FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

ANNEX 2
then translated into costs. Commercial shipping costs fall under the following three main cost categories:
capital costs (vessel replacement costs), operating costs (crew costs, lubes and stores, insurance,
maintenance and repair and administration) and voyage costs (fuel costs, Seaway tolls, pilotage charges
and government fees). Trip costs are calculated for each vessel trip for each year of the 101-year simulation
period. A detailed description of the Economic Impact Model is provided in Impact Evaluation Model for
Commercial Navigation on the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario. Final Report by Maritime Innovation
(Sept 28, 2004), which is included in Appendix B of the CNTWG Final Report under separate cover.
The Commercial Navigation Technical Work Group developed their own plan ranking methodology, based
on both the average annual transportation cost performance indicator and the 42 hydrologic metrics, to
help assess the most favourable plan for this interest. In general, metrics violations will result in vessel
speed reductions, draft reductions or vessel stoppages. While these do translate into increases in
shipping costs, it is normally preferable, for example, to reduce speeds rather than vessel draft, and
predictability/stability were also considered an important factor in determining which plan performs better
for the commercial navigation interest. The two areas that seem most sensitive to changes in a regulation
plan are costs induced by shipping delays on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and reliability and timing of
adequate depths for the Port of Montreal.
Integration into the Shared Vision Model
The Commercial Navigation Model was used to develop transportation cost curves that are used by the
Shared Vision Model. These curves, which are regulation plan independent, are used to approximate the
total yearly transportation costs, given a set of water levels for each quarter-month. This allowed the Plan
Formulation and Evaluation Group (PFEG) to develop a large number of potential regulation plans and
assess their impacts on commercial navigation without having to run the very detailed commercial
navigation model. The annual transportation costs estimated using these cost curves were determined to
be very close to the annual transportation costs that the detailed model would calculate. The curves were
developed for water levels in 10 cm (4 inch) increments above and below chart datum at a given gauging
station in each of three geographical areas: Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, and Montreal. A description
of the generation of these curves is provided in Impact Evaluation Model for Commercial Navigation –
Model Improvements for Simulations of up to 100 Years and for Shared Vision Model Inputs, by
Innovation Maritime in collaboration with Lauga and Associates (Appendix C of the CNTWG Final Report).
Summary of Key Findings
One of the key findings of the Commercial Navigation Technical Work Group was that there is almost
always enough water on Lake Ontario to keep ships fully loaded, so this is generally not an issue in
evaluating regulation plans.
There is not much that can be done through regulation during extended drought periods to avoid shallow
depths in the Seaway, but there are differences in how well a regulation plan can maintain minimal
acceptable depths at the Port of Montreal, and this is a key consideration especially given the dramatic
increase in container traffic in the Port of Montreal since 1994.
Costs induced by shipping delays on the St. Lawrence Seaway portion of the system are sensitive to
various regulation plans and key to the evaluation of alternative regulation plans.
92 Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows