the other 3 station configurations and the configuration without HA04; white areas indicate where there is no significant difference; higher values indicate the greatest improvement in acoustic reception. These maps give an indication of how well a source could be detected by the IMS hydroacoustic network. A third acoustic coverage metric M3 is introduced for each network configuration that is similar to M1 but gives a measure of data redundancy. The metric is given by Equation 3 Measure of data redundancy, M 3 = M 3 100 * n j dA j E A j where nj is number of hydrophone stations that would detect a source at any given pixel j, dAj is the sum of all areas unblocked by a landmass. A station is counted if any hydrophone triplet at the station would detect a signal, so that Cape Leeuwin, with one triplet, has an equal weighting to all other hydrophone stations. The metric M3 is given as a percentage of the Earth’s surface and can be greater than 100% since multiple stations could detect a given source. The number of stations that could detect a given source gives a very rough measure of how well a source could be located once it was detected. The more unblocked paths there are to widely separated detectors, the more precisely the source location can be estimated. The map shown at the top of Figure 22 shows the number of unblocked paths for any given source location for a network configuration that does not include the HA04 station. The other three maps show the additional coverage that would be provided by each other network configuration. Note that receptions on at least two stations are required for localization; the accuracy and precision of source location estimates depends on source/station geometry and is examined using metrics M4 and M5 . Topic 3 - Page 27 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 21 Maps showing the minimum TL to any IMS hydrophone stations for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the difference in minimum TL for other HA04 configurations (bottom three plots) Results are shown for network configurations with (from top to bottom): 1) no HA04 station; 2) the previous IMS configuration, with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites C5 and C10; 3) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets at Crozet sites C1 and C10 4) a new IMS hydrophone network withHA04 hydrophone triplets located at Île Amsterdam sites A5 and A2. Triangles show the previous IMS configuration. Lower TL values represent an improvement in performance. Subtract the TL values of maps 2, 3, or 4, from those shown in map 1 to see TL for the different options. Topic 3 - Page 28 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 22 Maps showing the number of stations within the IMS hydrophone network that could detect a given source for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the additional network coverage provided by other HA04 configurations (bottom) Results are shown for network configurations with (from top to bottom): 1) no HA04 station; 2) the previous IMS configuration, with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites C5 and C10; 3) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets at Crozet sites C1 and C10 4) a new IMS hydrophone network withHA04 hydrophone triplets located at Île Amsterdam sites A5 and A2. Triangles show the previous IMS configuration. Increased number of sites represents a performance improvement. Add the number of sites shown on maps 2, 3 or 4 to those shown on map 1 to see number of sites for each option. A fourth metric M4 for a particular network configuration gives a measure of the how precisely source locations can be estimated given a particular network configuration. It is given by: Topic 3 - Page 29 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Equation 4 Measure of the how precisely source locations can be estimated using arrival times only (M 4 ) dAj M 4 = j S A j where SA is the total area of the source location estimate for each point, given arrival times only, and dAj is the sum of all areas unblocked by a landmass. The formulation for the fifth metric M5 is identical to that of M4 , but source location estimates SA are based on both azimuth and arrival times information. Equation 5 Measure of the how precisely source locations can be estimated using arrival times and azimuth information dAj M 5 = j S A j 2 Since Aj and SA both have units of km , M4 and M5 are ratios with no units. However, since M4 and M5 are inversely proportional to SA , increasing values of M4 and M5 represent improvements in source location precision, and M5 will always be greater than M4 since the addition of azimuth information always improves precision. For both metrics M4 and M5 , arrivals are considered separately at each hydrophone triplet, thus a single source location could be recorded at up to eleven separate locations (nine separate locations for the case where HA04 is excluded from the network). In each case, it is assumed that arrival times are accurate to ±2 seconds and azimuths are accurate to ±1˚. The relative precision in SA offered from arrival times only vs. both arrival times and azimuths is compared in Figure 23 for the previous network configuration, and a source location at 83.25o E and 48o S. Only two hydrophone triplets would detect a source at this location: one at Cape Leeuwin (HA01) and one at the southern Diego Garcia triplet (HA08S). The color scale of Figure 23 indicates travel time differences between these two sites. (The travel times to each site are based on the sound speed along the sound channel axis). For Crozet, the source is in an acoustic shadow zone created by the Kerguelen Plateau. If only arrival times are considered, only the difference in arrival time between stations can be used to estimate the source region SA . As a result, all points that are detectable at both stations, and have the same difference in travel time are potential source locations. The black line in the left panel of Figure 23 indicates all of these points. If both arrival times and azimuths at each station are considered, SA can be estimated much more precisely. The black dots in the right panel of Figure 23 indicates all points that fit the arrival time differences and azimuth estimates to within the given arrival time and azimuth errors. As indicated, the addition of azimuth information significantly improves the source location estimate, given that only two hydrophone triplets would detect the source. Note that reduction of SA means increase in M4 or M5 and represents improvement in precision. The difference between SA for M4 and SA for M5 will diminish as more triplets detect a given arrival. Metrics M4 and M5 thus give an accurate measure of how precisely a source could be located given any source and network configuration. The map shown at the top of Figure 24 shows values of SA in the log10 domain for M4 for a network configuration that does not include the HA04 station; only arrival times are used to estimate source area. The other three maps show the improvement is source location accuracy for the 3 other network configurations; white areas indicate where there is no significant difference; higher values indicate the greatest improvement in source location. The map shown at the top of Figure 25 shows values of SA in the log10 domain for M5 for a network configuration that does not include the HA04 station; both arrival times and azimuths are used to estimate source area. The other three maps show the improvement is source location accuracy for the three other network configurations; white areas indicate where there is no significant difference; higher values indicate the greatest improvement in source location. Comparing Figure 24 and Figure 25, it can be seen that there are significant improvements in source location accuracy when azimuth Topic 3 - Page 30 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 information is included. These figures also show that a deployment of HA04 at Île Amsterdam would offer similar accuracy in source location estimates as at Crozet. Figure 23 Travel time differences between Cape Leeuwin (HA01) and the southern Diego Garcia station (HA08S) White areas indicate regions that lie in a shadow zone with respect to either of these stations. A source located at 83.25o E, 48 o S, marked by the red pentagram, would be detected only at these 2 sites for the original IMS network configuration, since it lies within an acoustic shadow with respect to Crozet. Black dots mark areas that are included in estimates of potential source area (S A ) for the case where (left) only arrival times are considered in source location (M4 ), and (right) where both arrival time and azimuths are considered (M5 ). For 2 2 M4 , S A = 179,768 km , and for M5 , S A = 9625 km for this example. Metrics M1 through M3 give a measure of how well each network would detect a given source and are listed in Table 5. Metrics M4 and M5 give a measure of how precisely source locations could be estimated and are listed in Table 6 Metrics for overall network source location accuracy. The results show that the use of new sites (C1 and C10) for hydrophone triplets at Crozet would offer only slight improvement over the previous sites (C5 and C10 in this report). A comparison of M4 and M5 indicates the importance of including azimuth information in source location estimates. Overall, the results show that the deployment of the HA04 hydrophone at either Crozet or Île Amsterdam would significantly enhance the effectiveness of the network in detecting and locating sources, as compared to the case for not re-installing this station at all. Although there are some trade- offs in where improvements would be greatest (east of Kerguelen and within the Pacific Ocean for Île Amsterdam vs. within the Atlantic Ocean for Crozet), both sites offer equivalent coverage. Note that this result is somewhat dependent on the accuracy in travel time and azimuth information used in the computation of M4 and M5 . If actual accuracy in travel time and azimuth information were to be lower than assumed here, then deployment at Crozet would offer some improvement over deployment at Île Amsterdam. Topic 3 - Page 31 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 24 Maps indicating the total area of the source location estimates derived using only arrival times These maps indicate the total area of the source location estimates derived using only arrival times at each station that records an arrival (SA for M4) for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the difference in SA for M4. These plots show S A (surface area) values in the log10 domain for metric M4 . Results are shown for network configurations with (from top to bottom): 1) no HA04 station; 2) the previous IMS configuration, with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites C5 and C10; 3) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets at Crozet sites C1 and C10 4) a new IMS hydrophone network withHA04 hydrophone triplets located at Île Amsterdam sites A5 and A2. Triangles show the previous IMS configuration. Improvement in precision is represented by smaller values of SA. Subtract the SA values shown on maps 2, 3 or 4 from those shown on map 1 to see the SA value for each option. Topic 3 - Page 32 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Figure 25 Maps indicating the total area of the source location estimates derived using both arrival times and azimuth estimates These maps indicate the total area of the source location estimates derived using only arrival times at each station that records an arrival (SA for M4) for a network configuration that does not include an HA04 station (top) and the difference in SA for M4. These plots show S A (surface area) values in the log10 domain for metric M5 . Results are shown for network configurations with (from top to bottom): 1) no HA04 station; 2) the previous IMS configuration, with HA04 hydrophone triplets located at sites C5 and C10; 3) a new IMS hydrophone network with HA04 hydrophone triplets at Crozet sites C1 and C10 4) a new IMS hydrophone network withHA04 hydrophone triplets located at Île Amsterdam sites A5 and A2. Triangles show the previous IMS configuration. Improvement in precision is represented by smaller values of SA. Subtract the SA values shown on maps 2, 3 or 4 to those shown on map 1 to see the SA value for each option. Topic 3 - Page 33 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Network M1 M2 M3 Acoustic Coverage Quality of Acoustic Data redundancy Reception (Normalized) (Normalized) (Normalized) (1/dB) IMS without HA04 100% 0.5489 176% IMS with previous 101% 0.5493 208% HA04 sites IMS with new triplet 101% 0.5493 210% sites at Crozet IMS with new triplet 101% 0.5492 211% sites at Amsterdam Table 5 Metrics for overall network detection performance Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M1 to M3 . All values are normalized such that the IMS without HA04 metric is 100% for M1 . Network M4 M5 Normalized location precision Normalized location precision using using arrival time arrival time and azimuth (no units) (no units) IMS without HA04 100% 187% IMS with previous 170% 234% HA04 sites IMS with new triplet 171% 234% sites at Crozet IMS with new triplet 177% 233% sites at Amsterdam Table 6 Metrics for overall network source location accuracy Larger numbers represent improved performance for each metric M4 and M5 . All values are normalized such that the IMS without HA04 metric is 100% for M4 . 1.8 Summary of Acoustic Results 1.8.1 Sensitivity of Acoustic Reception to Hydrophone Depth Acoustic reception is optimal in the case that the hydrophone depth coincides with amplitude maxima in the lowest order modes. When the sound channel axis is deep, as at Île Amsterdam, the mode 1 amplitude maxima are at the depth of the sound channel axis for IMS monitoring frequencies. Therefore the recommended depth of deployment at Amsterdam would be 1200 m to 1300 m. For a shallow sound channel axis, as at Crozet, the mode 1 amplitude maxima vary with frequency and with the depth of the seafloor. For both sites near Crozet, the hydrophones should be installed at slightly greater depths than in the previous installation in order to improve signal SNR for distant sources. Deploying a bottom mounted hydrophone would lead to significant attenuation at all frequencies and is not recommended for either Île Amsterdam or Crozet. Topic 3 - Page 34 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Topic 3 Recommendation 1 Seafloor deployment is not recommended because signals from seafloor deployed stations would be significantly less effective in estimating source locations. 