Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Maryland Office
111 Annapolis Street, Annapolis MD 21401
410-268-8833, fax 410-280-3513

July 2, 1999

Mr. Jeff Trulick
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Re: CENAB-OP-RW (The Mill’s Corp. 98-60874-10)

Dear Mr. Trulick:

I am writing to express the concerns of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation regarding the proposed development of Arundel Mills in western Anne Arundel County and to submit the following written comments regarding the impacts to wetlands and forested lands associated with this proposal. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), with over 80,000 members, is the largest environmental education and advocacy organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.

In view of the potential impacts associated with this project and other projects in the subwatershed, we call upon the Army Corps of Engineers to take no action on this wetlands permit application. Instead we request that a full and complete environmental impact statement be performed, and that the entire Piney Run watershed define the limits of the EIS. The impacts associated with this project concern CBF for two major reasons, as outlined below:

It is unclear that the application fully accounts for indirect, secondary, cumulative, and associated off-site impacts. When combined with the anticipated wetland impacts associated with the Dorsey Ridge Limited Partnership (#96-65456-10), Dorchester Ridge Limited Partnership (#98-63625-10) and Kirk Property Limited Partnership proposed projects, the cumulative impacts to wetlands and forested land in this small watershed are unacceptably large. These proposed projects in combination will destroy more than 5 acres of wetlands and 1400 acres of forest. The consequences of these impacts to local water quality and habitat must be assessed collectively in order to meaningfully minimize and mitigate impacts. Only by addressing the entire Piney Run watershed can impacts be adequately addressed. At this time, however, the impacts associated with these projects are not fully known because various aspects of these development projects have not yet been determined. The Dorchester Subdivision design, for example, does not reflect the current concept for the relocation of Arundel Mills Boulevard, the alignment of which is at the southern end of the property.

It is not clear that the Arundel Mills application itself completely accounts for the impacts related to it. The application is unclear about on-site impacts. The effects of the development on wetlands and stream hydrology, and water quality from sedimentation and polluted runoff are not clearly established. The proposed project will surely degrade the upper eastern tributary of Piney Run, which now runs clear and stable.

On top of its impacts to wetlands and streams, the project appears likely to have other significant impacts. Forest habitat and species will be impacted through the removal and fragmentation of forest. The forest stand delineation prepared for the site pursuant to the Maryland Forest Conservation Act noted many of the forest stands are high in wildlife habitat value. This large contiguous tract of forest is also prime habitat for forest interior dwelling bird species. This heavily auto-dependent use, estimated to generate as many as 67,000 vehicle trips per day, will also likely negatively impact Clean Air Act attainment.

We are informed that the project may require the widening of Rt. 295. According to county transportation staff, the project will require the addition of a lane in each direction to Route 295 between Routes 175 and 100 in addition to an interchange improvement at Route 100. A jurisdictional determination of wetlands along 295 and identification of wetlands impacts must be included with this project’s impacts. Furthermore, Route 295 is owned by the National Park Service. Widening therefore would trigger the need for a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement. Such widening should be evaluated in concert with this project as part of an EIS. The current application represents an improper segmentation of impacts directly associated with the project by excluding the widening of Route 295 if indeed that will be required to accommodate traffic generated by the project.

 

The application does not appear to adequately address the avoidance and minimization of impacts. For example, many impacts are directly related to the auto dependent nature of the site. Reliance on auto transportation to the site results in a large development footprint due to the need for extensive parking and necessitates the road widenings. The applicant proposes 14,255 parking spaces, which well exceeds the county’s required 10,554 spaces. The county’s standard for parking is already high compared to that of other jurisdictions. By implementing measures and alternatives to reduce auto travel, and hence the needed parking surface area and road widenings, the applicant could substantially reduce direct impacts and secondary effects on water quality and quantity through a reduction in impervious surface area. Similarly, alternatives to the relocation of Ridge Road exist through traffic calming structures and traffic reduction measures.

In a larger context, what other sites did the applicant consider for the proposed use? A mall of this type has a very large capture area. It is likely that a multitude of alternative sites with less environmental sensitivity and good highway access exist within its capture area.

In short, It appears that opportunities remain to minimize resource impacts associated with this project. Assessment, avoidance and minimization of proposed impacts, of all four proposed projects, must take place before any impact is authorized. Otherwise, valuable wetlands and forested land, important for maintaining habitat and water quality in the Piney Run watershed, will be lost and the watershed will be irreversibly damaged. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

George A. Chmael II
Acting Executive Director