[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
C TAL1101" 1 ""'TUDY Prepared Fon Prepared By. Talbot CoUnty., Xfaqland Redmadjohnstom Associates, Ltd. 0 C TOll ER 1:990 a I V" C4 W4 fi Z u Z 167.5 .T35 T. 35 i 990 cow WYE RIVER TALBOT COUNTY A-7 an*. @F A@_ PUBLIC LA-NDrNG SURVEY l. Black Walnut Cove fty 2., Dogwood Harbor, Tilghman - ------- . ........ 3. i Tongers Basin, 771ghman 4. Sherwood Pier 5. Lowes W%arf Landing 6. Bayshore Road at Wittman 10 7. Cummings Creek Landing, Wiffynan 9 5 8 T-11ghman Creek Landing, Claiborne -.-;.,2 4 9.. Eastern Bay Landing at Claiborne *borne 10. Jetty Landing at Clat 11. Grace Creek Landing near Bomnan 3 12. Balls Creek Landing near Neavitt 13. Oak Creek Landing at Newcomb 14. Bellevue Landing ZE4 15.. Miles River Bridge Landing 16'. Tunis Mills Bridge Landing 17. Willa Road Landing, Glebe Irtlla lk Skipton Creek Landing 19. Wye Landing 61 20., Easton Point Landing 12 2 21- Trappe Landing, La Trappe Creek 0 22. Windy Hill Landing 23. Kingston Landing CHOPTANK RIVER 24 New Bridge., Tuckahoe Creek 25. Reese's Landing 26., Covey's Landing ------------- 27. Black Walnut Point 28,' Bar Neck Landing 29. Tilghman Park Not to Scale zx j@@%7 -T ,LT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following report and study has been prepared for the Talbot County Planning Office by Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. The Authors would like to thank several key people in County Government departments who have reviewed componets of this study and assisted in guiding its direction and execution. Talbot County I!Ianning Office Dan Cowee - Director Barry Griffith - Deputy Director -Talbot County Department of PubliC Works Jesse Fearins - Deputy Director Financial assistance was provided by the Coastal Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Why a Public Shorefront Access Plan for Talbot County ....................... I Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter 3: Analysis and Evaluation of Existing Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Chapter 4: Recommendations Based on Evaluation of Existing Conditions .................... 43 and Projected Future Public Access Needs Chapter 5: Implementation, Recommendations and Financing Strategies .................... 52 Appendix A Estimating Total Demand Appendix B A Model for Acquisition and Development Appendix C Siting and Design Guidelines for Selected Public Shorefront Access Facilities and Activities Appendix D Selected Information Concerning Maryland and Talbot County Boat Registration provided by Maryland Department of Licensing and Consumer-Services. Appendix E Letter from Maryland Deparment of Natural Resources Appendix F Site Concept Plans for selected recommended Public Shoreline Access Inprovements (back pocket) I I I I I I CHAPTER I I WHY A PUBLIC SHOREFRONT ACCESS'STUDY? I I I I I I I I WHY A PUBLIC SHOREFRONT ACCESS STUDY FOR TALBOT COUNTY Talbot County is blessed with over 600 miles of shoreline. This abundance of water frontage offers numerous recreational, as well as commercial, opportunities to both County residents and visitors. However, these people will not be able to enjoy and utilize this resource unless Talbot County affords them adequate public access. Nationwide, coastal areas have become hot spots for development. As land values escalate and private interests restrict access, pressure mounts on fewer and fewer public access points to coastal waters. The 1987 President's Commission on Americans Outdoors called for states to inventory undeveloped shoreline recreation opportunities and develop these for public use. Talbot County offers the benefits of some of the most extensive shoreline in Tidewater Maryland to its residents. However, these people will not be able to utilize this resource for recreational or commercial purposes unless they are permitted and guaranteed future public access. Currently only a very small percentage of county shoreline is publicly accessible. If the county population grows as projected, these existing sites and facilities will be increasingly inadequate for Talbot county residents due to the greater demand for their use. A growing population, a healthy economy, and increased housing alternatives are all desirable, but these will place heavier pressure on shoreline environments and water quality, making an already finite resource more limited for future growth. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement recognized this intricate relationship. Through the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program, jurisdictions in Maryland are being asked to look beyond their immediate boundaries to exercise their powers to protect water quality in state waters. This will no doubt change the patterns of development, and can offer increasing waterside recreation opportunities for more people. Talbot County Public Access Study October 1990 Chapter 1 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. There have been various planning studies which indirectly, or to a minor degree, have dealt with the issue of public shorefront access in Talbot County. One of the first such documents was the 1973 Comprehensive Plan. This document was prepared in response to increasing pressures for urban and suburban development and includes recommended actions, policies and standards to guide future development through the year 2000. A major theme running throughout the 1973 Plan was the protection of the County's natural resources. The Open Space element reflected a strong commitment to both protect these natural resources and provide adequate levels of recreational facilities and services. In response to this commitment, specific recommendations and implementation procedures for land preservation and open space appeared throughout the Plan. Relative to public access, this document recommended the improvement of some public boat landings but also stated that the number of landings present at that time (29) should be adequate through 1990. It is now 1990 and thus time to examine this issue again. This examination should not, however, be confined to utilizing some multiplier to determine if the existing number of landings still adequately serve the County and its population growth since 1973. Land use changes have prompted shifts in the county settlement patterns since 1973. Some landings are experiencing high levels of use and may not necessarily possess opportunities for expansion. Other public landings may have been under-utilized, lack many of the public improvements necessary to support public use, or are located such that continued or expanded use would be considered a threat by adjacent land owners. One example of the complexity of the situation is provided by Wye Landing, whore lack of parking area and roadside parking up to one mile distant from the landing has prompted neighboring resident controversy for years. This exemplifies a condition the County may increasingly face at additional landing sites in the future unless proper planning begins now. In addition to the 1973 Comprehensive Plan, there have been other studies that have examined some aspect of the issue of adequate public access to county shorefront. Therein lies the problem. These previous studies have all had a broader or narrower scope than public access. To date there has been Talbot County Public Access Study 2 October 1990 Chapter I Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. no study which exclusively examines the problems, issues, and opportunities associated with the public access needs of Talbot County. A 1980 document, Marinas and Recreational Boating, is an example of a study with a narrower scope than the adequacy of public access. The document did provide some useful statistical information but it is now somewhat dated. Also this document focused primarily on commercial marinas rather than the larger issue of public access. It provided specific information about boating, marinas, and marina related facilities in Talbot County. It also discussed the then present and potential future impacts of these facilities on the lands and waters of the County. Finally it proposed strategies for regulating the future location, design, construction, and expansion of marine facilities in the County. The most recent document to address the issue is the July 1987 Talbot County Land Preservation and Recreation Plan. This document updated the 1982 Land Preservation and Recreation Plan and was intended to be an integral part of the new County Comprehensive Plan which is still being updated. As can be deduced from the title this plan dealt with the much broader issue of land preservation and recreation planning in Talbot County. Public shoreline access issues were generally treated as part of the larger issues of recreation planning. Of this 132 page document, only four (4) were devoted specifically to an inventory of waterfront parks and public landings. Even this inventory is now outdated inso far as it referenced the presence of 21 landings while the actual number of landings today is 28. The only other portion of this document which specifically addressed public access in any significant way is a section of recommendations for natural parks and recreational open space. This section lists 36 potential sites for recreational open space or natural parks, several of which are located in shoreline areas. It is clear that natural resource protection, land preservation, open space protection, and recreation planning have long been important issues to the leaders and citizens of Talbot County. What has been missing to date is a plan that focuses specifically on the issues associated with public shorefront access and the adequacy of shorefront access to serve present and future residents. This document, the Talbot County Public Shorefront Access Study, attempts to fill this void by specifically and comprehensively examining the adequacy of public access in the county. The effort has included: Updating and amending the Inventory of e.)dsting public access sites including an identification of the nature and type of facilities at each site. Talbot County Public Access Study 3 October 1990 Chapter 1 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. � Preparing a comprehensive inventory (catalog) of existing facilities, particularly public landings consisting of maps and photographs of each site as a reference for future implementation of improvements programming efforts. � Examining use levels to determine which sites are under or over-utilized. � Identifying the ultimate potential for use of existing sites both In terms of size and types of facilities oservices offered. � identifying areas or regions of the County in need of future public shorefront access facilities. � Examining alternative funding mechanisms to support the acquisition of land or development of improvements at landing facilities or elsewhere that facil itate public access. � Developing a series of selection criteria for future sites to facilitate decisions regarding location and types of improvements they should support to meet present and future needs. � Analyzing the demographic characteristics of Talbot County to ascertain any special needs for certain facility types. � Providing a composite map showing the location of each existing and proposed public access site. � Mapping in greater detail those sites identifled as possessing the greatest potential for expansion � Developing design prototypes for future public access facilities to suggest to the County how large and what kind of Improvements may be necessary to better meet County needs. The result is a study which can be used to guide County staff and elected officials to determine how best to meet the public access needs of County residents and visitors. For example, it is envisioned that a Capital Improvements Budget for public access can be derived from this study. As such, this study will continue the long-standing Talbot County commitment to both utilize and protect its greatest natural asset - the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. Talbot County Public Access Study 4 October]990 Chapter 1 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. I I I I I I CHAPTER 2 1 I INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS I I I I I I I INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Any assessment of the need to provide additional quantities or levels of a good or service must begin with an evaluation of the existing conditions. For the Talbot County Public Access Study this translated into inspecting each public access site to determine the answers to a number of questions including the following: How many public shorefront access sites exist today? What location and size characteristics do these sites have? What activities can/are being pursued at each site? 9 What are the existing levels of use at existing facilities that accommodate public access? * Who are the users (i.e. in-state vs. out of state, fishermen vs. skiers)? 9 What amenities are available at each location? (This involves identifying all facility improvements which serve to support public access and identifying their condition). * What is the condition of facilities designed to support residents shorefront access needs at each site. Are there any constraints to future expansion/imp rovements at specific facilities and if so what are they. A total of 29 public access sites existed i'a Talbot County at the time of this study. The location of these facilities are shown on Map 11-1. A summary of the features /amenities available at each of the sites is provided in Table II-1. In addition each site is illustrated in a document titled "A Catalog of Talbot County Public Access Facilities." This catalog combines maps, aerial, and ground-level photographs of each facility in one concise document available for review at the Talbot County Planning Department. Talbot County Public Access Study 5 OctoberI990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Table 11-1 clearly illustrates the considerable number of public access sites in Talbot County. However, not every site possesses the same quality or quantity of amenities or improvements. Thus while the overall number of access sites may meet recognized standards, the County may well be lacking in the provision of certain types of recreational opportunities. This issue will be explored more fully in Chapters III and IV of this Study. Field Inspections of each of the County's Landings revealed that the nature of public shoreline access sites in Talbot County varies greatly. Some are facilities (p iers, small ramps, or simply a pull-off) located at the terminus of roads and include little, if any, County-owned land. At the other end of the spectrum are those facilities complete with ramp, slips, large parking areas, and rest rooms. The inspections revealed that the improvements present at the County's public access sites are generally in good condition, the exception being rest rooms and trash receptacles. As is shown on Table 11-1, some of the sites do not even have rest rooms. Those that do have the portable type facilities. This is apparently due to the fact that the nicer brick rest room facilities once present at a number of the County's public landings have repeatedly been subject to vandalism. Such is the case at the landing in Bellevue where the brick rest rooms are now closed and access users are forced to use portable toilets placed behind them. A similar problem exists with trash. Some of the sites have no receptacles at all and of those that do, trash is sometimes found littered about the site rather than properly disposed. Fortunately this condition was found to be the exception rather than the rule during the inspections. Some distinctions, as to what features are available at the site, are not easily made. For example, a given access site may not have been designed for shore-fishing but may well be utilized for that function. The assessment of available amenities shown in Table H-1 makes every effort to include any activity which may conceivably be pursued at the given site. One distinction, however, that is quite readily made is whether or not the site offers boat launching facilities. There are 15 public boat launching ramps located in Talbot County. These are: Dogwood Harbor Cummings Creek (Wittman) Eastem Bay Landing Talbot County Public Access Study 6 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TALBOT COUNTY PUBLICACCESS INVENTORY TABLE H - I a ,4 A v X 1 3 -0 04 4A 8 go x .......... ....... .. T .. ...... .. . ..... . ...... .... ... ... .. . Lower Co. .688 Pces. 0 29 0 2 DOGWOOD HARBOR Choptank .................... .... .... . . .................... . ......... ................. .. .. . ..... .... . . ................ .......... ...... .... . . ................... . .. ..... ..... .... . . ......... ................ ........ .. .......... ........... . I... .. ..... ..... ..... . . ................ . ... ..... ...... ......... ..... .... . .......... .......... ... ......... .. own . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..*,. : . .. .. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . ....... .......... . . SHERWOOD PIER Lower Choptank CO .130 Res. kit:: ............ BAYSHORE ROAD Eastern .180 1". Bay Co -Ag. . ......... xi" .... . .... . .. ...... . ........ . . .... ......... M. TILGHMAN CREEK LANDING Eastern Co .18 Rm. Bay Ind. com. .......... x i :i: X:X:X; .......... .......... ................... .......... . . . .......... . ..... . ..... ?. ............ ... . .......... . ... ... . ....... *......... .......... ......... .......... .. ............ . . ...... .. .. ....... .. .... . .......... . ......... ............ . ....... ... ......... . ....... . .......... . . . . ......... .. ....... . ....... -Whole landing is an extensin of County road. size Is based on land area within 200 feet of shoreline. 7 TALBOT COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS IN'VENTORY TABLE HAL V A IA 1; t : A .. ...... . ......... .. ... ... .. x . .. 11 . ........... ....... .... ..... GRACE CREEK LANDING Lower .190 comm. 0 0 Simple p Choptank CO. road .. ...... ... ......... LEK LANDING Miles River Co. 1.583 Res. 0 0 0 120 12 Boat rer ...... .. ... ... .. .... .... .. . . ... ........ .. ... . ..... .. . ....... .. .. . . . ..... ...... .... . .... .. ...... ...... . ..... .. ....... ........ 5. MILES RIVER LANDING Miles State Res. 0 0 commel River side of b ...............*. ......... . ..... . ...... ..... ................. .... . ..... .. .. ...... .... .... ... .. .... .. . ... .. ..... ... .. .. ... ..... .. . . ..... . .. .. ..... ... .... . . . . . . . . . ......... .... ....... .. . . ........ ........ ... ....... ...... .... ...... . ... . ..... 7. VILLA ROAD LANDING Miles CO. .130 Res. 12 11bot River No Par Appear, ........ .... ......... M ...... .... 8 TALBOT COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY T"LE 111-1. V A 104 0 0 rw ii i! i! mi! 1! i! ii . ......... . ...... . ... -.1.1.1 ............. 20 EASTON POINT LANDING Lower Co. .570 Comm. 24 foot Choptank Ind. 100 foot mom .0 ...... AMM.R." . ..... . .... . .................... .... ..... 22 WINDY KILL LANDING Upper CO. 1.0 Res. 0 10 foot Choptank Wetland 101 1 ON 10 0 Cul-de- N ..... . . ... T ...... ... ... . Tuckahoe CO. .610 Wetland 0 0 12 foot .24 NEW BRIDGE LANDING Creek .......... MINE .... ................... ............ ........ .................. . .... . .... .. .... ..... . .. .. ....... ........ Tuckahoe Res. 0 Cul-de- .26 COVEY'S LANDING Creek 16 foot ................. ..... ...... ...... . . . ... ...... ......... ...... . .. ..... . ........ ..... .... .. . .... . Lower CO. .080 Res, No wat .28 BAR NECK LANDING Choptank deck *Whole Ian" is an extension of County road, size Is based on land area within 200 feet of shore line. 9 e Balls Creek (Newcomb) o Oak Creek (Newcomb) Bellevue Tunis Mills Villa Road Skipton Creek Wye Landing Easton Point Trappe Landing Windyhill New Bridge Covey's Landing These launching ramps likely represent what most people consider the major structural improvement supporting or enhancing waterfront access opportunity. They are also very important to the County because they represent one of the most expensive improvements that can be made at these sites. Thus, at least for long-range consequences, these are the most important sites in terms of understanding use-levels, since any inadequacies in regards to number of landings will mean major financial impacts for the County. To that end, a Use Level Survey was taken at these sites during peak and off peak use weekends. The results of this survey as well as its implications are discussed more fully in subsequent chapters of this Study. In addition to the sites owned and/or operated by Talbot County, additional access is afforded County residents through State and municipally owned facilities, as well as an ample supply of private marinas. These sites are important because while not under the County's purview, they nonetheless satisfy resident and visitor needs for access to tidal waters. Talbot County Public Access Study 10 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. State Facilities Several of the County's public access sites listed in Table II-1 were constructed or improved with State monies. However the County owns or leases and maintains each of these sites. There is one site that is owned and maintained by the State. This is the Choptank River Fishing Pier located at the Emerson C. Harrington (old Route 50) Bridge over the Choptank River which links Talbot County with Cambridge and Dorchester County. When the new Frederick C. Malkus Bridge was completed, the drawbridge was removed from the old bridge to keep the channel open and the remaining two sections were left to serve as fishing piers. Together, the two piers run for approximately 1.25 miles. The Talbot County side is approximately .75 miles long. The State owns approximately 25 acres in Talbot County in association with the pier. Presently the site contains a waterfront trail, picnic table, and park benches. There are plans to expand the path and the parking area and add a comfort station, fish cleaning shelter, picnic shelters, interpretive trails, and a new maintenance building and office. According to State officials approximately 80,000 visitors use the facility each year with the heaviest use occu.rring on the Talbot side. No records are kept as to who the users are, but checks of fishing licenses have revealed that a large percentage of them are from the Western Shore of Maryland. Municipal Facilities There are a total of five incorporated towns located within Talbot County. These are the Towns of Queen Anne, Easton, St. Michaels, Oxford, and Trappe. Of these five, the Towns of Oxford and St. Michaels have municipal access facilities which help to serve public access needs in Talbot County. St. Michaels orientation to the water is confirmed by town ownership of some 1604 feet of Waterfront scattered in nine locations. Mary of t hese locations do not serve public access needs at the present time. Those that do include: Church Cove park containing about .8 acres of land suked for picnicing sightseeing and public gatherings. Talbot County Public Access Study 11 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. 9 Foot of East Chestnutt and Harrison Alley which provides access to five town owned slips. * West Harbor Road which provides access t tow town owned boat ramps and 44 slips. 0 Foot of Cherry Street, which provides 8 town owned slips akjacent to the foot bridge. * East Chew Avenue which provides access to town owned slips Most of these sites provide parking areas attendant to slip facilities. In Oxford several public facilities are available. At the Oxford-Bellevue Ferry Dock, there is 300 feet of dockage available, and at the foot of Tilghman Street there is a 20 foot concrete ramp for public use. Reaches of the Strand in Oxford serve as a public beach for area residents. The Town Park located across from the town Office in Oxford also provides for picnic and playground activities. The town also owns 24 municipal slips located on two docks at the head of Town Creek near the Causeway. Private Facilities One final type of access that helps to meet Talbot County boaters needs is the private facility. These range in size from individual wharves or piers to complete marinas. For the purpose of this report, the small individual finger piers, private docks or floats, launching ramp sites, and mooring areas that many waterfront home sites include, will not be examined. That would be well beyond the scope of this study and it is assumed they exclusively serve the residents who have built them. The commercial marina however does serve area residents and visitors providing opportunity for access to tidal waters and should therefore be recognized as meeting some component of access need albeit at some cost to the users. Marinas are typically characterized by a multitude of facilities and related uses such as slips, repair and maintenance shops, railways, fuel stations, restaurants, etc. The marinas of Talbot County often possess several of these facilities and may serve the needs of both commercial watermen and recreational boaters. Marinas with the greatest number of support services and facilities are generally located in the areas of Tilghman, St. Michaels, and Oxford. A summary of the private marinas in Talbot County is given in Talbot County Public Access Study 12 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Table 11-2. The role of these facilities together with the State, County, and Municipal facilities in meeting Talbot County's Water Access needs is addressed in Chapter Ill. (See Table 11-2) The final part of this evaluation of existing conditions involves a preliminary identification of possible natural constraints to future expansion or development of existing landings. To accomplish this task a review of the soils and wetlands maps for Talbot County was compared to field observations. This process reveals that five access sites may be affected by hydric soils. These are: 1. Eastern Bay, Jetty Landin& Claiborne Tidal Marsh with low Othello behind. Made land at old ferry landing. Othello in drainage swale and adjacent to tidal marsh. 2 New Bridge Landing Adjacent Tidal Marsh. Well-defined slope of Sassafras and Steep land, Downer behind. 3. Dogwood Harbor, Tilghman Island This is probably filled, made land when basin was dredged and bulkheaded. Former tidal marrsh and low Othello, backed by Keyport. 4. Balls Creek Landing, Neavitt Keyport, 0-2% slopes may have hydric inclusions; Tidal Marsh and low Othello to south. 5. North Tilghman Park, Tilghman This property fronts a tidal marsh inlet from Back Creek with low Othello soils behind the site. There is evidence of poor drainage inland and below hill on which the current observation deck is built. Much of this park is made land from dredged spoils, resulting from maintenance dredging of Knapp's Narrows. In addition to these five public access sites, many formerly used landings are mapped as Made land, either due to placement of dredged spoils and filled tidal marsh or leveling and grading for landside Talbot County Public Access Study 13 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. access. Wye Landing and Skipton Landings are fills on tidal marsh, with well-drained slopes behin d. Better drained soils are often located at the edges of tidewater, with more poorly drained soils associations located inland in Talbot County (Talbot county Soil Survey Soil Conservation Service 1970). Historically, many landing locations were chosen because of adequate drainage during seasons of high water tables or flooding. Landings on former tidal mar sh, now filled, may contain pockets of inadequately drained soils, or be threatened by flooding and erosion. Such may be the case with the following sites: Oak Creek Landing, Newcomb Bellevue Landing Black Walnut Cove, Tilghman Island Opportunity for expansion of existing facilities at boat landings will in general be limited not as much by nontidal regulation and permitting, but by other site constraints, such as moderately steep slopes and by other factors such as landowners who are unwilling to cooperate with the County and cost of adjacent land which is already developed or simply pre-empted for public shore access use. This chapter examined the existing condition of public access in Talbot County. This helps to provide a picture of the existing facilities. The next step is to examine the demand, which is the subject of Chapter III. Talbot County Public Access Study 14 October 1990 Chapter 2 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TALBOT COUNTY PRIVATE MARINE FACILITIES TABLE H-2 Page -I- of -4- .............. X X.." ..... .......... qf ..... .... .... ..... . .... FACHX]rY OTHER 100 ro wboats for rent. snack bar Wye Mills. Maryland Scbnaltman!s Boat Livery Jacuzzi. hotel w/46 suites and 4W@ St. Michaels Had)our Inn & 60 meeting rooms, restaurant and bar Marina ...... .. M e store, boa cy le arin t&bi c St. Michaels Town Dock 29 rental. restaurant and bar Marina Inc. ... ...... ........... ...... ......... . ....... . ........ . ....... . . ..... ........ ..... . .......... ........ ............. ......... ...... ... ... ...... ....... ... ............. ........ . ...... . LoongfelloWs Restaurant ..... Ptestaurant and bar ........... St. Michaels 0 Be Breakfast accommodations d & travel lift. boat maintenance St. Michaels .:j .x: and repair. and boat storage I-liggins Yacht Yard, Inc. 47 .......... .......... ..... ..... Slips for customers only. 2 hours Crab Claw Restaurant 0 0 St. Michaels maximum .......... mi . . .... ockag aila Chesapeake Bay Maritime Li ted overni t d e av ble gh to members Museum Laundry service, 75' yacht charter catered food and beverages The hm at Perry Cabin Private Club - restaurant and bar Miles River Yacht Club ............ ...... pool, ramp, limited surnmer storage ...... ... .. St. Michaels 5 56 Long Haul cove St. Michaels ... ........ ...... Sales L.ocust Hill Boat Works Claiborne Sam McQuay's Boat Yard 6 Boat Builders Wittman 15 TALBOT COUNTY PRIVATE MARINE FACWTIES TABLE U-2 Page -2- of -4- MIN :X._ ..... X.. .X K. X ..... ... X". x: X X.: ... ..... .. FACILITY OTHER X.. X.: X . .... ....... 8 Charter FIshing Boats, hips ndred Rest. 9 store. Bay Hu Knapps Narrows M :118 Tilghman travel lift, boat maint & repair, ..... . . . ... dry storage "'na ........... 50 0 X ghman Island Marina dry storage Ti, .... ... .. ......... ....... ......... ........... ....... . .... ...... ... .. ..... 1, fuel sales and Tilghman Inn & Lodging 20 20 room mote .......... restaurant and bar X Bridge Restaurant :X Tilghman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X" Lower3es Boatyard 2 X X.... . Xx: @!i@ Builders . ... ....... . . ...... . .. :::::: ....... :X, X -X I F: .......... ............ N. boat maintenance and repair X: 4' Tilghman dry storage ......... xx Severn Marine services. Inc. X XXX X .......... X, ...... .. ... ...... :X- Hardson!s Chesapeake House ....... 14 Charter boats, 55 room hotel Tilghman 20 restaurant and bar X-1 ....... . . . . . X moo ngs, ramp, row Snow's Landing 13 for rent, cabins Tilghman N.. X ....... 0 ........... P.T. Hambleton ... .. 3 moorings. seafood ..... .... .... ..... 4 Bozman V xkjx.. M. Chesapeake Shellfish Co.,I11c. 9 X X" Sea Sherwood A: ..... . food 49 oil 16 TALBOT COUNTY PRIVATE MARINE FACILITIES TABLE U-2 Page -3- of -4- ..... ....... ... . ....... ............ LQ FACR= OTHER ...... ... ... . ..... ... .. .... .. . ..... ... ..... ... . .... ... Easton Point Marina tore. 25 6 rental boats, ships store. .......... ". steamed crabs, snack bar ........... ...... ......... Pop-up. Iric. Easton ... .. ..... .... .. IN ............ .. 55 Sales, laundromat. courtesy rides Baltes Marine Basin Oxford to town, restaurant & hotel nearby ........... Re ......... staurant and hotel nearby ......... Mean Yacht Haven 96 .......... ............. Oxford .......... 0 ......... in ........ . ......... . ....... ........ boat parts, laundromat. restaurant nearby. and boat storage ......... Oxford Boat Yard 70 ........... ............ Milo Town Creek Restaurant & Marina Raw Bar and cabanna ......... ......... ......... xf 0 ord .. ..... ........... ......... Fo rklift, crane, boat parts, builders Cuts & Case Shipyard, Inc. 36 Oxford oxx: ane, boat rentals. sales, Prop Crockett Brothers Boatyard, hic. i@i@ ... .. ... .... 76 Oxford travel lif t. laundromat, restau t ran 11 ..... ... boat maintenance and repair MIER ........... Shannahan's Marine Yard Oxford Sales 17 Bachelor Point Harbor/ 60 low inventory sales. boat storage maintenance and repair Todd Boat Works Oxford . ......... Fier Street Marina & Restaurant ....... Courtesy car, retail seafood ......... Oxford ...... ... . ..... 17 TALBOT COUNTY PRIVATE MARINE FACILITIES TABLE H-2 Page _4_ of -4- ...... .... .......... -*04. T FACHXrY OTHER X: X" :X1 .. .... ....... . . . .. ... Tred Avon Yacht Club th rm No o er info ation provided 3 ..... X: X.. 1 1. Dickerson Boatbuilders, Inc. .52 ...... 