[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
.1 I I VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1 I CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN AND RESOURCE DATA .I I DECEMBER 1984 I I Cr COASTAL 'ZO"E INFORMATION C IENE.. I -j I HT 395 .V5 M37 t 1 984 c.2 ey, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. RING * PLANNING * ARCHITECTURE W.F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MASTER PLAN AND RESOURCE DATA CROWN BAY PORT AREA Prepared for Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Commerce December 1984 U. S. DEPARTMENT OR COMMERCE NCA, COASTAL SERVICES CENIER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON .VENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13 Prepared by W. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING P.C. St. Thomas, Virgin Islands POST, BUCKLEY SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. Consulting Engineers, Architects and Planners 6850 Bird Road Miami, Florida 33155 N The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant as provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I, 1- . -Z i"-F VW G 200-243.00 Property of CSC Library Table of Contents Section Title Page Table of Contents ii List of Drawings iv List of Figures v List of Tables vi Introduction and Conclusions 1.1 Project Description 1-1 1.2 Description of Project Area 1-2 1.3 Conclusions 1-4 2 Status and Trends 2.1 Summary of Previous Port-Related Studies 2-1 2.2 Private Sector Outlook 2-3 2.3 Socio-Economic Trends 2-5 2.4 Income Generation 2-14 3 Master Plan Elements 3.1 Cruise Industry 3-1 3.2 Shipping and Cargo Operations 3-18 3.3 Fuel Bunkering 3-24 3.4 Small Boat Industry/Marina Requirements 3-28 3.5 Hotel Industry 3-42 3.6 Cancryn School 3-47 3.7 Environmental Concerns 3-51 4 Existing Crown Bay Area 4.1 Zoning 4-1 4.2 Property Management 4-1 4.3 Lease Data 4-4 4.4 Land Use 4-7 4.5 Road System 4-7 4.6 Utilities 4-9 4.7 Drainage 4-9 i i I Table of Contents Title Master Plan 5.1 Planning Considerations 5.2 General Description 5.3 Road System 5.4 Pedestrian System 5.5 Cruise Port 5.6 Cargo Port I Sectio n 5 Pag e I 5-1 5-2 5-5 5-10 5-10 5-13 I I I I 6 Recommendations 6.1 Implementation Strategies 6.2 Employment Generation 6.3 Goal Achievement 6-1 6-3 6-6 I I Addendum 1 Addendum 2 Addendum 3 Addendum 4 Addendum 5 Addendum 6 Cruise Line Interviews Cruise Line Routings Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Parts 154 to 156 Federal Register, Reception Facilities Proposed Rulemaking Schedule of Land Use Descriptions References I I I I I H- 14/bb I I I I ii i I List of Drawings Drawing Title Page 001 Project Area 1-3 002 Zoning 4-2 003 Property Management 4-3 004 Lease Data 4-5 005 Lease Data 4-6 006 Area Utilities 4- 10 007 Road Improvements Cruise Port Area 5-7 008 Road Improvements Cargo Port Area 5-8 010 Cruise Port & Marina Area 5- 12 Master Plan - Alternate B 011 Cargo Port Master Plan 5-14 H-14/tt i v List of Figures Figure Title Page 2-1 Percent Distribution of NonAgricultural 2-7 Employment By Industry (V.I. 1975 and 1982) 2-2 V.I. Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment 2-8 1978-1982 2-3 V.I. Employment and Related Indicators 2-9 2-4 Services Employment V.I., 1975-1982 2- 10 2-5 Construction Employment, V.I., 1975-1982 2- 12 2-6 Retail Trade Employment, V.I., 1975-1982 2- 13 2-7 V.I. Government Distribution of Sources of Income (1981) 2-15 3-1 Strength of Dollar 3-2 3-2 Caribbean Cruise Tourist Arrivals 3-4 3-3 Cruise Passengers, St. Thomas/Cruise Ship Calls 3-6 To St. Thomas 3-4 St. Thomas Cruise Passengers, 1950-1984 3-7 3-5 Schematic Master Plan for Crown Bay 3- 13 3-6 St. Thomas Vessel Cargo, 1978 to 1983/St. Thomas 3- 20 Cruise Passengers, 1978 to 1983 3-7 Vessel Cargo Growth Forecast 3- 23 3-8 Small Boat Facility Suitability Assessment 3- 43 3-9 Hotel Suitability Assessment 3- 46 3-10 School Relocation Sites 3-48 5-1 Land Use Compatibility Matrix 5-3 6-1 Goal Achievement Matrix 6-7 H-14/dd v List of Tables Table Title Page 2-1 Tourist Territorial Indicators 2-16 2-2 Distribution of Tourist (Stayover) Arrivals In 2-18 The Caribbean 2-3 Gross Expenditures From Tourism in 1979 2-19 2-4 New Hotels 2-20 2-5 Construction Industries 2-22 2-6 Distribution of Retail Trade - 1982 2-24 3-1 Top Ten Caribbean Countries in Cruise Passenger Arrivals 3-3 3-2 Vessels Visiting St. Thomas 3-9 3-3 St. Thomas Cruise Vessel Statistics 3-10 3-4 Tonnage 3-22 3-5 Bare-boats 3-31 3-6 Proposed Marina Projects 3-35 6-1 Job Opportunity Estimates 6-4 H- 14/ee v i Section I INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Virgin Island Department of Commerce retained the services of McComb Engineering, Inc. and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. to study the Crown Bay drea, including the Sub-Bdse. The purpose of the study is to develop a master plan to guide the ared'S growth in dn orderly manner, beneficial to both residents and local businessmen. This growth area is being stimulated by the Virgin Island Port Authority (V.I.P.A.) through the development of a new Cruise Terminal dnd expansion of the Cargo Port ared. The influx of tourist and expanded commercial activities will impact the ared's roads, services, and existing business facilities. The primary goal of the master plan is to provide for the balanced use of island resources and infrdStructure so as to better the socio-economic position of the island's inhabitdnts. In so doing, the plan: o Recognizes the island's long-term demands for growth o Recognizes the site's unique setting in relation to the harbor dnd the town o Provides the maximum degree of flexibility to enable the pldn to adapt to changes in use and in technology o Provides the maximum level of diversity and linkage to existing economic components o OfferS dn optimum return on investment in the short- and long- term, measured dgainst additioncil employment opportunities and economic benefits o Harmonizes with the existing natural and man-made elements in the area with a minimal degree of adverse impacts. Conversely, the plan discourages development that: o Could be detrimentdl to the long-term growth of the island 1- 1 I o Is not site-dependent o Could be impacted significantly by rapid economic or technological change o Has narrow economic linkage to the iSland's established infrastructure o Sacrifices long-term economic adVdntages through expedient short- term gains o Is not compatible with the site's natural systems and existing uses. I I I I The secondary goal of the plan is to encourage the maximum degree of private investment and participation by planning facilities that: o Encourage private initiative and investment o Complement existing and planned facilities operated elsewhere by private enterprise. Two reports have been prepared. The main report, the "Master Plan and Resource Data," reflects the full scope of the study, and contains much of the analysis and data used therein. The second, the "Master Plan Executive Summary," contains only a synopsis of the study, and relies on the main report as a resource document for reference. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The Crown Bay Port area is shown in Drawing 001. It measures approximately 48 acres and includes the areas known as Crown Bay and Sub-Base. The area is bounded: o On the north by Veterans Drive o On the south by the bay, including new land created by the V.I.P.A. o On the east by Careen Hill o On the west by the base of Haypiece Hill. 1-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- mo 10o 0 ao o I .-///m- PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I ....O '� ........ COWN BAY AREA ON sI I ... ....... I I001. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. W. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. CROWN BAY AREA , i 001 .._.... ._ ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PROJECT AREA 2, I - o DEC.o1984 CIVIL & ENVIONMENTAL1 ENGIER1N i i_ 5_ �'"' I ..'r . . . . l:;,0 ... ...- 1.3 CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of the Master Plan conclusions, which are described in greater detail in subsequent sections of this document. o Tourism is now, and will continue to be, a major factor in the island's economy. As such, development in the Crown Bay area should enhance, contribute to and coordinate with the Virgin Island Port Authority's (V.I.P.A.) newly constructed Cruise Port, due to be operdtional in 1985. o Local business is optimistic about future growth, with many individuals having needs and plans for expansion. Their needs, in terms of area required to expand, are recognized in the Master Plan. o Forecasts of cruise vessel calls and passenger visits indicate that at least three berths will be required for cruise vessels, with one of the berths being utilized as a possible cruise vessel home- port berth. o Home-porting of small cruise vessels is now a fact; home- porting of a major cruise line vessel is feasible. The Master Plan includes provision for a home-port berth which will accommodate both large and small vessels. o The availability of bunkering will be beneficial in promoting such home-porting dnd in continuing to mdke St. Thomas an attractive port-of-call. o General cargo in containers in St. Thomas is increasing substantially and could require dS MUCh ds 20 additiondl dcres of land by the year 2000. The planned expansion of the Cargo Port allocdtes as much area as possible to fulfill this requirement in phases. The post-1990 expansion assumes acquisition of the Cancryn School property. 1- 4 o The Master Plan recommends relocating the Cancryn School to better allocate this valuable port area for port use and to provide aI safer, more convenient school. o The Master Plan expands the cargo wharf to include a roll-on/roll- off (RO/RO) berth to better serve container handling and to act as a breakwater for the marina. o The Master Plan includes area for a 100-boat marina to supplement the cruise port, providing revenue and employment for the island ds well as an attraction for visitors. o The Master Plan recommends that area be allocated for theE construction of a hotel, contiguous to the marina. o Three phases of road improvementS dre required to sustain the incredsed traffic that will result from the area's expansion. H- 14/cc Section 2 STATUS AND TRENDS I ~2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS PORT-RELATED STUDIES I ~The Caribbean Cruise Industry Study, completed in June 1983, places St. Thomas in the enviable position of being the best liked "country" by 36 percent of cruise tourists (vs. 15 percent for the nearest runner up, Jamaica). Thirty-eight percent of the cruise tourists indicated that St. Thomas would be their first choice of return (vs. 20 percent for Jamaica). I ~Of the 21 major cruise lines plying the Caribbean, 17 utilize St. Thomas as a reguldr port of call. 3 ~Cruise tourists perceive the following as needing attention: 3 o~~ Taxi and mini-bus fares should be discounted for groups rather than on a per-person basis. o Welcoming activities and in-town shopping are either non- existent or too limited on weekends and holidays. o Cultural attractions as well as beach trips are needed, rather than just shopping. 3 ~Overall, 79 percent of visiting cruise tourists consider themselves satisfied to very satisfied with St. Thomas. The Virgin Islands Trade Study, an economic analysis completed in 1979, I ~indicates that earnings amassed from the tourist industry greatly offset the trade deficit that results from the importation of conSUMdbles. The leading I ~import to the Virgin Islands from the U.S. is food, while exports to the mdinldnd are limited but quite substantial in vdlue. The latter, of course, refer to petroleum and alumina exports from St. Croix which have little direct I ~beneficial impact on St. Thomds but do incredse Government revenues generally. 2- 1 Freight rates play an important role in the basic cost of food; as much as 161 percent of the retail price is attributable to freight cost. Rates are substantially lower for direct shipments from the Mdinldnd than for trans- shipments through Puerto Rico. A 1979 survey of local entrepreneurs indicated serious concern over the level of ocean freight charges. One of the major fdctors contributing to the high level of ocean shipping costs is the absence3 of backhaul cargo. The Arthur D. Little, Inc. report of June 1980 addressed the "Financial Feasibility of New Terminal Facilities at Crown Bay." Based on V.I.P.A. plans at that time, the report concluded the following: since major cruise ship operators indicated that they would continue to call at St. Thomas, in spite of the lack of adequate docking facilities, and since insufficient revenue could be generdted to support the planned expansion, the V.I.P.A. should consider incredSing fees and consider design alternatives to the studied plan. This report is somewhat substantiated by the 1983 Caribbean Cruise Industry Study in that St. Thomas remains the most popular tourist port of call,3 despite the ldCk Of ddditional cruise berthing facilities; however, the A.D. Little report does not address the subjective issue of the sensitivity of3 cruise lines to tourists' complaints or conversely to tourists' satisfaction. The 1983 Crown Bay Master Plan, issued by the V.I.P.A., utilizes as a basis the 1980 Arthur 0. Little, Inc. report, the 1976 Kuljian Corporation report on Terminal Expansion, the 1980 Corps of Engineers report on channel improvement,I and the 1980 Caribtec Laboratories Environmental Assessment Report. The 1983 Master Plan changes and improves upon the 1975 V.I.P.A. plans, and provides3 for d phdSed construction program which results in two deep water cruise ship berths, one multi-use berth, a marina area dnd over 20 acres of new land3 credted from dredge Mdterial. In summary, previous reports and studies substantiate each other on the following points:3 2-21 o The economy of the Virgin Islands in general and St. Thomas in particular, is seriously dependent on the tourist industry and, by implication, those factors thaf affect the industry. o St. Thomas is, at the present time, the most popular tourist port of Cdll in the Caribbean. o To Mdintdin, incredse, dnd solidify this position, it is self- evident that St. Thomas must sustain and further develop the infrastructure upon which the tourist industry is built. 2.2 PRIVATE SECTOR OUTLOOK 2.2.1 Airlines Three major airlines at present serve St. Thomas directly, with scheduled flightS out Of MiaMi dnd New York. This service is augmented by charter flights, many of which originate in Texas. Together these services deliver 50 percent of the stay-over visitors to St. Thomas. The baldnce of St. Thomas visitors arrive Vid San JUdn, which is able to access a far gredter number of points of origin. To complete these trips, about eight compdnies provide a large number of small "commuter" flights from San Juan to St. Thomas. This method of redChing St. Thomas is less popular because of the delays and congestion at San Juan, dnd endemic problems with baggage. It is usual for cruise liners to work closely with airlines to secure a proportion of their seats for cruise ship home-ports. At present, the volume of air trdffiC into St. Thomas by major Cdrriers does not permit this arrangement, and chartering flights to serve ldrge home-porting vessels would be necessary. Chartering would not be a popular arrangement with the cruise lines and, even when the new runway is completed (possibly in 1988), the volume of scheduled flights might not be great enough to permit the peak flows of passengers to be brought to large home-porting ships. 2-3 2.2.2 Cruise Lines Cruise lines generally plan their schedules on a one-yedr firm basis, allowing themselves the flexibility of long-term schedule Chdnges that are in tune with tourist requirements. At this time, the cruise industry is optimistic dbout the 1985-1986 outlook and expects steddily increasing tourist trdde. A number of operators are bringing new vessels on line, some of which are destined to make St. Thomas a regular port of call.3 Cruise lines are flexible in their long-range plans. A number of lines have expressed interest in home-porting in St. Thomas (see Section 3.1).I 2.2.3 Commercial Outlook3 Interviews with port users indicate a positive outlook. All foresee a 3 continuation of gradUdl economic growth, and most entrepreneurs have plans for expansion to meet this growth. The following concerns were voiced, all of whiCh dre pertinent in the development of a long-rdnge master plan: o Warehouse availability in the Crown Bay drea is inadequate. If it I were available, it could be utilized. o Cruise lines have indicated a positive response to possible fuel bunkering in St. Thomas.3 o The possibility of Free Trade Zone status should be explored.3 o Puerto Rico has become the trdnsshipment center of the Caribbean. Adequate berthing and storage facilities in St. Thomas could mean I greater cargo throughput and possible development of St. Thomas as a major trdnsshipment port, reducing dependency on Puerto Rico as a3 primary source of cargo, with a corresponding reduction in shipping costs. The expected growth of cargo is projected and analyzed in3 detail in Section 3.2. 2-43 o St. Thomas has an added attraction to shippers, as the work force is not unionized. o The road system servicing the Crown Bay area is adequate now, but could be a major bottle neck to further development of the area. The area should include dedicated port roads. o Development of the Sub-Base area as a cruise-tourist-related area is seen as beneficial to the general economy. o Recredtional and charter boating requirements could be accommodated in the Crown Bay area, as these activities not only complement the cruise line activities, but provide d valuable service to residents, and a good return on investment. 2.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDS This section identifies the parameters which influence the economy of the Virgin Islands and which appear pertinent to the future development within the Crown Bay area. It does not present a definitive socio-economic model on which to base quantifiable estimates of land use demands or future income generation, but rather provides a background to the proposals which will be Mdde later in the study. Explored are the germane issues which have been identified by the large volume of previous analyses undertaken in the field, largely by the Policy Planning and Resedrch Office of the Virgin Islands Department of Commerce, as well as independent work which is referenced when used. Each of the sub- sections is derived from reference data, which should be referred to for more detailed information. Two dominant issues are explored: those of employment opportunity and those of income generation, for if Crown Bay is to play a positive role in the island's economic life, it must act as a catalyst in these fields. 2- 5 2.3.1 Human Resources Whereas population growth provides the most basic socio-economic indicator, the Virgin Islands iS SO SMdll a unit relative to the U.S. as a whole that no clear inferences can be drawn from past trends or realistic predictions made of future growth. What can be stated is that the Virgin ISlands has always been subject to significant population changes largely dictated by outside influences. As long as it remains a component of the "open" national economy, it will continue to experience "booms" dnd slacks, with the continental job market acting as both a cushion and a sponge. Figure 2-1 shows the trends in employment distribution in the Virgin Islands, indiCdting that only SMdll changes have occurred between 1975 and 1982. Total employment in 1983 of 35,000 jobs was 900 jobs fewer than in 1980 when unemployment stood dt 9 percent, yet the rate of unemployment in 1983 was only3 8.3 percent (see Figure 2-2). This shrinkage must be accounted for by a high rate of outmigration, without which the Virgin ISlands could have experienced a far greater level of economic hardship. This flow is complemented by a counterf low of tourist industry workers drawn to the islands during the winter season when employment peaks. Figure 2-3 lists the local trends in employment since 1975, together withI sundry related indicators. Each of these catagories of employment is explored in the following summation. 2.3.2 Hotels dnd Services Figure 2-4 shows the trend in employment in hotels and lodging houses.3 Although the industry is seasonal in nature, its lack of real growth is obvious. December 1983 levels were equivalent to those recorded in 1976-77, seven years ago. Since 1980, 500 workers have left the industry to find employment in other fields or other regions. These workers represent about one-fifth of the work force employed in the industrY dt present.I 2-6I I PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY. V.I. 1975 Wholesale Finance .I-l.. runs nv"rR.. r ITUITAL EMPLUYMENTI 33,07 0 Government Manufacturing Construction a .n z >- 0 k! G d .2 co .9 I -j m m E C. A I r- CL 0 C.. CE 0 cn G UX PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, V.I. 1982 Wholesale Finance TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 36,490 Manufacturing Construction FIGURE 2-1 n I I V.I. LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT 1978 - 1982 . II. j IA S . 0 i I I S O A I Fi I I A S O I 1 S O * I S O l9lfl 1t1 e lO a t o l 1912 SOU RCE: T.ble I and V.I. Deprtment of Labor's Bure of Labo" Statistics, Research and ANalySi EMPLOYMENT, V.I. LABOR FORCE, UNEMPLOYMENT 1978-1982 I FIGURE 2-2 � - - - -I - - - - - m m m I I / I I I II V.I. EMPLOYMENT AND RELATED INDICATORS Catagory x Thousands EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY SUNDRY ~I YEAR O. .j I C- CL(- Lnl -T-M c-t* (0(D - D C - rD ~= m ::-- ' m -- --h . -- ). ct- -J� -~ ' -I~ rt~ 0s~ ' U)(D -- L`. m O D YEAR = o- - = -_.+ to to n =1 CD, ~~ ~ -.~- mO C-- --h . CD- 0 0 0 ~ ~C.+ 1975 33.1 4.5 0.26 0.13 5.5 3.2 2.1 28.2 4.5 325 455 451 1976 31.3 2.8 0.22 0.14 5.6 3.4 2.3 30.7 4.4 340 468 488 1977 32.2 2.5 0.19 0.17 5.8 4.0 2.5 43.2 4.7 379 524 515 1978 33.8 2.4 0.29 6.2 4.2 2.8 41.3 4.8 427 591 548 1979 36.1 2.8 .0.19 0.27' 6.6, 4.5 3.1 73.1 4.8 448 619 603 1980 37.3 3.5 0.2 0.24 6.6 4.6 3.0 103.1 4.7 380 525 691 1981 37.6 3.3 0.2 0.30 6.7 4.4 2.9 62.7 4.8 343 475 695 1982 36.3 3.5 0.44 6.3 4.4 2.7 58.4 4.5 340 470 586 633 1983 ( 35.7 (- 2.4 0.15 0.19 6.4. 4.1 2.6 69.4 4 346 48 6 I rn a m m , w SOURCES: V.I. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Research and Analysis. V.I. Department of Commerce - Office of Policy & Planning. I m h ik - a a - a 2 - a - a a a a o - a - C a a a C a -J - 0 - C a - a a 2 C - a 0 a -J .4 C a 0 a a a 2 - a C 0. - a 0 a - N - = - 0 cn I- 0 CL Lu U' LU 0 CR 4 r LU m J.- U o -. V; UJ L U2 m Lgn 0" C- V'. SERVICES EMPLOYMENT V.I., 1975-1982 I FIGURE 2-4 B M k I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Figure 2-3 indicates a strong link between the number of hotel rooms and the number of persons employed in the industry, demonstrating that more hotel rooms mean more direct and indirect jobs. What is more, the hotel and service industry brings in more income to the Virgin Islands than any other. 2.3.3 Construction Worldwide, the construction industry always experiences severe strains during and following cycles of booms and the Virgin Islands is no exception. Figure 2-5, which shows the historic pattern of employment within the construction industry over the last 10 yedrs, indicates that there is no stable trend in employment numbers over this period and that there has been a net loss of 3,000 workers from the industry. One thousand of these workers moved to the ranks of the jobless, or to other occupations during the last 2 years only. The building industry represents 7 percent of the total employment, even in today's deflated Mdrket, and is one whose products encourage investment in the island. 2.3.4 Transportation Figure 2-3 indicates that this segment of the industry, while contributing only I percent of the jobs in the Virgin Islands, is a stable one, with the real numbers of employees in neither the trucking and warehousing nor the water transport sections varying significantly over the 9-year period studied. 2.3.5 Retail Figure 2-1 shows the importance of the retail trade as a provider of job opportunities, and dlso the redsonable long-term stability in the industry over the period listed; however, Figure 2-6 indicates the seasonal instability that exists in employment in the retail trade because of the local economy's dependence on the tourist trade. In 1983, retail trdde provided 18 percent 2- 11 I 0 0 ik i I I 3 a - 9 a - - @4 4.41 = 04 - - m - = * 49 *04 (9 w * - 9, 49 - - U) - @4 b. U- _ 49 0 0.4 9 0 -I 0 = * 04 94 _- E - 0. - 94 0 - LU 9 LI - 0 U) La, r-. 0 -l 0 CL 0 Ca 1 _ m L 4* 4,4 44 N Nx CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT, V.I., 1975-1982 I FIGURE 2-5 a 0 0 I t r z 0 1-- I .I I I .I I 3E - n r =l m mo C 2- C a, :! - !! w - a .0 LU Ca 1-- LLJ 0 -j. a- LU LU cc cc. -I !7; cc ot Lq r- IL O LR Ln RETAIL TRADE EMPLOYMENT, V.1.9 1975-1982 I FIGURE 2-6 n of the total employment, second only to government. During the last 4 years, retrenchment during the off-season averaged 12 percent of the work force in the retail industry or 2 percent of the total work force. 2.4 INCOME GENERATION While the sources of government revenue are not the most dominant issue in identifying the economic health of the Virgin Islands, they are a useful indicator. Figure 2-7 shows the proportions of the various elements which contribute to government revenue. This diagram was prepared to reflect the 1981 position; but when earlier statistics were analyzed, it was found that the proportions have not varied significantly over the last 8 years. An inspection of this diagram reveals how fragile the present balance is, with 17 percent of the revenue being funded from rum excise taxes collected in the United States and returned to the Virgin Islands. The largest contributor, one which is far more Stdble, is the individual income tax, bringing in 41 percent of the revenue. Corporate income tax is third, with 12 percent. The following subsections quantify the contribution of the four components of the economy which influence the Crown Bay development. 2.4.1 Hotels and Tourism (excluding the charter boat industry) As the main source of revenue produced in the Virgin Islands (particularly on St. Thomas 'and St. John), tourism has been well researched and considerable knowledge exists as to its scale and contribution to the local economy. The industry is a primary and vital component of everyday life. Twenty- eight percent of the total employment on the island, and no less than 45 percent of all government jobs are supported by tourism. In 1983, St. Thomas residents each benefited by a tourist income of $3,084, exceeding all other islands in the Caribbean. (The per capita income for the Virgin Islands in 1982 was $7,078.) (1) (I)Caribbean Tourism Research and Development Center 2- 14 - m -mm m -- - m - m m m m m - m C I O C D m C'D M CD CD iC, Cm C- D CD -3 q V.I. Gov't. Distribution of Income 0 0 m M o z m w L0 INDIV. INCOME 3% CUSTOMS RUM EXCISE OTHER GROSS RECEIPTS -n C ai m -J CORP. INCOME I Table 2-1 indicates that annual tourist expenditures appear to have doubled in eight years although the number of hotel rooms has not increased. Occupancy rates are not significantly different, and yet the number of tourists has incredsed by 6 percent; however, during 1976 to 1981, the consumer price index increased by 9.5 percent annually, whereas tourist expenditures increased by 9.9 percent. The conclusion which can be drdwn from these statistics is that, by and large, the hotel industry has been stagnant during this period. (For comparison, the operating budget of the Virgin Islands has been increasing at a faster rate than these percentages.) Table 2-2 shows the distribution of tourist destindtions in the Caribbean over the 1970 to 1983 period. A number of pointts emerge from an inspection of this table. First, between 1980 and 1983, there has been a degree of stability, rather than growth, within the market area, both in terms of the distribution of tourists between destindtion and in the volumes themselves. Second, there is an almost quantum jump down from dominant destinations such as Puerto Rico dnd Bahamas, with Jamaica (ranked third in 1983) capturing only 47 percent of the tourists going to the Bahamas. Third, and more important with regard to the Virgin Isldnds' tourist industry, a I percent shift in Cdribbean tourists to (or from) the Virgin Islands represents 70,000 persons, or a 20 percent incredse (or decredse) in locdl (1983) tourist numbe rs. The market i s thus vast, and is also not finite, as it has nearly doubled in the 1970 to 1983 period. To "fill" the 1,661 new hotel rooms now planned for St. Thomas, a 1�2 percent shift in destinations would be required, or a real growth within the Caribbedn of 2 million tourist arrivals annually, if the Virgin Islands retains its 5 percent share of the existing market. This latter scenario is less likely to occur within the period needed to build these new rooms(l). (1)Pobicki (Tourism in the U.S. Virgin Islands, September 1983) indicated thdt 1,000 new rooms could be required by 1995 to meet the demand projected from existing trend data; however, the nine companies planning the above- mentioned eXpdnsions (which would result in d total Cdpitdl investment of $200 million) must have confidence thdt the new airport plans will be instrumental in bringing about the favordble conditions needed to attract these new visitors to the Virgin Islands. 2- 16 Table 2-1 TOURIST TERRITORIAL INDICATORS (All numbers listed in thousands except dollars) 197 5 325 455 451 4.5 52 126 1976 340 468 488 4.4 48 139 197 7 379 524 515 4.7 62 161 1978 427 591 548 4.8 74 196 197 9 448 619 603 4.8 75 230 1980 380 525 691 4.7 64 222 1981 343 475 695 4.8 57 226 1982 340 470 586 4.5 58 231 1983 346 478 633 4.4 60 245 Tourists Visitors Air Arrivals Cruises (Excursionists) Hotel Rooms Occupancy % Tourist Expenditures $ (Millions) Excursionist Expenditures $ (Millions) 40 43 49 54 69 82 92 80 89 Sources: V.I. Labour Market Reviews and Office of Policy and Planning, D.O.C. H-14/mm - - - - mmm mm mm - m m m mm - Table 2-2 DISTRIBUTION OF TOURIST (STAYOVER) ARRIVALS IN THE CARIBBEAN(a) 1970 R # A in % N 1000's K 1 1088 26 2 891 21 3 372 9 5 303 7 4 309 7 6 156 4 10 100 2 13 63 1 959 23 4241 100 1980 R # A in % N 1000's K 1 1627 23 2 1181 16 5 380 4 3 492 7 4 395 5 6 370 5 9 222 3 8 301 4 2266 32 7234 100 1981 R # A in % N 1000's K 1 1573 23 2 1031 15 6 344 5 3 430 6 4 406 6 5 353 5 9 228 3 7 340 5 2228 32 6933 100 1982 R # A in % N 1000's K 1 1564 21 2 1101 15 6 340 5 4 420 6 3 467 7 7 304 4 8 258 4 5 341 5 2355 33 7150 100 1983 R # A in % N 1000's K 1 1530 21 2 1200 16 5 350 5 4 447 6 3 566 7 7 328 4 9 308 4 6 340 5 DESTINATION PUERTO RICO BAHAMAS USVI BERMUDA JAMAICA BARBADOS ST. MAARTEN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC OTHERS TOTAL 2270 7339 32 100 (a)"Tourist" is defined as a person staying at least one night ashore. Source: Caribbean Tourism Research and Development Centre - June 1984 H-14/nn Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show the gross expenditure from tourism in 1979 and the new hotel construction planned for St. Thomas, respectively. I ~2.4.2 Construction I ~Table 2-5 reflects the numbers of workers in the industry since 1975, together with the value of building permits issued. A regression analysis undertaken * ~to test the correlation of these two indexes shows that there is no clear linkage between them, allowing the conclusion to be drawn that the value of permits does not reflect the amount of actual construction being undertaken, and that an unknown number of permits are not acted on through lack of funds * ~or other reasons. It is also clear from this table that the industry, though unstable in terms of employment, iS d valuable component of the Virgin Islands' productive capacity and plays an important role in attracting outside capital to the I ~islands. Available statistics do not permit a separation of investment being made in domestic and tourist structures. U ~2.4.3 Transportation I ~The contribution made to the Virgin Islands' economy by transportation employment is small but vital; however, the income generated does not reflect I ~the real income accrued as a result of "foreign" fares, duties, taxes, dockage and capital investment in the industry. Pobicki found that stay-over tourists I ~spent $2.8 million per annum on tours in 1981, and $8.2 million on rental Cdrs(l). (By comparison, they spent $25 million on restaurant meals.) Cruise I ~liner visitors spent an estimated $1.7 million on taxis during 1981, bringing the annual average "foreign" income for the industry to $12.7 million. (W). MI. Pobicki, Tourism in the United States Virgin Islands, Office of Planning and Research, Virgin Islands Department of Commerce, May 1984. 2- 19 Table 2-3 GROSS EXPENDITURES FROM TOURISM IN 1981 TOTAL (U.S. $ million) 112 27 6 5 4 OVERNIGHTER Per Visit Gross Average (U.S. $ (U.S. $) million) 359 112 74 23 20 6 15 5 1- DAY Daily Average (U.S. 6) 6 VISITOR Gross (U.S. $ million) 4 I tem Hotel Meals I Nightclubs Inter-island transport I Sport activities & rental Taxis, tours & I rental cars Liquor I Duty-free & gifts Other 12 4 10 5 32 7 8 23 55 6 16 38 16 21 70 7 32 17 105 23 204 92 64 268 TOTAL 657 Source: Pobicki, Tourism in the United States Virgin Islands, May 1984 H-14/oo Table 2- 4 NEW HOTELS PROPOSED # NEW ROOMS (1st Phase) 270 100 60 164 385 310 191 149 32 1,661 LOCATION Pineapple Water Island Morningstar Green Cay Sapphire Beach Smith Bay Emerald Beach (Lindbergh Bay) Benner Cove Pelican Beach Total OPERATOR Owners Frenchman's Reef Not Confirmed Not Known Possibly Hyatt Carib Beach Not Known Owners STATUS Started 6/84 - To open 5/85 Opening 11/84 Construction started CZM and zoning approvals secured. Decision to proceed pending. CZM application approved CZM application approved CZM application being considered CZM application being considered Preliminary UDAG application Source: McComb Engineering, 1984 H- 14/ss Table 2-5 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 1979 2.8 11.9 33.6 73.1 80.8 60.9 1980 3.5 14.1 49.7 103.1 97.8 92.0 1.4 1981 3.5 15.4 54.2 62.7 99.1 98.1 6.5 198 2 3.3 16. 9 1983 2.4 1975 1976 1977 4.5 2.8 2.5 ~-- -- 10.4 1978 2.4 9.9 23.8 41.3 63.1 47.7 Employ (Thous.) Aver. Wage (Annual) (Thous. $) Tot. Annual Wage Inc. (Mill $) Bldg. Permits (Mill $) Av. Price-House (Thous.) Av. Price-Condo (Thous.) Increase in Real Prop Tax 55.7 58.4 26 43.2 51.3 51.2 28.2 42.2 47.0 30.7 47.3 44.2 -- +3.1 4.0 -1.7 +3.0 Source: V.I. Department of Commerce Office of Policy and Planning H-14/pp 2.4.4 RetailI Tdble 2-6 lists the distribution of retail outlets in the Virgin Islands and Chdrlotte AMdlie. For the Virgin IslandS dS a whole, the annual sales from food and drink and tourist-oriented outlets represented 63 percent of the total of $489 million in 1982, whereas the pdyroll in these industries made up 48 percent of the total $57.9 million. Chdrlotte Amalie accounts for 45 percent of the retail sales in the Virgin Islands, and 64 percent of tourist- oriented retail trade, indiCdting its dominance as the retail center in the Virgin Islands. H-14/ff 2- 23 Table 2-6 DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL TRADE - 1982 ANNUAL SALES & RECEIPTS NO. OF STORES ($1,000) TYPE OF RETAIL STORE Virqin Islands Building Mat. & Hardware Food Auto Eat & Drink Tourist Other Total ANNUAL PAYROLL ($1,000) 26,512 9,504 6,111 8,377 19,422 12,169 57,875 1,191 164 10 5 295 317 276 1,191 489,223 129,754 74,344 42,164 148,40 0 76,213 489,223 Charlotte Amalie Building Materials & Hardware Food Auto Eat & Drink Tourist Other Total 5 41 18 96 158 122 440 45,254 14,485 14,241 109,228 219,801 3,31 8 1,18 8 2,876 13,392 26,512 26,51 2 Source: 1982 Economic Censuses of Outlying Areas, U.S. Department of Commerce. H- 14/qq Section 3 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS 3.1 CRUISE INDUSTRY 3.1 Cruise Passenciers The cruise lines have a positive and generally optimistic outlook concerning the future growth of the industry. Interviews (see Addendum 1) confirm this. Overall growth of the industry does not, however, necessarily mean sustained and rapid growth for St. Thomas. The strong position of the U.S. dollar in regard to European currency (see Figure 3-1) has made cruises to Europe attractive and impacts upon the number of Caribbean cruise tourists. Table 3-1 lists the top ten Caribbean countries, in terms of cruise passenger arrivals, spanning the last seven years. Figure 3-2 focuses on the changing position of the Virgin Islands within the top five countries. From this information, it becomes apparent that the strong efforts of the Bahamas to attract cruise tourists has paid off. From third place in 1978, they have overtaken the Virgin Islands in 1981/1982 and now hold a solid first place position. Their growth over the seven-year period was approximately 100 percent. Virgin Islands growth over the same period was approximately 18 percent, declining from first place in 1978 to second place by 1984. Puerto Rico showed d negative growth of 8 percent, declining from second place in 1978 to third place by 1984; however, in the next few years, Puerto Rico will become a strong rival for second place, having recently completed a new cruise terminal and other major port improvements directed to the cruise trade. Additionally, Federal legislation revising the Jones Act permits foreign flag vessels to Sdil between Puerto Rico and other U.S. ports, a status previously enjoyed by the Virgin Islands only. It is estimated that this change could increase cruise visitors to Puerto Rico by 81,000 passengers per year. A further impact on Virgin Islands cruise passengers is posed by recent U.S. Customs Service proposals to amend the regulations governing the 3- i -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - m - Strengthened dollar spurs vacation exodus to Europe Hria.,t Ltal ond w.n- reporL NEW YORK - When Barbara Rittenherg went to Europe 27 years ago, she hitchhiked through Scandinavia and traveled the Continent on a third-class Eurail pass. Then 20. Rittenberg spent nights in hostels and inexpensive hotels. Her daily diet was mostly bread and cheese. This month Rittenberg. a housewife married to a successful psychiatrist. will go to Europe in different style. She and her husband plan to spend two weeks climbing mountains in Switzerland. with a luxury hotel near St. Moritz as home hase. And this time, she said. "We'll take the bread and cheese on our hikes." The Rittenbergs are among millions of Ameri- :ans traveling overseas this summer. staging an exodus of unprecedented proportions and living ii up a bit thanks to an extraordinarily strong U.S dollar. Europe is particularly popular. The European Travel Commission. made up of 23 Western European tourist boards. is making what it calls a "conservative" estimate that 5.5 million Ameri- cans will travel to Europe this year - 15 percent more than last year's record rate of 4.8 million. Simple economics has played a key role in the travel boom. The American dollar is up. air fares are down, and the U.S. recovery is strong. A dramatic improvement in the U.S economy has put overseas vacations within reach of many people who for years have put travel plans on hold. Meantime, the dollar has nearly doubled ,i- value agairst the French franc and British pound in the last four and a half years. and had appreciated by about 65 percent against the German mark since 1979. On Thursday. however. the dollar retreated broadly on international exchanges. T he ntew report on the lowered money supply and consequent expectation of lower interest ratis spawned the retreat. Iate dollar rates in New York on Thursdav were' 2 8805 West German marks, down from 2.9042; 242 10 Japanese yen. down from 2413.52; 2.4240 Swiss francs, down froin 24480; 1 3068 Canadian dollars, unchanged; 8.8575 French francs. down from 8.9190. Yet with the dollar hovering around historical highs, an air-fare war on transatlantic routes has produced incredible bargains. with round-trip tickets hetween New York and London going for as low as $318 on People's Express. Although farei ar-' not that low out of Miami, British Airway s reported average passenger loads of 85 percent last week "Sales in the Americas are 25 percent ahead of last year'" .aid British Airways spokesman John l.ampl lHe .aid the carrier'.s Boeing 747s had 362 Please turn to DOLLAR/5E traveled within this country." said a upokrrsman for the U.S. Travel Service, which promotes foreign travel into this country. "Europe was considered too glamorous. something the middle-income American family would never consider. Now some overseas des- tinatinns are cheaper than some domestic travel. Furope has he- come affordable and rPalistic." lHe said 281,289 passport, were issued through Mavy. the latest month for whi h figur-'s were availahle According to the I.S. Consular Service. which Issues passports. applications have soared since March and the agency now ex- pects to issue 4.7 million passports this vear. after a record 4.1 million last year In Miami. the number of paUs- ports issued between Octohber and May was up 16.9 percent over the same period in the government's fiscal year 1983. By comparison. the number of foreigners coming to the l'n'led States has leveled off. with an expected 3 percent increase over last year for a total of 25 million persons, according to the US Travel and Tourism Administra- tion. They spent an estimated $1:18 billion Travel abroad has been so heavv that some Americans may he forced to put off their plans until 1985. Tours offered bv American Fxpress are almost sold out according to, Ballou DOLLAR/from IE of 385 seats filled Iast Saturday. with 358 filled last Friday. The lower prices have not come because the airlines are suffering. American Airlines, which operated one flight a day between Dallas and London last summer. has nearly doubled its number of flights this year "to take advan- tage of the strong bookings." Planes are flying more than n0 percent full British Airwavy' ad- vanri' bookilgs are up by 21; percent and Air France's. b 2?.1 percent. Trans World Airlines expects its transatlantic traffic to grow by at least 15 percent for all if this iear 'In past years. many American, mm I mm m / / I m / m i - - m-m / / Table 3-1 TOP TEN CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES IN CRUISE PASSENGER ARRIVALS Rankin g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1978 U.S. V.I. Puerto Rico Bahamas Haiti Curacao Dom. Rep. Jamaica Martinique Bermuda Barbados 1979 U.S. V.I. Puerto Rico Bahamas Dom. Rep. Martinique Curacao Haiti Jamaica Bermuda Grenada 1980 U.S. V.I. Bahamas Puerto Rico Martinique Dom. Rep. Curacao Haiti Barbados Grenada Jamaica 1981 U.S. V.I. .Bahamas Puerto Rico Martinique Dom. Rep. Jamaica Barbados Curacao Antigua St. Maarten 1982 Bahamas U.S. V.I. Puerto Rico Jamaica Martinique Caymen Isl. Dom. Rep. Bermuda Curacao Barbados 1983 Bahamas U.S. V.I. Puerto Rico Jamaica Cayman Isl. Martinique n/a n/a n/a n/a 1984 Estimated Bahamas U.S. V.I. Puerto Rico Jamaica Caymen Isl. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Reference: Caribbean Tourism Research and Development Centre H- 14/KK 900 800 700 600 U.S.V.I. ' 500 PUERTO RICO BAHAMAS 400 300 200 JAMAICA 4 100 CAYMAN ISLANDS* CZ U) C1 wZ n o rI Z: 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 CARIBBEAN CRUISE TOURIST ARRIVALS I I FIGURE 3-2 REF. CARIBBEAN TOURISM RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER I transportation Of passengers on foreign flag vessels between U.S. ports. Over 90 percent of all cruise vessels sdil under foreign flag and are now limited to less than 24-hour stays at U.S. ports when their initial embdrkation point was another U.S. port. The exception to this is the Virgin Islands. The concern of Customs is that ports in Alaska, Florida, Puerto Rico, and California are at d disadvantdge in competing with foreign ports for cruise ship business. Complacency could permit a decline from the second place position that the Virgin Islands holds. The ndture of the development of the St. Thomas, Crown Bay Cruise Port will be a key element in strengthening and securing its present advantage. Figure 3-3 indicates increasing numbers of St. Thomas cruise passengers from 1978 to 1981. Reflecting the U.S. economy, passengers declined from 645,000 in 1981 to 579,000 in 1982(1) and picked up only slightly to 593,000 in 1983. The U.S. economy showed d strong upsurge in 1983 and has sustained itself through 1984. This improvement would imply an upsurge in 1984 cruise passengers to St. Thomas, yet an estimate of total 1984 passengers indicates that passengers will not exceed 605,000. This disparity could be explained as a local impact of the strong dollar abrodd. The growth rate from 1978 to 1984 is approximately I percent per year. The strong dollar impact will pass; however, the 1 percent growth rate must be recognized as a pertinent factor in growth forecasting, especially for land use and port planning. Figure 3-4 displays cruise pdssengers to St. Thomas from 1950 to 1983. Also shown is the Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1980 forecast growth from 1980 through 1984. Little forecasts 800,000 passengers in 1984, as compared with an estimated figure of approximately 605,000. Facilities planned for the Crown Bay area should recognize that forecasts of 1.5 million cruise passengers by the year 1999 are somewhat optimistic. The rapid growth rate from 1950 through 1980 could now be peaking and a slower, more conservative growth starting. For planning purposes, a I percent growth rate indicates 730,000 cruise passengers by the year 2000, based on 1980 figures. (1) Virgin Islands Port Authority. 3- 5 I I I I I I I I I I I 650,000 645.787 I o LU I I. I I I I I 600,000 U, z W 550,000 0. 598,377 593.024 579.338 I 517.000 I I I I I I I 1I 1984 amrX r.- s 1-- I I I I I tn I I II 500,000 1978 1979 1980 1981 CRUISE PASSENGERS, ST. THOMAS REF. V.I. PORT AUTHORITY 1982 1983 850 804 800 790 754 750 742 716 700 650 600 672 I---I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 CRUISE SHIP CALLS TO ST. THOMAS REF. V.I. PORT AUTHORITY FIGURE 3-3 I I I 800 ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. PROJECTED GROWTH REF. 1980 REPORT 700 600 500 C, wS ( z 4 00 Un F- a: - PORT AUTHORITY 300 2.00 _ I I I A.I 4 I 9 I W Dw (0 0 0 r- ,R- - - - ox al aC YEARS ST. THOMAS CRUISE PASSENGERS 1950 - 1984 FIGURE 3-4 St. Thomas Sdw 645,000 passengers in 1981 and under the I percent growth dSSUMPtion, will not see thdt number dgain until 1988. It would be erroneous to conclude that 1981 facilities should, therefore, be adequate until 1988. St. ThomdS iS dn attrdCtiVe port of call, not only because its facilitieS dre "adequate," but also because they are subStdntially better than other iSlands. This position is constdntly being challenged by major upgrading of cruise facilities in other port of calls such aS Sdn Juan and Curacao. To maintain its preferred status and foster a sustained growth, St. Thomas must now prepare for the increase in cruise tourists, no matter what the growth rdte is. 3.1.2 Cruise Vessels Figure 3-3 indicated the number of cruise vessel calls to St. Thomas. The numbers hdve declined, from 804 in 1980 to approximately 665 in 1984, dn 18 percent decredSe. During the same period, passengers decredsed by only 7 percent. Cruise lines have modified many of their vessels, and haVe ddded more passenger-efficient vessels to their fleets. The average number of passengers per vessel has irncredsed from 722 in 1978 to over 800 in 1984, indicating that fewer vessel calls Will maintdin the same passenger count. As an example, the 1980 vessel count WdS 804, With dn dverage of 704 passengers per vessel. If the averdge number of pdSsengers per vessel Wds 800 (as in 1984), the vessel count would have been 748, or 7 percent less. 3.1.3 Cruise Line Data Tdble 3-2 shows vessels visiting St. Thomas, while Table 3-3 SUMMdrizes St. Thomas cruise vessel statistics. 3.1.4 Conclusions Assuming an average of 800 passengers per vessel, and using a I percent pdssenger growth rdte, based on the 1980 V.I.P.A. count, the foreCdSt number of passengers and vessel calls would be: 3- 8 Table 3-2 VESSELS VISITING ST. THOMAS Passenger Capacity 950 1,148 906 1,022 1,800 Cruise Line Carnival Vessel TSS Carnival TSS Festivale TSS Mardi Gras MS Tropicale Holiday (new) Chandris, Inc. SS Amerikanis SS Britanis SS Victoria 650 1,200 500 Commodore MS Boheme MS Caribe 500 1,200 Clippe r Costa Newport Clipper MS Carla C MTS Oanae MTS Daphne MS Renaissance TS Federico C TS Enrico C QE 2 Countess 100 748 465 503 528 700 420 Cunard 1,815 750 1,111 713 717 1,069 1,035 725 Holland American SS Rotterdam SS Veendam SS Volendam Noordam (new) SS Atlantic SS Oceanic SS Doric Home Lines Norwegian American Cruises MS Sagafjord MS Vistafjord 500 700 Norwegian Caribbean Lines Paquet French Cruises Princess Cruises SS Norway MS Skyward MS Southward MS Starward MS Sunward, II SS Dolphin MS Mermoz Rhapsody Island Princess Sun Princess 2,000 724 730 740 690 565 550 800 600 700 Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Royal Cruise Line Royal Viking Line Sitmar Cruises Nordic Prince Song of Norway Sun Viking MS Song of America Golden Odyssey Royal Odyssey Royal Viking Star Royal Viking Sky TSS Fairsea TSS Fairwind 1,038 1,040 728 1,414 460 806 534 535 925 925 H-14/LL Table 3- 3 ST. THOMAS CRUISE VESSEL STATISTICS Total Passenqer s (1) WICO Passenger s (2) N/A 406,720 427,930 394,910 438,234 Tota l Call s (U) Docked @ WICO(a) (-2) 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 75 4 80 4 79 0 74 2 67 2 546 607 613 56 8 554 541,80 9 598,37 7 645,78 7 579,33 8 593,02 4 (a) Vessels at anchor, rather than berthed at West Indian Company docks, were due to vessel draft or full WICO occupancy, and numbered from 100 to 200 per year. References: (1) V.I.P.A. (2) WICO H- 14/QQ Passengers (thousand s) Year 198 6 198 8 199 0 199 2 199 4 199 6 199 8 2000 Vessel s 793 809 826 842 859 876 894 912 634. 8 647. 5 660. 6 673. 8 687. 4 701. 1 715. 3 729. 6 Based on historical data from the West Indies Company (WICO), WICO accommodates approximately 75 percent of vessel calls, when the total calls are in the 800 per year range. Assuming maximum WICO peak berthing is approximately 620 vessels per year, then the potential annual impact on the Crown Bay area and the new cruise berth would be: Crown Bay Passengers (thousands ) 158.4 161.6 164.8 177.6 191.2 204.8 219.2 233.6 Total Vessel Calls 793 809 826 842 859 876 894 912 WICO Berthe d 595 607 620 620 620 620 620 620 Crown Bay Berthed 198 202 206 222 239 256 274 292 Yea r 198 6 198 8 199 0 199 2 199 4 199 6 199 8 200 0 These estimates are based on the following assumptions: o Majority of vessels arriving on Wednesday and Thursday o All vessels not berthed by WICO would utilize Crown Bay berths o WICO does not add new berths. For land use and planning purposes, it can be concluded that cruise vessel calls in the Crown Bay facility will approximate 300 vessels per year by the year 2000 and the area will see over 200,000 cruise passengers per year. Using the WICO docks as a guide (in 1983, WICO handled 483,000 passengers), the Crown Bay Cruise Port area should incorporate adequate facilities including: 3- 11 o Shops o Restaurants o Access to the marina o Access to the Water Island Ferry.I The V.I.P.A. master plan (see Figure 3-5) designates commercidl tourist- related areas that are substantially lesser in extent than WICO's similar facilities. The validity of the plan is substantiated by the forecast numbers of cruise tourists who will use the area (approximately 200,000 by the year 2000). To supplement the V.I.P.A. plan, a promenade should be extended to the planned marind facility so that tourist and local populations will have pleasant access to existing and future restaurants and shops. The V.I.P.A. plan includes two dedicated cruise berths and one additional berth which could be used to berth cruise vessels. The practical mdximum5 berth utilization for the three berths is 226 berthings per year, based on the following assumptions: o One-third of cruises are year-round3 o Two-thirds of cruises occur in 7112 of the year o Cruise visits occur two days per week. Two hundred twenty-six berthings per year is a conservative number. If cruise visits occurred 3 ddYS per week, then the practiCdl MdXimum berth utilization would incredse to 339. This figure is based on berth utilization, adjusted for Seasonality, aS follows:3 3 x365 x 1/3 x 12112 = 3653 3 x365 x2/3 x 7112 = 426 TOTAL =7913 Maximum utilization of 2 days/week: 217 x 791 = 226 Maximum utilization of 3 days/week: 3/7 x 791 = 3393 3-121 m m m m - m m m m m m - m m m m m m i_ . .. ...Y 4 ;_ e i I I"-4.... _ w, , 0 A 1 V.I. PORT AUTH0RIfl Legend t Friry OmR 2. C rnmeruilia Area I. Commercial Paikin 4, Termilnal Buildini 5. Taxi Parking 6. Promenade 7 Ship Docding Area 5, Warehotsinog 9~ WAPA Parkm 51 q 4 A/ 411 y<v t8 ) SC31','1H E MATrI C MASTER PLAN FOR CROWN :BA Y St thonslfoma WSW&r~ 21 The variance in berth utilization indicates the sensitivity of these numbers and also indicates that the V.I.P.A. plan is capable of handling the forecast berthings of 292 vessels by the year 2000. 3.1.5 Crown Bay Home-port Potential Home-porting of a vessel provides a strong uplift to the local economy. Port Candveral, Florida became the home-port for the Premier Cruise Lines vessel, the Star/Ship Royale. The port estimated the impact to the local economy to be in the $12 million a year range and expects a $500,000 yearly increase in revenue for dockage, wharfage, and other related services. While these numbers are somewhat optimistic, they do indicate the order of magnitude of the home-port impact and the basic reason for its importance. 3.1.5.1 Infrastructure The potential for home-porting is dependent on the infrastructure which supports it and makes it economically viable. The bdSic elements of the infrdStructure dre: o Air capacity o Utility avdildbility o Bunkering. 3.1.5.2 Air Capacity A key element in home-porting is the air connection link by which the tourist is brought to the home-port. For mini-cruise operators, the existing airport and airline service are sufficient to supply the 100 to 200 pdSsengers thdt they accommodate. The existing airport is substandard and, until the runwdY is extended (scheduled for 1988 completion), the airport cannot effectively accommodate larger, more fuel efficient jets. Eastern Airlines has plans to provide direct service from Atlanta and New York once the airport is complete. This sort of service will help provide the impetus that the large cruise lines require before they would consider home-porting in St. Thomas (see Addendum 3- 14 1, Cruise Line Interviews). The key, therefore, to consideration of home- porting by cruise lines is completion of the airport, and an adequate volumeI of scheduled flights from varied origins. Since plans for such completion are slated for 1988, air service and dir capacity can be considered as beingI possible in the near future. 3.1.5.3 Utility Availability Utilities are a key element of the infrastructure requirements for home- porting. The availability of the basic utilities at Crown Bay is as follows: o Water Supply - Three new desalinization plants are in operation and producing 3.75 million gallons per day. An additional capacity of 1.65 million gallons is now planned. Water supply, assuming adequate pipe mains, should prove to be no problem in the3 development of Crown Bay; however, the cost of water is of prime importance to the cruise line. o Power - Electricity is readily available; however, it is expensive3 and periodic outages make the vital service a restraint to development. Both the entrepreneur and the light industrialist cannot accept interruptions of the lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, etc. Such disruption reduces profitability of any service or business. The physical supply of power is not a problemI due to the proximity of Crown Bay to the power plant and main power lines; however, a reliable power source is required to maintdin the refrigerated storage necessdry in a home-port operdtion. o Wastewater - Sanitary sewage from the area is municipally treated and bdSiCallY poses no problem to home-port operations. 3.1.5.4 FuelingI The ability to bunker a home-ported vessel is of gredt adVdntage to a cruise line. Since St. Thomas will shortly offer such services, this factor becomes 3-15I positive. The cost of fueling, however, must be less expensive then other sources and at ledst as reliable. Cruise lines are good customers and, when the service is available, it becomes possible for contracts to be drdwn which are advantdgeous to dll parties. Bunkering is discussed in detail in Section 3.3. 3.1.5.5 Ports of Call from St. Thomas Addendum 2 contains diagrams showing the various Caribbean cruise routings. It can be seen that St. Thomas is a natural location for one-week eastern cruises, one-week western cruises, two-week eastern/western cruises and numerous two- and three-day cruise potentials. One of the major considerations for cruise company route pldnning is fuel/cost efficiency. Routing from St. Thomas is within accepted standards and additionally could offer Miami as an overnight port Of Cdll on longer cruises. 3.1.5.6 Support Services The basic support services required for a home-port operation are crew accommodations and provisioning. The cruise ship is bdSiCdlly a floating hotel and extensive outside accommodations are not required. Analysis of hotels indicates a surplus of generally aVdilable rooms. These rooms would be sufficient to accommodate the transient requirement involved, but most of the existing accommodations are either unattractive or inconvenient to Crown Bay. A new hotel in the area would be a decided advantage for home-porting. Of highest concern to d cruise line is the cost of provisioning. These costs fall into three categories: o Marine (engine dnd deck) o Cdtering (food and beverage) o SteWdrd services (hotel and housekeeping). The lines have a preference for using many suppliers and undoubtedly a certain amount of goods would be purchased locally; however, it may also be 3- 16 assumed that the majority of provisions required would be shipped to St. Thomas from the cruise line's distribution agents. Shipping costs and the desirability of regular and direct services from the U.S. as well as the requirement for warehouse area and container storage area are important home- port f actors. The cruise lines themselves generally do not own or maintain warehouses, but rely on a constdnt feed from their suppliers. Trop icalI Shipping, Inc. has indicated an interest in providing such a service on the new Idnd being made available in Phase 2A. The cost of provision will be a major consideration in determining the economic feasibility of home-porting a major cruise line vessel. Since direct I and regular service is now available from U.S. ports to St. Thomas, provisioning is feasible. 3.1.5.7 Home-porting Conclusions Home-porting of a major cruise line vessel depends on: o Completion of the airport expansion and the adequacy of them resulting scheduled flights o Reasonable cost of water o Relidble power supplyI o Reasonable cost of bunkering o Availability of attractive ports of call from St. Thomas o Availability of accommodations o Cost-effective provisioning. Of these seven items, all can be considered positive reasons for home-porting mini-cruise ships. For these larger vessels, provisioning will remain an important factor, which will be of primary concern to the cruise lines. Larger ships accommodating 500 plus passengers will need an expanded, scheduled air service to make home-porting in St. Thomas feasible.I Thus berthing for a home-port vessel should be a consideration for future3 expansion potential. The vessel should be in proximity to the new cruise 3-17I facilities. The impact will be d reduction in berthing potential of visiting cruise vessels as well dS cargo vessels, unless space dllocation is initially designed for this element. 3.2 SHIPPING AND CARGO OPERATIONS 3.2.1 Cargo Projections Cargo coming through the Virgin Islands is reported to U.S. Customs by the shipping dgent; U.S. Customs reports those ddta to the V.I.P.A. for the determindtion of fees; and V.I.P.A. uses the figures received as the basis of statistical data for its annual report. Additionally, U.S. Customs forwards data to the U.S. DePdrtment of Commerce, Office of Statistics, Census Division, which prepares an annUdl report of Virgin Island shipments from the United States. The report does not break down the shipments by island and, additiondlly, reports numbers substantially greater than those reported by V.I.P.A. The 1983 Commerce Report indicates shipments of 901,165 tons from the U.S. alone. V.I.P.A. reports 593,536 tons of U.S. and foreign cargo in 1983. For planning purposes for the Crown Bay area, neither source can be accepted as the sole source to eStdblish a trend. V.I.P.A. numbers alone would produce a low projection dnd Commerce numbers alone would produce drtificially high throughput projections. A realistic projection of cargo is required to produce the basis for land use in the Crown Bay area. Therefore, the following fdctors are addressed to establish such projection: o Cdrgo due to cruise pdssengers o Cdrgo due to island use o Contdiner throughput. 3.2.1.1 Cargo Vs. Cruise PdSsengers It has been established that the St. Thomas economy is tied to tourism in 3- 18 general, which is cyclic in nature and based on the U.S. economy. Analysis of V.I.P.A. figures from 1978 through 1983 substantiates this. Figure 3-6 illustrates that the annual vessel cargo growth over the five year period was 3.4 percent, closely tracking cruise passenger growth, over the same period, I which was 2.7 percent. This relationship implies that cargo throughput will grow in relation to cruise passenger growth and substantially at the same I rate, since both are based on the U.S. economy. For planning purposes, Section 3.1 establishes a passenger growth rate of I percent per year. Therefore, it could be assumed that cargo growth due to passenger growth will be no less thanlIpercent per year. 3.2.1.2 Local Cargo Determination of exactly how much cargo throughput is required locally and independent of tourism is beyond the scope of this study; however, it would be simplistic to assume that the I percent growth tied to tourism includes all local use. "Local" use, defined as internal St. Thomas consumption, new 3 construction and transshipment, is a factor that should be applied in addition to tourist-related growth. 3.2.1.3 Container Throughput Approximately 70 percent of cargo throughput is containerized and includes tourism-related, local use, and transshipment cargo. Tropical Shipping is the I major handler of containerized cargo in St. Thomas, handling approximately 75 percent of the container throughput. In 1983, Tropical throughput was 18,767 I TEU (total equivalent unit) of 281,500 tons. 1984 throughput will be 28,008 TEU at 420,120 tons. Tropical is now using St. Thomas as a transshipment 3 point, by-passing Puerto Rico, and plans to expand this vital function, forecasting a doubling of throughput within five years. Use of St. Thomas as a transshipment terminal for Caribbean cargo is a major factor which will increase total port throughput, independent of tourist- I related factors. As such, container traffic can be used as a basic yardstick to forecast cargo growth, since it includes all factors, i.e.: 3-19I I 400 350 300 250 (n z 0 in 0 z 4 .1 cn D 0 :r 200 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR ST. THOMAS VESSEL CARGO, 1978 to 1983 REF. VIPA -C- n, li Z z (n 0 a 0 700- 650- 600- 550- uD w r In C o tD CD U�~~~, ~~u, c- '-6 YR. ANNUAL GROW T H 2.7% 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR ST. THOMAS CRUISE PASSENGERS, 1978 to 1983 REF. VIPA REF. VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY FIGURE 3-6 o Tourist-related cargo o Internal consumption o New construction o Trdnsshipment. 3.2.2 Cargo Throughput Forecast The factors used for the forecast are based on 1983 cargo throughput, dS reported by Tropical Shipping, and the following dSSUMptions: o Tropical's container throughput is 75 percent of total contdiner throughput. o Total container throughput is 70 percent of total VeSSel Cdrgo throughput. o Tropical's container movements will double in five to six years and will thereafter level at approximately I percent per year growth. o Container throughput other than Tropical will grow at I percent per year from 1983 on. o Cargo other thdn contdinerized (general, break-bulk, and neo-bulk cargo) will grow at I percent per year from 1983 on. Vessel cargo forecasts based on these assumptions are shown in Table 3- 4. Figure 3-7 depicts the forecdSt ddta and indicates an average annual growth of 2.7 percent to the year 2000. 3.2.3 Impact on Crown Bay The major impact on the Crown Bay area will be the amouint of upldnd ared, contiguous to the berth area, that will be required to sustain container operations. The 1990 forecast of containerized cargo is 730,000 tons or 48,667 TEU (based on 15 tons per TEU). The land area required can be defined as follows: 3- 21 Table 3-4 TONNAGE (in thousand tons) Tropical Containers 281.5 420.1 465.0 510.0 540.0 570.0 600.0 630.0 645.0 660.0 675.0 690.0 705.0 Other Containers 93.8 94.7 95.7 96.6 97.7 98.8 99.6 100.6 102.6 104.6 106.7 108.9 111.0 Other Carg o 160.9 162.5 164.1 165.7 167.4 169.1 170.8 172.5 179.5 179.5 183.1 186.8 190.5 Total Throughput 536.2 674.8 724.8 772.3 805.0 837.7 870.4 903.1 923.5 944.1 964.8 985.7 1006.5 Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 H-14/ii m-- - -- r -r - - -- - VESSEL CARGO GROWTH FORECAST I I0 0 10 00 _ 900 - U) z 0 0 z 41 U) 0 I- Soo - 700 - 600 _ '1 m Ca) .44 500 - I I I I 916 918 2000 o? 02 4 84 86 88B go 92 94 YEAR o Storage required = 6 percent of annual TEU (3 weeks/TEU) o Area required, based on ribbon pattern, 2 wide, 2 tier, using side lodder equipment is 200 square feet/TEU On this basis, land area for storage is: Acres, storage = .06 (48,667) 200 = 13.4 acres 43,560 Receiving shed ared can be defined as 10 square feet/36 annual tons or (730,000/36)10 =4.6 acres 43,560 Therefore, the total upland area for containerized cargo by the year 1990 should be dpproximately 18 dcres (for comparison, Tropical Shipping now has 5.5 acres for upland use). By the year 2000, the area requirement for container use will expand to only 20 acres, due to a peaking of cargo throughput. Recommendations, based on the foregoing, are that the Master Plan for the Crown Bay Area attempt to allocate approximately 20 dcres dedicated to contdiner cargo. 3.3 FUEL BUNKERING The dbility Of d port to offer bunkering (fueling) services makes the port more attractive to vessel operations. Generally, the port itself neither does the bunkering nor owns the equipment involved. The port gathers revenue from the operation by: o A tdriff based on barrels of oil loaded o Wharfage fees for vessels, berthing for bunker only o Land leases and dockage fees from the bunkering operator. 3- 24 Bunkering of vessels takes place from a barge, a truck or a fixed pipeline f rom d berth f ace. Barge bunkering allows greater flexibility in operation since the vessel to be fueled need not be berthed, but may be fueled while at anchor. The disadvantage of barge bunkering is that it is weather sensitive I and could be environmentally more dangerous than fixed pipe systems. The advantage of barge bunkering to St. Thomas is that barge operations are policed by the U.S. Coast Guard. This policing forces mandatory controls on a bunkering operation which will provide environmental safety measures. A 3 land-based operation, with its incipient spills, requires policing and control by the local municipality. Bunkering by barge is, therefore, advantageous to St. Thomas and as such is recommended. The average vessel calling at St. Thomas will require 3,000 to 4,000 barrelsI of fuel and will take two to three hours for the bunkering operation. Direct revenue to various ports as a bunkering charge varies from $0.00 to $0.04 per barrel. The ports discussed below are, at present, major suppliers in the region. 3.3.1 Port of Miami The majority of bunkering at the Port of Miami is carried out by barge at aI rate exceeding 22 million barrels per year. The fuel supplied is generally a blend of diesel oil dnd bunker. Storage is Idnd based in tanks. Fuel barge filling is via pipeline to the barge. Fueling of vessels is via hose connections from the barge to the vessel. f Environmental control is in dccordance with EPA regulations which require that floating booms, oil recovery equipment, and materials be "readily available." The U.S. Coast Guard reports that the Port of Miami has not evidenced problems, even though most bunkering is from barges. The Coast Guard attributes this to the fact that operations are carried out by experts usingI good equipment. 3-25 3.3.2 Part Everqlddes The majority of bunkering at Port Everglades is carried out at the berth through loading armS dnd hoses, at a rate exceeding 1.2 million barrels per year. Storage of fuel is in land-based tank farms which also serve as distribution centers for locdl users. Environmental control is by berth- containment areas which direct spills to oily waste sumps. The Coast Guard reports thdt no significant problems with fueling operationS dt Port Everglades. 3.3.3 Port of Curacao The Port of Curacao has eleven piers that are equipped to provide bunkers. The approxiMdte export of oil as bunker is 4 million barrels per year. Vessels calling exclusively for bunkers, provided they do not discharge and/or load more than two tons of cargo, land and/or embark more than five passengers, hdVe free wharfdage. 3.3.4 St. Thomas When the groundwork was being laid for this study, no bunkering service existed in St. Thomas. This position, however, was changed when application was made to V.I.P.A. to provide such a service edrly in 1984. Three companies eventually applied for the concession; two were aWdrded d concession in August and, later, Industrial Development Commission Program benefits. In essence, each concession will benefit the V.I.P.A. through the payment Of d $500 per annum franchise fee, standdrd pilotage, and dockage fees, and a fuel flow fee based on the tonnage of fuel sold in the hdrbor. Both companies intend using barges. One will use a new 2,158-ton bdrge making weekly trips from St. Eustatia. This barge could service 12 cruise ships per trip, and would be tendered by a 1,500-horsepower tug, which would move it dlongside the ship to be bunkered, either dt the quay or at anchor. The barge would be anchored out in a suitable location while not involved in bunkering. 3- 26 The barge will contdin 1,000 feet of spill boom and the tug will be equipped with oil skimmers as well as oil disperSdnts and fire-fighting foam. The second company intends to run two smdller barges from the Hess refinery in St. Croix, basing these barges at the old Shell Depot in Krum Bay. To date, neither company has started operating. 3.3.5 Environmental Concerns Federal regulations do not require the placement of floating booms during a bunkering operation; however, many operators, particularly in the northeastern I U.S., Tmake this a stainddrd procedure. The U.S. Coast Guard at San Juan, Puerto Rico, will issue a letter of adequacy to the St. Thomas bunkeringI operator after they review his equipment and operating manual. Anything that is stated in the manual will thereafter be enforcedble by the Coast Guard. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33 (see Addendum 3) covers the requirements the bunkering operator must meet. The pertinent sections are: o 154 -Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations for Mdrine Oil Transfer Facilities o 155 - Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations for Vessels.I o 156 - Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations for Oil Transfer Operations Involving Vessels. Land-based stordge of fuels is basically safer than barge storage. From an environmental Stdndpoint, however, enforcement of pollution prevention Medsures is more stringent under Section 155 of CR 33. Barge storage, therefore, is a viable method, yet concern should be shown as to where such a barge should be moored. Krum Bay forms the intake for the power plant cooling water dnd the desdlinization plant supply. A major oil spill could do I substantial damage, should wind and wave conditions Cdrry the spilled oil to the intake (see Section 3.7).3 Based on the foregoing, the following recommenddtions are made: 3-27I o During the oil transfer operations, a floating boom should be deployed. o During mooring of an oil barge, a floating boom should be deployed to contain incipient as well as catastrophic spills. o Under storm-warning conditions, appropriate steps should be taken to move an oil-laden barge out of the harbor. 3.3.6 Related Issue of Waste Oil Reception The U.S. Coast Guard will in the nedr future be required to enforce regulations implementing the reception facility requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78). (l) MARPOL 73/78 requires that all ports, as defined in the Federal Register, provide for the reception of oil waste from all vessels. Should the port not comply, then the U.S. CodSt Guard can deny entry to the harbor of any vessel covered. Practically all vessels are covered, including cruise ships. It is not necessary that the port itself operate such reception facilities, but such service must be provided by someone responsible to the port. It is, therefore, recommended that this issue be explored in dn attempt to link the reception facility with the bunkering operation. 3.4 SMALL BOAT INDUSTRY/MARINA REQUIREMENTS 3.4.1 Charter Bodt Industry The embryo of a pleasure-boating center already exists in the project area (at Shoreline Marine), and the necessary preconditions for the establishment of a larger-scale undertaking are present. The following brief study was undertaken to assess the market. Little documentation has been recorded of the scale and depth of the charter boat industry in the Virgin Islands. The Carder study of 1980 i s now considered dated, and the following summary has been based on what datd could MlAddendum 4, Federal Register, Proposed Rulemaking for Reception Facilities. 3- 28 be gleaned by interviews with ledding locdl companies in the field.(l) It must thus not be accepted as d definitiVe dndlysis of the industry, which is both COMPleX dnd diffused, and requires a far greater depth of study than is either possible or valid for the purposes of this report. The sections whichI follow can only identify the general trends and scale of the industry. 3.4.1.1 Crewed Boats These are usually chdrtered for a week, dnd come fully provisioned with a two or three-person crew, who provide personalized service to the guests3 (numbering four to six) during the cruise which generally encompasses the British Virgin Islands.3 About 255 such boats are chdrtered out of St. Thomas, about 60 percent of which dre corpordtion-owned, operated as tax shelters. Estimates of the number of charters per year vary from 10 to 17, with 14 the general average obtdined in 1983. The gross annudl average income per bodt is $56,000. On3 the bdSiS of an averdge boat cost of $250,000, running costs for the year (including crew wages, debt service, maintenance, etc.) would be on the order of $105,600. The resultant "loss" of $49,600 is cushioned by the favordble rates of depreciation and investment incentives permitted. The eStiMdted average annual "on island" expenditures for 255 boats, assuming this average set of circumstances, is given below. Millions Maintendnce $ 6.4 Provi sioning $ 2.8 Wages $ 7.63 Brokerage $ 1.1 TOTAL $18 (lC. Carder, Survey of Charter Boating and Related Business in the Virgin3 Islands, Virgin Islands, Depdrtment of Commerce, 1980. 3-291 3.4.1.2 Bare BodtS These boats are usually rented for 7-day periods without provisions (which can be supplied) and crew. Occasionally (in 15 percent of the charters) a captain is also hired as a guide for less experienced parties which vary in size from two to six persons. The boats are usually smaller, are predominantly corporate-owned, and operated as tax shelters. About 240 are based in St. Thomas, and operdted by about 14 companies (see Table 3-5). These boats achieved about 18 weeks of charter per annum on the average in 1983. The annual average income from a hare boat would be $27,000, while operating costs, debt service, etc. would be on the order of $40,750. The estimated dverage annual "on-island" expenditure for the bare boat industry is given below: Millions Maintenance $ 3.6 Provi sions $ 1.7 Wages $ 1.6 Brokerage $ 0.2 TOTAL $ 7.1 The total direct expenditure from these two segments of the industry (crewed and bare boats) is thus $25 million. To this amount should be added the expenditure by the guests on gifts, taxis, restaurants and hotels which was found by a recent Department of Commerce study to be on the order of $7.4 million. 3.4.1.3 Other Charter Boats Day charter bodtS provide a different service in the tourist industry, more akin to the tour operators. They are used extensively by the hotel- based tourists (5 percent went fishing and 45 percent went sailing in 1981), but unfortunately no statistics exist itemizing their expenditure on these 3- 30 Table 3-5 BARE BOATS NAME OF COMPANY NO. OF BOATS RANGE OF SIZES USVI BVI (feet) Avery's Boathouse, Inc. 20 32 - 41 Bahama 18 28 - 35 Seabreeze 21 40 - 45 Charter Sail 6 35 - 43 CSY 60 33 - 44 CYC 35 32 - 46 CYOA 18 33 - 42 Hirsch SC, Inc. 19 38 - 45 Island Yachts 25 30 - 38 J World 3 24 - 30 La Vida 29 32 - 42 Moorings 80 39 - 50 Mr. Bareboat, Inc. 3 42 Y-S YC 25 38 - 48 Sail The Rainbow 14 31 - 47 Dick Tyrell Co. 10 35 - 45 Starboard YC 18 40 - 44 Tortola Is. Charter 4 42 Tortola M.M. 30 34 - 44 Tortola YC 30 36 - 49 Tropic Is. YC 12 30 - 46 W.I. YC 41 31 - 44 TOTAL 238 282 H-14/tt activities, and there are no records of the real extent of this segment of the boating industry, neither in terms of the number of boats involved, nor the number of guests catered for a yedr. Typical daily fees run at $50 per capita per day (gross) with 10 percent to 15 percent being taken as a booking fee. Lunch, free drinks, and snorkel/fishing equipment are included in this fee, and between two and six persons are usually taken. A considerable number of guests also come from cruise liners, further complicating the compilation of a Cledr picture of the SCdle Of the operation, which is now run almost exclusively by boat owners in smaller boats. In Mdny ways, these boats are similar to water taxis, with the vehicles providing homes for the owners as well. The AsSOCidtion of Marine Industries estimates that about 40 bodts are involved in the dive/sport fishing day charter industry, producing a charter revenue of over one million dollars. A recent class of charter boats now entering the local Mdrket is the maxi- power yacht, in the 110-foot to 180-foot range. During the 1983/84 winter season, 12 were based in St. Thomas (7 were chartering actively), seeking services which were physically not available. Their demands for potable water, electricity, provisioning, and fuel are extensive, and most agents interviewed indicated that their numbers would increase if appropridte facilities were provided in a good environment. Provisioning accounts for $2,000 a week when not on charter (up to $5,000 on chdrter); fuel costs up to $10,000 to fill tanks; dnd Chdrter rates are on the order of $3,500 per person per week. These bodtS carry, on the averdge, a five- to six-person crew, and edch represents an investment in excess of $5 million. 3.4.1.4 Employment Opportunities No direct statistics exist on the number of persons employed directly or indirectly in the Chdrter industry. Thus, estimated ratios are used to give SCdle to the numbers. Direct employment on crewed boats was estiMdted by Cdrder to be 3.5 crew per boat, d figure considered too high today. Allowing for occasional labor between charters for maintenance and cledning, a figure of 2.5 would be more 3- 32 real ist ic. To run a bare boat fleet, a ratio of 2.5 boats per employee would be a reasonable assumption. (This ratio is based on the responses of threei major companies surveyed in St. Thomas.) Secondary employment (brokerage, marine stores, marinas, provisioning, taxis) is more difficult to assess, but is considered to be higher than the 1:1 ratio accepted for the hotel industry, as many "hotel type" functions such as maintenance are undertaken by shoreside contractors, dnd upkeep is generally far more labor intensive than in conventional accommodations. A multiplier of 1:1.5 (primary, secondary) is assumed for the purpose of this calculation. Reguldr employment opportunities could then be summarized as follows: DIRECT TYPE NO. OF BOATS RATIO EMPLOYMENT CREWED 255 1:2.5 640 BARE 238 2.5:1 95I DAY/DIVE PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT TOTAL 855 SECONDARY 1.5 X PRIMARY 28 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2,140 3.4.1.5 Service Support For an industry using about 500 boats and employing about 850 persons directly, the support facilities are very inadequate. A survey conducted by the Association of Marine Industries showed that no less than 93 U.S. Virgin Islands companies were involved in support services; yet access to these3 companies is very restricted. Basically 8 large marinas on St. Thomas provide berths for only 490 boats and these marinas would have to service both visiting pledsure craft, live-aboards, and weekend sailors. Based on an average boat size of 38 feet and a 60 percent occupancy rate, the total amount grossed by these mdrinas is $1.5 million per annum, or $3,000 per berth. Proposals for new marinas on St. Thomas total 917 new slips in 9 3-33I expansion or new projects (see Table 3-6). Although a pent-up demand exists for well-located and appropridtely priced marina facilities, particularly for the expanding bare-boat charter fleets, such demand is not infinitely elastic. Wernicke and Towle recorded 1,022 boats at anchorages in St. Thomas in 1982 (424 were being lived on), but this does not mean thdt the majority of the boats not now at marinas would move to new facilities, if built. Most boats at anchor dre there because their owners choose not to be at Mdrinas, ldrgely because of cost, or the close living Spdce experienced at marinas. Even if the proposed mooring regulations were brought into laW dnd made workable, only a small proportion of the boats now at anchor would choose to move to a marina as a result of these regulations. By far the gredtest demand for marina space exists within the charter boat industry, which, like the hotel industry, is seasonal. Though a large proportion of the larger crewed boats move aWdY from the islands for the summer season to the East Coast or the Mediterranean, few bare boats move away; these companies use the summer for maintenance and cut-rate charters and thus their deMdnd for space continues throughout the year. The charter industry requires well-located marinas with trdnsport, provisioning, and access to reldted services being important criteria. Yacht Haven holds the monopoly on these at present. 3.4.1.6 Findings The foregoing analysis of the charter boat industry cannot pretend to. be definitive, for accurate recordS dre just not forthcoming. A number of issues are made clear by this analysis. They are: o The charter boat industry is basically a tax shelter industry, and most bodtS show a loss on their operdtions at present. In effect, the industry represents a federdllY subsidized component of the tourist industry, encouraging some 40,000 persons to visit the islands in 1983, a very large proportion of whom would not hdve availed themselves of the opportunity were charter fares fixed at real economic rates. 3- 34 Table 3-6 PROPOSED MARINA PROJECTS APPROXIMATE NO OF BERTHS LOCATION PLANNED Frenchtown 90 Long Bay (WICO) 130 Yacht Haven Exp. 36 Compass Point Exp. 90 Benner Cove 165 Enighed Pond (St. John)(V.I.P.A.) 80 Red Hook (V.I.P.A.) 150 Sapphire 76 TOTAL 817 STATU S CZM rejection on appeal Feasibility study only In abeyance Application rejected Application being considered In abeyance Application being considered Source: McComb Engineering, 1984 H- 14/uu o This number represents 12 percent of the 1982 tourist entry into the Virgin Islands. o In comparative terms, the charter bodts offer 2,500 "bed spaces," and "occupancy rates" at present are around 35 percent. o The industry represents a mobile capital investment of $105 million in the Virgin Islands, and brings in approximately $25 million per annum o It supplies direct employment to about 850 persons, representing a wage income of about $9.5, as well as secondary employment to about 1,300 persons o The number of bodtS (493) in the industry exceeds the number of marind berths available on St. Thomas. Current proposals for additional marina berths could accommodate the latent demand for space. 3.4.2 Recreational (non-charter) Bodtinq In the context of St. Thomas, it is difficult to nedtlY separate the charter boats from the non-charter boats. Of the 574 charter boats identified in the foregoing section, many, particularly the unidentified number of day- sail charter boats are multipurpose, providing a source of income, a home, and a vehicle for recreation. At the other end of the scale, there are the small power boats, mainly kept in dry storage, used for weekend fishing, diving or waterskiing as well as the smaller sail boats, many kept exclusively for weekend racing. In between are the many categories of craft: the maxi-power yachts, professionally crewed and kept for the use of the owner and his friends; the visiting itinerant cruising boats (almost exclusively sail) calling at the island, and the live-abodrd bodtS, equivalent to terrestrial mobile homes. Few figures exist on the extent or needs of these crafts. The following section records what is known. 3- 36 3.4.2.1 Dry Storage Craft These are largely in the 15- to 25-foot range, gasoline powered through outboard or inboard motors, and used mainly over weekends and holidays. The Association of Marine Industries identified about 280 spaces, mainly in two ydrds: Virgin Islands Pleasure Boats in Benner Bay, and Shoreline Marine in Crown Bay. Antilles, in Benner Bay, also serves as a storage/repair yard for larger craft launching with a travel hoist; the other two yards use forklift vehicles. Their water-dependent facilities are relatively simple, a launching dock dnd associated dock for short-term repairs and fueling. 3.4.2.2 Weekend Pleasure Craft - Moored or Berthed These crafts are distributed across the anchorages and marinas on the island and range from small sailing boats to a limited number of power yachts, kept in marinas. The ldrgest concentration of sailing craft is in Cowpet Bay, controlled by the St. Thomas Yacht Clujb, where in edrly 1983, Wernicke and Towle counted 59 boats. Their demands are also relatively simple, access via dinghies to the moored boats and fuel facilities. 3.4.2.3 Cruising Visitors The Virgin Islands, and St. Thomas in particular, is a regular destination of cruising sailors passing both west to the United States and Panama, and southedSt to the lower Caribbean. Their numbers are unknown, but are thought to be between 500 and 1,000 per annum. Each is estimated to spend between $1,000 and $2,000 during an average stay of about a week. The secondary category of "'cruising'' visitors are the regular invasions of fleets of Puerto Rican power boats which visit St. Thomas on route to St. John and the British Virgin Islands over holiday weekends and Carnival. Their numbers have been estimated to be between 100 to 200 on major long weekend holidays, and they use St. Thomas as a port of entry, a refueling stop, andI for duty-free shopping on their return. Though no records are available, it is considered that their annUdl expenditure would exceed the expenditure of 3-37I all other cruising visitors, especially with regard to fuel. Serious congestion occurs at the limited fuel docks and marinas during these weekends. 3.4.2.4 Live-Aboards Wernicke and Towle recorded a totdl of 423 craft, the highest concentration being in Long Bay, with 203 (nearly 50 percent), with Benner Bay (20 percent) and Red Hook (18 percent) accommodating most of the balance.(l) By and large, the occupants are working, either ashore or on charter boats, or are retirees. Their craft vary from a few unmobile semi-derelict "houseboat" types to well- maintained sailing craft which are also used for recreation. Though their used needs are more complex than the craft owned for weekend use, they place few demands on the islands infrastructure. Those who occupy marina berths need access to the shore, ablution facilities, potable water, electricity, fuel, and gdrbdge removal supplied by the marina. Those at anchor need a]ll these services and find them in other ways. 3.4.2.5 Findings Though not a direct component of the tourist industry, the recreational boats do play an important role in the overall service industry, one which, however, is difficult to quantify. There is a considerable overlap in both the personnel and the fdcilities used, and together they provide a sufficient scale of operation to credte a more competitive service market to benefit both charter boat and recreational boat owners. 3.4.3 Marina The preceding sections explored the scale of the contribution the small boat industry makes to the Virgin Islands' economy. They established that: (')W. Wernike and E. Towle, Vessel Waste Control Plan for the United States Virgin Islands, Island Resources Founddtion, March 1983. 3- 38 o In real terms, charter-boats are a valuable component of the hospitality industry, providing revenue, employment and a uniqueI magnet for vacationers. o The number of boats, while sensitive to the volume of charterI bookings, is largely dependent on tax shelter legislation, and the overdll fleet is growing. o Considerdble slack exists which could accommodate a fdr higher level of occupancy on the boats and rapidly absorb new demands derived from an expanding economy and associated expanding vacation market. o The industry lacks adequate service support. Though many marinas are planned at present, the total demand for facilities is not likely to be satisfied by them, either singly or jointly. o In addition to the demands for services by the charter bodtS, recreational boating, both local and visiting, lacks appropriate facilities.I The conclusion is that a marina facility in the Crown Bay ared would be a desirdble addition to the Cruise Port. 3.4.3.1 Criteria For Site SelectionI The criteria which aid in the identification of suitable sites for marina/service facilities are demand criteria, supply side criteria, and tenant selection. Demand Criteria - These provide a gauge for the selection of a site from the viewpoint of the boat owner/operator, and include: o Water conditions. Ideally, the waters should be reasonably sheltered from wind and ocean-driven waves, and unpolluted. o Accessibility to services, which would include repdirs and maintenance, brokerage dnd cledring houses, sail lofts,telephones and telex.I o Accessibility to supermarkets, marine and hardware stores, and l aundromdts.I 3-39I o Accessibility to road transport and airport. o Accessibility to vacationer markets (hotels and cruise ships). o Availability of dockside utilities such as clean potable water, electricity (single and 3-phase) and sewage pumpout stations. o Dockside security. o Proximity to a range of restaurants and taverns. o A pleasant general environment, both on the water and ashore. o Cost of berthing and utilities. Supply-Side Criteria - The marina/service center developer would seek out: o Inherently sheltered water. o Adequate land adjacent to it. o Suitdble water depth (10-15 feet). o AVdilability of utilities. o A nucleus of service-related land uses (stores, repdir fdCilities, etc.). o Reasonable water area/land purchase or rental costs. Tenant Selection - From the point of view of the government (and the V.I.P.A.), the criteria on which a marina would be judged to be a suitabl'e tenant in Crown Bay would include: o Water dependency. o Compatibility with other uses proposed in the area. o Provision of a firm economic base to support the island's primary tourist industry. o Ensuring a stable income to the V.I.P.A. o Meeting a real and identified need. It can be anticipated that, with the completion of the cruise ship docks and associated facilities, together with a general upgrdding of facilities through the improved planning and management made possible by the construction of Phase 2d, the general environment of the Sub-Base/Crown Bay area will be improved. To a large degree, if the facility itself is large enough, it can 3- 40 create its own high grade environment internally, and this can be assisted by judicious planning of the periphery of a marind area.I 3.4.3.2 FindingsI It is considered (this opinion is shared by numerous persons in the industry, and has been expressed by them during meetings) that a marina would be a viable facility in Crown Bay, given the right preconditions dnd appropriate planning of the area. The reasons for this are summarized as follows: o The existing small facility (Shoreline Marine) has shown a strong interest to expand and provide the capital for this expansion. o A development of this kind is totally compatible with the activities generated by a cruise ship dock. A minimum of 100 slips is considered to be necessary to ensure a viable facility.I o The marina would act as a powerful catalyst in the rehabilitation of the Sub-Base area, providing a stable economic base for allied tourist-related services which would augment those alreddy planned for the cruise ship dock. o All the small boat activities in the area could be consolidated into one facility (including the Water Island Ferry dock) enabling the water activities to be better managed. o It would provide a reliable source of income to the V.I.P.A.. Figure 3-8 rates each of the criteria listed as viewed by the user, the developer, and the landlord. These ratings are based on experience in the markets and on opinions expressed at interviews. The exhibit hds been prepared to provide a checklist, in graphic form, of the locational assets and3 liabilities of the site. 3.4.3.3 Conclusions A marina, capable of docking 100 boats, would provide a valuable asset to theI development of Crown Bay. Such a facility would require d wdter drea of 3-41I I I a a I RATING ELEMENT NOTES GOOD FA I R POOR Water Cond. 0 Can be created Access to Serv. D Access to Stores E Access to Trans. M Access to Vacat. Cruise liner, A docks, hotels Utilities 0 Security 0 Can be improved D Restaurants / Bars Env iromental Costs Unknown S Sheltered Water 0 Can be created U Avail. of Land P Water Depth 0 Too Deep P Utilities L Exist. Services Y Cost Unknown T Water Dependant E Compatible N Tourist Orientated A Stable Income 0 N Identified Need 0 T SMALL BOAT FACILITY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 3-8 approximately 5 acres and an upland area, including parking, of approximately 4 acres. For master planning purposes, the marina should have space allocation for slips to handle small power bodts and sailboats ranging in size from 30 feet to 60 feet; a narrow entrdnce channel to keep wave action to a minimum; and adequate upland area for parking, boat repair, and marine supply provisioning. Provisions for a fueling dock and adequate utilities must also be provided. Adequate flushing of the marina basin must be addressed in its design. 3.5 HOTEL INDUSTRY Section 2.3 provides a background to the importance of the hotel industry to the Virgin Islands, both in terms of revenue production and job creation. It also illuminates the confidence private enterprise is showing in the industry, with 1,700 new rooms being planned on St. Thomas which represent an investment of $200 million. The expansion of the industry is predicated on two issues: expansion of the American economly as a whole coupled to the ability of St. Thomas to capture an increased share of the new market. At present, the Virgin Islands is ranked fifth, and hds a 5 percent share of the Caribbean trade. It is widely recognized that hotels in the Virgin Islands are primary water- dependent uses, and that the occupancy rate in a hotel is almost directly related to the water-related activities it can offer (as well, of course, as the nature of its environment and its level of service). To assess the suitability of the Crown Bay/Sub-Base area for hotel use, the basic criteria for hotel site selection are examined briefly. This process does not pretend to be exhaustive, only exploratory, as the issue of the feasibility of a hotel is highly complex and outside the scope of this study. The bdSiC criteria dre listed below. In the context of Crown Bay, these criteria have been framed to recognize that the site is not Caneel Bay, and that a hotel would, by nature, be an "urban" resort hotel, With a ldrger component of commercial trade than a resort hotel, such as Lime Tree Resort. 3- 43 It also recognizes the need to be adjacent to a marina in order to optimize on the strong linkage between the two. This is not to say that a hotel could not stand alone without a marina in Crown Bay; rather, its operation would have substantially more success if it shared a small boat hdrbor and waterfrontI with a marina. 3.5.1 Demand Criteria These criteria have been prepared to reflect the elements sought after by potentidl users of the hotel. They include: o A pleasing "tropical" environment. o Access to a good quality beach.I o On-site recreation facilities - tennis, health spa, swimming pool. o Access to water sports - sailing, diving, fishing, water skiing.3 o Access to Charlotte Amalie shopping and restaurants. o Quality of accommodations and service. o Adequate security. o Costs. 3.5.2 Supply Criteria These reflect some of the factors which would influence a hotel operator to invest in the fdCilitY.I o Land COStS dnd availability. o Pleasing environment. o Access to utilities. o Access to good beach. o Access to water sports. o Exposure to trdde. 3.5.3 Tenant CriteriaI These represent the issues which the government and the V.I.P.A. would consider in their selection of the use. 3-44I o Water dependency. o Compatibility with other uses proposed in the area. o Support function with these uses. o Provision Of d firm economic base to support the island's primary tourist industry. o Ensuring a stable income to V.I.P.A.. o Meeting a real and identified need. 3.5.4 Findings An inspection of these criteria indicates that a hotel, adjacent to a marina, could become a strong element in the rehabilitdtion of the Sub- Base/Crown Bay area, and could significantly aid in the transition of the area from that of a run-down, industrial slum to one which could provide the cruise ship visitor with a gredter feeling of arriving dt a vacation center. It could also introduce a Stdble night-time population into the area, encouraging cruise ships to reMdin for longer periods of time. The main negative features, those of a poor environment and the lack of a good beach, can be mitigated through judicious design of the hotel and marina, creating an introverted environment which would in large turn its back to the surroundings (it would also act as a catalyst in their improvement). There is, at present, a good ferry service to the Honeymoon Beach on Water Island, a service which is going to be improved with the re-opening of the hotel there. This would largely substitute for an on-site beach. The hotel could also offer many of the services needed by cruise ship visitors, with mutual benefits. Its compatibility with marina operations is also strong, and mutually supportive. Figure 3-9 rates each of the criteria listed dS viewed by the user, the developer and the landlord. These ratings are based on experience in the markets and on opinions expressed at interviews. The exhibit has been prepared to provide a checklist, in graphic form, of the locationdl assetS dnd liabilities of the site. 3- 45 ELEMENT RATING NOTES GOOD FAIR POOR Environment 0 Urban Access to Beach At Water Island D Recreation Fac. On Site E Water Sports At Marina M Shopp. k Rest. A Accommodations Access to Trans. � N Security D Costs Unknown Land Costs Unknown S Environment 0 Urban p Utilities Access to Beach Water Sports L y Trade Exposure y~~~ T Water Dependant E Compatible N Support Uses A Tourist Orientated � N Stable Income S T Identified Need � HOTEL SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 3-9 3.5.5 Conclusion The Crown Bay Master Plan should, and does, dllocate suitable area for future construction of a hotel. 3.6 CANCRYN SCHOOL 3.6.1 Location Problem The Adelita Cancryn Junior High School occupies eight acres at the eastern end of Crown Bay. The adjacent cricket field is about four acres. The site is filled land created along with the rest of the Crown Bay port and commercial area. Concern about the existence of the school in this area has been increasingly expressed over the past two years. This concern comes from teachers, parents and others who feel that the students are at risk from automobile traffic on the 4-ldne highway, truck traffic to and from the port, bulk loading/unloading equipment and liquified propane delivery on the whdrf behind the school and a new gas station across the street (traffic, explosion hazards). Another faction is concerned about the inappropriate location of the school as it uses space more suitable for port-related uses. 3.6.2 Possible Relocation of School The concerns of parents and teachers are not as strongly felt by the school administration. While it acknowledges the areas of concern expressed, the administration does not feel that these are of a magnitude thdt requires relocation of the fdCilitY. However, this does not preclude the fact that relocation of the school would not only be beneficial to the school, but also to the port. Figure 3-10 shows possible relocation sites. 3.6.2.1 Location I - Bourne Field This primarily residential area north of Truman Airport belongs to the V.I.P.A. V.1. P. A. Is Ilong-range des ire i s to convert the area to commerce and airport-related uses. A school would be compatible here; however, a major 3- 47 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- m m- m m m - - , - - - m , -N ~,Fla Cay CQ 99 EN EN MOS13.itoI point po.,n f"iluPingstur BUY Bay -n C) ai DI' D000' 5000' 3000' I I -L .t Porpoise Rocks ', SCHOOL RELOCATION SITES P.mt impediment is the need to relocate the families now there. With the crisis in low and middle income housing, it is not expected that this relocation can be accomplished in the near future, so V.I.P.A. has not yet formulated any specific redevelopment plans. The advantage of this location is that V.I.P.A. could swap sites. 3.6.2.2 Location 2 - V.I. Hotel It hds been suggested that government acquire this hotel property and convert it to d junior high school and other public facilities. The hotel has been plagued by profitability problems over the past few years. It is not known if the property is on the market at the moment. Conversion to school use could be expensive, as would the acquisition. The facility is larger than needed for the junior high, but other associated uses could be found. 3.6.2.3 Location 3 - Nisky Elementary School This school, including grades K-6, is located on about 1.6 acres approximately 0.5 mile west of Cdncryn School. There iS dlSO an adjacent empty lot of about the same size. The facility comprises two 2-story buildings. Potentially, the property could dlSCo house the Cdncryn School. This would require the addition of 2- to 3-story buildings. The location iS fdirly close to the present Cancryn site. The cost of constructing on this site would be favorable as it is flat. 3.6.2.4 Location 4 - "Western Cemetery" There are two parcels just north of the present school on the other side of Veterans Drive. One is immediately west of the cemetery; the other is directly opposite Cancryn School. The latter is rather narrow, but could be suitable. The eastern parcel has been slated for a shopping center development by the owner, but the assurdnce of those pldns is not known. 3- 49 Another alternative is to cut the present school property in half and make the buildings two-story. This is a hybrid or partial solution which could be useful either as an interim or a long-term solution. It would free up half of the ared for port use and not require complete construction Of d new school at5 a new site from "scratch". The present cafeteria building could be used for wdrehouse and commercidl activity.5 3.6.2.5 Location 5 - Island Block Site3 Island Block has indicated its desire to obtain land closer to the quayside. Its lease with the owners of the land expires within a few years, and theI possibility exists that it could be accommodated within Crown Bay, and the land could be acquired from the present owners. 3.6.3 Conversion of School Buildings3 The possibility of converting the school buildings to warehouses was explored5 with the following persons: o Mr. Joseph Trunk, Principal, Cancryn School o Senator Ruby Simmonds, V.I. LegiSlature o Senator Virdin Brown, V.I. LegislatureI o Mr. Darlan Brin, V.I.P.A. o Mr. Winston Adams, Department of Education o Mr. Tyrone Martin, Highway Planning, Department of Public Works o Mr. Brian Turnbull, V.I. Pldnning Office. All the buildings are single story with concrete block walls and wood beam5 roofs. Ceiling beam height (8 feet) is too low to allow fork lift operation except in the cafeterid building. This makes the buildings unsuitable for general warehousing, but they might be useful for miniwarehouses, light industrial, or commercial activities. 3-50I 3.6.4 3.6.4 Conclusion and Recommendations The present problems at the school are primarily nuisance, inconvenience and perceived ddnger from gasoline storage, traffic and liquified propane transfers. To date, no serious episodes have occurred from any of these dreds; therefore, the Department of EduCdtion, has no impetus to relocating the school. Actually, the more substantive issue is the inappropriateness of the school in that location rather than actual conflicts or incidents. The space it occupies within the port setting could be better utilized for port- related or water-dependent uses. The school is neither; it could function just as well elsewhere. With the planned development of the port facilities and the projected increased activity in the ared, some increase in conflict can be dnticipated, but more important, as needs for port expansion continue, the inappropriateness of the school will be heightened. At the same time, the value of the site and the potentidl revenue it could produce will increase. Both the Depdrtment of EduCdtion and the V.I.P.A. should make school relocation a specific goal over the next 5 to 10 years. Detailed planning should begin now to evaluate potential new sites and designs and secure funding for the new facility. 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 3.7,.1 Concerns The identification of environmental issues includes those potentially impdcting upon or arising from the development and use of the study area. The credtion of additional land for which permits hdve been secured but for which filling has not yet been completed have not been considered potential environmental concerns related to this study. These concerns have alreddy been addressed in the reldted permit applications. The areas of environmentdl concern are summarized as follows: 3- 51 o Land-side considerations - Drainage, flooding, stormwater control - Roads, traffic flow, parking, staging - Water demand and supply - Sewerdge3 - Safety, fire and police protection o Aquatic considerations - Marine Wdter quality, long-term effectsI - Effects on marine resources - Water and Power Authority plantI - Maintenance dredging requirements - Potential oil pollution impacts3 o Air quality considerations3 - Engine exhaust emissions: automobiles, industrial, other3 - Dust and other fugitive particulates o Aesthetic considerationsI - Shore and water vistasI - Potential visual impact on Water and Hassel Islands - Noise3 - Scale and inter-relationships. 3.7.2 Effects of Marine Pollution on Water and Power Authority3 The Water and Power Authority tdkes some 60 to 75 million gdllons per day of sea water from Krum Bay (0.3 miles west of the cruise ship dock). Most of this water is used for cooling and some is distilled to potable water for the I city. Excessive turbidity impairs heat transfer in the condensers and the cooling efficiency is reduced. Some severe episodes in the past have required3 3-52I that the affected unit be shut down and flushed with clean water at high pressure. Problems occur when tugs or barges are maneuvering in Krum Bay, although not all ship operations in the bay create problem conditions. Severe rainstorms with muddy runoff have caused problems too. Petroleum products in the water cause similar problems. Although the intake pumps draw water at some distance below the sea surface, the suction creates a vortex which Cdptures floating debris and oil. Screens remove the debris, but petroleum passes through to the plant. So far there has not been a major petroleum spill in the bay, but the Water and Power Authority is sufficiently concerned about hydrocarbon contamination thdt it has had to report to the Coast Guard several minor ledks and discharges from various ships in the bay. The Water and Power Authority has its own fuel-receiving pier at the southern end of the bdy. 3.7.3 Human Systems Most of these effects result from the incompatibility of uses, largely an historic inherit'ance. They include: o Noise 'from the cargo port. The location of existing homes makes it inevitable that residents are and will continue to be affected by loading operations, pdrticularly at night. Mitigation can be achieved by quieter equipment, and improved general efficiency in the port operation o Traffic congestion. The new and extended activity in the area will result in greater levels of congestion on both abutting and all island roads. This problem is not unique to Crown Bay, and requires solutions to be sought on an islandwide bdsis o Danger. Largely, this is a present situation brought about by the inappropriate use of inddequate roads, and the crowding of the school boundaries by incompatible stordge areas. The circulation 3- 53 systems and improved land use allocation will ldrgely mitigate these impacts o Air pollution. Air pollution levels will be raised by the emissionsI from the additional traffic, and from the ships which will use the port. Prevailing winds bring particulates ashore. In addition, the use of the area for bulk storage of materials results in dust o Flooding. Flooding of the area by stormwater from upland areas is endemic due to historic development. To some degree, these impacts3 can be mitigated through the allocation of surface drainage rights- of-way in appropridte locations.3 3.7.4 Natural Systems Where natural systems are adversely impacted, man usually feels the effects. The mdin impacts on the natural systems include: 3 o Oil pollution from bunkering. The barge system to be used, together3 with the Coast Guard's surveillance of the operation, should result in minimal ddngers of pollution; however, the experience Of Mdny barges breaking dawY in the recent storm (Klaus) indicates that there is the potential for d major disaster. A major oil spill could, among other things, adversely affect the Water and Power Authority's sea water intake. The location of the barge while waiting to bunker ships is an importdnt issue which should be3 critically assessed by the V.I.P.A. o Increased water turbidity. Short-term effects of dredging have been adequately covered in previous studies; however, the chronic3 turbidity resulting from prop-wash has not been addressed and could degrdde large area of coral and sea grass3 o Water quality in the proposed inner harbor. Special care will have to be taken to ensure that the flushing in this inner harbor isI adequate to ensure water quality appropriate for a tourist area. H-14/gg3 3-54~~~~~~ Chapter 4 EXISTING CROWN BAY AREA 4.1 ZONING The study area is zoned as shown in Drawing 002. The actual zoning designations of "C," Commercial; "B-2," Business; and "W-2," Waterfront Industrial allow for many similar uses and have relatively little impact on the area's development. The unzoned areas created by the V.I.P.A. could be designated as "W-2" and still work well within the master planning effort. It is recommended that specific use designations be allocated within each of the zoning areas, and that future lease negotiations be guided by the Master Plan. The exception to the "W-2" zoning would be the area designated as "Hotel" on the Master Plan, which will require upgrading to "W-1," Waterfront-Pleasure. It is further recommended that the newly formed land identified as V.I.P.A. Phase i be zoned as "W-1" to stimulate cruise-port-related growth rather than industrial. 4.2 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT The Crown Bay area is managed by a number of "landlords." The major areas of management are shown on Drawing 003 and include: o V.I.P.A. o Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs o Department of Property and Procurement This mix of management will make it difficult to implement and enforce a master plan for the area. It is, therefore, recommended that action be taken that would coordinate and enforce the Master Plan and/or the granting of exceptions to the plan. Such action could take the form of either of the following: 4-1 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~e - - ...... ~ i:?'% ~!iii~ ?~,i.e~-~ "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iii ii!!:i�� i=!~~~~~~i _l I r l| �-----w PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY N 2w D00 0 MD~o I I II 1 ~~~~~~I 1Jo~-~ I "I --- .. "N CROWN BAY AREA . .. i. . .... N- -O O -- Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. W. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. 21 I I DEC1984 ___________ ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ZONING N c ,oI . - . i o 1 ,200 1 CIV L& E V R N E T L E G N E I-.AI --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N M-O KD ZOO 400 [.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~III ---- PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ________ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN I DEC.N184 I ____L o A review mechanism could be credted between the major agencies i nvolIved o The Planning Office could present the Master Plan to Coastal Zone Mandgement (CZM) for adoption aS dn area of special concern and thence utilize existing zoning law mechanisms for plan enforcement. 4.3 LEASE DATA Drawings 004 and 005 indicate existing lease property boundary lines and the present tenant. Addendum 5 includes specific lease datd. The Cruise Port ared (Drawing 004) indicates a relatively good base for future development of cruise-related ventures which are additionally beneficial to local population use. Recommended changes in this area are: o Property 7, now used by the National Guard, should be reserved for future development as a hotel site, due to its proximity to the cruise docks, local shopping, and marina. o Any restaurant, retail outlet, or lounge east of Shoreline Marine should be offered property to relocate west of Shoreline Marine. This will enhance the Cruise Port area, giving easy dccess from the berths to a potentially touriSt-dttractiVe drea. The Cargo Port drea (Drawing 005) occupancy is such thdt normal port activities and expansion are inhibited. It is recommended thdt the following areas be dcquired, or designated at completion of lease, for container or generdl Cdrgo use: o The Cdncryn School Area o Miss Opportunity site Additionally, Property 15, now used for containers, should be reserved for future use as a general cargo and Wdrehouse area, and the present tenant offered similar accommodations in the new Phase 2-A area. 4- 4 - - - j,,S: < - - - i'b Ui : - - .<,e - G --- v::/i _-- -i,B === - -.'\.n - - -�� 133 i 1 + -fS MWi<X9-i -, *~~ ". , : i} :~ ': 7:' i: :' : t:-;:0'. :.;:e :-. ^ ; ;, :. - - E: ;, ri . '< :Si;- ` ---- %_ - , p.C . ' W N CROWN BAY CRUISE PORT AREA ", ._ ; ,1 X 1N Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. w. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P BAY CRUISE PORT AREA _ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS arld PLANNFRS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LEASE DATA, 1 of 2 -I/ Pot, Bucley, chuh &Jernian, In. W. . McCOB ENGNEERIN, P.2 .0 is004 _ DEC 1984 I4oo- I. .p. . 1 100 . _ r I I I I - ---I I I . . --ll --ll -- - -- - === fo ', SUPERFOOD 42 ! C. 41 rI V.I.P.A. PHASE 2 B l 0E 005 1 v. ,. DEC 1984 __ I~~0 . ,- Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. W. F. MCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. CROWNBAY CARGO PORT AREA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT5 arid PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LEASE DATA, 2 of 2 ,tI I I I - HoTDAEI~ I -I ... I I I 4.4 LAND USE Analysis of lease data indicates that a large proportion of the study area is at present being occupied by non-water-related uses, such as wholesale/warehousing (which can be accessed by road trailers) and existing shoreline restaurants- (which could operate elsewhere, but with a reduced scenic draw-card). Many of the non-water-related uses are oriented to the automobile trade (sales yards, car rental agencies) and require only a general location close to town and/or the airport. The other major uses are food, hardware, and motor retail outlets, which dfford a reasonably high rent, but are not site-specific users. The largest non-water-related user is the Cancryn School. These uses have located here for two largely historic reasons. The first is that there is little flat land available on St. Thomas appropriate to their needs, and the locality was well placed in relation to the town to enable them to do business. The second is that, when the leases were applied for, no policy existed to restrict the land-use to port-reldted operations, and there was then insufficient demand by such uses to utilize the available land. A limited degree of administrative intervention is desirable for the issuance of new leases and the renewal of existing leases to prevent an entrenchment of the haphazard pattern of present uses which has emerged over time. 4.5 ROAD SYSTEM In common with the land use, the existing road system hds developed in response to the perceived needs of the time. It has also been upgraded as a result of past changes to the shoreline and the need for better dccess to the airport. The study area is served by two main routes: the Harwood Highway serving as an airport/town link, and a subsidiary loop (Main Road 304) running through the Sub-Base from the Crown Mountain Road intersection to the airport road. The Harwood Highway is generally a four-lane divided facility serving abutting 4- 7 properties with little control of direct access, while Main Road 304 is a two- lane rodd With a number of substandard intersections along its length. Both routes serve the study ared as collector/distributor roads, this functionI conflicting, to some degree, with the Harwood Highway's main function as a primary island connector. At present, facilities for cargo facility ingressU and egress are restricted (particularly from the west) and use is made of the poor quality gravel road between the Cancryn School and Frenchtown by much of3 the heavy trailer/truck traffic. In 1972, MendSco-McGuinn recorded 14,531 vehicles (two-way, daily count) on Veterans Drive east of Crown Bay (16,022 at Crown Bay).(1) Their prediction for 1990 for the flow on this section of road Wds 37,800 vehicles, representing an annual average increase of 4 percent. In 1980, the Department of Public Works recorded 20,735 vehicles on this section of Harwood Highway,I over a 12-hour (daylight) period. This is equivalent to an ADT of 29,029. A peak hour flow (5:00 to 6:00 PM) of 2,120 vehicles was recorded in 1980, with heavy trucks accounting for 4 percent of this volume. The 12-hour flow in and out of the Sub-Base was recorded at 3,855 vehicles. At the highest level of3 service, Hdrwood Highway could carry 900 vehicles per lane per hour. This recorded peak hour volume is not approaching the capacity of the road, and as this section of road is one with the highest standards on the island, it is thus obvious that there would be litt'le utility in attempting to increase its capacity without commensurate improvements elsewhere. No public transportI route exists through the study area at present. The ldrgest sources of traffic generdtion in the Sub-Base area are, at present, the government offices and motor pool. Congestion is increased by3 the movement of heavy plant vehicles operated by the Public Works Department in and out of the area, and water trucks drawing on water at the the Public3 Works Depdrtment standpipe. Should the decision be taken to centrdlize the government offices elsewhere, a signifiCdnt reduction in ddytime trdffic would3 result. (I)Mendsco-McGuinn Associates, Virgin Islands Highway Functional Classification and Needs Study, August 1973.3 4-8 4.6 UTILITIES Drawing 006 indiCdteS the utilities within the study area. Water supply, sewer service and power supplY dre adequate for the eXpdnsion plans of the area, and dre easily extendable into the new port areds being created. Utilities do not inhibit growth dnd expansion of the Crown Bay Area; however, power outageS dnd water shortages do. Little can be done about power failures due to extraordinary ndtural CdUSes; however, the consistency of the water supply can be enhanced by providing surge tank storage prior to area distribution. This storage could be accomplished by rehabilitation of existing tdnks or construction of new tanks for this purpose. It is further recommended that the V.I.P.A. provide water distribution into allI new port areas. A master meter would allow V.I.P.A. to pay the Public Works Department for the water, dnd individual users in this network would pay V.I.P.A. An appropriate surcharge would be added to the user's bill to cover maintenance and operation of the system. 4.7 DRAINAGE Drawing 006 shows the position of the three main stormwater guts. The main catchment (#10) of 254 acres drdins into the bay in the dred Of Phdse 2A, now being prepdred to receive dredge spoil. CH2M Hill(l) calculated that d culvert of 256 square feet (an opening of 6 f eet by 44 feet) would be required to lead the water generdted from a 25- year storm under Veterans Drive. The existing culvert measures 22 square feet west of the Cancryn School; catchment #11, measuring 179 acres, is predicted to require an opening of 216 square feet to accommoddte flows from a 25-year storm. At Shoreline Marine, d culvert of 84 Squdre feet opening would be required to pdss stormwater from d Cdtchment of 38 acres. Observdtions of the April 18, 1983 MlCH2M Hill, A Sediment Reduction ProgrdM D.C.C.A., January 1979. 4- 9 x~~~ _IIY - P G B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I�� : mPANIGAE BUDR xO 0 2 400 I I Post~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, Bukly Scu Jer ..,~s S,~.D '.'"'~ LOC.CROWN BAY AREA I!00 .R.. . _Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. W. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P. C ROWN AY AREA I DEC. 19 006 ......._ ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AREA UTILITIES I .. __. I j...... I -.... . . 1,2,0,, 0... storm (which exceeded a predicted 100-year return rainfall) indicated that water in the Crown Bay area found its wdy to the sea by sheeting across the land, entering the Sed over the bulkhedd in a flow of up to 18 inches deep. It is beyond the scope of this study to design a detailed system of storm flow mitigdtion, and it is beyond the financial capabilities of the Virgin Islands to install structures Cdpable of accommodating such catastrophic floods. The following MedSures are recommended to reduce the extent of future damage and ddnger to life resulting from stormwater runoff: o A stormwater drdinage easement should be set aside between Veterans Drive and the sea large enough to permit the construction of an open channel able to accommoddte the flows from a 25-yedr storm o Aprons should be constructed across the seaward end of these open channels to permit these flows to enter the sea o A subsidiary secondary system should be planned into the area whereby an open corridor, SUCh aS d road, should be provided to pdSS flows of an up to 50-year flood along the ground surface and into the sea o Buildings should be set back from this corridor to permit the flows from a 100-year flood along this corridor o In areas where flows are to be sheeted across the ground, care should be exercised to ensure that the surfdce does not encourage scour and resultant deposition of silt into the sea. Additional recommendations are provided in Section 6.1. H-14/jj 4- 11 Chapter 5 MASTER PLAN 5.1 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The development of St. Thomas was initidted by the availability of an excellent anchorage and hdS since depended on its harbor as a lifeline to the outside world. Changing transportation technologies and world politics have affected the island's economic climate, but the harbor dlWaYS played a key role in Chdrlotte Amalie's prosperity. In the scramble for tourist development, it should be remembered that Charlotte Amalie and its character and history plaY d vital role in sustaining the island's magnetism for tourists. The danger is always present that its very success will be its destruction, and major projects which are not considered in this context could Sdcrifice long-term viability on the altar of narrow-bdsed expediency. In the same way, the whole experience of arriVdl in the islands needs to be nurtured. The route from the airport to town does little to enhance this experience. The present characteristics of Sub- Base and Crown Bay do little to instill in the cruise ship visitor the feeling that he has arrived in an "island paradise." The implementdtion of the Crown Bay Master Plan can dssist in mitigating the present position; however, a strategic policy is vital to the implementation of the plan, which must recognize the decisions which have already been made with regard to the ared. A study of the present land uses abutting the cruise ship dock indicate that all uses, except Danny's ReStdurant, are generally incompatible. Around the Cargo Port, the school and the fringe of Frenchtown rate as incompatible uses. To rationalize the planning process, the study area was divided into two zones, the Cruise Port and the Cargo Port, which interface at the western end of the Cargo Port, at the intersection abutting Shoreline Marine. This line, which forms a naturdl and convenient break point between the two dominant 5- 1 use zones, has been established to determine the nature of uses which should be encouraged or discouraged in the zones. WheredS the uses abutting the Cargo Port will, over time, be converted orI assimilated into the industrial nature of the zone, it is clear that determined measures must be taken to enhdnce the cruise ship facility through the introduction of large compatible and supportive uses, particularly in view of the industrial nature of the uses along the Harwood Highway, the visitor's1 route to town. Such facilities would dSSiSt in credting an image more in keeping with the expectations of a cruise ship visitor.3 Figure 5-1 lists the uses considered compatible with the two district zones. Based on this matrix, restaurants, d hotel and marind rate highly as uses I supportive to the cruise ship dock. These uses would: o Generate excitement dnd activity, providing a focus for the visitor o Credte d venue where water-orientated day tours Cdn be based to 3 serve the cruise ship visitors o Attract other tourist-oriented businesses to the area, and did in 3 the general rehabilitation of the area o Generate a night-time population and activity to encourdge cruise ships to extend the length of their stays into the evening. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONI The Master Plan generally shows the Cargo and the Cruise Ports. The elements3 mdking up the Master Plan are described in the following subsections. 5.2.1 Cargo Port o The area of reclaimed land from Frenchtown to Shoreline Marine is allocated to cargo facilities, with a progression of uses from the dock apron to the Harwood Highway 5-2I 4 1 1 4 I I S 0 0 w 0 -1 L LJ -i Q CD 0. d, a w a *0 I I I I I I 4 0 x - a x 000 0 I I 0 L- 0 L- cm a. -1 0 3 00 M LIa a s @0 x-(' 0 x S -jo S...0*0 mW S.a..0 zi 0 -i w -i 0 a, cn 6.) I I @0 Ils 0 0 UJU 9) m n 0 w a. 1 0 Z U cn 0w 4 ~ ~ f Z . O L Z < -j LI -i < :3 o O) 0w C f l . J 0 L L . LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX o Container activities would be located behind the apron, with warehousing in the next sub-zone. A band of port- related commercial/industrial land is envisaged along the southern edge of Harwood Highway o The dock is extended westwards, providing a breakwater to the inner harbor while providing facilities for a RO/RO operation in an appropriate location o The relocation of the Cancryn School is recognized in the final phases of the plan, permitting these uses to be extended eastwards across this land 5.2.2 Cruise Ship Port o From the new cruise ship dock eastwards, a band of tourist- related activities is proposed, with orientation along the waterside promenade. These would start with the shopping center proposed in Phase 1, the ferry dock, the hotel, associated stores and restaurants, and the marina as a termination point on the east a These tourist facilities could center on the hotel, which would not only provide accommodations for home-port cruise Ship PdSsengers and charter boat guests, but also a communications center and offices related to the zone activities. The hotel rooms are envisaged to be built along the slopes of the hill on and behind Gramboko Inn, and would be linked to the shoreside facilities over Route 304 via a pedestrian bridge within the hotel o The marina would abut the hotel to the east, dnd would provide full charter services and associated retail outlets. It would be contained to the east by a boat storage and repair area, which, together with a green belt along the water's edge, would help provide a buffer between the touriSt dnd cargo activities 5- 4 o In the area south of the hotel and pdrallel to the two existing cruise ship berths, the docks would be tailored to accept home- porting vessels - one medium-sized cruise ship, and at least two mini-cruise ships. o A fringe zone is designdted north of Route 304 within which (with 3 the exception of the hotel) no specific proposals have been made, but where redevelopment will be dCtively promoted.3 5.3 ROAD SYSTEM3 The CZM permit for Phase 2A of the Crown Bay development states: "The Port Authority, in conjunction with the Dept. of Public Works, the Dept. of Public Sdfety and V.I. Planning Office, shall devise a3 plan of action to handle the traffic in the Sub-Base area which shall be submitted to this committee for its approval."3 This master plan must thuS dSsume the responsibility for the areas traffic3 planning in the ared, while acknowledging that this implementation of the proposals will not be an easy matter. What must be recognized in this issue is that expecting the island's roads to absorb all the traffic demands placed on them at a high level of service is 3 not practical, and expanding a portion of the system in one area will only result in displacing the problem to a constriction in the system elsewhere. 3 Some attempt at balance is the only attainable goal dnd, inefficient though it is, d degree of traffic congestion on the island is, and will remain, a fact 3 of life. The proposals made are thus of a traffic engineering nature: improving existing facilities in a way which will ease, rather thdn free up the expected flows. The most cost-effective approach is to attempt to reduce the possibility of localized constrictions to flow resulting from the added level of activity generated by the port's expanding facilities. The traffic plan presented has been developed on this basis. The improvements have been developed to recognize that:3 5-53 o The Harwood Highway is an important component of the island's road system, and the flow of traffic on this road should be disrupted as little dS POSSible. o A high degree of flexibility must be built into the road network to enable it to accommodate changing needs. o The existing roads must be utilized to a maximum degree, while accommodating the flows from the new facilities. o Improvements will be of a traffic engineering nature. The island's roads will continue to experience an escalating extent of congestion, and the proposals should not create new bottle- necks in the system. 5.3.1.1 Carqo Port System (see Drawing 007) A major signal-controlled intersection is proposed at the existing Sea Chest road. Initially, the median island would be opened to allow the free flow of traffic out of the area, but with no eastbound right-hand turn. Eastbound traffic would be accommodated at the Crown Mountain Road intersection, via a new road to be installed between L'Escargot and Shoreline Marine. A parallel collector/distributor road would be built parallel to Harwood Highway, linking the Sea Chest Road to this new road. As a temporary link, a road would be installed to connect Route 304 to the east of the Inspection Depot. The need for a right-hand turning slot to be installed at the Sea Chest entrance would be accommodated in later phases by either swinging the two east-bound lanes northwards (involving the partial demolition of a building) or by installing a left-turn/right-turn slip road north of the Harwood Highway behind these buildings. At this stage, it could be necessary to close off the present intersection at Super Foods to prevent access to the Harwood Highway. 5- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RI-5 NEW SIGNAL - R ~ ROAD IMPR( eT; L: -it i PHASE' -'::' -PHASE N L0 .. -c 1.1 e. 007 DEC 984 I lO . ~ 1.,E = 5 Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. W. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1bl CROWN BAY AREA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CRUISE PORT AREA . I I I I - - . 5.3.1.2 Cruise Ship (Sub Base) (see Drawing 008) A number of minor intersection improvements are proposed. The two most significant Chdnges would be the straightening of Route 304 at the Texdco/Solid Waste corner, and the improvement of sight distance in the curve below Gramboko Inn. The future installation Of d third lane from this point to the Crown Mountain intersection dt Hdrwood Highway is also contemplated. A traffic signdl would be inStdlled at the new intersection at L'Escargot to accommodate the turning movementS dt thiS point. No public transport route exists at present to or through the Sub-Base ared. With the inevitable increase in traffic congestion downtown as a result of the new cruise ship port, and the increase in workers in the port, the establishment of a new bus route would be desirable. This route could run to the airport dnd back, replacing the existing spur which serves the airport from Harwood Highway. Certain of the road improvements should be made before this route is established. 5.3.2 Capitdl Cost of Improvements and Fundinq The Master Plan recommends various road improvements which are the only recommended items that require new funding. All recommendations pertaining to V.I.P.A. Phase 2-A and Phase 2-B are funded within V.I.P.A.'s general funding. This funding includes roads within these areas, but not roads within the existing Cdrgo port. The total capital cost of the road improvements outside of the port, which are shown on Drawings 007 and 008, is $500,000. Preliminary indication is that federal highway funding could be used for these improvements. The total capital cost for road improvements within the existing Cdrgo Port is $650,000. It is expected that funding for this item will be within the V.I.P.A.'s general budget. 5- 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- c j ; i ; i I i i I CROWN BAY AREA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CARGO PORT AREA F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. ENGINEER, ARCHI1TFF,T, and PLANNIERCF The recommendation of moving and rebuilding the Cancryn School is contingent upon further in-depth study which should particularly address funding of the move. 5.4 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM This is a valuable, if small, component of the Master Plan in the Cruise Port area. It revolves around the water-side promenade, starting at the cruise ship dock, running eastwards through the hotel site dnd marina, d distance of 1,500 feet. To this promenade would be attached all the uses which would make it into an exciting and safe place to walk, shop and eat. East of the marina, the promenade would terminate on a sidewalk alongside the public road, enabling those visitors who choose to Wdlk to town to do so in safety. A minor extension of this route west of the cruise ship dock would terminate in d nature trdil along the lower slopes of Haypiece Hill. 5.5 CRUISE PORT The Cruise Port is west of the port's cargo operations. The V.I.P.A. has constructed a cruise vessel berth and approximately 11 acres of new upland area which is devoted to commercial development. Additional development will reShdpe the area between the Cruise Port and the Cargo Port. The major fedtures of the Cruise Port will be: o The cruise berth o The upland commercial area o A marina o A hotel. The Master Plan recommends the following: o Road improvements to SUStdin increased traffic o Allocation of the marina area for no less than 100 boats 5- 10 o Allocation of an area for construction of a hotel o An interconnecting promenade to link the marina ared With the cruise berth.I The proposdl, as shown in Drawing 010, features: o A home-port berth constructed as a marginal wharf on dredged material, designed to accommodate a 500-foot vessel on its west side and smaller vessels on its east side o A hotel area north of Route 304 which extends over the road and encompasses a good part of the home-port berth areaI o A small bodt harbor of approximately 6.3 acres supported by an upland area of approximately 2.3 acres o New land fill of approximately 5 acres. The proposal complements the cruise berth upland area as planned by V.I.P.A. The general allocation of this area is fixed, with only minor variations possible. It is recommended that the following suggestions be reviewed by V.I.P.A. for possible action: o Commercial area parking does not appear adequate. Enlargement of public parking areas could be beneficial. o Shore-front area in the warehousing area could be dllocated tof commercial-retdil use to give a better image to tourists debarking from cruise vessels. o The promenade planned for eastward access to the marina should also extend westward to a nature walk and the businesses in that area.I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- P _ x I _ p p i _ S _ I _ 7 I 5 I NI 4L0_0 io 500 Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. w. F. McCOMB ENGINEERING, P.C. CROWN BAY AREA CRUISE PORT & MARINA AREA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MASTER PLAN MASTER PLA PR - 9Ba I 010 - DEC 1984 I e CLE 1 100 .11 I.". I --- o The V.I.P.A. terminal building should have its western side dedicated to commercial-retail space, thereby providing a financing channel whereby private capital could be used for part of the construction costs of this public building. 5.6 CARGO PORT The existing cargo port, as described in Section 4.2, is being expanded by a planned land fill operation that will add dpproxiMdtelY 10 acres of new land dnd over 700 feet of new marginal wharf space. The Master Plan for this area, as shown in Drawing 011, incorporates the following recommendations: o The east end of the port should be secured by a port gate so as to prohibit public access to the aprons of Berths I and 2. o A 30-foot to 40-foot strip of the south portion of the Cancryn School should be acquired and a 20-foot to 30-foot rodd constructed. The road should be fenced on its north side to act as a protective barrier to the school grounds. The addition of this road will permit a northerly movement of cargo over the berth, through the generdl cargo area and out of the port through the road system. The apron area will then see less traffic and will thereby improve cargo handling efficiencies in the areas of Berths I and 2. o The main port entrdnce road (running south from the Sea Chest property) should be improved from its present west boundary up to and including its east boundary which is the Cancryn School fence. This increased road width will be required to handle the new traffic generated by the expanded port. o The existing edSt-west port road, running from Tropical Shipping to M.S.I., should be widened to at least 40 feet and extended through the new Cargo Port to a new east port entrance road. 5- 13 Ps,Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Wv. F. MGCOMB"v.~ ENGINEERING P.C... C R W BAY A R E I and~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~S PLINR - DEC. 1984 ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS r- LNNR IVIL & ENVIRONMENTkiL ENGINEE IG MASTE PLNI NOON L EO'O OON tS O~ o The "Miss Opportunity" site should be acquired and the structure removed. o A new center port road should be constructed with an adjoining drainage right-of-way. A port gate should be installed to prevent public access to the port proper, if and when considered desirable. o The easterly end of the V.I.P.A. Phase 2-A construction should be extended to form a RO/RO berth which would serve the many RO/RO vessels that call on the port. This extension should be designed to also serve as a breakwater for the small craft harbor. The apron for Berth 4 should be no less than 80 feet wide to accommodate container offloading and container-handling vehicles o Should efforts to acquire the entire Cancryn School property be successful, then the main port east west road should be extended across the property as shown. Additionally a west port entrance road should then be constructed so as to fully interconnect all port roads H-14/k 5- 15 Section 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The most wisely conceived pldns require an appropriate strdtegY for implementdtion to dSsure their success. Crown Bay, while exhibiting most of the dttributes to dchieve positive results, hdS problems which need sympathetic strategies. These are: o The land is all government-owned, thus reducing the operating ability of free market forces. Three government agencies control this land, each with differing objectiveS dnd priorities. o Public funds for capitdl projects and land or lease acquisition are limited, restricting the options for implementing the Master Plan. o Short-term revenues from certain operations might not be in the long-term benefit of the island. The recommen(dations which follow recognize these constraints and attempt to foster the goals of the development dS set out in Section 1.1: o An Ad-hoc Committee should be implementation of the Master Plan. should include: established to coordinate the Members of this Ad-hoc Committee - The Commissioner of Commerce - The Commissioner of Public Works - The Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affdirs - The Commissioner of Property and Procurement - The Director of Planning Office - The Executive Director of V.I.P.A. 6- 1 o This Master Plan should be accepted as a policy document by the Ad-hoc Committee and forwarded to the CZM Commission. It is furtherI recommended that the Commission consider adopting this Master Plan as a guide to assist in its future assessment of projectI applications within the area. o A memorandum of understanding should be developed by members of the Ad-hoc Committee.3 o The Ad-hoc Committee should hdVe, inter alia, the following responsibilities: - Develop and coordindte d common policy for the approval of i ledse extensions and granting of new leases in the area. - Examine the government's present leasing policies to establish what impacts. the length of the leases, and the eventual surrender of the buildings have on the quality of the buildings and the area in general. - Develop a policy for the gradual rehabilitation of the "Fringe Zone" abutting the Cruise Port and the Greater Crown Bay area.I - Devise a mechdnism for the funding and implementation of roadI and other improvements. o The Ad-hoc Committee should consider commissioning the following additional studies:3 - Transportation improvements. The detailed Phdse 2 and 3 improvements should be studied, including traffic flow, public trdnsportation, other design criteria, and the funding source for this work. 6-2 - Stormwater flooding. To lessen the extent of damage which would result from future floods, plans should be developed for the most cost-effective way of transmitting upland flood water to the Sed. - Cdncryn School . To further investigate the relocdtion of the school, a study should focus on specific sites and financial strdtegies. - Urban design. A policy plan for the area should be developed to assist the Ad-hoc Committee's assessment of functional, aesthetic and locationdl aspects of elements of development proposals as they arise. - A Master Plan should be prepared to guide future land use in the Greater Crown Bay area. 6.2 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION 6.2.1 Assumptions A primary goal of this plan was stated in Section 1.1 to be the promotion of development which "offerS dn optimum return on investment in the short- and long-term, measured against additional employment.opportunities and economic benefits." Employment is, without doubt, a basic measure of socio- economic health. It would be too idedlistic, however, to assume that the recommenddtions set out in this study could be trdnslated directly into a predicted number of additional jobs, as it is not possible to generate such a simple equation. The job opportunities to be derived from the recommendations in this study which are employment generatorS dre estimated in Table 6- 1. In examining these employment figures, three points should be remembered. First, they can pretend to be only estimates and not firm predictions. Second, all employment opportunities outside of government depend upon private enterprise providing the capital to establish the business as well as to bring 6- 3 Table 6- 1 JOB OPPORTUNITY ESTIMATES Jobs Subtotal Totals Component CARGO AREA: Warehousin g Containers HOTEL: Staff Indirect Uni t Multiplie r 10 5/Ac. 50 50 Acres Rooms Primar y Jobs 1:1 1: 1 20 0 20 0 200 200 400 MARINA : Staff Boats - Boats One One One Primar y Jobs 10 0 say 30 say 30 40 10 7 15:1 25:1 1:2 5 1:0 5 1:1 5 6 12 75 20 "Bare" Crew Other Indirec t 273 CRUISE PORT: Commercial Center Home Port 850:1 1:2 5 15 0 50 126K Sq. Ft. Two 200 Grand Total 923 H- 14/NNN 6-4 it into production. it is then up to the managerial and other employees to ensure that the undertaking is profitable, for without the profit motive, there wilIl be no jobs. The ratios used in the calculations in Table 6- 1 are thus subject to the levels of productivity expected by the individual investor, and can vary widely. The third issue is that many of the businesses which could occupy the new land dnd Wdter areas being created in this study ared could be those already operating elsewhere on the island. The number of jobs shown might thus not be new jobs, but could include relocated ones as well. Where indirect jobs are estimated, the location of these could be anywhere on the island, and would include tdXi drivers, retdil store assistants, etc. 6.2.2 Findings It Can be concluded thdt the facilities proposed will increase the productive capacity of the island economy by creating about 900 permanent jobs. These jobs will encompass all levels of expertise. By far the greatest generation would be from a hotel/marina complex, where about 300 primary job opportunities could occur, spinning off into about 350 secondary positions. By their very nature, cargo operations are not labor intensive, and the new cargo fdcility is likely to generate about 50 jobs. Should home-porting establish in the Cruise Port, the labor-intensive crew positions would likely come with the ships, and in edrly years not be filled from local labor pools. This situation could change over time. The largest associated multiplier would be from indirect employment, on the order of 200 to 300 workers gathering partial income related to home-porting. This employment would equate to approximately 50 permanent jobs. The grand total of 923 workers represents 2 percent of the Virgin Islands 1983 totdl labor force of 43,260. 6- 5 6.3 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT Figure 6.-1 contains a matrix which examines how each of the main components proposed for the study area rates with the set of goals contained in Section 1.1. Examination of this matrix reveals that the recommendations are generally positive and reflect an dppropriate allocation of the island's resources. H-14/JJ 6-6~~~~~~~ I I I I- L U) ~~~~LLJ L Z I LU u U)~~ ~ ~ ~~~ z w -J W LU ~ z M p z ~ ~ L LUZ Z (5 W( 0 m . m c w - z z U 0. (~ ~ ~~~c C) C00 0 0 Z z O Ow L) LU0 w 0 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT MATRIX FIGURE 6-1 n CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDA 0 Addendum I * Addendum 2 * Addendum 3 a Addendum 4 * Addendum 5 * Addendum 6 - Cruise Line Interviews - Cruise Line Routings - Code of Federal Regulations, Title 3, Parts 154 to 156 - Federdl Register, Reception Facilities Proposed Rulemaking - Schedule of Land Descriptions - References H14. uu CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM I CRUISE LINE INTERVIEWS � ROYAL CARIBBEAN LINES RCL makes approximately 140 calls per year to St. Thomas. They have no present plans for expansion or additional services to St. Thomas. RCL plans to continue using the West Indies Company facilities as they are very satisfied with the service they receive. They have no present intentions of using the new V.I.P.A. cruise dock, especially since there are no upland facilities. Most of their fuel is supplied from Norway and they only do partial bunkering from Miami sources. They would bunker in St. Thomas if the quality of the fuel were high and the price cheaper then their Norwegian source. � NORWEGIAN CARIBBEAN LINES - NCL has had communications with V.I.P.A., giving them the requirements for berthing of the Norway. - They will consider berthing of the Norway at the new V.I.P.A. cruise pier as long as specifications for draft are met. - There are no present plans to expand schedules to St. Thomas, over the next two (2) years. - They would be interested in bunkering in St. Thomas, if the quality of the fuel met their standards and if the price were lower than their existing contract price in Miami. - NCL feels that there will be no need to berth any of their vessels (other than the Norway) at V.I.P.A. cruise berth. Since NCL is one of the largest customers of WICO, they receive preferential treatTnent and WICO always provides space for their vessels. 0 HOLLAND AMERICAN LINE - The Rotterdam visits St. Thomas during their Caribbean season which is October to December and April to May. - Has no present plans to expand service, however, completion of the new airport might have an effect on their future planning. - The Rotterdam would use the new Crown Bay berths. - Bunkering is now done in St. Martin, but definite consideration would be given to bunkering in St. Thomas, if the price were competitive.I a CHANDJRIS LIfiES - They would consider using St. Thomas for fly and cruise operations if all conditions favorable (airport, airlines and port facilities). Air service is their main concern. - Now bunkering at Aruba because of price. Would consider St. Thomas if price were better. * COMfODORE LINES - Would not now consider St. Thomas as a home port due to expense of flying crew members in and out, expense of water, assumed extra expense in provisioning and lack of nightlife for passengers. - Still considers St. Thomas as number I port of call.I 0 COSTA CRUISESI - Would consider St. Thomas as a homeport when airport is expanded and conditions at port are better. - Will continue to use St. Thomas as port of call. S HOME LINES - Their vessels call on St. Thomas on a seasonal basis. - New vessel und4r construction, will be in service in 1986. Initially, it will be in the Bermuda route and then, most likely, in the St. Thomas route, sailing from Port Everglades. - If the airport expansion were complete and V.I.P.A. provided adequate facilities, they would not rule out St. Thomas as a home port. - Fueling is now done in Aruba, Curacao or the Barbados. If not during the route, then in Port Everglades. They would bunker at St. Thomas if the price were right. 83. z CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM 2 CRUISE LINE ROUTINGS .Chart A TrHF C:fl I flS-=SN Nec. A 4, _II% U'> \O \_ A? _0 _ '9 ? ?._e N. N ft 0 cJtPc. 4�' aI_h -C. hcP_ _ r' * , 9, wo'.e 'he. 0N N 0:~ I AX I# Z_' 0- - Chart B C=Fl I D MF ,N EDF;LJ I S= F:OLI-r I NM3C EtESFERa CAFR I BBA Eastern Caribbean I-week cruises from usually include the Eastern Caribbean Barbados, Trinidad, and Caracas Puerto Rico as far as 0 I ~~ 06c ,w40 %0 4'* t p0 0a p Chart C CARF I BBEAN CFRUJ I SE FROULT I NGS WErSTFtRN CFAR I BBEAN Western 1-week cruises from Miami range typically from Mexico to Puerto Rico. This can include port calls to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Cayman, the US Virgin Islands, and the Bahamas. chart D Western and Eastern Caribbean cruise routings from Miami for typical 2--week cruises usually include the Western and Eastern Caribbean with a South and I ~North bound route itinerary offering a one way fly or cruise option. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C Chart E CARF I BBEAN CRUL I SE ROUT I NGS TRA FS-CANAL / PAMA / C I B BI EA N Trans-Canal/Panama cruises usually include the Caribbean ports Jamaica, Cayman or Haiti, and Mexico. Alternatively they may route via Curacao/Caracas and Puerto Rico to/from Miami. CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM ~3 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 3, PARTS 154 TO 156 Navigation and Navigable Waters 3ROVWARD CGCUi'/"' JAN 0 91984 r,S 4.108: 33 PARTS 1 TO 199 Revised as of July 1, 1983 c- rn I CD *t GO17At^ ZO i3.419 Title i-n n Gu,, p. . . n 0 g ib3.419 Tille d~l--Navlgalion ano Ilavioamo Waters Chap.or I--tou,, GuG.,, yopt. v, .., mp.....on "Officer in Charge, Marine Inspec- tion" (OCMI) means the U. S. Coast Guard officer commanding a Marine Inspection Zone described In Part 3 of this chapter, or an authorized repre- sentative. "Offshore facility" means any facili- ty of any kind located in, on, or tinder any of the navigable waters of the United States other than a vessel or a public vessel. "Person in charge" means an indi- vidual designated as a person in charge of oil transfer operations tiunder �� 154.710 (for facilities) or 155.700 (for vessels) of this chapter. "Tank barge" means any tank vessel not equipped with a means of self-pro- pulsion. "Tank vessel" means any vessel that carries oil in bulk as cargo or In resi- due. "Transfer" means any movement of oil to, fromn, or within a vessel by means of pumping, gravitation, or dis- placement. "Vessel operator" means a person who owns, operates, or is responsible for the operation of a vessel. t 154.106 Incorporation by reference. (a) The American National Stand- ards Institute (ANSI) standards re- ferred to In this Part are incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference was approved by the Direc- tor of the Federal Register under the provisions of I CFR Part 51 on Decem- ber 20, 1978. (b) The standards are on file In the FE'DERAL REGISTERX library, and copies may be obtained from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center. 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017. (c) The standards may also be exam- ined at the offices of the Marine Tech- nical and Ilazardous Materials Divi- sion, U.S. Coast Guard IIeadquarters, 2100 Second Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20593 (Telephone 202-426-21871). (:01l) '15124. 15 1'1R 7169. Jann. 31. 1980, as amended by COD 82-063a. 48 PR 477', Feb. 3. 