Water Access Point Design Considerations

A regional counsel currently consisting of eighty-five local governments across fifteen counties in Central Ohio, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is responsible for facilitating planning efforts for transportation, economic development, community engagement, public policy, and open data needs for governments, environmental professionals, and city and regional planners.

Among the various community development initiatives they facilitate, MORPC, in collaboration with relevant communities, park services, grassroots organizations, and other community-based stakeholders, manages the usage and helps provide public information on the Central Ohio Blueways. The Central Ohio Blueways are the collective ~140 miles of the main Central Ohio rivers (Alum Creek, Big Darby Creek, Big Walnut Creek, the Olentangy River, and the Scioto River) available for legal and safe recreational paddle usage.

One of the goals of the Central Ohio Blueways is to gain the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' State Water Trail Designation for all five waterways (currently, the Olentangy River already has this designation), which will facilitate the development of future water access points and promote safe and sustainable usage of the Blueways, as traffic along these rivers is already expected to increase due to ongoing development in Central Ohio. To help identify key concerns and considerations regarding river access point design and management, MORPC created an Advisory Panel in early 2023 consisting of various stakeholders. These stakeholders include representatives from ODNR, affected jurisdictions, local environmental advocacy groups, Columbus Metroparks, private paddling companies, Ohio State University officials, and representatives associated with other recreational development projects. Among the Advisory Panel, the most prominent concerns raised were regarding the potential negative impact that increased development and usage along the waterways would have on water quality. To address these community concerns, Jonathan Miller, one of the Principle Planners at MORPC who oversees the Central Ohio Blueways Advisory Panel, commissioned our team of OSU students to research and develop guidelines for sustainable development of both existing and future access points.

To develop our guidelines for the access points, our team needed to accomplish three primary goals:

1. Identify key community concerns associated with development of water access points, and incorporate them into our guidelines when feasible
2. Develop guidelines for the construction of parking lots, nature trails, and watercraft launch points based on predetermined environmental typologies
3. Develop siting recommendations for the construction of future access points

To identify concerns associated with the development of both existing and future access points, our methods consisted of meeting with the Central Ohio Blueways Advisory Panel, creating a survey to gather input from stakeholders, and utilizing literature review to determine which concerns should influence our guidelines. Our challenges with this objective included determining which concerns were the most relevant to the project at hand, and depending on the stakeholders to actually respond to our survey.

When working to develop the guidelines, our methods consisted of sourcing and reviewing literature relevant to each design consideration, guided site visits of existing access points with members of MORPC and FLOW (Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed, an environmental advocacy group), and review of MORPC's proprietary Blueways GIS data to determine features present at access points. Our challenges with this objective included determining which environmental typologies were most relevant to consider for the Central Ohio Blueways, balancing considerations of minimizing both environmental impact and cost effectiveness, and limited literature available regarding our goals.

For the development of siting recommendations for future access points, our main methods included sourcing and reviewing literature relevant to access point development, incorporating findings from both literature and previous objectives, and identifying tools that developers can utilize for access point development. Our main challenges for this objective included limited available literature, and ensuring our research stays within the scope of our project.

After our initial process of scoping community concerns, attributes of existing access points, and literature, our team determined the most relevant environmental typologies for existing and prospective access points:

• Urban vs Rural Access Points
• Low Usage vs High Usage
• Low Slope vs High Slope

In addition to these main typologies, development of both existing and future access points must consider general guidelines regarding local river flow rates, use of clear signage, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and attributes associated with the sites themselves.

Access points should maintain clear signage indicating the access point's existence and purpose, so paddlers know they are permitted to utilize the area to launch their watercraft. In addition, signage should be used to mark known hazards along the Blueways, such as dams, rapids, and combined-sewage overflow sites.

Access point design elements must be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act except when:

1. Compliance is not practicable due to terrain
2. Compliance cannot be accomplished with prevailing construction practices
3. Compliance would fundamentally alter the structure or purpose of the facility or the setting
4. Compliance is limited or precluded by any of the following laws, or by decisions or opinions issued or agreements executed pursuant to any of the following laws:
   1. Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.)
   2. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.)
   3. National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.)
   4. Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131 et seq.)
   5. Other Federal, State, or local law, the purpose of which is to preserve threatened or endangered species; the environment; or archaeological, cultural, historical, or other significant natural features

When determining which construction solutions are best for a given access point, developers should also consider using  USDA's Web Soil Survey , a free online tool that displays the soil types present within a given site, their permeability, erosion potential, and suitability for various construction projects. This is applicable to the design of parking lots, trails, and launch points.