0 Sales, builders, sailboat charters travel lift, dry storage. maintenance Trappe and repair Gateway Marina & Ships Store 108 travel lift. dry storage, maintenance Trappe and repair, fuel sales and ships store . .. ....... ......... .......... . . . . ...... X. MINNIE I I X ., .......... Millis I ......... . . . . . . . . . . MENNEN INN I Source: 1988 Boating Almanac I I I I I I C A 3 1 I ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION I OF EXISTING ADEQUACY I I I I I I ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING ADEQUACY Chapter H of this Study examined the issue of the supply of public access in Talbot County. This chapter completes the analysis of adequacy by examining three key aspects of public access in Talbot County. These are: (1) Demand How many people are using the sites? Who are these people (i.e. residents or visitors)? What are they doing (cruising, skiing, fishing, etc.)? Are there any demands that cannot be measured in Talbot due to a total absence of some amenity(s)? What will be the nature of future demand? (2) Standards * What.are the generally recognized standards for the supply of public access (both in general and in terms of specific aspects such as boat ramps, swimming beaches, etc.)? * Are these standards not applicable in Talbot for some reason? (3) Planned Additions to Existing Supply 9 Are there any new access sites planned? " If so, what is their nature? After analyzing these three aspects, Chapter III concludes by looking at how the supply, as identified in Chapter 11, compares with the demand for these sites and their associated amenities. Based on this analysis, Chapter IV discusses future public access needs in Talbot County in terms of both what should occur at existing sites and what criteria should be used to guide the selection of new sites. Finally Chapter Talbot County Public Access Study 19 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Awociates, Ltd. V recommends implementation strategies and funding alternatives for satisfying future Talbot County public shorefront access recreational needs. Demand In order to ascertain levels of use at Talbot County Public Access facilities, each landing was surveyed at peak-use and non-peak use weekends. The results of these surveys are presented in Table 111-1. The first survey was conducted during Memorial Day weekend (May 26 - 28,1990). The second survey was taken on the Fourth of July. Unfortunately, during the first survey, many factors combined to provide an inaccurate picture of typical peak level usage. Chief among these factors was the weather which was generally cool and rainy, including very heavy rainfall at the beginning of the weekend. Thus the survey conducted during Memorial Day weekend, which was intended to represent peak use levels, has to be considered a non-peak survey. This is not to say that the Memorial Day survey was useless. It still provides a picture of non-peak use as well as relative levels of use among the County's public access sites. It rather clearly shows that Wye, Trappe, and Bellevue Landings are among the most frequently used ramps in the County. It also indicates that Wye Landing is by far the most popular landing among out-of-state residents. This is to be expected given its location relative to Routes 404, 301, and 50, the major transportation routes in the mid-shore region and the popularity of the Wye River System. A much clearer picture of demand levels was provided by the peak-use level survey. This showed that not only are Wye, Trappe, and Bellevue Landings among the most heavily used facilities, but so too are Oak Creek and Easton Point. Another thing that this survey pointed out was that Wye Landing is far and away the most popular landing in Talbot County. For example, of all the Maryland trailered vehicles observed in the County on the Fourth of July, 60% were at Wye. Even more dramatic were the 82% of all out-of-State trailers which were observed at Wye during this survey. The surveys provide an indication of current use levels. Another factor to be considered is the nature of future demand. Table 111-2 shows population projections for Talbot County. The table indicates that future demand is likely to increase. The 1990 estimated population of 28,798 is projected to increase to 32,983 in the next ten years and to 37,042 by the year 2010. Undoubtedly the additional projected resident population will utilize public access facilities and will clearly increase demand on existing facilities. Talbot County Public Access Study 20 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TALBOT COUNTY PUBLIC LANDING SURVEY - 111- 1 NON- MAILMM VEHICLES MAELERED VEHICLES LANDING DATE TIME MD NON-MD MD NON-MD CONMIENTS DOGWOOD 5/28/90 1 (PA) 0 Trailered boat owner observed parkiNg-off-site. 7/4/90 10: 18 a.m. 3 0 21 1 (PA) 1 traller w/o vehicle or E5at was from Ohio CUMMING -9/"MW 79-161 -am. 1 2(lDE. IPA 18 0 7/4/95 TU.7T-am. 0 0 14 l(NJ) 3 se trucMaTo-ng- dock area EASMRN WN- -97T9W -91T-a -m 4 0 1 7/47W- TOM -am. 2 0 11 1 (PA) I boat served cra ing. approx. IUWo-7pe BALLS COM- 5/28/90 10:09 a.m. 5 0 6 ---u- crabbing from dock 7/4/90 1U.71 Fam. 5 l(DE) 3 0 1 boaf-oEserved'ZEEbing OAK M&TK- 5/28/95 M-47am. 4 0 5 0 6/16/90 10:00 a.m. 9 4FD-ET- 6 1 (VA) 12 work boats at dock 7/4/90 T F W -am. 14 12(9DE, IVA 4 0 2 boats observed crabbing, I fishing. Parki% M & IPA) Tot -suggested several more users earner in day BELLEVUE 5/28/90 10:38 a.m. 5 2(DE) 16 l(IDE,IPA) 7/4/90 11:24 a.m. 6 4(DE) 6 2(IDE, ITAT 2 DE boats observed crabbing I am. 1 0 0 0 vehicle Fa TUNIS MILLS 7 / 4@ -'�.- -3 rked south at bridge in the middle of the road VILLA ROAD -NT2-879-0 11:07 a.m. 1 0 1 -- 1WHereTboat was crabbing. 7/4/90 -9--lTa-m. 3 0 2 0 SKIPTON CK.- 5/27/90_ 3:30 p.m. 0 0 -- -- Resident observed dumping hou-s-eH-oglr-ash -9 7 TUM - 7T- W -am. 0 W- j1dumpster. 7 T4-/ W - 7T- 4- r -am. 0 0 -1 3 1 21 TALBOT COUNTY PUBLIC LANDING SURVEY - III- I NON- TRAILEMED VEHICLES TRAILEMED VEHICLES LANDING DATE Tn" MD NON-MD MD NON-MD COMIENTS WYE 5/27/90 3:33 p.m. 13 -1 (DE) One un-tagged trailer observed (recorded at left @289F 9:15 a.m. 12 as MD). M@ 6/10/90 30 13(9DE,4PA) -InTe-scrimffiate Cou@@ resident use of trash receptacTes observed to occur. 6/16/90 33 56(18PA. 5 --3 4NJ,34DE) 7/4/90 10:00 a.m. --96 87 4 3 Roadside parld noted to extend for 3 miles from Landing along Wye Landing Lane. EASTON POINT 7/4/90 -1 -15T -am. 13 2(DE) 15 0 Parldng gaps suggested even more users earlier TRAPPE 5/28/90 10:00 a.m. 13 0 -- -- -One- -MaTer was f6r two jet skis. Two fishermen using pier. 7/4/90 17-49pm. 6 0 6 0 1 boat observed cruising/skiing WINDY HILL 5/28/90 6:00 p.m. -00 1 0 One fishermen using pier. 7/4/90 T-09 -pm.' 2 0 0 0 2 children on bicycle: one was swimming NEWBRIDGE 5/28/90 -10- -1.Ta- -m. 3 0 -- -- Landing was flooded. 7/4/90 1: 15 p.m. 7 0 9' All fishing rigs I COVEYS 5128/�U 10:00 a.m. 3 0 -- -- Landing was flooded. 7/4/90 1: 15 p.rrL 3 0 2 0 4 canoes visible aloi@i bank TOTALS 5/27-28/91 64 11.3 60- 2 7/4/90 161 106 97 11 NotTu-rveyed 22 TABLE 111-2 TALBOT COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS YEAR POPULATIO 1980 (Census) 25,604 1990 (estimate) 28,798 1995 30854 2000 32,983 2005 34,044 2010 37,042 SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS TALBOT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LANDUSE PLAN Table 111-3 presents Boater Registration data obtained from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. It shows that historically the percentage of boats registered to Talbot County residents to the total County population has risen slightly from 13.3% in 1978 (assuming that the 1978 population was approximately 25,000) to 15% today. By using the 1990 percentage of boat ownership, 15%, and multiplying it by the projected population, the future resident demand for public access prompted by boat ownership characteristics can be estimated. This data is summarized in Table 111-4. Talbot County Public Access Study 23 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TABLE 111-3 BOATER REGISTRATION INFORMATION TYPE OF BOA INCREASEIDECREASE Pleasure 2,996 3,689 +32% Commercial 130 163 +25% Other 208 195 -.06% Total 3,336 4,326 +30% SOURCE:TALBOT COUNTY MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING STUDY MD DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES TABLE 111-4 FUT11RE RESIDENT DEMAND YEAR POPULATION EST. REGISTERED BOATS ADD. REGISTERED BOATS 1990 28,798 4,326 1995 30,854 4,628 302 2000 32,983 4,948 622 Talbot County Public Access Study 24 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TABLE 111-4 FUTURE RESIDENT DEMANP YEAR POPULATION EST. REGISTERED BOATS ADD. REGISTERED BOAT 2005 34,044 5,107 781 2010 37,042 5,556 1,230 SOURCE: REDMAN/JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES, LTD. Table 111-4 suggests that at a minimum approximately 14% more boats than exist today will need to be accommodated in the next ten years just to meet resident boatingneeds. This does not even consider non-resident or non-boating shorefront access-related needs. Moreover the projection does not assume an increased rate in percentage of resident boat ownership. Thus the demand for public access facilities will undoubtedly increase during the planning period. Up to this point, the focus has been mainly on public access in general. It is also helpful to examine specific aspects of public access, i.e. what activities are the access users pursuing. A 1982 recreation survey of Talbot County residents found that of the eight most popular recreation activities listed by respondents, four were activities that have implications for public access, including the three that were the overwhelming top choices. In rank-order the four activities are swimming, boating, fishing/ hunting, and water skiing. Similar subsequent studies have also found these four activities to be among the most popular recreational pursuits in Talbot County. Another aspect of demand to Consider is who are the users. This is important because the profile of users will have implications for Funding and Implementation Recommendations (Chapter V). For example, expanding facilities at Eas@tern Bay Landing at Claiborne can have implications on the County transportation networks. Knowing who the users are today or are likely to be in the future at that landing would be important because if they are predominately visitors any improvements which significantly increase use would bring increased traffic through an already crowded St. Michaels. This would have ramifications for County Transportation Planning. On the other hand, if the users of this facility are Talbot County Public Access Study 25 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. primarily area residents, then this problem would not exist. Likewise the location of public access facilities which are planned for improvement in the future can influence impacts on different areas of the County by directing or redirecting traffic patterns. Talbot County Public Landings are subject to very high levels of use by out-of-State residents. The July Fourth peak level survey found that 40% of trailered and 31 % of all vehicles were from outside the State of Maryland. At Wye Landing the percentage is even greater. the fact that 82% of all out-of-State trailered vehicles were observed at Wye suggests several things. First, improvements made there may or may not benefit County residents as much as improvements made at some other landing, but they will be a form of investment in Talbot County Tourism. Second it suggests that some of the over-crowding at Wye can be eased if out-of-State residents can be diverted to other public access locations. A final distinction to be made concerning who the users are is commercial watermen vs. recreational boaters. These are two distinctly different groups who use public access facilities to pursue different, although equally important, needs. The recreational boater and swimmers, picnickers, etc., use public access facilities to pursue leisure needs, while commercial watermen depend on these sites for economic needs. Improvements at such landings as Oak Creek, Eastern Bay, and Bellevue, where use of the facility is fairly evenly divided, should be considerate of the needs of both groups and be designed so that potential conflicts are minimized. Other landings, while being heavily used, are dominated by either the watermen (e.g. Dogwood Harbor or Cummings Creek) or the recreational boater (e.g. Wye or Easton Point) and future improvements may be directed more to the needs of those users. Standards. The next step in analyzing the adequacy of Talbot County Public Access is to examine recognized standards of adequacy. There are several types of standards for outdoor recreation planning purposes. Three of these will be examined here. These are area standards, space standards, and capacity standards. Area standards are utilized to determine the number of acres of recreation. and parklands needed by a locality. These standards are usually expressed as a minimum number of acres per thousand population. Talbot County Public Access Study 26 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Space standards deal with actual site planning and give the amount of land or water necessary for a particular activity. These standards are usually constant and are not subject to change. Capacity standards relate to the instant, daily, or seasonal capacity of a particular recreational facility. They may be used as aids in developing management plans and/or determining the adequacy of facilities to meet local desires. Capacity standards will thus be of primary concern in this study. While standards such as these may be useful as guides for planners and decision makers, a word of caution is necessary. The 1989 Virginia Outdoors Plan states it best: Because each locality has unique resources, conditions, and issues, standards must be evaluated in terms of the local situation. Standards must be used judiciously as basic norms, subject to modification as the local needs arise. Table 111-5 presents standards for a number of water-related activities, each of which should be considered in meeting County public access needs. Standards are given for the following: swimming beaches boat ramps fishing - bank or pier - boat - strearn picnicking boating hiking canoeing Talbot County Public Access Study 27 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Standards identified in Table 111-5 were selected as these which could best be applied to the present estimated population and the projected population for the year 2000 to obtain measures of the amount of public access needed to meet these standards. This information is summarized in Table 111-6. Planned Access Sites Before assessing the adequacy of public access in Talbot County, it is first necessary to examine any additions to the existing supply, i.e. planned expansions or additions. This is done so that recommendations are not made for improvements that are already planned. There is only one planned new access site in Talbot County at this time. That is in Claiborne at the Jetty Landing, adjacent to the existing County Landing. The plans for this new site include a new access road, 950 feet of bulkhead, a 3500 sq. foot timber walkway, 28 parking spaces, 32 mooring piles, 10 mooring piers, and dredging around the existing boat ramp and the planned additions to a depth of five feet mean low water. A conceptual plan for development of this facility is contained in Appendix F to this report. Talbot County Public Access Study 28 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIES PARK DESIGN.. DIMENSIONS NET ACI(rW INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPULATION REMARKS Fishing - Bank 8 x 50' 1 400 sq. ft. 100/mIle 1 mile shore/ (1) Consider on any shoreline 1,000 water body that can (2) 3 surface support fish population- acres/lake VGIF suggest 10 acre minimum size where Boat (1) 4 acre water/ .50 acres 4 acres/1,000 unlimited fishing pres- boat with sure anticipated. Fishing 2 people water Is a plus for any community, district, (2) 8 acres wateri regional or state facility. boat (2) Should be within an (3) Rivers: .02 hours drive (or 50 acres/boat miles) of a city of 20.00 Ali: . 14-.5 persons and within five acres/boat (5) to ten (10) miles of Lakes: 8 a good highway. acres/boat Stream (1) 1 mile/8 4/mile fishermen SOURCES: Does not include 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) area needed for 2. de Chlara and Koppelman (1975) support facilities. 