• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Survey of boat owners in Dade County,...
 Survey of Dade County marinas and...
 Boat yards, boat dealers, and boat...
 Summary and conclusions
 Appendices
 Appendix A
 Appendix B
 Appendix C
 Appendix D
 Appendix E
 Appendix F
 Appendix G
 Appendix H
 Back Cover






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College Program ; no. 72
Title: Analysis of Hurricane Andrew economic damage and recovery options for the boating, marina and marine service industries
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076873/00001
 Material Information
Title: Analysis of Hurricane Andrew economic damage and recovery options for the boating, marina and marine service industries
Series Title: Technical paper
Physical Description: vi, 100 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Baker, Edward K
Villanueva, Maria L
Hurricane Educational Response Program
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1993
 Subjects
Subject: Hurricane Andrew, 1992 -- Economic aspects -- Florida -- Miami-Dade County   ( lcsh )
Boating industry -- Florida -- Miami-Dade County   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Edward K. Baker, Maria L. Villanueva.
General Note: "October 1993."
General Note: "Technical paper 72 printed under Grant Number NA89 A A-D SG053."
General Note: "Survey funded by Hurricane Educational Response Program, Project no. 92-ESNP-1-5185."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076873
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 29860774
lccn - 96621416

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Survey of boat owners in Dade County, Florida
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 5
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Survey of Dade County marinas and boat storage facilities
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 24
    Boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 36
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 40
        Page 44
    Appendices
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Appendix A
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Appendix B
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Appendix C
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Appendix D
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Appendix E
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Appendix F
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
    Appendix G
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Appendix H
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
    Back Cover
        Page 102
Full Text






Analysis of Hurricane Andrew Economic Damage
and Recovery Options for the Boating,
Marina and Marine Service Industries o, ;c,


Edward K. Baker
Maria L. Villanueva


Florida Sea Grant College Program


Un~x!rs\Wl F lortda


rLORIDA b

iGRANT-
COLLEGE PROGRAM


/ol

October 1993
C -2--


TP-72


























































Florida Sea Grant College is supported by award of the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number NA 89 AA-D-SG053, under provisions of the National Sea
Grant College and Programs Act of 1966. This information is published by the Sea Grant Extension Program which
functions as a component of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in conducting Coopera-
tive Extension work in Agriculture, Home Economics, and Marine Sciences, State of Florida, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners, cooperating. Printed and distributed
in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea Grant College is an Equal Oppor-
tunity-Affirmative Action employer authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to
individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap or national origin.











Analysis of Hurricane Andrew Economic Damage
and Recovery Options for the Boating,
Marina and Marine Service Industries


Edward K. Baker
Maria L. Villanueva


Boating Research Center, Rosenstiel School of Marine
and Atmospheric Science
University of Miami
Virginia Key, Florida 33149


Survey funded by
Hurricane Educational Response Program
Project number 92-ESNP-1-5185.


Technical Paper 72 printed under
Grant Number NA89 A A-D SG053



For copies:
Florida Sea Grant College Program
University of Florida
P.O. Box 110409
Gainesville, FL 32611-0409


FLORIDA


coumor pnoonaM
October 1993

COLLEGE PROGRAM

October 1993


$5.00


























Acknowledgements


The authors are grateful to a number of individuals who helped with this study.
Mr. Phil Everingham of Merrill-Stevens Boat Yard, Mr. Frank Herhold of the Marine
Industry Association of South Florida, Mr. Carl Straw of Professional Marine
Associates, Inc., Mr. Frank Piedra of Phoenix Marine, and Mr. Don Pybas, Florida Sea
Grant Extension Agent for Dade County assisted in drafting and reviewing the survey
questionnaires used in the study and in compiling the list of boat yards, boat
dealerships, and boat manufacturers in Dade County. Ms. Erica, McKinley provided
valuable assistance in conducting the surveys.










Table of Contents


Acknow ledgem ents ...........................................

List of Exhibits ..............................................

1.0 Introduction ..............................................

2.0 Survey of Boat Owners in Dade County, Florida ...................
2.1 Review of the 1990 Study ..............................
2.1.1 Target Population ...............................
2.1.2 Development and Validation of the Survey Questionnaire .
2.1.3 Results of the 1990 Survey ........................
2.1.4 Marine Traffic Modeling in the 1990 Study ............
2.1.5 Recommendations and Policy Decisions as a Result of the
1990 Study ...................................
2.2 Assessment of Hurricane Evacuation Plans Post Andrew ........


2.2.1 Post-Andrew Responses of the Berthed
Surveyed in 1990 ..................
2.2.1.1 Boat Characteristics ...........
2.2.1.2 Pre-Hurricane Usage Patterns .....
2.2.1.3 Hurricane Planning and Preparation
2.2.1.4 Hurricane Damage and Assessment
2.2.1.5 Future Boating Plans ..........
2.2.2 Post-Andrew Responses of Boat Owners in (
2.2.2.1 Boat Characteristics ...........
2.2.2.2 Hurricane Preparation and Planning
2.2.2.3 Hurricane Damage and Assessment
2.2.2.4 Future Boating Plans ..........


31
I


Sii

. v


Boat Owners
............
. . . .
............
. .. . .

............
............
general .......
............
.....,.,....
............
............


3.0 Survey of Dade County Marinas and Boat Storage Facilities
3.1 Facility Characteristics .....................
3.2 Pre-hurricane Operations ................... .
3.3 Hurricane Preparedness .....................
3.4 The Effects of Hurricane Andrew ..............
3.5 Rebuilding Plans ..........................

4.0 Boat Yards, Boat Dealers, and Boat Manufacturers ......


4.1 Boat Yards


. . . . . . . . . . . 3 6


4.1.1 Boat Yard Characteristics and Pre-hurricane Operations ..
4.1.2 Hurricane Andrew Damage Assessment and Rebuilding
Plans .......................................
4.1.3 Post-Hurricane Andrew Operations ...................
4.2 B oat D ealers ........................................







4.3 Boat Manufacturers ................................... 38

5.0 Summary and Conclusions ....................... ............ 40

6.0 Recommendations ......................................... 43

Appendices ................................................. 45

Appendix A ............................ ....................47

Appendix B ..... ........................................... 53

Appendix C ................................................ 61

Appendix D ................................................ 67

A ppendix E ......... ........................... ........... 75

Appendix F .................. ................... ........... 83

A ppendix G .................................... ........... 89

A ppendix H ................................................ 95







List of Exhibits


1.1 National Weather Service Radar Image of Hurricane Andrew ........... 3
1.2 Approximate Location of Some Boat Storage Facilities ............... 4
1.3 Approximate Location of Boat Yards, Boat Dealerships and Boat
M manufacturers ........................................... 5
2.1 Boat Characteristics, Berthed Boat Owners ....................... 12
2.2 Berthed Boat Owners, Pre-Hurricane Boat Use Patterns .............. 13
2.3 Berthed Boats, Damage During Hurricane Andrew .................. 14
2.4 Berthed Boats, Amount of Damage ............................ 14
2.5 Berthed Boats, When Boats Replaced ....... .......... : ......... 15
2.6 Berthed Boats, When Boats Repaired ........................... 16
2.7 Berthed Boats, Post-Hurricane Boat Use Patterns ................... 16
2.8 Boat Owners, By Boat Length and Propulsion .. ................ 18
2.9 Boat Owners, Boat Trailers .................................. 18
2.10 Boat Owners, Hurricane Plan ................................ 19
2.11 Boat Owners, Marina Information ............................. 19
2.12 Boat Owners, Boats Required to be Moved ...................... 20
2.13 Boat Owners, When Boats Were Moved ................. ....... 20
2.14 Boat Owners, Amount of Boat Damage .......................... 21
2.15 Boat Owners, Moved Boat .................................. 21
2.16 Boat Owners, When Will Boats Be Replaced ..................... 22
2.17 W hen W ill Boats Be Repaired ................................ 23
2.18 Boat Owners, Post-Hurricane Summer Boat Use Patterns .....'. ....... .23
2.19 Boat Owners, Post-Hurricane Winter Boat Use Patterns .............. 24
3.1 Pre-Hurricane Andrew Inventory of Boat Storage Facilities, Dade County 26
3.2 Pre-Hurricane No. of Available Slips and Occupancy Rates, Boat Storage
Facilities .................................... ....... 28
3.3 Post-Hurricane No. of Available Slips and Occupancy Rates, Boat Storage
Facilities .............................................. 30
3.4 Boat Storage Facilities, Services Offered ......................... 32
3.5 Boat Storage Facilities, Insurance Requirements .................... 33
3.6 Boat Storage Facilities, Hurricane Plant .......................... 33
3.7 Boat Storage Facilities, Require Move Boats ...................... 34
3.8 Boat Storage Facilities, Amount of Damage ...................... 34
3.9 Boat Storage Facilities, Insurance Coverage ....................... 35
3.10 Boat Storage Facilities, Rebuilding Plans ........................ 35
4.1 List of Boat Yards Surveyed ................................. 36
4.2 List of Boat Dealership Surveyed .............................. 38
4.3 List of Boat Manufacturers Surveyed ........................... 39






























































vi









1.0 Introduction


At 4:55 am August 24, 1992, the eye of Hurricane Andrew made landfall at 25.5
degrees north latitude in Dade County, Florida. A radar image of the storm from the
National Weather Service Miami radar just before landfall is presented in Exhibit 1.1.
The hurricane had a devastating effect on the recreational boating industry in South
Florida impacting boaters, marinas, boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers.
A map the boat storage facilities in Dade County with over 100 wet or dry slips is
presented in Exhibit 1.2. A similar map of boat yards, boat dealers and boat
manufacturers contacted in this study is shown in Exhibit 1.3.

In response to the devastation of Hurricane Andrew, Florida Sea Grant convened
a meeting of industry representatives and marine researchers on September 29, 1993 at
the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Sea
Grant agents and marine industry researchers together with the industry representatives
enumerated several immediate needs of the industry. This study was undertaken to meet
several of the needs identified at the meeting.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of Hurricane Andrew on
three distinct sectors of the recreational boating industry: boaters, marinas, and the
marine services industries. Specifically the objectives of this study were: 1) to evaluate
the hurricane preparedness plans of the boaters, marinas and other marine related
businesses in Dade County, 2) to assess the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew to the
boats, marinas, boat yards, and other boating businesses, and 3) to determine the future
boating activities of Dade County boat owners and the rebuilding plans of the marine
businesses.

To accomplish these objectives, various survey methodologies were employed.
First with regard to boaters, a longitudinal study was conducted from a baseline survey
of hurricane evacuation plans of berthed boat owners in Dade County conducted in
1990. In addition to these results, a survey questionnaire was mailed to a stratified
random sample of the general boater population in the county. Second, a post-hurricane
survey of marinas and boat storage facilities in Dade County was conducted. This
survey utilized as a sampling frame the inventory of Dade County marinas and boat
storage facilities completed by the Boating Research Center in July of 1992, three
weeks prior to Hurricane Andrew. Finally, mail and telephone surveys as well as
personal interviews were conducted with boat yards, boat dealers and boat
manufacturers in Dade County.

A detailed description of the methods employed in each phase of the study and
their results are presented in the remainder of this report. After this introductory section,
Section 2.0 describes the longitudinal survey of berthed boat owners in Dade
County, as well as the results of the survey of the general boating population. Section











































Digitized radar image of the core of Hurricane Andrew at 0835 UTC on 24 August,
1992. The radar data was collected by the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA
from the Miami, Florida NWS office located at the National Hurricane Center
(NHC). The image shows Andrew's eye and eyewall just before landfall near
Homestead Air Force Base (HAFB). The gray scale (from dark to light) represents
reflectivities of <15, 15-25, 25-33, 33-40, 40-45, and >45 dBZ. North is at the top
and the domain is 100 by 100 km with 10 km tic spacing.

Exhibit 1.1
Source: Hurricane Research Division, NOAA

















Tamiami Trail


Mathesi


Black Pt


SHomestead BF
HAFID Homestead BF


i Miami Beach


Crandon



Key Biscayne






SElliot Key







Exhibit 1.2
Approximate Location of
Some Boat Storage Facilities
0 Boat Storage Facility

















Miami Beach




Key Biscayne







Elliot Key


Exhibit 1.5
Approximate Location of Boat Yards
Boat Dealerships and Boat Manufacturers
A Boat'Yard
* Boat Dealerships
H Boat Manufacturers 4








3.0 describes the survey of the Dade County marinas and boat storage facilities, making
comparisons to the inventory completed by the University of Miami's Boating Research
Center just prior to the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew. Section 4.0 presents the survey
conducted of the boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers in Dade County. The
summary and conclusions of this study are presented in section 5.0.


2.0 Survey of Boat Owners in Dade County, Florida

The purpose of this phase of the study was to evaluate the success or failure of
the hurricane plans of boat owners in Dade County, Florida as executed prior to landfall
of Hurricane Andrew at 4:55 am on August 24, 1993. The study was designed not only
to evaluate the hurricane plans of boat owners, but also to determine the extent of
advance preparation that was taken. Additionally, the study wished to assess the
damages, if any, that were incurred by the boats and to determine the effects of the
hurricane on the boat owners' future boating plans.

Prior to Hurricane Andrew, Dade County had not been struck by a major hurricane
since 1965. During this time, the number of boats berthed in both county and privately
owned marinas had increased substantially. In light of this increase and with the
occurrence of Hurricane Hugo in September 1989, the Dade County Office of
Emergency Management asked in 1990 for a re-evaluation of the County's Hurricane
Evacuation Plan for berthed boats. Of particular interest was the-Plan's ability to
address the problems and concerns associated with advising the public about moving
their boats to a safe harbor.

