What is it with these pols? This is exactly why the critical area bill should not have been watered down.

Warrior Bob

I appreciate your efforts in writing this article. What course of action can ordinary citizens take to show support for the prevention of this highway's construction?

Gov. Martin O'Malley, through his Maryland Department of the Environment, can say yes or no to granting a permit to destroy seven acres of wetlands to allow construction of the Charles County Connector Extension highway project. Interested people could contact his office at:

http://www.governor.maryland.gov/staff.asp

I am adamantly opposed to the construction of the CCC due to the environmental devastation. Commissioner Hodge brought this issue to the Charles County Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors' Meeting, months ago, asking for the Chamber's support on the basis that upgrading 301 would displace 40 or 50 businesses as opposed to the CCC. I voted to oppose the support, but, the "yeas" were the majority.

The Mattawoman watershed and Mattawoman Creek are as nearly ideal as possible for serving as a test area/pilot situation to see whether local government really intends to try to restore the Bay and to work towards the Bay Program’s efforts to meet the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement commitments. A few of the State, Federal, and local government findings that attest to this are as follows:

1.) The 1998 Maryland Clean Water Action Plan noted that the Mattawoman deserved special attention to address existing degradation before its pristine areas were lost. It was assigned high priority for both restoration and protection, being one of only 17 out of 138 watersheds to be so designated. Even earlier (since 1981), Mattawoman has been recognized by Maryland as an “Area of Critical state Concern.”

2.) The Corps’ 1998 draft Lower Potomac River Basin Reconnaissance Study noted Mattawoman as particularly valuable ecologically and economically. However, the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list finds Mattawoman impaired. The 2007 NPDES storm water permit issued to Charles County included a watershed restoration element requiring 10 % of the untreated impervious surface in the development district to be restored.

3.) Charles County government has noted, in its June, 2007 Mattawoman Creek management plan implementation presentation, that the creek provides a world class sport fishery and has been rated as the top fish nursery area in the entire Chesapeake Bay. In its own current comprehensive plan, Charles County notes its objective (no. 8-4) of placing special emphasis on watershed management to balance the protection of Mattawoman’s natural resources and water quality with development plans.

Certain elements of the Bay restoration program's Chesapeake 2000 Agreement's " goals, pillars, and keystones" are particularly applicable to the Mattawoman:

a.) living resource protection and restoration, via ecosystem –based management:
Mattawoman has anadomous Alosa herring sp. spawning runs;

b.) vital habitat protection and restoration, via restoring healthy waters:
the Mattawoman watershed has extensive developed lands delivering urban runoff. The Corps’ 2003 Mattawoman management plan third major recommendation was for retrofitting runoff controls.

c.) sound land use, via maintaining healthy watersheds: via watershed planning, concerning developing lands.

Nevertheless, and despite its own high sounding rhetoric, Charles County is indeed moving towards development that will not allow these goals to be met. Sympathy for private property rights and property owners' desires to make as much financial profit as possible from property development continues to outweigh stated and adopted conservation goals.

Management of the environment by government agencies is very largely carried out through various permit programs such as the Clean Water Act's sections 404, NPDES, and potentially TMDLs.

If Federal and State agencies are more serious about restoring the Bay than local government may be, staffs in all the Bay Program-participating agencies should be encouraged to pay particular attention to protective, damage-preventing requirements in their daily duties of permit evaluation when Mattawoman watershed permits arise.

Thank you for highlighting this issue. I live in one of the neighborhoods that would be subdivided by this road and I'm extremely concerned of the detrimental effects to the creek as well as my quality of life. Unfortunately seems like the county is more concerned about making money right now through development than truly being "smart about growth" and doing all of their homework to understand the implications of this highway. We have enough problems in Charles County right now ... water supply and overcrowded schools in need of repair at the top of the list that the inevitable extra development will just make worse. Guess the commissioners will just raise our taxes ... again. It's certainly time for them to listen to the hard working citizens of Charles County and make a decision against building the highway. That decision would truly be in the best interest of the future of the county.

I guess we are certainly focused on destroying our wetlands in Charles County, and probably reducing the water supply in the future. Why would we want to destroy something good. Doesn't seem to bother the governor, nor the Commissioners of Charles County if they approve this measure. Seem like these people fail to listen to the Army Corps of Engineers on the impact. Come on now, who is kidding who on the purpose of this proposal. The county wants more tax dollars, and for what pupose so they can build and build. I have been in Charles County for 35 years and I have never seen where our taxes have gone down because of new tax dollars received. More building means more money needed for county services, more police, more roads and their maintenance, more traffic lights, more services for more people, more hardships on our water supply, etc. Get real, building contractors only want more money in their pockets. They don't care what impact their building has on the enviornment, nor on the people of Charles County.

