Savannah Cruise Ship Study

7/28/2019 Savannah Cruise Ship Study

1/44

1

Date: October 13, 2010

June 25, 2013

Savannah Cruise Feasibility Study

CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDY

Phase I Report Presentation


2/44

2

BEAs Team:


3/44

3

REPORT PRESENTATIONJune 25, 2013Phase One, CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDYSavannah Cruise Feasibility Study

I - Overview of Study:

The scope of the project methodology analyzed three sites for apotential Cruise Terminal capable of handling in range of 2,700

passengers and docking/berthing station. . The scope of thisstudy evaluated environmental impacts, navigationalchallenges, and compatibility with the Georgia Ports Authority(GPA) vessel operations on the Savannah River, technicalinvestigations, utility/traffic coordination, site challenges,

docking requirements and identification of potentialchallenges with each site. The Phase I report has taken intoconsideration and evaluated the waterside / marine conditionsand general infrastructure existing at each of the three sitesand provided a tabulation of ranking ranging from MostDesirable to Least Desirable.


4/44

4

REPORT PRESENTATIONJune 25, 2013Phase One, CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDYSavannah Cruise Feasibility Study

I - Overview of Study (Continued)-

The report has been developed on the basis of informationgathered and developed from meetings with and / or frominformation provided by: ;

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Savannah Pilots Association,

United States Coast Guard,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Colonial Oil,

Limited contact with Georgia Ports Authority,

Georgia Archaeological Site File

Georgias Natural, Archaeological and Historic Resources GIS.


5/44

5

Cruise Vessel Development Over Time

V

essel

Si

ze

s

900-1050 FEET

Up To 30

20-36

26-30

26-34

1960 s

1970 s

1980 s

+1990 s

400-500

600

1200-2000

2600-3800

18

20

80

90-150

800 FEET

500 FEET

400 FEET

Ship

Displacement

(In Thousands Grt.)

Passengers Drafts Air Drafts

140-175

160-180

-

-

960-1250 FEET

30-343500-5000 150-250+/- 200

+2000 s


6/44

6


7/447

Carnival VesselLineup

Royal Caribbean Vessel

Lineup


8/448

Critical Demographics and Psychographicswithin a One Day Drive of Savannah and

Comparables (2009)

Source: SRDS, PSI, Google Maps, MapInfo

SAV JAX CHS MOB

mil mil mil milDemographics (Persons or Households)

2009 Population 56.4 46.2 44.3 42.0

2009 Population Age over 55 14.5 11.9 11.1 9.8

White Collar Workers 15.3 12.6 12.1 11.1

Households with Income $75,000 or more 5.9 4.9 4.6 4.1

Persons over 25 with Some College or More 18.8 15.5 14.6 13.0

Psychographics (Adults)

Interested in The Arts 15.4 12.6 11.9 10.8

Rely on Newspaper to Keep Me Informed 15.0 12.3 11.7 10.7

Prefer Specialty Stores because Have Best Brands 8.5 7.0 6.6 6.1

Do Some Sport/Exercise Once a Week 21.1 17.2 16.4 15.0Typically Avoid Watching TV Commercials 18.9 15.4 14.8 13.5

2009 Departing Passengers (in 1000's) 188.2 37.4 134.6

Within a One Day Drive of:


9/449

REPORT PRESENTATIONJune 25, 2013Phase One , CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDY

Savannah Cruise Feasibility Study

1- General Locations of Sites A, B, and C

2- General Characteristics of Sites A, B, and C

3- Site Analysis and Comparisons:Each of the three sites; A, B, and C were studied and the report presents thefindings for the following parameters for each of the sites,

SITE & INFRASTRUCTURE DATA Location

Site Acreage

Distance to Major Highway

Water and Sewer System

Electrical Service Availability

NAVIGATION & HYDROGRAPHIC INFORMATION

WATER SIDE STRUCTURES PRELIMINARY DREDGE ANALYSIS

UPLANDS NATURAL RESOURCES

MARINE BIOLOGICAL HABITATS

UNDERWATER ARCHEOLOGY

OTHER ISSUES


10/4410

Cruise Terminal Sites For Analysis

SITE A:

SILO TRACT

SITE B

POWELL DYFFRYN

TRACT

SITE C

SAVANNAH RIVER

LANDING


11/4411

Site A: Silo / Atlantic Cement Tract


12/4412

Site A: Silo / Atlantic Cement Tract


13/4413

Site B: Powell Dufferyn Tract


14/4414

Site B: Powell Dufferyn Tract


15/4415

Site C: Savannah River Landing Tract


16/4416

Site C: Savannah River Landing Tract


17/44

17

Phase I - Project Issues Access to Major Highways

Level Of Service (LOS) rankings obtained from 2004 MPC traffic congestion study.