When developing both existing and future access points, one of the most important considerations for mitigating water quality impact is the access point's parking lot design. Parking lots can act as a major source of nutrient and chemical pollution for waterways, so their construction must be carefully designed and implement appropriate stormwater management techniques.

• When possible, ensure parking area is set back at least 50 feet from streambank
• Landscape utilizing dense native vegetation and landscaping tailored to promote pollutant filtering and soil erosion prevention
• Utilize sufficient maintenance practices to maintain effectiveness of stormwater management solutions and permeable pavements
• Always mark spots, as people tend to park further apart if unmarked; if using material preventing painted lines (i.e. gravel), utilize concrete or timber wheel stops to mark spots
• Clearly mark traffic flow with signage to minimize traffic congestion
• Consider that pull-through spaces are preferred

• Use a minimum grade of 2%, maximum grade of 5%
• Slope should direct water towards stormwater management area, and all stormwater must be treated before reaching stream

• Spaces should be 10 ft in width and 18 ft in length
• Spaces for vehicles with trailers must be 40-50 ft in length

Right-size the number of parking spaces, in order to minimize material use and optimize accessibility.

• Design to average demand and recreational carrying capacity (whichever is larger), NOT peak demand
• Provide overflow parking using materials that minimize impact, and use trees, bollards, and thick vegetation to prevent environmental damage from parking in undesignated areas
• Limit trailer parking (generally 2-3 spaces is sufficient), depending on usage

Considering the main stakeholder concern associated with river access point development and usage was its impacts on water quality, the main recommendations regarding parking lots at access points address the risks that stormwater runoff poses to water quality. Beyond ensuring the correct sizing of parking lots for the associated access point, green stormwater management practices are the greatest tool developers can use to mitigate water quality degradation.

Recommendations

The following graphics can guide developers in the general direction of what management solutions may be possible, but speak with local experts about what management solution is best given your specific site characteristics. 

 _{This is not a comprehensive list, and other site characteristics may imply or restrict the use of particular solutions.} 

These recommendations were developed from the  EPA’s Stormwater Management Best Practices.  In determining suitability for rural versus urban sites, the EPA regards any stormwater management solution requiring significant allocation of space to be unsuitable for urban areas. Urban solutions are generally applicable for rural sites, but rural solutions may not be applicable for urban sites.

Costs, maintenance, and descriptions for each stormwater management solution can be found below.

Vegetated filter strips utilize vegetated surfaces that primarily treat sheet flow. They are able to slow stormwater velocities, filter out sediment, and provide limited infiltration. Cost ranges for vegetated filter strips reflect varying complexities of systems; simple variations utilize seeding and planting, but larger systems and site characteristics may require “grading, level spreaders, pea gravel diaphragms or toe berms, [and/or] additional excavation.”

• Vegetation should be mowed, trimmed, watered, fertilized, and reseeded regularly
• Monitored and inspect for damage from traffic regularly
• Remove accumulated sediment and debris
• Average initial cost ranges from $0-$65,000
• Annual maintenance cost ranges from $130-$1,800

Bioretention utilizes landscaped depressions to collect and filter stormwater through a mix of soil, sand and/or gravel. They allow for infiltration as well as pollutant removal through filtration and plant uptake. The price range for bioretention depends largely on size of the system; generally, smaller systems are more expensive per acre.

• Similar maintenance to traditional landscaping, though may require less watering and frequent mowing
• Average initial cost ranges from $50,000-$200,000
• Maintenance cost is minimal

Grassed swales are a treatment and conveyance practice. Stormwater flows along vegetated open channels, allowing for sedimentation, soil filtration, and infiltration. The price range for swales depends largely on size of the system; generally, smaller systems are more expensive per acre.

• Provide litter control to swale
• Maintain grass or wetland plant cover
• Avoid using too much salt/sand around swale in winter
• Do not apply fertilizer
• Avoid piling snow that can crush plants or leach deicing materials into system
• Average initial cost ranges from $25,000-$50,000
• Annual maintenance cost is typically 5-7% of the construction cost

An infiltration trench is a gravel-filled trench that allows for stormwater to infiltrate into the ground.