1.8.2 Ambient Noise Île Amsterdam is likely to be an acoustically quiet site due to its location far from major shipping lanes and ocean currents. Its position on a seismically active ridge is not expected to have a major impact on noise levels, as Diego Garcia is similarly situated on a seismically active ridge, and ambient ocean noise at the IMS hydroacoustic station there (HA08) is relatively low. The northern Crozet station was previously among the quietest IMS hydrophone stations within the Indian Ocean but is adversely affected by noise induced by an internal tide. Installing the hydrophone at a greater depth than in the previous installation may reduce that noise while also improving SNR for distant sources. The noise at the southern Crozet station is associated with the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). Unlike most ocean currents, that means current speed of the ACC decreases very gradually with depth. Deploying the hydrophones at greater depth there may lead to greater signal detection but will not significantly improve the noise levels. Topic 3 Conclusion 1 Both sites are likely to be acoustically quiet due to their distance from defined ocean currents and shipping lanes. 1.8.3 Network Improvement A deployment of the HA04 hydrophone at either Crozet or Île Amsterdam would significantly enhance the effectiveness of the network in detecting and locating sources within the Indian Ocean, as compared to not re-installing it at all. Topic 3 Conclusion 2 A deployment of the HA04 hydrophone at either Crozet or Île Amsterdam would significantly enhance the effectiveness of the network in detecting and locating sources within the Indian Ocean. 1.8.4 Crozet vs. Île Amsterdam In comparing the effectiveness of a Crozet vs. Île Amsterdam site within the IMS network, it is noted that a deployment at Île Amsterdam would lead to similar detection rates as a site at Crozet (see Table 5), although there are some tradeoffs in where improvements would be greatest (east of Kerguelen and within the Pacific Ocean for Île Amsterdam vs. within the Atlantic Ocean for Crozet, see Figures 22 and 23), Both sites offer equivalent measures of source location accuracy (see Table 6 and Figures 24 and 25). Topic 3 Conclusion 3 Detection is similar between Crozet and Île Amsterdam. Topic 3 Conclusion 4 Source location accuracy is similar between Crozet and Île Amsterdam. 1.8.5 Crozet Topic 3 Recommendation 2 If Crozet is chosen as the site for HA04, it is recommended that the northern hydrophone triplets be deployed at the site identified as C10 in this report (51.79˚ E, -46.17˚ S), which is coincident with the previous site of the northern triplet. They should be installed at a depth between 500 - 600 m. There are three options for a southern triplet site; C1 (51.2˚ E, -46.95˚ S) at a depth between 200 – 300 m; C3 (51.95˚ E, -46.92˚ S) at a depth between 400 - 500 m; C5 (51.90˚ E, -46.84˚ S) at a depth between 400 - 500 m. Site C5 is coincident with the previous site of the southern triplet. Topic 3 - Page 35 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 1.8.6 Île Amsterdam Topic 3 Recommendation 3 If Île Amsterdam is chosen as the site for HA04, it is recommend that the hydrophone triplets be deployed at sites identified as A2 (77.40˚ E, -38.42˚ S) and A5 (77.86˚ E, -37.29˚ S) in this report. The hydrophones should be floated at depths between 1200 to 1300 m. Other potential stations pairs listed in Table 4 (A1/A5 or A3/A5) are also feasible. Topic 3 - Page 36 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 References Becker, J. J., Sandwell, D. T., Smith, W. H. F., Braud, J., Binder, B., Depner, J., Fabre, D., Factor, J., Ingalls, S., Kim, S-H., Ladner, R., Marks, K., Nelson, S., Pharaoh, A., Trimmer, R., Von Rosenberg, J., Wallace, G. and Weatherall, P., 2009, Global Bathymetry and Elevation Data at 30 Arc Seconds Resolution: SRTM30_PLUS, Marine Geodesy,32:4,355 - 371, DOI: 10.1080/01490410903297766. Collins, M.D., 1993, A split‐ step Padé solution for the parabolic equation method, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 1736-1742 Firing, Y.L., T.K. Chereskin, M.R. Mazloff, 2011, Vertical structure and transport of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current in Drake passage from direct velocity observations, J. Geophys. Res., 166, doi:10.029/2011JC006999. Hanson, J.A., Bowman, J.R., 2005, Indian Ocean ridge seismicity observed with a permanent hydroacoustic network, Geop. Res. Lett., 32, L06301, doi:10.1029/2004GL021931. Harben, P.E., and Hauk, 2010, T.F., Background Acoustic Noise Models for the IMS Hydroacoustic Stations, 2010 Monitoring Research Review: Ground-Based Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Technologies. Jensen, F.B., W.A. Kuperman, M.B. Porter, and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean Acoustics, American Institute of Physics Press, 1994. Kaluza, P., Kölzsch, A., Gastner, M.T., and B. Blasius, 2010, The complex network of global cargo ship movements, J. R. Soc. Interface, doi: 10.1098/rsif.2009.0495 Laske, G., and Masters, G., 1997, A Global Digital Map of Sediment Thickness, EOS Trans. AGU, 78, F483. Locarnini, R. A., A. V. Mishonov, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, H. E. Garcia, O. K. Baranova, M. M. Zweng, and D. R. Johnson, 2010. World Ocean Atlas 2009, Volume 1: Temperature. S. Levitus, Ed. NOAA Atlas NESDIS 68, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 184 pp. Wenz, G., 1962, Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 34, 1936–1956. Topic 3 - Page 37 FEASIBILITY AND DESKTOP STUDIES REGARDING HA 04 FINAL 03.1 TOPIC 4 Quality Management Framework P repa red f or: P repa ra t ory C om m i s s i on f or t h e C om preh e n s i v e N u c lea r - Te s t - Ban T r e at y O rg a n i z a t i on ( C T B T O ) P rov i s i on a l T e c h n i c a l S ec ret a ri a t C T B T O , Vi e nna I nte r na ti o na l C e ntr e P . O . B ox 1 2 0 0 , W a g ra m ers t ra s s e 5 A - 1400 V i e n n a , Au s t r i a P repa red b y : M a l l i n C o ns ul ta nts L t d . 3 3 0 T em pe C res c en t N ort h V a n c ou v er B . C . V 7 N 1 E 6 C an ad a 12.April.2012 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Contents Topic 4 - Quality Management Framework...... 5 1 Purpose and Scope of This Document ...... 5 2 Quality Assurance ...... 5 2.1 Significance of Commission’s Quality Assurance...... 5 2.2 Required Level of Quality Assurance ...... 5 3 Scope of Work Covered by the Quality Management Framework ...... 6 4 Quality Assurance Goal ...... 6 5 General Requirements for Supplier...... 6 5.1 Quality Framework ...... 6 5.2 Supplier Quality System ...... 6 5.3 Supplier Quality Plan ...... 7 5.4 Supplier Execution Documentation ...... 7 5.4.1 Project Execution Plan ...... 7 5.4.2 System Load and Lay Instructions (SLLI) ...... 7 5.4.3 Project Safety Plan ...... 7 5.5 Supplier Document Control ...... 7 5.6 Supplier Configuration Management ...... 8 5.7 Supplier Mandatory Records ...... 8 5.8 Supplier Parts Plan ...... 8 5.9 Supplier Qualification of Personnel, Equipment and Procedures...... 8 5.9.1 Qualification of Personnel ...... 8 5.9.2 Qualification of Equipment and Procedures ...... 8 5.9.3 Vessel Qualification and Vessel Inspection ...... 9 5.9.4 Cable Installation Systems ...... 9 5.9.5 Remotely Operated Vehicles ...... 9 5.9.6 Physical Safety Factors for UWS and Associated Equipment...... 9 5.9.7 Vibration and Shock...... 9 5.9.8 Continuous Monitoring during Installation...... 10 5.10 Product Changes ...... 10 5.11 Change Management ...... 10 5.12 Supplier Control of Non-conforming product...... 10 5.13 Supplier Corrective and Preventive Action...... 10 6 Commission’s Rights ...... 10 6.1 Commission’s Inspection ...... 10 6.2 Commission’s Quality Audit ...... 11 6.3 Commission’s Design Reviews ...... 11 Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 7 Supplier Reliability Engineering...... 11 7.1 Failure Rate Analysis ...... 11 7.2 Fault Tree Analysis ...... 11 7.3 Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis ...... 11 8 Supplier Manufacturing ...... 12 8.1 Manufacturing Environment ...... 12 8.2 Wet Plant Electronics...... 12 8.3 Mechanical Assemblies, Terminations and Pressure Vessels ...... 12 8.3.1 Cable Terminations ...... 12 8.3.2 Wet Mateable Connectors ...... 12 8.4 Cable Manufacturing ...... 12 8.4.1 Fibre Traceability ...... 12 8.4.2 Line Qualification ...... 12 9 Supplier Inspection and Testing Including Acceptance Test Plan ...... 13 9.1 High Level Test Plan ...... 13 9.2 Qualification Testing ...... 13 9.3 Accelerated Life Testing ...... 14 9.4 Factory Acceptance Testing Requirements...... 14 9.5 Component In-Process Tests...... 14 9.6 Cable Section Tests ...... 14 9.7 System Assembly and Test ...... 15 9.8 Sea Trials ...... 15 9.9 Familiarisation ...... 15 9.10 Site Acceptance Testing...... 16 10 Supplier Station Commissioning and Acceptance ...... 16 11 Design and Technology Reviews by the Supplier for the Commission...... 16 11.1 Pre-manufacturing Design Review ...... 16 11.2 Qualification Status...... 16 11.3 Technology Demonstration...... 17 12 Reference: ...... 17 Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 Topic 4 - Quality Management Framework 1 Purpose and Scope of This Document The purpose of this section of the Study is to propose a formal quality management framework, following normal industry practice in the subsea telecom industry, which will support the goal of the successful installation of HA04 station. A quality management framework is not a quality plan. A quality management framework defines the organisational structure, procedures, processes and resources required to ensure that quality management that meets the Commission’s requirements is applied to the Work. In particular, this document defines the quality management framework related to a contract that the Commission may enter into with a Supplier to engineer, manufacture, construct and install the HA04 station (the “Contract”) including: a) Supplier Quality system requirements; b) Supplier Quality Plan requirements, and c) Supplier Acceptance Test Plan requirements. 2 Quality Assurance 2.1 Significance of Commission’s Quality Assurance HA04 is an underwater array with a 25 year design life. Underwater equipment is expensive to repair in normal circumstances, and very expensive to repair in isolated sites such as Crozet or Île Amsterdam. The Commission is only protected from the cost of failures for a period agreed to in the Contract at the beginning of the 25 year design life. This period may end at Station Acceptance, or at end of warranty, but is unlikely to persist for more than a few years after completion of the Station. For the remainder of the station life, the Commission or its assignee must bear the cost to repair. The cost to maintain a station built to less than excellent quality will quickly exceed the capital cost of the station, and that cost will be borne by the Commission or its assignee. There are other impacts of failures that the Commission cannot transfer to the Supplier. These other impacts include loss of reputation, loss of service and legal and administrative costs related to failures. It is therefore important for the Commission that the quality of the products used to create the station, and of the design and installation of the Station, be overseen by the Commission during the course of construction. Topic 4 Recommendation 1 The Commission be actively involved in ensuring that the quality requirements are met. 2.2 Required Level of Quality Assurance 25 year life underwater equipment is achieved by the telecommunications industry by means of rigorous quality assurance. Each component of a 25 year life assembly such as a repeater is subject to full type qualification, and lot and part qualification. The parts selection and assembly testing programs are second to none, and only matched by the space industry. While this level of quality assurance is in place in subsea telecom equipment factories, such procedures have not been adopted by more general manufacturers of subsea equipment. The HA systems built to date have not been built by telecom suppliers, but rather have been built by experienced and competent underwater system suppliers who work in other industries under different quality regimes. Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 It is therefore important for the Commission to provide a quality management framework to guide the Supplier as to the amount of effort and extent of resources required to meet the Commission’s quality requirements. Topic 4 Recommendation 2 The Commission provide the Supplier with a quality management framework. 3 Scope of Work Covered by the Quality Management Framework This quality management framework applies to the engineering, manufacture, construction and installation of the HA04 station including but not limited to: a) Submarine fibre optic cable, including shore ends; b) Submarine copper cables, including terminations; c) Nodes, joints, floats, buoys, anchors, underwater connectors and other such items of undersea plant as may be necessary to provide the required functionality; d) Terminal Station Communications Equipment (“Comms Equipment”) including optical and electrical data equipment and any other networking equipment as required; e) High Voltage Power system (HVPS); f) Primary Reference Clocks (PRC); g) Network Monitoring System (NMS); h) Software related to the above, and i) Spares. 4 Quality Assurance Goal All components used for the HA04 station shall be fit for intended application and evidence shall be provided by the Supplier to demonstrate this fitness including the relevant qualification test reports, history of similar use, and any new qualification tests for the equipment that may be required. 5 General Requirements for Supplier 5.1 Quality Framework The quality framework as detailed in this document defines the minimum quality framework that is necessary to meet the requirements. Details of this quality framework are provided to ensure that the Commission’s expectations and requirements as regards quality are clear and well defined. It is not the intention of the Commission’s review that the Commission will impose upon the methods of the Supplier. The Supplier is considered to be an expert in its field, and it is expected that the Supplier’s quality provisions will exceed the quality provisions laid out in this document. In any event, the Commission will rely upon the Supplier to implement sufficient quality control to ensure that the HA04 station meets or exceeds the requirements as laid out in the Contract. 