Under the policy in effect in 1990, when a hurricane warning was issued, all
county marinas, and some private marinas, required boat owners to remove their boats.
During the hurricane warning period, boat owners have a very few hours in which to
move their boats safely. As a hurricane approaches, sea, wind, and other conditions may
inhibit or prohibit boat movements. For example, when sustained winds reach 35 miles
per hour, bascule bridges are locked in the down position preventing many sailboats
from entering certain waterways.

An additional concern among boat owners was simply identifying and locating
areas considered as safe refuge in a hurricane. Areas well known by the public may not
be available in time of emergency. Dade County's best known hurricane refuge, the
Miami River, for example, is estimated to have capacity for about 4000 boats.
Unfortunately, recent changes in the flood control policies of the South Florida Water
Management District have made the river unsuitable as safe haven in the event of a
hurricane. Additionally, a proposed flotilla plan using the Miami River under the
direction of the United States Coast Guard had been abandoned.









The problems associated with the search for safe harbor are exacerbated by the
facts that a substantial number of boats in wet storage are owned by non-Dade County
residents and that many berthed boat owners have never experienced a hurricane in
Dade County. The lack of time for preparation and the possible unavailability of space
for safe haven could be catastrophic if a major hurricane were to strike the area.

As a first step in addressing these concerns, the Metro Dade Planning
Department, the Office of Emergency Management, and the University of Miami
Boating Research Center obtained a Coastal Zone Management Grant to obtain primary
data on the hurricane evacuation plans and experiences of the berthed boat owners in
Dade County, Florida. The results of this study were published in a report in December
of 1990 and served as a baseline from which the current survey results were analyzed.


2.1 Review of the 1990 Study

2.1.1 Target Population

In the spring of 1990, the Dade County Planning Department provided the
Boating Research Center with an inventory of marinas with ten or more berths and a
list of berthed-boat owners in those marinas. The inventory included 88 public and
private marinas. The list included the names of 3007 berthed boat owners.

The Boating Research Center verified the list of berthed boat owners in the
marina inventory provided by the County by cross-referencing the number of wet slips
in the marinas, the number of berthed boats in each marina, and the number of names
of berthed boat owners in each marina. The file of owners of berthed boats in county
marinas was then merged with the 1989 Florida vessel registration file. The merging
was done to validate the boat characteristics and the names and addresses of boat
owners in the inventory. The merging of the files resulted in a total of 1760 records
with names, addresses and boat characteristics that were used in the sampling frame for
the study.


2.1.2 Development and Validation of the Survey Questionnaire

Using standard survey design methodology, the Boating Research Center
developed a preliminary questionnaire for the mail survey. The questionnaire was then
given to the Office of Emergency Management and Dade County Planning Office for
comments and suggestions. The changes proposed by these offices were discussed and
considered and incorporated into the questionnaire for presentation at a Hurricane
Preparedness Workshop. The comments of attendees at the workshop were also included
in the final questionnaire.








A pilot study was conducted to estimate the response rate of the questionnaire,
to measure significant variances in the survey responses, to assess the ambiguities in the
prepared questionnaire, and to examine the necessity of stratifying the sampling frame
according to geographical location and type of boat.

The pilot survey was mailed and a thirty four percent response rate was realized,
Several points were noted. First, stratification of the population by geographic region
was needed as hurricane refuge sites were found to be dependent upon marina location.
Second, it was found that stratification of the sample by boat type was not required.
Third, ambiguities were found to exist in several questions of the questionnaire and
these were rectified.

Of 1000 questionnaires mailed in the 1990 study, 350 responses were received.
Fifteen of these questionnaires were disregarded because they were not adequately
completed by the respondents. Of the 335 remaining, only 323 were legible and
consistent.


2.1.3 Results of the 1990 Survey

A frequency analysis of the survey data revealed that the typical respondent's
boat was 30 to 40 feet in length with a 6 to 10 foot beam. The most likely draft was 3
feet. Clearly 57 percent of the respondents were sailboat owners. Almost 95 percent of
the boats were constructed of fiberglass. The typical boat of the respondents was of the
1970 to 1980 model vintage, and had been purchased within the last four years.

Over 65 percent of the berthed boat owners in Dade County have been boat
owners for more than five years. They have typically kept their boat in the marina in
which it is currently berthed for more than five years.

Most of the berthed boats were not trailerable. Only 24 percent of the
respondents had trailerable boats. Of those who could trailer their boats, 68 percent
owned a trailer. Twelve percent of the respondents indicated that they would trailer their
boat in the event the threat of a hurricane required marina evacuation.

The boat owners of the 1990 study were generally aware whether or not their
marina required evacuation if a hurricane threatened. At the time of the survey, 73
percent responded that their marina required evacuation and 67 percent said they
intended to move their boat. Of those intending to move their boat, 64 percent planned
to move their boat more than 48 hours before the expected landfall of the storm.


Although a high percentage of berthed boat owners planned to move their boats









when a hurricane threatens, 39 percent did not know where to move them. Of those
respondents who specified a destination in their evacuation plan, 17.8 percent chose the
Miami River, 8 percent chose the Coral Gables Waterway, 3.7 percent specified inland
canals, and 3 percent indicated Biscayne Bay.

Only ten percent of those who intended to move their boats had a written contract
for a hurricane mooring. Only 50 percent of the 1990 respondents had arranged for
pickup from their safe refuge moorings; only 59 percent had conducted a dry run.

The analysis of the cross-tabulations of the data from the survey of berthed boat
owner hurricane evacuation plans revealed several interesting results. First, as noted in
the pilot study, there exist three distinct geographic areas with respect to berthed boats
in Dade County. For the purposes of this study the three areas were denoted north,
central, and south, The north region begins at the mouth of the Miami River and
continues north to the Broward County line. The central region begins at the Miami
River and continues south to Southwest 88th Street. The south region begins at
Southwest 88th Street and continues south to the Monroe County line. These boundaries
are visible on the map presented in Exhibit 1.1. The mouth of-the Miami River empties
into Biscayne Bay at 27.77 degrees north latitude. Southwest 88th Street may be seen
approximately two miles north of the north eye wall of Hurricane Andrew.

A second point revealed by the cross-tabulations was that the three geographic
regions in the County differed not only in the typical types of boats-in their marinas,
but also in the planning and preparation of their boat owners for hurricane evacuation.
Finally, traits that are not significantly different across the various marinas included the
length of boat ownership, the decision of when to move the boat if it is to be moved,
and the acquisition of insurance coverage.

The types of boats berthed in the marinas of the different geographic regions
were found to be significantly different. In the northern region, which follows the
intercoastal waterway, most of the marinas are small privately owned facilities. The
typical boat in this area is a power boat. In the central and south regions, which have
direct access to Biscayne Bay, the predominant mode of propulsion is sail. The sailboats
tend to be taller, have less horsepower, and are not trailerable.

An examination of hurricane evacuation plans in the three geographic regions
revealed several significant differences. First, with regard to whether or not the owners
planned to move their boats, the owners in the central region, i.e. marinas in Key
Biscayne and Coconut Grove, overwhelming said they would move their boats, while
in the north and the south the majority of owners said they would not. In fact, the
majority of owners in the northern region responded that they were not required to
move their boat. In the southern region, although owners admitted that they were
required to move their boats, the majority said that they did not intend to do so.








3.0 describes the survey of the Dade County marinas and boat storage facilities, making
comparisons to the inventory completed by the University of Miami's Boating Research
Center just prior to the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew. Section 4.0 presents the survey
conducted of the boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers in Dade County. The
summary and conclusions of this study are presented in section 5.0.


2.0 Survey of Boat Owners in Dade County, Florida

The purpose of this phase of the study was to evaluate the success or failure of
the hurricane plans of boat owners in Dade County, Florida as executed prior to landfall
of Hurricane Andrew at 4:55 am on August 24, 1993. The study was designed not only
to evaluate the hurricane plans of boat owners, but also to determine the extent of
advance preparation that was taken. Additionally, the study wished to assess the
damages, if any, that were incurred by the boats and to determine the effects of the
hurricane on the boat owners' future boating plans.

Prior to Hurricane Andrew, Dade County had not been struck by a major hurricane
since 1965. During this time, the number of boats berthed in both county and privately
owned marinas had increased substantially. In light of this increase and with the
occurrence of Hurricane Hugo in September 1989, the Dade County Office of
Emergency Management asked in 1990 for a re-evaluation of the County's Hurricane
Evacuation Plan for berthed boats. Of particular interest was the-Plan's ability to
address the problems and concerns associated with advising the public about moving
their boats to a safe harbor.

Under the policy in effect in 1990, when a hurricane warning was issued, all
county marinas, and some private marinas, required boat owners to remove their boats.
During the hurricane warning period, boat owners have a very few hours in which to
move their boats safely. As a hurricane approaches, sea, wind, and other conditions may
inhibit or prohibit boat movements. For example, when sustained winds reach 35 miles
per hour, bascule bridges are locked in the down position preventing many sailboats
from entering certain waterways.

An additional concern among boat owners was simply identifying and locating
areas considered as safe refuge in a hurricane. Areas well known by the public may not
be available in time of emergency. Dade County's best known hurricane refuge, the
Miami River, for example, is estimated to have capacity for about 4000 boats.
Unfortunately, recent changes in the flood control policies of the South Florida Water
Management District have made the river unsuitable as safe haven in the event of a
hurricane. Additionally, a proposed flotilla plan using the Miami River under the
direction of the United States Coast Guard had been abandoned.








Thorough preparation for an evacuation prior to a hurricane includes a practice-
run to the refuge site and arranging for someone to pickup the boat captain and bring
them to their home. The responses were again significantly different on these issues.
First, only a majority of owners in the central region responded that they had made a
dry run and that they had arranged a pickup. Neither the majority of owners in the north
nor south region had made such arrangements.

Finally it was noted in the responses of the berthed boat owners that the amount
of information on hurricane evacuation available at the various marinas was perceived
to be significantly different. The owners in the central region believed that information
was generally available, while the owners in the northern region were evenly split
between available and not available. The owners in the southern region did not find that
hurricane evacuation information was generally available.


2.1.4 Marine Traffic Modeling in the 1990 Study

In an effort to use the data obtained in the 1990 survey of berthed boat owners
to evaluate different hurricane evacuation plan scenarios, a marine traffic model was
developed utilizing a geographic information system. The movement of boats from
marinas to safe harbors in the model was accomplished through the use of a network
flow model. In the network model, each marina becomes a source node supplying boats
to the network. Each safe harbor becomes a potential destination for boats in search of
a safe harbor. Connecting the sources and destinations is a marine traffic network
containing arcs that represent the legs of navigable marine routes.

The marine traffic flow model was then run to determine the marine traffic
patterns that would disperse all the boats to safe harbor in a minimum total distance.
A run of the model was made for each marina and the results combined to determine
the total number of boats seeking safe harbor at a particular location and to determine
where congestion may exist along the marine traffic network.

Three scenarios were proposed and executed using the marine traffic network
model. The first scenario was descriptive of the intended hurricane evacuation plans of
the boat owners as measured in their survey responses. The last two scenarios were
prescriptive as assumptions are made concerning the capacities of the safe harbors and,
once that capacity is reached, boat owners must seek alternative moorings.

The results of the marine traffic modeling showed that the intentions, plans, and
preparations of berthed boat owners differed significantly across the natural geographic
strata of the County's water resources. Berthed boat owners north of the mouth of the
Miami River occupying private slips did not intend to move their boats in the event of
a hurricane. Berthed boat owners in the region from the Miami River south to









Southwest 88th Street were generally aware of the requirement to move their boat, were
prepared to move, and had made a practice evacuation run. Owners in the county
marinas south of Southwest 88th Street, however, generally knew of the requirement to
evacuate their marina, but had no intention of doing so. Judging from the tone of the
written comments on the survey forms, many of the southern region owners felt that
their marinas were safe refuge sites and that they could not improve their condition by
evacuating.

In many cases, information, or the lack thereof, was an important factor. The
survey results found that berthed boat owners had significantly different perceptions of
the availability of information concerning hurricane evacuation procedures. Only those
owners in the central region felt that they had been given adequate information. Many
of the respondents asked for any additional information that may be available and even
offered to pay for it. Additionally, the population had not made adequate preparation
in securing mooring agreements, making practice evacuation runs, and arranging pickup
at the safe refuge site.


2.1.5 Recommendations and Policy Decisions as a Result of the 1990 Study

The following recommendations were made as a result of the 1990 study and
hence had some influence on what occurred in 1992 during Hurricane Andrew. First,
it was recommended that the county engage in a concerted program of education of its
berthed boat owners with regard to its emergency management plan. If all county
marinas were to require the evacuation of berthed boats in the event of a hurricane, then
the County should make every effort to inform each owner of this intention, and of the
consequences should this policy not be abided. Second, the procedures for locating a
safe refuge and securing one's boat should be readily available to all owners facing
mandatory evacuation. Finally, it was hoped that the results of this study may also be
used to assist the County in the determination of the efficacy of a mandatory berthed
boat evacuation plan. The current policy was widely misunderstood by berthed boat
owners and many aware of the mandatory evacuation policy intended to ignore it.

As a consequence of the 1990 study of the hurricane evacuation plans of berthed
boat owners in Dade County, Florida and other factors, the County Planning Department
changed its policy requiring mandatory evacuation of the County's marinas. The
Department also published and distributed a brochure to all boat owners in the county
providing current information on hurricane procedures.


2.2 Assessment of Hurricane Evacuation Plans Post Andrew

Subsequent to the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew, two surveys were conducted









to evaluate the effectiveness of the hurricane preparedness and/or evacuation plans of
the boat owners in Dade County, Florida. The boat owners were considered in two
groups: 1) the berthed boat owners surveyed in the 1990 study, and 2) boat owners from
the population in general. Although the results of both survey groups are considered
here, we first focus on the contrasts of the responses and actions of the berthed boat
owners surveyed in 1990.


2.2.1 Post-Andrew Responses of the Berthed Boat Owners Surveyed in 1990

An attempt was made to trace each of the 323 berthed boat owners who
responded to the 1990 survey through their Florida Boat Registration Number or
through their address. From the 323 original respondent surveys, 247 mailing addresses
were obtained. Each of these boat owners was sent a personalized cover letter and copy
of the 1992 post-hurricane survey questionnaire. A copy of a sample cover letter and
survey questionnaire are presented in Appendix A. In all, 128 boat owners responded
to the 1992 survey. This is an overall response rate of 51.8 percent. Of the 128 total
responses, 10.2 percent were from the northern region of the county, 57 percent were
from the central region, and 32.8 percent were from the southern region. The actual
percentages of all berthed boats in each of the regions from the 1990 study were 9.5,
66.3, and 24.2 respectively.

The 1992 survey addressed issues of boat characteristics, pre-hurricane boat use
patterns, hurricane planning and preparation, damage assessment, and post-hurricane
plans for boat repair, replacement and usage. Each of these issues is discussed in the
sections immediately following. A summary of the survey responses is presented in
Appendix B.


2.2.1.1 Boat Characteristics

The boat characteristics of the respondents of the 1992 study were obviously very
similar to those of the 1990 study. The frequency analysis of the responses from the
1992 survey revealed that 41 percent of the respondents' boats were 25-40 feet in length
and the majority were powered by inboard engines or a combination of inboard and sail.
The majority of boats were of model years between 1970 and 1985. The percentages
of 1990 berthed boat owners by length and by propulsion is presented in Exhibit 2.1.









Exhibit 2.1
Boat Characteristics, Berthed Boat Owners


In Percent


LT 26 26-30 30-40 GTE 40
Type of Propulsion
*DOutboard ODnboard E~lIn/Outbord Qsail Osailw/inb rmsail w/outb Mother







All of the boats were originally believed to be wet berthed, however, three of the
respondents indicated boats in dry storage and twelve respondents did not respond to
the question. On average, the respondents had stored their boats in their current location
for more than five years.


2.2.1.2 Pre-Hurricane Usage Patterns

The pre-hurricane usage patterns of the 1990 berthed boat owners are presented
in Exhibit 2.2. For the summer season (April through September), most respondents
used their boats 2-4 weekend days a month. Usage on summer weekdays was less, with
41 percent of the respondents saying that they did not use their boat on any 'summer
weekdays. For the winter season (October through March), the most frequently
occurring response was 2-4 weekend days per month. The winter weekday pre-hurricane
usage was also less, with 50 percent of the respondents reporting that they used their
boat zero winter weekdays.








Exhibit 2.2
Berthed Boat Owners, Pre-Hurricane Boat Use Patterns


In Percent
80 1


2-4 5-8
No. of Days/Month
SSumWEnd -SumWDay *WinWEnd *WinWDay


2.2.1.3 Hurricane Planning and Preparation

When asked whether they moved their boat prior to Hurricane Andrew, 53
percent replied they did, while 45 percent said they did not. Two percent did not
respond to this question. Of the 68 respondents who moved their boat, 86 percent of
these said they moved their boat within 48 hours of the hurricane's landfall. Of those
who moved their boat, 46 percent said they incurred damage. Of the respondents who
did not move their boat, 81 percent incurred damage.


2.2.1.4 Hurricane Damage and Assessment

The damage that was incurred by boats was dependent upon the geographic
region in which the boat was stored during the hurricane. Exhibit 2.3 shows the
percentage of berthed boats damaged by Hurricane Andrew by geographic region and
by whether or not the boats were moved.


GT 16







Exhibit 2.3
Berthed Boats, Damage During Hurricane Andrew


In Percent


North Central South
O Damaged M Moved/Damaged


A profile of the damage incurred by the 1990 berthed boat owners by geographic
region is presented in Exhibit 2.4. The average amount of damage incurred was least
in the central region and greatest in the southern region. For those responding, the
average amount of damage in the northern region was $25,625, in The central region
$21,753, and in the southern region $29,056.


Exhibit 2.4
Berthed Boats, Amount


of Damage


In Percent


North Central South
Amount of Damage
E3LT1K B1-LT5K 5-LT 10K 010-LT 30K MGTE30K









2.2.1.5 Future Boating Plans


With regard to their future boating plans, 92 percent of the 1990 berthed boat
owners said they would continue to use their boat, five percent said they would not.
Twenty six people reported that they lost their boat in the storm. Of these 26, 17 said
they would replace their boat with a used one of equivalent or greater value, two said
they would replace their boats with new ones, five said they would not replace their
boat, and two had other responses.

The time frame for the replacement of the boats varied for the respondents.
Twenty five percent of the respondents said they would replace their boat immediately,
no respondent said replacement would occur in three months, 33 percent specified three
to twelve months, 25 percent specified within one to three years, and the remainder of
the respondents did not specify a time frame. The time frame for boat replacement of
the 1990 berthed boat owners is presented in Exhibit 2.5.

Exhibit 2.5
Berthed Boats, When Boats Replaced


In Percent
100 I1, ii i








4Ommediately 0in 3-6 mo in 6-12 mo
,,' ", !:N TH iit'l' -


North Central South
immediatelyy Min 3-6 mo Din 6-12 mo
Din 12-18 mo [ain 18-36mo EOther



Of the 45 respondents who specified a time frame for the repair of their boat, 71
percent wanted to repair their boats immediately, with another 16 percent wanting to
make repairs in less than three months. Eighty seven percent of those responding said
they intended to have their boat repaired in Dade County versus outside the county. The
time frame for boat repairs of the 1990 berthed boat owners is presented in Exhibit 2.6.








Exhibit 2.6
Berthed Boats, When Boats Repaired


In Percent


North


Central


South


Olmmediately OIn 3 mo Din 3-6 mo Mlin 6-12 mo Oin 12-18 mo Dother





The post-hurricane usage patterns of the 1990 berthed boat owners are presented
in Exhibit 2.7. In general the distribution of boat usage patterns specified by the berthed
boat owners in the post-hurricane survey were slightly less than the usage specified as
pre-hurricane usage. For the summer season (April through September), most
respondents said that they would use their boats 2-4 weekend days a'month. Usage on
summer weekdays was less, with 88 percent of the respondents saying that they would
use their boat on zero or one summer weekday per month.


Exhibit 2.7
Boats, Post-Hurricane Boat Use


2-4 5-8 9-16
No. Of Days Per Month
-SumWEnd -SumWDay d*WinWEnd *WinWDay


Berthed


In Percent
70 --

60


50

40

30

20

10

0
0


Patterns


GT 16


=i_

i'--


i r

--
.- ----
-








For the winter season (October through March), the most frequently occurring
response was 2-4 weekend days per month. The winter weekday post-hurricane usage
was also less, with 73 percent of the respondents reporting that they would use their
boat zero or one winter weekdays.


2.2.2 Post-Andrew Responses of Boat Owners in General

Although the longitudinal study of berthed boat owners allowed insights to be
gained as to changes in hurricane planning and preparation, the majority of berthed
boats were greater than 26 feet in length. Since the majority of the Dade County boat
population is less than 26 feet, a second survey was conducted that targeted the smaller
boats.

A survey questionnaire similar to that sent to the berthed-boat owners was
developed and mailed to a stratified random sample of boaters in the Dade County. The
questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter are presented in Appendix C. The
survey addressed the issues of boat characteristics, hurricane preparation and planning,
hurricane damage, and possible changes in boat use patterns. A summary of the survey
responses for the general boat owners is presented in Appendix D.


2.2.2.1 Boat Characteristics

The majority of the respondents to the survey owned boats that were less than
26 feet in length. The majority of the smaller boats had outboard propulsion, while the
larger boats tended to be inboard or inboard/outboards. The distribution of boats by
length and propulsion is presented in Exhibit 2.8.

Sixty one percent of the respondents said their boats were trailerable, and 41
percent actually owned a trailer. These figures by length are shown in Exhibit 2.9.

The boats were typically of a model year prior to 1980 and were stored at the
owner's home. The average time the boat had been stored in that location was more
than five years. Boats less than 26 feet are predominantly stored at home, while boats
larger than 26 feet are increasingly likely to be wet berthed.


2.2.2.2 Hurricane Preparation and Planning

With regard to having a hurricane plan, 66 percent of the respondents said that
they did, 19 percent said that they did not, and 15 percent did not respond. The
percentage of boat owners with hurricane plans by length of boat is shown in Exhibit









2.10. Forty three percent of those in storage facilities who responded said that their
marina provided them with hurricane information and 40 percent of the respondents said
that they were required to move their boats in the event of a hurricane. These data are
displayed in Exhibits 2.11 and 2.12.


Exhibit 2.8
Boat Owners, By Boat Length


and Propulsion


In Percent


.1 7 Jl.I..._ .. .' *
.." i::"":ii :' ',i.i


LT 16 16-LT26 26-LT40 GTE 40
Type of Propulsion
E0Outbd MIlnbd Oln/Out Esail Ullsail/inb Osail/out I~other


Exhibit 2.9
Boat Owners, Boat Trailers


LT16 16-LT 26 26 LT 40 GTE 40
OTrailerable IlIOwn Trailer








Exhibit 2.10
Boat Owners, Hurricane Plan


In Percent


LT16 16-LT 26 26- LT 40 GTE 40
OYes ENo ONo Resp

Exhibit 2.11
Boat Owners, Marina Information


In Percent


LT16


16-LT 26


26-LT 40


GTE 40


Of the 250 respondents, 85 said they moved their boat prior to Hurricane
Andrew, while 146 did not. Nineteen did not respond. Only three boats were moved
more than 48 hours before the hurricane struck. Exhibit 2.13 shows the distribution by
length of when the boats were moved.

19


I


i
... ." .



:....'............:
.. :. : :. ..
.. : .i. :. .
:",i :i:; ;:i: i::::
,'.: .:. .:. .. .... .


I


-~CT











Exhibit 2.12
Boat Owners, Boats Required to be Moved



In Percent
3,------------------


LT16


16-LT 26


26-LT 40


GTE 40


Exhibit 2.13
Boat Owners, When Boats Were Moved



In Percent


LT16 16-Lt26 26-Lt 40 GTE 40
E049-72 hrs E24-48 hrs EBILT 24 hrs


0 L-







2.2.2.3 Hurricane Damage and Assessment


Forty four percent of the boat owners who responded to the survey said that their
boats were damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Of those boat owners who moved their boat,
44 percent had damage and 56 percent did not. Of those who did not move their boat,
49 percent had damage and 51 percent did not. For those who moved their boat, the
average damage claim was $ 10,612, while for those who did not move their boat the
average damage claim was $ 8,854. Exhibits 2.14 and 2.15 display the distribution of
damages incurred by boat length and whether or not the boat was moved.

Exhibit 2.14
Boat Owners, Amount of Boat Damage


In Percent


Lt16


E3LT1K EJ1-LT5K


16-LT 26 26-LT 40 GTE 40-
Amount of Damage
05-LT 10K 10-LT 30K Z1GTE 30K ONo Amt


Exhibit 2.15
Boat Owners, Moved Boat

In Percent
100

80




40 il Ai
E Not Moved No Damage I IIj i
UlM Not Moved Damage 20 1 :l
IEilMoved No Damage --
E3 Moved Damaged 0 -
LT16 16-LT26 26-LT40 GTE 40









Forty four percent of the respondents said that they had insurance on their boat,
but only 16 percent said they thought the insurance would cover the damage incurred.

Of the 15 respondents who lost their boat in the hurricane and are planning to
replace their boat, only two plan to replace their boat with a new boat, while eleven
plan to replace with a used boat. Eighty percent of the respondents said they plan to
replace their boat with one of equal or greater value.

Of the fifteen respondents planning to replace their boat and specifying a time
frame, only three said they would replace the boat immediately, eight specified from
three to twelve months, and four from one to three years.

With regard to boat repairs, 68 percent of the respondents said they would have
their boat repaired in Dade county. Of all respondents 60 percent said they would have
the repairs done immediately and the rest within one year. The time frames for the
replacement and repair of boats by length are presented in Exhibits 2.16 and 2.17.


Boat Owners,






In Percent
100

80

60

40



0 ': -' --' "
20

0


Exhibit 2.16
When Will Boats Be


Replaced


LT16 16-LT 26 26-LT 40 GTE 40


SImmediately
Din 12-18 mo


Din 3 mo nOin 3-6 mo IBlin 6-12 mo
I~ilin 18-36 mo IOther







Exhibit 2.17
When Will Boats Be Repaired


In Percent


LT16 16-LT 26 26-LT 40 GTE 40
Clmmediately Oin 3 mo Oin 3-6 mo Iin 6-12 mo Bin 12-18 mo Oother


2.2.2.4 Future Boating Plans

With regard to future boating plans, 88 percent of the respondents said that they
would continue to use their boat. Eighty seven percent of all respondents said they
would have a hurricane plan in the future.

The post-hurricane usage patterns of the general boat owners in Dade County are
presented in Exhibits 2.18 (Summer) and 2.19 (Winter). The distribution of pre- and
post-hurricane boat usage patterns specified by the general boat owners are virtually
identical.


Boat Owners,


Exhibit 2.18
Post-Hurricane Summer


Boat Use Patterns


In Percent


I 2-4 5-8
No. of Days Per Month
-Pre-Wend -+ Pre-Wday *-Post-Wend


GT 16


*- Post-Wday







Exhibit 2.19
Boat Owners, Post-Hurricane Winter Boat Use Patterns



In Percent
60
50
40
30
20a
10
0
0 I 2-4 5-8 9-16 GT 16
No. Of Days Per Month
-Pre-Wend *-Pre-Wday *- Post-Wend Post-Wday


The frequencies of both the summer and winter usage patterns for the general
population of boat owners show similar patterns over the range of values surveyed. The
patterns are also similar to the patterns specified by the berthed boat owners. The
frequency of use of the berthed boat owners, however, is slightly greater than that of
the general boating population. The fact that boat usage has in fact remained constant
has been corroborated by data obtained from talking with dockmasters in the county.