1083] f 154.107 Allernatives. (a) The COTP may consider and ap- prove alternative procedures, methods, (b) This part does not apply to a fa- cility In a caretaker status (one that is not operational or not capable of con- ducting oil transfer operations). (c) This part does not apply to a marina (a facility that services primar- lly pleasure craft) unless it engages in the transfer of oil In bulk to or from a vessel or public vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels of that oil. A 154.105 Definitions. As used In this part: "Captain of the Port" (COTP) means the U. S. Coast Guard officer commanding a Captain of the Port Zone described In Part 3 of this chap- ter, or that person's authorized repre- sentative. "Commandant" means the Comman- dant of the Coast Guard or an author- lzed representative. "Contiguous Zone" means the entire zone established by the United States under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contigu- ous Zone, but not extending beyond 12 miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea Is measured. "District Commander" means the of- ficer of the Coast Guard designated by the Commandant to command a Coast Guard District, as described In Part 3 of this chapter or an authorized repre- sentative. "Facility" means either an onshore facility or an offshore facility and in- cludes, but Is not limited to structures, equipment, and appurtenances there- to, used or capable of being used to transfer oil to or from a vessel or a public vessel. A facility includes feder- al, state, municipal, and private facili- ties. "Facility operator" means the person who owns, operates, or Is re- sponsible for the operation of the fa- cillty. "Mobile facility" means any facility that can readily change location, such as a tank truck or tank car, other than a vessel or public vessel. "Monitoring device" means any fixed or portable sensing device used to monitor for a discharge of oil onto the water, within or around a facility, and designed to notify operating per- sonnel of a discharge of bil. 153.4191 Reilltursemlent for actions untlder sectioni 31 l(l) of the Act. (a) Each Federal agency requesting reimbursement for an action author- ized under section 311(d) of the Act must, within 60 days after completion of the action, submit to the cognizant District Commander, through the AC for review and certification required In paragraph (b) of this section, lists, ac- companied by supporting accounting data, itemizing actual costs Incturred. (b) Recluests for reimbursement sub- mitted by Federal agencies are re- viewed by the AC to ensure that the costs for which reimbursement Is being sought were authorized under section 311(d) of the Act and must have one of the following certifica- tions by the AC, as appropriate; (1) I certify that the actions for which re- Imbursement Is being requested In the at- tached statements were authorized by me as removal actions under section 311(d) of the Act and reasonable costs related thereto are proper for payment from the Pollution Fllnd. PART 154-OIL POLLUTION PREVEN- TION REGULATIONS FOR MARINE OIL TRANSFER FACILITIES Subparl A--Genral Sec. 154.100 154.105 154.106 154.107 154.108 154.110 154.120 Applicability. Definitions. Incorporation by reference. Alternatives. Exemptions. Letter of Intent. Facility examinations. Subparl 8--Operatlons Manual 154.300 154.310 154.320 154.325 quac Operations manual; aeneral. Operations manual; Contents. Operations manual: Amendment. Operations manual: Letter of ade- y. / Subpart C-Equlpmcnl Requiroemnts 154.500 154.510 154.520 154.525 154.530 154.540 154.545 154.550 154.560 154.570 Hose assemblies. Loading armnns. Closure devices. Monitoring devices. Small discharge containment. Discharge removal. Discharge containment equipment. Emergency shutdown. Communications. Llghting. (Signature) AC (Incident title) (Pollution incident project number) (2) I certify that, except as noted below, the actions for which reimbursement is being requested In the attached statements were authorized by me as removal actions under section 311(d) of the Act, and reason- able costs related thereto are proper for payment from the Pollution Fund. The fol- lowing actions were not authorized by me and are not subject to relmbursement from the Pollution Fund: Subpart D-Facillity Operations 154.700 General. 154.710 Persons in chlarge: Designation and qualification. 154.730 Persons in charge: Evidence of des- ignation. 154.740 Records. 154.750 Compliance with operations manual. AuTHoaRlT: 33 U.S.C. 1321(J)(1)(C): E.O. 11735, 3 CIt1, 1071 through 1975 Comp.. p. 703; 49 CFR 1.46(m), unless otherwise noted. Subpart A-General SoURCE; COD 75-124, 45 FR 7169, Jan. 31. 1980, unless otherwise noted. D 154.100 Applicability. (a) Except as provided In paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, this part ap- plies to each facility that Is capable of transferring oil In bulk to or from any vessel or public vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels of that oil. (Signature) AC (Incident title) (Pollution Incildent project number) 691 690 � 154.310 Title 33-Navigatilon and Navigable Waters Chapter i-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation � 154.108 operations to the COTP not less than 60 days before the intended operations unless a shorter period Is allowed by the COTP. Previously submitted let- ters of Intent need not be resubmitted. (b) The letter of intent required by paragraph (a) of this section may be in any formn but must contain: (1) The name, address, and tele- phone number of the facility operator; (2) The name, address, and tele- phone number of the facility or, In the case of a mobile facility, the dispatch- ing office; and (3) Except for a mobile facility, the geographical location of the facility In relation to the associated body of navi- gable waters. (c) The facility operator of ashy fa- cillty for which a letter of Intent has been submitted, shall within five (5) days advise the COTP in writing of any changes of Information and shall cancel, In writing, the letter for any facility at which oil transfer oper- ations are no longer conducted. � 154.120 Facility examinations. (a) The facility operator shall allow the Coast Guard, at any time, to make any examination and shall perform, upon request, any test to determine compliance with this part and part 156, as applicable. The facility opera- tor shall conduct all required testing of facility equipment in a manner ac- ceptable to the Coast Guard. (b) The COTP shall provide the fa- cility operator with a written report of the results of the examination for the record required by S 154.740(e) and shall list the deficiencies In the report when the facility is not in compliance with the requirements in this part and Part 156 of this chapter. Subpart B-Operations Manual SouRcr: COD 75-124, 45 PR 7171, Jan. 31, 1980, unless otherwise noted. � 164.300 Operations manual: General. (a) The facility operator of each fa- cility to which this part applies shall submit, with the letter of intent, an operations manual that: (1) Describes how the applicant meets the operating rules and equip- ment requirements prescribed by thi part and Part 156 of this chapter; (2) Describes tile responsibillties o personnel under this part and Part 15 of this chapter In conducting oil trans fer operations; and (3) Includes translations into a lar guage or languages understood by a] designated persons in charge of tram fer operations employed by the faclll ty. (b) The facility operator shall main tain the operations manual so that I is: is tions, control stations, and locations of safety equipment; 3f (3) The hours of operation of the fa- 6 cillty; s- (4) The sizes, types, and number of vessels that the facility can transfer a- oil to or from simultaneously; il (5) For each product transferred at s- the facility: II- (1) Generic or chemical name; and (II) The following cargo information: 1- (a) The name of the cargo, as listed It in Table 30.25-1 of 46 CFR; (b) A description of the appearance of the cargo; a- (c) A description of the odor of the cargo; r- (d) The hazards Involved in handling ar the cargo; Is (e) Instructions for safe handling of the cargo; le () The procedures to be followed If is the cargo spills or leaks, or if a person le is exposed to the cargo; and a- (g) A list of fire fighting procedures and extinguishing agents effective e- with fires involving the cargo. is (6) The minimum number of persons a on duty during transfer operations n and their duties; (7) The names and telephone num- e bers of facility, Coast Guard, and 'f other personnel who may be called by a the employees of the facility in an Is emergency; is (8) The duties of watclunen, re- h quired by � 155.810 of this chapter and n- 46 CFR 35.05-15, for unmanned ves- sels moored at the facility; st (9) A description of each communl- al cation system required by this part; r- (10) The location and facilities of vi- each personnel shelter, if any;. 'I (11) A description 'and Instructions Id for the use of drip and discharge col- re lectlon and vessel slop reception facill- or ties, if any; Er (12) A description and the location of each emergency shutdown system; (13) Quantity, types, locations, and Instructions for use of monitoring de- d vices if required by � 154.525; (14) Quantity, type, location, e Instructions for use, and time limits for gaining access to the containment a- equipment required by � 154.545; y (15) Quantity, type, location, and a- instructions for use of fire extinguish- 693 or equipment standards to be used by a facility operator in lieu of any re- quirement in this part if: (1) Compliance with the require- ment is economically or physically Im- practical; (2) The alternative provides an equivalent level of safety and protec- tlon from pollution by oil, which Is documented in the request; and (3) The facility operator submits a written request for the alternative. (b) The COTP takes final approval or disapproval action on the request, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the request. � 154.108 Exemptions. (a) The Chief, Office of Marine En- vironment and Systems, acting for the Commandant, grants an exemption or partial exemption from compliance with any requirement in this part If: (1) A facility operator submits an ap- plication for the exemption via the COTP; and (2) It is determined, from the appli- cation, that: (i) Compliance with the requirement is economically or physically impracti- cal; (il) No alternative procedures. meth- ods, or equipment standards exist that would provide an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution by oil; and (ili) The likelihood of oil being dis- charged is not substantially increased as a result of the exemption. (b) If requested, the applicant must submit any appropriate Information, Including an environmental and eco- nomic assessment of the effects of and reasons for the exemption, and pro- posed procedures, methods or equip- ment standards. (c) The exemption may specify the procedures, methods, or equipment standards that will apply. (d) An exemption Is granted or denied In writing. The decision of the Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems Is a final agency action. � 154.110 Letter of intent. (a) The facility operator of any fa- cility to which this part applies must submit a letter of Intent to operate a facility or to conduct mobile facility I (1) Current; and (2) Readily available for examine tlon by the COTP. (c) The COTP shall review the opel ations manual when submitted, afte any substantial amendment, and a otherwise required by the COTP. (d) In determining whether th manual meets the requirements of thi part and Part 156 of this chapter th COTP shall consider the size, com plexity, and capability of the facility. (e) If the manual meets the require ' ments of this part and Part 156 of thl chapter, the COTP shall Issue "letter of adequacy" as described ii � 154.325. 4; (f) The facility operator shall ensur that a sufficient number of copies o the operations manual, Including sufficient number of the translation required by paragraph (a)(3) of thi section, are readily available for eacl facility person in charge .while con ducting an oil transfer operation. Norr: The facility operator may reques that the contents of the operations manus or portions thereof be considered commem cial or. financial Information that is priv leged or confidential. Under the Freedom a Information Act, the Coast Guard woul withhold any part of the contents of the ol erations manual from public disclosur, upon determining that it is commercial c financial information that Is privileged o confidential. � 154.310 Operations manual: Contents. (a) Each operations manual require by � 154.300 must contain: (1) The geographic location of th facility; (2) A physical description of the fa cility including a plan of the facillt showing mooring areas, transfer 1oca 692 _ m m m - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m m - m m m m m m m m m m - m m m m m m m m � 154.510 Chapter I-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation Tille 33-Navigation and Navigable Waters � 154.320 �154.325 Operations manual: Letter of adequacy. (a) The letter of adequacy Is a letter, from the COTP to the facility opera- tor, certifying that the operations manual meets the requirements of this part. (b) No person may use an operations manual for oil transfer operations, as required by � 156.120 (t)(2), (t)(3), and (u)(2) of this chapter, unless the facili- ty operator has a valid letter of ade- quacy for the operations manual. (c) The requirement In paragraph (b) of this section for a valid letter of adequacy is effective either on (date three years after effective date of the f� ~ .final rule); upon Issuance to a facility operator of the first letter of adequa- cy; or upon any substantial amend- ment to the operations manual, which- ever is earliest. (d) The letter of adequacy is voided if the facility operator: (1) Amends the operations manual without following the procedures In � 154.320; or (2) Fails to amend the operations manual when required by the COTP. Subpart C-Equipment Requirements SouHac COD 75-124, 45 FIt 7172, Jan. 31. 1980. unless otherwise noted. A 154.500 Ilose assemblies. Each hose assembly used for trans- ferring oil must meet the following re- quirements: (a) The minimum design burst pres- sure for each hose assembly must be: (1) At least 600 pounds per square Inch; and (2) At least four times the sum of the pressure of the relief valve setting (or four times the maximum pump pressure when no relief valve is in- stalled) plus the static head pressure of the oil transfer system at the point where the hose Is Installed. (b) The maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) for each hose as- sembly must be: (1) At least 150 pounds per square y ' Inch; and r (2) More than the sum of the pres- t sure of the relief valve setting (or the s maximum pump pressure when no valve is installed) plus the static head pressure of the oil transfer system at the point where the hose Is Installed. (c) Each nonmetallic hose must be usable for oil service. (d) Each hose assembly must either have: (1) Full threaded connections; (2) Flanges that meet standard 116.6, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flang Fittings, or standard B.16.24, Brass or Bronze Pipe Flanges, of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI); or (3) Quick-connect couplings that are acceptable to the Commandant. (e) Except as provided In paragraph (f) of this section, each hose must be marked with: (1) The products for which the hose may be used or the words "oil service"; (2) Maximran allowable working pressure. (3) Date of manufacture; and (4) Date of the latest test required by � 156.170 of this chapter. (f) The information required by paragraph (e)(3) and (4) of this section need not be marked on the hose If It is recorded elsewhere at the facility and the hose is marked to identify It with that Information. (g) The hose burst pressure and the pressure used for the test required by � 156.170 of this chapter must not be marked on the hose and must be re- corded elsewhere at the facility as de- scribed in paragraph (f) of this sec- tion. (h) Each hose used to transfer oil for fuel to a vessel that has a fill pipe for which containment can not practically be provided must be equipped with an automatic back pressure shutoff nozzle. � 154.610 Loading armas. (a) Each mechanical loading arm used for transferring oil and placed Into service after June 30, 10973. must meet the design, fabrication, material, Inspection, and testing requirements in ANSI Standard B31.3 with Addenda B31.3a, Petroleum Refinery Piping. (b) The manufacturer's certification that the standard In paragraph (a) of this section has been met must be per- manently marked on the loading arm or recorded elsewhere at the facility Ing equipment required by � 126.15(j) e of this chapter; f a (16) The maximum relief valve set- i r ting (or maximum system pressure J r when relief valves are not provided) I I for each oil transfer system; n (17) Procedures for: d (I) Operating each loading arm In- t chuiding the limitations of each loading t arm; (ii) Transferring oil; (ill) Completion of pumping; and t (Iv) Emergencies; (18) Procedures for reporting and initial containment of oil discharges; (19) A brief summary of applicable federal, state, and local oil pollution X laws and regulations; (20) Procedures for shielding porta- ble lighting authorized by the COTP under � 154.570(c); and (21) A description of the training and qualification program for persons in charge. (b) The facility operator shall Incor- porate a copy of each amendment to the operations manual under � 154.320 in each copy of the manual with the related existing requirement, or add the amendment at the end of each manual if not related to an existing re- quirement. (c) The operations manual must be written In the order specified In para- graph (a) of this section, or contain a cross-referenced index page in that order. � 154.320 Operatlons manual: AmnendmenL (a) Using the following procedures, the COTP may require the facility op- erator to amend the operations manual if the COTP finds that the op- crations mamial does not meet the re- quirements in this part: (1) The COTP shall notify the facili- ty operator In writing of any Inadequa- cies in the operations manual. The fa- cility operator may submit written In- form.tilon, views, and arguments on and proposals for amending the manual within 14 days from the date of tile COTP notice. After considering all relevant material presented, the COTP shall notify the facility opera- tor of any amendment required or adopted, or the COTP shall rescind the notice. The amendment becomes effective 30 days after the facility op- rator receives the notice, unless the iacilty operator petitions the Com- handant to review the COTP's notice, n which case Its effective date is de- ayed pending a decision by the Corm- nandant. Petitions to the Comman- lant must be submitted In writing via he COTP who Issued the requirement to amend. (2) If the COTP finds that there is a condition requiring immediate action to prevent the discharge or risk of dis- charge of oil that makes the procedure in paragraph (a)(1) of this section Im- practical or contrary to the public In- terest, the COTP may issue an amend- ment effective on the date the facility operator receives notice of It. In such a case, the COTP shall include a brief statement of the reason.s for the find; ings in the notice. The owner or opera- tor may petition the Commandant to review the amendment, but the petl- tion does not delay the amendment. (b) The facility operator may pro- pose amendments to the operations manual by: (1) Submitting any proposed amend- ment and reasons for the amendment to the COTP not less than 30 days before the requested effective date of the proposed amendment; or (2) If an Immediate amendment is needed, requesting the COTP to ap- prove the amendment immediately. (c) The COTP shall respond to pro- posed amendments submitted under paragraph (b) of this section by: (1) Approving or disapproving the proposed amendments: (2) Advising the facility operator whether the request is approved, in writing, before the requested date of the amendments; (3) Including any reasons In the written response if the request is dis- approved; and (4) If the request Is made under paragraph (b)(2) of this section Imme- diately approving or rejecting the re- quest. (d) Amendments to personnel and telephone number lists required by � 154.310(a)(8) do not require priol COTP approval, but the COTP must be advised of such amendments az they occur. 695 694 I:I- 111 0 -_1;I 1 __ 1 � 154.520 Title 3 with the loading arm marked to Identi- fy It with that information. (c) Each mechanical loading arm used for transferring oil must have a means of being drained or closed before being disconnected after trans- fer of oil. � 164.520 Closure devices. The facility must have enough but- terfly valves, wafer-type resilient seated valves, blank flanges, or other means acceptable to the COTP to blank off the ends of each hose or loading arm that Is not connected for the transfer of oil. New, unused hose is exempt from this requirement. B 154.525 Monitoring devices. The COTP may require the facility to Install monitoring devices if the In- stallation of monitoring devices at the facility would significantly limit the size of a discharge of oil and either: (a) The environmental sensitivity of the area requires added protection; (b) The products transferred at the facility pose a significant threat to the environment; or (c) The size or complexity of the transfer operation poses a significant potential for a discharge of oil. � 154.530 Small discharge containment. (a) Except as provided in paragrapihs (c) and (d) of this section, the facility must have fixed catchmnents, curbing, or other fixed means to contain oil dis- charged in at least: (1) Each hose handling and loading arm area (that area on the facility that Is within the area traversed by the free end of the hose or loading arm when moved from Its normal stowed or Idle position Into a position for connection): and (2) Each hose connection manifold area. (b) The discharge containment means required by paragraph (a) of this section must have a capacity of at least: (1) Two barrels if It serves one or more hoses of 6-inch Inside diameter or smaller, or loading arms of 6-inch nominal pipe size diameter or smaller; (2) Three barrels If It serves one or more hoses with an inside diameter of more than 6-inches, but less than 12 3--Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter I-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation � 154.570 (1) The environmental sensitivity of (b) Each facility must have a means, the area requires the added protec- which may be the communications tlon; system itself, that enables a person on (2) The products transferred at the board a vessel or on the facility to ef- facility pose a significant threat to the fectively Indicate the desire to use the environment: means of communication required by (3) The past record of discharges at paragraph (a) of this section. the facility is poor; or (c) The means required by para- (4) The size or complexity of the graph (a) of this section must be transfer operation poses a significant usable and effective In all phases of potential for a discharge of oil: and the transfer operation and all condl- (5) The use of vessel containment tions of weather at the facility. provides the only practical means to (d) A facility may use the system In reduce the extent of environmental � 154.550(a)(2) to meet the require- .; damage. ment of paragraph (a) of this section. (e) Portable radio devices used to D 1654.650 Emergency shtutdown. comply with paragraph (a) of this sec- (a) The facility must have an emer- tion during the transfer of flammable gency means to enable the person-in- or combustible liquids must be Intrin- charge of the transfer of oil on board sically safe, as defined In 46 CFR the vessel, at his or her usual operat- 110.15-100(1), and meet Class I, Divl- Ing station, to stop the flow of oil from sion I, Group D requirements as de- the facility to the vessel. This means fined in 46 CFR 111.80. must be: (1) An electrical, pneumatic, or me- [CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7172, Jan. 31, 1080; 45 FR 43705, June 30, 1080] chanical linkage to the facility, or (2) An electronic voice communica- 154.670 Lighting. tions system continuously operated by a person on the facility who can stop (a) Except as provided In paragraph the flow of oil immediately. (c) of this section, for operations be- (b) The point in the oil transfer tween sunset and sunrise, a facility system at which the emergency means must have fixed lighting that ade- stops the flow of oil on the facility quately Illuminates: must be located near the dock mani- (1) Each transfer connection point fold connection to minimize the loss of on the facility; oil In the event of the rupture or fail- (2) Each transfer connection point In ure of the: use on any barge moored at the faclli- (1) IIose; ty to or from which oil is being trans- (2) Loading arm; or ferred; (3) Manifold valve. (3) Each oil transfer operations work (c) Not later than November 1, 1980, area on the facility; and the means required by paragraph (a) (4) Each oil transfer operations work of this section must be able to stop the area on any barge moored at the facill- flow of oil in: ty to or from which oil Is being trans- (1) 60 seconds on any facility or por- ferred. tion of a facility which starts oper- (b) Where the illumination is appar- atlons on or before November 1, 1980; ently Inadequate, the COTP may re- and quire verification by Instrument of the (2) 30 seconds on any facility which levels of illumination. On a horizontal starts operations after November 1, plane 3 feet above the barge deck or 1980. walking surface, illumination must measure at least: � 151.560 Communications. (1) 5.0 foot candles at transfer con- (a) Each facility must have a means nection points; and that enables continuous two-way voice (2) 1.0 foot candle in oil transfer op- communication between the person in eratlons work areas. charge of the vessel transfer operation (c) For small or remote facilities, the and the person In charge of the facili- COTP may authorize operations with ty transfer operation. an adequate level of illumination pro- 697 inches, or loading arms with a nominal pipe size diameter of more than 6 Inches, but less than 12 inches; or (3) Four barrels if it serves one or more hoses of 12-inch inside diameter or larger, or loading arms of 12-inch nominal pipe size diameter or larger. (e) The facility may use portable means of not less than h barrel capac- ity each to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for part or all of the facility if the COTP finds that fixed means to contain ofl dis- charges are not feasible. (d) A mobile facility may have porta- ble means of not less than five gallons capacity to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. �154.640 Discharge removal. The facility must have a means to safely and quickly remove discharged oil from the containment means re- quired by � 154.530 without discharg- ing the oil into the water. � 154.545 Discharge containment equip- menL (a) Each facility must have ready access to enough oil containment ma- terial and equipment to contain any oil discharged on the water from oper- ations at that facility. (b) For the purpose of this section, "access" may be by direct ownership, Joint ownership, cooperative venture, or contractual agreement. (c) Each facility must establish time limits, subject to approval by the COTP, for deployment of the contain- ment material and equipment required by paragraph (a) of this section con- sidering: (1) Oil handling rates; (2) Oil capacity susceptible to being spilled; (3) Frequency of facility operations; (4) Tidal and current conditions; (5) Facility age and configuration: and (6) Past record of discharges. (d) The COTP may require a facility to surround each vessel conducting an oil transfer operation with oil contahn- mcnt material before commencing an oil transfer operation if: 696 m m - m m m m - m m - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -m - - m - -I - - - - - - - - - /- � 154.700 Title 33 vided by the vessel or by portable Wreans. f (d) Lighting must be located or n shielded so as not to mislead or other- wise interfere with navigation on the I, adjacent waterways. 1 Subpart D-Facility Operations [, h 154.700 General. No person may operate a facility unless the equipment, personnel, and operating procedures of that facility e meet the requirements of this part. 1 [COD 76-124. 45 FR 7173, Jan. 31, 19801 � 154.710 Persons in charge: Deoignation and qulalification. No person may serve, and the facili- ty operator may not use the services of a person, as person in charge of facili- ty oil transfer operations unless: (a) The facility operator has desig- nated that person as a person In charge and has advised the Captain of the Port in writing of his designation; (b) He has had at least 48 hours of experience In oil transfer operations at a facility In operations to which this part applies; (c) He has enough experience at the facility for which qualification is de- sired to enable the facility operator to determine that his experience is ade- quate and that he can operate the oil transfer equipment of the facility, except that, for new facilities, the Captain of the Port may authorize al- ternative experience requirements; and (d) The facility operator has deter- mined that he knows: (1) The hazards of each product to be transferred; (2) The rules In this part and In Part 150 of this chapter; (3) The facility operating procedures as described in the operations manual; (4) Vessel oil transfer systems, In general; (5) Vessel oil transfer control sys- tems, In general; (6) Each facility oil transfer control system to be used; (7) Local discharge reporting proce- dures; and 3-Navlgatlon and Navigable Waters (8) The facility's contingency plan or discharge reporting and contain- nent. sec. 311t()(1)(C) of the Federal Water Pol- ution Control Act (Bd Stat. 018. 886); 33 U.S.C. 1181(J)(l)(C); EO 11548. 3 CR, 10688- 070 Comp., p. 949; 49 CFR 1.48(m)) COD 71-1R011, 37 FR 28253, Dec. 21, 19721 15,.730 Persons in charge: Evidence of designation. Each person In charge shall carry evidence of his designation as a person In charge when he Is engaged in trans- ter operations unless such evidence Is Immediately available at the facility. (Sec. 311(j)(1)(C) of the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Act (88 8tat. 818, 888); 33 U.S.C. 1161(J)(1)C); EO 11548, 3 CFIR, 1986- 1970 Comp.. P. 949; 49 CPR 1.48(m)) [CGD '7-160R. 37 FR 28253. Dec. 21, 10721 � 164.740 Records. Each facility operator shall keep at the facility and make available for ex- amination by the COTP: (a) A copy of the letter of Intent for the facility; (b) The name of each person cur- rently designated as a person in charge of oil transfer operations at the facility; (c) The date and result of the most recent test or examination of each Item tested or examined under � 156.170 of this chapter; (d) The hose information required by �154.500 (e) and (g) except that marked on the hose; (e) The record of all examinations of the facility by the COTP within the last 3 years; and (f) Tile Declaration of Inspection re- quired by � 156.160(f) of this chapter. [COD 75-124, 45 FR 71'3, Jan. 31, 19801 � 154.750 Compliance with operations manual. The facility operator shall require facility personnel to use the proce- dures in the operations manual pre- scribed by � 154.300 for operations under this part. [COD 75-124. 45 PUl 7174. Jan. 31, 19801 Chapter I-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation � 155.1 10 PART 155-OIL POLLUTION PREVEN- TION REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS Subpart A-General 8ec. 165.100 Applicability. 155.105 Definitions. 156.107 Alternatives. 155.110 Exemptions. Subpart B--Vessel Equipmnlt 155.310 Cargo oil discharge containment. 155.320 Fuel oil and bulk lubricating oil discharge containment. 165.330 Oily waste and slop retention. i'1 155.340 Bilge slops on vessels of 100 or more gross tons: Ocean or coastwise service. 155.350 Bilge slops on vessels of 100 or more gross tons: Operations other than ocean or coastwise service. 155.360 Bilge slops on vessels of less than 100 gross tons. 155.370 Ballast discharge: Vessels of 100 or more gross tons: Ocean or coastwise service. 155.380 Ballast discharge: Vessels of 100 or more gross tons: Operations other than ocean or coastwise service. 155.390 Ballast discharge: Vessels of less thinn 100 gross tons. 155.400 Exception for all vessels: Oily waste processing equipment. 155.410 Exception for tank vessels: Oily waste transfer equipment. 155.440 Placard. 155.470 Prohibited oil spaces. Subpart C-011 Transart Peronnel, Procedures, Equipment, and Records 155.700 Designation of person In charge. 155.110 Qualifications of person in charge. 155.720 Oll transfer procedures. 155.730 Compliance with oil transfer proce- dures. 155.740 Availability of oil transfer proce- dures. 155.750 Contents of oil transfer proce- dures. 155.760 Amendment of oil transfer proce- dures. 155.770 Draining of oil. 165.780 Emergency shutdown. 155.785 Communications. 155.790 Deck lighting. 155.800 Oil transfer hose. 155.805 Closure devices. 155.810 Tank vessel security. 155.815 Tank vessel Integrity. 155.820 Records. APPENDIX A-SPECIFICATIONS Oh SiIORsG CONNECTIOrl AuTIorITY: 33 U.S.C. 1321(J)(1) (C) and (D); EO 11735. 3 CPR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 1793 49 CFR 1.46(m), unless otherwise noted. Subpart A-General SouaRC: COD 75-124, 45 FR 7174, Jan. 31, 1080. unless otherwise noted. D 155.100 Applicability, This part prescribes procedures, methods, equipment and other re- quirements for equipment to prevent and contain oil discharges from vessels on the navigable waters and contigu- ous zone of the U.S. �155.105 Definitions. The definitions in Part 154 of this chapter apply to this part. � 155.107 AlternativeL (a) The COTP or OCMI may consid- er and approve alternative procedures, methods, or equipment standards to be used by a vessel operator In lieu of any requirements In this part if: (1) Compliance with the require- ment Is economically or physically Im- practical; (2) The vessel operator submits a written request for the alternative at least 30 days before operations under the alternative are proposed; and (3) The alternative provides an equivalent level of safety and protec- tion from pollution by oil, which is documented In the request. (b) The COTP or OCMI takes final approval or disapproval action on any alternative requested, In writing, within 30 days of receipt of the re- quest. 0155.110 Exemptions. (a) The Chief, Office of Marine En- vironment and Systems, acting for the Commandant, grants an exemption or partial exemption from compliance with any requirement in this part If: (1) A vessel operator submits an ap- plication for exemption via the COTP or OCMI 30 days before operations under the exemption are proposed unless thle COTP or OCMI authorizes a shorter time; and 699 698 Title 33-Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter I--Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation � 155.360 � 15l5.310 Inches, or one or more loading arms with a nominal pipe size diameter of more than 2 Inches but less than 4 Inches; (11fi) Two barrels If It serves one or more hoses with an Inside diameter of 4 Inches or more, but less than 8 Inches, or one or more loading arms with a nominal pipe size diameter of 4 Inches or more, but less than 6 Inches; (iv) Three barrels If it serves one or more hoses with an Inside diameter of 6 Inches or more, but less than 12 Inches, or one or more loading arms with a nominal pipe size diameter of 6 inches or more, but less than 12 Inches; or (v) Four barrels If It serves one or more hoses with an Inside diameter of 12 Inches or more, or one or more loading arms with a nominal pipe size diameter of 12 inches or more; (2) Means of draining or removing discharged oil from each container or enclosed deck area without discharg-. ing the oil into the water; and (3) A mechanical means of closing each drain and scupper In the contain. er or enclosed deck area required by this section. (b) A tank barge with a capacity of 250 or more barrels that Is carrying oil cargo must meet paragraph (a) of this section or be equipped with: (1) A coaming. at least 4 inches high but not more than 8 Inches high, en- closing the immediate area of the cargo hatches, oil loading manifolds, and transfer connections, that has a capacity. in all conditions of vessel list and trim to be encountered during the loading operation, of at least one-half barrel per hatch, manifold, and con- nection within the enclosed area; (2) A fixed or portable container, under each oil loading manifold and each oil transfer connection within the coaming, that holds at least one- half barrel; (3) A mechanical means of closing each drain and scupper within the coaming; and (4) A means of draining or removing discharged oil from the fixed or porta- ble container and from within the coamings without discharging the oil Into the water. [COD 75-124, 45 FR 7174, Jan. 31. 19001 (2) It is determined, from the appli- cation, that: (i) Compliance with a specific re- quirement Is economically or physical- ly impractical; (11) No alternative procedures, meth- ods, or equipment standards exist that would provide an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution by oil; and (111) The likelihood of oil being dis- charged as a result of the exemption is minimal. (b) If requested, the applicant must submit any appropriate information, including an environmental and eco- nomic assessment of the effects of and reasons for the exemption and pro- posed procedures, methods or equip- ment standards. (c) The exemption may specify the procedures, methods, or equipment standards that will apply. (d) An exemption Is granted or denied in writing. The decision of the Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems Is a final agency action. Subpart B-Vessel Equipment AuTroanTrY: Sec. 155.330 through 1655.410 issued under Sec. 311(1)(1) (C) and (D) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816, 888); 33 U.S.C. 1161(J)(1) (C) and (D); EO 11548, 3 CFR, 1960-1970 Comp. p. 949; 49 CFR 1.46(m). SoURce: COD 71-100R, 37 FR 28258. Dec. 21, 1972, unless otherwise noted. � 155.310 Cargo oil discharge contain- meat. (a) A tank vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels that Is carrying oil cargo must have: (1) Under or around each oil loading manifold and each oU transfer connec- tion point, a fixed container or en- closed deck area that, in all conditions of vessel list or trim encountered during the loading operation, has a ca- pacity of at least: (I) One half barrel If It serves one or more hoses with an Inside diameter of 2 Inches or less, or one or more loading arms with a nominal pipe size diame- ter of 2 inches or less; (i) One barrel If It serves one or more hoses with an inside diameter of more than 2 Inches but less than 4 0 155.320 Fuel oil and bulk lubricating oil (b) The piping system required by discharge containment. this section has at least one outlet: (a) A vessel of 300 gross tons or more (1) For vessels of 1,600 or more gross constructed after June 30, 1974 must tons, on each side of the weather deck; have a fixed container or enclosed or deck area under or around each fuel (2) For vessels of less than 1,000 oil or bulk lubricating oil tank vent, gross tons, accessible from the weath- overflow, and fill pipe, which: er deck; (1) For a vessel of 300 or more but (c) Each outlet required by this sec- less than 1600 gross tons has a capac- tlion has a shore connection that meets Ity of at least one-half barrel; and the specifications in Appendix A of (2) For a vessel of 1600 or more gross this part or the vessel has at least one tons has a capacity of one barrel. portable adapter that meets the spec- (bi A vessel of 100 gross tons or more ficatlons in Appendix A of this part constructed before July 1, 1974, and a and fits the required outlets; vessel of 100 or more but less than 300 (d) The vessel has a means on the gross tons constructed after June 30. weather deck near the discharge 1074 must: outlet to stop each pump that is used (1) Meet paragraph (a)(l) of this sec- to discharge oily waste; and tion; (e) The vessel has a stop valve In- (2) EquiP each fuel ol' or bulk lubri- stalled for each outlet required by this cating oil tank vent, overflow, and fill section. pipe during oil transfer operations with a portable container of at least a 9 165.350 Bilge slops on vessels of 100 or 5 U.S. gallon capacity; or more gross tons: Operations other than (3) If the vessel has a fill fitting for ocean or coastise service. which containment Is Impractical, use an automatic back pressure shut-off No person may operate a vessel of nozzle. 