5.2 Supplier Quality System The Supplier will have a quality system in place. The Commission must define for the Supplier the Commission’s requirements regarding the Supplier’s quality system. The Supplier’s quality system shall: Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 a) Operate according to a Quality Management System (QMS) registered to ISO 9001:2008, or similar system that has been accepted and approved in writing by the Commission; b) Meet or exceed requirements in this document; requirements in this document are in addition to the Supplier’s quality system requirements and do not replace any of the Suppliers requirements; c) Be improved to meet or exceed these requirements in the event that in any area the Supplier’s quality system requirements do not meet the quality requirements defined here; d) Include ISO-9001 registration (or other approved quality system registration) for all processes, products and services that are supplied or required to complete the work, and e) Require development software and firmware related to the deliverables in compliance to ISO/IEC 9000-3:2004, Guidelines to the application of ISO 9001:2000 to computer software. 5.3 Supplier Quality Plan The Supplier must provide the Commission with a project specific quality plan as one of the Contract documents. The Supplier’s quality plan must describe the methods, procedures and qualifications showing how the quality requirements for implementation of the HA04 station – described in this document - will be fulfilled. The Commission will review the Supplier’s quality plan prior to entering into the contract and will make requests for changes in case of inadequacies. The Supplier’s quality plan shall address how the Supplier will supervise and control the quality of goods and services provided by the Supplier’s subcontractors and suppliers. The Supplier’s subcontractors and suppliers shall be qualified according to the Supplier’s procedures. Records of the qualifications of subcontractors and suppliers including audit records shall be available to the Commission. 5.4 Supplier Execution Documentation 5.4.1 Project Execution Plan The Supplier shall prepare and maintain a Project Execution Plan (PEP) detailing the methods to be used in completing the work and the plan of work. The current version of the PEP shall be available for the Commission’s review and comments at every stage of the work. 5.4.2 System Load and Lay Instructions (SLLI) The Supplier shall prepare a project specific SLLI, and any other project specific procedures that may be required, for the Commission’s review at least 8 weeks prior to the start of shipload. The current version of the SLLI shall be on board the installation vessel including all information necessary to load the system and to perform the installation. 5.4.3 Project Safety Plan The Supplier shall prepare and maintain a Project Safety Plan detailing the methods to be used in completing the work safely. The current version of the Project Safety Plan shall be available for the Commission’s review and comments at every stage of the work. 5.5 Supplier Document Control a) Relevant document control information shall be evident on all Supplier documents related to this project; b) Document control information shall include details of all changes between revisions. The Commission reserves the right to require the Supplier to provide black line versions detailing such changes, and Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 c) The Supplier shall maintain for the Commission, and provide to the Commission, a list detailing the current revision status of all Supplier documents related to this project. 5.6 Supplier Configuration Management The Supplier shall put in place and maintain a project specific configuration management system to control software and firmware and other products requiring customization for provision of the HA04 station. The products controlled by the configuration management system shall be identified in a list, maintained by the Supplier and made available to the Commission. Such list will also state the current revision or version of these products. 5.7 Supplier Mandatory Records A list of mandatory record types relating to design and manufacture of HA04 station product shall be identified prior to production. a) The Supplier shall submit a list of records including: 1. Title; 2. Purpose; 3. Description; 4. Manufacturing stage; 5. Location; 6. Accessibility to Commission (on site only, copy only, original available), and 7. Retention period. b) The Supplier shall provide the Commission with access to the records for 25 years, and c) It is understood some records are proprietary. The Commission shall have access to proprietary records subject to the terms of the nondisclosure agreement. 5.8 Supplier Parts Plan All parts used at manufacturing sites shall be identified in a parts plan identifying the derating factor, references to screening procedures, parts qualification reports and failure analysis requirements. 5.9 Supplier Qualification of Personnel, Equipment and Procedures. The Supplier’s personnel and equipment involved in provision of HA04 station shall be qualified as required by the Supplier’s policies and procedures. Evidence of qualification shall be available on request. 5.9.1 Qualification of Personnel The Supplier shall be responsible for ensuring that installation teams and subcontractors if used meet the quality system requirements of the Supplier. The Supplier shall ensure that all personnel undertaking work on the station, including officers and crew of the installation vessel and the cable crew, are qualified for the work they are undertaking and, when required by law or by best practice, have the appropriate certification. 5.9.2 Qualification of Equipment and Procedures New manufacturing processes and/or equipment shall be identified and qualified to the satisfaction of the Commission prior to use for manufacturing of equipment for the station. The Supplier shall be responsible for the calibration and maintenance of equipment including: a) Measurement and testing equipment; Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 b) On board power equipment; c) Jointing equipment; d) Cable handling equipment; e) Positioning equipment, and f) All related procedures. 5.9.3 Vessel Qualification and Vessel Inspection a) The Supplier shall employ only purpose built cable vessels for installations unless otherwise approved in writing by the Commission. b) The Supplier shall qualify the installation vessel according to documented procedures including a pre-load inspection by a qualified inspector. c) The vessel shall meet all applicable regulations and laws and have the necessary permits for the installation including the International Safety Management (ISM) code. d) Engineering and design shall consider the particular circumstances and conditions including risks associated with the location of operations. This consideration may make special additional requirements appropriate and/or necessary that are in excess of the minimum requirements. 