18/44

18

Site & Infrastructure - Location

SITE A:

SILO TRACT

SITE B

POWELL DYFFRYN

TRACT

SITE C

SAVANNAH RIVER

LANDING


19/44

19

Site & Infrastructure - Acreage

A

B

C

Site Area: +/- 21.5 Acres

Site Area: +/- 14.5 Acres

Site Area: +/- 55 Acres


20/44

20

Site & Infrastructure Distance to MajorHighway

Level Of Service (LOS) rankings obtained from 2004 MPC traffic congestion study.


21/44

21

Site & Infrastructure Water & Sewer(costs associated with selected site for these improvements investigated in next phase of the study)

Site A-

Water:Existing 16 main @Hutchinson Island Rd.

Need 12 main extended 650 ft.

Sewer :

Need 6-8 main extended 650 ft.

Existing 10 main @Hutchinson Island Rd.

Site B-Water:

Existing 16 water main stubbed out at Wayne Shackleford Pkwy

Need 12 main extended 2,300 ft..

Sewer :

Existing stubbed out 8 force main at Wayne Shackleford Pkwy

Site C-Water:

Existing 12 main serving site but needs 1,000 ft extension for terminal

Sewer :

System never completed, needs completed and accepted by City


22/44

22

Site & InfrastructureElectrical Service

Site A-3 Phase - @ 25 kV available at site 12-14 kV required for cruise terminal service

Do not foresee major electrical changes needed to serve site

Site B-3 phase overhead available now at this site

System modifications/maintenance needed for service

Site C-Does not have electrical wiring on site, but private conduits

and manhole are existing at the site

GA Power indicated complex process to get power to

terminal site

Site would have largest projected cost of the 3 alternative

sites

Need electrical power study to consider alternative methods

vs. cost


23/44

23

Navigation & Hydrographic Information

Issues Applicable To All Sites- Ships greater than 800 ft turning to occur upriver at Kings Landing

For maneuvering Pilots request additional 100 ft mooring area each end of ship

Seasonality effects passage, such as in the spring when fog is common, limitvessel operations in the river. Other ports like Tampa and New Orleans havesimilar fog from time to time.

Military Outload Division (MOD) use of the Ocean Terminal facilities and theNaval Vessel Protection Zone (NVPZ) in place and enforced by the US Coast

Guard (CG) during the course of MOD operations (100 yard intercept zone / 500yard escort zone).

US Coast Guard (CG) reports that the regulations concerning LNG vessels couldcause cruise ship delay in transit due to one of these LNG vessels transiting thearea. Such operational coordination requirements common at most major ports

Site A- Currently only approx. 656 ft river frontage, (need 1,000 ft) therefore, additional

waterfront access to be acquired

Shoaling reported by Pilots in vicinity of site

Should site be selected for further consideration, the NVPZ restrictions may alsoapply while the cruise ship is docked


24/44

24

Navigation & Hydrographic InformationSite B-

Currently only approx. 602 ft river frontage, (need 1,000 ft) therefore, additional

waterfront access to be acquired Shoaling reported by Pilots in vicinity of site

Concern to the Pilots, due to the sites location within a turn in the river, there ispotential for a suction effect on vessels that are moored in this area caused bypassing vessels making the turn

Site C- Some concern of steering large vessels in vicinity of site due to curve in river

Pilots preferred site location due to less surrounding berthing facilities whicheases maneuvering


25/44

25

Water Side StructuresSite A-

Existing in-water structure consists of 4 mooring structures each spacedapproximately 125 feet apart. These structures are located approximately 50feet from the shore and are connected by supported access ways that appear to

be in good condition.

New waterside mooring/berthing structures will have to be constructed

Site B-

Existing structure consists of center berthing area with 4 mooringstructures (2 on each side)

Riparian boundary in relation to existing structures needs furtherinvestigation

Engineering analysis needed to assess potential of integration into new

cruise ship berth (new vs. modification)

Site C-

Approx 1,984 ft of bulk head and river walk Not designed to berth large vessels but may be integrated into cruise berthinfrastructure

Marine structures for berthing cruise ships needs engineering analysis

(modifications)


26/44

26

Preliminary Dredge Analysis

Site A- Approx 130 ft from Fed Channel to existing mooring structures

Approx 34,800 cubic yards of dredging may be needed to achieve 34ft draft

Prior land use assessment needed to evaluate sourcematerial/contributions regarding dredge spoils as contamination maybe an issue

Existing dredge pipeline adjacent to berth area will need to be

addressed Sediment analysis required

USCE need to approve a dredge disposal management plan

(Permit) Conditional on salt marsh impact and adequate river frontage,site has high probability of obtaining a USCE Sect 10/404 permit

Site B-

Approx 120 ft from Fed Channel to existing mooring structures Approx 24,300 cubic yards of dredging may be needed to achieve

34 ft draft Prior land use assessment needed to evaluate source

material/contributions regarding dredge spoils as contamination maybe an issue

Sediment analysis required



27/44

27

Preliminary Dredge Analysis

Site B- (Cont) (Permit) Conditional on good sediment analysis, high likelihood of

approval for initial and ongoing maintenance dredging

(Permit) Conditional on salt marsh impact and adequate riverfrontage, site has moderate probability of obtaining a USCE Sect10/404 permit

Site C- Approx 150 ft from Fed Channel to existing mooring structures

Approx 38,500 cubic yards of dredging may be needed to achieve34 ft draft

Prior USCE Sect 10/404 permit (2007) for Savannah RiverwalkExtension appears to have been issued and project extended

Prior land use assessment needed to evaluate sourcematerial/contributions regarding dredge spoils as contamination maybe an issue


Site has high probability of obtaining a USCE Sect 10/404 permit

Existing development at site likely to make terminal permitting mucheasier


28/44

28

Uplands Natural ResourcesSite A-

Site B-

Site C-

For all three (3) sites, a review of the USFWS Chatham County list

indicated that three (3) plant species as potentially occurring in

Chatham County. Potential impacts will have to be assessed during

Phase II of the study; once a survey with tree information is available,

should any of these sites be selected.


29/44

29

Marine Biological HabitatsSite A-

Site B-

Site C-

For all three (3) sites, a review of the USFWS Chatham County list

indicated that seventeen (17) animal species as potentially occurringin Chatham County. Potential impacts will be further assessed during

Phase II of the study should any of these sites be selected. Although

no listed species were observed during this study, due to the presence

of potentially suitable habitat for the federally protected species, it

cannot be guaranteed that listed species would not or could not use

this site currently or in the future.


30/44

30

Underwater ArcheologySite A-

One submerged resource (poorly preserved Twentieth Century wooden barge)located at this site

USACE, Savannah District confirmed this site is not of underwater archeological

concern

Site B- Underwater survey identified no underwater archeological resources at this site

USACE, Savannah District confirmed this site is not of underwater archeologicalconcern

Site C-USACE issued permit in 2007 for this site. Work undertaken at that time included

an archaeological survey of the in-water and land side of the property and historic

resources (boat wreckage, portion of old wharf, bricks) were encountered at this site

A Programmatic Agreement between the City of Savannah, USACE, Savannah

District and Georgia SHPO, was signed in January 2007 detailing the required

cultural resource studies for the Riverwalk project at this site

Further work on additional components of the archaeological survey may be required

in order to accommodate a Cruise Terminal development at this site (use

modification may trigger revisions)


31/44

31

Other Issues:Site A-

This site offers approximately 6 to 10 acres for potential ancillary mix-usedevelopment to serve cruise passengers and the general public; subject to local

parking requirements for the development of a cruise terminal facility.

Refueling at this site will likely result in the bunker barge potentially

extending into the federal channel.

This site is directly across Ocean Terminal site. Should this site be used for a

cruise terminal, cruise ships calling at this facility; while the Military Outload

Division (MOD) is in operation at Ocean Terminal, are subject to berthing

restrictions associated with the NVPZ 100 yard intercept zone restriction.


32/44

32

Other Issues:Site B-

This site offers approximately 4 acres for potential ancillary mix-usedevelopment to serve cruise passengers and the general public; subject to local

parking requirements for the development of a cruise terminal facility.

Refueling at this site will likely result in the bunker barge potentially

extending into the federal channel.

Should this site be used for a cruise terminal, cruise ships will use the Kings

Landing turning basin. While the MOD is in operation at Ocean Terminal,

cruise ships sailing upstream to access the Kings Landing turning basin may

be subject to transiting through the NVPZ 100 yard intercept zone and 500

yard escort zone restrictions.


33/44

33

Other Issues:

Site C- This site offers approximately 40 to 45 acres for potential ancillary mix-

use development to serve cruise passengers and the general public; subjectto local parking requirements for the development of a cruise terminal

facility.

Direct access for all bus and truck traffic may be achieved by routing such

traffic to a roadway running north to south along the east boundary of the

property to access President Street as well as Truman Parkway.

Cruise vessels refueling at this site may accommodate the bunker barge

without extending into the federal channel. This site currently has more

linear distance from the existing wharf to the federal channel; final facility

design will ultimately dictate these distances.

Should this site be used for a cruise terminal, cruise ships will use the

Kings Landing turning basin. While the MOD is in operation at Ocean

Terminal, cruise ships sailing upstream to access the Kings Landing turning

basin may be subject to transiting through the NVPZ 100 yard intercept and

500 yard escort zone restrictions.


34/44

34

SITE RANKING SCORE CARD


35/44

35

Conclusions and Recommendations

Study identifies that each of three sites have issues and concernsthat need to be addressed should it be chosen as

the preferred site by the City of Savannah to move forward to the

next pre-development/permitting stage.

None of the three sites identified a highly significant negative

factor that the team considered as a fatal flaw which would

would eliminate it from further consideration.

Analysis was limited to the critical factors identified and studied for

the alternative sites.

Site rankings were presented in a score card format for presentation

purposes. Using the method for comparing the three sites, the ranking

of the sites are:

First Place: THE SAVANNAH RIVER LANDING (SRL) TRACT

Second Place Tie: Powell Dufferyn Tract and Silo / Atlantic Cement

Tract


36/44

36

Questions & Discussion

Thank you.


37/44

37

Overview of Next Phase Two:Cruise terminal Site & Landside FacilitiesPlanning

I- Land Side Due Diligence

II- Site Analysis (including qualitative testing)

III- Conceptual Cruise Terminal/Site Plan DesignIV- Traffic Analysis

Final Report Project deliverables


38/44

38

I - Land Side Due DiligenceAssemble available information

Historical Engineering data

Available City and GIS data Zoning and development constraints


39/44

39

II - Site Analysis

Existing infrastructure

Soils

Environmental Natural Resources

Wetlands

Site Contamination

Cultural Resources Zoning & development permitting analysis


40/44

40

II - Site Analysis (Cont)Site Qualitative Analysis & Testing

USACE Wetland Delineation / Reverification plan Georgia Department of Natural Resources Marshlands

Delineation / Reverification plan Coordination meeting with USACE pertaining to the Sediment

Testing Scope of Work definition and Sampling Analysis Plan

Dredge Spoils Testing per USACE Sediment Testing Scope ofWork; includes preparation of a sampling and analysis plan,

dredge sediment and water sampling, and evaluation of dredgespoil disposal options.


41/44

41

III - Conceptual Cruise Terminal/Site Plan Design

Define programmatic elements for terminal

Develop Terminal Design Concept for each site Ingress & egress

Parking

Utility infrastructure Location of buildings, docks, and ancillary facilities

Ingress and egress for passenger cars, busses/public transit andservice vehicles

Cruise vessel docking footprint and proximity to Savannah River

channel Open space and buffers

Adjacent existing and proposed development

Preliminary probable estimate of construction cost and schedule


42/44

42

IV - Traffic Analysis

Project trips generated by terminal

Identify routes to primary highways

Access to public transit Impacts to existing roadways

Preliminary Traffic Impact Report based oninformation gathered and available from local and state

jurisdictions.

Provide Traffic Impact Analysis that includes counts atup to 4 intersections, exclusive of signal warrants ortiming analysis


43/44

43

Project Deliverables

Phase 1 & 2 Provide support documentation

needed for USACE Permit applications. The project proponent (not mentioned in RFP); will

need to also apply for and receive a Coastal MarshlandsProtection Act Permit from the State of Georgia

Department of Natural Resources Coastal ResourceDivision


44/44

Questions & Discussion

Thank you.

Documents

Savannah Cruise Ship Study