Regional Replicability Sample Clauses

Regional Replicability. The desired long-term scalability of the program is focused on offsetting regional development with appropriate green infrastructure that developers can fund through a stormwater management fund. The concept is that downtown and suburban development without sufficient space to offset storm water management requirements can pay into a “green infrastructure” bank for future projects on FEMA lots. In this way, funding for the training and implementation of FEMA green infrastructure projects could be replicated in future neighborhoods and shared as a best practice for other coastal communities throughout Georgia and the Southeast through UGA Marine Extension and the NOAA Sea Grant network. Beyond the regional focus of our own municipality, the green infrastructure pilot sites will be living classrooms for other local governments, students, resource managers and scientists throughout the Southeast to learn about SSCF Tracking: Y1R1F, Savannah Amount: $233,244 Grant End Date: December 31, 2019 innovative uses of flood-prone FEMA lots through field trips, demonstration site visits, webinars and UGA Marine Extension courses. A final long-term regional impact is the potential for decreasing nutrient loads and other pollutants reaching our sensitive coastal marshes and ecosystems downstream.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Regional Replicability

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

  • Regional Value Content 1. Except as provided in paragraph 5, each Party shall provide that the regional value content of a good shall be calculated, at the choice of the exporter or producer of the good, on the basis of either the transaction value method set out in paragraph 2 or the net cost method set out in paragraph 3.

  • Benchmarking 19.1 The Parties shall comply with the provisions of Framework Schedule 12 (Continuous Improvement and Benchmarking) in relation to the benchmarking of any or all of the Goods and/or Services.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that:

  • Performance while Dispute is Pending Notwithstanding the existence of a dispute, the Supplier must continue without delay to carry out all of its responsibilities under the Contract that are not affected by the dispute. If the Supplier fails to continue without delay to perform its responsibilities under the Contract, in the accomplishment of all undisputed work, the Supplier will bear any additional costs incurred by Sourcewell and/or its Participating Entities as a result of such failure to proceed.

  • Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement to provide specificity to the statutory obligations established under sections 3319.111 and 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code and to conform to the framework for the evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code.

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.