100 or more gross tons that is fitted with either main or auxiliary machin- [COD 75-124. 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31. 19801 ery spaces and is not subject to ery spaces and Is not subject to 0 155.330 Oily waste and slop retention. � 155.340, unless: (a) The vessel has at least one pump (a) No person may operate a vessel installed to discharge oily bilge slops of 100 or more gross tons unless it has through a fxed piping system capacity to retain on board all oily (b) The piping system required by waste and oily bilge slops that may ac- t his section has at least one outlet cumulate while operating In the navi- this econ has at least one outlet gable waters or contiguous zone that Is accessible from the weather gable waters or contiguous zone. deck; (b) No person may use a tank for deck; oily bilge slops or oily waste on U.S (c) Each outlet required by this sec- vessels certificated under 48 CFR Ch. tion has a shore connection that meets I unless the tank meets the require- the specifications In Appendix A of ments of 46 CFR 56.50-50(h) for isola- this part or that meets standard 131.5, tion between oil and bilge systems. Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fit- tings, or 118.31, Nonferrous Pipe � 155.310 Bilge slops on vessels of 100 or Flanges, of the American National more gross tons: Ocean or coastwise Standards Institute for a 4-inchi stand- service. ard flange; and No person may operate a U.S. vessel (d) The vessel has a stop valve in- of 100 or more gross tons certificated stalled for each outlet required by this under 46 CFR Ch. I for Ocean or section. coastwise service, or a foreign vessel of 100 or more gross tons, that Is fitted 1165.360 Bilge slups on vessels of less with either main or auxiliary machin- than 100 groas tons. ery spaces, unless: No person may operate a vessel of (a) Thie vessel has at least one pump less than 100 gross tons unless it has a installed to discharge oily bilge slops fixed or portable means to discharge through a fixed piping system; oily bilge slops to a reception facility. 701 I//II/IIIII//mII/Im --- -m- m m - - -- - -- - - l- � 155.370 Title 33-Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter I-Coast iuard, Dept. or Transportation 9 155.74u (2) For tank barges, he holds a valid license authorizing service on inspect- ed vessels as a master, mate, engineer, or is a tankerman certificated for the grade of cargo carried; or (3) For vessels other than tank ves- sels that are required by 46 CFR Ch. I to have a licensed officer on board, he i holds a valid license as a master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator; or (4) For all uninspected vessels of 100 or more gross tons, he has been In- structed by the operator In his dutles and the Federal Water Pollution laws and regulations that apply to the vessel. (5) For foreign vessels of the same size and type as those specified in sub- paragraplhs (a) (1)., (2), and (3) of this section, he holds a license or certifi- cate authorizing service on that vessel as a master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator. (Sec. 311(J)(l) (C) and (D) of tile Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 818, 868): 33 U.S.C. 1161(J)(l) (C) and (D); EO 11548, 3 CFR, 1908-1970 Comp., p. 049; 49 CFR 1.46(m)) [CODT 71-1OOR, 37 FR 28256, Dec. 21, 19121 � 15.720 Oil transfer procedures. The operator of a vessel that has a capacity for 250 or more barrels of oil must provide oil transfer procedures that meet the requirements of this part and Part 156 for: (a) Transfers of oil to or from the vessel; and (b) Transfers of oil from tank to tank within the vessel. H 165.730 Compliance with oil transfer procedures. The vessel operator of each vessel required by � 165.720 to have oil trans- fer procedures shall maintain them current and shall require vessel per- sonnel to use the oll transfer proce- dures for each oil transfer operation. 155.740 Availability of oil transfer pro- cedures. The oll transfer procedures required by � 155.720 must be: (a) Available for inspection by the COTP or OCMI whenever the vessel is In operation; (d) The vessel has a stop valve in- stalled for each outlet required by this section. � 155.390 Ballast discharge: Vessels of less than 100 gross tons. No person may operate a vessel of less than 100 gross tons that ballasts fuel oil tanks unless it has a fixed or portable means to discharge oily bal- last to a reception facility. �155.400 Exception for all vessels: Oily waste processing equipment. Sections 155.340 through 155,390 do not apply to a vessel that has a means acceptable to the Commandant to process oily bilge slops or oily ballast. 0 155.410 Exception for tank vessels: Oily waste transfer equipment. Sections 155.340 through 1556.300 do not apply to tank vessels that have a means of transferring oily bilge slops or oily ballast to a cargo tank used for slops. On U.S. vessels, this means must meet the bilge and oil system Isolation requirements In 46 CFR 566.50-50(h). 0 155.440 Placard. (a) A vessel, except a vessel of less than 26 feet In length, must have a placard of at least 5 by 8 Inches, made of durable material, fixed in a con- splcuous place in each machinery space, or at the bilge and ballast pump control station, stating the following: DISClnARC or OIL PaOHIBrTZD The Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of oil or oily waste Into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or the waters of the contifu- ous zone If such discharge causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or causes a sludge or emulsion beneath the surface of the water. Violators are subject to a penalty of $5,000. (b) Existing stocks of placards may be used for the life of the placard. (e) The placard required by para- graph (a) or (b) of this section must be printed In a language or languages un- derstood by the crew. [COD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31. 1980] � 155.470 Prohibited oil spaces. A self-propelled vessel of 300 or more gLross tons must not carry bulk oil or oily waste in any space forward of a collision bulkhead except: (a) For vessels constructed after June 30, 1974, fuel oil for use on the vessel may be carried in tanks forward of a collision bulkhead, if such tanks are at least 24 inches Inboard of the hull structure; or (b) For vessels constructed before July 1, 1974, fuel oil for use on the vessel may be carried in tanks forward of a collision bulkhead, if such tanks were designated, Installed, or con- structed for fuel oil carriage before July 1, 1974. [CaD 75-124. 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 19801 Subpart C-Oil Transfer Personnel, Procedures, Equipment, and Records Souact: C(D 75-124, 45 Ft 7175, Jan. 31, 19080, unless otherwise noted. � 155.700 Designation of person in charge. The operator, or his agent, of each vessel that has a capacity for 250 or more barrels of oil shall designate the person or persons in charge of each transfer of oil to or from the vessel and of each tank cleaning operation. (See. 311(J1(1) (C) and (D) of the Pederal Water Pollution Control Act (88 Stat. 816, 888); 33 U.S.C. 1161(j)(1) (C) and (D); EO 11548, 3 CFR, 1088-1970 Comp., p. 940; 40 CFR 1.48(m)) [COD 71-160R, 37 FR 28250. Dec. 21. 19721 � 155.710 Qualifications of person In charge. (a) No person may serve, and the op- erator of a vessel may not use the serv- Ices of a person, as a person In charge of the transfer of oil to or from a vessel or of tank cleaning operations unless: (1) For oil transfer operations on self-propelled tank vessels, he holds a valid license authorizing service on In- spected vessels as a master, mate, pilot, or engineer, except that the person in charge of tank cleaning op- erations conducted at a tank cleaning facility may be a tankerman certificat- ed for the grade of cargo last carried; or � 155.370 Ballast discharge: Vessels of 100 or more gross tons: Ocean or coaltwise service. No person may operate a U.S. vessel of 100 or more gross tons that Is certi- ficated under 46 CFR Ch. I for ocean or coastwise service, or a foreign vessel of 100 or more gross tons, that ballasts fuel tanks or has combined fuel and ballast tanks unless: (a) The vessel has at least one pump installed to discharge ballast through a fixed piping system; (b) The piping system required by this section has at least one outlet: (1) For vessels of 1,600 or more gross tons, on each side of the weather deck; or (2) For vessels of less than 1,f00 gross tons, accessible from the weath- er deck: (c) Each outlet required by this sec- tioin has a silore connection that meets the specifications In Appendix A of this part, or the vessel has at least one portable adapter that meets the speci- fications in Appendix A of this part and fits the required outlets; (d) The vessel has a means near the discharge piping on the weather deck to stop each pump that is used to dis- charge oily ballast; and (e) The vessel has a stop valve In- stalled for each outlet required by this section. 0 155.380 Ballast discharge: Vessels of o10 or more gross tons: Operations other than ocean or coastwise service. No person may operate a vessel of 100 or more gross tons that Is not sub- ject to � 155.370 and ballast fuel tanks or has combined fuel and ballast tanks unless: (a) The vessel has at least one pump installed to discharge all oily ballast through a fixed piping system; (b) The piping system required by this section has at least one outlet that is accessible from the weather deck: (c) Each outlet required by this sec- tion has a shore connection that meets the specifications In Appendix A of tils part or the vessel has at least one portable adapter that meets the speci- fications In Appendix A of this part and fits the required outlets; and 702 703 'Tra atin .155.1 l,,1V 33-.s.lio .,..J Na..u-.Jle V .....te .ast . 1, De. g 155.'.U for the findings In the notice, and the sically safe, as defined in 40 CFR vessel operator may petition the Com- 110.15-100(l), and meet Class I, Divi. mandant. In any maituner, to review the sion I, Group D requirements as de- amendment. The petition does not fined in 40 CFR 111.80. postpone the amendment. (COD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 1980; 46 � 155.770 Draining of oil. FR 43705, June 30, 1980] No person may IntentionallY drain � 155.790 Deck lilgting. oil or oily waste from any source into the bilge of any vessel. (a) A self-propelled vessel with a ca- pacity of 250 or more barrels of oil � 155.780 Emergency shutdown. that Is transferring oil between sunset (a) A tank vessel with a capacity of and sunrise must have deck lighting 250 or more barrels of cargo oil that Is that adequately Illuminates each: carrying oil must have on board an (1) Transfer connection point on the emergency means to enable a person vessel; in charge of an oil transfer operation (2) Transfer connection point In use to stop the flow of oil to a facility. on any barge moored to the vessel to other vessel, or within the vessel. or from which oil Is being transferred; (b) The means required In para- (3) Oil transfer operations work area graphl (a) of this section may be a on the vessel; and pump control, a quick-acting, power (4) trafer operations work area actuated valve, or an operating proce- i ae ort w ae dure. If an emergency pump control is on any barge moored to the vessel to used, It must stop the flow of off If ol or from which oil is being transferred. could siphon through the stopped (b) Where the Illumination Is appar- punmp. ently Inadequate the OCMI or COTP (c) The means required In paragraph may require verification by instrument (a) of this section must be operable of the levels of Illumination. On a from the cargo deck, cargo control horizontal plane 3 feet above the deck room, or the usual operating station of the illumination must measure at the person In charge of the oil trans- least: fer operation. (1) 5.0 foot candles at transfer con- nection points; and (�155.785 Communications. (2) 1.0 foot candle In oil transfer op- (a) During vessel to vessel oil trans- erations work areas. fers, each tank vessel with a capacity (c) Lighting must be located or of 250 or more barrels of cargo oil that shielded so as not to mislead or other- is carrying oil must have a means that wise interfere with navigation on the enables continuouls two-way voice com- adJacent waterways. munication between the persons in charge of the transfer operations on 155.800 Oil tranferhose. both vessels. (b) Each vessel must have a means, Hose used to transfer oil must meet which may be the communication the requirements of � 154.500 of this system Itself, that enables a person on chapter. board each vessel to effectively Indi- cate his desire to use the means of d 155.805 Closure devices. communication required by paragraph (a) Each end of each oil transfer (a) of this section. hose on board which Is not connected (c) The means required by para- for the transfer of oil must be blanked graph (a) of this section must be off with butterfly valves, wafer-type usable and effective In all phases of resilient seated valves, blank flanges, the transfer operation and all condi- or other means acceptable to the tions of weather. COTP or OCI. (d) Portable radio devices used to (b New, unused e Is exempt from comply with paragraph (a) of this sec- hebrNewlunent ose Is exempt()rof tion during the transfer of flammable the requirement in paragraph (a) of or combustible liquids must be Intrin- this section. 705 (10) Procedures for closing and open- ing the vessel openings in � 155.815. (b) Exemptions or alternatives granted must be placed In the front of the oil transfer procedures. (c) The vessel operator shall incorpo- rate each amendment to the oil trans- fer procedures under � 165.760 In tihe procedures with the related existing requirement, or at the end of the pro- cedures if not related to an existing re- quirement. � 155.760 Amendment of oil transfer pro- cedures. (a) The COTP or OCMI may require the vessel operator of any vessel that is required to have oil transfer proce- dures under � 155.720 to amend those procedures if the COTP or OCMI finds that the oil transfer procedures do not meet the requirements of this part. (b) The COTP or OCMI shall notify the vessel operator in writing of any inadequacies In the oil transfer proce- dures. The vessel operator may submit written Information, views, and argu- ments on and proposals for amending the procedures within 14 days from the date of the COTP or OCMI notice. After considering all relevant material presented, the COTP or OCMI shall notify the vessel operator of any amendment required or adopted, or the COTP or OCMI may rescind the notice. The amendment becomes effec- tive 30 days after the vessel operator receives the notice, unless the vessel operator petitions the Commandant to review the COTP or OCMI notice, In which case Its effective date is delayed pending a decision by the Comman- dant. Petitions to the Commandant must be submitted in writing via the COTP or OCMI who Issued the re- quirement to amend. tel If the COTP or OCMI finds that there Is a condition requiring immedi- ate action to prevent the discharge or risk of discharge of oil that makes the procedure In paragraph (b) of this sec- tion impractical or contrary to the public interest. lie or she may Issue an amendment effective on the date the vessel operator receives notice of It. In such a case, the COTP or OCMI in- cludes a brief statement of the reasons (b) Legibly printed In a language or languages understood by personnel en- gaged in oil transfer operations; and (c) Permanently posted or available at a place where the procedures can be easily seen and used by members of the crew when engaged in oil transfer operations. � 155.750 C-ontents of oil ranlsfer proce- dures. (a) The oil transfer procedures re- quired by � 155.720 must contain, either in the order listed or by use of a cross-reference index page: (1) A list of each product transferred to or from the vessel, Including the following information: (i) Generic or chemical name; (ii) Cargo information as described in � 154.310(a)(5)(li) of this chapter; and (iit) Applicability of oil transfer pro- cedures; (2) A description of each oil transfer system on the vessel including: (i) A line diagram of the vessel's oil transfer piping, including the location of each valve, pump, control device, vent, and overflow; (i) The location of the shutoff valve or other Isolation device that sepa- rates any bilge or ballast system from the oil transfer system; and (iil) A description of and procedures for emptying the discharge contain- ment system required by � 155.310 and 155.320; (3) The number of persons required to be on duty during oil transfer oper- ations; (4) The duties by title of each offi- cer, person in charge, tankerman, deckhand, and any other person re- quired for each oil transfer operation; (5) Procedures and duty assignments for tending the vessel's moorings during the transfer of oil; (6) Procedures for operating the emergency shutdown and communica- tions means required by �1155.780 and 155.785, respectively; (7) Procedures for topping off tanks: (8) Procedures for ensuring that all valves used during the oil transfer op- erations are closed upon completion of transfer; (9) Procedures for reporting oil dis- charges into the water; and 704 _ _ _ m _ m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mm _ _ I~I/IIllml//mI ImII~Iml 155.u., ....33-- 3atiu i Na ,le� ~ ,.,,uptek ,~oas! -.~rd, ~r.. M Tr .....~ Jrlol .... ~ 156 .... APPENDIX A-SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHORE CONNECTION Sete U 340. 350. 370 and 380 of this Peal Ilom Descdption Olmensaon 1......... . Outside 215 mm. ( bin.). diameter. 2............. Intodo diarM... Acotng o pipo oUtlde diamator. 3.................. Bot crcle 183 mmn. i In.). dimaiMter. 4.................. Slts flng. holes 22 mm. (i. in.) In doarnamt shal be eqt- ditantly placed on a bolt cilcl ol the aboe dlamoto. slotted to Uti langO peOlhay. TIe slot with Ia to be 22 nmm (,A In). S_.....l...... 2Fnge m2 m (/ V l). UhJcikns. .............. Bots and nut... , each ol 20 mm. (. h.) In diameter and ol uit- ahWa length. The ange moat be of sool haing a fnl ace wlUth a gasket o oof prool material and mUt bhe Uttahle lo A ou pro sta of 6 k8g.lcm.2 (85 p.S.l .. The stoel matedals used must moot te material pe c Ilonl ofl tandard 818.5. Stool Pipo Flangas and Flanlod Finings d the AImusican NatioMil Stniaouda Insitlule. (S"e ! 154.108 ol this hiletr.) [CD 765-124, 45 PR 7178. Jan. 31, 19801 PART 156--OIL POLLUTION PREVEN- TION REGULATIONS FOR OIL TRANSFER OPERATIONS INVOLV- ING VESSELS 9 155.810 Tank vessel security. The vessel operator of each tank vessel that contains more oil than the normal clingage and unpumpable bilge or sump residues In any cargo tank shall maintain surveillance of that vessel by using a person who Is respon- sible for the security of the vessel and for keeping unauthorized persons off the vessel. Ui 155.815 Tannl vessel integrity. (a) Except as provided In paragraph (b) of this section, a tank vessel under- way or at anchor must have all closure mechanisms on the following openings properly closed: (1) Expansion trunk hatches; (2) Ullage openings; (3) Sounding ports; (4) Tank cleaning openings; and (5) Any other tank vessel openings that maintain the seaworthy condition of the tank vessel and prevent the In- advertent release of oil in the event of a tank vessel accident. (b) No person may open any of the closure mechanisms In paragraph (a) of this section while the tank vessel is underway or at anchor except when authorized and supervised by a li- censed officer or the tankerman re- quired by 46 CFR 31.15-5(a). 8 155.820 Records. The vessel operator shall keep a written record available for Inspection by the COTP or OCMI of: (a) The name of each person cur- rently designated as a person in charge of oil transfer operations. (b) The date and result of the most recent test and Inspection of each Item tested or Inspected as required by g 156.170 of this chapter; (c) The hose Information required by � 154.500(e) and (g) of this chapter unless that information Is marked on the hose; and (d) The Declaration of Inspection as required by � 156.150(f) of this chap- ter. any vessel and to or from a public vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels of that oil, except that this part does not apply to the transfer op- eration within or on a public vessel. 0 156.105 Definitions. The definitions In Part 154 of this chapter apply to this part. U 158.107 Alternatives. (a) The COTP may consider and ap- prove alternative procedures, methods, or equipment standards to be used by a vessel or facility operator In lieu of any requirements in this part if: (1) Compliance with the require- ment Is economically or physically Im- practical; (2) The vessel or facility operator submits a written request for the al- ternative at least 30 days before oper- ations under the alternative are pro- posed. unless the COTP authorizes a shorter time; and (3) The alternative provides an equivalent level of safety and protec- tion fronI pollution by oil, which Is documented In the request. (b) The COTP takes final approval or disapproval action on any alterna- tive reqtested, in writing, witlhin 30 days of receipt of the request. U156.110 Exemptlons. (a) The Chief, Office of Marine En- vironment and Systems, acting for the Commandant, grants an exemption or partial exemption from compliance with any requirement in this part if: (1) The vessel or facility operator submits an application for exemption via the COTP at least 30 days before operations under the exemption are proposed, unless the COTP authorizes a shorter time; and (2) It is determined, from the appil- cation, that: (1) Compliance with a specific re- quirement is economically or physical- ly impractical; (11) No alternative procedures, meth- ods. or equipment standards exist that would provide an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution by oil; and (liD) The likelihood of oil being dis- charged as a result of the exemption is minilmal. (b) If requested, the applicant must submit any appropriate information, including an environmental and eco- nomic assessment of the effects of and reasons for the exemption and pro- posed procedures, methods or equip- ment standards. (c) The exemption may specify the procedures, methods, or equipment standards that will apply. (d) An exemption is granted or denied In writing. The decision of the Chief, Office of Marine Environment and Systems is a final agency action. U 166.112 Suspenlion order. The COTP or OCMI may issue a sus- pension order to suspend oil transfer operations to the vessel or facility op- erator when the COTP or OCMI finds there is a condition requiring action to prevent the discharge or threat of dis- charge of oil, or when the COTP or OCMI is unable to verify compliance with the regulations through an in- spectlon. A suspension order; (a) May be effective immediately; (b) Is Issued In writing unless It is ef- fective immediately and then It may be Issued orally and followed up In writing; (c) Includes a statement of each con- dition requiring action to prevent the discharge of oil; and (d) Is withdrawn when the COTP, OCMI. or District Commander, as ap- plicable, determines that the condition requiring action to prevent the dis- charge or threat of discharge of oil has been corrected or no longer exists. U 156.113 Comnpliance with suipenosiinJ order. (a) No vessel or facility operator to whomn a suspension order has been Issued may conduct oil transfer oper- ations from the time the order is effec- tive until that order Is withdrawn by the applicable COTP, OCMI, or by the District Connmander. (b) The vessel or facility operator may request reconsideration of the suspension order either orally or In writing to the COTP or OCMI who issued It. The request may contain supporting documentation and evi- dence that the vessel or facility opera- tor wishes to have considered. Sec. 166.100 168.105 156.107 158.110 158.112 166.113 156.115 156.118 158.120 156.125 158.130 158.160 150.180 156.170 Applicablllty. Definitions. Alternatives. ExemptlonS. Suspension order. Compliance with suspension order. Person in charge: Llmitationa. Advalice notice of oll transfer. Requirements for oil transter. Oil discharge cleanup. Connection. Declaration of Inspection. Supervision by person in charge. Equipment tests and Inspections. Aunsonlitr: 33 U.S.C. 1321(J)(1)IC) and (D); EO 11735. 3 CFR. 1971--1975 Comp., p. 793; 40 CFR 1.48(m). Soonce: COD 75-124, 45 FR 717,. Jan. 31. 1980, unless otherwise noted. U 156,.100 Applicahility. This part applies to the transfer of oil on the navigable waters or contigu- ous zone of the U.S. to, from, or within 706 707 Title 33-Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter I-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation � 1S6.120 � 156.115 (c) Any person not satisfied with a (b) In the case of a vessel to vessel ruling made under the procedure con- transfer, the COTP may require a tained In paragraph (b) of this section vessel operator of a lighterlng or fuel- may appeal that ruling In writing, ing vessel to notify the COTP of the except as allowed under paragraph (e) time and place of each oil transfer op- of this section, to the Coast Guard eration. as specified by the COTP. at District Commander of the district in least 4 hours before It begins. which the suspension order was Issued. (c) No person may conduct such oil The appeal may contain supporting transfer operations until advance documentation and evidence that the notice has been given as specified by appellant wishes to have considered. the COTP. The appeal does not stay the effect of the suspension order while the COTP Nopl The notificaby ubmlttlon may be accom-hedule plished by submitting a written schedule. or OCMI ruling is being reviewed. Tihe periodically updated to be current. District Commander Issues a ruling after reviewing the appeal. f 156.120 Requirements for oil transfer. (d) The ruling by the District Com- mander is final agency action. mander Is final agency action. No person may conduct an oil trans- for operation unless: (e) If the delay in presenting a writ- fe (e) If the delaY In presenting) afwtrhit (a ) The vessel's moorings are strong ten appeal under paragraph (c) of tis (a) The vessel's moorings are strong section would have a significant ad- enough to hold during all expected verse Impact on the appellant, the conditions of surge, current, and appeal may initially be presented weather and are long enough to allow orally. If an initial presentation of the adlustment for changes In draft, drift, appeal Is made orally, the appellant and tide during the transfer operation: must submit the appeal in writing lb) Oil transfer hoses and loading within five days of the oral presenta- arms are long enough to allow the tlon to the District Commander to vessel to move to the limits of its whom the oral appeal was made, con- moorings without placing strain on taining, at a minimum the basis for the hose, loading arm, or oil transfer the appeal and a summary of the ma- piping system; terial presented orally. (c) Each hose Is supported to pre- vent kinking or other damage to the � 156.115 Person in charge: Limitations. hose and strain on its coupling. (a) No person may serve as the (d) Each part of the oil transfer person in charge of oil transfer oper- system is aligned to allow the flow of ations on more than one vessel at a oil; time during oil transfers between ves- (e) Each part of the oil transfer sels or between two or more vessels system not necessary for the transfer and a facility unless authorized by the operation is securely blanked or shut COTP. off; (b) No person may serve as tile (f) The end of each hose and loading person in charge of both a vessel and a arm that is not connected for the facility during oil transfer operations transfer of oil Is blanked off using the unless authorized by the COTP. closure devices required by �� 154.120 and 155.805 of this chapter; �156.118 Advance notice of oil transfer. and 155.805 of this attached (g) The transfer system is attached (a) The COTP may require a facility to a fixed connection on the vessel and operator to notify the COTP of the the facility except that when a vessel time and place of each oil transfer op- Is receiving fuel, an automatic back eration at least 4 hours before It pressure shutoff nozzle may be used; begins for facilities that: (h) Each overboard discharge or sea (1) Are mobile: suction valve that is connected to the t2) Are in a remote location; vessel's oil transfer or cargo tank (3) Ilave a prior history of oil spills; system is sealed or lashed In the closed or position; except when used to receive (4) Conduct infrequent oil transfer or discharge ballast In compliance operations. with 33 CFR Part 157; 7nR (1) Each oil transfer hose has no un- repaired loose covers, kinks, bulges. soft spots, or any other defect which would permit the discharge of oil through the hose material and no gouges, cuts, or slashes that penetrate the first layer of hose reinforcement ("reinforcement" means the strength members of the hose, consisting of fabric, cord and/or metal); (J) Each hose or loading arm in use meets I� 154.500 and 154.510 of this chapter, respectively; (k) Each connection meets 1 156.130; (1) Any monitoring devices required by � 154.525 of this chapter are in- stalled and operating properly; (m) The discharge containment equipment required by I 154.545 of this chapter Is readily accessible or de- ployed as applicable; (n) The discharge containment re- quired by I� 154.530, 155.310, and 155.320 of this chapter, as applicable, is In place and periodically drained to provide the required capacity; (o) Each drain and scupper is closed by the mechanical means required by �155.310; (p) All connections In the oil trans- fer system are leak free except that a component In an oil transfer system, such as the packing glands of a pump, may leak at a rate that does not exceed the capacity of the discharge containment provided during the transfer operation; (q) The communications required by II 154.560 and 155.785 of this chapter are operable for the transfer oper- ation; (r) The emergency means of shut- down required by �� 154.550 and 155.780 of this chapter, as applicable, Is In position and operable; (s) There Is a person In charge on the transferring vessel or facility and the receiving vessel or facility except as otherwise authorized under � 156.115; (t) Each person In charge required by paragraph (s) of this section: (1) Is at the site of the oil transfer operation and immediately available to the oil transfer personnel; (2) IIas In his or her possession a copy of the facility operations manual or vessel oil transfer procedures, as ap- propriate; and (3) Conducts the transfer operation in accordance with the facility oper- ations manual or vessel oil transfer procedures, as appropriate; (u) The personnel required, under the facility operations manual and the vessel oil transfer procedures, to con- duct the oil tralisfer operation: (1) Are on duty; and (2) Conduct the transfer operation in accordance with the facility oper- ations manual or vessel oil transfer procedures, as appropriate; (v) At least one person Is at the site of the oil transfer operation who flu- ently speaks the language or lan- guages spoken by both persons in charge; (w) The person In charge of oil transfer operations on the transfer- ring vessel or facility and the person in charge of oil transfer operations on the receiving vessel or facility have held a conference, to ensure that each person In charge understands the fol- lowing details of the transfer oper- ation: (1) The Identity of the product to be transferred; (2) The sequence of transfer oper- ations; (3) The transfer rate; (4) The name or title and location of each person participating in the trans- fer operation; (5) Details of the transferring and receiving systenms; (6) Critical stages of the transfer op- eration; (7) Federal, state, and local rules that apply to the transfer of oil; (8) Emergency procedures; (9) Discharge containment proce- dures; (10) Dischlarge reporting procedures; (11) Watch or shift arrangement; (12) Transfer shutdown procedures; (x) The person in charge of oil trans- fer operations on the transferring vessel or facility and the person In charge of oil transfer operations on the receiving vessel or facility agree to begin the transfer operation; (y) Between sunset and sunrise the lighting required by I 154.570 and 165.790 of this chapter Is provided; and (z) For transfer operations between tank barges from sunset to sunrise, 700 /IImI~llIIIIImI///m/I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Chapter I-Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation Part 157 � 156.125 Title 33-Navigation and Navigable Waters lighting is provided as described in � 155.790 of this chapter. � 156.125 Oil discharge cleanup. (a) Each person conducting an oil transfer operation shall stop the transfer operation whenever oil from any source Is discharged: (1) In the transfer operation work area; or (2) Into the water or upon the ad- Joining shoreline in the transfer area. (b) Except as permitted under para- graph (c) of this section, no person may resume an oil transfer operation after it has been stopped under para- graph (a) of this section, unless: (1) Oil discharged in the oil transfer operation work area is cleaned up: and (2) Oil discharged into the water or upon the adjoining shoreline is cleaned up, or is contained and being cleaned up. (c) The COTP may authorize resum- ing the oil transfer operation if it is deemed appropriate. � 156.130 Connection. (a) Each person who makes a con- nection for oil transfer operations shall: (1) Use suitable material in Joints and couplings to ensure a leak-free seal; (2) Use a bolt in at least every other �hole, and in no case less than four bolts, in each temporary bolted con- nection that uses a flange that meets American National Standards Insti- tute (ANSI) standard flange require- ments under � 154.500(d)(2) of this chapter; (3) Use a bolt in each hole in each temporary bolted connection that uses a flange other than one that meets ANSI standards; (4) Use a bolt In each hole of each permanently connected flange; (5) Use bolts of the correct size In each bolted connection; and (6) Tighten each bolt and nut uni- formly to distribute the load and suffi- ciently to ensure a leak free seal. (b) A person who makes a connec- tion for oil transfer operations must not use any bolt that shows signs of strain or Is elongated or deteriorated. (c) Except as provided In paragraph (d) of this section, no person may use a connection for oil transfer oper- ations unless It is: (1) A bolted or full threaded connec- tion; or (2) A quick-connect coupling accept- able to the Commandant. (d) No person may transfer oil to a vessel that has a fill pipe for which containment cannot practically be pro- vided unless an automatic back pres- sure shutoff nozzle is used. � 156.150 Declaration of inspection. (a) No person may transfer oil to or from a vessel unless each person in charge, designated under g� 154.710 and 155.700 of this chapter, has filled out and signed the declaration of in- spection form described in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) No person in charge may sign the declaration of inspection unless he or she has determined by inspection, and Indicated by initialling in the appro- priate space on the declaration of In- spection form, that the facility or vessel, as appropriate, meets � 156.120. (c) The declaration of Inspection may be in any form but must contain at least: (1) The name or other Identification of the transferring vessel or facility and the receiving vessel or facility; (2) The address of the facility or lo- cation of the transfer operation if not at a facility; (3) The date the transfer operation is started; (4) A list of the requirements In � 156.120 with spaces on the form fol- lowing each requirement for the person In charge of the vessel or faclli- ty to indicate by initialling that the re- quirement is met for the transfer oper- ation; and (5) A space for the date, time of sign- ing, signature, and title of each person in charge during oil transfer oper- ations on the transferring vessel or fa- cility and space for the date, time of signing, signature, and title of each person In charge during oil transfer operations on the receiving facility or vessel. (d) The form for the declaration of inspection may incorporate the decla- ration-of-inspectionl requirements under 46 CFR 35.35-30. (e) The vessel and facility persons In charge shall each have a signed copy of the declaration of inspection availa- ble for inspection by the COTP during the oil transfer operation. (f) The operators of each vessel and facility engaged in an oil transfer op- eration shall retain a signed copy of the declaration of inspection on board the vessel or at the facility for at least 1 month from the date of signature. � 156.160 Supervision by person in charge, (a) No person may connect or discon- nect a hose, top off a tank, or engage in any other critical procedures during an oil transfer operation unless the person in charge, required by � 156.120(s), supervises that procedure. (b) No person may start the flow of oil to or from a vessel unless instruct- ed to do so by either person in charge. (c) No person may transfer oil to or from a vessel unless each person in charge is in the immediate vicinity and immediately available to the oil trans- fer personnel. � 156.170 Equipment tests and inspections. (a) Except as provided In paragraph (d) of this section, no person may use any equipment listed In paragraph (c) of this section for oil transfer oper- ations unless the vessel or facility op- erator, as appropriate, tests and in- spects the equipment in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of this section and the equipment is In the condition specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) During any test or inspection re- quired by this section, the entire ex- ternal surface of the hose must be ac- cessible. (c) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section: (1) Each nonmetallic oil transfer hose must: (i) Have no unrepalred loose covers, kinks, bulges, soft spots, or any other defect which would permit the dis- charge of oil through the hose materi- al, and no gouges, cuts or slashes that penetrate the first layer of hose rein- forcement. as defined in 1 156.120(j). (i1) Have no external deterioration and, to the extent Internal inspection is possible with both ends of the hose open, no internal deterioration; (111) Not burst, bulge, leak, or abnor- mally distort under static liquid pres- sure at least 1IV times the maximum allowable working pressure; and (iv) Where a dispute arises under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, be acceptable for use after a hydrostatic test is successfully completed In the presence of the COTP; (2) Each transfer system relief valve must open at or below the pressure at which It is set to open; (3) Each pressure gauge must show pressure within 10 percent of the actual pressure; (4) Each loading arm and each oil transfer pipe system, including each metallic hose, must not leak under static liquid pressure at least 1�4 times the maximum allowable working pres- sure; and (5) Each item of remote operating or indicating equipment, such as a re- motely operated valve, tank level alarm, or emergency shutdown device, must perform its intended function. (d) No person may use any hose In underwater service for oil transfer op- erations unless the operator of the vessel or facility has tested and in- spected It in accordance with para- graph (c)(1) or (c)(4) of this section, as applicable. (e) The test fluid used for the test- ing required by this section is limited to liquids that are compatible with the hose tube as recommended by the hose manufacturer. (f) The frequency of the tests and Inspections required by this section must be: (1) Annually for facilities; and (2) Annually or as part of the bienni- al and mid-period Inspections for ves- sels. PART 157-RULES FOR THE PROTEC- TION OF THE MARINE ENVIRON- MENT RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK Subpart A-General Sec. 157.01 Applicability. 157.03 Definitions. 1Vl n 711 CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM 4 FEDERAL REGISTER, RECEPTION FACILITIES PROPOSED RULEMAKING Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules 25196 1! I this Notice to which their comments apply, and give reasons for each comment. If acknowledgement is desired. a self-addressed, stamped post card shoud be enclosed. All comments received before expiration of tha comment period will be considered before final action is taken on this proposal. Public meetings will be held at places and times to be announced in a future notice. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM] was published in the March 24, 1983 issue of the Federal Register (48 FR 12395) that invited comments for 90 days, ending on June 22 1983. Comments were received from 69 sources, including individuals, businesses, industry organizations, other Federal agencies, and state and local governments. Comments, sggestions and actions taken are summarized following the "Background" below. Drafting Information The principal persons involved in drafting this proposed rulemaking are Lieutenant Ellis H. Davison. II, Project Manager, of the Office of Marine Environment and Systems, and Mr. Stanley M. Colby, Project Counsel, of the Office of Chief Counsel. Backgeound The purpose of MARPOL 73|78 [the Convention] is the reduction of accidental and operational pollution from ships. In order to reduce operational pollution. the Convention requires that some ship wastes be discharged to reception facilities. It contains two annexes. concerning OH (Annex 11 and Noxious Liquid Substances (Annex II). that must be implemented by countries ratifying the Convention when it enters into force. MARPOL 73/78 including Annex L entered into force on October 1983. The requirements for reception facilities in Annex I must be in effect no later than October 2,1984. Annex IH will enter into force on October 2.1986, unless the parties to the Convention postpone that date, and the requirements for reception facilities in Annex 1 will be effective when it enters into force. Annex I limits the amount of oily wastes that can be discharged into the. sea. Waste which may require disposal as a consequence of Annex I will be derived from the bulk shipment of oil and from the use of oil as a fuel and lubricant in ships' propulsion systems. Reception facilities must be available to receive oily ballast water, oil- contaminated wash water and concentrated bilge slops which canno be discharged in accordance with the Annex. Oil tankers may have a need to dispose of oily ballast water and tank cleaning water. All self-propelled vessels accumulate bilge water in their engine rooms, and this bilge water often contains high concentrations of oil resulting from lubricant drippings and other routine losses. Under Annex I, vessels may either process this contaminated bilge water to remove the oil which is then retained onboard as a residue for discharge to a reception facility, or they may discharge the contaminated water itself to a reception facility. Fuel oils for diesel propulsion systems and lubricants for both steam and diesel propulsion systems when processed onboard ship usually produce an oily residue. Such residues which cannot be discharged into the sea in compliance with Annex I must be retained onboard or discharged to reception facilities. Regulation 12 of Annex I requires that adequate reception facilities be provided for residues and mixtures containing oil in- (a) All ports and terminals in which crude oil is loaded into oil tankers where such tankers have immediately prior to arrival completed a ballast voyage of not more than 72 hours or of not more than 1,200 nautical miles; (b) All ports and terminals in which oil other than crude oil in bulk [product) is loaded at an average quantity of more than 1,000 metric tons (7,000 barrels) per day; (c) All ports having ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities; (d) All ports and terminals in which handle ships provided with sludge tanks; (e) All ports and terminals in which handle ships retaining oily bilge water and other residues; and (f All loading ports handling combination carriers retaining oily residue onboard. This notice addresses only the need for facilities to receive wastes from ships, not how those wastes are disposed of. Regulation of disposal falls primarily to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to state and local governments. The Coast Guard is working with the EPA to coordinate that aspect of reception facilities. It is proposed that the term "reception facility" be used instead of the term "waste reception facility" which was used in the advance notice. in order to be more consistent with international nseae and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (94 Stat 2297, 33 U.S.C. 1901). v DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 151 and 158 [CGD 73-05] Reception Facillties i AGENCY: Coast Guard. DOT ACTIOn Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUuMuARY: This proposal solicits public comment on regulations implementing the reception facility requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78). MARPOL 73/ 78 controls the amount of waste materials ships can discharge at sea. and terminals to rebeive materials retained on board as a result of compliance with MARPOL 73/78. The proposed regulations provide criteria for determining the adequacy of reception facilities, and administrative procedures for granting Certificates of Adequacy to ports and terminals. ODATE Comments must be submitted on or before August 20, 1984. ADORESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commandant (G-CMC/44) (CGD 78-035). U.S. Coast Guard, Washington. D.C. 20593. The comments may be delivered to aid will be available for inspection or copying at the Marine Safety Council (G-CMC/TP 441. Room 4402, Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 2nd 9t, SW., Washington. D.C. 20593. Normal working hours are between 7.00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except holidays. Copies of the draft evaluation and the environmmntal assessment may also be inspected or copied at that address or obtained by a written request to the same address. To expedite processing, it is asked that requests for the draft evaluation and the environmental assessment not be included in the comments submitted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC. Lieutenant Ellis H. Davison ULL Project Manager, Office of Marine Environment and Systems, (G-WPE-3), telephone 202-425-9578. Normal working hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays. L SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATnON: Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify this notice (CGD 78-035) and the specific proposals of I Fede Regist I Vol. 49, No. 119 I Tuesda y , Tune 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules 2M97 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Annom U-Noxians ci d Substancs The ANPRM addressed Andnex H of MARPOL 73/78, and many comments concerned issues related to this Annex. Changes to Annex II are being made by the International Maritime Organization AMO) Sub-committee on Bulk Chemicals. Uncertainty as to the outcome of these chages makes a detailed approach to Annex II reception faciitifes impractical at this time. Therefore, the detailed proposal for implementing Annex H will not be made in this document but will be made in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking at a later date. Need Tis rulemaking wil Implement those parts of MARPOL 73/78a which require contracting states to ensure that reception facilities are available to receive wastes from ships, as described above. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (supra), which is the implementing legislation for MARPOL 73/78, specifically directed the establishment of regulations setting criteria for determining the adequacy of reception facilities and procedures for certifying a port or terminal as having adequate reception facilities. The Act applies only to "seagoing" ships (33 U.S.C. 1903(a)) In order to be consistent with other regulations implementing MARPOL 73/78, as published in the Federal Register of October 8,1983 (48 FR 45704), this notice proposes that the term "oceangoing" ship be used instead of "seagoing" ship. In defining the term "oceangoing" ship proposed � 1S8.120 refers to 33 CFR 151.050) which reads as follows: "Oceangomg" salip means a ship that- (1) In operated under the authority of the United States and engages in intenational voyages: (2}) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for ocean service; (3) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for coastwise service beymnd three miles from land; (4) Is operated under the authority of the United States and operates at any time seaward 9pf the territorial sea of the United States as defined In � 2.05 of this chapter or (5) is operated under the authority of a country other than the United States. Not-A Candian or U. s.ip being operated exclusively on the Great Lakes of North America or their connectig and tributary waterms, oc exclusively on the internal waters of the United Stas and Canada; is not an "oceangoing" ship. One commenter suggested that regulations for a Certificate of Adequacy ame unnecessaty because of existing permitting programs under the Clean Water Act. as amended (71 Stat 1567,33 U.S.C. 1251) whiich prevent the disposal of wastes into harbors. The Coast Guard agrees that existing permitting progms are adeqate to prevent disposal of wastes into harbors and othr naisble wa tersofthe United states, and proposs reiance on these pemitting esystes to assuwe the environmental s ciency of reception facidiies. Hoever, it is the itention of MARPOL 7/78 to control disposal of wastes on te high seas, and it is necessary that reception facilihties be available at ports and terminals to receive these wastea Existing permitting systems do not address this issue. Another commenter stated that reception facilities should not be necessary for ports and terminals handling dry bulk ships since these ships will be required by MARPOL 73/ 78 to be equipped with separators. While separators will allow ships to concentrate engineroom waste, reception facilities are still required to receive the concentrated wastes. Two commentera, inchuding the EPA, recommended that this program be extended to include the Great Lakes and other in"and waters. This topic Is covered by House Report 96-1224 on page 13 and again under the analysis of section 3 on page 15. Ships operating exclusively on the Great Lakes and other Inland waters are under a more restrictive regime that makes MARPOL 73/78 unnecessary. Reception facilities will still need to be available for ports and terminals in these waters hanling oceangoing ships. Further expansion of this program would be contrary to cIear Congressional intent. . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration expressed concern over the possible consequences of discharges from reception facilities of both low-level contaminants and highly saline ocean waters. These considerations must be dealt with under permitting prrams such as National Pollutant Discharge EImination System NPDES). Regulatory scheme As anmounced in the ANPRM the Coast Guard propos considering the adequacy of reception facilities at each terminal that is visited by tankers or oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or more. This document also proposes to allow groups of terminals to apply for certification as a "port". In applying this concept, terminals, including ship repair yards. would be allowed to apply either individually or as part of a port. The definition proposed in � 158.120 would also sallow organizations such as port authorities to apply for a Certificate of Adequacy for a group of terminals. In order to avoid the denial of entry to tankers and other oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or more, each person in charge of a terminal would have to apply to the Captain of the Port (COTP) for a Certificate of Adequacy unless that terminal was included in the Certificate of Adequacy of aport. Three commenters suggested that adequacy should be considered onlx on a port-wide basis. Two of these commenters suggested that government agencies should have the responsibility of providing reception facilities. The first suggestion would be allowed as an option under � 158.140(a) of the proposed rules, in that terminals within a commercil port area could combine and apply as a port which could be issued a Certificate of Adequacy. The second suggestion is not adopted because the Coast Guard has no authority to impose an obligation on state or local governments to provide reception facilities nor does it have the authority to provide these facilities to ports and terminals. Two commenters addressed the question of a definition of "port". One endorsed the concept of a Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zone as encompassing a port. The other felt that allowing terminals to aggregate as a "port" only if they were cormmonly considered as a unitary commercial port, as implied in the language of the ANPRM, was to restrictive. The definition of "port" proposed in � 158.120 has been left broad. This definition and � 158.140(a) of the proposed rules would allow any number of terminalswithin a Captain of the Port Zone that share one or more reception facilities to combine and apply as a "port", without regard as to whether or not they operate as a unitary commercial port. The proposed definition of "port" is intended to accomplish two things. The first two subsections are intended to allow entities within the port community the maximum flexibility in combining their reception needs. The third subsection, along with � 158.130(d), is intended to allow a COTP to designate a "terminal" in situations where the reception needs of oceangoing ships under MARPOL 73/78 are not being met by terminals complying with the criteria of Subpart B, individually or as voluntary "ports". The Coast Guard expects that this option would be used very rarely. Establishing a definition of "port" that meets the intent of MARPOL 73/78 and is consistent with the U.S. port industry has proven very difficult. The following is a list of elements that I 25198 Fedsral Register / Vol.- 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules was considered in establishing the definition of "port" as proposed in this notice: 1. The uncertainty of the boundaries of U.S. ports. 2. Uncertainty as to who, under the Act. would be considered a "person in charge" of a U.S port. 3. The problems of small ports in remote areas, where installation of reception facilities would be particularly burdensome. 4. The problem of applying the denial of entry sanction. required by the Act, within a U.S. port 5. The problem of segregating the individual responsibihies of a terminal port with regard to reception facilities, particularly with regard to product oil loading terminals and ship repair yards. 6. Maintaining sufficient flexibility that the port industry can seek the most economical solution to the problem of providing reception facilities. 7. The problem of maintaining "thermal" contained in the Act. 8. The problem of establishing the appropriate cutoff level, under this small ships. [400 gross tons is proposed). * Further comment is specifically requested on this issue. One commenter opposed the option of certifying groups, based on the I perception that this might result in increased hazard from shifting a ship from one berth to another for the purpose of waste discharge. There may be cases where the expense and possible hazard of shifting berths is offset by the advantages obtained from large, central reception facilities, and the Coast Guard proposes retaining this broad concept. Two commenters expressed concern that ports and terminals having reception facilities available might be required to receive wastes from ships handled at other ports and terminals. Under this proposal a port or terminal need only have reception facilities available for the needs of the oceangoing ships it services, although it may agree to make its reception facilities available to another port or terminal. Three commenters opposed any requirement that a port or terminal be required to receive waste in excess of that allowed by an NPDES permit. or wastes that are incompatable with installed treatment systems. An individual reception facility would not be required to take a particular batch of waste, but, to be issued a Certificate of Adequacy, a port or terminal would have to provide reception facilities for the usual MARPOL 73/78-related wastes of the oceangoing ships it services. For example, and oil loading port or - terminal might have a fixed treatment system for oily ballast water that is incapable of processing oily bilge water or sludge. In that case. to be considered adequate, the port or terminal might have to provide separate facilities for those wastes. A ship with unusual quantities or types of waste would have to make its own arrangements, which could be with the loading port or terminal or another port or terminal Addressing a related issued, four commenters expressed concern over whether they, as terminal operators, might have to assume responsibility for the ultimate disposal of wastes received at their terminal from ships. The assignment of responsibility or liability for waste disposal is not under Coast Guard control and will depend on the particular Federal. state and local waste management programs applicable to the port, terminal, or reception facility and the types of waste. The Coast Guard is working with the EPA to coordinate this rulemaking with other waste management programs. Two commenters, including the Independent Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), suggested that reception facilities available at ports and terminals should not necessarily have to dispose of the wastes received. This comment and the ILTA comments mentioned below were endorsed by nineteen other commenters. While i 158140(Cb)(7 would require that ultimate disposal be accounted for in the application, there is no proposal that treatment and disposal be accomplished at the port or terminal. Four commenters suggested that reception facilities would be impractical in smaller ports in Alaska diue to the costs of construction and of hauling wastes to areas where they could be recycled or be disposed. It is in the best interests of the ships and ports and terminals operqting in a particular trade that total expenses be minimized by the use of reception facilities located where they are most economical to all concerned. Before this kind of option can be accepted, ships calling at a port or terminal choosing the option of a surrogate reception facility must be capable of retaining wastes until they reach the port or terminal where reception facilities are to be made available, without discharging wastes at sea in contravention of MARPOL 73/78. Under the proposed regulations this would be considered an "alternative", and the COTP could grant a waiver under � 158.150 if these considerations were met. One commenter questioned the basis for limiting the program to ports and terminals handling ships over 400 gross tons. One commenter endorsed this limit Section 158.110 of the proposed regulations would maintain this limit for oceangoing ships other than tankers for two reasons: a. The regulatory scheme developed for larger ports and terminals would be unnecessarily complex and burdensome for smaller ports and terminals. b. The 400 gross ton demarcation for equipment requirements on non-tankers contained in Regulation 9 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 provides a logical demarcation line between "large" and "small" oceangoing ships. The Coast Guard will consider further rulemaking for ports and terminals used exclusively by non-tankers of less than 400 gross tons after an appropriate regulatory scheme can be developed. One commenter, the Honorable Don Young of the House of Representatives. referred to House Report 96-1224. page 16, with regard to smaller ports. The. following statement is contained in the analysis of section 6. In the exercise of the Secretary's broad power under this section. it is contemplated that may of the smaller ports will not require certification but will nevertheless be permitted to transfer oil-and hazardous substances in those cases in which the vessels have no present need to discharge oil or hazardous substance wastes. This statement of Congressional policy is accommodated by the waiver provisions of proposed � 158.150. The alternatives required to meet the needs of oceangoing ships without undue burden on smaller ports would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Seven commenters addressed the use of denial of entry of oceangoing vessels to ports and terminals not holding valid Certificates of Adequacy. Three commenters opposed this provision, one supported it and three sought clarification. Denial of entry is mandated by the Act (33 U.S.C. 1905(e)} and the Coast Guard may not modify this provision by regulation. Denial of entry to an entire geographic port area would only be invoked If none of the ports and terminals within the area were certified as having adequate reception facilities. Denial of entry would only be invoked against individual ports and terminals that were not certified. Since the broad definition of reception facilities would include mobile facilities that need not be continuously. present at a port or terminal and proposed � 158.1f'would allow a waiver based on reception facilities provided at locations other than the port or terminal I Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesda .,i9, 1984 / Proposed Rules 25199 I applying for a certificate, the Coast to give. Three commenters Guard believes that there is enough recommended twenty-four hours. one flexibility provided for applicants to recommended forty-eight hours and the meet the requirements for certification. ILTA recommended seventy-two hours. One commenter suggested that any Three commenter recommended that it necessary enforcement action should be be determined by the COTP on a case- taken against an operator of a~reception by-case basis. Twenty-four hours is facility rather than against an operator proposed in � 158.200(a) and � 151.09f). of a port or terminal. The Act clearly In many cases, particularly in coastwise requires the Certificate of Adequacy to voyages, it woud be difficult for be issued to the port or terminal. It is the oceangoing ships to give accurate responsibility of the person in charge to estimated times of arrival for more than ensure that the port or terminal operates twenty-four hours in advance. Section in accordance with that certificate. The 158.150 of the proposed rules would person who is in charge of a reception allow an alternative. If mobile facilities facility is only responsible for ensuring are not based in the immediate port that the facility meets the criteria of area, a longer response time may be proposed � 158.2o0. considered by the COTP. In addition, Many commenters expressed concern the ILTA suggested that advance notice over the lead time necessary to acquire should include the quantity'and permits or licenses under the vrious characterization of waste. The Coast waste management programs, or to Guard agrees with this comment and modify the terms of permits or licenses included it in proposed � 151.09(f. already in effect. The COTP would have Seven commenters addressed the the authority to consider these factors issue of transfer time. The statutory under the waiver authority of proposed allowance of compensation for � 158.150. Additionally, the applicant unreasonable delay mandates that could use facilities located elsewhere as reception facilities have the capacity an interim measure under the waiver and ability to avoid such a provision proposed in � 158.150. circumstance One corimenter suggested One commenter requested that the that this was an economic matter that effective date of th proposed regulations should not be subject to regulation. be fixed. Section 158.180 of the proposed Three commenters suggested that regulations would require that, to avoid transfer time should be determined on a denial of entry of oceangoing ships, a case-by-case basis. One commenter port or terminal obtain a Certificate of suggested overall time limits for "undue Adequacy by October 2, 1984. Many delay": eight hours for normal working commenters expressed concern that hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mondays there would be insufficient time to fund, through Fridays except for holidays, and plan and construct reception facilities sixteen hours at other times. One by October 2, 1984. This date is fixed by commenter suggested a six to eight hour MARPOL 73/78, and the Coast Guard limit for transfer of wastes, and another cannot extend it. suggested a twelve hour time limit for The accompanying discussion follows oily ballast and an unspecified lesser the same order as the subject matter is time for other wastes. Section 158.200(b) discussed in the ANPRM: proposes a ten hour limit for reception of [1) Reception Facilities. Twelve oily ballast and I 158.200(c) proposes a commenters including the ILTA favored four hour limit for other wastes; a broad definition of reception facilities however, alternatives could be to include mobile facilities such as tank considered on a case-by-case basis trucks, railroad tank cars, and tank under proposed � 158.150. barges. Proposed � 158.120 adopts this (3) Reception Needs for Terminals. comment. Sections 158az10-58.240 of the (2) Adequacy. Three cornmenters proposed rules reflect, for the most part, suggested that the Coast Guard consider the guidelines suggested by the the adequacy of the capacity of International Maritime Organization reception facilities on a case-by-case (IMO). The IMO Guidelines do not detail basis rather than establishing fixed functions of ship traffic density to guidelines. Guidelines are considered individual ports and terminals. This necessary to establish the minimum factor has been added into the criteria criteria required by law. Section 158.150 proposed under � � 158.210 through of the proposed rules would allow the 158.230 basd on the assumptions of the person in charge of a port or terminal to IMO Guidelines, data received from propose alternatives to the commenters, and Coast Guard requirements. estimates. The traffic volume of ship Eight commenters addressed the issue repair yards is not great enough for the of response time, in terms of how much traffic density to be a factor. The public advance notice of need for reception is requested to provide further data to facilities oceangoing ships should have refine the proposed criteria. There is an interaction between the proposed regulations and Subpart F of 33 CFR Part 157, applying to tankers of over 40,0o00 gross tons. Subpart F provides for an exemption, based on availability of reception facilities, from requirements in 33 CFR 157.10a to retrofit segregated ballast, dedicated clean ballast, and crude oil washing on . existing tankers. A notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register (49 FR 2998) of January 24, 1984 proposes applying similar requirements to existin8 tankers of between 20,000 and 40,000 gross tons, retaining the provision for an exemption. The exemption would be available to an existing tanker that can document the. availability of reception facilities at those loading terminals that the tanker agrees to use exclusively. The regulations proposed for Part 158 in this document may have the effect of making an exemption under Part 157 more widely available by increasing the availability of reception facilities. The Coast Guard proposes retaining the regulations in Part 157, Subpart F. separate from thoie proposed for Subpart 158 in this document. The two sets of regulations would meet two separate needs. Those in Part 157 assure the Coast Guard, by certification of the owner, that reception facilities with sufficient capacity to handle oily-ballast water discharges are available at the loading terminals used by a tanker that would otherwise have to meet segregated ballast, dedicated clean ballast and crude oil washing requirements. Those proposed for Part 158 would assure the Coast Guard that reception facilities are available at a specific port or terminal for those ships complying with the segregated ballast, dedicated clean ballast and crude oil washing requirements of MARPOL 73/ 78 normally using the port or terminal. A Certificate of Adequacy for reception facilities issued under the provisions of the proposed rules would not necessarily assure that a terminal has sufficient capacity to process the large quantities of oily ballast that would be generated by a tanker for which an exemption underPart 157 is sought. (a) Crude Oil Loading Ports and Terminals. Two commenters suggested that the 30% of deadweight tonnage criteria for reception of oily ballast from crude and product tankers was excessive. They suggested that 109- 15% of deadweight tonnage is a more reasonable range. The proposed rules use the 30% figure for each tanker loaded daily in � 158.210 but we will consider reducing this criteria if additidnal comments can support a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules 25200 a . -0 ----- --.. - I--- --- I - ---- , - -_ - I reduced level. In addition, waivers of this criteria would be considered on a case-by-case basis under � 158.150. (b] Product Oil Loading Ports and Terminals. One commenter suggested that the criteria for requiring reception facilities of 1,000 metric-ton-per-day was too low, encompassing comparatively small product loading ports and terminals for which reception facilities for oily ballast should not be required. This criteria is set by MARPOL 73178., Annex L Regulation 12(2)(b]. The Coast Guard must apply this criteria, however some flexibility exists in determining whether a port or terminal is loading this amount of product on ships to which the convention applies. One commenter suggested that product oil transferred to tank barges should not be considered in the 1.000 metric-tons-per-day criteria. The Coast Guard agrees with this I suggestion and is proposing � 158.220 accordingly. Product oil transferred to oceangoing tank barges that cannot * ballast cargo tanks or wash cargo tanks * while proceeding en route would not be included. Two commenters endorsed the Coast Guard proposal that the 1.000 metric tons per day criteria be calculated on the basis of annual data. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and included it in the proposal. A criteria of 30% capacity for oily ballast for each tanker loaded daily is proposed in � 158.220(d) but the Coast Guard will consider reducing the standards if commenters can support a reduced leveL In addition, waivers of this criteria would be considered on a case-by-case basis under � 158.150. Two commenters suggested that reception facilities should not be necessary for sludge and bilge residue at all oil ports and terminals since ships do not typically offload these wastes at each port or terminal. These facilities must be made available because Regulation 12[2)[e) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 requires adequate all terminals. The proposed rules would provide enough flexibility to reduce the burden on individual ports and terminals in meeting this criteria. The ILTA suggested that ports and I terminals in this category be allowed to handle tankers that have no need for oily ballast water reception without tankers are equipped with segregated ballast tanks or dedicated clean ballast tanks. Under proposed � 158.220, a port or tennrminal handling exclusively segregated ballast and clean ballast tankers would be certified as having adequate reception facilities even if it had no capacity for receiving oily ballast water. It should be noted that ports and terminals in this category would need reception facilities for cargo residues regardless of the ballasting system of tankers using them. One commenter suggested that tankers equipped with segregated ballast or clean ballast tanks should be excluded from the calculations of the 1.000 metric-tons-per-day threshold. This could allow large ports or terminals handling a mix of tankers to have no reception facilities for oily ballast water or cargo residue. Small tankers without segregated ballast or clean ballast systems loading at these ports and terminals would be placed in the position of having to arrange their own reception facilities for oily ballast water on a case-by-case basis, a fairly substantial operational hardship. Segregated ballast and clean ballast product carriers need reception facilities for the residues from tank cleaning operations. The reception facility threshold in MARPOL 73/78 was established with the understanding that most tankers would have segregated ballast or dedicated clean ballast tanks. For this reason. the proposal would apply this cutoff to a few small ports and terminals, and products loaded on segregated ballast and clean ballast tankers would be counted toward the 1.000 metric-ton-per-day criteria. (c) Ship Repair Yards and Tank Cleaning Facilities Several commenters raised issues concerning reception of chemical wastes in ship repair yards. These issues will be addressed in detail in a later notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with Annex II of MARPOL 73/ 78. The criteria for ship repair yard reception facilities proposed in 1 158.240 were derived from the IMO Guidelines. (d) Ternninals Handling Combination Carriers. Two commenters addressed the proposal that reception facilities provided for oily bilge water be considered adequate for oily residues from tank cleaning on combination carriers changing from liquid to dry cargo. One commenter supported this proposal, and the other opposed it. The Coast Guard proposes to maintain the original concept. If it appears that reception facilities provided for oily bilge water are in fact inadequate for oily residues from combination carriers, the concept may be reconsidered and additional rulemaking may have to be pursued. (e) Terminals Handling Ships with Sludge Tanks and Bilge Water Residues. The criteria for sludge reception proposed in � 158210(a) and 158.220(a) is based on the [MO assumption that an individual tanker may have up to 10 metric tons of sludge to discharge. Most sludge is generated by diesel powered-ships burning residual fuel oils. In the U.S.. loading ports and terminals for both crude oil and product oil predominantly serve U.S. flag tankers. According to Lloyd's Register of Shipping Statistical Tables for 1981, Table 7, the number of U.S. flag steam-powered tankers outnumber U.S. flag diesel-powered (motor) tankers by 3 to 1, and the gross tonnage of U.S.flag steam-powered tankers is greater than that of U.S. flag diesel-powered (motor) tankers by 12 to 1. Since steam-powered ships generate sludge at a far lower rate than diesel-powered ships, U.S. oil loading ports and terminals will only occasionally receive sludge; therefore, the criteria for sludge in this proposal is not based on the number of vessels using the port or terminaL The criteria for sludge reception proposed in I 158.230(a) and (b) are based on the IMO assumption that diesel-powered oceangoing ships will generate approximately .25 tons of sludge per day. The Coast Guard assumes that the average oceangoirng ship will arrive at a port or terminal after a five-day voyage. and will accumulate ten metric tons of sludge prior to dicharging these residues at a reception facility. Based on these assumptions, one diesel-powered ship out of eight arriving at a port or terminal will utilize recepton facilities. Steam- powered ships will utilize reception facilities for sludge far less frequently. Since most of the oceangoing ships serviced by ports and terminals, other than oil loading ports and terminals, are foreign flag and diesel-powered. the Coast Guard proposes that a standard of ten metric tons for each ten oceangoing ships using the port or terminal daily would have to be met for the reception facility to be considered adequate. The IMO Guidelines suggest that 100 metric tons of capacity should be available at a port for reception of oily bilge wastes. Once again, this figure does not account for vessel traffic density and 100 metric tons may be excessive for small ports and inadequate for large ones. Two commenters suggested that the average oceangoing ship will have ten metric tons of bilge residues to discharge. Accumulation of oily bilge wastes does not vary significantly between diesel- powered ships and steam-powered ships. The Coast Guard estimates that one oceangoing ship out of every five arrivals will desire to discharge oily bilge wastes. Sections 158.210-158.230 propose that a minimum of ten metric tons capacity should be adequate for ports and terminals handling up to five i-' .' .` Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules 12521 on a case-by-case basis, and to avoid ships being placed in the position of having to contravene-discharge requirements because of lack of reception facilities. The analysis below is limited to the costs,-benefits, and impacts that can be directly attributed to reception facility regulation It should be borne in mind, however, that a portion of the economic benefit of conservation of recyclable energy resources; and of the environmentalbenefit of redcuction of pollution at sea, is attributable to reception facility regulation as part of the overall Annex 1 scheme. Draft Regulatory Evaluation These proposed regulations are considered to be non-major under Executive Order 12291 and nonsignificant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures l44 FR 11034; February 28,1979]. A draft regulatory evaluation has been prepared and placed in the rulemaking docket and may be inspected or copied as detailed under ADDRESSES above. Copies may also be obtained from LT Davison as detailed under "FOR FUmRTHER Io TmLON CONTACT"' above. The draft evaluation projects cost to the Federal Government and the private sector. These costs include administrative costs associated with the preparation and processing of a Certificate of Adequacy, and the costs of providing reception facilities where they are not presently available. The Coast Guard assumes that two oil loading ports and terminals, one private and one Federal Goverunment. would have to install ballast reception facilities. The Coast Guard further assumes that ten ports would have to purchase and operate tank trucks to serve as mobile reception facilities for oily bilge waste and sludge. Cost information was solicited from commenters to the ANPRM and independent waste haulers. Based on multiple cost estimates that were received, the high estimate of a total annual cost of $7.8 million is projected. Using averages of cost estimates would result in a total projected annual cost of $5A.4 millioer Economic benefits could not be accurately quantified. environmental benefits are discussed below. The primary economic benefit would be in the avoidance of delay of oceangoing ships. The Coast Guard projects that an average of 10,938 oceangoing ships would use reception facilities annually. Based on an unweighted average of the demurrage rates provided by one commenter, each average hour of delay for reception facilities would result in an overall cost of $7.5 million in ship operating expenses annually. While the Coast Guard cannot at this time estimate how many hours, on the average, would be saved by Federal regulation of reception facilities, the costs and benefits would balance if an average of 1.04 hours were saved per ship using reception facilities. As noted under Summary of Analysis, above, the proposed reception facility regulations are part of the overall MARPOL 73/78 scheme which is expected to result in a net reduction of 230 million gallons per year of oily wastes discharged into the seas. This will result in an economic benefits in reduction in waste of energy resources and in an increase in recycling of those oily wastes that are produced by ships. A portion of this economic benefit should be attributable to reception facility regulation, although the Coast Guard has not devised a method to accurately determine what portion should be attributed in this manner. The public is invited to submit further information to form the basis of a more accurate final evaluation. Regulatory Flexibility Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis which discusses the impact of the proposal on small entities has been made part of the Draft Regulatory Evaluation. A copy of the Draft Regulatory Evaluation has been placed in the rulemaking docket and a copy may be obtained from LT Davison as detailed under "FOR FURTHER JINFORMATION CONTACT" above. In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking the Coast Guard proposed considering ports and terminals handling less than $50,000o worth of cargo annually as "small entities" for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612]. Those commenters addressing this issue thought this cutoff was too low. One commenter thought that a "small entity" should be those ports and terminals with annual receipts of $112,000 or less. Two commenters proposed that "small entity" be defined in terms of barrels of liquid cargo handled or tons of dry cargo handled. Volume of cargo handled is not an accurate criteria because of the variety of business arrangements of ports and terminals. In light of the commerts the Coast Guard proposes using the Small Business Administration's [SBA) definition of "small business" for SBA loans for concerns engaging in transportation and warehousing (13 CFR 12.3-10(f)). Under this definition, a oceangoing ships daily; and that two metric tons for each oceangoing ship should be adequate for ports and terminals handling over five oceangoing ships daily. In developing the criteria for sludge and bilge water residues, the Coast Guard considered not only the information sources mentioned above, but also the capacities of the types of mobile equipment commonly available in ports to serve as reception facilities. (f) Chemical Terminals and Shipyards Repairzng Cheminc Tankers. Comments addressing issues raised by these paragraphs of the ANPRM will be addressed in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with Annex II of MARPOL 73/78. (g Standard Discharge Connection. It should be noted that proposed $158.250 would require reception facilities, in order to be certified as adequate, to have a standard discharge connection for oily bilge water compatable with those required of oceangoing ships by 33 CFR 155.430. Summary of Analysis The costs, benefits, and other impacts of Federal regulation of reception facilides are best viewed in context with the entire MARPOL 73/78 Annex I scheme. When fully implemented, Annex I is expected to reduce the discharge of oil from ships into the sea from the present 280 million gallons per year to approximately 50 million gallons per year. While the costs of various aspects of the Annex I scheme can be attributed to the various implementing regulatory programs with reasonable accuracy, it is virtually impossible to apportion the benefit of reduction of discharge. The principal aspects of the Annex I scheme are as follows: a. Ship Equipment and Operational Requirements (MARPOL 73178, Annex I, Regulations 13 through 26; 33 CFR Parts 155 and 157). This aspect includes equipment and procedures to minimize the need for discharging oily wastes at sea and to minimize accidental discharges during casualties such as collisions and groundings. b. Ship Discharge Linmits (MARPOL .73178 Annex L Regulations 9 and 1, 33 CFR Parts 151 and 157). This aspect includes the limits placed on the amount of oily wastes ships can discharge at sea, and the circumstances in which allowable'wastes may be discharged. c. Reception Facilities (MARPOL 731 78, Annex I. Regulation 12; proposed 33 CFR Part 158]. This aspect includes regulations to minimize the impact of the discharge limits on ships. The intent is to avoid the expense of delay from ships having to arrange for reception facilities I I I I I I I I I I I ~~2O2 Federal Register I Vol. 42, No. l19 / Tuesday, Jime 19, 1984 I Proposed Rules 251-1112 concern is considered small if its annual receipts do not exceed SL5 millon. The Coast Guard do-4 not have any E information that would indicata hLow many of the estimated 134M ports axid termiaals affected by the proposed regulations would be comaidered small entities under the SHA definition. Some small ports and termiaals are affliated with large corporation having a substaqntiaql monetary interest in the cargo while others are independentk contractors for wharfaLze and I warehousing. Far this reason the analysis was limited to expected impact an an individual small port or termia For purposes of meeting the Regulatory Flexibility Act the Coast Guar~d. therefore assumes that a 'substantial" number of amall entities are affected. The Coast Guard expects that many small entities will either use existing mobile reception facilties or will be able to use reception facMlties located elsewhere with a waiver under proposed 1M18150. Costs to snmal entitiels would consist of the admrinistrative costs of application for a certificate of adequacy. In many cases these costs wil be substantially reduced. since many small entities wil combine their efforts and Iapply as a port. The cost of this one-time effort is expected tp be $780.00 per small entity, and is not considered to be significant. Paperwork Reductio Act this proposed rLtlemaleMn contains information collection requiremeznta in the following proposed rules'.I15.9 � 158.140, J 158.150, 1 158.1155 and I I15.90. They ha"- been sttbmitted to the Office of Managemnent and Budget for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Art of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq.). Persons desiring to cornment on these information collection requiremens shoald submit thira comments tn-. Office of Reguaitor Policy. Ofamc of Managemuent and- Budget, 725 Jackson Pine" NW.. UWashinigton. D.C. 203,.ATTM flesk OfCM=. U.S. Coast Guard. Persons submitting commnents to CM34are also requested to submit a copy of their comzents to the Coast Guard as indicated coder -AnamessnU. Envirom-rntal Impact The Coast Guard does not expect this program to haey an adverse impact an the enviromment. Other laws and discharged kfto the ocean. andirequire that wastes not legally dischargeid be retained for disposal asbore Implementation of MARPOL 743/78 Regulation 12 fons.alizes the.indfrect requirement that shomre reetion In consideration of the preceding. it ts facilities be provided in order for ships proposed to amend Subchiapter 0, to comply withi the disuharge Chapter 1. Titde 33 of the Code of Federal restrictions. Ile proposed regulations Regiladmon as follows: would not change the diemsand for reception Eadilities because they would PART 151-4AMENDED] neither reduce the geneamtion of oily waste nor fiurthe restrict discharges to 1. By revising I 15LO9(1] to read as the ocesn. They vwoud not affect dw followa: type or volume of oily waste camndM f isi.g Control Of dlscftvog of OL. ashore for processing and disposal. t The proposied regulations wotuld affect ()Tepeason In chaMg of an the lecations that these wastes came ship tt notdudhag ashore since, under the -status quo. ports oil residues into the sea in complinc might not mak_~e_~ptlon facilitieswi hp pah().[. cord ffls available just because of a market weciam pabagaensu that,(] r()o thowr isu demand. Without the pmoLN sret.- hl nuethttoersde regulations ship wastes would be ae concentrated at ports where reception (1) Retained on'board: or facilities are already available and at (2) Dischared to a rece;rtion Facility. those where they wnuld be provided in If the reception facility is in a port or response to market demand. As to the terminal in the United States, each environmenta significa~nce- of this effect, person in charge of each tankcer or other one commenter indicated that oceanoing ship af 400 gross tons or industrialized areas are already more shall notify the port or terminal, at overloaded wita waste disposal least 24 hours before entering tae port or problems, while several othiers thought terminal. of- that the industrialized ports would be (i) The estimated time for discharging better equipped to handle wastes than oil residues or crily mixtures; remote port. The Coast Guard (ii) The typ, of ail residues or oily estimates that approximately 400.00 mixtures to be discharged; and - metric toins of oily, wastes mih b e DE ]i The volume of oil residues or oily dispersed to local reception facilties mitues to be discharged. under the proposed regulations. . . However. the Coast Guard considers that this cUpra woul b 2. By addinrg a new Part 1L58 to read as., environmentally neutral siuce oily follows: wastes can be readily tranportzd and recycled or disposed of. PART 155--RECEPTION FAICILITI As noted under Stunmary of Anskysm s, uhwtA.;&Gin above, the proposed reception facility __ regulations are part of the overallrom MARPOL 73'a schern which i 5.0 upsa expected to result in a net reduadon 230MApiaiiy mfllion gallons per'year of oily wastes I15830 Defntons and am oyr discharged into the seas. WU it is8I130 Applications.I atfotso linpractical to accunately apportion the Adequacy. amount of tiLis reduction atttihbuale to isM'15o Waivems reception faiiyrglln.the Coast is&ie Iseing 4he Certcte et Adequacy. Guard considers dni this ev nalis&ia: Itecepton facflity epmteratio benefit mmr thian compensates fcc any IISaS Cetificate of Adeqnmcr. Validity. negagwv environmrnta k=pact-tbut 158170 Suspension and rwaocatka 'of might be attributed to this regulatoy Certifictes of Ad&quacy: Proeu prDgram. 158.18 Dentlal of entry. An envirocmetal assessamet and a 15815 App)eals. Finding of No Significant Impact'have SUbpart B-_CrftKZ for R*Cgptoa, 4poMUM been prepared and ame available as 014 Residuft and Mrtwes detafled under -Accsse abate. IM=zo Genarat1 List -of Subiects 158.20 parts and terminals loading amde ofi 33 CF7R Part 151 158.2= Parts and terminals tnaensfring more tha.nIMM0 metric tons of oil, except Oil pollution. Reporth*= rud OIL recmrdkseping requiremrsits. 158.20 PI'.t 'madtenal3 except-parts 33 CFR Port 158 and tenme der JI -m&=0,%t& and 15=.40. Hazardous waste. Oi Pollaish= Portz. Isa.Msko MPSWIM'eds. Receptio facilities. Terminals. Vnsseis. 158sa58 stazxdan disax oo.ncomta I ' .- - Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1984 / Proposed Rules 252103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . - a ,,,, _ P() Mobile facilities, including tank barges, railroad cars or tank trucks; and (c) Any combination of fixed and mobile facilities. "Segregated ballast" has the same meaning as contained in � 157.03(r) of this subchapter. "Ship" has the same meaning as contained in I 151.05(q) of this subchapter. "Tank barge" has the same meaning as containedin 46 CFR 30.10-05. ''"Tanker" means an oceangoing ship constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil or hazardous materials in bulk in the cargo spaces. "Terminal" means an onshore facility or an offshore structure located in the navigable waters of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and used, or intended to be used, as a port or facility for the transfer or other handling of a harmful substance. Note--A ship repair yard is a terminal. � 1.130 segabUms. Each COTP is delegated the authority to- (a) Conduct an ifispection of each reception facility for which an application is submitted under � 158.140 to determine if it meets the requirements of- (1) MARPOL 73/78; and (2] The requirements of Subpart B of this part; (b) After determinin that the reception facility passes the inspection under paragraph (a) of this section, issue a Certificate of Adequacy to the applicant; (c] Grant waivers under � 158.150 that do not violate MARPOL 73/78 or the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq); (d] Designate terminals; and - (e) Deny entry to each oceangoing ship to each port. terminal, or group of ports and terminals (group] not holding a valid Certificate of Adequacy issued by the COTP under this delegation. I� 15140 AppfIcatns for Cerficae of Adequacy. (a) The person in charge may request the Coast Guard to certify that the port's or terminal's facilities for receiving residues and mixtures containing oil from tankers or other oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or more are adequate by applying to the COTP of the Zone in which the port or terminal is located. (b) Each application for a Certificate of Adequacy must be in writing and contain the following: (1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person in charge. Subpart C-Crtte for eeeption Fecidks Noxious Liquid Substances [Reserved] Authorlty: Sec 4, 94 Stat 2298 (33 U.S.C. 1903(b)), 49 CFR L48(hh). Subpart A-General � 58.100 Prpose. This part establishes criteria for determining the-adequacy of reception facilities and procedures for certifying that those reception facilities are adequate for receiving residues and mixtures containing oil from tankers and other oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or more. � 158.110 ApplicabUlty. This part applies to each port and each terminal in the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States that is used by a tanker or other oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons or more. � 15l8120 Definitionsandacronymr. As used-in this part: "Captain of the Port" (COTP] means the U.S. Coast Guard officer commanding a Captain of the Port Zone described in Part 3 of this Chapter. "Clean ballast" has the same meaning as contained in � 157.03(e) of this subchapter. "Commandant" means Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. "MARPOL Protocol" (MARPOL 73/78) stands for the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (done at London, November 2, 1973), as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (done at - London on February 17, 1978). "Oceangoing" ship has the same meaning as contained in � 151.05(j) of this subchapter. "Person" has the same meaning as contained in � 151.05(n) of this subchapter. "Person in charge"-means an owner of, an operator of, or a person authorized to act in behalf of a port or terminal. "Port" means- (a) A voluntary group of terminals; (b) A port authority or other organization that elects to be considered a port for the purposes of this part; or (c) A place or facility that has been specifically designated as a terminal by the COTP. "Reception facility" means anything capable of receiving shipboard oil or chemical wastes, that includes, but is not limited to- (a) Fixed piping that conveys wastes from the ship to a storage or treatment., system; (2) The geographic location of each terminal. (3) The number, types, and principal trades of tankers and other oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or more using each port and terminal. (4) The following information for each reception facility: (i] The total volume of residues and mixtures containing oil that it can receive each day. (ii) The transfer rates. (iii) The name, address, and telephone number of the person who is in charge of the reception facility. (iv) If the reception facility is not under the control of the person in charge of the port or terminal, a statement from the person who is in charge of the reception facility of the maximum daily volume of residues and mixtures containing oil that will be accepted from oceangoing ships using the port or terminal. (5) A copy of each license, permit, and document held by the reception facility that is required by any Federal, state, or local environmental law or regulation for the storage, handling, transporting processing, and disposal of the residues and mixtures containing oil � 158.150 Waivrs (a] If the person in charge believes that a requirement in this part is unreasonable or impracticable for the port's or terminal's operations, the person in charge may submit an application for a waiver to the COTP. This application must- (1) Be in writing; and (2) Include the- (i) Reasons for the waiver; (ii) Proposed alternatives; and (iii) Any additional information requested by the COTP. (b] If the COTP grants a waiver under this section, the waiver- (1) Is in writing; and (2) Specifies each alternative that applies and the requirement under this part for which the alternative is substituted. (c) The waiver issued under paragraph (b) of this section must be attached to the Certificate of Adequacy issued under � 158.180. � 15810 Iuingth Ceifcate of Adequacy. (a) After reviewing the application, conducting an inspection, and consulting with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the COTP- (1) Issues a Certificate of Adequacy to the applicant; or 2z2sm ederal r gist I VaoL 49, No. in I Tuesday, June 19.1984 / Proposed Rules (2) Denies the application for the Certificate of Adequacy and info;m the applicant in writing of the reasons for the denial (b) The Certifcate of Adequacy shows any waivers that are granted under � 15a10. � 158163 Receoptaon ta a opr at. i (a) Each person in charge who holds a Certificate of Adequacy shaB ensmm that the reception facility does not operate in a manner that violates any requirement under this part. (b) A copy of the Certificate of Adequacy must be- (1] At each port and terminml: and (2) Available for inspection by the COTP and the master, person who is in charge, or the agent of an oceagingo ship. (c) Ports and terminals required to have a Coast Guard Operation Manal must have a copy of the Certificate of Adequacy, including any waivers, attached t that operations manaL �15.15 C,care,of dq, .. (a) Each Certificate cf Adeuacy remains valid unless suspended or revoked under � 158170. (b) A Certificate of Adequacy which has been suspended or revoked must be returned to the COTP. (c) The person in charge shall notify the COTP in writing of each charsg within 10 days after any of the information supplied under I 15.140 changes. (d) Failure to notify the-COTP in writing of each change within 30 days after any of the infrmation aupplied under I 158.140 changes is gromunds for revocation of a Certificate of Adequacy. I 158.170 Suspeion and rervoatio of Certfifcates of Adquac. Procsda (a) If the COTP has evidence that the reception facility does not operate in accordance with 158.1S 5, the COTP notifies the person in charge of the grounds for suspension or revocation. After notification. the COTP may immediately suspend the Certificate of Adequacy if continued operatios will result in undue delay to oceangoing ships (b) Evidence or arguments for the retention of the Cerificate of Adequacy that are submitted to the COTP within thirty days after noce or wpension occurs under paragraph (a) of this sectin are cosidered before further actim is taken. If the perso in cr- ,e fails to meet any measures ordered by the COTP, the COTP may do the *. d lfollowing: (1) Suspend or revoke the Certi.cate of Adequacy. (2) Initiate pendaty actios under Subpart 1.07 of this chanter. (c) The guspension or revocafin of the Certificate of Adequacy by the COTP may be appealed under the procedure in � 158.1S 115.160 Denlldofwetry. After October 2. 14. no tanker, or other oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons or more. required by Regulation 9 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 to retain onboard while at sea, oil or oily mixturs, may enter any port or terminal to which this part applies unless- tal The port or terminal holds a valid Certificate of Adequacy; or {b) The ship is entering under force majein.e � 1l.lao Appeuk (a) Any person directly affected by an action takan under this part may rque- d reconsideration by the Coast Guard officer responsible for that action. (b) Except as provided under paragraph (d) of this section. anypernsa not aatisfied with a ruling made under the' procedure contained in paragraph (a) of his section may- (1) Appeal that rulng in writing to the Coast Guard Ditrict. Commander of the district in which the action was taken: and (2) Supply supporting documentation and evidence that the.appellant wishes to have considered. (c) The District Commander ismes a ruling after reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph lb) of this section. which is final agency action. (d) If the delay in presenting a written appeal has an adverse impact on the operations of the appellant the appeal under paragraph (b) of this section- (1) May be presented orally; and (2) Must be submitted in writing within five days after the oral presentation- (f) With the basis for the appeal and a sunmary of the material presented oratly: and (ii] To the same Coast Guard official who heard the oral presentation. Subpart B--Crtla for Reception FPacmlec 0i Residues and Mbxture The reception facility used to meet Subpart A rmst- (a) Ee prepared to receive oily wastes and mixtnes from the ship within 24 hours after notice by that shi� [b} Complete the reception oily ballast from the ship in less than 10 hours after waste trnfer operatios begn: [c) Complete the reception of other oily residues and mixtures in less than 4 houn after the transfer operation begins: and (d] Hold each state, local, and Federal permit and license required by law and regulation. 158.210 Ports and thmala lod crudl oI. The reception facility for a crude oil loading port or terminal must have the capacity for receiving- (a) At least 10 metric tons (11 ahort tons) of slude from on-board fuel and lubricating oil processing (b) If an average of 5 tankers or less. based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day, at least 10 metric tons (11 short tons) of oily bilge water: (c) If an average of more than 5 tankers, based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day. at least 2 t metric tons tZ.2 short tons) of oily bilge water for each tanker and (d) A total amount of oily ballast equal to 30% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest tanker that uses the port or terminal and that is not equipped with dedicated clean ballast tanks or segregated ballast tanks that meet Part 157 of this subchapter, multipled by the average number of tankers, based on annual data, using the port or terminal each day. � 18.0 Prts and twmimna ransfn more tan 1,0D etrwc tons of ol, e*XCpt rde rety a The reception facility for an oil loading port or terminal other than a crude oil loading port or terminal that transfers an average of more than 1.00 metric tors (1.100 short tons} each day, based on annual data. to tankers, other than tank barges that do not ballast or wash cargo tanks while proceeding en route, must have the capacity for receiving- (a) At least 10D metric tons (11 short tons) of sludge from on-board fuel and. lubricating oil processing: (b) If an average of 5 tankers or less, based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day, at least 10 metric tons (11 short tons) of oily bilge water. (c) If an average af mare than 5 tankers, based on annual data, use the port or tprminal each day, at least 2 metric tons (2.2 short tam] of oily bilse water for each tanker (d) A total amount of oily ballast equal to 30% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest tanker that tses the po,or terminal and that is not equipped with dedicated clean ballat tanks or segregated ballast tanks that meet Part 157 of this eubchapter, multiplied by the ayerage daily number of tankers, based 4 on annual data; and '~�-�X I 25205 _ Federal Register ! Vol. 49, No. 119 / Tuesday, June I' ,' / Proposed Rules II (e) A total amount of cargo residue equal to 0.2% of the total cargo capacity of the largest tanker using the port or terminal multiplied by the average daily number of tankers, based on annual data. � 15620 Ports and temnal exce pof' d tamnads undw 115.210, 156.220 and 158.240. Reception facilities 'except those. under � � 158.20, 158.220, and 158.240 of this subpart, must have the capacity for receiving- .*a) If an average of 10 oceangoing ships or less, based on annual data. use the port or terminal each day, at least 10 metric tons (11 short tons) of-sludge from on-board fuel and lubricating oil processing; (b) If an average of more than 1D oceangoing ships, based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day, at least 1 metric ton (1.1 short tons) of sludge for each oceangoing ship; (c) If an average of 5 oceangoing ships or less, based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day, at least 10 metric tons (11 short tons) of oily bilge water; and [d) If an average of more than 5 oceangoing ships based on annual data, use the port or terminal each day, at least 2 metric tons 12.2 short tons) of oily bilge water for each oceangoing ship. I153240 Stgp repai yards. The reception facility that services oceangoing ships using a ship repair yard must have a capacity for receiving- (a) An amount of ballast from bunker tanks, and the wash water and residues from the cleaning of bunker tanks and sludge tanks, equal to 8% of the bunker capacity of the largest oceangoing ship serviced; (b) An amount of oily ballast equal to 30% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest tanker serviced that is not iEquipped with dedicated clean ballast tanks or segregated ballast tanks that meet Part 157 of this subchapter; (c) An amount of oily solids from cargo tanks equal to 0.1% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest tanker serviced; (d) An amount of wash water from in- port tank washing equal to 8% of the deadweight tonage of the largest tanker serviced; and (e) An amount of liquid cargo residues based on the following percentages of deadweight tonnage of the largest tanker serviced: (i) For crude oil tanrkers, 1%. (ii) For black product tankers, 0.5%. ({il) For white product tankers, 0.2%. I 1se25 Stndard dbdwrge OnnecU Each reception facility that receives oily bilge water must have a standard discharge connection that- '(a) Meets � 155.430 of this subchapter;, and (b) Attaches to each hose and pipe that removes oily bilge water from oceangoing ships. Subpart C-Crtteria for Reception Facloties: Noxious Lkquid Substances [Resmrved] Dated: March 9, 1984. B.F. Hollngsworth, Rear Admiral. US. Coast Guard. Chief. Office of Marine Environment andSystems& If o- 84-16s W nmd -io6-: 4A al ija COOE 4910-144 a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I I CROWN BAY PORT AREA I MASTER PLAN I ADDENDUM 5 SCHEDULE OF LAND DESCRIPTIONS CROWN BAY SCHEDULE OF LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS T Y CATAGORY USE SUB- CLASSIFICATION P NO. E R 11. 111 Single family E 112 Two family S 113 Multi family I D 12. 121 Mixed commercial .1 Retail, general C .2 Retail, tourist 0 .3 Retail, auto M .4 Auto sales M .5 Auto repairs, service E .6 Wholesale R .7 Office C .8 Warehousing I A L S E 122 Resort commercial .1 Hotel R .2 Guest house V .3 Condo I .4 Restaurants/Bars C E 124 Institutional .1 Churches .2 Schools 13. 131 Water dependent .1 Petro chemical I .2 Dry storage N .3 Marine service D U S T 132 Other .1 Light manufacture R .2 Building storage Y .3 Service industrial CROWN BAY - SCHEDULE OF LEASES Sheet 1 of 4 Date 09-27-84 PROPERTIES ADMINISTERED BY: Prop. & Proc. Parcel No. Leasee Present Tenant Same Same Santana Auto Rprs. Creque Distrib. Same Tempaire AC & Refrig. PWD Same (Quonset Hut) Sundowner Nite Club Same Same Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Interior Work School Lunch W'hse Land Use Class Description Expir. Notes No. Date K 4 5 5A 24 25 26 St. Thomas Gas Tri-Island Ent. Robert Desrocher R. Moorehead G. K Blondell, Inc. 131 132 121 121 112 132 132 131 121 Petro-chem. Service Ind. Auto Repairs Wholesale I, 7- 94 2- 86 Service Ind. Building Petro-chem. Wholesale Restaurant Petro-chem. Retail- general Light manu. II II IIII 19 60 36 22 89 110 29A 29B 126 127 II 30 30A Carib. Gas Co. I. Greaux T. &. R. Quetel Texaco Antilles ABC Serv. Inc. C.&N. DePerry II It II V.I. Industries Pedrito Blyden V.I. Dept. Ed. 7- 87 6- 90 3- 94 3- 94 3- 87 11- 85 12 2 13 1 12 1 13 2 13 2 13 2 12 1 12 1 Warehous e II II II I ! It M M _ m _ m m m m m m m m m m - m m - - - - m m m m m m m m m m - m m - CROWN BAY - SCHEDULE OF LEASES Sheet 2 of 4 Date 09-27-84 PROPERTIES AMINISTERED BY: Prop. & Proc. Parcel No. Leasee Present Tenant Dept. of Prop. & Proc. Govt. Printing Off. V.I. Dept. Health Strs. V.I. Planning Off. W.F. McComb Engr. Deliver It Same Vacant Same Same Same Munzar Motors Same National Guard Same Same Land Use Class Description Expir. Notes No. Date S Bldg 1 V. I1. Govt. Service ind. Warehouse Office 1I 132 121 121 121 131 132 13 2 13 2 12 1 13 2 12 1 13 2 12 1 12 1 12 1 123 V.I. Govt. 129 Chinnery Dev. Corp. 133 " " " 134 H. Francis 70A Ziebart, Inc. 70B Dry storage Building storage Service ind. Service ind. Retail, gen. Service ind. Auto repairs Building storage Office II 11-85 11- 95 6- 90 2- 94 S 86 Bob's Welding & Machine Shop Bldg 12 Island Laundries Bldg 11 VIDPW Bldg 14 VIGOVT 116 National Guard 79 V.I. Dept. Prop. & Proc. 121-122 V.I. Dept. Prop. & Proc. Auto Storage I, 12 1 tI It CROWN BAY - SCHEDULE OF LEASES Sheet 3 of 4 Date 09-27-84 PROPERTIES ADMINISTERED BY: Prop. & Proc. Parcel No. Leasee Present Tenant Vacant Same National Guard Various Govt. Agencies Tracy Radiator Nordmeer Welding, Etc. Same Unknown V.I. DPW Vacant (Steel Bldg) unknown AQ Mart, Subbase Elect. Pennysaver, V.I. Energy Off., Tri-Mart, KFC Suntex, Drafting Shaft Gour. G'lery, Boyce Hdwr. Superfood KFC Unknown Land Use Class Description Expir. Notes No. Date 12 6 Bldg 8 1 6 121 121 131 131 132 132 121 121 121 121 121 12 1 12 1 Office II Service ind. II II Building storage iI II Retail general II II DPW Govt V.I . V.1 17 V.I. Govt. 17A Island Gas 18 21 Consolidated Trading 31A 31B 23 40 #40 Subbase Corp. 39 Bakale, Inc. 41 42 Commercial Dev. 11B Coca Cola, VI 94 10- 93 Retail general II .I i It 1- 93 5- 92 II Warehous e _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - m m - m - - m - m m - m - m m - m - CROWN BAY - SCHEDULE OF LEASES Sheet 4 of 4 Date 09-27-84 PROPERTIES ADMINISTERED BY: Prop. & Proc. Land Use Parcel Present Class Description Expir. Notes No. _ Leasee Tenant No. Date 95 Raimer's Cahinet Shn. Same 132 Light ind. 8-85 97 16 16 A Nui a 1.c 111 uv .� v M&M Woodcraft Same (Steel Bldg) unknown Vacant Laundromat 132 132 Building storage Building storage Bld g Bld g Caribbean Steel A-1 132 Service ind. CROWN BAY - SUB BASE PROPERTIES Shee t Date 1 of 2 09-27- 84 PROPERTIES ADMINISTERED BY: V.I.P.A. Land Use Parcel Present Class Description Expir. Notes No. Leasee S Bldg 10 Various S 16A Unoccupied S Bldg 16 Caribbean Steel, Inc. S 65 Small's Electric S Bldg 18 V.I. Water & Power Authority S C Danny's Fishermans Wharf S 162 C. Cashman, II & E. Kralt, Jr. S Phase I Newly filled land owned by V.I.P.A. approx. 11 ac. S a* Lynch S b* M.S.I., Inc. C a* T.M.T. Sand Co. C b* Wm. Clarenbach C c* V.I.P.A. C d* Chuck Kline Tenant No. Date Various; Sub-Base Electric Caribbean Steel Small's Electric V.I.W.A.P.A. 121 132 132 132 121 Auto repairs Service industry Building storage Service industry Offices Restaurant Marina (repair) Restaurant Dry storage 11 I I I I II II If Picadilly Mall, Inc. 122 Haulover Marine 12 3 Lynch's Pit Stop Same T.M.T. Sand Co. 12 2 13 1 13 1 Demurrage Space Same 13 1 13 1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - m m- m m m m -m m m m CROWN BAY - SUB-BASE PROPERTIES m m m m m - PROPERTIES ADMINISTERED BY: V.I.P.A. Sheet 2 of 2 Date 09-27-84 Land Use Parcel Present Class Description Expir. Notes No. Leasee Tenant No. Date r IIA Tvrn;rAl qhnn Tnr C,mm 1141 n,xl 11 JrI C 3B C 3C C 3D C4 C 13 i U lica I JInpy. , II II 1IInl. II ll II 1J1 II 1, ury storaye il I I I1 II II II II II II II II Radio tower II I I II I I II I I II Thous. Island Broad- casting WVWI Radio 14 4 V.I. Maritime, Inc. Miami Cars, Inc. V.I. Maritime, Inc. 13 1 Dry storage Retai 1/marina Gregerie East Charters, 121/123 et. al. *Lower case letters used for plan identification only. NOT official lot designation. CROWN BAY - SUB-BASE PROPERTIES (Crown Bay (c) taken as Careen Hill West to end of present bulkhead; Sub-base (s) Hill) Ref. to Map #1. PROPERTIES AMINISTERED BY: V.I.D.C.C.A is end of bulkhead SW to Haypiece Shee t Date 1 of 1 09-27- 84 Land Use Parcel Present Class Description Expir. Notes No. Lease6 Tenant No. Date S 10 S 11A S 13 S 14 S 14A S 15 S 43A S 44B S 45 C2 C5 C6 C 7 C8 ARI Corp. ARI Corp. E. DeLagarde Shoreline Marine Shoreline Marine ARI Corp. MSI, Inc. Do Petri, Inc. L. Benjamin Sea Chest Inc. Tropical Shipping it .I Budget Car Rental II II .1 121 121 123 123 121 121 121 121 121 131 I1 121 121 1994 1994 1986 1988 1988 1994 1994 1990 1991 1987 1997 1997 1998 1987 Auto service II Vacant Marina II Wholesale Retail (build) Retail auto Auto service Retail general Dry storage If II Auto sales Retail general E. DeLagarde Shoreline Marine it to Joe's Liquor MSI, Inc. O'Neal's Auto Parts Charlies Trucking Sea Chest Tropical Shipping 11 It Crown Bay Motors MSI, Inc., Caribb. Interiors MBT Motors K. Brunt m m m m m m m m m m _ m m m m m m m CROWN BAY PORT AREA MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM 6 REFERENCES REFERENCE S AddMS, Roy. March 1981. Socidl and Economic Effects of Expanded Energy FdCilitieS on the Island of St. Croix and the Territory of the Virgin Islands. Office of the Governor. Virgin Islands Planning Office. Braida, R.L. 1983. Caribbean Basin Initiative: Preliminary Study of Marine Transportation Problems. Progress Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. CBI Small Vessel Integration Workshop. Caribbean Tourism Research and Development Center. June 1983. Caribbean Cruise Industry Study. Caribtec Laboratories, Inc. 1981. Environmental Assessment Report, Port Improvement Project Crown Bay, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Virgin Islands * ~~Port Authority. Carder, Clyde. 1980. Survey of Charter Boating dnd Related Businesses in the Virgin Islands Relative to their Contribution to our Tourism-Related I ~ ~Economy. Virgin ISlands Department of Commerce. Federdl Maritime Commission. 1979. Virgin Islands Trade Study: An Economic * ~~Analysis. G.J. Godreau Assoc. & Management Aid Center. 1973. Economic Feasibility Study for the Crown Bay Bulkhead for Virgin Islands Port Authority. Kuljian Corp. 1976. Crown Bay Marine Terminal Expansion. Preliminary Design Report. Virgin Islands Port Authority. Little, A.D., Inc. 1980. Financial Feasibility of New Terminal Facilities at Crown Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Virgin Islands Port Authority. Manalytics, Inc. 1983. Marketing Plan for the St. Croix Containerport. Virgin Islands Port Authority. McElroy, J.L. 1974. The Virgin Islands Economy: Past Performance, Future Projections, Planning Alternatives. Virgin Islands Planning Office. Soil Testing Services, Inc. 1972. Subsurface Investigation, Crown Bay Docking Facility, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas for Virgin Islands Port Authority. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement, New Part Facility in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Permit 3 ~~application by Virgin Islands Port Authority. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (n.d.). Draft Feasibility Report. Crown Bay Channel, St. Thomas Harbor, Virgin Islands. Channe.1 improvement for navigation. Virgin Islands Department of Commerce, Office of Policy, Planning and I ~ ~~Research, Territorial Data Center. 1984. Tourism in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Prospective development to the year 2000. REFERENCES (continued) Virgin Islands Port Authority. 1981. Environmental Assessment Report: Port Improvement Project, Crown Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.I Virgin Islands Port Authority. 1983a. Crown Bay Port Facility Expansion and Gregerie Channel Improvement; Environmental Assessment Report.I Virgin Islands Port Authority. 1983b. Crown Bay Master Plan, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands W.F. McComb Engineering, P.C. 1981. Environmental Assessment Report for Proposed Improvements to Shoreline Marine. For Shoreline Marine, Inc.