5.9.4 Cable Installation Systems a) The cable installation systems installed on board the vessel shall be fully operational, qualified, demonstrated and calibrated prior to the installation. b) Data input to the cable installation system shall be consistent with the current version of the SLLI and related documents. c) The system shall be adjustable such that changes to the SLLI can be incorporated while underway and while installing cable. 5.9.5 Remotely Operated Vehicles a) The installation vessel shall have sufficient space for installation of the ROV, deployment system, and maintenance van. b) ROV operators shall have experience mating and de-mating the subsea connectors used in the system. c) ROVs shall be mobilized with sufficient spares to repair any foreseeable at-sea failures. 5.9.6 Physical Safety Factors for UWS and Associated Equipment. Any equipment such as the UWS, lifting equipment, cable handling equipment, sheaves and rigging shall be designed, tested and qualified using the same safety factors applying as those in use for similar deployments in the subsea telecommunications industry or in the North Sea offshore oil industry, or similar safety factors as may be approved in writing by the Commission. Such safety factors shall fully account for the vessel motions to be expected during deployments in the area of the station. 5.9.7 Vibration and Shock All parts of the UWS shall be designed, qualified and tested for shock and vibration in excess of that anticipated during installation. The Supplier shall propose suitable shock and vibration tests, using similar tests for telecom repeaters as a guide. Topic 4 - Page Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 5.9.8 Continuous Monitoring during Installation The wet plant shall be powered and monitored continuously during the installation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission. 5.10 Product Changes Suppliers and subcontractors shall provide notification to the Commission at least one month before implementation of any product changes, design changes (modifications) etc., affecting form, fit, function, safety and reliability. No such modifications shall be implemented prior to the Commission providing approval in writing. If the Supplier believes that form, fit, function, safety and reliability are not affected by a modification, it is the Supplier’s responsibility to demonstrate to the Commission’s satisfaction that it is so. 5.11 Change Management Supplier shall document, and submit to the Commission for its review, any change in a procedure or product. Such documentation shall include the reason for the change, the significance of the change and any secondary effects of the change. No change shall be implemented prior to the Commission having the opportunity to comment on the change. The Commission shall not be under any obligation to accept any such change. 5.12 Supplier Control of Non-conforming product a) The Supplier shall obtain the Commission’s specific written concession prior to including any product which does not meet the Suppliers documented pass/fail criteria; b) The Commission is under no obligation to accept any non-conforming product; and c) All concession requests shall be documented including: 1. Product identification including unique serial numbers and manufacturing numbers; 2. Deviation description; 3. Possible effects including worst case and best case and most probable effect, and 4. Details of the cause and possibility of reoccurrence on other similar products. 5. Actions required for resolution or disposition of the non-conforming product by rework, replace, etc. to bring it back to a passing grade. 5.13 Supplier Corrective and Preventive Action a) The Supplier shall investigate and provide the Commission with a report on any deviation from pass/fail criteria on any HA04 station product to ensure that no other previously or yet to be manufactured product will suffer from the same deviation. b) The corrective and preventive actions logged regarding any such deviation (performed or not) shall be available to the Commission. 6 Commission’s Rights 6.1 Commission’s Inspection The Commission reserves the right for its representatives to be present at any time when work is being carried on. The Commission reserves the right to inspect the work at any time as it progresses to assess compliance with the quality requirements. The Commission reserves the right to, at any time, impose more control over quality through the review process, through independent oversight or through audits. Topic 4 - Page 10 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 In particular, the Commission reserves the right to be on board the cable vessel during loading and installation and at all times when the cable is on board. 6.2 Commission’s Quality Audit The Supplier shall fully accommodate the Commission’s representatives and assist them in determining compliance with the Supplier’s Quality Plan at any sites at which the Supplier or its subcontractors or suppliers are engineering, designing, manufacturing, constructing and installing the HA04 station. Acceptance and/or approval by the Commission or any representative of the Commission shall not reduce or limit the Supplier’s responsibility to provide a HA04 station that meets the requirements of the Contract. 6.3 Commission’s Design Reviews The Commission reserves the right to establish independent boards to review the Supplier’s design. Supplier shall cooperate with the Commission in making presentations to such review boards. Supplier may be required to submit engineering plans and operational procedures to such boards for review. Topic 4 Recommendation 3 While the Supplier is responsible for the delivery of the system, the Commission retain the right to audit, inspect, witness and oversee the Supplier’s work, controls and processes. 7 Supplier Reliability Engineering The Supplier shall demonstrate required reliability of all components by a combination of use history and reliability analysis. For underwater components with a 25 year life expectancy the following requirements shall apply: 7.1 Failure Rate Analysis The Supplier shall perform an analysis demonstrating a failure rate consistent with the 25 year life of the system. The analysis shall be in the form of use history or theoretical analysis based on accelerated life testing, component specifications, and parts stress analysis and de-rating. All parts and interfaces shall be included in the analysis. 7.2 Fault Tree Analysis The Supplier shall provide a fault tree analysis at system level to determine potential root causes of potential system level faults. The Supplier shall demonstrate that each credible root cause is considered and preventive action is taken against it when deemed necessary. The analysis shall be documented and presented to the Commission. 