3.0 Survey of Dade County Marinas and Boat Storage Facilities

The inventory of marinas used in this study was the result of three previous
reports. First, the Submerged Lands Section of the Division of State Lands of the
Bureau of State Lands Management prepared a report entitled "An Inventory of Multi-
Slip Docking Facilities in Florida" in 1984. This document listed all marinas in the state
at that time, reporting number of slips, wet and dry, occupancy rates, and services
available. The second data source employed was a May 8, 1992 draft of the Dade
County Manatee Protection Plan prepared by the Department of Environmental
Resources Management. This report listed number of slips and occupancy rates for all
marinas, boat yards, and ports in the county. Finally, a marina inventory used as part
of a marina siting study performed by the Boating Research Center at the University of
Miami was utilized. This final study, completed in July of 1992, considered only wet
and dry berthed marinas. Boat yards and the Port of Miami were not included in this
listing. As a validation measure, all county and city owned marinas and all privately
owned marinas with more than 100 slips were surveyed by telephone to confirm the
number of slips, wet or dry, and the pre-hurricane occupancy rates. This final inventory







was then used as the sampling frame for this phase of the study.


The pre-hurricane inventory of the boat storage facilities in Dade County is
presented in Exhibit 3.1. The inventory lists all boat storage facilities in the county with
10 or more slips. Nine publicly owned and 83 privately owned facilities are listed. The
inventory reveals 2070 publicly owned slips with a 79% occupancy rate. The inventory
also includes 8,112 privately owned slips with a 76% occupancy rate. A total of 92 boat
storage facilities encompassing 10,143 slips were included in the inventory.

Each of the 92 boat storage facilities in the inventory was mailed a survey
questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix E. The
questionnaire, designed in cooperation with members of the marine industry, requested
each facility to respond in six general areas: 1) facility characteristics, 2) pre-hurricane
operations, 3) hurricane preparedness, 4) the effects of Hurricane Andrew, 5) rebuilding
plans, and 6) post-hurricane operations. Each of these areas is reviewed in the sections
which follow.


3.1 Facility Characteristics

Thirty boat storage facilities responded to the survey questionnaire. Four surveys
were completed during site visits to the facilities and five surveys were completed over
the telephone. For the 39 survey respondents the pre-hurricane facility characteristics
are presented in Exhibit 3.2. The respondents include all nine of the. publicly owned
marinas in the county and 30 of the 83 privately owned facilities. The respondents
represent 7,594 of the 10,143 available slips in Dade County prior to Hurricane Andrew.

The post-hurricane characteristics of the respondent boat storage facilities are
presented in Exhibit 3.3. The reported number of wet slips extant decreased from 3,925
before the hurricane to 2,817 after the hurricane. The occupancy rate for wet slips
increased from 70% to 75%. Additionally, the number of dry slips decreased from 3,434
to 3,029, while the occupancy rate for dry slips decreased from 80% to 78%. The
number of long term "dead" trailer storage spaces decreased from 235 to 113. Overall,
the total number of slips in the facilities responding decreased from 7,594 to 6,005. In
percentage terms, overall occupancy remained essentially constant at 76%.


3.2 Pre-hurricane Operations

The percentages of respondent boat storage facilities offering various services are
presented in Exhibit 3.4. The average pre-hurricane price for the storage of a boat in a
wet slip was $ .23 per linear foot per day in county owned marinas and averaged $ .30
per linear foot per day in privately owned marinas. The price for dry storage was
reported to be $ 75 per month (up to 29 feet) in county owned marinas and $ .24 per
linear foot per day in private facilities. Although the data reported was not complete for








Exhibit 3.1
Pre-Hurricane Andrew Inventory of
Boat Storage Facilities, Dade County


City/Cnty Owned Facilities
Black Point
Crandon Park
Dinner Key Marina
Haulover Park
Homestead Bayfront
Matheson Hammock
Miamarina
Pelican Harbor
Subtotal

-Other Facilities
5660 Collins Condo
Apache Marine
Aranow Power Boats
Aventura Marina
Bal Harbour Yacht Club
Banyan Bay Apts
Basset Sea Ray Marina
Biscayne Bay Marriot Marina
Biscayne Bay Yacht Club
Blue Marlin Marina
Brickell Bay Village
Brickell Biscayne Bay Condo
Brickell Harbor Condo
Brickell Place Marina
Carriage House Condo
Castaways Marina
Causeway 79 Marina
Coastal Towers
Coconut Grove Sailing Club
Cocoplum Yacht Club
Commodore Towers Plaza
Coral Reef Yacht Club
Costa Brava
Eden Rock Hotel
Fisher Island Club and Marina
Fort Apache Marina Inc
Forte Towers
Fountainbleau Hotel
Four Ambassadors Marina
FPL Docking Facilities
Gables Harbor Condo
Gables Waterway Exec. Center
Gables Waterway Towers
Grove Isle Marina
Grove Key Marina
Harbor West Apts
Haulover Resort-Marina
Hi Lift Marina
Imperial House Condo
Indian Creek Club and Marina
International Yacht Harbor
Jockey Club
Key Biscayne Yacht Club
Keystone Point Marina
King Cole condo
Kings Bay Yacht Club


No. of Slips
209
414
582
44
194
323
167
98
2031


No. of Slips
10
12
10
27
37
50
32
221
123
10
13
17
12
67
13
13
267
33
244
176
20
169
30
17
106
204
12
23
36
89
23
31
27
85
328
33
325
269
10
12
376
40
100
S475
32
290


%Occupied
0.92
1.00
0.93
0.39
0.44
0.95
0.15
0.25
0.79

%Occupied
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
0.50
0.26
0.63
0.60
1.27
1.00
0.62
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
0.46
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.82
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.82
0.28
0.65
1.00
0.00
0.61
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
0.73
0.80
0.82
0.80
0.17
0.30
0.66
1.00
0.95
0.31
0.90







Little River Marina 20 1.00
L'Hermitage 15 0.40
Manhattan Towers 16 0.69
Marine Management 300 0.91
Marine Plaza Apts 22 1.00
Mariners Bay Condo 28 0.50
Maule Lake Marina 375 0.60
Miami Yacht Club 212 1.00
Monty Trainers Dock and Bar 150 0.93
Morton Towers 26 0.19
Nine Island Ave. 36 1.00
Palm Bay Yacht Club 43 0.33
Pirate Spa Marina 45 1.00
Racquet Club 19 0.68
Rickenbacker Marina 170 0.60
River Run Marina 81 1.00
Royal Harbor Yacht Club 49 0.90
Seacoast East Condo 10 0.00
Seacoast Towers 15 0.20
Seacoast Towers South 22 0.27
Snapper Creek Marina 50 0.94
Snug Harbor Townhouse 25 0.28
South Bay Condo 15 0.93
South Gate Towers 15 0.93
Spinnaker Marina 487 0.67
Sunny Isles Marina 282 0.90
Sunset Harbor Marina 125 0.44
Tower House Condo 17 0.29
Towers of Quayside 63 0.32
Turnberry Isle Yacht Club 117 0.26
Villa Regina Condo 43 0.47
Virginia Key Marina 460 0.70
Waterways Marina 99 0.72
Water's Edge Condo 18 1.00
Watson Island Marina 43 1.00
Winston Towers Yacht Basin Inc 50 0.90
Subtotal 8112 0.76

Total 10143 0.77

Data Based on:

1. "1984 Inventory of Multi-Slip Docking Facilities in Florida" by the Division of State Lands, Bureau
of State Lands, Bureau of State Lands Management, Submerged Land Section.
2. "Draft of Dade County Manatee Protection Plan" by Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management, May 8, 1992.
3. "Marina Siting Evaluation Model Study" of Boating Research Center, University of Miami-RSMAS,
May-July 1992.







Exhibit 3.2
Pre-Hurricane No. of Available Slips
and Occupancy Rates, Boat Storage Facilities


Storage Facilities Wet %Occ Dry %Occ Other %Occ Total %Occ

Slips Rate Slips Rate Storage Rate Rate


Biscayne Bay Marriot 160 54 40 53 200 54

Black Point/Marine Mgt 178 100 300 94 31 100 509 97
Brickell Bisc. Condo 17 100 17 100

Coconut Grove YC 244 100 244 100
Costa Brava Condo 30 20 30 20

Crandon Marina 234 100 128 100 58 100 420 100
Dinner Key 582 92 582 92

Fisher Island Club 120 33 120 33
Fountainbleau 23 13 23 13

Gables Harbor Condo 22 100 22 100
Gables Waterways 27 100 27 100

Grove Key Marina 3 100 325 95 328 95
Haulover Resort 285 74 50 100 325 80

Haulover Park 44 40 44 40
Hi-Lift Marina 9 22 280 89 289 87

Homestead Bayfront 173 74 21 86 194 75

Jockey Club Marina 40 50 40 50











Storage Facilities Wet %Occ Dry %Occ Other %Occ Total %Occ


Key Biscayne YC 100 100 40 100 140 100

Keystone Point 25 68 450 93 475 92

Marine Plaza Apts 30 100 30 100

Matheson Hammock 252 98 71 100 323 99

Maule Lake Marina 175 54 200 30 375 41

Miami Beach Marina 395 65 395 65

Miami Marina 160 33 160 33

Miami Yacht Club 44 100 180 92 224 93

Morton Tower 48 17 48 17

Nine Island Condos 36 22 36 22

Palm Bay Marina 43 37 43 37

Pelican Harbor 98 23 98 23

Royal Harbor YC 48 88 48 88

Rickenbacker Causeway 170 55 170 55

River Run YC 81 100 81 100

Spinnaker Marina 20 100 425 53 25 60 470 55

Sunny Isles Marina 20 100 250 92 270 93

Sunset Harbor Marina 125 64 50 100 175 74

* Villa Regina

Virginia Key 460 72 460 72

Waterways Marina 99 42 99 42

Winston Towers 50 40 50 40


Total 3925 70 3434 80 235 96 7594 76










Exhibit 3.3
Post-Hurricane No. of Available Slips
and Occupancy Rates, Boat Storage Facilities


Storage Facilities Wet %Occ Dry %Occ Other %Occ Total %Occ


Biscayne Bay Marriot 140 62 40 53 180 60

Brickell Bisc. Condo 17 71 17 71
Coconut Grove YC 244 94 244 94

Costa Brava Condo 30 20 30 20

Crandon Marina 242 100 130 100 38 100 410 100
Dinner Key 100 100 100 100

Fisher Island Club 121 50 121 50
Fountainbleau 23 13 23 13
Gables Harbor Condo 22 100 22 100

Gables Waterways 27 100 27 100
Grove Key Marina 3 100 325 90 328 95

Haulover Resort 225 71 50 100 275 76

Haulover Park 44 40 44 40

Hi-Lift Marina 9 22 :280 89 289 87
Homestead Bayfront 159 38 20 40 179 39

Jockey Club 60 42 60 42

Key Biscayne YC 100 100 40 100 140 100










Storage Facilities Wet %Occ Dry %Occ Other %Occ Total %Occ


Keystone Point 25 80 450 96 475 95

Marine Plaza Apts 30 100 30 100

Maule Lake Marina 165 55 200 30 365 41

Miami Beach Marina 395 75 395 75

Miami Yacht Club 44 100 180 56 224 64

Morton Tower 48 17 48 17

Nine Island Condos 36 22 36 22

Palm Bay Marina 22 5 22 5

Pelican Harbor 98 59 98 59

Royal Harbor YC 48 94 48 94

Rickenbacker Causeway 170 100 170 100

River Run YC 81 100 81 100

Spinnaker Marina 20 100 425 65 25 60 470 68

Sunny Isles Marina 20 100 250 100 270 100

Sunset Harbor Marina 125 100 50 100 175 100

* Villa Regina

Virginia Key 460 61 460 61

Waterways Marina 99 42 99 42

Winston Towers 50 60 50 60


Total 2817 70 3029 78 113 91 6005 76









all survey respondents, the average number of full-time employees per facility was
eight, while the average number of part-time employees was two.

Exhibit 3.4
Boat Storage Facilities, Services Offered


In Percent


E Food
OSewage


IESupplies iPhone MRestaurant DElectricity
MRepairs BIFuel IEOthers


3.3 Hurricane Preparedness

The hurricane preparedness section of the survey investigated the boat storage
facilities' requirements of boat owners as to insurance, hurricane plans, and evacuation
procedures. The facilities' requirements for the boat owners' insurance is shown in
Exhibit 3.5. Hull insurance was required by 48 percent of the wet berth facilities and
56 percent of the dry berth facilities. Liability insurance was required by approximately
61 percent of the wet storage facilities and 67 percent of the dry storage facilities
responding.

In terms of having a hurricane plan, 85 percent of the wet berth facilities and 89
percent of the dry storage facilities reporting said that they had a hurricane plan. Of
those facilities with a plan, 62.5 percent of both the wet berth and the dry storage
facilities said they distributed their plan to the boat owners. These results are shown in
Exhibit 3.6.








Exhibit 3.5
Boat Storage Facilities, Insurance Requirements


In Percent


Wet Storage Dry Storage
Type of Insurance
IWHull OLiability


Exhibit 3.6
Boat Storage Facilities, Hurricane Plan


In Percent


Wet Storage Dry Storage
MBHplan EDistribute


A majority of the wet berth facilities responding required the boat owners to
move their boats prior to the hurricane. Of the dry storage facilities reporting, 50
percent had a similar requirement. These results are shown in Exhibit 3.7.








