US 301 Waldorf Transportation Improvements Project

(Waldorf Bypass)

In 2005 the State budgeted $5 million to resume the study for the proposed Waldorf Bypass which the State Highway Administration (SHA) had abruptly stopped in 2002. The reason reported to the public for halting the study was lack of funding. The Citizens Against the Waldorf Bypass (CAWB) believes the study was halted because of the prospective inability to get Federal Highway funding for the project. The prospective funding was endangered because of disagreement among Federal and Charles County officials on the best alternative for transportation improvements in the Waldorf area.

The Environmental Protection Act and Clean Water Act require that in order for the Federal Government to provide funds for a major transportation project, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and its alternatives are rated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and an unacceptable rating can kill the project. Additionally, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must approve a Section 404 permit for any dredging or filling in waters of the United States and jurisdictional wetlands in order for the project to proceed. There are other coordinating agencies, such as Fish and Wildlife and Marine Fisheries which have an advisory role in this process.

Frequently in the past, we have been told by our elected officials that this project has been studied enough, and it is time to start building a bypass. In fact, until the studies required for the preparation of the DEIS are completed nothing can be done.

Unfortunately for our citizen taxpayers, this study was close to completion in 2001. The Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement had been prepared, but it was not circulated for final coordination because of the negative comments of the cooperating agencies with respect to both bypass options. EPA commented that if a bypass was recommended they would consider giving the document an adverse rating and recommend that COE deny a 404 permit. COE initially commented that an upgrade was the only acceptable alternative; however, they later advised that, a western bypass was the most environmentally damaging alternative, an eastern bypass may be permitable, and they were willing to further study the eastern bypass. Subsequently, in a public meeting between SHA and the Charles County Board of Commissioners, the President of the Board advised SHA, we will not go east and we will not go through Waldorf. The Board’s unwillingness to accept the anticipated results of the Federally required NEPA 404 process effectively stopped any further progress on the DEIS, and no Federal funds could be made available for transportation improvement in the Waldorf area.

The Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the Charles County Board of Commissioners met monthly with SHA and County officials over a period of three years reviewing all of the transportation planning and alternatives. They recommended US 301 be upgraded through Waldorf based upon alternative 3, interchanges at major intersections with no traffic lights on through lanes and separate local lanes, designed to minimize right-of-way requirements. Despite this recommendation by their advisory committee the Board of Commissioners approved a Transportation Strategy using County funds to upgrade County roads, planning for a portion of the proposed western Waldorf bypass from Berry Road near Greensward Turf Farm to the US 301/Washington Ave/Turkey Hill Road intersection, and to identify bypass right-of-way within Charles County from Berry Road to US 301 at the north end of Waldorf. There were two reasons for this unusual action: 1^st The Prince George’s County Council had passed a resolution forbidding a portion of a western Waldorf bypass in Prince George’s County, and 2^nd in a public meeting, SHA had verbally advised the Charles County Board of Commissioners that a western Waldorf bypass could not be built solely in Charles County.

On January 11, 2006, the Interagency Working Group (IAWG) for the preparation of the DEIS held their first meeting for the current study. Since that time, several steps in the preparation of the DEIS have been completed. The public workshops held March 20, 22, and 24, 2007 are one of the steps in the preparation of the DEIS.

By February, 2007, SHA had presented only bypass options to the IAWG and the SHA web site discussed three options: 1, 1A, and 2 for upgrading US 301 through Waldorf. None of these options were capable of satisfying the transportation requirements of the project, and would thereby force the selection of a

bypass. The CAWB prepared and circulated a memorandum which requested that upgrade alternative 3 from the 2001 PDEIS, a full upgrade through Waldorf with separated through and local lanes, be included in the current study. This paper was provided to the Federal cooperating agencies.

On Wednesday, March 14, 2007 the week prior to the public workshops, the IAWG met and considered the upgrades through Waldorf, including alternatives 3 and 4 from the previous study. At the workshops, upgrade alternative 3 was prominently identified as “NOT PREFERRED”, an obvious attempt to get citizens not familiar with the previous efforts to support either an upgrade that would not satisfy the transportation needs or a bypass.

The NEPA/404 process is required by law and a great deal of taxpayers funds have been and are being spent to prepare the DEIS. Despite the attempts of the previous Charles County Board of Commissioners and SHA to force an environmentally damaging bypass, the law requires that the alternative which satisfies the transportation requirements and is least damaging to the environment be selected unless there are over riding social and economic impacts to the human environment.

The upgrade alternative 3 presented in 2001 carried the local roads over US 301 at the interchanges, thereby separating the local roads from the businesses in Waldorf and maximizing the right-of-way requirements, increasing the impact on the businesses. This caused many business owners to oppose alternative 3. Alternative 3 designed to minimize right-of-way requirements by carrying US 301 over the local road and using urban, underground drainage can be built with minimal additional right-of-way and is the alternative that meets the transportation requirements with minimal impact to the environment.

SHA’s web site has now been updated and is fairly accurate although some information is presented in such a way as to enhance selection of a bypass. For more information we recommend visiting www.us301waldorf .org for background information. Also, contact the CAWB at ewallace@olg.com or 301-609-8262 if you have questions or desire additional information.

Contact SHA and other members of the IAWG. Despite the attempts of SHA and the County to force a bypass, the IAWG is a body of public employees trying to do their jobs for us. Let them know your recommendation and your appreciation of their efforts.

Contact information:

State Highway Administration:........................................................................ SHawtof@sha.state.md.us

U. S. Army Corp of Engineers:.......................................................................... Steve.Harman@nab02.usace.army.mil

Environmental Protection Agency: ................................................................. Magerr.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov

Federal Highway Administration:.................................................................... danw.johnson@fhwa.dot.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries: john.nichols@noaa.gov

Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service: ......................................... bill_schultz@fws.gov

Maryland Department of the Environment: ..................................................... eghigiarelli@mde.state.md.us

Department of Natural Resources: .................................................................. ggolden@dnr.state.md.us

-----Ernie Wallace