International and Individual State Environmental Impact Analysis Programs - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 327

r Solid and hazardous waste
r Historical and archaeological resources
r Areas of critical environmental concern
r Regulations
In each category, upper and lower thresholds are specified to determine
the need to submit a MEPA ENF application or the need for a full EIR. The
type of action generally determines the applicability and the magnitude of
action is a major consideration mandating need for an EIR. Table 8.4 gives
example thresholds for selected categories and the full list is included in
Section 11.03 of the MEPA regulations.
If the proposal exceeds a threshold, the required ENF serves as the scop-
ing document. The applicant prepares the ENF, which includes at a mini-
mum the project description, alternatives, and the environmental resources
potentially at risk. The ENF is not only submitted to the office of the state
Secretary of Environmental and Energy Affairs but also noticed in the
state Environmental Monitor , which is regularly perused by the local and
statewide environmental advocacy groups and municipalities. The pub-
lic and all state agencies that might be involved in approval, funding, and
review of the action provide their comments (similar to NEPA scoping, see
Section 4.3) to the secretary. If the proposed action falls between the upper
and lower thresholds, the secretary takes the comments received on the
ENF into account and issues a certificate either finding that the ENF fulfills
MEPA (i.e., analogous to a NEPA CATEX) or an EIR is required. If an EIR
is required, either through decision on the ENF or if the proposal exceeds
the upper threshold, the secretary considers all the comments received and
issues a certificate specifying the scope of the environmental review, com-
parable to a NEPA scoping statement. The statement under MEPA differs
from the one under NEPA in that in the first case an independent regula-
tory entity, the secretary, determines the scope, whereas under NEPA the
proponent (the federal agency proposing the action) makes the decision on
the scope of the analysis.
There is also a provision for a “Fail-Safe Review” in cases where an ENF
is not required under any of the criteria, but the project raises significant
concern. One or more agencies or ten or more persons can petition the sec-
retary to require the project proponent to file an ENF if the proposal does
not meet one of the thresholds established in the Act, provided the follow-
ing apply:
r It is subject to MEPA jurisdiction.
r It has the potential to cause damage to the environment.
r An ENF filing is essential to avoid or minimize damage to the
environment.
r Filing will not result in an undue hardship for the project proponent.