Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses Clause Samples
The 'Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses' clause establishes a process for reviewers to provide feedback or comments on submitted documents or deliverables, and for the Project Sponsor Entity (PSE) to formally respond to those comments. Typically, this clause outlines the timeframe within which reviewers must submit their comments and the period in which the PSE must address or respond to each point raised. For example, after receiving a draft report, reviewers might have ten business days to submit their feedback, and the PSE would then have a set period to reply or make revisions. This clause ensures a structured and transparent communication process, helping to resolve issues efficiently and maintain project momentum by clarifying expectations for both feedback and responses.
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Wetland Habitat Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response WDNR – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 27, 2009 NCCC – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 27, 2009 NPS – ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received September 11, 2009 NPS – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received August 25, 2009 WDFW – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received September 14, 2009 (via e- mail)
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009.
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the BRRWSP and PSE’s responses to these comments.
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 – ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received July 21, 2009 (via e-mail) WDFW – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail)
5.1 Retention of Existing Legacy Wood Section, PSE proposes to retain decaying and legacy wood inside the Forest Practice Rules (FPR) riparian buffers. WDFW recommends the use of our riparian buffers under our Management Recommendation for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ 1997), ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/hab/ripxsum.htm. The State had negotiated FPR riparian buffer distances with the timber industry with the goal of maximizing timber production. The TRIG may often do more than Forest Practices Rules requires because we have a different objective of managing for fish and wildlife instead of maximizing timber production. WDFW has created a science-based set of riparian buffers, but we encourage other TRIG members to produce documented, science-based buffer distances for the TRIG’s consideration. [Response 2.] Section 6.5.1 actually requires the retention of all snags and habitat logs on all project lands (inside and outside Washington Forest Practices Rules riparian buffers), except in certain identified situations. Riparian buffer width is not relevant to the retention of snags and logs under the Decaying and Legacy Wood Plan. [Comment 3.] WDFW welcomes the opportunity to work with PSE on future projects. We value our working relationship with PSE and encourages future dialog. If you have any questions or need more information or clarification to comments from the WDFW, please feel free to call me at (▇▇▇) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. [Response 3.] Comment noted. [Comment 4.] SPECIFIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THE DECAYING AND LEGACY WOOD PLAN, ARTICLE 511: 5.2 Washington State Authority and Reference. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Block Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area (SOSEA) surrounds and includes the project area and possible future PM&E lands, especially around ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has designated the area directly around ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as spotted owl dispersal habitat. PSE will have to check with Forest Practice Rules to make sure that down wood and snag creation remains in compliance with the SOSEA rules. Additional consultation with DNR and WDFW biologists may have to occur to satisfy the special rules in SOSEA’s that involve following Class-IV-special Forest...
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 3. Comments following formal review of the Noxious Weed Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009.
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the BLRP and PSE’s responses to these comments. 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 ▇▇▇▇▇ Lake Resort Redevelopment Implementation Plan will include a site redevelopment plan [design drawing] (as described in Section 6.3.4, Implementation Plan). As per the Biological Opinion for the ▇▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇▇ Lake Resort Redevelopment Implementation Plan and placed at the developed ▇▇▇▇▇ Lake Resort.
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009.
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 3 summarizes RRG reviewer comments on the draft LEP and PSE’s responses to these comments. Thanks for the LEP update. Skagit County is interested in making sure there is adequate law enforcement in the ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ area, especially once the site has been developed. Comment noted. 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 ▇▇▇▇▇ River Hydroelectric Project. WDFW appreciates PSE’s willingness to collaborate with WDFW on their many license implementation activities. Comment noted.
5.1 Law/Resource Protection Regulatory and Enforcement Authority, third paragraph, first sentence. WDFW law enforcement personnel not only enforce state laws related to fish and wildlife, but also all other state and county laws. WDFW law enforcement officers have commissions in both Whatcom and Skagit Counties and can patrol and enforce laws near ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ Lake, and all PM&E lands that may reside some distances away from the dam structures and National Forest lands. The following sentence has been added to section 5.1 (third paragraph): “WDFW law enforcement personnel may also enforce state and county laws.”
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 – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 26, 2009 NCCC – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 27, 2009 NPS – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received August 19, 2009 WDFW – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail) Comment Puget Sound Energy Response
Reviewer Comments and PSE Responses. Table 2. Comments following formal review of the Elk Foraging Habitat Plan, August 14 – September 14, 2009. Comment Puget Sound Energy Response WDNR – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 27, 2009 NCCC – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received August 27, 2009 NPS – ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received September 11, 2009 NPS – ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, received August 25, 2009 WDFW – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, received September 14, 2009 (via e-mail) Comment Puget Sound Energy Response
6.1 Elk Foraging Habitat Management Guidelines, 6th bullet. The bullet suggests that hunting is the only disturbance that can make elk vulnerable or need hiding cover. Please replace the word “hunting” with the word “disturbance” so that the 6th bullet will read: “Elk hiding cover will be provided only where elk vulnerability to disturbance is too high to meet herd management objectives and is consistent with elk foraging habitat objectives, and where vulnerability cannot be controlled by other management actions, such as access management.” [Response 6.] The text of the Plan has been revised as suggested.
6.1 Elk Foraging Habitat Management Guidelines, 14th bullet. WDFW cannot approve the “take” of state-listed plant or animal species. We recommend the bullet to read: “Take of state-listed plant and animal species will be avoided. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.15.120 and 77.15.130 prohibits the ‘unlawful taking’ of ‘Endangered’ or ‘Protected’ fish or wildlife. Impacts to other state special-status species will be avoided or minimized after consultation with the TRIG, including WDFW.” [Response 7.] This comment has been addressed through the insertion of new text similar to that suggested. I have no comments (checked on comment form) Comment noted. No revisions to plan. I have no comments (checked on comment form). Comment noted. No revisions to plan.