FAQ
Introduction

At what point do resource agencies become involved in SCEA?
Resource agencies become involved in the SCEA as early as the interagency field review held early in the Stage I Project Planning Process (during preliminary alternatives development).

Module 1

Why is air quality not considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA?
Regional air quality is considered in the Transportation Conformity Process. This is essentially a cumulative effects analysis. The 1990 Clean Air (CAA) Amendments and the 1992 Intermodal Surface Transportation Improvement Efficiency Act (ISTEA) require regional scale air quality to be assessed in a metropolitan region's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP).

Why is noise quality not considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA?
Noise quality is not considered a resource, but is an effect resulting from traffic volumes. Traffic noise impacts a resource (generally communities). Communities may be considered a SCEA resource. Readily available data regarding noise affects to communities over time can be used in the SCEA as a cumulative impact.

Should communities be considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA?
Communities may be considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA. Factors that affect a community's social/economic stability and quality of life (i.e., noise, visual impacts, displacements, isolation, etc.) can all be considered when assessing impacts to communities.

Why is land use not considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA?
Land use is not considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA. The term land use is a designation of how certain areas are proposed to be used (i.e., residential or industrial development, open space, etc.).

Module 2

How do Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances affect the development of the SCEA boundary?
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs) should be considered when developing your SCEA conclusions. The existence of APFOs within your SCEA geographical boundary should be an indicator not to overstate future growth if the local roadway network is unable to support it.

Is it acceptable to use different portions of different subboundaries to develop the overall SCEA boundary?
It is appropriate to use different portions of different subboundaries to develop the overall SCEA geographical boundary. This is necessary because not all of the subboundaries used in developing the SCEA geographical boundary are likely to coincide with each other. Justifications or reasons for using various portions of subboundaries must be documented.

Is substituting a subwatershed for the larger watershed boundary acceptable in developing the SCEA geographical boundary?
As long as the SCEA geographical boundary is partially defined by resources it does not matter whether a watershed, subwatershed or another resource boundary is used.

Can you have a more than one SCEA geographical boundary for different alternatives?
No, only one SCEA geographical boundary is to be developed for the entire study. The various subboundaries being considered must be synthesized into one overall SCEA geographical boundary.

What percent of traffic needs to occur when determining a project's area of traffic influence?
Current SHA Guidelines do not specify a threshold in terms of percent change in traffic volume determining a project's "area of traffic influence". The "area of traffic influence" (and the threshold percentage) for each SCEA needs to be developed and the rationale documented independently for each project, with input from the Traveler Forecaster.

Can resources be analyzed to the external limits of a resource subboundary, (i.e., watershed), even if that subboundary falls outside of the overall SCEA geographical boundary.
It is appropriate to analyze a resource to a logical subboundary, such as a watershed, even if it does not correspond exactly to the overall SCEA boundary. These differences in boundaries, as well as how the differences may affect conclusions drawn about resource impacts, should be explained in the environmental document.

Module 3

Can broad published trends that date back before the SCEA past timeframe be considered?
Data that helps support conclusions about resources in the SCEA geographical boundary can be used in the analysis even if it falls outside of the established SCEA time frame.

Module 4

Why is land use not considered a resource for the purposes of SCEA? (same as module 1, question 4)
SHA develops its proposed land use scenarios primarily based on local government master plans and assumptions used in the MPO/SHA travel forecasting models. If a resource agency disagrees with a proposed scenario, then SHA and the agency will begin the conflict resolution process. The local planner(s) will also be asked to be involved to discuss the effectiveness of the local jurisdictions land use planning and zoning process, past history, political climate, etc.

Can resources be analyzed to the external limits of a resource subboundary, (i.e., watershed), even if that subboundary falls outside of the overall SCEA geographical boundary. (same as module 2, question 6)
It is appropriate to analyze a resource to a logical subboundary, such as a watershed, even if it does not correspond exactly to the overall SCEA boundary. These differences in boundaries, as well as how the differences may affect conclusions drawn about resource impacts, should be explained in the environmental document.

What happens when a resource agency differs with SHAs proposal on how a project alternative will impact land use?
SHA develops its proposed land use scenarios primarily based on local government master plans and assumptions used in the MPO/SHA travel forecasting models. If a resource agency disagrees with a proposed scenario, then SHA and the agency will begin the conflict resolution process. The local planner(s) will also be asked to be involved to discuss the effectiveness of the local jurisdictions land use planning and zoning process, past history, political climate, etc.

In addition to future land use information provided by local governments, MPOs and SHA travel forecasters, are there other data sources that can be used to develop future land use projects?
Although the future land use scenario is primarily developed from the local governments master plans and travel forecasters, other sources, such as Maryland Office of Planning's 2020 Land Use/Land Cover projections can be used to verify future land use assumptions or fill in information gaps.

Module 5

How is the resource agency permitting process affected by disclosing a range of impacts to resources in the analysis section of the SCEA?
Disclosing a range of impacts from proposed development that may occur to resources protected by a permitting agency provides an estimate of impacts that may occur within a SCEA Geographical Boundary. This range alerts agencies to potential impacts by others. The agency then has the option to coordinate with the others regarding resource avoidance, minimization and mitigation.

When assessing impacts to resources, how can conclusions be made about these impacts without knowing the exact acreage that will be physically impacted by a change in land use?
Conclusions will be a judgement call based on the impact information available. If trends analyses are used, then the impact information will likely be qualitative only. For overlay analyses, the impacts can often be described quantitatively, but its not realistic to expect an exact calculation. There are too many unknown factors, particularly the exact location of future disturbance within a parcel slated for future development. Therefore, a range of impacts to potentially threatened resources would be a reasonable approach.

Is the NoBuild scenario included in a SCEA?
The NoBuild Alternative should be considered only as a baseline for comparison to the build alternatives. Because the NoBuild alternative would have no direct impacts and no secondary impacts, per the SCEA Guidelines no further analysis would be warranted.

Module 6

Is the NoBuild scenario included in a SCEA? (same as module 5, question 4)
The NoBuild Alternative should be considered only as a baseline for comparison to the build alternatives. Because the NoBuild alternative would have no direct impacts and no secondary impacts, per the SCEA Guidelines no further analysis would be warranted.

All content contained within these materials is the intellectual property of Maryland State Highway Administration.

© 2000 Maryland State Highway Administration.
Last modified: Friday September 15, 2000.