Common use of Adaptive Management Clause in Contracts

Adaptive Management. ‌ Adaptive management allows for mutually agreed upon changes to the Agreement's conservation measures in response to changing conditions or new information. If the conservation measures do not yield the expected results and appear ineffective, then management activities can be changed or alternative activities undertaken to achieve those expected results. Several aspects of relict leopard frog biology and population dynamics are not currently well understood, including dispersal distances, mortality during drought, adult and larval survivorship, the role of disease and pollution, and population dynamics (RLFCT 2005). Furthermore, the Agreement will need to respond to specific management opportunities and needs as they arise, and unforeseen conditions such as drought, which may independently affect individual relict leopard frog populations or occupied habitats. The Agreement therefore includes an adaptive management program to ensure flexibility, implementation of CAS objectives to the maximum extent practicable, and that the most up-to-date scientific information is used. Decisions related to adaptive management will be based primarily on an evaluation of the compliance and biological monitoring results detailed in the annual reports. The need to incorporate adaptive management modifications into the Agreement may result from four potential sources: (1) new scientific information concerning the biology or population dynamics of relict leopard frogs or non-native predators of relict leopard frogs; (2) new scientific information concerning the effects of other biotic or abiotic factors on relict leopard frogs; (3) information derived from the Agreement’s monitoring program; and (4) management needs or recommendations described in future revisions of the CAS. The provisions of this Agreement are intended to be consistent with the CAS. Adaptive management decisions can be made at any time as deemed necessary by the Parties; however, the Parties in coordination with the RLFCT will carry out a major evaluation of this Agreement every fifth year to ensure that it is achieving its conservation goals. Management activities will be evaluated as to whether they are resulting in the protection of relict leopard frogs on enrolled lands. If there is no increase in population sizes and/or an inability to successfully establish persistent translocation populations within the first five years of this Agreement, the Parties will identify changes in management activities to improve success. If management activities need to be altered to improve benefits for the species, they will be altered by amending future CAs, not by altering the responsibilities of Cooperators in existing CAs. However, if existing Cooperators agree to alter their CAs, then any modification of their responsibilities in relation to adaptive management will be addressed on a case by case basis.

Adaptive Management. ‌ Adaptive management allows Because the amount and type of appropriate habitat for mutually agreed upon changes to the Agreement's conservation measures in response to changing conditions or new information. If the conservation measures do not yield the expected results and appear ineffectivecovered species that will be created, then management activities can be changed or alternative activities undertaken to achieve those expected results. Several aspects of relict leopard frog biology and population dynamics are not currently well understood, including dispersal distances, mortality during drought, adult and larval survivorship, the role of disease and pollution, and population dynamics (RLFCT 2005). Furthermore, the Agreement will need to respond to specific management opportunities and needs as they arise, and unforeseen conditions such as drought, which may independently affect individual relict leopard frog populations or occupied habitats. The Agreement therefore includes an adaptive management program to ensure flexibility, implementation of CAS objectives to the maximum extent practicable, and that the most up-to-date scientific information is used. Decisions related to some adaptive management will be based primarily on an evaluation needed to determine what the appropriate mix of species is at each aquatic site. This is particularly import for the compliance Yaqui fish and biological monitoring results detailed in the annual reports. The need to incorporate adaptive management modifications into the Agreement may result from four potential sources: (1) new scientific information concerning the biology or population dynamics of relict Chiricahua leopard frogs or non-native predators of relict leopard frogs; (2) new scientific information concerning the effects of other biotic or abiotic factors on relict leopard frogs; (3) information derived from the Agreement’s monitoring program; and (4) management needs or recommendations described in future revisions of the CAS. The provisions of this Agreement are intended to be consistent with the CASfrog. Adaptive management decisions can be made at any time is the framework in which conservation actions are employed, monitored, and treated as deemed necessary by experiments to refine how resources are managed (Xxxxxxx 1986). Because our state of knowledge regarding the Parties; howevercovered species—from their basic life history and ecology to their genetic structure—is insufficient, adaptive management is a useful framework to both enhance species conservation as well as to learn. In some primary habitats, the Parties may establish an aquatic species community composed of certain species, while in coordination with another they may establish a different assemblage; evaluating the RLFCT community outcome provides information as to what management techniques will carry out a major evaluation of this Agreement every fifth year work, and which will fail. An exact cause may not be known for the outcomes, but the on-the-ground information will be important in determining which species to ensure that manage at which sites and in what combinations. Therefore, it is achieving its conservation goals. Management activities not anticipated that all species will be evaluated successful at all re-establishment sites. The adaptive management framework is important for integrating new information as science makes available. For example, before the 1980s very few land managers practiced active wetland management, but research indicated that varying water levels permit a variety of organisms to whether they are resulting co-exist without significant negative impacts to those species for which wetlands were traditionally managed. Adaptive management was applied to wetlands in many areas, and more information was learned while, at the same time, many species benefited. With relation to this Agreement, researchers may find a possible treatment for chytridiomycosis in the protection of relict laboratory; this treatment, and variations or alternatives, can be applied to Chiricahua leopard frogs on enrolled lands. If there is no increase in population sizes and/or an inability to successfully establish persistent translocation frog populations within the first five years of covered area. Subsequent biological monitoring, as required by this Agreement, will provide information useful to assess the treatment's efficacy. Because of the benefits offered by adaptive management, its framework shall be incorporated into this Agreement. Two types of adaptive management findings may affect this Agreement: those findings that require a structural change to the Agreement; and those that require minor changes to management techniques. Structural changes may be triggered by new information that is foundational to the concepts underlying this Agreement, such as information indicating that gene flow between populations within the covered area is not sufficient to prevent inbreeding depression. An example of minor management changes that would not require changes to this Agreement would be a finding that specific covered species cannot co-exist under certain conditions (requiring that certain community assemblages not be established). The FWS and Parties will identify changes work collaboratively to address minor management changes. Nothing in this Agreement prevents the Participant from implementing management activities not described in the Agreement, as long as such actions maintain the original baseline conditions and do not affect the beneficial actions set forth in the Agreement. The Participant will notify the FWS 60 days in advance of any activities likely to improve successresult in the loss of species individuals or occupied habitat. The notification will allow the FWS an opportunity to capture and relocate the affected individuals, thereby minimizing the impact of the authorized take. The Participant will try to avoid undertaking any disruptive actions during the breeding season of the covered species that could negatively impact reproductive activities, to minimize the impact of authorized take. If such actions can not be avoided, Parties shall include FWS in the planning of these activities to determine if additional minimization measure may be implemented to reduce impacts on reproduction. Emergency situations such as natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, excessive rainfall, extreme drought, insect infestations, or epidemic disease) may require initiation of certain management activities need actions such as salvaging individuals with less than 60 days prior notification. The Participant will notify the FWS within 10 days of discovering such a situation, and will make reasonable accommodations to the FWS for survey and/or relocation of species individuals prior to the action. The Parties acknowledge that survey and translocation may be altered precluded by certain urgent situations. This Agreement will grant to improve benefits the FWS, after reasonable prior notice, the right to enter the Participant's property for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Agreement and for monitoring, surveying, sampling, marking, and in certain circumstances relocating species, they as well as other measures that may be necessary. In addition, the Participant will be altered complete and submit an annual report of activities related to species management to the FWS, and other reports as required by amending future CAs, not by altering the responsibilities of Cooperators in existing CAs. However, if existing Cooperators agree to alter their CAs, then any modification of their responsibilities in relation to adaptive management will be addressed on a case by case basisAgreement.

Adaptive Management. ‌ Adaptive management allows Because of the amount and type of appropriate habitat for mutually agreed upon changes to the Agreement's conservation measures in response to changing conditions or new information. If the conservation measures do not yield the expected results and appear ineffective, then management activities can covered species that will be changed or alternative activities undertaken to achieve those expected results. Several aspects of relict leopard frog biology and population dynamics are not currently well understood, including dispersal distances, mortality during drought, adult and larval survivorship, the role of disease and pollution, and population dynamics (RLFCT 2005). Furthermore, the Agreement will need to respond to specific management opportunities and needs as they arise, and unforeseen conditions such as drought, which may independently affect individual relict leopard frog populations or occupied habitats. The Agreement therefore includes an adaptive management program to ensure flexibility, implementation of CAS objectives to the maximum extent practicable, and that the most up-to-date scientific information is used. Decisions related to created some adaptive management will be based primarily on an evaluation needed to determine the appropriate mix of species is at each aquatic site. This is particularly important for the compliance Yaqui fish and biological monitoring results detailed in the annual reports. The need to incorporate adaptive management modifications into the Agreement may result from four potential sources: (1) new scientific information concerning the biology or population dynamics of relict Chiricahua leopard frogs or non-native predators of relict leopard frogs; (2) new scientific information concerning the effects of other biotic or abiotic factors on relict leopard frogs; (3) information derived from the Agreement’s monitoring program; and (4) management needs or recommendations described in future revisions of the CAS. The provisions of this Agreement are intended to be consistent with the CASfrog. Adaptive management decisions can be made at any time is the framework in which conservation actions are employed, monitored, and treated as deemed necessary by experiments to refine how resources are managed (Xxxxxxx 1986). Because our state of knowledge regarding the Parties; howevercovered species—from their basic life history and ecology to their genetic structure—is insufficient, adaptive management is a useful framework to both enhance species conservation as well as to learn. In some primary habitats, the Parties may establish an aquatic species community composed of certain species, while in coordination with another they may establish a different assemblage; evaluating the RLFCT community outcome provides information as to what management techniques will carry out a major evaluation of this Agreement every fifth year work, and which will fail. An exact cause may not be known for the outcomes, but the on-the-ground information will be important in determining which species to ensure that manage at which sites and in what combinations. Therefore, it is achieving its conservation goals. Management activities not anticipated that all species will be evaluated successful at all re-establishment sites. The adaptive management framework is important for integrating new information as it becomes available. For example, before the 1980s very few land managers practiced active wetland management, but research indicated that varying water levels permit a variety of organisms to whether they are resulting co-exist without significant negative impacts to those species for which wetlands were traditionally managed. Adaptive management was applied to wetlands in many areas, and more information was learned while, at the same time, many species benefited. With relation to this Agreement, researchers may find a possible treatment for chytridiomycosis in the protection of relict laboratory; this treatment, and variations or alternatives, can be applied to Chiricahua leopard frogs on enrolled lands. If there is no increase in population sizes and/or an inability to successfully establish persistent translocation frog populations within the first five years of covered area. Subsequent biological monitoring, as required by this Agreement, will provide information useful to assess the treatment's efficacy. Because of the benefits offered by adaptive management, its framework shall be incorporated into this Agreement. Two types of adaptive management findings may affect this Agreement: those findings that require a structural change to the Agreement; and those that require minor changes to management techniques. Structural changes may be triggered by new information that is foundational to the concepts underlying this Agreement, such as information indicating that gene flow between populations within the covered area is not sufficient to prevent inbreeding depression. An example of minor management changes that would not require changes to this Agreement would be a finding that specific covered species cannot co-exist under certain conditions (requiring that certain community assemblages not be established). The FWS and Parties will identify changes work collaboratively to address minor management changes. Nothing in this Agreement prevents the Participants from implementing management activities not described in the Agreement, as long as such actions maintain the original baseline conditions and do not affect the beneficial actions set forth in the Agreement. The Participants will notify the FWS 60 days in advance of any activities likely to improve successresult in the loss of species individuals or occupied habitat. The notification will allow the FWS an opportunity to capture and relocate the affected individuals, thereby minimizing the impact of the authorized take. The Participants will try to avoid undertaking any disruptive actions during the breeding season of the covered species that could negatively impact reproductive activities, to minimize the impact of authorized take. If such actions can not be avoided, Parties shall include FWS in the planning of these activities to determine if additional minimization measure may be implemented to reduce impacts on reproduction. Emergency situations such as natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, excessive rainfall, extreme drought, insect infestations, or epidemic disease) may require initiation of certain management activities need actions such as salvaging individuals with less than 60 days prior notification. The Participants will notify the FWS within 10 days of discovering such a situation, and will make reasonable accommodations to the FWS for survey and/or relocation of species individuals prior to the action. The Parties acknowledge that survey and translocation may be altered precluded by certain urgent situations. This Agreement will grant to improve benefits the FWS, after reasonable prior notice, the right to enter the Participants’ properties for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Agreement and for monitoring, surveying, sampling, marking, and in certain circumstances relocating species, they as well as other measures that may be necessary. In addition, the Participants will be altered complete and submit an annual report of activities related to species’ management to the FWS, and other reports as required by amending future CAs, not by altering the responsibilities of Cooperators in existing CAs. However, if existing Cooperators agree to alter their CAs, then any modification of their responsibilities in relation to adaptive management will be addressed on a case by case basisAgreement.

Adaptive Management. ‌ Adaptive management allows for mutually agreed upon changes a conservation program to be adjusted from time to time to take into account new scientific information and to ensure that the Agreement's conservation measures in response to changing conditions or new information. If the conservation measures do not yield the expected results and appear ineffective, then management activities can be changed or alternative activities undertaken to achieve those expected resultsprogram is as effective as possible. Several aspects of relict Chiricahua leopard frog biology and population dynamics are not currently well understood, including dispersal distances, mortality during drought, adult and larval survivorship, the role of disease and pollution, and population dynamics (RLFCT 2005Xxxxx 1999). A recovery plan will be prepared during 2003- 2006, which will further define conservation priorities. Furthermore, the Agreement will need to respond to specific management opportunities and needs as they arise, and unforeseen conditions such as drought, which may independently affect individual relict leopard frog populations or occupied habitats. The Agreement therefore includes an adaptive management Adaptive Management program to ensure flexibility, implementation of CAS objectives to the maximum extent practicable, flexibility and that the most up-to-date scientific information is used. Decisions related to adaptive management will be based primarily on an evaluation of the compliance and biological monitoring results detailed in the annual reports. The need to incorporate adaptive management adopt Adaptive Management modifications into to the Agreement may result from four potential sources: (1) new scientific information concerning the biology or population dynamics of relict Chiricahua leopard frogs or non-native predators of relict leopard frogs; (2) new scientific information concerning the effects of other biotic or abiotic factors on relict leopard frogs; (3) information derived from the Agreement’s monitoring program; and (4) management needs or recommendations described in under any future Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan, if and when one is prepared. Two types of Adaptive Management modifications within the covered area may be implemented under this Agreement, depending on their scope and the process for incorporating them. These are termed: 1) major revisions to the Agreement and 2) ongoing management adjustments. A major revision is defined as one triggered by the availability of substantial new scientific information, typically from a source not related to the Agreement, concerning any biological assumption or criterion upon which the conservation program is based and that would require modification of any of the CASAgreement’s specific biological criteria or conservation measures. Examples of circumstances requiring a major revision would include new information suggesting that the Agreement’s reestablishment/distribution criteria are inadequate to meet its biological objectives, or that additional management measures not described in the Agreement are needed to ensure survival of leopard frog populations within the covered area (e.g., as a result of disease or pollution). Major revisions would likely require that the Agreement be amended to reflect any required new standards or management activities. This, in turn, would require mutual agreement between the Malpai and the Service, and written formalization of the amendment as described in section 3.2. Ongoing management adjustments are defined as those typically triggered by the Agreement’s monitoring program concerning any situation within the covered area that requires a management response that is within the scope of the existing Agreement. Examples of circumstances requiring ongoing management adjustments would be the identification of specific problems within the covered area that need corrective action (e.g., that the distribution of leopard frog populations within a metapopulation is not meeting the Agreement’s reestablishment/distribution criteria); problems at a specific leopard frog population site or sites within the covered area (e.g., colonization by bullfrogs, drought, or extirpation of a population); or, the identification of specific management opportunities or needs that would benefit the conservation program (e.g., a stock tank site that, with improvement, could be upgraded from a secondary to a primary site). The provisions of this Agreement are intended Malpai, the Service, the Committee, and other program cooperators, including Participating Landowners, will typically address ongoing management adjustments collaboratively. Sections 2.5.4 (Required Minimization Measures), 2.5.8 (Malpai Conservation Committee), and 2.5.10 (Altered Circumstances) all describe conditions that could potentially require ongoing management adjustments, as well as the standards that will be considered in determining the appropriate adjustment or response. Any Adaptive Management revisions or adjustments as described above will need to be consistent with the CASregulatory assurances described in section 2.9 of the Agreement. Consequently, Adaptive management decisions can be made at any time as deemed necessary Management modifications that would result in the commitment of funding or conservation measures not identified in this Agreement or an associated Certificate of Inclusion by the Parties; howeverMalpai or a Participating Landowner would require the consent of the Malpai or landowner, the Parties in coordination with the RLFCT will carry out a major evaluation of this Agreement every fifth year to ensure that it is achieving its conservation goals. Management activities will be evaluated as to whether they are resulting in the protection of relict leopard frogs on enrolled lands. If there is no increase in population sizes and/or an inability to successfully establish persistent translocation populations within the first five years of this Agreement, the Parties will identify changes in management activities to improve success. If management activities need to be altered to improve benefits for the species, they will be altered by amending future CAs, not by altering the responsibilities of Cooperators in existing CAs. However, if existing Cooperators agree to alter their CAs, then any modification of their responsibilities in relation to adaptive management will be addressed on a case by case basisapplicable.

Adaptive Management. ‌ Adaptive management allows for mutually agreed upon changes a conservation program to be adjusted from time to time to take into account new scientific information and to ensure that the Agreement's conservation measures in response to changing conditions or new information. If the conservation measures do not yield the expected results and appear ineffective, then management activities can be changed or alternative activities undertaken to achieve those expected resultsprogram is as effective as possible. Several aspects of relict Chiricahua leopard frog biology and population dynamics are not currently well understood, including dispersal distances, mortality during drought, adult and larval survivorship, the role of disease and pollution, and population dynamics (RLFCT 2005Xxxxx 1999). The Recovery Plan, now in preparation, is expected to provide guidance on a variety of topics relevant to this Agreement. Furthermore, the Agreement will need to respond to specific management opportunities and needs as they arise, and unforeseen conditions such as drought, which may independently affect individual relict leopard frog populations or occupied habitats. The Agreement therefore includes an adaptive management program to ensure ensure: flexibility, implementation of CAS Recovery Plan objectives to the maximum extent practicable, and that the most up-to-date scientific information is used. Decisions related to adaptive management will be based primarily on an evaluation of the compliance and biological monitoring results detailed in the annual reports. The need to incorporate adaptive management modifications into the Agreement may result from four potential sources: (1) new scientific information concerning the biology or population dynamics of relict Chiricahua leopard frogs or non-native predators of relict Chiricahua leopard frogs; (2) new scientific information concerning the effects of other biotic or abiotic factors on relict Chiricahua leopard frogs; (3) information derived from the Agreement’s monitoring program; and (4) management needs or recommendations described in a future revisions of Recovery Plan. We have attempted to make the CAS. The provisions of this Agreement consistent with the draft Recovery Plan. Two types of adaptive management modifications within the covered area may be implemented under this Agreement, depending on their scope and the process for incorporating them. These are intended termed: major revisions to the Agreement; and ongoing management adjustments. A major revision is defined as one triggered by the availability of substantial new scientific information, typically from a source not related to the Agreement, concerning any biological assumption or criterion upon which the conservation program is based and that would require modification of any of the Agreement’s specific biological criteria or conservation measures. Examples of circumstances requiring a major revision would include new information suggesting that the Agreement’s translocation/distribution criteria are inadequate to meet its biological objectives, or that additional management measures not described in the Agreement are needed to ensure survival of Chiricahua leopard frog populations within the covered area (e.g., as a result of disease or pollution). Major revisions would likely require that the Agreement be amended to reflect any required new standards or management activities. This, in turn, would require mutual agreement between the Department, USFWS, and any and all affected Participants and written formalization of the amendment as described in Section 3.3. Ongoing management adjustments are defined as those typically triggered by the Agreement’s monitoring program concerning any situation within the covered area that requires a management response that is within the scope of the existing Agreement. Examples of circumstances requiring ongoing management adjustments would be the identification of specific problems within the covered area that need corrective action (e.g., that the distribution of Chiricahua leopard frog populations within a metapopulation is not meeting the Agreement’s translocation/distribution criteria); problems at specific Chiricahua leopard frog population sites within the covered area (e.g., colonization by bullfrogs, drought, or extirpation of a population); or the identification of specific management opportunities or needs that would benefit the conservation program (e.g., a stock tank site that, with improvement, could be upgraded from a secondary to a primary site). The Department, USFWS, and other program cooperators, including Participating Landowners, will address ongoing management adjustments collaboratively. Sections 2.5.1 (Required Conservation Measures) and 2.8 (Changed Circumstances) describe conditions that could potentially require ongoing management adjustments, as well as the standards that will be considered in determining the appropriate adjustment or response. Any adaptive management revisions or adjustments as described above—whether major revisions or ongoing management adjustments—will need to be consistent with the CASregulatory assurances described in Section 2.12 of the Agreement. Adaptive Consequently, adaptive management decisions can be made at any time as deemed necessary modifications that would result in the commitment of funding or conservation measures by the Parties; however, the Parties Department or a Participating Landowner not identified in coordination with the RLFCT will carry out a major evaluation of this Agreement every fifth year to ensure that it is achieving its conservation goals. Management activities will be evaluated or an associated Certificate of Inclusion would require the consent of the Department and Participating Landowner, as to whether they are resulting in the protection of relict leopard frogs on enrolled lands. If there is no increase in population sizes and/or an inability to successfully establish persistent translocation populations within the first five years of this Agreement, the Parties will identify changes in management activities to improve success. If management activities need to be altered to improve benefits for the species, they will be altered by amending future CAs, not by altering the responsibilities of Cooperators in existing CAs. However, if existing Cooperators agree to alter their CAs, then any modification of their responsibilities in relation to adaptive management will be addressed on a case by case basisapplicable.