Exhibit 3.7
Boat Storage Facilities, Require Move Boats

In Percent
70

60



40 ii





20
Wet Storage Dry Storage All Facilities


3.4 The Effects of Hurricane Andrew

Of the boat storage facilities responding, 80 percent of the wet berth facilities and
77 percent of the dry storage facilities incurred damage. The amount of damage incurred
by the facilities was dependent upon many factors and thus ranged from no damage to
several millions of dollars. Of the boat storage facilities reporting, 32 of 39 said they
had damage. Of those reporting damage, 18 specified an amount.--A profile of the
amounts of damage reported by the respondents is presented in Exhibit 3.8.

Exhibit 3.8
Boat Storage Facilities, Amount of Damage


In Percent


Wet Storage Dry Storage All Facilities
ULt 10K ~10-Lt 50K EIl50-Lt 100K II100-LT 500K EGTE 50K







Generally, the boat storage facilities had insurance to help cover their damages.
Ninety percent of the wet berth facilities had insurance, while 100 percent of the dry
storage facilities reporting had insurance. Although the facilities frequently had liability
coverage, a lesser number had business interruption insurance. These insurance figures
are presented in Exhibit 3.9.

Exhibit 3.9
Boat Storage Facilities, Insurance Coverage
In Percent
100

80

60 A

40


0L


wet storage ury lorage
Il Insurance E Business Inter. Ins


3.5 Rebuilding Plans

All of the boat storage facilities responding to the survey said that they would
rebuild their facilities damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Uniformly the dry storage
facilities said that they would rebuild immediately. The wet berth facilities also intended
to rebuild quickly. Fifty-two percent of the wet berth facilities responding said they
would rebuild immediately and the rest within 18 months. These statistics are reported
in Exhibit 3.10.

Exhibit 3.10
Boat Storage Facilities, Rebuilding Plans
In Percent


Wet Storage
Elmmediately
Mlin 6-12 mo


Dry Storage
ln 3 mo riin 3-6 mo
Ein 12-18 mo Bother
35









4.0 Boat Yards, Boat Dealers, and Boat Manufacturers


With the help of marine industry representatives questionnaires were designed to
be sent to boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers in Dade County, Florida.
Reasonable results were obtained from the boat yards, however, the response rate was
extremely low and questionnaires were often only partially completed from the boat
manufacturers, and no responses were received from the boat dealers. Each of the
industry sectors is considered below.


4.1 Boat Yards

Seventeen boat yards were identified in Dade County, Florida and each was sent
a survey questionnaire. The list of boat yards surveyed is presented in Exhibit 4.1. A
copy of the survey questionnaire is presented in Appendix F. Eight responses were
received from the boat yard population for a 47 percent response rate. The questionnaire
addressed the areas of boat yard characteristics, pre-hurricane operations, Hurricane
Andrew damage assessment, rebuilding plans, and post-hurricane operations.

Exhibit 4.1
List of Boat Yards Surveyed


Anchor Marine Grove Key Marina
Atlantic Aero Marine Assoc. Jones Boat Yard & Dry Dock
Atlantic Marine Boat Yard La Coma Marine, Inc.
Bimini Boat Yard of Miami Las Americas Marine Inc.
Bojean Boat Yard Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co.
Coastal Marine Ways Dinner Key Boatyard
Coffey's Marine, Inc. Norseman Shipbuilding Corp.
Glass Tech Corp. Nuta's Boat Yard
Poland Yacht Basin



4.1.1 Boat Yard Characteristics and Pre-hurricane Operations

Of the eight boat yards responding to the survey, six are located along the Miami
River. The number of full-time employees at the facilities ranged from three to seventy.
The number of part-time employees ranged from zero to twenty. The monthly salaries
paid by the boat yards responding ranged from $4,400 to $270,000 per month. The
average number of repairs made per month prior to Hurricane Andrew ranged







Exhibit 2.19
Boat Owners, Post-Hurricane Winter Boat Use Patterns



In Percent
60
50
40
30
20a
10
0
0 I 2-4 5-8 9-16 GT 16
No. Of Days Per Month
-Pre-Wend *-Pre-Wday *- Post-Wend Post-Wday


The frequencies of both the summer and winter usage patterns for the general
population of boat owners show similar patterns over the range of values surveyed. The
patterns are also similar to the patterns specified by the berthed boat owners. The
frequency of use of the berthed boat owners, however, is slightly greater than that of
the general boating population. The fact that boat usage has in fact remained constant
has been corroborated by data obtained from talking with dockmasters in the county.


3.0 Survey of Dade County Marinas and Boat Storage Facilities

The inventory of marinas used in this study was the result of three previous
reports. First, the Submerged Lands Section of the Division of State Lands of the
Bureau of State Lands Management prepared a report entitled "An Inventory of Multi-
Slip Docking Facilities in Florida" in 1984. This document listed all marinas in the state
at that time, reporting number of slips, wet and dry, occupancy rates, and services
available. The second data source employed was a May 8, 1992 draft of the Dade
County Manatee Protection Plan prepared by the Department of Environmental
Resources Management. This report listed number of slips and occupancy rates for all
marinas, boat yards, and ports in the county. Finally, a marina inventory used as part
of a marina siting study performed by the Boating Research Center at the University of
Miami was utilized. This final study, completed in July of 1992, considered only wet
and dry berthed marinas. Boat yards and the Port of Miami were not included in this
listing. As a validation measure, all county and city owned marinas and all privately
owned marinas with more than 100 slips were surveyed by telephone to confirm the
number of slips, wet or dry, and the pre-hurricane occupancy rates. This final inventory









from six to thirty three. There were insufficient data to report typical figures for the
average cost of a repair made. The sources of materials and supplies used in the repairs
were approximately equally obtained from Dade and Broward counties, however, one
yard reported obtaining 25 percent of its materials from out of state.


4.1.2 Hurricane Andrew Damage Assessment and Rebuilding Plans

With regard to damages incurred during Hurricane Andrew, the property damage
assessments ranged from zero to $120,000 with a median of $6,000. Exactly half of the
survey respondents had property insurance, covering from fifty percent to 100 percent
of the damage incurred. Only 25 percent of the facilities had business interruption
insurance. One facility reported being closed for one month, another reported being
without electricity for two weeks.

Of the three facilities responding that rebuilding was necessary, two planned to
rebuild immediately and the other within twelve to 18 months.


4.1.3 Post-Hurricane Andrew Operations

All of the respondents had hired more full-time employees in their post-hurricane
operations. The range of full-time employees was from four to 90. Each of the facilities
responding was able to identify hurricane related repairs above their regular level of
repair and maintenance work. The reported percentages of hurricane related business to
total business varied from 33 percent to 71 percent. For those facilities providing pre-
hurricane and post-hurricane repair data, the number of repairs was up 13 percent after
the hurricane. The timing of the repairs showed that there was a dramatic increase in
the month of September, however, the repairs in October and November were less than
the previous year. Repairs for December through January were again above the pre-
hurricane levels.

4.2 Boat Dealers

With the help of marine industry representatives, 15 boat dealerships were
identified for the purposes of this study. Each dealership. was contacted by phone to
verify their efficacy and to establish a personal contact. Each dealership was then sent
a survey questionnaire by mail or, as nine dealers had requested, the survey was sent
by FAX. The list of boat dealers surveyed is presented in Exhibit 4.2. A copy of the
survey questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter is presented in Appendix G.
The questionnaire addressed the areas of boat yard characteristics, pre-hurricane
operations, Hurricane Andrew damage assessment, rebuilding plans, and post-hurricane
operations.










Exhibit 4.2


List of Boat Dealership Surveyed

ABC Marine Fisherman's Paradise
Bassett Boat Co. Gables Marine
Bayflite Marine, Inc. Gateway Marine
Boat Center of Miami Hilift Marina
Bob Hewes Boats Johnson-Kirby, Inc.
Champion Marine, Inc. Langer's Marine
D.O.S. Marine Performance Marine
Dixie Marine Sunny Isles Marina


Despite the efforts of the researchers, no completed surveys were returned.
Immediately following all FAX transmissions, follow-up phone calls were conducted
to encourage responses. Telephone follow-up calls were made ten days later to all
boat dealers who had not responded. At that time, questionnaires were resent and
phone interviews were conducted to determine the reason for the lack of responses.

The reasons for the lack of response were varied, however, several common
themes emerged. First, the dealerships felt they were too busy to take the time to
complete the survey. Second, the owners were often out of town and the employees
did not have access to the needed information. A final reason was that the survey
was not applicable because the dealership had experienced no serious damage from
Hurricane Andrew and they saw no change in business since the hurricane. One
boat dealer interviewed said he anticipated a positive business response, but that it
would be delayed until boat owners had repaired the other pieces of their lives such
as homes and businesses. This may be a topic for future investigation.

Dealerships form an important link in the chain of marine service industries.
The lack of survey data from boat dealerships is a weakness of this study. Given the
ineffectiveness of standard survey methodology in this case, future studies should
seek to employ alternative methods to obtain information on the boat dealer sector of
the recreational boating industry.


4.3 Boat Manufacturers

With the assistance of the leaders of the recreational boat manufacturing
industry in Dade County, a list of 81 boat manufacturers was compiled for this
study. Each manufacturer was contacted by phone to inform them of the survey, to








verify their current address, and to identify a contact person for the mail survey.
Of the 81 manufacturers initially identified for the study, the list was
eventually reduced to 34 participants. These reductions occurred for a number of
reasons. First, a number of the manufacturers on the initial list were actually located
outside of Dade County. Second, 16 businesses had disconnected telephones with no
forwarding number. Finally, a few on the original list were small, one or two person,
operations *custom building 1-3 boats per year. A list of the manufacturers contacted
in the study is provided in Exhibit 4.3.

Exhibit 4.3

List of Boat Manufacturers Surveyed


Acrylicraft
Airboat Headquarters
Angler Boat Corp.
Answer Marine
Airboat Service
Apache Performance Boats
Advance Powerboats
Blackfin Yacht Corp.
Bobby Moore's Custom
Marine
Cigarette Racing Team
Contender Boats Inc.
Corsa Marine Ltd.
Crusader Boats
Classic Water Craft
Concept Boats
Condor Powerboats Inc.
Dolphin Boat Mfg.


Dusky Sport Fishing Boats
Great Boat Company
International Marine Mfg
Magnum Marine
Novurania of America Inc.
P & D Classic
Offshore Boat Corp.
Pantera Power Boats
Phoenix Marine Inc.
Sea Taxi Yachts
Stapleton Boat Corp.
Tamair Speed Marine
Mako Marine Inc.
Avanti Powerboats Inc.
Best Yacht Repair
VIP Marine Industries Inc.
Whitewater


A copy of the survey questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter is
presented in Appendix H. The questionnaire addressed the areas of boat yard
characteristics, pre-hurricane operations, Hurricane Andrew damage assessment,
rebuilding plans, and post-hurricane operations.

A telephone follow-up was conducted ten days after the initial mailing, to
ensure that the manufacturers had received the survey questionnaire, to encourage
manufacturers to respond to the survey, and to offer assistance in filling out the
questionnaire. To further encourage responses, repeated telephone contact was made
with the participating boat manufacturers and questionnaires were resent, after









addresses and contact names had been verified, to those who had lost them or did
not recall receiving them. Ten days following the second mailing, final phone
interviews were conducted with the manufacturers who had failed to respond and the
researchers asked if the manufacturer would take a few moments to answer the most
important questions on the survey over the phone and to determine the reason for the
low response rate.

Despite the repeated efforts by the researchers only four survey questionnaires
were eventually returned, and of the four only one was filled out entirely. The
remaining three had only the basic data, and very little substantive economic
information concerning pre and post-hurricane operations.

Of the remaining 30 manufacturers, six stated they had already sent the
completed questionnaires back, three said they would not respond and gave no
explanation, two said they had little physical damage and that most of their business
was European and not effected by the hurricane, a few were located in north Dade
County, had no damage and saw no change in business from the hurricane. Only
one manufacturer targeted had gone out of business, and one had relocated because
of the hurricane, but would not respond to the survey by mail or phone interview.

As in the case of the boat dealerships, the survey data obtained from the boat
manufacturers in Dade County was insufficient for the purposes of this study. The
surveys returned were not in sufficient number nor did they contain enough
information to allow reliable inferences to be made as to how the general population
of boat manufacturers was effected by Hurricane Andrew.


5.0 Summary and Conclusions

This study was undertaken to analyze the impact of Hurricane Andrew on
three distinct sectors of the recreational boating industry: boaters, marine storage
facilities, and the marine services industries. Each of these sectors was surveyed with
varying degrees of success. With regard to boaters, two studies were undertaken that
were very successful, 1) a longitudinal study of hurricane evacuation plans of
berthed boat owners in Dade County using a 1990 study as a baseline, and 2) a
stratified random sample of the general boater population in the county. With regard
to marinas and boat storage facilities, a sampling frame of Dade County marinas and
boat storage facilities was completed by the Boating Research Center in July of
1992, three weeks prior to Hurricane Andrew and produced good results. Finally,
surveys of boat yards, boat dealers and boat manufacturers in Dade County were
conducted with lesser degrees of success.









4.0 Boat Yards, Boat Dealers, and Boat Manufacturers


With the help of marine industry representatives questionnaires were designed to
be sent to boat yards, boat dealers, and boat manufacturers in Dade County, Florida.
Reasonable results were obtained from the boat yards, however, the response rate was
extremely low and questionnaires were often only partially completed from the boat
manufacturers, and no responses were received from the boat dealers. Each of the
industry sectors is considered below.


4.1 Boat Yards

Seventeen boat yards were identified in Dade County, Florida and each was sent
a survey questionnaire. The list of boat yards surveyed is presented in Exhibit 4.1. A
copy of the survey questionnaire is presented in Appendix F. Eight responses were
received from the boat yard population for a 47 percent response rate. The questionnaire
addressed the areas of boat yard characteristics, pre-hurricane operations, Hurricane
Andrew damage assessment, rebuilding plans, and post-hurricane operations.

