HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-94-0700CHARLES E. CLARKE, REM
1865 Kennedy Causeway #7B
N. Bay Village, FL 33141
305-866-4438
August 22, 1994
I have reviewed the literature describing a mooring system called
"High Water," furnished to me by Fred Crounse and Don DiGiacomo. I
am a graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and have been closely
associated with Naval Service and marine facilities all my
professional life. Additionally, I have been working for the State
of Florida as an Engineer, for disaster recovery, for the last year
and a half and have been concerned specifically with docks,
moorings and marine facilities. I feel I am qualified to comment
concerning the feasibility and usefulness of such a system.
A mooring system such as High Water presents several advantages
when applied for the purpose of hazard mitigation to marina
facilities during initial development or retrofit in repair, when
economically feasible. Some advantages include:
• protection of docks from damage by poorly or improperly moored
craf t ,
• better space availability while allowing for tidal surge or
storm related wave action,
• prevention of boat damage by other boats similarly moored,
• reduction or elimination of collateral environmental damage
due to petroleum product spillage,
• mitigation of potential damage to coastal properties and the
seabed.
Recognizing the potential for hazard mitigation by the features of
this system I would recommend installation in marina restoration or
development projects. My recommendation is based upon the systems
sound engineering principles, apparent cost effectiveness, ease of
installation and potential to reduce future losses and damage.
04&- 700
,the NEW BAYSIDE MARIN ^-
by Don DiGiacomo
A new marina is coming to Bayside. The makeup of the new marina should reflect the
needs of the commerce in the basin and the potential conditions that arise. The Marine Council
and others concerned can influence the design and components. This marina must be built to
endure.and to serve, finally!
First, the components need to be recognized as separate factors. They are the economic
study, the overall design, the slip design, and the functional needs of the commercial interests
in the basin. Secondly, the substance of the components must be examined.
The City of Miami has commissioned a "Feasibility Study", contracted by Kenneth
Leventhal, and performed by a group of experts in the various areas of marina makeup. This
study was presented to the City of Miami for review and was subsequently accepted for
development. The recommendation for design was born of that report and has been submitted
for permitting by the necessary agencies. The study is valuable for the data produced and can
support the recommended design as well as other configurations with equal accuracy. The design
officially proposed falls short of meeting the needs of everyone as well as nature and must be
reconsidered. The justification for this design was ease of permitting and time constraints.
However, a similar design has already failed. The study also excluded the input of the marine
interests in the basin, overlooked an enormous parking problem, and anticipates potential
governmental funding based upon loss prevention mitigation that doesn't exist.
94- 700
Harbour Systema, nc. has proposed an overall marin4 .:,sign to be built from the
opposite shoreline (see design "B" above). This configuration merits consideration because it is
flexible to meet the needs of the charter fishermen, tourboat operators, and excursion operators
independently as well as collectively. It provides larger turning basins yet reduces traffic flow
through the entire harbor. The design provides for the development of the transient slips to be
in the proximity of the available parking. It opens the way for fuel and provides better control
of the harbor by the dockmaster. There is an option for the charter fleet to stay in place or create
a village setting for their industry on the eastern shore. The design eliminates bottlenecks for all
boat traffic and allows for versatility in use of the harbor over its lifetime. Most importantly, the
configuration places the slips to seaward, making it capable of withstanding enormous forces and
future vessel and dock damage, peripheral property damage, marina downtime, and commercial
loss -of -business. Further, it is "true mitigation" and is more likely to be subsidized by federal
funding. Add that it allows for maximum comfort to the boater at the dock and we will have a
win -win situation. We will have a marina that is functional nd desirable.
As well as marine configuration, Harbour Systems is recommending an individual slip
design, using the Hi -Water mooring concept. Hi -Water was created for the purpose of
withstanding hurricane forces, both of wind and water, and is applicable to any marina design
ultimately built. Hi -Water touches every facet of mooring, from the very serious natural forces
to the simplicity of use on a daily basis. Hi -Water is all marine stainless steel, has only one
moving part, and will create uniform mooring. Hi -Water allows for proper slip mooring quickly
and easily each time the vessel returns to port. This design also allows for greater storm
protection of the vessels and adjoining property because the vessel responds like a floating dock
that rises and falls with the everyday and storm water levels.
Hi -Water was professionally engineered and has been reviewed by engineers of the City
of Miami, Dade County, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, and FEMA.
This is also a true mitigation improvement by the State of Florida DCA engineers. The system
has been called a means to construct docks or marinas. Therefore, the likelihood of mitigation
funding is increased.
Hi -Water has been installed at the home of Sylvester Stallone. As one component of the
state-of-the-art dock being designed and constructed by Bunnell Foundation, Inc. Another
component is the inclusion of "Flat Top" cleats.:produced by Jim Corbier. They are recessed,
surface mount cleats of polished stainless steel that pop up when needed and are out of the way
when not in use. As functional as they are beautiful.
