USACE Review Sample Clauses

USACE Review. All Section 103 permit applications and USACE navigational project authorizations for ocean disposal of dredged material are evaluated by the USACE, New Orleans Exclusionary Criteria met, or Existing Data Sufficient to Show Compliance With LPC Exclusionary Criteria not met, or New Data Needed Corps/Applicant Develops Sampling Plan TIER I EVALUATION Corps /Applicant Revises Plan EPA Reviews/Comments on Sampling EPA Concurs EPA Does Not Concur FIGURE 1. Overview of Review Process CORPS DETERMINES NEED TO DREDGE AND USE OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL CORPS REVIEWS DATA AND SUBMITS EVALUATION TO EPA 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO ADVERTISEMENT DATE (unless alternative schedule determined) Corps/Applicant Conducts Sampling and Analysis CORPS SUBMITS REQUESTED INFORMATION EPA REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EPA REVIEWS DATA AND CORPS EVALUATION 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT EPA CONCURS WITH CORPS DETERMINATION MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR OCEAN MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR OCEAN EPA DOES NOT CONCUR WITH CORPS DETERMINATION MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR OCEAN MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR OCEAN District or Galveston District in accordance with applicable ocean dumping criteria in 40 CFR 220-228. The evaluation consists of characterization of the dredged material and determination of compliance with the applicable regulations. The types of information necessary to complete the review and required to be submitted to EPA, Region 6 by the USACE, New Orleans District and Galveston District are listed in Appendix A. A Tier I evaluation must be conducted, at a minimum, for all dredged material disposal projects, both those requiring 103 permits and all USACE navigational projects as part of the dredged material characterization. The purpose of the Tier I evaluation is to determine whether a decision on environmental acceptability can be made on the basis of existing information (See Section 4 of this RIA). If it is determined by the USACE, New Orleans District or Galveston District and/or EPA, Region 6 that the existing information is inadequate, it will be necessary to collect new sediment samples and conduct appropriate analyses to characterize the dredged material and determine environmental acceptability.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to USACE Review

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.