Exhibit 4.1
List of Boat Yards Surveyed


Anchor Marine Grove Key Marina
Atlantic Aero Marine Assoc. Jones Boat Yard & Dry Dock
Atlantic Marine Boat Yard La Coma Marine, Inc.
Bimini Boat Yard of Miami Las Americas Marine Inc.
Bojean Boat Yard Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co.
Coastal Marine Ways Dinner Key Boatyard
Coffey's Marine, Inc. Norseman Shipbuilding Corp.
Glass Tech Corp. Nuta's Boat Yard
Poland Yacht Basin



4.1.1 Boat Yard Characteristics and Pre-hurricane Operations

Of the eight boat yards responding to the survey, six are located along the Miami
River. The number of full-time employees at the facilities ranged from three to seventy.
The number of part-time employees ranged from zero to twenty. The monthly salaries
paid by the boat yards responding ranged from $4,400 to $270,000 per month. The
average number of repairs made per month prior to Hurricane Andrew ranged








The objectives of this study were three: 1) to evaluate the hurricane
preparedness plans of the boaters, marinas and other marine related businesses in
Dade County, 2) to assess the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew to the boats,
marinas, boat yards, and other boating businesses, and 3) to determine the future
boating activities of Dade County boat owners and the rebuilding plans of the marine
businesses. Each of these areas is summarized below with regard to the various
sectors of the recreational boating industry.

Among boaters in general, 66 percent said that they had a hurricane plan prior
to Hurricane Andrew. After Andrew, 80 percent of all boaters, and 95 percent of
berthed boat owners, had a hurricane plan. Prior to Andrew, 67 percent of the
berthed boat owners said they planned to evacuate their marina, whereas 53 percent
actually did evacuate. The evacuations came much closer to hurricane landfall than
expected. Prior to the hurricane, 64 percent said that they would evacuate more than
48 hours before landfall, when actually only 32 percent of the berthed boat owners
evacuated more than 48 hours before hurricane landfall. Many berthed boat owners
located in the southern region of Dade County felt that their marina would be safe in
a hurricane. This turned out not to be the case for Hurricane Andrew.

Of the berthed boat owners who responded to the survey, 64 percent incurred
damage to their boats. For those berthed boat owners responding the average damage
figure was approximately $25,000. In the general boater population, 44 percent of
those responding had damage to their boats. The average damage figure for these
respondents was approximately $9,160. The majority of boaters who lost their boats
plan to replace them with boats of equal or greater value within one year. Of those
boaters needing repairs, 68 percent said that they would have their boat repaired
immediately using marine services within Dade County.


With regard to future boating plans, 88 percent of the respondents said that
they would continue to use their boats. The usage patterns for the berthed boat
owners, and the boat owners in general, indicated a post-hurricane usage rate about
the same as the pre-hurricane rate. The frequency of use of the berthed boat owners,
however, is slightly greater than that of the general boating population. The fact that
boat usage has in fact remained constant after Hurricane Andrew has been
corroborated by data obtained from talking with dockmasters in the county.

The survey of marinas and boat storage facilities investigated the requirements
of boat owners as to insurance, hurricane plans, and evacuation procedures. Hull
insurance was required by 48 percent of the wet berth facilities and 56 percent of the
dry berth facilities. Liability insurance was required by approximately 61 percent of
the wet storage facilities and 67 percent of the dry storage facilities responding.









In terms of having a hurricane plan, 85 percent of the wet berth facilities and
89 percent of the dry storage facilities reporting said that they had a hurricane plan.
Of those facilities with a plan, 62.5 percent of both the wet berth and the dry storage
facilities said they distributed their plan to the boat owners. A majority of the wet
berth facilities responding required the boat owners to move their boats prior
to the hurricane. Of the dry storage facilities reporting, 50 percent had a
similar requirement

Of the boat storage facilities responding, 80 percent of the wet berth facilities
and 77 percent of the dry storage facilities incurred damage. The amount of damage
incurred by the facilities was dependent upon many factors and thus ranged from no
damage to several millions of dollars. Ninety percent of the wet berth facilities had
insurance, while 100 percent of the dry storage facilities reporting had insurance.
Although the facilities frequently had liability coverage, few had business
interruption insurance.

All of the boat storage facilities responding to the survey said that they would
rebuild their facilities damaged by Hurricane Andrew. All of the dry storage
facilities responding said that they would rebuild immediately. The wet berth
facilities generally intended to rebuild quickly, with 50 percent of the respondents
saying they would rebuild immediately.

Of the boat yards surveyed in Dade County, the number of formal hurricane
plans was not reported. Exactly half of the survey respondents had property
insurance, covering from fifty percent to 100 percent of the damage incurred. Only
25 percent of the facilities responding had business interruption insurance.

With regard to damages incurred by boat yards during Hurricane Andrew, the
property damage assessments reported ranged from zero to slightly over one hundred
thousand dollars. One facility reported being closed for one month, another reported
being without electricity for two weeks. Of the three facilities responding that
rebuilding was necessary, two planned to rebuild immediately and the other within
twelve to 18 months.

In their post-hurricane operations, all of the boat yards responding had hired
more full-time employees. Each of the facilities responding was able to identify
hurricane related repairs above their regular level of repair and maintenance work.
For those facilities providing pre-hurricane and post-hurricane repair data, the
number of repairs was up 13 percent after the hurricane. The timing of the repairs


showed that there was a dramatic increase in the month of September, however, the
repairs in October and November were less than the previous year. Repairs for







December through January were again above the pre-hurricane levels. This pattern of
repair work was also indicated by the boat owners surveys.

The responses from. the boat dealers and manufacturers were very
disappointing. The reasons for lack of response included lack of time to complete the
survey, lack of access to the needed information, and lack of serious damage from
Hurricane Andrew with no apparent change in business since the hurricane. Only
one manufacturer contacted in the study had gone out of business and one had
relocated because of the hurricane. Future studies of these sectors of the recreational
boating industry must recognize the difficulty in obtaining the necessary information
and employ alternative measures and methods.


6.0 Recommendations


In the wake of Hurricane Andrew it is difficult to make any specific
recommendations concerning the appropriate procedures to follow in preparation for
a hurricane to ensure the safety of boaters, boats, and marine-related services and
industries. In many cases, conventional wisdom was shown to be unwise. Perhaps,
the best illustration of this was the vulnerability of boats docked or moored in so
called "hurricane holes". It was shown that if a storm the magnitude and strength of
Hurricane Andrew passes over such a "hole", standard docks and moorings will be
no match for the storm.

On the other hand, the experience of all of those who weathered the storm
would indicate that it is best to have an emergency plan that is well thought out and
rehearsed. This was shown to be true for boaters, as well as for marine related
industries. For those who had a hurricane plan, the experience of Andrew may be
used to assess and evaluate its effectiveness, and to revise and update it as required.
For those who did not have a plan, the experience of Andrew is surely motivation to
create one. The researchers are heartened that the preparation of hurricane plans has
been a focus of recent workshops sponsored by the International Marina Institute and
the Marine Industry Association of Florida.

Whereas much of the focus of the preparation of hurricane plans has been on
the marine industry, a similar effort needs to be made for boaters. The dissemination
of emergency planning material, the conducting of workshops, and the providing of
instruction for proper techniques of seamanship and mooring are all continuing needs
of the boating community.

With regard to the assessment of the economic impact of a catastrophic event
such as Hurricane Andrew, additional longitudinal studies are required. Additional
survey work, for example, is necessary to validate the intentions of boating survey
respondents who assessed their anticipated level of boating activity and their boat
replacement and repair schedules immediately following the storm. Similarly, the
boating research segments of the community and academe must redouble their efforts









addresses and contact names had been verified, to those who had lost them or did
not recall receiving them. Ten days following the second mailing, final phone
interviews were conducted with the manufacturers who had failed to respond and the
researchers asked if the manufacturer would take a few moments to answer the most
important questions on the survey over the phone and to determine the reason for the
low response rate.

Despite the repeated efforts by the researchers only four survey questionnaires
were eventually returned, and of the four only one was filled out entirely. The
remaining three had only the basic data, and very little substantive economic
information concerning pre and post-hurricane operations.

Of the remaining 30 manufacturers, six stated they had already sent the
completed questionnaires back, three said they would not respond and gave no
explanation, two said they had little physical damage and that most of their business
was European and not effected by the hurricane, a few were located in north Dade
County, had no damage and saw no change in business from the hurricane. Only
one manufacturer targeted had gone out of business, and one had relocated because
of the hurricane, but would not respond to the survey by mail or phone interview.

As in the case of the boat dealerships, the survey data obtained from the boat
manufacturers in Dade County was insufficient for the purposes of this study. The
surveys returned were not in sufficient number nor did they contain enough
information to allow reliable inferences to be made as to how the general population
of boat manufacturers was effected by Hurricane Andrew.


5.0 Summary and Conclusions

This study was undertaken to analyze the impact of Hurricane Andrew on
three distinct sectors of the recreational boating industry: boaters, marine storage
facilities, and the marine services industries. Each of these sectors was surveyed with
varying degrees of success. With regard to boaters, two studies were undertaken that
were very successful, 1) a longitudinal study of hurricane evacuation plans of
berthed boat owners in Dade County using a 1990 study as a baseline, and 2) a
stratified random sample of the general boater population in the county. With regard
to marinas and boat storage facilities, a sampling frame of Dade County marinas and
boat storage facilities was completed by the Boating Research Center in July of
1992, three weeks prior to Hurricane Andrew and produced good results. Finally,
surveys of boat yards, boat dealers and boat manufacturers in Dade County were
conducted with lesser degrees of success.







to increase their cooperation with the boat dealership and the boat manufacturing
segments of the marine industry. A wealth of beneficial information is available to
industry through the state boat registration files and through the research surveys
conducted by various agencies. This information needs to be brought to the attention
of the industry so that through mutual cooperation better industry data becomes
available.


























Appendices


























































46



























Appendix A


























































48







UNIVERSITY OF







Appendix A
Cover Letter and Survey Questionnaire
Berthed Boat Owners


Dear Sir/Madam:

The University of Miami Boating Research Center, through a grant form the
Florida Sea Grant Program, is conducting a survey that will help analyze the short
and long term effects of Hurricane Andrew on the Dade County boating community.
As part of this study, we are conducting a survey of boat owners in Dade County to
assess the damage, if any, to their boats and to determine their future boating plans.

As a survey respondent in our 1990 Hurricane Preparedness Study, we are again
asking your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey questionnaire. Your
hurricane experience and your future boating plans will help assess the impact of
Hurricane Andrew on the recreational boating community.

The survey will take about five minutes to complete. All responses will be kept
strictly confidential. Only summary statistics of the responses will be included in the
projects final report. Your cooperation is greatly needed for the success of the study.
A copy of the results of the study will be made available to you upon request.

Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire promptly and return it in the enclosed
stamped envelope to the Boating Research Center.

Thank you for your cooperation in this very important project.


Sincerely,


Dr. Edward K. Baker
Principal Investigator




Boating Research Center
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida 33149-1098
Tel: (305) 361-4012
FAX: (305) 361-4675









HURRICANE ANDREW AFTERMATH BOATING SURVEY
University of Miami Boating Research Center


Check (X) the appropriate items or fill in the blanks. Please write an answer that cannot be adequately
expressed by checking or filling in a blank.

BOAT TYPE

1. Boat Propulsion
[ ] outboard [ ] inboard [ ] inboard/outboard
[ ] sail [ ] sail with inboard [ ] sail with outboard
[] other

2. Horsepower: hp

3. Boat Dimensions
Length: ft Draft : ft
Beam : ft Height: ft

4. Hull Material:
[ ] wood [ ] fiberglass [ ] steel [ ] other

5. Engine Type:
[]gas []diesel []other

6. Is your boat trailerable? [] Yes [ ] No [] Don't Know
If yes, do you own a trailer? [ ] Yes [ ] No

7. Year boat was built:

8. Year boat was purchased:

9. Florida Registration Number:

BEFORE HURRICANE ANDREW
BOAT USE PATTERN

1. Did you live in Dade County? [] Yes [ ] No
Your zip code:

2. Before Hurricane Andrew, where was your boat berthed/stored?
[ ] wet berth [ ] dry storage [ ] home
Name of marina/dry storage:
Address of home/marina/dry storage:

3. How long was boat stored there?
[ ] less than 1 year [ ] 1 to less than 3 years [ ] 3 to less than 5 years
[ ] 5 to less than 10 years [ ] 10 years and over
4. Indicate the total number of trips that you made per season before Hurricane Andrew.

Seasons Weekend Days Per Month Weekdays Per Month
Summer (April September)
Winter (October March)

5. Where was your most frequent water destination?


50


page 1






6. Indicate approximate boating related expenses you incurred in spaces provided below.
Per Trip Expenses Per Year Expenses
fuel boat storage fees
food/drink maintenance/repair
bait boat insurance
restaurant clothing/shoes/etc.
Others (Please specify) Others (Please specify)


AFTER HURRICANE ANDREW
Hurricane Preparation

1. Did your marina provide you with information for hurricane
preparedness? [] Yes [] No [ ] Don't Know

2. Did your marina require you to move your boat? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't Know

3. Did you have a hurricane preparedness plan? [] Yes [] No

4. If yes, did you conduct a dry run to test your plan? [] Yes [] No

5. Was your boat in Dade County during Hurricane Andrew? [] Yes [ ] No

6. Did you move your boat prior to hurricane landfall? [ ] Yes [ ] No

7. If yes, how many hours before hurricane landfall did you move your boat?
[ ] 49 72 hours [ ] 24 48 hours [ ] less than 24 hours
8. Where did you move your boat?