7.3 Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis A Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) shall be performed prior to the pre- manufacturing design review (PMDR). Corrective and preventive actions resulting from the FMECA shall be addressed prior to the PMDR. The PMDR will not be complete prior to the Commission’s review and acceptance of the final FMECA following any corrective and preventive actions. Topic 4 Recommendation 4 That the Supplier provide for the Commission’s review a detailed reliability analysis of the design prior to manufacturing. Topic 4 - Page 11 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 8 Supplier Manufacturing 8.1 Manufacturing Environment The Supplier shall perform an analysis to determine the required environment for manufacturing. When clean rooms are specified, the class, particle count, method and frequency of testing shall be specified. Temperature and humidity limits shall be specified for all manufacturing and assembly areas including cable assembly and test and jointing areas on board installation vessels. All factory assembly of underwater system (UWS) components including electronic and electrical components, housings, joints and terminations shall take place in temperature and humidity controlled areas free of dirt. The Commission shall have the right to inspect any manufacturing and assembly areas and to require changes where necessary to meet these requirements. 8.2 Wet Plant Electronics Circuit card assemblies for the UWS shall be fabricated in facilities qualified for high reliability manufacturing based on recognized external standards. 8.3 Mechanical Assemblies, Terminations and Pressure Vessels Design reviews and calculations related to all mechanical assemblies terminations and pressure vessels shall be available to the Commission. Tolerances and safety factors shall be clearly stated. Material compatibilities shall be addressed. Seal functions shall be described. 8.3.1 Cable Terminations All subsea cable terminations shall be undertaken using termination kits qualified for the design life of the infrastructure, the maximum depth of seawater anticipated for any component at the station and the voltages to be used. 8.3.2 Wet Mateable Connectors Wet mateable connectors shall be qualified using failure rates based on actual service at the qualification depths and duration of use. Failure rates shall include damage to installed connectors from ROV use. 8.4 Cable Manufacturing 8.4.1 Fibre Traceability The Supplier shall maintain traceability to the fibre test records in all sections of the system. 8.4.2 Line Qualification Cable manufacturing lines shall be qualified according to the Supplier’s procedures. a) The Supplier shall inform the Commission if any new lines are to be qualified and used to manufacture any of the HA04 cable, and b) Evidence of qualification, of all lines, including first run data shall be available for review. Topic 4 - Page 12 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 9 Supplier Inspection and Testing Including Acceptance Test Plan 9.1 High Level Test Plan Prior to entering into the Contract, the Supplier shall provide for the Commission’s review a draft high level test plan describing inspections and tests from qualification tests through station commissioning indicating: 1. Description and definition of the equipment to be tested; 2. Test description in general terms relative to the design and technology development yet to take place; 3. Location; 4. Test time in relation to relevant activities; 5. Commission witness expected or not; 6. Commission approval required or not; 7. Expected duration of the test; 8. Frequency of tests: 9. Draft Pass / Fail criteria qualitative but not quantitative. i.e. Maximum Recorded Bit Error Rate. Specifics to be supplied in the test procedures due before testing; 10. Type of equipment required; 11. Other special conditions, and 12. Test record title and description and identification of any completion certificates. a) For all Commission witnessed testing relevant calibration records for test equipment shall be available for inspection when and where the measurements are being performed; b) On all test procedures the pass/fail criteria shall be stated clearly and be consistent with demonstrating conformance to the specifications (requirements); c) The test plan shall state clearly when Commission approval is required to complete the test, and d) Consideration shall be given to the necessity and economics of factory acceptance tests (FAT) for commercial off the shelf (COTS) equipment including HVPS and terminal equipment. Topic 4 Recommendation 5 The Supplier to provide a high level test plan at the start of the work. 9.2 Qualification Testing All equipment that will be part of the UWS shall be qualified for use by means of qualification tests. Qualification tests shall be conducted in accordance with the Supplier’s qualification procedure. All qualification test procedures shall include pass/fail criteria and safety factors and shall be submitted to the Commission for approval prior to starting the test. The Commission reserves the right to attend any qualification tests. Qualification test procedures and results, along with any history of use, for any equipment considered previously qualified shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval. Qualification tests shall, as a minimum, include the following: a) Physical tests to simulate deployment and recovery stresses; b) Physical tests to simulate stresses once deployed; c) Normal operations; Topic 4 - Page 13 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 d) Operations in the event of a fault, and e) Accelerated life tests where appropriate to simulate 25 year life. All UWS equipment shall have completed qualification prior to PMDR, except if the Commission approves in writing late qualification for particular items. 9.3 Accelerated Life Testing Where results of accelerated life testing is to be used to qualify components: a) The test procedures and test reports shall be available to the Commission, and b) The accelerated life test procedures shall be based on recognized standard tests. 9.4 Factory Acceptance Testing Requirements For tests identified as Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) on the Test Plan: a) The Supplier shall carry out a program of FAT to demonstrate that all land based and submerged components meet the design parameters, performance criteria, and quality standards established by the Supplier’s engineering and design activities. The Supplier shall demonstrate to the Commission’s satisfaction that the design parameters, performance criteria, and quality standards for each component or assembly are consistent with the overall performance requirements of the Contract; b) Supplier shall submit draft FAT plans and procedures for the Commission’s approval ninety days prior to the start of FAT. The Commission shall review the FAT procedures and respond the Supplier within thirty days (i.e. sixty days before the start of testing) and final procedures shall be issued thirty days prior to testing; c) FAT procedures shall provide full details of the tests, including the method of testing, test equipment involved, and expected results; d) Commission reserves the right to witness all FAT and it shall not be performed without Commission representation; e) The results of all FAT shall be collected and submitted to the Commission for review within thirty days after completion of the FAT. Such results shall be employed in the Commission’s evaluation and approval of the Factory Release Certificates, and f) Non-conforming or faulty equipment or material shall be controlled in accordance with the Supplier’s Quality Plan. The Commission reserves the right to request a written explanation for any such non-conformance or fault or for any deviation from the expected results. 