If you think traffic is a mess in Charles County now you haven't seen anything. Charles County has got to start saying " NO" to these building contractors.

Again, generating more tax dollars does not reduce your tax bill but only raises it.

Charles County is the one promoting their soaring eagles and "wild side."

See link:

http://www.explorecharlescomd.com/

I guess this love of natural beauty only goes as far as the tourism office.

Many thanks to Tom Pelton for his fine article on the Charles County Connector and the threats that it poses to the Mattawoman Watershed. And thanks to the Sun for running it.

Charles County should cancel the Cross-County Connector. If it does not, Governor O'Malley's Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers should refuse to grant permits. If they don't, the U.S. EPA should veto any wetlands and waterway permits issued by MDE or the Corps.

At the same time, Governor O'Malley should cancel the $3+ billion Intercounty Connector (ICC) in Montgomery and Prince George's counties and redirect those funds toward better uses, such as urgently needed public transit, road and bridge maintenance, and safety.

Governor O'Malley's actions on these projects define not only his asic environmental legacy, but whether he truly is serious about saving the Bay, stopping sprawl, fighting climate change and protecting public health.

When it comes to the ICC, Governor O'Malley is hiding behind a deeply flawed ICC Environmental Impact Statement that Bob Ehrlich and George Bush fast-tracked to pander to certain corporate special interests and their elected proxies. The ICC would cause many times more damage than the CCC, but O'Malley so far is choosing to clearcut healthy headwater forests, bulldoze 60 acres of uplands wetlands, take people's homes and backyards, and build the ICC right next to an elementary school. Governor O'Malley might want to pin the ICC on Bob Ehrlich, but it's O'Malley who is pulling to trigger, not Ehrlich.

The Bay's recover is decades behind, climate change is accelerating, and world oil production either has peaked or probably will peak soon. The potential environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change and peak oil truly are staggering.

The Metro Washington Council of Governments predicts that even with a 55 mile per gallon fuel efficiency standard the region would cut its transportation emissions of greenhouse gases by just five percent from 2005 levels in 2020.

Exactly how do the Governor and other highway supporters propose then to cut emissions sharply enough and soon enough to meet the goals they espouse and to avert the worst impacts of climate change -- eg. losing much the Eastern Shore's agricultural capacity, losing most of the Maryland's coastal wetlands, losing billions of dollars worth of transportation infrastructure, losing perhaps one third of the world's plant and animal species, etc. -- if they continue wasting billions on climate triggers like the ICC and the CCC?

By the way, those are not worst-case scenarios at all. Those are the impacts that come with modest sea level rise and relatively modest temperature increases.

Early in March, those whacky radicals at the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences recently that climate change threatens much of the nation's transportation infrastructure through elevated temperatures, sea level rise and other impacts.

Building idiocies like the ICC and the CCC drives this destructive cycle. When you're speeding toward a cliff, the first the thing you do is take your foot of the gas. The next thing you do is put you foot on the brake.

Governor O'Malley should slam on the emergency brakes on the CCC and ICC because when it comes to climate, energy, the Bay, and the preservation of the world's biodiversity, we truly face an emergency.

After reading the comments on your article, I find one comment shows confusion between the US 301 Waldorf area study and the cross county connector. Two ongoing transportation projects in Charles County. Mattawoman creek as a natural resource will be destroyed by the runoff from the surburban development made possible in the creeks watershed by construction of the cross county connector. This is a Charles County Project. The US 301 Waldorf Area Study is a State Highway Administration study to resolve traffic congestion in the Waldorf area, and is a repeat of an earlier study abandoned in 2002. The 301 effort, preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Study, required by the Environmental Protection Act is looking at three options, an eastern bypass of Waldorf, a western bypass of Waldorf, and the upgrade of US 301 through Waldorf. Whichever option is chosen, it will be funded by SHA and the Federal Highway Adminsitration. An eastern bypass will have severe impact upon the tributaries to Zekiah Swamp. A western bypass will have severe impact on Mattawoman Creek, Pages Swamp, Port Tobacco River, and other waterways and wetlands. Despite significant Charles County Citizen opposition, the County Government has continued to push for approval of the Western Waldorf Bypass, citing the impact on the businesses along US 301. In fact, the impact on the businesses has never been properly identified because none of the upgrade options through Waldorf were designed to minimize the impact on the businesses. The only option provided which satisfied the transportation "purpose and needs" included wide rural drainage ditches thereby increasing right-of-way requirements over those of an urban design with underground storm water drainage. A licensed professional engineer for a local group, "Citizens Against the Waldorf Bypass" provided a design which would require no additional right-of-way. He does recommend minor takings at the interchanges in the upgrade plan but nothing like the 40 or 50 businesses discussed by the commentor. In 1998 the Charles County Commissioners appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee to study the 301 alternatives and make recommendations. After four years of study the CAC which was chaired by a proponent of a western Waldorf bypass recommended no bypasses and recommended upgrade alternative 3 modified to minimize the impact on the businesses along US 301. This alternative incorporated many of the design considerations proposed by the engineer for the Citizens Against The Waldorf Bypass. Additionally, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and US Marine Fisheries, all agencies of the Federal Government, advised against the bypasses, recommending upgrading US 301 through Waldorf. The Corps of Engineers advised SHA that the western Waldorf Bypass was the most environmentally harmful, but that an eastern bypass may be permittable and recommended further study. These comments were in response to a preliminary draft environmental impact statement which had not been officially circulated. Shortly afterwords, all study was stopped after the then President of the Charles County Board of Commissioners, Mr. Murray Levy,in a Public meeting, told then Deputy SHA Administrator for Planning, Mr.Neil Pedersen "We will not go east and we will not go through Waldorf." In 2006 the State of Maryland provided Five million dollars to once again perform this study which is ongoing, and the Charles County Government is once again attempting to force the western Waldorf bypass without benefit of the completed draft environmental impact statement, showing actual impacts to US waters, the environment, and the business community.
It is not a question of either a western Waldorf bypass or the cross County Connector. The County Government is pushing hard to get both, both of which will do significant harm to the environment, destroying Mattawoman Creek, degrading Chesapeake Bay, and enabling sprawl growth.

Tom Pelton's response: My story didn't make reference to any State Highway Administration studies or reports. I was referring to a 2003 study by the Army Corps of Engineers about the effects of development on Mattawoman Creek.

As a resident of La Plata, I have been watching this whole issue about rural development and supporting highways with increasing alarm. The County government has been insisting for more than 15 years that it recognizes the economic and environmental value of the Mattawoman Creek and its watershed to Charles County and that is does not wish to damage it. Yet it persists in ignoring or discounting analyses by knowledgeable organizations that show only harm to the Creek coming from development. Most residents of Charles County (except landowners hoping to cash in to developers and move) like the rural character and beauty of the County and want it to stay that way. The County government insists that it should follow 20-year-old development plans, even though there is a growing water availability problem, a school overcrowding problem, an economic downturn problem, not to mention the damage to the Creek and the Chesapeake Bay problem. It keeps saying that rural development is "inevitable" when it is not. The whole concept of "development districts" is based on making "smart growth" decisions about where, when, or if development is a good idea, all things considered. That does not say "inevitable" to me. At least the County could reassess the entire development picture in rural Charles County using up-to-date data from a formal, impartial, properly-scoped Environmental Impact Statement and update its stance in light of the effect more development will have on the environment, the wildlife, and the people currently living in the County.

Mr. Pelton,

I understand that you were clarifying Paul Wettlaufer's comment referring to the COE's 2003 report on the impact of the Cross County Connector (CCC).
I was trying to clarify the comment by "Pauline" which implied there is a trade off between the CCC and a US 301 western Waldorf bypass and discussing the purported impact on 40 to 50 businesses.

The points I was attempting to convey are:
1) The CCC and US 301 issues are two separate issues, related by their impact on Mattawoman Creek. There is no trade off of one for the other.
The CCC is a Charles County project being paid for by the taxpayers of Charles County. No Federal or State money is involved and we taxpayer or being forced to pay to destroy Mattawoman Creek.

2) SHA and Charles County in the US 301 Waldorf Area Study are attempting to force a Western Waldorf Bypass by downplaying the environmental impact and overstating the impact of an upgrade on the businesses along US 301 by not preparing a upgrade design which will meet the transportation purpose and needs while minimizing the business impact. In previous studies the Federal agencies have objected to the devastating environmental impact of the bypasses, causing those studies to be abandoned by SHA prior to their completion.