9. Did you have a contract for hurricane mooring? []Yes []No

10. How long did it take to move your boat to the mooring site? hours.

11. Did you properly secure your boat at the mooring site
in preparation for the hurricane? [ ] Yes [] No [ ] Don't Know

Hurricane Damage Assessment

12. Did your boat incur damage? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, approximate value of damage. $
Briefly describe the damage incurred.


13. Did you have boat insurance? [ ] Yes [ ] No

14. If yes, did your boat insurance cover the damage
to your boat? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what percentage of damage to your boat was covered by your insurance? %

15. Did your boat insurance cover the damage that your boat inflicted
upon the marina or other parties? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what percentage of damage to other parties was covered by your insurance? %

Future Boating Plans

16. If you lost your boat in the hurricane, do you plan to
[] replace your boat with a new boat
[ ] replace your boat with a used boat
[ ] not replace your boat at all
[ ] other (Please specify)

51 page 2









17. If you plan to replace your boat, will you
[ ] buy a boat of equivalent value
[ ] buy a less expensive boat
[ ] buy a more expensive boat
[ ] other ( Please specify)

18. When do you plan to replace your boat?
[ ] immediately [ ] in 3 months [ ] in 3 to 6 months
[ ] in 6 to 12 months [ ] in 12 to 18 months [ ] in 18 to 36 months []other

19. If your boat incurred damage, do you plan to:
[] have your boat repaired in Dade County
[ ] have your boat repaired outside Dade County
[ ] sell your boat as is
[ ] other ( Please Specify).

20. When do you plan to have your boat repaired?
[ ] immediately [ ] in 3 months [ in 3 to 6 months
[] in 6 to 12 months [ ] in 12 to 18 months [ ] in 18 to 36 months [] other

21. Given your hurricane experience, will you continue to use your boat?
[]Yes []No [] Don't Know

22. If yes, indicate the number of times you plan to use your boat per season.

Seasons Weekend Days Per Month Weekdays Per Month
Summer (April September)
Winter (October March)

23. Given your hurricane experience, where do you plan to store/berth your boat-in the future?
[ ] home [ ] wet berth [ ] dry storage [ ] other
Name of the marina/dry storage facility:
Address of home/marina/dry storage facility:

24. Do you plan to have a "hurricane preparedness plan"?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [] Don't Know

25. Do you think discounts for boat insurance should be given to boat owners with
formal written "hurricane preparedness plan"?
[]Yes []No [] Don't Know

26. Comments/Suggestions:


Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed addressed stamped envelope to:

Boating Research Center
University of Miami RSMAS
Division of Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149

Thank you very much for your cooperation.







52
page 3



























Appendix B



























































54









Appendix B

Summary Responses
Berthed Boat Owners

Region North Central South

Total Responses 13 73 42

Length
Less than 25 7 28 13
25-40 4 34 20
More than 40 2 6 5
no response 5 4
13 73 42
Propulsion
outboard 2 4
inboard 6 13 18
inboard/outboard 3 3 2
sail 2 7 2
sail/inboard 2 33 14
sail/outboard 14 2
other 1
13 73 42
Modelyear
Pre 1970 2 12 4
70-79 3 35 15
80-85 0 11 13
86-89 2 12 9
90-92 5 3 1
no response 1
13 73 42
Issue Date
Pre 1970 2
70-79 1 13 5
80-85 3 23 10
86-89 6 25 20
90-92 3 12 5
no response
13 73 42









Boat Storage
Wet Storage 9 60 37
Dry Storage 1 2 0
Home 3 2 2
no response 0 9 3
13 73 42
No. Yrs boat stored there
Less than one year 2 7 5
1 to less than 3 yrs 3 12 9
3 to less than 5 yrs 3 17 15
5 to less than 10 yrs 3 22 8
10 years or more 2 15 4
no response 1
13 73 42
Did you move your boat
prior to Hurricane Andrew
Yes 4 51 13
No 8 21 29
no resp 1 1
13 73 42
When did you move boat
Hours: 49-72 1 7 1
Hours: 24-48 1 22 6
Less than 24 2 20 6
no response 2 1

Move boat and damaged 2 21 8
Move boat and no damage 2 30 4
Did not move but damaged 3 16 28
Did not move no damage 6 5 0
No Resp 1 2
13 73 42
How much damage incurred
Less than $1000 2 10 2
$1-LT 5K 1 6 7
$5-LT 10K 6 4
$10-LT 30K 1 9 10
GTE $30K 1 2 11
no response 4 2
5 37 36









Total Amount of Damage 128125 674335 987914
Average amount of damage 25625 21753 29056

Required to Move
yes 1 44 10
no 6 22 27
don't know 2 2 1
no response 4 5 4
13 73 42
Have Hurricane Plan
yes 7 64 34
no 6 8 7
no response 1 1
13 73 42
Boat in Dade during hurricane
yes 12 66 39
no 1 7 2
no response 1
13 73 42
Do you have Insurance
yes 10 56 35
no 2 8 4
no response 1 9 3
13 73 42
Insurance Covered Damage
yes 3 22 25
no 2 9 6
no response 1 1

If boat is lost will replace
with new boat 2
with used boat 1 5 11
not replace at all 3 2
other 1 1
no response 4 28 20

Will replace with
boat of equal value 3 3
Less expensive boat 0 4
More expensive boat 1 1 6
Other 1 2
no response 4 32 21










When replace boat
immediately 1 5
in 3 months 0
in 3 to 6 months 1 3
in 6 to 12 months 1 3
in 12 to 18 months 1 2
in 18 to 36 months 2
other 1 2
no response 4 31 21

Repair Boat
repair in Dade 4 18 12
repair outside of Dade 2 3
sell as is 1 1
other 5 3
no response 1 11 17

When repair
immediately 2 18 12
in 3 months 1 4 2
in 3 to 6 months 1 1
in 6 to 12 months 1 1
in 12 to 18 months 2
in 18 to 36 months
other 1
no response 1 12 19

Continue to use boat
yes 13 68 36
no 3 3
don't know 1
no response 2 2

Plan to have a hurricane plan
yes 12 70 33
no 1 3 3
don't know 2
no response 4
13 73 42












Pre Hurricane Use
Summer wkends
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
More than 16
no resp

Summer wkdays
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
More than 16
no Resp

Winter wkends
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
More than 16
no resp

Winter wkdays
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
More than 16
no resp

Post Hurricane Use


18
0
10
7
5
1
1
S42












Summer wkends
0 1 4 7
1 1 5 1
2-4 10 45 24
5-8 12 7
9-16 1 2
More than 16
no response 7 1
13 73 42
Summer wkdays
0 7 37 18
1 2 13 11
2-4 3 6 7
5-8 1 5 5
9-16 3
More than 16 2
no resp 7 1
13 73 42
Winter wkends
0 2 7 8
1 2 5 7
2-4 8 43 20
5-8 10 5
9-16 1 1 1
More than 16
no resp 7 1
13 73 42
Winter wkdays
0 7 31 24
1 3 15 10
2-4 2 13 7
5-8 1 3
9-16 2
More than 16 2
no resp 7 1
13 73 42



























Appendix C
























































62







UNIVERSITY OF








Appendix C
Cover Letter and Survey Questionnaire
All Boat Owners



Dear Sir/Madam:

The University of Miami Boating Research Center, through a grant form the
Florida Sea Grant Program, is conducting a survey that will help analyze the short
and long term effects of Hurricane Andrew on the Dade County boating community.
As part of this study, we are conducting a survey of boat owners in Dade County to
assess the damage, if any, to their boats and to determine their future boating plans.

We are asking your cooperation, as a boat owner, in completing the enclosed
survey questionnaire. Your hurricane experience and your future boating plans will
help assess the impact of Hurricane Andrew on the recreational boating community.

The survey will take about five minutes to complete. All responses will be kept
strictly confidential. Only summary statistics of the responses will be included in the
projects final report. Your cooperation is greatly needed for the success of the study.
A copy of the results of the study will be made available to you upon request.

Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire promptly and return it in the enclosed
stamped envelope to the Boating Research Center.

Thank you for your cooperation in this very important project.


Sincerely,


Dr. Edward K. Baker
Principal Investigator



Boating Research Center
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida 33149-1098
Tel: (305) 361-4012
FAX: (305) 361-4675








HURRICANE ANDREW AFTERMATH BOATING SURVEY
University of Miami Boating Research Center


Check (X) the appropriate items or fill in the blanks. Please write an answer that cannot be adequately
expressed by checking or filling in a blank.

BOAT TYPE

1. Boat Propulsion
[ ] outboard [ ] inboard [ ] inboard/outboard
[ ] sail [] sail with inboard [ ] sail with outboard
[] other

2. Horsepower: hp

3. Boat Dimensions
Length: ft Draft : ft
Beam : ft Height: ft

4. Hull Material:
[] wood [] fiberglass [] steel [] other

5. Engine Type:
[] gas [] diesel [] other

6. Is your boat trailerable? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't Know
If yes, do you own a trailer? [ ] Yes [ ] No

7. Year boat was built:

8. Year boat was purchased: _

9. Florida Registration Number:

BEFORE HURRICANE ANDREW
BOAT USE PATTERN

1. Did you live in Dade County? [] Yes [ ] No
Your zip code:

2. Before Hurricane Andrew, where was your boat berthed/stored?
[ ] wet berth [ ] dry storage [ ] home
Name of marina/dry storage:
Address of home/marina/dry storage:

3. How. long was boat stored there?
[ ] less than 1 year [ ] 1 to less than 3 years [ ] 3 to less than 5 years
[ ] 5 to less than 10 years [ ] 10 years and over

4. Indicate the total number of trips that you made per season before Hurricane Andrew.

Seasons Weekend Days Per Month Weekdays Per Month
Summer (April September)
Winter (October March)

5. Where was your most frequent water destination?



64
page 1






6. Indicate approximate boating related expenses you incurred in spaces provided below.
Per Trio Expenses Per Year Expenses
fuel boat storage fees
food/drink maintenance/repair
bait boat insurance
restaurant clothing/shoes/etc
Others (Please specify) Others (Please specify)


AFTER HURRICANE ANDREW
Hurricane Preparation

1. Did your marina provide you with information for hurricane
preparedness? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't Know

2. Did your marina require you to move your boat? [] Yes [] No [] Don't Know

3. Did you have a hurricane preparedness plan? [] Yes [] No

4. If yes, did you conduct a dry run to test your plan? [] Yes [] No

5. Was your boat in Dade County during Hurricane Andrew? [] Yes [] No

6. Did you move your boat prior to hurricane landfall? [] Yes [] No

7. If yes, how many hours before hurricane landfall did you move your boat?
[ ] 49 72 hours [ ] 24 48 hours [ ] less than 24 hours

8. Where did you move your boat?

9. Did you have a contract for hurricane mooring? [ ] Yes [ ] No

10. How long did it take to move your boat to the mooring site? hours.

11. Did you properly secure your boat at the mooring site
in preparation for the hurricane? [] Yes [ ] No [] Don't Know

Hurricane Damage Assessment

12. Did your boat incur damage? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, approximate value of damage. $
Briefly describe the damage incurred.


13. Did you have boat insurance? [ ] Yes [] No

14. If yes, did your boat insurance cover the damage
to your boat? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what percentage of damage to your boat was covered by your insurance? %

15. Did your boat insurance cover the damage that your boat inflicted
upon the marina or other parties? [ ] Yes [] No
If yes, what percentage of damage to other parties was covered by your insurance? %

Future Boating Plans

16. If you lost your boat in the hurricane, do you plan to
[ ] replace your boat with a new boat
[ ] replace your boat with a used boat
[ ] not replace your boat at all
[ ] other (Please specify)

page 2








17. If you plan to replace your boat, will you
[ ] buy a boat of equivalent value
[ ] buy a less expensive boat
[ ] buy a more expensive boat
[ ] other ( Please specify)

18. When do you plan to replace your boat?
[ ] immediately [ ] in 3 months [ ] in 3 to 6 months
[] in 6 to 12 months [ ] in 12 to 18 months [] in 18 to 36 months [ ]other

19. If your boat incurred damage, do you plan to:
[] have your boat repaired in Dade County
[ ] have your boat repaired outside Dade County
[ ] sell your boat as is
[ ] other ( Please Specify).
20. When do you plan to have your boat repaired?
[ ] immediately [ ] in 3 months [ ] in 3 to 6 months
[ ] in 6 to 12 months [ ] in 12 to 18 months [ ] in 18 to 36 months []other

21. Given your hurricane experience, will you continue to use your boat?
[ ] Yes [] No [ ] Don't Know

22. If yes, indicate the number of times you plan to use your boat per season.

Seasons Weekend Days Per Month Weekdays Per Month
Summer (April- September)
Winter (October- March)

23. Given your hurricane experience, where do you plan to store/berth your boatjn the future?
[ ] home [ ] wet berth [ ] dry storage [ ] other
Name of the marina/dry storage facility:
Address of home/marina/dry storage facility:

24. Do you plan to have a "hurricane preparedness plan"?
[] Yes [ ] No [] Don't Know

25. Do you think discounts for boat insurance should be given to boat owners with
formal written "hurricane preparedness plan"?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't Know

26. Comments/Suggestions:

Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed addressed stamped envelope to:

Boating Research Center
University of Miami RSMAS
Division of Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149

Thank you very much for your cooperation.