3. Gold (1980) parking and buffer 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) 29 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIES/PARK DESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPULATION REMARKS Swimming Beach 2001 x 600'(1) 3.0 150 25' Shore/ 100' wide beach 1000 desirable with 10W swimming water assumes 30% users In water share support facilities with other activities. 665' x 600' (2) 4.0 150 day/ 25'/1.000 200' wide beach Length < 3.600' 50 desirable with 100' swimming water 1001 buffer zone for utilities and picnick- Ing. 150 square feet water/ swimmer: three (3) acres support per acre net recommended. (3) 2.5 501/1,000 0.2 acres beach per 11000 801URCES: Does not Include 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) area needed for 2. de Chisra and Roppetman (1975) support facilities. 3. Gold (1980) parking and buffer 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) 30 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIES PARK DESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVIT Y TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPULATION REMARKS canoeing (1) 8 canoes/ * Capacity depends on mile* stream width 10'-401 4/mIle 401-701 8/mile 75'+ 12+/mile (2) 2-4 canoes/ Streams must have mile average flow 100 cubic feet/sec to be suitable Quality of river --t!-JE on traflic. Maybe lower to preserve wildness SOURCES: 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) Does not Include 2. de Chian and Hoppelman (1975) area needed for 3. Gold (1960) support facilities. 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) parking and buffer 31 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIES PARK DESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPUIATION REMARKS Hiking Variable (1) 5 acres/mile 8/mIle 2 mile/ 1.000 Hiking trails should vary from 1/2 mile to several miles depend- 4' wide for Anng on resources medium use (2) 400/mile/day available. Shorter nature trails and walks 6-10'wide for desirable In urban very heavy use (2) rights-oUway to connect facilities where possible. Develop as wide a variety of trails as possible. SOURCES: 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) Does not Include 2. de Chlara and Koppelman (1975) area needed for LPO.UPUN I I 3. Gold (1980) support facilities. 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) parking and buffer 32 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIE /PARK DESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPUJATION REMARKS Bicycle Trail 6'Width z 0.7 acre/mile 50 1 mile/1,000 Provide bike paths Length off roads where possible; connect schools, parks. other facilities. Minimum width Rentals desirable for 3.31(2) touring One rider lanes Max. 10% grade short 6.4' for 2 riders 10.9' for 3 riders Average 4-5% runs grade Consider parking at terminus SOURCES: Does not Include 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) area needed for 2. de Chlara and Koppelman (1975) support facilities. 3. Gold (1980) parking and buffer 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) 33 I TABLE 111-5 ISTANDARDS FOR SHORE ACCESS FACILITIES/PARK DESIGN NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE DIMENSIONS REQUIRED CAPACrff POPULATION REMARKS Boat Ramps 12'x 20' 2 acres 8 boats/hour I ramp/40 boats minimum (1) anticipated use on a designat ed day (2) 1-1.5 acres 50-75/day Average 8 trips/year 21.000 sq. ft. parking ramp 75' vehicular turn- around OURCES: 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) Does not include 2. de Chlara and Roppelman (1975) area needed for 3. Gold (1980) support facilities. parking and buffer 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) 34 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS XOR SHORE ACCESS FAC.ILITIES'PARK D-ESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TIME WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPULATIONI R MARKS Picnicking Variable (1) 4/table 10 units/ Tie In with other 1,000 activities Density higher in urbanized areas (2) 2 Family I00'xI00' 10,000 ft 30 peak users 200 users/ ft2 acre Group 200'x2OO' 40,000 200 peak users 200 users/acre (3) Shelters of 201 x 301, accommodate 60 persons Shelters of 30' x 501 accommodate 150 persons 1. Virginia"Outdoor Plan (1989) Does not Include area needed for 72. de Chlara and Koppelman (1975) support facilities. 3. Gold (1980) parking and buffer 4 - Roy Mann Associates (1976) 35 TABLE 111-5 STANDARDS FOR SHORE-ACCESS FACILITIES, -PARK DESIGN DIMENSIONS NET ACRES* INSTANT UNITS/ ACTIVITY TYPE WxL REQUIRED CAPACITY POPULATION REMARKS Boating (power) and/or N/A (1) 12 acre/boat 0.5 acres/ Minimum 100 acres Water Skting* 1,000 open water > 4' depth. accommodates 8 boats (2) 0.25 acres/ One ski boat/40 acres Requires lowest use 11000 water, power boat/ densities (Figure 1) 20 acres water (4) 1 ski boat/ IS acres. powerboat/6-7.5 acres SOURCES: 1. Virginia Outdoor Plan (1989) Does not Include 2. de Chlara and Koppelman (1975) area needed for 3. Gold (1980) support facilities. 4. Roy Mann Associates (1976) parking and buffer 36 TABLE 111-6 PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AMOUNT REQUIRED TO MEET ADEQUACY STANDARDS 1990 2000 2010 POPULATION 28,798 32,983 37,042 AMENITIES Swimming Beach 720' to 1,439' 825' to 1,650' 927'to 1,853' Fishing-Bank 28.8 miles 33.0 miles 37.1 miles Fishing-Boat, 116 acres 132 acres 149 acres lliking 57.6 miles 66.0 miles 74.1 miles Picnicking 288 units 330 units 371 units Boating (Polver) 8 to 15 acres 9 to 17 acres 10 to 19 acres andlor Water Skiing J',jjjx)i Cminty Public Access Silidy 37 September 1990 Chapter 3 ReAman/johnslon Associates, Lid In terms of expansion at existing sites, plans exist at several locations. 0 At Wye Landing the plans include the modest expansion of the parking area, the construction of a low profile stone revetment, timber bulkhead construction, and possibly the addition of mooring slips. Limited land availability at the site is a major constraint to any major expansion of parking area. & At Bellevue minor bulkhead improvements are programed for the fiscal year 1992. At Easton Point ramp extension and bulkhead replacements is planned for F.Y. 1991. * Replacement of the wooden boatramp with a concrete boatramp is anticipated in F.Y. 1991 at Newbridge Landing. 9 Replacement of Wooden bulkhead at Neavitt is planned for 1992. 0 Replacement of the dock at'nlghman Creek is scheduled for F.Y. 1991. * Claiborne Harbor improvements planned include limber bulkhead replacement, provision of 20 boat slips, dredging and Wetland mitigation. 9 Oak Creek Landing Pier improvements are scheduled for F.Y. 1.992 9 Finally, Dogwood Harbor parking lot repair, resurfacing and striping are planned for F.Y. 1992 The budgeted costs for these improvements at all 9 of these facilities ranges from $625,000 to 675,000 over the next two years With the exception of expansion at Wye Landing and the Jetty Landing at Claiborne, the currently planned and budget projects discussed are basically maintenance types of improvements, e.g. replacing the bulkhead or rebuilding a dock. These are all part of an ongoing program which is indicative of the County's commitment to improving public access. However, they are not the type of improvements that are needed in terms of expanding the amount of public access available in Talbot County. What is needed to meet this objective are improvements in terms of the types and diversity of amenities available. Talbot County Public Access Study 38 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Adequacy of Access Each of the following aspects of public access is discussed in terms of how adequately it is currently being met in Talbot County: swimming Beach Fishing - Bank (or pier) Fishing - Boat Hiking Picnicking Boating and or water skiing Boat ramps Swimming Beach Talbot County has very little beach area available for public use. In fact the only sites with any beach at all are Bellevue and Windy Hill. The beach area at these two facilities is very limited, totaling approximately 225 feet (185' at Bellevue and 40' at Windy Hill). The municipal beach in Oxford, the Strand, adds another 500 feet to the County total. Still, Talbot County currently only marginally exceeds the adequacy requirement of 720 feet if 25'/1000 pop. is used as the standard and will fall short of the standard in the years 2000 and 2010. If 50 - feet per 1000 population is used the County fails to meet the standard both now and throughout the planning period. This is supported by the 1987 Land Preservation and Recreation Plan which found that while County residents consider access to the Bay to be adequate, they also expressed a need for more water-oriented facilities such as swimming beaches and improved facilities at existing landings and ramps. Thus this is one amenity for which future expansion opportunities should be explored. Fishing Bank or Pier Application of the standards cited suggests Talbot County needs to provide 28.8 miles of bank or pier for fishing today, 33 miles by 2000, and 37.1 miles by 2010. This seems very excessive, particularly when Talbot County Public Access Study 39 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates@ Ltd. the local situation is taken into account whereby a large number of County residents have access to this type of activity through private piers. This variable together with the recent opening of the State facility at the Choptank Fishing Pier, suggest that this standard should not be strictly applied and that fishing pier/bank facilities may be adequate to serve projected County needs. Fishing Boats As Table HI-6 indicates, Talbot County should provide 116 acres of surface water for fishing from a boat in 1990. This number rises to 132 acres in 2000 and 149 acres in 2010. Given the abundance of water in the County, this standard is easily exceeded. The more limiting factor in Talbot will be the number of boat ramps provided that provide a point of access to permit the public to get to the fishing waters. Hiking In order to meet recognized standards for hiking trails, Talbot County needs to have 57.6 miles of trails in 1990, 66 miles in 2000, and 74.1 miles in 2010. These are not, however exclusive to waterfront areas. The 57.6 mile requirement applies to the entire County. The 1987 Land Preservation and Recreation Plan indicates that there are three nature trails in Talbot County, but it does not give their length. To this should be added the existing nature trail at the Choptank Fishing Pier, which is also planned for expansion. However it is extremely unlikely that these four trails will total the 57.6 miles appropriate for the County to meet the standard. Therefore hiking trails are another component of public access which should be expanded. Some of these future trails should be located along or near the waterfront, such as was done in the early 1980's on a limited scale at North Tilghman Park. Picnicking Based on the standards outlined in Table 111-5, Talbot County should currently be providing 288 units for picnicking. This number increases to 330 in 2000 and 371 in 2010. A unit is defined simply as a picnic table. It is not known how many picnic tables exist in the County at his time, but the 1979 Maryland Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan stated that there were 86 at that time. Since it is unlikely that 200 picnic tables have been added in the last 10 years, this amenity should also be expanded in the future. This demand may be met in part near public shorefront access locations but may be met in great part through picnic facilities in non-shorefront locations throughout the County. Talbot County Public Access Study 40 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Power Boating/Water Skiing As was the case with fishing from a boat, Talbot County has plenty of water to meet the requirements for power boating or water skiing. Presently that need ranges from 8 to 15 acres, increases in 2000 to 9 to 17 acres, and in 2010 to 10 to 19 acres. The supply of water available for water skiing in Talbot County is not quite as expansive as that for fishing from a boat due to the unsuitability of some of the waters in and around the County. This is due to the fact that some areas are too rough for water skiing. Still the areas that are suitable, notably the Tuckahoe River and upstream portions of most of the other rivers in the County, easily exceed the standards. Boat Ramps Estimating the required number of boat ramps is a more complex effort. The number of launching ramps required to meet estimated demand is a function of peak use rather than average use. There are several methods to estimate demand, all of which involve a number of assumptions. One method is as follows: Using standards developed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the counts recorded during the use-level survey can be converted to total use levels for each facility and summed to get a grand total for all County Public Facilities. Based on the survey observations as recorded in Table III-1, this figure is 16,037 (see Appendix 1 for explanation of methodology). The peak use period for boat launching facilities is Sunday and/or Holidays. In fact, it has been found that 80% (MD DNR & Roy Mann Associates) of all launchings occur at these times. Thus in Talbot County, 12,830 launchings occur on Sundays/ holidays. Since there are 25 Sundays or holidays during the boating season, an average Sunday or holiday has 513 launches. Assuming that each ramp permits 40 launches/day, 13 ramps are needed to accommodate this use. Since there are 15 boat launching facilities in Talbot, the County exceeds this standard at this time and will easily do so throughout the planning period. This is supported by the check of multiplying 15 (the total number of ramps in the county) by 40 (launches/ day /ramp) by 183 (days in the boating season), which equals 109,800 a figure well in excess of the 16,037 now using County facilities. This, however, applies only to the County as a whole. There may be individual launching facilities which are currently over-utilized. This can be checked by the method discussed above (1 ramp x 40 Talbot County Public Access Study 41 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. launches/ day x 183 days in season). By this standard, any single ramp can accommodate 7,320 launches per year. Current use at Wye Landing indicates that even with two launching areas present on the site it is already in excess of this figure. No other County landing is currently subject to over-utilization. Boat Slips One amenity for which design guidelines were not given, but which can be measured in terms of standards, is boat slips. A simple method of estimating the surplus/deficit of boat slips is to multiply the number of registered boats by.5 and subtracting the number of existing slips (Roy Mann Associates and MD Department of Natural Resources). The number of registered boats in Talbot is 4,326. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 indicated that there are 1,301 slips available in Talbot. The .5 is an assumption of the percentage of boats kept in the water. This assumption seems to be accurate for Talbot since DNR boater registration records indicate that 2,214 of the 4,326 boats registered in the County (51 %) are kept at home. The calculation is thus: 4,326 (Total # of Boats) x.5 = 2,163 (Marina Capacity) 2,163 (Marina Capacity) - 1301 (Existing Capacity Available) 862 (Marina Capacity Deficit) Thus there is currently a deficit of 862 boat slips in Talbot County. This is supported by the fact that there are currently waiting lists for slip rentals at every County Public Landing with slips available except Cummings Creek, and Claiborne, where the demand is apparently tempered by shallow water. In summary, Chapter III has examined current and projected levels of demand at County Public Access facilities.. identified recognized standards for the provision of access facilities, identified planned expansions/ additions to the County supply of public access and, assessed the adequacy of public access in the County for various components both now and in the future. The following chapter outlines a study for the County to continue to exceed standards (or make up deficits) for public access. Chapter V of this Study provides recommendations concerning how this study may be implemented and funded. Talbot County Public Access Study 42 October 1990 Chapter 3 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. I I I I I I C A III I . i RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON EVAILUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED FUTURE I PUBLIC ACCESS NEEDS I I I I I I RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS NEEDS Chapter III of this Study examined the adequacy of public access in Talbot County. Among the findings are that the County needs to provide more swimming beaches, hiking trails, and picnicking facilities in the future. Also identified was a desire for improved facilities in general, although the overall number of public access sites was seen as adequate. In short residents seem to want a few "nice" sites with a variety of amenities, adequate parking, no litter, clean Test rooms, etc. The object of Chapter IV is to present options for achieving these and other public access objectives. Optional solutions are illustrated by first identifying a problem associated with public access in Talbot County, and then discussing an option or options for solving the problem. The problem areas to be discussed are: Shortage of Shorefront Access-related Amenities including: - Swimming Beaches - Hiking Trails - Picnicking Units Lack of Parking Overcrowding at Wye Landing Litter Problem at Eidsting Sites Shortage of Boat Slips The second part of this chapter offers a series of recommendations which the county should consider pursuing to alleviate the problems associated with public shorefront access in Talbot County. These recommendations are refined in Chapter V into specific implementation and financing strategies. Talbot County Public Access Study 43 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. roblem Identification hortage of Access Related Amenities The comparison of existing and projected levels of public access in Talbot County to recognized recreation standards reveal that the County needs to provide greater amounts of certain types of water-related public access facilities. The County was found to be very deficient in two areas, hiking trails and picnicking facilities. Also the County only marginally exceeds the current standard for swimming beaches and will be at a deficit in the near future unless more beaches are added to the County's inventory. One option for making up some of this deficit is to try to retrofit these amenities into existing facilities. This has the advantage of presenting no acquisition cost to the County. However this approach is limited by the fact that the public access sites comprise a very small land area, even less of which is currently owned or controlled by the County. Many of the County's access sites are simply ramps. piers, or bulkheads located at the end of County roads. The option at the opposite extreme is for the County to acquire a site or sites and design new public access facilities which feature the needed amenities. The obvious limitation of this option is the cost of land acquisition and development. The cost of acquiring and developing a 340 acre site in Anne Arundel County was estimated at approximately $10 million. This site is probably larger than Talbot County would need, but it was designed to feature the same kind of amenities that Talbot needs to provide. It also illustrates the substantial investment necessary if this option is to be pursued. Even with $4 million in State Grants, Anne Arundel County was faced with a financial commitment of approximately $6 million. In some cases long term site lease agreements may be an option. This has the advantage over acquisition of reducing the capital costs associated with outright purchase of property. This option is particularly inviting when capital investments in improvements will be low. It is much less attractive when major improvements are planned. Talbot County Public Access Study 44 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Another option which is somewhat of a combination of the first two options is to acquire land adjacent to existing public access sites. This has the advantage of not requiring such a large investment. It has the disadvantage however, that many of the adjacent properties at the existing sites are owned by people who have apparently resisted expansion efforts in the past. A fifth option for closing the deficit in the three areas mentioned above is to capitalize on the efforts of the State owned facility at the Choptank River Fishing Pier. Plans by the State already include an expansion of the trail system and additional picnic facilities at this 22.46 acre site. The County could take a more active role in suggesting improvements at this site. This has the advantage of providing the County with additional supplies of recreational amenities at no cost to the County. The disadvantage is that the County would also have little control over how these sites are used, how they are improved in the future, etc. Likewise state facilities at Black Walnut Point are presently invited to "Bed and Breakfast" use with public use discouraged. The County should work with DNR to diversify its offerings and encourage public use and increase the supply of shorefront recreational offerings. A final option is represented by a new State Program to develop "greenways'@. This program, which is only now in the proposal stage, is the idea of the Maryland Greenways Commission. This group, appointed by the Governor, has requested that State agencies cooperate in a new effort to protect parks, trails, riverbanks, and wetlands from development by creating a system of environmental highways called greenways. A parallel and coordinated effort by the County could help in providing the needed amenities, especially hiking trails. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is probably limited to hiking trails. Another disadvantage is that this program does not yet exist. It is only a proposal at this time with more detailed information due to be released by the State in the Fall (of 1990). Lack of Parking One problem present at many of the County's Public Access Sites is a lack of adequate parking areas. Oak Creek, Easton Point, Trappe, and Wye are among the more heavily used landings where parking is limited. However, the problem is not exclusive to the more heavily used landings. Some of the least used landings also experience problems with parking. Villa Road, Sherwood, Tilghman Creek, and Blackwalnut Cove all fall into this category, where there is very little room to park, and sometimes no place at all, which in turn leads to resident complaints as the users of these landings block private driveways with their vehicles. Talbot County Public Access Study 45 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. One option for easing parking problems is to purchase land near the facility and develop it as a parking lot. This land does not necessarily need to be located adjacent to the facility, just nearby. This option would probably be the most direct way of handling the problem, but it would also likely be the most expensive. Another option is to acquire the land in some manner other than fee simple purchase. For example land may be leased. In this option the County would sign a long term lease agreement with a nearby property owner and construct a "temporary" parking lot which would be used only for overflow parking. A third option that may be available in some cases is to add a shoulder along the road. This would at least get the vehicles and trailers off of the roadway. The advantage of this option is that where the County already has sufficient right-of-way, there is no land acquisition cost. Even in those areas where right-of-way would have to be purchased, the cost would be less than that of purchasing enough land to construct a new parking lot. One simple step that the County can take which may help at some of the landings is to stripe the parking lot. This is planned for Easton Point as a result of complaints concerning the way in which people were parking there whereby some people have been blocked in and unable to leave. Consideration should be given to striping the lot at Oak Creek, where parking is fairly ample, but the odd configuration of the lot leads to disorganized parking which disrupts full use of existing potential capacity. The advantage of this option is the low cost. The disadvantage is that it has limited applicability to solve the problem in other locations. Overcrowding at Wye Landing The problem discussed above of lack of parking is evident at several County Landings. However at Wye Landing it takes on monumental proportions as is evidenced by the observation of vehicles parked along the road-side well beyond the intersection of Wye Landing Lane and Mill Creek Road on a regular basis during times of peak use throughout weekends in the months of July and August. This intersection is three-quarters of a mile distant from the Landing. Talbot County Public Access Study 46 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Most of the problems associated with overcrowding at Wye Landing are simply parking problems and the same options that were outlined above for parking problems apply at Wye. However, as was indicated in Chapter 111, Wye is also subject to over-utilization. That is, there are too many boats using the landing, based on the standards cited, previously. The Wye Rivers suitability for small craft and its popularity as a productive crabbing river are reasons for its heavy utilization. Therefore the following additional options should be considered at Wye Landing. 0ne option to ease the crowding at Wye is to let the public know about the other 27 landings in the County. Many of the users of Wye Landing are from out of state. As many as 60% of observed vehicles were from outside of Maryland on one typical weekend and during the Fourth of July survey, 47% were from out of state. It is unknown how many of the remaining vehicles are from Maryland, but outside of Talbot County. Since so many of the users of this landing are non-residents, it is unlikely that they even know about the other landings in the County. Some may even find that there are landings located closer to them than is Wye. Another option to ease the overcrowding at Wye Landing is to expand the existing Landing. A limited expansion is currently planned as was discussed in Chapter 111. This modest expansion, however, will do little to ease the crowded conditions. What is needed to truly address the problem is an area large enough to accommodate another boat ramp as well as parking for nearly 180 vehicles and trailers. Providing parking for 180 spaces will satisfy average levels of weekend use during the boating season. The advantage of this option is that it is the most permanent solution to the problem. Also an advantage would be the possibility of adding some of the amenities which are lacking in the County which a larger site would afford. Another advantage to expanding at Wye is that this site is very accessible from Routes 50 and 404 and the road network is fairly adequate. The disadvantage, of course, is the cost. A similar option is for the County to acquire an additional site along the Wye River for development as a public access facility. The difference is that this would not necessarily have to be located adjacent to the existing landing. A suitable landing located elsewhere along the Wye River would presumably relieve much of the pressure currently evidenced at Wye Landing. The advantage of this option is that it would allow the County to pursue land owned by someone other than the adjacent landowners at Wye, who have to this point resisted all attempts of the County to expand this site. The disadvantages include the cost of acquisition and the likely lack of an adequate road network. Talbot County Public Access Study 47 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. A final option for relieving some of the overcrowding at Wye Landing is to expand and improve Skipton Landing. The advantages of this option is that Skipton is the most easily accessible landing from Route 50 and provides access to the Wye River system. However there are many disadvantages to this option including the physical constraints at this site (i.e. small site size and steep slopes near the landing). Moreover, shallow water depths at Skipton Creek would likely precipitate the need for dredging in order to make this a viable landing for use by deeper draft boats. Litter Problem at Existing Sites The problem of litter at many of the County's public landings is one which grows worse as the summer goes on. This is due to the current policy regarding the clean up of these sites whereby litter is picked up only once at the beginning of the season and thereafter the only attention to litter is to periodically empty the dumpsters. One option for improving the problem of litter at the public access sites is simply to have County employees pick up litter on a more frequent basis. As an alternative, individuals ordered by the courts to perform community service or local volunteer groups may be used to perform this service. The advantage of this alternative is that it would cost the County nothing in terms of salaries. A possible disadvantage is that there may not always be a steady "labor pool" available. Promotion of an "Adopt a Landing" program may provide a base of civic support or neighborhood resident support for clean-up and maintenance needs. A second option for relieving some of the litter problem is to place aluminum recycling bins at the landings. Aluminum cans represent a large percentage of the solid waste stream found at public landings as many boaters take coolers filled with sodas and/or beer. This option has the advantage of offering the County a small source of revenue, which may be donated to local environmental groups or placed into a fund dedicated to improvements at the public landings. A possible down side to this option is the potential for abuse whereby items other than aluminum may be placed in the recycling bins rather than the garbage can thus requiring that someone sort through the litter to separate the aluminum from the garbage. A final option for cleaning up the public access sites may be to simply change the policy regarding dumpsters and.trash receptacles. Simple steps such as posting signs which clearly state that these Talbot County Public Access Study 48 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. receptacles are for the trash of the boaters only and possibly eliminating the trash receptacles at some little used landings could improve the litter problem at a minimum cost to the County. Oddly sometimes when there are no trash receptacles there is little or no litter. Generally the vast majority of litter is found immediately surrounding the trash receptacle. This may sometimes be caused by dumpsters which are full, usually with trash.