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 – Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, received July 21, 2009 (via e-mail) WDFW – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, 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 (Xxxxxxx and Xxxx 1997), xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/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 (000) 000-0000 x000. [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 Xxxxxx Block Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area (SOSEA) surrounds and includes the project area and possible future PM&E lands, especially around Xxxx Xxxxxxx. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has designated the area directly around Xxxx Xxxxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 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.
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 – XxXxx Xxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 NPS – Xxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 11, 2009 NPS – Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, received August 25, 2009 WDFW – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, received September 14, 2009 (via e- mail)
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 – XxXxx Xxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 NPS – Xxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 11, 2009 NPS – Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, received August 25, 2009 WDFW – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, 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.
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 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 NCCC – Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, received August 27, 2009 NPS – Xxxxxx Xxxxx, received September 11, 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 Xxxx Xxxxxxx 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 Xxxxx 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 Xxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx 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.”