66 page 3



























Appendix D



























































68






Appendix D


Summary Responses
Boat Owners

Boat Length LT 16' 16-LT26' 26-LT40' GTE 40'

Total Responses 15 121 100 14

Propulsion
outboard 15 55 6
inboard 0 9 41 8
inboard/outboard 0 45 13 2
sail 0 3 6
sail/inboard 0 2 26 3
sail/outboard 0 7 7 0
other 0 1
No response 0 1
15
Is Boat Trailerable
Yes 15 111 25 1
No 0 5 72 13
Don't Know 2 2
No Response 0 3 1

If yes, own a trailer
yes 14 75 12 1
no 0 12 6
no response 1 24 7

Model Year
Pre 1970 12 68 30 1
70-79 2 27 60 5
80-85 1 12 6 3
86-89 0 11 4 5
90-92 1
no response 2

Issue date
Pre 1970 3 20 5 1
70-79 2 17 24 5
80-85 3 18 25 3
86-89 5 35 28 5
90-92 0 23 18 0
no response 8







Berth
Wet 1 13 70 9
Dry Storage 1 15 5
Home 13 91 23 5
No response 0 2 2

Years Stored
Less than one year 2 20 14 1
1 to less than 3 yrs 3 30 24 2
3 to less than 5 yrs 4 17 12 1
5 to less than 10 yrs 2 25 21 3
more than 10 yrs 4 25 28 7
no response 0 4 1

Marina Information
Yes 1 15 23 4
no 3 18 35 3
Don't Know 2 10 9 1
No response 9 78 33 6

Require move boat
yes 1 10 26 3
no 1 21 35 5
don't know 3 9 6
no response 10 33 6

Hurricane Plan
yes 6 74 75 10
no 4 21 20 3
no response 5 26 5 1

Boat in Dade
yes 12 96 86 12
no 2 15 13 2
no response 1 10 1

Did you move your boat
prior to Hurricane Andrew
Yes 3 33 43 6
No 9 73 56 8
no response 3 15 1

Hours to move boat
Hours: 49-72 0 3
Hours: 24-48 1 11 18 1
Less than 24 2 21 26 5
no response 12 86 56 8






Incur Damage
yes 6 40 61 6
no 9 81 39 8
no response

Moved Boat/Boat Damage
Move boat and damaged 2 8 24 3
Move boat and no damage 1 25 19 3
Did not move but damaged 4 28 37 3
Did not move no damage 5 45 19 5
no response 3 5 1

How much damage incurred
(all Boats)
Less than $1000 4 16 10 1
$1-4999 1 12 18 1
$5-9999 0 3 8 0
$10-29,000 0 4 18 2
More than $30,000 0 0 2 2
no response 10 86 44 8

Total Amount of Damage 2150 113125 520105 299040
Average Amount of Damage 430 3232 9288 4980

Do you have insurance
yes 1 42 49 9
no 14 70 42 5
no response 0 0 9 0

Insurance Covered Damage
yes 12 28 1
no 2 6 8 3
no response 13 103 64 10
15 121 100 14
Liability Insurance
yes 1 3 1
no 1 2 6
no response 14 118 91 13

If Lost will replace
with new boat 2
with used boat 1 1 8 1
not replace at all 5 3 1
other 2 1
no response 14 113 86 12







Will replace with
boat of equal valiue 1 5
less expensive boat 1 1 1
more expensive boat 1 1 4
other
no response 14 118 90 13

When replace boat
immediately 1 2
in 3 months 1 1
in 3 to 6 months 1 1
in 6 to 12 months 3 1
in 12 to 18 months 0 2
in 18 to 36 months 1
other 1
no response 14 118 90 13

Repair Boat
repair in Dade 20 37 4
repair outside of Dade 2 1
sell as is 2 3 2
other 10 87 54 10
no response 15 121 100 14

When repair
immediately 3 13 30 2
in 3 months 6 7 2
in 3 to 6 months 3 2
in 6 to 12 months 1 3 3
in 12 to 18 months 2 1
in 18 to 36 months
other 1 1
no response 11 93 56 10

Will continue boat use
yes 12 108 87 12
no 1 2 3 1
don't know 1 4
no response 2 10 6 1

Plan a Hurricane Plan
yes 9 94 84 14
no 1 9 7
don't know 3 6 4
no response 2 12 5









Where will boat be stored
home 11 93 25 5
wet 0 8 55 8
dry 1 9 5
other 1 2 6
no response 2 9 9 1

Pre Hurricane Use
Summer Weekends 0 0 0 0
0 1 14 4 2
1 1 18 12
2-4 8 59 43 8
5-8 3 20 27 2
9-16 1 4 6
More than 16
no response 1 6 8 2

Summer Weekdays
0 7 41 35 2
1 1- 29 14 3
2-4 5 34 22 4
5-8 1 8 7-. 2
9-16 1 2 8 1
more than 16 1 6
no response 1 6 8 2

Winter Weekends
0 4 31 11 2
1 2 29 16
2-4 6 49 45 7
5-8 2 4 15 2
9-16 2 5 1
more than 16
no response 1 6 8 2

Winter Weekdays
0 8 66 43 3
1 1 25 20
2-4 3 22 15 5
5-8 2 2 5 2
9-16 4 2
more than 16 5
no response 1 6 8 2










Post Hurricane Use
Summer Weekends
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
more than 16
no response

Summer Weekdays
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
more than 16
no response

Winter Weekends
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
more than 16
no response

Winter Weekdays
0
1
2-4
5-8
9-16
more than 16
no response



























Appendix E
























































76







UNERSITY OF
MO --







Appendix E
Cover Letter and Survey Questionnaire
Boat Storage Facilities



Dear Sir/Madam:

The University of Miami Boating Research Center (BRC) through a grant from
the Florida Sea Grant Program, is conducting a study that will help analyze the short
and long term effects of Hurricane Andrew on the Dade County boating community.
As part of this study, we are conducting a survey of boat storage facilities in Dade
County to assess the damage, if any, to these facilities, to determine their future
rebuilding plans, and to estimate the impact of Hurricane Andrew to the boat -lorage
operations. We are asking your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey
questionnaire.

Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire promptly and return in the enclosed
stamped envelope to the Boating Research Center. The survey will take about twenty
minutes to complete. Your cooperation is greatly needed for the success of the study.
A copy of the results of the study will be made available to you upon request. If you
have any questions, please call the BRC at (305) 361-4012.

Thank you very much for your cooperation in this very important project.


Sincerely,


Dr. Edward K. Baker
Principal Investigator







Boating Research Center
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida 33149-1098
Tel: (305) 361-4012
FAX: (305) 361-4675











HURRICANE ANDREW BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES SURVEY
University of Miami Boating Research Center

Facility Name
Name of Person Filling out the form:

I Boat Storage Facility Characteristics


1. Facility Type
[ ] wet berth
[ ] dry storage


[ ] wet berth and dry storage
[ ] other


2. Facility Location
Address:
Nearest Accessible Waterway:


3. No. of years the facility has been in operation:


years


II Pre-hurricane operations

Pre-hurricane storage capacity:
Total available storage capacity
Number Occupied


Other (please specify)


Pre-hurricane price structure:
Dry Storage: ($ per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)
Wet Storage: ($ per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)
Other (specify): ($ per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)


Pre-hurricane employment characteristics:
Number of people employed at this facility:
Full Time
Part Time

Please indicate pre-hurricane marina services offered below:
food/groceries
marina supplies
boat repairs
electricity
sewage flush out
restaurant
telephone
fuel
other (please specify)









III Hurricane Preparedness:


1. Do you require boat owners to have hull insurance
for their boats? [ ] Yes [] No
2. Do you require boat owners to have liability insurance to
protect the properties of others? [ ] Yes [ ] No
3. Does your facility have a hurricane preparedness plan? [ ] Yes [ ] No
(If there is a written hurricane preparedness plan for the facility, please
enclose the plan. If not, briefly describe below the facility hurricane preparedness plan).


4. Are copies of the plan distributed to the boat owners? [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Do you require boat owners to move their boats
prior to a hurricane? [ ] Yes [ ] No
6. If yes, when do you require boat owners to move their boats?
During hurricane watch
During hurricane warning
Other ( please specify)


If your facility incurred damage during Hurricane Andrew, please go to section IV. If your
facility did not incur damage during Hurricane Andrew, please go to section VI.


IV Hurricane Andrew

1. Did your facility incur any damage during Hurricane Andrew? [ ]Yes [ ] No
2. Briefly describe below the damages that your facility incurred.
Structural damage



Electrical Damage



Plumbing Damage










Water Damage


Other (please specify)


3. Total assessed amount of damage. $
4. Does the marina have insurance? [ ] Yes
5. Will your insurance cover the damage to the marina? [ ] Yes
6. What percent of the damage will be covered? %
7. Does the marina have "business interruption" insurance? [ ] Yes
8. How many boats were in the facility during hurricane Andrew? _
9. How many of these boats appeared damaged?
10. How many of these boats sunk?

V Rebuilding Plans

1. Is your facility planning to rebuild? [ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, will you rebuild to
pre-hurricane operations
smaller operations
larger operations
other (please specify)


[]No
[]No

[]No


2. When do you plan to
[] immediately
[ ] 6 to 12 months


rebuild?
[ ] in 3 months
[ ] 12 to 18 months


[ ] in 3 to 6 months
[ ] in 18 to 36 months


Have you contacted boat owners regarding your rebuilding plans? [ ] Yes [ ] No
With your hurricane experience, does your facility plan to have a new hurricane
preparedness plan? [] Yes [ ] No
If yes, briefly describe this new plan.


VI Post Hurricane Andrew

Post hurricane storage capacity:
Total available storage capacity
Number Occupied


Wet


Other (please specify)


[ ] other











Post hurricane price structure:
Dry Storage: (S per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)
Wet Storage: ($ per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)
Other (specify): ($ per linear foot per day or month or fixed rate per month)


Post hurricane employment characteristics:
Number of people employed at this facility:
Full Time
Part Time

Please indicate post hurricane marina services offered below:
food/groceries
marina supplies
boat repairs
electricity
sewage flush out
restaurant
telephone
fuel
others (please specify)


Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope to the:

Boating Research Center
Division of Marine Affairs
UM RSMAS
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33143

Thank you.
















4

























































82



























Appendix F

























































84







M UNIVERSITY OF









Appendix F
Cover Letter and Survey Questionnaire
Boat Yards



Dear Sir/Madam:

The University of Miami Boating Research Center (BRC) through a grant from
the Florida Sea Grant Program, is conducting a study that will help analyze the short
and long term effects of Hurricane Andrew on the Dade County boating community.
As part of this study, we are conducting a survey of boat repair facilities in Dade
County to assess the damage, if any, to these facilities, to determine their future
rebuilding plans, and to estimate the impact of Hurricane Andrew to the boat repair
operations. We are asking your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey
questionnaire.

Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire promptly and return in the enclosed
stamped envelope to the Boating Research Center. The survey will take about twenty
minutes to complete. Your cooperation is greatly needed for the success of the study.
A copy of the results of the study will be made available to you upon request. If you
have any questions, please call the BRC at (305) 361-4012.

Thank you very much for your cooperation in this very important project.


Sincerely,


Dr. Edward K. Baker
Principal Investigator







Boating Research Center -
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Marine Affairs
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida 33149-1098
Tel: (305) 361-4012
FAX: (305) 361-4675








HURRICANE ANDREW AFTERMATH BOAT YARD SURVEY
University of Miami Boating Research Center


Check (X) the appropriate items or fill in the blanks. Please write an answer that
expressed by checking or filling in a blank.


I Business Characteristics

1. Facility Name:
2. Facility Address:
3. Business Type
[] Sole Proprietorship
[ ] Partnership
[ ] Private Corporation


cannot be adequately


[] Franchise
[ ] Other


II Pre-hurricane Operations

4. Number of Employees
Full Time Part Time

5. Labor Hours per month
Regular Hours: hours $ amount
Overtime Hours: hours $ amount

6. Average Number of Monthly Repairs by Year


1991
Aug__
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec


Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug


7. Average repair cost/day/boat. $
8. Average length of stay/repair/boat. days.
9. Sources of Material Supplies
Percent of Total
Sources of Supplies Dollar Values of Supplies
Dade % i
Broward %
Other(specify)_ %

If your facility incurred damage during Hurricane Andrew, please go to Section III. If your facility did
not incur damage during Hurricane Andrew, please go to Section V.

Ill Hurricane Andrew Damage Assessment


10. Did your facility incurred damage during Hurricane Andrew?
11. If yes, briefly describe below the damage incurred.
Structural Damage


[ ] Yes [] No


Electrical Damage

Plumbing Damage

Water Damage

Other(Please Specify)


page 1







12. Total assessed value of damage incurred. $
13. Does your facility have hurricane damage insurance?
14. If yes, will your insurance cover the damage to your facility?
15. What percent of damage will be covered? %
16. Does your facility have "business interruption insurance"?


[ ] Yes [] No
[] Yes[] No

[] Yes[] No


IV Rebuilding Plans


17. Have you rebuilt or completed repairs of your facility?
If no, is your facility planning to rebuild?

18. If yes, will you rebuild to
pre-hurricane operations
smaller operations
larger operations
other (please specify)

19. When do you plan to rebuild?
[ ] immediately [ ] within 3 months
[] 6 to 12 months [] 12 to 18 months


V Post Hurricane Andrew


[] Yes [] No
[ ] Yes [ ] No


[ ] 3 to 6 months
[] 18 to 36 months
[] other


20. Number of Employees
Full Time
Part Time


21. Labor Hours per month
Regular Hours: hours
Overtime Hours: hours


$ amount
$ amount


22. Average Number of Monthly Repairs by type of repair, by year.

1992

Se Oct Nov
HurricaneRelated
Repairs
Regular repair
& Maintenance


1993


Dec


23. Average repair cost/daylboat. $
24. Average length of stay/repair/boat. days.
25. Sources of Material Supplies
Percent of Total
Sources of Supplies Dollar Values of Supplies
Dade %
Broward %
Other(specify)__ %


Thank you for your cooperation.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope to the:

Boating Research Center
Division of Marine Affairs
UM -RSMAS
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149

























































88




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs