Adaptive Management Process. The intent of the adaptive management process is to permit the power of scientific problem solving (experimentation) to be built into management actions in a way that develops better resource management systems (Xxxxxx 2001; Xxxxxxx 1986). The adaptive management process proceeds from definition of a management problem to the modeling of system dynamics and anticipated responses to management options. From an evaluation of anticipated system response, adaptive management then proceeds to the implementation of specific management option(s) in ways that allow system response to be detected. Finally, monitoring is based on the hypothesized system dynamics and reassessment of the problem, while management actions follow from the results of monitoring (Figure 1; Xxxxxx 2001). The concept of adaptive management is evolving. Presently, there are two overall approaches recognized: active and passive. In general, the active approach applies several proposed management options separated by time or location as a means to discriminate among competing hypotheses of system dynamics. Conversely, the passive approach implements the single most promising management option and monitors its effectiveness versus anticipated results.
Adaptive Management Process. The long-range capital planning and delivery framework will be a living document and a guideline for a continuous adaptive management process. The framework will be updated with the Staff as needed to reflect changes in the current and future drivers. New drivers will be added to the framework as changes to the climate, environment, regulations, and internal workforce etc., continue to evolve. The adaptive management process will continue to prioritize the projects and programs over a 2-year, 10-year, and 20-year timeframe during each bi-annual 2-year budget and 10-year capital planning process. The project scope and definitions will be continuously refined and optimized during each update. The adaptive management process will be collaborative with Staff.
Adaptive Management Process. Implementation of the requirements within the approved COA will rely upon an adaptive management process throughout the 25 years. An adaptive management approach requires flexibility and periodic program assessments throughout the 25-year implementation period. Adaptations in the management approaches are expected throughout this period to ensure that WQBEL goals are met, to optimize and enhance the program, to maximize benefits and minimize the costs of implementation. Major decisions on management approaches will be made every five years based on progress toward the WQBEL Performance Standards (Table 1-2) and will be described in Evaluation and Adaptive Management Plans. The LTCPU and its supplements outline an adaptive management process with “decision points” every five years. These decision points are used to evaluate progress towards the final water quality Performance Standards. The WQBEL Performance Standards (Table 1-2) constitute the five-year targets for the adaptive management decision points. These quantitative targets require the development of a number of policy and infrastructure tools in the first five years, and in subsequent years, in particular to support the increasing GSI implementation rate necessary to meet those targets. As stated in Appendix I of the COA, “the GSI component of the LTCPU is intended to provide for the gradual, continual conversion of the hydrologic characteristics of the Philadelphia combined sewer area that will consequently reduce the frequency and volume of overflows from the combined sewer system.” The more traditional infrastructure elements of the LTCPU implementation program, including implementation of water pollution control plant upgrades, also should be evaluated on a five-year schedule to assess their progress toward the process components outlined in the facility concept plans. To illustrate potential program modifications adopted at 5-year intervals with approved Evaluation and Adaptation Plans, the Water Department developed a flow chart (Figure 2-2). This figure is intended to illustrate that a program modification could be made once, at year 5, 10, 15 or 20 and then not needed again for the life of the program, or a program modification might be incorporated at each 5-year decision point, or may never be needed at all. According to paragraph 3e of the COA, an Evaluation and Adaptation Plan will be submitted “every five years, starting October 30, 2016.” Each Evaluation and Adaptation Plan will be a...
Adaptive Management Process. 1. At least annually, the Exchange Administrator will recommend to the Board of Directors whether any modifications to the Exchange Manual or HQT are necessary and where such modifications should be incorporated. The Board of Directors shall then confer with the other Parties to this Agreement about the Exchange Administrator’s findings and recommendations. The Board of Directors will then work with the Exchange Administrator to make any necessary changes to the Exchange Manual or HQT.
2. At least annually, the Board of Directors will convene the Science Advisory Committee to review all available science and monitoring results. The Science Advisory Committee shall make a recommendation regarding any necessary modifications to the Exchange Manual or HQT to the Board of Directors and Exchange Administrator. The Parties will confer about the Science Advisory Committee’s findings and recommendations. The Board of Directors will then work with the Science Advisory Committee and the Exchange Administrator to make any necessary changes to the Exchange Manual or HQT.
3. At any time, the Parties may request that the Exchange Administrator review the Exchange operations and determine whether modifications are needed. The Parties may also make a request at any time to the Board of Directors that the Science Advisory Committee be convened to review the available science and monitoring results and to determine whether modifications are needed.
Adaptive Management Process. 10.1 The Coordination Committee established an “Adaptive Management Process” applicable to all GSAs in the Subbasin, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference.
10.2 As part of the Adaptive Management Process, each Party commits to continue to evaluate and implement projects and management actions (“P&MAs”) within its boundaries to reach sustainability in compliance with SGMA.
Adaptive Management Process. The Green City, Clean Waters program was predicated on an adaptive management backbone, described in the LTCPU and affirmed in the COA. An adaptive management approach requires flexibility and periodic program assessments throughout the program lifecycle. The Green City, Clean Waters program adaptive management structure has been formalized through the incorporation of Performance Standards via the WQBEL in the COA and assessments via EAPs at each five-year program benchmark. This structure allows for programmatic re-evaluation and/or revision on a regular basis to ensure achievement of WQBEL Performance Standards. PWD anticipates many ‘within-program’ adaptations and enhancements throughout each five- year implementation period to ensure that WQBEL goals are met, while optimizing and enhancing the program along the way. Large-scale programmatic shifts and course corrections would be proposed via the EAP development process at the end of a given five-year implementation period, or sooner if needed. Achievement of the Performance Standards serves as the basis of program adaptation decision points. However, additional factors that may influence program adaptations may include implementation costs, emergence of new technologies, or changes in regulatory priorities, among other factors. PWD views the IAMP as the program framework that may be modified or enhanced over time, but will remain structurally intact, unless an adaptive management decision point necessitates a program change. Should this happen, an EAP would suggest a new program framework that would then remain intact through future EAPs, or until another adaptive management decision point necessitates further programmatic shift. Paragraph 3e of the COA suggests that EAPs include, if needed, a description of the outcome of adaptive management decisions and changes in implementation approach for the ensuing five years. If PWD initiates a program shift, including a change in approach for meeting the milestones, documentation of the alternative approach to implementing GSI and/or targeted traditional infrastructure investments and/or changes in design approaches, must be included in the EAP submission.
Adaptive Management Process. As more particularly described in Chapter 7 of the HCP and in Appendix A, the Parties shall implement an iterative Adaptive Management Process for the HCP that utilizes the best scientific and commercial data and information available, together with the results of monitoring and research, to evaluate the successes and shortcomings of the HCP.
3.3.1 Because changes over time and adaptive responses are contemplated by the HCP, changes proposed as the result of the AMP, or as a result of Changed Circumstances, will not require an amendment to the HCP, the Permit or the Agreement, unless the changes constitute material changes to the HCP as described in section 11.4.2 of the HCP.
3.3.2 If Unforeseen Circumstances occur as provided in Section 12.5.3 of this Agreement, pursuant to Service regulations at 50 C.F.R. §17.22, the Service shall not require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the Covered Species in the HCP without the unanimous consent of Permittees. If Unforeseen Circumstances occur, they will be resolved through the AMP. Any Additional Conservation Measures agreed to by the Permittees and the Service as a result of Unforeseen Circumstances do not require an amendment to the HCP, the Permit, or this Agreement.
Adaptive Management Process. This subtask will:
1. Address regional adaptation strategies for potential changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality, and variability of runoff and recharge in the local watersheds, as well as sea level rise.
