## SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS*
This rating system was developed as a means to summarize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) level of concern with a proposed action. The ratings are a combination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of the environmental impacts ofthe proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy ofthe Environmental Impact Statement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION “LO” (Lack ofObjections) The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application ofmitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minorchanges tothe proposal.
“EC” (Environmental Concerns) The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative orapplication ofmitigation measures thatcan reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to workwith the lead agencyto reduce these impacts. “EO” (EnvironmentalObjections) The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration ofsome other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to workwith the lead agency to reducethese impacts. “EU” (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are ofsufficient magnitude thatthey are unsatisfactory fromthe standpoint ofpublic health orwelfare orenvironmental quality. The EPA intends to workwiththe lead agencyto reduce these impacts. Ifthe potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected atthe final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended forreferralto the Council on Environmental Quality. ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT Category “1” (Adequate) The EPA believes the draftEIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) ofthe preferred alternative and those ofthe alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggestthe addition ofclari1y’ing language orinformation. Category “2” (InsufficientInformation) The draftEIS does not contain sufficient information forEPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum ofalternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts ofthe action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included inthe final EIS. Category “3” (Inadequate) The EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts ofthe action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside ofthe spectrum of alternatives analyzed inthe draft EIS, which shouldbe analyzed in orderto reduce the potentially significantenvironmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are ofsuch a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes ofthe NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis ofthe potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate forreferral to the CEQ.
*FromEPA Manual 1640, Policy and Procedures forthe Review ofFederal Actions Impactingthe Environment.