- which is obviously not of a boating nature. One way of alleviating the problem of indiscriminate dumping of household trash at the public landings is to search this non-boating related litter for a possible address to identify the culprit. A fine can then be levied against the guilty party. Shortage of Boat Slipa The problem of a shortage of boat slips in the County was identified in Chapter III. It pointed out that the current deficit is 862. This is a serious deficit considering that the current supply in Talbot County is 1,301. The finding that Talbot needs to add 862 slips means a 66% increase over the current supply. This problem is somewhat different than those outlined previously in that the shortage of boat slips is a problem that should largely be corrected by the private sector. Presently less than 7% of all boat slips in the County are provided at the Public Landings. The remaining 93% are supplied by private restaurants, hotels, yacht clubs and marinas. -Therefore the role of the Government in solving this problem will be limited. One thing which the County can do to help alleviate this shortage is to encourage the development of marinas by the private sector. This can be done by easing development restrictions. For example, the Talbot County Zoning Ordinance currently only permits expansions to existing marinas or previously existing water-dependent facilities. New facilities are not permitted. This policy restricts the ability of the private sector to make any serious reduction in the current boat slip deficit. However, given Critical Areas legislation, the County may be limited in its ability to relax standards or permit new marinas. The alternative to encouraging the private sector to provide more boat slips is for the County to provide them. This may be done by adding slips at existing public access facilities, constructing new marina facilities, or some combination of these two options. The advantage of adding slips at existing landings is that it may not always be necessary to acquire more land to accommodate this expansion. In some cases boat slips may be added by simply expanding Talbot County Public Access Study 49 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. outward into the waterbody. Additional slips are thus provided without acquiring more land. In some cases land acquisition will be the only option, particularly since the parking required to serve more slips may necessitate acquisition of land. The construction of a marina facility at a new site(s) would have the disadvantage of the high cost, but would also make the biggest reduction in the boat slip deficit. Also public access facilities which include marinas have the advantage of providing the County with a source of revenue. The County's 87 existing slips are projected in the FY 1991 County Budget to contribute approximately $18,000 in revenue. Based on these figures a new marina of, for example, 150 slips could conceivable supply the County with over $31,000 annually in revenue. Recommendations The following list represents recommended actions for alleviating the problems identified above. These recommendations derive from the problem areas identified as well as broader projected future public shorefront access'need identified. This series of recommendations will be tied together and further detailed in Chapter V as part of the implementation and financing strategy for the Talbot County Public Access Study. * Acquire a large site or sites to be developed as a marina/wat erfront park. 9 Place picnic tables at existing public landings where space allows. 9 Pursue adjacent property at select landings for expansion of parking and/or development of passive recreation. 0 Lease adjacent or nearby property at Wye Landing to be used for temporary, overflow parking. 9 Focus the Coun 'S efforts concerning publi c access to a handful (4 to 6) of sites rather than the Z11 28. Allow the remaining sites to stay open, but curtail maintenance expense to a minimum. This will allow the County to put more money and effort into ensuring that the select landings are of premiere quality while at the same time maintaining a bank of surplus landings which could be upgraded in the future if population dynamics and demand so waffant. Talbot County Public Access Study 50 October 1990 Chapter 4 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. * Place signs on the dumpsters at the landings indicating that they are for the exclusive use of the boaters/access users, not for household trash. 9 Place aluminum recycling containers at the busiest landings. * Emphasize the need for additional hiking trails and picnic facilities to those responsible for County Recreation Planning and explore opportunities to provide for both in the future. 9 Work closely with State officials and staff to ensure that development of the Choptank Fishing Pier is considerate of the County's recreation and shorefront public access needs. o Create a position within County Government for an individual whose sole, responsibility is the maintenance and operation of existing public access sites and the planning, design, permitting, etc of expansions and new access sites. Alternatively the split roles of the County's Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation should be more clearly defined and coordinated regarding expansion, operation and maintenance functions. o Publicize the offerings of all County Public Access Sites, especially at each site, to more evenly distribute the use-levels. o Create a Talbot County Public Landing Fund to be financially supported by use f= for maintenance and improvements at existing landings and acquisition of new sites and development or improvements to existing sites over time. (e.g. ramp fees, trailer permit fees, etc.) 9 Increase maintenance efforts at existing parking lots, including striping where appropriate to make most efficient use of existing parking facilities at certain landings. o Update current public landings ordinance to better deftne user responsibilities and clarify management/maintenance and enforcement authority of the County to better control of sunken vessels, abandoned cards, boats. motors conveyors, etc. Talbot County Public Access Study 51 October 1990 Chapter,4 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. I I I I I I CHAPTER 5 1 - IMPLEMENTATION, RECOMMENDAT IONS I AND FINANCING STRATEGIES I I I I I I p IMPLEMENTATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINANCING STRATEGIES Through this point the Talbot County Public Access Study has examined previous work on the subject of public access, inventoried existing access sites, estimated the demand for certain @water-oriented recreation activities, and outlined problems and opportunities associated with future public access needs. The purpose of this final chapter is to present a series of strategies for achieving these needs. To that end, two themes dominate this chapter. The first concerns implementation or what steps the County should take to meet the specified objective. The second concerns financing or how the County can pay for the recommended improvements. The areas/issues to be discussed in this chapter are: Public Access Classification System Parking Program for Wye Landing Expansion and Improvements at Oak Creek IYaller Permit/User Fee System Development of Waterfront Park/Marina Public Access Classification System One of the problems identified in this and previous studies was the desire of Talbot County residents for cleaner facilities and a greater variety of offerings at existing public access locations. Part of the problem can be explained by the existing system of public access facilities whereby maintenance and improvement efforts must be spread among 29 different sites. In order to provide residents and visitors with a greater array of recreational activities and better amenities at the public landings, Talbot County should focus its attention and investment on fewer landings. Chapter'IV recommended that the County select four to six sites to receive the main emphasis in terms of spending on maintenance, improvements, expansion, etc. and limit the attention given to the remaining sites to the most basic, routine maintenance. However, upon further analysis it becomes clear that this two-level distinction is too simple. There should also be an intermediate level where the degree Talbot County Public Access Study 52 OctoberI990 Chapter 5 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. of commitment is somewhere between these two extremes. These three levels may be classified as regional, community, and neighborhood corresponding to the level of service provided and the area generally impacted by the landing. Level I public access sites are those where future County efforts and investments should be therninimum necessary to sustain current use and maintain them in the County inventory. Perhaps limited trash removal and structural repairs only in emergency situations. These facilities are frequently those that are located on little or no County-owned property. Often they are simply located at the terminus of a County road. These are also often the sites with low to moderate use-levels and little or no parking. Thus their very design is such that it suggests only limited use, whereby the majority of users are those who can walk to the landing from nearby residential areas. Level II access facilities represent the middle level in this three-tiered hierarchy. These are the locations with fairly moderate use. Generally there is a little more land area associated with these landings as compared to those classified as level 1, although not enough to afford substantial expansion opportunities. These landings typically have small parking areas or shoulder parking, suggesting that the majority of users drive there. However, those that do drive to the these landings, generally only make a short trip. These are not the landings usually frequented by out-of-state users. County maintenance efforts at these landings should include regular trash removal and repairs to parking lots and shoreline structures before they become an emergency. Limited opportunities for adding amenities may exist, but expansion would generally not be likely. At the top of this three-level hierarchy are the level III public acces sites. These are the most heavily used landings in the County system. They are generally also the main recipient of visitor usage. Level III landings typically contain the largest land areas and represent the best chances for expansion. Wye Landing is an exception to this generalization as it has very little expansion potential. However, its overwhelming use-levels dictates that it be classified as a level III landing. These landings are generally served by large parking areas and contain the greatest diversity of amenities. Users at these landings come from all parts of the County and from well outside the County. Level III sites are those which should become the major focus of future County investment in maintenance, improvements, and expansion. Talbot County Public Access Study 53 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. In order to classify each of Talbot County's public access sites in terms of this three-tier hierarchy, a qualitative assessment was made. Each site was classified as either Level I, II, III based on consideration of the following factors: * Size 0 Use levels 0 User characteristics e Variety and quality of improvements * Adjacent land uses * Receiving road network * Expansion potential e Proximity to major population centers In the County * Geographic distribution Based on the factors listed above, the following classification is suggested for the public landings of Talbot County: Talbot County Public Access Study 54 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. Level Level Level Blackwalnut Cove Tongers Basin Eastern Baylletty Landing Sherwood Pier Lowes Wharf Oak Landing Tilghman Creek Cummings Creek Wye Landing Grace C reek Skipton Creek Easton Point Tunis Mills (Leeds Creek) Trappe Landing Dogwood Harbor Villa Road Blackwalnut Point Bellevue Kingston Landing WindyHill Tilghman ParkK Covey's Landing Ball Creek Miles River Bridge New Bridge Reese's Landing Bar Neck Bayshore Road Level I landing improvements should be limited to maintenance of bulkheads and boatramps to prevent injury to users. The only regular expense associated with these facilities should be refuse removal, which should occur on a less frequent basis than at the other landings. Funds heretofore expended on these sites should be redirected to improvements at regional landings. Recommendations at Easton Point Easton Point was selected largely because of its central location, both geographically and with respect to the major population center in Talbot County. It is however, probably the most limited of the regional landings in terms of expansion potential due to its location amidst fairly intense development. On the Talbot County Public Access Study 55 OctoberI990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. other hand, the presence of Easton Point Marina immediately adjacent to this landing offers services not commonly found at public landings. One improvement that is needed in the short-term at Easton Point is parking. The situation has been improved with recent striping of the parking lot, however more parking space is also needed. One solution may be to provide more of a shoulder for parking. The problem may also be eased somewhat by making the lot at the Talbot County Operations Center available for over-flow parking during weekends and holidays and posting signs both at the landing and along Easton Point Road indicating its availability. Easton Point could also help in meeting the County's need for hiking trails by becoming part of an urban trail network running throughout Easton. Such a program would require the assistance and cooperation of the Town of Easton. County officials should seek the Town's cooperation for this venture immediately. Under this program, a series of walking /jogging /biking trails would link various recreation areas in and around the Town. This is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Easton which recognizes the need to improve and expand its system of parks and open space. The Study even contains a recommendation most relevant to Easton Point. It is policy number 7.7 which states: "The Town should acquire and develop the narrow strip of land between Papermill Pond and Easton Parkway south of Easton- Point as a passive open space area with elevated boardwalks and walking trails overlooking the wetlands and the pond. This proposal would be compatible with the intent of the Critical Area Program and would provide the Town with much needed improved waterfront access. The strip of land is too narrow for development." Also the need for the Town to work closely with the County to jointly coordinate parks and open space acquisition and facilities development is a stated policy of the Plan. The development of a trail system running throughout the Town with a link to Easton Point and Papermill Pond as described above offers an opportunity for such coordination and cooperation between the Town and County, and should be pursued, particularly as Easton Point annexation proceedings begin. Talbot County Public Access Study 56 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Recommendations for Balls Creek at Neavitt The inclusion of Balls Creek at Neavitt in the list of regional landings is based largely on the quality of the existing facility and the potential for expansion. A disadvantage to classifying.this site as a regional landing is its relatively remote location. However its potential for development as a waterfront park led to its inclusion in this category. The County owned property at this landing is over seven (7) acres in size, only a small portion of which is currently developed in association with the existing facility. The remaining land area is easily large enough to provide a waterfront park. Such a park should include hiking trails and picnickin g areas to help alleviate the deficits identified for these particular amenities. This site may also offer opportunities to provide more boat slips. With over 400 feet of water frontage, the provision of boat slips seems like a viable option. However the presence of hydric soils on this site as identified in Chapter 11 may pose development constraints which should be more fully evaluated. The advantage of providing slips as part of the development of this site is that it offers a source of revenue, which can be used for maintenance and additional improvements. Recommendations for Wye Landing The following program f 'or parking improvements at Wye Landing is recommended as one which might secure a position to be favored equally by the County, the recreational boater and area property owners. This program involves a long-term lease agreement between the County and a neighboring property owner for use of their land for temporary over-flow parking. As a creative financing approach, the County may establish a rate of $4.00 for parking at this facility. It is assumed that an average of at least 100 boaters daily during weekends in the summer months and that some 24 peak days per season could be expected over a 12 week period. At $400 a day this would generate over $9,000 annually to offset costs of leasing privately owned land and to provide available parking improvements. Current owners of property have resisted expansion and purchase proposals made by the County in the past. This approach may be an alternative as it would permit owners to continue to hold fee simple title to their property. As a component of the lease agreement, the County would have to pay all costs associated with layout, design, and construction of the parking area and attendant improvements. The Talbot County Public Access Study 57 October IINO Chapter 5 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. er of the property would receive a pro-rata share of the proceeds collected from parking. The own t adjacent service facility operator at Wye Landing who has apparently maintained a lucra ive business over the years renting boats, might be expected to serve as the collection agent to avoid costs associated with employing