3. 3
REPORT PRESENTATION – June 25, 2013
Phase One, CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDY
Savannah Cruise Feasibility Study
I - Overview of Study:
The scope of the project methodology analyzed three sites for a
potential Cruise Terminal capable of handling in range of 2,700
passengers and docking/berthing station. . The scope of this
study evaluated environmental impacts, navigational
challenges, and compatibility with the Georgia Ports Authority
(GPA) vessel operations on the Savannah River, technical
investigations, utility/traffic coordination, site challenges,
docking requirements and identification of potential
challenges with each site. The Phase I report has taken into
consideration and evaluated the waterside / marine conditions
and general infrastructure existing at each of the three sites
and provided a tabulation of ranking ranging from Most
Desirable to Least Desirable.
4. 4
REPORT PRESENTATION – June 25, 2013
Phase One, CRUISE SHIP STAGING AREA STUDY
Savannah Cruise Feasibility Study
I - Overview of Study (Continued)-
The report has been developed on the basis of information
gathered and developed from meetings with and / or from
information 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
Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological and Historic Resources GIS.
5. 5
Cruise Vessel Development Over TimeVesselSizes
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
8. 8
Critical Demographics and Psychographics
within a One Day Drive of Savannah and
Comparables (2009)
Source: SRDS, PSI, Google Maps, MapInfo
SAV JAX CHS MOB
mil mil mil mil
Demographics (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 15.0
Typically 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. 9
REPORT PRESENTATION – June 25, 2013
Phase 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 the
findings 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. 10
Cruise Terminal Sites For Analysis
SITE A:
SILO TRACT
SITE B
POWELL DYFFRYN
TRACT
SITE C
SAVANNAH RIVER
LANDING
17. 17
Phase I - Project Issues
Access to Major Highways –
Level Of Service (LOS) rankings obtained from 2004 MPC traffic congestion study.
18. 18
Site & Infrastructure - Location
SITE A:
SILO TRACT
SITE B
POWELL DYFFRYN
TRACT
SITE C
SAVANNAH RIVER
LANDING
19. 19
Site & Infrastructure - Acreage
A
B
C
Site Area: +/- 21.5 Acres
Site Area: +/- 14.5 Acres
Site Area: +/- 55 Acres
20. 20
Site & Infrastructure – Distance to Major
Highway
Level Of Service (LOS) rankings obtained from 2004 MPC traffic congestion study.
21. 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. 22
Site & Infrastructure – Electrical 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. 23
Navigation & Hydrographic Information
Issues Applicable To All Sites-
Ships greater than 800 ft turning to occur upriver at King’s 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, limit
vessel operations in the river. Other ports like Tampa and New Orleans have
similar fog from time to time.
Military Outload Division (MOD) use of the Ocean Terminal facilities and the
Naval Vessel Protection Zone (NVPZ) in place and enforced by the US Coast
Guard (CG) during the course of MOD operations (100 yard intercept zone / 500
yard escort zone).
US Coast Guard (CG) reports that the regulations concerning LNG vessels could
cause cruise ship delay in transit due to one of these LNG vessels transiting the
area. 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 also
apply while the cruise ship is docked
24. 24
Navigation & Hydrographic Information
Site 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 site’s location within a turn in the river, there is
potential for a “suction” effect on vessels that are moored in this area caused by
passing 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 which
eases maneuvering
25. 25
Water Side Structures
Site A-
• Existing in-water structure consists of 4 mooring structures each spaced
approximately 125 feet apart. These structures are located approximately 50
feet 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 mooring
structures (2 on each side)
• Riparian boundary in relation to existing structures needs further
investigation
• 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 berth
infrastructure
• Marine structures for berthing cruise ships needs engineering analysis
(modifications)
26. 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 34
ft draft
Prior land use assessment needed to evaluate source
material/contributions regarding dredge spoils as contamination may
be 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 may
be an issue
Sediment analysis required
USCE need to approve a dredge disposal management plan
27. 27
Preliminary Dredge Analysis
Site B- (Con’t)
(Permit) Conditional on good sediment analysis, high likelihood of
approval for initial and ongoing maintenance dredging
(Permit) Conditional on salt marsh impact and adequate river
frontage, site has moderate probability of obtaining a USCE Sect
10/404 permit
Site C-
Approx 150 ft from Fed Channel to existing mooring structures
Approx 38,500 cubic yards of dredging may be needed to achieve
34 ft draft
Prior USCE Sect 10/404 permit (2007) for Savannah Riverwalk
Extension appears to have been issued and project extended
Prior land use assessment needed to evaluate source
material/contributions regarding dredge spoils as contamination may
be an issue
USCE need to approve a dredge disposal management plan
Site has high probability of obtaining a USCE Sect 10/404 permit
Existing development at site likely to make terminal permitting much
easier
28. 28
Uplands Natural Resources
Site 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. 29
Marine Biological Habitats
Site 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 occurring
in 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. 30
Underwater Archeology
Site 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 archeological
concern
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. 31
Other Issues:
Site A-
• This site offers approximately 6 to 10 acres for potential ancillary mix-use
development 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. 32
Other Issues:
Site B-
• This site offers approximately 4 acres for potential ancillary mix-use
development 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 King’s
Landing turning basin. While the MOD is in operation at Ocean Terminal,
cruise ships sailing upstream to access the King’s Landing turning basin may
be subject to transiting through the NVPZ 100 yard intercept zone and 500
yard escort zone restrictions.
33. 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; subject
to 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
King’s Landing turning basin. While the MOD is in operation at Ocean
Terminal, cruise ships sailing upstream to access the King’s Landing turning
basin may be subject to transiting through the NVPZ 100 yard intercept and
500 yard escort zone restrictions.
35. 35
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Study identifies that each of three sites have issues and concerns
that 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
37. 37
Overview of Next Phase Two:
Cruise terminal Site & Landside Facilities
Planning
I- Land Side Due Diligence
II- Site Analysis (including qualitative testing)
III- Conceptual Cruise Terminal/Site Plan Design
IV- Traffic Analysis
Final Report – Project deliverables
38. 38
I - Land Side Due Diligence
Assemble available information
Historical Engineering data
Available City and GIS data
Zoning and development constraints
39. 39
II - Site Analysis
Existing infrastructure
Soils
Environmental
Natural Resources
Wetlands
Site Contamination
Cultural Resources
Zoning & development permitting analysis
40. 40
II - Site Analysis (Con’t)
Site Qualitative Analysis & Testing
USACE Wetland Delineation / Re‐verification plan
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Marshlands
Delineation / Re‐verification 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 of
Work; includes preparation of a sampling and analysis plan,
dredge sediment and water sampling, and evaluation of dredge
spoil disposal options.
41. 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 and
service 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. 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 on
information gathered and available from local and state
jurisdictions.
Provide Traffic Impact Analysis that includes counts at
up to 4 intersections, exclusive of signal warrants or
timing analysis
43. 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 Marshlands
Protection Act Permit from the State of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources – Coastal Resource
Division
