|
|
Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Rating System Criteria
EPA has developed a set of criteria for rating draft EISs. The rating system provides a basis upon which EPA makes recommendations to the lead agency for improving the draft.
RATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF THE ACTION
- LO (Lack of Objections) The review has not identified any potential
environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the preferred
alternative. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application
of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than
minor changes to the proposed action.
- EC (Environmental Concerns) The 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.
- EO (Environmental Objections) The review has identified significant
environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to adequately
protect 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).
The basis for environmental Objections can include situations:
- Where an action might violate or be inconsistent with achievement
or maintenance of a national environmental standard;
- Where the Federal agency violates its own substantive environmental
requirements that relate to EPA's areas of jurisdiction or expertise;
- Where there is a violation of an EPA policy declaration;
- Where there are no applicable standards or where applicable
standards will not be violated but there is potential for significant
environmental degradation that could be corrected by project modification
or other feasible alternatives; or
- Where proceeding with the proposed action would set a precedent
for future actions that collectively could result in significant
environmental impacts.
- EU (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The review has identified
adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that
EPA believes the proposed action must not proceed as proposed. The basis
for an environmentally unsatisfactory determination consists of identification
of environmentally objectionable impacts as defined above and one or
more of the following conditions:
- The potential violation of or inconsistency with a national
environmental standard is substantive and/or will occur on a long-term
basis;
- There are no applicable standards but the severity, duration,
or geographical scope of the impacts associated with the proposed
action warrant special attention; or
- The potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
action are of national importance because of the threat to national
environmental resources or to environmental policies.
return to top
RATING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS)
- 1 (Adequate) 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 clarifying language or information.
- 2 (Insufficient Information) The draft EIS does not contain
sufficient information to fully assess environmental impacts that should
be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the 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 proposal. The identified additional
information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the
final EIS.
- 3 (Inadequate) The draft EIS does not adequately assess the
potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposal, or the
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. The identified additional information, data,
analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have
full public review at a draft stage. This rating indicates EPA's belief
that the draft EIS does not meet the purposes of NEPA and/or the Section
309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for
public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS.
|