/ j4l DIrPr Larry Hogan

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT Boyd K. Rutherford

OF TRANSPORTATION Lt. Governor

A the Secretary

June 16, 2021

The Honorable Chnstopher M Corchiarino -

PresidentCounty Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County - - — ‘Di

The Liberty Building107 North Liberty StreetCentreville MD 21617

Dear President Corchiarino:

Thank you for your letter outlining Queen Anne’s County’s transportation priorities for the

Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

This information is vital in developing the Draft fiscal year (FY) 2022 — FY 2027 CTP. While

the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) remains focused on supporting the State’s

pandemic response and recovery, we continue to welcome input from across the State and value

the local expertise that determines which transportation projects comprise each jurisdiction’s

local and regional priorities.

The COVID-19 public health crisis and major economic downturn has underscored the crucial

role that transportation plays in all our lives. Unfortunately, the extraordinary measures taken to

respond to the public health emergency have resulted in a drastic decline in Marylanders’ use of

transportation services This decline has, in turn, resulted in unprecedented declines in

transportation revenues

Comparing the second week of April 2020 to the same week in April 2019, traffic volumes

declined 52 percent, truck volumes declined 27 percent, toll transactions fell 57 percent, Port of

Baltimore Seagirt Marine Terminal truck transactions declined 51 percent, Baltimore /

Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport passenger traffic fell 95 percent, and transit

ridership declined 70 percent on average. While these numbers are rebounding, it will be several

years before revenues fully recover.

All transportation projects will be evaluated in the context of this revenue shortfall with a

sustained focus on delivering projects that support safety, mobility, and state of good repair for

the critical infrastructure that composes the State’s transportation system.

7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, MaIand 21076 410.865.1000 8887131414 Maland Relay 410.859.7227 mdot.malandgov

The Honorable Christopher M. CorchiarinoPage Two

The Chapter 30 eligible transportation projects that were submitted by the March 1, 2021 annual

closing date are in the process of being assessed and scored by MDOT. The results will be made

public as part of the Draft FY 2022 — FY 2027 CTP when it is released this Fall. Please

reference www.mdot.maryland.gov if additional information on the Chapter 30 project scoring

process and timeframe is needed. Once on the website, select “Programs” at the top of the page,

and then choose “Planning and Programming.” Scroll down the page to “Capital Programming

and Transportation Budgeting,” and select the “Chapter 30 Scoring Model” link.

The MDOT Office of Government Affairs (OGA) will be in touch with opportunities to connect

this Summer to discuss Queen Anne’s County’s priorities. If you have any questions regarding

these meetings, please contact Ms. Pilar Helm, MDOT OGA Director, at 410-865-1090 or

phelmmdot.maryland.gov. If you have any questions or concerns about the CTP Tour or

would like to discuss the application process for Chapter 30, please contact Ms. Heather Murphy,

MDOT Office of Planning and Capital Programming (OPCP) Director, at 410-865-1275 or

hmurphymdot.state.md.us. Ms. Helm and Ms. Murphy will be happy to assist you. Of course,

you may always contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Gregory/SIa,èr- Secreta4’ .,‘

cc: The Queen Anne’s County DelegationThe County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s CountyMs. Margie A. Houck, Executive Assistant to the County Commissioners, Queen

Anne’s CountyTodd R. Mohii, PE, Administrator, Queen Anne’s CountyPatrick Thompson, Esq., County Attorney, Queen Anne’s CountyMs. Pilar Helm, Director, OGA, MDOTMs. Heather Murphy, Director, OPCP, MDOT

2

I1f1 iDl’Larry HoganGovernor

Boyd K. Rutherford

MARYLAND DEPARTMENTLt.Governor

OF TRANSPORTATION Gregory SlaterSecretary

STATE HIGHWAY Tim Smith, P.E.ADMINISTRATION Administrator

June 4,2021

Queen Anne’s County Commissioners107 North Liberty StreetCentreville, MD 21617RE: parcel at 415 Love Point Road

Stevensville MD

RE: S.H.A. Project No. QA354B21MD 835C in Stevensville in Queen Anne’s CountyFrom Cockey Lane to Old Love Point RoadTopographic Surveys

COjS5TOjq OFFITH —

Li ‘MU:-

To Whom it May Concern,

The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration District 2 Office is

developing plans for drainage and sidewalk improvements along MD 835C in Stevensville in

Queen Anne’s County. from Cockey Lane to Old Love Point Road. Within the next several

weeks, a survey team will begin performing field surveys to develop base topography for our

plans. The surveys will locate existing features such as the roadway, shoulders, curb, sidewalks,

drainage inlets and headwalls, utilities, landscaping, trees. entrances, and buildings.

Surveyors under our employ, either MDOT SHA personnel or consultant personnel under MDOT

SHA direction, may be required to enter temporarily onto your property. The privilege of entering

onto your property is provided for by the Annotated Code of Maryland, § 12-111 of the Real

Property Article. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of our need to access your property to

gather data and to request your cooperation. All MDOT SHA employees carry identification cards

and are required to display them upon request. Consultant employees are also required to display

identification upon request.

Our personnel have been instructed to take every possible precaution to assure that your property

is not damaged in any way while conducting these studies. If damage does occur, the MDOT SHA

will make proper restitution. To assist us further, it would be helpful if you would point out to our

field personnel any conditions on your property (freshly planted crops or other features) that might

not be readily apparent.

Since the purpose of the studies is to gather data, our field personnel gathering information are not

usually aware of the project details. Consequently, they may not be able to answer some of your

questions concerning the proposed improvement. They are not being evasive, but they may not be

615 Morgnec Rood, Chesteriown MD 21620 410.778.3061 I 1.800.637.9740 Maryland Relay ITY 800.735.2258 . roocts.marylcind.gov

3

able to answer your questions because the final design often cannot be determined until after all

the data has been collected and analyzed.

Personnel of the office listed below and or those from other MDOT SHA offices may contact you

again about re-entry upon your property in order to obtain additional engineering data. It is MDOT

SHA policy to re-contact property owners for the purpose of re-entry if one year has elapsed since

the previous contact.

If ou should have any questions. please feel free to contact Tom Revelle. Assistant District

Engineer— Project Development of this office at T1e\ JLe1nJtmuvland.eu\ at your earliest

convenience.

Respectfully Yours.

FOR:

Kenneth Fender.District Engineer

KF/TSRItrcc: file

MarylandTransportationAuthority

The Honorable Christopher M. CorchiarinoThe Honorable Philip L. DumenilThe Honorable James J. MoranThe Honorable Jack N. Wilson Jr.The Honorable Stephen WilsonThe County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s CountyThe Liberty Building107 North Liberty StreetCentreville MD 21617-1048

Dear President Corchiarino and County Commissioners Dumenil, Moran, Wilson, and Wilson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the possibility of conducting four lanes of westbound traffic

at the Maryland Transportation Authority’s (MDTA) William Preston Lane Jr. (Bay) Bridge (US

50). As Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Chairman of MDTA,

I am honored to respond.

In relation to two-way traffic (contraflow) on the eastbound bridge, the MDTA’s Office of

Engineering and Construction undertook a high-level analysis looking into the feasibility of the

eastbound bridge conducting contraflow when the westbound bridge is open. Currently, two-way

traffic on the eastbound bridge is only done when the westbound bridge is fully closed.

The MDTA’s Office of Engineering and Construction reviewed the lane shifts that would be required

in the crossover area. Approximately 1,000 feet of transition length in the crossover area is required

to satisfy safety requirements, excluding consideration for the Bay Bridge Administration Building

entrance; however, only 300 feet is available. As currently configured, the highway has a median

concrete barrier, 10-foot left shoulder, three travel lanes and a right shoulder less than 10 feet

wide. Consequentially, this prevents the merging of a fourth lane into the existing three lanes

without significant changes.

In addition to the physical constraint, the impact to safety and operations would be substantial. There

are inherent safety issues when running two-way traffic, especially related to queueing coming off

the westbound bridge when merging four lanes into three lanes. Further consideration should be

given to the impact of any incident in the crossover or on the eastbound bridge, which will result in

the closure of the only available eastbound lane. Finally, the delays on eastbound US 50 from having

one lane will create queues that extend over the Severn River Bridge. As we know, eastbound traffic

experiences delays on Fridays and Saturdays during current operations and running one lane on

Sundays will equal or exceed current Fridays and Saturdays delays. Similarly, implementing four-

way eastbound contraflow on Fridays and Saturdays would result in delays for westbound travelers

on US 50.

2310 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224. mdta@mdta.maryland.gov •410.537.1000 • 711 (MD Relay) • mdta.marylandgov • ezpassmd.com

Larry Hogan, GovernorBoyd K. Rutherford, Lt. GovernorGregory Slater, Chairman

June 10, 2021

Board Members:Dontae CarrollWilliam H. Cox, Jr.William C. Ensor, IllW. Lee Gaines, Jr.

Mario J. Gangemi, P.E.Cynthia D. Penny-ArdingerJeffrey S. RosenJohn F. von Paris

James F. Ports, Jr., Executive Director

‘fl’T.cTnJr’q iT71JiN i421PH1OS’

5

The Honorable Christopher M. CorchiarinoThe Honorable Philip L. DumenilThe Honorable James J. MoranThe Honorable Jack N. Wilson Jr.The Honorable Stephen WilsonPage Two

Lastly, MDTA Acting Chief Engineer Jim Harkness provided a presentation on this issue during theApril meeting of the Bay Bridge Reconstruction Advisory Group (BBRAG). I encourage you towatch his presentation at the following link: https://vimeo.com1534596911. Mr. Harkness’presentation begins at 1:05:00.

Thank you again for contacting me. We appreciate hearing from you. If you have additionalquestions or concerns, please contact Mr. Bradley Ryon, MDTA Manager of Government Relations,at 410-537-1060 or bryonmdta.state.md.us. Mr. Ryon will be happy to assist you.

Sinceref)

GregorySlaterSecretafy, Maryland Department of TransportationChairman, Maryland Transportation Authority

cc: Mr. James F. Ports, Jr., Executive Director, MDTAMr. Bradley Ryon, Manager of Government Relations, MDTA

6

F1 a ryla iIc:J Larry Hogan. CQ,ernor

Boyd K. Rutherford. Go’ernor

theE nvi ron men t Horacio TaadDepu

June 15, 2021

Ms. Jeanne Haddaway-Riccio, SecretaryMaryland Department of Natural ResourcesTawes State Office Building

r- r’-—- -—-—

580 Taylor Avenue 1LK Li-ri

Annapolis, MD 21401 JLr25’ziFH1:2

Dear Secretary Haddaway-Riccio:

The Maryland Department of the Environment has determined by sampling of the water in the area

described below that these waters are polluted so that shellfish produced or stored in this area are a

hazard to public health. Therefore, pursuant to the Annotated Code of Maryland, Natural Resources

Article § 4742 (2014 Replacement Volume), the Maryland Department of the Environment hereby

closes the area described below for the harvesting or storing of shellfish effective July 12, 2021. Please

note that this reclassification does not change the Department of Natural Resources designation of the

area described as an oyster sanctuary.

Plaindealing Creek, Tred kon Riser, Talbot Counts (17k)

All of the waters of Plaindealing Creek upstream of a line running in an easterly direction from a point

of land (38’D4244.3 North Latitude, 7601016.4 \\rest Longitude) on the western shore ofPlaindealing

Creek to another point of land (380 42’ 49.1’ North Latitude,76° 10’ 6.1’ West Longitude) on the

opposite shore.

Goldsborough Creek, Tred Avon River, Talbot County (17B)

All of the waters of Goldsborough Creek upstream of a line extending in a slight northwesterly

direction from a point of land (3804137.3 North Latitude,76°0747.l” West Longitude) on the

southern shore of Goldsborough Creek to a point of land (3804l45.2 North Latitude, 76°07’48.7’

West Longitude) on the opposite shore.

The following areas will remain prohibited to shellfish harvesting:

Town Creek, Tred Avon River, Closed Safety Zone Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant, Talbot

County (17F)

All the waters of Town Creek upstream and southeasterly of a line extending in a southwesterly

direction from a point of land (38°41’58.8” North Latitude, 76°09’46.7” West Longitude) on the eastern

shore of Town Creek to Quick Flashing Red Light “2”, (38°4l’54.9” North Latitude, 76°10’05.8” West

Longitude) then in a southwesterly direction to Regulatory Buoy “B” (384 144.7” North Latitude,

ic’: ‘,‘asrgor Bc’e.aD I mo .‘D 225C I OC-633C’1 4iD’37’3C•C I ‘, Users 1

mde mar’and gD. 7

Ms. Jeanne Radda ay-Riccio Secretar\

Page 2

761020.4” West Longitude), then in a southerly direction to a point of land (3841’39.3” North

Latitude. 76° 1015.3” West Longitude).

Effecti\e Date: Ma\ 15, 1933 and May 11, 1992

Continued Date: July 12, 2021

A map of the area is attached.

Sincerely,

D. Lee Ctirre, DirectorWater and Science Administration

At tachme ricc: (see attached list)

8

CCListing

Mr. Rusty McKay, Compliance Monitoring Division

Dr. Cliff Mitchell, MDH, Community Health Administration

Mr. Karl Roscher, Dept. of Natural Resources

Mr. Bill Sieling, Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Association

Dr. Maureen Edwards, MDH Environmental Health Coordination

Ms. Kim Coulbourne, MDH, Division of Food Control

Mr. William Beatty, Compliance Monitoring Division

Mr. Stephan Abel, Oyster Recovery Partnership

Mr. William Evans, MD Dept. of the Environment

Ms. Robin Henderson, MDH

Ms. Jeanne Haddaway-Riccio, Secretary, Dept. of Natural Resources

Mr. George O’Donnell, Dept. of Natural Resources

Honorable James J. Moran, President, Board of Queen Anne’s Co. Commissioners

Honorable Corey W. Pack, Chairman, Board of Talbot Co. Commissioners

Ms. Jodi Baxter, Fisheries Service

Mr. Martin L. Gary, Executive Secretary, Potomac R. Fisheries Commission

Mr. Chris Judy, Fisheries Service

Mr. William Forlifer, Director, Environmental Health Division

Mr. John E. Nickerson, Director, Environmental Health

Ms. Anne Morse, Director, Office of Environmental Health

Dr. Chinnadurai Devadason, Health Officer

Ms. Julie Anbarchian, USFDA

Mr. Roger Harrell, Health Officer

QMr.Gary J. Wolf, USFDA

Mr. Aaron Nelson, Natural Resources Police

Mr.Harry White, Kent County Oyster Committee

Mr. Alan Keith Bradley, Wicomico County Oyster Committee

Mr. Cody Paul, Dorchester County Oyster Committee

Mr. Daniel Ralph Webster, Somerset County Oyster Committee

Mr. Herman J. Harrison, Talbot County Oyster Committee

Mr. Robert Howes, Anne Arundel County Oyster Committee

Mr. William Troy Wilkins, Queen Anne’s County Oyster Committee

Mr. Dale S Dean, Calvert County Oyster Committee

Mr. Hollice John Edward Lowe, Baltimore County Oyster Committee

Mr.Brian Hite, St. Mary’s County Oyster Committee

Mr. Francis W. Kilinski, Charles County Oyster Committee

Mr. Walter R. Witt, Jr., Anne Arundel County Oyster Committee

Mr. Moochie Gilmer, Director, Queen Anne’s Co. Watermen’s Association

Mr. Robert T. Brown, Sr., President, Maryland’s Watermen’s Associaton

Jamie and Lacey Raul

C

Notice of Changes to Shellfish Waters

38°42’44.3”N. Latitude76010’16.4”W. Longftude

38°42’49.1”N. Latitude76010’06.1”W. Longitude

Regulatory Buoy “B’38°41 ‘44.7”N. Latitude76°10’20.4”W. Longitude

Quick Flashing Red Light “2”38°41’54.9”N. Latitude76°10’05.8”W. Longitude

38041’39.3”N. Latitude

./ 76°1 01 5.3W. Longitude

38°41’58.8”N. Latitude76°09’46.7”W. Longitude

38041’37.3”N. Latitude7600747.1 “W. Longitude

Restricted By This Letter

Plaindealing Creek and Goldsborough Creek, Tred Avon River, Talbot CountyProhibited Shellfish Area Maps 17A and 17B

July 2021

Larry Hogan, GovernorBoyd K. Rutherford, Lieutenant Governnr

_______

Ben Grumbles, Secretary 1 0

38°41’45.2”N. Latitude76°07’48.7”W. Longitude

Remains Approved By This Letter

Remains Restricted By This Letter

2 Closed Safety ZonesA o 0.25 0.5 Miles

Larry Hogan. Governor

Boyd K. Rutherford, Lt. Governor

Ben Grumbles, Secretary

Horaclo Tablada. Deputy Secretary

June 14, 2021

The Honorable James J. MoranBoard of County Commissioners PresidentQueen Anne’s County Commissioners107 North Liberty StreetCenterville, MD 21617

Dear President Moran:

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has completed its review of

Amendment No. 11-16 to the 2011 Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Water and

Sewerage Plan. The Queen Anne’s County Commissioners adopted the Amendment on

March 23, 2021. The Amendment proposes the following:1. To update a previously approved amendment 06-06 that carried conditions on the

Kopec Properties. The objective is to remove all conditions of amendment 06-06

and replace them with new conditions.2. To include the four recently annexed lands (Map 18, Parcels 24 and 57, and Map 24,

Parcels 52 and 155) into the incorporated limits of the Town of Barclay and change

their sewer service categories from S-6 to S-2, allowing the properties to connect to

a planned denied access sewer line, which will connect the Town of Barclay to the

Town of Sudlersville’s sewer treatment plant.3. To add text to the end of section 4.3.2.1 regarding the Anti-Degradation Review of

Tier II waters

Maryland Department of Planning FindingsThe Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) advised MDE that the revisions are

consistent with the 2010 Queen Anne’s County Plan and portions of the 2009 Barclay

Comprehensive Plan, as amended on December 21, 2016 (see enclosed comments).

MOE Findings and Action1. MDE has modified the Town of Barclay Proposed Sewer Service Area/Public Health

Service Area Map due to amendments 11-07 and 11-16. These subject areas have

now been annexed and should read “Existing Incorporated Town” instead of

“Proposed Incorporated Town”.

2. The Department notes that the properties located in the Town of Barclay, Tax Map

18, Parcels 24 and 57, and Tax Map 24, Parcels 52 and 155 are located within the

watershed of Red Lion Branch 1, identified as a Tier II stream pursuant to CO MAR

C 26.08.02.04-1. Tier II streams are high quality waters that require, under regulation,

MarylandDepartment ofthe Environment

5

COHMISSJNER3S‘

Li-

3

1800 Washington Boulevard I Baltimore. MD 21230 1-800-633-6101 I 410-537-3000 I 7Th’ Users 1800-735-2258

11www.md e.maryland .gov

The Honorable James J. MoranPage 2

) additional consideration to protect their water quality. Any new or expandeddischarge to these Tier II watersheds would require an Anti-degradation Review. All

possible considerations should be implemented to protect high quality waters from

water quality degradation. This primarily consists of rigorous watershed planning,

with consideration of the extra provisions necessary to protect high quality waters.

The Department recommends that the County consider the following measures in an

effort to maintain these high quality waters when approving new growth in thewatersheds of these stream segments:

a. Implement restrictive zoning or ordinances to protect environmental features

b. Re-direct planned growth out of the watersheds of these stream segments

c. Retrofit existing stormwater infrastructured. Incorporate environmental site design (ESD) and other low-impact

development (LID) practices into new development.e. Maintain and expand existing forest cover.f. Provide riparian buffers of 100-230 feet (depending upon soil types and

slopes).

The County should be aware that future plans facilitated by this Amendment may

incur an additional Anti-degradation Review at later stages, on a project-by-project

basis.

The County is advised to contact John Backus, Program Manager of theEnvironmental Assessment and Standards Program (EASP), at (410) 537-3965 for

additional information regarding the regulatory requirements for Tier II waters.

3. Please be advised that based on MDE’s Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, some

areas of the Kopec Properties are in Maryland’s 500-year Floodplain in Flood Zone

X and has a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability of 0-to-2-foot inundation in some areas and

5-to-i 0-foot inundation in other areas. The property should follow local floodplain

ordinances and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s guidelines andstandards. It is advised that the county consider climate resiliency for this property,

which could include but not limited to the following steps (https://toolkit.climate.govl):

a. Explore Hazards: Identify climate and non-climate stressors, threats, andhazards and how they could affect assets (people and infrastructure).

b. Assess vulnerability and risks: Evaluate assets vulnerability and estimate the

risk to each asset.c. Investigate options: Consider possible solutions for your highest risks, check

how others have responded to similar issues, and reduce your list to feasible

actions.d. Prioritize and plan: Evaluate costs, benefits, and capacity to accomplish each

action integrating the highest value actions into a stepwise plan.e. Take action: Move forward with your plan and check to see if your actions are

12

The Honorable James J. MoranPage 3

increasing your resilience with monitoring.

The County is advised to contact Dave Guignet, State NFIP Coordinator, of MDE’s

EASP, at (410) 537-3775 for additional information regarding the regulatoryrequirements for Floodplains and Storm Surges

The County is advised to contact Matthew C Rowe, CC-P, Assistant Director of

MDE’s Water and Science Administration (WSA), at (410) 537-3578 for additional

information regarding Climate Change and Resiliency.

In accordance with §9-507(a) of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, the

Department hereby approves Amendment No. 11-16 in part and modifies Amendment

No. 11-16 in part (see enclosed modifications). This amends Queen Anne’s County

2011 Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan. See enclosed text and maps in the

Summary below.

This action completes MDEs review, as required by §9-507 of the Environment Article,

Annotated Code of Maryland. If you need further assistance on these matters, please

contact Heather Barthel, Deputy Director, at (410) 537-3512, toll-free at (800) 633-6101, or

by e-mail at heather. barthel©maryland.gov.

Sincerely,

DZuerectorFWater and cience Administration

Enclosures

cc: Alan L. Quimby, P.E., Director, Queen Anne’s County Department of Public Works

John E. Nickerson, Director, Environmental Health Services, Queen Anne’s County

Department of HealthCharles Boyd, Director, Planning Coordination, MDPHeather Barthel, Deputy Director, WSA, MDEJohn Backus, Program Manager, EASP, WSA, MDEDave Guignet, State NFIP Coordinator, EASP, WSA, MDEMatthew C. Rowe, CC-P, Assistant Director, WSA, MDE

13

The Honorable James J. MoranPage 4

cSummary of Queen Anne’s County Amendment No. 11-16 to the

2011 Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan

Text Amendments

Kopec Property

Tax Map 58 as Parcels 643 & 814 are approximately 16 acres in size combined. Properties

were amended from S-3 to S-2 via Amendment 06-06 of the 2006 Comprehensive Water

and Sewerage Plan. Amendment 06-06 allowed 8 dwellings and had six conditions.

Amendment 06-06 is hereby rescinded in total and replaced with the below:

• Eight residential building lots will be allowed from the two existing parcels for a total

of 8 homes.• Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed to avoid

additional impacts to surrounding properties and shall further meet all applicable

State and County regulations.• Any sewer connections shall not connect to the line in Chester River Drive but shall

connect on/near the south end of subject property nearer the pump station.

• Sewer flows from the use are anticipated to be approximately 2,000 gpd. Sewer

service will be provided via the Collection Station ‘L’.

Town of Barclay (add to end of section 4.3.2.1)

The Town of Barclay is bisected by Red Lion Branch stream, which is a Tier II water

catchment. Any future development in this watershed may incur additional Anti-Degradation

Review on a project-by-project basis.

14

The Honorable James J. MoranPage 5

Town of BarclayProposed Sewer Service Area/Public Health Servke Area

MDE Modification Amendment No 11 16

In accordance with Environment Article 9-507(a)(4), MOE hereby modifies

Town of Barclay Proposed Sewer Service Area/Public Health Service Area Map

Modification Effective July 2, 2021

N

LEGEND 0 425 850

Sewer Service iFeet

52 ito 3 years )‘lO -13)

_________

NOTES:Proposed Incorporated Town Annexation 1) It is anticipated that this service area

J S6 No Planned Service will be funded via the special benefitIncorporated Town Boundaay

_________

P PublIc Health Concern assessment process.Proposed Denied AccesS line 2) Service Area Maps should be used

_________

Map Amendment for planning purposes only.rd.No 012521 -SANOI

103C

The Honorable James J. MoranPage 6

+

Grasonville Growth AreaSewer Service Area

LEGEND

SI C’,qM 5I& AS

:.i SI3,.IrI&.i3)

I’IIIC,” 1) CCI

•1

o —• CojfTo. Oe•IgA..

•** Po OoI IyC)

CT)

ILarry Hogan, Governor Robert S. McCord, Secretary

Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Sandy Schrader, Deputy Secretary

MarylandDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

June 9, 2021

Ms. Dinorah Dalmasy, Manager, Integrated Water Planning Program

Maryland Department of the EnvironmentWater Management Association1800 Washington BoulevardBaltimore, Maryland 21230

Re: Queen Anne’s County Water and Sewerage Master Plan

Adopted Amendments 11-16, Water and Sewer Maps; Barclay; and Kopec Property

Dear Ms. Dalmasy:

Thank you for providing the Maryland Department of Planning (Planning) with a copy of the adopted

Amendment 11-16, to the Queen Anne’s County Master Water and Sewerage Plan (WSP). Planning has

reviewed the above-referenced adopted WSP amendment pursuant to our mandate to advise the Maryland

Department of the Environment (Environment) on local comprehensive plan consistency and other

appropriate matters as required by Environment Article Section 9-507 (b)(2). Below is a summary of the

WSP changes and our review comments regarding consistency, Priority Funding Areas (PFA), and

Growth Tiers for your consideration, which are modified from our March 1, 2021 comments on the draft

WSP to reflect the adoption of development conditions placed on the Kopec property which were not

included in the draft amendment.

Amendment 11-16 consists of the following adopted amendments to the WSP.

Summary Map Amendments

BarclayThe Barclay Proposed Sewer Service Area Map and Map Legend are updated to reflect a change to Map

18, Parcels 24 and 57, and Map 24, Parcels 52 and 155, from S-6 (No Planned Service) to S-2 (1-3 years).

The town annexed the parcels in 2019, and they are eligible for PFA designation upon approval of this

WSP amendment.

Comment:The draft text in the map legend states “1 1-16 Proposed Incorporated Town.” Environment should

consider revising the text, and the similar text regarding “1 1-07” to read “Existing Incorporated Town”,

as the subject areas have now been annexed.

Queen Anne’s County (Grasonville)The Kopec Property, Map 58, Parcels 643 and 814. This amendment was not adopted as originally

proposed. The draft amendment proposed deletion of all five development conditions that were originally

Maryland Department of Planning • 301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101 • Baltimore • Maryland • 21201

Tel: 410.767.4500 • Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272 • TTY users: Maryland Relay • Planning.Maryland.gov

17

Ms. Dinorah Dalmasy June 9, 21)21

Re Queen Anne’s County Water and Sewerage Master Plan Page 2

added through Amendment 06-06. However, the County Commissioners approved the amendment, on

March 23, 2021, with the following three development conditions:

1. Eight residential building lots will be allowed from the two existing parcels for a total of

eight homes.2. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed to avoid additional

impacts to the surrounding properties and shall further meet all applicable state and

county regulations.

3. Any sewer connections shall not connect to the line in Chester River Drive but shall

connect onlnear the south end of the subject property nearer the pump station.

These changes were not identified in the amendment package; however, Planning received a copy of the

March 23, 2021 Queen Anne’s County Commission Meeting Minutes (pages 5-6) that document these

changes. Environment should update the existing development restrictions accordingly.

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

The revisions are consistent with the 2010 Queen Anne’s County Plan and portions of the 2009 Barclay

Comprehensive Plan (Barclay Plan), as amended on December 21, 2016. Specifically, page 12 of the

Future Land Use Element in the Barclay Plan provides that water and sewer are only available to annexed

areas which are identified as Potential Growth Areas depicted on the Potential Growth Area Map.

Additionally, the Municipal Growth Element, amended in 2006, includes a new Recommendation #6

which states that the town will request the county to submit a water and sewer plan amendment to

designate the annexed parcels as future sewer and water service areas.

BarclayThe map revisions are consistent with the (2016) Barclay Comprehensive Plan. On December 21, 2016,

the town adopted amendments to the Municipal Growth Element (MGE) to specifically identify the

subject parcels as part of the town’s Future Annexation Area. A subsequent annexation of the parcels was

completed in 2019.

Queen Anne’s County (Grasonville)Section 1.6.2. of the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, establishes

Planning Areas, such as the Grasonville Planning Area, to concentrate growth. Section 5.2.2., Guiding

Principles for County/Town Planning, states “provide public facilities and infrastructure in a manner that

supports the growth boundary delineation of Planning Areas.” The proposed growth is located within the

Grasonville Planning Area.

Priority Funding Areas Review

BarclayMap 18, Parcels 24 and 57, and Map 24, Parcels 52 and 155, approximately 90 acres, are currently PFA

Comment Areas. As noted in our annexation review letter (2016), the parcels are eligible for PFA

designation upon inclusion in the WSP. Once the Sewer Map amendments are approved by Environment

in a Final Action Letter, Planning will continue to work with the town to certify the parcels as PFA.

Ms. Dinorah Dalmasy June 9, 2021

Re Queen Anne’s County Water and Sewerage Master Plan Page 3

Queen Anne’s County (Grasonville)The Kopec Property, Map 58, Parcel 643 and 814, approximately 16 acres, is located within an existing

PFA.

Growth Tier Map Review

Queen Anne’s County has not adopted a Tier Map. Barclay has not adopted a Tier Map.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding these comments, please email the Upper Shore Maryland

Regional Planner, David Dahlstrom at david. dahlstrommaryland.gov.

Sincerely,

/ ;‘//

/,‘/‘//f

Charles W’ Boyd, AICPDirector, Planning Coordination

Attachment: March 23, 2021 Queen Anne’s County Commission Meeting Minutes

cc: Robin Pellicano; Nicholai Francis-Lau; Steve Alfaro; Hannah C. Benzion, Environment

Tony Redman, DNRDwight Dotterer, MDAJason Dubow; Joseph Griffiths; David Dahlstrom; Sylvia Mosser; Cassandra Malloy, Planning

19

MarylandDepartment ofthe Environment

RE: Water Appropriation and Use Permit No.: QA2019S005(O1)Publication of Permit Decisidn

Dear Property Owner, Public Official, Interested Person or Applicant:

On June 28, 2021 the Water and Science Administration (Administration) issued WaterAppropriation and Use Permit No. QA2019S005(01) to David Morgan Clark, Ill to appropriateand use an annual average of 30,400 gallons of water per day (gpd) and a maximum dailywithdrawal of 600,000 gallons for for crop irrigation. Water is to be withdrawn from an on-site pond. The site is located at 160 Chatfield Farm Lane, approximately 3.8 miles west ofCentreville, Queen Annes’s County, Maryland.

After examination and consideration of the documents received and evidence in theapplication file and record, the Administration has determined that the application meets thestatutory and regulatory criteria necessary for issuance of a Water Appropriation and UsePermit. The Impact Analysis Summary used in reaching this determination is enclosed withthis permit decision. A copy of Water Appropriation and Use Permit No. QA2O1 9S005(01) isavailable upon request.

This is a final agency determination; there is no further opportunity for administrative review.The applicant or any person with standing who participated in the public participationprocess through the submission of written or oral comments may petition for judicial reviewin the Circuit Court in the County where the permitted activity is to occur. The petition forjudicial review must be filed within 30 days of the publication of the permit decision. Pleasesee the attached fact sheet for additional information about the judicial review process.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate tocontact me at (410) 537-3590.

Sincerely,

Norman LazarusWater Supply Program

July 1,2021

Larry Hogan, Governor

Boyd K. Rutherford. Li Governor

Ben Grumbles, Secretary

Horaclo Tablada, Deputy Secretary

Enclosures

201800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 1-800-633-6101 I 410-537-3000 I TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

www.mdemaryland.gov

C

Daid Clark QA2019S005/01(Name of Applicant) (Application No )

Sam Glover June 14. 2021(Assigned WSA Project Manager) (Date Form Completed)

IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

I. REASONABLENESS OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER REQUESTED IN RELATION TOTHE ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF USE DURING THE PERMIT PERIOD.

The applicant requests to appropriate and use an annual average of 30,400 gallons of water per day(gpd) and 600,000 gpd in the month of maximum use for crop irrigation. The water will be withdrawnfrom a pond excavated into the Surficial (Columbia) aquifer. The water withdrawn from the pond willbe used to irrigate about 50 acres of soybeans. The farm is predominantly sandy loam soil. A lowpressure center pivot irrigation system will be used. The reqLlested amounts are based on an estimatedwater demand of 8 inches for soybeans with a water loss factor of 15 percent. The proposedappropriation is reasonable for the requested use.

II. REASONABLENESS OF THE IMPACT OF THE REQUESTED WITHDRAWAL ONTHE RESOURCE.

The pond haN a cli a a e ot about 0 1 2 NLILI ne mi lo. mci i ]oateci It the bi Iv ai ot a tteamTh pond IN piccinmin ltJ\ ihaigecl thiough gi oundu ttei seepagL horn the sui hcial iquitci BaNed

• on information from the Aquifer Information System ( ATS). it was determined that the thickness ofthe Columbia aquifer is approximately 23 feet (ft) at the site. The impact of the requested withdrawalon the water table (unconfined) aquifer like the Columbia is based on the annual rainfall (45 inchesth it t ilR in thL IlL the irnn’int ot lLch t2c (intilti ato i) on thL applaant p’ opr c dut ing acliought e ii and ti a ar bunt ot giound alet i isicle to maintain ti irn h betlo’ In addition 1 5cof the Irrigation water which i not used by crops infiltrates hack into the aciulfer. Based on the factorsabove, the Administration’s analysis indicates that the long-term consumptive use of the proposedwithdrawal is 14 of the groundwater recharge available at the farm. Hence the proposed withclrasvalfrom the Columbia aciuifcr is sustainable. No Linreasonable impact to the resource is expected.

III. REASONABLENESS OF THE IMPACT OF THE REQUESTED WITHDRAWAL ONOTHERUSERS OF THE RESOURCE.

The pond is currently about five feet (ft) deep and will be excavated to a depth of about 10 ft. Thepond overflows to a tributary to Grove Creek, which is a tributary of the Chester River. There are nodownstream userN on the Gro\ e Creek tributary clrainae to the Chester River. ylaxitnurn dlrasvdlo\vnis limited by the depth of the pond. A. such. rio unreasonable impacts are anticipated for other usersof the resource.

21

FACT SHEET

JUDICiAL REVIEW PROCESS

Legislation passed by the 2009 General Assembly changes procedures for certain permits issued by the

Department, including water appropriation permits. The judicial review procedures took effect on

January 1, 2010 and applies to final permit decisions issued on and after January 1, 2010.

Under pre-existing procedures, permit applicants and third parties with standing under Maryland law

could challenge the issuance of a permit or the conditions of a permit through a request for a “contested

case” adjudicatory hearing conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Effective January 1,

2010, the “contested case” process no longer applies to fmal decisions on applications for these

permits. Rather, permits can be challenged through a request for direct judicial review in the Circuit

Court for the county where the activity authorized by the permit will occur. Applicants, arid persons

who meet standing requirements under federal law and who participated in a public comment process

by submitting written or oral comments (where an opportunity for public comment was provided), may

seek judicial review. Judicial review will be based on the administrative record for the permit compiled

by the Department and limited to issues raised in the public comment process (unless no public

comment process was provided in which case the review will be limited to issues that are connected to

the permit)

Who Has Standing?Anyone who meets the threshold standing requirements under federal law and is either the applicant or

someone who participated in the public participation process through the submission of written or oral

comments, as provided in Environment Article § 5-204, Annotated Code of Maryland. The three

traditional criteria for establishing standing under federal law are injury, causation, and redressability,

although how each criterion is applied is highly fact-specific and varies from case to case. Further, an

association has standing under federal law to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members

would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are related to the

organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation

of individual members in the lawsuit.

What is the Procedure for Seeking Judicial Review?Petitions for judicial review of a final determination or permit decision subject to judicial review must

be filed in accordance with § 1-605 of the Environment Article no later than 30 days following

publication by the Department of a notice of final determination or final permit decision and must be

filed in the circuit court of the county where the permit application states that the proposed activity will

occur. Petitions for judicial review must conform to the applicable Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure

(Title 7, Chapter 200).

To review the legislation follow the link below:http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2009rs/chapters nolnfCh 650_sb 1065T.pdf

22

I

Public Notices

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTWATER AND SCIENCE ADMINISTRATION

1800 WASHINGTON BOULEVARDBALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21230

Notice of Application for State Wetland Licenses, Private Wetland Permits, Nontidal

Wetlands and Waterways Permits and/or Water Quality Certification and the Opportunity

to Provide Written Comment or Request an Informational Hearing

July 1, 2021

The Water and Science Administration has received the applications listed below. A preliminary

review has indicated that the listed projects may be subject to the opportunity for a public

hearing once the application is substantially complete. Projects may be significantly altered

during the review process. The applications and related information are available for inspection

and copying. You may also request written notice of any hearing opportunity by having your

name placed on the interested persons list for each project in which you are interested. To inspect

the file or to have your name placed on the interested persons list, contact the assigned division

at the telephone number indicated below no later than August 1, 2021, unless otherwise noted in

the Public Notice.

Tidal Wetlands Division - (410) 537-3571

Queen Anne’s County

20206 1669/20-WL-l 124: SCOTT BARNETTE, at 205 Walnut Drive, Queenstown, Maryland

has applied to construct 426-feet of living shoreline with stone sill, sand fill, marsh plantings, a

100-foot long by 6-foot wide Pier, 7- foot wide by 22-foot long “L” platform, 2 boat lifts, a

kayak launch, and a 12.5-foot wide by 36- foot long segmented concrete boat ramp. The purpose

of this project is to control shoreline erosion and improve navigable access. The proposed project

is located within the tidal waters of the Wye River at 205 Walnut Drive, Queensto\vn, MD

21658. For more information, please contact Andrew Belfield at

Andrew.Belfie1dmaryland.gov or at 410-537-3541.

23

Todd Mohn

c From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

Kelly, Melissa (Van Hollen) <Melissa_Kelly@vanhollen.senate.gov>

Wednesday, July 07, 2021 12:18 PM

Michelle Marshall

jayjacobs@ house.state.md.us; ‘Ghrist, Jeff Delegate’; Arentz, Steven Delegate (District);

‘Hershey, Steve Senator’; Personal - Steve Wilson; Jack Wilson; Jim Moran; Chris

Corchiarino; Todd Mohn; Phil Dumenil

[EXTERNAL] Sudlersville Awarded $513,000 USDA Grant for Water Improvements

I am writing to share news that Sudlersville has been awarded a USDA grant in the amount of $513,000 from their Water

and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants program. The funds will be used to complete the construction

of the Town of Sudlerville’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The investment will close out construction of the facility that

provides sanitary sewer collection and conveyance to 407 users in the Town of Sudlersville and an additional 85 users

from the Town of Barclay upon completion of the Barclay Collection and Conveyance Project. Please see the official

announcement below.

The Commissioners of Sudlersville (MD 01)

Melissa A. KellyEastern Shore Regional Director

US Senator Chris Van Hollen

Direct: (202) 669-1052

Melissa KellyvanholIen.senate.gov

www.vanhollen.senate.gov

Good afternoon everyone.

CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. DO NOT CLICK any links,open attachments or forward unless

you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

1

21

)A RuralDevelopment Together America Prospers

Program:

USDA Rural Development has approved a grant of $513,000.00

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants

State/County:

Congressman:

Senators:

MD/Queen Anne’s

Harris, Andy (MI) 01)

Cardin, Benjamin (MI)), Van Hollen, Chris (MD)

Sudlersville, The Commissioners of

Recipient Contact:

Mailing Address:

Email Address:

Phone Number:

Project Description:

(1People Who Will Benefit:

Additional Funding:

Total Project Cost:

Cristy Talty

200 South Church Street P.O. Sudlersville, MD 21668

townoffice@townofsudlersville.org

(410) 438-3465

This Rural Development investment will be used to complete the construction

of the Town of Sudlerville’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The investment will

close out construction of the facility that provides sanitary sewer collection

and conveyance to 407 users in the Town of Sudlersville and an additional 85

users from the Town of Barclay upon completion of the Barclay Collection and

Conveyance Project.

492

Maryland Department of the Environment: $3,738,145.00, Queen Anne’s

County: $602,000.00, RUS WEP Loan: $2,690,000.00, RUS Grant Funding:

$1,618,000.00

$9,161,145.00

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and tender.

V

Recipient:

Page 1 of 1

25

Lynda Thomas

rom:ent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Charles MacLeod <cmacleod@mlg-lawyers.com>

Monday, June 21, 2021 11:56 AM

‘(C) Libby Nagel; Danielle Hornberger (dhornberger@ccgov.org); ‘Bob Meffley (Cecil’;

Jim Moran; Ron Fithian; Wilbur Levengood Jr. (wlevengood@carolinemd.org)

Donna Lane (dlane@docogonet.com); Jay Newcomb

newcomb@council.docogonetcom); ‘James Massey (Cecil Council Manager)’; Todd

Mohn; Dan Schneckenburger (dschneckenburger@ccgov.org); ‘Sara B. Visintainer

(Caroline)’; ‘Shelley Heller’; Ron Fithian; Lynda Thomas; Emily Murphy

[EXTERNAL] Clean Chesapeake Coalition Update

Conowingo Systems Fact Sheet_.pdf; Clean Chesapeake Coalition 5-26-21.pdf; CCC

Meeting Agenda (May 26 2021).pdf; CCC FY2021 Budget - YTD Expense Report 7-1-20

to 4-30-21.pdf; CCC FY2022 Budget - proposed.pdf; FY2022 Scope of Work Outline -

DRAFT.pdf; MDE handout re use of Settlement Agrmt funding.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. DO NOT CLICK any Iinks,open attachments or forward unless

you recognize the sender and knothe content is safe.

Hello Coalition members:

For your information and records, attached are the final agenda and handouts from the May 26, 2021 Coalition

meeting.

‘ollowing the meeting, MDE Assistant Secretary Denise Keener invited written input from the Coalition

counties about the use of funds being paid by Exelon to the State as part of the Settlement Agreement for

Conowingo Dam relicensing:

1. How to best utilize the resiliency, water quality and scour/dredging-related money Exelon is paying to

the State with regard to the types of projects that should have priority. (see MDE handout from meeting

attached)

2. Whether to use a portion of the Settlement Agreement proceeds to help fund implementation of the

Conowingo WIP?

3. Whether to set aside 20% of the funding for upper Bay actions/projects and use the remainder for

pollution reduction action upstream of the Conowingo Dam?

4. Whether to utilize an organization such as Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) in

the management and allocation of funds to specific projects on a pay for performance basis?

We are gathering responses from the counties to provide input to MDE. Please share your comments and

suggestions about the use of Settlement Agreement proceeds being paid by Exelon to MDE in the first 3 years

for resiliency and restoration actions.

Fiscal Year 2022

1

26

Per decisions during the May 26 meeting, FY2022 participation statements will be sent to each county along

with the Scope of Work and budget. We are scheduled on the Kent County Commissioners’ August 3 meeting

agenda to present and request Kent’s continued participation and support.

ext Coalition Meeting at MACo Conference

The next Coalition meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 19, during the MACo summer conference in

Ocean City. Details to follow.

Articles & Media of Note

Environmentalists File Appeal to Reverse Relicensure of Conowingo Dam

MarylandMatters.org (June 17, 202 1)

CBF, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Sassafrass Riverkeeper and Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper have filed an

appeal in U.S. District Court of FERC’s new license Order for Conowingo Dam.

Bay Program mulls fixes for lagging Chesapeake cleanup efforts

Bay Journal

EPA to Prioritize Bear Creek Contaminated Sediment

Bay Bulletin (June 2, 2021)

Heavily contaminated 60-acre site on Patapsco River near the former Sparrows Point steel mill being

recommended for Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) for pollution cleanup.

pinion: Legislature Must Act to Save the Bay in Light of Conowingo Dani Decision

Maryland Matters (June 10, 2021)

This is rich.. .a staff attorney for Waterkeepers Chesapeake (based in Takoma Park) opining that now is the time

for the General Assembly to address the Conowingo factor, writing:

“In order to protect the health of the Bay, the Maryland General Assembly must explore legislative policy solutions

in the 2022 session, including, but not limited, to how to pay for the cleanup. Otherwise, since Exelon will not be

paying for the pollution they caused, people in Maryland from farmers on the Eastern Shore to residents of

Baltimore City, will continue to pay for Exelon’s pollution load for generations to come.”

Funding fracas: New laws take money away from Bay Restoration Fund

My Eastern Shore MD (Easton, Md.)

2ww .( ‘lcanChv%apeakeCoalition.org

27

C ONOWINGOSYSTEMS

An Innovative Full-Scale Solution to the Conowingo Dam Sediment Problem

Conowingo Systems’ proposal is the only pragmatic, large-scale, quantifiable, and verifiable option for

restoring the Conowingo Reservoir’s sediment trapping capacity, negating the need for additional Best

Management Practices to reduce 6 million pounds of nitrogen, and protecting the Bay from adverse

nutrient impacts associated with moderate to extreme weather events.

As initially recognized when the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was finalized in December 2010, and now

reconfirmed and formalized by the draft Conowingo Watershed Implementation Plan (CWIP), the large

volume of sediment accumulated behind Conowingo Dam is a significant threat to the health of the

Chesapeake Bay.

The reason a draft CWIP has been compiled is because the sediment and nutrient trapping capacity of

the Conowingo Reservoir has been exhausted, resulting in additional sediment and nutrient transport

downstream that impairs water quality.

The Conowingo WIP is needed because there is currently no plan to remove the accumulated sediment

and restore trapping capacity.

Conowingo Systems intends to rectify the sediment accumulation problem.

Conowingo Systems will remove sediment from the Reservoir behind the Dam — incrementally over

time. Removed material will be disposed of, or stored for future additional treatment and possible

reuse, at land-based sites currently under investigation.

The project will be privately financed but opportunities may exist for public-private partnerships.

. The amount of nutrient reduction that will be assigned to a given volume of removed material (i.e.,

“Credit”) will be determined in the near future by an Expert Panel to be convened by the Chesapeake

Bay Program Partnership.

o Credits generated will be made available for purchase by Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions or permitted

entities via existing market-based exchange platforms.

Revenue generated from credit sales will finance subsequent phases of dredging — creating a self

sustaining process.

Purchase price of the credits will be competitive with the cost estimates in the draft Conowingo WIP.

28

CLEAN CHESAPEAKE COALITION MEETING

Chesapeake Heritage & Visitors Center, Kent Narrows

Wednesday, May 26, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Welcome and Introductions.

1. What’s next re addressing the Conowingo factor in the wake of FERC order (March 19,

2021) granting new 50-year license to Exelon

Ben Grumbles Secretaiy, MDEDenise Keener, Assistant Secretary, MDESusane Dorsey, Assistant Secretary, MDE

2. Jeff Corbin, Senior Vice-President for Water Quality Markets & Mitigation

Conowingo Systems, LLC - proposal re Conowingo reservoir dredging (handouts)

3. Items of Interest I Concern:

S a. Conowingo WIP

b. APG for sediment management

c. “Conowingo Sediment Characterization and Innovative Reuse and

Beneficial Use Pilot Project ‘ - status

d. “Chesapeake National Recreation Area” designation — federal initiative

committee void of local representation: who will ensure consistency with local

plans; environmental impact on ecosystem already stressed

4. FY 2021 Budget-Expense Report YTD (handout)

FY 2022 Scope of Work Draft (handout)

FY 2022 Proposed Budget (handout)

Adjournment

Next meeting? At MACo Summer Conference — August 18-2 1, 2021, Ocean City

Raising awareness and pursuing improvement to the water qua/Th’ of Chesapeake Bay in the most prudent

andJIscaib responsible manner possible — through research, coordination and advocacy.

www.CleanChesapeakeCoalition.org

2

FY2021 YTD Financial ReportBudget Detail — CCC Fees & Expenses(07/01/20 through 04/30/21)

Expenses Item Total

Maryland State Ethics Commission Lobbyist Registration Fee 51 .50

GoDaddy.com Annual \vebsite hosting/security/backup fee 136.31

I___________________________________ TOTAL $187.81

. . . . . Administration & TotalBillings Against Member Contributions .. Legal Fees/Expenses

Communications Fees

July 2020 2,000.00 2,606.76 4,606.76

August 2020 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,000.00

September2020 2,000.00 3,300.00 5,300.00

October 2020 2,000.00 2,500.00 4,500.00

November 2020 2,000.00 3,675.00 5,675.00

December2020 2,000.00 4,975.00 6,975.00

January 2021 2,000.00 2,511.00 4,51 1.00

February 2021 2,000.00 4,900.00 6,900.00

March 2021 2,000.00 3,050.00 5,050.00

April 2021 2,000.00 4,625.00 6,625.00

May 2021 2,000.00 2,000.00

June 2021 2,000.00 2,000.00

TOTAL $24,000.00 $34,142.76 $58,142.76

Member Contributions Received

OVER>>>>

05/26/21

Caroline County, Maryland 17,000.00

Cecil County, Maryland 17,000.00

Kent County, Maryland 0

Dorchester County, Maryland 17,000.00

Queen Anne’s County, Maryland 17,000.00

TOTAL $68,000.00

30

FY2021 Budget

(July 1, 2020 — June 30, 2021)

Revenue (projected):

S 85,000 five (5) member county contributions @ S 17,000

(FY2020 members: Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s)

[*The number of participating counties will determine the FY budget. The FY budget and Scope

of Work will be adjusted accordingly. Kent County did not contribute financially in FY2021.j

Expenses (estimated):

Legal S 70,000

General Counsel; Research:Coordination; Advocacy; Lobbying

General Administration S 12,000

Member Services; Ivleetings;Media Research; Public Relations

Communications S 3,000

Messaging and Content;Website Management/Maintenance

Total S

(1) MacLeod Law Group (MLG) serves as Coalition general counsel at discounted rates consistent

with the firm’s practice for services to local government entities. Detailed statements of

services provide and expenses advanced, if any, are always available.

(2) Administrative/organizational (non-legal) client services and reimbursable expenses provided

by MLG estimated per prior years of Coalition operational history.

(3) Current and prior year examples: website development; branding; exhibiting at conferences;

branded content video; marketing materials, social media.

(4) The issues and activities in which the Coalition is engaged are fluid and subject to change, so

we will adapt as needed and as directed in furtherance of the Coalition’s objectives.

OVER>>

05!26/2 1

(1)

(2)

(3)

Notes:

85.000* (4)

31

FY2022 Budget

(July 1,2021 —June 30, 2022)

Revenue (projected):

S 102,000* six (6) member county contributions @ S 17,000

(FY2021 paying members: Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Queen Anne’s)

{*Tl.je number of participating counties will determine the FY budget. The FY budget and Scope

of Work will be adjusted accordingly.]

Expenses (estimated):

S 86,000General Counsel; Research;Coordination; Advocacy; Lobbying

General Administration S 12,000

Member Services; Meetings;Media Research; Public Relations

Communications S 4,000

Messaging and Content;Website Management/Maintenance

(1) MacLeod Law Group (MLG) serves as Coalition general counsel at discounted rates consistent

with the firm’s practice for services to local government entities. Detailed statements of

services provide and expenses advanced, if any, are always available.

(2) Administrative/organizational (non-legal) client services and reimbursable expenses provided

by MLG estimated per prior years of Coalition operational history.

(3) Current and prior year examples: website development; branding; exhibiting at conferences;

branded content video; marketing materials, social media.

(4) The issues and activities in which the Coalition is engaged are fluid and subject to change, so

we will adapt as needed and as directed in furtherance of the Coalition’s objectives.

5/26/2 1

Legal (1)

(2)

(3)

Notes:

Total S 102,000* (4)

32

FY2022 Scope of Work

Outline - Priority Focus Areas

I. Conowingo VIP and Bay TMDL

C.)

Monitor EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) activities, including decisions regarding the

Conowingo watershed implementation plan (CWIP) and workings of the Conowingo WIP

Steering Committee and Principals’ Staff Committee within the CBP framework.

Advocate for changes to Draft Conowingo WIP re reservoir dredging and upstream

sediment management and nutrient loading reductions.

Continue working to minimize additional pollution load allocations on Maryland and

associated costs due to lost trapping capacity in Conowingo reservoir. Direct attention and

focus upstream and on cost-effective sediment management in the lower Susquehanna

River to regain trapping capacity in give the upper Bay breathing room. 7Ongoing monitoring of the Conwingo Sediment Charaterization and Innovative Reuse and

Beneficial Use Pilot Project managed by Maryland Environmental Service.

Coordinate with aligned stakeholders to expedite CBP approval of Conowingo reservoir

dredging and sediment management as a BMP.eligible for water quality trading.

2. Dredge Spoils Placement and Utilizationk

Advocate for more federal and State coordination, evaluation and transparency regarding

portions of Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) receiving the placement of suitable dredged

sediment from Conowingo reservoir (via conduit), shipping channels and marina basins for

shoreline stabilization, restoration and overall planning for coastal resiliency in upper Bay.

3. Ovsters as BMP to meet TMDL Goals and Economic Impact

,Continue advocacy for prudent oyster fishery management and restoration of historic

natural oyster bars policy and legislative initiatives promoting Bay wide oyster

cultivation (shell replenishment, seeded shell relocation and rotational harvest) for the

ecological benefits and positive local economic impacts; and to meet Bay TMDL goals.

4. Inequities Among Bay Pollution Sources

Continue drawing attention to cost/benefit disparities and enforcement inequities among

targeted pollution sectors in Maryland, upstream and within the Bay watershed. Steer

attention and focus on the largest pollution sources and examples of ineffective and

wasteful policies, programs and public funding expenditures in the name of water quality

improvement and pollution reduction.

OVER —*

33

5. Conowingo Dam

FY2022 Scope of Work Draft

Continue monitoring Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing (Docket

No. P-405) post March 202 1 FERC Order granting Exelon a new 50-year license, including

appeals to the new license Order by other intervenors.

Coordinate with MDE, DNR and other agencies responsible for implementation and

enforcement of the January 2020 Settlement Agreement between MDE and Exelon waiving

Maryland’s Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification re the new license.

Advocate for Exelon to embrace a stewardshiproIe for Chesapeake Bay and to cooperate

with Coalition counties on local initiatives and projects designed to offset adverse

downstream environmental impacts attributable to the operation and maintenance of

Conowingo Dam and reservoir.

6. Broaden Coalition Scope and Participation

Since inception in 2012, the Coalition’s efforts and resources have been predominantly

focused on Chesapeake Bay and tributary water quality issues and concerns shared by

participating counties. Given the CCC’s founding principles, track record and reputation,

participating counties may utilize the organization for research, coordination and advocacy

on issues related to transportation. energy, solid waste management and regional economic

development, and invite participation of all nine Maryland Eastern Shore counties.

Under ie ie’

Proposed “Chesapeake National Recreation Area” federal designation

Clean Water Commerce Act of 2021 — use of BRF to acquire “environmental outcomes”

Use of federal and State stimulus and COVID-19 recovery funding for water quality

improvement efforts, projects

a)

5/26’2l

OVER —

34

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS — FIRST THREE YEARS

0

Mussel Restoration:

Resiliency

Water Q.uallty Projects

Scour and Dredged Materials

Eel Study

Oversight and Reimbursement

1OTAL

$4,500,000

$2,500,000

$1,900,000

$1,250,000

$1,000,000

$700,000

$11,850,000

•

*•

• it!

Mussel Restoratori: $250,000

ResiHency $250,000

Water Quality Projects $200,000

Scour $250,000

Oversight and Reimbursement $150,000

TOTAL $1,100,000

ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS STARTING YEAR FOUR

I Mussel Restoration Resilency Water Quality Scour . Overs4ght & Reimbursement

CONOWINGO

Conowingosystems.com

RESTORATIONSYS1 EMS

37

38

39

4C

Al

Q C0iii Public SchoolsPreparing WorId-Class Students Through Everyday Excellence

June 28, 2021

County Executive and Commissioners107 North Liberty StreetCentreville. MD 21617

Dear Todd Mohii and County Commissioners:

One of the early requirements in the Blueprint legislation is the appointment of an

implementation coordinator. This position requires input and approval from the local education

agency (LEA) and the county by July 1,2021. The legislative directive is very vague, but in

discussions with other LEAs, we have determined that this position requires someone with very

strong project management skills. Additionally, we believe this person should have a thorough

understanding of our LEA since the Blueprint affects so many components of our educational

operations.

Our interpretation of the legislation is that the coordinator is responsible for implementing the

Blueprint with fidelity, but is not an accountability officer. The legislation provides for many

internal and external accountability measures, and while the coordinator may help prepare

reports and documents to the AIB or MSDE, they are not the originator of such materials or

analyses.

We have identified the Assistant Superintendent as the ideal candidate due to her educational

experience and skill set, and hope you will agree. While this position requires extensive

knowledge of the LEA’s operations, we would also welcome a dedicated liaison in your office

that would work with the Assistant Superintendent, The two could meet on a periodic basis to

discuss upcoming requirements in the legislation and craft timelines for implementation. If you

would like to schedule some time to meet with me and our Assistant Superintendent in the

coming days, I would welcome that opportunity. Due to the upcoming deadline, we would like to

move forward naming the Assistant Superintendent as an interim appointment until we are

clearer on the roles and responsibilities as the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) is

established in the coming months.

As a point of information, PSSAM and MABE are working together to create a Blueprint

implementation advisory work group. As part of this initiative, we will have a broad advisory

workgroup and subgroups with employees implementing the five policy areas. An additional

subgroup would be made up of the 24 implementation coordinators to meet and discuss the

structure and responsibilities of the position, as well as troubleshooting and sharing best

202 Chesterfield Avenue • Centreville, MD 21617 • 4 10458-2403 • www.qacps.org

42

202 Chesterfield Avenue • Centreville, MD 21617 • 410-758-2403 • www.qacps.org

43

Queen Anne’s County Public SchoolsPreparing World-Class Students Through Everyday Excellence

practices, We expect that in time, new or more descriptive responsibilities fir this position will

emerge from the AIB; therefore, it may be necessary to revisit this position to ensure we have the

appropriate staff with the best knowledge aid skill set.

We look forward to our continued partnership in the implementation of this historic education

legislation. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Patricia W. Saelens, Ed.D.

Acting Superintendent

Queen Anne’s County Public Schools

cc: QAC Board members

Margie Houck

Q om: Stephanie I. Jones

ent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:02 PM

To: Margie Houck; Lynda Thomas

Cc: Robert Tracey

Subject: Planning & Zoning Annual Report

Hello Margie and Lynda,Last week the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Annual Report that is required by the

Maryland Department of Planning. The document is to be sent to the local legislative body. Adoption or

approval from the Commissioners is not required, therefor it is more of an FYI. I wanted to be sure there is

nothing more that you will need for us to do than to send it to you. If you are looking for precedence a report

was not completed last year so that last year one should have been sent to the Commissioner’s Office would

have been in 2019 for the 2018 Annual Report.

Let me know if you have questions,Stephanie

Stephanie JonesLong Range Principal PlannerQueen Anne’s County Planning and Zoning110 Vincit St., Suite 104

Centreville, MD 21617

Phone: 410-758-1255

www.gac.org

1

44

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

INSTRUCTION S

Each Planning Commission/Board shall approve an Annual Report for the Reporting Year 2020

as required under §1-207(b) of the Land Use Article. In addition, this Annual Report shall be

filed with the local legislative body and the Maryland Department of Planning (Planning), no

later than July 1, 2021.

Local jurisdiction may use the attached template form or any of the previous Annual Report

forms. The requirements have not changed for 2020. An optional survey is included in Section

VII. We encourage all jurisdictions to consider responding.

Section I- New Residential Permits, and Section II- Amendments and Growth Related Changes,

are required by all local jurisdictions.

Section lii- Development Capacity Analysis, is required every three years.

Section IV- Locally Funded Agriculture Preservation, is required by Counties only.

Section V — Measures and Indicators, is required by jurisdiction reporting more than 50 new

residential permits in Section I.

Section VI- Adequate Public Facility Ordinances, is required every two years by jurisdictions

with adopted Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFO5).

Section VII — Planning Survey Questions is optional

31

Revised 01/04/2021

45

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Section I: New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA)

( ){ )( ) ( )(3)(ii ))

(A) In Table 1, New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA) below, enter the number

of new residential building permits issued in calendar year (2020). Enter 0 if no new residential

building permits were issued in 2010.

Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued

Inside and Outside the Priority Funding Area (PFA)

Section II: Amendments and Growth Related Changes In Development Patterns

(207(çjj1)and(ç)))

Note: Growth related changes in development patterns are changes in land use, zoning, transportation capacity

improvements, new subdivisions, new 5chaals or school additions, or changes to water and sewer service areas.

(A) Were any new comprehensive plan or plan elements adopted? If yes, briefly

summarize what was adopted

YDNThe County is in the process of updating the 2010 Comprehensive plan.

(B) Were there any amendments to the zoning regulations or zoning map? If yes, briefly

summarize each amendment, include a map, or GIS shapefile, if available. V N

Revised 01/04/202 1

• #19-17 — Addition of specific standards of applicabililty ad supplemental

regulations for the expansion of a use! and or tentant space in structure

which occupies more than 65,000 square feet of gross floor area within the

Urban Commercial (UC). See § 18:1-22.D (3) and § 18:1-58. Date adopted:

January 28, 2020 and effective date: March 14, 2020

• #20-03 — Alter the timing of development impact fee collection and assign

an administrative fee for the processing of promissory notes outlined in §18:1-36. Date adopted: August 25, 2020 and effective date: October 10,

2020.

• #20-04 — Addition of Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions in the Resource

Conservation Area See § 14:1-39.B. (2). Date adopted: November 13, 2020

and effective date: November 28, 2020

• #20-05 — Allow duplex units in Grasonville Neighborhood Commercial

(GNC) and Grasonville Village Commercial (GVC) to be consistent with lot

width dimensions and other bulk standards in accordance with the Planned

residential development standards outlined in § 18:1-36. See § 18:1-

2

46

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

32.D(2)(b)[5}[bJ and § 18:1-33.D(2)(b)[51[b]. Date adopted: August 29, 2020

and effective dated: August 29, 2020.

Were there any growth related changes, including Land Use Changes, Annexations,

New Schools, Changes in Water or Sewer Service Area, etc., pursuant to of the

Land Use Article? If yes, please list or map and provide a description of consistency of

internal, state or adjoining local jurisdiction plans

YDN

(C) Did your jurisdiction identify any recommendations for improving the planning and

development process within the jurisdiction? If yes, please list. Y N

Section III: Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)(2O8c iii))

Nate: MDP provides technical assistance to local governments in completing a development capacity analyses.

Please contact your MOP regional planner for mare information.

(A) Has an updated DCA been submitted with your Annual Report or to MDP within

the last three years?

1. If no, explain why an updated DCA has not been submitted, such as, no

substantial growth changes, etc.No Substantial Growth Changes

2. If yes, when was the last DCA submitted? Identify Month and Year:

11/2017

a.Was the DCA shared with the local School Board Facilities Planner? Y N

(B) Using the most current DCA available, provide the following data on capacity inside and outside

the PFA in Table 2, Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA):

Table 2: Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Parcels & Lots w/ Residential Capacity PFA Non — PFA Total

Residentially Zoned Acres w/ Capacity 1,436 121,489 125,997

Residential Parcel & Lots w/Capacity 4,125 4,964 9,089

Residential Capacity (Units) 4,125 4,964 9,089

*Data in table 2 is based on 2018 data, updated analysis will be conducted with the updated

Comprehensive Plan.

Revised 01/04/2021

3

YND

47

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Section IV: (Locally) Funded Agricultural Land Preservation & Local Land Use

Goal (Counties Only) (1-208(C)(1)iv and v)

(A) How many acres were preserved using local agricultural land preservation funding? Enter 0 if no

acres were preserved using local funds. Enter value of local program funds, if available.

Local Prestion Program

Example: Transfer of Development Rights

Example: Building Lot Retirement

Example: Land Purchase

Example: Local Land Trust

Example: Easement

Example: Other

Total

(B) What is the county’s established local land use percentage goal? %

The acreage designated as the County’s PPA encompasses approximately 119,004 acres or 50% of all

land within the County’s boundary. In accordance with the Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006,

approximately 100% of these 119,004 acres remain undeveloped land that may have capacity for

preservation within the PPA. Under the guidelines of the Act, 80% of these lands or 95,203 acres should

be targeted for preservation.

Statistics above come from the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. An update to the 2010 plan is occurring at

this time.

(C) What is the timeframe for achieving the local land use percentage goal?

This is an ongoing endeavor. Queen Anne’s County uses several different tools to guide growth into the

Priority Funding Areas and away from Agricultural Open Space.

(0) Has there been any progress in achieving the local land use percentage goal?

As indicated in Section V (below) and in previous reports, the County has been steering development to

Priority Funding Areas and the incorporated towns.

(E) What are the resources necessary for infrastructure inside the PFAs?

Expanded sanitary sewer capacity. Expanded potable water capacity. Transportation infrastructure.

(F) What are the resources necessary for land preservation outside the PFAs?

Table 3: Locally Funded Agricultural Land Preservation

-l

Funding and property owner buy in.

Revised 01/04/2021

4

48

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Section V: Measures and Indicators (ic){j)

Note: The Measures and Indicators, Section VII, is onlyquired for jurisdictions issuing more than SO new

residential building permits in the reporting year, as reported inTable

Table 4A: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Residential — Calendar Year 2020 PFA Non - PFA Total

Total # of Administrative Subdivisions (w/plats) Recorded * 5 11 16

Total U of consolidated lots through Administrative0 -6 -6

Subdivisions_(w/plats)

Total # of Administrative Subdivisions (w/o plats) Recorded 0 7 7

Total # of consolidatedlots through Administrative0 -10 -10

Subdivisions (w/o plats)

Total U of Minor Subdivisions Recorded 1 6 7

Total U of Minor Subdivision Lots Recorded 1 8 9

Total # of Minor Subdivision Units Recorded 1 8 9

Total Recorded Minor Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 0.746 555.815 556.561

Total Recorded Minor Subdivision Lot Area (Net Acres) 0.361 44.075 44.436

Total U of Major Subdivisions Recorded 0 4 4

Total U of Major Subdivision Lots Recorded 0 34 34

Total U of Major Subdivision Units Recorded 0 34 34

Total Recorded Major Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 0 932.937 932.937

Total Recorded Major Subdivision Lot Area (Net Acres) 0 48.55 4855

Total U of Units Constructed in Jurisdiction 1 42 43

* Administrative subdivision is the adjustment, movement or elimination of a common property line between two or more existing lots of

record. Please note that new lots cannot be created through an administrative subdivision.

Table 4B: Net Density of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Residential — Calendar Year 2020 PFA Non—PFA Total--

Revised 01/04/20215

49

Total U of Units Recorded (Major + Minor Subdivisions) 1 42 43

Total # of Recorded Lot Area (Major + Minor Subdivisions) 0.361 92.625 92.986

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Table 4C: Share of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Residential— Calendar Year 2020

I II PFA I Non—PFA I Total I

Total # of Units Approved (Major + Minor Subdivisions) 1 42 43

% of Total Units 2% 98% 100%

Table 4D: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Commercial — Calendar Year 2020 PFA Non - PFA Total

Total Lot Size of Site Plan Area Approved (Gross Acres) 26.924 29.7524 56.6764

Final Approved Floor Area (Gross) 154,154.00 102,559.00 256,713.00

Total # New Permits Issued 21 9 30

Total Square Feet Constructed in Jurisdiction (Gross) 9,090.00 5,520.00 14,610.00

Table 4E: Net Density of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Commercial — Calendar Year 2020 PFA Non — PFA Total

Final Approved Floor Area (Gross) 154,154.00 102,559.00 256,713.00

Total Lot Size (Net Acres) 26.924 29.7524 56.6764

Table 4F: Share of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)

Commercial — Calendar Year 2020 PFA Non — PFA Total

Final Approved Floor Area (Gross) 154,154.00 102,559.00 256,713.00

% of Total Building Square Feet 60% 40% 100%

Revised 01/04/202 1

6

50

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

G*Section VI Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) Restrictions (t.J i)

(Section VI is only required by jurisdictions with adopted APFOs)

Note: Jurisdictions with adopted APFO5 must submit a biennial APFO report. The APFO report is due by July 1 of

each even year and covers the reporting period far the previous two calendar years. APFO reports for 2019 and

2020 are due July 1, 202 -lawever, jurisdictions are encouraged to submit on APFO report on an annual basis.

(A) What is the type of infrastructure affected? (List each for Schools, Roads, Water, Sewer,

Stormwater, Health Care, Fire, Police or Solid Waste.)

The Queen Anne’s County APFO tests for available capacity for Water, Sewer, Schools

and Roads. In calendar year 2020, there were no restrictions.

(B) Where is each restriction located? (Identify on a map, including PFA boundary.)

(C) Describe the nature of what is causing each restriction.

(0) What is the proposed resolution of each restriction?

(E) What is the estimated date for the resolution of each restriction?

(F) What is the resolution that lifted each restriction?

(G) When was each restriction lifted?

(H) Addition Information. To help the Sustainable Growth Commission Statewide School Education

Committee for School related restrictions:

1. List the State Rated Capacity for each affected facility.

2. Identify date local School APED standards were last evaluated or amended.

3. Provide a letter from the School Board confirming what actions are being taken by

the School Board to remedy each restriction (This could include a change in State

Rated Capacity (SRC) scheduled improvements in the local Capital Improvement

Program (CIP); or redistricting, etc., to address (B) —(G) above.)

7

Revised 01/04/2021

51

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Section VII: Planning Survey Questions (Optional)

The in formation provided can assist MDP and MDOT staff with identifying potential

pedestrian/bicycle projects and project funding.

(A) Does your jurisdiction have a bicycle and pedestrian plan? Y N

1. Plan name: QAC Bike/Pedestrian Connectivity Plan

2. Date Completed (MM/DD/YR)

3. Has the plan been adopted? N

4. Is the plan available online? N D5. How often do you intend to update it? (Every 5 years)

6. Are existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities mapped? Y N

(B) Does your jurisdiction have a transportation functional plan in addition to your

comprehensive plan2 Y N El

1. Plan name: Kent Island Transportation Plan

2. Date completed: 08/01/2016

3 Has plan been adopted2 Y N

4. Is the plan available online? Y N El5. How often do you intend to update it? (Every years)

*This plan has been submitted to proposed to MDOT for review and comments.

END

0 8

Revised 01/04/202 1

52

Queen Anne’s County Annual Report Worksheet

Reporting (Calendar) Year 2020

Submitting Annual Reports and Technical Assistance

(A) Annual Reports may be submitted via email (preferred) to david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov or

one copy may be mailed to:

Office of the SecretaryMaryland Department of Planning

301 W. Preston Street, Suite 1101

Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2305Attn: David Dahlstrom, AICP

(B) Annual Reports should include a cover letter indicating that the Planning Commission has

approved the Annual Report and acknowledging that a copy of the Annual Report has been

filed with the local legislative body. The cover letter should indicate a point of contact(s) if

there are technical questions about your Annual Report.

(C) You may wish to send additional copies of your Annual Report directly to your MDP Regional

Planner or School Board Facilities Planner.

(0) If you need any technical assistance in preparing or submitting your reports, our Regional

Planners are available to assist you. Regional Planner contact information can be found at:

Planning. Maryland .gov/O urWo rk/loca I-pInning-staff. s html

(E) Copies of this Annual Report worksheet and links to legislation creating these Annual Report

requirements can be found on the Maryland Department of Planning website:

Planning. Ma ryla nd .gov/YourPa rt/SGGAnn ualReport.shtml

(F) If you have any suggestions to improve this worksheet or any of the annual report materials,

please list or contact David Dahlstrom at david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov.

Revised 01/04/2021

53