All of us have input in developing this marina and must = pass it up because we will
live with the result for a very long time. Harbour Systems has met with the commercial marine
groups, Bayside, and the City of Miami and will meet with them many times more in order to
help create the best, most useful marina in Miami. The opportunities are here. Bayside should
host the Miami International Boat Show and other festivities, as well as create experiences that
endear the world to us. Anyone interested in helping us can contact Don DiGiacomo at 366 4044
(beeper) anytime, any day.
94- 700
EVMliml
A
3
�tt
,
r'Yw .{y ' 'cc�? :
•. l 1L 1i P4
..��Yii��w i; %t �^c
a r't
r
V
1 I Y Y
•ti #
Z
J
1�d
,1
t
E
`� cb
r
i
,i 1
I 1 F
t r t
: r Y[i
•
' ^y t
t � P r
: V t
]
t
I F �� ritr
t
.1
i,f'1,
Design Attributes
The design attributes of Hi -Water involve all aspects of mooring. By modifying some
- aspects of construction slightly and redirecting forces on the mooring (by means of putting the
bow to the sea) we assure protection and survivability. The basic mooring principles are not
changed making cost-effectiveness and longevity achievable.
Materials: All components are of marine stainless steel, use only one moving part, are
adjustable apparatus, a maintenance friendly design, and components are interchangeable.
Risk Management
The ability of a vessel and mooring site to withstand hazardous weather conditions also
creates an insurance friendly atmosphere in terms of equipment loss or repair; improved
conditions in the harbor reduce exposure; spring lines are increased in number and placement;
reduces the chance of revenue loss by downtime as a result of craft damage and inadequate
industry support facilities in our area; creates a stability to bring back into existence the marine
support industries.
Damage Control. Installation of 'Hi Water prevents the following:
Vessel puncture or breakup
Fuel leakage
Oil/Bilge breach
Sanitary system breach
Debris damage to seabed and coastline
Control and Safety Enhanced. Hi -Water achieves the following:
Maximizes Dockmaster's overall marina control
Exertion of emergency control over vessels moored
Elimination of wind or wake damage
Added protection to dock piles on impact, and under stress
Anti theft capability
Safety of the boating public dockside
Boarding stability eliminates injury
Boarding stability eliminates insurance liability and exposure
Loading stability eliminates injury, damage, liability, and risk
Elimination of constant adjustment to lines and fenders
94- 700
Extremes of Natural Forces
Engineering has also taught us that the most extreme forces are in the forward edge of
an approaching hurricane --the storm surge, or tidal surge. We know that surge is the most
destructive force in a hurricane. We also know the speed of its approach: the forward speed of
the storm itself, and that speed creates pressures that exceed all present designs and construction
of docks. Any size storm surge, even from the smallest Category 1 storm, can test the durability
of docks --as we now build them.
The forces of winds are well documented but can be largely survived--i.e., mitigated
against --through good construction practices. Through integrity of construction and use of quality
materials, harbors can be transformed into mooring sites of unprecedented safety. Current
engineering maintains that this can be achieved without exaggerated structure size or materials
by nominal configuration improvements, addressing the natural forces that threaten, and
reducing the .inherent conflict which our present dock designs generate with those forces.
hCMUNA ORIENTATION: Tidal Surge Capability
First, it is necessary to recognize that storm surges occur. It is a must that we allow for
the tidal surge levels guaranteed to exist. For this, we went to the U.S. Geological Surveys
conducted after Hurricanes Camille-1969, Agnes-1972, Eloise-1975, Frederic-1979, Danny-1987,
Kate-1987, and Hugo-1989. This level was very consistent at 16' or below, with exceptions only
being a rush of water or wave action over elevations of land (in one case, a 20.2' level
measurement over 19.5' spit of land / page 27 of the U.S. Geological Survey, Hurricane Hugo,
Open -File Report 90-386).
This potential for tidal surge capability is included in the Feasibility Study under
SUMMARY: ENGINEERING ISSUES; HURRICANE PROTECTION: "... floating docks
should be of substantial construction with well -reinforced fittings, minimum 14" piles with
extended length. "/ page 6 of SUMMARY: Miamarina Feasibility Study.
Page "6 OF 8", Section D-D, JOB No. 52102, May 1994, "Typical floating docks"
illustrates the design .of 14" piles at an elevation of "+ 15' NGVD".
Configured to Seaward
In general, all marinas, harbors and docks must configure the slips to seaward, to insure
boat survival. By enabling any moored vessel to put the bow to the surge, we will be working
with the hull design instead of against it. The rate of storm surge encroachment is well below
the force limits of all hulls. The force and speed of encroaching storm surges goes from one of
the primary destructive forces to a negligible factor in vessel damage when the boat is allowed
to do what it was designed to do: cut through the wave. In typical dock configurations
throughout the world, the forces of the water are directed at the sides of the vessels, maximizing
potential destruction.
I
a
INTRODUCTION
The mooring system known as Hi -Water was conceived to meet several. well-known
threats facing harbors, their docks and vessels at them: Natural forces (wind and water), attrition,
and any design not compatible with the forces of nature.
Because basic marina design has not changed historically from classic platform and
seaside construction, tradition may have to be questioned. Emphasis has been placed on amenities
surrounding or attached to the docks, not the docks themselves. This proposal asks how design
improvements can be made (without reinventing the wheel) while preventing some of the
devastation from natural forces at our waters edge, which, historically, has always been
catastrophic. Damage and financial loss, the results of paying too little attention to design is
made worse by too little preparedness by the boater. Thus, whenever a major storm occurs, the
docks suffer or collapse, the vessels moored to them are destroyed, and surrounding property,
both public and private, is damaged by resulting debris. Great potential for environmental
tragedy makes this picture even darker. But this picture is preventable.
Recent research shows that basic dock pile engineering, for example has concentrated on
vertical strength --when the greater stresses tended to be horizontal. In addition, the survival of
a vessel in extreme conditions has depended on whether the slip was wide enough to allow for
sufficient scope of lines, so that the vessel could respond to rising water level. All current
methods considered, mooring and dock -building are correct. But given the extraordinary forces
at work in storm surge and hurricane force winds, improvements in design and construction are
called for. Add the resulting catastrophic losses for the insurance industry, the marine industry
and boat owners, and public and private owners of surrounding property bear the brunt of the
expense of recovery.
Another way to express this need for change is the definition of hazard mitt ag tion.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's definition, any method or means
for reducing or eliminating damage or loss, by preventing the repetition of previous disastrous
results, is desirable, and --following a Presidential declaration of disaster --eligible for at least
partial federal funding. Added to this is our existing obligation to learn bow to live with an
understanding of the natural forces around us, namely in Florida, the power of weather and
water.
94- 700
"cmx-bcozzr Systems 1 nc -
9359 Fontainebleau Blvd F•105
Mali, Florida 33172
(305) 554 8170
laq (305) 366 4044
NEW BAYSIDE MARINA
Don DiGiaroino 366 4044 bpr
DESIGN .PROPOSAL
Miamarina. at Rayside
Miami, Florida
June 1994
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CONCEPT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FUNDING
INTERACTION
OPPORTUNITIES
SUMMARY
4, .
_,P+11--.y
TO BICENTENNIAL PARK
0
—
PARKING FOR uv,.rzl
I
OLD PORT BRIDGE
2
STORIES
DOCKtm
�-^-
-- ---
MA STE
LL.._I
FUEL DC
80'
BAYSIDE
120
— - -
NORTH
PAVILION
PaER ONE
32 • SLIPS
PER TFFtEE 12o'
PER F
29 SLIPS
23 SL
PIER TW
e
42 SUPS
PIER FOUR
Ito
PARALLEL
CONCRETE
FLOATING
WATER
CONT
POIN
TAXI
V FLOA
DC
BAYSIDE
HARD ROCK
SOUTH
CAFE`
PAVILION
SAY WALK
NEW
BAYSIDE
TO BICENTENNIAL PARK
PARKING FOR DOCKS ::
OLD PORT BRIDGE
2 STORIES
DOCK ir---��. WAVE BAFFLES UNDER BRIDGE
120,
Ito IRER FOUR
PARALLEL
CONCRETE
FLOATING
FUEL DOCK
WAVE BAFFLES UNDER
CONCRETE,- FLOATING DOCK
SLIPS
U`
0
CONTROL
OPOINT FOR
FLOATING
DOCKS
HARD ROCK
CAFE
BAY
m
220 FT
CHARACTER BOAT
7 EXIST BUILDING
TO 8E .RENOVATED
PARKING
PER SIX
7 PARALLEL
NEW BAYSIDE MARINA
MARINA
DATA
PIER
SLIPS
1
32
2
42
3
29
4 VISITOR
BOATS
5
23
6
7
® MARINE
PATR-QL
136
DOCKAGE
DATA
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
SIZE
79 SLIP
45 FT
43 SLIP
60
7 SLIP
75
6 PARALLEL 90
1 PARALLEL 100
I PARALLEL 200
3 MARINE
PATROL
4 FUEL
100
DAYBOATS
PIER 4
EXCURSION'
PER 5
FERRY
PIER 5
WATER TAXI
PIER 4
HARBOUR SYSTEMS, Imc.
