Canadian Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory Study

Copyright © 2011 by Ocean Networks Canada This document contains information proprietary to Ocean Networks Canada or to a third party to which Ocean Networks Canada may have legal obligation to protect such information from unauthorised disclosure, use or duplication. Any disclosure, use or duplication of this document, in whole or in part, or of any of the information contained herein for any purpose other than the specific purpose for which it was disclosed is expressly prohibited, except as Ocean Networks Canada may otherwise agree to in writing.

Prepared by: Ocean Networks Canada University of Victoria Technology Enterprise

Facility Rm130 2300 McKenzie Ave Victoria, BC Canada V8P 5C2 Voice: +1 250 853 3961 Fax: +1 250 472 4760 Email: [email protected]

Prepared for: Danielle Labonté Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Terrasses de la Chaudière 10 Wellington, North Tower Gatineau, Quebec Postal Address: Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H4 Voice: +1 819 997 9449

Canadian Arctic Cabled Marine Observatory Feasibility Study

Document Number: ONC-DN-2011-02 Revision 4P: [2011-03-30]

Canadian Arctic Cabled Marine Observatory Feasibility Study Document Number: ONC-DN-2011-02 Revision 4P: [2011-03-30]

OCEAN NETWORKS CANADA

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK



Title: Canadian Arctic Cabled Marine Observatory Feasibility Study Revision: Revision 4P: [2011-03-30] Document Number: ONC-DN-2011-02

Prepared For: Danielle Labonté Assistant Deputy Minister (acting) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Terrasses de la Chaudière 10 Wellington, North Tower Gatineau, Quebec

Contract Number: CFA 1011-01-000899 Prepared By: Scott McLean

Ocean Networks Canada Technology Enterprise Facility Rm130 2300 McKenzie Ave

Victoria, BC Canada V8P 5C2

Approved By: _____________________________ Scott McLean, Director,

Ocean Networks Canada Centre for Enterprise and Engagement

ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OBLIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FOR FUTURE FUNDING OF THIS PROJECT.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Our understanding of physical and biogeochemical processes in the Arctic, especially related to marine ecosystems, is rudimentary yet it is precisely here where we are witnessing the most rapid and profound impacts of global environmental change … with far-reaching implications for the rest of the globe. Many national and international organizations have stressed for many years the need for long-term monitoring of Arctic ecosystems to understand better how they function and how they will respond to global climate and oceanographic change. Canada will be expected to heed the call from other Arctic nations to advance our knowledge of the many inter-related processes of environmental change in the region in order to best craft remedial and adaptive measures. The report summarizes many of the recommendations of international scientific organizations about the need for Arctic marine monitoring and devotes considerable attention to the suggestions in the Canadian Council of Academies’ “Vision for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative; Assessing the Opportunities” (2008) Dramatic changes in sea ice characteristics, duration and distribution are also leading to more frequent use of Canadian arctic waters for both destination and transit shipping, the latter through the Northwest Passage (NWP). The NWP offers a very attractive shorter route between Asia and Europe but more open Arctic waterways also bring the possibility of environmental disasters, such as oil spills, and potential routes for illegal immigrants or terrorists to enter Canada and North America. These changes in the Arctic System will require increased surveillance, from the standpoints of the environment, security and sovereignty. With global commodity and energy demand increasing at an ever more rapid pace, the Arctic will see the exploitation of Arctic base metal and petroleum resources, which are becoming increasingly more competitive, further increasing shipping and infrastructure development in the North. All of these activities will have significant effects on the lives of Northerners and their traditional activities on the land and ice. Cabled observatories with real-time capability provide several advantages over other means of collecting oceanographic information in Arctic waters, such moored autonomous instruments. A cabled observatory provides the power necessary to operate many and diverse instrument suites, and to sample the environment at a higher rate than conventional moored arrays. Instrument function can be readily monitored in a real-time, cabled system and, in some instances, malfunctions can be corrected remotely. Real-time monitoring of a broad array of sensors allows event detection and response to “triggers” such as storms, algal blooms, or onset of open water conditions; response can include changing the sampling frequency or mode of operation of particular instruments to characterize better the oceanographic phenomena. Other sub-sea communications approaches, such as acoustic modems, are severely limited in bandwidth and are not a practical alternative to meet the needs of a diverse suite of instruments for real-time data transmission at high rates. Some operational requirements (e.g., vessel traffic monitoring, ice forecasting models) would benefit greatly from a real-time system. This study sought input from a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, federal and territorial government representatives and Northerners, on the use of cabled ocean observatories in complementing existing marine research activities and contributing to a better understanding of the oceanic environment by making measurements throughout the entire year. There was general agreement from both government and university researchers that systems such as this would contribute to understanding the Canadian Arctic Marine System. Particularly strong synergies were envisaged with research programs such as ArcticNet and with federal government research, especially that being



conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Stakeholders identified a wide range of candidate sites and programs for ocean monitoring systems. Federal government departments and agencies with operational mandates in the Arctic, such as National Defence, Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada saw potential benefits of real-time ocean observatories from an environmental and security surveillance standpoint. Northerners saw the potential for such facilities to improve the knowledge of the resources upon which they rely and to aid in the protection of fragile Arctic marine ecosystems. Cabled observatories in environments such as the Arctic offer the possibility of monitoring environmental processes throughout the year, even when areas are inaccessible due to the presence of ice, harsh weather or darkness. Such observations complement the brief sampling and measurement opportunities provided by research vessels during the open water season or measurements obtained by logistically challenging field programs from the ice. For surveillance activities, the continuous presence is essential for monitoring vessel activities, both surface and submerged, and being able to react quickly if necessary, and for assessing environmental impacts related to Arctic shipping. Three generic types of observatory are considered in the report:

• at an existing community with pre-existing infrastructure (e.g., power, air strip, port) • at a remote site with no pre-existing infrastructure but where continuous, real-time monitoring

would be required • at an independent site which is extremely remote (e.g., > 100 km from land) where there is no

infrastructure available and which would probably operate with no cable connection to shore. Of these, only the first is discussed in detail in this feasibility study, with a focus on Dease Strait/Queen Maud Gulf near the planned Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) as an initial demonstration site for Arctic cabled ocean technology. Cabled ocean observatories are not “stand alone” facilities but must be integrated within an overall scientific program framework. While a “straw man” observatory, as a demonstration site, is sketched out in this report, the authors recognize that full consideration of cabled Arctic observatories must take place within the overall Arctic research planning context. In contemplating the development of facilities such as these, there is a strong recognized need to involve Northerners in their planning, construction and operation, and an imperative to use observatory capabilities to enhance the lives of local residents through training, employment and provision of relevant information about the resources used by them (e.g., fish, marine mammals) and the environment in general (e.g., local sea ice conditions). Unlike similar ocean observatories elsewhere, there is a need in the Arctic to be sensitive regarding the immediate and broad dissemination of some information about resources, such as fish and marine mammals, which could impact traditional hunting and fishing activities of Northern residents.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 14

1.1 OVERVIEW OF FEASIBILITY STUDY: OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 14 1.2 CONCEPT LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF THE OBSERVATORY ..................................................................... 16

1.2.1.1 Existing Community .............................................................................................. 17 1.2.1.2 Remote ................................................................................................................. 17 1.2.1.3 Independent ......................................................................................................... 17

1.2.2 Regional Setting – Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) within Canadian Arctic 18

1.3 STAKEHOLDER AND PARTNERSHIP APPROACH ............................................................................... 18

2 SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECTS ............................................................................................ 20

2.1 THE SOCIO-CULTURAL SETTING OF THE NORTH ............................................................................ 20 2.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF NORTHERN INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................... 21 2.3 NORTHERN ISSUES ................................................................................................................... 21 2.4 EXISTING NORTHERN EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE ......................................................................... 21 2.5 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE ARCTIC ...................................... 22 2.6 CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE NORTH ............................................................................................. 27 2.7 NORTHERN ENGAGEMENT IN MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 28 2.8 INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS ................................................................ 28 2.9 PROGRAM MULTIPLIER ............................................................................................................. 28 2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND IMPACTS ......................................................................... 29 2.11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPACTS ............................................................................. 29 2.12 STAKEHOLDER INPUT SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 30

3 KEY MARINE SCIENCE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES IN THE ARCTIC .................................... 37

3.1 CANADIAN ARCTIC SCIENCE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 37 3.1.1 Overarching Goals ........................................................................................................ 37

3.1.1.1 Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1.2 Environmental Science and Stewardship ............................................................. 39 3.1.1.3 Sustainable Resource Development ..................................................................... 39 3.1.1.4 Healthy and Sustainable Communities ................................................................. 40 3.1.1.5 Other Priority Themes .......................................................................................... 40

3.1.1.5.1 Observation and Monitoring ............................................................................ 40 3.1.1.5.2 Technology ........................................................................................................ 40

3.1.2 Environmental Setting: CHARS in the context of the Canadian Arctic ........................ 42 3.1.2.1 Sea Ice and Oceanography ................................................................................... 42

3.1.2.1.1 Bathymetry ....................................................................................................... 42 3.1.2.1.2 Ice Regime ......................................................................................................... 42 3.1.2.1.3 Air Temperatures .............................................................................................. 47 3.1.2.1.4 Polynyas ............................................................................................................ 49 3.1.2.1.5 Ocean Currents ................................................................................................. 50 3.1.2.1.6 Water Masses – Hydrology ............................................................................... 50 3.1.2.1.7 Tides .................................................................................................................. 53 3.1.2.1.8 Upwelling and Mixing ....................................................................................... 53 3.1.2.1.9 Data Gaps and Level of Confidence .................................................................. 54



3.1.2.2 Marine Geology .................................................................................................... 54 3.1.2.3 Marine Ecosystems ............................................................................................... 58

3.1.2.3.1 Dissolved Organic Material ............................................................................... 58 3.1.2.3.2 Phytoplankton ................................................................................................... 59 3.1.2.3.3 Zooplankton ...................................................................................................... 60 3.1.2.3.4 Change .............................................................................................................. 60 3.1.2.3.5 Data Gaps .......................................................................................................... 60 3.1.2.3.6 Fish .................................................................................................................... 61 3.1.2.3.7 Mammals .......................................................................................................... 62 3.1.2.3.8 Birds .................................................................................................................. 63

3.1.3 Canadian Arctic Science Requirements Summary ....................................................... 64 3.2 CANADIAN ARCTIC OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 65

3.2.1 Shipping ....................................................................................................................... 65 3.2.1.1 Local Government/Community Needs ................................................................. 68 3.2.1.2 Government Regulatory Needs ............................................................................ 68 3.2.1.3 Shipping Industry Needs ....................................................................................... 70

3.2.2 Resource Extraction; Oil and Gas; Mining ................................................................... 71 3.2.2.1 Government Regulatory Needs. ........................................................................... 72 3.2.2.2 Resource Industry Needs ...................................................................................... 73

3.2.2.2.1 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................ 73 3.2.2.2.2 Mining. .............................................................................................................. 74

3.2.3 Subsistence and Possible Commercial Fisheries .......................................................... 75 3.2.3.1 Local government/community needs .................................................................. 77 3.2.3.2 Government Regulatory Needs. ........................................................................... 78

3.2.4 Defence, Security and Sovereignty .............................................................................. 78 3.2.4.1 Government Requirements .................................................................................. 78 3.2.4.2 Integration with Existing NWS System, Northern Watch (DND) .......................... 80

3.2.5 Canadian Arctic Operational Requirements Summary ................................................ 81

4 STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTNERS .................................................................................... 83

4.1 BENEFICIARIES OF DATA AND TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 83 4.2 POTENTIAL PARTNERS AND CLIENTS ............................................................................................ 83 4.3 POSSIBLE ROLE OF OCEAN NETWORKS CANADA AND ITS PARTNERS ................................................. 84

4.3.1 Possible Funding Mechanisms ..................................................................................... 84 4.4 GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................................................... 84

5 PROPOSED CABLE SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 85

5.1 HIGH LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 86 5.1.1 Overview of Network Extent and Scale ....................................................................... 86

5.1.1.1 Local Scale ............................................................................................................. 87 5.1.1.2 Intermediate Scale ................................................................................................ 87 5.1.1.3 Regional Scale ....................................................................................................... 87 5.1.1.4 DMAS .................................................................................................................... 87

5.1.2 Infrastructure Requirements ....................................................................................... 88 5.1.2.1 Instrument Systems .............................................................................................. 91 5.1.2.2 Data and Communications (Subsea)..................................................................... 92 5.1.2.3 Shore-based Infrastructure .................................................................................. 93



5.1.2.4 Operations/Maintenance Centre (data, service).................................................. 93 5.1.2.5 Data Management ................................................................................................ 94

5.1.3 Design Issues ................................................................................................................ 94 5.1.3.1 Design and Planning, Community Consultations, Environmental Permitting ...... 94 5.1.3.2 Installation: Marine Logistics, Shore-Crossings, Shore-based Construction ....... 94 5.1.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Issues .................................................................... 95 5.1.3.4 Integration of Mobile Assets in Arctic Cabled Observatories ............................... 96

5.2 DESIGN OPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 100 5.2.1 Community-Based...................................................................................................... 100 5.2.2 Remote Observatories (no community infrastructure) ............................................. 100 5.2.3 Deep Water Observatories (no shore landing) .......................................................... 101

5.3 INITIAL ARCTIC IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................. 102 5.3.1 Leveraging CHARS Site as a Hub for Network Expansion .......................................... 102 5.3.2 Science and Operational Stakeholder Requirements Demonstrated ........................ 102

5.3.2.1 Baseline Instrument Suites ................................................................................. 102 5.3.2.2 Primary and Secondary Subsea Infrastructure ................................................... 106

5.3.2.2.1 Node ................................................................................................................ 107 5.3.2.2.2 Node Pod......................................................................................................... 108 5.3.2.2.3 SIIM ................................................................................................................. 109 5.3.2.2.4 Wet Mateable Underwater Connectors (WMC) ............................................. 110 5.3.2.2.5 Node Base ....................................................................................................... 110 5.3.2.2.6 Submarine Fibre Optic Cable .......................................................................... 112

5.3.3 Shore-based Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 113 5.3.3.1 Power Feed Equipment ...................................................................................... 115 5.3.3.2 Communications and Timing .............................................................................. 115 5.3.3.3 Shore Station Network Equipment ..................................................................... 115 5.3.3.4 Shore Station Software ....................................................................................... 115 5.3.3.5 Power .................................................................................................................. 116 5.3.3.6 Communications ................................................................................................. 116

5.3.3.6.1 Shore station to Network Operations Centre ................................................. 116 5.3.3.6.2 Local community service ................................................................................. 116 5.3.3.6.3 Connectivity to the Rest of the World ............................................................ 116

5.3.3.7 System Monitoring and Control ......................................................................... 117 5.3.4 Network Operations .................................................................................................. 118 5.3.5 Data Management ..................................................................................................... 118

5.3.5.1 Communications Links – Local, Regional, National and International ............... 118 5.3.5.2 Data Acquisition .................................................................................................. 118 5.3.5.3 Archive ................................................................................................................ 119 5.3.5.4 Data Availability and Distribution ....................................................................... 119 5.3.5.5 Knowledge Products ........................................................................................... 120

5.3.6 System installation and Maintenance ....................................................................... 120 5.3.7 System Life-Cycle Plans .............................................................................................. 121

5.4 ARCTIC CABLED OCEAN OBSERVATORY IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY ............................................ 121 5.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 121 5.4.2 Year 0 ......................................................................................................................... 122 5.4.3 Year 1 ......................................................................................................................... 123



5.4.4 Year 2 ......................................................................................................................... 124 5.4.5 Year 3 ......................................................................................................................... 125 5.4.6 Year 4 ......................................................................................................................... 126 5.4.7 AUV Systems .............................................................................................................. 128 5.4.8 Remote Site ................................................................................................................ 128 5.4.9 Deep Water Site ......................................................................................................... 130

5.5 ARCTIC CABLED OCEAN OBSERVATORY SUMMARY ...................................................................... 132

6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 134

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 136

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 137

APPENDIX A: PROJECT PARTNERS ....................................................................................... 151

OCEAN NETWORKS CANADA .............................................................................................................. 151 ASL ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES INC.................................................................................................... 151 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD ................................................................................................................... 152

APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................. 153

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA ........................................................................................................ 153 NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA ........................................................................................................... 160 TRANSPORT CANADA ........................................................................................................................ 164 NATIONAL DEFENCE (DRDC) ............................................................................................................. 165 ENVIRONMENT CANADA .................................................................................................................... 168 YUKON – RESPONSE FROM A FORMER SENIOR YUKON GOVERNMENT MANAGER ....................................... 173 ARCTICNET ...................................................................................................................................... 184 JOINT SECRETARIAT, INUVIK, NWT ...................................................................................................... 186 FISHERIES JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, INUVIK, NWT ................................................................... 186 AURORA RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INUVIK, NWT ....................................................................................... 187 NUNAVUT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, IQALUIT, NU ...................................................................................... 188 NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD, CAMBRIDGE BAY, NU ...................................................................... 189

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF TABLES OF REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND NUNAVUT .................................................................................................................. 190

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF TABLES OF RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADA & INTERNATIONALLY ........................................................................................... 222

APPENDIX E: VENUS AND NEPTUNE CANADA NETWORKS ................................................... 237

VENUS .......................................................................................................................................... 237 NEPTUNE CANADA ......................................................................................................................... 238



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Key Northwest Territories Regulatory Agencies for Arctic Cabled Observatories (Refer to Appendix C for complete list of agencies). ............................................................................ 23

Figure 2-2. Key Nunavut Regulatory Agencies for Arctic Cabled Observatories (Refer to Appendix C for complete list of agencies). ..................................................................................................... 24

Figure 2-3. Key Stakeholders in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Nunavut (refer to Appendix D for complete list of stakeholders). .............................................................................................. 25

Figure 2-4. Key Northern Canadian, Canadian and International Stakeholders (refer to Appendix D for complete list of stakeholders). .............................................................................................. 26

Figure 3-1. Generalized space and time scales of some marine phenomena and issues, and some arguable domains for sensing platforms and sensor (adapted from Smith et al., 1987). ..... 41

Figure 3-2. Bathymetry map of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (derived from IBCAO data v. 2.23 and prepared in ENVI 4.8). The red dot marks Cambridge Bay location. .................................... 43

Figure 3-3. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has four distinct domains (after Melling, 2010) including two ice types (annual or first year ice and old or multi-year ice) and two states of mobility (moving pack ice or non-moving “fast” ice). ...................................................................................................... 44

Figure 3-4. Distribution of sea ice frequency occurrences greater > 6/10 between July and September 1968-2010; Total Ice on the left, and Old Ice on the right (derived from Canadian Ice Service weekly ice data). The white dots mark Cambridge Bay location. ..................................................... 44

Figure 3-5. 1971 to 2000 average break-up and freeze-up dates (CIS, Sea Ice Climatic Atlas, 2010). The average data of break-up and freeze-up at Cambridge Bay is July 23 and Oct. 15. .............. 45

Figure 3-6. Sea-ice concentrations near Cambridge Bay from 1968 to 2010 at the time of the nominal break-up (July 23, top) and freeze-up (Oct. 15, bottom) dates. ............................................ 46

Figure 3-7. Trends in mid-September sea ice extent for various subregions along the NWP route, as computed from Canadian Ice Service charts, 1968 to 2010. ................................................. 47

Figure 3-8. Monthly Mean Surface Air Temperatures (top) and Decadal Change (bottom) at Sachs Harbour, Cambridge Bay, and Resolute (data from Environment Canada, 2011). ................ 48

Figure 3-9. Recurring known polynyas (Barber and Masson, 2007, in Hannah et al., 2009). The yellow dot marks the location of Cambridge Bay. ................................................................................... 49

Figure 3-10. Surface elevation as a proxy for transport derived from a 3D non-linear diagnostic calculation (Kliem and Greenberg, 2003). ............................................................................. 50

Figure 3-11. Sea surface temperatures (left) and salinities (right). The white symbols mark the locations of profiles (Kliem and Greenberg, 2003). Notice that Rae Strait exhibits the lowest salinities (21-20 psu)......................................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3-12. Location of the main rivers (in red) discharging in Coronation Gulf and Queen Maud Gulf (modified NRCAN Ocean Discharge Map, 2009). Hydrometric stations presently available are marked in green (WCS, 2008). Other rivers shown are mentioned in Didiuk and Ferguson (2005). ............................................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 3-13. Aqua/MODIS showing the river plumes along the shoreline of Queen Maud Gulf, Chantrey Inlet, and Rae Strait in late August 2009 (NASA Earth Observatory, 2009). Clouds are covering the western end of the Kent Peninsula, and ice is blocking Victoria Strait. ................................ 52

Figure 3-14. The M2 elevation solution. Phase lines are shown at 20 degree contours (Hannah et al., 2008). ..................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3-15. Tidal mixing parameter λ=log (h/U3) for the central (A) and southern (B) regions of the Canadian Archipelago (Hannah et al., 2008). Red and yellow areas indicate higher probabilities of polynya formation. ................................................................................................................. 54



Figure 3-16. Generalized geology in the Coronation Gulf-Queen Maud Gulf region (Thorsteinson and Tozer, 1970) ........................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 3-17. Chart of Dease Strait and western Queen Maud Gulf. Soundings are in fathoms. ... 56 Figure 3-18. Outer Cambridge Bay showing the patchwork of shoals. Soundings are in metres. 57 Figure 3-19. A summary of arctic marine ecosystem and its interactions (Grandinger et al., 2004).

Bacteria and DOP not included in this figure. ........................................................................ 58 Figure 3-20. Schema of physical processes affecting the seasonal pattern or primary production on an

Arctic shelf (Carmack et al, 2006). ......................................................................................... 59 Figure 3-21. A ten year satellite-derived history of phytoplankton chlorophyll concentration in Queen

Maud Gulf, at the center of the yellow rectangle in Figure 3-21 (from SeaWiFs, extracted using the ASL/GRIP Temporal Profiler). ................................................................................................. 61

Figure 3-22. Spatial distribution of satellite-derived chlorophyll in Queen Maud Gulf during the summer of 2000, in 8 day periods. Ice and cloud are shown as black (from SeaWiFs, extracted using the ASL/GRIP Temporal Profiler). Yellow box shows the position of the satellite chlorophyll time series shown in Figure 2-21. ............................................................................................................. 61

Figure 3-23. Important areas of abundance for Arctic Char (left) and seals (right) within Nunavut (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010). ................................................................................. 62

Figure 3-24. Caribou range in the CAA (left), and important habitats for marine and terrestrial birds (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010). ................................................................................. 63

Figure 3-25. Ranges of whales (left) and polar bear (right) in the CAA (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010). ..................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 3-26. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route ship transit routes in the Arctic Ocean. ............................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 3-27. A map showing different parts of the Northwest Passage shipping route. The primary routes, used by most vessels, are shown in red, with the deep-draft routes shown in blue. The most commonly travelled routes are shown a solid line with the lesser travelled routes are shown in a solid line with the lesser travelled variations shown as dotted lines (after Mariport Group, 2007). ............................................................................................................................................... 66

Figure 3-28. Map showing the occurrence (%) of open water (ice-free) between July-October 1968-2010 (derived from CIS weekly charts). .......................................................................................... 67

Figure 3-29. A map of the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone. ................................... 69 Figure 3-30. Marine traffic density for the period 1991-2008 (Red<2 ship-days; Yellow: 3 ship-days;

White: >4 ship-days (modified from Judson, 2010). .............................................................. 71 Figure 3-31. A map of the existing oil and gas exploration licenses (yellow) and signficant discovery

fields (red) in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (left) and in Nunavut Territory (right) where most oil and gas exploration has occurred in the Sverdrup Basin in the northernmost Arctic Islands73

Figure 3-32. A map of present mining permits, mineral claims and known mineral deposits. ..... 75 Figure 3-33. Estimated value of fisheries to Nunavut economy (Gov. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik,

2005). ..................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 3-34. Commercial fisheries in the Cambridge Bay area (DFO, 2004).................................. 76 Figure 3-35. Choke points suitable for acoustic monitoring of vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic

Archipelago. ........................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 5-1. Example cabled ocean observatory concept. .............................................................. 85 Figure 5-2. Key Arctic choke points. ............................................................................................... 88 Figure 5-3. Typical mooring system in a cabled seafloor monitoring facility. ............................... 90 Figure 5-4. Schematic of a profiling system for water column observations. ............................... 91



Figure 5-5. Example ISE Arctic Explorer (foreground).................................................................... 97 Figure 5-6. Arctic Class AUV operating range (200 km) from a node location in Queen Maud Gulf.98 Figure 5-7. Notional configuration of a cabled system in western Queen Maud Gulf. ............... 103 Figure 5-8. Conceptual layout of a cabled system in western Queen Maud Gulf. ...................... 104 Figure 5-9. Node Pod detached from Node Base ........................................................................ 107 Figure 5-10. Node Base and Node Pod block diagram. ............................................................... 107 Figure 5-11. Typical Node Pod design .......................................................................................... 108 Figure 5-12. Typical SIIM showing instrument multiple ports. .................................................... 109 Figure 5-13. ODI Nautilus bulkhead and flying receptacle wet mate connectors. ...................... 110 Figure 5-14. Typical Node Base design ........................................................................................ 111 Figure 5-15. Example Node Base embedment features. ............................................................. 111 Figure 5-16. SL-17 Light weight (LW) cable (left), double armour (DA) cable (right). ................. 112 Figure 5-17. VENUS Strait of Georgia array Shore Station fully configured. ............................... 113 Figure 5-18. VENUS Strait of Georgia array Shore Station enclosure installation. ...................... 114 Figure 5-19. Shore Station Equipment. ........................................................................................ 114 Figure 5-20. Existing Multibeam Data in the Cambridge Bay Area. ............................................. 123 Figure 5-21. Super Mohawk ROV currently on the CCGS Amundsen. ......................................... 126 Figure 5-22. The ROPOS ROV of the Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility (CSSF). ................ 127 Figure 5-23. DRDC Northern Watch Shore Site on Devon Island ................................................. 129 Figure 5-24. Small work boat and barge from CCGS Terry Fox .................................................... 130 Figure 5-25. Conceptual diagrams for a Real-time Pack Ice Monitoring System consisting of (upper)

Vertical data communication configurations options include (upper acoustic modems) and (lower) An example of a large area (16 km radius) array of ULS measurement sites. ..................... 132



LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Northern Stakeholder Interview Summaries ................................................................ 33 Table 5-1. Basic Scientific Instrument Suite. .................................................................................. 92 Table 5-2. Possible instrument suite and specifications for a system in Queen Maud Gulf. ...... 105



1 Introduction 1.1 Overview of Feasibility Study: Objectives More than 25 years ago it was predicted that environmental change would occur sooner, more rapidly and more intensely in the Arctic than in other parts of the world. Observations have since borne out these predictions with rapidly retreating sea ice, rising atmospheric temperatures, shifts in the atmospheric pressure field, greater penetration of warmer waters into the central Arctic Ocean, changing Arctic marine ecosystems, increased stress on polar bear populations, disappearance of permafrost and intensified coastal erosion, to identify but a few of the most obvious impacts. While we broadly understand many of the processes, our knowledge of the details of their linkages and consequences is at best rudimentary (ISAC, 2011). Canada will be expected to heed the call from other Arctic nations to advance our knowledge of the many inter-related processes of environmental change in the region to best determine and implement remedial and adaptive measures. In large part as a result of these profound alterations in climate and oceanography, the Arctic will also witness a rapid growth in marine shipping, offshore oil and gas exploration and production, mining and tourism. These activities all carry with them increased environmental risks, and potential social impacts, lending urgency to the need to understand better the Arctic System. As it becomes more accessible, Canadians throughout the country are expecting their governments to exert greater sovereignty over the Arctic, to protect its fragile ecosystems and, at the same time, to bring improved technologies and infrastructure needed for this rapidly developing part of our nation (EKOS, 2011). The intent of this feasibility study is to present an assessment of the application of world-leading Canadian ocean observing system technologies and expertise to address the unique environmental monitoring challenges in the Canadian Arctic. The study builds largely on the success of the VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada cabled ocean observatories, led by the University of Victoria, and managed by Ocean Networks Canada, for a consortium of Canadian universities and government research agencies, and on the strength and experience of ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. and Golder Associates Ltd. in working in Arctic Canada. A brief description of these organizations and their capabilities is included in Appendix A. While it is possible to collect some types of oceanographic data year-round in the Arctic under the ice, there are several limitations to what can be achieved. Other Arctic research programs are also realizing these limitations and are investigating the conversion of extensive moored systems to a cabled observatory configuration. The following identifies some of the most important advantages that cabled systems have over moorings:

• Autonomous instruments are typically configured for a sampling frequency determined in large measure by their available battery life and when the moorings are likely to be serviced. Thus, for many systems one-second sampling, for example, is not achievable. For some types of data these higher sampling rates, achievable when power is not limited, are important and can lead to better understanding of the phenomena being studies (e.g., bottom pressure devices to study infra-gravity and other waves; turbulence investigations). NEPTUNE Canada has already shown the value of having higher sampling rates; bottom pressure recordings, even in deep water, have



allowed a much better determination of the overall surface wave spectrum than could be achieved using, say, a ten-minute sampling interval.

• Some desired instruments consume too much power to be operated using batteries for a one-

year period. Examples would include cameras and lights, seabed crawlers, water and sediment sampling systems, some geophysical systems (e.g., Controlled Source Electromagnetic devices) and most multi-instrument vertical profilers. Cabled systems offer plenty of available power for these applications.

• Real-time data delivery can demonstrate that systems are continuing to function correctly

during the long period between servicing cruises. With remote commanding of the instruments, it can, in some cases, be possible to correct a malfunctioning instrument without having to recover it, as has been demonstrated on both VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada where some instruments have had to be re-started while in service.

• Cabled systems offer the very important advantage of providing the possibility have installing a

diverse suite of sensors at specific localities and being able to correlate results of each to better understand oceanographic phenomena. By observing results in real-time the instruments can be re-programmed, in response to significant events (e.g., storms, plankton blooms, onset of open water conditions, etc.), to sample more frequently or to collect data in different ways. Event detection and response can be either “manual” or “automated” through a Data Management and Arching System, the latter once criteria have been established for the changed instrument configurations appropriate to a particular event.

• Operational needs of government agencies (e.g., vessel traffic surveillance, ice forecasting)

would clearly benefit from real-time data delivery that moored systems under-ice cannot practically deliver.

• Underwater transmission of data can be achieved using means other than fibre-optic cables.

Acoustic modems, for example, have been used successfully in some applications. Such systems are, however, severely limited in terms of bandwidth and would not be a realistic option for sites where a variety of observations are being made; they could be used within a cabled network to allow some specific individual instruments to communicate to the subsea network with the data then being relayed to shore through a cable. Acoustic modem systems have been proposed as key elements in an observatory project to support Arctic oil and gas exploration (see detail in Section 5.4.13).

• In terms of public outreach, real-time delivery of observations is a way of engaging the public

and generating an interest and concern for the ocean environment in ways that releasing data one year or more later cannot achieve.

A quote from the ArcticNet response to our questionnaire (Appendix B) serves to highlight very well some of the above advantages:



“We already deploy and redeploy oceanographic moorings annually in this area, including, since 2006, two daily vertical profilers in Amundsen Gulf. But the loss rate of instrumentation is high and the scientific payload of the profilers is frustratingly limited by the power available from batteries over an annual cycle. A powered observatory would solve this problem and enable us to increase the scientific payload, to control the upward reach of the profiles according to ice conditions, and to get the data in real time.” The document presents a brief overview of the scientific and policy areas, locally, nationally and internationally, that would benefit from the types of information such facilities can deliver. It also examines how ocean observatory information can enhance the lives of those make their home in the North and the various social and cultural implications associated with the installation and operation of cabled seafloor observatories in the region. The report considers the requirements of expanding marine transportation through the Canadian Arctic and the rapidly increasing needs of shipping in support of mining, petroleum exploration and development, tourism and community re-supply in the Arctic. Based on these considerations, various models for Arctic cabled ocean observing systems are defined followed by an analysis of the challenges facing installation and operation of facilities at different locations. 1.2 Concept Level Description of the Observatory Stakeholders of many kinds were contacted as part of this feasibility study. Though there were many science and operation concerns expressed in the feedback, many of the respondents recognized that cabled ocean observatories could complement other research programs in the Arctic. Being able to have a continuous, year-round, real-time monitoring presence in remote areas which are ice covered and inaccessible for most of the year was seen as being an extremely important contribution that cabled ocean observatories would bring to Arctic marine science. Based on stakeholder feedback (Appendix B) it became readily apparent that many researchers and representatives of government departments envisage a suite of Arctic marine observatories in a wide variety of settings as being necessary to address the many important questions about the Arctic marine environment; such facilities could, ultimately, be linked through common infrastructures, protocols and governance, creating a “network of networks”. Stakeholders also reinforced the concept that such facilities are only one of a broad set of tools that will be needed to understand more about the changing Arctic environment, to protect it and to benefit Northerners and, indeed, all Canadians. Such facilities are most powerful when integrated with complementary programs such as satellite remote sensing, meteorological observations, ship-borne research projects, surveys by Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and measurements directly from the ice. Ocean observatories inherently consist of “fixed” measurement sites; through these complementary programs significant contextual information can be gathered to which continuous observatory measurements can be added to provide time series that are rarely possible in the Arctic. Ocean observatories and these ancillary monitoring programs offer important opportunities for Northerners to participate in studying their environment and, ultimately, in defining the regulations and regulatory regimes designed for its protection. Three generic types of ocean observatory are considered in this report; of these only the first is considered in detail in this initial study.



1.2.1.1 Existing Community These sites are characterized by a community with a high level of logistical support available, including some science and technology capacity and personnel already in place, pre-existing infrastructure (airstrip and/or port) utilities support (power generation), and capable of supporting a cable landfall and shore facility. These sites would address a broad scope of issues, primarily research applications, government and industry support, and local community needs. These types of location would require the least significant design changes from existing technologies to implement an observatory. Examples: Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) at Iqaluktuuttiaq (Cambridge Bay), Qausuittuq (Resolute Bay), Ikpiarjuk (Arctic Bay) and nearby Nanasivik Naval Facility, Ikaahuk (Sachs Harbour), Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok (Holman Island), Kugluktuk (Coppermine), Mittimatalik (Pond Inlet), Aujuittuq (Grise Fjord) in Jones Sound. 1.2.1.2 Remote These sites would have little or no pre-existing infrastructure, but require continuous 24/7/365 data (or at least monitoring 24/7/365) and a cable landfall and Shore Station, like the National Defence (DRDC) Northern Watch system. All of the support infrastructure would likely have to be installed on the site. The costs of installing and maintaining remote infrastructure would be significant and would probably limit the scope of applications. Also, communications limitations may require the system to have a high level of pre-processing and autonomy to detect events and report data only to meet critical need. These sites would be able to support a limited scope of measurements and likely to be provide data that is less research in nature and more for operational purposes, such as data critical to support transportation safety, security and sovereignty (e.g. chokepoints for Northwest Passage shipping). Examples: Amundsen Gulf, M’Clure Strait – Viscount Melville Island Sound, previous locations of High Arctic weather stations – Mould Bay, Isachsen). 1.2.1.3 Independent These sites are extremely remote, probably more than 100 km from land with no land infrastructure or cable landing practical and no pre-existing infrastructure for support. The sites could address a very limited scope of issues but ones with high relevance for operations, such as mission critical data to support specific applications (e.g., ice monitoring, sovereignty, marine environmental monitoring). These types of location will require the most significant design changes from existing technologies to operate without a physical connection to shore infrastructure and may include novel new approaches to reduce the cost of operations and support. These may include battery-operated systems, acoustic links to surface vessels or other platforms, or fibre-only cables to enable deployments from ROVs and/or vessels not designed specifically for heavy telecom cable lay operations. These sites would be key locations to take advantage of possible future infrastructure such as the conceptual ArcticLink fibre optic telecommunications project. Example: Deep Beaufort Sea. While there are very clear and compelling reasons justifying each of these observatory types, the short timeframe for this study precluded an in-depth analysis of each. Despite the significant differences among them, there are some aspects which will be common to more than one type of system: many of the installation issues such as shore crossings and cable laying; data management and transmission; environmental considerations, such as water temperatures and ice conditions; year-round access to the wet plant; and governance. It was decided, in consultation with DIAND, to focus our greatest attention



in this study on a site located near an existing community where there is sufficient infrastructure available; as a potential initial demonstration site for such a facility, the CHARS location at Cambridge Bay and nearby Dease Strait, between Coronation and Queen Maud Gulfs, was selected. Stakeholders (e.g., ArcticNet; Appendix B) provided compelling justification for other sites, such as the Cape Bathurst polynya, an area of high productivity in the eastern Beaufort Sea. We recognize that there are many such sites in the Arctic but felt that it is important to develop the ability to work in the North initially at a location which was logistically much easier and to then contemplate more challenging sites in later phases of an observatory program. Clearly this choice of location would be an area for further exploration with stakeholders, should such a project proceed.

1.2.2 Regional Setting – Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) within Canadian Arctic

The CHARS will be located in Cambridge Bay, in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. It is located on the southern portion of the Northwest Passage on southern Victoria Island adjacent to Dease Strait, between Coronation and Queen Maud Gulfs. Dease Strait, between the Kent Peninsula and Cape Colborne on Victoria Island, is the narrowest part of the Northwest Passage, about 20 km across and is the southern conduit for waters moving between the Arctic Ocean and, ultimately, the Atlantic Ocean. Cambridge Bay is, by Canadian Arctic standards, a large community with a population of more than 1,500; it is well-serviced by air, including the capability to land 737s, and has a well-protected port with a public wharf, good anchorage and a landing beach. 1.3 Stakeholder and Partnership Approach As an important part of this feasibility study, we canvassed a wide variety of potential stakeholders with respect to their interests and needs and how information provided by a cabled seafloor observatory would enhance their programs. In total, about 60 organizations were contacted including federal government science departments, federal departments with operational mandates in the Arctic, university researchers, Northern associations, territorial governments, international arctic science organizations and industry (shipping and petroleum). Guiding considerations were to determine the ‘value-added’ capability of a cabled ocean observatory, the complementarity with existing/planned S&T infrastructure, and the importance of partnerships with local, regional and national agencies. We posed four questions to government science and operational departments, academic researchers and international science organizations; we followed up with many of those who responded. Less structured interviews were held with many Northern groups. The questions were:

1. Would continuous, real-time data from cabled seafloor observatories contribute to your science or the operational needs of your organization?

2. What specific measurements would you like to see made by such an observatory (or observatories) in the shorter term and in the longer term?

3. An initial demonstration site is being considered in the current feasibility study in Dease Strait (western Queen Maud Gulf) near Cambridge Bay. Is this site of interest to your organization? What other sites are of interest with respect to your scientific program or operational requirements?



4. What activities are you currently undertaking in the High Arctic or what services do you use or provide in the region related to the marine environment?

Responses varied widely with many respondents electing to provide additional valuable perspectives on such an initiative. The data were of great utility in identifying both needs for such observations and the sites where greatest benefits would accrue. The responses were used to define the technical needs for the “straw man” observatory, which is discussed in this report. Summaries of the responses from the various groups are included in Appendix B. To the maximum extent possible they are reproduced verbatim, though in some cases minor editing was required.



2 Socio-Cultural Aspects 2.1 The Socio-Cultural Setting of the North The social and cultural identity of Aboriginal people has been largely shaped by traditional harvesting activities. For thousands of years they have survived by hunting, trapping and fishing (Huntington et al., 2005). Through their experience in living and surviving in often harsh environments, Aboriginal people have been able to adapt to natural fluctuations in resource abundance and availability. This experience and knowledge have been passed on through generations so that harvesting the land and waters continues today to provide food and clothing as well as income (Nuttall et al., 2005). Today the Arctic environment is being transformed as a result of human-induced climate change which can modify the distribution of and potentially reduce the supply of Arctic wildlife (Hegerl et al., 2007). Environmental datasets are incomplete and therefore weaken climate prediction models; until better information is collected the extent of climate change and its effects on wildlife in the Arctic is uncertain (Lewis et al., 2010). Arctic cabled ocean observation systems would be able to provide information about the ocean’s biophysical environment (such as water chemistry, temperature, ice characteristics and ecosystems); the data would be useful for analysis by climate scientists. These systems are capable of monitoring ocean biota (e.g. whales, seals, and fish) which will contribute to the investigation of trends in marine animal distribution and density (Barnes et al., 2008). This information may also be of interest to Aboriginal groups, contributing to their traditional knowledge on ocean environments and marine wildlife, particularly in a changing Arctic. The installation of the Cabled Ocean Observatory may result in local economic development, upgrades in local infrastructure, and increased sovereignty, particularly if the observatory is built near a community (e.g., Cambridge Bay), helping to fulfill the objectives of Canada’s new Northern Strategy (INAC, 2009). Land claim agreements have been established in Northern Canada. The Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories (NWT) have been granted access, land and resource management rights within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR; Fast et al. 2005) through the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act (or Inuvialuit Final Agreement [IFA], 1984; Inuvialuit Regional Corporation [IRC] 1987). The Inuit of the Eastern Arctic have use and management rights to lands and resources in the Nunavut Settlement Area (Nunavut) through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993; INAC and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. [NTI] 1998). These land claim areas envelop most of Canada’s Arctic areas within their boundaries and grant Aboriginal organizations certain administrative and managerial responsibilities over the land and its resources. Land and resource control varies with the type of land ownership within settlement area boundaries, but, generally, the Inuvialuit of the NWT and the Inuit of Nunavut have primary management control of the lands and resources in the ISR’s Inuvialuit Private Lands and Nunavut’s Inuit-Owned Lands (IOL), respectively. This section discusses how the installation of a cabled ocean observatory system could impact socio-economic and cultural attributes, such as employment, training, harvest, land use planning and resource management issues that affect Aboriginal people and other Northern residents of Arctic Canada within those land claim areas.



2.2 The Importance of Northern Involvement

The concept of installing a Cabled Ocean Observatory in the Arctic Ocean can provoke variable responses from diverse stakeholders who live and work in Northern Canada including traditional land users, long-term residents, polar scientists, and community planners. Several interviews were carried out with representatives of some of the key stakeholders in the NWT and Nunavut to collect preliminary thoughts of those groups to the potential cable installation. The results of those interviews are summarized in Appendix B. In general, based on interviews with various northern groups and organizations, there was a positive view that such facilities would benefit the lives of Northerners. There was a strong desire to be involved in planning for such projects and to be assured that there would be training and employment opportunities. Involvement of schools, presentations to communities and retaining a substantial portion of training, data management and analysis in the North were seen as important considerations. There was, not surprisingly, a divergence of opinion regarding the most important sites for such facilities and some concern expressed regarding environmental impacts (such as acoustic signals in the water) associated with instrumentation. 2.3 Northern Issues Understanding Arctic issues will require the involvement of scientific experts in disciplines including social, behavioural, natural and engineering sciences who engage Northern residents and communities (Council of Canadian Academics 2008). In 2008, the International Expert Panel on Science Priorities for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative released a report, Vision for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative: Assessing the Opportunities, in which Canada is identified as having unique opportunities to contribute significantly to global and circumpolar research objectives. This initiative led to the development of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station concept. Primary advantages are derived from the country’s extensive Arctic geographical coverage and its ecological diversity, as well as the region’s human capital of knowledgeable Northern residents including locally-based Aboriginal peoples (who hold valuable Inuvialuit Traditional Knowledge [TK] and Inuit Qaujimajatuanginnut [IQ]) and typically southern-based scientists and engineers. Potentials that exist for Canadian advantages include: researching variable ecosystem and societal responses to climate change; development opportunities for long-term, year-round community-based environmental monitoring that incorporates TK and IQ; studying Aboriginal languages and their cultural values; learning from Canada’s evolving participatory approaches to research projects; studying social, economic and political processes that have global relevance; and, understanding interdisciplinary approaches to addressing changes in the Arctic such as globalization, urbanization, migration, changing gender roles and political stances (Council of Canadian Academies, 2008). 2.4 Existing Northern Expertise and Experience There are diverse opportunities in the Canadian Arctic to incorporate currently existing Northern expertise and experience in research projects. Groups that can contribute knowledge on Northern issues include regulatory agencies, responsible for granting project approvals and issuing permits and licences, stakeholders who provide input, advice and feedback to regulatory groups, and the general public.



Regulatory organizations include Aboriginal boards and committees and Institutions of Public Government (IPGs), with jurisdictional controls granted through relevant land claim agreements, as well as various departments of territorial and federal governments. A list of these regulatory agencies and organizations and a summary including their respective roles and responsibilities are presented in Appendix C, Tables 1 through 4. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 provide an overview of key regulators. A variety of Aboriginal organizations, government agencies, scientific research groups, IPGs and non-governmental organizations develop data collection and data management protocols, conduct and compile research information on social, cultural, economic, political and environmental issues in the Arctic, and develop strategies for disseminating that information. A list of stakeholders, their jurisdiction or area of operation and a brief description of their roles is presented in Appendix D, Table 1. A summary of key stakeholders is provided in Figures 2-3 and 2-4. 2.5 Science and Technology Development Opportunities in the Arctic Arctic nations have a common interest in acquiring knowledge and understanding of Northern ecosystems, especially in a changing climate regime. Climate change is threatening the Arctic’s biophysical environment (Hegerl et al., 2007) and understanding these concepts helps Northern residents predict and adapt to changes (Lewis et al., 2010). Efforts to comprehend the complexities of the Arctic have evolved into collaborative initiatives to maintain and further human and environmental well-being as Arctic nations have realized that more can be achieved through partnership. One such collaboration is the Arctic Council which is comprised of eight polar nations including Canada. Aboriginal groups such as the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council and the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation are also included as permanent participants of the council (Arctic Council, 1996). The Arctic Council has formed initiatives such as: the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP); Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME); and, Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) to facilitate the development and progress of Arctic science and technology (Arctic Council, 1996). Arctic nations have conducted research independently, as was the case with the Former Soviet Union’s North Pole Drifting Stations (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [WHOI], 2007). However, collaborative entities like the Arctic Council facilitate the sharing of information to advance science and technology development opportunities in the circumpolar Arctic. Data collected through the Cabled Ocean Observatory can provide significant contributions to the initiatives of the Arctic Council and other organizations dedicated to the advancement of polar science and technology.



Figure 2-1. Key Northwest Territories Regulatory Agencies for Arctic Cabled Observatories (Refer to Appendix C for complete list of agencies).



Figure 2-2. Key Nunavut Regulatory Agencies for Arctic Cabled Observatories (Refer to Appendix C for complete list of agencies).



Figure 2-3. Key Stakeholders in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Nunavut (refer to Appendix D for complete list of stakeholders).



Figure 2-4. Key Northern Canadian, Canadian and International Stakeholders (refer to Appendix D for complete list of stakeholders).



2.6 Capacity Building in the North Legislation in Canada’s Arctic outlines criteria for incorporating local and regional capacity-building into proposed project activities in the area. In the ISR, the IFA provides the ILA with the right to negotiate Participation Agreements with developers that include specific terms and conditions for land uses such as ensuring employment, service and supply contracts for local and regional individuals and companies, providing education and training opportunities, and guaranteeing equitable participation or other participatory benefits (IRC, 1987). In Nunavut, Designated Inuit Organizations (DIOs) negotiate Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements (IIBAs) with project proponents which provide for Inuit training and hiring, appropriate employment opportunities and business opportunities for Inuit, including preferential contracting practices (INAC and NTI 1998). Training opportunities associated with Northern projects can ensure capacity-building through skills upgrading and development to provide long-term benefits to local people such as through the preparation of Northern residents for specific Northern job markets (Robidoux 2003). Projects such as the Cabled Ocean Observatory could provide training opportunities for Northern residents. Instructors could be brought into Northern communities and carry out training courses at local colleges and research institutes (P. Seccombe-Hett, Director, ARI, personal communications, February 7, 2011). Employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Northern residents generally vary but often include a large sector of supply services for projects. The installation and maintenance of a cabled ocean observatory system could employ local labour consisting of general contracts and specialized data management opportunities. Logistics provisions can be improved through local sourcing of supplies, vessels, equipment and knowledgeable staff. The use of local and regional companies helps ensure that local expertise contributes to project activities, such as providing mobile structures, constructing temporary camps, providing catering services, dealing with on-land transportation issues (e.g., designing matting for permafrost protection during road development), and providing re-supply services, marine transportation and additional logistics support. These companies are aware of appropriate operating procedures in the Arctic’s natural and cultural environments such as working in cold temperatures without a large support network, fulfilling requirements for preferential Aboriginal hiring and working in and around remote Aboriginal communities (Northern Transportation Company Ltd., 2009; Horizon North Logistics Inc., 2011; Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping Inc., 2010). Environmental stewardship awareness in Arctic Canada is gaining increased significance, and the proposed Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) lists environmental stewardship and climate change among its priorities, with associated objectives to gain better knowledge of natural and human systems and their interconnections (INAC, 2010). Arctic cabled ocean observatory systems can facilitate improvements to Northern environmental stewardship programs through developing training and employment opportunities for community-based monitoring involving the collection and management of scientific data derived from the cable network(s). These can be enhanced through citizen science opportunities in which individual volunteers or networks of volunteers (e.g., students, the general public and nature enthusiasts) work together with scientists to perform or manage research-related tasks such as observation, measurement or computation.



2.7 Northern Engagement in Management Environmental stewardship efforts, community capacity-building programs and citizen science opportunities increase the knowledge and abilities of Aboriginal and Northern residents to become engaged in the management of Arctic-based projects. Aspects of managing projects such as the potential Cabled Ocean Observatory could include involving people in project planning, such as organizing community consultations, ensuring permitting and licensing requirements are met, and making certain that participation, IIBAs, are negotiated prior to project commencement. Aboriginal and Northern workers can also contribute to the construction phase and associated infrastructure issues (e.g., temporary access roads, permanent onshore stations and power-supply facilities) and to the management of ongoing operations (e.g., data collection, organization, processing and dissemination). The engagement of Aboriginal and Northern people in the management of Arctic projects is a significant consideration during the proposal, planning, operational and even closure/reclamation stages of a project’s life. 2.8 Infrastructure Issues and Resource Assessments The development of the Cabled Ocean Observatory would likely necessitate use of existing and construction of new infrastructure. This may involve building temporary or permanent access routes (e.g., overland winter access roads, ice roads, long-term overland access routes, marine docking/port structures, airstrips), constructing or enhancing communication systems (e.g., satellite towers, cable systems) and/or constructing new, or tapping into existing, power-supply facilities (e.g., building renewable energy facilities for wind or solar power, or accessing existing power grids in nearby communities). Any infrastructure project proposals would need to be permitted through the appropriate regulatory bodies, and through this process would be presented to potentially affected communities to seek their input. Community members can provide valuable feedback on social, cultural, economic and environmental concerns and also provide knowledgeable solutions for identified issues. Any advancement to the Arctic’s current infrastructure could help meet the infrastructure development objectives of Canada’s Northern Strategy (INAC 2009; Coates and Poelzer 2010). When assessing project proposals, regulatory agencies, in consultation with a variety of advisory and special interest groups, review assessments of the potential impacts on existing infrastructure and its service capabilities. These assessments include cumulative impact assessments in which the proposed development is considered alongside other past, current or potential future land use or development activities that may have impacted the area, its people, and its environment. A cumulative impact assessment for the proposed Cabled Ocean Observatory system would likely study the effects of existing development projects, infrastructure and activities (e.g., mines in Nunavut, existing docking facilities, power-supply facilities, current marine transportation routes, airport capacities) as well as potential future development projects, infrastructure and activities (e.g., new mines, a new deep sea port in Nunavut, the proposed CHARS, shifting marine transportation routes in response to changes in seasonal sea ice conditions, and new remote airstrips). 2.9 Program Multiplier Canada’s 2009 Northern strategy: Our north, our heritage, our future cites four main priorities including exercising Arctic sovereignty, protecting environmental heritage, and promoting social and economic development in the north. To facilitate reaching these objectives, the Government of Canada is committed to the construction of the CHARS, to be located in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, and to act as a



centre for scientific activity in the Arctic. A Feasibility Study for this project is currently underway (INAC, 2011; INAC, 2009). The installation of a Cabled Ocean Observatory has the opportunity to work with existing and proposed programs and systems such as the CHARS to improve overall project success. Integrating this project with other research programs that have complementary objectives (e.g., terrestrial hydrology, biophysical oceanography and climatological research programs and the dissemination of new research findings) could encourage synergistic relationships where the various projects can contribute, share and expand upon each other’s research foci, capabilities, resources and results. The Cabled Ocean Observatory can act as a catalyst for bringing together existing fragmented programs and systems that are in place across the Arctic through working with them to collect, share and disseminate information; care must be given to avoid replicating the efforts of other groups working towards similar goals (e.g., the Arctic Council). During its lifespan, managers of the Cabled Ocean Observatory must be constantly aware of and consider how its own operations are able to complement and augment the research objectives of other projects across the circumpolar Arctic. 2.10 Environmental Monitoring and Impacts The Cabled Ocean Observatory provides the opportunity to improve environmental monitoring strategies in Arctic Canada and detect changing biophysical conditions. Environmental monitoring capacities include recording and enabling timely responses to rare oceanic events, verifying changes in the ocean over time (e.g., ice conditions, ocean chemistry and currents) and documenting geological, physical, chemical and biological systems (ONC, 2011). Through long-term environmental monitoring, the impacts of human, as well as naturally induced changes, such as trends in pollutants, benthos characteristics, shifting shorelines and wildlife migration patterns can be recorded and their effects analyzed. Resulting data can provide valuable information for Aboriginal people and Northern residents, the scientific community and the general public. The Cabled Ocean Observatory can make significant contributions to environmental monitoring in the Arctic, with a minimal footprint, and enable assessment of potential impacts on the social and cultural values, and resources of Aboriginal and Northern people. It is important to note that controversies may arise on how environmental data are to be disseminated, particularly for information on marine wildlife species’ locations. There may be concern that such data, if released in real-time, could increase hunting and harvesting opportunities. Consultations with communities should take place to determine how local wildlife boards would like to have wildlife data released, whether having it available in real-time is desirable, or whether some sort of delayed information release (e.g., data released after three days) would be preferable to ensure minimal effects to traditional activities and wildlife populations. Another issue is access to the data; local and regional wildlife boards should be consulted to determine preferred access restrictions. 2.11 Socio-economic and Cultural Impacts Although participation, impact and benefit agreements can be important media for ensuring fair and equitable socio-economic opportunities for Northerners and an attempt to protect cultural values and resources, there is still the potential for negative impacts to result from various aspects of project



operations in Arctic Canada. Southern workers have traditionally migrated to the North to work in well-paying positions while local people may not have been offered, or been capable of fulfilling, those positions (e.g., doctors, nurses, government officials). Racial tensions often arose when southern workers did not interact socially with local Aboriginal people; the effects of disparities between the incomes of southern and Northern workers added to this tension (Robbins, 2009). The influences of consumption habits introduced from southern sources (e.g., alcohol and drug use) and employment patterns (e.g., rotational shift work at industrial sites) have the potential to decrease traditional Aboriginal land use activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping. Behavioural problems can develop as a result of these influences (e.g., inclinations towards abuse and/or criminal activities), and cultural losses can occur as well (e.g., loss of interest in learning the native language and decreased communications within families and between youth and Elders; Robbins, 2009; O’Reilly and Eacott, 2000). There is the potential that Northern residents may feel that projects such as the Cabled Ocean Observatory will intrude upon their personal and communal sense of privacy. They would be aware of the detailed nature of the information that would be collected from within their own ‘backyard’ and areas where they carry out traditional activities such as whaling, fishing and boating. They would likely be concerned about how this information would be distributed to scientists, regulators, the general public, and other stakeholders. Project planners must be aware of the possibility that Northerners could request certain levels of confidentiality when dealing with the information that is collected and disseminated. They may potentially be unwilling to share aspects of the biophysical and other data collected in the North for Southern-based or other purposes. The Cabled Ocean Observatory would have to be carefully planned to ensure that the introduction of southern workers into the North would be done in a socially and culturally sensitive manner. Science and technology staff, as well as support staff brought into the Arctic from the south, must participate in consultations with local residents and communities, and also provide plentiful quality training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal and other Northern residents. This will help ensure support for proposed project development as local people will be involved in the project’s planning and operations, and they will also realize the benefits from opportunities associated with the project. 2.12 Stakeholder Input Summary

Several interviews were carried out to request preliminary and unofficial input from high-level regulatory and / or advisory agencies in the NWT and Nunavut. The purpose of the interviews was to get a rough understanding of potential concerns, general interest or resistance to the installation of a cabled ocean observation system in the Canadian Arctic. The responses of the interviewees were variable, but they provided input on six key topics: environmental, cultural, economic, regulatory, location and timing issues.

Environmental – The proposed cabled ocean observation system was of great interest to the Aurora Research Institute (ARI) and Joint Secretariat (JS) of the NWT, with acknowledgement of opportunities to use the project to complement current scientific research agendas in the territory and provide scientific data to communities. However, concerns were brought forth that residents of Nunavut (Nunavummiut) would not support the project because of apprehensions that the cable sensors will emit noise and



impact whaling and fishing activities, that installations must be safely marked for boaters but that on the other hand those markers could be subject to vandalism, and that project decommissioning details need to be confirmed before project commencement. It was recommended that other environmental organizations with similar research agendas in the project be involved.

Cultural – Although the Inuvialuit Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) indicated an interest in being involved with the project, numerous cultural concerns were identified, particularly for Nunavut communities. The importance of following communication protocols during project progress was affirmed as being central to the project’s approval and success. It was stated that Nunavut community members would be opposed to the project because they do not have a use for the project data; they can make their own observations on ice conditions, etc. Concerns were brought up regarding access to the project data, with Nunavummiut potentially opposed to the world knowing about the travel patterns of whales and boats, and having fears that such knowledge could lead to increased whale harvests. It is considered imperative that Nunavummiut leaders are well-informed about the project, and that they are brought to Vancouver to see how similar existing projects operate to understand their benefits.

Economic – The benefits of this project are acknowledged in that it would bring training, jobs and infrastructure to the North. Project proponents are encouraged to go to schools and do presentations to get students interested in project-related opportunities It should be ensured that training and employment opportunities are addressed during project planning, and that considerations are made to bring trainers to Northern schools as opposed to sending students to the South. It was recommended that training be extended to many people instead of a select few so that alternative candidates are available for employment and other project opportunities.

Regulatory – The regulatory procedures for a Cabled Ocean Observatory will be dependent on its location. While the possible Cambridge Bay location for the project may be more straightforward with respect to regulatory processes, a Northwest Passage location could have many regulatory and/or legal implications with the international community. It was noted that the Canadian military already has installed sensors in the Northwest Passage to detect vessel passage through the area Staff at the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) will not indicate an interest in the project until an official briefing is provided for consideration at a board meeting.

Location – The preferred location of the Cabled Ocean Observatory is subject to debate among the interview partners. Proponents for the Cambridge Bay location state that the people there would welcome the project because they are used to research developments and can realize the economic benefits associated with these activities. The people of Resolute Bay would likely also welcome such a project as they are also science-oriented, but residents of other Nunavut communities may have different views. It was acknowledged that installing the cabled observatories in association with the High Arctic Research Centre in Cambridge Bay would be a sensible solution, but that the installation should not occur before the research centre because due to the necessity of the centre’s on-shore facilities. Opponents to the Cambridge Bay location stated that the decision to base the project there was a political one, and that the data collected in the Cambridge bay area are not of great use; it would be preferable to install the cables in a location where the data obtained has relevance and existing coastal facilities can be tied in (e.g., collect data in offshore areas of the Beaufort Sea using facilities in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT). Concerns with a location on the Northwest Passage include addressing international issues with those who do not view the Northwest Passage as belonging to Canada.



Timing – An estimated installation date of 2017 was viewed as reasonable because it would allow time for regulatory approval and it also coincides with the construction timeline for the High Arctic Research Centre.

Table 1 presents the information collected during the interview program. The information is organized according to the six key topics addressed.



Table 2-1. Northern Stakeholder Interview Summaries

Subject Category Interview Results - Support Interview Results - Concerns Interview Results – Neutral or Anecdotal

Environ-mental project is good idea and it would find

many applications in the Beaufort Sea; it is needed by scientists and local communities;

appealing that this system can collect data without emitting acoustic signals because communities are very sensitive about acoustic emissions in the ocean;

interest in comparing this study to others with similar scope, for example the NEPTUNE and VENUS projects; and

this project appears to tie in with the Beaufort Sea Management Plan; it would also tie in with identified science needs in the NWT.

concerns that people will not believe that the cable sensors will not emit noise; people are very sceptical and will be afraid of impact on whales and fish and harvesting activities;

safety concerns include ensuring that installations do not interfere with boaters; must mark properly and use lights; however, downside to properly marking the components is that local youth may use them for target practice and potentially vandalize them; and

decommissioning concerns include that it needs to be addressed from the beginning who will be in charge of removing the structures at the end of the project and when this will take place.

should include ArcticNet and similar organizations that have comparable research agendas, and also include local communities (e.g., get schools involved).




Cultural the Inuvialuit Fisheries Joint Management Committee wants to be involved in any further development, and will become more educated on the Neptune and Venus projects.

project may not involve dealing with a big cultural hurdle if standard communication protocols are followed, because people will see the benefits;

there will be a lot of opposition amongst the Nunavut communities;

Nunavummiut do not need project-related data; they can open their house doors and look out on the bay; they know the ice conditions;

Nunavummiut do not want the world to know where the whales are and which boats are passing by;

data access needs to be dealt with prior to project start;

access to data could be problematic, need to make sure that local communities have a say in it; and

need to avoid increased harvest due to known locations.

the proposed Arctic Link project runs a fibre optic communications cable from London to Hong Kong through the Arctic; the benefit for Nunavummiut is clear with better communications and higher internet speeds; people will likely buy into that project;

cultural component of feasibility study well received but also requires a complete communications package – communication is the key to approval and ultimately project success;

need to establish a plan to communicate this proposal to the relevant organizations and leaders; and

in order for Nunavummiut to buy into such a project, leaders and decision-makers need to be well informed and brought to Vancouver to see how the Neptune and Venus projects run; they need to get a very good understanding of the project to know why it would benefit them.




Economic benefits of this project would be in training, jobs and infrastructure, people are able to realize this; and

should go to schools and do presentations, get students interested in opportunities.

training opportunities and employment are necessary prerequisites that must be addressed;

training needs to be implemented in the proposal as one pillar; instructors need to come to the communities and teach at the local college (i.e., do not send students to Victoria, BC for training); and

must train many people and not just a select few, this way there are alternate candidates to select from (e.g., for employment positions).

could get industry to buy in, for example oil companies that do research in the area (e.g., British Petroleum, Imperial Oil).

Regulatory Cambridge Bay is more clear and straight-forward than the Northwest Passage locations regarding legal issues.

Northwest Passage could be a legal battle (internationally).

the regulatory procedure is dependent on the location of the project;

Canadian military has installed sensors in the Northwest Passage that detect vessel traffic;

staff of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) cannot express interest in the project before an official briefing is provided to the NWMB for their consideration at a board meeting;




Location location is key - people in Cambridge Bay welcomed the High Arctic Research Centre, they are used to research development, they are used to looking at economic benefits and they will be open for new development that comes along with the research centre; the same applies for people in Resolute; these two communities are science centered and are used to consultations; they likely appreciate and support research facilities, but those opinions may be completely different in other communities; and

Cambridge Bay is a good idea, tying it in with the High Arctic Research Centre makes sense; the Centre is scheduled to be open in 2017 – the ACO should aim at a similar timeframe; it makes no sense to for the ACO to be installed before the research centre because it will need the on-shore facility.

do not want to see the ACO in Cambridge Bay, regarding it as a political decision only, with no merit to anyone; may be no need for this data off the coast of Cambridge Bay, could be a waste of money;

preference to put the cable in an area that is important and where the data obtained will have some relevance (e.g., in offshore areas in the Beaufort Sea); could use existing coastal facilities (e.g., in Tuktoyaktuk); and

for the Northwest Passage the biggest challenge would be the international community that does not believe that these are Canadian waters.

Timing 2017 timeline will work well, with enough time for proper consultations – follow guidelines on Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) webpage.



3 Key Marine Science and Operational Issues in the Arctic 3.1 Canadian Arctic Science Requirements

3.1.1 Overarching Goals Arctic science requirements for Canada have been articulated in several documents over the past few years including, for example: Indian and Northern Affairs’ “Northern Strategy” (2008); the Canadian Council of Academies’ “Vision for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative; Assessing the Opportunities” (2008); Hik and Douglas (2008) “Planning for a Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) – A Synthesis of the Arctic Science Needs Scoping Papers Prepared by Federal Departments and Agencies”. As well, several international organizations have recently presented the broader science needs for the Arctic; e.g., International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II, 2007); The World Meteorological Organization’s “The State of Polar Research: A Statement from the International Council for Science/World Meteorological Organization Joint Committee for the International Polar Year 2008-2009”; the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks’ (SAON) “Final Report of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) Initiating Group” (2009); the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission’s “Why Monitor the Arctic Ocean” (2010); the International Study of Arctic Change’s “Science Plan” (2010) which follows on from the International Polar Year (2010) programs. The rationale for a network of ocean observatories in the Arctic is, in large measure, a mirror of many of the justifications put forward for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) (Hik and Douglas, 2008):

• “Enhanced, coordinated and sustained observing sites, systems and networks in the Arctic will provide data on the magnitude, variation and rate of current and past environmental change, and for the initialization, calibration and validation of computer models that allow simulation of the Arctic environmental system and its global connections. Combined, these will provide strength to predictions of future Arctic environmental conditions and enhance our ability to adapt.

• A strong science and implementation plan with an explicit and long-term observing component is a fundamental basis for implementing CHARS, and would build on the international SAON and ICARP II planning exercises that Canada has contributed considerable resources to.

• Long-term records are essential to answer today’s science and research questions.” The following sections summarize briefly of the most urgent science issues highlighted in the documents cited above. We have framed the discussion around the themes presented by the CCA but have also drawn on several other recent sources. 3.1.1.1 Climate Change At the forefront of science issues in the Arctic are climate change and its impacts on a wide variety of ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine. Despite its key role in the global ocean-climate system, knowledge about the Arctic Ocean and adjacent waters is limited, in large measure as a result of difficult access during most of the year, remoteness, long periods of darkness in the winter, and limited coverage by satellites. The region requires an integrated, international effort if we are to understand the Arctic System and how it will react to global climate changes (IOC, 2010).



The Arctic has already experienced significant climate-related changes with far-reaching consequences for biological, physical and socio-economic systems. Thus, climate change science in the Arctic needs to focus on a better understanding of the linkages between the atmosphere, the land, the ocean and the cryosphere. Examples include: impacts on the carbon cycle as a result of both terrestrial and marine changes; changes in oceanic circulation and productivity through modifications to freshwater inputs and warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; marine productivity changes due to a greater prevalence of open water conditions; sea ice changes and their effects on the distribution and survival of marine mammals. The International Study of Arctic Change Science Plan (2010) identifies nine broad science questions framing Arctic change research programs; many of these have a significant marine component:

1. How is the Arctic linked to global change? 2. How persistent is the presently observed Arctic change and is it unique? 3. How large is the anthropogenic component of observed Arctic change compared to natural

variability? 4. Why are so many aspects of Arctic change amplified with respect to global conditions? 5. How well can Arctic change be projected and what is needed to improve projections? 6. What are the adaptive capacities and resilience of Arctic ecological systems? 7. To what extent are social and ecological systems able to adapt to the effects of Arctic change? 8. How does environmental change in the Arctic affect resilience, adaptive capacity, and,

ultimately, viability of human communities? 9. How can new insight into Arctic change and its impacts be translated into solutions for

adaptation, management and mitigation? The CCA (2008) report highlights the fact that “knowledge of Arctic marine areas, in general, remains very poor, particularly the linkages among seabed topography … ocean currents, sea ice movements and adaptive responses of marine ecosystems”. It is impossible in the space of this report to discuss the breadth of Arctic climate change impacts on the marine environment; a few examples will, however, serve to illustrate the nature of the information gaps and the linkages among the various components of the overall system:

1. While there are a great many gaps in our understanding of the Arctic marine system, one particularly significant one is our lack of information on the spatial and temporal variability of sea ice cover and, in particular, its thickness. Very few measurements of ice thickness have been made since the 1990s (ISAC, 2010), a crucial parameter in understanding the energy balance between the atmosphere and ocean.

2. It is apparent that there has been an increase in surface flow of warm waters into the Arctic

Ocean from the North Pacific and North Atlantic, though less is understood about the consequences, for example, for flow through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and for marine ecosystems. The CCA (2008) report states: “An important impact of climate change will be the changing nature of Canada’s Arctic waterways, particularly the Northwest Passage.” Related to these changes in inflows from the Pacific and Atlantic, is the potential, not presently known, for



species to migrate northward into the Arctic Ocean with possible implications for marine productivity and entire ecosystems. (IASC, 2010).

3. Species impacts from Arctic change fall into four categories: (a) habitat modification; (b)

ecosystem alteration; (c) stresses to condition or health; (d) human interaction (ISAC, 2010). The effects of climate change on marine ecosystems are both diverse and profound, with impacts on plants and animals from marine algae to polar bears to humans. Diminished sea ice, for example, means a changing light regime, possibly increasing primary productivity made possible through the addition of enhanced fluvial input adding nutrients to the surface waters. At the same time, primary productivity will likely shift from ice-associated algae to phytoplankton with potential effects through the marine food chain. As has been seen, diminished prevalence of sea ice has modified the distribution of polar bears and promises to threaten their very existence.

3.1.1.2 Environmental Science and Stewardship Improved understanding of the interactions between the physical environment and marine ecosystems in the Arctic is crucial in order to protect often sensitive ecosystems. Resilience of specific ecosystems or particular species to anticipated change is only poorly understood in many cases. How, for example, will marine mammal distributions and numbers be affected by increased shipping? What mitigating measures can be instituted to minimize any adverse effects (e.g., alternate shipping routes; limits on shipping during particular seasons)? Of key concern in the Arctic is understanding contaminants and chemical pathways. Not only are there potentially deleterious effects on marine ecosystems from an anticipated increase in a wide range of possible contaminants, from mercury to organochlorines to crude oil, but there are clear implications for the health of Northerners. As Hik and Douglas (2008) summarize, based on a brief from Environment Canada, there is a need for “an integrated monitoring and science research program” to address these information gaps. Such programs would involve “reference environmental observatories network (REON supersites), enhancements to coordinate operational monitoring systems, and science programs …” (Hik and Douglas, 2008). 3.1.1.3 Sustainable Resource Development Resource development in Arctic Canada is expanding rapidly driven primarily by global demand for commodities such as iron ore and other base metals, oil and gas, and diamonds. As well, environmental changes in Arctic areas have raised the possibility of year-round shipping and offshore operations, thus increasing the economic viability for many deposits. Foreign investment in northern Canada from Europe and China, in particular, has risen sharply as supply of critical resources in other parts of the world diminishes. With increased resource exploration and development will come further stresses on many ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine. In the marine domain, impacts may range from introduction of contaminants from land-based operations, oil and chemical spills in ports or along shipping routes, disruption of sea ice and effects on marine productivity and marine mammals, and ballast water introduction of new species or alteration of coastal ecosystems, to name a few.



Environmental management under a regime of increasing activity in the North requires solid baseline information and ongoing monitoring to understand the natural variability in Arctic marine systems and to identify anthropogenic impacts. As the CCA (2008) report states: “High quality, science-based evidence is needed to design effective regulations. Therefore there is an urgent need to establish environmental and socio-cultural baseline information to support development of frameworks for environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments against which the potential and actual cumulative impacts of development activities can be measured and judged.” 3.1.1.4 Healthy and Sustainable Communities There is a need for long-term monitoring of the health of Northerners, particularly under the rapid changes in the environment and industrial activity underway in the region. Traditional food sources have come in large measure from the ocean – fish, seals, walrus, whales and polar bears – all of which are potentially susceptible to impacts from a wide range of contaminants. Monitoring of marine contaminants and their pathways through Arctic waters and through Arctic ecosystems will be an important aspect of health surveillance in the North. 3.1.1.5 Other Priority Themes 3.1.1.5.1 Observation and Monitoring While the CCA (2008) report separates “Observation and Monitoring” as a separate priority, in fact they are integral to all of the above primary foci of Arctic science requirements. The CCA panel, however, felt the need to explicitly highlight the need for regular collection and monitoring of baseline data “over time and across geography”. They point to the international consensus that long-term environmental monitoring “is an indispensable core activity for understanding and managing the global environment” and provides the “… essential building blocks for the kind of robust, evidence-based, regulatory regime that can support sustainable resource development in a highly sensitive environment”. 3.1.1.5.2 Technology The CCA (2008) panel also highlighted the need for technology development as an additional priority in order to achieve the goals of the primary science activities. They point to the need for autonomous technologies and “high specification broadband communications” and an enhanced northern communications infrastructure in support of northern science. Of specific relevance in this context, they state: “Monitoring technologies … are continually developing and will enable entirely new kinds of measurements. These developments will generate very large data volumes and create the need for advanced means of organizing, documenting and analyzing data (e.g., data mining).”



Engineering works

River plumes

Oil spills Tides

Climate El Niño La Niña

Migrations

Ship traffic

Animal behaviour

Storms

Weather systems

Ships

Satellites Cabled

observatories

Aircraft

Since marine ecosystems exhibit physical and biological variability over a wide range of space and time scales (Steele, 1978), no one sampling strategy is suitable to address all phenomena. The four-dimensional nature of the dynamic ocean and its processes make it nearly impossible to obtain a perfect time series of events in the sea from any one platform. A wide variety of moored platforms, including surface and bottom mounted moorings, gliders, unmanned vehicles, drifting buoys, ships, aircrafts, and satellites are currently available, but all have limitations. Figure 3-1 (after Smith et al., 1987), is a debatable attempt to compare the space/time domains of some important physical and biological oceanic processes with the space/time sampling regimes of some measurement platforms.

The ellipses show the approximate temporal and spatial scales of movement or generation times of ocean phenomenon. For example animal behaviour (light purple) occurs at the shortest scales, while climate events (green) occur over large areas and large time periods. Satellite platforms (blue frame) provide access to the largest time and space scales by repeated wide area imaging, but mostly for surface sampling. Ships (dark red partial ellipse) provide the most flexible platforms for sampling throughout the water column, but are slow and alias their measurements in time and space. The length of sampling is limited by cost, and in the Arctic by the open water season. Aircraft (dark blue partial ellipse) platforms move faster, and cover more area, but are also mostly limited to a few kinds of surface imaging or expendable instrumentation. Moored systems and cabled observatories (green open frame updated for systems currently available) are the only platforms that can provide long, continuous water-column time-series that are not possible from aircraft, satellites or vessels. Cabled systems offer

Figure 3-1. Generalized space and time scales of some marine phenomena and issues, and some arguable domains for sensing platforms and sensor (adapted from Smith et al., 1987).



continuous records covering time scales from decades to microseconds, providing datasets never before possible. Both cabled and moored observing systems are local sampling platforms, but with multiple devices or networks, can provide regional sampling.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting: CHARS in the context of the Canadian Arctic 3.1.2.1 Sea Ice and Oceanography The Canadian Arctic can be divided into two major regions: in the west, the south eastern Beaufort Sea portion of the Arctic Ocean, located in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories; and in the central area and east, the vast expanse of the Canadian Arctic Islands (or Canadian Arctic Archipelago – CAA) extending eastward to Baffin Bay, located mostly in Nunavut Territory. The Arctic Islands region encompasses thousands of islands, passages, straits, fiords, sounds and bays, covering an area of 1.4 x106 km2. Within the Canadian Arctic, the Coronation-Queen Maud Gulf area is a unique ecosystem because oceanographic conditions there differ from the rest of the CAA. The Gulfs are shallow, more protected from winds and water exchange, and more affected by sediment input and freshwater drainage (Usher, 2010) than other areas in the Archipelago. 3.1.2.1.1 Bathymetry Water depths are a key determinant of coastal oceanography and are highly visible across the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (Figure 3-2). Generally, the maximum water depths decrease with the eastward progression through Parry Channel and the southward progression through M’Clintock Channel. The most southerly areas, Queen Maud Gulf and Coronation Gulf, are shallow basins averaging less than 100m in depth. The shallow water depths are an important overriding feature for the biophysical processes within this region of the Canadian Arctic. 3.1.2.1.2 Ice Regime The sea ice of the Canadian Arctic includes two principal sea-ice types (first-year, multi-year ice) and two states of mobility (active pack ice, static fast ice). The occurrence of these sea-ice types and mobilities varies considerably over the entire Arctic Ocean as (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). Mobile pack ice dominates the Beaufort Sea portion of the Arctic Ocean including both first year (annual) and multi-year (old) ice. Along the shorelines and in the confined channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago the sea ice becomes immobile (or fast) through much of the year from mid-autumn through to summer. Old or multi-year ice occupies much of the northern and western channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago while first-year ice is dominant in the more southerly and easterly channels. A key characteristic of the ice in this region is the prevalence of thick first year ice and multiyear ice. Even in September, when sea ice is at its minimum extent, high concentrations prevail in the northernmost Canadian Arctic Islands, including substantial amounts of multi-year ice (Figure 3-4). The multi-year ice largely originates in the Arctic Ocean to the north of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago under the influence of the circulation of the Beaufort Gyre, which leads to the highest concentration of multi-year ice immediately to the north of the CAA. The prevailing winds and ocean currents transport the ice into the CAA in summer when it becomes mobile. The duration of the open water season in the Canadian Arctic ranges from 1 to 4 months on average. The open water season is longest in the southern portions of the Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf and



in the Northwestern Baffin Bay and Lancaster Sound region (Figure 3-5, 3-6). In the northern and central portions of the Arctic Islands, the duration of mostly open water conditions is mainly limited to the month of September; in some years, the sea-ice does not clear in these northern and central channels.

Queen Elizabeth Islands

M’C S M’Clure Strait VM S Viscount Melville Sound M C M’Clintock Channel B S Barrow Strait L C Lancaster Sound QMG Queen Maud Gulf CG Coronation Gulf

Arctic Ocean

Victoria Is.

Baffin Is.

Banks Is. Somerset

Is. Prince

of Wales Is.

Ellesmere Is.

Melville Is Devon Is.

Greenland

M’C S

VM S B S

M C

L C

QMG CG

Amundsen G.

King William

Is.

Figure 3-2. Bathymetry map of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (derived from IBCAO data v. 2.23 and prepared in ENVI 4.8). The red dot marks Cambridge Bay location.



% occurrence of sea ice > 6/10

0

100

40

20

60

80

TOTAL ICE > 6/10 July-Sept 1968-2010

OLD ICE > 6/10 July-Sept 1968-2010

Figure 3-3. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has four distinct domains (after Melling, 2010) including two ice types (annual or first year ice and old or multi-year ice) and two states of mobility (moving pack ice or non-moving “fast” ice).

Figure 3-4. Distribution of sea ice frequency occurrences greater > 6/10 between July and September 1968-2010; Total Ice on the left, and Old Ice on the right (derived from Canadian Ice Service weekly ice data). The white dots mark Cambridge Bay location.



The break-up and freeze-up dates vary considerably from one year to another in all parts of the Canadian Arctic. An example of this large degree of inter-annual variability is shown (Figure 3-6) for the area near Cambridge Bay (Dease Strait and Queen Maud Gulf) for the long-term break-up and freeze-up dates. For the “nominal” break-up date of July 23, in some years little or no ice present while in other years the sea-ice concentration is 100%. Similar large variations occur from year-to-year at the time of the nominal freeze-up date of Oct. 15. Old ice is only very rarely present during the break-up or freeze-up periods.

Average Freeze-Up Date Sep 30 - Minimal Ice Extent Sep 24 Oct 08 Oct 22 Nov 06 Nov 19 Dec 04

Land Oct 15

Average Break-Up Date June 18 – No Ice June 18 July 16 July 02 July 30 Aug 13 Aug 27 Sep 10 Minimal Ice Extent Land July 23

Figure 3-5. 1971 to 2000 average break-up and freeze-up dates (CIS, Sea Ice Climatic Atlas, 2010). The average data of break-up and freeze-up at Cambridge Bay is July 23 and Oct. 15.



The areal extent and duration of sea ice in the Canadian Arctic are exhibiting distinct trends towards reduced ice conditions. In the Arctic Ocean itself, reductions in minimal Arctic Ocean ice extent since 2002 have been very large with an overall reduction of 11.6% per decade in areal ice extent in September over the past 40 years. In the Canadian Arctic waters, the late summer ice reductions are somewhat smaller and vary considerably by region (Figure 3-7). The late summer total ice cover is reduced in all sub-regions, ranging from -11.6% per decade in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea and -7.1% in the deep waters of the Canada Basin to -2.7% per decade over the Mackenzie Shelf region of the Beaufort Sea, -5.4% in Viscount Melville Sound, -2.6% in Coronation and Queen Maud Gulfs, and -3.8% in Franklin Strait. The reduction in the areal extent of old ice is very large in the Canada Basin sub-region (offshore portion of the Canadian Beaufort Sea) and the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, at -10.0 and -8.8% per decade, respectively, versus the smaller changes of -2.2%, +0.8% and -1.6% per decade in the Mackenzie Shelf, Viscount Melville Sound and Franklin Strait sub-regions. The small increase in old ice area extent in Viscount Melville Sound may reflect the increased mobility of ice in the areas of the Arctic Islands to the north of this portion of the Northwest Passage, allowing more Arctic Ocean old ice to enter the Passage which may, at times, increase ice hazards for shipping in this sub-region (Mudge et al., 2010; Howell et al., 2008; Melling, 2002).

0

2

4

6

8

1068 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10

Sea

Ice

(tent

hs)

Old FYI Young New + NilasTotal Ice 1968-2010 Median: 9.5 Total Ice 1968-2010 Trend -2.2% Slope, 3.8 StDev

0

2

4

6

8

10

68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10

Sea

Ice

(tent

hs)

Old FYI Young New + Nilas

No

Data

in 1

974

Total Ice 1968-2010 Trend -0.23% Slope, 4.4 StDev Total Ice 1968-2010 Median: 3.0

Figure 3-6. Sea-ice concentrations near Cambridge Bay from 1968 to 2010 at the time of the nominal break-up (July 23, top) and freeze-up (Oct. 15, bottom) dates.



Figure 3-7. Trends in mid-September sea ice extent for various subregions along the NWP route, as computed from Canadian Ice Service charts, 1968 to 2010. 3.1.2.1.3 Air Temperatures The reduction in sea ice extent and duration is related to the warming of the Canadian Arctic as seen in the long-term trend of air temperatures in the region. The 1960-2010 averaged monthly Surface Air Temperatures for Cambridge Bay, Resolute, and Sachs Harbour were similar, except in the summer months (Figure 3-8). The decadal changes derived from the 1960-2010 trend show that the most drastic changes in Cambridge Bay occurred in January (almost 1°C increase per decade), followed by April (0.8 °C increase per decade).



Resolute

Sachs H.

Cambridge Bay

Resolute Sachs Harbour Cambridge Bay

Figure 3-8. Monthly Mean Surface Air Temperatures (top) and Decadal Change (bottom) at Sachs Harbour, Cambridge Bay, and Resolute (data from Environment Canada, 2011).



3.1.2.1.4 Polynyas Important ice features in the Canadian Arctic are the many polynyas present (Figure 3-9). A polynya is a geographically fixed region of open water (or low average sea-ice thickness) that is isolated within thicker pack ice (Hannah et al, 2009). Recurring polynyas are “hot spots” for the intense and early production of the planktonic herbivores that ensure the transfer of solar energy fixed by planktonic microalgae to Arctic cod, seals, whales, polar bears and man (Stirling, 1980; Stirling and Cleator, 1981; Stirling, 1997; Fortier et al., 2006).

Figure 3-9. Recurring known polynyas (Barber and Masson, 2007, in Hannah et al., 2009). The yellow dot marks the location of Cambridge Bay.



3.1.2.1.5 Ocean Currents Within the Archipelago as a whole, the net current movement from the northwest to the southeast is caused by a pressure head (gradient), which is high in the Arctic Ocean and lower in the Archipelago (Figure 3-10). However, within Queen Maud and Coronation Gulfs, the net circulation is generally weak due to the higher sea levels in this area. There is a net outflow through Dolphin and Union Strait to the west and with weak and variable net current exchanges with M’Clintock Channel to the north. 3.1.2.1.6 Water Masses – Hydrology The average water depth in the Archipelago is generally 500 m or less; thus the predominant water mass in this area is surface Arctic water, accompanied by some deeper Atlantic water. The Arctic Surface water is characterized by very low temperatures (< 0o Celsius) except in summer, when solar heating of open water and river discharges can raise the temperature near the surface. The Arctic Surface Water has relatively low salinity due to the effect of Arctic river runoff and summer ice melt. Figure 3-11 shows sea surface temperature patterns ranging from 0 to -1 °C across the Archipelago, and sea surface salinities mostly between 29-30 psu. The southern section of the Arctic Islands shows salinities below 28psu, thus indicating larger amounts fresh water discharges from mainland rivers.

Figure 3-10. Surface elevation as a proxy for transport derived from a 3D non-linear diagnostic calculation (Kliem and Greenberg, 2003).



The combined drainage area of Coronation and Queen Maud Gulfs is 174,679 km2 (Statistics Canada, 2008). Major rivers discharging into Coronation Gulf (Figure 3-12) include the Rae, Richardson, Coppermine (the largest, and also a designated Heritage Canadian River), and Tree rivers. Rivers discharging into the Queen Maud Gulf include the Ellice (Kuunnuaq), Perry (Kuugjuaq), Karmack, Simpson, and Kaleet (Didiuk and Fergurson, 2005). The Back River discharges into Chantrey Inlet off Rae Strait adjoining Queen Maud Gulf. Water Survey Canada has real-time stations for the Coppermine, Tree, Ellice and Back rivers as well as for Freshwater Creek near Cambridge Bay in Victoria Island (WSC, 2008). Water level and streamflow statistics are available from 1987 to present. Significant seasonal discharge of freshwater and sediments in Coronation Gulf and Queen Maud Gulf introduces large amounts of Dissolved Organic Material (DOM) as shown in Figure 3-13. In addition to seawater dilution, there is an enhancement of primary production particularly outside the plume/sea water fronts, as the nutrients released from sediments disperse upward to the surface waters (Bussmann and Kattner, 2000; Emmerton et al., 2007).

Cambridge Bay

Temperature Salinity

Rae St. Figure 3-11. Sea surface temperatures (left) and salinities (right). The white symbols mark the locations of profiles (Kliem and Greenberg, 2003). Notice that Rae Strait exhibits the lowest salinities (21-20 psu).



Iqaluktuuttiaq Cambridge Bay Dease Strait

Queen Maud Gulf

Victoria Strait

Kent P.

Figure 3-12. Location of the main rivers (in red) discharging in Coronation Gulf and Queen Maud Gulf (modified NRCAN Ocean Discharge Map, 2009). Hydrometric stations presently available are marked in green (WCS, 2008). Other rivers shown are mentioned in Didiuk and Ferguson (2005).

Figure 3-13. Aqua/MODIS showing the river plumes along the shoreline of Queen Maud Gulf, Chantrey Inlet, and Rae Strait in late August 2009 (NASA Earth Observatory, 2009). Clouds are covering the western end of the Kent Peninsula, and ice is blocking Victoria Strait.



3.1.2.1.7 Tides The tidal heights in the Canadian Arctic are generally small to moderate in amplitude by comparison to other regions of Canada. The smallest tides occur in the Beaufort Sea of the Arctic Ocean and the largest tides are found in Baffin Bay (Figure 3-14). Note that in Queen Maud and Coronation Gulfs, the tidal heights are small relative to more northerly and easterly portions of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Tidal currents generally follow the same patterns as tidal heights in areas of uniform water depths. However, in areas where the water shallows and/or is confined into narrow channels, the tidal currents can increase considerable in response to the large scale tidal forcing. The areas where there is considerable potential for tidal current enhancement effects are shown in Figure 3-15.

3.1.2.1.8 Upwelling and Mixing The potential for upwelling and mixing in the Canadian Arctic Islands is reduced by comparison to the more open areas of the Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay due to the shallow water depths combined with the surface layer stratification resulting from the river freshwater discharge into the area. Local upwelling features are possible along well defined river frontal features.

Figure 3-14. The M2 elevation solution. Phase lines are shown at 20 degree contours (Hannah et al., 2008).



3.1.2.1.9 Data Gaps and Level of Confidence Weather and ice conditions in the Canadian Archipelago have made on-going research difficult and expensive. Only sparse data and models are available. While DFO has undertaken 12 years of ocean monitoring to establish the magnitude and variability of freshwater and ice fluxes out of the Arctic, some researchers are of the opinion that there is insufficient known about the details of freshwater fluxes within the CAA related to the regional hydrology of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (e.g., Spence and Burke, 2008). 3.1.2.2 Marine Geology The marine geology of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) is poorly known with most studies having been undertaken in the more accessible areas of the eastern High Arctic such as Lancaster Sound (e.g., Buckley, 1963; Keen et al., 1972; Bornhold and Lewis, 1976; Lewis et al., 1977; Jackson,1977; Smith et al., 1989), Barrow Strait (e.g., Ross et al., 1975), Strathcona Sound (e.g., Fallis, 1982) and nearby areas (e.g., Miall et al., 1980; Jackson and Sangster, 1987) . A very few seabed investigations were undertaken in the ice-infested waters of the westernmost CAA such as near Axel Heiberg Island (Hein et al., 1990; Hein and Mudie, 1991). The overall pattern of seaways through the CAA was largely inherited from Tertiary drainage patterns, modified by subsequent glacial processes (Fortier and Morley, 1956; Bornhold et al., 1976; Trettin, 1989; Dawes and Christie, 1991). Some of these features were undoubtedly of structural origin and became the loci of fluvial drainage.

LC - Lambert Channel KWI- King William Island PWI- Prince of Wales Island SI- Somerset Island. BP - Boothia Peninsula CB - Committee Bay FH - Fury and Hecla Strait Bellot Strait, which separates the Boothia Peninsula and Somerset Island, is not resolved in the model grid. It is located at the narrowest section of land between the BP and SI labels

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 3-15. Tidal mixing parameter λ=log (h/U3) for the central (A) and southern (B) regions of the Canadian Archipelago (Hannah et al., 2008). Red and yellow areas indicate higher probabilities of polynya formation.



Figure 3-16. Generalized geology in the Coronation Gulf-Queen Maud Gulf region (Thorsteinson and Tozer, 1970)

In the vicinity of the CHARS, the Queen Maud Gulf-Coronation Gulf area lies at the boundary between early Precambrian rocks of the Canadian Shield to the south and the Arctic Platform Figure 3-16). Precambrian rocks appear locally within the largely undeformed sedimentary rocks of the Arctic Platform area as inliers (e.g., Wellington and Duke of York Highs, and Boothia Uplift). The region was extensively glaciated during the Quaternary with resultant characteristic geomorphic features (e.g., drumlins) and large regions of unbroken glacial till and associated sediments (coarse outwash). The eastern area of Victoria Island (along Dease Strait and north of Queen Maud Gulf) is characterized by unbroken till cover. Holocene isostatic rebound has resulted in raised beaches along much of the coastline with extensive accumulations of marine sands and silts along the southern Dease Strait coastline (Kent Peninsula), southwestern Coronation Gulf, southern Maud Gulf and all of the Adelaide Peninsula (eastern Maud Gulf). In Maud Gulf and Coronation Gulf, water depths are typically less than 120 m, though small areas of Coronation Gulf exceed 250 m deep. Bathurst Inlet, to the south, is a series of isolated basins which can be more than 300 m in depth. Waters in Dease Strait off Cambridge Bay are typically between 60 and 70 m deep with localized shallower areas less than 50 m deep. Though no marine geological studies have been undertaken in the area, the seabed, based on scattered annotations on Canadian Hydrographic Service charts, consists largely of sands and muds in the deeper parts of Dease Strait. The outer entrance to Cambridge Bay is marked by an arcuate bedrock or morainal ridge, as shallow as 10 m, extending from Cape Colborne in the south to Long Point in the north (Figure 3-17). Inside this ridge the bay is marked by a patchwork of gravelly or bedrock shoals rising to as shallow as 1 m depth above a



seafloor lying between 10 and 20 m depth (Figure 3-18). In the sheltered waters close to the town of Cambridge Bay, water depths can reach more than 80 m.

Figure 3-17. Chart of Dease Strait and western Queen Maud Gulf. Soundings are in fathoms.

~ 10 km



~ 5 km

Figure 3-18. Outer Cambridge Bay showing the patchwork of shoals. Soundings are in metres.



3.1.2.3 Marine Ecosystems The Arctic marine environment is dominated by sea ice and by the dynamics of that ice. It is at the ice edge where intense algal blooms occur in spring and summer, and it is the primary production by phytoplankton that supports the Arctic marine food webs (Figure 3-19).

3.1.2.3.1 Dissolved Organic Material Dissolved organic material (DOM) plays a major role in the ocean as the principal carbon and energy source for the microbial food web, and for consumers at higher trophic levels that feed on microbes or on DOM directly. As well, the sources and dynamics of DOM in the coastal Arctic Ocean are of special interest themselves. Cambridge Bay and nearby Coronation Gulf and Queen Maude Gulf are affected by significant seasonal discharges of freshwater and sediments.

Retamal et al. (2007) showed the very strong influence of dissolved organic material of terrestrial origin on Arctic coastal shelves and called for more detailed temporal sampling in order to assess seasonal differences as well as inter-annual and long-term trends. Long-term monitoring of DOM via a cabled observatory in the Queen Maud Gulf could perhaps provide data relevant to monitoring of the permafrost in the Queen Maud Gulf Lowlands. Carmack et al. (2004, 2006) suggested a conceptual model (Figure 3-20) of annual cycle of production on interior shelves where light limitation due to snow and ice controls the timing of primary productivity of the shelf areas of the Canadian Beaufort Sea, but the annual production is set by the availability of nutrients, which in turn is determined by vertical convection during winter and by upwelling.

Figure 3-19. A summary of arctic marine ecosystem and its interactions (Grandinger et al., 2004). Bacteria and DOP not included in this figure.



3.1.2.3.2 Phytoplankton In general, there are sufficient nutrients in the mixed layer in late winter and early spring to support phytoplankton growth, but high incident light does not penetrate to the water due to snow and ice resulting in a light-limited water column phytoplankton community. In the spring, phytoplankton may begin to grow at the bottom of the ice, contributing as much as 15% of the annual production (Horner and Schrader, 1982) and further shading of the water column. As the ice melts, the surface layers become stratified from ice melt and also from river outflow. Pelagic production depletes the nutrients available near the surface, and surface production quickly declines. This is seen clearly in Figures 3-21 and 3-22, which shows a 10-year time series of satellite-derived chlorophyll for the central part of Queen Maud Gulf. A deep chlorophyll maximum develops later in the short summer near the thermocline, where there is sufficient stratification and availability of light and nutrients.

The anticipated loss of Arctic ice will have greatest impact on initiation of conditions for shelf-break upwelling, and hence on the timing of phytoplankton blooms, but not on the annual production (Carmack et al., 2004). In the Canada Basin offshore, an increase in the abundance of the smallest picoplankton and a decrease of the larger celled phytoplankton have been linked to increases of temperature coupled with salinity decreases (Li et al., 2009). Similar changes in food web structure are expected to propagate through the Arctic marine ecosystem. Carmack et al. (2004) pointed out the need for time series coverage throughout the growing season, better measurements of under ice light climate, especially during break-up, vertical distribution of chlorophyll temporal variability especially the fate of the deep chllorophyll maximum, and better remote sensing algorithms to separate chlorophyll, dissolved organic and sediment signals.

Kz=vertical diffusion W=vertical velocity RI=river inflow HC=haline convection SD=shelf drainage UW = upwelling IA=ice algae SB=spring bloom FB=fall bloom CM=subsurface chlorophyll

maximum.

Figure 3-20. Schema of physical processes affecting the seasonal pattern or primary production on an Arctic shelf (Carmack et al, 2006).



3.1.2.3.3 Zooplankton Most zooplankton studies have been carried out from ship cruises using plankton nets or continuous plankton recorders during the open water period, and, more recently, from ice-based observatories (Ashjian, 2004; Proshutinsky et al., 2004); however, these records are almost all intermittent, and do not include the very important break-up period. Moored time-series sediment traps have proven successful i n collecting zooplankton throughout the year (Knauer et al., 1979; Forbes et al., 1992, Hamilton et al. 2009, Makabe et al., 2010). Although the abundance and taxonomic composition of trap-collected zooplankton are restricted to layers just above the trap and not the entire water column (Seiler and Brandt , 1997), time-series data can give valuable information on the regional and seasonal variability of zooplankton, especially in ice-covered waters (Willis et al., 2008). In most Arctic studies, herbivorous copepods account for more than 75% of the total zooplankton abundance throughout the year, with increase in abundance at all sites during the fall, and marked seasonal shifts in composition (Conover, 1988). Composition in polynyas has been found to be different from other sites, probably due to a less prolonged period of sea ice cover, which provides favorable food conditions for the zooplankton community (Smith and Barber, 2007). In recent CASES’ research in Franklin Bay (2002-2004), surprisingly active food webs were discovered under the ice during mid-winter and early spring (Seuthe et al., 2007; Garneau et al., 2008), accompanied by abundances of adult Polar cod (Benoit et al., 2008). 3.1.2.3.4 Change As the warming trends in the Arctic continue, decrease in the extent and duration of the sea ice will cause significant ecosystem changes, such as increases of primary and secondary production (Lavoie et al. 2009), and distribution and invasion of sub-Arctic species (Vermeij and Roopnarine, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009). 3.1.2.3.5 Data Gaps Due to the scarcity of long-term datasets, the trends in trophic interactions in the Arctic Archipelago are largely unknown (Niemi et al, 2010). Very little biological oceanographic work has been undertaken in Queen Maud Gulf, and what little is known about the area has to be extrapolated from other areas, notably the Beaufort Sea, which has been relatively well studied in recent years. The understanding of processes is limited by very expensive and therefore restricted ship access during the open-water season, and ice-based studies during the period when ice is strong enough to support camps. When cloud permits, ocean colour satellites can provide a synoptic wide area view of phytoplankton chlorophyll in the surface layer, and this is particularly valuable during the transition periods when ships are not present (Figure 3-21 and Figure 3-22). Satellites cannot, however, see phytoplankton populations lower in the water column. Cabled observatories would provide continuous measurements uninterrupted by ice, weather, and darkness that will allow extrapolation of ship-based studies and also provide ground truth for satellite-based measurements.



2000-07-27 to 2000-08-03 2000-08-04 to 2000-08-19 2000-08-20 to 2000-08-27 2000-09-13 to 2000-09-20 3.1.2.3.6 Fish The fish fauna of Arctic Canada include an estimated 240 species (190 marine, approximately 15 anadromous, and approximately 35 freshwater) but there has been insufficient sampling coverage (NRCAN, 2007). Important fish species in the CAA include Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis), capelin (Mallotus villosus), fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis), which play a key role as prey for other fish, birds and/or marine mammals, and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), which are important for subsistence and commercial fishing (Figure 3-23) (Niemi et al, 2010; Govt. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., 2005).

Figure 3-21. A ten year satellite-derived history of phytoplankton chlorophyll concentration in Queen Maud Gulf, at the center of the yellow rectangle in Figure 3-21 (from SeaWiFs, extracted using the ASL/GRIP Temporal Profiler).

Jul 27 to Aug 03 Aug 04 to Aug 19 Aug 20 to Aug 27 Sep 13 to Sep 20

Figure 3-22. Spatial distribution of satellite-derived chlorophyll in Queen Maud Gulf during the summer of 2000, in 8 day periods. Ice and cloud are shown as black (from SeaWiFs, extracted using the ASL/GRIP Temporal Profiler). Yellow box shows the position of the satellite chlorophyll time series shown in Figure 2-21.



3.1.2.3.7 Mammals Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas ) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), ringed seals (Pusa hispida), harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) (Figures 3-23, 3-24) are the most frequent marine mammals known in the CAA, but their actual numbers are not known (Niemi et al., 2010). The extent of landfast ice suggests that the region should harbour a relatively high density of seals, as this is their preferred breeding habitat, but they are not common in many coastal areas, and during winter could only be hunted at breathing holes (Norman and Friesen, 2010). The Queen Maud Gulf Lowlands are among the most extensive wetlands in the central Arctic, and include part of the Bathurst caribou calving grounds and are also home to a large population of muskoxen. Wolves and Arctic foxes are common in the area. The wolves take larger prey, mostly caribou, but supplement their diet with waterfowl during their molt, when they are flightless (Wiebe et al., 2009). Foxes are generalist predators and scavengers and take smaller prey such as lemmings, and voles, but also take as many as 1000 eggs per season (Samelius, 2006). The Bathurst Caribou cross Coronation Gulf on winter ice (Figure 3-25).

Figure 3-23. Important areas of abundance for Arctic Char (left) and seals (right) within Nunavut (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010).



3.1.2.3.8 Birds The most abundant wildlife in the area is found in the Queen Maud Lowlands (Figure 3-25), located on the mainland coast of the Gulf (Parks Canada, 2006). Hundreds of thousands of waterfowl breed, moult and stage in this area. Over 90% of the world population of Ross' Geese, more than 30% of the Western Canadian Arctic, Lesser Snow Goose population and globally significant numbers of several other waterfowl, wading birds and raptors utilize the lowlands (IBA, 2010). The Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Sanctuary (QMGMBS) has been categorized as of global significance as a congregating area for waterfowl and wading birds. It has been recognized as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2006). The sanctuary, established in 1961, is

Figure 3-25. Ranges of whales (left) and polar bear (right) in the CAA (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010).

Figure 3-24. Caribou range in the CAA (left), and important habitats for marine and terrestrial birds (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2010).



the largest federally owned protected area in Canada, encompassing 6,710 km2 of marine and 55,055 km2 of terrestrial wetland areas (NRC, 2009).

The QMGMBS and the Queen Maud Gulf Lowlands are of great relevance to the proposed Cabled Observatory. While they are not marine sanctuary areas, they are advertised by some tour sites as "the Serengeti of the North", where waterfowl, caribou and musk-ox can be seen. They are on the itinerary of several polar tourist cruise operators, and do draw tourists, most of whom will come by ship (Polar Cruises, 2011; Worldwide Quest, 2011). The Queen Maud Gulf receives river input from the Sanctuary and the Wetlands, and monitoring of salinity, DOM and other parameters could be of considerable importance to monitoring the health of the Lowlands.

3.1.3 Canadian Arctic Science Requirements Summary Cabled ocean observatories in the Arctic can contribute to various scientific requirements of a wide range of stakeholders:

• The Arctic is witnessing more rapid environmental change that most other regions of the world yet it is precisely here that we know least about the physical and biogeochemical processes and their interactions. There is general agreement that atmospheric and oceanographic changes in the Arctic will have profound environmental effects in other parts of the globe.

• In the past, most Arctic marine observations were limited to brief cruises of research vessels during open water seasons, a very few programs carried out from the sea ice or ice islands, and moored arrays of oceanographic instruments. Thus our knowledge of the Arctic marine environment has been highly biased towards summer, open water seasons.

• There is, thus, a well-recognized need for long-term, continuous observations of the environment, both terrestrial and marine across the Arctic, throughout the entire year. This requirement has been identified in many national and international science planning documents.

• Cabled ocean observatories offer the possibility of monitoring a broad range of environmental parameters continuously throughout the year, thus providing a more complete understanding of the Arctic Marine Ecosystem and complementing a wide variety of ongoing and planned marine and terrestrial environmental studies.

• Northerners rely more directly on the marine resources much more so than do southerners. An understanding of the rapid changes in these ecosystems is essential to their well-being.

• Stakeholders from all sectors have been supportive of the concept of cabled ocean observatories in the Canadian Arctic. They have identified a broad range of sites where such long-term measurements in the marine environment would be beneficial.

• This feasibility study examines three generic types of site (community-based, remote and independent) and focuses on a demonstration site near the planned Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) as a proof of concept for cabled ocean observatories in the Arctic. Researchers have indicated that there are compelling scientific reasons to focus initially in this area: the role of large freshwater inputs in this region and their impacts on circulation and productivity throughout the CAA; the need for a better understanding of ice-related ecosystems and how a change to more open water conditions will affect productivity in the area; how marine acoustic noise associated with increased shipping in confined channels such as Dease Strait will impact marine mammals and fish.



3.2 Canadian Arctic Operational Requirements

3.2.1 Shipping Over the past decade there have been dramatic reductions in the areal extent of sea ice in late summer over the Arctic Ocean (as discussed in section 3.1.1 above). These changes in the Arctic Ocean ice regime, and related changes in the atmospheric and oceanic climate, have received widespread attention in terms of the implications of these changes for trans-Arctic shipping. Ship transits of the Arctic Ocean have traditionally been considered in terms of the Northwest Passage routes in the western hemisphere (Canada and the United States) and the Northern Sea Route (Russia) in the eastern hemisphere (Figure 3-26).

The Northwest Passage connects the Bering Strait entrance/exit to the Arctic in the west to Baffin Bay in the east (Figure 3-26). Winds and ocean currents can drive sea ice against coastlines and into narrow channels, creating high-pressure zones, or “choke points.” Potential chokepoints (Figure 3-27) for shipping along the Passage include the entrance to the Arctic Ocean itself off Barrow Alaska and the interior portions of the Canadian Arctic Islands, most notably Viscount Melville Sound (VMS) along the deeper northern branch and M’Clintock Channel along the shallower southern branch (Fissel et al., 2011). The predictions of much reduced summer ice cover for the Arctic Ocean over the next few decades may be misleading in terms of shipping activities in some parts of the Northwest Passage route. Changes in VMS are large and unpredictable in terms of access to open water and effects on shipping. The reduction of FYI in the Sverdrup Basin allows more old ice to reach the VMS; Fissel et al. (2010) found consistent blockage of the south sections of VMS related to the effects of the predominant northwest winds. The “shallow route” portion of the Northwest Passage has many more open water days than the more northerly “deep route” (Figure 3-28). Over the past four decades, the total summer sea ice concentration has exhibited a long-term trend towards reduced values, with the largest changes of more than 10% in the Beaufort Sea and of 4% in the chokepoint along the southern “shallow route”.

Figure 3-26. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route ship transit routes in the Arctic Ocean.



Figure 3-27. A map showing different parts of the Northwest Passage shipping route. The primary routes, used by most vessels, are shown in red, with the deep-draft routes shown in blue. The most commonly travelled routes are shown a solid line with the lesser travelled routes are shown in a solid line with the lesser travelled variations shown as dotted lines (after Mariport Group, 2007).



Traditionally, shipping activities in the Canadian Arctic have been based on several different sectors including: Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker patrols; summer ship-based resupply of local communities through the annual “sealift” (cargo, tanker and tug vessels); scientific research ships (icebreakers); oil and gas exploration and mining development (cargo and bulk carrier vessels); and cruise vessels (ice strengthened or icebreaker vessels). Nearly all of the marine traffic involved is “destinational” in nature; i.e., transiting from southern ports to one or more northern destinations and then returning to the south along the same general route rather than traversing the Northwest Passage. Actual completions of the full Northwest Passage remain rare, involving cruise ships and research ships in summers with suitable ice conditions. There has never been a commercial transit through the Northwest Passage carrying cargo.

A vessel traffic trend analysis for the period of 1986 to 2008 (Judson, 2010) reveals that summer marine traffic activities which are exhibiting the largest increases in the Canadian Arctic are the cruise ships (since the 1990’s) and research vessels (since the early 2000’s). Coast Guard icebreaker and bulk carrier activity has generally decreased while the activity of cargo ships, tugs and tankers has varied considerably over the years with notable increases occurring in the past five years.

Figure 3-28. Map showing the occurrence (%) of open water (ice-free) between July-October 1968-2010 (derived from CIS weekly charts).



The cargo, tanker and tug operations for the annual sealift to resupply Northern Arctic communities, as well as support for mining and oil and gas exploration, usually involve one or more of several Canadian shipping companies: Montreal-based Fednav Ltd., which operates polar class bulker vessels on a year-round basis if required; Quebec City based Groupe Desgagnés, which works in partnership with Nunavut Sealink and Supply; Montreal-based Transport Nanuk, which partners with Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping. Northern Transportation); Hay River based Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL); and the Goose Bay NL-based Woodward Group. These well-established Canadian shipping companies have been expanding their fleets in recent years to support additional Canadian Arctic operational capacity, although the companies recognize the large variations in shipping season duration from one year to another (Ryan, 2010). Some of the shipping companies, notably Groupe Desgagnés and NTC, are extending their traditional area of operations, as ice conditions permit, to the west and to the east, respectively. 3.2.1.1 Local Government/Community Needs The population in Canada's North is expected to grow from about 50,000 today to 66,000 by 2020 and it is reasonable to expect that the demand for supply/resupply vessel traffic will also grow since the population is almost completely dependent on resupply by ship (Ryan, 2010). However, the water in summer and ice in winter also provides a means of transportation for local people, a connection between communities and a source of food. Across the North, the Inuit still rely on seal, walrus and whale harvested from the ice or by boat for a large portion of their diet. Despite the benefits of increased community re-supply, shipping in general, and spills, waste, noise from machinery or from ships are cause for concern to the Inuit. Sea-going vessels may scare away mammals needed for subsistence or disrupt travel on the ice by animals, or people on snowmobiles. There is also concern that ice-breaking related to increased shipping could cause important disruption to wildlife (see, for example, the Kitikmeot Regional Land Use Plan). For example, caribou from the Dolphin and Union herd migrate across Coronation Gulf on the sea-ice from the mainland to their summer range on Victoria Island in the late-winter/spring and return to the mainland in the fall-early winter. The timing of this migration, which occurs each season as soon as ice conditions allow, has changed with changing ice conditions during the last 20 years, and was delayed briefly by ice-breaking from Cambridge Bay in 2007 (Poole et al., 2010). Subsea acoustic monitoring from a cabled observatory could be used to manage potential conflicts between expanded shipping activity and socio-environmental effects. 3.2.1.2 Government Regulatory Needs Effective July 1, 2010, a new Transport Canada regulatory regime, the Northern Canada Traffic Services Zone (Figure 3-29) replaced the previous largely voluntary ship registry for northern ship transits under Transport Canada’s NORDREG system. The new regime obliges foreign and domestic vessels of 300 gross tonnage or more to report as they sail into Northern Waters.



Under the new system, the system will be responsible for:

• verifying that ships wishing to travel in the NORDREG Zone are suitably constructed to withstand the ice conditions that they will likely encounter along their routes,

• monitoring ships’ locations to be able to respond effectively to emergencies, • providing support services, for example, providing up-to-date information on ice conditions,

advice on ice routes, aids to navigation and icebreaker support when available and considered necessary, and organization of convoys as required by prevailing navigation conditions.

Ongoing harmonization of international guidelines will continue to be important. The harmonized guidelines apply to ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters and supplements basic requirements for ship design, construction, crew qualifications, equipment and operations of the seven Polar Classes of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) ‘Arctic Shipping Guidelines.’

Figure 3-29. A map of the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone.



This system leads to expanded responsibilities for the Canadian Coast Guard to ensure safe, efficient navigation, and environmental protection. The responsibilities include:

• monitoring vessel movements; • helping to screen vessels for safety and environmental protection; • establishing a communications link with the vessel to address emergencies and preventative

measures; • monitoring dangerous goods and pollutants transported in Arctic waters; • providing up-to-date ice routing information and conditions, as well as facilitating the provision

of ice breaker services; and • providing shipping notices related to the safety of navigation.

Real-time ice information from underwater observatories would be useful in supporting the latter two responsibilities as well as potentially supporting the monitoring of vessel movements. 3.2.1.3 Shipping Industry Needs The existing marine traffic activities in the Canadian Arctic (Figure 3-30) will continue to be the primary routes for future shipping vessel operations in the next one to two decades. Although there is a clear trend toward longer periods of summer ice clearing in much of the Canadian Arctic, sea ice will continue to be present through most of the year and there will continue to a large variability in the duration and degree of summer open water clearing. Ice conditions will continue to be the main determinant of shipping within much of the Northwest Passage region. The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA, 2009) provides the following expectations of Canadian Arctic Shipping Activity to 2020: • Dry bulk carriage will be stimulated by resource development. There are definitive forecasts of

substantive marine transportation projects, in particular the Baffinland Iron Mines project at Mary River on Baffin Island;

• Liquid bulk carriage stimulated by resource development will probably be minimal due to expectations that most products in the Beaufort Sea will move out by pipeline;

• Supply/resupply traffic will expand, related to the growing populations (see below) and for movement of supplies and equipment in support of exploration projects. Some important but manageable expansion in shipping activity is forecast;

• Cruise shipping activity is projected to grow modestly but largely unpredictably. • No substantial container or bulk transit traffic is expected in this sector during this period. • The growth of fishing and seismic activity is unknown.

The industry needs required to realize the ongoing expansion of shipping activities in the Canadian Arctic demand improved levels of route reliability and security. These needs overlap with those discussed above for the regulatory system.



There is also a need for better communications and information in all sectors of Arctic marine transport. One important requirement is in updating Arctic marine charts and aids to navigation. Another major advance would be in enhancing real-time information on environmental conditions, especially ice conditions in support of the tactical decision-making required for Arctic shipping operations. At present, airborne ice information combined with satellite coverage has been used to support ship operations, as well as the weekly, or occasionally, daily ice charts and reports issued by the Canadian Ice Service of Environment Canada. Improved satellite ice monitoring capabilities and more effective ways to distribute this information to the ships operating in the Arctic are required. In addition, research is needed to look at the unique needs of satellite communications in the Arctic. Underwater cabled observatories, especially those located at key “chokepoints” where present ice conditions can be critical to ship passage, could be used to provide real-time ice monitoring in support of vessel passages through these areas.

3.2.2 Resource Extraction; Oil and Gas; Mining Oil and gas exploration and development and mining in Arctic Canada have been underway for many decades. These industries are quite different in their geographical areas and in their interaction with the Canadian marine environment.

Figure 3-30. Marine traffic density for the period 1991-2008 (Red<2 ship-days; Yellow: 3 ship-days; White: >4 ship-days (modified from Judson, 2010).



For the mining industry, which is largely land-based, the main marine issue is shipping, as discussed in the previous section. There will also be environmental regulatory issues for coastal mining locations involving mine waste and tailings; these are considered through the environmental review process. The oil and gas industry has been involved in offshore oil and gas exploration activities since the 1970’s in the Canadian Arctic. Several significant discovery licenses were issued in the 1970’s and 1980’s based on positive offshore drilling results.

3.2.2.1 Government Regulatory Needs. The regulatory system for both mining and offshore oil and gas is conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For offshore oil and gas, the lead regulatory organization is the National Energy Board (NEB), which shares responsibilities for development project review with their territorial counterparts (e.g., the Nunavut Impact Review Board in Nunavut and the Inuvialuit Environmental Review Board in the Northwest Territories. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is responsible for issuing and administering oil and gas exploration licenses. Various government and territorial departments provide input and reviews to the environmental permitting process, in particular, the Departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources at the federal level and their counterparts at the territorial level. The environmental permitting process is science-based. This process requires understanding of the marine environment (ocean, atmosphere, ice, seabed and ecosystems) involving the physical, biological, chemical and geological sciences. In some areas of the Arctic, particularly those with extensive development activities in the past (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration on the Mackenzie shelf of the Canadian Beaufort Sea), a considerable number of regional marine science studies have been and are continuing to be conducted. Even in these areas, there are gaps in our existing knowledge, in part related to the difficulty of extending measurement programs through the winter months. The recently announced Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment program will be addressing these issues in the marine portions of the Inuvialuit Settlement Area. In other Canadian Arctic areas, the regional scientific characterizations are much more limited. The establishment and long-term operation of cabled ocean observatories could provide the basis for developing regional scientific understanding of these areas, on a year-round basis, which could be used as one set of inputs for the marine environmental characterization of the regions in the vicinity of the cabled observatory locations.



3.2.2.2 Resource Industry Needs

3.2.2.2.1 Oil and Gas The oil and gas activities in the Canadian Arctic are concentrated in two areas: the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Sverdrup Basin in the northern parts of the Canadian Arctic Islands (Figure 3-311). In both areas extensive exploration and development occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s. With the low oil and gas prices of the 1990’s, exploration activities were very limited. In the past five years, there has been a resurgence of activity in the Canadian Beaufort Sea with new exploration licenses issued in the deeper shelf edge and slope waters north of the Mackenzie Shelf proper.

Pending the NEB Arctic Offshore Drilling Review, it is anticipated that the Canadian Beaufort Sea will be the major area of Canadian Arctic offshore oil and gas activities over the next decade. Exploration in the Sverdrup Basin is less likely to proceed in the near term due to the nearly continuous year-round ice cover in this area. There is long-term potential for the development of the Arctic Islands natural gas resources, with the most likely development being the production and export of natural gas from the Drake and Hecla gas fields offshore of north-eastern Melville Island. However, this project may not proceed until many years into the future. For the offshore oil and gas industry, information on the marine environment is required for the environmental regulatory and permitting process, as discussed above in “Government Regulatory Needs”. Offshore oil and gas exploration activities, including seismic surveys and offshore drilling, also require environmental monitoring of ocean, ice and atmospheric properties for input to engineering

Figure 3-31. A map of the existing oil and gas exploration licenses (yellow) and signficant discovery fields (red) in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (left) and in Nunavut Territory (right) where most oil and gas exploration has occurred in the Sverdrup Basin in the northernmost Arctic Islands



design and for conducting safe and efficient operations. For the latter requirement, cable ocean observatory systems which provide underwater based real-time measurements of ice and oceanographic properties are being planned for exploratory drilling operations in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. 3.2.2.2.2 Mining. Mining continues to be a major contributor to the Northern Canada economy. The marine portion of mining project development is related to shipping activities for supplying equipment and facilities in the development of the mines and transporting the mine products to southern markets. The location of mining activities in the Canadian North (Figure 3-32) are mainly located on the mainland portions of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut with prospecting permits issued for some of the Canadian Arctic Islands. Two particularly active mining areas, which involve shipping support, are in Coronation Gulf, west of Cambridge Bay, and Baffin Island. Some proposed and existing major mining projects in the north include:

• Jericho Diamond Mine Project in Nunavut near the NWT border with Nunavut. • The Doris North Gold Project, on the mainland coast 110 km south west of Cambridge Bay. • Meadowbank Gold Project: 70 km North of Baker Lake. • The proposed Bathurst Inlet Port and Road (BIPR) project including a marine port facility with a

211 km all-weather road to link several mines near the Nunavut/NWT border with marine shipping.

• Mary River Baffinlands Iron Mines Project located on Baffin Island plans for mining, processing and shipping iron-ore to Europe, via a railroad, deep-water port and year-round shipping.

• The Diavik mine located 300 km northeast of Yellowknife NWT on the northern mainland.

The requirements for marine environmental information for mining projects will take two forms: (a) addressing environmental regulatory issues for port development and coastal mining locations, involving mine waste and tailings, considered through the environmental review process; and (b) shipping transit issues related to safely and efficiently operating large cargo vessels and tugs in the Canadian Arctic. The marine information requirements for shipping have already been addressed in the “Shipping” section of this report. Marine information requirements for environmental assessment and regulatory purposes are addressed above in “Government Regulatory Needs”. The establishment and long-term operation of cabled ocean observatories within regions of active and long-term mining activities (e.g. Coronation Gulf or off the west coast of Baffin Island in Foxe Basin) would provide data sources to be used for developing regional scientific understanding of the marine environment in these areas, on a year-round basis, in support of development applications and permitting.



3.2.3 Subsistence and Possible Commercial Fisheries Nunavut encompasses an area of over 2 million km2, and includes 2/3 of Canada’s coastline; 25 of its 26 communities are located on the coast and have strong historic attachment to the sea dating far before European contact. For centuries Inuit people have relied on Arctic char, seals and other marine mammals, marine invertebrates (i.e., sea urchins, mussels and scallops, brown sea cucumber), kelp and seaweed for their livelihood. This subsistence lifestyle remains today in all the coastal communities; yet, over the past 20 years commercial fisheries have emerged, resulting in a unique “mixed economy.” Fisheries have now developed in all 3 regions of the territory, contributing between $12-$14 million annually (Gov. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., 2005; Niemi et al., 2010) (Figure 3-33).

Figure 3-32. A map of present mining permits, mineral claims and known mineral deposits.



Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) has been the primary fishery in Kivalliq and Kitikmeot, although during the last few years these regions have started to explore, with some success, new resources such as flounder, clams, crabs, and scallops. Arctic char commercial fishing started in Cambridge Bay in 1960, and expanded to other locations (Figure 3-34).

In the Qikiqtaaluk Region a large-scale, offshore fishery or turbot or Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and shrimp (Pandalus borealis and P. montagui) has been established, with potential fisheries for clams, scallops and crabs (Gov. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., 2005). Inshore

Figure 3-33. Estimated value of fisheries to Nunavut economy (Gov. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik, 2005).

Figure 3-34. Commercial fisheries in the Cambridge Bay area (DFO, 2004).



commercial fisheries of turbot, operating since 1987, is primarily conducted through landfast ice on Cumberland Sound from December to March (NRCA, 2007). Access to the fishing grounds has been affected in recent years by the ice variability; suitable ice has been quite distant resulting in decreased fishing (NRCan, 2007). Ranges of many species of fish are expanding northward (e.g., warming waters have pushed more fish into Iceland’s surrounding waters, increasing their mackerel quota from 2,000 tons to 130,000 tons (Bennett, 2011). As southern fish species move northward, they may introduce new parasites and diseases to which Arctic fish are not adapted (Cuff and Goudie, 2009). Some Arctic species might relocate northwards, and locally adapted species will be eradicated (Weller, 2005). The ability of fish to adapt to changing environments is species-specific. Anadromous fish (like Arctic char) are by definition highly migratory and tolerant of marine conditions; thus, as environmental conditions change, a number of sub- or low-Arctic anadromous species are likely to extend their northern limits of distribution to include areas within the Arctic (Wrona, et al. 2010). 3.2.3.1 Local government/community needs Some of the challenges to Nunavut fisheries reside in a history of Arctic knowledge-base deficiency, lack of federal investment in marine infrastructure (harbour, port facilities, marine service centres, processing plants – only 4 for the entire territory (Nunavut Dept. Environment, 2010), and cold storage operations), the unequal access to its fisheries (federal government has favoured the economic interests of private companies far remove from the region over the rights of the Nunavummiut), reliance on a southern labour force (causing economic “leakage”), and federal control of fish quotas (Gov. Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik, 2005)

Overall, Nunavut’s share of turbot allocations increased from 27% in 1999 to 70% in 2010, while shrimp allocations are still only at 34%. The Nunavummiut remain short of their goal of controlling 80-90% of their adjacent resources (Aariak, E. 2010; Nunavut Dept. Environment, 2010). “Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, decides how big the overall Nunavut quota is, and boats from elsewhere come and fish the largest portion of that quota” (Senator B. Rompkey, 2008).

The vision statement of the Nunavut Government: “to see fisheries emerge as a driving economic catalyst for Nunavut resulting in increasing prosperity for current and future generations of Nunavummiut recognizing the principles of sustainable use and Inui Quajimajatuqangit (IQ)”. The goals are: development preserving cultural integrity; determination and self-reliance; community control of resources; cooperation and sustainability.

Science and conservation gaps to be resolved are: funding of Nunavut fisheries science and research (offshore and inshore needs), comprehensive inventory of the coastal zone, seabed mapping; complete development of a community-based management model for char and extension to other resources (Nunavut Dept. Environment, 2010).

Exploitation of fisheries resources in Nunavut by small vessels is currently limited by lack of port facilities close to the resource, protected docks, access to marine fuels, maintenance and repair resources, warehousing, storage, and air cargo support. Without such infrastructure Arctic fisheries are unlikely to grow.



3.2.3.2 Government Regulatory Needs. • An adequate Integrated Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) is required to ensure sustainable

exploitation of this resource (DFO, 2004). • Protection of spawning and overwintering habitats is required (e.g. elimination of heavy vehicle

crossings of streams during migration times). • Long-term, comprehensive biological and environmental datasets are critical to assess and

monitor climate change impacts on fish populations. Climate variables are very important in understanding year-to-year variability in stock characteristics (Wrona et al, 2010).

• As ship traffic increases, with longer free-ice seasons, invasion of non-native species via ballast water and destruction of benthic habitat by anchoring and pollutants will be potential problems.

3.2.4 Defence, Security and Sovereignty

3.2.4.1 Government Requirements The Canadian Arctic is becoming an increasingly busier part of the world. In large part facilitated by rapidly advancing climate change, waters in the region, which less than a generation ago remained ice covered for decades, are now open for many months each year – year after year. The longer and longer navigable shipping seasons are becoming attractive to other nations, especially in Asia and Europe, and to the U.S. who see dramatically shortened shipping routes to markets. More shipping brings with it greater potential environmental risk; an inability to monitor vessels moving through these waters and ensuring that they meet Canadian environmental and insurance requirements places the region at further threat from an oil or chemical spill. The increasing levels of shipping activity, especially those of foreign vessels, place an increased demand for Canadian exercise of sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic (Byers, 2007a,b). Along with the legitimate uses of the world’s oceans and passages also comes the threat of their use for the transport of illegal cargoes, such as drugs or weapons of mass destruction, or for illegal immigration into Canada; indeed, the latter has already occurred (Byers, 2007a). To address these escalating environmental and security risks, Canada must increase its role within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and to demonstrate clearly to the world its willingness to monitor and control activities by foreign parties within it and in the approaches. The key missions for the Canadian Forces in the North as stated by Hébert, Director Policy Development, Dept. National Defence (2008):

1. to provide a military presence 2. to exercise sovereignty 3. to perform surveillance and control 4. to provide humanitarian and disaster relief 5. to conduct search and rescue missions

Currently, the Canadian Navy routinely patrols the ice-free coastal waters of Canada’s east and west Coasts, but it does not have the capability to effectively patrol the north (Nat. Defence, 2011). The Navy can only operate in northern waters for a short period of time, and only when there is no ice. The Canadian Forces recognize that geography and international law will make the Arctic a maritime theatre



of operations, and the most severe expeditionary theatre in which they will operate. The Canadian Navy currently does not have vessels capable of operating in ice, but plans for new multi-purpose Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPS) have been recently announced. In a recent presentation, Commodore K. Williams, RCN pointed out that "CF operations [in the Arctic] will demand innovation and partnering with other government agencies, the Coast Guard, the RCMP and industry" (Williams, 2010). The proposed cabled observatory would contribute directly to the surveillance and control mission. Defence Research & Development Canada (DR&DC) is currently leading a Northern Watch Technology Demonstration project with the aim of identifying combinations of systems for cost effective surveillance of the Canadian Arctic, including among other things a combination of choke point and wide area surveillance. Figure 3-35 illustrates the location of several 'choke points' that could be monitored by bottom mounted listening devices, that when supplemented by broad area satellite based radar surveillance could provide effective monitoring of most of the Archipelago. An Underwater Rapidly Deployable System (UW-RDS) capable of monitoring electrical and magnetic fields and acoustical signals is being tested at Gascoyne Inlet. DR&DC is actively investigating Magnetic communication technology developed by Magneto-Inductive Systems Limited (MISL), which has the potential to improve situational awareness in the Canadian Arctic by providing an improved communications capability. It is possible, for example, to establish a direct wireless communication link between an underwater / sub-ice location (e.g. submarine, diver) and a surface based platform using MI technology. The ability to communicate directly through seasonal and polar ice barriers can significantly improve and streamline command and control, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations in Arctic waters.

Two of the choke points identified are at either end of Coronation Gulf just west of the CHARS site. The Northwest Passage remains a contested waterway between Canada and the U.S. While considerable progress is being made regarding the resolution of offshore boundaries between Canada and the U.S. and between Canada and Denmark, the Northwest Passage file is not being actively pursued at the

Figure 3-35. Choke points suitable for acoustic monitoring of vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.



present time. The U.S. contends that it is an “international strait, connecting two more extensive areas of the high seas and which can be used for international navigation. Canada maintains that it is part of the nation’s “internal waters”. The U.S.’s “hard line” position is today “… more concerned about terrorists sneaking into North America or rogue states using the oceans to transport weapons of mass destruction.” (Byers, 2007a). As Byers (2007a) goes on to point out, the U.S. position could well “evaporate” if Canada demonstrated the willingness to control the Northwest Passage and impose the Canadian legal system (including its criminal, customs and immigration laws) on it; Canada is the only jurisdiction available which could justifiably apply its legal system in the Northwest Passage. To do so, Canada must increase its regional capability to carry out surveillance and enforcement in the Northwest Passage. The Department of National Defence has been involved in planning for monitoring several sites (specifically “chokepoints” along the route) but, with the exception of the Northern Watch’s program in Lancaster Sound, none of these other sites is a real-time facility – they are autonomous monitoring systems only. What is required for effective control will be real-time monitoring of vessel traffic (including specific vessel identification) to allow immediate response activities if necessary, be they for security or environmental enforcement reasons. Climate change (as discussed in “Environmental Setting”) will also impact sonar operations in the Arctic. Increased ambient noise levels and the acoustic surface duct will be diminished or lost. Ice keels will be shallower and less abundant and the area in which they can be expected to occur will be reduced. Active sonar detection of submarines will become more feasible" (Brass, 2002). 3.2.4.2 Integration with Existing NWS System, Northern Watch (DND) The types of cabled ocean observatories being considered in this study (like those of VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada off British Columbia) allow high-resolution, real-time acoustic monitoring of vessels and would contribute substantially to Canada exercising an appropriate level of control over vessels in the Northwest Passage. Hydrophones on these systems can also be used in the study of marine mammals, sediment transport phenomena and ice dynamics. Arrays of hydrophones also permit the speed and direction of vessels or marine mammals to be precisely determined. Co-location with other oceanographic systems provides the opportunity to gather other important environmental information (e.g., currents, water temperature/salinity, chemistry, biological productivity and ice cover characteristics) at the same sites; these types of measurements are being considered in the Northern Watch program in Lancaster Sound but in a system with currently quite limited power and bandwidth capabilities. The international media have reported in the past that Canada’s Arctic waters are used for the transit of U.S. submarines (Associated Press, January 27, 2006; Library of Parliament – Canada, 2006). This appears to be substantiated by Byers (2009): “It's no secret that U.S. submarines regularly use the Northwest Passage. Inuit hunters see periscopes in Barrow Strait, and a U.S. submariner once confessed to me that he'd sailed through.” If so, there would be the need for security measures to be implemented such that sensitive information on the timing of such transits or on the acoustic signatures of the vessels was not released into the public domain. NEPTUNE Canada, working with the Canadian Navy and, in turn, with the U.S. Navy, has developed the protocols for the diversion and secure archival of acoustic data off Vancouver Island during periods when its hydrophones and seismometers could detect U.S. submarines. This is now a well-established and accepted procedure, acceptable to all three parties. A



cybersecurity committee involving all three parties meets several times each year to review the procedures.

3.2.5 Canadian Arctic Operational Requirements Summary Cabled ocean observatories in the Arctic can contribute to various operational requirements of both industry and government agencies:

• Shipping is increasing throughout the Arctic as a consequence of a longer ice-free season, the development of natural resources and greater tourism. Shipping with be both “transit” (vessels travelling from Asia to Europe) and “destination” (vessels travelling to communities or resource development locations in the Arctic). The former will use the Northwest Passage routes while the latter would travel to a wide variety of locations within the CAA, on the northern mainland of Canada or in the Beaufort Sea. A real-time knowledge of ice conditions that cabled ocean observatories can provide will be of significant value to shipping in the Arctic.

• Cabled ocean observatories could contribute to the requirements of the new Northern Canada Traffic Services Zone of Transport Canada which mandates that vessels greater than 300 gross tonnes must report to the department as they sail through Northern Waters. The system will ensure that vessels meet ice protection and environmental regulations, and report their locations as they progress through Canada’s waters. It will provide support services to shipping with up-to-date information on ice conditions and availability of ice breaker assistance. Cabled ocean observatories will provide surveillance of shipping activities in critical areas, as well as information on ice conditions and currents.

• Increased shipping may have consequences for the distribution of fish and marine mammals which, in turn, could affect the daily lives of Northerners. Acoustic measurements of both shipping and marine mammals by cabled ocean observatories are a means of monitoring these interactions.

• Environmental permitting for resource development is science-based. Cabled ocean observatories provide a means to collect baseline information on the marine environment and processes prior to the commencement of exploration or development activities, as well as to monitor a wide range of ecosystem parameters as projects develop.

• Fisheries are seen as a potential “driving economic catalyst” for Nunavut. At present there are many science gaps to be filled before effective development and management plans can be implemented related to new fisheries in the North. Cabled ocean observatories can aid in the provision of year-round information on marine ecosystems, information which will be required to understand fully the fisheries resource potential and to guide the development of regulatory criteria.

• Defence and sovereignty issues are becoming of greater importance in the North with the increased accessibility to shipping. Along with legitimate use of the region’s waterways comes the threat that they could be used for the transport of illegal cargoes, such as weapons of mass



destruction, drugs or illegal immigrants. Sovereignty over these waters, and in particular the Northwest Passage, is seen by many Canadians as paramount. A year-round presence in these waters, as would be provided by cabled ocean observatories, would demonstrate a commitment by Canada to protection of the North and would enable the nation to monitor vessel traffic more effectively and to enforce its legal system on the area.



4 Stakeholders and Partners 4.1 Beneficiaries of Data and Technology As indicated in previous sections, there are government departments and agencies, both at a federal and territorial level, local associations, industry with interests in the Arctic, and academic researchers, nationally and internationally, which would benefit from the kinds of information that cabled ocean observatories can provide. Though not an exhaustive list, these include:

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada • Natural Resources Canada • Environment Canada • National Defence • Canadian Coast Guard • Transport Canada • Parks Canada • Canadian Polar Commission • Nunavut Impact Review Board • Nunavut Department of Environment • Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources • Arctic Council • Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) • ArcticNet • International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC) • International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) • Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) • European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Observatories and EuroSites • Arctic Observing Network • Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission • Nunavut Hunters and Trappers Associations • Northwest Territories Hunters and Trappers Associations • Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat • Environment Yukon

4.2 Potential Partners and Clients Partners are here defined as organizations which bring resources to a project and who participate in its overall governance. In the case of a cabled seafloor observatory or observatories, the resource contribution could, conceivably, be in many forms: financial; in-kind services (e.g., provision of ship time; communications); or shared personnel and/or infrastructure. Such contributions could come either at the construction phase of the facility or on an on-going basis through its operations. Partners could include: science-based departments, departments with operational mandates in the region, the private sector, and national and international science programs. Private sector partners



could include, for example, shipping companies with Arctic operations, the petroleum industry or the mining sector. 4.3 Possible Role of Ocean Networks Canada and its Partners It is envisaged that Ocean Networks Canada, in association with relevant partners, currently ASL Environmental and Golder Associates, would bring their collective expertise in cabled ocean networks, marine instrumentation and Arctic experience to guide the overall development of such facilities in the Arctic under contract to the responsible, presumably federal, department or agency. An option which could also be considered would be for the ONC consortium to manage the facility or facilities on behalf of the Government of Canada, the owners, taking direction from the owner and, presumably a board of directors established to oversee Canadian Arctic science broadly or perhaps more specifically, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station.

