Article caused misunderstanding on progress of 301 study

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

There are several points which require clarification.

Based upon my discussions, not all the elected officials of Charles County support a Waldorf bypass as No. 1.

The mesh of environmental studies and engineering reviews in which the study is tangled is, in fact, the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement, a legally required study necessary for the release of federal funds for major transportation improvements. This study is legally required to address all possible alternatives to resolve the transportation problem defined in the study's purpose and need statement.

Reviewing agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers make recommendations as to the preferred alternative based upon their environmental, water quality, social and economic impact to the Federal Highway Administration. The current study is essentially redoing the study conducted during the period 1998-2001.

At that time, a preliminary draft environmental study was prepared, but the draft environmental impact statement was not completed. Initially, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised against bypassing Waldorf, supporting the upgrade of U.S. 301 through Waldorf.

After further field studies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advised with respect to an eastern bypass of Waldorf, "this alternate would be potentially permittable" and in a subsequent letter stated, "it is apparent that the Western Bypass would be the most damaging to aquatic resources." When SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen provided this information to the Charles County commissioners, then-board President Murray Levy stated we will not go east and we will not go through Waldorf. This refusal on the part of the past and current Charles County boards to consider any alternative other than a western bypass of Waldorf has delayed transportation improvements in Waldorf, while federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and other environmental protections have prevented the reviewing federal agencies from approving a western bypass of Waldorf.

In conversation with the State Highway Administration I have been told that the current study's draft environmental impact statement which was initially scheduled for public review in autumn 2008, then slipped to spring 2009 ,may be available in the fall.

In addition to the foregoing, the photo accompanying the article shows the backup of U.S. 301 southbound left-turning traffic at Mattawoman Beantown Road.

This junction was approved with a fly-over for left turning traffic, but the fly-over was not constructed at that time. In the current study, one of the alternatives for upgrading U.S. 301 through Waldorf provides that flyover. The bypass alternatives do not.

Finally, the Citizens Against the Waldorf Bypass strongly urge the completion of the draft EIS and implementation of the improvements recommended by that process.

Ernest L. Wallace, La Plata

The writer is the chairman of the Citizens Against the Waldorf Bypass.