A Major Test for the EPA in a Scenic Creek

Here’s a test for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Is the federal Clean Water Act a meaningless heap of paper? More dead trees headed for the recycling bin? Or should the landmark 1972 law actually have consequences on the ground, when a fragile stream is threatened with a massive development project?

Sharpen your pencils, EPA. Question No. 1 concerns Mattawoman Creek, one of the Chesapeake Bay region's most fertile fish breeding grounds flanked by woods in southern Maryland. It has been targeted by Charles County for a new four-lane highway that would facilitate the construction of at least 1,113 proposed homes (and perhaps several times that number). The construction would be the ugliest kind of suburban sprawl in a rural area prized for its bass fishing and forests.

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) appears to be sitting up straight at its desk, which is good.  It must pass the test, too.  By June 1, MDE must decide whether or not to grant Charles County a permit to destroy seven acres of protected wetlands to allow the highway to cross Mattawoman Creek. The federal Army Corps of Engineers must also approve the wetlands destruction, with input from other federal agencies.

The question gets a bit academic, but the fine print is what this quiz is all about. On January 5, 2005, EPA approved Maryland’s proposal for a pollution reduction plan for the Mattawoman Creek. Called a “Total Maximum Daily Load” (or TMDL), that plan requires a 40 percent reduction in the amount of pollution running into the stream, including from paved surfaces like roads.

TMDL is an alphabet-soup-sounding bit of bureaucratic jargon, but that doesn’t mean it’s not extremely important.  It’s basically a cap, or regulatory maximum, on the amount of pollution allowed into a waterway.  The federal Clean Water Act requires these pollution limits on rivers and streams like the Mattawoman Creek that are already struggling with pollution problems and on EPA’s list of impaired waters.

Maryland nominated Mattawoman Creek to this federal dirty waters list in 1996 because of evidence that this jewel was being harmed by too much pollution, including runoff of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, and too much silt muddying its waters.

On January 21, Maryland environmental regulators wrote to Charles County that the highway project will “certainly” lead to more water pollution in the Mattawoman Creek.  And Charles County’s own 2003 plan for the creek says: “The continued development of the Mattawoman Creek as currently planned is expected to result in significant impacts to the environment which may affect water quality and habitat within Mattawoman Creek.” The county has approved a designated growth area in the creek’s watershed, but unfortunately that growth area is so large and removed from town centers it violates good principles of smart growth. And it fails to protect the stream.

So here’s the question: Should EPA allow the construction of a highway if the agency knows the development will lead to MORE pollution in a stream that the EPA says must have LESS pollution?

Extra credit question: Should MDE approve a permit certifying that the highway will cause no harm to the creek when it knows that the project will pollute the stream?

ANSWER:  Neither of these government agencies should or can do it.  They can’t say “yes” to the highway and “yes” to the federal Clean Water Act.

Both the EPA and MDE have an obligation to stop a river of blacktop from fouling a river of life that our government has promised to protect. If the MDE doesn’t do its job and stop the highway, the EPA should step in to protect not only the creek but the whole Chesapeake Bay.

This is, at one level, a state decision. But it's the EPA that has ultimate authority over the state's clean water programs, and the EPA with the final obligation to enforce the federal Clean Water Act.

(Photos courtesy of Mattawoman Watershed Society and CBF staff)

Comments

[Linda Redding]

This hits the nail on the head. It is a shame that the Charles County Commissioners do not realize what a treasure Mattawoman Creek is. Unfortunately they seem committed to an antiquated plan (with a development district 30% larger than DC) that would destroy the Creek. The County's own document at the following link shows the Mattawoman "severely" impacted under even the best current buildout scenario. http://www.charlescounty.org/pgm/planning/plans/environmental/mattawoman/plan/plan.pdf
If local politicians are not willing to reverse this course then MDE or EPA will have to step in to preserve this critically important fish spawning gound. We can only save the Bay if we save its tributaries.

[Katrina McConkey]

Great article! EPA needs to blow the dust off of the Clean Water Act, open it back up, and start implementing the laws within it. EPA and MDE need to save this precious watershed!

[Carrie Staples]

Water seeks its own level. Those of us who experienced Hurricane Isabel in 2003 respect the power of the mighty Potomac River in flood. The lands that will drain into the Mattawoman and from there into the Potomac must be protected from pollution. Man cannot stop a tidal surge. Give the river the room she needs. Stand back and love her from the proper distance.

[Rebecca M. Turner]

This is crisis point for the Mattawoman. If it is not protected, then what should be?