security personnel. This would permit the area boat leasing agent to supplement his current income. The owner would receive a substantial lease payment annually, conceivably in the range of $2,00043,000 and the County would generate about $3,000-$4,000 annually to offset the cost of improvements that might need to be County financed and not available through the State Waterway Improvement Program. In short, the County meets its responsibility to provide and improve the quality of service at public access facilities. The current operator of the boat livery or rental facility at the landing secures increased income and the owner of land heretofore who has resisted sale of property for parking construction continues to own the land, receives income to offset impacts, secures from the County any landscaping concessions necessary to protect the quality of his residential environment and for long term estate planning purposes could revoke the conditions of the agreement at the end of a twenty year period. Improvements should be the least expensive necessary and have as little impact as possible on the character of the area and surrounding residential properties. The revocability of the agreement over the long term implies that County investment shotild not be great in the facility, as an indication of its potential impermanence. A gravel or oyster-shelled area along with adequate screening or use of a lawn area which is periodically mowed might serve the intended purpose. A conceptual plan of improvements is included with this study in Appendix F. Recommendations for Expansion and Improygments at Oak Creek A unique opportunity for expansion potentially exists at the Oak Creek landing. Directly across Route 33 from the landing is a 2.439 acre parcel owned by 'the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. This property provides a chance to add picnic facilities and passive water-oriented recreation to the existing public access site at Oak Creek if the* cooperation of the Foundation can be obtained. Since public education and access to the Chesapeake and its tributaries is a key element of efforts to restore the Bay, this proposal may well be supported by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). Talbot County Public Access Study 58 Octoberl990 Chapter 5 Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd. Assuming that the cooperation of the CBF can be obtained, this property should be developed first as a separate entity. The widest upland portion near the Station Road intersection should be used for parking. The parking lot should not be paved but rather should be composed of some type of surface such as oyster shells or pea-gravel, which will allow precipitation to infiltrate the ground below. Structural improvements should be limited to a few picnic shelters and an elevated walkway /observation deck. The picnic shelters should be located on an upland portion of the site, while the elevated walkway may extend into any existing wetlands which may be present, and along the shoreline. In the long-range, this elevated walkway system could be linked with the existing Oak Creek public access facility by extending the walkway along the shoreline and under the Route 33 Bridge to the fishing and crabbing pier. Although there are few mature trees on the site, there is an existing stand of young loblolly pines which would make an excellent screen between the property and Route 33. This screen should be extended so that it runs along the entire boundary with this busy road. The improvement of the CBF property in this manner, while modest in scope, could help meet both County recreational needs and state and regional objectives for the Bay. County needs are met by providing picnicking facilities and, to a small degree, a hiking/nature trail. State and regional organizations with interests in protecting the Bay, will find that their need for public education about the Bay system could be supported by such a development. A conceptual plan of improvement and expansion at Oak Creek is contained in Appendix F. Recommendations for Trafler Permit/User Fee System In light of decreased funding from the State and increasing use-levels at public access facilities, Counties have increasingly been faced with choosing between neglecting the upkeep of their landings or dedicating more local money to this ongoing program. Two Eastern Shore counties, Kent and Queen Anne's, have instituted a system of user fees as a new source of revenue to offset such impacts. Kent County instituted a trailer permit fee, whereby all persons launching boats from public landings must purchase a permit from the County. These permits cost $5.00 per year if the permittee is a Maryland resident, a Kent County property owner, or the owner of a Maryland registered boat. Otherwise the Talbot County Public Access Study 59 OctoberI990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. permit costs $35.00. Originally the out-of-state fee was $100.00, but due to complaints the price was lowered. However, the number of out-of-state permits is now capped at 50 per year. The required permit may be purchased at three vendors located throughout the County, at the Courthouse, or by mail. All money from these permits goes into a Public Landing Fund which is used for costs not covered by the State, such as maintenance and some improvements. The program is enforced by one inspector who visits each landing daily (he works weekends and has off Monday and Tuesday). Also County Sheriffs Department Deputies will check the landings for violations when they are in the area. The fine for violating the system is $100.00. Money collected from fines goes into the Public Landing Fund. Total revenues generated as a result if this program have averaged approximately $15,000 annually. So far this year 1,700 permits have been issued. Queen Anne's County has a similar program except that their's is a user fee in contrast to Kent County's trailer permit fee. That is, all users of County public access facilities must purchase a sticker, not just those launching boats with trailers. The charge for the sticker in Queen Anne's County is $10.00 for in-State residents and $35.00 for out-of-State residents.. Citations are $50.00. This increases to $100.00 if not paid within 20 days. Enforcement is provided by seven employees of the County's Department of Recreation and Parks, who are authorized to issue citations. As in Kent County, all money collected from sticker fees and citations goes into a Public Landing Fund. In it's first full year of operation this fund is estimated to generate $40,000 in Queen Anne's County. Given the shore access- facilities needs identified in Talbot County and the need to finance such improvement as well as day to day operational and maintenance costs Talbot County should establish a user permit system drawing upon the experiences of Kent and Queen Anne's Counties. Talbot should establish a system whereby all persons using public launching facilities are required to purchase a County issued boat ramp permit to be displayed on their vehicle or boat trailer. These permits should be made available for purchase at County Offices and local marine supply and bait and tackle shops. Because Talbot County receives State funds from the Department of Natural Resources Waterways Improvement Division (WID), the fee for the permit must be the same for all Maryland residents Talbot County Public Access Study 60 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. regardless of what County they reside in. To charge out-of-County Maryland residents a higher permit fee than in-County residents would result in an unfair double taxation situation for out-of-County residents since they pay the same State taxes for WID funds as Talbot County residents. Out-of-State residents though, do not pay Maryland taxes and may be subject to a higher fee. The fee of $35.00 for out-of-State residents seems to be generally accepted on the Upper Eastern Shore. Therefore it is recommended that Talbot establish this as their out-of-State fee, at least initially. A$10.00 per year fee, as is used in Queen Anne's County, is recommended for all in-State residents. These fees should be adjusted up or down after a one year period to ensure that revenues generated will adequately cover annual maintenance and improvement expenses. Additional revenues can be generated from fines collected from people without permits. Such a system can be expected to provide substantial revenues. This money should be placed in a Public Landing Fund and dedicated to use solely for maintenance and improvements at existing landings, and acquisition of land for expansion or development of new shorefront access recreational facilities. Based on use-levels in Talbot and Queen Anne's County, it can be expected that this program will generate as much as $60,000 in annual revenue in Talbot, where use-levels are higher. Recommendations for Development of Waterfront Park/Marina The problem of the large deficit in picnicking units and hiking trails has been repeated throughout this study. Previous recommendations in this and the preceding chapter will only make small reductions in that deficit. In order to make a substantial reduction, the County should plan for long term acquisition and development of a large waterfront park. The major disadvantage of pursuing this option is the cost. With revenues being brought in by the parking program and permit system outlined previously, the County is in a much better position to undertake acquisition and long term development of a waterfront park. However, even with such revenues the County will require assistance through State Program Open Space resources. In considering an appropriate site for such a development, several factors are important. Among these are proximity to potential users, site limitations, quality of the receiving road system, and land Talbot County Public Access Study 61 OctoberI990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. ownership. Based on these factors one site has been- identified as worthy of consideration for development as a waterfront park. That is the land surrounding the existing Skipton Landing. The Skipton site was selected for many reasons. First of all, it is easily the most accessible from U.S. Route 50 and thus many Talbot Countians and visitors can be expected to use a park located there. Second, other than near the existing boat ramp, few site limitations are present. The land is basically flat. Furthermore it is free of development except for one house. Another advantage of this site which cannot be overlooked is the fact that it consists of land in common ownership by one party, thereby simplifying any necessary negotiations proceedings. Moreover, it would not be necessary to take the entire 293.16 acre parcel. Acquisition of the portion bounded by Route 50, Skipton Landing Road, and Skipton Creek would be sufficient to allow the County to develop a new regional park of outstanding quality. It would not even be necessary to acquire all of the waterfront portion of this parcel, thus sufficient waterfrontage could be kept under current ownership to allow for the construction of one (or more) waterfront homes. The major limitation to development as a waterfront park is the shallow water at the existing landing. However, this only affects expansion of the boat ramp. It has no effect on the remainder of the site, which can serve to meet picnicking and hiking activity needs in a shorefront environment with opportunities for interpretive trails to permit user interaction with the diverse habitats manifest along its shorefront reach. Later when more revenues are available from the County's Public Landing Fund, or when State monies become available, dredging of Skipton Creek would permit expansion of the existing ramp and thereby afford some much needed relief to Wye Landing. The first stage in the development of this site though, should include parking areas for this new park and the existing boat ramp, picnic shelters, an extensive system of hiking, biking, and nature trails. Conventional park improvements such as ballfields, playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts, etc.growth in the area in recent years and may be appropriate given its adjacency to a designated village center in the County Comprehensive Plan. The second stage which consists of expanding the ramp facility, is not absolutely necessary to ensure that this is a viable undertaking, but such an improvement, if feasible, would be invaluable because it would provide an alternative site to the already over-utilized Wye Landing. A conceptual plan for development of this Park and Public Shorefront access facility is contained in Appendix F. Talbot County Public Access Study 62 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. Though not the preferred locations, Covey's Landing and Reese's Landing may also represent sites wherein the acquisition of adjacent land might permit then to meet the larger waterfront park need identified herein. Absent the ability th undertake development of a large waterfront park facility the County will need to identify ways to expand other Level II or preferably Level III facilities to accommodate the need for picnic and hiking facilities among several locations as opposed to one as recommended. Regardless of how they are not the identification of needs outline 'd in this study should serve to guide future County investment in public shorefront access facilities. Clearly, the most important near-term implementation action recommended with this report is the adaption of system for changing user fees to assure future source of revenues is established to meet facility needs identified. Appendix B in this report provides a model for facilitating decisions concerning acquisition and development of public shorefront access sites and facilities. Appendix C provides location, siting and design guidelines to facilitate determination of sites for selected improvements. In summary, this final chapter has presented implementation and financing strategies which, if followed, will allow Talbot County to enhance its public access facilities and reduce the deficit in the supply of facilities which support recreational activities appropriate at public shorefront access sites. The order in which theses strategies were presented was not intended to suggest any priorities. That is left to County officials. The more important objective is to provide Talbot County residents and visitors with the best possible system of public access facilities. This study is a first step in that direction. Hopefully its recommendations will be useful to future county efforts to meet the public shorefront access needs of present and future county residents. Talbot County Public Access Study 63 October 1990 Chapter 5 Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd. TALBOT COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN START CRITERIA FOR SITE ACQUISITION AND DEVEIAWMENT DIRECT ROAD ACCESS YES DEVELOPMENT FOR BOAT ACCESS > 50% LINEAR FRONTAGE OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS MARSH SHORE FRONTAGE SITE AREA > 2 ACRES NO YES NO NEARSHORE DEPTHS GREATER THAN THREE (3) FEET SAND BEACH > 100 ELIMINATE FROM VEHICULAR TURNAOUND AREA FEET WIDE CONSIDERATION > 75 FEET YES INO YES SHORE EROSION NO RATE SLIGHT TO SHORE EROSION RATE SLOPES< 8% MODERATE SLIGHT TO MODERATE I NJ/ NO NjooryEs NO YES UNDEVELOPED BEACH/ BOAT RAMP UNDEVELOPED NATURAL AREA WITH PARKING BOAT OTHER LAUNCH SHORELINE NE YES ACTIVITIES BEACH WITH FACILITIES N K IN, 64 I I I I I I A X A I I I I I I I I F APPENDIX A ESTIMATING TOTAL DEMAND The 1976 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Study, Recreational Boating on the Tidal Waters of Maryland used the following equation to determine the total number of boat launchings at a given site: 25(7.1x) + 22(5.2x) + 106 (x) = Total number of launchings over the boating season Where: x the number of launchings on an average weekday 5.2x the number of launchings on an average Saturday 7.1x the number of launchings on an average Sunday or holiday To determine the total number of launchings in Talbot County, the above equation was solved for each boat ramp based on the use-level survey depicted in Table HI-1. After solving the equation for each landing, the total launchings were summed to get the total number of launchings in Talbot County. I I I I I I APPENDIX B I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B A Model for Acquisition and Development The following flow chart illustrates the questions which should be asked when any site is screened for either acquisition or development. Starting at the upper left hand corner, three initial criteria mustbe satisfied before a site canbe considered for boat access or pedestrian access. These are: Lshore frontage 2.direct road access, 3.site size greater than two acres. Many of the County sites which are currently used as boat launch areas do not satisfy criterion 3; however, because they are already publicly used, they should be screened for development, and if appropriate, land acquisition for parking and turnaround for trailers should be considered. If these criteria are satisfied, the nautre of the shoreline sh ould be assessed.. Where marsh does not dominate the shoreline, the site maybe suitable for a beach area. Park standards for beaches recommend at least 100 feet in width, and 200 foot wide beaches are preferable. This standard may be prohibitive in Talbot County, where beaches are generally narrow. Some beach areas may be suitable for nourishment and development, but where erosion rates are severe, natural undeveloped beaches, with appropriate public access are more suitable. Where marsh does dominate the shoreline, other uses than beaches may be appropriate. Boat ramps may be located in small areas that do not require dredging or filling, and where there is room for adequate parking and vehicular turnaround. If these criteria are not satisfied, the site may be useful for car top boat launching, if slopes are less than 8% and the distance for carrying a boat not prohibitive. If none of these criteria are satisfied, the site may still be considered for other sh oreline recreation: part of a trail link-greenway with other parks or recreational facilities, an outdoor classroom, a way to preserve scenic vistas or local character. Fishing piers and swimming floats may be alternatives to the limitations posed by shoreline characteristics. I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I I I I I I I F I I I I I I APPENDIX C I Siting and Design Guidelines for I Selected Public Shorefront Access Facilities and Activities I I I I I I F SITING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES BOAT RAMPS Location 0 Primary consideration should be given to sites in waterbody areas where the demand for boat ramp facilities exceeds the supply. 0 Sites should be at least three to five acres in size with two or more acres suitable for parking. Peak day overflow parking could be grassed area or other permeable surface located outside of buffer. Water depth should be a minimum of two feet at the end of the ramp at mean low water. Avoid sites with excessive situation or erosion. Sites requiring extensive dredging or filling should be avoided. 0 Site should be close to a public road to avoid the expense of access road construction. Design Avoid direct runoff from parking into tidal waters and wetlands. Build ramps at a slope of eleven to thirteen percent with lane widths between twelve and sixteen feet. Ramps constructed on flowing rivers should enter the river at an angle to facilitate boat launching and reduce siltation. Extend the ramp to a depth of five feet, install riprap at the end of the ramp or increase the slope for the last ten to fifteen feet of the ramp to protect the end of the ramp. 0 Provide about 35 car-trailer parking spaces for each launching lane. Each car-trailer space should be ten feet wide and forty feet long, and the parking lot should provide adequate maneuvering room. 0 If two launch lanes are constructed. build a pier between the two to serve both lanes and to insure that one user cannot tie up both lanes. ? 0 Support facilities should include litter receptacles, tt@h@on and restrooms. 0 Provide a signage system and Information center, especially for high use areas. These could include: maps of fishing grounds and other special boating activity areas; boating rules and regulations, including notice of posted speed limits, maps of restricted zones. directories and fixed weather-proofed maps attached to information panels. interpretive information which describes natural or historical features at the site or In the vicinity. 0 Provide an aesthetic buffer of the site from adjacent land uses, especially residential. 0 Maintain slope gradients and scale which are compatible with natural features. Source: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 1986. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1976. LOCATION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES CAR TOP - CANOE PUT-IN AREAS Lomtion 0 Facility should be on a waterway suitable for canoeing and along a stretch of that waterway that Is deficient In canoe access opportunities. 0 Access point should be within a short portage of parking area. 0 Facility should not be located on water that is too shallow. has an extreme drop-off. has severe currents or has underwater obstructions. Design 0 Approach to waterway should not be too steep and should be clear of brush. If banks are steep, consideration should be given to reconstructing the bank through grading and possibly the installation of steps. 0 Site should provide adequate and safe parking, preferably in an off-road location. 0 Site should have picnic tables, litter receptacles, restrooms, an information kiosk and signs which designate the site as a canoe access facility. 0 Design to maintain low capacity in wilderness preservation areas. Source: Virainia Beach Scenic Waterway Plan., 1985. LOCATION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FISHING AREAS Location 0 Facility should be located on a water body with a productive fishery and acceptable water quality. 0 Consideration should be given to potential conflicts with adjacent land use and other water activities. 0 A shore fishing area should be free of obstructions such as steep banks. dense brush or low hanging tree limbs. 0 Consideration should be given to incorporating fishing facilities into water-related construction projects. For example, catwalks and platforms can be built into bridge projects, or fishing areas can be developed in areas adjacent to bridge approaches. Safety considerations must be Integral to the location and design of such facilities. Fishing areas may also be developed at park sites, next to boat landings. on breakwaters, along bulkheading projects or at highway waysides. Adequate space for safe parking must exist or be easily provided. Design 0 Support facilities appropriate to fishing areas include parking areas, restrooms, drinking fountains, litter receptacles, picnic tables, fish cleaning facilities, and boat rental, bait and food concessions. 0 Fishing structures should be of barrier-free design to afford fishing opportunities for the widest range of participants. 0 Piers should be of open-pile construction, and piers constructed over vegetated wetlands should be high enough to prevent loss of existing vegetation through shading. I I I Sources: Existing VMRC regulations. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. 1988. 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D , I I I I I I 1 7 APPPENDIX D Selected Information Concerning Maryland and Talbot County Boat Registration provided by Maryland Department of Licensing and Consumer Services. OEC"IVED Ai-11 2 (Revised Form) Mpoor or ctIMICA"s or Ot"1191 ISSUED TO I OA T1 for Year Wing state of toffitely of I . - )I N4606or 11J19 173,.523 . - - I : --- U" J or is foot 16 feet to 1.498 The" 30 foot 10 rest to L411 non 40 fell PULL lnboerj It MUMS T gall Inboola -i-4-2111 .1 --HAT" I AA@_ ZKO114 ldhagla IMO "I' _LMA_ -MALINAU11- .1bbAltd we" I __ JUL 76 196 __2200 314 48 5 698 400 102 155 _23881- 2334 932 13 22881 14989 1038 11 7360 25609 487t 4745 29103 1. 63 29 a 61#60 130 2 0 23 6044 27 3 '13 0 1 0 0 Other ------- 9-- 7671 30 54 2 421 50 4 0 36 40 13 14 N '40 is a to U04 worth to or M Other fiettictall l1ULL tnb 6 -Austlis &M (taplain) LATMAL (Mttootd 9 9 110 W0040 4 324'. 2 t 661.3 4731 257 182 0 99 22 uscu 19 753. Documented 253 -54147--- 43665 _6849- 5028- 0 Vessels 8 AQ Q 12 __38011. BA9 43 45 7r5tt 2 0 0 0@ 6064 29 to 3 0 201 2 other 0 2 2 0 3 3132 122 71- 0 423 20 Scorg or_ Ift"11CRING STSIgm In addition 7 ,511 Docitmeiited vessels are principally used In t1aryland N"o your NUAQFIPI system thsnJ44 from last y4ell ----Yoe trifles explain)-, OPSTOWT101111 ris#@* forest Only V4114 sawtIlleftep Outel.41"I an It Deees-ter of%4 work wall any Alectoponeles fron'the Inton4ed fatmet.. Pillow note -T..' am-&OTIP4 system feel*, 4411"ItIoRe, Froes-lutes) skovee Itsit'gespI6164 term to Coormingont WIP-1). U.S. Coast C-jGtJ, Usehingt no C. a T 21. r7 L_ @3 jostil"te, strive t-110to I Karel,. REPORT NUMBER A12312 STATE OF MARYLAND LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES 12/18/89 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 214 4 ACMEFORTS OF MARYLAND DOCUMENTED FORTS - BY COUTY REGISTRATION YEAR 1989 COUNTY NUMBER OF BOATS ALLEGANY 13 ANNE ARUNDEL 3271 BALTIMORE COUNTY 542 BALTIMORE CITY 25 CALVERT 316 CAROLINE 6 CARROLL 4 CECIL 375 CHARLES 26 DORCHESTER 66 FREDERICK 8 GARRETT 13 HARFORD 54 HOWARD 5 KENT 541 MONTGOMERY 5 PRINCE GEORGES 29 QUEEN ANNES 297 ST. MARYS 202 SOMERSET 49 TALBOT 257 WASHINGTON 5 WICOMICO 10 W0RCESTER 38 UNKNOWN 1357 GRAND TOTAL 7511 REPORT NUMBER STATE OF MARYLAND A12334 LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 214 4 BOATS KEPT AT HOME BY OWNER'S COUNTY OF RESIDENCE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1989 ALEGANY 1931 ANNE ARUNDEL 18444 BALTIMORE COUNTY 18615 BALTIMORE CITY 2160 CALVERT 3346 CAROLINE 1126 CARROLL 3154 CECIL 2339 CHARLES 4077 DORCHESTER 2183 FREDERICK 3863 GARRETT 730 HARFORD 4942 HOWARD 2929 KENT 996 MONTGOMERY 9212 PRINCE GEORGES 10522 QUEEN ANNES 2795 ST. MARYS 4397 SOMERSET 1357 TALBOT 2214 WASHINGTON 3363 WICOMICO 3268 WORCESTER 2472 UNKNOWN/OUT OF STATE 6157 TOTAL 116540 REPORT NUMBER STATE OF MARYLAND A12312 LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES 12/18/89 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21434 OWNERS COUNTY OF MARYLAND DOCUMENTED BOATS BY COUNTY RESIDEN REGISTRATION YEAR 1989 COUNTY NUMBER OF BOAT ALEGANY 5 ANNE ARUNDEL 1618 BALTIMORE COUNTY 644 BALTIMORE CITY 53 CALVERT 136 CAROLINE 6 CARROLL 23 CECIL 44 CHARLES 75 DORCHESTER 32 FREDERICK 49 GARRETT 1 HARFORD 102 HOWARD 134 KENT 61 MONTGOMERY 711 PRINCE GEORGES 278 QUEEN ANNES 91 ST. MARYS 128 SOMERSET 23 TALBOT 165 WASHINGTON 13 WICOMICO 43 WORCESTER 13 UNKNOWN 3053 GRAND TOTAL 7511 REPORT NUMBER STATE OF MARYLAND A12332 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES BOATS REGISTERED IN MARYLAND - BY RESIDENCE OF CYN AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1989 COUNTY TYPE OF USE TOTAL VALID PLEAS COM FISH OTHER CERTIFICATES ALLEGANY 2176 11 15 2232 ANNE ARUNDEL 28632 384 468 29484 BALTIMORE COUNTY 26632 314 406 26772 BALTIMORE CITY 3249 45 45 3339 CALVERT 4437 80 133 4621 CAROLINE 1223 48 23 1294 CARROLL 3443 41 47 3531 CECIL 3367 54 69 3451 CHARLES 4730 97 102 4899 DORCHESTER 2919 186 72 3075 FREDERICK 4127 45 25 4200 GARRETT 1239 10 145 1444 HARFORD 6734 66 72 6872 HOWARD 3840 48 24 3912 KENT 1727 91 61 1879 MONTGOMERY 12886 141 127 13154 PRINCE GEORGES 12431 156 153 12743 QUEEN ANNES 4078 139 124 4341 ST. MARYS 5992 176 151 6319 SOMERSET 1724 112 38 1874 TALBOT 3962 163 195 4326 WASHINGTON 3592 27 29 3645 WICOMICO 3450 186 69 3725 WORCESTER 2988 138 185 3311 TOTAL-MARYLAND 148893 2760 2781 154434 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1574 17 21 1135 DELAWARE 1212 23 16 1251 NEW JERSEY 1122 16 16 1154 PENNSYLVANIA 8643 106 97 8848 VIRGINIA 4767 65 86 4936 WEST VIRGINIA 338 7 1 346 ALL OTHER 1366 35 32 1423 UNKNOWN 16 0 0 16 TOTAL-OUT OF STATE 18558 292 269 19089 GRAND TOTAL 167451 3022 3150 173523 I I I I I I I APPENDIX E. i I I I I I I F "Jog William Donald Schaefer Maryland Department of Natural Resources Torrey C. Brown, M.D. covernor 5-werr Boating AdWnistration Tawes State Office Building Bruce A. Oiltmite 590 Taylor Avenue Director Annapolis. Maryland 21401 January 3, 1990 The Honorable Thomas G. Duncan President County Council of Talbot County Courthouse Easton, Maryland 21601 Dear Councilman Duncan: This is to acknowledge that the Depaitment of Natural Resources, Boating Administration has reviewed 411 of the comments received from various local Jurisdictionst boating organizations, neighboring states, and the general boating pub@lic concerping our proposed fee schedule for Stat6-funded public boat ramps and have come to a conclusion as to our position regarding this matter.... As you are aware, any local jurisdictio4 which decides to charge a fee to use a State-funded public boating facility must first obtain approval from the Department of Natural Resources as required in the terms and conditions of the Wa@erway Improvement Fund Grant application. Since Talbot County agreed to this requirement when requesting Waterway Improvement: funds,to construct local public boating facilities, the above referenced condition will apply if you elect to charge a fee to use. these facilities. In addition, the Department has the authority to approve or deny these fees on an annual basis. In that the source of revenue for the Waterway Improvement Fund is primarily the 5% excise tax which is paid when someone purchases their boat within the Statel the Boa@inq Administration cannot allow a local jurisdiction to differentiate fees charged to Maryland registered boaters. Therefore, a local jurisdiction can- not charge Maryland residents who live in anot.her jurisdiction a higher fee. MON Tclephone: 301-974-7604 The Honorable Thomas G. Duncan January 3, 1990 Page Two As for vessels not registered in the State.of Maryland, since these boaters do not contribute to the Waterway Improvement Fund the Department has no objection to local jurisdictions charging a higher fee to those individuals to use public boating facilities. However, the Boating Administration believes that user fees should be fair for AU boaters using Maryland's waterways and therefore we oppose any fees which are inordinately high for non-Maryland boaters. We believe that local governments sh 'ould recognize the overall economic benefit of tourism and "good neighborliness".. With regard to the issue concerning the one-time user, the Boating Administration will require that local jurisdictions charging a fee make some provision which will allow a boater to use these facilities an a daily basis. As to the collection of these fees, the local jurisdiction may decide how to collect this fee as long as the system used is fair and equitable. Concerning the actual fees, the Boating Administration has established the following fee schedule which a local jurisdiction can implement if it lects to charge a fee to use their public boat landings. inum F= SghedUle $5.00 MD Registered Vessel (Daily Rate) $10.00 Out-of-State Registered vessel (Daily Rate) $25.00 MD Registered Vessel (Annual Rate) $35.00 Out-of-State Registered Vessel (Annual Rat!e) Approval of any fees will depend on the local estimated and/or documented costs to operate facilities built with Waterway Improvement Funds as well as the anticipated number of boaters expected to use these facilities. Again, these are maxim fees and only apply to those boating facilities which were constructed with Waterway Improvement Funds. Furthermore, there is n2 requirement by DNR that a local jurisdiction must charge a fee to use these facilities. To reiterate, any local jurisdiction which elects to charge a fee to use a State-funded boating facility for the 1990 or any subsequent boating season must abide by this policy. In addition, each local jurisdiction will have to continue to obtain prior approval from the Boating Administration on an annual basis before implementing any fee collection program. We believe that this policy meets our goal.to ensure that any fees charged to use these boating facilities are equitable to all Maryland boaters as well as to the local jurisdictions which are responsible for their operation. I hope that you agree with this policy and will support it now and in the future. The Honorable Thomas G. Duncan January 3, 1990 Page Three Again, we value our cooperative relationship with Talbot County and urge you to contact me if you heive any questions regarding this or any other matter related to the Boating Administration. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter. ruce A. Gilmore, Director Boating Admihistration BAG:RPG:elc naer @iiu@ae. @Gilm. illaillimillel 3 6668 14100 9904