3) Charles County's government while paying lip service to protecting the Mattawoman is pushing for both the CCC and the western Waldorf bypass which will kill the creek and continue the degradation of Chesapeake Bay.

Ernie Wallace, Chairman
CAWB

Tom Pelton's article was right on the money. Hopefully, this news article will spur citizens to take action and right away - the loss of the Mattawoman Creek and surrounding habitat to environmental pollution because of an unnecessary highway is a monumental detriment to preserving our wonderful natural resources here in Charles County. So many of our Charles County tributaries are now
polluted; surely we can fight to save the Mattawoman basin.

Dear Tom Pelton, I live in Nebraska and sympathize with your views of the creek. I live abot 24 miles from the Niobrara river.I recently married an avid fisherman who gew up around the river and he has seen alot of change in the Niobrara river in the pass 30 years sense he's grown up.None of of it good by the way! These city councilman have this perception that build and build they will, but have they ever stopped to consider what makes that that area so special? And when the building is done , where do you go to get away from it all? I just wonder ,have any of those builders stood out on the bank on a cool crisp morning and cast a fishingline out while listening to the birds sing and the water rush by? Made all the more enjoyable by snagging a big one? I wonder.The best of luck with you ,and happy fishing!

I can not even believe this is now an issue. Growth is here, people need places to live AND we need to preserve wetlands and the ecosystem. How do we accomplish all this? We plan, we laydown infrastructure plans, development districts and consolidate growth to predetermined areas. The past Charles County Commissioners did just that when they developed the County's master plan. And now, with the Cross County Connector half built people who were not here when we decided where the grow was to be or were not engaged in the process are now stopping the progress. And this is progress. Stand back, pick a battle not yet decided, don't stop the CCC in its tracks, it and the western bypass are sorely needed to help relieve congestion.

I became a resident of Charles County in the mid-1980s when I moved to White Plains. In May 2002 my wife and I purchased a home in Highgrove. For those who don't know, Highgrove is directly in the path of the proposed highway, between Bensville Road and Bryans Road. I purchased my home knowing that the CCC highway was proposed, but also knowing that its construction was not certain.

Over the past six years I have attended many meetings whose purpose was to discuss the Cross County Connector. I have attended private meetings held by the county for impacted property owners, public meetings held by the county for all residents, and I have attended public meetings organized by residents who are concerned about environmental impacts. I will briefly summarize why I believe this road is unnecessary and will be detrimental to our citizens and the environment.

Growth: The most significant impact of the highway isn't caused by the construction of the highway itself. It's the secondary construction of homes, stores, and industry that will be so detrimental. The County's permit request to the Army Core of Engineers specifically states that the primary purpose of the road is to support "intense growth" in accordance with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. It is this intense growth that concerns me most. The secondary purpose given by the County, is to "provide a direct transportation link between Maryland Route 5 and Maryland Route 210" which already exists two miles north of the CCC at Maryland 228.

The State of Maryland puts county governments in charge of managing growth. We have a whole department of county government whose mission is to provide us with Planning and Growth Management. This group includes fine and talented engineers who plan very well. Unfortunately, whoever has the responsibility of "Growth Management" is either incompetent or compromised by conflicts of interest. Examples of Growth Management failures are all around us. Again quoting the County letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, we do "not have adequate water system capacity under permitted groundwater appropriations to meet the demands through the year 2010." We're running out of potable water, why are is the county we trying to add "intense development?" Our public schools are so overcrowded that we have 250 trailers parked next to them to provide more room for desks and chairs. In early 2008 we were told that we can't build another elementary school until at least 2011. Yet year after year our county certifies that we have enough school capacity to allow more and more homes to be built. Why?

Instead of a Growth Management office, Charles County has a "Development Services" office which provides engineering and construction services for private sector developers. Specifically providing government subsidies for private projects including grading, transportation, storm water management, drainage, water, and sewer. Our County Government improperly prioritizes growth over management and citizen services. More frighteningly, our county does not enforce agreements it makes with developers. My neighborhood has storm water management ponds that don't drain properly, and haven't for over six years. We have hiker/biker paths that should have been built ten years ago, but no one in our county government holds the developers accountable to their commitments. Why should the citizens trust the county with environmental protection of the Mattawoman Watershed?