[KEVIN GRIMES]

Beating the odds – Charles County’s future depends on its natural resources. Healthy fish need healthy streams. Preservation of vital species and important ecosystems is key!. In this case, if we build it, they will leave – checkout, vacate, go away, vanish, say goodbye. This legendary waterway should rightfully be handed down intact. It is up to us what we leave behind. I hope that MDE and EPA tell the county “go fish”...

[Katrina McConkey]

Great comment Carrie! Isabel was nature's way of saying "back off Charles County...give my rivers and their tributaries some breathing room (lots of it please)". You can bet this county will be faced with another Isabel someday!

[Debi Krahling]

I urge the EPA to uphold the clean water act because clean water is the essence of life and there is only one window of opportunity to prevent destruction. Cleaning up after the fact is never as effective as prevention.

[Margaret Schmid]

In this as in so many other areas, our country is at a crossroads. If the laws we have on the books on both the state and federal level don't stop the Cross County Connector, then it would seem that they are entirely meaningless.

[andy bilmanis]

If our present Commissioners continue to show indifference to these compelling facts and choose to support developers pursuits of opening new areas for development, these Commissioners MUST BE voted out. We need people like Tom Pelton. Great article Tom.

[Jim Long]

This is a very important article, and spot on. Last fall, as part of a new approach to clean up the Bay in smaller, two-year steps, EPA announced it would determine a Bay-wide pollution cap, in the form of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for discharges of excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. This TMDL is due by December 2010 for the Bay’s large river basins.

But as noted in Tom’s article, EPA already accepted Maryland’s TMDL for Mattawoman Creek for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution four years ago. Mattawoman’s TMDL has been “shovel ready” for two-times two years.

Mattawoman’s TMDL requires that the required 40% reduction in nutrient discharges to this cherished creek be assumed fully by non-point sources. Non-point sources are precisely what a new highway and its induced growth would generate.

So Mattawoman provides a ready-made test case for the resolve to enforce TMDLs as a Bay clean-up tool. On the one hand, the Creek is too good to lose, deemed by state fisheries biologists as the “the best, most productive tributary to the Bay.” On the other hand, it is on the brink. Roads, roofs, and parking lots now cover almost 10% of its watershed, an amount of “impervious surface” widely accepted as causing unacceptable degradation.

In Mattawoman, EPA and Maryland have a head start in applying TMDLs to enforce pollution reductions. A reduction is not possible when new highways and the sprawl they spawn churn out pollution, in addition to leveling forests (nature’s water filter) and paving wetlands. With wetland permitting authority held by the state, and oversight by EPA, it is time to get an answer. Will the federal and state agencies shoulder their responsibilities by finally drawing a line on pollution? How can you save the Bay by permitting its gems to slip away?

[Doug]

Keep up the good work! I would be ignorant to happenings around the bay without your blog.

[Fredrick Matos]

Mr. Pelton has written an excellent article.

I recall the advice given to the Washington Post reporters investigating Watergate: "Follow the money!"

Mr. Pelton's article states that "...at least 1,113 homes, and perhaps several times more that number" could be constructed.

To "follow the money," all one has to do is to look up the land ownership records to see who owns the land where the houses, shopping centers, etc. would be built. Most likely a corporation or two. Next, look up the officers of the coprorations to identify the people who stand to financially benefit the most.

Then research the county commissioners, etc. to identify who is making the major contributions to their political campaigns.

I would not be at all surprised to see some of the same names surface.

[Meredith Sweet]

Tom, I have read your recent Bay Daily editorials with a great deal of interest and would like to sincerely thank you for bringing so much attention to our lovely creek, the Mattawoman.

Here in Charles County, it seems we are pretty much decades behind the times. Road building (as evidenced by the proposed cross county connector), industrial parks slated for outside the development district, unfettered sprawl, and a whole host of other ecologically unsound planning practices are the fashion of the day. Smart Growth incentives are not taken advantage of. Priority funding areas are pretty much ignored, as are TMDLs, the Fermata report, and anything else contrary to development.

I wait for the day the powers to be in Charles County receive environmental enlightenment. I can only hope it is sometime soon. The Mattawoman is already at 9 percent and counting, for her impervious cover, and as a result, is literally degrading even as we blog.

[Lee Weldon]

Can someone link to a map that shows the proposed route of the connecting road? Is this part of a dotted line that might become part of a southern bay bridge route via Dorchester County?

Just curious.