• Replace pea gravel and topsoil when clogged
• Clear inlets of debris monthly
• Stabilize surrounding area monthly
• Mow grass and remove grass clippings from filter strip areas monthly
• Repair undercut and eroded areas at inflow/outflow structures monthly
• Inspect pretreatment devices and diversion structures for debris accumulation and structural integrity semi-annually
• Aerate pretreatment basin bottom or dethatch basin bottom annually
• Average initial cost ranges from $60,000-$70,000
• Annual maintenance cost ranges from 5-20% of construction cost

Sand filters include a settling chamber and filter bed filled with sand or another filtering media. They are primarily used for pollutant removal and are therefore able to improve water quality.

• Remove trash/debris as needed (at least semi-annually)
• Annually inspect for structural damage, leaks, erosion, and to ensure stormwater is not bypassing the unit
• Repair or replace damaged parts as needed
• Average initial cost is around $56,000
• Annual maintenance cost is typically $1,700 per year

Recommendations

For the construction of parking lots in all settings, the recommended material is porous asphalt. Unlike traditional asphalt, this material allows for water to infiltrate into the surrounding soil, minimizing chemical runoff.

Low-use parking areas may not require underdrains due to low usage and less compacted surrounding soils. Gravel is preferred when soil is stable and does not require additional reinforcement, and when drainage is the primary concern, but may not be appropriate when ADA accommodations are necessary. In low-use settings where ADA must be met, consider utilizing compacted limestone fines (such as a gradation of ¾-inch rock spread, compacted, and wetted in layers). If soil texture is less stable for construction, grid pavers can be utilized on top of compacted gravel and filled with gravel for a more durable, 100% permeable option. However, ensure gravel is sourced sustainably and responsibly. Gravel extraction can have environmental impacts, including soil erosion and habitat destruction.

• Vacuum sweeping (once or twice a year)
• Pressure washing (if deeply clogged)

Costs generally vary significantly from site to site. Though upfront costs are higher for permeable asphalt compared to standard asphalt, some studies do show utilization of permeable pavements resulting in cost savings over the pavements’ life span, largely due to reduced need for alternative, more expensive stormwater management solutions. Further details on porous versus standard asphalt maintenance can be found below.

Accessible parking guidelines are often updated, so developers must check with  Accessible Parking Spaces | ADA.gov  to ensure updated guidelines are being followed. Accessible parking spots must be located on the shortest accessible route to the trail entrance, ideally less than 200 ft away from the major components or the launch area. Generally, at least one accessible parking space is required for 25 parking spaces. At least one of every six spaces must be van accessible. All accessible spots must have a surface that is firm, stable, and slip-resistant, and should have no more than a 2.08% slope in all directions.

• Access aisles must be marked, the same length as the space, and level with the parking space
• Car accessible spaces must:
  • Be at least 96 inches wide
  • Have an access aisle at least 60 inches wide
  • Have a sign with the international symbol of accessibility on it, mounted at least 60 inches above the ground

Van accessible spaces must have two signs, mounted at least 60 inches above the ground. The first sign must have the international symbol of accessibility, and the second sign must state that the space is van accessible. They also must provide 98 inches of vertical clearance (van height) for the parking space, access aisle, and vehicular route. Van accessible spaces also must either:

• Be at least 132 inches wide
• Have an access aisle at least 60 inches wide

 _OR 

• Be at least 96 inches wide
• Have an access aisle at least 96 inches wide

Another key piece of infrastructure at an access point are their adjacent trails. Trail should be designed to minimize impact to both water quality and the surrounding riparian ecosystem.

• All trails surrounding waterways should be clearly defined with signage and built borders when necessary. This will prevent users from creating informal trails that harm the vegetation. 
• Riparian vegetation should never be removed for the construction of a trail. Riparian vegetation filters excess nutrients in runoff and prevents leakage into the waterway. Additionally, this vegetation ensures that the border of the waterway is resistant to erosion during times of high water levels. 
• Wood that is chemically treated should not be used for the construction of signs or borders that are in or near the water. Chemically treated wood can negatively affect water quality.

For trails in both high-use and urban settings, the recommended material is porous asphalt. For low-use rural trails, the recommended material is crushed stone, as this material minimizes cost and environmental impact.

When using crushed stone, ensure that the chosen material is 6% grade or less to comply with ADA guidelines. This ensures that wheelchair users are able to enjoy the trail and also reduces erosion. Crushed stone should also be surfaced with ⅜” crusher fines to further prevent erosion and spread of the trail. 

