My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11222
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:17 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:58:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: USACE ROD Requirements Memo 06/17/2007
Date
6/17/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Presentation/Handout
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />., <br />i. t <br />\ .\. <br /> <br />CECW-PE <br /> <br />I Aug 1996 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM FOR CECW-PE, CECW-PC,and all Attion Officers <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Content of Record of Decisions <br /> <br />1. I would like to share with you my recent experiences with the signing of the ROD for the 1 <br />Wyoming Valley project. As itwas pointed out to me by Headquarters Environmental Counsel, l <br />sometimes RODs prepared by Planning Division staff are npt in compliance with CEQ laws. We <br />need to fix that. <br /> <br />2. Enclosed for your information is a copy of 40 CFR Section 1505.2, which defmes what the <br />ROD must have. ER 200-2-2 refers to Section 150 -.2 to defme Corps regulations on the content <br />of RODs. <br /> <br />. ~ <br />j <br />3. Based on my reading of this law and discussions with Headquarters environmental lawyers the <br />ROD must have the following: <br /> <br />a. The ROD must state what the decision was. Also, HQ Counsel insisted that I include in the <br />enclosed Wyoming Valley ROD the statement that...Thus, I approve that plan for construction. <br /> <br />\.'\" <br />,\;" <br /> <br />b. The ROD must identify all alternatives c~msidered. Whereas the law does not specifically <br />require it, it is a good idea to make reference to a Corps docutnent where the alternatives are <br />discussed in greater detail. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />c. The ROD must discuss what considerations were made in arriving at the decision. <br /> <br />d. The ROD must identify the environmentally preferable alternative. <br /> <br />e. The ROD must state whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm <br />have or have not been adopted, and if not, why not. <br /> <br />f. lfthe selected plan has monitoring it should be so stated. Where monitoring is required for <br />mitigation it must be stated in the ROD. <br /> <br />4. The enclosed ROD was reviewed by Headquarters environmental lawyers. While they wanted <br />me to add more stuff to the ROD, they indicated that it meets the requirements of Section 1505.2. <br />lfyou have a specific question or issue, contact Lance Wood.(761-8556) for advise and guidance. <br /> <br />Encls <br /> <br />Zoi: :l~m <br /> <br />CECW-PE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.