By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2008; SM04

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has found significant problems with Charles County's permit application to construct the Cross County Connector, according to a recent letter from the agency to county officials.

The eight-page letter asks the county to provide additional information about five major parts of its proposal to build the $70 million highway. Corps officials want the county to redefine the project's purpose, suggest viable alternatives, conduct a full study of traffic patterns, mitigate environmental damage and respond to concerns from state and federal agencies and the public.

The letter represents the clearest official signal that approval for the already-delayed highway is in jeopardy.

One of the most significant actions requested by the Corps is a study showing how the connector would change traffic patterns, a key element of the county's proposal. Charles officials have argued that linking Indian Head Highway with Route 5 is necessary to relieve congestion on other east-west roads in the northwest part of the county, but Corps officials found that the traffic information is outdated and "does not reflect the existence of planning transportation infrastructure in the study area."

"Detailed information on potential mass transit alternatives that may address traffic concerns in this area should be provided," wrote William P. Seib, chief of the Corps' Maryland Section Southern.

County spokesman George Clarkson referred calls about the letter to Planning Director Melvin C. Beall, Jr., to whom the document was addressed. Beall could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but he said last week that he will provide any information requested by the Corps or the Maryland Department of the Environment, which also must grant permits for the highway.

Seib wrote that the county has not clearly defined its purpose and need for the project and noted that it has used three justifications since 1996. Aside from the need to relieve traffic as population grows, county officials have cited safety concerns about Billingsley Road, a major east-west corridor between routes 301 and 5, and the need for direct access to the District.

"You have not justified why another east-west connector road is needed four miles to the south of" Route 228, which becomes Route 5 at its easternmost point and connects to Indian Head Highway in the west, Seib wrote.

The letter also focused on environmental damage that could result from the highway's construction through the Mattawoman Creek watershed. The potential for ecological harm has been the primary focus of the Smarter Growth Alliance for Charles County, a group spearheading opposition to the project.