[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]













                                    NA170Z0497-01


                                        TASK 21




                       Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program

                                Grant No. NA170Z0497-01

                                      Final Report








                                        Task 21



                         Critical Area Project Tracking
 
              (4th and 5th Quarterly Reports and Sample Program Output)
 

























          HT
          393
          .M3
          M375
          1992
 









                                            January 14, 1993



          MEMORANDUM


          TO:    Suzanne Aucella
          FROM:  Olwole Aladek@-

          SUBJ:  Quarterly Progress Report (October - December, 1992)


               During the quarter, the Commission staff had the opportunity
          to review the Integrated Program and Project Evaluation System
          (IPPES). The purpose of the review was to assess the functioning
          of the changes or modifications that have been made to the
          program. In view of the changes, there was a consensus that the
          program, in its present form, is user-friendly, operational and.,
          functional in the automation of the tasks of tracking
          development, reviewing local Programs,@ and evaluating proposed
          projects.

               The system was put through a rigorous evaluation for bugs,
          consistency and capability by our new Systems Analyst/Programmer.
          A number of computer programming anomalies were detected and
          request for rectification was initiated. Corrections have been
          made and the task of maintaining the system will be carried out
          by our Systems Analyst/Programner as recommended by the CRD
          Project Manager.

               The consultant continues to encode the local Critical Area
          Programs into the system. This task will be taken over by our
          Systems Analyst/Programmer for the remaining local Programs at
          the end of this funding period (September). Because of the
          transfer of the encoding task from the outside consultant to in-
          house, the Systems Analyst/Programmer started training during
          this quarter. Further training on the programming or encoding
          may be required as needed.

               Projects information  are continuously entered into the
          system as required in the  contract with CRD.

               The Commission is committed to using the system and the
          intensity of use will grow as more of the staff have easier
          access to the program through the network.

          /jjd

          cc: Dr. Sarah Taylor
               Veronica Nicholls









      JUDGE JOHN C. NORTH, 11
            CHAIRMAN                                                   WESTERN SHORE OFFICE
      410-822-9047 OR 410-974-2418                                    45 CALVERT ST., 2ND FLOOR
          410 - 820 - 5093 FAX                                        ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
      SARAH J. TAYLOR, PhD,
        EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR                                             EASTERN SHORE OFFICE
          410- 974 - 2418126
          410 - 974 - 5338 FAX                                           31 CREAMERY LANE
                                    STATE OF MARYLAND                  EASTON, MARYLAND 21601
                        CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION




                                             October 29, 1992

          MEMORAINDUM


          TO:    Susan Aucella
          FROM:  Olwole Alade  0@;@

          SUBJ:  Progress Report

               Efforts have been made to enter as many project data into
          the Integrated Project and Program.Evaluation System (IPPES) in
          order to generate meaningful statistical reports. These efforts
          have been successful to provide the commission with vital summary
          information about the types of projects that have been submitted
          for evaluation; the cumulation of the approval types, development
          types and the land use designations where these proposed projects
          are occurring (see the attached).

               In addition to the above, the IPPES can now provide summary
          information about the changes that are occurring in the wetlands,
          forested areas, and on agricultural lands as the result of
          approved projects. More importantly, the automatic calculation
          of the amount of land that is disturbed due to development
          activities; the amount of impervious surface created; the amount
          of forested areas removed and replanted; and the proportion of
          the total projects submitted in each county to the total number
          of projects submitted Critical Area-wide. These capabilities
          have been tested based on the amount of information that has been
          entered into the system. The actual effects of the approved
          projects can' be assessed more realistically as the commission
          builds the project database.

               Because of our past efforts to enter all of the project
          information that has been submitted in Anne Arundel and Cecil
          Counties, the statistical reports for both counties reflect the
          changes that have occurred. The same effort has been expended on
          other counties so as to provide a better test sampler.

               With regard to the encoding of the Critical Area Programs
          and the related ordinances, Dorchester and Somerset Counties have
          been completed.

               The position of the data processing programmer/analyst has
          finally been filled.





                           T@V C@%M N@-









                                      NA176Z'0497-01


                                         TASK 22





                        Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program

                                Grant No. NA170ZO497-01

                                      Final Report









                                         Task 22




                                     Somerset County

                              Watershed Management Survey
























           HT
           393
           M3
           M375
           1992












                                                     FINAL REPORT
                                  NON-TIDAL WETLANDS WATERSHED MASAGEMENT SURVEY
                                                  DECEMBER 30, 1992

                        An initial draft report was prepared in July 1992 for this project.
                 However, an extension was received on the contract, adding an additional three
                 month period. The purpose of this extension was to provide time for the Maryland
                 Department of Natural Resources to complete orthophoto wetland delineation maps
                 of the watershed. These maps should provide a far superior data base than was
                 originally anticipated.     Receipts of these maps by the Coastal and Watershed
                 Resources Division is expected to have occurred at this time.

                        The watershed management survey was begun in FY92 in order to help to
                 identify and develop protective measures for a significant resource in Somerset
                 County.    Also of serious concern was the issue of how to direct land use
                 decisions while allowing economic development to continue in the area.

                        As originally outlined, the main objectives of a watershed plan would be
                 to protect the resource; to determine areas suitable for development; to identify
                 possible mitigation sites; and to determine any related flood management and
                 water supply concerns.

                        A scope of work was developed which would be in accordance with DNR
                 guidelines and included the selection of a pilot study area based on written
                 criteria to be developed by the County; maps indicating potential non-tidal
                 wetlands in the selected area; and a concept plan and data files which would meet
                 DNR'requirements.

                        The criteria for selection were developed by the staff planner, Joan Kean
                 with comment from Marguerite Whilden of the Watershed Management Division, WRA.
                 The criteria are as follows:


                        1.    Location:    if possible, the watershed should be completely
                              within the County.

                        2.    Presence of non-tidal wetlands:      all watersheds in Somerset
                              County are presumed to have this feature. However, wetlands
                              depicted on NWI and State Guidance maps should be well
                              represented. Types of wetlands, as shown on maps, should also
                              be noted.


                        3.    Development pressures:     the watershed should be undergoing
                              development, but not heavily urbanized. If possible, growth
                              centers shown in the new Comprehensive Plan should be
                              included; available sewer and water should also be checked.

                        4.    Size: the watershed should be a manageable size for purposes
                              of a prototype survey. If too large an area, or too urbanized
                              area is selected, resources will be too limited to complete
                              the project and proceed to the next step.



                                             US Department of Commerce
                                        NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
                                              2234 South Hobson Avenue
                                               Charleston, SC 29405-2413











                Page 2





                      5.     Area outside the CBCA: given the configuration of the County,
                             all prominent watersheds will be at least partially within the
                             Critical Area.  However, 'the selected watershed should have
                             significant areas outside the CBCA which are expected to
                             experience development.

                      6.     Mitigation sites should be available. Given the rural nature
                             of the County and prevalence of prior converted hydric soils,
                             this is not anticipated as a major difficulty.         However,
                             availability of open space and public lands contiguous to
                             existing wetlands should be noted.

                      7.     DNR approval: The County is seeking the input of DNR WRA/Non-
                             tidal Wetlands on this projpct.     DNR should be contact to
                             review the criteria and selection.


                      Information on watershed designations were procured from the Flood
                Management Division and potential subbasins were then depicted on a 1: 62,500 map.
                Following this, a preliminary review of potential survey areas was begun.
                Activities during this period included telephone conversations with WRA and CWRD
                and meetings with office staff for in-house comment.

                      The criteria was then answered point by point and a more detailed map was
                drawn up for the Big Annemessex watershed segment.          This information was
                forwarded to    the Watershed Manacrement section      of   the  Water    Resources
                Administration. The agency concurred with the selection and suggested the County
                include water supply and flood hazard zone issues as applicable.

                      Progress on the project continued during the Spring quarter. Preliminary
                maps based on NWI maps and interpretation of infrared aerials and soil maps were
                started by the planner and an intern and were then provided to other Department
                staff members for review. These maps were to be redrawn at a scale useful to the
                project. However, efforts were curtailed when the possibility arose that DNR
                could procure additional non-tidal wetlands mappings for the project.

                      CWRD has a fully executed contract with WRA to provide orthophoto mapping
                by the end of 1992. For this reason, CWRD requested an extension of the FY92
                contract on our behalf.


                      Considerable progress was made on the concept document from late spring
                through mid-summer. After some discussion with Marguerite Whilden of Wetlands
                Division, it was decided that the conceptual framework need not be tied
                explicitly to the draft DNR guidelines as long as essential elements were
                addressed. Since planning agencies such as the Department of Technical and
                Community Services could already establish much of the framework as a "given",
                many of the steps were unnecessary and redundant.










                Page 3




                       Contact was also made with Calvert County Planning Office to review their
                document/outline since that County had been funded a year advance of Somerset's
                project.   On review, Calvert's outline and the direction of its study appeared
                to be in line with Somerset's. However, Calvert appears to be involved at this
                time with hydrologic and hydraulic components. Also, topography is not of great
                concern in Somerset as the coastal plan lacks significant definition.

                       A draft concept document was completed and provided to participating staff
                members for review and comment.    The revised concept plan was provided to CWRD
                and Non-Tidal Wetlands in July.    It is included in an appendix to this report.

                       Information was also gathered on functional assessment techniques.        The
                State has been actively seeking alternative methodology to WET. Conversations
                with Kevin Smith of the State's Non-Tidal Wetlands Division indicated that
                several methods were being explored: a landscape level functional assessment and
                two versions of the Ammann method, the New Hampshire method and the Connecticut
                method.


                       On November 30, Joan Kean accompanied the DNR to the Isle of Wight to study
                use of the New Hampshire method on wetlands on State-owned land. The methodology
                would have to be revised to allow for tidal wetlands as well as non-tidals.
                Although this methodology appears promising for watershed management purposes,
                development will probably extend for a year or more and would not be available
                for the currently funded work.     At this time, we have been advised by Denise
                Clearwater of the Non-Tidal Wetlands that WET 2.0 should be used.


                       In keeping with final task of the Scope of Work, three files have been
                prepared for Technical Information, Issues and participation.

                       The Technical Information file contains an annotated list of studies and
                plans on a local level; Submerged aquatic vegetation map; mitigation information;
                information on takings; information on the Ammann method including the manual for
                evaluation of non-tidal wetlands in New Hampshire.

                       The issues file contains preliminary issues identified and reviewed by
                staff members.


                       The participation file contains a list of thirty-five contacts in Federal,
                State and local government and other interested parties.

                       In early October, Joan Kean attended a Wetlands workshop at the Aspen
                Institute in Wye Woods. Cosponsored by various Federal and State agenci      es, it
                focused on developing relationships with private landowners and available
                programs to conserve and manage wetlands.

                       Valuable information was offered on"marketing" wetlands protection to
                property owners and available easements/grants from Federal, State and non-prof it
                groups. This may prove useful in public hearings and in working with the citizen
                participation portion of Watershed Plan development.










                Page 4




                      On October 1, 1992, Somerset County began a new contract to develop a
                watershed plan under 309 funding, in accordance with standards established by the
                Water Resources Administration of the Department of Natural Resources.

                      For this quarter, the no-cost extension runs concurrently with the new 309
                Grant and activities assigned under the latter contract have been pursued under
                the extension as far as funding allowed.

                      Required work on the development of a project schedule and benchmarks was
                completed, as was a Request For Proposals.      The RFP was completed in early
                November and sent to the Coastal and Watershed Resources Division for comment.


                      Extensive comment was received from Denise Clearwater of the Non-Tidal
                Wetlands Division who would ultimately certify the watershed management plan.
                As some of the comments addressed areas not within the FY93 contract and would
                involve additional costs, we requested further discussion between CWRD and the
                Non-Tidal Wetlands Division.

                      Other changes, based on Ms. Clearwater's comments, were made to the RFP and
                the revised paper was once again sent to CWRD. This revision is included as an
                appendix to this report.

                      An advertisement for request for proposals was placed in the Washington
                Post on Sunday, December 13.    It has been our experience that this yields the
                best response for projects requiring multi-discipline or scientific approaches
                that may not be available locally.

                      The present schedule calls for response and bids from consultants by
                January 12,   1993; interviews on January 20 and 21, as necessary and;
                recommendation to the County Commissioners by January 26, 1993.

                      As the objective of the FY92 special project was to begin to develop a
                watershed management plan for Somerset, the County has met its goal. The present
                FY92 funding brings the project into the next phase.      Should DNR - Non-Tidal
                Wetlands decide additional studies are required, additional funding can be sought
                by the agency. At this time, however, the County believes water supply and flood
                management concerns within this particular watershed segment will not necessitate
                extensive additional survey.











                                                    APPE\DIX "A"


                                                    CONCEPT PLAN


                1.     Purpose

                       The purpose of developing a watershed management plan for Somerset County
                is to protect valuable non-tidal wetlands and habitat for threatened and
                endangered species; to provide a measure of       economic and social stability by
                offering    a guide to where development can occur; to direct mitigation to
                suitable sites; to address issues of flood management and water supply as
                applicable and; to protect the water quality of the watershed.

                       As ecologists and planners try to form a holistic approach to growth and
                environmental protection, watershed planning has emerged as the appropriate
                vehicle for assessing where and how development should occur. While protecting
                wetland resources, a watershed management plan also relates directly to nonpoint
                source pollution and its effect on water quality in the Bay, its tributaries and
                groundwater supplies.

                       Somerset County falls into two watersheds: the Nanticoke to the North and
                the Pocomoke to the South.    Within these watersheds are subbasins or segments,
                one of which would serve as a survey area in the development of a watershed
                management plan.

                       The Big Annemmessex River watershed segment was selected as best meeting
                the criteria necessary for such a prototype study.         These criteria had been
                developed as a first step in this process. An analysis of how these criteria are
                met follows:


                       a)    Location:    if possible, the watershed should be comnletely within
                       the County. The Big Annemessex is located off the Tangier Sound, to the
                       northeast of the City of Crisfield. It is entirely within Somerset.        (See
                       map on following page].

                       b)    Presence of non-tidal wetlands.        Palustrine forested non-tidal
                       wetlands predominate in the watershed, with a number of estuarine non-
                       tidal wetlands, as well as seasonally tidal wetlands, near the river. The
                       most common designation is PFOIR.         State guidance and NWI mappings
                       indicate scattered palustrine non-tidal wetlands throughout the area
                       outside the Critical Area boundaries, with significant groupings north of
                       Marion, near Fairmount and near Westover on MD Rt. 413.

                       C)    Development pressures:        the watershed should be undergoing
                       development, but not heavily urbanized. - If possible, growth centers shown
                       in the new Comprehensive Plan should be included, available sewer and
                       water should also be. considered.    The watershed segment is experiencing
                       development pressures, but is not heavily urbanized. It includes growth
                       areas designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan for Marion, Westover
                       and northern Crisfield, as well as the Crisfield Airport.         Water front
                       subdivision has occurred around Jones Creek and Colbourn Creek.










                  Concept Plan
                  Page 2




                         d)     Size:   the watershed should be manageable size for purposes of a
                         prototype survey.      The size of the watershed lends itself to such a
                         study. Neither too large or urbanized, it is a manageable size with which
                         to work and should not strain financial resources.


                                The other two watershed segments considered were deemed too large
                         and complex in one case, and lacking development pressures in the second
                         instance.


                         e)     The selected watershed should have significant areas outside the
                         Critical Area which are expected to experience development. Considerable
                         portions of the watershed are outside the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and
                         includes the Fairmount area south of Rt. 361; from MD Rt. 413 to US Rt. 13
                         south of Westover; areas along 413 from Kingston to Hopewell.

                         f)     Mitigation sites should be available; availability of open space and
                         public lands contiguous to existing wetlands should be noted.           The area
                         included in this watershed includes privately owned farmland and timbered
                         parcels and property belonging to the County Commissioners and the Board
                         of Education in the vicinity of Westover.

                         g)     Known flood prone areas should be included, if possible. A sizeable
                         portion of the Big Annemessex River watershed segment is within the 100
                         year floodplain and is managed under a floodplain ordinance. There are no
                         floodways designated in the County as flooding is usually the result of
                         tidal influence.


                         h)     Water supply information should be considered in the selection.
                         The County's water supply is drawn from wells; a number of "Carolina
                         Bays", depressions in the form of oval basins occur within the Big
                         Annemessex area and are important in storage and recharge of groundwater.
                         Also the intake belt for the Pocomoke aquifer runs from Crisfield
                         northeast through the area in a 1.5 to 4 mile strip.

                         i)     DNR approval; DNR should be contacted to review the criteria and
                         selection. A letter concurring with the selection of the Big Annemessex
                         River watershed segment was received February 26, 1992 from the Watershed
                         Management Division of the Water Resources Administration, DNR.

                  2.     Scope of the Watershed Plan

                         The Plan will address the following areas:

                         a)     Watershed characteristics and land uses must be analyzed as a first
                         step. Included in this analysis is the identification of wetlands, based
                         on NWI and other sources, as well as random ground truthing to provide the
                         extent and classification of the resource.             Existing land use and
                         potential use in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan will be examined.










                 Concept Plan
                 Page 3




                       b)    Non-tidal wetlands protection, creation and restoration. The plan
                       must evaluate wetlands based on function.     Functional assessment should
                       follow approved DNR guidelines.

                             Once this is complete, wetlands requiring priority protection can be
                       designated, as well as areas suitable for restoration and creation
                       (including mitigation sites) of wetlands.

                       c)    Cumulative Impact. The Land use information obt   ained in a) will be
                       used in determining impact. Although the watershed may not have reached
                       a point where impact is easily documented, the degree of past wetland loss
                       and the viability of habitat and biotic characteristics of streams should
                       aid in the initial assessment.


                       d)    Flood Protection Issues.      Although Somerset has no floodways,
                       substantial flood plain exists.     Issues should be addressed, including
                       adverse affects on adjacent land from the filling of non-tidal wetlands.

                       e)    Water Supply Issues. The County draws on groundwater supplies for
                       almost all water uses. Any issues should be identified in the plan such
                       as drawdown and well head protection.

                       f)    The plan will list other significant issues that may arise in the
                       course of plan development.

                       g)    Implementation Plan. Authority for implementation must be planned
                       as well as the manner in which levels of government will interact.

                 3.    Work Approach

                       The Scope of Work describes the essential elements of the plan. The Scope
                 will  be accomplished through a series of planning tasks, beginning in a
                 preliminary phase and culminating in a completed and fully implemented Watershed
                 Management Plan. These planning tasks form the "process", or work approach which
                 guides the survey toward this final goal.

                                                      Phase I


                       The first phase of the Scope of Work is the Preliminary Phase which is
                 currently funded by a CZM grant for FY92. This includes the development of the
                 concept document to establish what the goals of the Watershed Management Plan
                 will be and by what means these goals will be reached.

                       Also entailed in this phase is the establishment of appropriate data files
                 to store relevant information.    A technical file will include a list of known
                 resources which can contribute to plan development as well as available
                 information on the non-tidal wetlands resource within the Watershed.










                Concept Plan
                Page 4




                      A second file pertains to Government and Public Participation. A contact
                list should be developed to include all local, State and Federal agencies that
                may offer valuable input and those agencies directly involved in the planning
                and/or implementation process. Assessment of which agencies will play a direct
                role in the planning process will also be made from this list, so information on
                roles and legal mandates should be included.          The listing for possible
                participants in the private sector is an important element if public support and
                acceptance of the completed Plan is to be achieved.       Effort must be made to
                define all interested parties.     In Somerset County, where organized interest
                groups are not often a dominant feature, outreach will be necessary outside of
                standard environmental or community groups.

                      The third data file is an Issues file.     To begin, this will be a set of
                preliminary issues deduced at the staff level, but is should evolve throughout
                the process as new issues arise and public input is received.      This file will
                need to be updated regularly and divided into issues most relevant to the Plan
                and secondary issues.

                      The final effort of this phase is the preparation of preliminary Watershed
                maps showing the extent of non-tidal wetlands.    These maps will be drawn at I"-
                600' but may also be reduced to a suitable display size for general discussion.

                      The mapping will rely on national wetlands inventory maps and a combination
                of soil overlay and infrared aerial interpretation.        In the Critical Area,
                overlays have been completed as part of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program,
                showing known wetlands, but the aerial interpretation process will be added to
                this. The resulting mapping should provide a starting place for the phases to
                follow.

                      Should additional non-tidal wetlands mappings become available from the
                State or Federal government, they may be substituted as deemed appropriate.

                                                     Phase II



                      The second phase includes those tasks required for the selection of a
                consultant for the actual development of the Plan. A Request for Proposals will
                be written based on the concept document and will be checked for completeness
                with appropriate State agencies. Responding consultants will then be subject to
                the County's standard interview bid process.

                      The final task of this phase will be an initial meeting between the County
                planning staff and the consultant.










                Concept Plan
                Page 5




                                                    Phase III



                      The third phase is the development of the Plan by the consultant with the
                County Planner acting as liaison for the project.

                      The consultant will follow the outline below, with modifications that may
                come out of the effort.


                      A.     Define Program Goals

                             1.    Protection of non-tidal wetlands resources/sensitive areas
                             2.    Provide a measure of stability by offering a guide to where
                                   development can occur/facilitate development in designated
                                   growth areas
                             3.    Direct mitigation to appropriate sites
                             4.    Address flood management issues
                             5.    Address water supply issues
                             6.    Protect water quality in the watershed both as water supply as
                                   and as an extension of the Chesapeake Bay initiatives.


                      B.     Identification of the Resource


                             1.    Wetlands mapped based on review of preliminary maps provided
                                   by County; ground truthing as allowed by budget
                             2.    Functional assessment
                                   a.    establish method preferred by DNR (MWet, New Hampshire
                                         method, etc.)
                                   b.    evaluate alternative approaches
                                   C.    complete assessment.
                             3.    Prioritize wetlands based on functional assessment
                             4.    Assess cumulative impact of existing development, as possible,
                                   and impact of future growth.
                             5.    Identification and evaluation of potential mitigation sites


                      C.     Protection Measures


                             1.    Evaluate existing and possible measures
                                   a.    habitat protection areas - inside and outside CBCA
                                   b.    buffering - stream and non-tidal wetland
                                   C.    easements
                                   d.    Stormwater management/erosion control
                                   e.    additional requirements for septic systems
                                   f.    management of forested land
                                   9.    use of CRS credit in floodplain management
                                   h.    prohibition of high impact activities.











                Concept Plan
                Page 6




                      D.    Cumulative Impact


                            1.    available information on function and extent of resource and
                                  current development level
                            2.    recommended methods and procedures for assessment - water
                                  quality assessment
                            3.    ultimate development scenario
                            4.    State and Federal input
                            5.    development objectives for watershed assessed in light of
                                  impact.

                      E.    Floodplain Management

                            1.    effect of filling on adjacent properties/wetlands
                            2.    review of floodplain maps
                            3.    sufficiency of ordinance as protection for NTWS
                            4.    issues.


                      F.    Water Supply

                            1.    supply; aquifer recharge areas
                            2. .  quality problems
                            3.    need for well head protection.

                      G.    Other Issues identified in course of plan development

                      H.    Implementation

                            1.    identification of authorities
                            2.    process to be followed
                            3.    schedule for implementation.

                      I.    Technical data and addenda


                                                    Phase IV



                      Phase IV of the Scope of Work requires State and Federal Review of the Plan
                and approvals by the appropriate authorities.        During the course of plan
                development, agencies directly concerned with the plan, as well as agencies with
                informational input, will be contacted. This involvement should make final review
                a more simplified process.










                Concept Plan
                Page 7




                                                      Phase V



                       During Phase V, local ordinances must be reviewed in order to determine
                what changes will be necessary to implement the program. Zoning, subdivision,
                Floodplain, stormwater may all be affected. Also, the Land Preservation and Open
                Space Plan and Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed.

                       Necessary amendments should be written at this time and prepared for Public
                Hearing.

                                                     Phase VI



                       This Phase covers public hearings required under the law, both for the Plan
                itself and for any ordinance changes. Ordinances and the plan must then be filed
                with the Court as a final step to implement action.

                                                     Phase VII



                       The final phase in the development of the Plan is actual implementation of
                the program. A method of monitoring the process should be set up at this time
                to ensure the plan is accomplishing the established goals. These goals include
                both environmental aspects of protecting the resource and economic factors
                affecting landowners, including efficiency of the process itself.       A schedule
                should also be set for reevaluation of the Plan.