94- 700
T
HARBOUR SYSTEMS, IN
HI —WATER MOORING SYSTEI
-T— —
il II aI II I, II
r6 FT
STOAM Sum
TIDE
I I II II
94- 700
' 4
The design behind the rebuilding of the marina at Bayside Marketplace should be
consistent with the quality and effectiveness of the marketplace itself. It needs to be functional
yet practical and should compliment Bayside Marketplace in every way. It should also allow for
the maximum flow of traffic through Bayside and place some of the amenities such that they
contribute rather than compete. In so doing, the marina will contain features that are bold and
complete, making the New Bayside Marina one of the best, most functional, and most desirable
boating spots to be found anywhere. This in turn results in one great success for the City of
Miami, producing revenue, attracting world attention, and expanding international appeal.
There are two camps on the design of the new marina and the dividing issue is from
which shoreline to construct. This is of paramount importance because of the accessibility of the
amenities, the flow through the marina itself, the traffic patterns of all who visit the marina, the
location of the charter fleet and the historical character it lends to Bayside Marketplace (or
detracts if poorly placed), and the extent to which the marina can be controlled.
This proposal supports placing the newly constructed slips from the north bank of the inlet
adjacent to Bayside Marketplace. The Harbour Systems. Inc design proposal enhances all the
relationships in the harbor, i.e. those among the City, Rouse Company, charter fleet, and other
commercial marine interests. Clearly, the most efficient design and installation supports the best
revenue generation and contributes to Miami's financial position and image.
r,
Beginning with the Dock Master at the mouth of the marina for complete control and
adding the boaters traveling on their boats and staying to enjoy all we have to offer, the
amenities will be immediately at hand for them to enjoy. Those are the vessels which are the
least disturbing in the amount of use on a daily basis, the quietest, the visitors most likely to
spend in the shops, and the vessels being the most attractive for all at Bayside Marketplace.
The west bank is a solid shore, never to be compromised, and stands as a foundation for
a marina built to last longer than just until the next storm, and will be a facility to be relied upon
for performance. This specific configuration allows for 144 slips in a very spacious, user friendly
design. The larger vessels are nearest the mouth of the inlet for the best ingress and egress. This
plan puts the charterboat docks the farthest from the marketplace making them easy to see, but
far enough not to be a noise factor, allowing them to serve as a draw to the marketplace and
lending their character and history to the marina and enterprises, remaining in name 'Pier 5', and
complimenting rather than competing. Also, the daily runs are out of the marina without any
interference since they do not ever actually penetrate the basin.
This plan contains a floating dock for the lunch boat or cocktail visitor, a location for the
Water Taxi which doesn't conflict with the pedestrian traffic to and from the boats at the floating
:dock, yet puts the exchange in the heart of Bayside activities. Added to the features are the slips
for 90 and 100 foot boats, a place for the Fisher Island Ferry to dock without interfering with
routine marina traffic, and a dock for a Character Boat such as the Celebration or any other to
routinely visit Bayside without complication.
Wave baffles are included and, if used in conjunction with an air bubbler system, should
K'r
CONCEPT
New Bayside Marina
This report serves as a recommendation to construct the New Bayside Marina facility
from the northwestern quadrant of the basin. The purpose is to derive additional benefits to the
various entities which comprise the harbor as a whole.
This is possible to do. The three schemes to choose from in the submitted proposal
headed by Leventhal, all originate from the eastern edge of the basin off Pier Park. A good
marina could be developed from the accepted scheme, but without added benefits gained by
building from the opposite shore. The benefits range from mitigating future vessel and facility
damage, to harbor user safety. Further benefits include reduced downtime after a storm event
and elimination of daily wind and wake considerations.
The concept described in this report is a result of lessons learned, adjustments made, and
the combined efforts of experts in the fields of design, engineering, construction and applicable
government programs. Each element of this concept maximizes the benefits to be gained by
combining:
= the best materials available
= the strongest, most cost-effective configuration
= most efficient, user friendly design
= dock/marina construction standards consistent with the strictest building codes
in the world
Given typical configurations today, all this can be accomplished with reasonable expense,
compared to replacement and repair costs. Hi -Water complies with Federal Hazard Mitigation
criteria for damage reduction. It also exceeds the Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation (Section
406) funding requirement of more than $1.00 of protection and prevention for every $1.00 spent
on facility improvement. (Ref: 44CFR and the Stafford Act.)
,,µ .r, ,
,��'�
t �..k
R?Fq If!
*7e rtj Fr
1 h \
s
_ r
7711�
+1
p vP!7.
l,�, 0.1
}iy.
■
The alternative Scheme A, B, and C proposed designs each originate from the eastern
shore at Pier Park and represent a permitting strategy of rapid approval through their likeness
to the historical existence of the prior marina configuration.
Phase II
The Phase II report contains the essential preliminary material concerning any project;
1. Alternative Design Concept Drawings
2. Alternative Development Concepts: breakdown of Slip Mix
3. Alternative Development Concepts: Advantages and Disadvantages
The questions revolving around this report concern the latitude of concept variation. The
alternatives are restricted to the same point of origin as the original marina design. Although the
complete concepts are different in scope, the fixed slip configuration does not vary significantly
and is explained as the path of least resistance toward permitting and time constraints, without
the most advantageous slip configuration toward seaward.
Other common elements of the Phase II report and the Final Summary for permitting use
the basic format common to all three design concepts offered. They are the use of existing docks
on the northern and western shore as well as floating docks and some configuration of surface
water manipulation.
Part 3. Alternative Development Concepts: Advantages and Disadvantages only list the
pros and cons of income production, cash control, and aesthetics. No discourse exists in Phase
II for the structural benefits or mitigation values.
Summary of final presentation was born of the Phase II report and primarily follows the
line of "Scheme A" which is the first design concept.
tom:`
w
94- 700
n
0"N
The alternative Scheme A, B, and C proposed designs each originate from the eastern
shore at Pier Park and represent a permitting strategy of rapid approval through their likeness
to the historical existence of the prior marina configuration.
Phase II
The Phase II report contains the essential preliminary material concerning any project;
1. Alternative Design Concept Drawings
2. Alternative Development Concepts: breakdown of Slip Mix
3. Alternative Development Concepts: Advantages and Disadvantages
The questions revolving around this report concern the latitude of concept variation. The
alternatives are restricted to the same point of origin as the original marina design. Although the
complete concepts are different in scope, the fixed slip configuration does not vary significantly
and is explained as the path of least resistance toward permitting and time constraints, without
the most advantageous slip configuration toward seaward.
Other common elements of the Phase II report and the Final Summary for permitting use
the basic format common to all three design concepts offered. They are the use of existing docks
on the northern and western shore as well as floating docks and some configuration of surface
water manipulation.
Part 3. Alternative Development Concepts: Advantages and Disadvantages only list the
pros and cons of income production, cash control, and aesthetics. No discourse exists in Phase
II for the structural benefits or mitigation values.
Summary of final presentation was born of the Phase II report and primarily follows the
ine of "Scheme A" which is the first design concept.
94- 700
Page II-2. Proposed plan and scheme illustrating a north-northeast/south-southwest
positioning of slips. This is p-lacing rm sur2es abeam of moored vessels creating the strongest j
��Ps to work against the marina_
Page III-5 States that one of the physical constraints on the marina is the debris situation. It
allows for a solution because it places emphasis on surface water manipulation. This surface
DWation Vill not wr wh v rziornifirnnt moored vessels
surfaces of the basin If the basin's co fim rat,�nn kept all harbor activity behind the inlet mouth
the surface manipulation devices would resist debris inflow, and would augment tidal outflow.
thereby minimizing dchn-:s n the basin Altering the width of the inlet mouth is a factor here.
Page III-5 Also noted is the wave/surge situation. It allows for a solution only under nominal
weather conditions because it depends upon wave bafflers which are strategically placed. M
is a correct theory but falls short of protection when Prot 'gn is most vital, under storm
conditions.Advocating t l meLnt is the only choice but it is necess= to allowfr thg
wave bafflers to respond to water heights, whatever then may be This can be accomplished
through synergy with the floating dock_concent or floating baffles with the Hi -Water mooring -
system. These same elements are noted on pages IV-9, TV-10,11, and Vi11-7,8.
Note: The mitigation applications for the upland electrical systems are not applied to the dock
electrical systems, when they could be. Clearly, the Dinner Key Marina experience of water
damage to sealed transformers (access of FPL to the sealed areas) offers a valuable lesson. Docks
themselves must be designed to have overhead power and utility supply so they never have to
interact with the elements. Overhead lighting, or light -bridge lighting is in use in other
applications and should be applied to marinas as well. This is alsa a potential funding qualifier
„l"
94- 700
Phase III
The Phase III report contains the specifics of scope from concept to plan completion;
Introduction and Scope
II
Executive Summary
Review of Phase 1: Opportunities and Constraints III
Concept Plan IV
Permitting Strategy V
Project Development Schedule VI
Financial Analyses VII
Redevelopment Construction Cost Estimate VIII
Phase I essentially outlines the process of data collection and lists the results in a format
compatible with creating the Phase III summary.
For the purposes of the Harbour Systems, Inc. design proposal, specific page and concept points
are herein noted as subject matter for comparative results between alternative concepts not
offered in the Leventhal Report. Other concepts offered here could be redirected to maximize
potential for economic stimulation, environmental protection, hurricane mitigation, collateral
property protection, ease of use, and hydrological enhancement.
It should also be noted that, although this proposed alternative does cost more per square foot,
the difference is not substantial and reflects the true definition of mitigation designs. Further, this
is offset by reducing new construction.
Example: In the May 1994 Draft of Miamarina, Project Detail, Harbour Systems, Inc. argues
with the capability of 14" piles centered at 40' spans to withhold an object as heavy as a concrete
floating dock at a height of +15'. It is a correct theory in our opinion, but would require closer
spacing between piles due to water depth being noted at between 15' to 20' in the Leventhal
report. This is only an example but must be considered by an engineer before determining the
extent of financing required for mitigation purposes. Although the engineering requirements
would be the same for any adaptation to the piles at storm surge height, this is best accomplished
with the 'H� Water mooring system. This engineering should take place anyway and would not
slow or otherwise hinder the construction of the marina. Pilings which are too high and/or too
widely spaced cannot support the weight of a concrete floating dock, under duress.
From the Department of Community Affairs Applicant Briefing Package, June, 1994,
several references explain funding capability of mitigation.
"Section 406 of the Stafford Act, legislation which authorizes the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to pay certain disaster recovery costs, provides direct federal
,c_istance for_=airs and improvements on projects already identified by the DAMAGE
SURVEY REPORT (DSR)..."
"Section 406 funding, under Public Assistance criteria, carries with it no dollar amount
limit, no percent -of -losses limit, and no time limit, (as long as the recovery funding file remains
open)."
"In a typical disaster, FEMA funding under 406 is up to 75%. For Hurricane Andrew
Recovery (FL-955) however, the declared amount of federal participation is 100% ."
BUT the application/local organization must furnish several very convincing arguments
in terms of cost effectiveness, durability and survivability of the facility in question..."
"Hazard Mitigation reduces or eliminates losses of life and property from natural disasters
and serves as an essential component in emergency management."
"...replication of pre -disaster conditions results in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and
a repeated damage. Hazard Mitigation is needed to ensure that such cycles are broken, that post-
S.:' disaster repairs and reconstruction take place after damages are analyzed, and that sounder less
vulnerable conditions are produced,"
"Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(P.L. 93-288 as amended) is the impetus for involvement of state and local governments to
evaluate and mitigate natural hazards as a condition of receiving Federal disaster assistance..."
"Considering that there may not always be a Federal disaster declaration, and that even
wri Federal assistance is provided, state and local costs occur, measures to prevent future
,mages are essential. Hazard mitigation is fundamental to reducing vulnerability to disaster-
lated damages."
nd from a State official during Andrew recovery: . .
)r storm event strikes " Another consideration is the new Florida law requiring the vessels
allowed to remain at harbor.
94- 700
FUNDING
The funding proposed for the Miamarina project was outlined in the Feasibility Study as
anticipated sources of income outlined in Phase III, Section VIII, Page 8;
"Ultimately, however, each construction cost component outlined in this analysis will be
subject to negotiations between FEMA and the City of Miami."
The outlined items are listed and valued as follows:
Transient Docks $ 1,143, 895
Floating Docks 486,000
Dodge Island Wave Baffle 497,000
B Dock Wave Baffle 390,000
Retrofit of Upland Electric Systems 96.975
Total $ 2,614,640
J Eligibility for additional mitigation would be the amount of the electrical for the docks,
estimated at $576,200 as noted in Phase III, Section VIII, Page 3 of the Feasibility Study.
Note: The transient docks are listed as anticipated fund qualifying mitigation in the report.
Although it is possible to receive funding in this schematic, it is more likely to be funded in
whole through the mitigation of slip configuration, not just the proposed mitigation of building
docks of concrete instead of wood. Concrete is recommended in complete agreement with the
Feasibility Study for all components of the marina project.
From the Department of Community Affairs Applicant Briefing Package, June, 1994,
several references explain funding capability of mitigation.
"Section 406 of the Stafford Act, legislation which authorizes the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to pay certain disaster recovery costs, provides direct federal
assistance for repairs and improvements on projects already identified by the DAMAGE
SURVEY REPORT (DSR)..."
"Section 406 funding, under Public Assistance criteria, carries with it no dollar amount
limit, no percent -of -losses limit, and no time limit, (as long as the recovery funding file remains
open)."
"In a typical disaster, FEMA P-,nding under 406 is up to 75 %. For Hurricane Andrew
Recovery (FL-955) however, the declared amount of federal participation is 100%."
".,BUT the application/local organization must furnish several very convincing arguments
in terms of cost effectiveness, durability and survivability of the facility in question..."
"Hazard Mitigation reduces or eliminates losses of life and property from natural disasters
and serves as an essential component in emergency management."
tif
"...replication of pre -disaster conditions results in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and
#,61:. repeated damage. Hazard Mitigation is needed to ensure that such cycles are broken, that post-
=' disaster repairs and reconstruction take place after damages are analyzed, and that sounder less
vulnerable conditions are produced."
"Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(P.L. 93-288 as amended) is the impetus for involvement of state and local governments to
evaluate and mitigate natural hazards as a condition of receiving Federal disaster assistance..."
"Considering that there may not always be a Federal disaster declaration, and that even
Federal assistance is provided, state and local costs occur, measures to prevent future
;es are essential. Hazard mitigation is fundamental to reducing vulnerability to disaster -
I damages."
from a State official during Andrew recovery:
)r storm event, strikes," Another consideration is the new Florida law requiring the vessels
allowed to remain at harbor.
94- 700
FUNDING
The funding proposed for the Miamarina project was outlined in the Feasibility Study as
anticipated sources of income outlined in Phase III, Section VIII, Page 8;
"Ultimately, however, each construction cost component outlined in this analysis will be
subject to negotiations between FEMA and the City of Miami."
The outlined items are listed and valued as follows:
Transient Docks $ 1,143, 895
Floating Docks 486,000
Dodge Island Wave Baffle 497,000
B Dock Wave Baffle 390,000
Retrofit of Upland Electric Systems 96,975
Total $ 2.614,640
Eligibility for additional mitigation would be the amount of the electrical for the docks,
estimated at $576,200 as noted in Phase III, Section VIII, Page 3 of the Feasibility Study.
Note: The transient docks are listed as anticipated fund qualifying mitigation in the report.
Although it is possible to receive funding in this schematic, it is more likely to be funded in
whole through the mitigation of slip configuration, not just the proposed mitigation of building
docks of concrete instead of wood. Concrete is recommended in complete agreement with the
Feasibility Study for all components of the marina project.
EM
f'r_
Enhancement of an existing feature of the Fisherman's Agreement would be creation of
a Fisherman's Village that would exist in reality rather than name only. This would place the
charter community at the mouth of the basin for ingress and egress while reducing commercial
traffic in the marina. This change allows the transient slips to be in the Bayside atmosphere for
tourist benefits.
Parking.
Parking on Pier Park, the Leventhal -proposed marina site, is inadequate and creates conflict with
the valet parking now established at Hard Rock Cafe. Placing boater parking there would
increase the volume of vehicle traffic and raise liabilities regarding pedestrians. Another
supporting argument for building the marina in the northwest quadrant of the basin is its
proximity to existing, revenue -generating narking.
94- 700
INTERACTION
Advantages of the Harbour Systems design proposal over the Leventhal Study are more
qualitative than quantitative. The study was complete with very few bases left uncovered,
however there are some alternative views to be covered. One example is that the marina is not
geographically situated near the fishing grounds as stated repeatedly, and specifically in Phase
III, Section III, Page 3. Issue is taken with this example as well as a few others.
What is significant in the above example to the fishermen who feel they are in the fishing
grounds is the control they exert by contractual agreement with the City of Miami, relative to
the north and west shorelines of the basin. This is more of a dispute to be resolved than an
obstacle to construction as a marina can and will be built. The dispute is a factor in the validity
of some findings of the report. Resolving the dispute to the satisfaction of the fishermen can
result in significant advantages to the City. The City should compromise, especially since history
has put the fishermen in the fishing grounds. Come to terms that not only benefit both sides, but
includes benefits to other associated parties such as Rouse, and produce benefits that did not
otherwise exist.
Further, paragraph 5 of page 3 makes an accurate statement that a charter fishing trip is
an impulse purchase. "As charter fishing trips range into the hundreds of dollars per person
per day, such an impulsive purchase is less likely to occur." While this seems accurate., it is for
this reason that the fleet adds value to the marina When patrons learn about the charter fleet,
for those who can afford to experience a trip will come back. More dollars are spent, and an
experience that endears them to Bayside specifically and Miami in general is had by those most
capable of spending and returning.
In Phase III, Section III, Page 8, paragraph 6 of the Study establishes a negative view
on the economic potential of existing wet slips due to the "Pier 5 Boatmen Settlement
Agreement". If there were a WIN -WIN compromise between the parties, the economic outlook
would increase, again bolstering and improving the expected results of the Feasibility Study.
SUMMARY
The concept presented here, read alongside the Feasibility Study, can be characterized as
the best of both worlds. By combining tried and tested methods with creative configurations,
built around a professionally engineered mooring system that enhances dock life as we know it,
we will have created the marina of the future --a design deserving recognition as the best in the
country, perhaps in the world. Although it is not of enormous size, the basin is in as prestigious
a locale as can be found, surrounded by amenities and attractions in abundance. And what is
more, it will last and it will serve.
Furthermore, this system has been engineered by a reputable engineer in the marine
industry. Copies of his computations are available upon request. In the Harbour Systems, Inc.
design proposal some criteria are in common with those called for in the Leventhal report. An
`example is that for the floating docks; the Leventhal report calls for 15 foot tidal surge pilings,
and that the transformers for dock power supplies should be placed 16 feet above mean tide to
preserve them. We agree. However, it should be extended to truly mitigate damage potential and
allow for tidal surge levels for everything in the marina, not just floating docks nor only the
source of the power supply.
Given the many entities involved in Miamarina, let us focus on its many beneficiaries as
we build the crown jewel of marinas --popular, profitable, and protected --if we build it right, and
build it for Miami's future. If we learned the lessons of Hurricane Andrew, we will build
together, and set a standard for the world to follow.
94- 700
OPPORTUNITIES
A complete list of potential advantages and opportunities within the Harbor Systems, Inc.
design proposal would make this a much longer report. The following highlights are those with
maximum potential and highest attainability:
Fishing Fleet. Provide an outlet for some of the fleet now mooring on Watson Island. The
proposed new configuration makes Pier 5 a viable reason for their return to Miamarina. This has
economic and political advantage, brings to bear the tourist attractiveness of the fleet's historical
appeal, makes the basin a complex of markets, and defuses the Watson Marina conflict without
costly upgrades, and clears a path for the MegaYacht project. By showing concern for multiple
interests, and realistic solutions, everybody wins.
Boat Show. Provide facilities to capture future editions of the International Boat Show,
currently being hosted and profited from by Marriott Hotels. City revenue, world exposure
tourism and increased international appeal explain this.
Fuel. Fueling facilities are needed. Increased revenue from fuel could exceed rent roll. Due to
environmental considerations, they will not be permitted in the marina proper. However, storage
and supply could be incorporated into the Port of Miami expansion at Bicentennial Park. This
should be part of the design because fuel facilities cannot be added unless the docks exist. Due
to proximity to Bicentennial, this can be accomplished only on the Northwest quadrant.
E3AMOE
Ho m
BUILD114C
1 �r
Q
•mac �► 3L 3�� 3� ,
oaSnrac
OcIST11t0 Pax tax -
SLIP 5 PLATFOAN + �. a•
(4 1cr
C,
64
• f l `j � ''moo' J `h~ V' � `�
c
0lp
8' O � ` o •
`8
c sa na
rrr.
HARD
Sp c CWE
design
D O D
4 Nf1 D
RrDGE
•��• /� i i e � hJ.a
aiSr.ruc pou I Wr
v ti
Z E)aSIV4G MATFORM bsups V
e
DOCX
lilt
Co
"T
r r r
l.�t 8• iO- ��-' d -�' �•rr't.r
c; � c; •i 1 �
d
lu
d e ' i J• . V 4e � Ci '1 � iVHTaAIL
to
3.
• •! V d ' � o ,C r r � Q. � tfi 4 , • v 4r �" � �hlw/'Olri f�
r ti
�• ° r i wSTvr2 Ori�CfS
itCA
r
Ir
/
8• 0 � °' „ °' d • •P t
�y �'�7�,, ' • 1 r
(
a 1 Al 1
d / 1
r 1
/
r t
1 1
FARO �
ROCK 1
CAE
r r r
�rt�, �,_ (1 �• 1r 9 -• 700
1 ` v
• t1 /, 14
design.
�-�
9AYSIDE
NORTH
PAVILION
TO BICENTENNIAL PARK
PARKING
FOR DOCKS
�_
~—
OLD PORT BRIDGE
2
STORIES
DOCK
IAASTE
I FUEL
CID
so'
120'
PEER ONE
32 SLIPS
8
PIER TI-2EE 120'
29 SLIPS
PIS
--
PER TW
42 SUPS
120
PER FOUR
PARALLEL
e
CONCRETE.
FLOATING
WATER
TAXI
'
9AYSIDE
HARD ROCK
SOUTH
CAFE.
PAVILION
SAY WAI
NEW
BAYSI
TO BICENTENNIAL PARK
PARKING FOR DOCKS
2 STORIES
D PORT BRIDGE
DOCK WAVE BAFFLES UNDER BRIDGE
..♦ere
PIER TtftEE 120'
29 SLIPS
PER TW
C9
42 SLIPS
BAYSiDE
SOUTH
PAVILION
PER FOUR
PARALLEL
CONCRETE.
FLOATING
FUEL DOCK
WAVE BAFFLES UNDER
CONCRETE, -FLOATING DOCK
220 FT
100, t,CHARACTER BOAT
' EXIST BUILDING
TO BE RENOVATED
ER FIVE
23 SLIPS
PARKING
WATER CONTROL
TAXI /POINT FOR
FLOATING
DOCKS
HARD ROCK
CAFE
BAY WA K
PER SIX
7 PARALLEL
NEW BAYSIDE MARINA
MARINA DATA
PIER SLIPS
I 32
2 42
3 29
4 VISITOR BOATS
6 27
® MARINE PATI-QL
136
DOCKAGE DATA
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY SIZE
79 SLIP 45 FT
43 SLIP 60
7 SLIP 75
6 PARALLEL 90
1 PARALLEL 100
I PARALLEL 200
3 MARINE PATROL
4 FUEL 100
DAYBOATS PIER 4
EXCURSION' PER 5
FERRY PIER 5
WATER TAXI PIER 4
HARBOUR SYSTEMS, INc.
94- 700
] f �