Wildlife Agency Raises Stop Sign For Sprawl Highway

Here’s a gift of good news for the New Year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is opposing the approval of a permit that would allow the paving of wetlands in Southern Maryland for the construction of the Sprawl Highway.

A recent letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Army Corps of Engineers says the Chesapeake region’s “most productive nursery” for several species of fish, the Mattawoman Creek,  would be hurt if Charles County is permitted to build the seven mile roadway, called the Cross County Connector.

"The Service recommends denial of the Section 404 wetland permit until a more complete assessment . . . of the proposed highway is completed in addition to a more comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, and a detailed mitigation and compensation plan," wrote Leopoldo Miranda, a supervisor with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The highway would destroy about seven acres of wetlands and 75 acres of forest. The connector would link the malls in the Waldorf area to planned developments in the northern section of the county, but do little to solve Charles County’s traffic problems or help commuters drive to jobs in the Washington DC area. More importantly, the highway would transform a largely forested terrain into a hard funnel of blacktop and suburban sprawl that would send polluted runoff into an ecologically vital Bay tributary.

It’s encouraging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is asking that Charles County consider alternatives to this poorly-planned and destructive roadway. What’s even more hopeful is that the federal agency cited as a reason for the denial President Obama’s May Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay, which called on federal agencies to take a leadership role in protecting the nation’s largest estuary from pollution.

Denying permits like this is the kind of action the federal government should be taking all the time to use existing law to reduce pollution into the Bay.  Right now, the feds could simply enforce the Clean Water Act to crack down on pollution across the Chesapeake region. For example, federal agencies could (and should) intervene now to reduce pollution from the Sparrows Point steel mill in Baltimore County, the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant that serves Washington D.C., and the Merck pharmaceutical plant on the Shenandoah River in Virginia.

It’s good to see the glimmering of federal responsibility in protecting the wetlands and forests around Mattawoman Creek.  Yes, this is a federal issue, because protecting the shared resources in the multi-state Bay watershed requires a regional approach.  We can’t tie our hands with parochial boundaries if we want to honor the value that all of us place on a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay.

It's also worth noting that this question is far from resolved.  The Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment must still decide whether to issue a wetlands destruction permit for the project. 

The Charles County government has argued (with little basis) that the road would not stimulate sprawl development.  In fact, the county's own documents show that the highway would "facilitate" the construction of at least 1,113 homes in an area that is now largely forest, and perhaps many times that number.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is clearly concerned about the likelihood that the highway would spark overbuilding and runoff pollution.

The agency wrote in their letter to the county: "With the building of the highway, several thousand acres of land are expected to be developed...

"The Service is concerned about the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of this proposed highway...The Mattawoman Creek watershed is a hotspot for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity... This waterway is already listed as impaired...and (federal and state pollution limit) standards call for a more than 60 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus (pollution) loads from urban runoff."

 

Comments

[Cheryl]

This is great news!!!

Hopefully, the Army Corps of Engineers will have enough Federal and State data in its "arsenal" to deny ANY permits for this "development corridor"!!

The Commissioners have only one objective - to build out Charles County as much and as quickly as possible.

I believe they want more development, particularly in the Bryans Road/Indian Head/Marshall Hall area to help "justify" the "need" for a new bridge connecting the Western part of the county at Chicamuxen to Woodbridge, VA.

This idea for this bridge has been floating around since the 1960's, and IF the CCC extension is in place it will not only facilitate more development, but also create more traffic, thereby providing the justification for a new traffic pattern!!

This bridge would enable traffic to be diverted from 301 & the Nice Bridge to this new route to I-95.

It would also help to "relieve" traffic on the Wilson Bridge.

In my opinion, it's all part of the overall strategy for an Outer Beltway in the future.

The approval of the Connector extension would be the opening salvo in this endeavor!!

[Anne in Silver Spring]

Agreed. The Executive Order may finally restore the proper sense to the word "permit." A "permit" should entitle someone to go ahead with a good project. The very word entails the concept that if the project is NOT good, the "permit" will be denied and the destructive project will not proceed. It is entirely clear that this project should not proceed, since it is diametrically opposed to protecting the Bay.

[Lona]

Yeah for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. With retail in the area gasping for breath the last thing we need is the induced sprawl and loss of environmental quality that the Cross County Connector road would encourage.

[Ken Hastings]

Both the Army and MDE appear to be trying to do the right thing on this project. They are asking the right questions and aren't just accepting the off the wall answers provided by the County. The County's responses to some of the questions have been sloppy to say the least but there appears to be significant political pressure from the Commissioners and certain members of the General Assembly to push this through in spite of the obvious threats to the environment. Hats off to the Fish and Wildlife Service for having the guts to take the right stand.

[Betsy Johnson]

Hurray for Fish and Wildlife! The Mattawoman is a treasure that must be saved.

[bonnie bick]

The proposed Cross county Connector highway is a key example of the kind of development projects that have ignored our natural resources and polluted the Bay for decades. Federal and state agencies have a unique opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to Presidents Obama's Executive Order. This action by the Fish and Wildlife Service elevates Mattawoman Creek to a national concern. And Mattawoman deserves that attention because it is the poster child for saving the Bay. We must draw the line here if we are serious about stopping further degradation. We cannot lose the best tributary for fish spawning and still say we are saving the Chesapeake Bay.

[Jim Long]

If you examine a satellite map, the purpose of this highway is clear: it is intended to extend Waldorf, the county's urban core, all the way to the one-stoplight town of Bryans Road, located the full width of the Mattawoman watershed away. The watershed would then fill with sprawl development. In fact, vastly greater development is intended once you recognize the potential along the highway corridor and consider county planning documents stating the highway is to required to implement recent and controversial upzoning of Bryans Road to over 8000 housing units.

As the Fish and Wildlife Service letter noted, policies such as these, if carried out, would have “devastating” consequences for Mattawoman. In fact, the letter echoes concerns for the “severe,” “dramatic,” and “major” impacts of such development that are expressed in Charles County’s own Mattawoman Creek Watershed Management Plan, authored by the Army Corps of Engineers. We can hope that the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order is stiffening the resolve of federal agencies that recognize clearly what is at stake. Permit denial is one of the few tools at hand to protect resources of national significance, as Mattawoman is. Let’s hope that the Corps and the Maryland Department of the Environment exercise their duties to protect the Bay, deny the wetland permits, and launch Charles County toward more sustainable alternatives.

[Ronald Lockwood]

Rarely are issues as clear as the need to deny Charles County the permits necessary to extend the Cross County Connector Extension. The Environmental issues are important on their own merits, but in addition are inextricably intertwined with economic, social and even health issues. At stake is whether or not we recognize and meet the challenges of the 21st Century, or languish in the outdated, irresponsible and self-defeating practices of the past.

With responsible leadership, we can preserve irreplaceable naural treasures, can
end the cycle of simultaneously destroying the Bay and other resources and spending large sums to restore them, can bring new and clean technologies to the region and reap the economic, social and health rewards gained by doing so. We can redirect tax money to schools and other interests in need - and by doing so make the region more attractive to forward-looking businesses.

With the issues so clear, I think it reasonable to deduce that the only ones favoring the extension are those seeking short term profits to the detriment of our long term welfare, and who have garnered excessive favor with some of our elected officials.

That said, it is encouraging to see the Federal Government taking positive steps on our behalf, and to see the ACOE and MDE taking a deliberative and sober approach to examining the facts in the case.

And as to responsible leadership, we will all have an opportunity to address poor and irresponsible leadership when we go to the polls.