Date Comments

I understand that the county is reviewing the possibility of creating a boat launch at Spring Farms in Arnold. I am a life long resident of Bayberry, one of the communities adjacent to this proposed property and have many concerns about this possibility. To get to this property, you must drive through small, private communities, that have a high concentration of children. The increase usage of these roads, by trucks pulling boats on trailers, is a significant accident hazard. This is a quiet neighborhood area, and this project would change these neighborhoods for the negative with the increase traffic. We have already had traffic calmers installed on some of these roads, and this would only increase the likely hood of a severe injury. I would also have you consider the ability to put boats in and out of this area. I know this farm and the water ways extremely well. The depth of water makes it extremely hard to have a boat ramp at this location. The entire coastline and water front area is 1 to 2 feet of water, for almost 150 -200 feet out. The cost to dredge and maintain a depth that would be feasible for a boat launch seems to me to be incredibly high. Not to mention, the current access is a cliff with about a 35 foot drop. Being a citizen of Anne Arundel County, 6/22/2017 and the local neighborhood surrounding Sprigg Farms, I implore you to think about the negative implications to this possible boat launch site. Spriggs Farm is NOT a good location for a boat ramp. Spriggs farm is located within a neighborhood of over a 1,000 homes and countless children (with no sidewalks). The increased traffic will cause unnecessary traffic, increased safety concerns and reduce property values (as well as property taxes). Do not build a public ramp in the middle of an 6/22/2017 established neighborhood.

As a resident of Ulmstead, I strongly object to the proposed boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. This is right in the middle of our neighborhood and an adjoining neighborhood - Bayberry - in a residential area. All houses are occupied by families, most of which have children who regularly use the road by Spriggs Farm for biking and playing with friends. It would result in significantly increased traffic in our neighborhood, as people would have to travel through our neighborhood to access the public boat ramp. It would also decrease the enjoyment of the neighborhood roads by residents when people attempting to travel to the proposed boat ramp cut through the neighborhood. It also decreases the property values of homes near the Park because they will face increased traffic from people trying to access the boat ramp. I believe the County should hold an open meeting where residents can express their 6/22/2017 concerns before constructing a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm in the middle of two residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

I am completely opposed to this. The access area is in the middle of a residential area. To enter Spriggs Farm you have to drive through 2 different communities to access it. The 6/22/2017 intent of preserving the Farm was to allow people to visit the farm and enjoy the nature. I parking lot would be added and and the natural resources would be disturbed. Site 5 (Spriggs Farm) is not a good location. This location is right in the middle of a neighborhood with a lot of kid activity...bikes, skateboards, walking, running etc. The boat ramp 6/22/2017 will cause increased traffic which will bring with it safety and crime concerns. I live nearby and think it would add too much traffic and potential crime in this quiet community. The roads are busy already with just our neighbors. Plus, there are no sidewalks and I 6/22/2017 find it even difficult walking on Bayberry Dr.. I vote against adding a boat ramp. I oppose a public boat ramp at Springs Farm Park. Traffic on Shore Acres Road is already too fast and dangerous for our children. Traffic calming measures were just installed recently to calm traffic on Shore Acres. A public boat ramp would only serve to increase traffic on Shore Acres and increase traffic in the Ulmstead and Bayberry Communities. A 6/22/2017 Public Boat Ramp in the middle of a residential neighborhood full of young children is a terrible idea.

I am extremely against doing this at Spriggs Farm. This is in the middle of a private residential neighborhood and the traffic would make the roads unsafe for the community. Too 6/22/2017 many cars coming through. There are many other options in the county where this makes more sense and is less costly. Please please do not go through with this plan.

To put a boat ramp inside Spriggs Park in a dead end community with over 70 young children in Bayberry alone is is a bad idea! all Kids play in this "Low Use Park" We don't want a bunch of strangers driving back and forth with their trying to cross back into their neighborhoods.. you have Stonington, Ulmstead and Bayberry communities that this will be effect. 6/22/2017 Don't forget who is pays the most taxes!!! Your plan looks like you want to turn this beautiful nature preserve into a parking lot! Please do not put one at Spriggs Farm. The roads leading In are narrow and hilly and filled with children on bikes,people walking with their pets and pushing strollers. It would seriously impact their safety. There are no street lights and no sidewalks. It would put our community in jeopardy. Sandy Point also does a great job of providing docks for the public 6/22/2017 in this area.

While I appreciate the efforts by the County to increase public access to water, I am very opposed to opening the Spriggs Farm location. There are public access facilities at Sandy Point and Quiet Waters. Neither of these facilities go directly into a neighborhood of homes where hundreds of children ride their bikes and walk the residential streets. Bayberry Drive is not even marked for road traffic and is so narrow that if someone is parked on the road cars have to stop to let others go by. The dangers of opening this area up to increased traffic on residential streets is unsafe and irresponsible. This is a residential neighborhood. Not only will we see increased traffic volume, but we will also have to deal with trailers and boats on narrow residential streets. I live ON Bayberry Drive. I have already seen significant increased traffic due to kayakers and others visiting Spriggs Farm. I am 6/22/2017 vehemently opposed to a boat ramp. Our residential neighborhood is no place for a public ramp which will bring increased traffic and tremendous safety concerns. 6/22/2017 I am against this public boat ramp. Too much traffic and will be to congested in such a small quiet community.

Bayberry Rd the route to Spriggs Farm is too narrow and has no sidewalks. Many neighbors walk and bike including children along this route to access the pool, tennis courts and the 6/22/2017 playground. Minimal street lights are on this route. Please do not consider this a public acess point. Sandy point is 5 minutes away. Spriggs Farm Park is not a good option for the boat ramp for three main reasons: 1. it is in a heavily residential area 2. the shallow water at the beach is not suitable for anything 6/22/2017 other than kayaks, canoes. Dredging is expensive 3. very high cost in comparison to the other sites. I am strongly against this proposal. Shore Acres Rd, as well as Bayberry Drive and other residential streets in Ulmstead Estates and Byberry subdivisions cannot handle the added 6/22/2017 traffic and it would cause a safety hazard to neighbor children and pets. I am absolutely against a boat ramp at this location. As someone who lives in Ulmstead, the traffic at Lynch and bayberry is bad enough as is. With the additional traffic in this area it 6/22/2017 would create a much less desirable community to live in. Placing a boat ramp in my community is a careless choice. Ulmstead Estates and Bayberry communities pride themselves on maintaining a quiet peaceful neighborhood where children can ride their bikes safely in the streets. In addition, it's relatively safe here considering there are only two entrances to the neighborhoods. If the public boat ramp is built, boat trailer traffic will surely increase on our quiet, narrow residential streets creating an unsafe passageway for children and pedestrians. Furthermore it poses a safety concern for 6/22/2017 our community with additional people coming in and out of our neighborhood. 6/22/2017 Spriggs farm site to costly roads inadequate for large volume cars and boat. disruprion of ecosystem and park. Do not place ramp at this site.

As a member of the Ulmstead community, I am sending my opposition for a boat ramp to be added to our neighborhood. The reasons are as followed: - increased traffic in the neighborhood of Ulmstead on the road of Bayberry will be dangerous. There are numerous children who ride their bikes on this street which is more narrow than other parts of the neighborhood. There is not a side walk, nor a decent shoulder to allow two cars and someone riding a bike, or walking at the same time. Increase traffic with boats sounds like an 6/22/2017 accident in waiting. The speed bumps are in place however, this often doesn't slow a large truck with a boat in tow going down hill. Please reconsider for the safety of our children! A boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is a bad idea. Especially with an entrance at the end of Bayberry. The neighborhood can't handle the traffic. How would someone towing a boat make the turn at the end of Bayberry to enter the park? There's not enough room. This is a quiet residential neighborhood and the roads are designed as such. We have a speed limit of 25 and narrow roads. People not familiar with the area will be racing through here towing boats. The park as it is now is relatively peaceful and has a lot of natural beauty. Why ruin that? 6/22/2017 Also, 1.8 million dollars would be better spent elsewhere in the County 6/22/2017 Sounds great! We need more public access to water! Putting a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is not a good idea. The roadways to Spriggs Farm are already full with residents of the surrounding communities including children who are 6/22/2017 walking and riding their bikes. If you want to spend government money, please, please, please put in a bike path instead!

We moved to Ulmstead to raise our children in a very quiet and safe neighborhood. My kids are out on their bikes all over the neighborhood everyday and I never think twice. Our kids walk from both neighborhoods to the pool early in the morning to swim practice. We walk and run throughout Ulmstead and Bayberry and never have to worry about traffic. You CANNOT put in a public boat ramp in Bayberry. Our roads cannot handle the extra traffic with trucks and trailers. We don't want anymore car traffic with our kids out in the very safe streets playing street hockey and skateboarding. You will ruin our amazing neighborhood and will be opening up our very private and safe neighborhood to strangers. Please don't 6/22/2017 ruin that for our children! Please don't invite the public into our very special community that we have here! The traffic on bayberry drive would be horrendous if you put in a boat ramp. That is NOT the agreed plan There is already traffic due to the kayaks. Also there is no police presence as vandals are constantly at the historical house. Also the practicality of a boat ramp is rediculous. The entire area would have to be dredged it is so shallow. There is barely a beach left. Accommodating who the park was originally planned for kayakers and hikers would be nice. Thank you. Also the only other path has been blocked by a downed tree. It would be 6/22/2017 nice to have that removed. The proposed plans for a full recreational development of this park will already disturb enough of the critical area, amidst a residential neighborhood, with limited vehicular access. Turning from MD-214/Central Avenue onto Loch Haven Drive (and vise versa) is already difficult (no stop light, must wait for a gap in traffic), given the narrow lanes and existing traffic leaving/entering the Mayo Peninsula. I cannot imagine the challenge of navigating that turn with a trailer. The current infrastructure is not adequate to support a public boat ramp and improving it is not proposed. The state of such public infrastructure does warrant consideration when designating which locations should be further studied for development. Within the Tier 1 listing of potential boat ramp sites, please place South River Farms as the lowest priority for development or 8/12/2017 downgrade it to Tier 2.

I live in the Edgewater/Mayo area and am not in a neighborhood that has water access, and I’m sure there are other homeowners in the area in the same position. It would be nice for our underutilized local parkland would be improved to provide water access, as well as better land use. It would also be nice if access could be limited to either county or state residents. We have attempted to use Carr's Wharf park to launch Kayaks to find the lot full of cars from Virginia and Washington DC. 8/14/2017 There shouldn't be a commission for the development of the Mayo Peninsula, when in the hell are you going to stop running all the wildlife away from their habitats on the "Peninsula" for the last thirty years all you have done is destroy hundreds of acres of habitat, by building homes on every spot on this Peninsula first you started with those townhouses across from the S.River high school, on a technicality that was wet lands supporting Glebe Bay and the S.River, everytime you build another house you destroy habitat, it doesn't take a STUDY to see that, who profits from the study, probably the politician who ordered the study. We DO NOT NEED any boat ramps, for more polluting gas or diesel engines on the S.River, The West River or the Chesapeake Bay. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out either. LEAVE THE MAYO PENINSULA ALONE BEFORE YOU LOOSE EVERYTHING ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY. You don't see development on ST. Michaels the rich and powerful wouldn't dare let you build there. Who is really going to profit from more development on the Chesapeake Bay, all building development should be stopped in and around the Chesapeake water shed. Why not do a study on which politicians are going to profit or become more wealthy from the 8/14/2017 DEVELOPMENT anywhere on the Chesapeake. NO ONE CAN EARN A MILLION DOLLARS HONESTLY I'm opposed to the installation of a boat ramp at South River Farm Park and extended development of Carr's Wharf on the Mayo Peninsula. The Loch Haven Road intersection on Central Ave is already labeled a troubled intersection. Adding trailered boats to this intersection will increase risk to those traveling on Central Ave. I am concerned that adding paved surface and taking down trees for boat ramps will continue to decrease the already poor water quality on the South River and surrounding waterways. I have great concern that a boat ramp and increased boat traffic will negatively impact plant and wildlife. I thought we are to be saving the bay and local waters?? This development and others proposed for Mayo does the exact opposite. Also, is there an adequate study that illustrates a need for a public ramp in Mayo? We have a surplus of marinas in 8/14/2017 operation. I ask the county to take Mayo locations off of their list for boat ramps. no more traffic on 214 on Mayo Peninsula . there are several boat ramps on the peninsula now .why take the revenue away from these businessman who paid $$$$ to build there ramps and the county uses tax $$$ to build free ramps!! what happened to incentives to build business in AA county??? AA county should build and support efforts to better this 8/15/2017 county and sty out of efforts to destroy local communities I recommend and support the proposed boat ramp project. As a resident of Mayo, county access to the water is limited for those of us with trailered boats. Please keep this project 8/15/2015 funded and on track. Boat ramps are a good thing in the abstract. I support them. But much more careful examination of the environmental disturbance they will cause, the responsible remediation 8/15/2017 required to prevent further degradation of the fragile bay, and the true cost thereof, must be carried out before proceeding further.

I would not be opposed to adding NECESSARY Boat Launch Sites if I saw a Truthful “Needs” Study. Where is the "NEEDS Analysis"? It would help the citizens make sense of your Boat Launch Proposal. • The Boat Launch Study shows diagrams for 34,000 boats, yet there are 14,000 trailered. Does that make sense, that the charts represent 34K, not 14K? Where does the "14,000" Number come from? Not footnoted. It is confusing the public by giving statistics for the 34K figure. The only appropriate number is the number of TRAILERED boats that don't have ramp access within their community. • Mayo has at least 6 Public Boat Launch Sites. Consider that you are taking away business from marinas there, who have launch sites available. These businesses are trying to make a living. When you add that to taking out forest in South River Farm Park, how smart is adding a launch site in Mayo? • If FORESTS KEEP THE BAY CLEAN, Why would any group of intelligent Bay Lovers think it's ok to take out trees from a RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA, add impervious surface, create erosion issues, dredge, harm the submerged aquatic vegetation (safe harbor for young crabs, and fish) -- Why, because [Section 17-2-101(a)] of the County Code "does not apply to land developed by the County"? How sickening. The county does not have to abide by the same Code that Citizens do. "The county needs to set the Golden Standard for Saving the Bay" • There are such things as Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) -- plants, animals, birds. Where is the study that considers their life? Does WAC care about these living organisms? • About 15 years ago, a program began to establish beach grasses on the perimeter of SRFarm Park. The grasses are now, slowly, taking hold. The one thing that is growing in the greenhouses at South River Farm Park is Beach Grass. That's WHAT they "Farm" at South River FARM Park! Development of SRFPark interferes with an area that is suppose to be CONSERVED-- RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA...“RCA”. • Couldn't a smarter, more economical solution, be to partner with existing businesses? Perhaps offer compensation to a marina for taking on launches from those who cannot afford the twenty-or-so dollars that it costs to launch at a public site -- OR, Can AA County purchase the dilapidated RiverView, near YellowFin, on Route 2? An unused boat ramp already exists there. • Anywhere in the county --> PRESERVATION of a RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA should come FIRST before any Boat Launch, or any development at all. -- Mayo, Annapolis Neck, Broadneck -- How many of the recommended sites are RCA -- Resource Conservation Areas??? Please, live the words in your Vision Statement, Mr. Schuh -- “We have a Specia responsibility to nurture the critical asset of our shoreline , and, as County Executive, I will preserve our open spaces, and lead the effort to restore our waterways.” "RESTORE" , Mr. Schuh. Please.

8/15/2017 I am writing you directly to voice my opposition to the proposed motorized boat ramp that has been suggested for South River Farm Park as suggested by BayLand Consultants & Designers, Inc. LLC. I understand that the locations evaluated in the feasibility study that included a number of other sites were suggested by the county as part of a larger initiative to increase public access to local waterways throughout the County. Although I'm not opposed to the county developing South River Farm, I am very much opposed to any development that has the potential to exacerbate existing issues that are already adversely impacting the environment, public safety and the overall quality of life of residents who live in and around the 5 proposed Mayo peninsula parks. Beyond the county owning the property, there are no other plausible reasons for selecting SRF for a power boat ramp. The following are the most compelling reasons to abandon this location: The South River is currently on Maryland's 303(d) list of impaired and threatened waterways and any increased development associated with the parking required for trailers and tow vehicles will contribute to additional and unnecessary polluted storm water runoff. In turn, this additional pollution will jeopardize the work the South River Federation has been doing to restore and protect the river's shoreline and the recovery of river grasses required to support crabs, fish, and shellfish. Any increase in motorized boat traffic at the proposed site will contribute to shoreline erosion and sedimentation, which will require significant taxpayer funding for ongoing maintenance and dredging. Construction will destroy habitat associated with the interior forest trees and the recovery of underwater grasses, which are critical to maintaining a healthy wildlife and natural park environment. Increased vehicular traffic and trailering through a private community (Loch Haven) in close proximity to the community's recreation area puts the public safety at risk on roads that were designed for residential traffic. There are no sidewalks or shoulders in this neighborhood. ‐ There are numerous other existing locations on the South River for power boat water access. Why not pursue establishing relationships with area marinas and yacht clubs for access. A private or public partnership with these businesses would involve little or no additional environmental impact. This study and any planned motorized boat ramp development as outlined for SRF is a blatant contradiction of the vision the county is promoting http://www.aacounty.org/our‐county/vision‐ mission/index.html to "enhance our natural environment by cleaning up our waterways and protecting our open spaces". There is nothing about this proposed powerboat ramp project that either enhances or protects our open spaces or the environment. South River Farm Park which is the largest of the 5 parks planned for the peninsula should be developed in a way that preserves as much of the natural ecosystem as possible and with as much public input and involvement as possible. As a result, I am opposed to the proposed expansion of any kind of water access beyond that which would accommodate an environmentally friendly way of preserving our waterways and protecting our open spaces. Let's work together on next steps. Anything short of collaborating with residents and other county agencies on projects of this complexity will result in the commission and the county from fulfilling its vision and commitment to “enhancing and protecting our natural environment.”

8/17/2017

8/17/2017 Cannot copy letter from file

8/17/2017 Cannot copy letter from file Not that this will go anywhere because I know the mission of the WAC. Considering we have so many ramps already on the Mayo Peninsula, I do not feel developing, dredging and paving more ramps is needed nor kind to our neighbors and our environment. Every neighborhood on this Peninsula has a ramp. So when the study counted the number of boats in need of access, the count was skewed. It was in considerate of the facts of people all over the county regarding the need for access. Please drop this from your plans and the county budget. Use the money for fire, police and addiction causes. I know politically WAC will feel the need to make a statement proving us wrong and WAC right. Fighting 8/17/2017 windmills.

Following a careful review of the County's Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study, the Board of Directors of the Saunders Point Citizens Association has voted to oppose the construction of the proposed boat launches at Carr's Wharf, South River Farm Park and Quiet Waters Park. The attached letter is offered in 8/18/2017 comment. Cannot copy the PDF File. Following a careful review and consideration of the County-sponsored Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study at our recent meeting, the Board of Directors of the Mayo Civic Association (MCA) has voted to oppose the construction of boat ramps on the South River at Quiet Waters Park and South River Farm Park for 8/18/2017 power boats, motorized water craft and jet skis. The following comments are submitted by the South RIVERKEEPER® on behalf of the South River Federation (“SRF”) in reference to the Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study (“Study”) from January, 2017 prepared by Bay Land Consultants and Engineers, Inc., for the Department of Public Works (“DPW”). Overall, SRF agrees that increased public access to our County’s waterways is necessary. As the Study points out, Anne Arundel County has the least public boat ramps per 10,000 vessels of any county in the State. In light of the County’s 500+ miles of shoreline, more than any other County, this shortage is regrettable, but can and should be addressed. However, it is vital that the increase in access to our treasured waterways does not come at the expense of the waterways themselves. For that reason, SRF recommends against adopting the proposals outlined in the Study for the two projects on the South River, at Quiet Waters Park and at South River Farm Park. As outlined in the Study, each of these proposals would clear large swaths of mature forest, destroy habitat and disrupt sensitive shorelines. More specifically, SRF has the following concerns: Quiet Waters Park - SAV - Several shortcomings in the desktop analysis must be addressed. First, the finding that “VIMS SAV surveys indicated no SAV has been observed along the shoreline of Quiet Waters Park from 1984 to 2015” is problematic because VIMS flyovers of the South River occur later in summer. For example, in 2016 the flyover was on August 14. In 2015, the flyover was on September 16. In 2014, there were two dates; September 27 and October 17. Unfortunately, these late summer/early fall flyovers do not capture the presence of a vital species of SAV, Horned Pondweed Zannichellia palustris. As noted by the Department of natural Resources, “Horned pondweed is an annual plant and is one of the first SAV to appear in the early spring. By June as water temperatures warm, the plants release their seeds and die back.”1 (Emphasis added). Thus, VIMS imagery does not account for the presence of Horned pondweed in Harness Creek. Fortunately, SRF has mapped horned pond weed in close proximity to the proposed site of the boat ram, as shown in the two maps attached as Exhibits 1 & 2.2 The dredging required to create and maintain the boat ramp as proposed, combined with the increase in boat traffic from Area 3 would disrupt these grass beds and cause the loss of habitat for aquatic organisms, the production of dissolved oxygen in the water column through photosynthesis, and the prevention of erosion through attenuation of wave action. Historic and Archaeological Resources - It is unclear why “[r]esponses to the trilogy letters sent to the USFWS, MHT and DNR indicate no additional areas of concern.” (Study, p.70) in light of the fact that the Lost Towns Project submitted a report to the Maryland Historical Trust in June, 2010 titled “GIS Tool and Assessment of Four Middle Woodland Sites in Anne Arundel County, Maryland” which indicates Native American archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the proposed boat ramp. (“Archaeological Study”) (See Exhibit 3-excerpt from Archaeological Study).3 As noted in the Archaeological Study, the study site, “Site 18AN480, Quiet Waters I, is located on a low terrace above a small cove that is a tributary to Harness Creek.” (Archaeological Study, p.27). More specifically, the location of the study area is reflected in a map in the Archaeological Study, on page 2. The specific location is in the northern cove, nearby the proposed boat ramp. Among the artifacts recovered from the site in June and July, 2009 were “a broken rhyolite knife, a possibly bone tool, lithics, and several larger sherds of Mockley cord-wrapped sherds.” (Id p.32). Several other artifacts were recovered, and the full catalogue, including some photographs, is included in Exhibit 3. Notably, Exhibit 3 also notes that there are still resources to be examined in the area, and that all are at risk from erosion. This site does show evidence of erosion and as such is in danger from natural forces. The area along the shore line shows signs of eroding, as shells are visible along the banks leading down into the river. There is the potential for further excavations, as the site is intact. The fact that no sign of any structures have been found as of yet, should not discourage future attempts. The area around the general midden has yet to be thoroughly excavated… (Id. p.39). The increased boat traffic in the area that can be expected from the placement of a boat ramp in the vicinity puts these historic, archaeological resources at risk and should be avoided. FIDS As noted in the Study, p.70, “the site contains Forest Interior Dwelling Species and any site development will need to consider A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay” (“FIDS Guide”). In turn, the FIDS Guide places great emphasis on the fragmentation of large forested tracts, and provides specific recommendations with respect to roads such as the access road contemplated by the study. Specifically, the FIDS Guide states expresses the following Site Design Guidelines: “1. Restrict development to nonforested areas…6. Minimize the number and length of driveways and roads. 7. Roads and driveways should be as narrow as possible; preferably less than 25 feet in width and 15 feet in width, respectively. 8. 8/18/2017 Maintain forest canopy closure over roads and driveways. Sixty nine pages of comments cannot be downloaded into this comment sheet. 8/21/2017 Federation (“SRF”) in reference to the Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study (“Study”) from January, 2017 I am writing in regard to the boat launch study dated January 2017 that gives overviews of 8 county parks that have been selected for proposed boat launch feasibility. I am trying hard to understand, that when we are doing all we can to help the Bay, Anne Arundel County decides to decimate Critical Area for public boat launches when there has not been any clear need. The boat launch study cites that there are 14,000 trailered boats in Anne Arundel County. The 14,000 trailered boats doesn’t take into account private homes and marinas where the majority of people access the water. Riverside Marine beside Yellowfin Restaurant has been vacant for years. It has a boat launch, parking and it’s conveniently located. I don’t understand destroying a natural park when there are other areas that can be used. I have been told that Selby Bay has some of the healthiest Bay grasses in the South River. These grasses are extremely important for young fish and crabs to seek protection from predators. We have many commercial and residential crabbers that crab in Selby Bay. My son is a commercial waterman and there are times when he crabs in Selby Bay. This is his business. This is how he pays his bills. It’s very difficult to make a living in a Bay where boats are constantly going back and forth and half the time these boaters are ‘weekend warriors’ and don’t look for crabbing gear and wind up cutting 9/9/2017 trotlines and running over floats.