To ensure that porous asphalt retains its ability to absorb surface runoff, the material must be cleaned once to twice annually. Cleaning involves vacuum sweeping the surface and pressure washing when the surface becomes excessively clogged. The maintenance cost of cleaning ranges from $0.25-$0.50 per square foot for each cleaning event. Other sources of damage to porous asphalt trails are seen in the following figure, with the most common being tree roots. When tree roots cause cracks in asphalt, repair is required to prevent further deterioration. If a porous asphalt trail is heavily damaged, the cost of maintenance is approximately $2,435 per ten miles of trail that is ten feet wide. 

Crushed stone trails are made from compacted rock fragments. The maintenance of crushed stone trails does not require regular cleaning; however, crushed stone trails can require partial resurfacing after ten or more years of use. The following figure shows the most common damages to crushed stone trails.

The last central feature to consider when developing river access points are the actual launch points, where one can enter their watercraft into the river.

• Avoid environmentally sensitive areas that provide major ecosystems services, such as wetlands
• Make use of natural surfaces and gradual slopes
• Keep launch slope as close to 8% as possible
• Materials used in construction of launch should not be chemically treated
• Little to no onsite alteration is preferred 
• No potential obstructions are to be built in flood zones 
• When applicable, launch should follow ADA guidelines

When constructing physical launch points, there are three main materials one can utilize: concrete ramps, stair steps, and natural materials around the environment.

Concrete typically has the highest environmental disturbance and costs, but is the most versatile material, is easier to implement within urban environments, and can best accommodate various slopes. In addition, concrete slopes may be the easiest material to ensure ADA accommodations are met when applicable.

Stair step designs are most commonly used in steep streambank settings. Stair materials can be natural stone or concrete, depending on whether the launch point is in an urban or rural environment. This design may not be most accessible for those with physical disabilities.

Utilizing a local environment's natural materials is typically best when working with fine mineral soils. In addition, the use of the local environment's natural materials minimizes both environmental disturbances and financial costs. Crushed stone should be added to the launch point when subsoil texture is less stable.

When considering the development of future access point development, there are three main features to consider. These include:

• The route of the stream 
  • Whether the stream is curvy or straight 
• The shape of the streambanks and bottom 
  • Having high banks on each side of the stream is not ideal because the river will continue to widen. It is recommended that the stream has at least one low terrace streambank
• How accessible the location is for both users and maintenance 
  • Access points should be close to public roads for ease of accessibility 

A prospective access point for non-motorized watercraft should be in a location with:

• Low exposure to strong wind and currents to avoid erosion and sediment accumulation
• No physical barriers, such as dams and steep banks
• Ideal water quality and water level
  • The minimum water level for access points should be between 1.5 to 2.5 feet deep. 
  • Water quality should allow for clear water visibility for safety purposes
• Little lateral movement to avoid erosion of the river bank 
• Clear visibility of the access point from both the river and shore so users know where to properly enter and exit the river
  • It is recommended that adjacent access points be no more than 10 river miles apart. 
• No environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands

• Coves and inlets 
  • These areas generally have low exposure to strong currents and wind, making them ideal for avoiding erosion and sediment accumulation
• On the inside of a meandering bend, also known as point bars

• Shoals 
  • These areas are generally shallow and have a low velocity of water due to a course river bottom

• Runs 
  • These straight sections of channel are generally seen as the best locations due to being the least environmentally invasive, cost effective, and having low maintenance requirements

We hope that these guidelines will be used to further harmonize recreation and environmental stewardship  through the improvement of water access points. If access points are further developed, or newly constructed, we encourage developers and jurisdictions to comply with these guidelines to prioritize the water quality of Central Ohio's rivers. As the use of the Central Ohio Blueways is expected to increase with the continued growth of areas surrounding the Columbus Metropolitan Area, minimizing environmental impact will allow residents to enjoy the natural beauty Ohio has to offer.

We would like to thank Jonathan Miller from MORPC, the members of the Central Ohio Blueways Advisory Panel, and the survey respondents for providing input on key stakeholder concerns and guiding us through the process of developing these guidelines.

1. City of Westerville, County of Delaware, ©OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies Inc., METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
2. Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies Inc., METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
3. Franklin County Auditor, ©OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies Inc., METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA