Conclusions and Recommendations. For the reasons stated herein, Merrimack Energy concludes that the shortlisting decisions by PG&E in the 2007 RPS RFO were reasonable and based on the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the Solicitation Protocol. The selection of the shortlist was very inclusive and erred on the side of including more offers in what was a very ample shortlist relative to the procurement target. In the Shortlist Report, Merrimack Energy recommended a number of changes to the RPS procurement process, several of which were adopted by PG&E in the 2008 RPS RFO. Despite recommending certain changes, our assessment is that the PG&E evaluation methodology was appropriate and that it was administered fairly and reasonably. Consistent with suggestions we had made in and after the Shortlist Report, PG&E developed a negotiation prioritization strategy with shortlisted bidders that created an active group of negotiations based on price and viability factors. The Mojave Solar bid was consistently placed in the secondary group and although its proposal changed over time from the proposal initially shortlisted, it remained in the secondary group during the course of contract negotiations. While the project sponsor is a very viable and experienced developer of solar thermal projects and is capable of developing the project effectively, there are concerns associated with the timing of the project that adds risk to the ultimate success of the project. PG&E has done an effective job in managing these risks through contract provisions in both the original contract and the amended and restated agreement. The details of the PPA and the amended and restated agreement are addressed in the confidential appendix to this report. The positive attributes of the project should be balanced against the negative attributes in assessing whether or not the amended and restated agreement should be approved. PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV AT&T Department of Water Resources North Coast SolarResources Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP Dept of General Services Northern California Power Association Ameresco Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx Xxxxxx & Brand OnGrid Solar Arizona Public Service Company Duke Energy Praxair BART Economic Sciences Corporation X. X. Xxxx & Associates Xxxxxxxxx & Xxx, Inc. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP RCS, Inc. Xxxxxx Xxxxx Associates Xxxxxx Farms Recurrent Energy Bloomberg G. A. Xxxxxx & Assoc. SCD Energy Solu...
Conclusions and Recommendations. The literature review (see Appendix C) indicates a range of buffer width recommendations for protecting the shade function. Based on the XXXXX curve reported in this section of the report, approximately 1 SPTH (estimated at 61 meters or 200 ft) will provide nearly 100 percent effectiveness of the buffer to protect the intertidal from desiccation, elevated temperatures, and other shade-related functions. Of course, in nonforested community types (e.g., prairie and grasslands) the shade function from overstory trees may be unattainable. To maximize the buffer’s effectiveness to provide the shade function, the following actions are recommended: • Avoid disturbance to native vegetation in riparian areas, especially nearer the water’s edge. • Retain, restore, and enhance mature trees and a multi-layered canopy and understory of native vegetation at sites that support these types of plant communities. • Ensure that riparian areas can be maintained in mature, native vegetation through time. • Prevent modifications to banks and bluffs (e.g., armoring) that could disrupt natural processes (such as soil creep, development of backshore and overhanging vegetation, recruitment of wood and other organic matter to riparian area including beaches and banks.) • Prohibit cutting and topping of trees and avoid “limbing” (selective branch cutting to enhance views) of trees for view corridors and other purposes within buffers.
Conclusions and Recommendations. Based on our country-by-country analysis, 197 of the AEWA populations are already well-monitored both for population size and trend. Our prioritisation method allowed focusing on the AEWA conservation and management priorities (Priorities 1-2) and to consider cost effectiveness and feasibility (Priorities 3-6). Theoretically, the two- third target of the AEWA Strategic Plan can be just attained by focusing on the development of monitoring activities for Priority 1-5 populations (i.e. leaving out the 168 more widespread Priority 6 populations that would require more species-specific monitoring methods. Most of the Priority 1-5 populations would require improvement of the IWC though regional schemes focusing on the West Asian / East African flyway with possibly three subregional components in the Central Asia, Arabia and Eastern and Southern Africa. In the latter region, improvements in Tanzania and Mozambique are particularly important. In the Black Sea - Mediterranean - Sahelian flyway the focus should be primarily on the Sahel countries and especially on increasing the consistency of annual counts. The quality of monitoring is already better in the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions. In the East Atlantic, the ongoing capacity-building activities should continue and the consistency and representativity of site coverage should be further strengthened in most countries. Angola would require a major capacity improvement but primarily for the intra-African migrants on inland wetlands. It is also clear that the targets of the AEWA Strategic Plan cannot be achieved without complementing the IWC with periodic aerial surveys both in Western Africa as well as in Eastern and Southern Africa, by setting up a periodic offshore waterbird monitoring scheme in the Caspian Sea and by focusing in each country on a relatively small number of breeding bird species strategically selected in this report.
Conclusions and Recommendations. In this article we have statistically tested the VS30-slope (or more specifically the NEHRP class-slope) correlations published by Wald and Xxxxx (2007) for Europe and parts of the Middle East. In total 706 sites with VS30 measurements were used. It is found that the technique leads to a site classification that is better than chance for all NEHRP site classes in active areas. For stable areas, there are still limited data to enable firm conclusions but our results suggest that the proposed correlations perform poorly in these zones. Based on our findings we reiterate the recommendations of Xxxx and Xxxxx (2007) that site classifications based on VS30-slope correlations should only be used for regional or national (and not local or site- specific) first-order studies. In addition, they are only to be used in the absence of other more detailed information (e.g. microzonation studies) and not for sites inside small, relative to the DEM resolution, basins or those with special geological conditions that may affect results (e.g. flat-lying volcanic plateaux, carbonate rocks, glaciated continental terrain or coastal pixels if the slope is not calculated using bathymetric data). Again many of these limitations were stated by Xxxx and Xxxxx (2007). Site classifications based on VS30-slope correlations are not sufficiently accurate to replace actual field measurements and they should not be used for site-specific studies. Consequences of erroneous estimation could be serious, so the user of such correlations should be aware that they only provide a first approximation and the true site class for a given site could be incorrect by one or, even, two classes (in either direction). At a local scale, further investigations should be carried out based on geology and measurements. In addition, the slope limits used for estimating VS30 are dependent on the slope-calculation algorithm and, as previously shown by Xxxxx and Xxxx (2009) and Xxxxxx et al. (2010), on the DEM resolution. We prefer predicting a site class rather than VS30 even when this is associated with a (large) standard deviation because we believe it gives a better indication that the site class is only an estimate and is not based on a measured VS30 value. We fear that the reporting of a numerical estimate for VS30 with a measure of its uncertainty would lead to the temptation to use the value and forget about the scatter.
Conclusions and Recommendations. The signature of the teacher indicates only that the teacher has read the report and does not necessarily indicate agreement with its contents. Written comments may be added to this evaluation if received by the Superintendent not later than 30 calendar days after date of receipt of the evaluation. Teacher: Supervisor: Date: Date: APPENDIX D --- APPLICATION FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE TO: Superintendent of School FROM: Name Home Address School Home Phone Grade or Dept. As per Section V. B. 2. of the Agreement between the Superintendent of Schools and the Trumansburg Teachers' Association, I hereby request sabbatical leave for the period to I understand that each part of the current Agreement relating to sabbatical leaves applies to the leave I am requesting. I agree that, in the event of my failure to return to employment at Trumansburg Central School, or my voluntary resignation there from before two (2) years after the termination of my sabbatical leave, I will repay the amount of the gross pay, plus retirement costs, social security, and health insurance paid to or for me for such leave, repayment to be made in equal annual installments over a period of not more than five (5) years, or in my discretion, in a single lump sum. Employee Signature Date submitted: Date of initial employment in the District: Has your employment been continuous? If not, please indicate dates and reasons for interruption of employment: NOTE: Please review Article V carefully. Attach additional pages to meet the intent of V. D. 1. APPENDIX E --- FULL TIME EQUIVALENT STATUS DETERMINATION Actual full time employee schedule Start End Daily Total minutes Monday 7:45 AM 3:00 PM 7 hrs. + 15 min. 435 Tuesday 7:45 AM 3:30 PM 7 hrs. + 45 min. 465 Wednesday 7:45 AM 3:00 PM 7 hrs. + 15 min. 435 Thursday 7:45 AM 3:30 PM 7 hrs. + 45 min. 465 Friday 7:45 AM 3:00 PM 7 hrs. + 15 min. 435 FTE (1.0 FTE) Total per week = 37 hrs. + 15 min. = 2235 1.00 (1.0 FTE) Average per day = 7 hrs. + 30 min. = 447 (1.0 FTE) Preparation per week = 3 hrs. + 20 min. = 200 Lunch = 2 hrs. + 30 min. = 150 Actual part time employee schedule Start End Hours + Minutes Other start Other end Minutes Total minutes Monday 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 2:45 PM 4:45 PM 2:00 360 Tuesday 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 na na 0 240 Wednesday 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 2:45 PM 4:45 PM 2:00 360 Thursday 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 na na 0 240 Friday 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 2:45 PM 4:45 PM 2:00 360 FTE 20:00 6:00 1560 0.70 Preparation per week = 1.0 FTE 200 140 0.06 Lunch =...
Conclusions and Recommendations. All conclusions and recommendations adopted during the session must be included in this section. The recommendations must reflect commitments made by States and the IAEA during the session. The recommendations shall include the following:
Conclusions and Recommendations. All conclusions and recommendations adopted during the discussion must be included in this section. The recommendations must include, inter alia, the following:
Conclusions and Recommendations. 3.2.2 Base year energy use including:
Conclusions and Recommendations. FIRE PREVENTION
Conclusions and Recommendations. 453. The Panel recalled its conclusions with respect to the preliminary objections of the EC that:
