Corps hears locals’ anger

Connector draws large crowd upset at cost to creek

Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008

In a five-hour public hearing July 31, 66 speakers out of 94 (70.2 percent) urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require the county to conduct a lengthy environmental impact statement study before completing the last three phases of its proposed cross-county connector highway.

Proponents of the EIS charged that the county’s road plan would destroy seven acres of fragile wetlands in the county’s endangered Mattawoman Creek. They further charged that the road would pave the way for hundreds of acres of pending development that would produce poisonous stormwater runoff and destroy the rest of the creek, which serves as a productive spawning ground for many fish species and is hailed by state agencies and local environmental groups as among the best-preserved tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.

‘‘Good decisions are never made in a lack of information,” said Heidi Briguglio of Marbury, who spoke in favor of the EIS.

‘‘Without an EIS, permitting will be based on opinion, speculation and wishful thinking,” agreed Paul Livingston of Accokeek.

But the county claims it has already studied the local environment and has planned a modern wastewater management system to contain runoff from the highway. An EIS could take as long as two years, delaying the project and raising its price as the cost of construction rises with inflation, county officials say. No cost for an EIS has been revealed.

‘‘It is not designed to promote growth, but to manage growth,” said Commissioner Gary V. Hodge (D) of the connector and warned that ‘‘haphazard and independent construction” of developer-built roads in the area would be even worse for the environment. He also warned that the longer the road is delayed, the more it will cost taxpayers.

‘‘Further studies are unnecessary and will only needlessly delay this project,” agreed Doug Meeker, a Charlotte Hall developer.

‘‘This is about business and job creation,” said Marcia Keeth, the county’s acting economic development director. ‘‘Not building the cross-county connector will not stop growth, but it will stop job growth.”

But government officials preferred to present the connector as a critical safety issue, arguing that the winding, twisted western side of the existing Billingsley Road is too dangerous to ignore any longer.

‘‘Billingsley Road is a horrible road,” declared Del. Murray D. Levy (D-Charles), who said three of the four members of the county delegation favor building the new connector. Levy said he could not reach Del. Peter F. Murphy (D) to learn his position. ‘‘It has to be replaced.”

Capt. Daniel Gimler of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office said that there have been 520 vehicle crashes on Billingsley between 2005 and 2007.

Commissioner Samuel N. Graves Jr. (D), a former sheriff’s officer, stated, ‘‘There is no room for proper or safe enforcement on [Billingsley] Road.”

John Filer, chief of the county’s emergency medical services, said that half of the calls that his units were unable to respond to within the recommended eight minutes ‘‘can absolutely be attributed to infrastructure deficiencies.”

But EIS proponents attacked the county’s presentation as using Billingsley’s deficiencies as an excuse for a new taxpayer-funded highway to serve development interests.

‘‘Shame on the county for not addressing safety concerns on Billingsley Road,” said Linda Redding of Nanjemoy.

Nanjemoy resident Kevin Grimes said that the problem was not Billingsley Road, but the 700 houses the county approved on the road without requiring an upgrade.

‘‘They wanted to use [Billingsley] for an excuse for the [connector],” charged Alex Winter of Bryans Road. ‘‘Then they want to kill our golden goose, the Mattawoman Creek.”

‘‘It doesn’t take a four-lane, divided highway to fix Billingsley Road,” said Bruce Kirk of La Plata.

‘‘Rex!” said Nancy Markley of Pomfret, addressing Sheriff Rex W. Coffey (D) in a scolding motherly tone.

‘‘How are you going to take care of Billingsley extended, when you don’t have enough men to cover the roads we have now?”

Markley then turned to the commissioners and said, ‘‘If you are so bent on building roads, I will buy you an erector set.”

Richard Magy, who said he lives on Billingsley Road and works on the U.S. Navy base in Indian Head, accused EIS opponents of scaremongering about economic development in order to make development profits.

‘‘The contracts are coming; the jobs are coming; they’re not going away,” Magy declared. ‘‘The only people who want to see the cross-county connector built have a financial [interest].”

The last three phases of the connector were originally estimated to cost $48 million, but opponents claim the road could cost taxpayers as much as $60 million or $1,300 for each county household.

But Ibrahim Lamiyan, who also lives on Billingsley Road, advocated for the construction of at least the westernmost Phase 7 of the connector in order to give his King’s View neighborhood another option for getting out in the event of a natural disaster.

‘‘I’m not here as a supporter or against the road,” Lamiyan stated. He said he is simply tired of severe thunderstorms dropping trees across the existing road and blocking him inside his neighborhood.

Lamiyan scolded the EIS supporters for dismissing his questions about the road’s problems, saying, ‘‘People have to stop using the Mattawoman Creek as a cover for their political agenda.”

The corps will leave the hearing record open until Aug. 15 to take written comment. County officials expect a decision by Sept. 9.