County disputes reforestation claim

Bay group says data raise issues with connector

Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009

An environmental group claims that Charles County leads the state's 22 jurisdictions for the highest rate of forested land razed per new dwelling, according to statistics from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 15-year Forest Conservation Act Review and the Maryland State Data Center.

When it comes to planting new trees for the same kind of projects, the data put the county dead last.

Charles County officials vehemently dispute the conclusion, saying the data use different land areas for calculating forest loss and new dwelling acreage and do not take into account numerous areas exempted from reforestation requirements.

That's evidence of an environmentally irresponsible government, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which recently released a review disputing the county's claims that a cross-county connector is a needed green alternative to Billingsley Road that will alleviate traffic congestion and improve motorist safety in the western portion of the county.

Approval to destroy seven acres of sensitive wetland separates the board of commissioners from completing the final three phases of the $47 million project. More than half of the road is completed and runs via four lanes through portions of Billingsley Road, going from Route 5 and stopping at Middletown Road in Waldorf. The final three phases between Middletown Road and Route 210 are awaiting approval from the state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"I feel in many cases it goes to show [the connector] is not the best alternative in terms of improving safety, alleviating traffic and [smart growth]," said Erik Fisher, a planner with the foundation. "What struck me personally was the degree of environmental damage for the amount of improvement. We're not getting much out of the risk to the [Mattawoman] Creek."

At 0.42 acres Charles County has the highest rate of forested land razed. Calvert County follows at just below 0.35 acres and then St. Mary's County with 0.30 acres of forest cut for each new home, according to the statistics.

Conversely the county has the lowest number of forested acres planted per new dwelling at just below one-tenth of an acre. Anne Arundel County plants a few more square feet and Talbot County plants just under 0.02 acres.

"When you cut down a forest, you've obviously changed the landscape considerably," said Terry Cummings, manager of advocacy for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "The existing forest absorbs pollution and controls runoff … there's no comparison between forests that are mature and a forest that's developing."

Information from county environment staffers argues that the data are taken from different sources that measure different land areas and so cannot be used to measure tree loss across counties; that the data used leave out land in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, land exempted from forest mitigation in planned unit development areas in St. Charles, and in floodplains and industrial sites; and that a greater percentage of land in the county is forested than in other counties, leading to a statistical imbalance.

According to Marian Honeczy, supervisor of urban and community forestry for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, should the project be approved, a ratio of razed to newly planted trees will be determined for required planting by the county. The ratio is determined by looking at the impact of land and forest disturbance.

The county argues that in the context of thinking green the proposed throughway is the most environmentally friendly of the transportation alternatives.

Engineers were able to reduce the affected wetlands from 13 acres to seven acres and will use geotextile fabrics that allow for subsurface water movement, stormwater retro-fits that go beyond the requirement for impervious surfaces, and a number of natural and environmentally friendly barriers to fight silt and runoff.

"If we upgraded Billingsley Road the improvements would not be substantive because of the geometrics of the road," Charles County Commissioner Gary V. Hodge (D) said. "When we would level the hills or fill in the valleys or straighten the curves, we'd do more environmental damage …"

The safety of motorists and safe passage for emergency personnel is another reason why there has been a push for the connector for almost 20 years.

When Jerry Ballengee returned to his Billingsley Road home late Friday two weeks ago, he found police cars waiting in his driveway and an overturned vehicle lying in the culvert that runs the length of his yard.

The driver had already left the scene. His injuries were not life-threatening. The men in uniform were waiting for a tow truck.

It was the first of two car crashes to take place that week in front of Ballengee's home.

"I can't tell you the number of accidents we've had," Ballengee said of the motorized mishaps that happen with disturbing frequency along the rolling stretch of road west of the Bensville and Billingsley roads intersection. "That little bit of a hump can be too close and it can throw you if you're not ready for it. People literally fly down here sometimes."

"Billingsley Road doesn't give you an opportunity if you make a mistake," said Bryans Road Volunteer Fire Department Chief Dave McCormick. "That road is not a good road to travel."

McCormick said his firehouse travels Billingsley on a daily basis because it is the main artery into Waldorf.

"The speed limit is only 35 miles per hour. It's not a high speed but it's a narrow … winding road," McCormick said. "We train our drivers to hold the middle. … We can't afford to get a wheel off the road."

The bay foundation argued that accident data and traffic analyses indicated congestion around the connector corridor would not improve, and because Billingsley Road would not be closing it could still pose a risk to drivers.

"We're not asking them to stop all development, we're asking them to not build a road. We are concerned about the situation in its entirety," Cummings said.

Fisher said according to county consultant data, only one intersection at Route 227 would improve to an acceptable level of service — the report card for intersections, he said.

With more people using the connector, waiting times and traffic jams would increase at the U.S. 301 connection. To see any difference the county would need to widen Route 228 and Route 210, the foundation argued.

"We thought we'd see better grades, but by and large you really don't," Fisher said.

"After the cross-county connector is built, Billingsley Road will be less traveled and therefore experience fewer accidents," Hodge said. "The road we build will be designed to carry traffic at [higher] speeds. Seventy percent of traffic or more could use the connector instead of Billingsley Road."

The foundation did take the stance that development is a good thing for a growing county, as long as it's done responsibly and in the proper place — notably the priority funding area in the northwest region of the county.

Government leaders have countered that there isn't enough money and infrastructure to develop the area conservationists have their eye on, not to mention the rights and agreements among landowners in the development district that the county doesn't have the authority to interrupt.

Fisher said that the county's planning agreements aren't as unchangeable as its leaders make them out to be.

Using a chart provided by the county's planning and growth management department that was included in two letters to the Army Corps of Engineers, the foundation arrived at the approximate total of 3,200 units that have only preliminary approval in the area between Route 228, U.S. 301, Route 227 and Route 210.

Six hundred units have final approval and the foundation determined there is potential approval for more than 2,100 units within a mile of the connector.

"It became clear to us that [development] is not that far along, if at all," Fisher said.

Hodge said 70 percent of the connector corridor has already been developed and the remaining 30 percent has been zoned, but that's not cause for alarm.

In response to claims the county is not considering smart growth for its future, Hodge pointed to the fact that 25 percent of the county's population lives on 2 percent of the land — the St. Charles community which includes some 40,000 residents.

"At some point in the process someone owns that land that's zoned for certain uses," Hodge said. "A developer who buys that land doesn't have any more right to develop the land than the owner had in the first place."

msomers@somdnews.com