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 of the proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy of the 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 of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more

than minor changes to the 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 or application of mitigation measures that can reduce

the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

“EO” (Environmental Objections)

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 of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to

work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

“EU” (Environmentally Unsatisfactory)

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory

from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. The EPA intends to work with the lead agency to

reduce these impacts. Ifthe potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be

recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality.

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

Category “1” (Adequate)

The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the

alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer

may suggest the addition of clari1y’ing language or information.

Category “2” (Insufficient Information)

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA 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 of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action.

The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.

Category “3” (Inadequate)

The EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action,

or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives

analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA

believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such 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 of the 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 of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to

the CEQ.

*From EPA Manual 1640, Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.