Scoping Document Process

Environmental process | Environmental review | Scoping Document

Format and content

The state Scoping Document (SD) requirements are found in Minnesota Rules 4410.2100. These rules state all projects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must have an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) filed with the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), and that the EAW shall be the basis for the scoping process. However, due to differences in state rules and federal regulations, MnDOT does not use the EAW as a scoping document. MnDOT uses an outline that addresses the purpose of the EIS scoping process and the expectations of a federal EIS. The content of the SD outline subsections is discussed below.

A Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD) is circulated with the Scoping Document according to Minnesota Rules part 4410.2100, subpart 2.

The topics below are those that, at a minimum, should be included in the Scoping Document. Other information that would be helpful to the public (e.g. project history, overview of the environmental process, other projects in the area) can be included.

I. Report purpose

Text similar to the following example can be used to introduce the Scoping Document to the reader who is unfamiliar with the process:

This Scoping Document (SD) provides initial documentation of the proposed action and need for the [NAME] project in [LOCATION]. The scoping process is used before the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce the scope and bulk of the EIS by:

Selecting a reasonable range of alternatives for detailed study
Identifying the appropriate level of detail for studying issues and impacts

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that social, economic, and environmental considerations be included in the planning of all projects that receive federal funding. This scoping document has been prepared to document the studies completed to date and early decisions made in accordance with Federal regulation (42 USC 4321 et seq.).

This SD also serves the same purpose as a Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), required by Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) provides a summary of the SD findings and documents the proposed scope and focus of the EIS. The SD and DSDD are distributed to federal, state and local agencies and the public to provide an opportunity for review of the proposed project and to comment on project issues and alternatives. A 30-day comment period will begin when the availability notice for this SD is published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. A final Scoping Decision Document (SDD) will be prepared after the public comment period.

II. Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) and project manager

Text similar to the following example describes the lead agency roles in the respective state and federal processes:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the proposed project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency. MnDOT will issue a scoping decision after the Scoping Public Meetings and the end of the SD comment period. This section also identifies the project manager and contact information (postal and email addresses and phone number).

III. Level of action

The Scoping Document is only done for Class I (EIS) actions. The statement should be made that this project is considered a Class I action because there is the potential for significant environmental effect as documented in the SEE Section, and that this assessment may change after further information has been assembled.

IV. Purpose and Need

This section discusses major transportation problems in a transportation corridor. See Purpose and Need, as well as FHWA's T6640.8A and The Developmentof Logical Project Termini.

V. Project description

This section should discuss where the project is located, the approximate length (if known), termini, and project setting (physical features of the surrounding area).

Existing facilities are often a good point of reference. Since the Scoping Document is prepared early in the NEPA/MEPA process, the description may need to be quite general since the extent of work is not yet determined.

VI. Cost and funding source

The range of costs for alternatives should be discussed. The likelihood of federal funding should be discussed as well. Cost estimates are rough due to lack of design information from which to make detailed estimates.

Schedule

This section of the report sets the general time frame for key activities. These typically include estimated dates for the following:

Notice of Intent (state and federal)
Public Scoping Meeting
Scoping Decision Document
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Public Hearing
FEIS (* Federal rules direct that a combined federal FEIS/ROD be done to the extent practicable unless certain circumstances apply. When a combined FEIS/ROD is done, the FEIS must first be issued under Minnesota rules which do not provide for a combined state FEIS/Adequacy Determination. [this was a footnote to VII. f.—can it be put in the sidebar? or let me know what other options there might be.])
Adequacy Determination
Record of Decision
Detailed Design
Right of Way Acquisition
Contract Letting
"Open to Traffic"

Other activity dates may also be estimated. A process flow chart, in graphic form, is often helpful at this stage to introduce the process ahead.

Indicate that the schedule is subject to change and will be updated as the project advances. It is a good idea for the schedule to be more specific for activities that are coming up shortly (e.g. Scoping Decision Document – July 2019) and be more general for future activities (e.g. Record of Decision – Summer 2021).

VIII. Alternatives

One main purpose of the Scoping Document is to discuss alternatives that could meet project need. This may include location considerations, various transportation modes, design modifications, project magnitude and alternate means of achieving the project purpose. Potential alternatives which have been thought about, but which are not reasonable should still be discussed. The facts as to why an alternative is unreasonable must be clearly established. If potential alternatives will not meet the transportation need, they are not reasonable and need not be carried into the DEIS with the exception of the "No Build." The "No Build" Alternative must be included as a base of comparison (and carried forward for discussion in the DEIS).

Enough description of the alternatives should be given to establish how they differ. If early coordination has brought out some potential alternatives, these should be discussed.

The location issue should be discussed. The scoping process can be used as a vehicle to narrow the range of locations to those which are reasonable (perhaps to one). Others may have been considered, but may not be reasonable. The basis for dismissal should be included in the Scoping Decision Document.

IX. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts (SEE)

In depth SEE studies have not been done at this stage. Enough inventory and assessment work should be done, however, to determine which impacts may be potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts will require a larger study/analysis commitment than others during the DEIS stage. SEE factors may inform the decision as to which alternatives should be considered in the DEIS process and which should be dismissed from further consideration.

A list of SEE potential issues with discussion of each is found in T6640.8A. Also refer to the relevant environmental guidance.

X. Public and agency involvement (and permits/approvals)

The SD is used as one element of an early coordination and on-going engagement process with other agencies and the public. The document should discuss public and agency involvement that has already taken place and that is planned in the future.

Cooperating and participating agencies that have been formally identified should be noted.