9.5 Component In-Process Tests. The Supplier shall provide access to all in-process tests performed throughout the manufacturing cycle subject to non-disclosure limitations including: a) Receiving inspections; b) Electronics components screening; c) Circuit board level testing including testing performed at subcontractors facilities; d) Fibre testing including testing performed at the fibre Supplier’s facility, and e) Fibre tube tests, process parameter measurements. 9.6 Cable Section Tests a) Each section of cable shall be tested after manufacture and prior to leaving the factory; Topic 4 - Page 14 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 b) The Supplier shall inform the Commission of the test schedule at least 7 days prior to the tests. The Commission’s representative shall have access to the tests; c) Tested cable sections shall be clearly identified while in the cable factory, and d) Non-conforming cable shall be controlled in accordance with the Supplier’s Quality Plan. The Commission reserves the right of rejection/approval for any deviation from the expected results and the Supplier shall provide a written explanation upon request. 9.7 System Assembly and Test a) The Supplier shall carry out a program of System Assembly and Test to demonstrate that assembled blocks of cable, moorings and hydrophones, and other submerged components meet the design parameters, performance criteria, and quality standards established by the Supplier’s engineering and design activities. The Supplier shall demonstrate to the Commission’s satisfaction that the design parameters, performance criteria, and quality standards for the block assemblies are consistent with the overall performance requirements of the Contract; b) Supplier shall submit draft System Assembly and Test plans and procedures for the Commission’s approval ninety days prior to the start of System Assembly and Test. The Commission shall review the System Assembly and Test procedures and respond to the Supplier within thirty days (i.e. sixty days before the start of testing) and final procedures shall be issued thirty days prior to testing; c) System Assembly and Test procedures shall provide full details of the tests, including the method of testing, test equipment involved, and expected results; d) Commission reserves the right to witness all System Assembly and Tests; e) The results of all System Assembly and Test shall be collected and submitted to the Commission for review within thirty days after completion of the System Assembly and Test. Such results shall be employed in the Commission’s evaluation and approval of the Factory Release Certificates, and f) Non-conforming or faulty equipment or material shall be controlled in accordance with the Supplier’s Quality Plan. The Commission reserves the right of rejection for any deviation from the expected results and the Supplier shall provide a written explanation upon request. 9.8 Sea Trials a) The Commission shall be a participant in any sea trials related to qualification of new equipment, vessels and crew to be used during the installation; b) The Commission reserves the right to enter comments on the trials report concerning the suitability of the trials performed and the effectiveness of the vessel and equipment; c) The sea-trials report shall be given consideration for acceptance or rejection of the equipment of vessel; d) All equipment to be used during the installation including automatic cable installation systems shall be demonstrated, and e) The sea trial plan shall be submitted to the Commission 30 days prior to the trial for review and comment. 9.9 Familiarisation Deployment of an HA system at Crozet will involve procedures that are new and innovative. The Supplier shall give due consideration to undertaking suitable familiarisation exercises with the installation crew and equipment, including sea trials if appropriate. Topic 4 - Page 15 Hydroacoustic Station HA04 Feasibility and Desktop Studies 12-Apr-2012 9.10 Site Acceptance Testing After installation at the Central Recording Facility (CRF), the CRF equipment shall be tested to ensure no damage has occurred since FAT. The site acceptance testing shall be a subset of the FAT using identical parameters to allow comparison of performance. 10 Supplier Station Commissioning and Acceptance Following the completion of the Station, the Supplier shall carry out a program of Station commissioning to demonstrate that performance meets the requirements of the Contract. a) Supplier shall submit draft Station commissioning procedures for the Commission’s approval ninety days prior to the start of Station commissioning. The Commission shall review the Station commissioning procedures and respond the Supplier within thirty days (i.e. sixty days before the start of testing) and final procedures shall be issued thirty days prior to testing; b) Station commissioning procedures shall provide full details of the tests, including the method of testing, test equipment involved, and expected results; c) Station commissioning shall include a seven day stability test; d) Commission reserves the right to witness all Station commissioning activities; e) A Station commissioning report incorporating the results of the Station commissioning tests shall be submitted to the Commission for review. Such report shall form the basis of Provisional Acceptance of the Station, and f) The Commission reserves the right of rejection/approval for any deviation from the expected results and the Supplier shall provide a written explanation upon request. 11 Design and Technology Reviews by the Supplier for the Commission 11.1 Pre-manufacturing Design Review A Pre-manufacturing Design Review (PMDR) shall be conducted to review all detailed design and engineering documents. a) The PMDR shall review the technology and design principles of major components of the station. The PMDR shall include a detailed explanation of the system design, optical performance budgets, and reliability and availability calculations; b) No further technology shall be introduced nor design changes made after the completion of the PMDR without the written approval of the Commission, and c) The Commission shall have the right to accept or reject any design changes proposed at the PMDR or made subsequent to the PMDR, except for those changes necessary to correct a design deficiency. 11.2 Qualification Status The Supplier shall provide the current qualification status, release number, and anticipated qualification (release to manufacture) dates of all major HA04 station components. The Supplier shall provide updates on the status of any outstanding qualifications in its Monthly Reports. Topic 4 - Page 16 11.3 Technology Demonstration The technical volume of the Contract shall include a schedule of tests and demonstrations to be performed prior to or during the PMDR to demonstrate that the Supplier is capable of meeting the technical requirements of the Contract. a) The Technology Demonstrations shall be performed within 6 months of Contract execution. b) The Technology Demonstration shall include, at a minimum: 1. Demonstration of beginning of life performance; 2. Simulation of the end of life performance; 3. Demonstration of hydrophone capabilities, and 4. Demonstration of other offered capabilities. 12 Reference: ISO 9001:2008 ISO/IEC 9000-3:2004