Spotlight SHA
All About
SHA
Programs & Regulations
On the Road
Driving It
Safe
Doing Business
Projects
& Events
Information
& Feedback
Employment Opportunities
CHART
Maps & Brochures
 |
||
|
||
|
SCEA Training
SCEA Home | Training Modules | Recent Updates | Contact Info Long Description for Other Materials: SHA Project Resources image. This graphic shows how the 3 major stages of the project planning process correlate to the major project planning milestone activities and the major SCEA activities. Stage 1 goes from the beginning of Project Planning to the decision on which alternatives to retain for detailed study. It includes the following planning activities: purpose & need development, an interagency field review, and the Public Alternates Workshop. Stage 1 is when SCEA scoping occurs. Stage 2 goes from the decision on which alternatives to retain for detailed study to the determination of SHA's selected alternative and conceptual mitigation. It includes the following planning activities: preparation of the draft environmental document and the Location/Design Public Hearing. Stage 2 is when the SCEA analysis occurs. Finally, Stage 3 goes from the determination of SHA's selected alternative and conceptual mitigation to the Federal Highway Administration's selection and approval of a particular alternative and includes the preparation of the final environmental document. Stage 3 is where the SCEA conclusions and appropriate mitigation measures are documented. Back Long Description for Training Exercises: Module 1 Exercise 2 images. The first schematic map shows the existing land uses at the fictitious MD 998/MD 999 intersection. The second schematic map shows projected future land uses, as well as the direct impact area, at the fictitious MD 998/MD 999 intersection. The third schematic map shows the environmental resources located near the fictitious MD 998/MD 999 intersection. Back Long Description for Training Exercises: Module 2 Exercise 2 images. The top left map shows the sub-boundary of the study area which encompasses all of the alternatives studied in the MRECAS project. The top right map shows the sub-boundary of the employment center in the area of the MRECAS project. The bottom left map shows the sub-boundary of the natural environmental resources being studied in the MRECAS SCEA. The bottom right map shows the sub-boundary of the socio-economic environmental resources being studied in the MRECAS SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Exercises: Module 2 Exercise 2 question images. A. Shows a SCEA geographical boundary that is made of only the study area sub-boundary. B. Shows a SCEA geographical boundary that is made of the synthesis of all four sub-boundaries. C. Shows a SCEA geographical boundary that uses local jurisdictional boundaries and roadways along the western, southern and northern sides. D. Shows a rectangular shaped SCEA geographical boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module Introduction Slide 4 image. A map of Maryland, showing the locations of the seven projects being used in the case studies. These projects are the Middle River Employment Center Access (MRECAS) in southeast Baltimore County; US 1/Bel Air By-Pass in central Harford County; US 1/Hickory By-Pass in central Harford County; US 113 in eastern Worcester County; MD 5 Hughesville in northern Charles County; Woodrow Wilson Bridge in western Prince George's County and MD 4 in Prince George's County. Long Description for Training Module Introduction Slide 17 table. This graphic shows how the 3 major stages of the project planning process correlate to the major project planning milestone activities and the major SCEA activities. Stage 1 goes from the beginning of Project Planning to the decision on which alternatives to retain for detailed study. It includes the following planning activities: purpose & need development, an interagency field review, and the Public Alternates Workshop. Stage 1 is when SCEA scoping occurs. Stage 2 goes from the decision on which alternatives to retain for detailed study to the determination of SHA's selected alternative and conceptual mitigation. It includes the following planning activities: preparation of the draft environmental document and the Location/Design Public Hearing. Stage 2 is when the SCEA analysis occurs. Finally, Stage 3 goes from the determination of SHA's selected alternative and conceptual mitigation to the Federal Highway Administration's selection and approval of a particular alternative and includes the preparation of the final environmental document. Stage 3 is where the SCEA conclusions and appropriate mitigation measures are documented. Back Long Description for Training Module Introduction Slide 4 map. A map of Maryland, showing the locations of the projects being used in the case studies MRECAS, MD 4, Woodrow Wilson Bridge, MD 5, US 1 Belair Bypass, US 1 Hickory Bypass, US 113. Back Long Description for Training Module Introduction Slide 17 image. This graphic shows how the 3 major stages of the project planning process correlate to the major project planning milestone activities and the major SCEA activities. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 1 image. This graphic shows a man thinking about the 7 categories of environmental resources which need to be considered in a SCEA. They are Surface/Groundwater, Wetlands, Community, Cultural Resources, Parks, Farmlands, Wildlife. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 5 image. This flow chart shows the 4 steps used when identifying and documenting which resources will be studied in the SCEA. They are: Identify Direct Impacts, Identify Potential Secondary Impacts, Determine Data Availability, Develop SCEA Resource Matrix. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 6 table. This table provides a list of key data sources which can be used to identify which resources should be studied in the SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 9 image. This image is a map of the MRECAS study area, showing the direct impact area of the alternatives which were studied. The area includes the existing MD 43/I-95 interchange, goes eastward to US 40, then extends south and east to incorporate portions of Ebenezer Road, Bird River Road and MD 150. It includes Martin State Airport and abuts portions of the Middle River along the southern border. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 11 table 1. This chart provides the rationale for determining which resources were not studied in the SCEA (i.e., these resources were shown as "strikethroughs" on slide 10). Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 11 table 2. This chart provides the rationale for which resources were studied in the SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 17 image. This image is a map of Alternative 2, depicting the widening of existing MD 5 in Hughesville from north of Nubian Way (to the north) to south of Carrico Mill Road (to the south), a distance of almost 3 miles. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 18 image. This image is a map of Alternative 3, depicting a roadway on new location to the east of existing MD 5. Two interchange options are shown for the MD 5/MD 231 intersection (a standard diamond interchange and a compressed diamond interchange). Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 19 table. This table contains a listing of the environmental resources impacts, for each alternative studied, which appeared in the MD 5 Hughesville Environmental Assessment document. Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 20 table. This table contains a listing of the environmental resource impacts, for each alternative studied, which appeared in the MD 5 Hughesville Environmental Assessment document. However, the resources which should not be studied in the SCEA have been shown as "strikethroughs" (or with an asterisk). Back Long Description for Training Module 1 Slide 21 table. This table contains the rationale for why each environmental resource should be included or excluded from the SCEA for the MD 5 Hughesville project. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 6 table. This table is a checklist containing a list of the 7 potential sub-boundaries with a rationale for why each might be used. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 7 table. This table provides a list of key data sources which can be used to determine which sub-boundaries should be incorporated into the overall SCEA geographical boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 9 image. This image is a map of Maryland showing the location of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, which carries the Capital Beltway over the Potomac River in western Prince George's County. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 16 image. This image is a map showing the overall SCEA boundary for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project. It is composed of a synthesis of several sub-boundaries based on census tracts, the area of traffic influence and watershed boundaries. The SCEA boundary encompasses a large area which includes the city of Alexandria and portions of Arlington and Fairfax counties in Virginia to the west of the Potomac River, as well as a significant portion of Prince George's county in Maryland to the east of the Potomac River. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 17 table. This table contains a list of the environmental resources which were directly impacted by the MD 5 Hughesville project as shown in the Environmental Assessment document. The resources which should not be studied in the SCEA have been shown as "strikethroughs". The table also contains the rationale for why each environmental resource should be included or excluded from the SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 19 table. This table contains a list of the sub-boundaries used in determining the SCEA boundary for the MD 5 Hughesville project, as well as explanatory notes for each sub-boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 20 image. This image is a map showing the watershed boundaries in a large area surrounding MD 5 Hughesville. These watershed boundaries cover Mattawoman Creek to the north, the lower Patuxent River to the east, the Wicomico River and St. Clements Bay to the south, and Gilbert and Zekiah Swamps to the west. This area is too large to be practical in the SCEA study. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 21 image. This image is a map showing the subwatershed boundaries in the MD 5 Hughesville area. The subwatershed boundaries cover an area which is approximately 20 percent of the larger watershed area, which allows the SCEA to be more focused. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 22 image. This image is a map showing the census tract and county boundaries in the MD 5 Hughesville area. The area covered is many square miles, incorporating a large portion of southern Charles County, as well as portions of St. Mary's and Prince George's counties. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 23 image. This image is a map showing the census designated place boundaries and the election district boundaries in the MD 5 Hughesville area. The census designated place boundary is located immediately around the Hughesville area, while the election district boundaries cover an area of many square miles, incorporating a large portion of southern Charles County, as well as portions of St. Mary's and Prince George's counties. Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 25 image. This image is a map showing the overall SCEA geographical boundary for the MD 5 Hughesville project. It is composed of a synthesis of several sub-boundaries based on subwatersheds, elections districts and the census designated place. It covers an area from west of Hughesville to the Patuxent River east of Hughesville. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 26 table. This table contains a list of the sub-boundaries used in determining the SCEA boundary for the MRECAS project, as well as explanatory notes for each sub-boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 27 image. This image is a map showing the employment center boundary in the MRECAS area. It covers an area generally centered between US 40 to the west and MD 150 to the west, also including Martin State Airport to the south. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 30 image. This image is a map showing the direct impacts boundary for the MRECAS project. This area is in the same location as the employment center boundary (which covers an area generally centered between US 40 to the west and MD 150 to the west, also including Martin State Airport to the south), but is slightly larger and includes the MD 43/I-95 interchange area. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 31 image. This image is a map showing the natural environmental cumulative effects boundary in the MRECAS area. It covers a very large area stretching from the MD 43/I-695 interchange area to the west to the Chesapeake Bay to the east, and from Bird River to the north to well below Middle River to the south. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 32 image. This image is a map showing the socio-economic environmental cumulative effects boundary in the MRECAS area. Similar to the natural environmental boundary, it covers a very large area stretching from the MD 43/I-695 interchange area to the west to the Chesapeake Bay to the east and includes a significant portion of the I-95 corridor. It goes from Bird River to the north to well below Middle River to the south. Back Long Description for Training Module 2 Slide 34 image. This image is a map showing the overall SCEA geographical boundary for the MRECAS project. It is composed of a synthesis of several sub-boundaries based on the direct impacts study area, the employment center, and the natural and socio-economic cumulative effects boundaries. It covers a very large area stretching from the MD 43/I-695 interchange area to the west to the Chesapeake Bay to the east and includes a significant portion of the I-95 corridor. It goes from Bird River to the north to well below Middle River to the south. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 12 table. This table lists the factors to consider when determining the past and future time frames for a SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 16 image. This image is a map of Maryland showing the location of the US 1/Bel Air By-Pass project in central Harford County. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 17 image. This image is a map showing a close-up view of the US 1/Bel Air By-Pass project study area. It is located to the west of Bel Air and includes portions of US 1, MD 24 and MD 924. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 19 image. This image is a map of Maryland showing the location of the US 113 project in eastern Worcester County. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 20 image. This image is a map showing a close-up view of the southern US 113 project study corridor. It follows along US 113 from south of MD 374 to the north to south of Snow Hill to the south, approximately 16 miles. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 22 image. This image is a map of Maryland showing the location of the MD 4 project in Prince George's County. Back Long Description for Training Module 3 Slide 23 image. This image is a map showing the location of the MD 4 project study area, the SCEA boundary, the watershed boundary and the waterway boundary. Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 1 image. The six common types of land use are Open Space, Agricultural, Commercial, Parkland, Residential, and Industrial. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 2 image. This flow chart depicts where the mapping of resources and land use fits into the overall SCEA analysis process. It reads from left to right Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 4 image. This graphic reminds the user to think carefully when considering the past, present and future land uses to be used in a SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 7 table. This table provides a list of key data sources, with descriptions, which can be used to develop the past land use mapping for a project area. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 8 table. This table provides a list of key data sources, with descriptions, which can be used to develop the present land use mapping for a project area. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 11 table. This table provides a list of key data sources, with descriptions, which can be used to develop the future land use mapping for a project area. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 18 image. This graphic depicts how both the land use changes caused by the project's secondary impacts plus cumulative land use changes resulting from non-project related impacts combine to represent the total land use changes in the SCEA geographical boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 23 table. This table lists whether past, present and future land use scenarios were developed for the MD 5 Hughesville project; it also lists the associated data sources used for each scenario. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 24 table. This table lists the proposed major single-family residential developments within the MD 5 Hughesville SCEA boundary. Back Long Description for Training Module 4 Slide 25 image. This graphic is a map showing the MD 5 Hughesville SCEA boundary, the areas of proposed development based on final and preliminary plats, and an area of unspecified minor improvements identified in the CTP. The SCEA boundary covers an area from west of Hughesville to the Patuxent River east of Hughesville. Within this SCEA boundary, two subdivisions are shown northwest of Hughesville and six are shown to the east between Hughesville and the Patuxent River. A very small area of unspecified minor improvements is shown on the northwest boundary of the SCEA area. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 9 image. A flow chart of the SCEA analysis process: Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 10 image. A flow chart of the SCEA analysis process: Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 11 image. A flow chart of the SCEA analysis process: Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 12 & 13 table. This table lists numerous regulatory programs, the agency with jurisdiction over each and the applicable environmental resource affected. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 14 image. A flow chart of the SCEA analysis process: Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 15 image. A flow chart of the SCEA analysis process: Determine Level of SCEA Analysis, Collect Resource Data, Identify Regulatory Programs, Map Resources & Land Use, Identify Methodologies/Conduct Analysis. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 19 image. This graphic is a flowchart showing a sample process to follow when performing a trends analysis. First, identify the resources and years (time frame) to be analyzed. Second, gather data from 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Then the loss or gain for a particular environmental resource can be determined between 1970 and 1980, 1980 and 1990, etc. From this, a trend over the decades can be identified which can be used to extrapolate possible future trends, keeping in mind that there may be resource legislation in place to protect future resource impacts. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 22 image. This graphic is a flowchart showing a sample process to follow when performing a complex overlay analysis. The analysis is divided into three segments (past, present and future). For the past time frame, the data sources are 1970 and 1990 wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve overlaying these two maps and estimating the wetlands loss or gain during that 20 years. For the present time frame, the data sources are an existing land use map, proposed near-future development, and 1990 wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve updating the existing land use map to show the proposed near future development, then overlaying this updated land use map with the 1990 wetland mapping. Wetlands loss or gain caused by current development could then be estimated, factoring in existing wetland protection legislation. For the future time frame, the data sources are future land use mapping, the updated existing land use mapping prepared during the present time frame analysis, and 1990 wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve overlaying the future and updated existing land use maps to identify potential new development areas. These new development areas would then be overlaid with the 1990 wetland mapping to estimate wetlands gain or loss caused by future development, factoring in existing wetland protection legislation. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 25 table. This table lists possible sources for expert interviews, as well as a description of the type of information that could potentially be obtained from each. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 32 table. This table lists which analysis methodologies were used for each environmental resource in the MD 5 Hughesville SCEA. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 35 image. This graphic is a flowchart showing how overlay, trends analysis and matrix analysis methodologies were integrated in the actual SCEA study of MD 5 Hughesville wetland impacts. The data sources used were wetlands trends published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Charles County from 1981 to 1989, 1981 National Wetland Inventory mapping, and 1993 Department of Natural Resources wetland mapping. The analysis methodology involved overlaying the 1981 and 1993 wetland mapping to compare the differences; showing the differences between the 1981 and 1993 wetlands data by putting it into a matrix format; comparing the results from the overlay analysis with the countywide published trends; and then using the wetlands lost from the past to the present to project future losses. The final conclusion was that cumulative effects to wetlands would occur, but may be less than historic trends because of protective legislation in place. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 36 image. This graphic is a flowchart showing how the SCEA study of MD 5 Hughesville wetland impacts might have been more effectively prepared following SHA's SCEA Guidelines. The analysis would be divided into three segments (past, present and future). For the past time frame, the data sources would be 1981 National Wetland Inventory mapping and 1993 Department of Natural Resources wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve overlaying these two maps and estimating the wetlands loss or gain during that 12 years. For the present time frame, the data sources would be an existing land use map, proposed near-future development, and 1993 Department of Natural Resources wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve updating the existing land use map to show the proposed near future development, then overlaying this updated land use map with the 1993 wetland mapping. Wetlands loss or gain caused by current development could then be estimated, factoring in existing wetland protection legislation. For the future time frame, the data sources would be future land use mapping developed from the travel forecast model, the updated existing land use mapping prepared during the present time frame analysis, and 1993 Department of Natural Resources wetland mapping. The analysis methodology would involve overlaying the future and updated existing land use maps to identify potential new development areas. These new development areas would then be overlaid with the 1993 wetland mapping to estimate wetlands gain or loss caused by future development, factoring in existing wetland protection legislation. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 37 table. This table contains a comparison of MD 5 Hughesville wetland impacts using 1981 National Wetland Inventory mapping vs. 1993-94 Department of Natural Resources mapping. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 38 image. This graphic is a flowchart depicting the actual overlay analysis prepared for the MD 5 Hughesville historic resource impacts. The first step was to document the coordination with the Office of Preservation Review which identified no readily available data regarding past losses of cultural resources within the SCEA boundary. The data sources were proposed near future Charles County development, National Register of Historic Places eligible and listed sites identified within the project's direct impact study area, and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites. The analysis methodology involved overlaying mapping showing the National Register of Historic Places eligible and listed sites and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites with mapping showing the proposed development in the SCEA boundary. The conclusion was that cumulative effects to historic sites would occur but would be minimized based on federal and state regulations. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 39 image. This graphic is a flowchart showing how the SCEA study of MD 5 Hughesville historic resource impacts might have been more effectively prepared following SHA's SCEA Guidelines. The analysis would be divided into three segments (past, present and future). As in the actual SCEA analysis prepared for the project, the first step was to document the coordination with the Office of Preservation Review which identified no readily available data regarding past losses of cultural resources within the SCEA boundary. For the present time frame, the data sources would be an existing land use map, proposed near-future development, National Register of Historic Places eligible and listed sites identified within the project's direct impact study area, and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites. The analysis methodology would involve updating the existing land use map to show the proposed near future development, then overlaying this updated land use map with the National Register of Historic Places and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites. Potential impacts to historic sites caused by current development could then be estimated. For the future time frame, the data sources would be future land use mapping developed from the travel forecast model, the updated existing land use mapping prepared during the present time frame analysis, National Register of Historic Places eligible and listed sites identified within the project's direct impact study area, and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites. The analysis methodology would involve overlaying the future and updated existing land use maps to identify potential new development areas. These new development areas would then be overlaid with the National Register of Historic Places and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties sites to estimate potential impacts to historic sites caused by future development. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 40 image. This graphic is a map of the MD 5 Hughesville SCEA area showing historic standing structures and archeological sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or included in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places. The SCEA boundary covers an area from west of Hughesville to the Patuxent River east of Hughesville. Within this SCEA boundary, there are 14 historic standing structures, mostly along MD 5 and MD 231, as well as several archeological sites at the eastern boundary along the Patuxent River. Back
This graphic is a map of the MD 5 Hughesville SCEA area showing historic standing structures and archeological sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or included in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places, overlaid with proposed development. The SCEA boundary covers an area from west of Hughesville to the Patuxent River east of Hughesville. Within this SCEA boundary, there are 14 historic standing structures, mostly along MD 5 and MD 231; several archeological sites at the eastern boundary along the Patuxent River; two subdivisions northwest of Hughesville and six to the east between Hughesville and the Patuxent River; and a very small area of unspecified minor improvements is shown on the northwest boundary of the SCEA area. By overlaying historic resource mapping and proposed development mapping, 6 historic sites were identified as impacted by future development (3 along MD 5 in Hughesville and 3 further to the east). Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 42 table. This table lists all of the MD 5 Hughesville historic sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or included in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places, with a notation of whether there is a cumulative effect on each. Back Long Description for Training Module 5 Slide 43 & 44 table. These two tables describe the MD 5 Hughesville potential cumulative effects and factors which should minimize these cumulative effects for surface water, wetlands, floodplains, forest habitat, active farmland and historic and archeological sites. Back All content contained within these materials is the intellectual property of Maryland State Highway Administration. |
||