4.3.1 Possible Funding Mechanisms An integrated S & T strategy for the Arctic, including both federal science departments and academic researchers, is currently being developed. Thus, it is difficult in this document to make recommendations on how a cabled ocean observatory, or network of observatories, should best be funded. It is anticipated that these facilities will fall within the umbrella of a new S & T strategy which will include the development and operation of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS). Thus, initial infrastructure funding could conceivably come from a mix of science-based departments, other departments with operational mandates in the region, and such organizations as CANARIE and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). The private sector may be sufficiently interested to participate as well, especially if it were to be involved in the long-term governance of the facility (ies). Ongoing funding of operations could again come from line departments as well as from the federal granting agencies, and possibly from industry. 4.4 Governance The governance of cabled ocean facilities such as these will have to be designed within the overall context of an Arctic S & T strategy, in particular, in all likelihood, the governance model developed for the CHARS. As ocean observatories should not be seen as stand-alone programs, it is important that their activities and management be integrated into a broader suite of Arctic marine environmental programs. One possible model would involve a Science Advisory Committee to the cabled ocean observatory, with members taken from the partners, beneficiaries and external experts, reporting to the Board of Directors of the CHARS (or similar body governing broader Canadian Arctic science initiatives). Day-to-day operations of the observatory(ies) could then be carried out by a specialized team reporting possibly through the Director, CHARS. Details on the governance and management model would need to be considered as planning for the CHARS develops, if that linkage would be appropriate.



5 Proposed Cable System

Cabled ocean observatory systems use specialized electro-optic cables to deliver power and communications to remote observation sites from hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometres apart. System infrastructure elements are designed with operational lifetimes well beyond typical oceanographic systems, approaching the 25 year design lifetimes for typical telecom systems on which newer cabled ocean observing systems such as VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada are based. Although cabled ocean observing systems have been in place since the early 1990’s with the LEO-15 system in the United States, Canada has taken a world-leading role in these systems with the VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada projects. Other countries are following suit with major cabled ocean observing systems planned in Japan, Taiwan, China, Europe and in the United States. The attraction of this novel technology is the ability to provide 24/7/365 continuous, real-time, sustained observing for decades while the infrastructure is unaffected by surface conditions, none of which is possible with the more conventional buoy based oceanographic observations. The addition of kilowatts of power for instrumentation enables measurements at these time scales that were only available in brief periods from research vessels. This ability to operate more extensive instrumentation for long periods unattended with benthic based infrastructure makes cabled ocean observing systems an ideal solution for monitoring in harsh Arctic conditions enabling a level of understanding of the Arctic environment never before possible, particularly during the winter months.

Figure 5-1. Example cabled ocean observatory concept.



5.1 High Level Considerations

5.1.1 Overview of Network Extent and Scale A cabled ocean observing system is a hierarchical layering of modular infrastructure that extends the Internet and power into the ocean. Much of the observatory infrastructure resides on the seafloor safely away from vessel traffic, ice and surface conditions. Typically well below diver depths, observatory infrastructure is installed and maintained using Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs). A cabled ocean observatory can be broken down into five elements:

1. The Shore Station which provides the power and communication interface between the sub-sea

infrastructure and the rest of the world; 2. The primary sub-sea infrastructure. This normally consists of the main sub-sea “backbone”

cable and one or more power and communication “nodes” located at the science sites of interest to connect experiment infrastructure;

3. The secondary sub-sea infrastructure. The secondary sub-sea infrastructure moves the power and communication links out from the nodes to each of the science instruments. The secondary sub-sea infrastructure is normally composed of instrument interface devices (often referred to as Science Instrument Interface Modules or SIIMs) and various cables to link them back to the nodes. Instruments have a wide variety of power requirements and communication protocols which require flexible instrument interface devices;

4. The science instruments. The science needs will determine the instrument suite required to provide the necessary research data; and

5. The data management and archiving system. This system provides the critical functions that allow system managers and users to interact with the infrastructure, instruments and data. Key functions include, command and control, data acquisition, data archiving, user interface, data processing, data visualization, and event detection.

The design of the observatory starts with the science instrument suite and the location of the sub-sea infrastructure. The instruments define the power and communication bandwidth that the sub-sea network must provide at the end of the primary cable. The location of the sub-sea infrastructure, as reflected in the length of the primary cable, drives the design of the sub-sea power system. After suitable allowances are made for system overheads and growth, the basic system parameters can be set.

Most cabled ocean observatories use sub-sea telecommunication cable (used in trans-oceanic telecommunication systems) as the “backbone” cable. These single conductor fibre optic cables have a proven track record but introduce constraints into the power system design. The single power conductor drives a direct current, sea water return power system architecture. 10A is normally the maximum current carrying capacity of such cables and they typically have a resistance of 1 ohm per km. The constraints of the cable on power systems design creates three basic categories of cabled ocean observing systems:



5.1.1.1 Local Scale At distances of under 10 km, a 400V power system design can be used to provide up to 3 kW to the end of the cable. Commercial-off- the-shelf (COTS) DC to DC converters are available to convert the backbone cable voltage to lower levels for use by the nodes, secondary infrastructure and instruments.

5.1.1.2 Intermediate Scale Distances from 10 to 200 km require a higher backbone cable voltage to reduce cable power losses. The higher backbone voltages, typically 1000-1300V, require the addition of a medium voltage converter (MVC) in the nodes to bring the backbone voltage into the range used by COTS DC-DC converters (example: VENUS). These systems typically can deliver 1-2kW of power for instrumentation at the node site.

5.1.1.3 Regional Scale At distances over 200 km, backbone cable voltages up to 10,000V are used. The MVCs used at these voltage levels are considerably more complex and costly than the intermediate distance versions (example: NEPTUNE Canada). These systems can deliver 10 kW of power for instrumentation at the node site. The use of fibre optic communication paths in the “backbone” cable often means that the “backbone” has a potential communication bandwidth that is significantly higher than the other elements of the system. The instruments will determine if the optical paths need to be extended to the secondary sub-sea infrastructure or if lower bandwidth copper based (and less costly) communication paths are sufficient. This is largely driven by the distance between the primary infrastructure and the science measurement sites. Typically within 70m a copper based communications path can be used, beyond that fibre optic communications paths are typically used.

5.1.1.4 DMAS Providing user interface, operations, and data management to ocean observing systems is a Data Management and Archiving System (DMAS). The DMAS is a scalable operational software system developed at the University of Victoria specifically designed to efficiently collect, archive and redistribute data from underwater sensor networks. DMAS includes the tools necessary to manage and monitor both the sensors and the observatory infrastructure. DMAS can support hundreds of instruments and is designed to keep track of any change and events occurring anywhere within the infrastructure. The archiving system is flexible and extensible, supporting the wide variety of data types found in oceanographic instrumentation. It is designed to maintain the data and associated metadata for 25 years. The infrastructure is based on a modern service-oriented architecture and all of the tools (data access, system management, and configuration) are Web-based. A DMAS is typically consists of two main components, the Data Acquisition Framework (DAF) and the User Interaction Features (UIF).

The Data Acquisition Framework (DAF) manages the interaction with instruments in terms of control, monitoring as well as data acquisition and storage. The framework also contains operation control tools. Those functions are typically run at the Shore Station, but are remotely accessible through secure web interfaces.



User Interaction Features (UIF) include database, data search, retrieval and distribution. Current developments in DMAS technology using Web 2.0 functionality provide a complete research environment where users will have the ability to work and interact on-line with colleagues, process and visualize data, establish observation schedules and pre-program autonomous event detection and reaction. UIF functions are typically hosted remotely from the observatory at facilities with high bandwidth capacity, such as a university.

These basic elements of a cabled ocean observatory provide a very flexible framework for creating a highly reliable infrastructure to support national and international scales of scientific research as well as operational requirements all via the Internet.

5.1.2 Infrastructure Requirements Infrastructure requirements are primarily driven by the location of the observatory relative to the Shore Station which sets the system scale and the user data collection needs which sets the system scope.

The primary interests from the wide range of potential users and stakeholders in the Arctic focuses on key channels and choke points. These are of great interest from an oceanographic, environmental, transportation, and sovereignty perspective. There are five general sites in this category: M’Clure Strait, Lancaster Sound, Amundsen Gulf, Dease Strait/Queen Maud Gulf, and the Hudson Strait

Figure 5-2. Key Arctic choke points.



(see Figure 5-2). These channels are about 20-150 km wide and 50-1000m deep, which are suitable for coverage by intermediate scale cabled observatory systems. Based on the science needs identified in Section 3, the following conceptual system would be capable of meeting the data collection requirements associated with:

1. Monitoring of ice keel depth and velocity; 2. Monitoring of physical, chemical and biological parameters in the water column; 3. Monitoring of biological and anthropogenic sound sources; and 4. Visualization of biological diversity using optical and acoustic imaging systems.

A single node located in the centre of the channel would support these basic measurement requirements. If inertial scale flows need to be monitored, extensions from the main node up to 10 km can be used to achieve this.

A standard technique that would typically be used to monitor multiple parameters in the water column would include moored frames of instruments at fixed depths (Figure 5-3). Unfortunately in the Arctic, the upper 15 m or so where important interactions take place cannot be instrumented using these techniques due to ice. These instruments would also have to be battery powered and communicate to the bottom infrastructure either by acoustic or inductive methods.



Many of these instruments required (see Table 5-1) are located on the bottom, including the acoustic profiling systems. Instruments that need to be located near the surface (such as the IPS and possibly the acoustic wave measurement system) would have to be suspended in the water column below maximum ice depth (20-30m). For physical, chemical, and biological measurements through the water column, the standard technique for making these measurements is to install frames of sensors at depths of interest. Reliable techniques for connecting these to a common data connection point include inductive and acoustic modems which can connect these frames at distances up to 1000m. This technique requires multiple replicates of these sensor frames which can be costly. Newer technologies becoming available include bottom mounted winching systems (Figure 5-4). The cost of such infrastructure is comparable to four separate complex instrument packages such as those proposed here. Consisting of a winch fixed to a platform on the sea floor, the system controls the deployment of oceanographic equipment by raising and lowering a buoy at pre-defined intervals, speeds

Figure 5-3. Typical mooring system in a cabled seafloor monitoring facility.



and to set depths. The benefits of winch systems include a continuous profile as opposed to fixed depths, no need for replaceable battery systems and reduced numbers of instruments to maintain. Since the depth profile is programmable, measurements can be made closer to the surface in the summer when there is no ice. These systems do require more power (approximately 500W) than would be typically available on a moored system, but this level of power is available from cabled systems.

Figure 5-4. Schematic of a profiling system for water column observations.

5.1.2.1 Instrument Systems Basic instrumentation required to meet the primary data collection needs are summarized in Table 5-1 below:



Table 5-1. Basic Scientific Instrument Suite.

Properties Example Instruments

Relative location Power Data

Salinity, temperature, depth, DO, chlorophyll, turbidity

WET Labs WQM Throughout water column

6W with pump 0.2 kbps

CO2 Pro-Oceanus CO2 Pro

Throughout water column

6W with pump 0.1 kbps

pH Satlantic SeaFET Throughout water column

1W 0.1 kbps

CDOM

WET Labs Throughout water column

1W 0.1 kbps

Irradiance Satlantic HOCR Throughout water column

3W 5 kbps

Nitrate

Satlantic SUNA Throughout water column

6W 0.3 kbps

Current

RDI ADCP Benthic for water column profile

12W 2 kbps

Waves, Ice thickness

RDI ADCP, ASL IPS 30m from surface 15W 2kbps

Zooplankton, fish

ASL MFWCP Benthic for water column profile

12W 100kbps

Ambient noise, mammals, vessels

IC-Listen Broadband Hydrophone Array

Benthic 12W 10Mbps

Benthic communities

HD Video, PTZ with LED lights, laser scale

Benthic 200W 100Mbps

Profiling Winch

MacArtney Intelligent Underwater Winch

Benthic with measurements throughout water column

500W Determined by instruments

5.1.2.2 Data and Communications (Subsea) Data and communications needs, set by the user needs and instrumentation, do not usually drive requirements on the primary infrastructure. Primary “backbone” communications are typically 1 Gigabit



per second (Gbps) with standard Ethernet switches with optical transceivers and are usually more than sufficient to handle the capacity of each node of a cabled observatory. Typical telecoms electro-optic cables have four fibre pairs (one pair per 1 Gbps Ethernet link) which are sufficient for up to four nodes and/or redundant communications paths back to the Shore Station.

Each node usually has four to eight ports that can connect experiments to the backbone fibres. Each node port typically provides 100 megabit per second (Mbps) Ethernet communications. To use these ports more effectively, multiple instruments are typically multiplexed using devices called Science Instrument Interface Modules (SIIMs) which allow for connection of up to ten serial or Ethernet instruments. These SIIMs can be connected to the node using copper cables at distances of up to 70m. For experiments located at distances greater than 70 m and up to 10 km from the node, fibre optic connections are required. The basic instrument suite identified in the section above can be accommodated using a single SIIM. Depending on video compression techniques it is likely that all sensors could run simultaneously on a single 100 Mbps connection. For data quality reasons it is recommended to keep the hydrophone arrays away from the node infrastructure which can generate contaminating ambient noise.

For water column measurements, vertical profilers would be connected via 5km extension cables to a port on the primary node. 5.1.2.3 Shore-based Infrastructure The Shore Station contains the power and fibre optic terminations of the observatory cable, main utility power breakers, electrical panel service for Shore Station, telecommunications panel for backhaul, observatory power feed equipment, observatory local control computer, Shore Station observatory server, uninterruptible power supply and network equipment. Power requirements for a Shore Station are estimated at approximately 6kW. 4kW for the observatory power feed equipment (PFE) delivering 2kW to subsea instrumentation. PFE input requirements are typically 208VAC 3 phase. Backup power generators are recommended (since these take 30-60 seconds to run up to full speed and be switched in a suitably sized uninterruptible power supply system is required to keep infrastructure operating during the transition phase). The Shore Station can use a standard 20 foot shipping container modified for environmental control for remote sites or can be installed in a small room suitable for three 19”computer racks. The Shore Station computer hardware includes a system server to host the DMAS Shore Station data acquisition software that is controlled remotely by system operators. NEPTUNE Canada uses redundant servers in each Shore Station and recommends about 3TB of RAID drives (or amount suitable for 30 days of backup storage should there be a catastrophic failure of the Shore Station backhaul). 5.1.2.4 Operations/Maintenance Centre (data, service) A centralized observatory operations and maintenance facility in the Arctic is a logical step to creating a staging facility and spare equipment depot with trained personnel to operate and maintain observatory infrastructure in the Arctic. As the system expands this could also include operations and maintenance of Arctic AUV and ROV systems.



5.1.2.5 Data Management Based on the significant investment in cyber-infrastructure in the DMAS system for both VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada, it would be most cost effective to leverage these facilities to host a primary database for Arctic observing systems at the University of Victoria for national and international access through the existing CANARIE fibre optic network. A local data centre at a major research facility in the Arctic would allow Northerners and local researchers to access this rich new data source.

5.1.3 Design Issues

5.1.3.1 Design and Planning, Community Consultations, Environmental Permitting While an Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory would be collocated with and operated from the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay, it is important to point out that these two projects follow completely separate approval processes. The regulatory agencies that would be involved in the approval process and all advisory agencies and stakeholders are outlined in Section 2 of this report. There are several mandatory requirements that need to be met during the approval process of a potential Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory and there are optional components that would facilitate the approval process and its success. Mandatory requirements include:

• adequate and comprehensive community consultations (including distribution of translated summaries in Nunavut);

• stakeholder engagement (including distribution of translated summaries in Nunavut); • preparing and submitting Project Description reports for screening (including translated

executive summaries in Nunavut and a thorough environmental and social/cultural assessment which would have to take into account Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit [IQ], (also referred to as Traditional Knowledge); and

• preparation and submission of applicable permit and licence applications to the regulators.

Optional project components during both the feasibility and regulatory phase of the project include: • a strong cultural component capable of assessing not only Northern aspects but also existing

regional differences; and • a comprehensive communications package that outlines a detailed plan of communications and

consultations. The budget for this communications package needs to include a realistic amount for translation fees. It should also take into account that key documents need to be translated to Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun (the local dialect in the Cambridge Bay area).

5.1.3.2 Installation: Marine Logistics, Shore-Crossings, Shore-based Construction Having determined the optimum cable route and shore landing location the actual installation of the observatory is broken down into five phases:

1. Construction of shore landing infrastructure;



2. Cable shore landing; 3. Cable deployment; 4. Node installation; and 5. Secondary sub-sea infrastructure and instrument deployment.

The Shore station must be of sufficient size to host the cable power system, control computers and network and data handling equipment. An Uninterrupted Power System (UPS) is an additional consideration if the local utility feed is of poor quality or subject to brown outs or outages. The power consumption of nominal design will be in the range of 6kW, or comparable to that consumed by an average household in BC.

The cable shore landing marks the transition of the cable from the 30m isobath to the Shore Station. In situations where there is no existing infrastructure in the intertidal and surf zone, horizontal directional drilling is the preferred method of transitioning the cable ashore. A typical installation would see a conduit constructed from the Shore Station to a stable location above the high tide line. A pull box is then constructed at the end of the conduit to provide a shore anchor for the main cable. The directional drill is then used to create a second conduit from the pull box under the shoreline and out to the 30m isobath. The conduit is usually lined with a suitable steel pipe as the drilling is carried out. This provides a protected cable landing with no disturbance to the shoreline or the intertidal zone.

The cable deployment starts with the shore end of the main cable. The backbone cable is fed from the deployment vessel/platform and winched to the beach pull box through the cable landing conduit. Sufficient cable is pulled into the pull box to allow the connection to the Shore Station conduit and then the cable is secured. The deployment vessel then proceeds to deploy the main cable along the designated route. Depending on the vessel used, cable deployment speeds of 2-3 km per hour can be expected.

Once the deployment vessel has reached the node site, the node assemblies are mated to the backbone cable and lowered to the bottom. Once the node assemblies are on the bottom, a post lay survey is normally conducted to confirm the condition of the cable on the seafloor and to ensure that no hazards such as cable suspensions exist. The survey is usually conducted by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with the video from the camera recorded for future reference.

The installation of the secondary sub-sea infrastructure and instruments is usually the last operation. The manipulation of the cables that connect the secondary sub-sea infrastructure usually involves connecting wet-mateable connectors. To mate these connectors requires an ROV with high functional manipulators. Many of the work-class ROVs that are typically found on cable ships do not have sufficiently agile manipulators to deal with the secondary infrastructure. 5.1.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Issues The key to keeping the life cycle costs of an observatory low is to design the system for unattended operations. As the observatory is normally connected in real time to a communications link for the streaming of the data, the same link can provide a path for remote control and trouble shooting. The observatory control system can be configured to send an alarm to e-mails, cell-phones or pagers when a situation develops that requires an operator to intervene. In this way the Shore station can be treated



as an unmanned, remote site. Visits to the Shore Station would only be required to replace failed equipment or to carry out site inspections. The at-sea maintenance plan for a cable observatory is shaped by a number of factors:

1. The instruments will have a defined calibration interval and will require recovery and replacement/recalibration. If the observatory is in shallower water, then bio-fouling of the instruments can be an issue and may require a recovery and cleaning cycle that is more frequent than the calibration cycle;

2. The secondary infrastructure, being co-located with the instruments, can be inspected during instrument servicing and does not require any separate consideration. The primary infrastructure is designed for the 25 year design life of the backbone cable and does not require any planned maintenance; and

3. The environmental conditions (weather, sea state or ice cover) may limit the periods that maintenance operations can be conducted.

In many observatories, a maintenance interval of six months strikes a good balance between instrument servicing, ship/ROV availability and cost. For the Arctic case, annual servicing would be the most practical solution. 5.1.3.4 Integration of Mobile Assets in Arctic Cabled Observatories There are many ways an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) can enhance a cabled observatory: extending the spatial capability of the observatory; extending the scientific capability of the observatory; and, enabling remote inspection of network facilities. Within the next five years, it is also feasible that AUVs will be capable of light intervention tasks for scheduled maintenance. The following paragraphs describe current and near-future technologies and provide examples of how it could be beneficial to a cabled observatory in the Canadian Arctic. The concept is for an AUV that is capable of being deployed to the observatory and remaining underwater for prolonged periods. The vehicle could be launched from the shore, transit to the observatory and dock at or near a node to access power, for recharging, and communications for reprogramming and to enable operators to download mission data. The AUV will remain on station for periods of up to 6 months at a time, during which it would conduct routine surveys as well as react to events as they occur. In addition to horizontal surveys, the AUV can be used to profile the water column vertically. At the end of the deployment, it will return to its launch point ashore.



The field of AUV technology is rapidly advancing with several players globally. As one example of such technologies, we present here the capabilities of the Canadian-built ISE Explorer AUV (which has already demonstrated Arctic operational capabilities) to illustrate how such an asset can complement a cabled observatory. Explorer is a modular vehicle available in many configurations with depth ratings ranging from 300 to 6000 metres. It comprises a free-flooding nose and forward payload sections, a full diameter pressure hull and a free-flooding aft section. The baseline vehicle has an endurance of 24 hours. Extra battery sections can be added to increase endurance to 85 hours, which equates to a survey distance of approximately 450 kilometres.

Explorer can carry a variety of payload sensors to accomplish a wide array of tasks in the same mission. For example, it is capable of carrying broad-swath multibeam echosounder and sidescan sonars, as well as a sub-bottom profiler and a range of physical oceanographic sensors such as dissolved oxygen or fluorometer in a single package and can operate all of these sensors for the duration of the mission. A typical Explorer AUV is equipped with an EdgeTech 2200M sidescan sonar and sub-bottom profiler, a Reson SeaBat 7125 or Kongsberg EM series multibeam echosounder and a SeaBird FastCAT SBE49 conductivity, temperature and depth sensor. Options exist for many other payload sensors, such as a complete range of oceanographic instruments, cameras and lighting systems.

Figure 5-5. Example ISE Arctic Explorer (foreground).



Explorer is also designed to operate in an unsupervised manner. The enabling technology comprises a reliable vehicle and the proven control software with built-in mission and fault management capabilities. To increase the spatial capability of the observatory, the AUV will need sufficient range to travel not only between nodes, but also to travel beyond them (Figure 5-6). Thus, long range and endurance are essential characteristics. A vehicle operating autonomously in a remote location requires a degree of autonomy that exceeds the capability of most AUVs that exist today. There will be little or no opportunity to supervise the missions from the shore due to the long ranges between nodes and the physical capabilities of acoustic communications technology. During the spring of 2010, an Arctic Explorer owned by NRCan completed 11 days of continuous under-ice operations north of Borden Island. During this time, it covered more than 1000 kilometres of seafloor survey in support of Canada's claim under Article 76 of UNCLOS. The baseline Explorer AUV is equipped with enough battery to provide 24 hours of operation; the extended range option takes this to 85 hours. At a standard cruising speed of 1.5 metres per second, the long-range Explorer can complete up to 450 kilometres of survey on one charge. This will enable scientists to extend the lateral bounds of the observatory (see Figure 5-6).

To achieve success with long range unsupervised missions the AUV must have a reliable fault and mission management system. Explorer is equipped with a flexible software control system that enables the operator to change fault response actions depending on the location or mission stage that the vehicle is in. The fault management system is designed to recognize alarms and anomalies generated by the routine status signals that are sent throughout the vehicle systems. Any discrepancy is identified and a response is initiated. This may entail completing the mission with a reduced capability, or returning to the dock or a predetermined recovery point.

Figure 5-6. Arctic Class AUV operating range (200 km) from a node location in Queen Maud Gulf.



To increase the scientific capability of the observatory, the AUV must carry payload sensors that cannot be installed at the nodes. This requires the AUV to be large enough to carry several sensors that may, or may not, be used on every mission. Explorer is capable of carrying a full range of large sensors such as sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, multibeam echosounder and upward looking sonar along with a range of smaller oceanographic sensors. A fully laden Explorer with a range of sensors can be operated with one, some or the entire payload collecting data in any combination. One of the obvious benefits of a modular AUV with a large payload capacity is the ability to upgrade or change the payload sensors over time. As new sensors become available or new requirements are established, the Explorer can be configured by the operations team to carry different sensors. The current crop of cruising AUVs can complete a great deal of route survey tasks such as pipeline, cable and sea-floor inspections. Explorer fits into this group of vehicles. It can also be fitted with cameras and lights to complete a slow speed visual inspection of observatory components. The data can be downloaded from the vehicle after it has docked. This type of inspection will help predict servicing schedules, bio-fouling issues and assist with conducting fault analysis. Hovering AUVs are able to conduct detailed inspections of components. However, there is a drawback, in that hovering AUVs are by design less hydrodynamically efficient than cruising AUVs. Also, they have more thrusters, which require more power. The overall result is greatly reduced range and endurance. A hovering AUV will suit the inspection tasks well, but will not necessarily be able to carry as many payload sensors, nor travel as far as a tightly integrated cruising AUV such as the Explorer. ISE has been working with the French company Cybernetix to develop the Swimmer concept. This comprises a very large AUV that transports an electric ROV to a dock. The dock provides power and communications to Swimmer and enables an operator to control the ROV as they would if it were launched from a dynamically positioned ship. Swimmer would be an ideal choice for maintenance tasks and detailed, operator controlled inspections. It could also be used to collect samples from the sea floor within the observatory. However, its large size and high power consumption does not make it ideal for long range survey tasks. A scaled down version could be developed, with a balance struck between scientific survey and maintenance tasks. ISE, working with OceanWorks International of Vancouver, have a preliminary design for a docking system. Their concept allows most types of AUV to connect with the dock for recharging, data transfer and new mission plans to be uploaded to the vehicle. The dock will be a few metres tall and will sit on the seafloor within close proximity (50 metres) of a node and be connected by cable for power and communications. It will be equipped with an acoustic homing system to guide AUVs onto it, but it will be omni-directional to enable AUVs to operate in all current directions. The homing system will take precedence over the AUV’s navigation system, directing the vehicle towards the dock. There is the potential to fit batteries to the dock, which will be trickle charged by the network, reducing the draw on the observatory power supply. Once connected, the AUV will be charged by the dock. To enable the majority of AUVs to dock, they will need some modification: the addition of a stinger that contains a power and data connection. This will require a small amount of work to fit the stinger and



connectors to the vehicle; with this modification other AUVs would be able to operate in the network. This concept should work for both cruising and hovering AUVs. The integration of an AUV into an Arctic observatory will enhance the overall capability of the system. It will not only increase the spatial capacity of the observatory, but also the scientific capability. Also, a cruising AUV will be able to conduct regular maintenance surveys of the network. In order to make sure the observatory can get full benefit of a mobile platform, it is recommended that an AUV be considered in the initial design of the network. By doing so, all requirements can be considered and the vehicle configured to meet the specific demands of operating in a cabled observatory environment.

5.2 Design Options

5.2.1 Community-Based These sites would be characterized by a community with a high level of logistical support available, pre-existing infrastructure (airstrip and/or port) and utilities support (power generation), and capable of supporting a cable landfall and shore facility. These sites would have high scientific demand to address a broad scope of issues such as primarily research applications, government and industry support, and local community needs. These types of locations would require the least significant design changes from existing technologies to implement an observatory. Basing a cabled observatory at an existing Arctic community has significant advantages:

1. Utility power is usually available and can be provided to a Shore Station with minimal cost; 2. Communications infrastructure is likely in place which simplifies the communication links to and

from the Shore Station; 3. Personnel are available in close proximity to conduct planned maintenance and to respond to

situations requiring an on-site operator intervention; and 4. The existing community infrastructure can be used during the construction of the Shore Station,

the construction of the cable landing and the mobilization of assets for the installation and follow on maintenance operations.

The biggest disadvantage of using an existing community is that the location may not be suitable for the proposed scientific research.

5.2.2 Remote Observatories (no community infrastructure) These sites would have little or no pre-existing infrastructure but require continuous 24/7/365 data (or at least monitoring 24/7/365) and a cable landfall and Shore Station, like the DRDC Northern Watch TDP system. All of the support infrastructure would likely have to be installed on the site. Due to the remoteness, this type of location may limit the scope of applications because of the costs of installing and maintaining remote infrastructure. Communications limitations may add a high level of pre-processing and autonomy requirements to detect events and report data only to meet critical need. These sites would be able to provide data addressing a limited scope of issues, possibly of greater relevance for operational applications than for research purposes. Operational applications include data critical to support transportation safety, security and sovereignty (e.g. chokepoints for Northwest Passage shipping).



Basing a cabled observatory at a remote site with no existing infrastructure has the advantage that the observatory can be located in a site most suited for the proposed scientific research. There are significant disadvantages to a remote site:

1. The lack of existing utility power may constrain the size of the observatory and the instrument suite. The lifecycle costs of running the observatory will be higher;

2. The lack of existing communications infrastructure may constrain the amount of data that can be streamed in real time. On-site storage may be required ;

3. Personnel are not available in close proximity to conduct planned maintenance and to respond to situations requiring an on-site operator intervention. Observatory availability may be reduced; and

4. The construction of the Shore Station, the construction of the cable landing and the mobilization of assets for the installation and follow maintenance operations will be more complicated and costly.

5.2.3 Deep Water Observatories (no shore landing)

These sites would be extremely remote, probably more than 100km from land with no land infrastructure or cable landing practical and no pre-existing infrastructure for support (site specific applications, likely resource related). The sites would likely address a very limited scope of issues, targeted toward specific high priority operational applications, mission critical data to support specific applications (ice monitoring, sovereignty), but would not necessarily require 24/7/365 data (eg. support monitoring system for oil and gas exploration). These types of locations will require the most significant design changes from existing technologies to operate without a physical connection to shore infrastructure and may include novel new approaches to reduce the cost of operations and support. This may include battery operated systems, use of acoustic links to surface vessels, or fibre only cables to enable deployments from ROVs and/or vessels not designed specifically for heavy telecom cable lay operations. Installing a cabled observatory in a deep ocean site with no shore landing has the advantage that the observatory can be located in a site most suited for the proposed scientific research. There is no requirement for shore based infrastructure and the environmental impact is minimal. There are significant disadvantages to a deep water site:

1. The lack of power will constrain the size of the observatory and the instrument suite. The lifecycle costs of running the observatory will be higher;

2. On-site data storage will be required which may restrict the amount of data that can be stored and the type of instruments that can be deployed. Data will only be available when it is recovered, either directly by ROV or remotely by acoustic modem; and

3. Personnel are not available to respond to situations requiring an on-site operator intervention. Observatory availability may be reduced.



5.3 Initial Arctic Implementation System

5.3.1 Leveraging CHARS Site as a Hub for Network Expansion As a first demonstration of cabled ocean observatories in the Arctic it would be least costly and lower risk to select a site near an existing community. As a nexus for scientific research in the High Arctic the Canadian High Arctic Research Station is an advantageous location for an initial system and then as a hub for expanding into other Arctic areas of interest. The CHARS can be used as an operations and maintenance centre for Arctic observatories and also a training centre.

5.3.2 Science and Operational Stakeholder Requirements Demonstrated In the broadest terms, the science and operational requirements are to achieve a highly reliable infrastructure, from the wet plant to the data management facilities, capable of operating continuously throughout the year in all three types of observatory settings. Clearly it must provide sufficient power and bandwidth for the collection of all desired data from present and foreseeable future instrumentation. The design must be sufficiently flexible that reconfiguration of the initial layout is possible and that reasonable expansion (addition of further nodes, cables and instrumentation) can be accommodated. The observatory must be capable of managing (acquisition, curation and dissemination) a broad array of data and information to a wide range of users, from experts to the lay public, and in a variety of formats. The information must be available in as close to real time as possible. There must be provisions to ensure that data, with national security significance, can be diverted and retained by appropriate authorities during specified periods; these data would be archived by those agencies, complete with all associated metadata, and returned to the observatory within an agreed-upon timeframe should they not contain information of consequence for national security. 5.3.2.1 Baseline Instrument Suites Based on stakeholder input as part of this study (Appendix B; Sections 3.1, 3.2), we envisage a likely suite of instruments of interest for each of the three types of observatory situation. Those who identified a Cambridge Bay site as being of interest include: a research group from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (see Appendix B, DFO Respondents 1, 2, 3); National Defence; and, the Nunavut Research Institute, which, while being cautious about the concept as a whole, stated “… that Cambridge Bay as a possible location for the cabled observation system is a good idea, ‘tying it in with the High Arctic Research Centre makes sense’. The Centre is scheduled to be open in 2017 – the observatory should aim at a similar timeframe.” Specifically for an initial Arctic demonstration system, proposed to be co-located with the CHARS near Cambridge Bay, stakeholders identified the following important scientific drivers: the role of the large freshwater inputs in this area and their impacts on circulation and productivity throughout the Arctic; a much better understanding of ice-related ecosystems and their relationship to the rest of the marine food chain; how changes in open water conditions will affect primary productivity and the rest of the marine ecosystem; and, the impacts of marine acoustic noise on fish and marine mammals in the narrow, shallow waters of the area. The following devices were seen as being a basic suite on an array in Dease Strait and western Queen Maud Gulf:

• Conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) instruments, possibly several on moorings



• Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) at a minimum of two and probably three sites to measure currents through the water column; with wave sensor package

• Various chemical sensors (e.g., pH, oxygen, dissolved carbon dioxide, nitrate), possibly several units on moorings

• Fluorometers, possibly several units on moorings • Turbidity sensors, several units on moorings • Ice profilers at two or more sites • Biological acoustic profiler • Bottom Pressure Recorder • Ambient light sensor at the top of moorings (15-20 m water depth) • Broadband hydrophones on an array with at least 3 sites

Addition desirable instruments which some researchers identified include:

• Sediment traps • Water samplers • Still and video cameras for studies of benthic ecology • Turbulence sensor

The possibility of collecting samples was seen as particularly important by those studying chemical transport through the CAA, particularly various deleterious materials such as organochlorines, mercury, etc. Water and sediment sampling are possible on a cabled observatory with sample acquisition either on a pre-determined schedule and/or on-demand in response to particular events (e.g., storms, ice break up, blooms, etc.).

Figure 5-7. Notional configuration of a cabled system in western Queen Maud Gulf.



Seafloor science nodes must be separated by 100s of m to kilometres (Figure 5-7, 5-8) for several reasons: interference between some instrument types (e.g., active and passive acoustic systems); the need to monitor water column current structure both across and along the channel; to create an acoustic array in order to determine vessel or marine mammal speed and direction of travel.

To meet the basic science objectives at the proposed location in the Queen Maud Gulf, the main node is located approximately 54 km from the Shore Station site (Figure 5-7). A main sensor suite at the node site includes a Central Site mooring, imaging system and an optional AUV docking station (Figure 5-8). The Central Site mooring includes vertical profiler with CTD, DO, CO2, pH, turbidity, chlorophyll fluorometer, CDOM fluorometer, hyperspectral radiometer, nitrate sensor and an ice profiler (Table 5-2). At the bottom near this site is also an ADCP for current profiles. The imaging system includes a video camera with lights and pan/tilt/zoom control and a multi-frequency acoustic profiler that can locate acoustic targets from fish to zooplankton throughout the water column. A hydrophone array is located approximately 70m from the node site and includes an array of four high frequency hydrophones (1 Hz -50 kHz). Spaced round the node to the north, south and west are additional vertical profiling systems identical to the one at the central node.

Figure 5-8. Conceptual layout of a cabled system in western Queen Maud Gulf.



Table 5-2. Possible instrument suite and specifications for a system in Queen Maud Gulf.

System Measurements Relative location

Power Data

Central Site mooring

Salinity, temperature, depth, DO, CO2, pH, chlorophyll, turbidity, hyperspectral radiometer, CDOM, ice profiler, ADCP


550W 10kbps

Central Site imaging

Video camera, pan/tilt/zoom, lights, multi-frequency water column profiler


220W 100 Mbps

Central Site hydrophone array

Four broadband hydrophones


12W 10 Mbps

Central Site AUV Dock (optional)

Docking station to charge AUV, download data, upload missions

Benthic 500W 100Mbps

North Site mooring



550W 10kbps

South Site mooring



550W 10kbps

West Site mooring



550W 10kbps



5.3.2.2 Primary and Secondary Subsea Infrastructure Primary and secondary subsea infrastructure is a core area of Canadian expertise. Based on years of experience with VENUS, NEPTUNE Canada and other projects OceanWorks observatory infrastructure is highly reliable and state-of-the-art, built for a 20 year operational lifetime. The node design is fully redundant on all power, communications and control systems. Redundant fibre optic links return the scientific data to shore. Each node science port contains a suite of protection circuits that prevent downstream faults on one port propagating and affecting other systems attached to the node. Observatory expandability is inherent to the OceanWorks design. Additional nodes can be added to the backbone cable without sacrificing the power available to instruments at each node location. Communications redundancy is maintained with an innovative ‘skip node’ architecture in a multi-node configuration. An optional Science Instrument Interface Module (SIIM) can be plugged into any one of the nodes’ science ports. A SIIM can interface up to ten instruments to the single node port and can support a wide variety of instrument power and communications requirements (Serial, Ethernet, PPS and 12, 15, 24, 48 or 375 VDC). With the addition of an external media converter, the SIIMs can be deployed as secondary nodes up to 10 kilometres from the primary node. Finally, the OceanWorks system provides maximum flexibility for future upgrades. The complete node package can be disconnected from the submarine cable and recovered to the surface. This gives the observatory future capability to upgrade the network equipment or power converters to allow for increases in bandwidth and power demands.



Figure 5-9. Node Pod detached from Node Base

5.3.2.2.1 Node The cabled observatory Node is a subsea distribution hub for power and communications. A Cambridge Bay cabled observatory would be installed with a single node, but could be expanded to support additional nodes in the future. The Node consists of two main components, the Node Pod and the Node Base, both of which are covered with a trawl resistant frame (TRF) as shown in Figure 5-9. The Node is manufactured from material suitable for long term submersion in seawater such as Titanium, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Super Duplex stainless steel and coated mild steel. Great care is taken to ensure there is no opportunity for dissimilar metal corrosion, and consequently, the entire assembly will have at least a 20 year life. The Node Base is permanently connected to the submarine fibre optic cable. Two Wet-Mate Connectors (WMC) are used to connect the Node Base to the Node Pod. One of the WMC is a fibre optic connector, the second WMC is an electrical connector. Wet-Mate Connectors are further described in Section 5.3.2.3.

Figure 5-10. Node Base and Node Pod block diagram.



As shown in Figure 5-10, the two WMCs allow the Node Pod to be disconnected from the Node Base and recovered to the surface without disturbing the sea floor fibre optic and power cable. As all electronics are contained within the Node Pod (Figure 5-7), this facilitates low risk upgrades, maintenance, or repair. 5.3.2.2.2 Node Pod The OceanWorks Node Pod consists of a Medium Voltage Convertor (MVC), switched power distribution, communications hardware and control computers. The Node Pod has four WMC science ports located along the side of the pod to allow. Convenient grab handles are provided on the Node Pod for an ROV manipulator to hold steady during connection and disconnection of the WMC. A typical node pod is shown in Figure 5-11.

The Medium Voltage Converter (MVC) provides power conversion for the node and instruments. A nominal backbone voltage of 1500VDC will be used to minimize the cable losses incurred in the 50km power transmission from shore. As with other cabled observatories, a seawater return will complete the electrical circuit. The MVC consists of two independent one thousand Watt converters. The MVC distributes this power at 375VDC to the instrument ports via a set of sophisticated breakers that provide soft-start turn on, power monitoring and rapid isolation in the case of a downstream fault.

Figure 5-11. Typical Node Pod design



Approximately 200 watts of the MVC power is consumed by the node’s communication equipment and hotel functions. This leaves 800W of redundant power for instruments or 1800W if redundancy is not required. The Medium Voltage Converter is a proven design, with variants deployed on the VENUS Strait of Georgia cabled observatory and the CSnet TWERC array. The Node Pod also contains all of the communication equipment such as Ethernet Switches and fibre media converters. Dual redundant 100BaseT Ethernet communication is supplied to each node science port along with a 375VDC switched supply and an auxiliary 24VDC switch supply. The science ports are individually controlled directly by users via the internet. Each port continuously monitors voltage, current, and ground fault values. This telemetry is collected by the subsea control computers and transmitted to the ONC DMAS. 5.3.2.2.3 SIIM Instruments can plug directly into the node ports using either the high power 375VDC supply or the auxiliary 24VDC supply. Alternatively a SIIM can be plugged into the node to allow for local expansion. Each SIIM (Figure 5-12) is capable of connecting ten instruments to a single node port. SIIMs can be located within 70m of the node if a direct connection is used. If the 100BaseT Ethernet is converted to a fibre optic signal using an external media converter, SIIMs can be located up to 10km from the node.

Figure 5-12. Typical SIIM showing instrument multiple ports.



5.3.2.2.4 Wet Mateable Underwater Connectors (WMC) The OceanWorks Node design uses Teledyne Ocean Design Inc. (ODI) Nautilus style wet mate connectors as shown in Figure 5-13. Each of the science ports is equipped with a WMC Bulkhead connector. The Nautilus connectors and cables are fully qualified for 3000 meter operating depth and are designed for a 25 year service life. The connector is fully qualified to the latest industry standards and customer specifications including electrical performance, helium leak, mechanical shock & vibration, thermal cycling & shock, turbid hyperbaric mate and de-mate and misaligned resilience.

The Nautilus connectors are highly reliable with the electrical connectors rated for 1000 mating cycles before requiring service. Fabricated from titanium, these durable connectors have been in service since 1991 and were selected for the VENUS, NEPTUNE Canada, MARS and TWERC cabled observatories. 5.3.2.2.5 Node Base The Node Base structure (Figure 5-14) connects the Submarine Fibre Optic Cable (SFOC) from the Shore Station to the Node Pod. The SFOC is terminated in a Tyco Millennium Coupling which is mounted in the Node Base. Mounted on the end of the Millennium Coupling, a pressure vessel transfers the power conductor and communication fibres to a pair of ODI wet mate connector assemblies. The connectors are used to plug into the removable node pod, providing power and communications to the node. The Node Base is symmetrical with one Millennium Coupling on either end. This facilitates future expansion of the observatory.

Figure 5-13. ODI Nautilus bulkhead and flying receptacle wet mate connectors.



The Node Base Structure is a trawl resistant design with lift points in each corner for deployment. ROV friendly latches on the Node Base allow the Node Pod to be secured into the Node Base once deployed A range of modular embedment and load spreading options are designed into the node base to accommodate a variety of seafloor conditions. Figure 5-15 shows an example node base with embedment spikes in each corner and a load spreading metal grating.

Figure 5-14. Typical Node Base design

Figure 5-15. Example Node Base embedment features.



5.3.2.2.6 Submarine Fibre Optic Cable The Submarine Fibre Optic Cable (SFOC) selected for the Arctic Ocean cabled observatory is the Tyco Telecommunications SL-17. The mechanical cross section of the SL-17 cable is shown in Figure 5-16 (Light weight (LW) cable on the left, Double armour (DA) cable on the right). SL-17 cable has an electrical resistance of one ohm per kilometre. For the proposed single node observatory, this will limit the voltage drop at the node under full power to less than two hundered volts.

As the node can tolerate a voltage range from 1200VDC to 1800VDC there is an ample margin and plenty of additional capacity should the observatory require expansion in the future. The SL-17 cable is supplied with four fibre pairs, allowing the nodes to be configured for redundant network communications. The design and construction of the SL-17 cable comply with standard industry safety practices and provide the following operational benefits:

• Effective protection for optical fibers in a marine environment. • Robust cable design able to withstand the stress and strain associated with laying and recovery

operations. • Cable types are suitable for deep and shallow water use. • Handling characteristics compatible with current cable handling equipment. • Cable power conductor also suitable for carrying fault-locating signals.

Figure 5-16. SL-17 Light weight (LW) cable (left), double armour (DA) cable (right).



5.3.3 Shore-based Infrastructure

The Shore Station Infrastructure includes the subsystems located at the cable landing location required to operate the observatory locally, remotely or autonomously. At remote locations as is proposed for the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory, the Shore Station is a self-contained unit, much like the Shore Stations designed for VENUS (Figure 5-17). These enclosures provide security, environmental control, power and data infrastructure for the observatory, and an autonomously operating Shore Station computer.

The Shore Station enclosure is designed to contain the power and fibre optic terminations of the observatory cable, main utility power breakers, electrical panel service for Shore Station, telecommunications panel for backhaul, observatory power feed equipment, observatory local control computer, Shore Station observatory server, uninterruptible power supply and network equipment. The Shore Station requires standard 208VAC 3 phase service at about 6kW. For a shore site located about 12 km west of Cambridge Bay a local power system would be required which could include a combination of diesel generators, wind generation and battery systems. The VENUS Shore Station uses a standard 20 foot shipping container modified for environmental control (see Figure 5-17 and 5-18).

Figure 5-17. VENUS Strait of Georgia array Shore Station fully configured.



An 8X20 ISO shipping container has sufficient space to support the observatory power and communication systems. Inputs to the Shore Station will be the utility power feed and a fibre optic communication cable. Power for the observatory could be supplied from the local power grid or local diesel generator (Figure 5-19). Cambridge Bay has a 3.1 MW diesel generator power grid supported by Nunavut Power Corporation. The power consumption of the array and instruments is on the order of 6kW, similar to a single family dwelling. Two 19” equipment racks will contain the array control computers and the associated network equipment.

Figure 5-18. VENUS Strait of Georgia array Shore Station enclosure installation.

Figure 5-19. Shore Station Equipment.



5.3.3.1 Power Feed Equipment The Shore Station Power Feed Equipment (PFE) generates a nominal 1500VDC used to power the observatory Node. The negative potential is supplied via the single conductor subsea cable with return current using seawater to complete the circuit. The Shore Station discussed in this proposal is sized to supply up to three kilowatts of power to the subsea cable through dual redundate power supplies. Power is supplied to the Shore Station at using a customer supplied three phase connection. The PFE has to be carefully selected and charaterised to ensure compatibility with the subsea MVC. OceanWorks has successfully completed PFE and subsea modeling and intergration on both the VENUS and CSnet projects. Telemetry and control of the Shore Station is captured and provided to authorized users allowing both local and remote control of the power supplies. A series of interlocks prevent remote access while local control for maintenance is engaged. 5.3.3.2 Communications and Timing Communications between the Shore Station and the Node is via a redundant pair of Gigabit fibers operating on the 1000BaseZX Ethernet standard. The dual redundant ShoreComms switches feed into a single router to provide a link onto a local internet backhaul as shown in Figure 5-19. Auxilary equipment such as NTP (or optional PTP) time servers are also connected at this point. For PTP timing applications a PTP master clock is located at each Shore Station (if high reliability, low latency backhaul is not available) for best performance. This includes a PTP switch and GPS receiver for precision timing across the observatory. Systems such as the Meinberg LANTIME M600/GPS/PTPv2 IEEE1588-2008 provides a suitable PTP master clock. 5.3.3.3 Shore Station Network Equipment The Shore Station network equipment requires dual 24 port Gigabit PTP compatible network switches with dual SFP ports configured with 1000BaseZX transponders for observatory communications. The Shore Station should have a full height rack for observatory computer systems, etc. 5.3.3.4 Shore Station Software The Shore Station operates under control of the DMAS DAF software. This is a remotely operated data acquisition system that operates from the main DMAS DAF but if backhaul communications are severed, the DMAS Shore Station software DAF continues to acquire and store observatory data on the local RAID drives autonomously. The Shore Station has two instances of the DMAS DAF code base running: the first one deals with communication with the instrumentation (instrument drivers) and is hardly ever disturbed to minimize disruptions in the data flow. The second one executes the functions of parsing, calibration and event detection. This represents a translation layer that interfaces between each instrument and the DMAS infrastructure and converts raw instrument data into engineering units for the observatory users using calibration and conversion formulas. New computed values are attached to the data object received from the instrument and are passed along with the raw data to the archiver at the Data Center.



5.3.3.5 Power The observatory as outlined requires approximately 6kW operating at full capacity at the Shore Station enclosure (worst case 52,560 kWh/yr). This is about 2kW at 120VAC for Shore Station computer systems (control computers, network switches, buffer disk drives, etc.) and about 4kW at 240VAC for the observatory itself delivered to the Power Feed Equipment. This power can be easily delivered locally from a diesel generator (or the local power utility) and an uninterruptible power supply. However it would be desirable to avoid the use of a diesel generator as a primary power source due to the cost of operating and maintaining these systems. Alternative energy systems such as wind are used in high reliability power systems in remote locations around the world, including remote monitoring installations in the Arctic that have sustained winds. Smaller wind generator systems are considered in this study due their compact size and ease of installation in remote locations. For Cambridge Bay the climate normal (1971-2000) average wind speed is about 20kmph for each month of the year (Environment Canada National Climate Data). Using a simple model for wind systems from the Canadian Wind Energy Association (http://www.canwea.ca/swe/calculator.php ) the model predicts the use of five 1kW wind generators on 19m towers could generate 11,280 kWh/yr of power or just over 21% of the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory needs. 5.3.3.6 Communications For the purposes of this initial study the Shore Station is assumed to be an ISO container located near the shore landing site. A more detailed study would review the various cost trade-offs and determine an optimal approach. In this scenario communications requirements will include different components: a link between the Shore Station and the CHARS, local community based access to the CHARS and a link to the rest of the country. The techniques that could be used for all are as follows:

5.3.3.6.1 Shore station to Network Operations Centre The distance will be approximately 12 kilometres. Given the bandwidth, distance and reliability requirements, this could be done using either a dedicated fibre or a wireless transmission. A fibre would be preferred. Backhaul capabilities of these systems are 1-10 gigabits per second, which are sufficient to transmit the full capacity of the observatory to the CHARS.

5.3.3.6.2 Local community service The information services provided by the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory will address community needs over the web using a number of available services such as the QINIQ network in Nunavut. Higher bandwidth data users can connect via NetKaster satellite services from NorthwesTel for downloading higher bandwidth sources. These are standard services which have asymmetric bandwidth (i.e., much higher download than upload capacity), suitable for system users.

5.3.3.6.3 Connectivity to the Rest of the World The primary server for the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory would be required to service all user needs for Northerners and globally. Recommended connectivity for this server, with potentially thousands of users, would not ideally be in a limited connectivity region.



Ideally a fibre optic backhaul connectivity would be ideal to provide broader access to the unique data sets from the observatory. Currently the only proposed system that would route fibre optic telecommunications cable through the Canadian Arctic is the ArcticLink system. Connectivity to Northern communities would be a consideration in a broader context than the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory. Presently, a satellite link (Anik F2 Ka-band) operated by the CSA is in place with a receiving station in Cambridge Bay. It is not clear what the available bandwidth actually is at this time, but it would be around estimated to be 1-2Mbps, shared with an entire community. This will be seriously insufficient to support observatory traffic, in particular for the storage of the safe copy of the data. NorthwesTel also has connectivity for symmetric services through Telesat. These services have much higher data upload capacity more appropriately suited for sending data. This service can be purchased in 1 Mbps units to about 5Mbps. However this bandwidth capacity is inadequate to serve a large number of users. Potential future options worth considering in this area would be a micro-wave link from Cambridge Bay to Yellowknife or to Inuvik, NWT, where the Territory is currently investigating the possibility of running fibres along the MacKenzie River from Yellowknife. Micro-wave service currently extends about 300km from Yellowknife to the Diavik Diamond Mine. Extension of this service by 550km would reach Cambridge Bay. The latter solution would clearly be expensive and take several years to complete but would offer vastly increased bandwidth to the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory and CHARS. Without a high speed connection to serve users in the North and globally an option would be to host the primary data source at the University of Victoria within the DMAS used for VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada. With this system much of the infrastructure is in place and with additional capacity could handle the needs of an additional observing system. Currently the DMAS serves thousands of users around the globe. For the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory the primary data uplink could be used to send data back to the UVic DMAS, this would off load users data access services from the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory itself making better use of the limited resources. 5.3.3.7 System Monitoring and Control Observatory management functions contain mainly two types of activities: monitor and control of SIIMs and instruments, from a power point of view; and monitor and control of instruments, from a data flow point of view. Both functions are performed by duly authorized staff using a secure web interface. The interfaces have been designed with the support of many junction boxes and instruments in mind, facilitating the work of operators. Moreover, and particularly useful to minimize the operating costs (manpower costs in particular), the DMAS sends Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) traps when an alert occurs on the system to a Network Management System (NMS). The NMS can be then configured to send text messages to staff on call or on standby duty. This alleviates the need to have operation staff available 24/7 on site.



5.3.4 Network Operations Running the observatory as a network is the task of dedicated staff aided by software tools and interfaces. The system components (instruments, power distribution, communication, data flow and processing) need to be actively monitored on a 24/7 basis. The proposed cabled infrastructure is designed to offer feedback to its operators. The feedback is in the form of engineering data and alert signals that are concentrated by a Network Monitoring System (NMS). The NMS allows operators to define the degree of criticality of alerts and offers the ability to define reactions to event (e.g., send messages to cell phones or pagers). Moreover, the NMS provides an efficient way to share information on issue resolution progress amongst the various staff involved in network operations A cabled observatory as proposed here will require a minimum of 3 duly trained technical staff to operate, based on 35-hour week presence at the operation centre and the rest of the time covered through an on-call arrangement. Running such a network moreover requires an engineer who will direct and oversee operations, as well as a few IT people to attend to the land-based facilities: web site, data transmission, computer management etc.

5.3.5 Data Management 5.3.5.1 Communications Links – Local, Regional, National and International Data management will critically depend on the ability to transport data from the underwater system to a local data centre as well as to a remote backup data centre, to users locally and to the rest of the country. A number of options for the support of those links have been mentioned above. Though the implementation plan outlined here for this project does not consider additional regional, national and international linkages, the team implementing will have to work together with groups in charge of this deployment to establish these connections. In particular, it is strongly recommended that CANARIE Inc. (http://www.canarie.ca/) be involved in the planning of increased capabilities in the High Arctic as their national mandate is to provide and manage national research and education networks. 5.3.5.2 Data Acquisition Data acquisition is concerned with the capture, parsing, calibration and transport of data from all devices connected to the underwater infrastructure. The word device here is to be understood as to mean any subsystem connected to the infrastructure that can produce data. We are therefore not only considering science instruments and their sensors: all other elements of the system, even if they do not involve the collection of the science data are nevertheless important as they hold the clues to the health and safety of the entire observatory. In systems as complex as the ones examined here, elements at the Shore Station, in the nodes and SIIMs can produce large amounts of important data to help understand, or predict system failures. The design proposed here assumes all devices report data of different types, asynchronously and at various rates. Each instrument will be assumed to produce data in an ad hoc, not necessarily predictable fashion. The arrival of a new sequence of data will trigger the execution of a pre-determined set of processing stages, the last of which will be the archiving of the data stream.



5.3.5.3 Archive Archiving consists of the storage of all data (science and engineering) and all data types (scalar, complex, streaming) for safeguarding and later retrieval. Archiving is critical to support short, medium and long-term trend analysis in the data. To be effective, the data storage will be hosted at the data centre (i.e., leveraging CHARS premises) and managed by the IT staff mentioned above. To ensure protection of the data against natural or man-made disasters, it is highly recommended to establish a secondary copy of all the data, fed from the primary data centre in real-time if possible. A similar approach was implemented for the NEPTUNE Canada and VENUS networks for which the primary data centre is located in Victoria, with a secondary copy kept up-to-date in real time in Saskatoon. Proper connectivity from Cambridge Bay will be required to establish the secondary data centre. For example, the Ocean Networks Canada operations centre could be considered as a host for the secondary copy of the data. 5.3.5.4 Data Availability and Distribution Data availability from a technical point of view was discussed in the communication link section above. Here the emphasis will be on data availability in terms of who has access to them, while the following section will discuss data products. Typically, scientific experiments paid with taxpayer dollars tend to have either a fully open data policy or a time-limited proprietary period. The latter is to provide the initial principal investigator of the scientific experiment to perform the analysis of the results and publish them. Both approaches can easily be implemented at the level of the observatory software system. Both can also co-exist, where certain data are made available immediately while others undergo a temporary embargo. An often unsuspected issue that faces planners in charge of designing a civilian underwater observing system is cybersecurity due to the potential national security implications of some of the data (e.g., hydrophone and seismometer data). With proper sophisticated data processing/pattern matching software, those instruments can be trained to detect specific ship propeller signatures. As is often the case, civilian scientific systems will have an open, public data policy where data are available to anyone immediately. This is a clear concern for navies whose assets regularly cruise in the area covered by the observatory. The issues can be addressed with a mitigation scheme that will implement data diversion of the streams from instruments deemed susceptible to detection of the presence of military assets nearby. At the same time, data (diverted or not) can be of use to the military for the detection of specific maritime traffic in the vicinity of the detectors. An implementation of data diversion as described above is already in place to support the NEPTUNE Canada and VENUS networks and has the full support of both the US Navy and DND. This method is directly applicable to an ocean observatory in the North that would thereby become a dual-use facility. Public access data distribution will likely be performed over a web interface that will offer users the ability to search, select, preview and retrieve data that is available, oftentimes in different formats. The “Oceans 2.0” web environment (http://dmas.uvic.ca/) offered to NEPTUNE Canada users could be directly transferred to support the Arctic observatory discussed in this study.



5.3.5.5 Knowledge Products Knowledge products are the results of the basic processing of raw instrument data, followed by the analysis of the outcome of the processing and the generation of simplified or “reduced” values. For example: the determination of the average wave height over the past hour will require the basic processing of instrument raw data, the analysis of those early results with complex mathematical algorithms and the reduction of the analysis to a simple number that can be easily understood by many. Knowledge products are the top level requirements that drive the design of the overall system, the instrumentation that should be hosted on it as well as the level of staff support that might be needed to perform this analysis and derivation.

5.3.6 System installation and Maintenance

System installation will be conducted over several years due to the remote location of the array, the limited transportation window and the yearly ice cover. After a Desk Top Study that examines a proposed array location, a preliminary route for the cable is selected followed by an initial route survey. Site visits to the potential landing sites and outside plant routes are conducted to ensure that all information required for the system installation is in hand. Route surveys are carried out in order to determine the seabed morphology on which the cable will lie, the substrate conditions (e.g., bedrock outcrops or boulder fields which will create cable spans) and to identify any geological hazards which could impact the cable (e.g., areas which could undergo subaqueous in situ liquefaction or where an underwater landslide could impact the cable). Surveys would be conducted from a small vessel and use multibeam echosounding (if Canadian Hydrographic Service data are inadequate), sidescan sonar and sub-bottom profiling techniques. It is expected that in the Cambridge Bay area there could be localized concentrations of cobbles and boulders on the seafloor and possibly zones of exposed bedrock. An acceptable route would be sought to minimize the impacts of these conditions on the integrity of the cable and, if this were not possible, to determine means to mitigate the impacts (e.g., change of cable protection type, installation of protective mats on the cable over bedrock, etc.). With the cable route selected, work is started on the shore works and cable landing. The Shore Station and power/communication lines are installed and connected back to Cambridge Bay. Using directional drilling, a 120mm diameter 1km steel pipe is installed across the shore line and out to a depth of 30m, well below ice scouring depth. After the drill is complete, divers will clean up the seaward end and install a pull rope and bell-mouth for ease of cable installation. With the shore landing and Shore Station in place, the subsea cable can be laid. An ice strengthened vessel with a large clear stern deck will be required for cable installation. Two such vessels have been identified and are available. However availability will need to be confirmed. While these vessels have no dynamic positioning, with twin propellers and bow thrusters they are considered suitable for live boating during this installation. With more detailed analysis of the site and route, use of a barge can be considered. The cable will not be buried into the seabed. It will be surface laid and surveyed after deployment to ensure it is clear of any bottom obstructions. The node and secondary infrastructure is then assembled in Cambridge Bay, transferred to a deployment vessel and attached to end of the backbone cable. System commissioning then follows.



System maintenance will require a dedicated Ship/ROV combination to recover the instruments and secondary infrastructure for servicing. Yearly servicing will be a month long process. Two weeks of effort are needed to prepare and test the replacement instruments and platforms. One week of at-sea operations will be required to recovery and redeploy the instruments and secondary infrastructure. At the end of the at-sea period, one week will be required to deal with the recovered instruments and platforms.

5.3.7 System Life-Cycle Plans In any scientific observatory, the primary driver of the life cycle operations is the need to maintain and calibrate the scientific instruments. The frequency of instrument servicing is driven by the instrument technology, the depth at which the instrument is deployed and the amount of bio-fouling that is experienced by the instrument. The shallower that an instrument is deployed, the higher the rate of bio-fouling that an instrument will typically experience. Experience in the Arctic suggests that a yearly planned maintenance schedule is usually sufficient to keep the instruments operating within normal specification. Since there would be insufficient time to calibrate some of the sensor systems (such as CTDs, passive optics, gas sensors, etc.) in one field season a spare set to swap in during alternate seasons would be required to maintain a continuous data set.

As the SIIMs are co-located with the instruments, they can be inspected on the same interval as the instruments.

The Node pods should be recovered on a five yearly cycle for inspection in low sedimentation areas such as Arctic choke points (this would need to be more frequent for high sedimentation locations such as river mouths if there was a desire to instrument these). The Node frame and primary cable have no maintenance requirements for the life of the observatory. 5.4 Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory Implementation Summary

5.4.1 Introduction

The conceptual designs for an Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory were completed by experts in cabled observing and subsea telecommunications systems. The designs use the Cambridge Bay site to provide an actual location to constrain the system configuration. Without detailed study of any site only very conservative, project timeline can be provided. Moreover, the timelines assume that equipment such as vessels are mobilized from elsewhere in Canada and that certain equipment may have to be leased for a year to have in place for the installation season. With more detailed desktop and route survey information would be recommended as next step. As with any ocean observatory the design choices to be made for a cabled Arctic observatory will be driven more by considerations of operating cost, reliability, maintainability and availability to the end user than by considerations of capital cost. The Arctic is a remote and hostile environment, with long mobilizations, short working seasons and restricted local support. Any design or work plan must take these environmental and logistical considerations into account. The design and implementation outlined here offers reduced risk because it uses components that have extensive history of use. The main cable, joints and terminations are standard subsea telecom equipment, qualified for 25 years life in the deep ocean. The node and SIIMS are based on designs



qualified and used on the NEPTUNE Canada and VENUS observatories and the TWERC system. Use of existing, proven technology will increase reliability and availability and reduce risk. It is important to have a detailed understanding of the seabed conditions and obstacles before installing the system. This assumes that a 300kHz sidescan and a 300kHz multibeam will be used from the CCGS Amundsen for optimal resolution. The logistical assumptions for this implementation are conservative, and take into account the very short ice-free window for port operations, and the notice period required for booking time on CCGS Amundsen (or the planned new icebreaker CCGS John G. Diefenbaker). For the purposes of this implementation, it is assumed that no on site work will be possible in the year of funding (Year 0). After that, only one task is scheduled for each year: Year 1 is permitting and route survey; Year 2 is beach work and directional drill; Year 3 is main cable installation; and Year 4 is installation of nodes, SIIMs, extensions and instruments. The maintainability assumptions rely on use of CCGS Amundsen, or a vessel with similar capabilities such as the CCGS Diefenbaker, to maintain the system since it is the most capable ice class research vessel routinely in the Canadian Arctic with ROV capabilities. ODI ROV wet mateable connectors are used to allow recovery of discrete parts of the observatory with a small work class ROV. Some consideration has been given to the suitability of the Super Mohawk inspection class ROV system that is currently deployed on CCGS Amundsen. Management of the observatory implementation will be complex, requiring multiple suppliers to meet challenging qualification requirements and fixed delivery dates. For the purposes of this implementation, it is assumed that a professional project management group will represent the Owner, and will manage the various suppliers and contractors. A permitting process is anticipated to have started at least a year before the start of “Year 0” in the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory project. It is difficult to estimate what the impact of this process would be in the time frame of this feasibility study, since a large, complex science-based project like the Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory has not been constructed and operated in Arctic waters before (it consequently becomes precedent-setting). Preparing an appropriate budget and timeline for the regulatory process will need to consider all of the above requirements and more input from regulators and stakeholders. This first phase aimed at preliminary scoping and included high level feedback of only few key agencies. Two of the outcomes of the next phase of the feasibility study should be a cost estimate and a proposed timeline of the regulatory phase.

5.4.2 Year 0 Year 0 is the year when funding is granted. For the purposes of this implementation plan, it is assumed that funding release occurs in Q2 of Year 0. The first task once funding is in place will be to establish the specialist project management team. This team will rely on existing accounting and management staff, and will provide the specialist technical, commercial and regulatory experience required for this type of project. Technical knowledge will include



cable route engineering, marine installation, optical networking, DC power systems, subsea equipment design and Quality Assurance for subsea systems. A science team will also be put in place. Its principal tasks will be to complete the Detailed Science Requirements and to select instrument types for deployment.

Once in place, the project team will prepare requirements and implement supplier selection procedures necessary to contract for the Desk Top Study, Route Survey and Subsea System Design. Commitments will be made for the Desk Top Study and Route Survey. The project team will also implement the necessary management structures including cost, schedule and risk management. Some of the Year 1 work may be completed in Year 0, depending on when Year 0 starts.

5.4.3 Year 1 Year 1 is the year for preparation of requirements, selection of preliminary route and completion of the route survey. The Desk Top Study, begun in Year 0, will be completed in Year 1. The Desk Top Study will involve the project team, and may be done by them. It will include a site visit to view possible landing sites, outside plant routes and shore facilities and to meet with the local community. Some multibeam data exist and will be reviewed as they become available. The design of the outside plant route (cable from landing to Shore Station) will take into account ground conditions, and in particular permafrost.

Cambridge Bay

Figure 5-20. Existing Multibeam Data in the Cambridge Bay Area.



Commitment for the route survey will be made in Year 0 or at the start of Year 1. Route Survey includes: analysing background material from the Desk Top Survey, planning a field campaign to fill in the data gaps, geophysical and sediment surveys along the proposed cable route (multibeam, sub-bottom, sediment grab samples, piston cores), as well as coastal erosion and site geomorphology near the cable landing and shore site. Much of the equipment supply and contracting for Year 2 will be completed in Year 1.

• Detailed Science Requirements Study

• Desk Top Study • Route Survey • Shore Landing

o Select location o Design

• Outside Plant o Select Route o Design

• Shore Station o Design o Select Supplier

• Subsea System o Select Supplier o Make decisions regarding ROV for system install and support (see Year 4)

5.4.4 Year 2 Year 2 is the year for shore works and landing preparation. The intent is to commission as much shore equipment in Year 2 as possible, to reduce risk in years 3 and 4. The Desktop Study and Route Survey completed during Year 1 identified the optimal site for the cable landing, the Shore Station and the outside plant route. It is assumed for the purposes of this implementation that the Shore Station would be located at a site to the west of Cambridge Bay with direct access to the Dease Strait. This station would be an automated, unmanned facility. Fibre optic connection of data communications to the station are estimated for a 12 km route back to Cambridge Bay. Shore station power is assumed to be a diesel generator located onsite; an approximate estimate for a supplemental alternative energy (wind) is provided for five 1kW wind generators. It is assumed that to protect the cable shore crossing a pipe 1 km in length would be installed at the Shore Station location out to a depth of approximately 30m, well below ice scouring depth. The preparation of the cable landing for the drill, the installation of the outside plant and support for the installation of the Shore Station units will be contracted locally.



The drill will be approximately 1200m long, through material assumed to be weak rock. A 12.5cm drill pipe will be left in place. After the drill is complete, divers will clean up the seaward end and install a pull rope and bellmouth for ease of cable installation. Also during Year 2, the Subsea System design must be completed, prototyped and qualified. While the design will rely heavily on the experience gained and the equipment qualified on the NEPTUNE Canada and VENUS systems, additional qualification may be required for Arctic deployment.

• Shore Landing • Outside Plant

o Based on 12km route to town. • Directional Drill

o Based on discussions with drilling contractor • Bellmouth installation

o Inspection of drill break-out and installation of bellmouth o Dive equipment to be air transported from Yellowknife

• Shore Station o One generator van, one equipment van o Design suitable for ro-ro delivery o Use of local contractors to install

• Backhaul comms o Satellite communications link

• Subsea System Design o Must be completed in Year 2 to allow time to manufacture and qualify

5.4.5 Year 3

Year 3 is the year for installation of the cable and manufacture of the subsea equipment. The subsea cable will be standard subsea telecommunications cable with a centre fibre tube and strength member. This cable is extremely robust and designed for installation from a ship. Many thousands of kilometres of this design of cable have been laid across the world’s oceans. An ice strengthened vessel with a large clear stern deck will be required for cable installation. Two such vessels have been identified and are available. However availability will need to be confirmed. While these vessels have no dynamic positioning, with twin propellers and a bow thruster they are considered suitable for live boating during this installation. With more detailed analysis of the site and route, use of a barge can be considered. The manufacture of nodes, SIIMs, extension cables and connectors will be completed in Year 3. Following manufacture, these components will be assembled into an array at a suitable facility for testing.



• Subsea cable installation o Vessel from a northern transportation company o Vessel has twin screws and a tunnel bow thrusters – no dynamic positioning o Cable installation equipment and personnel from companies with experience in

cable lay using vessels of opportunity o Dive support for cable pull in o Cable length of 65 km is assumed from Section 5

• Power and Test cable, Shore Station and backhaul comms o Contractor to test cable and shore works

• Node, SIIM and extensions manufacture o Systems based on previous work, system description in Section 5

• Instrument Systems o Based on considerations in Section 5

5.4.6 Year 4

Year 4 is the year for installation of the equipment and instruments, and completion of the system. It may be possible to amalgamate Years 3 and 4; it depends on vessel space and can only be done after the schedule and vessel are confirmed. For ease of installation and maintenance, the design relies on ROV wet mate connectors such as the ODI Nautilus. Mating and demating these connectors requires a small work class ROV with capable manipulators. After discussions with ArcticNet, the ROV manufacturer and CSSF, it is apparent that the Super Mohawk (Figure 5-21) aboard the Amundsen will not be suitable. Servicing an Arctic work site would remove an ROV from the regular client pool for up to three months in the best operating season in Canada and would likely cost over $1M per year at standard rates. However, it is not likely that an ROV system would be available when required. While it could be appropriate to mobilize an ROV system such as ROPOS onto the Amundsen for installation, longer term maintenance considerations will require a full time dedicated work ROV aboard the Amundsen for availability and cost considerations.

Figure 5-21. Super Mohawk ROV currently on the CCGS Amundsen.



Figure 5-21. Super Mohawk ROV currently on the CCGS Amundsen.

Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility, the operators of ROPOS, have experience in maintaining cabled observatories through their work on NEPTUNE Canada and VENUS. They also have experience in purpose building ROV systems, having fully rebuilt ROPOS and its handling systems through the years. For the purposes of this implementation, it is assumed that CSSF or some similar group will build a new ROV with suitable manipulators for the Amundsen's moonpool to replace the existing Super Mohawk. An estimate for this new system would have to be produced in a more detailed study. A commitment to undertake this study would have to be made prior to Year 0.

• Node, SIIM and extensions installation o Use of Amundsen o Purchase of a new work class ROV for Amundsen moonpool.

• Shore station terminal equipment installation and system commissioning o Some Shore Station equipment will be installed in Year 4

Other Tasks

Figure 5-22. The ROPOS ROV of the Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility (CSSF).



• DMAS o Propose local DMAS at CHARS, remote server at UVic

• Operations, Maintenance o One maintenance cruise per year using CCGS Amundsen o Two weeks on-site to prepare replacement instruments or new platforms o Cruise duration of no more than five day (assuming 24hr ops) o 6 staff to support cruise (two watches of 3) plus ROV pilots

5.4.7 AUV Systems

Canada has unique expertise in Arctic AUV systems and operations. With power and high bandwidth connectivity to shore at the node site which is well below ice depths, an AUV can be designed dock with the observatory infrastructure to charge, download data and upload new mission plans. The currently available vehicles can extend the observatory measurements by approximately 200km in each direction from a node site, allowing survey operations all year long without the need for a surface support vessel.

5.4.8 Remote Site The remote site would have little or no pre-existing infrastructure but require continuous 24/7/365 data (or at least monitoring 24/7/365) and thus a cable landfall and shore station with a communications data backhaul, like the DRDC Northern Watch TDP system. Such a site would be chosen for a specific scientific and/or operational need. For comparison an implementation is provided for the remote site, based on the design of the DRDC Northern Watch remote shore station facility. It will be assumed that the science objectives are the same as the Community Based site described for Cambridge Bay. All of the support infrastructure would likely have to be installed on the site. With no local infrastructure a support vessel may have to be located at the installation site or a construction camp built (the cost of a vessel is estimated here). If possible the site should be located near a landing strip so that the system can be serviced by aircraft if needed. The power system would use the same dual 8kW diesel generator system in a 20ft ISO container as Northern Watch. Fuel is estimated at 50,000 liters per year stored in two 25,000 dual walled fiberglass tanks. The main observatory shore system will also be a 20ft ISO container. The latter will also house local computer servers and the satellite communications systems. These will be very similar to the Community Based system. Site selection is key to installing the shore station at a remote location. The site must have a sheltered harbour with a gravel beach to allow for barge access (see Figure 5-23). Vessels like the CCGS Terry Fox have a large crane that can launch a small work boat and barge (see Figure 5-24). Desgagnés Transarctik Inc. (DTI) can also do this type of work from their larger barges. If the site does not have a landing strip one should be considered to bring in at least a twin otter for cargo and personnel.



Logistics of setting up the shore site will be the primary cost driver and once a specific site is identified, more detailed cost trade-offs could be done. Cable lay operations and cable shore landing installation would remain the same for this system. A worst case scenario of having to directional drill through 1 km of bedrock could also be considered. The observatory would operate autonomously from a remote site via redundant satellite links. Primary data storage and real time access should be via a high throughput data centre such as is available at the University of Victoria. If multiple sites existed much of the operations and maintenance staff would not be required for subsequent systems.

Figure 5-23. DRDC Northern Watch Shore Site on Devon Island



Figure 5-24. Small work boat and barge from CCGS Terry Fox

5.4.9 Deep Water Site The Deep Water Site would be located at an extremely remote site, probably more than 100km from land with no land infrastructure or cable landing practical and no pre-existing infrastructure for support. The site would likely address a very limited scope of issues, targeted toward specific high priority operational application. Data would be available at high temporal resolution when needed, but not necessarily continuously all year long as surface infrastructure would be required to collect the data. With no shore landing and no surface expression possible due to winter ice, the infrastructure would have to operate from batteries which would have to be replaced annually. An example of such a system has been proposed by ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. as the Real-time Pack Ice Monitoring System (RPIMS) which was presented at the recent Arctic Technology Conference (Fissel et al., 2011). The RPIMS is designed for use in monitoring ice keel depths near oil and gas exploration platforms, providing real time guidance for ice management vessels to focus on the most significant threats. This system can operate at water depths of up to 1000m and cover an area of approximately 800km2. Remote sensor modules can be placed up 20km apart in a star configuration connected by fibre optic cables for data only. The transceiver units can be “daisy chained” to extend the spatial coverage of the system. The use of fibre optics greatly extends the capabilities of the array given the limitations of acoustic modems at about the 1000m range, and for copper-based bottom cables with effective working distances of < 1,500 m without amplifier/repeater units. Bottom mounted fibre optic transceivers



connect via acoustic modem to instrument packages located about 50m from the sea surface at locations that require monitoring. Each sensor module would consist of an acoustic ice profiler that measures the ice keel depth and an acoustic Doppler current profiler to measure the ice velocity. Data from each of the sensor modules are transmitted back to a central benthic node via fibre optic cables where they are stored and/or uplinked to a vessel moored over a well site via acoustic modem. No physical connection is made to the surface vessel. Data can be collected continuously for a year and stored in the node or connected in real time to the surface vessel to direct mitigation assets. Once the vessel leaves during the off-season, the system may continue to record to establish baseline conditions, or “sleep” until the vessel returns. This system can be deployed using the specialized capabilities of the CSSF ROPOS vehicle with a special attachment called ROCLS (Remotely Operated Cable Laying System) that has been used extensively on VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada. This allows up to 20km of light fibre optic cable to be deployed at depths of up to 3000m. The central node and transceiver modules are laid out in one deployment and would last 5-10 years. Each location has an ROV removable battery module that can be serviced annually. The instrument modules can be deployed independently. They are only connected to the benthic infrastructure via acoustic modem and are deployed on acoustic releases. They operate on their own battery systems and are meant to be serviced annually. This is just an example of such a system with limited application for operational purposes. These systems are constrained by the battery power systems, can only support a limited suite of sensors and would be constrained in terms of addressing a full set of scientific applications, especially those involving high bandwidth such as underwater video or broadband acoustic instruments. The cost of such a system covering about 800km2 with ten monitoring locations within 16km of a central node (including installation) is on the order of $10M but would require development of new technology since it does not rely on systems already designed for cabled observatory applications.



Figure 5-25. Conceptual diagrams for a Real-time Pack Ice Monitoring System consisting of (upper) Vertical data communication configurations options include (upper acoustic modems) and (lower) An example of a large area (16 km radius) array of ULS measurement sites.

5.5 Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory Summary From a technology perspective cabled ocean observing systems are well suited for operations in Arctic environments at depths below maximum ice depths that could affect the infrastructure. Science needs to collect data at or near the ocean (or ice) surface create challenges for standard moored systems but the power available from cabled systems enables the use of vertical profilers that can cover the full water column whether or not ice is present. Telecom systems and Shore Station equipment are all standard systems and require no adaptation to Arctic conditions. However due to the remoteness of



these locations, the challenges become installation (due to lack of specialized equipment in the Arctic) and the availability of power and backhaul communications. Preliminary assessments of costs (without detailed trade off analysis) of putting a system in place are relatively high. With more detailed trade-off analysis, optimized for assets available in the Arctic, costs could be reduced significantly.



6 Conclusions Our understanding of physical and biogeochemical processes in the Arctic, especially related to marine ecosystems, is still rudimentary yet it is precisely here where we are witnessing the most rapid and profound impacts of global environmental change … with far-reaching implications for the rest of the globe. Present knowledge is biased by observations made almost exclusively in the summer season and under open water conditions; few measurements are made routinely throughout the year. Many national and international organizations have stressed for several years the need for long-term, continuous monitoring of Arctic ecosystems to understand better how they function and how they will respond to global climate and oceanographic change. Cabled ocean observatories are a means of monitoring a broad range of environmental parameters continuously throughout the year in a poorly understood region of the world. Dramatic changes in sea ice characteristics, duration and distribution are also leading to more frequent use of Canadian arctic waters for both destination and transit shipping, the latter through the Northwest Passage (NWP). The NWP offers a very attractive shorter route between Asia and Europe but more open Arctic waterways also bring the possibility of environmental disasters, such as oil spills, and potential routes for illegal immigrants or terrorists to enter Canada and North America. These changes in the Arctic System will require increased surveillance, from the standpoints of the environment, security and sovereignty. Cabled systems are presently being used in surveillance of shipping for national security purposes in the Arctic but on a very limited scale and with limited capabilities. The types of real-time cabled observatory envisaged here could serve not only national security mandates but would add other important dimensions such as environmental monitoring as well as oceanographic and ice measurements. With global commodity and energy demand increasing at an ever more rapid pace, the Arctic will see greater exploitation of base metal and petroleum resources, which are becoming increasingly more competitive, further increasing shipping and infrastructure development in the North. All of these activities will have significant effects on the lives of Northerners and their traditional activities on the land and ice. Monitoring the effects on the Northern environment, and on Northerners, of these increases in resource activities will be essential. This study sought input from a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, federal and territorial government representatives and Northerners, on the use of cabled ocean observatories in complementing existing marine research activities and contributing to a better understanding of the oceanic environment by making measurements throughout the entire year. There was general agreement from both government and university researchers that systems such as this would contribute enormously to understanding Canadian Arctic Marine System.

• Particularly strong synergies were envisaged with research programs such as ArcticNet and with federal government research, especially that being conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Stakeholders identified a wide range of candidate sites and programs for ocean monitoring systems.



• Federal government departments and agencies with operational mandates in the Arctic, such as National Defence, Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada saw potential benefits of real-time ocean observatories from an environmental and security surveillance standpoint.

• Northerners saw the potential for such facilities to improve the knowledge of the resources

upon which they rely and to aid in the protection of fragile arctic marine ecosystems. The Arctic presents particular challenges for the installation and operation of subsea facilities such as this due to the cold conditions and presence of ice through much of the year. This initial feasibility study, however, has demonstrated that most technologies presently being used or envisaged in cabled observatories elsewhere in the world are readily adaptable to the Arctic. The one aspect which requires further consideration is that of satellite bandwidth for the transmission and dissemination of large amounts of data and information from the observatory. While requirements for remote and independent sites were considered briefly in this feasibility study, a focus was placed on a site located in Dease Strait/Queen Maud Gulf near the planned Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) as an initial demonstration site. While stakeholders identified many other candidate sites, the area near Cambridge Bay was seen by some as of critical scientific interest. Selection of actual locations for cabled ocean observatories in the Canadian Arctic would have to be considered much more broadly within the context of longer-term scientific and operational priorities; such considerations are far beyond the scope of this present initial study. The intent here was to provide some typical estimates of the issues, efforts and costs related to installation of such a facility at a known location; we selected the CHARS (Cambridge Bay) site as a “test case” as it would be logistically one of the simplest to accomplish due to the pre-existing infrastructure in the area. Cabled ocean observatories are not “stand alone” facilities but must be integrated within an overall scientific program framework. While a “strawman” observatory, as a demonstration site, is sketched out in this report, the authors recognize that full consideration of cabled arctic observatories must take place with the overall arctic research planning context. In contemplating the development of facilities such as these, there is a strong recognized need to involve Northerners in their planning, construction and operation, and an imperative to use observatory capabilities to enhance the lives of local residents through training, employment and provision of relevant information about the resources used by them (e.g., fish, marine mammals) and the environment in general (e.g., local sea ice conditions, contaminants). Unlike similar ocean observatories elsewhere, there is a need in the Arctic to be sensitive regarding the immediate and broad dissemination of some information about resources, such as fish and marine mammals, which could impact traditional hunting and fishing activities of Northern residents. The committee concluded that cabled ocean observatories in the Arctic add important dimensions to the international efforts to understand the Arctic System, provide a means by which year-round environmental and security monitoring and surveillance can be carried out, and will contribute to the lives of Northerners in the knowledge that they will bring about their region, in providing training and educational opportunities, and in adding a new employment possibilities.



Acknowledgements We wish to thank the many individuals and organizations which contributed to this report both through valuable discussions and by writing specific sections of the report. These include: Phil Osborne (Golder Associates Ltd.); Gary Borstad and Mar Martinez de Saavedra Alvarez (ASL Environmental Services Inc.); Richard Mills (International Submarine Engineering); Adrian Round (VENUS); Adrian Woodroofe and Derek White (OceanWorks Ltd.); Benoit Pirenne (NEPTUNE Canada); Keith Shepherd (Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility); Julia Krizan (Golder Associates Ltd.); Peter Phibbs (Mallin Consultants Ltd); and the DRDC Atlantic Northern Watch Team;. The document was prepared by Scott McLean (Ocean Networks Canada), David Fissel (ASL Environmental Services Inc.), Malcolm Lowings (Golder Associates Ltd.) and Brian Bornhold (Coastal and Ocean Resources Inc.). We wish to thank Shealagh Pope and others at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for their helpful comments on an early draft of this study. Lindsay Hill assisted with the preparation of the report.



References Aariak, E. 2010. Opening Remarks at Nunavut Fishing Symposium. Iqaluit, Nunavut, 22 April 2010.

http://www.premier.gov.nu.ca/apps/UPLOADS/fck/file/2010-04-22-Nunavut-Fishing-Symposium-ENG.pdf

Arctic Council. 1996. Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council: Joint communique of the

governments of the Arctic countries on the establishment of the Arctic Council. Tromsø, Norway. http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/The%20Inuvik%20Declaration.pdf Ashjian, C. 2004. Application of ice-tethered instrumentation to understand Arctic Biology. Arctic

Observing Based on Ice-Tethered Platforms Workshop, Woods Hole, MA, June 28-30, 2004. http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/Arcticgroup/projects/ipworkshoppresentations/ipworkshop_ashjian.pdf, http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/Arcticgroup/projects/ipworkshop_report.html

Associated Press, 2006, Canada’s Leader Rips U.S. over Arctic .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057794/ns/world_news-americas/ Barber D.G., and Masson, R.A., 2006. The role of sea ice in Arctic and AntArctic Polynyas. In W.O. Smith

and D.G. Barber. Polynyas: Windows into Polar Oceans. Elsevier Series in Oceanography. No. 74. Bennett, M. 2011. Arctic frontiers Conference wraps up in Tromsø. In: The Arctic - The world affairs blog

network. http://Arctic.foreignpolicyblogs.com/ Benoit, D., Simard, Y. and Fortier, L., 2008. Hydroacoustic detection of large winter aggregations of

Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) at depth in ice-covered Franklin Bay (Beaufort Sea), Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C06S90, doi:10.1029/2007JC004276.

Bornhold, B.D., Finlayson, N.M. and Monahan, D., 1976, Submerged drainage patterns in Barrow Strait,

Canadian Arctic: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 13, p. 305-311. Bornhold, B.D. and Lewis, C.F.M. 1976. Marine geology of western Lancaster Sound. Geological

Association of Canada, Program with Abstracts, 1: 81. Brass, G., 2002. The Arctic Ocean and climate change: a scenario for the US Navy. Arctic Research

Commission Special publication 02-1, Arlington VA, 14p. Buckley, D.E., 1963. Recent marine sediments of Lancaster Sound, District of Franklin. Masters Thesis,

University of Western Ontario. 124p.



Bussmann, I. and Kattner. G. 2000. Distribution of dissolved organic carbon in the central Arctic Ocean: the influence of physical and biological properties. Journal of Marine Systems, 27, 209-219.

Byers, M., 2007a, Sovereignty will solve the Northwest Passage dispute. Globe and Mail, August 11,

2007. Byers, M., 2007b, Intent for a Nation: What is Canada For? Douglas & McIntyre. 248 pp. Byers, M, 2009, Arctic sovereignty: Another threat runs silent and deep. Globe and Mail, March 9, 2009. Carmack, E. and Wassmann, P., 2006. Food webs and physical-biological coupling on pan-Arctic shelves:

Unifying concepts and comprehensive perspectives. Progress in Oceanography, 71, 446-477. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2006.10.004

Carmack, E. C., Macdonald, R. W. and Jasper, S., 2004. Phytoplankton productivity on the Canadian

Shelf of the Beaufort Sea. Mar. Ecological Progress Series, 277, 37-50. Conover, R.J. 1988. Comparative life histories in the genera Calanus and Neocalanus in high latitudes of

the northern hemisphere. Hydrobiologia, 167/168, 127–142. Coates, K. and G. Poelzer. 2010. On the front lines of Canada’s Northern strategy. International Centre

for Northern Governance and Development, University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK. Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).

http://www.fcm.ca//CMFiles/FCM_front_lines_eng_final1QIH-8262010-982.pdf Council of Canadian Academies (CCA). 2008. Vision for the Canadian Arctic research Initiative: Assessing

the Opportunities. The International Expert Panel on Science Priorities for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative. November 2008. http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/Arctic/%282008-11-05%29%20cari%20report.pdf

Cuff, D.J., and Goudie, A. (editors). 2009. The Oxford companion to global change. Oxford University

Press. Oxford: New York. 684p. Dawes, P.R. and Christie, R.L., 1991, Geomorphic Regions; Chapter 3. in Geology of the Innuition Orogen

and Arctic Platform of Canada abd Greenland, H.P. Trettin (ed). Geological Survey of Canada. 29-56. DFO. 2004. Cambridge Bay Arctic Char. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Report 2004/010. 15p

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/284796.pdf Didiuk A.B. and Fergurson, R.S.. 2005. Land cover mapping of Queen Maud Gulf migratory bird

sanctuary. Canadian Wildlife Service Nunavut. Occasional Paper No. 111.



EKOS Research Associates, 2011. Rethinking the Top of the World: Arctic Security-Public Opinion Survey. Munk School of Global Affairs. University of Toronto. 54 pp.

Emerton, E.A., Lesack, L.F.W., and Warwick, V.F. 2007. Nutrient and organic matter patterns across the

Mackenzie River, estuary and shelf during the seasonal recession of sea-ice. Journal of Marine Systems. 74, 741-755.

Fallis, B.W. 1982. Trace metals in sediments and biota from Strathcona Sound, N.W.T.; Nanisivik Marine

Monitoring Programme, 1974-1979. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 1082. 34 p.

Fissel, D., M. Martínez de Saavedra Álvarez, T. D. Mudge and J.R. Marko. 2010. A Study of Long-Term Ice

conditions in the Northwest Passage for Determination of Ship Transits. Presented at CMOS Congress, 31 May-4 June 2010.

D.B. Fissel, T. Mudge, R. Chave, M. Stone, A. Kanwar, A. Bard and J. Buermans, 2011. Real-Time Pack Ice

Monitoring Systems – Identification of Hazardous Sea Ice Using Upward Looking Sonars for Tactical Support of Offshore Oil and Gas Projects In Proceedings: Arctic Technology Conference, Feb. 2011, Houston Texas. (available from www.onepetro.org).

Fissel, D., M. Martínez de Saavedra Álvarez, N. Kulan, T. D. Mudge and J.R. Marko. 2011. Long-Terms

Trends for Sea Ice in the Western Arctic Ocean: Implications for Shipping and Offshore Oil and Gas Activities. Paper No. 2011-TPC-1194. To be presented at the 21st International Offshore (Ocean) and Polar Engineering Conference, June 19 - 24 2011 2011 Maui, Hawaii.

Forbes J.R., R.W. Macdonald, E.C. Carmack, K. Iseki, M.C. O’Brien. 1992. Zooplankton retained in

sequential sediment traps along the Beaufort Sea shelf break during winter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 49, 663–670.

Fortier, Y.O., and Morley, L.W. 1956. Geological unity of the Arctic Islands. Transactions of the Royal

Society of Canada, Section 3, 50, 3-12. Fortier, L., P. Sirois, J. Michaud, D. Barber. 2006. Survival of Arctic cod larvae (Boreogadus saida) in

relation to sea ice and temperature in the Northeast Water Polynya (Greenland Sea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 63: 1608-1616.

Garneau M-È, Lovejoy, C., Gratton, Y. and Vincent, M.F.. 2008. Seasonal dynamics of bacterial biomass

and production in a coastal Arctic ecosystem: Franklin Bay, western Canadian Arctic. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113 (doi:10.1029/2007JC004281).

Government of Nunavut & Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 2005. Nunavut Fisheries Strategy. 50 p.

http://www.tunngavik.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2005-03-00-nunavut-fisheries-strategy-english.pdf.



Gradinger R., Hopcroft, R.R. and Bluhm, B., 2004. Arctic Census of Marine Life (ArcCoML). Census of

Marine Life. Program Proposal (15 April 2004). University of Fairbanks, Alaska. http://www.arcodiv.org/files/Arctic_CoML_for%20web.pdf

Hamilton J, Collins K, Prinsenberg S (2009) Temporal variability in Arctic zooplankton and phytoplankton

populations from moored ADCP and Icycler profiler measurements. ICES -2009 Annual Conf. Proceedings I:14, 23pp. http://www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/ocean/seaice/icycler_e.html

Hannah, C. G., Dupont, F., and Dunphy, M. 2009. Polynyas and tidal currents in the Canadian Arctic

Archipelago. Arctic, 62, 83-95, March 2009. Hannah, C. G., Dupont, F., Collins, K.A., Dunphy, M., and Greenberg, D., 2008. Revisions to a modelling

system for tides in the Canadian Arctic archipelago. Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and Ocean Sciences, 259: vi+62pp.

Hébert, P. 2008. Canada's Arctic: A national defence perspective. Powerpoint presentation to the Great

Lakes and St. Lwarence Branch of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. http://www.rina.org.uk/article550.html

Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner,

and P.A. Stott. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,NY http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Hein, F.J., van Wagoner, N. and Mudie, P.J., 1990, Sedimentary facies and processes of deposition: ice

island cores, Axel Heiberg shelf, Canadian Polar continental margin. Marine Geology, 93, 243-265. Hein, F.J. and Mudie, P.J., 1991, Glacial-marine sedimentation, Canadian polar margin, north of Axel

Heiberg Island. Géographie physique et Quaternaire, 45, 213-227. Hik, D. and Douglas, M., 2008. Planning for a Canadian High Arctic Research Station – A Synthesis of the

Arctic Science Needs Scoping Papers Prepared for Federal Departments and Agencies. Report Prepared for INAC, 41 pp.

Horizon North Logistics Inc. 2011. Horizon North operations. Inuvik, NT. http://www.horizonnorth.ca/index.php/main/divisions Horner, R. and Schrader, G.G., 1982. Relative contributions of ice algae, phytoplankton and benthic

microalgae to primary production in nearshore regions of the Beaufort Sea. Arctic, 35, 485-503.



Howell, S., Tivey, J.J., Yackel, S. and McCourt, S., 2008. Multi-Year Sea-Ice Conditions in the Western

Canadian Arctic Archipelago Region of the Northwest Passage: 1968–2006. Atmosphere-Ocean, 46, 229–242 doi:10.3137/ao.460203.

ICARP II, 2007. Science Plan – Arctic Science in the Public Interest. Second International Conference on

Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II). Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–12 November 2005. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI). 1998. Agreement between

the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. Ottawa, ON.

http://www.gov.nu.ca/hr/site/doc/nlca.pdf INAC. 2009. Canada’s Northern strategy: Our north, our heritage, our future. Ottawa, ON. http://www.Northernstrategy.ca/cns/cns.pdf INAC. 2010. Backgrounder: Canadian high Arctic research station. Gatineau, PQ. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/s-d2010/23441bk-eng.asp Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, 2010. Why Monitor the Arctic Ocean? Serices to Society

from a Sustained Ocean Observing System. IOC/UNESCO. 16 pp. International Arctic Science Committee (Main author, Michael B. Usher); Mark McGinley (Topic Editor).

2010. Arctic marine environments. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth February 9, 2010; last revised date February 9, 2010; http://www.eoearth.org/article/Arctic_marine_environments

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. 1987. The Western Arctic claim: Inuvialuit Final Agreement as amended.

Inuvik, NT. http://fishfp.sasktelwebhosting.com/publications/IFA.pdf International Arctic Science Committee (Michael B. Usher);Mark McGinley (Topic Editor) Human impacts

on the biodiversity of the Arctic". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth February 9, 2010; Last revised Date February 9, 2010; Retrieved February 2, 2011. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Human_impacts_on_the_biodiversity_of_the_Arctic

International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC), 2010. Science Plan. IASC. 58 pp. Jackson, H.R., Keen, C.E., Barrett, D.L. 1977. Geophysical studies on the eastern continental margin of

Baffin Bay and in Lancaster Sound. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 14. 1991-2001.



Jackson, G.D. and Sangster, D.F. 1987. Geology and resource potential of a proposed National Park, Bylot Island and northwest Baffin Island, Northwest Territories. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 87-17.

Judson, B., 2010. Trends in Canadian Arctic Shipping Traffic – Myths and Rumours. Proceedings of the

20th International Offshore (Ocean) and Polar Engineering Conference & Exhibition, Beijing, China, June 20-26, 2010.

Keen, M.J., Johnson, J. and Park, I. 1972. Geophysical and geological studies in eastern and northern

Baffin Bay and Lancaster Sound. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 9, 689-708. Kendrick, Andrew. 2008. Transportability of fabricated module through the Northwest Passage. Annex A.

Ref. 6276C.FR. BMT Fleet Technology. Earle Barclay Division. Kliem, N., and Greenberg, D. A., 2003. Diagnostic simulations of the summer circulation in the Canadian

Arctic Archipelago. Atmosphere-Ocean, 41, 273-289. Knauer G., Martin, J.H. and Bruland, K.W., 1979. Fluxes of particulate carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus

in the upper water column of the northeast Pacific. Deep Sea Research, 26, 97–108. Kollenberg, K. 2008. Northern Watch Technology Demonstration Project: Situational Awareness in the

Unique Maritime Environment of Canada's Arctic. Powerpoint presentation to the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Branch of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. http://www.rina.org.uk/article550.html

Lam, Jennifer. Personal communications; personal interview. January 28, 2011. Technical Resource

Person, Fisheries Joint Management Committee. Inuvik, NT. Lavoie D., Macdonald, R.W. and Denman, K.L., 2009. Primary productivity and export fluxes on the

Canadian shelf of the Beaufort Sea: a modelling study. Journal of Marine Systems, 75, 17–32. Lewis, C.F.M., Blasco, S.M., Bornhold, B.D., Hunter, J.A.M., Judge, A.S., Kerr, J.W., McLaren, P., Pelletier,

B.R. 1977. Marine geological and geophysical activities in Lancaster Sound and adjacent fiords. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 77-1A, 495-506.

Lewis, J.A., S.O. Ladislaw, and D.E. Zheng. 2010. Earth observation for climate change: a report of the

CSIS technology and public policy program. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington, DC.

http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf Li, W.K.W., F. A. McLaughllin, C. Lovejoy and E. C. Carmack. 2009. Smallest algae thrive as the Arctic

Ocean freshens. Science 326, 539



Library of Parliament, 2006, Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty, http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0561-e.htm#BRelations

Makabe, R., Hattori, H., Sampei, M. Ota, Y., Fukuchi, M., Fortier, L. and Sasaki, H., 2010. Regional and

seasonal variability of zooplankton collected using sediment traps in the southeastern Beaufort Sea, Canadian Arctic. Polar Biology, 33, 257-270.

Malone, J. Personal communications; personal interview. January 28, 2011. Fisheries Resource

Specialist, Fisheries Joint Management Committee. Inuvik, NT. Mariport Group, 2007. Canadian Arctic Shipping Assessment – Main Report. Report for Transport Group

by the Mariport Group Ltd., Digby NS. 153 p. http://arcticportal.org/uploads/Yo/7a/Yo7actL5VF7Y-902lYWytQ/5.6-Regional-Case-Study-Canada-Canadian-Arctic-Shipping-Assessment-Report.pdf

McWhae, J.R.H. 1979. Canadian Arctic Islands geological field operation - Lancaster Sound segment.

Industry report. National Energy Board, Report, no. 246-1-12-100. Melling, H., 2002. Sea ice of the northern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Journal of Geophysical Research,

107, 3181, doi:10.1029/ 2001JC001102. Melling, H., 2010. Recent observations of thick multi-year ice in the Canadian High Arctic. In: Proc.

US/Canada Northern Oil and gas Research Forum, Calgary AB, Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 2010. `Miall, A.D., Balkwill, H.R., and Hopkins, W.S., Jr., 1980. Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments of Eclipse

Trough, Bylot island area, Arctic Canada, and their regional setting. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 79-23, 20 p.

Mudge, T.D., Fissel, D.B. , Martínez de Saavedra Álvarez, M. and Marko, J., 2010. An Analysis of Sea Ice

Condition to Determine Ship Transits through the Northwest Passage. In Proceedings: IceTech 2010 Conference, Sept. 2010, Anchorage, Alaska.

National Defence, 2011. News Backgrounders: Arctic/offshore patrol ships.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?id=617 Nelson R.J., Carmack, E.C. , McLaughlin, F.A. and Cooper, G.A., 2009. Penetration of Pacific zooplankton into

the western Arctic Ocean tracked with molecular population genetics. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 381, 129–138.

Niemi, A., Paulic, J. and Cobb, D., 2010. Ecosystem status and trends report: Arctic Marine Ecozones.

DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/066 viii + 66p http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2010/2010_066-eng.htm



Norman, L and Friesen, T. M., 2010. Thule fishing revisited: the economonic importance of fish at the Pembroke and Bell Sites, Victoria Island, Nunavut. Geografisk Tidsskrift - Danish Journal of Geography, 110, 261-278.

Northern Transportation Company Ltd. 2009. Our services. Edmonton, AB. http://www.ntcl.com/about-us/our-services.html Nunavut Department of Environment, 2010. The Nunavut fishing industry: background and approach to

sustainable resource development. Joint presentation by Nunavut Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. http://www.frcc.ca/cod/briefs/Nunavut_Fishing_Industry_brief_2010-045-00023.pdf

Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping Inc. 2010. About NEAS. Montreal, PQ. http://www.neas.ca/mission.cfm; Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. 1993. Accessed on the Canadian Legal Information Institute. Ottawa,

ON. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1993-c-29/latest/sc-1993-c-29.html Nuttall, M., Berkes, F., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Vlassova, T. and Wenzel, G., 2005. Hunting, herding,

fishing and gathering: Indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic; in Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment; Cambridge University Press, Cambrisge, UK, 649-690.

O’Reilly, K. and E. Eacott. 2000. Aboriginal peoples and impact and benefit agreement: Summary of the

report of a national workshop. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Volume 25, Number 4. Fall-Winter 1999-2000. Ottawa, ON. http://www.carc.org/pubs/v25no4/2.htm

Parks Canada. 2006. Queen Maud Gulf. In: National marine Conservation Areas of Canada: Canada’s

National Marine Conservation Areas System Plan. http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/systemplan/itm1-/arc5_e.asp

Perovich, D., Meier, W., Maslanik, J. and Richter-Menge, J., 2010. Sea Ice Cover [in Arctic Report Card

2010], http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard.Fortier, L., Sirois,P., Michaud, J., Barber, D. 2006. Survival of Arctic cod larvae (Boreogadus saida) in relation to sea ice and temperature in the Northeast Water Polynya (Greenland Sea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 63, 1608-1616.

Poole, K. G., Gunn, A., Patterson, B. R. and Dumond,, M., 2010. Sea Ice and Migration of the Dolphin and

Union Caribou Herd in the Canadian Arctic: An Uncertain Future. Arctic, 63, 414–428 Proshutinsky, A., Plueddemann, A., Tooele, J. and R. Krishfield, R., 2004. Ice-based observatories: a

strategy for improved understanding of the Arctic atmosphere-ice-ocean environment within the context of an integrated Arctic Observatory system. Arctic Observing Based on Ice-Tethered Platforms Workshop, Woods Hole, MA, June 28-30, 2004.



http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/arcticgroup/projects/ipworkshoppresentations/IBO-Workshop-report-FINAL-041112.pdf.

Retamal, L., Vincent, W. F., Martineau, C. and Osbum, C. L., 2007. Comparison of the optical properties

of dissolved organic matter in two river-influenced coastal regions of the Canadian Arctic. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 72, 261-272.

Robbins, R. H. Cultural anthropology: A problem-based approach [fifth edition]. Cengage Advantage

Books. Belmont, CA. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ug0oo_l5YbsC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=southern+workers+arcti

c+social+impact&source=bl&ots=-HSdD671_c&sig=1WcW_rWcn6bb-Cgpkd6YbB9Itcg&hl=en&ei=kY5eTYbSGoG4sQOt5enOCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=southern%20workers%20arctic%20social%20impact&f=false

Robidoux, M. C. 2003. Capacity building in Northern Canada – One person at a time. TS2 Best Practice in

Capacity Building. Robidoux – Canada contributor. FIG Working Week 2003. Paris, FR. http://77.243.131.160/pub/fig_2003/TS_2/TS2_1_Robidoux.pdf Rompkey, B. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Issue 8 –

Evidence, May 1, 2008. http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fish-e/08eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&comm_id=7

Ross, D.I., Lewis, C.F.M. and Bornhold, B. 1975. Hydrography in the Arctic – a geoscience opportunity

for expanding subsea knowledge. In: Annual Canadian Hydrographic Conference (14th: 1975 : Halifax, N.S.), [Proceedings]. [Ottawa]: Canadian Hydrographic Service. p. 109-117.

Ryan, L., 2010. Shipping on the Frontier. Canadian Transportation and Logistics Magazine. Vol. 113(4),

Toronto, Canada. http://www.ctl.ca/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000367590&type=Print%20Archives SAON IG, 2009. Final report of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) Initiating Group (SAON-IG). January 2009. Samelius, G. 2006. Foraging behaviours and population dynamics of arctic foxes. PhD thesis, University

of Saskatchewan. http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/research/results/Samelius_Gustav.pdf. Seccombe-Hett, Pippa. Personal communications; personal interview. February 7, 2011. Director, Aurora

Research Institute. Inuvik, NT. Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. 1984. Accessed on the Canadian Legal Information

Institute. Ottawa, ON. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1984-c-24/latest/sc-1984-c-24.html Seiler D., A. Brandt. 1997. Seasonal occurrence of planktic Crustacea in sediment trap samples at three

depth horizons in the Greenland Sea. Polar Biology, 17, 337–349.



Seuthe, L., G. Darnis, C.W. Wexels, P. Wassmann, L. Fortier.2007. Winter-spring feeding and metabolism

by Arctic copepods: insights from faecal pellet production and respiration measurements in the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 30, 427-436

Seuthe, L., Darnis, G., Wexels, C.W., Wassmann, P. and Fortier, L., 2007. Winter-spring feeding and

metabolism by Arctic copepods: insights from faecal pellet production and respiration measurements in the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 30, 427-436

Smith W.O., and Barber, D.G. (editors). 2007. Polynyas: windows to the world. Elsevier Oceanography

Series. ISBN: 978-0-444-52952-7. Smith, D.R., Cowan, R.J., and McComb, M. 1989. Geology and resource potential of a proposed national

marine park, Lancaster Sound, Northwest Territories. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2022, 52 pp.

Smith, R.C., Brown, O.B., Hoge, F.E., Baker, K.S., Evans, R.H., Swift, R.N. and Esaias, W.E., 1987.

Multiplatform sampling (ship, aircraft, and satellite) of a Gulf Stream warm core ring. Applied Optics, 26, 2068- 2081.

Soltwedel, T. et al. (17 co-authors), 2005, HAUSGARTEN – multidisciplinary investigations at a deep-sea,

long-term observatory in the Arctic Ocean. Oceanography, 18, 47-61. Spence, C. and Burke, A. 2008. Estimates of Canadian Arctic Archipelago runoff from observed

hydrometric data. Journal of Hydrology, 3682, 247-259. Steele, J.H. 1978. (ed.). Spatial Pattern in Plankton Communities, Plenum Press, New York. 797pp. Stirling, I. 1980. The biological importance of polynyas in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 33, 303-315. Stirling, I, and Cleator, H. 1981. Polynyas in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional

Paper, Number 45. Stirling, I. 1997. The importance of polynyas, ice edges, and leads to marine mammals and birds. Journal

of Marine Systems, 10, January 1997, 9-21. Spence, C. and Burke, A. 2008. Estimates of Canadian Arctic Archipelago runoff from observed

hydrometric data. J. of Hydrology, 3682, 247-259. Thorsteinsson, R. and Tozer, E.T. 1970. Geology of the Arctic Archipelago; in Geology and Economic

Minerals of Canada, R.J.W. Douglas (ed). Geological Survey of Canada. Economic Geology Report No. 1, 547-590.



Trettin, H.P., 1989, The Arctic Islands. in The Geology of North America – An Overview. A.W. Bally and A.R. Palmer (eds). Geological Society of America, v. A.

Vermeij G.J., Roopnarine, P.D., 2008. The coming Arctic invasion. Science, 321, 780–781. Welch, H.E., Bergmann, M.A., Siferd, T.D., Martin, K.A., Curtis, M.F., Crawford, R.E., Conover, R.J. and

Hop, H., 1992. Energy Flow through the Marine Ecosystem of the Lancaster Sound Region, Arctic Canada, Dec. 1992, 343-357.

Weller, G. 2005. Summary and synthesis of the ACIA. In: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)-

Scientific Report (Symon C., lead editor). Cambridge University Press, 1033p. Wiebe, N., Samelius, G., Alisauskas, R.T., Bantle, L., Bergman, C., De Carle, R., Hendrickson, C. J.

Lusignan, A., Phipps, K. J. and Pitt, J., 2009. Foraging behaviours and diets of wolves in the Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary, Nunavut, Canada. Arctic 62, 399-404.

Williams, K. 2010. The Canadian Navy’s Arctic destiny. National Defence.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/The_Canadian_Navy_s_Arctic_Destiny-eng.pdf Willis K.J., Rottier, F.C. and Kwasniewski, S., 2008. Impact of warm water advection on the winter

zooplankton community in an Arctic fjord. Polar Biology, 31, 475–481. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 2007. History: North pole drifting stations. Woods Hole,

MA.http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/history/history_drifting.html World Meteorological Organization, 2009. The State of Polar Research.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/IPY_StateofPolarResearch_EN_web.pdf

Wrona, F.J., Prowse, T.D. and Reist, J. D., 2010. Effects of climate change on Arctic anadromous fish. In:

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (section 8.5.4). http://www.eoearth.org/article/Effects_of_climate_change_on_arctic_anadromous_fish

Internet Sites ArcticData Portal. Conservation of Arctic Flora & Fauna (CAFF) and Protection of the Arctic Marine

Environment (PAME) Working Groups of the Arctic Council. http://www.arcticdata.is/data-download/file/90-invasive-species-shipping

ASL GRIP Temporal Profiler. http://grip.aslenv.com/grip/grip_index.html



Canadian Ice Service. Environment Canada. Sea Ice Archive. On-line Weekly Data. http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/WsvNjsQueryAction.jsp?Lang=eng&lnid=3&ScndLvl=no&ID=11391

Canadian Ice Service. Environment Canada. Ice Graph Tool Version 1.0. http://www.ice-

glaces.ec.gc.ca/IceGraph/IceGraph-GraphdesGlaces.jsf Canadian Ice Service. Environment Canada .Sea Ice Climatic Atlas for Northern Canadian Waters 1971-

2000. Western Arctic Charts. http://www.ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/IceGraph/IceGraph-GraphdesGlaces.jsf Earth Observatory, NASA. 2008. Northwest Passage, Late August 2009.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40046 Ecological Framework of Canada: Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research (CLBRR), Research

Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Environment Canada. 1999. Canada's ecozones. http://ecozones.ca/english/

Environment Canada. 2011. National Climate Data and Information Archive. Climate Data Online.

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html European Global Ocean Observing System

http://www.eurogoos.org/ European Sea Floor Observatory Network (ESONET) http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/research/esonet.php EuroSITES European Ocean Observatory Network – Central Irminger Sea http://www.eurosites.info/cis.php Global Ocean Observing System http://www.ioc-goos.org/ Important Bird Areas (IBA) Canada. Queen Maud Gulf, Nunavut.

http://www.ibacanada.com/site.jsp?siteID=NU009&lang=EN NASA Earth Observatory. 2009. Northwest Passage, late August.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40046 Natural Resources Canada. 2009. Significant facts about Canadian Protected Areas: Queen Maud Gulf

Bird Sanctuary, Largest Protected Area. http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/protectedarea/significantfactsaboutcanadianprotectedareas.html



Natural Resources Canada. 2007. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Chapter 3 – Northern Canada. Section 4.7 Lead authors: C. Furgal and T. Prowse. http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/ch3/4_e.php#fig21

NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center. International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO).

Jakobsson, M., Macnab, R., Mayer, L., Anderson, R., Edwards, M., Hatzky, J., Schenke, H-W., and Johnson, P. 2008. An improved bathymetric portrayal of the Arctic Ocean: Implications for ocean modeling and geological, geophysical and oceanographic analyses, v. 35, L07602, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2008GL033520 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/arctic/arctic.html

NOAA International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO). Downloads IBCAO Version 2.23,

created March 8, 2008. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/arctic/ibcaoversion2.html Northern Ellesmere Ice Shelves Ecosystems and Climate Impacts (NEISECI). Ice Shelves. Principal

investigators: L. Copland and D. Mueller. 2008. http://www.madzu.com/ellesmere/Ice_Shelves.html

Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC). Interactive Maps. © Nunavut Planning Commission, 2009 – 2011.

All rights reserved. http://www.nunavut.ca/en/map Ocean Networks Canada. 2011. Neptune Canada: Transforming ocean science. University of Victoria.

Victoria, BC. http://www.neptunecanada.ca/research/ Polar Cruises. Into the Northwest Passage.

http://www.polarcruises.com/arctic/tours/adventurer_43/into-northwest_362.htm Statistics Canada. 2008. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2006000/4177460-eng.htm The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2010. Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/ The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. 2006. www.ramsar.org/ UNEP GRIP Arendal. 2007. Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage compared with currently

used shipping routes. Cartographer: Hugo Ahlenius. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/northern-sea-route-and-the-northwest-passage-compared-with-currently-used-shipping-routes

UNEP GRIP Arendal. 2007. Projected temperature increases in the Arctic due to climate change, 2090

(NCAR-CCM3, SRES A2 experiment). Cartographer: Hugo Ahlenius. Accessed: January 2010 http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/northern-sea-route-and-the-northwest-passage-compared-with-currently-used-shipping-routes



Water Survey of Canada. 2008. Environment Canada. Real-time hydrometric data.

http://scitech.pyr.ec.gc.ca/waterweb/maplauncherg.asp?prov=NU%20&%20http://scitech.pyr.ec.gc.ca/waterweb/formnav.asp?lang=0

Water Survey of Canada. 2008. Environment Canada. Data Products and Services: Water Level and

Streamflow Statistics. http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/staflo/index_e.cfm?cname=flow_monthly.cfm Worldwide Quest. 2011. Inside the itinerary: day 6 (westbound) Queen Maud Gulf. In: Canada’s

Northwest Passage. The Blog. http://worldwidequest.com/northwestpassage/?p=1114



Appendix A: Project Partners

Ocean Networks Canada Ocean Networks Canada (ONC) is a not-for-profit agency, created by the University of Victoria in 2007, to manage and develop the world-leading VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada cabled ocean observatories. VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada represent over $120M in capital investment, supporting transformative, multi-disciplinary research in coastal and deep ocean environments off Canada’s west coast for the understanding of ocean processes and their impacts at the global scale. ONC was recently funded under the federal Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research (CECR) program to establish the Ocean Networks Centre for Enterprise and Engagement (ONCCEE) which builds upon ONC’s existing private and public sector partnerships to develop commercial, outreach, and policy applications in the areas of sensors and instruments, ocean observing system technologies, oceans information technology (IT), and public engagement. To achieve these goals, ONCCEE leverages the extensive expertise and technologies developed by VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada teams which span scientific research, sensor integration, observatory design, installation, operations, and maintenance. Overviews of the VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada observatories are included as Appendix E.

ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. ASL is the global leader in the measurement of floating sea ice using its upward looking sonar Ice Profiler instruments. Since its inception in 1977, starting with major oceanographic projects in the Canadian Arctic, ASL has successfully carried out more than 900 projects. Much of ASL’s consulting activities are supplied to clients in Canada, the United States, Europe, East Asia, Latin America and other parts of the world. ASL’s experience is most extensive in the waters of the Canadian Arctic as the company has worked on oceanographic and sea-ice consulting projects in this vast area since its inception in 1977. ASL provided physical oceanography and sea ice studies for many projects programs conducted by the offshore oil and gas industry in the Beaufort Sea and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago from 1977 to 1990. ASL was also involved in many government funded oceanographic and ice research projects conducted in the Beaufort Sea from 1979 to the present, including oceanographic and sea-ice research projects for DIAND, Environment Canada, ESRF, and the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). More recently, from 2001 to the present, ASL has carried out projects related to processing and analysis of sea-ice keel data, ice velocities and ocean currents in the Canadian Beaufort Sea for DFO and for industry. In the past two years, ASL has conducted a major metocean measurement program in new Beaufort Sea license areas starting in 2009 for Imperial Oil (and on behalf of BP Canada) with ArcticNet and DFO vessels); leading an engineering team to prepare a conceptual design of a cable underwater observatory system for upward looking sonar measurement in support of deepwater drill ship operations in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (for ExxonMobil, 2009); analysis of existing sea ice upward looking sonar data sets and satellite imagery data sets in the Canadian Beaufort Sea for BP Americas (2009); deriving the preliminary metocean and sea ice criteria for BP Canada license areas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (2008-2009); a study of the present and changing ice conditions during the



extended shipping season through the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea (2009) and a study of representative and special environmental features in the Canadian Arctic for Parks Canada.

Golder Associates Ltd Golder Asssociates Ltd is an international ground engineering and environmental consulting company with more than 7000 staff. It operates out of 160 offices throughout North America, South America, Europe, Africa and the Asia Pacific region. It has grown and evolved significantly from its founding 50 years ago in central Canada. It has a long history of Arctic projects onshore and offshore, starting in the 1970s and 1980s with design and construction monitoring on foundations for artificial islands and bottom-founded structures in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, as well as design and construction monitoring on spray ice islands in the US Beaufort Sea, and permafrost engineering for pipelines and processing facilities on the North Slope of Alaska. Golder has expanded its northern business to many parts of the circum-Arctic region, and is now active or has offices in Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, northern Norway, northern Sweden, northern Finland, and the Russian Federation. Senior staff with the parent company, or with IMG-Golder Corporation, its majority Inuit-owned firm in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), have spent time at sea, on many types of vessels (including icebreakers owned by Coast Guard or industry), during various projects in the Beaufort Sea, Labrador Sea, Baffin Bay, eastern and central Northwest Passage, waters adjacent to the southern Parry Islands and eastern Sverdrup Islands, Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, Greenland Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, and northern Canada inland waters. Field programs or site visits have been carried out on Melville Island, Banks Island, Prince Patrick Island, Cornwallis Island, Ellesmere Island, and Baffin Island, along the western and central Arctic coast, and in the central Arctic Ocean. In the last five years, Golder was part of the Mackenzie Project Environment Group (MPEG), the three-company consortium that completed all of the environmental assessment, social/cultural assessment, and effects monitoring / protection planning for Imperial Oil during Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP), and planned or participated in all of marine field programs in the Mackenzie Delta or Beaufort Sea that took place during MGP. Golder is currently prime contractor for the BP part of a multi-disciplinary (environmental/biophysical, met-ocean and geotechnical/geochemical) field program that took place on CCGS Amundsen during late summer and early fall 2010 in the Beaufort Sea.



Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Respondents # 1, 2, 3 (Based on a personal interview of three DFO scientists. While the interview was wide-ranging, the responses have been recast into the template of the original questions posed.)

1. Would continuous, real-time data from cabled seafloor observatories contribute to your science or the operational needs of your organization?

A cabled seafloor observatory would be very beneficial especially being able to gather information throughout the year and at critical times when a vessel is unable to be there. Winter data were seen to be especially important.


The following parameters were identified at a recent meeting of Arctic researchers in Fairbanks, Alaska: temperature, salinity, fluorescence, dissolved oxygen, pH, light (PAR), turbidity and plankton biomass. As well, it was felt that nutrients (nitrate) and gases (e.g., carbon dioxide) and currents were very important measurements. Passive acoustics (hydrophones) would provide important information on marine mammals, shipping and ice break-up; coupled with an active source (e.g., pinger) hydrophones could be used to understand better the acoustic characteristics of the water column and the effects of ice and ice roughness on sound propagation. It was felt that it will be important to gather information on physical processes and ecosystems on the underside of ice throughout the year. This was seen as an important, though poorly understood, zone where ice roughness interacts with ambient currents and gives rise to a “biological boundary layer” which hosts a unique community. It was felt that it was thus necessary to have the ability to profile through the entire water column to the bottom of the ice and to be able to image (still/video) the base of the ice. A multi-frequency biological profiler (e.g., ASL ZAP or BioSonics profiler) was seen as a very important addition to a cabled system. Other instruments mentioned were: a plankton imaging system, an optical plankton counter and a“crawler” to explore the underside of the ice.



From a local community perspective, they felt that it would be essential to have an ability to image (still/video) benthic ecosystems. The group stressed the importance of having a “super computer” installed at the CHARS to serve the many and diverse data needs of all research programs, including data management and delivery aspects of a cabled ocean observatory.

3. An initial demonstration site is being considered in the current feasibility study in Dease Strait near Cambridge Bay. Is this site of interest to your organization?

There was great enthusiasm for a site near Cambridge Bay. For many reasons it was felt that there were scientifically tractable and important questions to be addressed in Dease Strait/Coronation Gulf/Queen Maud Gulf. The role of fresh water inputs in this region of the Arctic was highlighted as being one example of an area of research which was very important to the overall circulation in this part of the CAA and new information was beginning to alter long held views on water mass movements. The linkages between land-based hydrological studies in the area and marine circulation were seen as being especially important here. From a community perspective it was felt that there was the opportunity to marry community-based research programs with ocean observatory information and ship-borne studies. The logistical advantages of Cambridge Bay were viewed as compelling as an initial demonstration site and the possibility of combining it with the operations of the CHARS seemed to be ideal.

4. What other sites are of interest with respect to your scientific program or operational requirements?

The Cambridge Bay site was viewed as the most important to this group.


The group is involved primarily in studies of physical oceanography and acoustics in the High Arctic. Respondent # 4

1. Would continuous, real-time data from cabled seafloor observatories contribute to the scientific or operational needs of your organization?

I can see ways that it would.




Not sure what the cabled systems are capable of, but I think the primary concerns into the future have to do with ocean acidification, change in ice climate, change in temperature and light regimes in the water column, and consequent change in the ecosystem (top to bottom). I'd be happy to discuss why I've picked the list below if any of it seems odd, but here's what my asking list would be. Ocean Temperature; Ocean Salinity, Ocean d18O (to distinguish ice from runoff); sea level; sea ice (thickness, presence, type); currents; carbon dioxide system parameters including pCO2 and pH; organic carbon system parameters including ocean colour (e.g., CDOM), dissolved O2, nutrients (the usual suspects); digital imaging of the water column (population time series for benthos and pelagic); phytoplankton (e.g., to discriminate flagellates from diatoms, diatoms from coccolithophores); zooplankton; other passive biota like jellyfish (these are proposed to be ,key indicators of change); sound (passive to monitor mammals, e.g.; active to give population data); suspended sediments (transmission or backscatter); vertical flux (sediment traps, but not appropriate or possible everywhere). In addition to these, one could also consider specialized tracers (like 129I or 137Cs in the Arctic). Some of these proposed measurements might need sample collection as opposed to instrumental monitoring (I'm not sure what is possible, here), but such samples would become a value-added to the setting. Even if certain samples would not be easily collected, the background setting and information available from the instruments would prove so helpful for interpretation that it would be worth 'stopping the ship' near the site to collect profiles.

3. An initial demonstration site is being considered in the current feasibility study in Dease Strait, Northwest Passage, near Cambridge Bay where the proposed High Arctic Research Station will be located. Is this site of interest to your organization? What other sites are of interest to your scientific program or operational requirements?

It might be of interest, but one needs to consider the local setting and how it impacts the signal in the throughflowing water. A bit of preliminary work definitely required to pick a location that is understood.


I'm working on interactions between freshwater sources and change (runoff, sea ice melt, brine). A key driver of change is in the management of freshwater, stratification and the creation of convecting water. You need salinity and d18O to make any progress on these. I'm also working on the organic carbon system, which covers a lot of territory. Here, we rely on samples collected from ships - in particular water (POC, DOC, d13C, d14N), vertical flux (sediment trap moorings), sediment cores (organic carbon, biomarkers, d13C, d15N, dating parameters). Finally, I'm working on contaminant pathways, which strongly relate to the previous two points. In particular I'm interesting in Hg and in organochlorine compounds like PCBs, or HCH.



Respondents #5 and #6


Yes, this would be very useful for our research on marine mammals particularly if real-time data coincided with our concurrent telemetry, aerial/boat surveys, and bioacoustic studies.


Specific real-time measurements would include temperature, salinity, sonar of zooplankton and fish distribution and abundance, acoustic recordings in the range of marine mammals, sea icescape, chlorophyll, ocean currents, trace elements, and underwater photography. I assume that some directionality is included - that is we could tell if whales were swimming east-west or west-east. It would also be useful to accumulate data on vessel passages to be able to relate ship (and boat i.e. submarine) passage to marine mammal behaviour. (We don't need to know whose subs they are, just if there's a lot of traffic.)


I would suggest the following other sites in order of importance: (1) Lancaster Sound, (2) Fury and Hecla Strait, (3) Hudson Strait, (4) Smith Sound, (5) Cumberland Sound, (6) Jones Sound. There would be merit in the western Arctic too - perhaps near the Canada US border to listen to MM crossing.


We have no marine mammal research currently occuring in the Cambridge Bay area (if this is what you mean by "the region") where the proposed High Arctic Research Station is proposed to my knowledge. Generically, I would consider High Arctic to be perhaps N Baffin and north but if we take the CHARS latitude, then we have marine mammal research throughout the whole region.



Respondent #7 Relay of data in real-time is worthwhile if two conditions are met: (a) There are people in the locale of measurement who are continually engaged in activities that might use the data in real time. (b) The activities are sufficiently costly or risky that the cost of providing the data is justifiable. Questions structuring my response in relation to the proposal for Dease Strait

1. Who are possible uses of ocean data (real-time & delayed) in Dease Strait? Local residents, marine forecasters, fisheries management, CHARS scientists, ship operators

2. What information about the ocean would be useful to these users? Local residents: Current wind, sea state, ice presence & condition and snow on ice, needed intermittently depending on harvest activities Marine forecasters: Same, plus sea temperature and salinity at the surface and various depths, needed during the shipping season (August-September) Wildlife and fishery managers: Mammal vocalizations, fish presence, zooplankton abundance, chlorophyll abundance, dissolved oxygen and nutrient concentrations, sea temperature, desirable year-round CHARS scientists: Many variables of possible interest, needed sometimes intermittently, sometimes routinely Ship operators: Future conditions, provided by marine forecasters

3. Does the sub-sea sensing technology exist to provide this information? YES, for sea state, ice presence, sea temperature and salinity (except not near the surface), mammal calls, fish presence, zooplankton abundance, chlorophyll abundance, dissolved oxygen NO, for wind, snow on ice, sea-surface temperature and salinity, nutrient concentrations

4. Does the benefit of real-time data delivery justify the cost of a cabled observatory? The cost-benefit ratio depends on the capital and operating costs of the cabled observatory, on the number of activities it serves, the value of each, their sensitivity to delayed data delivery. It may be difficult to show that the local economic activity has sufficient value to justify the funds needed to operate a cabled observatory in Dease Strait.



5. Is there adequate local marine infrastructure (viz. science capable ships, ROV, loading facility) to maintain a cabled observatory?

Definitely not. Cabled observatories are apparently heavy users of specially equipped support vessels. Providing vessel support to cabled observatories on Canada’s west coast is challenging, despite a thriving marine economy there. Even support from general purpose vessels to Arctic science programmes is hard to come by, and very expensive. The costs and availability of specialized vessels for maintenance of an observatory, year-round, would pose challenges.

6. Are observations made locally (a few close locations, as distinct from regional coverage) sufficient for the intended applications?

Probably not, for any of the potential applications listed above.

7. Are there Arctic sites of greater interest than Dease Strait to science and applications? The cost-benefit ratio would improve greatly if the observatory were proposed for an area of high valued industrial development, such as the oil-lease areas of the Beaufort Sea. Marine infrastructure needed for the observatory would likely be a natural outcome of the industrial development in the area.

8. Could cheaper alternate technology serve the intended purpose? It is quite likely that the cost-benefit argument for a cable observatory based in Cambridge Bay would not be compelling. Many of the suggested applications could be served by numerical simulation models (wind, sea state), sensors on Earth satellites (SST, ice cover), oceanographic moorings, retrieved at appropriate intervals, by small unmanned aerial vehicles, small autonomous underwater vehicles or small autonomous surface vessels.

9. Could the considerable resources needed to support a cabled observatory (staff, funds, marine infrastructure) be used more productively in other ways?

Quite possibly, although a reasoned answer is dependent on the estimated capital and operating costs of the proposed observatory. If a cabled installation can be justified, then the following instrumentation could be useful:

• Basic physical characteristics in depth profile by in situ sensors: temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, dissolved nutrient and chlorophyll concentrations, PAR via a winched sensor package

• Water column characteristics via acoustic remote sensing: zooplankton type and abundance, fish counting, ocean current, internal waves, turbulence

• Surface ocean characteristics via acoustic remote sensing: ice thickness, topography, motion, sea state, tide



• Acoustic detection and tracking of marine mammals, human activities, natural physical processes via measurements of ambient sound over an array of hydrophones

• Acoustic tracking of tagged fish, via detection of coded signals over at least two arrays of hydrophones

Respondent # 8 BIO researchers are making progress on a real time ocean data installation at Gascoyne Inlet on the South Coast of Devon Island where DND is installing their "Northern Watch" to monitor traffic through the Northwest Passage. Our system consists of 3 components:

a. instrumented moorings that use acoustic telemetry to transmit data to the end of an underwater cable;

b. the cable which brings those data from deep water to the beach; and, c. a 2-way satellite telemetry Shore Station that sends those data home.

Working with DND's contractor DRDC and some modest funding from NCAARE and PERD, we have installed the underwater cable and developed the 2-way satellite communications system. Ultimately our goal is to deliver ice, currents, biological and chemical data in real time from the surrounding area. Ice and current information will provide data for shipping and resource development as well as data for input into ice forecast models. Real time biological and chemical data has the potential to be useful for the management of the new Marine Conservation Area in Lancaster Sound just downstream of our installation.



Natural Resources Canada Respondent # 1 The following response incorporates feedback from the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, the Offshore Geoscience Program, the Polar Continental Shelf Program and the Pacific Region of Geological Survey of Canada. All of these groups are within the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada.


For the Government of Canada to understand the changes occurring in the Arctic, and to support natural resource and economic development in the north, long-term monitoring of key indicators will be essential. NRCan is also currently involved in the development of several data stewardship projects involving emerging technologies and standards. As it is likely that any future ocean monitoring system in the Arctic will be a hybrid of different types of technologies, the concept of a cabled observatory system may be somewhat limiting. Innovative systems consisting of both cabled sections and “wireless” sections (similar to initiatives currently being advanced by the Ocean Tracking Network), with different types of communication systems used where appropriate should be considered when contemplating a broader array of technological solutions.


NRCan, through the Geological Survey of Canada, would have a particular interest in the inclusion of specific consideration of sub-seabed issues. In the north, the main NRCan issues are northern oil and gas development and climate change. In relation to oil and gas, the use of cabled observatory systems for establishing baseline conditions, understanding natural variability and observing changes related to drilling activity both at and below the seabed are relevant to the NRCan goal of strengthening Canada’s new model of competitiveness in the natural resources sectors..

3. An initial demonstration site is being considered in the current feasibility study in Dease Strait, Northwest Passage, near Cambridge Bay where the proposed High Arctic Research Station will be located. Is this site of interest to your organization?

For NRCan science or policy needs, a demonstration cabled seafloor observatory near Cambridge Bay could potentially add to a regional seismic network. Arctic applications, network and broadcast could be tested, though at this time there are no obvious applied applications in the marine waters in that vicinity.



4. What other sites are of interest to your scientific program or operational requirements?

The Beaufort Sea, where offshore oil may one day be developed, would have the most direct application to NRCan economic and regulatory support roles. In locations like the Beaufort, where long-term, continuous measurements are required, the observatory technology may be an optimum solution. One of the great unknowns with regard to deep water drilling in the Beaufort is the potential for dissociation of gas hydrates, gas migration and the potential for significant overpressures in the formations being drilled through. Cabled networks could be used to measure in-situ conditions in seabed boreholes or within sediments using self-sealing probes. In-situ measurements of sea-bed conditions would generate scientific information and knowledge that could be incorporated into regulations, guidelines and best practices. Future regulations could consider incorporating real time monitoring and reporting of in-situ conditions such as those described above. A related relevant issue for NRCan is seismic hazards in the Beaufort, as there is a significant cluster of seismicity in the area where deepwater drilling is planned. A cabled observatory system maintained in this area for an extended period could provide data that would significantly improve the knowledge of seismic hazards in relation to resource infrastructure. Though there is no key role in Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatories for the Resolute-based Polar Continental Shelf Program (PCSP, Earth Sciences Sector of NRCan), there could be an opportunity to have Resolute “on the grid” as well as being tied into the work which the Department of National Defence (DND) is doing at Gascoyne Inlet, Nunavut. A cabled seafloor observatory could also be of benefit to PCSP-supported university research A cabled seafloor observatory close to Resolute could benefit from operational, logistical and maintenance support provided through PCSP. In addition, a Resolute site would mean, as for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay, access to a pool of Canadian scientists with interest in the observations collected.


The Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (Earth Sciences Sector of NRCan) undertakes space-based remote sensing science in support of federal and NRCan priorities and policies.



Respondent # 2

1. What is the potential value of such a system from NRCan point of view? In the north, the main NRCan issues are northern oil and gas development and climate change. For oil and gas, the use of such systems for establishing baseline conditions, understanding natural variability and observing changes related to drilling activity both at and below the seabed could be quite important. Anywhere that long term, continuous measurements are required, the observatory type technology may be the optimum solution. For example, one of the great unknowns with regard to deep water drilling in the Beaufort is the potential for dissociation of gas hydrates, gas migration and significant overpressures in the formations being drilled through. Cabled networks could be used to measure in situ conditions in sealed boreholes or within sediments using self-sealing probes. The scientific information generated could be incorporated into regulations, guidelines and best practices. If we look forward in time, it is not unreasonable to think that regulations could incorporate real time monitoring and reporting of in situ conditions. Similar arguments apply to the climate change issue. If we are to be serious about understanding the changes occurring in the arctic, long term monitoring of key indicators is going to be essential. This would support natural resource and economic development in the north. In this case, the ocean monitoring side of things are not as important to NRCan as the data management technology that enables 24/7 reporting from multiple instruments and sites.

2. Does our department require "continuous, year-round, real-time multi-disciplinary measurements at multiple Arctic marine environment sites"?

I think the needs of DFO are more multi-disciplinary (water, ice, fish and marine mammals) but there is value in continuous, real-time measurements to NRCan as described above. The NRCan interest in the existing ONC observatories in the Pacific relates primarily to natural hazards and ocean energy research - I've gleaned this much from the materials circulated prior to the October Science/Policy workshop here in Ottawa which was co-hosted by ONC. Surely similar, Arctic-specific information should be included in the proposal. Certainly, seismic hazard in the Beaufort Sea is a specific issue. There is a significant cluster of seismicity in the area where deep water drilling is planned. A cabled observatory maintained in this area for 10 years or longer would provide data that would result in a significant improvement of our knowledge of seismic hazard to resource infrastructure. Ocean energy research in the arctic is not likely to be a big driver; but would be more focused on small scale community projects.

3. In the Arctic context, how could it potentially relate to other observing and monitoring systems? e.g. Ocean Tracking Network.



I suspect that any future system established in the arctic would be a hybrid of different types of technologies. In fact, the concept of a cabled observatory is a little too limiting. A future system might consist of both cabled sections and “wireless” sections similar to OTN, with different types of communication systems used where appropriate. We might want to suggest that their study consider a broader array of technological solutions.



Transport Canada Respondent # 1 The National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP) falls under the responsibility of Marine Safety and primarily the Environmental Response Division and your study may be of interest within our group in general. Anything that can contribute towards protecting the Marine Environment is a bonus and in the Arctic, depending on the capabilities of the system being explored oil in ice presents a problem. So if you can come up with something to monitor oil spills in ice infested waters then you would be on track. The responsibility for oil spills falls under the responsibility of the CCG.


For the NASP – No. For TC in General - Maybe, for a monitoring role - depending on the capability of the system.


Ability to see just beneath the ice surface.


NASP - Resolute, Iqaluit, Inuvik


NASP - Pollution surveillance; ice reconnaissance and marine security patrols



National Defence (DRDC) Respondent # 1 DND is in the process of reviewing our Arctic S&T needs and hence not quite ready to provide details. However, technologies that enable cost-effective, real-time monitoring of shipping traffic in the channels through the Archipelago and in the eastern and western approaches to the Archipelago will definitely be of interest. In order to monitor shipping with underwater systems, one must be able to detect the radiated signals against the background noise. In order to assess the potential performance against the various targets one needs to know the radiated signal characteristics (spectral, time, etc.), the signal propagation characteristics (propagation loss vs. range and coherence for the target signals), and the background ambient noise characteristics as a function of time of year. An initial demonstration site in Dease Strait would be of interest to us. Other sites of interest would be in the approaches and other key chokepoints through the Archipelago. DRDC Northern S&T Initiatives Defence R&D Canada (DRDC) supports Federal initiatives and carries out Science and Technology and Operational Research Analysis (ORA) activities in support of the Canadian Forces and Public Safety Canada. The focus of this work in the Arctic is on S&T and ORA for space-, air-, land-, and sea-based surveillance systems, and alternative (i.e. green) power and energy options for Northern operations. Many other R&D activities, while not their main focus, do have some applicability in the North, particularly in the areas of physical security, and human performance and health. The aim of the surveillance activities is to determine the performance of various surveillance systems in the unique environment of the North. The alternate power and energy investigations will examine options for reducing the use of diesel fuel at Canadian Forces Station Alert. These activities are planned and coordinated under three main DRDC centres: Science and Technology Operations (STO), the Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA) and the Centre for Security Science (CSS). Currently, there are over 20 such initiatives under four categories: Technology Demonstration Projects (TDP), Applied Research Projects (ARP), Operational Research and Analyses (ORA), and Public Security Technical Program (PSTP) projects. The key activities are listed below. Project Cornerstone In March / April 2010 the Cornerstone Team completed the project’s first Arctic Operation, which aimed to collect bathymetric data from the Arctic seabed using Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). The data is being collected in support of Canada’s submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for an extended continental shelf. The Arctic Operation was conducted out of two



ice camps: Camp Borden, located on Wilkin’s Strait, South of Borden Island; and Camp Cornerstone, located approximately 300km North East of Camp Borden on mobile ice. All equipment and personnel were staged out of Resolute Bay, NU, at the Polar Continental Shelf Project (PCSP) facilities. Camp Borden was a joint camp with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). The camp was managed by the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) who were conducting a helicopter based spot sounding program out of the camp, also in support of the UNCLOS program. The Arctic Operation saw the first successful missions of a Cornerstone Arctic Explorer AUV under ice. The AUV, named Quajisati (one who searches), was flown into Camp Borden, assembled and tested in the ice camp. The AUV completed a transit mission to Camp Cornerstone where it underwent a battery recharge under-ice and was sent out on a survey mission, following which is was again recharged under-ice and sent on a return transit mission to Camp Borden. The operation experienced constraints due to weather and ice conditions that limited the window available to conduct missions with the AUV. Overall the AUV collected over 1000km of bathymetric data, reaching water depths of 3300m; the operation broke new ground in AUV under-ice battery recharging, continuous in-water operations (for over 10 days) and repeated homing to a moving ice camp (at times moving 20km/day). Planning for the 2011 Arctic Operation is currently underway. The focus for 2011 is to adapt the current AUV procedures to allow operation of the AUVs off the Canadian Coast Guard ice breaker, Louis S. St. Laurent. The Operation is planned for August / September, with the intent collecting bathymetric data in the area of the Alpha Ridge. The operation will again be joint with NRCan and DFO. The focus has moved to operations off an ice breaker due to the remote location of the intended survey area (limited access by aircraft to support an ice camp) and due to uncertainty around weather and ice conditions. Northern Watch Technology Demonstration (NW TD) Project The DRDC Northern Watch Technology Demonstration Project will demonstrate a surveillance capability of maritime surface and subsurface vessel traffic, and some aircraft movement, in the vicinity of Barrow Strait between the southwest corner of Devon Island and the north coast of Somerset Island. The project will demonstrate persistent local area surveillance capability at an unmanned site. The system will send near real time raw data over a satellite link to a control center at DRDC Atlantic in Halifax. The control center will process the data and make RMP compatible data available to the Joint Task Force Atlantic (JTFA) Regional Joint Operations Center (RJOC) in Halifax. The summer deployment of 2010 was very successful. With support from Op NANOOK, Fleet Diving Unit Atlantic deployed to Gascoyne Inlet to clear the foreshore pipe and to bring three underwater system cables ashore. Two of the cables connect the acoustic arrays. The third cable is a Non-Northern Watch cooperative endeavour with Bedford Institute of Oceanography. In addition to CF support under Op NANOOK, the Northern Watch team is processing a Service Level Agreement with CANOSCOM for 1 Engineering Support Unit participation in development of the Northern Watch infrastructure for the Gascoyne Inlet Camp and for the Habitat System. The TDP Synopsis Sheet is being revised and will support a Senior Review Board presentation in Winter 2010. The capability demonstration is planned for August 2013 through August 2014 in concert with at



least one OP NANOOK. The major events leading up to the capability demonstration include providing infrastructure to Gascoyne Inlet Camp to support DRDC deployments, and designing and contracting both the integrated surveillance system and the system support habitat. Prior to the capability demonstration in the Arctic, the Northern Watch surveillance system will be extensively tested and trialed in Halifax. Strategic Assessment of Key Issues affecting Arctic Security and Sovereignty In support of Canada Command and Strategic Joint Staff, the DRDC Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA) has recently initiated a project to conduct a strategic military assessment of the Arctic. The assessment will include a review of major functional issues such as climate change, resource control and environmental enforcement; and an examination the implications of these developments within the context of threats to Canadian sovereignty and security in this region. A strategic capability assessment tools has been developed and the net assessment is at the mature draft state. Northern Strategy and the High Arctic Research Station Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) continues to assist Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) in the development of options for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS). DRDC participation in this initiative is coordinated through the ADM Committee on Arctic S&T.



Environment Canada


There are a number of initiatives occurring, in real-time, in the Arctic, for which monitoring data from a cabled ocean observing system (COOS) might be valuable and for which direct application of the results (i.e. in context of impact mitigation, management, or regulatory needs) could be beneficial. It is, however, difficult to address this question in isolation, i.e., without considering what other options are available and considering both the costs and the benefits. Value for Ongoing EC Science and Activities For the Canadian Ice Service (CIS), for example, there is clearly a gap in the ability to acquire oceanographic and ice-related (i.e., ice presence, thickness and condition) data in real time. It is not clear, however, that a COOS would address this need. While vertical profiles of temperature and salinity from such an array could provide important information about ocean heat content and mixed-layer depths (valuable to ice forecasting systems) and it is not possible to deploy any Argo profiling floats in the Arctic due to ice cover, data is needed over large areas in order to produce ice information products and a COOS provides information about only a specific point. In addition, the high cost of a COOS and lack of appropriate vessel support makes an investment in more conventional monitoring (ice beacons, buoys, drifters, met stations, community-based in situ measurements, enhanced satellite monitoring) and numerical modeling more attractive. Potential Utility for Emerging Projects The Baffinland project, for example, examines the disturbance of wildlife due to changes in ice regimes, underwater and surface noise, and deposition/emission of air and water-borne pollutants in the water and on ice/snow surfaces. The Baffinland project will involve frequent year-round shipping, including ice-breaking, through Foxe Basin and Hudson Strait, and during the open water season from northern Baffin Island; these activities will occur for decades in a time of anticipated environmental change. Monitoring needs have not yet been identified for the Baffinland project, but practical and applicable tie-ins to a COOS should be explored. New Information for Users of Science and for Policy Makers The Emergencies Science and Technology Section, which conducts R&D for Environmental Emergencies related to spills of hazardous materials, has an interest in data from a potential COOS. Spill monitoring and prediction could benefit from real-time monitoring of ice and continental inputs.



For the Ecosystem and Biodiversity Priorities Division, data on continental inputs (including nutrient fluxes) to the Arctic Ocean would prove valuable in fulfilling its coordinating role on land-based sources of marine pollution and in accomplishing its international reporting obligations. Other Contributions to International Scientific Partnerships The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP), led by Environment Canada on behalf of Canada and the Arctic Council, is interested in additional biological data. For example, the CBMP - Marine Plan has adopted the Distributed Biological Observatory initiative from the United States for adding biological measures to moored and cabled systems including acoustic monitoring of marine mammals to develop proxy indices of abundance, distribution and phenology of marine mammals.


The following measurements would contribute to Environment Canada’s wide mandate in the areas of ice prediction and emergency response services, monitoring and regulation, and conservation:

• Ice data, including thickness, size distribution of ice floes, under ice roughness, and ice coverage (i.e., concentration);

• Pressure, with sufficient sampling rate; • Acoustic: ambient noise, mammalian vocalisations, fish presence, and zooplankton and

phytoplankton abundance; • Sea state, including wave height, currents (including via acoustic Doppler), and tides; • Turbidity and sediment transport, particularly from the Mackenzie River; • Real-time video imaging to track spilled oil; and • Water column sampling, including salinity, temperature, pH, and concentrations of nutrients

and dissolved oxygen, carbon, and solids (particularly near river outflows).


From Environment Canada’s perspective, other locations would be more beneficial to real-time monitoring, regulatory, and conservation needs, and would be better able to support the infrastructure required by a COOS. Unless the Cambridge Bay site has already been chosen due to its proximity to CHARS, a more comprehensive consideration of the existing support, costs, and benefits associated with various locations should be undertaken. In terms of conservation, for example, shipping activity in the Northwest Passage over the near to medium term (2-10 years) will almost certainly be exceeded by shipping related to the Baffinland



Project. International shipping through Hudson Strait resulting from initiatives outside of government should also be considered. The proposed site is also not of particular interest to the Canadian Ice Service (CIS). If the demonstration site must be located near the proposed CHARS, then Victoria Strait would be of much greater interest for monitoring ocean and Multi-Year Ice fluxes in the archipelago. Given the huge expense involved and the much more direct application to geosciences, the cost-benefit ratio could improve greatly if an observatory were proposed in or near an area of high-value industrial development, such as the oil-lease areas of the Beaufort Sea. Additionally the marine infrastructure needed for the observatory might be much more likely to be available. Similarly, for the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, a more relevant location for a COOS would be an area undergoing rapid change and also of high interest for development (e.g. Beaufort Sea and Davis Strait). A further area of interest from a monitoring, as well as an EC-Parks Canada, perspective could be the recently announced Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area. Additionally, this area would be of much greater interest from an ocean-ice flux perspective. Furthermore, real-time in situ validation of the remotely-sensed data obtained by CIS in this area would be of much greater benefit to the CIS, operationally, than data retrieved from Cambridge Bay. It is noteworthy that a project of this nature is already in the planning stages for Gascoyne Inlet in Barrow Strait as a partnership between the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Should this initiative go forward, it will provide much-needed real-time data that would allow the prediction of the timing and seasonal production of zooplankton in the Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area. Zooplankton are an important food source and profoundly influence the behaviour of marine ecosystems. Given the changing nature of the Arctic regime, a predictive capability would be an invaluable tool for managers responsible for ecosystem conservation/protection and responsible exploitation.


The Canadian Ice Service (CIS) of the Meteorological Service of Canada is the leading source for reliable and timely information about ice conditions in Canadian waters. The CSI support safe, efficient and sustainable maritime operations through the following products and services: daily ice hazard bulletins and charts describing ice conditions in active navigable water; warning service for extreme ice events; weekly and monthly analyses of all Canadian ice areas for transportation planning and climate monitoring; ice reconnaissance and in situ support aboard Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessels and with specially instrumented aircraft; and Canadian Ice Service Archive for climatology purposes. Ice Service Specialists also conduct in situ observations from shore, ship and aircraft to produce accurate ice information for real-time vessel operations and to support the preparation of ice information by analysts and forecasters. The CIS analyses over 7000 satellite images per year integrating this information with in situ observations, weather, ocean state and models to prepare ice forecasts, bulletins, charts and warnings.



The Ecosystem and Biodiversity Priorities Division is responsible for coordinating scientific input on marine (and terrestrial) biodiversity to domestic and international reporting and assessment initiatives, including contributions to the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group (see more detail below). The Ecosystem and Biodiversity Priorities Division also facilitates the policy coordination of land-based sources of marine pollution within EC and with other federal departments, jurisdictions and interested parties, including coordinating EC input to Canadian positioning and priority projects of the Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group. In addition to these activities, the Ecosystem and Biodiversity Priorities Division coordinates obligations related to the UNEP-administered Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). Environment Canada also leads the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) on behalf of Canada and the Arctic Council. This Arctic Council CAFF Working Group program is developing pan-arctic biodiversity monitoring plans to better integrate existing efforts to monitor the status and trends in arctic ecosystems. The CBMP's Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Plan has just been completed and approved by the CAFF Management Board and is now before the Arctic Council's Senior Arctic Officials for endorsement. The CBMP Marine Plan represents an agreement between six Arctic coastal nations on what to monitor in arctic marine ecosystems, how to monitor and where. Understanding continental inputs to the Arctic Ocean, including freshwater and nutrient fluxes is a critical component; the near-shore (continental-ocean) interface is an important link to the marine environment. For example, freshwater lenses under the ice affect fish habitat and productivity. Cabled seafloor observatories are identified in the Plan as an opportunity to fill critical gaps, not only in oceanographic (e.g. chemical and physical) features but also biological elements. The Baffinland Project is described in response to question 1 above. Additional Comments: What to include in a COOS, where to locate one, and, indeed, whether a COOS should be supported in the first place are difficult questions to address in isolation. The Arctic Science and Technology Strategy, currently being developed interdepartmentally, will help define the scientific issues which need to be addressed in the Arctic. It will identify the monitoring data and networks required, present gaps and opportunities, and examine how a wide range of technologies, including possibly a COOS, would best be combined to meet these needs. This approach allows strategic planning and decision-making and appropriate partnerships to be developed (inter-departmentally, inter-governmentally, academically, and with the private sector) so that monitoring could be undertaken in the most effective and efficient manner and in the highest priority areas. As part of this approach, alternative COOS sites, even for a demonstration project, should be considered. It is strongly recommended that any proposed demonstration project consider building on the work now being done in the Gascoyne Inlet area by DND and DFO as this would provide much greater and immediate benefit to EC for ecosystem monitoring and management in the Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area and also operationally for validation of remotely sensed ice data.



Given the expense and complexity of this type of data collection it makes much more sense to invest in a priority area and leverage efforts that are already underway. Other issues to be addressed regarding a COOS include:

• implementation and maintenance costs; • the location of a COOS in shallow water where the potential for ice freeze to the bottom and/or

passing ice results in scouring and potential damage to the cable and instruments; • personnel and communication capacity to govern and run an Arctic COOS and to analyse and

distribute the data; • how a COOS fits into the development of an Arctic S&T Strategy under the ADM Arctic S&T

Committee, scheduled for completion by June 2011; • whether the COOS have some sort of “plug and play” capability to add different sensors as they

are developed or improved with time; • whether a plan exists to create a COOS and then to expand to a network of systems to cover off

vessel high traffic areas and areas with near shore-based resource development; • the inclusion of a biodiversity component, which is often overlooked; • links with other monitoring networks, including the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network

(SAON), should be considered; and • the co-location of weather stations. This is crucial for emergency response to evaluate wave

damping due to ice and the related modelling of vertical and horizontal dispersion processes.



Yukon – Response from a Former Senior Yukon Government Manager


Yukon and the Offshore Currently the Yukon is defined by the Yukon Act. These boundaries were last revisited in 2003 when the last devolution of authorities from the federal government to the Yukon Government occurred. The most simplistic view is that Yukon’s marine territory is the waters enclosed between headlands. Yukon maintains an interest in the offshore waters of the Beaufort Sea, waters that are shown on maps within the boundaries of the Northwest Territories and under the control of Canada even though they lie contiguous to the Yukon. At the time of the 2003 devolution the Yukon Government made several public statements suggesting they consider the issue of the territories marine boundaries unresolved. Responsibility for lands and nonliving resources has not been devolved to the Government of the NWT yet, though that process is underway. It is possible that at the time of the devolution of lands and resources to the NWT this boundary may be altered so that the Yukon would have more of a stake in the Beaufort. If this should occur, one could envision that most likely this would involve the waters bounded by 136° 30’ and 141° west. The other two factors in this are the establishment of a permanent boundary in the Beaufort Sea between Canada and the USA through the Law of the Sea process and arrangements within the Inuvialuit Final Agreement which takes in much of this marine territory. The establishment of permanent research stations is one of the ways to establish sovereignty so any marine observatory in that area might strengthen Canada’s claim. Obviously, infrastructure in the Northwest Passage do nothing for the Beaufort territorial claims but might strengthen Canada’s assertion that the Passage is Canadian waters. I think it would be fair to say that the Yukon’s primary interest in marine observatories would focus on the costal and offshore waters of the Beaufort and those regions (not just waters) and the physical and biological processes in those waters. Except for marine and coastal ship traffic this would probably suggest the Yukon’s interest would extend as far east as the eastern boundaries of waters flowing out of the Mackenzie Delta. Unlike the Dease Strait site the marine eco-region of the Beaufort has a very different dynamic, both in the workings of the marine water column and in surficial deposits on the sea floor. In addition, unlike Dease Strait which is part of the Pre-Cambrian Shield geologic province, the Beaufort is the extension of the interior sedimentary basin.



Marine Observatories in the Beaufort and Mackenzie River Plume Marine observatories in the Beaufort could focus on a number of physical and biological targets including the generation and disassociation of methane clathrates and the carbon cycle more generally within the water column and sediments, biological resources on a more unstable substrate as well as in the water column, underwater permafrost, coastal processes, the flaw lead (the target of the IPY Flaw lead project and environmental monitoring of offshore oil and gas operation. There would be an opportunity to potentially supplement the research that has been conducted on clathrate drilling and harvesting at Mallik. On the Yukon side of the Beaufort (west of 136° 30’) there are three locations that might be worth future considerations for hosting the land-based infrastructure for such a marine observatory. Herschel Island was the site of the first ever western community on Canada’s arctic coast and has Canada’s longest series of Arctic weather readings. It has been the host of a large number of terrestrial and coastal studies. The Yukon and Federal governments have recently invested some moneys into upgrading infrastructure to better host researchers. The other two sites are Komakuk Beach and Shingle Point which both host weather instrumentation. None of the three are permanent communities though Herschel is manned during the summer by territorial parks staff. I can see a situation in the future however where the Yukon’s desire for access to a deep water port on the Arctic Ocean may result in the territory having an interest in port and land transportation developments to the east in the NWT where the surficial geology provides a more stable foundation than on the Yukon’s own coast. Is one observatory enough? Later I refer to the obvious limitation of the Dease Strait site to reflect the diversity of Canada’s arctic marine environments, a weakness of only one observatory easily appreciated when one looks at the diversity of Canada’s Arctic Marine Ecoregions and realizes that, depending on how one classifies, there may be more diversity of ecosystems in the north than in southern waters. This does not argue against the Dease Strait site, just argues for more than one marine observatory. However like many of my colleagues I would argue a start is better than none and this opportunity should not be lost.


The Roles of Observatories I will respond in more detail later but as per your backgrounder such observatories have the potential to serve as sites to monitor biophysical processes and change over the long term; as hosts for research programs investigating specific sites and as sites to monitor human activity and which can provide input



into resource management and response activities (example- contaminate clean ups). Finally observatories should be integrated into education and capacity development programs. My Suggestions: I have tried to develop recommendations that are more conceptual and refer you to much of the work that has already been done to direct future arctic research and monitoring. Siting of a network of Observatories should be made to capture the diversity of the Canadian Arctic There are several specific initiatives that planners of a Dease Strait, as well as other observatories, need to consider being involved in. First they need to be strategically located so as to reflect the ecological diversity of Canada’s northern marine environments and preferably they should be linked to terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic observatories so that ecological linkages and processes (such as energy and gas fluxes) can be better investigated and understood. Siting is critical and since we can’t monitor everything, everywhere I would suggest for the most part locations that are typical of an ecoregion or more than one ecoregion be selected. Locations also need long-term security of tenure- an interesting challenge if we end up with a resource rush in the north. The goal should be eventually to have a part of any extended network of observatories in all ecoregions. This doesn’t necessarily mean they all need to be cabled underwater systems as proponents are suggesting for Dease Strait. The non-typical (non representative) site of an ecoregion should not necessarily be excluded from any network of observatories if it is sited so as to respond to a very specific question or need. Siting should also incorporate easy access and, when possible, be integrated into community based monitoring programs. Finally, whenever possible it should be sited so it can be incorporated into educational and outreach programs. Network of Arctic Research Infrastructure The Canadian Polar Commission’s web site provides useful references to locate the existing observatory network (http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/index.php?page=northern-research-facilities&hl=en_US ) and also look at the strategic need for future observatories ( Beacons of the North http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/uploads/Publications/Special%20Reports/Binder1.pdf ). This study led by Tom Hutchinson at Trent was the origin of the hub and spoke model of northern research infrastructure where facilities like the Cambridge Bay station and the Northern Colleges would play key roles as hubs. We used this model to develop the so-called “Team Yukon” approach to supporting research infrastructure in the Yukon and recently partially funded by ARIF and Can Nor. Contribution to Monitoring Monitoring activities should be conducted to meet local, regional, national and international objectives. I see no reflection in the background documents to the initiatives to establish a northern monitoring



program that was initiated by the IPY and various partners including Arctic Council, IASC etc. The network is generally referred to as the Sustainable Arctic Observatory Network (SAON). This network would then inform and be the northern monitoring network in GEOS-S. There are a large number of contributors to SAON. You mention Arctic Net which is linked into many of the scientists. You didn’t mention the Arctic Council CAFF program – Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program which links into SAON. CBMP has a marine component (see below). The CBMP web site http://cbmp.arcticportal.org/. The Expert Marine Monitoring Group site is http://cbmp.arcticportal.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=54

Because the Dease Strait region hosts the only caribou herd that annually migrates between the mainland and the Arctic Archipelago (in this case obviously Victoria Island), the Dolphin & Union Caribou herd. CARMA is part of the CBMP. Obviously seasonal sea ice has a lot to do with the long term sustainability of this herd and this may provide a unique opportunity for your marine observatory to work with terrestrial scientists. Most people only think about Polar bears, arctic foxes, walrus etc. and a few birds as species that are at least part of the time dependent on the terrestrial and sea ice environment. Few look at what may be linkages in the water column to these “terrestrial ungulates”. Contribution to the “Big Science Questions” (there are obviously “cross overs” with monitoring for some of these initiatives.) Any observatory network should contribute when possible to the current “Big Science” questions. I would draw your attention to several documents currently available on the ICARP II site and report produced by the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) which developed the Arctic Science Plan for the next 15 years ( http://iasc.arcticportal.org/icarp/ ). I found 2 links that may help; the one link that posted all the working group reports- the Arctic Ocean Sciences Board and may be of specific interest to your group http://aosb.arcticportal.org/icarp_ii/index.html. The second contains all working groups Final Science Plans plus the final summary report, Arctic Research: A Global Responsibility (http://iasc.arcticportal.org/science-development/icarp. I would suggest you might want to look at several of these including those that are obviously dealing with the marine environment and weather & climate, but I encourage you to also pay attention to some which on first “blush” are less obviously related to a marine observatory. These would include science plans that deal with the social sciences, contaminants and the terrestrial hydrology. Obviously the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released while the ICARP II Process was underway and there are linkages. All the ACIA documents are accessible from several sites including http://www.taiga.net/acia/index.html. Critical research needs are provided in each thematic Chapter of the complete ACIA document (not the two summary documents).

Another is The State of Polar Research prepared by WMO, IASC and IPY, 2009 (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/IPY_StateofPolarResearch_EN_w



eb.pdf ). Page 11 lists 9 research challenges with “great societal relevance and urgency”, some of which a Dease Strait or other marine observatories can contribute to. It was published near the end of the IPY observation period and reflects some updating of ICARP II. This report is bi-polar as are many IPY products. A document which should be published shortly is the final report of the IPY Joint Committee. I have attached order material in a separate message (dated January 29). The document is written partially to inform future science direction and the organization of polar science campaigns such as IPY. Other similar post-IPY reports are also expected including the final report of the Canadian National Committee and the report form the Federal Program Office. The former has little that would benefit your investigation. The Federal Program Offices report will be in preparation all year and is expected to be released next winter in preparation for the IPY 2012 conference. Some of the big ocean/ocean-atmosphere questions in the north revolve around issues of energy and other fluxes from the aquatic to the marine systems, fluxes of water between various ocean basins, the movement of sea ice. Considerable attention is focused on fluxes between ocean and atmosphere and the role of sea ice plays. The challenge a marine observatory may have is what technologies are available to monitor these, especially in very dynamic and hostile environments. I have provided some thoughts later. My sense is that Dease Strait may be the wrong place to detect the effect of aquatic systems. I believe river systems emptying into Bathurst Inlet are the closest large fresh water sources You may not be in touch with the various scientists working on Arctic Hydrology and the fresh water flux. This was the topic of the IPY Arctic Hydra project. An initiative that should be related to your initiative is the Coastal Observatory Program. It should end up being an IPY legacy initiative though I am not sure it will continue to have “legs”. These stations were established to look various arctic coastal processes. Wayne Pollard (514-398-4454, [email protected] ) has been a partner in this international program from the start and has been doing work on the Yukon’s north slope. I am unaware of any specific coastal observatories in the Dease Strait area but Wayne could confirm if there are any and if not, if there are any questions such sites could address. A related initiative that should be “going to press” about now is the IASC / International Permafrost Association / Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, State of the Arctic Coastal Zone report

Another initiative that may have “wheels” that your observatory can contribute to is the Science Plan for Regional Arctic Systems Modeling prepared for NSF http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/sites/default/files/publications/reports/IARCTP10-0001.pdf. Several of the topics reflect topics identified in other reports and have relevance to the capability of a marine observatory to contribute data to Arctic Amplification, Future Changes in Arctic Sea Ice Cover, Carbon Feedbacks to Climate in the Arctic System and Arctic Coastal Erosion Along the Beaufort Sea. Links to Terrestrial Observatories



There may be opportunities for an ocean observatory to work with terrestrial observatories. I draw your attention to three networks. In some cases one observatory is part of more than one of these networks. The first is the circumpolar SCANNET (http://www.scannet.nu/content/view/13/33/) which had its origin in the North Atlantic/Scandinavian region but has grown and includes the network of stations operated by the Arctic Institute of North America (Kluane Lake) and by Laval’s Centre ďetudies Nordiques (CEN) which operates a sub set of stations extending from the boreal into the high arctic. There is another terrestrial network which focuses on wildlife known as ARCTIC WOLVES. I mention CEN and WOLVES because they include several coastal sites. For example Herschel is part of WOLVES and Bylot Island is part of both. More information on most of these is included in the Canadian Polar Commission data base I referred to earlier. Some of the Arctic’s largest bird concentrations are within the Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Sanctuary, including most of the world’s population of Ross’s goose. There may be an opportunity to for your observatory to inform scientific activity associated with these populations Again, I think there are often benefits linking marine sites with terrestrial sites.


I currently am working with the Arctic Institute of North America and the CFCAS Board. I also sit on the Geological Survey of Canada’s GEMS user advisory board as well as contributing to various other northern programs and projects. For the most part I bring a perspective of the northern Western Cordilleran which of course is a bit distant from Dease Strait. I have no knowledge of GEM targeting the region around Dease Strait. I checked their targeted areas and noted that Cambridge Bay seems to be in the centre of a region that they specifically were not targeting though there are research targets about 400 kilometers in every direction from your observatory. Since the targets are based on perceived economic potential this may be a good thing for long term security as a monitoring observatory. I recognize that marine observatories would not be utilized for seismic monitoring but they have been utilized to better understand and monitor tectonic activity. I know there are questions around isostatic uplift along the Arctic Coast. Are there other questions? Are there ecological implications? I believe a lot of the questions in the Victoria Island region have more to do with Pleistocene geology though I am sure there are others.



The other opportunity you might pursue is how to monitor polynyas- obviously a technical challenge considering sea ice probably will treat your instrumentation rather harshly. The IPY Flaw Lead project of IPY while utilizing a ship which could adjust its position to take advantage of open water in winter proved a very valuable insight into the physical and biological aspects of the ocean during the winter. I am aware that issues around the movement of marine mammals and other organisms into the arctic archipelago has been an issue recently. For instance there is a concern that some species may be better adapted to the longer ice-free conditions and they are able to not only invade but also drive out or out-compete the local indigenous species. For instance, there has been considerable talk about increasing Orca populations. I have no idea of the details either of your proposal or the issue but it seems to me that the geometry of a network of sensors might be able to assist in investigating and better understanding this the movement and factors associated with facilitating these processes. For instance would there be a sensor array laid east-west in the strait?


I am currently retired and have no programs operating in the region around Dease Strait. I can think of one opportunity that you may have not considered. I have some involvement with Students on Ice. Educational programs such as SOI and Students on Board as well as new initiatives to establish a Canadian Arctic University may in the future benefit from such an observatory. There may also be an opportunity to develop an eco tourism industry tied to arctic research. We have seen this develop with the Churchill Northern Studies Centre which works with groups such as Elder Hostel and involves “tourists” in research. Data and Knowledge Archiving An initiative I am active in is encouraging processes and mechanisms are established to ensure data and knowledge are archived and made accessible to not only the science community but also northerners. As you are probably aware, a founding principle to IPY originating from the Weyprecht’s Principles of Polar Science is open access to data. World data centres were an innovation of IPY 3 (the IGY). During the recent IPY we established a data policy. We have also worked on establishing data centres, metadata bases, etc. In the Yukon we have tried to ensure all data and literature relevant to the Yukon end up in the Yukon Archives plus relevant technical and academic libraries. We have not been particularly successful in ensuring specimen collections are archived though there have been some successes such as the upgrade of the Bostock Core Library in Whitehorse. Nationally I would refer you to the Arctic Institute of North America’s ASTIS data base. The breadth of the diversity of specific ASTIS data bases can be viewed at http://www.arctic.ucalgary.ca/index.php?page=astis_database.



I would also direct you to the Canadian Polar Data Catalogue (http://polardata.ca/) at the University of Waterloo. It is the metadata system for Canadian IPY and ArcticNet as well as being part of the international IPYDIS (IPY Data Information System headquartered in Boulder Colorado). The challenge you will have is to ensure this “knowledge” is accessible to northerners- increasingly an expectation. Often this expectation includes the expectation of interpretation and the need to explore and, whenever possible, to link into traditional knowledge. Most arctic scientists are recognizing there is a benefit in considering traditional knowledge alongside that flowing from modern science. General Comments Consultation with Local Communities There are lessons in the experience of GSC in the GEM program and the controversy around the Lancaster seismic survey. My advice to GSC has always been to look at the total benefits of the information being gathered, not just the implications of the knowledge to the resource industries. As an example, a seismic survey will provide insight into the genesis of Hudson’s Bay basin and provide an added appreciation of how other processes such as isostatic rebound, etc. may affect the region. These benefits often resonate with local people and communities equally if more than the presence of extractable hydrocarbons. I would strongly suggest the same basic lesson applies to a marine observatory initiative. I suspect some federal partners will be very interested in issues related to sovereignty. But northerners are often insulted that sovereignty has more to do with waving the flag and exerting ownership and less with ensuring sustainable northern communities and ensuring northerners have a high quality of life. You would probably benefit with a local body that provides insight into the science questions and who are regularly briefed and consulted on the outcomes of the research. Full partnership will greatly ensure success of your venture. Most science programs, including ArcticNet, are practicing such models as standard operating principles. Communities help develop the science questions. Locals participate on the science teams and the programs build local capacity. Work on the North Slope of the Yukon is another good example. It is overseen by the various bodies created by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement . One, the North Slope Wildlife Management Advisory Council is required by the final agreement to have a biannual conference to review all new results and help direct future work. (It could be argued that since Final Agreements are constitutionally entrenched that this conference is the only conference in Canada that is a constitutional requirement.) IPY saw several new successes where communities were actually the sponsors of the research. The project in the Old Crow area was the first and is often held up as being one of the most successful in charting how science will occur in the north in the future.



While initially people might think they need to consult only with Cambridge Bay (Ikaluktutiak), I would suggest that you would be better going further afield (again a lesson from GEM’s Lancaster Sound proposal). I would suggest the respective communities are probably at a minimum, Bathurst Inlet (Kinggauk), Umingmaktok and Coppermine (Kugluktuk. I also wouldn’t exclude communities further afield such as Holman (Ulukhaktok), Paulatuuq) and Gjoa-Haven(Ulqsuqtuq), less because of the distance from the placement of the array but because the connection to the Northwest Passage. It is also important to engage the respective Inuit organizations including Advisory Boards and Economic Development organizations and corporations. This should all be occurring at this early planning stage. It is important to determine what their questions are, what their research priorities might be and incorporate them into the program where feasible. I the case of a marine observatory I suspect feasibility of meeting all needs might be constrained by what is technically feasible. These communities need to understand that and feel they are partners in the decision making. Permitting Any observatory and research programs conducted at an observatory in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut need to be licensed through the respective territorial Scientists and Explorers Act. Since Dease Strait is located in Nunavut I suggest you contact the Nunavut Research Institute in Iqaluit, the licensing authority if you haven’t done so already. It wouldn’t hurt to also alert the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik. I suspect you will also need a Fisheries and Oceans authorization. Pre-consultation with communities and authorities generally facilitates this process. Assumptions I used to Prepare my Comments One of the challenges in responding to this request for information is I have never seen the criteria used to make the selection for Cambridge Bay to be the host community for this facility and subsequent program. It is clear that the decision was partially made because of the community’s location on the Northwest Passage. While this site has scientific merit it also would play an important role in monitoring and regulating marine traffic entering and exiting the NW Passage to the west and when necessary responding to any emergency and other marine incidents. My first comment would be that any sensor array used to detect acoustic signals could be used for both monitoring marine traffic and biological sources. Likewise sensors located at various depths in the water column could be utilized for physical oceanography as well as to provide information for certain marine incident responses if the arrays are strategically located to achieve both. My next comment is that this one marine observatory will not adequately provide an appreciation of the current situation and change which is occurring in the marine environment of Canada’s arctic. This can best be appreciated by reviewing the ecological variation that occurs within the region- something outlined in the CEC publication Marine Ecoregions of North America. www.cec.org/Storage/83/7831_MarineEcoregions-web_en.pdf



Technology I assume the technology and the placement of the technology will be driven by the science questions and monitoring needs. I have considered my assumptions and questions with respect to the technology and then answer the question posed to me. I recognized that the science questions and available technology will obviously evolve over time. Since this ocean observatory would be associated with a land based facility at Cambridge Bay, I assumed there are opportunities to use the region to not only study the marine but also terrestrial, freshwater aquatic and atmosphere as well as the many themes generally lumped together as the “human dimension”. This could include the development of appropriate northern technologies such as utilizing marine currents to generate electricity- something my son is involved in at the University of New Brunswick. The following paragraphs provide some thoughts on what I assume to be the technological limitations that would influence the science and monitoring missions. This array should be designed so that it is available to detect environmental change (baseline and environmental monitoring), so it can be modified where technology is available to help inform some of the big science questions as well as be a tool in the arsenal for scientists looking at local and regional questions. In addition I assume it would be used for operational monitoring by environmental, resource industry and transportation regulators and protection agencies. My understanding of the 3 similar arrays in place, MARS (Monterey Bay), Venus (Gulf of Georgia) and Neptune (West Coast of Vancouver Island) is that flexibility is integral to the design of the communications technology (underwater fibre optic cable) which is the framework on which the array is based. Both my daughter and son in law had early exposure to some of this work when working with Chris Barnes and part of my familiarity with these projects comes from them. Obviously what will be different about such a system in the vicinity of Cambridge Bay is the need to deal with all the issues related to the cryosphere- sea ice; the potential for seafloor ice scour especially in shallow waters; challenges of ice rich permafrost where coast lines consist of surficial deposits and not bedrock; and ice scouring driven by tides, currents and winds along coast lines. While it is probably possible through site selection and engineering to deal with these issues in the Cambridge Bay vicinity (and elsewhere throughout the arctic) these processes will add additional challenges. An observatory that is solely submerged may be challenged to provide insights into the ocean/atmosphere and ocean/sea ice/atmosphere interface. However if combined with the application of removable marine sensors, floats and sensors supported by the sea ice and possibly “gliders”, the fixed submerged array will provide useful new insights. There may also be an application for the application of atmospheric sensors anchored in the ice and supported by balloons though the winds in the region are notorious.



It seems to me that the spatial layout of the cabled array in the Dease Strait poses questions and opportunities. Considering the Strait is only approximately 12 kilometers wide it would seem that a north-south oriented transit would pose an opportunity to not only sample across the waterway but also sample physical and biological parameters as well as human activity as they move through the waterway. An east-west array of sensors would also provide useful information in the speed and direction of transit. I assume that any submerged array would be supplemented by sampling from surface ships. I would suggest that if the subsurface array stays “in tack” it might prove more useful for time sensitive measurements than ship supported measurements. My last comment is that a challenge in the north will be reliable electrical power and telecommunications. There may be an opportunity to use the observatory to help design and test appropriate northern technologies.



ArcticNet

1. Would continuous, real-time data from cabled seafloor observatories contribute to the

scientific or operational needs of your organization? Yes, definitively. Such an observatory located in one of the biological/physical hotspots identified by ArcticNet would be extremely useful to monitor the ecosystem over the annual cycle, including the ice season (November to June) when arctic seas are impossible to study unless a ship is overwintered (at great cost). It would serve the scientific objectives of several research programs funded by ArcticNet since 2004 and which will be funded over the next 7 years. A collaboration with ONC and Golder and ASL (the latter two with whom we have been collaborating in the Beaufort Sea in 2009 and 2010) would enable these programs to expand their science objectives and to develop new expertise and technologies.


Useful measurements for our teams would include benthic processes, vertical particle fluxes, ocean currents through ADCP, vertical profiles of ocean properties (salinity, temperature, fluorescence, nitrates, other nutrients, CO2, contaminants, light, zooplankton biomass and type, etc.) through moored vertical profilers that can be powered and controlled remotely to adjust profiling according to sea-ice thickness to avoid losses of instruments.


A cabled observatory near the CHARS seems a logical choice for many reasons. However, Dease Strait and the surrounding waters are very shallow and, hence, not particularly rich biologically or of interest biogeochemically. ONC is also considering more remote locations for the deployment of a cabled observatory. An example of a physical/biological/biogeochemical hotspot identified by ArcticNet is the Cape Bathurst polynya over the region extending eastward from the eastern edge of the Mackenzie Shelf to the deep basin of Amundsen Gulf. We already deploy and redeploy oceanographic moorings annually in this area, including, since 2006, two daily vertical profilers in Amundsen Gulf. But the loss rate of instrumentation is high and the scientific payload of the profilers is frustratingly limited by the power available from batteries over an annual cycle. A powered observatory would solve this problem and enable us to increase the scientific payload, to control the upward reach of the profiles according to ice conditions, and to get the data in real time.




ArcticNet manages the deployment of the research icebreaker CCGS Amundsen in support of several national and international large-scale multidisciplinary programs, including its own program in marine sciences. ArcticNet is also involved in major research partnerships in the Beaufort Sea with the oil exploration industry which may be interested in cabled observatories. As well, the newly funded Canada Excellence Research Chair in the remote-sensing of Canada's new arctic frontier aims at adapting several new observation platforms including Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, gliders, and intelligent buoys to arctic conditions. The deployment of these platforms would complement the cabled observatories. For example, as part of the new technology transfer program of ArcticNet, it would be interesting to explore the possibility of intelligent buoys transmitting their data to the cabled observatory for relay to the shore base, thus solving the issue of transmission to satellites in ice-covered conditions. This is but one example of the myriad possible applications of a cabled observatory in support of our existing and future activities in the High Arctic.

Please feel free to add any additional comments you feel would assist us in this study and to forward this information to anyone else in your organization who might have an interest in the project.

A partnership with ONC for the deployment of cabled observatories in the Arctic is included in the Strategic Plan of ArcticNet which has been renewed successfully for 7 years starting in 2011. The description of the partnership reads as follows in the Strategic Plan: “ONCCEE . The Ocean Network Canada Centre for Enterprise and Engagement (ONCCEE) is a NCE-funded Centre of Excellence in Commercialization and Research (CECR). It federates the Ocean Network Canada (which runs the Venus and Neptune-Canada cabled ocean observatories) with Golder Associates and ASL Environmental Sciences, two companies that collaborates with ArcticNet in the Beaufort Sea as part of our partnerships with the Oil & Gas Industry. ONCCEE has submitted a proposal to the Federal government to fund a feasibility study on designing, building, deploying, and operating low-power cabled observation systems in the Northwest Passage. A key partner in the project, ArcticNet will provide expertise on bathymetry and sea-ice scouring for the feasibility study. It will share with ONCCEE ship time on the Amundsen to identify and map potential locations for the deployment of observatories at the western entrance of the Northwest Passage extending west into the Beaufort Sea where exploration for oil is taking place, and its eastern entrance extending east into northern Baffin Bay and the rich ecosystems of the North Water. The Remotely Operated Vehicle of the Amundsen and the planned AUV capacity of ArcticNet will be crucial assets for the deployment and maintenance of the observatories. This exciting NCE-CECR partnership will open a new field in arctic sciences and will propel Canada to the forefront of new technologies to monitor the changing Arctic Ocean.”



Joint Secretariat, Inuvik, NWT

The Technical Resource person of the Joint Secretariat (JS; which supports the co-management bodies of the ISR) appeared to be in favour of Cabled Ocean Observatory if it were to be installed in the Beaufort Sea, stating that such technology is needed by scientists and local communities. A cabled ocean observation system was regarded as appealing because it could collect data without emitting acoustic signals; community members have concerns about acoustic emissions in the ocean, stemming from a long history of regional seismic exploration and seabed mapping. It was suggested to include ArcticNet and other organizations with similar research agendas, as well as regional schools (similar to the Schools on Board program carried out by ArcticNet in 2010) in the initiative. Concerns included ensuring that communities were involved with developing arrangements for data access, addressing local / regional training and employment opportunities, and consulting with other stakeholders such as the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) and Fisheries Joint Management Committee.

Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Inuvik, NWT

The Fisheries Resource Specialist, FJMC (which contributes to water resource management in the ISR) regarded the potential Cabled Ocean Observatory as an interesting opportunity for the region and its members would like to be involved in any further developments as the planning stages progress. The FJMC representative agreed to review the NEPTUNE and VENUS projects and discuss the opportunity with the FJMC Board. Concerns included ensuring that local / regional training and employment opportunities as prerequisites for supporting the cabled system.



Aurora Research Institute, Inuvik, NWT The Director of the Aurora Research Institute (ARI; the scientific agency responsible for licensing, conducting and coordinating research in the NWT) appeared to be very supportive of the potential future installation of a Cabled Ocean Observatory in the Arctic and is familiar with the NEPTUNE project and its success. The ARI’s perspective is that the cabled system would complement the objectives of the Beaufort Sea Management Plan and other identified scientific requirements of the NWT. The ARI insists that training be an essential component of the project proposal, with the stipulation that instructors be brought in to the North to conduct training in the communities through Aurora College (i.e., ensure that students would not have to travel to the south for training). Training should involve as large a number of students as possible, so that alternative candidates for appropriate employment opportunities are available to choose from. One way to begin educating people about the Cabled Ocean Observatory and the opportunities it involves would be to go into local schools and make presentations, to get students interested in those opportunities. It is also considered important to get industry interested in and supporting the cabled system, including oil and gas companies conducting research in the area. The ARI does not support the intention to locate the Cabled Ocean Observatory off the coast of Cambridge Bay, which it considers an unwise decision based on political considerations only. The data that would be collected off the Cambridge Bay coast would be not considered as relevant as if it were to be collected in an offshore area of the Beaufort Sea, such as at Tuktoyaktuk, where existing coastal facilities could be used.



Nunavut Research Institute, Iqaluit, NU

The Senior Research Officer of the Nunavut Research Institute (NRI) in Iqaluit was of the opinion that there will be a lot of opposition amongst the Nunavut communities to the installation of a Cabled Ocean Observatory in Nunavut. She thought that people don’t need these data, for example “they can open their house doors and look out on the bay to assess the ice conditions”. Residents of Nunavut may not want the world to know where the whales are and which boats are passing by. It is important that data access is dealt with prior to project start. One aspect of access to data is to avoid increased harvest due to known locations. It was further explained that in order for local people and Inuit leaders to buy into such a project, they need to be well informed and brought to Vancouver to get an idea of the Neptune and Venus projects … “they need to get a real good understanding and see why it would benefit them”. Another problem will be that people will not believe that the sensors will not emit noise – Inuit have become very sceptical over the years, they have been promised many things that were not true in the end. They will be afraid of impacts on whales and fish and their harvesting She also voiced a safety concern: proponents need to make sure that installations do not interfere with boaters and harvesters. Any project components need to be marked properly and the use of lights should be considered. However, the downside of lights would be that local youth may use them for target practice and potentially vandalize these structures. She thought that the cultural component of the feasibility study will be well received but she advised that the project also needs a complete communications package – proper and all inclusive communication is key to success and ultimately approval of such a project. Project proponents need to establish a plan how to communicate this proposal to the relevant organizations and leaders as part of the regulatory phase. They need to involve leaders and decision makers, not just trough presentations – but they should be brought to Vancouver and experience the set-up of the Neptune or Venus projects. She believed that Cambridge Bay as a possible location for the cabled observation system is a good idea, “tying it in with the High Arctic Research Centre makes sense”. The Centre is scheduled to be open in 2017 – the observatory should aim at a similar timeframe. It would not make any sense to be installed before the research centre, especially as the project will need the on-shore facility.



Nunavut Impact Review Board, Cambridge Bay, NU Nunavut Impact review Board (NIRB) pointed out that the regulatory aspect of this potential development is dependent on the location – will it be exclusively in NU, or will it involve other jurisdictions? Detailed maps and coordinates will need to be submitted to the NIRB. Installing a cabled observatory in the Northwest Passage could be a legal battle (internationally), while on the other hand Cambridge Bay as a potential location is clear and straight forward. When submitting a proposal to the NIRB, they would also look at similar studies. There are two studies with a similar scope: 1. The proposed Arctic Link project that runs a fibre optic communications cable from London (England) to Hong Kong (China) through the Arctic. The benefit for Nunavummiut (residents of Nunavut) is clear: they would benefit from better communication networks, such as higher internet speed. People will likely buy into this project.

2. The Canadian military installed sensors in the Northwest Passage that detect vessel traffic. NIRB does not see a big cultural hurdle. If standard communication protocols are followed, he thought that people will see the benefits (training, jobs, and infrastructure). For the Northwest Passage as a potential location, the biggest challenge would be the international community that does not believe that these are Canadian waters. NIRB thought that location of the proposed observatory is key to success: people in Cambridge Bay welcomed the High Arctic Research Centre, they are used to research development, they are used to looking at economic benefits and they will be open for new development that comes along with the research centre. The same is true for people in Resolute. These two communities are science centered and are used to consultations; they likely appreciate and support research facilities and associated infrastructure. That may look completely different in other communities in Nunavut. NIRB pointed out that the potential benefits of this project would be in training, jobs and improved infrastructure. He thought that people are able to realize that and will be able to work together to achieve this goal. NIRB considered the 2017 timeline (of the High Arctic Research Centre in Cambridge Bay) as a very appropriate timeline that will leave enough time for appropriate consultations for which the guidelines on the NIRB webpage should be strictly followed. The decommissioning aspect of the project needs to be addressed from the beginning: who will be in charge of removing the structures at the end of the project and when will that will happen (exact timeline).



Appendix C: Summary of Tables of Regulatory Agencies in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Table 1. Northwest Territories Regulatory Agencies for Proposed Developments on Land

Area of Jurisdiction &

Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency

Contact / Address Primary Role / Responsibility

Authorization Advisory Agencies

Inuvialuit Private Lands / Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR)

Inuvialuit Inuvialuit Lands Administration (ILA; division of Inuvialuit Regional Corporation)

John Fraser Chief Land Administrator Tel: 867-777-7028 (Inuvik) Tel: 867-977-7102 (Tuktoyaktuk) Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 290 Tuktoyaktuk, NT X0E 1C0 107 Mackenzie Road Bag 21 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Project activities on Inuvialuit-owned private lands, 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) lands, in ISR Control of beds of lakes, rivers and other waterbodies in private lands in ISR

- Class A or B Land Use Permit for Inuvialuit Lands (e.g., staging areas, project work areas) - Temporary Right of Way Permit (e.g., access roads) - Permanent Right-of-Way Permit (e.g., access roads) - Participation Agreements (between the ILA and project proponent to set out the rights and obligations for both parties regarding proposed activities and access to

- Wildlife Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) - Community Hunters’ and Trapper’s Committees (HTCs) - Inuvialuit Game Council (IGS) - Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) - Joint Secretariat (JS) - Northwest Territories




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Inuvialuit lands to conduct those activities; may be required prior to the issuance of any rights other than land use permits or right-of-way permits)

Water Board (NWTWB)

ISR

Co-management body (Inuvialuit)

Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC)

Christine Inglangasuk Environmental Assessment Coordinator Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] c/o Joint Secretariat – Inuvialuit Renewable Resource Committees 107 Mackenzie Road, Suite 204 P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Project activities on Inuvialuit-controlled lands (onshore) in ISR (most projects)

- Authorization for project activities on Inuvialuit Lands (may approve, approve with terms and conditions, or not approve of project activities; approvals are subject to obtaining other relevant permits); EISC screenings also undergo Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

As above




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



screening

ISR


Environmental Impact Review Board (EIRB)

Eli Nasogaluak Environmental Assessment Coordinator Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] c/o Joint Secretariat – Inuvialuit Renewable Resource Committees 107 Mackenzie Road, Suite 204 P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Project activities on Inuvialuit-controlled lands (onshore) in ISR (larger / complex projects referred by EISC)

- Authorization for project activities on Inuvialuit Lands that were referred by the EISC (the EIRB environmental assessment process may be substituted for a panel review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act)

As above

ISR


Northwest Territories Water Board (NWTWB)

Mike Harlow Tel: 867-678-2942 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2531 125 Mackenzie Road Suite 302 Professional Building Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Regulates the use of inland waters (e.g., for land-based activities) and the deposition of wastes in inland waters of the ISR

- Class A or B Water Licence

As above

Crown Land in Northwest Territories

Federal government

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Sandra Bradbury Senior Land Specialist / Land Administrator

Project activities on federally-controlled lands

- Class A or B Land Use Permit for Crown Lands (e.g.,

N/A




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



(NWT)

(INAC), Land Administration Office

Land Administration Office Tel: 867-669-2671 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1500 5th Floor, Bellanca Building Yellowknife, NT X1A 2R3

access roads, staging areas, project work areas) - Enforces authorizations under relevant legislation (e.g., INAC inspectors such as Resource Management Officers ensure regulatory compliance for project activities for land use in NWT)

Canada Federal government

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

Kathleen Adam Administrative Services, Yellowknife Tel: 867-766-8532 Email: [email protected] 401, 5101 50th Avenue P.O. Box 668 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2N5

Responsible development of Canada’s natural resources

- Authorization regarding explosives

N/A

Canada Federal Environment Prairie and Northern Region Prevent pollution, - Authority to - Parks




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



government Canada (EC), Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)

Species in Northwest Territories: Bruce MacDonald (Please also cc Vanessa Charlwood) Tel: 867-669-4779 Fax: 867-873-8185 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Suite 301, 5204 - 50th Ave. Yellowknife NT X1A 1E2 General Prairies, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Prairie and Northern Region) Tel: (780) 951-8600 200, 4999 98 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3

protect environmental and human health in Canada

Deposit a Deleterious Substance (allows for the deposit of deleterious substance [i.e., effluent] according to a prescribed set of conditions) - Transboundary Permit (for movements of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials in or out of Canada) - Migratory Bird and Wildlife Sanctuary Permit (for access into a sanctuary) and a CWS Scientific Permit (for certain kinds of research on migratory birds)

Canada




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Freshwater habitats

Federal government

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Inuvik District Office Tel: 867-777-7500 P.O. Box 1871 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0 Yellowknife Area Office Tel: 867-669-4900 Suite 101 - Diamond Plaza 5204 50th Avenue Yellowknife, NT X1A 1E2

Managing and protecting fisheries resources; protecting the freshwater environment

- Authorization of Work or Undertaking Affection Fish Habitat (for the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat [HADD] resulting from a work or undertaking; an environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Scientific Research Permits affecting SARA Listed Species / Allowable Harm Permit / Section 73 Permit (can authorize an activity affecting a

- NWTWB




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



listed aquatic species or any part of a listed aquatic species critical habitat under Section 73 of the Species at Risk Act [SARA]) - Use of explosives in or near water


Transport Canada (TC)

Regional Office 4915 - 48th Street 3rd Floor, YK Centre East P.O. Box 1439 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P1 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Tel: 1-888-675-6863 Email: [email protected] Main Office 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Develop and administer policies, regulations and services for Canada’s transportation systems

- Transportation of Dangerous Goods under the federal act

N/A

Commissioner’s Land in NWT

Territorial government

Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT),

Gurdev Jagpal Regional Superintendant Tel: 867-777-7348 Email: [email protected]

Transportation on publically accessible road networks in the NWT

- Access to public roads (e.g., Temporary Access to a Public

N/A




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Department of Transportation (DOT)

149 Mackenzie Road P.O. Box 2038 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Highway Permit) - Commercial vehicle operation permits (e.g., registration, over-weight, over-dimensional, fuel tax permits) - Authorization to build ice roads - Transportation of Dangerous Goods under the territorial act

Commissioner’s Land in NWT

Territorial government

GNWT, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs (MACA)

Beverly Chamberlin Director, Lands Administration Tel: 867-873-7569 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9

Administer Commissioner's Lands; community planning, land purchases, property assessments, land development

- Permission to use, occupy, or possess Commissioner’s public land

N/A

NWT Territorial government

GNWT, Department of Environment (ENR)

Patricia Handley Information Coordinator, Wildlife Division Tel: 867-873-7760 Email: [email protected] Suzanne Carrière

Sustainable use and development of NWT’s natural resources

- Wildlife Research Permit for terrestrial wildlife which includes polar bears and migratory birds

N/A




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Biologist (Biodiversity), Wildlife Division Tel: 867-920-6327 Email: [email protected] 600 - 5102 50th Avenue P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9

(required for monitoring, experiments, surveys and any collection of wildlife or wildlife habitat-related information or data)


Northwest Territories Power Corporation (NTPC; GNWT-owned)

Tel: 867-874-5200 (Hay River) Email: [email protected] 4 Capital Drive Hay River, NT X0E 1G2

Distribution of energy

- Authorization for involvement with existing energy grids (e.g., using energy, supplementing with new energy sources)

N/A


Aurora Research Institute (ARI)

Jonathon Michel Manager, Scientific Services Tel: 867-777-3298 Ext. 32 Email: [email protected] 191 Mackenzie Road P.O. Box 1450 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Licensing research in Traditional Knowledge and physical, social and biological sciences

- Scientific Research Licence (for all research in NWT except wildlife or archaeology work which requires different permits)

- All affected communities Interview with Pippa Seccombe-Hett, Director; February 7, 2011




Contact

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency




Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Center (PWNHC)

Tom Andrews Territorial Archaeologist Tel: 867-873-7688 Email: [email protected] 4750 48th Street P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9

Archaeological activities in NWT

- Class 1 and Class 2 Archaeology Permit (for excavation of sites and the collection of artifacts)

N/A

Table 2. Northwest Territories Regulatory Agencies for Proposed Development in Ocean Habitats.

Area Authority Regulatory Agency



ISR Co-management body (Inuvialuit)

EISC Christine Inglangasuk Environmental Assessment Coordinator Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] c/o Joint Secretariat – Inuvialuit Renewable Resource Committees 107 Mackenzie Road, Suite 204

Project activities on Inuvialuit-controlled waters (offshore) in ISR (most projects)

- Authorization for project activities in ISR offshore waters; (may approve, approve with terms and conditions, or not approve of project activities; approvals are subject to obtaining other relevant permits); EISC screenings also undergo CEAA screening

- WMAC - HCTs - IGS - FJMC - JS - NWTWB






P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

ISR Co-management body

EIRB Eli Nasogaluak Environmental Assessment Coordinator Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] c/o Joint Secretariat – Inuvialuit Renewable Resource Committees 107 Mackenzie Road, Suite 204 P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Project activities on Inuvialuit-controlled waters (offshore) in ISR (larger / complex projects referred by EISC)

- Authorization for project activities in ISR offshore waters that were referred by the EISC (the EIRB environmental assessment process may be substituted for a panel review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act)

As above

Management of Canada’s estuaries, coasts and oceans

Federal government

DFO Amanda Joynt Habitat Biologist, Inuvik Region Tel: 867-777-7515 Email: [email protected] Larry Dow District Manager, Inuvik Region # 1 Arctic Road

Management of Canada’s estuaries, coasts and oceans including all research / projects that have the potential to disturb, harm, harass or kill a marine mammal or fish species

- Authorization of Work or Undertaking Affection Fish Habitat (for HADD resulting from a work or undertaking; an environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Authorization to Kill Fish by Means other the Fishing (to destroy fish by a means other than fishing; an

N/A






Tel: 867-777-7500 P.O. Box 1871 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0 Yellowknife Area Office Suite 101 – Diamond Plaza 5204 - 50th Ave. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1E2 Phone: 867-669-4900

environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Fishing Licence (for commercial fishery operations, aquaculture activities, marine plant harvests and others) - Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Licences (for a fishing vessel to enter Canadian fisheries waters) - Scientific Research Permits affecting SARA Listed Species / Allowable Harm Permit / Section 73 Permit (can authorize an activity affecting a listed aquatic species or any part of a listed aquatic species critical habitat under Section 73 of the SARA) - Use of explosives in or near water - Marine Mammal Scientific / Education / Display Licences; authorization to conduct






research on marine animals including SARA-listed species (except polar bears - GNWT) and plants (issued after ARI Scientific Research Licence approved)

Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services (NORDREG) Zone

Federal Government

Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)

NORDREG Iqaluit Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) P.O. Box 189 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Tel: 867-979-5724 Email: [email protected]

Monitor vessels within NORDREG Zone

- In the NORDREG Zone, under the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, vessels must report information prior to entering, while operating within and upon exiting Canada’s northern waters; all reporting must be forwarded to NORDREG, MCTS of the CCG

N/A


TC Regional Office 4915 - 48th Street 3rd Floor, YK Centre East P.O. Box 1439 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P1 Marine Safety, Northern Region 1100-9700 Jasper Avenue

Develop and administer policies, regulations and services for Canada’s transportation systems including marine areas

- Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) Approval; TC must approve any works that are in, on, over, under, through or across navigable waters that would substantially interfere with navigation -An application for an NWPA approval may trigger an

N/A






Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4E6 Tel: 780-495-4023 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Tel: 1-888-675-6863 Email: [email protected] Main Office 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

environmental assessment by CEAA - Canada Shipping Act Approvals (Canadian registered vessels operating in Canadian marine waters may be required to be certified for marine safety by TC; foreign registered vessels are subject to similar safety approvals as well as other various approvals)


EC, CWS Prairies, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Prairie and Northern Region) Tel: 780-951-8600 200, 4999 98 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3 CWS Office Yellowknife 867-669-4763

Prevent pollution, protect environmental and human health in Canada

- Authority to Deposit a Deleterious Substance (allows for the deposit of deleterious substance [i.e., effluent] according to a prescribed set of conditions) - Disposal at Sea Permit (to dispose of materials at sea) - Transboundary Permit (for movements of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials in or out of Canada) - Migratory Bird Sanctuary Permit (for access into a

N/A






sanctuary) and a CWS Scientific Permit (for certain kinds of research on migratory birds)


ARI Jonathon Michel Manager, Scientific Services Tel: 867-777-3298 Ext. 32 Email: [email protected] 191 Mackenzie Road P.O. Box 1450 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Licensing research in Traditional Knowledge and physical, social and biological sciences

- Scientific Research Licence (for all research in NWT except wildlife or archaeology work which requires different permits)

- All affected communities Interview with Pippa Seccombe-Hett, Director; February 7, 2011


PWNHC Tom Andrews Territorial Archaeologist Tel: 867-873-7688 [email protected] 4750 48th Street P.O. BOX 1320 Yellowknife NT

Archaeological activities in NWT

- Class 1 and Class 2 Archaeology Permit (for excavation of sites and the collection of artifacts)

N/A



Table 3 – Nunavut Regulatory Agencies for Propose Development on Land

Area of Jurisdiction

Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Nunavut Institute of Public Government

Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC)

Bobby Suluk Regional Planning Coordinator Tel: 867-983-4625 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2101 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0

Develop land use plans for Nunavut (Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan and North Baffin Regional Land Use completed and approved)

- Screen proposed project activities to ensure compliance with land use plans

- Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) - Government of Nunavut (GN) - Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) - Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) - Nunavut Water Board (NWB) - Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) - Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)

Nunavut Institute of Nunavut Impact Tannis Bolt Assess the - Screen development As above




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Public Government

Review Board (NIRB)

Environmental Administrator Tel: 867-983-4603 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Tel: 1-866-233-3033

potential impacts of proposed development in Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) prior to approval of the required authorizations

projects - Authorization for project activities in Nunavut (may approve, approve with terms and conditions, or not approve of project activities; approvals are subject to obtaining other relevant permits)


Nunavut Water Board (NWB)

Phyllis Beaulieu Manager of Licensing Tel: 867-360-6338 Ext. 26 Richard Dwyer Licensing Administrator Tel: 867-360-6338 Ext: 29 P.O. Box 119 Gjoa Haven, NU X0B 1J0

Use (e.g., for land-based activities), management and regulation of inland water in Nunavut

- Type A and Type B Water Licence (NWB will not grant a Water Licence until both NPC and NIRB requirements are met)

- NWMB - Marine Council

Inuit-owned Land (IOL) in Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin) Region

Regional Inuit Association

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA)

John Amagoalik Director of Lands & Resources Tel: 867-975-8417 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1340

Administer the region’s lands and resources

- Class I, II and III Land Use Licence (to access IOL in Qikiqtaaluk Region) - Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreements (IIBA)

- INAC - GN - NPC - NIRB - NWB - NWMB




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 - NTI

IOL in Kitikmeot Region


Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KIA)

Paul Emingak Director, Planning & Communication Email: [email protected] Fred Pedersen Designated Inuit Organization Coordinator Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 18 Cambridge Bay, NU X0E 0C0


- Class I, II and III Land Use Licence (to access IOL in Kitikmeot Region) - IIBAs

As above

IOL in Kivalliq Region


Kivalliq Inuit Association

Luis Manzo Director of Lands Tel: 867-645-5731 Email: [email protected] Veronica Tattuinee Lands Administrator Tel: 867-645-5734 E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 340 Rankin Inlet, NU X0C 0G0


- Class I, II and III Land Use Licence (to access IOL in Kivalliq Region) - IIBAs

As above




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Crown Land in Nunavut

Federal government

INAC, Land Administration Office

Land Administration Manager Tel: 867-975-4280 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2200 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Project activities on federally-controlled lands

- Class A or B Land Use Permit for Crown Lands (e.g., access roads, staging areas, project work areas) - Enforces authorizations under relevant legislation (e.g., INAC inspectors such as Resource Management Officers ensure regulatory compliance for project activities for land use in Nunavut)

- Nunavut Regional Office's Land Advisory Committee (LAC) comments on Class B Land Use Permit applications made to INAC


NRCan David Rochette Head, Nunavut Client Liaison Unit Tel: 867-975-6601 Email: [email protected] 1093 Governor, Suite 100 P.O. Box 2380 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Responsible development of Canada’s natural resources

- Authorization regarding explosives

N/A

Crown Land in Nunavut

Federal government

EC, CWS Prairie and Northern Region Species in Nunavut: Siu-Ling Han

Prevent pollution, protect environmental

- Authority to Deposit a Deleterious Substance (allows for the deposit

- Parks Canada




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



(Please also cc Vanessa Charlwood) Tel: 867-975-4633 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1714 Qimugjuk Bldg (##969) Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 General Prairies, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Prairie and Northern Region) Tel: 780-951-8600 200, 4999 98 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3

and human health in Canada

of deleterious substance [i.e., effluent] according to a prescribed set of conditions) - Migratory Bird Sanctuary Permit (can authorize typically prohibited activities that are harmful to migratory birds or the eggs, nests, or habitat of migratory birds in a migratory bird sanctuary) - Wildlife Sanctuary Area access authorization - Transboundary Permit (for movements of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials in or out of Canada) - Migratory Bird Sanctuary Permit (for access into a sanctuary) and a CWS Scientific




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



Permit (for certain kinds of research on migratory birds)

Freshwater habitats

Federal government

DFO Eastern Arctic Area Office Building 1074 P.O. Box 358 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Tel: 867-979-8000

Managing and protecting fisheries resources; protecting the freshwater environment

- Authorization of Work or Undertaking Affection Fish Habitat (for the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat [HADD] resulting from a work or undertaking; an environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Scientific Research Permits affecting SARA Listed Species / Allowable Harm Permit / Section 73 Permit (can authorize an activity affecting a listed aquatic species or any part of a listed aquatic species critical habitat

N/A




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



under Section 73 of the Species at Risk Act [SARA]) - Use of explosives in or near water


TC Marine Safety Tel: 613-991-3135 Email: [email protected] Transportation of Dangerous Goods Tel: 1-888-675-6863 Email: [email protected] Main Office 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Develop and administer policies, regulations and services for Canada’s transportation systems

- Transportation of Dangerous Goods under the federal act

N/A

Nunavut Territorial government

Government of Nunavut (GN), Department of Economic Development and Transportation (EDT), Transportation Division

John Hawkins Director of Transportation Policy and Planning Tel: 867-975-7826 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1000, Station 1570 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Transportation on publically accessible road networks in Nunavut

- Transportation of Dangerous Goods Potentially: - Access to public roads (e.g., Temporary Access to a Public Highway Permit) - Commercial vehicle

N/A




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



operation permits (e.g., registration, over-weight, over-dimensional, fuel tax permits) - Authorization to build ice roads


GN, Department of Community and Government Services (CGS)

Shawn Maley Interim Deputy Minister Tel: 867-645-8101 P.O. Box 1000 Station 700 4th Floor, W.G. Brown Building Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Community planning and land management to municipalities in Nunavut

- Permission to use, occupy, or possess Commissioner’s public land

N/A


GN, Department of Environment (DOE)

Lorraine Standing Legislation and Management Biologist, Wildlife Management Division Tel: 867-934-2183 Email: [email protected] Wildlife Research Section Tel: 867-934-2178 Fax: 867-934-2190 Email: [email protected]

Managing terrestrial wildlife

- Wildlife Research Permit

- Designated Inuit Organizations (DIO) - NTI - Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organizations (HTOs) - NWMB




Authority Type

Regulatory Agency



P.O. Box 209 Igloolik, NU X0A 0L0


Nunavut Research Institute (NRI)

Mary Ellen Thomas Senior Research Officer Tel: 867-979-7277 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1720 Iqaluit, NU XOA OHO

Developing, facilitating and promoting Traditional Knowledge, science, research and technology

- Scientific Research Licence

N/A


GN, Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth (CLEY), Nunavut Archaeology Program

Douglas Stenton Director of Culture and Heritage Tel: 867-975-5524 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1000 Station 800 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Culture, language, heritage and physical activity of Nunavummiut

- Class 1 and 2 Archaeology Permit (for excavation of sites and the collection of artifacts)

N/A


Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC; GN-owned)

Head Office, Iqaluit Tel: 867-979-7500 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 580 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Distribution of energy

- Authorization for involvement with existing energy grids (e.g., using energy, supplementing with new energy sources)

N/A



Table 4 – Nunavut Regulatory Agencies for Proposed Development in Ocean Habitats





NIRB Tannis Bolt Environmental Administrator Tel: 867-983-4603 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Tel: 1-866-233-3033

Assess the potential impacts of proposed development in Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) prior to approval of the required authorizations

- Screen development projects - Authorization for project activities in Nunavut (may approve, approve with terms and conditions, or not approve of project activities; approvals are subject to obtaining other relevant permits)

- INAC - GN - NPC - NIRB - NWB - NWMB - NTI

Nunavut Federal government

INAC Water Resources Division Tel: 867-975-4550 Email: [email protected] Building 918 P.O. Box 100 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Ownership and overall responsibility for freshwater in NSA

- Type A Water Licence applications for IOL must be approved by INAC for them to take effect - Type A and B Water Licences for activities on Crown Land - Inspects licensed operations in Nunavut; if a licensee is in contravention of the terms or conditions of their licence an INAC inspector (e.g., Water Resource Officer) enforces

N/A






the applicable legislation


DFO Eastern Arctic Area Tel: 867-979-8000 Email: [email protected] Building 1074 P.O. Box 358 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Management of Canada’s estuaries, coasts and oceans including all research / projects that have the potential to disturb, harm, harass or kill a marine mammal or fish species

- Authorization of Work or Undertaking Affection Fish Habitat (for the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat [HADD] resulting from a work or undertaking; an environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Authorization to Kill Fish by Means other the Fishing (to destroy fish by a means other than fishing; an environmental assessment under the CEAA must be completed before an authorization can be issued) - Fishing Licence (for commercial fishery operations, aquaculture activities, marine plant harvests and others) - Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Licences (for a fishing vessel to enter Canadian

N/A






fisheries waters) - Scientific Research Permits affecting SARA Listed Species / Allowable Harm Permit / Section 73 Permit (can authorize an activity affecting a listed aquatic species or any part of a listed aquatic species critical habitat under Section 73 of the Species at Risk Act [SARA]) - Use of explosives in or near water - Marine Mammal Scientific / Education / Display Licences; authorization to conduct research on marine animals including SARA-listed species (except polar bears - GNWT) and plants (issued after ARI Scientific Research Licence approved)

NORDREG Zone

Federal Government

CCG

NORDREG Iqaluit Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) P.O. Box 189 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0


- In the NORDREG Zone, under the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, vessels must report information prior to

N/A






Tel: 867-979-5724 Email: [email protected]

entering, while operating within and upon exiting Canada’s northern waters; all reporting must be forwarded to NORDREG, MCTS of the CCG


TC Marine Safety c/o CCG Marine Operations Centre Tel: 867-436-7118 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Tel: 1-888-675-6863 Email: [email protected] Main Office 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Develop and administer policies, regulations and services for Canada’s transportation systems including marine areas

- NWPA Approval (any works in, on, over, under, through or across navigable waters that would substantially interfere with navigation cannot proceed without an approval by TC; an application for an NWPA approval may trigger an environmental assessment by CEAA - Canada Shipping Act Approvals (Canadian registered vessels operating in Canadian marine waters may be required to be certified for marine safety by TC; foreign registered vessels are subject to similar safety approvals as well as other various approvals)

N/A

Canada Federal EC, CWS Prairie and Northern Region Prevent pollution, - Authority to Deposit a N/A






government Manitoba Office Tel: 204-984-6203 150-123 Main Street Winnipeg, MB R3C 4W2

protect environmental and human health in Canada

Deleterious Substance (allows for the deposit of deleterious substance [i.e., effluent] according to a prescribed set of conditions) - Disposal at Sea Permit (to dispose of materials at sea) - Transboundary Permit (for movements of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials in or out of Canada) - Migratory Bird Sanctuary Permit (for access into a sanctuary) and a CWS Scientific Permit (for certain kinds of research on migratory birds)

NORDREG Zone

Federal Government

CCG

NORDREG Iqaluit Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) P.O. Box 189 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Tel: 867-979-5724 Email: [email protected]


In the NORDREG Zone, under the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, vessels must report information prior to entering, while operating within and upon exiting Canada’s northern waters; all reporting must be forwarded to NORDREG, MCTS of the

N/A






CCG


NRI Mary Ellen Thomas Senior Research Officer Tel: 867-979-7277 Email: [email protected] P.O Box 1720 Iqaluit, NU XOA OHO

Developing, facilitating and promoting Traditional Knowledge, science, research and technology

- Scientific Research Licence - All affected communities


GN, CLEY, Nunavut Archaeology Program

Douglas Stenton Director of Culture and Heritage Tel: 867-975-5524 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1000 Station 800 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Culture, language, heritage and physical activity of Nunavummiut

- Class 1 and 2 Archaeology Permit (for excavation of sites and the collection of artifacts)

N/A



Appendix D: Summary of Tables of Relevant Stakeholders in the Northwest Territories, Canada & Internationally

Table 1 – Relevant Stakeholders in the NWT and Nunavut

Area of Jurisdiction Agency / Group Type Advisory Agency / Special Interest Group Contact Information for Important Resources

Primary Relevant Role / Responsibility / Interest / Interviews

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR)

Administrative unit Joint Secretariat (JS) Jenifer Lam, Technical Resource Person Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Technical and administrative support to below co-management bodies and Inuvialuit game Council (IGC) Interview with Jenifer Lam, Technical Resource Person; January 28, 2011

ISR Co-management body Wildlife Management Advisory Council (WMAC), Northwest Territories (NWT) Larry Carpenter, Chair Bruce Hanbidge, Resource Biologist Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2120

- Advise appropriate ministers on wildlife policy and the management, regulation, research, enforcement and administration of wildlife, habitat and harvesting - Prepare conservation and management plans, determine, recommend harvestable quotas - Review wildlife research





Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

ISR Co-management body Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) James Malone & Kayla Hansen-Craik, Fisheries Resource Specialists Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Advise the Inuvialuit and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on fishery management and related issues within the ISR Interview with James Malone, Fisheries Resource Specialist; January 28, 2011

ISR Incorporated Inuvialuit society

Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) Tel: 867-777-2828 Email: [email protected] c/o Joint Secretariat P.O. Box 2120 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Harvesting rights, renewable resource management, and conservation - Advising government agencies on renewable resource policy, legislation, regulation, and on any proposed Canadian position for international purposes that affects wildlife in the ISR

Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA; ISR)

Integrated ocean management through four components (next column)

Beaufort Sea Partnership (BSP) - Secretariat (DFO program staff) - Regional Coordination Committee (overarching governance body for the Beaufort Sea LOMA; co-chaired by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Inuvialuit Game Council and Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

- Planning Beaufort Sea Integrated Ocean Management Plan





- Beaufort Sea Partnership (regional level representatives open to any interested organization) - Working Groups (biophysical / community consultation / geographic information / social cultural economics and traditional knowledge working groups) DFO Inuvik District Office Tel: 867-777-7500 P.O. Box 1871 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

Northwest Territories (NWT)

Territorial government Aurora Research Institute (ARI) Pippa Seccombe-Hett, Director Tel: 867-777-3298 Ext. 22 Email: [email protected] 191 Mackenzie Road P.O. Box 1450 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Supporting research in Traditional Knowledge and physical, social and biological sciences Interview with Pippa Seccombe-Hett, Director; February 7, 2011

NWT Territorial government Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (ENR)

- Advise the relevant regulatory authorities that issue permits and authorizations (e.g., Land Use Permits and Water Licenses)





Ray Case, Director of Environment Tel: 867-873-7654 Email: [email protected]

NWT Non-profit society Arctic Energy Alliance Inuvik Office Tel: 867-777-2068 Email: [email protected] Aurora Research Institute Building P.O. Box 1450 191 Mackenzie Road Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Promote and facilitate the adoption of efficient, renewable and carbon neutral energy practices

NWT Non-profit organization Ecology North Joseph MacLeod, Director Tel: 867-873-6019 Email: [email protected] 5013-51st St. Yellowknife, NT X1A 1S5

- Support sound environmental decision-making on individual, community and regional levels

NUNAVUT

Nunavut Institution of Public Government

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB)

- Approve plans for management / protection of particular wildlife or wildlife habitats - Identifying wildlife management zones and





Robert Kidd, Director of Wildlife Management Tel: 867-975-7300 Email: [email protected]

areas of high biological productivity - Make recommendations to the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) - Advise governments, Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) and others on compensation for damage to wildlife habitat - Provide advice / recommendations to government on Marine Zones I and II

Nunavut Inuit-owned corporation Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), Department of Lands and Resources Carson Gillis, Director Tel: 867-983-5602 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1269 Cambridge Bay, NU X0E 0C0

- Support / advise on matters related to land administration, land use planning / land management, environmental protection, water and marine management, and minerals to the Regional Inuit Associations (RIA), other Designated Inuit Organizations (DIO) and other NTI departments - Directly administer / manage Subsurface Inuit-owned Lands (IOL) on behalf of Inuit


Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) Sharon Ehaloak, Executive Director Tel: 867-983-4625 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2101 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0

- Consults with government, Inuit organizations and other organizations and provides final decision on how land use plans will be developed to manage Nunavut lands






Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Tel: 867-645-4399 Rankin Inlet, NU

- Resolve land-use conflicts (appears to only be functional when required)

Inuit-owned Land (IOL) in Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin) Region

Regional Inuit Association (RIA)

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) - Kakivak Association (KA) - Qikiqtaaluk Corporation Stephen Williamson-Bathory, Director of Lands and Resources Tel: 867-979-1643 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 1340 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

- Represents business interests of Nunavummiut in the region; acts as the business development arms of the RIA

IOL in Kitikmeot Region

RIA

Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KIA) - Kitikmeot Corporation (KC) - Kitikmeot Economic Development Commission (KEDC) Charlie Evalik, President Email: [email protected] Paul Emingak, Director of Planning and

- Represents business interests of Nunavummiut in the region; act as the business development arms of the RIA





Communication Email: [email protected]

IOL in Kivalliq Region

RIA Kivalliq Inuit Association - Kivalliq Partners in Development (KPID) Jose Kusugak, President Tel: 867-645-5727 Email: [email protected] Luis G. Manzo, Director of Lands Tel: 867-645-5731 Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 340 164-1 Mivvik Ave. Rankin Inlet, NU X0C 0G0

- Represents business interests of Nunavummiut in the region; acts as the business development arm of the RIA

Nunavut Territorial government Nunavut Research Institute (NRI) Mary Ellen Thomas Senior Research Officer Tel: 867 979-7277 Email: [email protected] Mosha Cote Manager, Research Liaison

- Developing, facilitating and promoting Traditional Knowledge, science, research and technology





Tel: 867 979-7279 Email: [email protected] Rick Armstrong Manager, Scientific Support Services Tel: 867 979-7280 Email: [email protected] Jamal Shirley Manager, Research Design and Policy Development Tel: 867 979-7290 Email: [email protected] Box 1720 Iqaluit, NU XOA OHO

Nunavut Comprised of the IPGs Nunavut Marine Council DFO Inuvik District Office Tel: 867-777-7500 P.O. Box 1871 Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0

- Advise on marine issues in Nunavut - Composed of NIRB, NWB, NPC and NWMB on an “as needed” basis

NORTHERN CANADA / CANADA / INTERNATIONAL

ISR, Nunavut, Nunavik and

National advocacy organization

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK)

- Represent and promote interests of Inuit on environmental / social / cultural / political





Nunatsiavut Tel: 613-238-8181 75 Albert St. Suite 1101 Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7

issues and challenges facing Inuit on the national level

Northern Canada Network of Centre of Excellence (supported by Government of Canada)

ArcticNet Louis Fortier, Scientific Director Tel: 418-656-5646 Email: [email protected] Réal Choquette, Administrative Director Tel: 418-656-2445 Email: [email protected]

- Bring together scientists and managers in the natural, human health and social sciences with Inuit organizations, northern communities, federal and provincial agencies and private sector to study impacts of climate change in the coastal Canadian Arctic

Northern Canada Citizen’s organization Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC) Tel: 867-873-4715 5003 48 St. P.O. Box 1705 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P3 Jan Glyde Tel: 613-759-4284 Ext. 301 Email: [email protected]

- Advocate of action for long-term environmental and social wellbeing of northern Canada and its peoples





488 Gladstone Ave. Ottawa, ON K1N 8V4

Circumpolar Arctic including regions of Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Russia

Non-profit organization Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) ICC Canada Head Office Tel: 613-563-2642 Email: [email protected] 75 Albert St. Suite 1001 Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7

- Strengthen unity among Inuit - Promote Inuit rights and interests on international level - Develop / encourage long-term policies that safeguard the Arctic environment - Seek full and active partnership in political, economic, and social development of circumpolar regions

Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services (NORDREG) Zone

Federal government Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) NORDREG Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) P.O. Box 189 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Tel: 867-979-5724 Email: [email protected]

- Help DFO meet its responsibility to ensure safe and accessible waterways for Canadians - Ensure sustainable use and development of Canada’s oceans and waterways

Canada Federal government Department of National Defense (DND) National Defence Public Affairs Office Tel: 403-974-2822

- Search and rescue missions, assist other government departments with fisheries patrols, carry out surveillance, monitoring and control of Canada’s coastal and maritime zones





Email: [email protected] 100 4th Ave. S.W. Suite 418 Calgary, AB V6E 2N7

Canada Federal government National Research Council Canada (NRC) NRC Communications and Corporate Relations Tel: 613-993-9101 Email: [email protected] 1200 Montreal Road, Bldg. M- 58 Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6

- Research and development; innovation / technology capacity / support industry / solutions to national challenges in health, climate change, environment, clean energy

Canada Federal government Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Earth Sciences Sector (ESS) Tel: 613-995-0947 580 Booth Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4

- Provide Canadians with acquisition, interpretation, maintenance and distribution of maps, information, technology, standards and expertise concerning Canadian landmass and offshore in fields of geoscience, geodesy, mapping, surveying, and remote sensing

Canada Federal government NRCan, Energy Sector Tel: 613-995-0947

- Research, develop and demonstrate energy-efficient, alternative and renewable energy technologies, fuels and processes - Conducts / supports research / development





580 Booth Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4

on existing and proposed power generation projects to increase ecological and environmental benefits

Canada Independent federal agency

National Energy Board (NEB) Tel: 403-292-5503 Email: [email protected] 444 Seventh Ave. S.W. Calgary, AB T2P 0X8

- Regulate international and interprovincial aspects of electric utility industries (energy development)

Canada Network of monitoring and research activities

The Northern Ecological Assessment and Monitoring Network (EMAN-North)

- Network of monitoring and research activities for long-term, multi-disciplinary studies linked in an ecological framework

Canada Registered charitable organization

Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies Heather Cayouette, Program Manager Tel: 613-562-0515 17 York St. Suite 405 Ottawa, ON K1N 9J6

- Advance and promote northern research / education, mostly through scholarships, conferences and collaboration

Canada Non-profit corporation Oceans Science and Technology Partnership (OSTP) Email: [email protected]

- Link ocean science researchers and technology innovators - Encourage linkages between regional and





national networks - Information sharing and awareness - Present a national voice for ocean technology community

Canada Non-profit network Oceans Management Research Network (OMRN) OMRN Network Secretariat Tel: 613-562-5800 Ext. 2933 Email: [email protected] Telfer School of Management University of Ottawa 55 Laurier Ave. East Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5

- Create / share knowledge for application of critical thinking / best oceans management practices in Canada

Circumpolar Arctic Network of experiments International Tundra Experiment (ITEX) Greg Henry, Professor Tel: 604-822-2985 Email: [email protected] Department of Geography, UBC Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2

- Examine the response of circumpolar cold adapted plant species to environmental change

Circumpolar Arctic High level intergovernmental forum

Arctic Council - Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) - Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program

- Promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic





Working Group - Conservation of Arctic Flora Fauna (CAFF) - Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group - Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group - Sustainable Development Working Group Nina Buvang Vaaja, Head of Sevretariat Tel: +47-77-75-0143 Email: [email protected]

inhabitants on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic

Circumpolar Arctic Non-profit organization Arctic Institute of North America Benoit Beauchamp, Executive Director Tel: 403-220-7516 Email: [email protected] Canada: University of Calgary 2500 University Drive N.W. Calgary, AB T2N 1N4

- Study circumpolar Arctic natural and social sciences, the arts and humanities and to acquire, preserve and disseminate information on physical, environmental and social conditions in the North

International Specialized agency of the United Nations (consists of an Assembly, a Council and five main Committees)

International Maritime Organization (IMO) Tel: +44 (0)20-7735-7611 Email: [email protected]

- Improve maritime safety / prevent pollution from ships





4, Albert Embankment London, UK SE1 7SR

International Non-profit organization World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Tel: 202-293-4800 U.S. Headquarters WWF 1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W. P.O. Box 97180 Washington, DC 20090-7180

- Protect natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species



Appendix E: VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada Networks VENUS VENUS is the world’s first multi-node, multi-site cabled ocean observing system, delivering data to hundreds of users around the world via the internet. Operational since 2006, VENUS has proven the fundamental concepts and technology for cabled observatories, including interactive remote control of subsea instruments and the delivery of real-time data to active research programs across the country and around the world. Currently more than 600 users from over a dozen countries are downloading and using VENUS data. The observatory has over 44km of powered fibre optic cable delivering 6kW of power to three science sites and connecting them with Gigabit data communications. Currently the three 2.5 tonne science nodes connect over 50 sensors systems to the internet. The two remote Shore Stations transmit the data from the observatory back to the Data Center at the University of Victoria. The instruments and infrastructure are controlled using the NEPTUNE Canada Data Management and Archiving System (DMAS), also referred to as Oceans 2.0. DMAS provides user control, data archiving, data management and data visualization. DMAS also provides operations staff with secure web interfaces to control and manage the VENUS infrastructure. This has been fully integrated with the OceanWorks node and SIIM (Science Instrument Interface Module) hardware providing a seamless system for operations and science users.

Of any marine habitat, it is the coastal oceans of the world that are under the greatest threat of deterioration. The VENUS network probes two distinct environments in the complex coastal seas of southern British Columbia, Canada. A 4-km long array in Saanich Inlet near Victoria gathers data on ocean processes and seafloor ecology in a sheltered fjord. A second 40-km array near Vancouver in the Strait of Georgia—Canada’s busiest seaway—focuses on ocean currents, marine ecology, slope stability and the subsea soundscape. Current VENUS research includes: tracking of events such as storms and plankton blooms, zooplankton and fish behaviour, marine mammal communication and acoustic pollution, water currents and ocean renewal, and sediment dynamics and subsea slides.



NEPTUNE Canada NEPTUNE Canada is the world’s first regional scale cabled ocean observing system. Located off the west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, the observatory spans from the coast, across the continental shelf and covers an entire tectonic plate from subduction zone to spreading ridge. The Juan de Fuca tectonic plate is one of the most active on the planet and serves as an exceptional natural laboratory for ocean observation. The observatory has over 800km of powered fibre optic cable delivering 160kW of power to five or more science sites and connecting them with up to 40Gbit data communications. Currently five 13 tonne science nodes connect over 400 sensors systems to the network. A Shore Station in Port Alberni, Canada transmits the data from the system back to the Data Center at the University of Victoria. The Data Management and Archiving (DMAS) system provides science users with access to the data from the observatory and allows for NEPTUNE Canada operations staff to control the hundreds of instruments via a secure web interface. NEPTUNE Canada nodes are located in a variety of ecological and geological settings. Locations vary from the 100-metre shallows of coastal Folger Passage, which is strongly influenced by inshore oceanographic processes, land use activity, and water and nutrients from the watershed, to the depths of Endeavour Ridge at 2,200 metres. Here, new seafloor is being formed with volcanic activity and 300°C hydrothermal vents. Using instruments at several sites, NEPTUNE Canada includes a tsunami monitoring and an earthquake detection network. NEPTUNE Canada’s five major research themes include: plate tectonic processes and earthquake dynamics, fluids in the ocean crust and gas hydrates, ocean climate change and its effects on marine life, the dynamics of deep sea ecosystems, and engineering and computational research.

Providing user interface, operations, and data management to both the VENUS and NEPTUNE Canada ocean observing systems is the DMAS. The DMAS is a scalable operational software system specifically designed to efficiently collect, archive and redistribute data from underwater sensor networks. DMAS includes the tools necessary to manage and monitor both the sensors and the observatory infrastructure. DMAS can support hundreds of instruments and

is designed to keep track of any change and events occurring anywhere within the infrastructure. The archiving system is flexible and extensible, supporting the wide variety of data types found in oceanographic instrumentation. The infrastructure is based on a modern service-oriented architecture and all of the tools (data access, system management, and configuration) are Web-based.

Canadian Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory Study

Documents

Transcript of Canadian Arctic Cabled Ocean Observatory Study