Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses Sample Clauses

Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Loon Floating Nest Platform Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009 Comment Puget Sound Energy Response WDNR – XxXxx Xxxxxxxxx, received August 26, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NPS – Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, received August 19, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. WDFW – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail) [Comment 1.] The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the Final Draft Loon Floating Nest Platform Plan, Settlement Agreement (SA) Article 507. We offer the following comments. As a member of the Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG), WDFW has participated in continuous consultation and collaboration with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and other TRIG members for many years before and after the issuance of the Xxxxx River Project License. WDFW appreciates PSE’s collaborative process and willingness to work with all TRIG members and SA signatories on the implementation of their license articles. [Response 1.] Comment noted. [Comment 2.] Overall, WDFW approves of the current Article 507 Loon Floating Nest Platform Plan. We have listed a few specific comments at the end of the letter. In general, WDFW would like to see more specifics in the plan. WDFW has sensed hesitancy to record possible management actions, specific buffer distances for wildlife, and management recommendations from the TRIG because of the fear of becoming committed to implementing them without any alternatives or flexibility. In the current plan, WDFW would like our recommendations, particularly our buffer distances around the nest platforms, and other comments recorded as options to consider for the future writing of more specifics in the plan. [Response 2.] The Plan contains the amount of specificity necessary by the TRIG to implement SA 507. Suggestions that are inconsistent with SA 507, or did not represent the consensus view of the TRIG were not be included. After two years of implementing SA 507 (2008 and 2009), PSE has learned that the design and placement of floating platforms and public access restriction devices is extremely site-specific and will require on-going adjustment. We have therefore left detailed design specifications out of this Plan to all...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response WDNR – XxXxx Xxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NPS – Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 4, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NPS – Xxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 11, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. USDA-FS – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail) I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. RMEF – Xxx Xxxxxx, received September 21, 2009
Sample 1
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Forest Habitat Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009 Comment Puget Sound Energy Response WDNR – XxXxx Xxxxxxxxx, received August 26, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. NPS – Xxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 11, 2009
Sample 1
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the BRRWSP and PSE’s responses to these comments.
Sample 1
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the BLRP and PSE’s responses to these comments. Table 2. Comments Following Formal Review of the Xxxxx Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan, August 19 – September 19, 2009 Comment Puget Sound Energy Response Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, North Cascades Conservation Council, received September 3, 2009 The completely expressed ranges of issues, goals, implements, and enforcements are well outlined with appropriate regulations. In the Final BLRP, a map showing agreed upon features and locations must be included. Comment noted. The future Xxxxx Lake Resort Redevelopment Implementation Plan will include a site redevelopment plan [design drawing] (as described in Section 6.3.4, Implementation Plan). XxxXxxxx Xxxxx, US Fish and Wildlife Service, received September 18, 2009 As per the Biological Opinion for the Xxxxx Project, garbage containers should be wildlife-resistant. The plan should contain language that includes the requirement for and PSE’s commitment to providing wildlife-resistant refuse containers and management practices that will reduce the ability of wildlife to access garbage and refuse. PSE will comply with the Biological Opinion through the provision of wildlife-resistant garbage containers at recreation sites and use area at the Project. Wildlife- resistant garbage containers will be described/specified in the future Xxxxx Lake Resort Redevelopment Implementation Plan and placed at the developed Xxxxx Lake Resort.
Sample 1
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. ‌ Table 3 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the draft LEP and PSE’s responses to these comments. Table 3. Comments following formal review of the draft LEP, April 9 – May 10, 2010. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response Xxxxx Xxxxx, Skagit County Parks and Recreation, received 5/19/2010 Thanks for the LEP update. Skagit County is interested in making sure there is adequate law enforcement in the Xxxx Xxxxxxx area, especially once the site has been developed. Comment noted. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife, received 5/10/2010 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the Article 318 Draft Law Enforcement Plan (LEP). We have a few comments for the plan below. WDFW has participated in continuous consultation with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) for many years on the Xxxxx River Hydroelectric Project. WDFW appreciates PSE’s willingness to collaborate with WDFW on their many license implementation activities. Comment noted.
Sample 1
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 4. Comments following formal review of the Decaying and Legacy Wood Plan, June 12 – September 14, 2009. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response USFWS – Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, received July 21, 2009 (via e-mail) USFWS has not comments on this plan Comment noted. No revisions to plan. WDFW – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail) [Comment 1.] The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the Final Draft Decaying and Legacy Wood Plan, Settlement Agreement (SA) Article 511. We offer the following comments. As a member of the Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG), WDFW has participated in continuous consultation and collaboration with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and other TRIG members for many years before and after the issuance of the Xxxxx River Project License. WDFW appreciates PSE’s collaborative process and willingness to work with all TRIG members and SA signatories on the implementation of their license articles. [Response 1.] Comment noted.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. ‌ Table 3 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the draft AMP and PSE’s responses to these comments. Table 3. Comments following formal review of the draft AMP, March 30 – April 30, 2010. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, USDA-FS, received 5/12/2010 PSE should consider visuals/aesthetics for all projects that have impacts. These apply to all project lands including PSE and FS; and would be further defined by our visual/aesthetic standards. Further, the FS would have an interest in visual and aesthetic impacts to FS visitors which may occur on PSE lands (from land or water), our concerns are not limited to actions on NF lands (sec 5.1) Settlement agreement article 302 was cooperatively developed and written to address a number of specific aesthetic concerns at the Project. The intent of the settlement agreement article and the corresponding AMP is to provide guidance and direction regarding the specific concerns identified by stakeholders during the settlement agreement process. Since PSE is obligated to meet the intent of the settlement agreement article, the AMP was developed only to address the specific concerns therein. Furthermore, settlement agreement article 302 does not call for the development of an aesthetics program to address other potential impacts to the scenic integrity of the Project area.
Sample 1

Related to Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses

  • Claims Submission We will submit your claims and assist you in any way we reasonably can to help get your claims paid. Your insurance company may need you to supply certain information directly. It is your responsibility to comply with their request. Please be aware that the balance of your claim is your responsibility whether or not your insurance company pays your claim. Your insurance benefit is a contract between you and your insurance company; we are not party to that contract.

  • PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (APPLIES TO RNS ONLY 19.01 The parties agree that resident care is enhanced if concerns relating to professional practice and workload are resolved in a timely and effective manner, as set out below; In the event that the Home assigns a number of residents or a workload to an individual employee or group of employees, such that she or they have cause to believe that she or they are being asked to perform more work than is consistent with proper resident care, she or they shall:

  • Personnel File Review a. A unit member has the right upon his/her own request to review the contents of his/her personnel file. The review will be conducted in the presence of the administrator, or his/her designee, responsible for the safekeeping of such file. The employee may have a committee person assist in said review. Such review shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time. A copy of requested material will be provided.

  • DIRECTORS’ RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT The Directors collectively and individually accept full responsibility for the accuracy of the information given in this announcement and confirm after making all reasonable enquiries that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, this announcement constitutes full and true disclosure of all material facts about the Proposed Acquisition, the Company and its subsidiaries, and the Directors are not aware of any facts the omission of which would make any statement in this announcement misleading. Where information in this announcement has been extracted from published or otherwise publicly available sources or obtained from a named source, the sole responsibility of the Directors has been to ensure that such information has been accurately and correctly extracted from those sources and/or reproduced in this announcement in its proper form and context.

  • Screening Services Disclosure to Applicant Pursuant to MN Statute 504B.173, the tenant screening service that we use is the following: Rental History Reports 0000 X. 00xx Xxxxxx, #000 Xxxxx, XX 00000 (000) 000-0000 Applicant Screening Criteria, upon which the decision to rent to the Applicant is based, will be applied to the information provided in this application and the information gathered from the screening report and/or background check we obtain. If we reject your rental application pursuant to Minnesota Statutes and local laws, we will notify you within 14 days of such rejection, identifying the criteria you failed to meet. We are not obligated to return your application fee or deposit except as provided in MN Statute 504B.173 and local laws.

  • Comments Licensee will ensure that neither libellous nor blasphemous language appears in the Comments and will be responsible for the removal of Comments.

  • PERSONNEL DISCLOSURE 22 26.1 CONTRACTOR shall make available to ADMINISTRATOR a current list of 23 all personnel providing services hereunder, including résumés and job 24 applications. Changes to the list will be immediately provided to 25 ADMINISTRATOR, in writing, along with a copy of a résumé and/or job 26 application. The list shall include:

  • Rationale/Justification The Cisco Certified Network Associate Security (CCNA® Security) certification represents industry acknowledgement of technical skill attainment of competencies in the IT Security program.

  • COMMENT Concerning Clause 10.1: It is here specified what portion of the Leased Object the parties have as per contract signing assumed will be included in the lessor’s voluntary real estate lease registration in the Value Added Tax Register. In order for an area to be included in the lessor’s voluntary registration, such area must be used in one of the following ways:

  • Announcement Explanation School District Board Member Vacancy The School District is accepting applications to fill the vacancy resulting from [reason for vacancy] of [former Board member's name]. The contents of a vacancy announcement, how it is announced, and where it is posted are at the Board's sole discretion. The Board may want to announce the vacancy and its intent to fill it by appointment during an open meeting. The announcement may be posted on the District's website and in the local newspaper(s). The individual selected will serve on the School Board from the date of appointment to [date]. The length of the appointment depends upon when during the term of office the vacancy occurred. See 105 ILCS 5/10-10 and Board policy 2:70, Vacancies on the School Board - Filling Vacancies, to determine the length of the appointment. The School District [School District's philosophy or mission statement]. See Board policy 1:30, School District Philosophy, for the District's mission statement that is specific to the community's goals. Applicants for the Board vacancy must be: [Board's list of qualifications]. See checklist item titled Develop a list of qualifications for appointment of a person to fill the vacancy above. Applicants should show familiarity with the Board's policies regarding general duties and responsibilities of a Board and a Board member, including fiduciary responsibilities, conflict of interest, ethics and gift ban. The Board's policies are available at [locations]. Listing this along with the Board's list of qualifications assists candidates in understanding a Board member's duties and responsibilities and may facilitate a better conversation during the interview process. See Board policies: 2:20, Powers and Duties of the School Board; Indemnification; 2:80, Board Member Oath and Conduct; 2:100, Board Member Conflict of Interest; 2:105 Ethics and Gift Ban; and 2:120, Board Member Development. Applications may be obtained at [location and address and/or website] beginning on [date and time]. Completed applications may be turned in by [time and date] to [name and title of person receiving applications]. See action item titled Decide who will receive completed vacancy applications above. Publicize the vacancy announcement by placing it on the District's website, announcing it at a meeting, and/or advertising it in the local newspaper(s). Accept and review applications from prospective candidates (see Decide who will receive completed vacancy applications above). Contact appropriate applicants for interviews (see Decide who will receive completed vacancy applications above). Develop interview questions.

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