Wetlands to be destroyed for highway
Mattawoman Creek, west and downstream of the proposed new $60 million highway. (Photo by David Bick)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a story in today's paper about a proposal in Southern Maryland to build a highway over one of the Chesapeake Bay region's most productive fish breeding grounds, the Mattawoman Creek. Charles County wants the $60 million highway to serve more than 8,000 new homes planned in the largely rural and forested area. But state and federal agencies warn all the construction would lead to a 50 percent rise in runoff tainted with oil, gasoline and lawn fertilizer into the creek. That pollution could have a "severe" impact on the stream, meaning an "overall decline in the ecosystem," according to a 2003 report by the Army Corps of Engineers. That could spell destruction for the yellow perch, largemouth bass and other fish that breed there.
Before the county can cut down 74 acres of forest and destroy seven acres of wetlands, it must obtain wetlands permits from the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers. That means Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration could say yes or no to the massive project.
Kim Coble, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said this afternoon that her organization and other environmental groups have signed a letter asking for a comprehensive environmental impact study to be conducted before any permit is approved. This would include a thorough examination of alternatives, including mass transit instead of a new highway, she said. She described the Mattawoman Creek as "a treasure.... I think it's important, especially when we have so few very high quality river sysems left, we should go the extra mile to make sure they're protected."
The state and the Charles County have long been at odds over wildlife in the Mattawoman Creek watershed, which is still 70 percent forested. The state has bought up 4,700 acres of land around the creek over the last three decades, and the General Assembly designated part of the Mattawoman Natural Environment Area as a "wildlands" in an effort to prevent development and protect water quality. Nearby, the state in 1998 spent $25 million buying up the 2,225 acre Chapman's Forest -- stopping a 4,600 home subdivision that the county wanted built -- with the hope it would protect the fish and wildlife in Mattawoman Creek and the surrounding countryside.
But next door to these state forests and wildlands, Charles County wants a huge amount of construction. The local government has targeted the entire northern section of the county as a development area. They call this "Smart Growth" because it means the southern part of the county will be left rural. But opponents of the highway argue this is just politically correct happy talk meant to mask the county's real intention: to bring in as much business and money as possible by turning forests into subdivisions. The skeptics say it's not growth management to give developers precisely the section of the county they would have picked for themselves anyway -- the whole northern swath that's closest to Washington and the suburban sprawl of Prince George's County. Real "Smart Growth" would have been to leave the forests and rural areas alone, and direct developers to build tightly around the existing towns of Waldorf and LaPlata, the opponents argue. This is a weakness of the state's "Smart Growth" laws, which give all the power for picking growth areas to local government. If the local government wants development on top of wetlands and farms near the region's largest national wildlife preserve (as the city of Cambridge did on Maryland's Eastern Shore near the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge), the "Smart Growth" laws say this is fine. Unless the state government is given more power by changing this law, development will continue to happen wherever local governments want it.
On the other hand, perhaps all these decisions should be left strictly in the hands of local government -- and the state should keep its nose out. Maybe local businesses and officials want more taxes, money and jobs by encouraging growth. And if they want to sacrifice some rural landscape to grow, then that is their right -- as well as the right of the local landowners who own the properties, some argue. Supporters of the Charles County Cross-County Connector say that many homes are going to be built in this area, anyway -- because suburbia is inevitably moving south. And it's just logical traffic management to plan roads where you expect people to be moving.
Mattawoman Creek
One point of clarification. In my story, Paul Wettlaufer, a transportation program manager with the Army Corps of Engineers, said: "There would be dire consequences on the quality of life in the stream." He contacted me today to clarify that he was not giving his own personal opinion, but rather summarizing the opinion of a 2003 report by the Army Corp.'s planning division, which he emailed to me. That report projects a "severe" impact on the stream if development proceeds as planned in the Mattawoman watershed. "Based on the model results and the obvious increases in impervious surfaces, phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment loads, is expected to increase dramatically. Loads are expected to increase by over 50 percent in the next 20 years. Even with aggressive regulatory enforcement, there is still a significant increase in the pollutants," the report by the Army Corps says.
Wettlaufer said today that he will anaylze this 2003 report, along with newer reports from the county and information from other sources, to make his own determination as to the impact on the creek from the highway. He said his regulatory branch of the Army Corps is separate from the planning branch of the agency, and he will make a separate and objective decision with an open mind. "We are considering the report the planning division did," Wettlaufer said. "But I am totally neutral."
Here is some feedback we've gotten from readers on the subject.
Conservationist Ajax Eastman wrote: "Kudos for your article on the proposed highway's certain devastating impacts on Mattawoman Creek. After fighting hard to get Wildlands designation and getting the state to purchase Chapman's Landing, then fighting for preserving it without typical park development, it would be tragic to see the Creek killed by a road. It'll suffer greatly from all that proposed development as it is....Thanks for your sounding the alarm reporting."
Fisherman Scott Sewell wrote: "Just wanted to drop you a line (pardon the pun) from a bass fisherman who has been fishing in Mattawoman Creek for over 18 years. As a matter of fact, I was down there Saturday. Your article was very well written, and detailed the issue very clearly. It is now listed on the Maryland Bass Federation Nation (MBFN) website: www.mdbass.com on the Open Forum. Thank you for writing such a fine article, Scott Sewell, MBFN Conservation Director."
The proposed highway would start at the "T" intersection of Billingsley Road and Middletown Road (at the bottom of this picture) and cut across the forest pictured above. The east-west road would be surrounded by new subdivisions and connect new housing planned in the Bryans Road area with the malls in Waldorf. (Photo by David Bick)
Cheryl Thomas wrote: "Thank you so much for this most informative article!
Despite the current "economic slowdown" Charles County continues to experience explosive growth. My extended family has lived here since 1934 and I have witnessed the County evolve from a quiet, rural agricultural community in the 1950's to a "southern extension" of Prince George's County.
Numerous reports have been issued by the Maryland Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey; ALL of which indicate that by 2030, it is possible that Charles County may experience "difficulties" obtaining water. Charles County (and all of Southern Maryland) is 100% dependent on groundwater supplies (aquifers) and the supply is NOT infinite and takes decades to "recharge".
Highways such as the Cross County Connector extension, are in essence "development corridors". In my opinion, the ONLY purpose for this highway is to accommodate more development.
As a result, more development also requires more power plants, such as Mirant, which use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per day for cooling purposes. This is the same potable drinking water that residents require, and as a result, the aquifers continue to decline.
As mentioned in your article, at least 8,000 new homes are planned in the area, which are in addition to another 10,000 new "residential units" in the St. Charles community, and another 3,000 plus in the Town of LaPlata.
If development continues at this pace, it appears that 2030 may arrive much sooner than expected.
Again, thanks so much for today's article!
Sincerely,
Cheryl E. Thomas
Welcome, MD"
-------------------------
James Adair wrote: "Hi Tom. I am the Southern Region Conservation Representative for the Maryland Bass Federation Nation. I have been to the meetings, spoke to the county officials and have been assisting the Mattawoman Watershed Society in regards to helping save the watershed from being developed. I joined the local Bass society about 5 years ago to enjoy the peace and serenity that freshwater fishing offers. I enjoy being on backwater tributaries it helps me recharge my batteries if you will. I have shown my children things within these watersheds that they can not experience on the Chesapeake Bay proper, due to the amount of pollution. I live in Anne Arundel County and there are very few places in Maryland that offer what Mattawoman offers those that have gone there. Millions of dollars in the fishery industry is spent in Maryland alone and for many years freshwater fisheries have basically taken a backdoor to the saltwater fishery. The Chesapeake Bay is polluted and there is a society to try to help recover the Bay, but another area to help prevent further destruction to the Chesapeake Bay starts with the freshwater feeds that replenish the system. Well if you do not control the effects that happen here how do they ever expect to clean up the bay? Since I was a child living on Kent Island I have seen many changes in the water quality in this state and it has not been for the better! I am only one person but through the Maryland Bass Federation Nation I have been able to increase that voice. I know that Bass holds tournaments throughout the Nation and in the past they have held a tournament on the Potomac within Mattawoman creek itself, is the reason that Bass did not come back here this year due to water pollution issues? I do not have all the answers to this problem but I certainly do not think increasing development to a watershed that provides one of the best breeding habitats for birds, fish and other animals is going to make for a better environment.Please do not hesitate to call me or quote me. Thanks for listening,
Jim Adair."
-------------------------
Comments
What is it with these pols? This is exactly why the critical area bill should not have been watered down.
Warrior Bob
Posted by: Warrior Bob Kramer | April 7, 2008 3:30 PM
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
Posted by: Rob Goszkowski | April 7, 2008 4:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Pauleen | April 8, 2008 9:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Carter | April 8, 2008 10:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Alysha Yelverton | April 8, 2008 10:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Richard Wagner | April 8, 2008 11:22 AM
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.
Posted by: Lisa | April 8, 2008 5:07 PM
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.
Posted by: Greg Smith | April 9, 2008 2:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Ernest Wallace | April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Bruce Kirk | April 11, 2008 12:50 AM
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
Posted by: Ernest Wallace | April 11, 2008 10:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Joan Crownover | April 14, 2008 5:42 AM
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!
Posted by: Kathy Ebsen | April 15, 2008 10:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Not a NIMBY | April 16, 2008 12:50 PM