As a boat owner, I agree that the lack of public launching facilities should be addressed. However, the infrastructure that needs to be inn place HAS to come first. I will only speak to South river farm park and Carrs wharf as I am not as familiar with the others. Rt. 214 is already SIGNIFICANTLY overloaded and way behind the times. That road was designed for Model-Ts and has NOT been upgraded (except for a very few sections) since that time period. I have sat in traffic every day on this road, and it will only get worse with the lifting of the sewer moratorium, allowing the building of hundreds of new homes (a thousand more cars a day, likely), and the opening of the parks on the end of the pennisula. Rt. 214 has NO drainage and floods frequently. It has NO available space, the power poles are right NEXT TOO the white line. It is simply NOT able to handle the modern traffic demands. For DECADES, we had heard "It's a state road". "There is no way to widen it." We have, for the instance, been waiting since 2005(!) for the minor and not nearly enough improvements to the muddy creek intersection. 2) There is NO emergency responder access. Our response times are way below average and way below what is safe. 3) The existing facilities at these two parks are not able to handle the vehicles that will be coming should these ramps be built. 4) Why do the critical areas only apply to homeowners? If I expand my impervious surface, I am damaging the bay, but the county can pave hundreds of parking spaces right ON the water? 5) EXTENSIVE dredging would be necessary for both of these ramps. How about using some of the existing ramps on private marinas that already HAVE pavement, dredged ramps, AND infrastructure? Oh, and speaking of infrastructure: Policing of these areas? Are we staffed for that? Bathrooms? Well, there is no water! We know that, as there would have to be a well. We NEED critical infrastructure improvements BEFORE BOAT RAMPS!!!!! We need ROADS! We need SEWER systems that WORK! We need City water. We need Natural Gas. We need electric utilities buried 9/15/2017 and moved off poles. No more building without the infrastructure to support it! I am one of many county residents who are baffled at why the county government wants to spend our tax money to develop parks for launching boats. In my 40 years in Anne Arundel county I've never had a problem launching a boat. The numerous marinas in Anne Arundel county already having boat ramps, restrooms, parking and pump out facilities for boat owners to use makes me and many others question this whole thing. If you own a boat and the many things required to trailer it to a site to launch the boat I believe you can afford the small amount of money it takes to use the already existing marinas facilities. No need to have Anne Arundel county taxpayers pay for county residents to use a boat ramp or inevitably non county residents. I along with what I would bet would be the majority of Anne Arundel county taxpayers would rather any money to be spent on this project go to schools, firefighters and police. If not there then road improvements or combating drug abuse as county executive Shuh has been speaking to both issues in county and even out of the county recently. Aside from the money, which is bad enough in itself, the infrastructure to support the added traffic congestion, trash, needed policing of these new areas of inevitable outside of the county interest etc. will be a major concern that I and many believe have not been adequately addressed or taken seriously in any meeting concerning this topic at county government level. I and many would suggest a public private partnership with existing boat launch facilities county wide to promote these places and where needed possibly subsidize improvements to facilities which would be then run by marinas and not the county thereby saving tax dollars. In the same breath promote these businesses of which the county marinas are. This would be a win financially for all sides involved county and businesses. It would also be a win for environmental protection of county parks and free up future money to be spent on more important priorities in our county. To close, our priorities have to be schools, police, firefighters and infrastructure before "immenaties" for 9/15/2017 those well off enough to own a boat.

10/31/2017 Please consider my recommendation that the county not use Spriggs Farm in Arnold as a boat launch facility. The property is not appropriate for any type of development.

DATE COMMENTS

The study did not do a complete analysis of a few sites that could have still been constructed for boat ramp use. Instead, it made recommendations that go directly into neighborhoods, which are usually through narrow roads and are with considerable pedestrian traffic and children crossing the street to visit other kids throughout the day (even before dawn when there are joggers) and parked cars on roads that are barely two car widths wide ‐ I provided a picture of one boat being trailered in the neighborhood. A fifteen foot grade in Spriggs Pond is not insignificant but was rated a Tier 1; as opposed to sites in North Anne Arundel which may either have 20‐30 foot grades or pilings in the water but don't go past residences, yet don't have underlying cost analyses. The site near Old Stein Inn runs through residences and thankfully did not warrant a Tier 1 designation because of space issues. I would have elevated two of the North Arundel sites that did not come close to the neighborhoods and increased the number of ramps at Quiet Waters Park. Furthermore, having some of the greatest waterfront footage among Maryland counties also means that more communities themselves already have boat ramps. The population of Baltimore County is much higher than that of Anne Arundel, so they would naturally warrant better access to its rivers, lakes and the Bay. Mr. Schuh should value safety and noise in these neighborhoods more highly than just finding a convenient spot to place 50 trailers. He would still be able to chalk up a win by developing sites that don't endanger our children and possibly even decrease the value of 09/15/17 our homes.

As a resident of Arnold, I am supportive of improving access to Anne Arundel County waterways, however not for the amount of tax paper dollars proposed for ramps at Spriggs Farm. Destruction of the shoreline, extensive dredging, and grading, as well poor access to the farm site should eliminate this site. Public Private partnerships 09/15/17 should be explored. The farm was purchased with Open Space money with the agreement it would be for passive soft launch only and it should remain as such. 09/15/17 See attached letter from Arnold Preservation Council representing over 5000 Arnold residents.

I am writing in response to the Boat Ramp Study. As a board member of the Neighbors of the Mayo Peninsula, my response with the group came in a letter from Dianna Jones and Anthony Brent on August 8, 2017 (letter attached). I have also been visiting marinas in our area and asking what their infrastructure is; if they have a ramp; what they charge; and, if they think the County will hurt their business. Most interestingly, not one had any idea of what is going on. Those who do have ramps, and are very close in ramp fees to what the County is charging at new ramp at Fort Smallwood, said they would welcome new business. With 221 marinas in Anne Arundel Co. in 2010, (I’ve attached 2 maps but the entire survey link is http://www.aacounty.org/…/forms‐an…/20110526_AACoMarinas.pdf), and as stated in this study: Page 3 ‐ 'The highest number of commercial marina boat slips are found on Rockhold Creek and the South River...' The South River, Table 3 on page 4, has 24.3% of 'Distribution of Marina Boat Slips Per Watercourse' ‐ the largest % in the County. Interesting! With so much existing infrastructure, why isn't the County looking into some private/public partnerships? How about working with some of Anne Arundel County's local, small businesses? Why do we need to dredge an area with lots of aquatic grasses that are vital to the health of the Bay? How often will the County need to dredge it to keep it clear with the existing currents that have been silting neighboring areas? Why do we need to disturb another marsh area destroying the natural habitat for the local wildlife? Why do we need to add more impervious surface onto a wooded natural area to get to it? Why do we need to add more parking spaces and roadways to a new ramp area when we have so much existing infrastructure? Why do we need to add more traffic to Loch Haven Road ‐ the only road listed as a dangerous intersection with Rt 214 in the 2002 Small Area Plan and the only change to that intersection since then has been the addition of more traffic? Mayo is already suffering major infrastructure failings and with the lifting of the building moratorium, proposals for 5 parks, proposal for new ball fields, one existing pier/boat ramp at Carr’s Wharf and proposal of a new ramp – this will create total gridlock and endanger the safety and welfare of the entire Mayo Peninsula. WHY?! Let's get smarter about how we spend OUR tax dollars, take care of our environment, work with small businesses and ensure the 09/15/17 safety of and welfare of Mayo! I oppose the use of the South River Farms Park for a new boat ramp development in AA county. Public Access & public safety, unanticipated developmental costs, environmental impact, & conflict with existing commercial boat launches are major considerations. ‐‐ First public access on the Mayo peninsula and into the Loch Haven community are already heavily congested. Increased traffic in a congested developing area will compound the traffic problems we have, and INCREASE THE LIKELYHOOD OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. In Loch Haven the very narrow street and limited turn into the park will be most problematic for trailering significant numbers of boats in and out of the park. Furthermore, where there are no sidewalks in a neighborhood where children and adults use the streets for walking, jogging and cycling PUBLIC SAFETY will be a very significant problem. Probability for pedestrian/vehicular accidents will be significantly increased by this project as planned. NO DEVELOPMENT SHOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE PUBLIC SAFETY without major efforts to MITIGATE THE RISK, ie. widening of roadways, park entrance, and public walkways/sidewalks & bike paths. ‐‐ Second unplanned development costs/consequences would be the destruction of a neigborhood roadway not designed for significant traffic increases ‐‐ eventually requiring complete reconstruction of the roadway infrastructure of Loch Haven Drive. (mitigation of these costs could be built into the SRF by shifting these resources into the development of access from RT 214 thru existing county properties.)Additionally the use of Loch Haven drive, which is unacceptable, would require signalization of the intersection of LH drive and 214 with appropriate turnout lanes for traffic safety. Finally the design of the boat ramp does not include the costs of pavement of all boat ramp access roadways which should be included in realistic cost estimates for development. ‐‐ Third, the environmental impacts to Selby Bay seem obvious as previously undeveloped areas of shoreline will be impacted by development and the ongoing need for periodic maintenance dredging ‐‐ while existing commercial ramp facilities nearby already serve the community need without affecting these wetland areas of purposed development. ‐‐ Fourth There significantly developed commercial areas where local business always need the added revenues of launch fees, so what is the hidden cost/impact to these marina's? An apparently there are public boat launches not mentioned in the report at Sandy Point St. Park. In my view, if there is any need for more public access in AA County the Quite Waters Park is much more suitable for this development because the highway access and supporting park infrastructure is already fully developed, and would essentially 09/14/17 allow access to the South River water areas. For these reasons I am currently opposed to the use of the South River Farms development for a new county boat launch.

I do not support construction of a boat ramp at South River Farm Park; it should remain a passive use park with emphasis on preserving the natural environment and protecting the Selby Bay, the South River and the Ches Bay. Removing trees and creating more impervious surface will only add to the waters' problems. Instead, the 09/14/17 county should spend dollars on partnering with existing commercial marinas to provide free boat ramp access to RESIDENTS. Thank you. We purchased our home on Branhum Rd. expecting that the other side of the creek would not be developed. thus contruction would destroyed the wildlife surrounding 09/14/17 this area.

| Reluctantly Pro‐Development of Spriggs Farm |. I am an avid kayaker and in my opinion the last thing the world needs is more powerboats. That being said, the Magothy River and Chesapeake Bay need more PUBLIC water access points. I was shocked when I moved to the area in 2008 and learned that the county has 520 miles of coastline and just 2 public boat ramp facilities (Truxton and Sandy Pt.). The best way to ensure the long term protection of the bay is to increase the number of stakeholders. I live in a community off Shore Acres about 1.5 miles from Spriggs Farm. The development will indirectly benefit me. Nearby public water access will certainly increase the value of my non‐waterfront privileged property. It seems that Ulmstead's primary objection boils down to NIMBY (Not‐In‐My‐Back‐Yard). They, as a community, have private boat ramps & marinas and are vehemently opposed to this opportunity for public water access. It's tough to find credibility in their argument given that they already enjoy the very thing they are opposing. I do, however, agree with three of their arguments against Spriggs development: 1) increased traffic on the narrow winding residential streets, 2) the high cost of initial construction at Spriggs compared to other sites, and 3) the likely recurring cost of dredging. One solution for the traffic issue is to keep the current locked gate system to help deter out‐of‐county boaters from flooding the area. The county will need to come to terms with these challenges if they move forward with the development. In summary, I am appreciative of the county's efforts to increase public water access. It's time that we as a 09/13/17 county realize that the right to water access is for all of us not just those who are privileged to own property that touches it. More access is clearly needed. Please reconsider and don't place a boat ramp in the creek at South River Farm park in Loch Haven. I live on Branhum Rd directly across the creek from where you are planning to build this ramp, and part of the reason I bought my house is because I was told that the land across the creek could not be built upon. Please put yourself in my position and realize how upsetting it would be to now have the constant rumble and traffic that would accompany a local boat ramp. Aside from my disagreement, please realize that the creek gets very shallow during low tide. Sadly, here's another example of politics and trying to please some people while not taking into 09/13/17 consideration the impact it will leave on others. This is very upsetting to me and I hope the people in charge of this are empathetic enough to change this plan. The Board of Directors of the Friends of Quiet Waters Park has reviewed and considered the Boat Launch Feasibility study (January 2017) and wishes to express our substanal concerns pertaining to “Site 6: Quiet Waters Park.” These concerns center on four key aspects of the opon proposed for this site: •Inconsistency of the proposed boat ramp plans with the Master Plan developed for Quiet Waters Park in 1988; •Mulple user conflicts created with cu rrent uses of Quiet Waters Park; •Substanal environmental impacts not addressed in the study; • Traffic safety concerns at the park entrance and within the park itself. Each of these issues is addressed 09/13/17 in detail in the attached comments.

The road system on the mayo peninsula is not able to handle the current traffic. The improvements being done at the Muddy Creek intersection are improvements that wree part of the Friendswood Development project of South River Colony. Those improvements were supposed to be completed back in the 1990s as part of that development. Sale after sale of the project delayed the muddy creek improvement. Now over 20 years later, the improvements are being implemented. One might reason that any improvements to the roads on the peninsula for the parks might also take 20 years. Changes to the Mayo sewer system are going to allow a huge number of new homes to be built on the peninsula. This will further burden the overcrowded roads. Again, when will the improvements to the roads be done to accommodate that? Now there is a proposal to enhance parks and add boat ramps? Again without any improvements to the roads or other infrastructure. This is a poorly thought out plan. Improvements first, parks later! The boat ramp proposed for south river farm is another huge mistake. Too much money has already been wasted on the study. I have been to that creek many times. Proposed access from the road is poor and the creek is too shallow. A boat ramp needs space, both on land and water. This proposed spot has neither. And right in the report, it is stated that the ramp area will have to be dredged at some interval. Then there is the matter of critical areas. If I or any other citizen in AA country tried to get a permit to build a house in that area, the county would not allow it. Stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole. A ramp a south river farm does not work, would be expensive to maintain, is too small and is an environmental disaster. Finally, as a resident of loch haven, I must point out that after all the infrastructure improvements are completed and there is a reasonable plan for some development to the park, that development must include park access from rt 214, not loch haven. The county owns the land to make this happen. The increased traffic flow into loch haven to access a park would be extremely dangerous. In addition to parking problems, trash, traffic etc, loch haven is a family community with lots of young children. the safety risk for this access is 09/13/17 unacceptable.

My understanding is that the plans for new parks and boat ramps are to provide aaco citizens with water access. If you drive down to any of the parks down here on a summer weekend and speak with the park visitors you will see that hardly any of them are aaco residents. In fact most of them are not even from Maryland. They are Washington, D.C. Residents. We purchased our home in a small water community to have access to the water. Why is it ok to make our small quaint neighborhoods on a one way peninsula open to noise, traffic and crime? Who is going to monitor the parks and provide our children with safe roads to bike or walk on with the increased traffic? Why is it necessary to build or destroy every little piece of land that remains? The Chesapeake and tributaries simply cannot handle anymore construction or boat 09/12/17 traffic. I would like to see the plan for how to handle the safety concerns that will ultimately come with opening our small neighborhoods to the general public.

The acess to south river farm park should be a major concern. It should not be via loch haven drive. lt should not be through loch haven community. Loch haven was 09/12/17 devolped in the 50's and has no shoulders or sidewalks. If this is going to happen there should be a separate acess road from rt. 214 to acess south river farm park. Boat ramp at South River Farm Park (SRFP) has mulple issues: 1.Loch Haven road that leads to the park is a narrow road that g oes thru a densely populated residenal area. Having boat trailers come in this road will be dangerous for the residents while it is also inconvenient for boaters and will create a bole neck. 2.Pung a boat ramp on SRFP will also create heavy traffic on the water where the Loch Haven community marina is located. This will increase boat risk accidents. 3.The natural bird 09/12/17 sanctuary and entire environment will be disturbed, and the area will become a new source of pollution.

There is a serious shortage of access for boats to use the resource. It is very expensive to just take my son crabbing if we go to the severn. We just cannot afford to pay 09/12/17 $20 every time we launch. Our tax dollars pay for the ramps. We should never have to pay taxes to use them. Talk about taking away the desire for kids to get outside. We need more sailboat and kayak launches. You just need a beach that opens to big water! No powerboat access needed! Stinkpotters don't need more ramps, small 09/12/17 sailors and kayakers do!

Water access should not be dictated by wealth. I am fortunate that I belong to several sailing and yacht clubs and live near private and public access water ramps. But this is the exception and it is a shame that more Marylander's do not share in the wealth of the Bay. Problems such as Bay pollution would be better communicated if more citizens have uncomplex, inexpensive access to launch craft of all kinds. And an area where the US in general falls far behind Europe is access to launching boats via inexpensive cranes, this limits the use of sailboats by moderate income families and individuals. There are some excellent ramps in Maryland with deep water at the 09/12/17 edges that a simple 2 ton small boat swing crane would make small sailboating accessible to more citizens. Please do not build the boat ramps at Spriggs Farm. Our roads are narrow with blind spots that may cause safety issues to our residents. It also sounds like the costs of 09/11/17 this project are extraordinarily high compared to other options. The proposals for development of the Mayo Peninsula parks without commensurate infrastructure improvements is irresponsible and reckless. Route 214, as it is currently configured, can barely sustain the traffic of the restaurant population. The addition of transient traffic will place an undue burden on the residents and 09/05/17 represent an abdication of your responsibility to the people who currently live on the peninsula. I have commented once, but it has been brought to my attention the selby bay location has bald eagles living in the woods you plan to tear down, has this Ben taken into 8/30/2017 consideration? Carr's Wharf This area should be limited to car top boat launch and MAYBE wave runner boat launch, due to it's lack of available parking. If the ramp is improved and expanded to accommodate larger vessels,I anticipate the trucks and trailers would be parked up and down Carr's Wharf Road. This would become a safety issue, and I 8/30/2017 believe it is illegal to park a truck and trailer on a county road. Spriggs farm is not an appropriate location for a boat ramp. Too much critical area and sav is just starting to come back. That kind of space should remain Canoe & Kayak 8/28/2017 access only. Absolutely, positively the worst idea Mr Schuh has tried to Schuh‐Horn into the already overcrowded road system. I don't need a study to tell me that the Mayo Peninsula and it's single lane road on and off of it does not need to add more cars with trailers loaded with thousands of pounds of fiberglass and metal to the mix. How can any sane politician think this is a good idea. Unless someone they are in bed with the builders. Enough is enough. Use the $6‐$7 million you are trying to dump into parks and ramps and get our emergency response times to at least CLOSE to what the nation considers safe. Stop dictating how us mere citizens should be living from 8/20/2017 your ivory tower on Gibson Island.

I just wanted to comment about the already heave traffic here on the Mayo Peninsula. I live off Loch Haven Rd and leaving for work in the morning the traffic is already very heavy. I feel bad for people who are turning left onto central avenue due to the traffic. The 2 lane road on the peninsula already has a hard time handling the traffic and with all the new homes being built on Loch Haven I fear for how much worse it will get. In addition, with the amount of rain we have been getting, there has been a lot of flooding and dangerous conditions. Building and making boat ramps public in the Mayo Peninsula will make the already terrible traffic situation much worse. And 8/19/2017 what about fire and rescue if there is an accident? With additional traffic response time will only be increased. Today is the last day of the formal comment period. I am issuing my Opposition to Spriggs Farm as a Public Power Boat Launch Site . My sincere thanks for the comparison of sites considered and the report that have been drawn up for the discussion! From the many things I've read and the emails of concern that I have been made aware, I'd say that the Opposition to Spriggs Farm as a Public Power Boat Launch Site has been articulated extremely well. Bayberry Community President. Eric Forste categorized the areas of greatest concern as: 1. Safety Issues; 2. Extraordinarily High Costs to Taxpayers; 3. Redundant Location that Displaces Current Public Water Access; 4. Negative Environmental Impact; and 5. Breach of Trust between County Government and its Citizens. I'll not try to repeat all the details, only the ones I can not keep myself from reiterating: A) Access for the motor boating traffic through the impacted residential communities, Bay Hills, Shore Acres, Stonington, Olmstead & Bayberry, etc., is irresponsible! Our neighbors have just fought for and gotten traffic calming barriers! The County would have to come right behind those expensive studies and repairs and contradict their justification. B) The County's presentation of the purchase of Spriggs Farm was for the preservation of natural habitat! This small park offers solitude to all species that enter. As word has spread of this lovely gem, it has been embraced by many county residents! Bird watchers, kayakers, dog walkers and wild flower, insect & yoga enthusiasts have all shared its quiet peacefulness. A Canadian family, temporarily living among us while working at Fort Meade, marveled to me about the wild life they were amazed to find here. We must preserve this yet want to share the access to the water with others. The promotion of Spriggs Farm to the public should continue to be for the quiet access and minimal environmental impact that befits the sanctuary of the, plants, animals, insects and neighbors who's habitat it represents. In spite of growing pains, it seems we've got this "kayak park" thing down now and have reached a homeostasis. C) The projected Costs are so much higher because the needed environmental changes are huge! Budget Comparisons should weigh heavily in this decision. The alternative sites show much more amenable landscapes, river beds, roads etc. For example, Quiet Waters Park has been developed to accommodate significant public access and has expensive systems & staff already in place providing the necessary security and park upkeep. I don't believe these on going expenses are even part of the study's considerations! D) This impact on the Magothy River is not supportive to the goal of water quality improvement that we are endlessly working toward. E) Dobbins Island was mentioned in the report. I'll remind you that Dobbins is a privately owned island. It is suffering irreversible erosion by nature and violators. DOBBINS ISLAND CERTAINLY MUST NOT BE PROMOTED as a highlight of the Spriggs Farm Motor Boat Launch Option! In fact, we might expect to incur an increase in the police and coast guard calls by increasing substantially the number of motor boaters who would become aware of and unintentionally abuse this little known island in the Magothy. Please do not allow the consideration of Spriggs Farm to go any further in this process. There are too many delicate environmental considerations that would require stewardship which the county can not afford to maintain. Thank you again for your work and consideration in this important step 8/18/2017 toward increasing water access in our county residents. We respectfully request that you reconsider spending funds to research /study, and possibly develop, a powerboat launch facility at Spriggs Farm Park in Arnold. This property has been carefully retained by a recent (2009) effort between Anne Arundel County and the Spriggs Farm Preservation effort. The agreement was that the property would "provide opportunities for passive recreation while preserving natural resources along the Magothy River." ‐ then‐County Executive John Leopold. The Spriggs Farm property already has a designed purpose for Anne Arundel county that shares the undeveloped and natural space with County residents for kayak and canoe launching, while keeping the adjoining neighborhoods free from excessive traffic & other safety issues. Simultaneously, the Spriggs Farm property is one of the Magothy River's only remaining undeveloped shorelines, allowing for watershed protection and a fantastic learning ground about life as it once was here in Anne Arundel 8/18/2017 County, a gift to both young and old. Please consider the gift that this property already is, in its current form, to all Anne Arundel County residents. When Spriggs Farm was supposedly “protected in perpetuity from development” County Executive John Leopold called it “the crown jewel of the Magothy.” We have recently learned that boat ramps and other required changes are proposed that will, without question, endanger this jewel. The Magothy River is already threatened; its water quality rating is a D. The Spriggs Farm feasibility study states that “an extensive amount of dredging” will be required and “frequent maintenance dredging will be necessary to preserve access” further damaging the river and wetlands. The land will require “improvements” including concrete boat ramps and paving for parking (cost $570,000) that will have negative environmental impacts that are not fully outlined and probably not fully anticipated. In addition the report proposes $25,000 of landscaping. This will certainly negatively affect the natural habitat that currently exists. The intention when buying this land was to protect it and keep it as pristine as possible. The proposed ramps and other required changes will negatively impact the Magothy and this supposedly protected and fragile ecosystem. We strongly oppose the boat ramp and other changes required to accommodate cars and trucks using the ramps and parking on the property. This change negatively affects communities on the Broadneck Peninsula and the Magothy, not just Spriggs Farm. Please keep the original promise to those who worked so hard to preserve this land “for passive 8/18/2017 recreation while preserving natural resources along the Magothy River” 100% against the Spriggs Farm ramp proposal....this is a beautiful piece of land that provides a natural buffer between human activities and wild birds and animals. Spriggs farm is home to who‐who of Maryland birds. Unfortunately Bayland's study indicates that it was conducted from those who wanted it to say yes to all sites....very limited in scope. Some impacts were only briefly mentioned and many many more omitted. Impacts noted to communities and homes show that the Water Access Commission is bent on shoe‐horning any boat ramp anywhere and who cares about who or what wildlife / environment it impacts. Magothy River will be negatively impacted from this type of developments that invite more & more boaters to the Magothy. Any given Sunday show that there are plenty of access to the Magothy. Lastly, Spriggs Farm was procured through an agreement with the community, federal funds, and state funds...this agreement included passive use only. The 8/18/2017 county is reneging on this past agreement if it installs any motorized boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. I am definitely opposed to installing a boat ramp at the Spriggs Farm location. The disruption to the environment would be bad for the Magothy and the Chesapeake 8/18/2017 bay.

I am writing to strongly oppose the listing of Spriggs Farm as a possible site for redevelopment with a boat ramp. I am adamantly opposed to the change of use of this property as envisioned in the Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study with a 1500'x 30' road(runway) plus parking for 50 boat trailers and 22 cars totaling nearly 3 paved acres. It looks like an airport. Spriggs Farm was sold to Anne Arundel County. The three commu nies adjoining the farm worked hard to support the property being sold and used as a passive use park. The sale was also supported both financially and policy wise by numerous Governmental and private agencies seeking to limit development of this sensitive environmental area. On 3/10/11 The Capital Gazette did a story quoting the Anne Arundel County Executive "It's the last unprotected farm on the Magothy to be protected in perpetuity from development," County Executive John R. Leopold said. "It's a significant purchase for the protection of this sensitive land." Leopold called the farm the "crown jewel of the Magothy." This seemed like a strong confirmation that this was a win win situation for everybody. The land and the river are protected, the community keeps more open space,there is more river access for kayakers and canoeists, and the value of our homes either stays the same or improves some. Who would have guessed that just 7 years lat er we would be treated to a report that indicates the intention of the County to turn the farm into a lose, lose proposition. The environment will be degraded, the property values will be degraded, the county will receive less taxes, and we will be enlightened with a new definion for the word perpetuity. Further, the zoning code and regulaons are in no small part intended to protect the property values of exisng property owners(in this case home owners) by regulating the use, intensity of use, the general design(setback lines, bulk regulations), access, parking and the interference of one kind of use to another such as commercial to residential etc. What the Feasibility Study proposes to do is to plop a heavy Marina use right in the middle of a long established and stable community. Unfortunately for the residents of this county, "our" county government has exempted itself from the zoning code! The right thing for the commission to do is to recommend that the county remove Spriggs Farm from the Boat Launch Facility Feasibility Study. A more positive and less expensive alternative would be for the county to purchase or lease an existing marina or boat ramp or property next to one as they would already have the proper zoning and access. In addition this approach has the possibility of improving the surrounding community and therefore tax base while greatly minimizing the ecological damage. For these reasons I resolutely urge the commission to recommend that Spriggs Farm not be used as a site for a public boat ramp. Included is a email chain containing the official press release regarding the counties original intent in purchasing the property. To Steve, Don't know if this helps, but this is the press release issued by Leopold's Office of Public Information ‐ Board of Public Works for Approval of Funding for Spriggs Property Bayberry Community Association ‐ this is fantastic news for our Community ‐ the Spriggs property bordering the BCA is forever protected from Development. Thanks to all of the Trustees and Volunteers of the Spriggs Farm Preservation Foundation (Cc line) for helping make this local, grass roots preservation effort successful, and to all of our BCA Members who supported SFPF! Special Thanks to Jack Neil of Ulmstead for taking the leadership role and guiding the SFPF effort to completion. Executive Leopold Thanks Board of Public Works for Approval of Funding for Spriggs Property Dear Arnold Community Leaders, Below, please find a press release from the County Executive concerning Arnold. Please feel free to distribute this 8/17/2017 information to your community members. As always, thank you for all you do We are commenting on the Boat Launch Study for Anne Arundel County and the proposal that Spriggs Farm on the Maggoty River is a Tier 1 suitable location for a double boat launch site. We would also like to comment on Quiet Waters as a Tier 1 suitable location. First, before our comments on those particular sites, we would like to state that the study did show a distinct need for additional sites in the county, and the study itself is well done and presented in a way we could easily understand. Thank you. We are very aware how little public access there is, but after reading the study, we have to question why Spriggs Farm was included as a Tier 1. We find Spriggs Farm as a possible power boat launch site unrealistic for the following reasons: 1) Proximity to Sandy Point State Park. Sandy Point's public boat launches are approximately six miles down the road. Public access should be throughout the county, not concentrated on the already heavily trafficked Route 50 and College Parkway. Sandy Point is already well equipped with parking, lighting, launch sites, is right on the Bay... Boaters do not care if it is a county or state site. 2) Cost. By our reading of your document, the Spriggs Farm proposal will cost taxpayers ONE MILLION DOLLARS MORE than any of the others. This alone should preclude it. You can establish two other separate power boat launch sites, using your own figures from the Tier 1 group, for the price of this, and still have funds left over. 3) Dredging. Again by our reading, TWO THOUSAND cubic yards will need to be removed; the next highest site is six hundred, while several are between one and two hundred cubic meters, and one site does not require dredging.. Again, this alone should preclude Spriggs Farm from consideration. ( In addition, the dredging will have to be done approximately every five years or so, as those who live along this stretch of the Magothy will tell you. ) 4) Road Safety. Springs Farm is in the middle of several residential neighborhoods and to access the area, once leaving the heavily used College Parkway, all the roads are residential. Broakneck Elementary School on Shore Acres Road is just over a mile from Spriggs Farm and has FIVE crosswalks and THREE traffic calming sites. Boating season begins well before school lets out for summer, and continues well after they children are back in school. Once you pass the school zone, there are no sidewalks or shoulders on the roads. Shore Acres and Bayberry Drive are curvy and hilly with dips. There are speed humps on Bayberry on the hill, which are okay pulling a boat downhill but not uphill. The residents ride their bikes, walk their dogs, and children skateboard on Bayberry Drive, not to mention cars parking on the road. Again no sidewalks or shoulders. 5) Integrity of agreements. We know the Hatches personally, and knew Mrs. Spriggs. Springs Farm could have been sold to developers for a great deal of money but the agreement to make it an Open Spaces, to keep its natural state and not damage the fragile environment was paramount, not financial gain. Many kayakers enjoy the soft launch site daily and are diligent about preserving the critical wetland and beach area. Walkers and runners appreciate its beauty daily. What is proposed is what no home owners would be allowed to do: destroy the beach area, dredge out into the Magothy, pour concrete, create artificial barriers which will impact neighboring shorelines, destroy the tidal pool, add impervious surfaces with the resulting polluting runoff directly into the Magothy... The Hatches were very pleased with Spriggs Farm's future as a park whose delicate flora and fauna would be preserved by use as a public canoe and kayak launch site, as well as for foot traffic. One hopes the county will not go back on its word as it did with the horse farm on College Parkway, which was turned into baseball fields and parking lots. If this "yes we will preserve it" turns into another "we changed our minds", the county will find no one willing to entrust any more land to them for the future generations. Very briefly, we would like to comment on Quiet Waters Park as a proposed Tier 1 power boat launch site. Traffic on Forrest Drive, Traffic on Forrest Drive. Traffic on any neighboring roads leading to an intersection with Forrest Drive. Truxton Park in Annapolis is underutilized as a public power boat launch site and is in close proximity to Quiet Waters. Thank you for the opportunity to give you our opinion about two of the proposed sites for 8/17/2017 power boat launches in Anne Arundel County. I strongly oppose the further development of Sprigg's Farm for a number of reasons. Safety is my number one issue since Sprigg's is located in a quiet neighborhood that is loaded with children who ride their bikes up and down the narrow streets daily and year round. While riding bikes with my daughter to the pool one morning this summer at 7am for swim team, we were almost hit due to three cars lined up to get into Sprigg's Farm to kayak, while local residents were leaving for work and a work vehicle was entering our community of Bayberry. The roads are already narrow with blind spots and our children's safety would be at further risk. Considering that there is already a 21 boat launching area less than 6 miles away, putting in a launch at Sprigg's only congests the Broadneck Peninsula further instead of spreading out launches throughout the county. Further, the Magothy River already has a D rating due to run off and boat pollution. The development of more ramps on the Magothy will lead to a dead river. Sprigg's Farm is also extremely shallow and having to dredge every two years would not be the best way to spend tax payer's money, and this would have 8/17/2017 to be done indefinitely.

I do NOT support the project at Spriggs Farm. I feel this would adversely affect the traffic through this neighborhood and create dangerous conditions for the many small 8/17/2017 children in the area. The extensive dredging required also would be detrimental to the river and could have unexpected consequences. I am writing in opposition to the proposal set forth in the Boat Ramp location report to install ramps at Quiet Waters and South River Farm Park for the following reasons: 1. The statistical assessment to support the need for additional boat ramps is not sufficiently documented to be reliable. Further, the methodology is flawed in that it does not consider how the boats will reach the proposed sites and the adverse impact of that traffic on the roads and community. The report is either ignorant of, or disregards the County’s own data, as set forth in The County Office of Planning and Zoning’s 2010 report on County Marinas. That report showed: a. The highest number of marinas in operation in the County (24.3%) are in the area proposed by the Boat Ramp Study for Quiet Waters and South River Farm, making it unclear why additional ramps are required. b. The commercial boat industry in Anne Arundel County equals more than 1/3rd of the marine operations industry for the ENTIRE state, employing hundreds of people and bringing in millions in revenue and taxes. Adding free ramps, without a bona fide need, puts the county needlessly in competition with these businesses, and risks those businesses and jobs without sufficient evidence of a demand. c. The number of boat slips and sites in the County had increased by 10% a year from 2007‐ 2010, a trend that appears to be continuing. Again, this is not something the report seems to consider, or else tacitly disregards, and it further contests the need for additional ramps. 2. In a time of constrained finances, this proposal outlines almost $774,000 per ramp, not including ameliorations and other mandatory requirements under county ordinance for boat ramps and the recognized adverse impact these changes will have on several endangered waterways and the surrounding environment. 3. The proposal to put a ramp at South River Farm Park runs contrary to over 30 years of planning for this area, which has always envisioned passive use. Installing such a ramp, and the required facilities and roads, will significantly disrupt the natural environment and the dredging required to support it will disrupt a habitat that the State of MD already list as adversely impacted by pollution. 4. The proposal is to create paved roads in each of these proposed ramp areas. Such a proposal would create considerable non‐permeable surfaces within 1000 feet of critical and sensitive waterways that would contribute to the current pollution loads on these waterways. The report only addresses stormwater management and run off by saying that it should be considered, but that permeable surfaces will likely not be durable, so presumably there is no plan to address run off into polluted waterways. As I note specifically, below, the report frequently notes the need to install measures to counter the adverse environmental impact, but fails to document the costs of such, which means the proposed cost numbers are actually illusory and therefore not a valid number to use in considering the proposal. 5. The report fails to consider the adverse impact on traffic in these proposals. The limited road into Quiet Waters Park and the Mayo Peninsula are two examples. Quiet Waters Park is off of a heavily trafficked road, and the turn into the park is on a one lane road that is the only entrance/egress for the community that lives alongside the park. Increased traffic, pulling boat trailers, increases congestion and that adverse impact as well as substantially diminishing the aesthetics and demeanor of the Park. Likewise, increased traffic onto the Mayo Peninsula, on a single lane road that the State of Maryland has already graded as insufficient to handle current volume, will have a significant adverse impact on public safety and traffic, especially in the summer time, when road use is increased. This impact is even concerning when you add in the current development that is beginning again on the peninsula with the end of the moratorium and the proposed increased use of 5 parks on the peninsula, which will draw additional patrons and traffic without addressing the adverse impact on the community and public safety. 7. The proposal for South River Farm Park is particularly troubling. First, it commences by noting, for a full page, the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, and the endangered species reported in the area. It then goes on to state that field work was targeted here because of the amount of shoreline ‐ disregarding the sensitive nature of the property entirely. Despite this, the report states that the site is shallow and has very limited access that might be suitable for a boat ramp. Disregarding these facts, the report then goes on to propose a boat ramp. Also disturbing, the South River Farm Proposal it is one of the most expensive of the sites identified in the report and the cost estimate does not include environmental remediation and other elements necessary to make the land accessible and suitable so the actual cost will be considerably greater than it appears. In order to install the proposed ramp, the park will face a substantial amount of paved road and parking and other changes that will significantly change the park's character and environment to no appreciable benefit to the residents or the environment. In summary, this document reads like a blueprint designed to advance an agenda and not an objective and balanced assessment of the need, impact or value to be derived from these proposals. Clearly, this report does not serve the county well and the specific proposals for Quiet Waters and South River Farm should be discounted 8/16/2017 due to the serious flaws in methodology, financial estimates, and adverse environmental impact. After having read BayLand’s engineering feasibility analysis, attended AAWAC’s June 21 meeting, and given the information presented much thought, I respectively submit the following comments with the hope that the Commission will give serious thought to concerns submitted by the public. BayLand’s analysis appears to be based on the premise that because Anne Arundel County has fewer ramps per 10,000 registered boats than other counties, there is a need more boat ramps. This is an oversimplification as the analysis states there are 34,000+ registered boats siting two different years (2013 & 2015) from which this number comes; surely this number has changed over the past four years. During BayLand’s oral presentation, it was stated that they “estimate” there are 14,000 trailered boats. There must be a more definitive/current number required before expending such a large sum of taxpayer dollars. Based on the U.S. Regional Directory of Marinas, Anne Arundel County has approximately three times the number of marinas of the other counties. These marinas typically have boat slips, boatels and ramps. These facilities, combined, accommodate the needs of many thousands of boaters. Some make their ramps available to the public for a modest fee. Additionally, there are close to twenty yacht clubs in the County, which together have perhaps 1,000 plus members. These facilities generally have boat slips and ramps; again, possessing the ability to accommodate trailered boats. Further Anne Arundel County has approximately twice the number of miles of shoreline as any of the other counties except St Mary’s County, which has most of its shoreline on the Potomac River. As Goggle Earth view shows, Anne Arundel’s shoreline is largely lined with homes with private docks, boat lifts and community piers. These residents generally have no need to regularly use a public boat ramp. Before the County spends taxpayer dollars on boat ramps, strong consideration should be given to partnering with some of the many existing local marinas and boatyards to provide use of their ramps to the public. BayLand’s $5 million plus estimate for possible construction of eight County owned boat ramps could better benefit all Maryland residents through education and activities focused on preservation of the Bay and its estuaries. By partnering with local water‐oriented businesses, not only would greater access to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay be opened up, it would bring more opportunities for support to preservation of the Bay, sponsorship of rowing clubs, etc. Would it not be more beneficial to work with local businesses rather than compete against them? Before moving any further, the critical questions NOT covered in BayLand’s analysis must be addressed; specifically, the importance of protecting all our waterways by not disrupting current and future conservation efforts. Then there is the impact of increased vehicular traffic, over‐development in the area, disruption of environmentally sensitive land and water, long‐term funding 8/16/2017 and maintenance of such facilities…the list goes on and on.

As a local resident of Ulmstead Cove I walk my dog 3‐4 times a week on the roads leading to and within Spriggs Farm Park. Although I agree that AA County needs more boat launch ramps, this site is poorly suited for vehicles pulling boat trailers. The residential streets leading to the Farm are much too narrow to accommodate two cars passing each other let alone vehicles pulling boat trailers. Also, the local residents pushed for the County to take over the farm with the understanding that it would be 8/16/2017 used as a bucolic place to hike, launch kayaks & paddle boards. Please find a site that has better street/traffic access. I am definitely opposed to the plans for public access. As someone who lives around neighborhood and regularly walks through the narrow streets (with no sidewalks) and often through Spriggs Farm (to see the amazing views and nature), I feel the excess traffic will be very dangerous. I often see a lot of children riding their bikes and am concerned for their safety as well. There are plenty of blind spots around the neighborhood. I really enjoy the untouched peacefulness that area represents and 8/16/2017 would hate to see that change. I have addressed a letter to County Executive Schuh and provided a copy to the Chairman, which I assume he will share. I am opposed to the proposed boat launch locaons in the South River in Quiet Waters and South River Farms Park for the following reasons: 1.No need has been demonstra ted. Esmates provided were insufficient. 2.Both locaons would compromise the efforts of rive r preservaon due to addional storm water runoff in sensive areas. 3.These are locaons which would silt in seasonally requiring continual dredging maintenance beyond the capability of the county. In five years both sites would be unusable, yet still fouling the river. 4.Area marinas are reliably serving these users. (Read t he P&Z 2010 Marinas Study and understand that one quarter of the County’s trailered boat populaon is already being accommodated on the South River.) 5.The developme nt plans for the Mayo Parks are currently being addressed under a comprehensive planning process. The addition of a potential boat ramp in South River Farm Park should be handled within the framework of that process and not taken offline by a directive of the County 8/16/2017 Executive. We highly oppose the Spriggs Farm location for the new boat launch in Anne Arundel County. The Farm was left by the owner with the intention that it be used as unspoiled park land. Otherwise she would have developed it herself. Since the land has been left to its natural state, we have seen an increase in wild life in the area including, foxes, deer and Bald Eagles. The current Kayak and Canoe launch, leaves only a small footprint. The water in that area is open, very choppy and difficult to launch a boat frequently due to wind, wave and wakes from already heavy boat traffic in the area. Access to Spriggs Farm is thru residential neighborhoods, narrow streets with no sidewalks or shoulder in most areas. There are two neighborhood public pools in the area which brings hundreds of children out on their bikes daily. That included with many walkers, runners and skate boarders on the already narrow winding roads is very dangerous. We don NOT need additional traffic on these roads, especially ones with boat trailers. I am concerned mostly for the children (and myself) who use these streets for recreation. Other proposed locations already 8/16/2017 have roads and parks that accommodate such traffic, like Quiet Waters. The Sprigg's Farm location does not seem to fit the Tier 1 requirements based on the information provided in the report. In both the private and public sector, major investment/infrastructure decisions are typically accompanied by a rigorous, analytically based business case analysis that assesses not only cost, but benefits and risks as well. In the case of Sprigg's Farm, when will a full business case analysis be completed to validate that it is a Tier 1 location. Based on my familiarity with the site and the information in the report, I don't see the business case. From a cost perspective the report fails to adequately address the long term cost of maintaining the site. From a benefit perspective, the report does not show how this site will truly benefit even a fraction of the AA County taxpayers. The report also fails to mention how the County will recoup costs / charge non‐AA County residence for use of the site. It is unreasonable to expect the hardworking residence of AA County to finance a boat ramp for the remainder of the DMV area. Finally, from a risk perspective, the report is totally lacking. Access to Sprigg's Farm is limited to a very narrow, curving road through a residential neighborhood and past an elementary school, with no sidewalks. The safety risk to pedestrian and adverse quality of life impact in the area far outweighs any benefits. Additionally, the environmental risk was simply waived off and the long term cost risk is not addressed. Bottom‐line: There is not a satisfactory business case 8/16/2017 to invest our scarce resources in the Sprigg's Farm boat ramp. 8/16/2017 OPPOSED !! As a resident of Bayberry and neighbor to Spriggs Farm, I strongly oppose the proposed boat launch facility due to five key concerns: 1.Traffic & Safety Issues; Shore Acres already has traffic calming due to excessive speed and traffic issues leading up to the Elementary School. Bayberry Lane through Ulmstead has three blind turns. There are often double parked cars in this road. There are dozens of kids that live along this road. SAFETY: Who and what is going to monitor the facility? Security at night? DNR and the local AAC Sheriffs department is already undermanned and over extended. 2.Extraordinarily High Costs to Taxp ayers; most expensive proposed project and without a doubt, because of the shallow water, will be the most expensive to maintain properly. 3.Redundant Locao n that Displaces Current Public Water Access; ‐ Sandy Point State Park and is 6 miles away, off of the highway and not through residenal neighborhoods, and has 20 + ramps. 4.Negave Environmental Impact; ‐ The health of the Magothy is already in a fragile state. The site proposed would displace a number of bird and wildlife species, degrade the health of the Magothy, cause toxic runoff, and light polluon. 5.Breach of Tru st between County Government and its Cizens.. this park was opened for kayak and carry vessels. Not 8/15/2017 a boat ramp. Do the right thing and protect this land. I live to tyhe righr of Sprigg's in Stonington. Been here 13 yrs. ‐ we went through the proper county permit process to build our dock, ensuring the waterfront was not inflicted. ‐ we planted and still maintain the MD\Chesapeake plants on our waterfront. Over the years I have wathched you, the County ‐ For 5yrs you oiled the pair of Swan's eggs that lived in the pond because they were eating the natural grasses. 14 babies to none, they left. you got what you wanted. You bought Sprigg's ‐ you built a walkway for the kids to party, no longer are they sliding down the hill. ‐ look back in March, I had to call the fire dept. because someone set the fraglimites on fire. ‐ I have people on my private dock who think it is a part of the park. ‐ fireworks are constantly shot toward my boat and house. I DO NOT SUPPORT any development of any boat launch and piers at Sprigg's. ‐ there is no water ‐ it will create the death of the natural grasses we and YOU have strived to grow and have. ‐ I can't imagine 8/15/2017 where the animals, deer, fox, racoons, and the osprey's at the end of my dock will go. I am opposed to a boat ramp at this location because the installation of a boat ramp at SRFP would be disruptive to the natural features and shoreline. In addition the dredging that would need to take place and be maintained would continue to be harmful to the natural vegetation. In addition access to this park off of a small 2 lane road in a residential community cannot support the additional traffic this would cause. Additional infrastructure on the Rt. 214 and access off Rt 214 would need to be a 8/15/2017 requirement. I am the President of the Stonington HOA and I am vehemently opposed to this project. Further development of the Spriggs Farm Property is a breach of public trust regarding the county's agreement for quiet use, the currently expanded use has already had a significant negative impact on traffic and parking within the community of ulmstead. And locating a power boat ramp directly in the middle of a sand bar with zero depth at low tide is at best uninformed and will have a significant and negative 8/15/2017 impact on the ecosystem of the Magothy River. I have lived in Stonington for 29 years and enjoy the quiet community. Creating boating ramps for the public on Spriggs Farm will lower property values, and cause the 8/15/2017 area and river to be a "Grand Central Station". I vote NO !!

I am opposed to the boat ramp at South River Farm Park. First of all Loch Haven RD cannot handle the traffic coming through the community of Loch Haven. Until the infrastructure is improved, this should not be allowed. In addition, the water is very shallow in the proposed area, and this would mean constant dredging and massive 8/15/2017 disturbance of the critical area. I say rethink your plan and leave South River Farm Park as a rooftop boat launch only!

I am writing to urge you to make the right decision to not develop the enviromentally sensitive area around Spriggs Farm off Shore Acres Road in Arnold MD. Paving for parking and dredging for 2 boat ramps would irreparably damage this area. The shore is already eroding. Moreover, incresed traffic on already busy residential streets where young children walk (most not on sidewalk) is already dangerous in this hilly and low visibility area. It is already hazardous for bikers and walkers, my son was almost hit on his skateboard already. The area already has significant boat traffic as well, increasing that by multiples will create hazardous conditions. I urge you not to 8/15/2017 develop this area but to maintain it to support the habitat and water life surrounding it.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal for Spriggs Farm Park. I have several comments and concerns. The study does not address some critical issues. Among these are: * Infrastructure ‐‐ there is nothing in the plan to provide upgrades to the surrounding roads to support greatly increased traffic and the fact that traffic will be carrying some heavy loads. Additionally I see nothing concerning a boathouse or similar structure to meet the inevitable need for heads, drinking water and other comforts. Will access be controlled? Where do people park and stow their trailers when the park is full? How will that be controlled? * Impact on Critical Area and the Salt Pond ‐in the study it says that there will be impact on these areas. The park was created to preserve open space and to allow a relatively natural area to exist for flora and fauna. The original purpose of the park will be lost. In the plan it sites the need for "extensive" grading, excavation, clearing of trees and dredging. This will have a significant and continuing impact on wildlife in the area. The study says that it is "expected." *Impact on surrounding communities ‐‐ There is nothing in the study about noise abatement, hours of operation, or other information. Additionally there is nothing about the impact of siltation walls and continued dredging on the surrounding areas and existing piers, beaches and the shoreline up or down stream. Normal currents will be disrupted which will certainly impact other areas on the river front. *The $1.7 million cost does not include infrastructure costs such as improvements to Bayberry, Shore Acres and other access roads. *Dredging ‐‐ it will impact the production of sea grass which is critical to restoring the clean waters of the river and bay. The cost figures also do not include the cost for "continued" dredging nor does the study state how often such dredging is anticipated. This is of major concern. The fundamental nature and intent behind the creation of Spriggs Farm Park will be lost with this plan. It is currently open to relatively low impact non‐motorized water vessels. This was the intent of the concept for the park. Noise and activity such as proposed here will certainly drive wildlife out of the area, including water fowl and other wildlife currently observable from land and the river. That is a shame. Thank you for opening this proposal to comments from the public. Water access is important. But it doesn't always have to be by something with an 8/15/2017 engine attached to it. I am NOT in favor of this and believe this is not the original intent of the site‐ not what was promised to the sellers nor the adjacent communities and worst of all will 8/15/2017 only accelerate the degradation of the Magothy River. I am opposed to further development of Spriggs Farm Park. The increased traffic along an already heavily travelled Shore acres Rd which has no safe place for cyclists to ride or pedestrians to walk from Broadneck E.S. to Stonington on the Magothy. This development would also negatively all three communities which bound the park with the increase traffic and noise. I am concerned regarding the environmental impact on the Magothy River. How will the construction of boat ramps etc affect the shore 8/15/2017 line? And the communities along the river adjacent to the park?

I am opposed to the Springs boat launch ramp for several reasons. Traffic will be dramatically increased, and cost for this boat ramp is highest of all proposals. Also, very concerned that we will incur future cost of dredging as discussed in the analysis. I think Quiet Waters or any of the sites evaluated that are closer to the Ft Smallwood or even Sandy Point Park would be better served. It would be interesting to learn what % of AA Co. registered boats are in Arnold area versus the Glen Burnie/Pasadena or 8/15/2017 Annapoli area. this could help decide which geographic area is the most in need of boat launches. Excellent study and glad the County is pursuing this endeavor. 8/15/2017 Concerned about the traffic that would go through the community of Ulmstead and BayBerry. I strongly oppose a boat launch at Spriggs farm. The reasons follow:‐there is an existing boat launch with adequate parking just a few miles away. ‐This is a fatality waiting to happen. The only access road is skinny, curvy and has no shoulders or sidewalks. The roads are full of children on bikes, children on skateboards, people walking, runners and bikers. I walk these roads everyday for exercise and they are always full of pedestrians. There is an elementary school and two swim clubs so children are always on these roads. ‐ Eagles are seen frequently at springs farm along with other birds. What of the environmental impact? ‐ This is the most expensive option not only initially but long term. Yearly dredging will have to occur. Extra police will be required, based on the fact that currently area neighborhoods have to hire security or off duty police for the congregating teenagers and other such persons. My Anne Arindel tax dollars are going to be used to provide serves for all of Maryland and Virginia as this is open to all. Should it not be state finds that will be spent every year? Please consider the impact to the local community, the environment, the eagles, the 8/15/2017 children, and the tax revenue of Anne Arundel county and do not proceed with this location. Thank you. I oppose the construction of two boat ramps at Spriggs Farm Park. It was my understanding that the idea behind the preservation of the farm property was as a passive park with access to the Magothy River for kayaks and canoes. There is a locked gate barring access to motor vehicles and no road to the water. In addition there isn't sufficient room for parking boat trailers and the vehicles that tow the trailers. I propose that the park be used for the county run day camp currently using the Ulmstead 8/14/2017 Community beach park. Thank you. The needs for more ramps in AAC is obvious. In regard to the Spriggs Farm site, I have been told that the Arnold Preservation Council opposes the project, however the membership has not been able to vote on the matter due to time constraints. I would hope that final decisions be deferred until they do have a chance to make their 8/14/2017 views known. 8/14/2017 Not a good. Idea. It is not necessary and is of no discernible value to the affected communities.

I live in Loch Haven Beach. I fully oppose opening South River Farms park for any further facilities, including a boat ramp, without having dedicated access off of Route 214. We have been dealing with increased car traffic and parking on people's property or on community parking areas since the park has opened to the public. With the thought that we would have even more traffic with trailers coming through our community with no regards to the speed limit is unacceptable. We have been trying to work with the county on a light at Loch Haven and 214 for years and keep getting told there is not enough traffic to warrant it. Well, whoever is making the rule does not have to turn left onto Rt214 at 7 am!!!! It is an extremely dangerous maneuver! Please do the right thing and bring access to the park directly off of 214. Also, deal with 8/14/2017 the already congested mayo peninsula BEFORE you add even more traffic to our neighborhoods. Please do not consider Spriggs Farm for boat launches! Paving for a parking lot and dredging for a boat ramp would irreparably damage this preserved property and environmentally sensitive area. The increased traffic on the residential streets, which have limited sight distance due to hills and curves, would endanger those who live 8/14/2017 in the vicinity. Please do not overdevelop this environmentally sensitive area on already overdeveloped Magothy River shoreline. Original consideration was for canoe/kayak access. Paving for a parking lot and dredging for a boat ramp would irreparably damage this pristine property. Consider additional ramp access at already‐developed, nearby 8/14/2017 Sandy Point. Thanks.

As residents of a nearby community, it has been our understanding since the county acquired this property, that it would remain an access only for kayaks, canoes, paddle boards. I appreciate that the county would like to provide more public boat ramps, but doing so in this densely populated residential community is not 8/14/2017 appropriate or safe. Also, the environmental impact of developing what was suppose to remain a pristine, natural area would be devastating to the Magothy waterway. I oppose boat access, specifically in South River Farm Park. Nowhere in the study does it specifically state how/where current boat owners access the water. Therefore, how can it be known that a boat access is needed at South River Farm Park, or at any of the proposed locations. Loch Haven already has a private boat ramp. So residents around the immediate are of South River Farm Park already have access to a boat ramp. As an active resident of Loch Haven, my initial concern is the shoreline, which would be compromised by the boat ramp and attendant parking area/road infrastructure for access. The dredging maintenance that would be required to keep a boat ramp at this location viable would be disruptive to the surrounding habitat. My additional concern is the issue of increased traffic on Loch Haven Drive, which my home is located off of. We already have major issues with high traffic and speeding in our neighborhood. It is not a typical county road in that it is a true neighborhood, with active residents, and curvy, heavily wooded roads. My final concern is security of the proposed area. The park is located in the middle of our neighborhood and I am 8/14/2017 concerned about those who would attempt to access the boat ramp, especially during closed hours. Please do not develop this environmentally sensitive area. Paving for a parking lot and dredging for a boat ramp would irreparably damage this pristine property. 8/14/2017 Moreover, the increased traffic on these residential streets, which have limited sight distance due to hills and curves, would endanger those who live in the vicinity.

While the Spriggs Farm site has been categorized as a Tier 1 location, I assure you the environmental impact and impacts to the current residents is NOT desirable. First, when the county bought Spriggs Farm in 2011, the intent for the property was to keep it as a wet lands area and possibly provide trails for the public to access. We are very happy with the current low‐impact environmental use to allow kayakers and paddle boarders. We would welcome the development of a trail system, and we use the property frequently for hiking around with our children ourselves. The addition of a boat ramp has many negative environmental and societal impacts. In an already fragile river that feeds into the fragile Bay, increasing the use of motorized craft brings the possibility of even more pollution. In order to make the ramp feasible, extensive dredging will need to be done which is NOT environmentally positive. In addition, the amount of traffic increase on an already narrow Shore Acres Rd. and then into the Ulmstead and Bayberry neighborhoods is scary. I don't let my children ride their bikes on Shore Acres as it is currently due to the high speeds and lack of shoulder room for them to ride. Significantly increasing the boat trailer traffic is dangerous for cars, let alone walkers or anyone on the side of the road! We can't even get the county to provide a sidewalk so our children can walk to school safely, but you can consider adding significant boat trailer traffic on an already treacherous street? Adding such a significant boat ramp will not only require massive site improvements to make it viable, but it will disrupt the current lifestyle and safety for the 8/14/2017 current residents on the neighborhoods on Shore Acres. I highly encourage you to NOT select the Spriggs Farm site for motorized boat access.

I am opposed to the proposed boat launch ramp because of the increased traffic and thus road deterioration that would ensue over the long term. Shore acres road is 8/14/2017 currently over used and increased heavy traffic would further deteriorate the surface and incur additional monies for its upkeep and eventual early resurfacing need. We are opposed to the most recent study that would include boat ramp and entrance through our community of Loch Haven we are a private community 2 miles from route 214 with county parks traffic which includes busy traffic during weekends and during the week. We oppose the planned park in the middle of our community which would bring many vehicles on a road that has no sidewalks and would be dangerous for our residents and children walking and riding bikes in the community. The new sewer system was situated right behind our home now will destroy the quality of our community of Loch Haven. There was to be a separate entrance thru the county to reach this park many years ago and now the county wants to bring in more cars and traffic which is one way in and out. No web are opposed to this plan as citizens of Loch Haven take your traffic and plans we in Mayo are one way in and out with no sidewalks and traffic lights. Do not ruin our quality of ideas with free boat launches find a location which is accessible without destroying our quality of life here. We opposed this project and will fight to the end to protect our community. Get out of Mayo we are two lane road with no sidewalks and now you want to forced us to add more traffic. Try living here when there is a accident and we are not able to get out 8/14/2017 of the peninsula for hours. NO BOAT RAMP HERE IS NEEDED IN THE MIDDLE OF LOCH HAVEN . I disagree with a boat launch at South River Farms Park. It is not conducive for safety of residents or visitors. Out the boat launch by Yellow Fin. Do not over crowd the 8/13/2017 Mayo Pennisula with additional traffic. I grew up on the water in Severna Park and appreciate the fact that it's important for more people to have access to the tributaries in AA County. However, I strongly oppose building boat ramps on the Spriggs Farm property for two reason: (1) the extensive amount of dredging needed to provide waterway access and the subsequent environmental impact this will have on the Magothy; and (2) the significant disruption it would cause to residents in Bayberry and Ulmstead. I can't imagine what the residents of these communities would have to endure on the weekends with hundreds of cars and trailers going through their quiet neighborhoods. There must be 8/13/2017 better options. We are opposed to the development of a 48+ public boat launch facility at Spriggs Farm Park because of safety concerns along Shore Acres Road and Bayberry Drive and the costs to frequently dredge to use the launch area. The Study itself recognizes "park traffic through the residential area along Bayberry Drive" and proposes using a gate near the farmhouse to reduce the traffic along Bayberry Drive in the Bayberry community. However, the Study does not consider the negative impact of boat trailers and large towing vehicles on Bayberry Drive in Ulmstead Estates. This road is barely wide enough for two cars. It is hilly, windy, with no shoulder or sidewalk and it is dangerous for pedestrians. Bayberry Drive and Shore Acres Road (another narrow road beyond the elementary school) are hardly adequate roads for 48+ trailers. Please also consider the cost to keep the launch area dredged. We have lived here for 40 years and have witnessed the silting of Ulmstead Point and Scheide's Cove. What will be done with the dredge? How much will it cost? One thing certain ‐ it will need to be done often. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Water Access Commission recommend that there is NOT a public launch area for motorized boats at Sprigs Farm. Instead, please consider improvements to the launch area for 8/13/2017 canoes and kayaks.

First, AA Cty should filter out of the 84,000 figure all residents that live in water access communities in AA Cty. I think you will find a significant drop in that number of 84K if you do. I recognize that does not fit Mr. Shuch's narrative. Secondly, No private citizen in AA Cty could get permits to tear up/out wetlands that he is proposing "for the good of the whole". The roads are too old, small & curvy to have strangers pulling boats & trailers down them. Adequate roads & emergency service response times* before this fluff. Third; $1 million dollars each for a ramp?? The parking is inadequate to allow for proper turning of a truck/car & trailer on to the road out. 4th; are you increasing Park staff to monitor the proper parking of these rigs? Sandy Point has personnel. It will be a fiasco and an imposition on the police if you don't. Cards Wharf can only accommodate a few cars, without trailers as it now exists. You're proposing to spend all that $ there and not re‐deck the pier? Stupid. Quiet Waters Park‐ Harness creek is a nationally known safe harbor & very popular daytime & overnight anchorage. It's 6 MPH in there. You're going to have people blasting through all those anchored boats?? The entrance of shoaling badly. You need to install rip‐rap to keep from losing more of the park first and to keep strangers from running aground. As it stands now, people are fishing off the steep slopes of the banks. They have buckets. EVERY fish they catch goes in to those buckets in violation of current DNR laws and they are NEVER checked! That's why they chose the steep banks to fish. I have anchored in there countless times & witnessed this. opening up all these parks will increase this! I saw it in Beverly Triton already too ( walking back trails to avoid walking in front of the Park Ranger's house) with a 5 gal. bucket of undersized fish. Nothing on the Severn?? What, residents there too powerful to irritate? I see on site on the Magothy, south side. None on the other side. Oh, wait a minute...Glen 8/13/2017 Isle is on the other side...I'm sure there is pristine shoreline, like in quiet waters in Glen Isle to locate a ramp! Hello, I strongly disagree with this proposal. This is a protected area for wildlife and should remain that way. I am a resident of this community and live directly across 8/13/2017 and I do not support this decision.

As a resid my of selby, I believe this would be a terrible idea, the additional traffic, destruction of what we were told was county preservatory, a area were nobody can build, natural growth/untouched Forrest, these are just some of the reasons why they should not do this. Second, this would be the 3rd public ramp into selby bay, there is just no need to do this, there are many options for folks to deploy their boat. And this is just too much, there are so many options that this is confusing why this is even on the table. Lastly, as a resident who pays waterfront taxes, I know it's a huge deal to take down any trees that are in view of the water, we are in the process of getting permits, and I know cutting down trees is ground upon. This cannot be allowed to happen, and should not be on the table to be allowed to happen. This would 8/13/2017 result in the destruction of many trees, and ultimately traffic/erosion on a price of land that the county as designated as non inhabitable.

I am very concerned about the possibility of a public boat ramp on South River Farm Park. Loch Haven is the first street on the peninsula and it is a nightmare to make a 8/13/2017 left heading towards Mayo. Additional traffic will only make matters worse. Please help us limit the traffic on this peninsula. It is awful and we need your support. I am very familiar with the QWP site. 1 Environment. There would be a road down to the "hurricane hole". Even with the best engineering that would not be a good thing. Also, this side of Harness Creek has almost no development. There is the kayak/canoe pier facility and that is minimal. 2 Car traffic; this area is heavily used by people going to the dog park and concerts and other events. QWP is already the number #1 used in AA County. We do not need to encourage more use. Also, this would increase traffic on Forest Drive. 3 Boat traffic. This would increase power boat traffic in harness Creek and the South River. The power boats would be launched very close to the existing kayak/canoe rental area. Also, there is already a large amount of power traffic on the South River. Should the county be encouraging more. I realize that there is need for more public access but this is not an appropriate choice. Maybe the county should focus on more cartop launching facilities. Another alternative 8/13/2017 would be to lease facilities from existing commercial sites. This would be more economical and immediate. There is too much traffic on the peninsula with poor accessibility via one way in and one way out. There are many new homes and no raid widensing or traffic lights. 8/13/2017 There is zoning for another 55 more homes. With one road out this is a death trap. 8/13/2017 Yes!! We need more water access!! Sandy Point closes due to being full on weekends and Truxton is over crowded! Please let this happen. The proposed boat ramps and more importantly the whole development plan on the Mayo peninsula and especially the South River Farms Park would be a tragedy to our river and its marine life. As a 4th generation and 30 year resident of the peninsula and Cape Loch Haven community i strongly urge you to not go forward or construct any further developments. If you don't live here you have no right making decisions for us. What a shame and tragedy. Shame on everyone who thinks this is 8/12/2017 remotely a good idea.

My first concern is the role of the county government in creating/upgrading water launch facilities that competes with private industry. I do not believe that is the government’s role. I presume that if a private company or marina wants to create a new boat ramp or upgrade an existing one, similar to those proposed in this study, there would be significant resistance by the government and additional oversight to ensure minimal environmental degradation from removal of vegetation in critical areas, negative impacts to water quality, dredging, SAV, etc. Just because it is a local government proposing these facilities, the resistance and critical oversight must be the same. Many of the proposed locations are located in the RCA and will require significant hardscaping to create boat ramps and parking. The point of the RCA is to limit such activities. The beauty of Anne Arundel is its shoreline, best of all its undeveloped shoreline. Many of the proposed locations are already used for soft launches. Part of their draw is the relatively undisturbed locations. Adding 25‐50 car/trailer parking spaces reduces that appeal for me at least, as an occasional SUP/kayaker Another generic concern for all of the proposed locations is the proximity of neighborhoods to the various sites. I live on Carrs Wharf in Edgewater and already see a significant amount of boat trailer traffic to existing marinas/boat ramps in my neighborhood. This should be a concern for any neighborhoods through which boats would potentially pass to access the proposed boat ramps,that currently do not experience such traffic. Due consideration should be given to limit access through neighborhoods. If the goal is public boat ramps on each shore of every major river, why is there nothing proposed for the Severn River? Regarding Spriggs Farm: What is the justification for a double boat ramp, the only one proposed with two ramps? Is it possible to build one instead, of is the mantra “build it and they will come”, to justify the largest one possible? Regarding Carrs Wharf: I am pleased that it is currently designated as a Tier 3 location. It is a small location, with room for just a half dozen cars with barely room to turn those around. Not mentioned in the analysis of existing conditions is the steep road that accesses the existing pier. I would not want to back a trailer down that road. The analysis discusses the potential of some large undeveloped land within walking distance that could be acquired for parking. Yes, there is ~30 acres in several parcels, but all are in the RCA, with some acreage specifically designated as reforestation easements and should remain undisturbed. Within half a mile of this facility and accessed from Carrs Wharf Road, are several private marinas with boat ramps or lift capabilities. I question the demand for additional boat ramp facilities to access this part of the Rhode River, via a neighborhood. Please keep Carrs Wharf to its cartop launch capabilities and Tier 3 status. Regarding South River Farms: In addition to being located in the RCA, this location appears to be the only one with significant and recent SAV documented in its vicinity. Why must we go out of our way to disturb the SAV here (or at any of the proposed locations)? If we want our boating community to enjoy recreational fishing activities, then we must protect fish nursery areas, like the SAV area near South River Farms, not destroy it in the name of water access. Especially where there are existing commercial facilities on the South River for boat launches. The proposed plans for a full recreational development of this park will already disturb enough of the critical area, amidst a residential neighborhood, with limited vehicular access. Turning from MD‐214/Central Avenue onto Loch Haven Drive (and vise versa) is already difficult (no stop light, must wait for a gap in traffic), given the narrow lanes and existing traffic leaving/entering the Mayo Peninsula. I cannot imagine the challenge of navigating that turn with a trailer. The current infrastructure is not adequate to support a public boat ramp and improving it is not proposed. The state of such public infrastructure does warrant consideration when designating which locations should be further studied for development. Within the Tier 1 listing of potential boat ramp sites, please place South River Farms as the lowest priority for 8/12/2017 development or downgrade it to Tier 2. Not in favor of any land development in and along South River Farm Park. It is appalling that you will remove vegetarian within the Chesapeake Critical Watershed area. 8/12/2017 Why have this program if every developement is an exception. In reference to the "south river farms park boat ramp" Edgewater already has 2 large parks, one developed for decades but never used. Only rented when needed. I used mayo park in the mayo wind section for years and paid my dues. It's a wonderful park on open water and could sustain plenty of people visting as it already does when it's " rented out" instead of open. Why not install a ramp there? Instead , the newly opened south river farms park which I've visited numerous times and only has a short county timed entrance gate, this park is wonderful and naturally. Why must eveythjng become over developed? We have probably 700 acres of undeveloped parks in edgewater and that's what people enjoy about parks. They don't have to be changed to be like a city we all our trying to escape by visiting. Anne arundel county is getting harder to find "open green spaces" areas where you can enjoy the woods, the water and nature the way it is meant to be. These parks are perfect just the way they are, no need to change them. Also why would a boat ramp be installed into quiet selby bay, and not onto open water or directly onto the south river at the end of 8/12/2017 the gravel road? 8/12/2017 Not in neighborhoods and not on tributaries.....Should be on major body of water. I understand the need for a boat ramp as an avid boater its nice to have more ramps. However, placing one off Loch Haven is a big mistake. We already contended with unsafe traffic patterns and our children can't even go to schools because busses can't turn left onto 214. The added traffic and congestion is not needed. Furthermore the amount of development already taking place along Glebe heights will cause more traffic problems and unsafe conditions. Lastly, the water quality of the south river was already ranked as one of the lowest in the region. Further paving of critical wet lands and green areas will further cause harm to theses areas. Thank you for your 8/12/2017 time.

Please don't allow more traffic along Shore Acres Road!!! Adding powerboat access at the Spriggs Farm site would be horrible. Shore Acres is a small winding country road that is inadequate already. Bicyclists and joggers frequent the road with nowhere to go to get out of the way of existing traffic. Broadneck Elementary already has traffic safety issues and the county just added traffic calming measures to slow drivers down. (to little success) Increasing the number large vehicles with trailer‐ed boats along Berrywood Drive (a residential street without sidewalks) and Shore Acres Road will cause unnecessary hardship for residents and increase the likelihood of a 8/11/2017 serious accident. Please don't put a boat ramp in South river Farms park as our road has no side walks for walkers/bikers and is treacherous for kids. Can you shed some light on how you 8/11/2017 plan to control the boat ramps to ensure they are used by county residence only? Anne Arundel Co. Has allowed a tremendous amount of near shoreline property to be developed in this area. For all the regulations it's residents must follow regarding Critical Area, AACo. dose not seem to be following it own guidelines. With several other AA Co. Parks within a stones though, there must be another alternative to 8/11/2017 desturbing some of our last remaining natural shoreline. I, for one, am fed up with the double standard. Regarding the Spriggs Farm Park suitability for a trailer boat launch. I am opposed to this use of the park for the following reasons: It is not needed, as within five miles there are launch facilities at Sandy Point State Park and two privately operated marinas. And at a cost of 1.3 million plus operating costs, it is not a prudent use of taxpayer money, in fact, it is a waste of money. It would be too destructive to protected lands and woods that lie in the critical area, which we are all obligated to respect. As part of the acquisition process of Spriggs Farm, the county assured all interested parties that the land would be preserved from development, the open spaces would be protected, and the natural environment would be enhanced, not destroyed by this proposed creation of a boat launch facility. It would be very damaging to the Magothy River watershed, and the river itself due to an enormous amount of dredging required initially, and on an ongoing basis due to it's unprotected location on the south shore of the Magothy River. Further, the topography of the shore line at Spriggs Farms is a high bank of over 20' that would be destroyed in the process of developing a boat launch facility. It would place a large traffic load on Bayberry Drive, which is a narrow residential street running through and into two 8/11/2017 residential neighborhoods, and would create an unsafe condition for residents. As a resident of the Loch Haven neighborhood, I strongly oppose the boat ramp project (and farm park plan). The speed at which people travel along Loch Haven Rd. is already a problem ‐ the police department is well aware and has spent the last several months setting up speed traps, yet the issue persists. I have three children who I already don't feel comfortable walking with to the Loch Haven community recreational area, let alone allow them to walk alone,just past the Farm Park, because of both traffic volume and the speeding. Adding the boat ramp will only add additional traffic, speeders, and will absolutely add drunk drivers who are getting off their boats and into their cars. Anyone who doesn't think that's an added risk/issue is clearly too naive to have considered the real issues. No i formation has been provided on the anticipated influx of traffic, actual useage etc... as a resident sirectly affected by this initiative, I feel I have a right to know just how many people we should expect to see zipping through the neighborhood. Where have you seen the demand, hat is the push, why is this initiative a sudden priority. No one can seem to answer our questions or provide an actual need or justification to these projects. They cost big money but don't seem to provide any real benefit to the communities they would most affect. 8/11/2017 From a business perspective, that's simply a bad decision.

Honestly, this seems to be a solution without a problem. What problem are we trying to solve? There are a dozen marinas here on the peninsula that offer daily launches and season passes to use the ramps. I understand the kayak launch, but powerboats? Really? You can afford a power boat but you can't afford to launch it for $100 per year? Seriously, how many people own powerboats that have no place to launch it? Preserved land is dwindling at an alarming rate in south AA county, and now you are sacrificing more of it to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Not to mention that none of this considers traffic patterns or the effect of additional activity on our roads. I'm not against development, but what's the point here except to appease a few activists? Please, Steve Schuh, don't let the voice of 20 biased, 8/10/2017 agenda driven activists outweigh the voice of the rest of us.

I am opposed to a boat ramp at this location because there is no data backing up the need. The report states that DNR has estimated that there are 14,000 registered trailered boats in AA County, but no survey has been completed as to how/where these boat owners access the water. In 30 years of planning documents, the vision for “development” of SRFP has always been as a passive park with retention of the natural features and shoreline which would be compromised by the boat ramp and attendant parking area/road infrastructure for access. The dredging maintenance that would be required to keep a boat ramp at this location viable would be disruptive 8/10/2017 to the surrounding habitat and is likely beyond the scope of Public Works’ budget.

Although I applaud the county for taking the initiative for public access throughout the County, I believe that this decision needs to be completely studied and planned. We have had issues on Loch Haven Rd. because of cars having difficulty turning left to Loch Haven Rd. from Rt. 214 (East Bound) and also making a left to Rt. 214 from Mayo. Loch Haven Rd. is not equipped to handle an increase in traffic specially with the increase number of new homes being built in the Loch Haven peninsula. To 8/10/2017 consider that the access road be installed at South River Farms park is tantamount to poor planning. As a boat designer and owner of a trailerable sailboat, I understand the value of water access. I launch my boat at Carr's Creek Marina. It is open to public launching for $20 which is a fair price. Having 34,000 vessels means nothing unless all vessels being counted are trailer launched. An MVA accounting of boat trailer license tags would be more scientific. What matters to owners of trailerable boats is access need. The study does not prove need. Where are the statistics on wait times by location by day of the week? I never have to wait to launch my boat at Carrs Creek. With Truxton Park with ear shot of Quiet Waters Park, why would you ruin such a lovely park? South River Farm Park is pristine. There is not justification for this. If need is being serviced by public, private, community, yacht clubs and commercial need, why ruin these parks? I find it a bit surprising that Schuh (a Republican) is suggesting spending tax dollars on services that are being met by commercial and community needs. In my area, Beverly Beach has a ramp. So these boaters have no need for a public facility. Where are the statistics on this utilization? Why is it a county deficiency that there are only three? Turkey Point Marina offers boat ramp services right near South River Farms Park. Holiday Hill marina is right next to Carrs Wharf. I believe the 8/10/2017 Background justification is flawed as a basis for construction of public ramps.

I am opposed to the consideration of Spriggs Farm Park as a boat launch site. Our small back yard in Stonington is contiguous to this property and we are concerned about the added noise, the traffic in neighboring Ulmstead Estates, as well as the increased traffic on Shore Acres Drive. The stretch of Shore Acres approaching Ulmstead is very narrow, with no sidewalks. It is a real hazard for walkers, runners, and bikers. Finally, I am concerned about the impact additional boaters may have on 8/9/2017 the health of the Magothy River and the rapidly eroding beach area in our neighborhood. Spriggs Farm is an amazing resource to the residential communities around it, and a source of mitigation for the impaired waters of the Magothy River, and ultimately, the Bay. When, 2 years ago, it was "saved" from development, we all cheered and breathed a sigh of relief that it would forever remain a refuge for the community and the environment. Today I am submitting my official request that it remain so. As a Trustee of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and a mother of two young children, I know how important open lands are to mitigate the effects of water runoff into our rivers and streams. Forested buffers, wetlands, and undeveloped open lands are critical for absorbing and purifying toxic water that runs off our developed streets, roofs, and parking lots. The Spriggs Farm site is well positioned between several large residential communities and abutting several busy throughways on the Broadneck Penninsula. Any stormwater runoff coming from those communities and streets carries with it pollutants from blacktop, trash, and chemicals. Without permeable areas to absorb it, it runs directly into the Magothy River‐‐a river where our children and animals play, our fisherman fish, and our wildlife resides. The proposed boat ramp to be built on Spriggs Farm will devastate the water quality in the area. Not only will the area lose the filtration that the land provides, the additional amount of boat and trailer traffic, gasoline and chemicals will contribute an additional toxic load to an already threatened area. Additionally, the cost to build in Spriggs will be complicated due to the shallow waters in this area of the Magothy. The Ulmstead community already has to dredge regularly to allow boat passage into nearby creeks‐‐This is an indicator of the amount of dredging it will require to maintain a depth appropriate for boats. Dredging is expensive, polluting, and invasive, and there would be a great deal of it to do on a regular basis. Finally, our residential communities are the home of thousands of families and children, who would be exposed to dangerous increases in traffic, pollutants, and non‐resident populations who are not vested in the community. Spriggs Farm is now a place of refuge for those children and families‐‐safe, quiet, natural and clean. A public boat ramp would destroy that status, and bring destruction of our community security and the value of our homes. The community will not support or welcome this change. For these important 8/9/2017 reasons, I ask the County to consider locations other than the Spriggs Farm site for a proposed public boat ramp. It's easy to say that APC supports water access, but where? There are almost no publicly owned water access properties in this county. Sandy Point State Park is filled with people being turned away all the time after having come long distances and waiting in line. The neighbors of Spriggs Farm should have spent their own money to buy Spriggs Farm if they had wanted it to be a private facility. They should have thought about this being a public beach when they lobbied for our government to buy it. Have you every been to Minneapolis? The lakes and parks are open to everyone. That's what our taxes should be for, not providing for the privacy of a few. A million dollars is a lot of money, but infrastructure costs a lot of money when it comes to providing for the public. This project would help make Anne Arundel County a better 8/9/2017 county. I am opposed to the construction of the proposed boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. The local roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic and those unable to enter 8/8/2017 the parking area will end up blocking neighborhood streets. I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed planning and installation of a boat ramp as part of the South River Farms Park. The Peninsula is already facing a number of major issues which this boat ramp will exacerbate/cause: ‐Traffic Volume not only on the peninsula itself but also that which will enter the park through the private community of Loch Haven. ‐Safety of residents while trailering boats into and out of the park in such close proximity to the existing community recreation area. ‐ Contribute to existing poor water quality issues on the South River ‐Loss of protected Critical Area required to construct the ramp ‐Lack of adequate funds for upkeep prevent and dredging Due to these issues I would like to request you to coordinate or involve directly the communities which will be adversely and potentially irreversibly impacted by the development of a ramp for motorized boats at SRF Park to either abandon this location, develop appropriate access that does not require trailering boats through the community of Loch Haven, or revert back to the original plan for car top boat use only. Again, I am against the level of development of this 8/8/2017 boat ramp as it is currently being presented for South River Farms Park. This a huge safety issue for the Ulmstead, Bay hills communities. Additionally Shore Acres is very narrow and would require sidewalks to be installed to ensure the safety 8/8/2017 of pedestrians. This is a very bad idea. A ramp at Spriggs farm would be a complete waste of taxpayers monies that the county is supposed to safe guard. The road access thru shore acres into two existing communities brings in so many safety hazards it's a nonstarter. Less than one mile up the Magothy in Sandy point state park their is more than enough ramps. In addition 8/8/2017 their will be massive costs year after year to dredge and maintain. Look elsewhere. I and most citizens I speak with who live near Spriggs Farm are not apposed for it being used for public enjoyment. However we are apposed for it being destroyed and changed for public use. We are apposed to disrupting the environment, using tons of tax payers money, and having an unsafe roads for public use. The county proposal to put in a powerboat launch would create unsafe, overcrowded roads, cost the county way too much, and completely go against what Spriggs Farm was intended for. 8/8/2017 Do the right thing and move on from Spriggs Farm for this use. Thank you!! I reject the proposed boat ramp @ the spriggs farm site, as do my family members, based on the following concerns: 1.Sa fety Issues; 2.Extraordinari ly High Costs to Taxpayers; 3.Redundant Locaon that Displaces Current Public W ater Access; 4.Negave Environmental Impact; and 5.Breach of Tr ust between County Government 8/8/2017 and its Citizens.

This is a great first step in opening water access sites in the County. As coordinator of our County rowing groups along with kayakers and SUPS, I hope Quiet Waters is 8/8/2017 the next site to be developed from Tier 1. It would be wonderful and lucrative for the County to have water access and a community boathouse for non powered boats. It is extremely important for MDDNR/AACo to secure and develop public launching ramps sites at the navigable headwaters of all rivers and most creeks in A.A. County to enhance marine safety and promote boating to all areas. I am shocked that there are only few public launching facilities none on the Severn, but also few on the Magothy, Rhode and West Rivers. Considering the size of the current boating community, the cumulative tax dollars paid in, and the growing population of the county, this launching site shortage seems to be an injustice to the county citizens. Additionally, most marinas charge exorbitant rates for launching or require costly annual contracts which are prejudiced against county boaters. The lack of plentiful public launching ramps in A.A. County inadvertently contributes to a reduction in boating as a family activity and diminishes water sports enthusiasm. As a life‐long resident of Anne Arundel County, I believe it is of vital importance to immediately add dozens of 8/7/2017 public ramp facilities to the shoreline of all A.A. County creeks and rivers. I urge all officials to offer help in remedying this very basic need.

Impact on wetlands too great, cost of continual dredging maintenance as well as the eroding shoreline will impact environmental resources. The private community of Ulmstead will be impacted by increased traffic of which Barberry Drive would be the only access to ramp. Boat launches are available in the area at Cape Saint Claire and 8/7/2017 Sandy Pointe State Park, all with in short driving distances. There is no need to disrupt quality of life in a private community with unnecessary increase of traffic. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the boat ramp location. As a power boater, I am completely supportive of the county's interest in increasing public water access. Please do not select the Spriggs Farm location. Please instead choose a location that is less likely to harm the environment and disrupt habitat. Spriggs Farm is a really special place. I go there frequently to get close to nature. I have seen many types of birds, deer, foxes and a variety of native plants. I am concerned about the harm that boat ramp would do to this nature preserve. Building the ramp, and the frequent dredging would certainly impact the habitat of these animals. It would also impact the water quality of the Magothy River, which already fragile. I love that Spriggs Farm is a public park for all county residents to enjoy. As important as it is for county residents to have boat access, it is also important for people to have access to a nature preserve at Spriggs Farm. I am really concerned that the addition of a boat ramp will damage what is so wonderful about this space. We need to protect the habitat of Spriggs Farm rather than subject it to harm. Please select a different location where the environmental impact is less than it would be at Spriggs Farm. While environmental impact is my primary concern about Spriggs Farm, I also have a couple of additional arguments to make: 1) For the cost of Spriggs Farm, the county could install two boat ramps elsewhere! As a taxpaying resident, I like the idea of being able to expand boat access in a cost‐effective way and the Spriggs Farm location does not seem as cost‐effective as the other options. 2) When I look at the geographic distribution of boat ramps in the county, it seems smarter to build a new ramp farther from Sandy Point Park. If people want to explore the Magothy River, Sandy Point is currently a convenient access point. I think it makes more sense to build a ramp closer to other places that do not already have nearby public 8/6/2017 access. The proposed boat ramp at Sprig's Farm is a terrible. The neighborhood roads aren't capable of handling the increased traffic. The increased traffic will also significantly increase the risk to people walking and riding the streets. The access to the water is very limited and will require significant landscaping changes to allow boats on trailers to get to the water. In addition the "channel" that will be dredged to allow the correct depth will silt back in constantly. It doesn't appear that the yearly dredging cost is 8/5/2017 included in the proposal.

I find it odd that there were no sites identified on the Severn River that were candidates for adding a boat ramp. I appreciate that the county is looking to increase the 8/4/2017 number of ramps and support it fully. It just seems odd that there are no locations on the Severn river that were considered as part of this study. Creating a boat launch at this location is troubling. My main concerns are two fold; safety and environmental. Shore Acres already has significant traffic daily and newly installed traffic calming to slow down that traffic. Having numerous boats with trailers, most will be non‐residents of the area because communities do not allow trailers, and significant numbers of 5‐10 year old children who must walk to school along these busy roads is a recipe for disaster. Are 50 boats worth the risk to children who are forced to walk to school along these busy roads? Having trailers driving through narrow and curvy residential streets also increases the likelihood of vehicle accidents along these road. The negative environmental impact of more hard surface directly along the Magothy, which already receives some of the lowest water quality grades, 8/3/2017 is unacceptable. I urge you to reconsider the placement of the ramp in a densely populated residential area. Spriggs farm is not a good area for an expanded boat launch. The roads leading into it are too narrow and twisty. The turn off from Shore Acres will be difficult as well. A large area will need to be dredged in order to get enough depth for the boats. This area will need frequent maintenance due to runoff from the nearby creek. There will 8/3/2017 also be a lot of recontouring needed of the dry land to get a proper slope. Concerning a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm: I have read letters to the County written by the Save Spriggs Farm association and by the presidents of the surrounding communities of Bayberry, Ulmstead and Stonington. I totally agree with these letters in expressing the reasons why a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm would not be a good idea. Spriggs Farm already provides water access for county residents. To further develop it with a boat ramp would cause environmental damage to the Magothy 8/1/2017 River. Re: Quiet waters Park (QWP) I feel have a boat ramp in the QWP will have a drastic impact on the wildlife and wetland areas that will not benefit the environment and will increase the pollution of the rivers and creek that is already suffering the effects of pollution and overuse of the creeks. It will also increase the noise and traffic level that will negatively impact the Annapolis Neck area and decrease the quality of life for the residents in the area. I am against having this boat launch facility placed in 7/31/2017 the QWP. 7/31/2017 Is it a camping places for tents or trailers

I'm puzzled that the County seems to think parks have to be "improved" to the hilt with ball fields, paved parking, etc. Having some publicly accessible property in a more natural state for hiking, nature, should also be part of the mix. Maybe paved or gravel trails to minimize wear and erosion, but that's about it. In this particular case there are several issues: ‐ wetlands ‐ the plan looks like it involves paving most of the unforested area in the park ‐ it would also require reducing the sand/clay cliff near the water to build the ramp ‐ plus dredging a lot of rather shallow water, which would require ongoing re‐dredging as noted in the study (future expense) ‐ the access roads (Shore Acres, Bayberry) are narrow, and the latter has speed bumps and a fairly steep hill ‐‐ not great for boats on trailers On a side note, I would encourage that 7/30/2017 the rather sad (allegedly historic ‐‐ old does not mean historic) farmhouse and garage be torn down, not re‐purposed or remodeled.

First off, why does the County want to be in competition with local marinas with launch ramps?? Secondly, all water access communities in AA County have launch ramps, so a large percentage of residents of AA County have access to launch boats! That is one reason you buy there! Please take that into effect. The sensible location is farther south in AA County. The water is deeper, cheaper & does not silt up. I belong to a yacht club in Selby Bay and we have one launch ramp and it silts up terribly 7/22/2017 every year. All of the parks on the Mayo peninsula have the same problem. Even if you dredge, it will silt in during the summer I would like to comment on the proposed boat launch at the South River Farm Park location. There has been a resurgence of underwater grasses in Selby Bay that aids in the overall water quality of Selby Bay, the South River, and the greater Chesapeake Bay. These grasses are not going to withstand the potential abuse from boaters launching from the proposed boat launch. The location of where the launch is proposed will not lend itself to boaters using the current boating channel, but rather crossing over the beds of underwater grasses as they head out towards the South River and beyond. I know studies have been conducted and papers have been written to detail the resurgence of these underwater grasses. Perhaps they should be consulted and added to the review process. I think this behooves us to strongly reconsider the need of a boat launch in Selby Bay and hope that the underwater grasses continue to improve water quality. Additionally, Selby Bay is already a very busy location with 4 marinas and a yacht club that docks hundreds of boats. Heavy traffic concerns already precipitate a major concern for neighbors. An increase in kayaks and paddleboards further adds to the crowded conditions. The channel currently used by the boaters is fairly narrow and at times ignored by the boaters on Selby Bay. We can’t undo an already congested Selby Bay, but we can in the park planning process choose to not construct a boat launch that can only exacerbate an overcrowded 7/14/2017 situation. I would like to comment on the proposed boat launch at the South River Farm Park location. There has been a resurgence of underwater grasses in Selby Bay that aids in the overall water quality of Selby Bay, the South River, and the greater Chesapeake Bay. These grasses are not going to withstand the potential abuse from boaters launching from the proposed boat launch. The location of where the launch is proposed will not lend itself to boaters using the current boating channel, but rather crossing over the beds of underwater grasses as they head out towards the South River and beyond. I know studies have been conducted and papers have been written to detail the resurgence of these underwater grasses. Review of the research done on the underwater grasses should be part of the planning process. I think this behooves us to strongly reconsider the need of a boat launch in Selby Bay and hope that the underwater grasses continue to improve water quality. Additionally, Selby Bay is already a very busy location with 4 marinas and a yacht club that docks hundreds of boats. Heavy traffic concerns already precipitate a major concern for neighbors. An increase in kayaks and paddleboards further adds to the crowded conditions. The channel currently used by the boaters is fairly narrow and at times ignored by the boaters on Selby Bay. We can’t undo an already congested Selby Bay, but we can in the park planning process choose to not construct a boat launch that 7/13/2017 can only exacerbate an overcrowded situation. I disagree with your feasibility study about the adding a boat ramp to Spriggs Farm. There was nothing in the study about the fact that vehicles with trailers will be driving down a narrow neighborhood street to get to the ramps. The safety of the residents and especially the children in these neighborhoods will be affected. This should be 7/7/2017 taken in account when considering feasibility.

I OPPOSE to the consideration of Spriggs Farm as a location for public boat ramp for many reasons including the following ‐ ‐ This is a quiet residential neighborhood with kids walking / biking in the neighborhood. With boats and non‐residents going in / out of public boat ramp, a huge potential danger to the kids and safety of our neighborhood. ‐ Bayberry Rd is steep and narrow in order to access Spriggs Farm. With large boats going in / out narrow roads in our neighborhood, a huge potential danger to kids, walkers, joggers, residents, etc. ‐ In order to access Spriggs Farm, non‐residents have to go through a quiet residential neighborhood. I believe this will turn a quiet neighborhood into a loud and busy industrial like area. ‐ Likely increase crime in this quiet neighborhood. ‐ I believe Spriggs Farm should be preserved as a historical site / nature preserve for our children and future generations to appreciate. ‐ If Spriggs Farm becomes a historical site / nature preserve, it will be better for the environment. ‐ I believe a public boat access should be located in public area / park like Sandy Point State Park. A public boat area should not be accessed through any residential neighborhood. In summary, I OPPOSE to the consideration of Spriggs Farm as a location for public boat ramp for safety concerns, environmental concerns, 7/4/2017 historical significance, physical access concerns, and any public boat ramp should be placed in a public area / park like Sandy Point State Park. I am against the building of the boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. There a few concerns. 1. Cost The county can build two other sites for the same cost as Spriggs Farm. This does not take into consideration the cost for dredging on a regular basis. I live in the next community and I know the significant change in our beachfront over just the past eight years. If it is the county's goal to increase access then build two more cost effective sites, not one. 2. Preservation The neighboring residential communities were told Spriggs Farm would be a county park and not further developed. 3. Residential neighborhood To access Spriggs Farm, the large trucks and trailers will need to drive down multiple neighborhood streets in Ulmstead Estates and Bayberry. These are both very young neighborhoods with hundreds of children. These homes were purchased with the intent of being in an active neighborhood ‐ not to have truck and trailer thru traffic. This puts the children at risk. Your attention to this matter is 7/3/2017 greatly appreciated. Keep the children safe! I vote NO to Spriggs Farm. I took a walk through Spriggs Farm Park down to the waters edge and I saw how shallow the water was and how much of a cliff there was. In order to put a boat ramp here, the county would have to spend a lot of money dredging to deep water and engineering the boat ramp I don't think tax payers are up for this in view of the fact that there are boat ramps at Sandy Point park and also at Ferry Point marina and Fairwinds marina, which are so close. the environmental damage would appear to be 7/3/2017 significant as well. Probably not a good idea.

Please do not build a public boat ramp in our neighbor. Think of the environmental impact‐ polutents into the river from run off of the blacktop or pavement, oil and gas 7/3/2017 from the boats, trash from the public, parking problems with big cars, trucks, and trailers. PLease keep that park a GREEN AREA. Not Spriggs Farm, based on cost alone. When it became a park, the promise to the communities was to leave it undeveloped. Don't renege on that agreement. The impact to the communities of Bayberry and STonington ‐ both financial and environmental ‐ will be huge. Sandy Pt is right around the corner. There are better, cheaper 7/3/2017 locations with less impact. I very much support to install a boat ramp at SpriggsFarm inArnold. It will provide water access to the Magothy River for many more people of Anne Arundel County. I do live inUlmstead Estates with water access, but I do feel strongly they development in the area is necessary to all County inhabitants. We need to share the environment 7/1/2017 and the water and land. We are all human sapient and NEED TO SHARE!!

Spring's Farm is such a beautiful jewel on the Broadneck Peninsula with a rich Indian history based upon artifacts dating back to the Archaic period that can occasionally be seen there. Additionally Colonial period pottery relics are seen after storms hit the bluff at the base of Sprigg's and unearth them. Fossilized shark's teeth can be seen there too. That area was used for Indian festivals and is the last untouched area on the Broadneck Peninsula that had such a significant Indian presence. I would love to see the kayaking area have better access; and increased nature trails added with signage to educate those on the Colonial and Indian history that occurred in that area ‐ not to mention the farming that took place on that site. Also, suggested are trails to the beautiful untouched adjacent pond that can have signage to educate people on the beavers and herons that live there. The meadow is stunning and filled with turkey, deer and rabbits. One can see bald eagles and osprey overhead. The area is pristine and better access to it in it's natural state by augmenting the bluff so that kayakers can more easily enjoy it; along with adding more trails and signage so county residents can enjoy this wonderful untouched land that has historical, cultural and environmental significance would be my vote. County parks that already have the infrastructure in place can be improved by adding boating ramps so that boaters can access the Chesapeake, and county parks such as Sprigg's that are in a natural state 6/30/2017 can be improved to allow county residents to experience historical and environmental beauty is a win‐win. Springs Farm is a waste of public money when Sandy Point is so close to this site and is under utilized. The costs given the slope and destruction to wetlands far outweigh 6/30/2017 any public interest in a boat launch. You need to look to areas underserved and more cost effective locations.

As a resident of the neighboring Ulmstead Estates community, I am strongly opposed to a public access boat ramp. My concern lies in the increased traffic we'll see on Bayberry Drive, a very curvy, hilly, narrow road. It is already an unsafe road to travel on by foot, bike or car. Allowing traffic volume to increase will only put our families 6/29/2017 and children in more danger. Also, I'm in favor of preserving land and water resources of Spriggs Farm Park. In my opinion a public boat ramp will work against this task. 6/29/2017 I vote NO for the Spriggs Farm location. Traffic is already horrible in this area and will only get worse with this additional site I am OPPOSED to the boat ramps currently proposed for Spriggs Farm Park. Bayberry Drive is too narrow and too steep to accommodate the increased traffic brought about by the ramps. This would result in a very dangerous situation for the residents on Bayberry Drive. Moreover, of the 8 sites studied, Spriggs Farm offers the least cost efficient site. More than double the cost of a single ramp site and requiring continual, extensive dredging, the boat ramps proposed for Spriggs Farm park are not a 6/29/2017 prudent use of taxpayer dollars. I strongly feel that the destructive and disruptive nature of this study is unwarranted both from a public safety and environmental standpoint . In this study a double boat ramp would require significant dredging not to mention one of the highest cost proposed in the study. This will undoubtedly increase traffic on roads that cannot handle more traffic . This causes significant safety concerns for families of this RESIDENTIAL area were the roads leading to Spriggs are already unsafe with the trucks and cars that speed trough the neighborhood ( i.e. Right in front of my house!). This is why many communities close to Broadneck Elementary cannot have their kids bike or walk to school. Additionally, Bayberry Drive is very narrow and has many turns and blind corners. I can't imagine our children now trying to ride and walk to our residential amentities within the neighborhood like swim team and have to negotiate trying to ride safely with huge boat trailers and trucks. Spriggs Farm will suffer irreversible environmental damage. Spriggs Farm was NEVER suppose to be used for a public boat ramp. The land was "saved" from development and persevered as a 6/29/2017 natural resource for residents and passive water access to enjoy gorgeous views and passive access to the Magothy.

Being an northern Anne Arundel county resident 55 years, I appalled over the fact we land locked boaters & fishermen have very limited public access to the waters near 6/29/2017 us. I would strongly suggest looking into the Curtis creek / Marley creek area and or taking on the fort Armstead (similar to fort Smallwood) My family and I are requesting that the county abandon consideration of the Spriggs Farm site as a viable option for a public boat ramp. As a resident of Ulmstead, who has two young children near the street leading to the proposed site, it is clear that Bayberry is already too narrow to support the increased traffic that would result from this public ramp. Public ramp access to the water already exists down College Parkway at Sandy Point State Park, which is more accessible from Rt. 50. Gaining access to the Spriggs Farm site would require driving down Shore Acres Road and directly past Broadneck Elementary School. The county is already spending taxpayer money on methods to reduce and slow traffic on Shore Acres, so why are we considering a boat ramp in an area that will lead to increased traffic (and speeds), putting more elementary students and others at risk? Additionally, the Spriggs Farm study reveals it is by far the most expensive option of all proposed sites—costing 200% ‐ 300% more than the others. Plus, Ulmstead, Bayberry, Cape St. Claire, Twin Harbors, Shore Acres and Weatherly already have boat ramps, which covers 75% of the north side of College Parkway. The whole point of Spriggs Farm was to avoid development and preserve the environment. Adding a public boat ramp there would go against what 6/29/2017 the county has worked for in the past, and is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We do not feel this boat ramp location would benefit the area or Anne Arundel County. One of the reasons we moved into the community (Ulmstead Estates & Bayberry) was for the protection and comfort of our children ‐ where kids can ride their bikes or play without worrying about strangers and speeding cars coming down Bayberry Dr. to a county location. The creation of Spriggs Farm Park has already brought speeding cars down Bayberry Dr., strangers that had to be asked questions, teenagers hanging out, and an increase in burglaries and break‐ins. We would vote against this boat ramp location for the saftey of children and others in the 6/29/2017 community.

This is an interesting report summarizing an extensive study. I am sure there must have been some public disclosure regarding the funding for this study which I surmise must have been large enough to be a line item. The construction of various boat ramps will certainly entail significant funding to require specific line items in the budget. It occurs to me that many of these proposals will disrupt quiet family neighborhoods. Places where children are being raised and can now safely play. I fear the child who is trampled by an innocent boater while attempting to reach a boat ramp. I beg to ask the question; with the number of marina's in the county that have boat ramps open to the public for a fee, has the county considered subsidizing the fee associated with these ramps ? Just eliminating the costs associated with construction and ongoing maintenance of county owned boat ramps would more than fund subsidies. Many of these marina's are already conveniently located to the majority of boaters. As a resident of the community of Bayberry on the Magothy, I reside in one of those communities that will be significantly impacted if a boat ramp is constructed at Spriggs Farm. Spriggs Farm incidentally is a quiet nature preserve of 50 + acres consisting of wooded and open land. The property is home to numerous wildlife and has a large area of wetlands. The report states that Spriggs Farm has 650 feet of shore line. Although the report also breaks down some of the details of this shore line, let me note what is obvious using Google Earth. According to Google Earth, the area proposed for the boat ramps and parking lots is no wider than 280 feet. Much of this width is not suitable as it boarders wetlands and a FEMA AE 6 flood zone. The report states this is gently sloping land to the river descending to the river by 15 feet. My analysis indicates at the highest point this gentle slope, which is in fact more of a cliff, is 20 feet above the water. The height decreases as one moves west to east towards the tidal wetlands. The report also notes that any boat ramp would require extensive shoring of the fragile cliff area, the ramp would need to extend into the water a distance and the river bottom would require dredging outwards of several hundred feet. Again utilizing Google Earth, there is a reason why the existing piers along the river in the area of Spriggs Farm extend 400 feet into the river. The area is quite shallow along the coast line. We are already experiencing great problems with the health of the bay and the Magothy River. Why is the county considering projects that will create additional stresses on this eco system which 40 years ago was abundant with life and clean/clear waters. Focusing back to Spriggs Farm. The first entrance gate one reaches at Spriggs Farm when driving down Bayberry Drive is approximately 3/4 of a mile from Shore Acres Road. This is 3/4 of a mile down a road though a residential community. The second gate is an additional 3/4 of a mile from the first. Bayberry Drive is 1.2 miles down Shore Acres Road from College Parkway. Incidentally, the county recently installed traffic calming along Shore Acres Road. All vehicles must travel thru this residential community which already has traffic issues. The proposal calls for 48 parking places for cars and trailers, 20 additional spaces for automobiles without trailers and several handicap parking places. All told, the potential for a minimum of 70 vehicles a day passing thru this residential area becomes quite disruptive to the community, its residents, its children. The additional vehicle traffic alone will add to vehicular grid lock, interfere with children playing and riding their bikes and most likely bring crime to an area that is relatively crime free. The Spriggs Farm proposal takes a pristine natural park and turns it into a parking lot. It would result in a project that is will disrupt the environment, add to the issues that have created a marginally less than healthy river and impact critical areas. It will be disruptive to a residential community. The required ongoing maintenance due to river silting will lead to significant continual maintenance costs. I would ask those making the decisions to not disrupt the natural park of Spriggs Farm and not disrupt the surrounding residential 6/29/2017 communities.

I live on Lynch Drive, and I am strongly opposed to making Spriggs Farm a public boat launch. I have to take Bayberry Drive from Shore Acres to get home, as so many residents in Ulmstead Estates and all of the residents in Bayberry. Bayberry Drive is already crowded enough with traffic from local residents, many exceeding the speed limit despite the number of school bus stops and pedestrian traffic all along Bayberry. It is also too narrow for current traffic when neighbors have visitors or utility/landscaping/contractor vehicles parked along Bayberry Drive at all hours of the day. Bottom line: we have enough trouble making Bayberry Drive safe from our own residents, having large trucks flying down Bayberry to the boat ramp all day and then driving back up Bayberry past the blind curve after a day of boating and 6/29/2017 drinking is just too great a risk to the safety of our neighborhood kids, walkers, bike riders and drivers. Please do not put recreation above the safety of residents. I am opposed to a public ramp at Spriggs Farm. The road leading to the park is steep and narrow. My children play in our yard at the point where trailers would turn at 6/28/2017 the base of the hill to enter the park. This could be dangerous for walkers and bikers and strollers in the neighborhood.

I have reviewed the Boat Launch Feasibility Study and watched the presentation made by Bay Land at the June 21, 2017 meeting of the Anne Arundel Water Access Commission. As a nearby resident to Spriggs Farm, I am a frequent visitor to the park and am thoroughly familiar with the traffic patterns along Shore Acres and Bayberry. I write in strong opposition to further exploring a boat launch at Spriggs Farm for the reasons stated below. I’ll first address what Bay Land acknowledged was outside the scope of its study but a factor that is absolutely critical – an assessment of the traffic impact a boat ramp, whether single or double, would have on the surrounding neighborhoods (not to mention the park itself). The County is well‐familiar with the traffic along Shore Acres after its recent road traffic study to address concerns about public safety. With new single family and townhome developments still being built in the vicinity despite already congested roadways, inviting yet more traffic past an elementary school and into windy residential roads heavily populated by children seems very ill‐advised. Bayberry Drive is also already a very well‐traveled road as primary access to Spriggs Farm and a community pool that is utilized by families from all surrounding neighborhoods. It is easy to miss the turn onto Bayberry, leaving no discernable safe turnarounds with a boat in tow along Shore Acres and Deep Creek Ave, which are narrow, populated winding roads. It is not only the vehicle traffic that is concerning, however. The foot and bike traffic along Bayberry is very high, especially in the summer months. In addition to adult walkers/joggers (with and without pets), there are a lot of children (including mine) who bike from several of the neighborhoods surrounding Spriggs to access the park and a community pool. I regularly need to come to a complete stop on the stretch from Shore Acres to Carlisle along Bayberry to allow foot and bike traffic to pass safely, especially when cars are parked along the side of the road. Bayberry Drive curves and slopes down considerably on the approach to Spriggs, making it a potentially highly dangerous scenario if 25 ‐ 50 new drivers per day pulling trailers were to start driving on it during the busy summer months. Finally, I’ll take a moment to reiterate the points made in Bay Land’s report with respect to this site: 1. Spriggs Farm is a vibrant wildlife habitat to plants, animals, birds and marine creatures and is of significant archeological interest. On our walks through the Farm, we regularly see foxes, deer, turtles, and birds of all sorts of varieties, not to mention dogs with their owners, kayakers, and folks fishing and otherwise enjoying the natural landscape. The report acknowledges “impacts to the Critical Area buffer, forested area, and tidal waters are expected to occur.” Spriggs is one of the few remaining relatively undisturbed areas on the peninsula. New developments have continued to appear with laughable mitigation efforts to counterbalance their impact on trees, runoff and wildlife. I urge the Commission to fully vet opportunities to enhance capacity at an existing facility like Sandy Point without permanently altering the Spriggs shoreline and existing trees/meadowland. 2. The short‐ and long‐term costs would be high. While the double ramp and parking capacity were noted in the presentation, Bay Land highlighted that the site would require “an extensive amount of dredging to provide waterway access” and that the cost of maintenance dredging year after year would be considerable. Not only is this the most expensive proposition in terms of an initial investment, it would saddle local taxpayers for the indefinite future to maintain the 250+ feet channel for ongoing access, let alone other site maintenance. I have struggled in recent years to understand many of the decisions made with respect to property development in Anne Arundel County. I have worked in the social justice arena for over two decades, and while boat access is far from a poverty issue, I appreciate the tenets of access and revenue. Even taking those into account, I simply cannot support a plan that presents public safety and fiscal 6/27/2017 concerns that far outweigh the recreational benefit sought. I therefore respectfully submit my adamant opposition to a boat launch in Spriggs Farm.

I am opposed to the spriggs farm boat ramp proposal. As a resident down the street from spriggs farm there is already a concern over speed and frequency of traffic between the county's Beach camp at ulmstead Beach and the use of spriggs farm as it stands now. There are several children living along bayberry drive and the natural decline of the road has cars tending to gain speed even with the speed humps that have been installed. Another concern is the lack of concern boat ramp users may have for the facility, having seen the trash overflowing with beer cans and fishing bait at other county maintained facilities. The county has recently installed traffic calming devices along shore acres road and this proposal greatly increases traffic during warmer months all counter productive to what is trying to be avoided. Lastly the paved 6/27/2017 area for the ramp, entrance road, parking, etc...is alarming given the potential run off directly into the magothy. I am against the location of Spriggs Farm to add a boat ramp as described in the county's report. This location with directly impact the surrounding communities due to the increased traffic and inadequate roads to support the trailering of boats to the ramp. We have already seen an increase in traffic with allowing kayak launching from 6/27/2017 this location. I am total against the addition of a boat launch facility at Spriggs Farm. I strongly object to Spriggs Farm being considered for a boat ramp. Spriggs Farm was developed in concert with the County to be a low impact park. This change in use is a direct contradiction to those agreements with the previous owners who sold it at below market rates in order to preserve the space, the Foundation that assisted in the Park's development and with the Federal government who provided some funding for its current use ‐ not a fully developed boat ramp. 1. I believe the study's basis ‐ that there are only 3 boat ramps in AACo ‐ is fundamentally flawed. Sandy Point has 22 ramps alone, Truxton Park and Fort Smallwood each have two 2. The analysis is fundamentally flawed in that it does not consider life cycle costs. For instance, the Spriggs Farm Park ramps will require 250' of channel to be dredged. That channel, which has several miles of fetch from the east/north east, will need to be dredged regularly. 3. There was no consideration in the study for traffic flow for any of the 6/27/2017 proposed locations. When will those studies be conducted? 4. Finally, why are the affected communities not being informed directly by the County? Putting a boat ramp in Spriggs creates safety concerns for the Bayberry and ulmstead neighborhoods. The additional flow of cars poses a threat to the communities that have many small children who live in them. Since the opening of Spriggs farm alone, the number of police calls has increased due to the number of cars parking on 6/27/2017 Bayberry drive as people enter Spriggs farm. As someone who has lived in Bayberry over 50 years and who has also had extensive experience in both county and state government, I have to tell you I am very disappointed and frankly surprised in the findings of the Water Access Committee regarding a public boat launch at Spriggs Park. > > There are many obvious reasons why it is a bad idea (negative effects on traffic and the environment, safety concerns, cost to build and maintain to name a few) and it’s hard to believe the Committee, once presented with all the facts (but were they?), would make such an assessment. But why are we even at this point of discussion. PROMISES WERE MADE BY THE COUNTY TO THE COMMUNITIES EFFECTED, TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO SEVERAL AGENCIES AWARDING GRANTS THAT THIS WOULD BE A PASSIVE PARK WITH AVAILABILITY TO KAYAK AND CANOE USERS. WE WERE ALSO ASSURED THAT BOATS ON TRAILERS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. We believed the County. If such assurances had not been made, I am certain the communities of Bayberry, Stonington, and Ulmstead Estates would not have supported its purchase by the County. (And yes, I am aware that such “promises were not in writing." However, assurances/promises have been made orally to a number of people. I would think the County’s “word,” however given, means something.) > > I am confident that once you and your Administration review the report AND look at the facts, you would agree that having a public boat launch at Spriggs Park would be a disaster for the nearby communities and the Magothy watershed and that such a proposal would be eliminated 6/26/2017 from consideration.

As someone who has lived in Bayberry over 50 years and who has also had extensive experience in both county and state government, I have to tell you I am very disappointed and frankly surprised in the findings of the Water Access Committee regarding a public boat launch at Spriggs Park. There are many obvious reasons why it is a bad idea (negative effects on traffic and the environment, safety concerns, cost to build and maintain to name a few) and it’s hard to believe the Committee, once presented with all the facts (but were they?), would make such an assessment. But why are we even at this point of discussion. PROMISES WERE MADE BY THE COUNTY TO THE COMMUNITIES EFFECTED, TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO SEVERAL AGENCIES AWARDING GRANTS THAT THIS WOULD BE A PASSIVE PARK WITH AVAILABILITY TO KAYAK AND CANOE USERS. WE WERE ALSO ASSURED THAT BOATS ON TRAILERS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. We believed the County. If such assurances had not been made, I am certain the communities of Bayberry, Stonington, and Ulmstead Estates would not have supported its purchase by the County. (And yes, I am aware that such “promises were not in writing” ‐ in fact, I was emphatically told that by the head of the Water Access Committee, Mike Lofton, in the presence of two R&P employees last fall when we were at the Spriggs property. However, assurances/promises have been made orally to a number of people. I would think the County’s “word,” however given, means something.) I am confident that once you and your Administration review the report AND look at the facts, you would agree that having a public boat launch at Spriggs Park would be a disaster for the nearby communities and the Magothy watershed and that such a proposal would be 6/26/2017 eliminated from consideration. 6/26/2017 Looks like all that is needed is access. Great idea for those in the area that need access to the bays offering. Can't see that much traffic increase As a boater I appreciate the need for water access in the county. I think this need is a result of decades of poor planning which has locked away reparian rights to wealthy households. On the Broadneck peninsula, though, we are fortunate to have the ramps at Sandy Point state park and at a number of private marinas. I think the consideration of the Sprigs Farm location is problematic as it is tucked away in the middle of a small residential neighborhood. The access to the park along the last stretch of Share Acres Road, and along Bayberry Drive is narrow with no shoulders making the rout dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and boat towers. The water adjacent to the park is very shallow making navigation treacherous and development costly. And finally, the approach to the water from the property is steep which will also represent a development obstacle. As one of the few stretches of relatively unspoiled shorelines on the south side of the Magothy, it would be nice to see it left alone. Finally, please take the needs of hunters into consideration wherever it is that new ramps are installed. Hunters need to access the water very early in the 6/26/2017 morning throughout the waterfowl season which runs through the fall until the end of January. I live on Bayberry Dr and have always had concerns about the amount of traffic along Bayberry and the speed at which people travel along the road, despite the speed humps. The road is fairly narrow and if cars are parked along the edge folks need to drive single file creating a hazard to those trying to navigate the road on foot and by bike. This is a neighborhood not a thoroughfare for recreational boaters! We have noticed the increased traffic from those individuals using Spriggs Farm for Kayaking and that is about all this road can handle to maintain the integrity of the properties along the way. Please give some serious consideration to the impact your decisions 6/26/2017 will have on the quality of life for those of us who came to live here long before there was a thought to adding a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. I believe this park should be for kayaks and canoes only. The water is shallow, and the roads going in are narrow. It is a beautiful natural area and would be spoiled be 6/26/2017 high volume use. My husband and I both oppose ANY project that would bring more traffic onto Shore Acres Road or Bayberry Drive. Both of those roads are unsafe in several ways. I 6/26/2017 would be happy to discuss this issue further if you wish. I am a 20 yr resident of Ulmstead Estates and see this boat ramp proposed for Spriggs Farm to be unsafe with vehicles having to enter through a narrow residential community road Bay Berry in Ulmstead. Ulmstead has its own boat ramp which services the 300 homes in Ulmstead this would only bring boaters from outside our 6/26/2017 community to drive large vehicles towing boats. I vote NO

I am very strongly OPPOSED to the proposed boat launch at Spriggs Farm Park. We are a community with many young kids who often ride their bikes along Bayberry Drive (my 3 kids included ‐ ages 9, 6 and 6). Bayberry Drive is steep and narrow with speed bumps ‐ which would put a significant amount of stress on vehicles/trailers, not to mention the road itself that was just paved 2 years ago. Spriggs Farm is so far east that there would be severely increased wear and tear on greater stretches of access roads. The proposed cost of almost $2MM is exorbitant and unnecessary, especially since the launch would benefit non‐AACo residents. We have already had to deal with the kayak/canoe/SUP traffic ‐ cars speeding down Bayberry when kids are on their bikes, littering, noise, and general disregard for our community. This boat 6/26/2017 launch would put our neighborhoods in even greater jeopardy. I go on record as opposing the boat ramp in Sprigs Farm Park for numerous reasons. The concept of Sprigs Park was sold to the Ulmstead community as a environmental preserve not an area for county development. Traffic on the main entrance to the community, Bayberry Drive, is already overtaxed and dangerous for children without sidewalks. This concept might be acceptable if it was in a location that didn't go through the center of two private residential communities which just spent over $1.6 million to rebuild our boat docks! This proposal comes as somewhat of a surprise as there has been no representation from the communities that this development is 6/26/2017 targeted in, Bayberry & Ulmstead!

As a taxpayer in the local community, I strongly object the building of a public boat ramp on the Spriggs Farm property. This is a very quiet and safe neighborhood that will have its natural habitat and peace disrupted by such a build. Furthermore, it will increase boat traffic on the riverfront by the community, a place that is enjoyed by 6/26/2017 children and adults alike from the local neighborhood. Please note my objection and reconsider this build. Thanks. 6/25/2017 No Boat Ramp! 6/25/2017 We need to provide more boat launching ramps and water access to our residence. Not a good idea as vehicular traffic with boat trailers would be invading a quiet residental community with adults and children using the sides of the road now to walk since there are no sidewalks. Seems like an idea with a serious accident waiting to happen.I would encourage the community association of 400+ to petition the County 6/25/2017 to stop this idea. 6/25/2017 I support a boat ramp at Quiet Waters Park. I am opposed to a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm Park. Given the lack of direct road access, speed bumps, grammar school directly in the route, it would be dangerous for the school children, the local community and the trailers themselves! given the amount of trailer traffic at Sandy Point, anything even remotely similar would be a blight on the quite communities of Shore acres Road. the park is wonderful, and could easily be just a kayak park, but not a trailer park. cars, boats and trailers would be lined up along the road, blocking access, as there will 6/25/2017 be limited parking. the park is not that big! definitely a no! 6/24/2017 My vote is no for Spriggs farm to ensure the safety of my children in the neighborhood where I live. The road to the park is already way too narrow. I am against placing a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm off of Bayberry Drive. Bayberry Drive is a small two lane road within a housing community that was built to accommodate traffic within the local community. Increased traffic on bayberry would over burden the road and more important increase the safety hazards for the family's living on this small community road. Also, increased traffic on Shore Acres road provides major concerns about competition with school buses with children for Broadneck Elementary school especially during early fall and spring months during the late and early fishing seasons. The county just installed two speed control devises 6/24/2017 on Shore Acres road to try and control the flow of traffic on the road. Additional cars trailing boats would add additional hazards. Please do not add a boat ramp to Spriggs Farm. There are plenty of accessible boat ramps a few miles away at Sandy Point, that boaters can use without having to travel through a small community with young children, winding roads, and no sidewalks. In addition, Spriggs Farm is a historic landmark with artifacts that will be disturbed and 6/24/2017 likely lost with the addition of boat ramps.

i am writing to express my sincere objections to the construction of a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. Besides the cost, the need for dredging, the threat of erosion, the annual maintenance, and the threat to the forest, there is an even greater issue that has been completely overlooked by this study. There are many, many families with children who live on Bayberry and the adjoining streets into and out of the community. Many of these children ride their bikes, use the streets as pedestrians, and play street football and baseball on Bayberry. Residents in the community are very cautious, conscientious drivers because they are cognitively aware of the number of children who reside in and play outside in the community. But as your study points out, there will be an increase in traffic into and out of the community. That is a fact. Outside drivers are usually very easy to spot because the vast majority of them do not respect or observe the 25 mph speed limit signs. If a boat ramp is added, this will increase the number of non‐residents driving into and out of the community at an unsafe speed. Moreover, since they will be towing boats, most of them are using heavier, more powerful vehicles which will be used for towing heavy boats on trailers. This makes it impossible for them to stop or turn as quickly as non‐boat‐towing vehicles. The issue is not “if” a child, or an elderly pedestrian (Yes, we have lots of them too, such as my 80 and 81‐year‐old parents.) is going to be struck; the issue is “when” will a child or other pedestrian be struck? Do you want to be the decision‐makers with that kind of blood on your hands when it happens? Oh, and by the way, the number of inebriated boat operators I have seen over the years when they return from a day out on the water is also something to consider. If they are driving home 6/24/2017 in less than 100% condition, this will only slow their reaction time down even more. 6/24/2017 Bad idea, we have enough problems without this!!!

Spriggs farm is a nice quiet park with lots of green grass and trees, birds and foxes... People use it to launch canoes snd kayaks, as well as, walk their dogs down to the water to swim. I am worried that putting in a boat launch with appropriate egress and parking for cars and trailers‐‐ will destroy the green feel of this small park, will add gas and oil polution to the shoreline, and will eventually require road widening through our neighborhood to accomodate traffic. Bayberry Rd is already difficult when guests visiting residents need to park on the road. Also, will there be limits on who may use this park and will there be access fees? Sandy Pt. Park is not that far away; will thiose people decide to use this launch instead? Are you considering altering the higher shoreline to make easier access to launch hand propelled boats. How will 6/24/2017 that work without causing shoreline erosion? Will the beach be lost?

I have witnessed and had myself many near collisions on Bayberry Drive coming off of shore acres Road. It's a very narrow street, and there is no restriction against parking along the side of it. It is unsafe for children on their bikes at this time. But still many children do ride on this road. I see no feasible way that vehicle is towing boats can come in and out of this area safely, without a death occurring. I'm very worried about this possibility of a public boat ramp, as this road cannot handle any 6/24/2017 additional traffic without significant safety issues to the children that live in the neighborhood.

I am writing in opposition of the boat ramp location possibility at Spriggs Farm in Arnold. The streets leading to that area are narrow and especially the main road, Bayberry Drive is steep and has blind curves. Having large vehicles with boats in tow is incredibly dangerous. We are a community with a heavy population of walkers and young bikers and adding large vehicle traffic right THROUGH the neighborhood for a public boat ramp is an accident waiting to happen. Safety is paramount and this 6/24/2017 location is not ideal for a public ramp. Thank you for your consideration. We already have too much traffic through our neighborhood. Bayberry Road already has speed bumps. We have many small children. We have a summer beach camp sponsored by A.A. County which causes neighborhood traffic. Shore Acres Road already has too much traffic. Just this past month traffic calming's,/concrete divider type things were placed in several spaces on the road due to the high volume of traffic in this area and many speeders. Please do not put this in our neighboring community. Also, I heard Indians used this area many many years ago and lots of arrowheads have been found. Is there any type of historical preservation 6/23/2017 concerns/issues by putting in boat ramps here? Thank you for your consideration. Mark & Michelle Mahan 6/23/2017 Please do not build a public boat access at Spriggs Farm. The traffic on Bayberry is already fairly hazardous, since it access's two communities.

We oppose the construction of a boat launch at the Spriggs Farm in Arnold. The roads entering the Ulmstead community are of safety concerns now with local residential traffic. Additional vehicles towing boats would bring more dangers to our children and families who walk, play, and ride bikes on these roads with no sidewalks. Shore 6/23/2017 Acres Road, which leads to Ulmstead, is narrow, and has been a safety problem for decades, and should not have to support increased traffic.

Shore Acres Road is already a dangerous area for pedestrians but especially children. The County itself has recognized the danger of this road by installing traffic calming proximate to the elementary school in the last month. By allowing for public boat ramp access at Spriggs Farms will certainly add to the dangers of this already perilous road. Additionally the ecosystem of this area of the Magothy River is tenuous and the modification of the area to allow for more traffic and parking would be 6/23/2017 devastating. I urge the County to consider another more viable option especially ones that involve expansion of existing public boat ramps.

Springs farm is in the middle of two neighborhoods with a narrow neighborhood street access. There is no other option to gain access to the farm except by water. The noise, traffic, disruption, would be horrific if you added a boat ramp. The safety of our kids walking and riding their bikes would be at increased risk. It is already dangerous for kids. Keep it a nice quiet park and canoe and kayak friendly, small parking and picnic area. It is a local jewel don't ruin it i agree you need access to water but find more public roads for your projects not sleepy neighborhoods that want to stay that way. I don't want a public busy street in the neighborhood. I don't want a noisy disruptive traffic clogged area. We had that before on placid court, it was a mess when the public was using our private boat ramp. Make more boat ramps and 6/23/2017 parking in public areas not neighborhoods please don't put our kids in danger of being hit by more cars.

Spriggs Farm cannot support the development and installation of a boat ramp. I live directly across from Spriggs Farm park, which means my family and I live daily with the danger that a small road, blind hill and unfamiliar speeding drivers bring to a neighborhood full of kids on foot and on bikes. And that is just the traffic we experience when kayakers miss the entrance. This dead end road is not intended to fulfill the transit requirements of an open boat ramp. Even Shore Acres, with an elementary school and known capacity and speeding issues (the county just installed speeding abatement bumpers) cannot support this launch. The kayak launch itself, when originally opened, was not at all socialized with the neighborhood and led to many, many well‐documented issues. Adding a boat ramp to a small neighborhood and allowing residents to deal with the repercussions is unacceptable. We have called the police to have partiers chased out late night or stop unauthorized fireworks/bb guns, had the fire department respond to a fire set earlier this year, and purchased signs and cones intended to have the drivers slow down. The environmental issues alone are reason enough to halt this plan; the underground springs that are crushed under the weight of cars daily; the erosion that continues to be an issue, the garbage. We’ve organized our own cleanup efforts for those who are completely disrespectful of the land the county allows them to use. Multiply these factors times 10 should this park be developed with a boat ramp and additional parking. We are so grateful that this is a park, and that it will be maintained in the manner those who left it to the county had intended. (We are also grateful that the county closed the entrance directly across from our home, and moved it to the entrance of the park to mitigate some of the traffic/parking issues that continue to plague the neighborhood even with a small kayak launch.) The kayak launch was opened in a complete 6/23/2017 vacuum, without any representation from those who live with it daily. Please give us a voice so that you do not make that mistake again.

I'm surprised that the Sandy Point Boat Ramps (22 total) were not listed as a local alternative for County Residents, plus the very large capacity parking area. With a MD Park Pass, $75 gets unlimited entry for 10 persons/day. Seems like a major omission. There is a substantial sand/silting that is pushed into this cove area from Magothy such that the annual dredging will be required as it fills back in. There already is an ongoing traffic study on Shore Acres due to traffic volume and speed concerns. This project will bring an increase in volume and vehicle‐trailer size into 2 neighborhoods with an already undersized road (Bayberry Drive) with blind intersections and curves 6/23/2017 in the road that already has parking issues. The scope of the project will destroy one of the few open public access to the waterfront. The Spriggs Farm location is considered in the study as a Tier one site. I strongly urge you to reject that site as a study option for the following reasons: 1. Cost ‐‐ Spriggs is the most expensive option. The projected costs are two to three times more than any other proposed site. 2. Sandy Point ‐‐ Sandy Point has 22 boat ramps with deep water. It has special designed parking spots for vehicles with attached trailers (hundreds of space or more). The complex is only a few short miles from the proposed Spriggs location. Sandy Point is also located in an area with an world class interstate road network. The study neglected to mention these important adverse fact. Why added a small ramp location in an area that already has many ramps and other boating services? 3. Channel ‐‐ A channel needs to be opened from the proposed ramp site to the deeper waters. Due to the location of the proposed channel, it will need to be redredged every spring. The prevailing winter winds and strong currents will cause it to shoal over. With a strong wind out of the north, the ramp will be unusable due to a lack of water even if a channel is opened. 4. Traffic ‐ The roads of Shore Areas and Bayberry have very narrow sections in residential areas with street parking. Trucks with large boats and trailer cannot safely navigate these roads. You will be creating a dangerous environment. 5. Indian Mounds ‐‐ The Spriggs location is rich in historic Indian relics. To do shoreline, paving and digging activity in this area, you will be disturbing scared grounds. It will take years of study before permits can be issued. Due to the above issues I urge you to abandon the Spriggs site from any 6/23/2017 further consideration.

I am against the boat ramp on spriggs farm. It will bring even more traffic on already narrow roads. There is already no room for error on Shore Acres. I live on Shore Acres rd and see many bikers, walkers and students walking to school and it's always scary to Look at, especially when bigger vehicles with boat trailers Try to pass. I would like to see that money spend elsewhere where it makes sense and brings mor safety For example a SIDEWALK. I would not mind loosing a portion of my front 6/23/2017 yard at all I can't do anything anyway with that part of my property Because of property setback rules and laws. So please, NO Boat Ramp At Spriggs Farms As a resident of Ulmstead living on Bayberry Drive, I have significant concerns about this proposal. The Ulmstead Bayberry Drive area is already very dangerous to drive through for residents due to narrow, windy roads. Additionally, driveways along that strip are short and residents park cars along the roadway. Again, this is a dangerous area to drive especially with the foot and bike traffic of the neighborhood. Adding vehicles with trailers and increased travel on this road is unacceptable for the safety of the citizens of Ulmstead Estates. I have had my mailbox hit and knocked down 3 times in the last 5 years as it is. Adding trucks pulling boat trailers to an already busy 6/23/2017 road with neighborhood kids is a safety issue.

I commented earlier about the need for Spriggs Farm for boating, but I am handicapped and would also love to have a facility like this with the handicap parking close to 6/23/2017 the launch site for launching my kayak. I am in good physical shape I just cannot walk too far due to permanent injuries on my legs. I strongly disagree with Spriggs Farm being a Tier 1 consideration for a public boat ramp site. The public will have to travel through two neighborhoods to reach the park on a road (Bayberry) that is narrow, steep and windy with short driveways and cars often parking in the street restricting to one lane coming around a curve and down a hill. Trucks with trailers would be VERY dangerous and pose a significant safety risk to the two communities these trucks and trailers would have to pass through. It is also the most expensive site and due to the shallow water will require the most maintenance (constant dredging) to keep the launch ramp channel clear. Do not put a public 6/23/2017 boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. I strongly oppose using Spriggs Farm as a public boat launch site. Spriggs Farm is located within the small private community of Ulmstead/ Bayberry and this is very unfair to the residents of this neighborhood. As a resident of Ulmstead that lives on Bayberry Drive with 3 children under the age of 7 years old, I am concerned that this plan would make Shore Acres and Bayberry Dr even more unsafe and hazardous than they already are. Bayberry Drive is very narrow. Residents often park their cars on the street because driveways are not big enough to accommodate all of the cars, making Bayberry Dr even more narrow. Children walk and bike on this street often and it makes me nervous to think of the additional trucks and SUVs hauling boat trailers that will be driving through our neighborhood. We have already seen an increase in traffic with the now public launch site for canoe and kayaks at Spriggs. Mr. Schuh is well aware of the safety issues that exist on Shore Acres Road that leads to Bayberry Drive. Schuh was just part of the Bike to School Event at our neighborhood elementary school Broadneck. In the article that was written on the event, Schuh stated how unsafe the roads are for our Broadneck Elementary school children, making it impossible for them to bike and walk to school. We participated in Bike to School Day and I was forced off Shore Acres road by trucks and speeding cars even during the event. Shore Acres can not afford additional traffic. It is completely unsafe. In addition, I'm very concerned about the health of our beloved Magothy River and Chesapeake Bay. I remember hearing Spriggs Farm was "saved from development" when we first moved into Ulmstead. However, this proposal has a huge parking lot in the plan with significant dredging which will significantly impact the environment and health of a 6/23/2017 waterways causing irreversible damage. Please do not approve Spriggs Farm as a public boat launch site. I live on the Broadneck Pennisula and we have long needed the facility you propose at Springs Farm. It should have a minimum of two ramps and no less. 3 or 4 would be even better. I hav been a boater my entire life and I have lived in AA county my entire life and it is a true shame how little access the public has to the water for boating. Note‐ people from that community that already live on the water and don't need the ramp or have a ramp for their community are posting on Facebook and telling everyone to fight the Spriggs Farm ramp. The problem is, they already have the water access that the rest of us do not. Since Spriggs Farm is already a county park, there 6/23/2017 is no reason this park should not have boat ramps!!!

We are very concerned with logistical aspects and safety access with possible increased public boat ramps in our neighborhood. We live next to the private beach area of Ulmstead and are subject to out of area access to the park at all hours of the day and night and parties by these individuals despite being private property. This includes alcohol and drug use regularly next to our children and disregard for the private residence right next door. also destruction of the land and pollution from fishing lines 6/23/2017 and waste left in the park. These concerns do not even speak to the traffic concerns on our streets with more boats and trailers.

I reviewed the study and will be strongly against any proposed boat ramp development at the Spriggs Farm location and I am surprised there was this level of consideration for a boat ramp at a 'farm' park that can only be entered by passing through active and established communities. There is a massive boat ramp at Sandy Point State Park within only a few miles of this location. Many boaters may be turned off by Sandy Point due to long lines and park capacity often being reached on nice days. The long lines typically stem from park go‐ers using the beach and park facilities other than the boat ramp. I think a better option would be to maximize the potential of Sandy Point boat ramps that are being under utilized. Perhaps a designated park entrance/exit lane for vehicles with boat trailers. Sandy Point provides for great access to the Magothy River and the ramps have so much more potential. The Spriggs Farm location is tucked away and surrounded by established communities, many of which have community boat ramps and the park is also not far from a couple of marinas that offer boat ramps for a launch fee. I would like additional feedback considered should the Spriggs Farm location be considered beyond the Feasibility state of the County's initiative to increase public access to our waterways. Please add 6/23/2017 my name and contact info to any list that may receive further progress notifications. As a boater in Anne Arundel County,I feel the pain of the lack of public boat ramp access. However, drivers with boat trailers will have to travel through Ulmstead Estates on Bayberry Drive before entering the Bayberry/Spriggs Farm area. The Ulmstead Bayberry Drive area is already very dangerous to drive through for residents due to narrow, windy roads. Additionally, driveways along that strip are short and residents park cars along the roadway. Again, this is a dangerous area to drive especially with the foot and bike traffic of the neighborhood. Adding vehicles with trailers and increased travel on this road is unacceptable for the safety of the citizens of Ulmstead 6/23/2017 Estates. I am very disappointed to even see that Sprigg's Farm is on the Tier 1 list. The farm is located off a small community road where children regularly ride their bikes and community members walk. Adding to the traffic will create a dangerous situation for the members of the surrounding communities. There are no sidewalks in the surrounding communities. In addition, there will be a significant impact to the different animal species that reside in the park. Disrupting this natural environment with dredging and taking away grasses and trees will do more harm to the Magothy which is already not a healthy waterway. After reading the study, the cost seems to be outrageous compared to the other proposed sites. It appears that two of the other sites could be developed for the cost of Spriggs Farm! Therefore, in addition to the 6/23/2017 previously noted concerns, as a taxpayer I strongly oppose the use of funds to develop Spriggs Farm into a public boat launch.

I would strongly oppose placing public boat access at this location. It would significantly impact the safety of the communities neighboring this access as it would significantly enhance traffic in the area. There are many children in the area that would be impacted substantially. Their safety would be dramatically decreased by enhancing public access to this area. Additionally there is already nearby access at Sandy Point State Park. As a member of the community neighboring this proposed 6/23/2017 boat access site I strongly oppose it's creation in order to preserve the safety of our communities. I support access for kayaks, SUP and canoes from Spriggs farm Park farm but not a full boat ramp. A full boat ramp would destroy the small beach there and potentially have detrimental environmental effects to the marsh area adjacent to the waterfront area at the park. Furthermore use of kayaks, SUP, canoes and other similar small non‐powered devices is increasing and users of these devices need safe access to the water too. A boat ramp is not a good fit for the park but a kayak, etc. launching site 6/23/2017 is. Please do not build a public boat ramp in our neighborhood. This could bring a lot of unwanted traffic, and danger to our children. We would like to keep this 6/23/2017 neighborhood safe. I vote NO on proposed Boat ramp at Spriggs Farm Park. This is a residential area and was never designed to handle the traffic this boat ramp would generate. Our kids' 6/23/2017 safety is at stake. Please don't build this ramp. I vote NO on proposed Boat ramp at Spriggs Farm Park. This is a residential area and was never designed to handle the traffic this boat ramp would generate. Our kids' 6/23/2017 safety is at stake. Please don't build this ramp.

This neighborhood is 100% NOT equipped to handle that level of traffic for the following reasons: ‐ We are constantly dealing with speeding violations, that we have been working with law enforcement on ‐ The streets are not wide enough to support a large volume of trailers and boats ‐ There are no sidewalks, so the streets are full of children on bikes ‐ There have been several cases of trespassing in our private community beach due to poor signage for Springgs Farm and public access ‐ Current visitors are not adhering to the farm entrance rules and instead of using the lock and gate, simply park along our streets ‐ We are repeatedly kicking out underage kids who are trying to party at Spriggs Farms and more neighborhood traffic would increase awareness of the park among teenagers ‐ The county opened up the farm to the 6/23/2017 public for kayaking and such, but has yet to provide adequate security, lighting, trash receptacles, etc. despite our constant requests If the goal is to have more boat access it seems that Solley, which already has a ramp to be revamped is a good northern county choice. I would not remove the paint ball area to accommodate boaters though, since it is an amenity already used by the community. Quiet Waters Park already has facilities ammenible to expansion which is a good location for mid‐county access. I'm not sure how the communities along the South River would feel about a park expansion there as a southern option. I live by Spriggs Farm. Your design is the only one that allows for 2 ramps, 2 permanent piers, and a floating pier. It also absorbs more than half of the rolling fields in the park for parking. It's the most expensive project as well. The park already has an active kayaking community regularly using the park with minimum impact to the land. The park you are suggesting would become a huge draw with 2 ramps. The amount of boater traffic and destruction of the land for roads and extensive parking areas would 6/23/2017 destroy the tranquil atmosphere of this park. Please do not choose Spriggs Farm. I am concerned about the idea of making Spriggs Farm a public boat ramp. The added traffic down Shore Acres Rd and through the residential communities (where there are no sidewalks) is concerning for our children who are playing in the neighborhoods. The additional costs needed to make this a viable option seem extraordinary as 6/23/2017 well. Please take Spriggs Farm off your list as a new public boat ramp. Issues to consider alternates to Spriggs Farm Locaon: 1)Cost – a.the inial cost is very high b.maintenance costs of dredgi ng very high due to long fetch of wind directly up river to locaon c.maintenance cost of stormwater remdiaon going to be high due to large footprint of impervious surface 2)Safety a.Shore Acres at narrow spot past elementary school is already a danger zone for children walking – (no sidewalk, narrow and blind hill) – volume of trailers is asking for injury/death b.Garywood is already dangerous with speed bumps installed to slow people down – the proposal to drive 50 trailers/day down this road is dangerous 3)Necessity a.Sandy Point with 22 ramps is a 10 minute drive away, and from the water is just around the corner from Spriggs Farm b.A nature area servs the resi dents beer than a hugh parking lot with 6/23/2017 a long ramp to go to the water

We strongly oppose the use of Spriggs Farm as an active boat launch. This feasibility study assumes the property is an "island" ‐ standing alone and not surrounded by three residential communities and hundreds more homes and families along the drive to its entrance. It appears the ability to have a large parking area and access to Dobbins Island (now privately owned) are the most compelling features of a Spriggs Farm location? This study completely neglects the significant, negative impact a boat launch would have on the safety of the neighboring communities, the health of the Magothy River, and as importantly, the trust between the community and AACO government officials, with a heavy finger pointing to County Executive, Steve Schuh. Safety: Have you actually driven to this location? It takes you down Shore Acres Road, which just last month had two traffic calming installations put in place, with one calming installation previously in place, due to intense traffic issues and safety in a community with hundreds of school age children. You then must drive down Bayberry Drive, a small community road with three traffic calming installments, again, already in place. If you have cars parked on the road in front of the homes, it is impossible to have two cars even pass safely. How is it possible a towed‐boat of any size could even make it through? To get to the entrance of Spriggs, you pass at least FOUR bus stops, feeding the elementary school on Shore Acres that you would have already passed. The school and buses run from 8‐5:30 during school year ‐ which includes boating season ‐ AND hosts activities all summer. The number of children living along the route to Spriggs Farm is in the hundreds. In fact, our own county Executive, Steve Schuh, visited our local elementary school just this year, touting his support and concern for our kids safety and his personal commitment to these new traffic calming investments on Shore Acres Road. How can you justify then INCREASING the traffic 10x (which is what we saw with the opening of Spriggs for kayaking). Increased traffic from individuals unfamiliar with the area is sure to lead to terrible consequences. SAFETY: Since the unannounced installation of a passive boat launch at Spriggs Farm, our communities have seen an increase in crime. Theft of neighboring homes and automobiles, arrests of individuals participating in illegal activity (drugs, underage drinking, etc.) and even fires started by visitors have occurred at an alarming rate. Have you checked with the local police and fire department about the rise of incidents? Is that part of this "feasibility" study? The park is not policed or routinely visited by park rangers to prevent any of this. Has this feasibility study taken into consideration the increased costs associated with surveillance and safety patrols? HEALTH OF THE MAGOTHY RIVER: Why are we comfortable adding more boats to the Magothy River when the health of this treasured watershed is declining? (http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/environment/ph‐ac‐cn‐magothy‐report‐0303‐20170302‐story.html) Additional boat traffic will increase the temperature of the water, add additional toxins and have an impact on boater safety. Not to mention the significant dredging that would need to occur to even enable boat launches? Have all of the recommendations from the Magothy River Watershed Assessment in 2010 even been addressed yet? (http://www.aacounty.org/departments/public‐works/wprp/forms‐and‐publications/MagothyRiverSummaryReport.pdf) Let's keep in mind, Sandy Point is only 7.5 miles from Spriggs Farm. How can we say we need another public boat launch in this vicinity? TRUST: The history of Spriggs Farm becoming county property is a story of trust and cooperation between the neighboring communities and the counties. Our neighbors helped raise money and ensure that AACO could purchase and preserve this watershed. At the time, our community was ASSURED by government officials that no public boat launch would be considered for this property. These neighborhoods are 60+ years old, built within residential zoning, for small communities and as a result, has the associated traffic and patrolling needs in place. How can we remain confident in the trust between our government, local officials and its citizens 6/23/2017 when one side no longer keeps its word? An active, public boat launch at Spriggs Farm is unacceptable to the tax paying, concerned citizens of the surrounding area. Totally against a public boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. The farm is located in between two quiet neighborhoods. The addition of a public boat ramp would increase traffic, make the streets more dangerous for our families and children biking, walking and running. With increased traffic could bring increased crime. This is. It a good 6/23/2017 location for a public boat ramp. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed boat ramp at Spriggs Farm in the Olmstead Estates and Bayberry neighborhoods. As you probably expected my knee jerk reaction was like most ‐ not in my backyard. Emotions aside, I do not think the road infrastructure was designed to handle what will become regular truck & trailer traffic. The roads are narrow with blind curves, it's a fairly steep grade and there are speed humps in the road (which in my opinion need to be bigger due to some fast drivers) ‐ all of these pose serious safety concerns. I think another important item to stress is the lifestyle and regular occurences in the neighborhood that would be at risk from a safety perspective; there are always adults and young kids biking, walking, exercising, etc. That will undoubtedly come to an end with not just increased traffic but trucks pulling trailers. I understand the desire to maximize this natural resource and open up the waterfront to as many people as possible but a boat 6/23/2017 ramp is not the solution needed in this specific space as it would cause more harm than good.

Even though I believe public access to the Chesapeake Bay is important, I believe Spriggs Farm park would be a terrible location for a boat ramp. The park is too small and 6/23/2017 access to it runs right through a neighborhood. The park is perfect as it is now, that is, a place to launch a canoe or kayak or take a walk to the water. I oppose the building of a public boat ramp on Bayberry Road in Arnold. The road of approach is a 25 mph narrow road running through a quiet community. The traffic on that road allowing boats with trailers would prevent 2 way traffic and would cause a threat to children and adults on bicycles or walking. The community could not 6/23/2017 possibly handle the additional traffic!

I ask that the county reconsider the use of the Spriggs Farms site for use as a public boat launch per section 2.5 of the Boat Launch Feasibility Study The cost of this site option is more than double the cost of any of the other 5 options. The county could install 2‐3 other sites for the cost of the Spriggs Farms site. If the goal of the program is to provide additional access locations, it would stand to reason that allocating the resources to open more sites would be a prudent course of action. The county is proposing installing a massive boat launch in the front of a quiet family orientated private waterfront community (Bayberry/Ulmstead Estates). These communities are not designed to handle the traffic that could be generated with the installation of this facility at Spriggs Farms. The other sites are parts of existing parks and waterfront access areas that are designed for this type of vehicular traffic and are much more suitable options than Spriggs. I have a serious concerns over the issues of increased traffic and the impact that it will have on the safety of the community and Children who use Bayberry Drive for various activities. Please consider this when making the decision. As I have spoken with many neighbors in the community about this proposal, this launch is an unwanted element that we ask to be located in a more suitable 6/23/2017 place which will have much less impact on the surrounding community and its residents. II'm writing to voice my opinion NOT to consider Spriggs Farm for a boat ramp. This park is in the middle of neighborhoods with lots of little kids and the increased traffic would be unsafe. Beyond the safety issue, the environmental impact looks to be quite big. You can't see it well in these pictures but the height of the current land and the beach must be about 20'. You would need to remove a lot of earth to put a proper boat ramp in. I feel an existing active park that has folks overseeing it on a 6/23/2017 daily basis is the way to go. I park like this with no oversight, is a bad idea.

PLEASE REMOVE SPRIGGS FARM PARK FROM CONSIDERATION FOR THIS FACILITY. As a member of the small community of Ulmstead Estates , the traffic and cleanliness of this once pristine park has already been compromised by the current car‐top facility. The narrow roads leading to the park via neighborhood streets have become increasingly dangerous due to the kayak and canoe enthusiasts who now speed into the area to take advantage of this park. In addition, my family has had to rake up trash that has been left behind on the beach and grass parking lot. ...And now I am reading in this study that there might be a double boat ramp, 'significant' dredging, and a paved parking lot and entrance with over 60 spaces? This will undoubtedly increase traffic even more so and cause serious safety concerns for the families in this residential area (kids will most likely not be allowed to ride bikes and play near these streets.) Further, no matter how much environmental mitigation is enacted upon, 6/23/2017 Spriggs Farm Park and Bay shoreline will suffer irreversible environmental damage. I believe this to be short‐sighted and irresponsible.

I don't think this is easily accessible for a public boat ramp. Entrance and egress to and from the community is limited to two, residential streets. The topography of the 6/23/2017 streets is curved and narrow. There is a high concentration of families with children, so increasing the traffic volume on this type of roads would be dangerous. Unless the County plans include improving the access on Bayberry Rd. there will be accidents outside of Spriggs Farm. Currently there is no visibility when entering the Bayberry community (hill in front of access gate to farm) and adding boat ramp traffic will be a serious problem. Someone will get seriously hurt and I hope it's not one 6/23/2017 of the children in the communities effected by this decision. There should not be a boat ramp installed in a private community for public use. This would increase traffic and bring in a lot of people that do not care about the safety of the members of Ulmstead. I've lived there for 20 years and there's already an issue of people leaving their boat trailers for DAYS outside of my house (we live one house up from Dock I). Sometimes there's no where to park AND we have a driveway!! Additionally, Spriggs is a great place to take the dogs in the neighborhood and 6/23/2017 swim them. A lot of kids like to play down there as well. There should be a boat ramp in a public area/park, not in a private community.

The idea of putting a full boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is unacceptable. I promise you there will be a head on collision at the crest of Bayberry Drive if the gate were to be moved back to it's original location at the Bottom of Bayberry Drive. It is a completely blind hill and often contractors and people unfamiliar with the area veer far towards the middle of the road and we are constantly having to swerve to avoid them. Couple that with people trailering boats (and likely drinking all day on the water) and the situation will become deadly. There are far too many children in Bayberry and surrounding communities for this to be a safe idea. Not to mention how shallow 6/23/2017 the water is there. I live on the water on Locust Circle two streets over and my water depth is no more than 3 feet. Bad idea to even consider this residential location! Quite simply put, the roads accessing Spriggs Farm are not wide enough (no sidewalks or shoulders) to handle daily boat traffic. This entrance road is already dangerous 6/23/2017 enough for the residents without adding large tow vehicles and boat trailers. I live on Bayberry Drive in Arnold. We have too many speeding cars already going down this road and there are several schools bus stops on this road that are already 6/23/2017 risky at best. We do not need more traffic leading to a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm!!

This proposal is dangerous for our community! Our roads are not wide enough to support heavy traffic and large trailers. It is already becoming too dangerous for our children to ride their bikes to the pool if there are multiple cars lined up trying to open the gate, while cars are coming into the neighborhood and exiting the neighborhood. This scinerio occurred yesterday morning as I was biking my daughter to swim team and the heavy traffic at the park entrance almost caused us to get hit. This is a quiet neighborhood loaded with children whose way of life is to bike back and forth from their friends houses, to the pool and the community parks. We already have to worry about the amount of strangers that are suddenly entering our quiet community where everyone knows everyone else. Please do not make this an area 6/23/2017 where we no longer want to live because it is unsafe for our children.

PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST/DRIVER SAFETY ‐ I applaud the efforts of AA County for looking into ways of increasing public access to our greatest resource in the county. I would like to share my concerns with the Spriggs Farm location. I feel as though Bayberry Drive cannot accommodate the traffic that would result from adding a boat launch. The section between Placid Ct and Carlisle Dr is already a section in which I do not run, walk, or bike due to the width and slight bend that decreases visibility for drivers. It is tricky when there are no cars parked along the side and worse when there are a couple of cars parked on the side. Adding a boat launch would not just 6/23/2017 increase the number of vehicles, but these vehicles will be towing boats that would complicate the safety issue.

I have serious concerns with the construction of a public boat ramp facility at Spriggs Farm. The narrow residential streets in Ulmstead and Bayberry cannot reasonably accommodate the resulting traffic without impacting the communities and safety of the residents. The cost wold be excessive and its construction would negatively 6/23/2017 impact the current attractiveness and use of Spriggs Farm as a as a car top launch location. I will oppose the proposal.

I love being on my boat and wish for all enjoy our beautiful waterways but how to access sprigs farm launching ramp could be a burden to bayberry drive. Just with normal traffic two cars sometimes and not get by evenly now with adding boat and a trailer...could be truly dangerous. Also taking in consideration this neighborhood is filled with young children that are walking and or on bikes throughout bayberry drive our main access within our neighborhood. Sometime these children do not watch their surrounds as a neighborhood parent is driving..now adding boat with a trailer on a very slopped hill..beyond concerned for safety. Thank you for your time on my 6/23/2017 input to not allow the a public boat ramp to this location. Truly just. Am not handle this impact to our roadways I vehemently oppose a boat launch going in at spriggs farm. The farm is located in the middle of two neighborhoods where our children ride bikes all day. The increased 6/23/2017 traffic would bring danger to our children. I vote NO on proposed Boat ramp at Spriggs Farm Park. This is a residential area and was never designed to handle the traffic this boat ramp would generate. Our kids' 6/23/2017 safety is at stake. Please don't build this ramp. Thank you. Proposed Boat ramp at Spriggs Farm Park: As a current resident of Ulmstead Estates, the increase in traffic this ramp would generate would expose our kids to more danger on the streets. This is a RESIDENTIAL area. There is only ONE street coming in and out of the park and it is too narrow for trucks with trailers in and out of our neighborhood all day long. I vote NO on this proposal. There are many other ramps in the area and they are not even full. Sandy Point is one example. The study fails to 6/23/2017 provide the demand if any for yet another boat ramp in the area. Please don't approve this proposal. As a resident in the community where Springs Farm is located and a prior owner of a property right on Bayberry Drive, I am very concerned about the proposal of a boat ramp being placed at the park. I worry about increased traffic including boat trailer traffic in the community. Bayberry Drive is often difficult to navigate when people need to park along the road. It is narrow and descends much more quickly than people expect which causes people to speed. We have a significant number of young children in the community who use the roads to travel by foot or bike to get to our community amenities. We are one of the few communities where people still feel safe having their children travel to other locations within the community and I'am afraid we would lose this community feeling with large numbers of strangers entering the community. We already have the increased difficulty with the office at night. I am also concerned about erosion at the park and the thought that they would need to dredge there often as the water is often quite shallow. Ulmstead "Beach" has had significant erosion and we as a community work hard to try to control it. I am concerned that additional boating traffic will have a negative impact just at the new ramp location. I would request that there be strong consideration and not placing 6/23/2017 boat ramp at this location. 6/22/2017 Spriggs Farm ‐ Tier 1? Despite being the most expensive (by far) and requiring "an extensive amount of dredging?"

6/22/2017 Spriggs is great for hiking, walking dogs, and kayaking. I think putting in a boat ramp is a mistake. Keep it simple. Sandy Point has plenty of access for boating. The traffic on bayberry drive would be horrendous if you put in a boat ramp. That is NOT the agreed plan There is already traffic due to the kayaks. Also there is no police presence as vandals are constantly at the historical house. Also the practicality of a boat ramp is rediculous. The entire area would have to be dredged it is so shallow. There is barely a beach left. Accommodating who the park was originally planned for kayakers and hikers would be nice. Thank you. Also the only other path has been 6/22/2017 blocked by a downed tree. It would be nice to have that removed.

I am a resident of Ulmstead in Arnold. I understand that water access is planned for our Ulmstead Bayberry area. I can't stress enough that the most direct access to bayberry is bayberry road, which is narrow and winding. It is tricky for two cars to pass safely going the opposite direction. In fact, if there is a car or truck parked on the side of the road, all traffic must stop to manipulate it safely. Boat trailers will pose a logistical nightmare, not to mention the safety concerns for the children who are 6/22/2017 constantly riding bikes throughout the neighborhood during boating season. I strongly oppose the proposal of allowing a public water access in our neighborhood.

We moved to Ulmstead to raise our children in a very quiet and safe neighborhood. My kids are out on their bikes all over the neighborhood everyday and I never think twice. Our kids walk from both neighborhoods to the pool early in the morning to swim practice. We walk and run throughout Ulmstead and Bayberry and never have to worry about traffic. You CANNOT put in a public boat ramp in Bayberry. Our roads cannot handle the extra traffic with trucks and trailers. We don't want anymore car traffic with our kids out in the very safe streets playing street hockey and skateboarding. You will ruin our amazing neighborhood and will be opening up our very private 6/22/2017 and safe neighborhood to strangers. Please don't ruin that for our children! Please don't invite the public into our very special community that we have here!

Putting a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is not a good idea. The roadways to Spriggs Farm are already full with residents of the surrounding communities including children 6/22/2017 who are walking and riding their bikes. If you want to spend government money, please, please, please put in a bike path instead! 6/22/2017 Sounds great! We need more public access to water!

A boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is a bad idea. Especially with an entrance at the end of Bayberry. The neighborhood can't handle the traffic. How would someone towing a boat make the turn at the end of Bayberry to enter the park? There's not enough room. This is a quiet residential neighborhood and the roads are designed as such. We have a speed limit of 25 and narrow roads. People not familiar with the area will be racing through here towing boats. The park as it is now is relatively peaceful and has 6/22/2017 a lot of natural beauty. Why ruin that? Also, 1.8 million dollars would be better spent elsewhere in the County. 6/22/2017 Spriggs farm site to costly roads inadequate for large volume cars and boat. disruprion of ecosystem and park. Do not place ramp at this site. As a member of the Ulmstead community, I am sending my opposition for a boat ramp to be added to our neighborhood. The reasons are as followed: ‐ increased traffic in the neighborhood of Ulmstead on the road of Bayberry will be dangerous. There are numerous children who ride their bikes on this street which is more narrow than other parts of the neighborhood. There is not a side walk, nor a decent shoulder to allow two cars and someone riding a bike, or walking at the same time. Increase traffic with boats sounds like an accident in waiting. The speed bumps are in place however, this often doesn't slow a large truck with a boat in tow going down hill. 6/22/2017 Please reconsider for the safety of our children! This will bring a lot of traffic into a quiet residential community. It will cause traffic problems at the entrance to the Ulmstead community. A traffic light will probably be required at shore acres. Plus both roads will need to widened. Lots of boaters start very early. They will be driving loud vehicles through quite neighborhood streets before the sun comes up. Families walk and ride bikes on this road and it is already too narrow for 2 cars and a pedestrian. Many people drink when they are boating, many of those people then get in cars and will be driving where children are playing. This is a quiet, safe, clean residential area that will suffer severe negative consequences. People who live in this area pay a tremendous amount of money in property taxes. Those large amounts of tax dollars collected are directly tied to the value of the properties. The value of these properties will surely be reduced as a result. This county has many other areas like quiet waters park that can be used for access to the water without destroying a nice place that people live and lots of children play. People who have purchased boats that require public access did so knowing what is involved. It is not right to destroy a community to make a few boaters save 20 minutes of drive time when they choose to use their toys. If the county wants to spend money on recreational facilities it should be spending money on bike paths or walking paths. This allows far more people to benefit from the dollars they 6/22/2017 are spending.

Placing a boat ramp in my community is a careless choice. Ulmstead Estates and Bayberry communities pride themselves on maintaining a quiet peaceful neighborhood where children can ride their bikes safely in the streets. In addition, it's relatively safe here considering there are only two entrances to the neighborhoods. If the public boat ramp is built, boat trailer traffic will surely increase on our quiet, narrow residential streets creating an unsafe passageway for children and pedestrians. 6/22/2017 Furthermore it poses a safety concern for our community with additional people coming in and out of our neighborhood. I am absolutely against a boat ramp at this location. As someone who lives in Ulmstead, the traffic at Lynch and bayberry is bad enough as is. With the additional traffic 6/22/2017 in this area it would create a much less desirable community to live in. I am strongly against this proposal. Shore Acres Rd, as well as Bayberry Drive and other residential streets in Ulmstead Estates and Byberry subdivisions cannot handle 6/22/2017 the added traffic and it would cause a safety hazard to neighbor children and pets. Spriggs Farm Park is not a good option for the boat ramp for three main reasons: 1. it is in a heavily residential area 2. the shallow water at the beach is not suitable for 6/22/2017 anything other than kayaks, canoes. Dredging is expensive 3. very high cost in comparison to the other sites.

Bayberry Rd the route to Spriggs Farm is too narrow and has no sidewalks. Many neighbors walk and bike including children along this route to access the pool, tennis 6/22/2017 courts and the playground. Minimal street lights are on this route. Please do not consider this a public acess point. Sandy point is 5 minutes away. 6/22/2017 I am against this public boat ramp. Too much traffic and will be to congested in such a small quiet community. While I appreciate the efforts by the County to increase public access to water, I am very opposed to opening the Spriggs Farm location. There are public access facilities at Sandy Point and Quiet Waters. Neither of these facilities go directly into a neighborhood of homes where hundreds of children ride their bikes and walk the residential streets. Bayberry Drive is not even marked for road traffic and is so narrow that if someone is parked on the road cars have to stop to let others go by. The dangers of opening this area up to increased traffic on residential streets is unsafe and irresponsible. This is a residential neighborhood. Not only will we see increased traffic volume, but we will also have to deal with trailers and boats on narrow residential streets. I live ON Bayberry Drive. I have already seen significant increased traffic due to kayakers and others visiting Spriggs Farm. I am vehemently opposed to a boat ramp. Our residential neighborhood is no place for a public ramp which will bring increased 6/22/2017 traffic and tremendous safety concerns. Please do not put one at Spriggs Farm. The roads leading In are narrow and hilly and filled with children on bikes,people walking with their pets and pushing strollers. It would seriously impact their safety. There are no street lights and no sidewalks. It would put our community in jeopardy. Sandy Point also does a great job of providing 6/22/2017 docks for the public in this area. This is in regards to Sprigg Farm location I am completely beside myself by the thought of more traffic coming in and out on Shore Acres Rd. It is already a nightmare now and when our kids are in school its even worse. This potential boat ramp will literally impact over a 1000 homes down Shore acres Rd! Its amusing that the county pretends to be so concerned about the residents and the impact of this boat ramp but failed to inform or notify anyone that a meeting was taking place about the recommendations. It also insane to think with all of the water bacteria issues we are having after rain storms in our water ways that more access and more boaters make sense. Did I forget to mention that Broakneck Elementary school is one of the largest attended grade schools in the county. So lets bring more traffic where there are literally thousands of kids biking, running and playing all while there is probably the best possible access and boat ramp in the state at Sandy Point (7miles to be exact from Sprigg's). I am just guessing but how are you going to widen Shore Acres Rd after the school? There are no side walks and the road definitely narrows and bottle necks at the bottom. Its clear there is an issue since you just recently put road calmers in before the school. I have a 22ft CC and its not easy pulling it through that tight area especially with the normal residential traffic now. And my last thought would been in regards to moving the gate down Bayberry to save cost? Thats even more insane considering the blind spot at the top of the hill. There is no way a vehicle pulling a heavy boat will be able to stop or move if there is a possible collision since the people coming and going will be so familiar with another tight narrow road. 100% chance there will be an accident at the top of that hill. Also there are 40+kids under the age of 12 playing, biking and running through that neighborhood. But hey lets save a few bucks... And my last thought is 1.7 million of tax payer money to create more water run off into our water ways. 1.7 million to dredge 1ft of water all the out 250ft annually. 1.7 million to create more unnecessary traffic 6/22/2017 down an already busy and blind road. 1.7 million to potential change the way 1000+ homes commute and let their kids go outside to play. To put a boat ramp inside Spriggs Park in a dead end community with over 70 young children in Bayberry alone is is a bad idea! all Kids play in this "Low Use Park" We don't want a bunch of strangers driving back and forth with their boat trailers and trucks while our children are playing in the woods of the park and trying to cross back into their neighborhoods.. you have Stonington, Ulmstead and Bayberry communities that this will be effect. Don't forget who is pays the most taxes!!! Your plan looks 6/22/2017 like you want to turn this beautiful nature preserve into a parking lot!

I oppose a public boat ramp at Springs Farm Park. Traffic on Shore Acres Road is already too fast and dangerous for our children. Traffic calming measures were just installed recently to calm traffic on Shore Acres. A public boat ramp would only serve to increase traffic on Shore Acres and increase traffic in the Ulmstead and Bayberry 6/22/2017 Communities. A Public Boat Ramp in the middle of a residential neighborhood full of young children is a terrible idea. I am extremely against doing this at Spriggs Farm. This is in the middle of a private residential neighborhood and the traffic would make the roads unsafe for the community. Too many cars coming through. There are many other options in the county where this makes more sense and is less costly. Please please do not go through 6/22/2017 with this plan. I live nearby and think it would add too much traffic and potential crime in this quiet community. The roads are busy already with just our neighbors. Plus, there are no 6/22/2017 sidewalks and I find it even difficult walking on Bayberry Dr.. I vote against adding a boat ramp. I think putting a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm is a bad idea for several reasons. First it's a residential neighborhood and would jeopardize the safety of our community based on car traffic and numbers of people entering a small community at any given time. Also, this property was suppose to be a non developed parcel of land and now it will have development and a negative environmental impact. This land and community cannot support a "marina" which you are basically purposing. Why on earth would you feel the need to disrupt a living shoreline, isn't the county and state trying to preserve land from this type of thing? There will be major issues moving forward if this planned development occurs and will cost the county more money to undue the mistake that would occur. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion on this very 6/22/2017 sensitive issue. Site 5 (Spriggs Farm) is not a good location. This location is right in the middle of a neighborhood with a lot of kid activity...bikes, skateboards, walking, running etc. The 6/22/2017 boat ramp will cause increased traffic which will bring with it safety and crime concerns.

I am completely opposed to this. The access area is in the middle of a residential area. To enter Spriggs Farm you have to drive through 2 different communities to access it. The intent of preserving the Farm was to allow people to visit the farm and enjoy the nature. I parking lot would be added and and the natural resources would be disturbed. Adding a boat ramp will increase traffic, have an affect on nature and pose a safety hazard for children and families along on this route. Finally‐ 6/22/2017 most of the Farm is secluded‐ who would monitor the area for crime and keep it safe with the increased traffic? As a resident of Ulmstead, I strongly object to the proposed boat ramp at Spriggs Farm. This is right in the middle of our neighborhood and an adjoining neighborhood ‐ Bayberry ‐ in a residential area. All houses are occupied by families, most of which have children who regularly use the road by Spriggs Farm for biking and playing with friends. It would result in significantly increased traffic in our neighborhood, as people would have to travel through our neighborhood to access the public boat ramp. It would also decrease the enjoyment of the neighborhood roads by residents when people attempting to travel to the proposed boat ramp cut through the neighborhood. It also decreases the property values of homes near the Park because they will face increased traffic from people trying to access the boat ramp. I believe the County should hold an open meeting where residents can express their concerns before constructing a boat ramp at Spriggs Farm in the middle of two residential 6/22/2017 neighborhoods. Spriggs Farm is NOT a good location for a boat ramp. Spriggs farm is located within a neighborhood of over a 1,000 homes and countless children (with no sidewalks). The increased traffic will cause unnecessary traffic, increased safety concerns and reduce property values (as well as property taxes). Do not build a public ramp in the 6/22/2017 middle of an established neighborhood. I understand that the county is reviewing the possibility of creating a boat launch at Spring Farms in Arnold. I am a life long resident of Bayberry, one of the communities adjacent to this proposed property and have many concerns about this possibility. To get to this property, you must drive through small, private communities, that have a high concentration of children. The increase usage of these roads, by trucks pulling boats on trailers, is a significant accident hazard. This is a quiet neighborhood area, and this project would change these neighborhoods for the negative with the increase traffic. We have already had traffic calmers installed on some of these roads, and this would only increase the likely hood of a severe injury. I would also have you consider the ability to put boats in and out of this area. I know this farm and the water ways extremely well. The depth of water makes it extremely hard to have a boat ramp at this location. The entire coastline and water front area is 1 to 2 feet of water, for almost 150 ‐200 feet out. The cost to dredge and maintain a depth that would be feasible for a boat launch seems to me to be incredibly high. Not to mention, the current access is a cliff with about a 35 foot drop. Being a citizen of Anne Arundel County, and the local neighborhood surrounding Sprigg Farms, I implore 6/22/2017 you to think about the negative implications to this possible boat launch site. Commenting directly on the proposed Spriggs Park location, but similar concerns are likely for the other locations as well. Terrible idea to turn a beautiful natural waterfront park into a paved boat launch. The cost and environmental concerns should be enough to cause the county pause. Impact to the access road traffic volume should also be a significant issue for this site. If the other issues are not convincing enough, having to dredge the river to allow adequate depth should tip the scales 6/22/2017 against this site!