The Charles County Government incorrectly assumes that contruction of new homes must happen, and that a Development District is the way to contain growth. The county has no legal, moral, or fudiciary obligation to allow even one more house to be built. The County has complete authority to stop new construction until county services are ready to take on the new growth. I implore this county to stop all new home construction and cease and desist with subdivision/plat approvals, granting building permits, and granting use & occupancy permits until the County government is sure that adequate water supply, school capacity increases, and roadway improvements are sufficient and complete.

New Traffic: Construction of the CCC highway will bring a high-volume and high-speed flow of trucks and cars through a portion of our county which is now relatively quiet and serene. The volume of traffic will steadily increase as more development occurs along the route of the Cross County Connector. The portion of the highway already built will be a primary commuting and travel route for thousands of homes being built in St Charles and White Plains. The highway also services a heavy industrial zone around the landfill. Augmenting Route 5 with a second high-speed route via the CCC and Rt 210 from this industrial zone will certainly bring more industrial traffic through the wetlands.

Safety: The portion of Billingsley road between Bensville and Bryans Road is narrow, contains sharp blind turns and hills, and frequently floods during heavy rains where it crosses Mattawoman Creek. Some suggest that building the CCC will solve these problems. What they don't realize is that the remaining phases of the CCC highway do not improve or close Billinsgley Road. The remaining phases of the CCC are a half mile or more from the existing alignment of Billingsley Road. If "intense development" occurs within the Development District and the Deferred Development District as specified by the County's Comprehensive Plan, I believe the quantity of accidents on Billinsgley Road where death and serious injury are involved will increase, not decrease. Look no further than 925 in Waldorf and Washington Avenue in LaPlata where heavy traffic remains despite the nearby 301 highway. Intense development adds to the traffic of all nearby roadways. Simply stop the development.

Financial: The construction of the remainder of the highway is currently estimated to cost Charles County taxpayers at least an additional 60 million dollars. This actual costs will of course exceed the estimates. Talbot Street in LaPlata is a great example of the difference between estimated and actual costs in our County. Today we have a national crisis as a result of inflated housing prices and over development, and this recession is poised to last years. As property values decline sharply, our county's ability to spend will drop too. Now is not the time for county tax dollars to subsidize the housing development business. Now is the time to focus on providing services to our existing residents.

The Environment: Many others here tonight are much better educated on the environmental impacts of highways and home construction than I. The notion that this highway and its secondary development would cause "no significant impact" is laughable. Both the highway crossing of the creek and the proposed development property routinely flood, and will certainly multiply petroleum and fertilizer runoff to the sensitive Mattawoman Watershed. Our county government has a poor track record of storm water management enforcement, and cannot be trusted to protect the Mattawoman without a better track past performance record. The analysis of the Mattawoman Watershed Society seems is sound, supported by history, and supported by facts. I fully endorse the need for a full and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement. All alternatives, including the option of "not building a new road" must be thoroughly evaluated.

Noise: Tonight I can sit on my porch at night and hear little more than crickets and the wind. If the highway is built as planned, the County estimates the constant noise near my home will exceed 70 decibels. My home is one of many which will be impacted in this way. This noise pollution is stipulated by the Charles County Government and cannot be overlooked. In humans, high noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects and exposure to moderately high levels during a single eight hour period causes a statistical rise in blood pressure of five to ten points and an increase in stress, increased blood pressure and increased incidence of coronary artery disease.

Noise can also have a detrimental effect on animals by causing stress, increasing risk of mortality by changing the delicate balance in predator/prey detection and avoidance, and by interfering with their use of sounds in communication especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing. An impact of noise on animal life is the reduction of usable habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in the case of endangered species may be part of the path to extinction.

In conclusion today's Charles County residents have little to gain from the construction of this highway, and much to lose. Our county leaders should be prioritizing services for today's county residents, not suburban refugees who may one day decide to call Charles County their home. Our future is our children who deserve to learn in schools, not trailers. Whether the actual costs of the proposed road are 60 million, or 100 million, that money can be much better prioritized for our future.

I propose that our citizens and the local environment would be best served by not encouraging intense development and highway construction in a sensitive wetland area. The comprehensive plan put forth by the county nearly two decades ago was flawed because it assumes that the County's obligation is to accomodate development. This plan needs to be completely revised. Our leaders should prioritize road funding to fix dangerous roads, not to ignore the safety problems by creating new roads. County funds are much better spent on new school construction and citizen services than new highway construction and developer subsidies.