                4.     Expected Final Work Products

                       Should funding be received from CZM under FY93 309 Grants, Phases I - IV
                should be completed by September 30, 1993. The work products from this effort
                will be:


                       a.    Watershed (segment) map
                       b.    detailed maps at 1"-600' or 7.5 quad
                       C.    a draft watershed management plan for the Big Annemessex River basin
                             which will include all components as required by DNR and which will
                             meet certification requirements and include functional assessment of
                             non-tidal wetlands in the watershed.











                                                  APPENDIX "B"
                                     SOMERSET COUNTY BIG ANNEMESSEX RIVER
                                      WETLANDS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                             REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS



               1.     Contact Person:    Joan S. Kean, Planner
                                         Department of Technical and Community Services
                                         11916 Somerset Avenue
                                         Princess Anne, Maryland 21853
                                         (410) 651-1424   FAX (410) 651-2597

               11.    Introduction and ProJect Description


                      Somerset County has received a grant to develop a non-tidal wetlands
               watershed management plan for the Big Annemessex River watershed.         Under a
               previous grant, the County has developed a concept plan for the management plan,
               in conformance with Maryland DNR guidelines.

                      The purpose of such a plan is to protect valuable non-tidal wetlands and
               habitat; to provide a guide to where development should occur; to direct
               mitigation to suitable sites; to address any issues of flood management and water
               supply; and to protect water quality in the watershed.

                      The Big Annemessex is a small segment of the Pocomoke watershed and is
               located off Tangier Sound to the northeast of the City of Crisfield.        It is
               bounded by Janes Island to the south, Maryland Route 413 to U.S. Route 13 on the
               east and Maryland Route 361, through the villages of Westover and Fairmount on
               the north.


                      Palustrine forested non-tidal wetlands predominate in the watershed, along
               with estuarine non-tidal wetlands and tidal wetlands near the river..


               III. Response Time

                      Proposals must be received by 4:30 P.M., January 12, 1993 for
               consideration.   Proposals with three (3 copies must be submitted in a sealed
               envelope, clearly marked "Somerset County Watershed Management Plan" to the
               Department of Technical and Community Services, 11916 Somerset Avenue, Princess
               Anne, Maryland 21853.

                      The County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and may elect
               to interview applicants.

               IV.    ProJect Duration

                      The project will commence immediately. upon written notice to proceed from
               the County.    This will not occur until the contract has been signed by all
               parties, with the County Commissioners being the final signatory.










                 Appendix "B"


                        The following benchmarks must be met and will be reviewed by the County and
                 the Department of Natural Resources.      An extension of three (3) months may be
                 possible with NOAA approval.

                        March 1, 1993        Report outlining the definition of goals;
                        description of field work accomplished.

                        June 1, 1993            Report outlining work completed, including
                        identification of the resources; functional assessment of wetlands;
                        potential impacts to wetlands; and potential mitigation sites.

                        July 1, 1993           Report outlining the completed evaluation of
                        existing   and   potential protection measures; examination of
                        cumulative impacts, including any effects on floodplain management
                        and water  supply.

                        August 1,  1993       A draft report of the watershed plan will be
                        required,  along with three (3) copies for distribution to local
                        State and  Federal agencies.

                        September  15, 1993   A final report of the watershed plan will be
                        required,  along with seven (7) copies for distribution to local,
                        State and  Federal agencies.

                 V.     Proposal.Evaluation

                        Selection will be based on the following criteria:

                        * Bid amount
                        * Demonstrated knowledge of the resource by the firm and project team
                        * Experience with the 1987 and 1989 Federal Manual
                        * Proficiency with wetland assessment techniques (ex. Wet 2.0); a
                          description of personnel's experience including the number of times they
                           have completed such assessments is desirable.
                        * Technical approach
                        * Familiarity with the Coastal Plain
                        * Timeliness of the work effort and/or demonstrated ability to work within
                           State and Federal deadlines
                        * Demonstrated mapping skills

                 VI.    Meetings

                        The proposal shall specify a meeting schedule. Citizen participation is
                 a requirement of Maryland DNR guidelines for plan development and will be
                 coordinated by the County with scheduled meetings of local government/consu 1 tan t.

                        The consultant will be expected to participate in at least one meeting with
                 State and Federal agencies and one presentation to the general public and/or
                 local officials.










                 Appendix "B"



                 X*11. Timetable


                        The consultant shall provide a timetable reflecting the required benchmarks
                 and report deadlines as indicated in Section IV, Project Duration.

                 VIII. Work Approach

                        The consultant should identify the project team.         This should include
                 defining specific responsibilities of each member, the tasks to be accomplished
                 and the organizational scheme.


                 IX.    Bids


                        Proposals should included an itemized bid sheet.

                 X.     General Information


                        This effort is funded by the Coastal and Watershed Division, Maryland DNR,
                 through a Coastal Zone Management grant, administered by the Office of Ocean and
                 Coastal Resource Management, NOAA.      The local government liaison will be Joan
                 Kean, Planner, Department of Technical and Community Services. The Department
                 of Natural Resources may provide a technical review team for the purpose of
                 reviewing tasks.

                 XI.    Work Products


                        The final product will be a wetlands watershed management plan following
                 January 1991 DNR guidelines for the Big Annemessex River watershed.         The Plan
                 shall include the elements listed in the Project Outline (XIII) and further
                 explained in the Concept Plan. Expected work products also include a watershed
                 map, and detailed 1" = 600' maps.

                 XII.   Local Data Base


                        1.    Somerset County Concept Plan - Watershed Management Survey, 1992.
                        2.    Orthophoto wetland delineation maps to be provided by Maryland DNR
                        3.    FEMA maps for Somerset County
                        4.    Soil overlays to Somerset County tax maps/Soil Survey of Somerset
                              County
                        5.    NWI quad sheets
                        6.    Owens and Denny Geological Map of Somerset County
                        7.    Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program, 1988
                        8.    Comprehensive Plan, 1991
                        9.    Groundwater Protection Report, 1988
                        10.   Land Preservation and Recreation Plan for Somerset County, Maryland,
                              1988
                        11.   Management Plans for Significant Plant and Wildlife Habitat Areas of
                              Maryland's Eastern Shore: Somerset County, 1987










                Appendix "B"



                       12.   Somerset County Critical Area Survey for Rare, Threatened and
                             Endangered Species, 1990
                       13.   Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay,
                             1990
                       14.   Water Resources of Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties
                       15.   Additional information, such as stream surveys, may be available
                             from Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources

                XIII. Project Outline of Consultant's Tasks


                       1.    Identification and assessment of the Resource


                             a.    review orthophoto wetland delineation maps
                             b.    select wetlands to be assessed and submit
                                   to DNR for approval.          Representative
                                   wetlands from each mapped tributary system
                                   should be assessed.
                             C.    conduct a functional assessment of the
                                   watershed's    non-tidal   wetlands     using
                                   methodology acceptable to DNR (currently
                                   WET 2.0).
                             d.    limitations of the assessment model should
                                   be clearly identified in the report.

                       2.    Cumulative Impact Analysis

                             Conduct cumulative impact analysis of existing land use and
                       maximum buildout potential based on the current Comprehensive Plan,
                       Critical Area and related ordinances to determine potential impact
                       on wetlands, water supply and flood management issues.

                             a.    wetlands - evaluate impact on wetlands within the watershed
                                   resulting from:

                                   1.    roads, road improvements, utilities, sanitary facilities
                                         and other major public infrastructure
                                   2.    subdivisions and site development
                                   3.    major rezoning

                             b.    floodplain management

                                   1.    effect of filling on adjacent properties/wetlands
                                   2.    examine relationship between floodplain ordinance and
                                         non-tidal wetlands protection











                   Appendix




                                C.     water supply - evaluate cumulative impact on:

                                       1     water     quantity;       aquifer
                                             recharge areas; water budget
                                             based on  available information
                                             from the  State
                                       2.    quality of water supply
                                       3.    need for wellhead protection

                           3.   Protection  Measures and Mitigation Sites

                                a.     Propose development objectives for the watershed based on the
                                       impact analysis.    Review existing regulations and recommend
                                       revisions to local land use and government activities.

                                b.     identify  wetlands   of high functional value and develop a
                                       strategy for their   protection.

                                C.     identify  potential wetland mitigation sites throughout the
                                       watershed based on   DNR criteria.


                           4.   Address special watershed issues identified by Citizen Task Force

                           5.   Prepare a wetlands watershed management plan and map for the Big
                                Annemessex River watershed based upon the results of the above
                                tasks.










                                                                                           I


                                                         -1 3 6668 14103 9554 r           9