Office of Enforcement EPA/300/R-92/002
Washington, DC 20460 April 1981
Scoping Guidance
-------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL. QUALITY
7a JACKSON PLACE. N. w.
WASHINGTON. 0. C. ZOOM
April 30, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL COUNSELS, NEPA LIAISONS AND PARTICIPANTS IN SCOPING
SUBJECT: Scoping Guidance
As part of its continuing oversight of the implementation of the NEPA
regulations, the Council on Environmental Quality has been investigating
agency experience with scoping. This is the process by vhich the scope of
the issues and alternatives to be examined in an SIS is determined. In a
project led by Barbara Bramble of the General Counsel's staff, che Council
asked federal agencies to report their scoping experiences; Council scarf
held meetings and workshops in all regions of the country to discuss
scoping practice; and a contract study was performed for the Council to
investigate what techniques work best for various kinds of proposals.
Out of this material has been distilled a series of recommendations for
successfully conducting scoping. The attached guidance document consists
of advice on what works and what does not, based on the experience of many
agencies and other participants in scoping. It contains no new legal
requirements beyond those in the NEPA regulations. It is intended to make
generally available the results of the Council's research, and to encourage
the use of better techniques for ensuring public participation and effici-
ency in the scoping process.
NICHOLAS C. YOST
General Counsel
-------
INDEX
I. Introduction 1
A. Background of this document • 1
B. What scoping is and what it can do 2
II. Advice for Government Agencies
Conducting Scoping 3
A. General context 3
B. Step-by-step through the process 4
1. Start scoping after you have enough
information 4
2. Prepare an information packet 4
3. Design the scoping process for
each project 3
4. Issuing the public notice 7
S. Conducting a public meeting 8
6. What to do with the comments 10
7. Allocating work assignments and
setting schedules .. 12
8. A few ideas to try 12
a. Route design workshop 12
b. Hotline 12
c. Videotape of sites 13
d. Videotape meetings 13
e. Review committee 13
f. Consultant as meeting moderator 13
g. Money savings tips 13
C. Pitfalls 13
1. Closed meetings 13
2. Contacting interested groups 14
3. Tiering 15
D. Lead and Cooperating Agencies IS
III. Advice for Public Participants 17
A. Public input is often only negative 18
B. Issues are too broad 18
C. Impacts are not identified 18
IV. Brief Points for Applicants 18
-------
SCOPING GUIDANCE
I. Introduction
A. Background of this document.
In 1978, with the publication of the proposed NEPA regulations (since
adopted as formal rules, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality gave formal recognition to an increasingly "*«K3 term —
scoping. Scoping is an idea that has long been familiar to those involved
in NEPA compliance: In order to manage effectively the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS), one must determine the scope of the
document — that is, what will be covered, and in what detail. Planning of
this kind was a normal component of EIS preparation. But the consideration
of issues and choice of alternatives to be examined was in too many cases
completed outside of public view. The innovative approach 03 scoping in
the regulations is that the process is open to the public and state and
local governments, as well as to affected federal agencies. This open pro-
cess gives rise to important new opportunities for better and more effici-
ent NEPA analyses,' and simultaneously places new responsibilities on public
and agency participants alike to surface their concerns early. Scoping
helps insure that real problems are identified early and properly studied;
that issues that are of no concern do not consume time and effort; that the
draft statement when first made public is balanced and thorough; and that
the delays occasioned by re-doing an inadequate draft are avoided. Scoping
does not create problems that did not already exist; it ensures that pro-
blems that would have been raised anyway are identified early in the
Many members of the public as well as agency staffs engaged in the NEPA
process have told the Council that the open scoping requirement is one of
the most far-reaching changes engendered by the NEPA regulations. They
have predicted that scoping could have a profound positive effect on envi-
ronmental analyses, on the Impact statement process itself, and ultimately
on decisionmaking.
Because the concept of open scoping was new, the Council decided to encour-
age agencies' innovation without unduly restrictive guidance. Thus the
regulations relating to scoping are very simple. They state that "there
shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to
be addressed" which "«*vll be termed scoping," but they lay down few spe-
cific requirements. (Section 1501.7*}. They require an open process with
public notice; identification of significant and insignificant issues;
allocation of EIS preparation assignments; identification of related analy-
sis requirements in order to avoid duplication of work; and the planning of
a schedule for EIS preparation that meshes with the agency's decisionmaking
* All citations are to the NEPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508
unless otherwise specified.
-------
schedule. (Section 1501.7(a)). The regulations encourage, but do not
require, setting time limits and page limits for the EIS, and holding scop-
ing meetings. (Section 1501.7(b)). Aside from these general outlines, the
regulations left the agencies on their own. The Council did not believe,
and still does not, that it is necessary or appropriate to dictate the
specific manner in which over 100 federal agencies should deal with the
public. Bowever, the Council has received several requests for more
guidance. In 1980 we decided to investigate the agency and public response
to the scoping requirement, to find out what was working and what was not,
and to share this with all agencies and the public.
The Council first conducted its own survey, asking federal agencies to
report some of their scoping experiences. The Council then contracted with
the American Arbitration Association and Clark McGlennao Associates to
survey the scoping techniques of major agencies and to study several
innovative methods in detail.* Council staff conducted a two-day workshop
in Atlanta in June 1980, tao discuss with federal agency NEEA staff and
several EIS contractors what if.trm to work best in scoping of different
types of proposals, and discussed scaping with federal, state and local
officials in meetings in all 10 federal regions.
This document is a distillation of all the work that has been done so far
by many people to identify valuable scoping techniques. It is offered as a
guide to encourage success and to help avoid pitfalls. Since scoping meth-
ods are still evolving, the Council welcomes any cements on this guide,
and may add to it or revise it in cming years.
B. What scoping is and what it can do.
Scoping is often the first contact between proponents of a proposal and the
public. This fact is the source of the power of scoping and of the trepi-
dation that it ^nmetimn evokes. If a scoping meeting is held, people on
both sides of an issue will be in the sane roan and, if all goes well, will
speak to each other. The possibilities that flow from this situation are
vast. Therefore, a large portion of this docanent is devoted to the pro-
ductive management of meetings and the de-fusing of possible heated dis-
Even if a meeting is not held, the seeping process leads EXS preparers to
think about the proposal early on, in order to explain it to the public and
affected agencies. The participants respond with &**JT own concerns about
significant issues and suggestions of alternatives. Thus as the draft SIS
is prepared, it will include, from the beginning, a reflection or at least
an acknowledgement of the cooperating agencies' and the public's
This reduces the need for changes after the draft is *M «*•*,. because it
• The results of this examination are reported in "Scoping the Content of
EZSs: An Evaluation of Agencies' Experiences,* which is available fron the
Council or the Resource Planning Analysis Office of the O.S. Geological
Survey, 750 National Center, Reston, Va. 22092.
-------
reduces the chances of overlooking a significant issue or reasonable alter-
native. It also in many cases increases public confidence in NEPA and
thedecisionnaking process, thereby reducing delays, such as front
litigation, later on when implementing the decisions. As we will discuss
further in this document, the public generally responds positively when its
views are taken seriously, even if they cannot be wholly accomodated.
But scoping is not simply another "public relations" meeting requirement.
It has specific and fairly limited objectives: (a) to identify the
affected public and agency concerns; (b) to facilitate an efficient SIS
preparation process, through assembling the cooperating agencies, assigning
EIS writing tasks, ascertaining all the related permits.and reviews that
must be scheduled concurrently, and setting time or page limits; (c) to
define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail in the
EIS while simultaneously devoting less attention and time to issues which
cause no concern; and (d) to save time in the overall process by helping to
ensure that draft statements adequately address relevant issues, reducing
the possibility that new comments will cause a statement to be rewritten or
supplemented.
Sometimes the scoping process enables early identification of a few serious
problems with a proposal, which can be changed or solved because the pro-
posal is still being developed. In these cases, scoping the CIS can actu-
ally lead to the solution of a conflict over the proposed action itself.
We have found that this extra benefit of scoping occurs fairly frequently.
But it cannot be expected in most cases, and scoping can still be consid-
ered successful when conflicts are clarified but not solved. This guide
does not presume that resolution of conflicts over proposals is a principal
goal of scoping, because it is only possible in limited circumstances.
Instead, the Council views the principal goal of scoping to be an adequate
and efficiently prepared CIS. Our suggestions and recommendations are
aimed at reducing the conflicts among affected interests that impede chis
limited objective. But we are aware of the possibilities of more general
conflict resolution that are inherent in any productive discussions among
interested parties. We urge all participants in scoping processes to be*
alert to this larger context, in which scoping could prove to be the first
step in environmental problem-solving.
Scoping can lay a firm foundation for the rest of the decisionmaking pro-
cess. If the EIS can be relied upon to include all the necessary informa-
tion for formulating policies and making rational choices, the agency will
be better able to make a sound and prompt decision. In addition, if it is
clear that all reasonable alternatives are being seriously considered, the
public will usually be more satisfied with the choice among them.
II. Advice for Government Agencies Conducting Scoping
A. General context.
Scoping is a process, not an event or a meeting. It continues throughout
the planning for an CIS, and may involve a series of meetings, telephone
conversations, or written comments from different interested groups.
Because it is a process, participants must remain flexible. The scope of
an SIS occasionally may need to be modified later if a new issue surfaces,
-------
no matter how thorough the scoping was. But it makes sense to try to set
the scope of the statement as early as possible.
Scoping may identify people who already have knowledge about a site or an
alternative proposal or a relevant study, and induce them to make it avail-
able. This can save a lot of research time and money. But people will not
come forward unless they believe their views and materials will receive
serious consideration. Thus scoping is a crucial first step toward buil-
ding public confidence in a fair environmental analysis and ultimately a
fair decisionmaking
Cne farther point to remember: the lead agency cannot shed its responsi-
bility to assess each significant impact or alternative even if one is
found after scoping. But anyone who hangs back and fails to raise aoma
thing that reasonably could have been raised earlier on will have a hard
time prevailing during later stages of the NEEA process or if litigation
ensues. Thus a thorough scoping process does provide sane protection
against subsequent lawsuits.
B. Step-by-step through the process.
1. Start scoping after you have enough information.
Scoping cannot be useful until the .agency knows enough about the proposed
action to identify most of the affected parties, and to present a coherent
proposal and a suggested initial list of environmental issues and alterna-
tives. Until that time there is no way to explain to the piM<«- or other
es **** you "a** ttneffl tt 9** involved _in. So the first stage is to
pp •Ti^i n»yy ]]\[qfiit*(+]fn teif tjs* applicant, or to comcose a ^a*f
picture of your proposal, if it is being developed by the agency.
2. Prepare an information packet.
In many cases, scoping of the EXS has been preceded by preparation of an
environmental assessment (EA) as the basis for the decision to proceed with
an EXS. In such cases, the EA will, of course, include the preliminary
information that is needed.
If you have not prepared an EA, you should put together a brief information
packet consisting of a description of the proposal, an iMtial list of
impacts and alternatives, maps, drawings, and any other material or refer-
ences that can help the interested public to understand what is being pro-
posed. The proposed work plan of the EXS is not usually sufficient for
this purpose. Such documents rarely contain a description of the goals of
the proposal to enable readers to develop alternatives.
At this stage, the purpose of the information is to enable participants to
make an intelligent contribution to scoping the EXS. Because they will be
helping to plan what will be examined during the environmental review, they
need to know where you are now in that planning process.
Include in the packet a brief explanation of what scoping is, and what pro-
cedure will be used, to give potential participants a context for their
involvement. Be sure to point out that you want comments from participants
-------
on very specific matters. Also reiterate that no decision has yet been
made on the contents of the EIS, much less on the proposal itself. Thus,
explain that you do not yet have a preferred alternative, but that you may
identify the preferred alternative in the draft EIS. (See Section
1502.14(e)). This should reduce the tendency of participants to perceive
the proposal as already a definite plan. Encourage them to focus on recom-
mendations for improvements to the various alternatives.
Some of the complaints alleging that scoping can be a waste of time stem
from the fact that the participants may not know what the proposal is until
they arrive at a meeting. Even the most intelligent among us can rarely
make useful, substantive comments on the spur of the moment. Don't expect
helpful suggestions to result if participants are put in such a position.
3. Design the scoping process for each project.
There is no established or required procedure for scoping. The process can
be carried out by meetings, telephone conversations, written Garments, or a
combination of all three. It is important to tailor the type, the timing
and the location of public and agency ccranents to the proposal at hand.
For example, a proposal to adopt a land management plan for a National
Forest in a sparsely populated region may not lend itself to calling a
single meeting in a central location. While people living in the area and
elsewhere may be interested, any meeting place will be inconvenient for
most of the potential participants. One solution is to distribute the
information packet, solicit written comienLa, list a telephone number with
the name of the scoping coordinator, and invite comnents to be phoned in.
Otherwise, small meetings in several locations may be necessary when
face-to-face communication is important.
In another case, a site-specific construction project may be proposed.
This would be a better candidate for a central scoping meeting. But you
must first find out if anyone would be interested in attending such a
meeting. If you simply assume that a meeting is necessary, you may hire a
hall and a stenographer, assemble your staff for a meeting, and find that
nobody shows up. There are many proposals that just do not generate suffi-
cient public interest to cause people to attend another public meeting. So
a wise early step is to contact known local citizens groups and civic
leaders.
In addition, you may suggest in your initial scoping notice and information
packet that all those who desire a meeting should gal] to request one.
That way you will only hear from those who are seriously interested in
attending.
The question of where to hold a meeting is a difficult one in many cases.
Except for site specific construction projects, it may be unclear where the
interested parties can be found. For example, an EIS on a major energy
development program may involve policy issues and alternatives to the pro-
gram that are of interest to public groups all over the nation, and to
agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C., while the physical impacts
might be expected to be felt most strongly in a particular region of the
country. In such a case, if personal contact is desired, several meetings
-------
would be necessary, especially in the affected region and in Washington, to
enable all interests to be heard.
As a general guide, unless a proposal has no site specific impacts, scoping
meetings should not be confined to Washington. Agencies should try to
elicit the views of people who are closer to the affected regions.
The key is to be flexible. It nay not be possible to plan the whole scop-
ing process at the outset, unless you know who all the potential players
are. You can start with written ccnnents, move on to an informal meeting,
and hold further meetings if desired.
There are several reasons to bold a scoping meeting. First, some of the
best effects of scoping stem from the fact that all parties have the oppor-
tunity to meet one another and to listen to the concerns of the others.
There is no satisfactory substitute for personal contact to achieve this
result. If there is any possibility that resolution of underlying con-
flicts over a proposal may be achieved, this is always enhanced by the
development of personal and working relationships among the parties.
Second, even in a conflict situation people usually respond positively when
they are treated as partners in the project review process. If they feel
confident that their views were actually heard and taken seriously, they
will be more likely to be satisfied that the decisionnaking process was
fair even if they disagree with the outcome. It is much easier to show
people that you are listening to them if you hold a face-to-face meeting
where they can see you writing down their points, than if their only con-
tact is through written
If you suspect that a particular proposal could benefit from a meeting with
the affected public at any tine during its review, the best tine to have
the meeting is during this early scoping stage. The fact that you are
willing to discuss openly a proposal before you have cconitted substantial
resources to it will often enhance the chances for reaching an accord.
If you decide that a public meeting is appropriate, you still must decide
what type of meeting/ or how many meetings, to hold. We will discuss meet-
ings in detail below in •Conducting a Public Meeting.* But as part of
designing the scoping process, you must decide between a single meeting and
multiple ones for different interest groups, and whether to hold a separate
meeting for government agency participants.
The single large public meeting brings together all the interested parties,
which has both advantages and disadvantages. If the meeting is efficiently
run, you can cover a lot of interests and issues in a short time. And a
single meeting does reduce agency travel time and expense. In some raises
it may be an advantage to have all interest groups hear each others' con-
cerns, possibly promoting compromise. It is definitely important to have
the staffs of the cooperating'agencies, as well as the lead agency, hear
the public views of what the significant issues are; and it will be diffi-
cult and expensive for the cooperating agencies to attend several meetings.
But if there are opposing groups of citizens who feel strongly on both
sides of an issue, the setting of the large meeting may needlessly create
tension and an emotional confrontation between the groups. Moreover, seme
-------
people may feel intimidated in such a setting, and won't express themselves
at all.
The principal drawback of the large meeting, however, is that it is gener-
ally unwieldy. TO keep order, discussion is limited, dialogue is diffi-
cult, and often all participants are frustrated, agency and public alike.
Large meetings can serve to identify the interest groups for future discus-
sion, but often little else is accomplished. Large meetings often become
"events" where grandstanding substitutes for substantive comments. Many
agencies resort to a formal hearing-type format to maintain control, and
this can cause resentments among participants who come to die meeting
expecting a responsive discussion.
fox these reasons, we recommend that meetings be kept anall and informal,
and that you hold several, if necessary, to accomodate the different inter-
est groups. The other solution is to break a large gathering into snail
discussion groups, which is discussed below. Using either method increases
the likelihood that participants will level with you and coimunicate their
underlying concerns rather than make an emotional statement just for
effect.
Moreover, in our experience, a separate meeting for cooperating agencies is
quite productive. Working relationships can be forged for the effective
participation of all involved in the preparation of the EIS. work assign-
ments are made by the lead agency, a schedule may be set for production of
parts of the draft EIS, and information gaps can be identified early. But
a productive meeting such as this is not possible at the very beginning of
the process. It can only result from the same sort of planning and prepa-
ration that goes into the public meetings. We discuss below the special
problems of cooperating agencies, and their information needs for effective
participation in scoping.
4. Issuing the public notice.
The preliminary look at the proposal, in which you develop the information
packet discussed above, will enable you to tell what kind of public notice
will be most appropriate and effective.
ion 1501.7 of the NEPA regulations requires that a notice of intent to
prepare an CIS must be pibli^*^ in the Federal Register prior to initia-
ting scoping.* This means that one of the appropriate means of giving
Several agencies have found it useful to conduct scoping for environ-
mental assessments. EAs are prepared where answering the question of
whether an CIS is necessary requires identification of significant
environmental issues; and consideration of alternatives in an EA can
often be useful even where an CIS is not necessary. In both situations
scoping can be valuable. Thus the Council has stated that scoping nay
be used in connection with preparation of an EA, that is, before pub-
lishing any notice of intent to prepare an EIS. As in normal scoping,
appropriate public notice is required, as well as adequate information
on the proposal to make scoping worthwhile. But scoping at this early
stage cannot substitute for the normal scoping process unless the ear-
lier public notice stated clearly that this would be the case, and the
notice of intent expressly provides that written comments suggesting
impacts and alternatives for study will still be considered.
-------
1502.10 Recommended Format
Agencies shall use a format for environmental impact statements which will encour-
age good analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives including the proposed action.
The following standard format for environmental impact statements should be followed
unless the agency determines that there is a compelling reason to do otherwise:
(a) Cover sheet.
(b) Summary.
(c) Table of contents.
(d) Purpose of and need for action.
(e) Alternatives including proposed action (sections 102(2)(C)(iii) and 102(2)(E) of the Act).
(f) Affected environment.
(g) Environmental consequences (especially sections 102(2)(C)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of the
Act).
(h) List of preparers.
(i) List of Agencies, Organizations, and persons to whom copies of the statement are sent.
(j) Index.
(k) Appendices (if any).
If a different format is used, it shall include paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (h), (i), and (j), of
this section and shall include the substance of paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), and (k) of this
section, as further described in 1502.11 through 1502.18, in any appropriate format.
Source: 40 CFR Ch. V (7-1-91 Edition), page 665.
-------
public notice of the upcoming scoping process could be the sane Federal
Register notice. And because the notice of intent oust be published
anyway, the scoping notice would be essentially free. But use of the
Federal Register is not an absolute requirement, and other means of public
notice often are more effective, including local newspapers, radio and TV,
posting notices in public places, etc. (See Section 1306.6 of the
regulations.)
vtiat is important is that the notice actually reach the affected public. If
the proposal is an important new national policy in which national environ-
mental groups can be expected to be interested, these groups can be con*
»-agty3 by fora letter with ease. (See the Conservation Directory for a
list of national groups.**). Similarly, for proposals that may have major
implications for the business coanunity, trade associations can be helpful
means of alerting affected groups. The Federal Register notice can be
relied upon to notify others that you did not know about. But the Federal
Register is of little use for reaching individuals or local groups inter-
ested in a site specific proposal. Therefore notices in local papers, let-
ters to local government officials and personal contact with a few known
interested individuals would be more appropriate. Land owners abutting any
proposed project site should be notified, individually.
that issuing press releases to newspapers, and radio and TV sta-
tions is not enough, because they may not be used by the media unless the
proposal is considered "newsworthy.* If the proposal is controversial, you
can try alerting reporters or editors to an upcoming scoping meeting for
coverage in special weekend sections used by many papers. But placing a
notice in the legal notices section of the paper is the only guarantee that
it will be published.
5. Conducting a public, meeting.
In our study of agency practice in conducting scoping, the most interesting
information on what works and doesn't work involves the conduct of meet-
ings. Innovative techniques have been developed, and experience shows that
these can be successful.
One of the most important factors turns out bo be the training'and experi-
ence of the moderator. The O.S. Office of Personnel Management and others
give training courses on how to run a meeting effectively. Specific tech-
niques are taught to keep the meeting on course and to deal with confron-
tations. These techniques are sometimes called "meeting facilitation
skills."
When holding a meeting, the principle thing to remember about scoping is
that it is a process to initiate preparation of an EIS. It is not con-
cerned with the ultimata decision on the proposal. A fruitful scoping pro-
cess leads to an adequate environmental analysis, including all reasonable
** The Conservation Directory is a publication of the National Wildlife
Federation, 1421 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, S4.CO.
-------
alternatives and mitigation measures. This limited goal is in the interest
of all the participants, and thus offers the possibility of agreement by
the parties on this much at least. To run a successful meeting you must
keep the focus on this positive purpose.
At the point of scoping therefore, in one sense all the parties involved
have a cannon goal, which is a thorough environmental review. If you
emphasize this in the meeting you can stop any grandstanding speeches with-
out a heavy hand, by simply asking the speaker if he or she has any con-
crete suggestions for the group on issues to be covered in the EI3. By
frequently drawing the meeting back to this central purpose of scoping, the
opponents of a proposal will see that you have not already made a decision,
and they will be forced to deal with the real issues. In addition, when
people see that you are genuinely seeking their opinion, some win volun-
teer useful information about a particular subject or site that they may
know better than anyone on your staff.
As we stated above, we found that informal meetings in snail groups are the
most satisfactory for eliciting useful issues and information. Small
groups can be formed in two ways: you can invite different interest groups
to different meetings, or you can break a large number into snail groups
for discussion.
One successful model is used by the Army Corps of Engineers, among others.
In cases where a public meeting is desired, it is publicized and scheduled
for a location that will be convenient for as many potential participants
as possible. The information packet is made available in several ways, by
sending it to those known to be interested, giving a telephone nunber in
the public notices for use in requesting one, and providing more at the
door of the meeting place as well. As participants enter the door,.each is
given a nuaber. Participants are asked to register their name, address
and/or telephone number for use in future contact during scoping and the
rest of the NEPA process.
The first part of the meeting is devoted to a discussion of the proposal in
general, covering its purpose, proposed location, design, and any other
aspects that can be presented in a lecture format. A question and answer
period concerning this information is often held at this time. Then if
there are more than 15 or 20 attendees at the meeting, the next step is to
break it into small groups for more intensive discussion. At this point,
the numbers held by the participants are used to assign them to snail
groups by sequence, random drawing, or any other method. Each group should
be no larger than 12, and 8-10 is better. The groups are informed that
their task is to prepare a list of significant environmental issues and
reasonable alternatives for analysis in the EZS. These lists will be pre-
sented to the main group and combined into a master list, after the discus-
sion groups are finished. The rules for how priorities are to be assigned
to the issues identified by each group should be made clear before the
large group breaks up.
Sam* agencies ask each group member to vote for the 5 or 10 most important
issues. After tallying the votes of individual members, each group would
only report out those issues that received a certain number of votes. In
this way only those items of most concern to the members would even make
the list compiled by each group. Some agencies go further, and only let
-------
10
each group report out the top few issues identified. But you must be
careful not to ignore issues that may be considered a medium priority by
many people. They may still be important, even if not in the top rank.
Thus instead of simply voting, the members of the groups should rank the
listed issues in order of perceived importance. Points may be assigned to
each item on the basis of the rankings by each member, so that the group
can compile a list of its issues in priority order. Each group should then
be asked to assign cut-off numbers to separate high, medium and low prior-
ity items. Each group should then report out to the main meeting all of
its issues, but with priorities clearly assigned.
Cne member of the lead agency or cooperating agency staff should join each
group to answer questions and to listen to the participants' expressions of
concern. It has been the experience of many of those who have tried this
method that it is better not to have the agency person lead the group dis-
cussions. There does need to be a leader, who should be chosen by the
group members. In this uay, the agency staff member will not be perceived
as forcing his opinions on the others.
If the agency has a sufficient staff of formally trained "meeting facilita-
tors," they may be able to achieve the same result even where agency staff
people lead the discussion groups. But absent such training, the staff
should not lead the discussion groups. A good technique is to have the
agency person serve as the recording secretary for the group, writing down
each impact and alternative that is suggested for study by the partici-
pants. This enhances the neutral status of the agency representative, and
ensures that he is perceived as listening and reacting to the views of the
group, frequently, the recording of issues is done with a large pad
mounted on the wall like a blackboard, which has been well received by
agency and public alike, because all can see that the views expressed actu-
ally have been heard and understood.
When the issues are listed, each must be clarified or combined with others
to eliminate duplication or fuzzy concepts. The agency staff person can
actually lead in this effort because of his need to reflect on paper
exactly what the issues are. After the group has listed all the environ-
mental impacts and alternatives and any other issues that the members wish
to have considered, they are asked to discuss the relative merits and
importance of each listed item. The group should be reminded that one of
its tasks is to eliminate insignificant issues. Following this, the mem-
bers assign priorities or vote using one of the methods described above.
The discussion groups are then to return to the large meeting to report on
the results of their ranking. At this point further discussion may be
useful to seek a concensus on which issues are really insignificant. But
the moderator must not appear to be ruthlessly eliminating issues that the
participants ranked of high or medium importance. The best that can
usually be achieved is to "deemphasize" some of them, by placing them in
the low priority category.
6. What to do with the comments.
After you have comments from the cooperating agencies and the interested
public, you must evaluate them and make judgments about which issues are in
-------
11
fact significant and which ones ace not. The decision of what the EIS
should contain is ultimately made by the lead agency. But you will now
know what the interested participants consider to be the principal areas
for study and analysis. You should be guided by these concerns, or be
prepared to briefly explain why you do not agree. Every issue that is
raised as a priority matter during scoping should be addressed in some man-
ner in the EIS, either by in-depth analysis, or at least a short explana-
tion showing that the issue was examined, but not considered significant
for one or more reasons.
agencies have complained that the time savings claimed for scoping
have not been realized because after public groups raise numerous minor
matters, they cannot focus the EIS on the significant issues. It is true
that it is always easier to add issues than it is to subtract them during
scoping. And you should realize that trying to eliminate a particular
environmental Impact or alternative frcm study may arouse the suspicions of
some people. Cooperating agencies may be even more reluctant to eliminate
issues in their areas of special expertise than the public participants.
But the way to approach it is to seek concensus on which issues are less
important. These issues may then be deemphasized in the EIS by a brief
discussion of why they were not examined in depth.
If no concensus can be reached, it is still your responsibility to select
the significant issues. The lead agency cannot abdicate its role and sim-
ply defer to the public. Thus a group of participants at a scoping meeting
should not be able to "vote* an insignificant matter into a big issue. If
a certain issue is raised and in your professional judgment you believe it
is not significant, explain clearly and briefly in 'the EIS why it is not
significant. There is no need to devote time and pages to it in the EIS if
you can show that it is not relevant or important to the proposed action.
But you should address in some manner all matters that were raised in the
scoping process, either by an extended analysis or a brief explanation
showing that you acknowledge the concern.
Several agencies have made a practice of sending out a post-scoping docu-
ment to make public the decisions that have been made on what issues to
cover in the EIS. This is not a requirement, but in certain controversial
cases it can be worthwhile*. Especially when scoping has been conducted by
written comments, and there has been no face-to-face contact, a post-
scoping document is the only assurance to the participants that they were
heard and understood until the draft EIS comes out. Agencies have acknow-
ledged to us that "letters instead of meetings seem to get disregarded eas-
ier." Thus a reasonable quid pro quo for relying on comment letters would
be to send out a post-scoping document as feedback to the carmen tors.
The post-scoping document may be as brief as a list of impacts and alterna-
tives selected for analysis; it may consist of the "scope of work" produced
by the lead and cooperating agencies for their own EIS work or for the con-
tractor; or it may be a special document that describes all the issues and
explains why they were selected.
-------
12
7. Allocating work assignments and setting schedules.
Following the public participation in whatever fora, and the selection of
issues to be covered, the lead agency oust allocate the EIS preparation
work among the available resources. If there are no cooperating agencies,
the lead agency allocates work among its own personnel or contractors. If
there are cooperating agencies involved, they may be assigned specific
research or writing tasks. The NEPA regulations require that they normally
devote their own resources to the issues in which they have special exper-
tise or jurisdiction by law. (Sections 1501.6(b) (3), (5), and
1501.7(a)(4)).
In all cases, the lead agency should set a schedule for completion of the
work, designate a project manager and assign the reviewers, and must set a
tine limit for the entire NEPA analysis if requested to do so by an appli-
cant. (Section 1501.3).
8. A few ideas to try.
a. Itoute design workshop
As part of a scoping process, a successful innovation by one agency
involved route selection for a railroad. The agency invited representa-
tives of the interested groups (identified at a previous public meeting) to
try their hand at designing alternative routes for a proposed rail segment.
Agency staff explained design constraints and evaluation criteria such as
the desire to minimize damage to prime agricultural land and valuable wild-
life habitat. The participants were divided into snail groups for a -few
hours of intensive work. After learning of the real constraints on alter-
native routes, the participants had a better understanding' of the agency's
and applicant's viewpoints. Two of the participants actually supported
alternative routes that affected their own land because the overall impacts
of these routes appeared less adverse.
The participants were asked to rank the five alternatives they had devised
and the top two were included in the EIS. But the agency did not permit
the groups to apply the same evaluation criteria to the routes proposed by
the applicant or* the agency. Thus public confidence in the process was not
as high as it could have been, and probably was reduced when the
applicant's proposal was ultimately selected.
The Council recommends that when a hands-on design workshop is used, the
assignment of the group be expanded to include evaluation of the reason-
ableness of all the suggested alternatives.
b. Botline
Several agencies have successfully used a special telephone number,
tially a hotline, to take public comments before, after, or instead of a
public meeting. It helps to designate a named staff member to receive
these calls so that seme continuity and personal relationships can be
developed.
-------
13
c. Videotape of sites
A videotape of proposed sites is an excellent tool for explaining site dif-
ferences and limitations during the lecture-format part of a scoping
meeting.
d. Videotape meetings
One agency has videotaped whole scoping meetings. Staff found that the
participants took their roles more seriously and the taping appeared not to
precipitate grandstanding tactics.
e. Review ccnmittee
Success has been reported from one agency which sets up review committees,
representing all interested groups, to oversee the scoping process. The
committees help to design the scoping process. In cooperation with the
lead agency, the committee reviews the materials generated by the scoping
meeting. Again, however, the final decision on EIS content is the respon-
sibility of the lead agency.
f. Consultant as meeting moderator
In some hotly contested cases, several agencies have used the EIS consul-
tant to actually run the scoping meeting. This is permitted under the NEPA
regulations and can be useful to de-fuse a tense atmosphere if the consul-
tant is perceived as a neutral third party. But the responsible agency
officials must attend the meetings. There is no substitute for developing
a relationship between the agency officials and the affected parties.
Moreover, if the responsible officials are not prominently present, the
public may interpret that to mean that the consultant is actually making
the decisions about the EIS, and not the lead agency.
g. Money saving tips
that money can be saved by using conference calls instead of meet-
ings, tape-recording the meetings instead of hiring a stenographer, and
finding out whether people wont a meeting before announcing it.
C. Pitfalls.
Vfe list here some of the problems that have been experienced in certain
scoping cases, in order to enable others to avoid the same difficulties.
1. Closed meetings.
In response to informal advice from CEQ that holding separate meetings for
agencies and the public would be permitted under the regulations and could
be more productive, one agency scheduled a scoping meeting for the coopera-
ting agencies some weeks in advance of the public meeting. Apparently, the
lead agency felt that the views of the cooperating agencies would be more
candidly expressed if the meeting were closed. In any event, several mem-
bers of the public learned of the meeting and asked to be present. The
lead agency acquiesced only after newspaper reporters were able to make a
-------
14
story out of the closed session. At the meeting, the members of the public
were informed that they would not be allowed to speak, nor to record the
proceedings. The ill feeling aroused by this chain of events may not be
repaired for a long tine. Instead, we would suggest the following
possibilities:
a. Although separate meetings for agencies and public groups may be
more efficient, there is no magic to then. By all means, if someone
insists on attending the agency meeting, let him. There is nothing as
secret going on there as he may think there is if you refuse him
admittance. Better yet, have your meeting of cooperating agencies after
the public meeting. That may be the most logical time anyway, since only
then can the scope of the SIS be decided upon and assignments made among
the agencies. If it is well done, the public meeting will satisfy most
people and show them that you are listening to them.
b. Always permit recording. In fact, you should suggest it for
public meetings. All parties will feel better if there is a record of the
proceeding. There is no need for a stenographer, and tape is inexpensive.
It may even be better then a typed transcript, because staff and decision-
makers who did not attend the meeting can listen to the exchange and may
learn a lot about public perceptions of the proposal.
c. When people are admitted to a meeting, it makes no sense to refuse
their requests to speak. However, you can legitimately limit their state-
ments to the subject at hand—scoping. You do not have to permit some
participants to waste the others' time if they refuse to focus on the
impacts and alternatives for inclusion in the EZS. Having a tape of'the
proceedings could be useful after the meeting if there is some Question
that speakers were improperly silenced. But it takes an experienced moder-
ator to handle a situation like this.
d. The scoping stage is the tine for building confidence and trust on
all sides of a proposal, because this is the only tine when there is a
cannon enterprise. The attitudes formed at this stage can carry through
the project review process. Certainly it is difficult for things to get
better. So foster the good will as long as you can by listening to what is
being said during scoping. It is possible that out of that dialogue may
appear recommendations for changes and mitigation measures that can turn a
controversial fight into an acceptable proposal.
2. Contacting interested groups.
Some problems have arisen in scoping where agencies failed to contact all
the affected parties, such as industries or state and local governments.
In one case, a panel was assembled to represent various interests in
scoping an EIS on a wildlife-related program. The agency had an excellent
format for the meeting, but the panel did not represent industries that
would be affected by the program or interested state and local governments.
As a result, the EIS may fail to reflect the issues of concern to these
parties.
Another agency reported to us that it failed to contact parties directly
ise staff feared that if they missed someone they would be accused of
-------
15
favoritism. Thus they relied on the i ggnanra of press releases which were
not effective. Many people who did not learn about the meetings in time
sought additional meeting opportunities, which cost extra money and delayed
the process.
In our experience, the attempt to reach people is worth the effort. Even
if you miss someone, it will be clear that you tried. You can enlist a few
representatives of an interest group to help you identify and contact
others. Trade associations, chambers of ccnmerce, local civic groups/ and
local and national conservation groups can spread the wo*"* to meubers.
3. Tiering.
Many people are not familiar with the way environmental impact statements
can be "tiered* under the NEPA regulations, so that issues are examined in
detail at the stage that decisions on them are being made. See Section
1508.28 of the regulations. For example, if a proposed program is under
review, it is possible that site specific actions are not yet proposed. In
such a case, these actions are not addressed in the EIS on the program, but
are reserved for a later tier of analysis. If tiering is being used, this
concept must be made clear at the outset of any scoping meeting, so that
participants do not concentrate on issues that are not going to be addres-
sed at this tine. If you can specify when these other issues win be
addressed it will be easier to convince people to focus on the matters at
hand.
4. Scoping for unusual programs.
One interesting scoping case involved proposed changes in the Endangered
Species Program. Anong the impacts to be examined were the effects of this
conservation program on user activities such as mining, hunting, and timber
harvest, instead of the other way around. Because of this reverse twist in
the impacts to be analyzed, some participants had difficulty focusing on
useful issues. Apparently, if the subject of the EIS is unusual, it will
be even harder than normal for scoping participants to grasp what is
rted of them.
In the case of the Endangered Species Program EIS, the agency planned an
intensive 3 day scoping session, successfully involved the participants,
and reached accord on several issues that would be important for the future
implementation of the program. But the participants were unable to focus
on impacts and program alternatives for the EIS. We suggest that if the
intensive session had been broken up into 2 or 3 meetings separated by days
or weeks, the participants might have been able to get used to the new way
of thinking required, and thereby to participate more productively. Pro-
grammatic proposals are often harder to deal with in a scoping context than
site specific projects. Thus extra care should be taken in explaining the
goals of the proposal and in making the information available well in
advance of any meetings.
D. Lead' and Cooperating Agencies.
Some problems with scoping revolve around the relationship between lead and
cooperating agencies. Some agencies are still uncomfortable with these
-------
16
roles. The NEPA regulations, and the 40 Questions and Answers about the
NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Beg. 18026, ( March 23, 1981) describe in detail
the way agencies are now asked to cooperate on environmental analyses.
(See Questions 9, 14, and 30.) We will focus here on the early phase of
that cooperation.
It is important Cor the lead agency to be as specific as passible with the
cooperating agencies. Tell than what you want them to contribute during
scoping; environmental impacts and alternatives. Seme agencies still do
not understand the purpose of scoping.
Be sure to contact and involve representatives of the cooperating agencies
who are responsible for NEPA-related functions. The lead agency will need
to contact staff of the cooperating agencies who can both help to identify
issues and alternatives and commit resources to a study, agree to a sched-
ule for EZS preparation, or approve a list of issues as sufficient. In
sane agencies that will be at the district or state office level (e.g.,
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, and Soil Conservation Serv-
ice) for all but exceptional cases. In other agencies you must go to
regional offices for scoping cements and commitments (e.g., EPA, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Hater and Power Resources Service). In still others, the
field offices do not have NEPA responsibilities or expertise and you will
deal directly with headquarters (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Gonmis-
sion. Interstate Commerce Commission). In all cases you are looking for
the office that can give you the answers you need. So keep trying until
you find the organizational level of the cooperating agency that can give
you useful information and that has the authority to make coamitincnts.
As stated in 40 Questions and Answers about the NEPA Regulations, the lead
agency has the ultimate responsibility for the content of the £15, but if
it leaves out a significant issue or ignores the advice and expertise of
the cooperating agency, the EZS nay be found later to be inadequate. (46
Fed. Reg. 18030, Question Lib.) At the sane time, the cooperating agency
will be concerned that the EIS contain material sufficient bo satisfy its
decisionnaking needs. Thus, both agencies have a stake in producing a doc-
ument of good quality. The cooperating agencies should be encouraged not
only to participate in scoping but also to review the decisions made by the
lead agency about what to include in the EIS. Lead agencies should allow
any information needed by a cooperating agency to be included, and any
issues of concern to the cooperating agency should be covered, but it
usually will have to be at the expense of the cooperating agency.
Cooperating agencies have at least as great a need as the general public
for advance information on a proposal before any scoping takes place.
Agencies have reported to us that information from the lead agency is often
too sketchy or cones too late for informed participation. Lead agencies
must clearly explain to all cooperating agencies what the proposed action
is conceived to be at this time, and what present alternatives and issues
the lead agency sees, before expecting other agencies to devote time and
money to a scoping session. Informal contacts among the agencies before
scoping gets underway are valuable to establish what the cooperating
agencies will need for productive scoping to take place.
-------
17
Some agencies will be called upon to be cooperators more frequently than
others, and they may lack the resources to respond to the numerous
requests. The NEPA regulations permit agencies without jurisdiction by law
(i.e., no approval authority over the proposal) to decline the cooperating
agency role. (Section 1501.6(c)). But agencies that do have jurisdiction
by lav cannot opt out entirely and may have to reduce their cooperating
effort devoted to each EXS. (See Section 1501.S(c) and 40 Questions and
Answers about the NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18030, Question 14a.)
Thus, cooperators would be greatly aided by a priority list fron the lead
agency showing which proposals most need their help. It"'** will lead to a
more efficient allocation of resources.
Some cooperating agencies are still holding back at the scoping stage in
order to retain a critical position for later in the process. They either
avoid the scoping sessions or fail bo contribute, and then raise objections
in ccranents on the draft EXS. We cannot emphasize enough that the whole
point of scoping is to avoid this situation. As we stated in 40 Questions
and.Answers about the NEPA Regulations, "if the new alternative (or other
issue] was not raised by the commentor during scoping, but could have been,
coanentors may find that they ace unpersuasive in their efforts to have
their suggested alternative analyzed in detail by the [lead] agency." (46
Fed. Reg. 18035, Question 29b.)
IU. Advice for Public Participants
Scoping is a new opportunity for you to enter the earliest phase of the
decisionmaking process on proposals that affect you. Through this process
you have access to public officials before decisions are made and .the right
to explain your objections and concerns. But this opportunity carries with
it a new responsibility. No longer may individuals hang back until the
process is almost complete and then spring forth with a significant issue
or alternative that might have been raised earlier. You are now part of
the review process, and your role is to inform the responsible agencies of
the potential impacts that should be studied, the problems a proposal may
cause that you foresee, and the alternatives and mitigating measures that
offer promise.
As noted above, and in 40 Questions and Answers, no longer will a comment
raised for the first time after the draft SIS is finished be accorded the
sane serious consideration it would otherwise have merited if the issue had
been raised during scoping. Thus you have a responsibility to come forward
early with known issues.
In return, you get the chance to meet the responsible officials and to make
the case for your alternative before they are committed to a course of
action. To a surprising degree this avenue has been found to yield satis-
factory results. There's no guarantee, of course, but when the alternative
you suggest is really better, it is often hard for a decisionmaker to
resist.
There are several problems that commonly arise that public participants
should be aware of:
-------
18
A. Public input is often only negative
The optimal timing of scoping within the NEPA process is difficult to
judge. Cn the one hand, as explained above (Section II.B.l.), if it is
attempted too early, the agency cannot explain what it has in mind and
informed participation will be impossible. On the other, if it is delayed,
the public may find that significant decisions are already made, and their
connents may be discounted or will be too late to change the project. Sane
agencies have found themselves in a tactical cross-fire when public criti-
cism arises before they can even define their proposal sufficiently to see
whether they have a worthwhile plan. Understandably, they would be reluc-
tant after such an experience to invite public criticism early in the plan-
ning process through open scoping. But it is in your interest to encourage
agencies to come out with proposals in the early stage because that enhan-
ces the possibility of your Garments being used. Thus public participants
in scoping should reduce the emotion level wherever possible and use the
opportunity to make thoughtful, rational presentations on impacts and
alternatives. Polarizing over issues too early hurts all parties. If
agencies get positive and useful public responses from the scoping process,
they will more frequently come forward with proposals early enough so that
they can be materially improved by your suggestions.
B. Issues are too broad
The issues that participants tend to identify during scoping are much too
broad to be useful for analytical purposes. For example, "cultural
impacts" — what does this mean? What precisely are the impacts that..
should be examined? When the EZS preparers encounter a Garment as vague as
this they will have to make their own judgment about what you meant, and
you may find that your issues are not covered. Thus, you should refine the
broad general topics, and specify which issues need evaluation and
analysis.
C. Impacts are not identified
Similarly, people (including agency staff) frequently identify "causes" as
issues but fail to identify the principal "effects" that the EIS should
evaluate in depth. For example, oil and gas development is a cause of many
impacts. Simply listing this generic category is of little help. You must
go beyond the obvious causes to the specific effects that are of concern.
If you want scoping to be seen as more than just another public meeting,
you will need to put in extra work.
IV. Brief Points For Applicants.
Scoping can be an invaluable part of your early project planning. Your
main interest is in getting a proposal through the review process. This
interest is best advanced by finding out early where the problems with the
proposal are, who the affected parties are, and where accomodations can be
made. Scoping is an ideal meeting place for all the interest groups if you
have not already contacted then. In several cases, we found that the com-
promises made at this stage allowed a project to move efficiently through
the permitting process virtually unopposed.
-------
19
The NEPA regulations place an affirmative obligation on agencies to "pro-
vide for «•»«?•« where actions are planned by private applicants" so that
designated staff are available to consult with the applicants, to advise
applicants of information that will be required during review, and to
insure that the NEPA process ccnnences at the earliest possible tine.
(Section 1501.2(d)). Ibis section of the regulations is intended to ensure
that environmental factors are considered at an early stage in the appli-
cant's planning process. (See 40 Questions and Answers about the NEPA
Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18028, Questions 8 and 9.)
Applicants should take advantage of this requirement in the regulations by
approaching the agencies early to consult on alternatives, mitigation
requirements, and the agency's information needs. This early contact with
the agency can facilitate a prompt initiation of the scoping process in
cases viiere an EIS will be prepared. You will need to furnish sufficient
information about your proposal to enable the lead agency to formulate a
coherent presentation for cooperating agencies and the public. But den't
wait until your choices are all made and the alternatives have been
eliminated. (Section 1506.1).
During scoping, be sure to attend any of the public meetings unless the
agency is dividing groups by interest affiliation. You will be able to
answer any questions about the proposal, and even more important, you will
be able to hear the objections raised, and find out what the real concerns
of the public are. This is, of course, vital information for future nego-
tiations with the affected parties.
.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 - 650-224
------- |