Common use of Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies Clause in Contracts

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies. ‌ The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Xxxxxx et al. 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post-restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Xxxxxxxx et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore-drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long-term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore-drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As in our previous example, if a catastrophic landslide occurs within the reach formerly deprived of sediment, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on a recurring basis within that reach. Ongoing monitoring would make clear the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namely, the unexpected addition of a new sediment source within the drift cell feeding the scoured beach. At this time, Mason County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate restoration projects systematically, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Chapter 10.0 References‌ Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, and X. Xxxxx. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012-01. Available: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_ maps_lowres.pdf. Xxxxxxxxx, P., X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx,X. Xxxxx. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Xxxxxx, X., X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxxx, X.X. Xxx Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, C. A. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxx. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Xxxxxx, X. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. X.X.Xxx 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. pp. 257. XXX Xxxxxxxx. 2007. Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Xxxxxxx Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason County.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies. ‌ The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f173‐26‐201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Xxxxxx et al. 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post-restoration post‐restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Xxxxxxxx et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore-drift shore‐drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long-term long‐term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore-drift shore‐drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As in our previous example, if a catastrophic landslide occurs within the reach formerly deprived of sediment, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on a recurring basis within that reach. Ongoing monitoring would make clear the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namely, the unexpected addition of a new sediment source within the drift cell feeding the scoured beach. At this time, Mason Xxxxx County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate restoration projects systematically, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Chapter 10.0 References‌ Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, and X. Xxxxx. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012-012012‐01. Available: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_ maps_lowres.pdf. Xxxxxxxxx, P., X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx,X. Xxxxx. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Xxxxxx, X., X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxxx, X.X. Xxx Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, C. A. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxx. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Xxxxxx, X. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. X.X.Xxx 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. pp. 257. XXX Xxxxxxxx. 2007. Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Xxxxxxx Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason County.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies. ‌ The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Xxxxxx et al. 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post-restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Xxxxxxxx et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore-drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long-term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore-drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As in our previous example, if a catastrophic landslide occurs within the reach formerly deprived of sediment, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on a recurring basis within that reach. Ongoing monitoring would make clear the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namely, the unexpected addition of a new sediment source within the drift cell feeding the scoured beach. At this time, Mason Xxxxx County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate restoration projects systematically, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Chapter 10.0 References‌ References Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, and X. Xxxxx. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012-01. Available: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_ maps_lowres.pdf. Xxxxxxxxx, P., X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx,X. Xxxxx. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Xxxxxx, X., X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxxx, X.X. Xxx Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, C. A. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxx. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Xxxxxx, X. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. X.X.Xxx 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. pp. 257. XXX Xxxxxxxx. 2007. Pierce Xxxxxx County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce Xxxxxx County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Xxxxxxx Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason Xxxxx County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason Xxxxx County.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies. ‌ The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Xxxxxx et al. , 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post-restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Xxxxxxxx et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore-drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long-term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore-drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Xxxxxxxx et al. ., 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As Learning is an additional important component of adaptive management (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2001). Learning is about systematically documenting the process of restoration and the results achieved, in our order to prevent the repetition of mistakes in the future. Others in the conservation community can benefit from this information, as they can design and manage better projects and avoid some of the hazards and perils of previous exampleefforts that were well documented by practitioners. The City of Xxxxxxx plans to review shoreline processes and functions at the time of periodic SMP updates to, if at a catastrophic landslide occurs within minimum, validate the reach formerly deprived effectiveness of sedimentthe SMP. This review will consider what restoration activities actually occurred compared to stated goals, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on objectives and priorities, and whether restoration projects resulted in a recurring basis within that reachnet improvement of shoreline resources. Ongoing monitoring would make clear Under the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namelyShoreline Management Act, the unexpected addition SMP must result in “no net loss” of shoreline ecological resources. If reviews demonstrate that this standard has not been met, the City of Xxxxxxx will be required to take corrective actions. The goal for restoration is to achieve a new sediment source within net improvement of shoreline resources. The cumulative effect of restoration over the drift cell feeding time between reviews will be evaluated, along with an assessment of impacts of development that is not fully mitigated to determine effectiveness at achieving a net improvement to shoreline ecological resources. Through an adaptive management approach, the scoured beach. At this timeCity will improve the effectiveness of restoration efforts through better coordination of projects, Mason County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate monitoring of restoration projects systematicallysuccess, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply expenditure of funds and effort. The City anticipates that needs for additional information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Chapter 10.0 References‌ Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, and X. Xxxxx. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012-01. Available: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_ maps_lowres.pdf. Xxxxxxxxx, P., X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx,X. Xxxxx. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection about shoreline processes and restoration opportunities will continue to arise as part of this process. Identifying these data gaps and implementing measures to collect the information will be key to the success of restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Xxxxxx, X., X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxxx, X.X. Xxx Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, C. A. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxx. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Xxxxxx, X. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. X.X.Xxx 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. pp. 257. XXX Xxxxxxxx. 2007. Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Xxxxxxx Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason CountyCity.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies. ‌ The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Xxxxxx et al. 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post-restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Xxxxxxxx et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore-drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long-term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore-drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As in our previous example, if a catastrophic landslide occurs within the reach formerly deprived of sediment, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on a recurring basis within that reach. Ongoing monitoring would make clear the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namely, the unexpected addition of a new sediment source within the drift cell feeding the scoured beach. At this time, Mason Xxxxx County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate restoration projects systematically, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Chapter 10.0 References‌ Xxxxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, and X. Xxxxx. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012-01. Available: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_ maps_lowres.pdf. Xxxxxxxxx, P., X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx,X. Xxxxx. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Xxxxxx, X., X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxxx, X.X. Xxx Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, C. A. Xxxxxxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, and X. Xxxx. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Xxxxxx, X. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. X.X.Xxx 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. pp. 257. XXX Xxxxxxxx. 2007. Pierce Xxxxxx County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce Xxxxxx County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Xxxxxxx Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason Xxxxx County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason Xxxxx County.