1. Planning in a rural coastal A collaborative effort to promote
Waterway access
Planning in a rural coastal
Community .
A collaborative effort to promote
Economic development

2. Florida’s Rural Counties
32 of Florida’s 67 Counties have a population of less than 75,000
Almost all are designated as Rural Area’s of Critical Economic Concern
While rich in natural resources - economies are extremely fragile

3. Florida 2060 2005 – 1000 Friends of Florida Study
Statewide Population Distribution Scenario
Estimated Population using BEBR Moderate Projection for
Trend Line Extended to 2060

4. Florida Population 2005
The 2005 BEBR study showed that Taylor County like the majority of Florida Counties are largely undeveloped.

5. Florida Population 2060
Based upon historical growth trends the study projects that Taylor County’s population will remain virtually unchanged in 2060.

6. Taylor County Vision 2060
The 1000 Friends of Florida Study confirmed that without an investment desired quality of life changes would not occur
The 2060 Study – Prompted Taylor County to create it own Vision for 2060

8. Regional Context

9. Vision 2060 – Waterway Access
Identified our local rivers and the Gulf as being critical natural resources for preserving and enhancing our quality of life.
Confirmed the frustration of having one of the longest coastlines in the state with extremely limited access to the Gulf.
Identified that enhanced waterway access was critical to attracting tourist, residential and commercial growth.
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

10. Taylor County’s - Coastline
Approximately 80% is owned and controlled by the State and the Federal Government
Coastal Management Area
Very Limited access
Scheduled to remain in conservation for perpetuity

11. Coastal Resources Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve -Seagrass Beds
Contiguous
Patchy
Boat Ramps
14 public boat ramp facilities with access to the Gulf of Mexico but limited access to roads that lead to ramps and most ramps substandard.
Only one deep water access ramp in 2005
Keaton Beach

12. Need for Empirical Research
Funding a critical issue
Need for understanding of
What we had
What was needed
What were our options
Etc.
Identified the need for 3rd party unbiased, empirical research to provident insight and help provide creditability to our residents, legislators and funding agencies.
Critical for future planning and allocation of resources
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

13. Collaboration with FSG
We were starting to look for partnerships with state institutions.
June 2008 – We were approach by Dr. Charles Sidman to see if we were interested in collaborating with FSG and IFAS.
The collaboration between FSG/IFAS and Taylor County worked extremely well
FSG worked within the scope of their mission to meet our specific needs.
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

14. Why FSG Collaborated National concern. Not unique to Florida.
In Florida, the need to improve access is well established by local and state authorities.
“Wildlife 2060: What’s at Stake for Florida” forecasts continuing decline in coastal waterway access (FWC, 2008).
“Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study” acknowledges “rapid rate of land-use change along Florida’s coastal and inland waterways” which exacerbates access issues (FWC, 2009).
Involving residents and users can align facility improvements with community interests.
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

15. Why FSG Collaborated
FSG Identified Taylor County as a good candidate to help support our efforts and their efforts to improve public waterway access.
Taylor County Shared similarities with other rural and developed areas.
History of declining access to waterfronts
Limited deep water access and parking
Crowding and congestion at popular ramps
Supported Taylor County Vision 2060 Plan.
Builds upon work conducted by the Taylor County Coastal Committee.
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

16. Why FSG Collaborated
Consistent with FSG’s planning priority to support comprehensive planning for coastal and marine resources (FSG Strategic Plan 2009)
Support of planning initiatives in rural Florida Coastal Communities consistent with FSG’s Federal mandate to:
Promote hazard resiliency
Support healthy ecosystems
Sustain coastal economies
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

17. FSG/IFAS/Taylor County Planning Waterway Access
Charles Sidman, Florida Sea Grant
Garin Davidson, Florida Sea Grant
Robert Swett, Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences
Alan Hodges, Food and Resource Economics
Tim Fik, Geography
Fred Vose, Taylor County, UF/IFAS
Clay Olson, Taylor County, UF/IFAS Dir.
Jack Brown, Taylor County Administrator

18. Goals and Objectives Goal Objectives
Provide science-based information to support Taylor County waterway access planning efforts.
Objectives
Determine if demand exceeds facility capacity.
Gauge public support for facility improvements.
Identify access amenities favored by residents/users.
Identify locations where improvements are desired.
Estimate economic benefits from access facilities.
Access concerns are not unique to Florida. This is a national issue that stems from more and more people desiring to recreate in a coastal setting coupled with the fact that the existing stock of facilities and the provision of new access infrastructure is not keeping pace with the volume of use and the growing diversity of coastal recreational pursuits – which can require specialized access amenities. This condition is being exacerbated by shorefront land use changes that are resulting in a loss of existing access.

19. Study Elements Resident Survey Ramp Survey Boater Survey
2000 residents selected from property tax rolls.
663 surveys returned (33.6% return rate).
Ramp Survey
Ramps visited for 1 year.
Tag information collected.
Parking capacity estimated.
Boater Survey
Questionnaires distributed to 1,644 boaters at boat ramps .
209 surveys returned (12.7% return rate).
Note that resident and boater surveys were not mutually exclusive. There is a possibility that some residents , who also are boaters and were observed at boat ramps, received both surveys.

20. Resident & Boater Surveys
Map-based survey allowed recipients to identify where improvements should
be made.
Allowed recipients to quickly cross-reference coastal and waterway access locations with specific questions.

21. Study Findings
Study findings are presented consistent with the five study objectives mentioned earlier.

22. Does Demand Exceed Facility Capacity?
Estimated number of trips per year: 28,153
Most ramps have adequate parking (operate at between 36% and 74% of parking capacity).
Demand exceeds parking at popular ramps during peak use periods (e.g., Steinhatchee, Keaton Beach).
Period
Weekend Day
Weekday
Peak
224 56
Transitional
144 35
Off-Peak 78 19
Overcapacity conditions result in large numbers of vessel trailers and tow vehicles being parked along public right-of ways and residential side-streets.
Range of use is 224 trips per day during peak period (April-Sept) to 19 trips per day during off-peak period (November – February)

23. What Access Amenities are Favored by Users?
Rank
Access Amenity
% Responses indicating “Important” 1
Easy to launch & retrieve boat
95% 2
Direct Access to Gulf
94% 3
Short wait to launch
90% 4
Close to favorite boating spots
84% 5
Well maintained access channels
81%

24. Does the Public Support Improvements?
A clear majority of residents (users & non-users) and boaters (motorized & non-motorized) support improvements to public boat ramp facilities.
Public Support
County Residents
Boaters
Year-Round
Seasonal
Residents
Visitors
New Ramps
60%
74%
75%
59%
Ramp Improvements
71%
77%
Note: A significant percentage of respondents also indicated “no opinion” with respect to their support for facility improvements. About 18% of county residents did not support improvements. About 10% of residents and visitors who are boaters did not support improvements.

25. Where are Improvements Desired?
1. County residents and resident boaters prefer new ramps in the central and south regions; and favor ramp improvements in the central regions.
2. Seasonal residents and visiting boaters prefer new ramps in the south; and are split between favoring the south and north for improvements.

26. What is the Economic Impact of Providing Public Access?
Employment (Jobs)
Labor Income
Value added
Total Output
158
$4.1 Million
$6.4 Million
$10.1
Million
84% of visitor trip-related expenditures made “in- county.”
Regional economic model for Taylor County developed using IMPLAN modeling software.
Boater’s were asked to estimate expenditures for items, including lodging, fuel, groceries, restaurants, bait and tackle, ramp/marina fees, associated with their last boating trip to Taylor County. They were also asked to identify if the item was purchased in Taylor County.
Economic impact estimates are based on expenditure data provided by boaters and values are expressed in 2011 dollars.

27. Outcomes
Supported a successful request by the County for $600K toward the development of a new $3,000,000 boat ramp in Steinhatchee.
Supported a request for a $100K state grant to expand parking at Keaton Beach Ramp.
Road map for prioritizing future improvements.

28. Steinhatchee Boat Ramp

29. Steinhatchee Boat Ramp - Coastal Park Project

30. Overnight Visitors (42%) Overnight Visitors (42%)
What is the Observed Use of the Steinhatchee Ramp?
Annual permit decal sales doubled in 2011 compared to three year average ( )
Data for just 18 days (July-September) averaged 65 trips/day (7AM-2PM) w/$289,351 Expended
Total trips (18 days)
Resident (14%)
Day Visitors (44%)
Overnight Visitors (42%)
1,165
$35,318
$71,747
$182,286
Total trips (18 days)
Resident (14%)
Day Visitors (44%)
Overnight Visitors (42%)
Boater were recorded at Steinhatchee Ramp during 18 days of bay scallop season. Trip estimates do not include the entire day and fall between Fri and Monday.
Expenditure estimates are based on expenditure data provided by boater surveys, assuming similar % of user categories. Residents Expend $212 per trip, Day trippers $139, and Overnighters $377. Values are expressed in 2011 dollars.
1,165
$35,318
$71,747
$182,286

31. Keaton Beach Boat Ramp - Coastal Park Project
Project Focus Area FY
And

32. Thank You! Report now available. Hard copy
Jack R. Brown, Taylor County County Administrator
(850) , Ext. 7
Report now available.
Hard copy
PDF on FSG website (flseagrant.org)