Regulatory Assurances Sample Clauses

Regulatory Assurances. Metavante and Customer acknowledge and agree that the performance of these Services will be subject to regulation and examination by Customer’s regulatory agencies to the same extent as if such Services were being performed by Customer. Upon request, Metavante agrees to provide any appropriate assurances to such agency and agrees to subject itself to any required examination or regulation. Customer agrees to reimburse Metavante for reasonable costs actually incurred due to any such examination or regulation that is performed primarily for the purpose of examining Services used by Customer.

Regulatory Assurances. Upon execution of the Agreement and this Site Plan Agreement and the satisfaction of all other applicable legal requirements, NMFS will issue a ESP under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to assure the Permittee may incidentally take Covered Species, in accordance with the Site Plan Agreement and Agreement, as a result of implementing the Covered Activities described in this Site Plan Agreement, and except where such activities would result in the diminishment or non-achievement of the Baseline and/or Elevated Baseline Conditions established for the Enrolled Property. This assurance depends on the Permittee maintaining the Baseline Conditions and/or achieving the Elevated Baseline Conditions set forth in the Site Plan Agreement, complying fully with the Agreement and the Site Plan Agreement, and so long as the continuation of Covered Activities would not be likely to result in jeopardy to Covered Species or the adverse modification or destruction of their designated critical habitat. NMFS provides no assurances with regard to any action that may affect species not covered under the Agreement, including the take of non-Covered Species and the adverse modification or destruction of their designated critical habitat.

Regulatory Assurances. 9.1. Non-Federal Parties who seek regulatory assurances under the KBRA and/or this Agreement (described in this Agreement as Regulatory Assurances) may qualify for coverage under an incidental take permit using General Conservation Plans (GCP) or Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 9.2. It is the intent of the Parties that any GCPs or HCPs will be based upon a conservation strategy for the species and address the needs of the local community. 9.3. It is the intent of the Parties that Water Use Agreements and Riparian Management Agreements will contain terms and conditions that are expected to qualify for Regulatory Assurances, including coverage for individual landowners under an incidental take permit. 9.4. Applicants for incidental take permits may use either a GCP or HCP. The GCPs or HCPs described in this section of the Agreement will address the Non-Federal Party’s actions that occur in the Off-Project Area and shall address any effects of such actions on listed species under the ESA. To the extent that GCPs and/or HCPs address effects on unlisted species, the resulting incidental take permits issued by USFWS and NMFS will clarify how the permits will cover those unlisted species if and when the species become listed under the ESA. 9.4.1. General Conservation Plan. USFWS and NMFS will lead the development of GCP(s) consistent with ESA section 10(a)(1)(B), and USFWS’ and NMFS’ implementing regulations and policy. The development of a GCP is undertaken by the USFWS and NMFS, rather than by an individual applicant, and is based upon the conservation strategy for the species and addresses the needs of the local community. This Agreement will provide the context for achieving these goals.

Regulatory Assurances. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the Permittees have agreed to take on the substantial responsibility of developing and implementing the HCP/NCCP in large part to obtain regulatory assurances, as provided in FESA and the NCCPA and further described in this Section and Chapter 10.

Regulatory Assurances. ‌ WAFWA decided to realign the CCAA in part to ensure adequate regulatory assurances for its participants. The regulatory assurances of the CCAA provide that, if the species is listed, participants 26 This includes 1,242 acres of range planting by WAFWA and 16,798 acres of brush management as reported in the 2018 Range-wide Plan annual report (▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2019). These data likely understate actual amounts because WAFWA does not collect data on all properties when management is conducted by the landowner. do not have to do more than their commitments in the plan and permit. However, those regulatory assurances rely on WAFWA and CCAA participants properly implementing the program. As described in this chapter, WAFWA will need to correct several financial and implementation issues in order to demonstrate proper implementation of the CCAA. Assuming WAFWA is able to improve the financial status of the program (Section 3.1, Financial Status) and correct the implementation items identified (Section 3.2, Implementation Status), the program may still be at risk. Although the program has succeeded in acquiring more conservation units than are needed to offset impacts as measured by the CCAA, USFWS staff expressed concerns about the CCAA’s ability to clearly demonstrate a net conservation benefit to LPC. USFWS staff recommended four ways to improve the CCAA’s defensibility to more clearly demonstrate that the CCAA is meeting its conservation commitments. If LPC is listed, the Enhancement of Survival Permit becomes active and subject to any legal challenge. After listing, the defensibility concerns identified by USFWS staff present a risk to the regulatory assurances for participants if USFWS cannot defend the permit against legal challenge. These defensibility concerns would also be relevant if WAFWA proposes a formal amendment to the CCAA. To approve a formal amendment, USFWS must re-evaluate the entire CCAA against all permit issuance criteria. This would include evaluating the CCAA against the requirement to provide a “net conservation benefit” for LPC (see the next section for an explanation of this standard). If WAFWA proposes a formal amendment, USFWS would likely raise some or all defensibility concerns it has identified. If these concerns remain unaddressed, USFWS may not be able to approve an amendment to the CCAA. After extensive review, ICF concurs with the four defensibility concerns identified by USFWS staff. The following four findings are based on the...

Regulatory Assurances. Through this ▇▇▇▇, the Cooperator is assured that no additional management activities or additional land, water, or resource use restrictions, beyond those voluntarily agreed to and described in Section 8.2 the “Management activities” of this ▇▇▇▇ will be required should a Covered Species be listed under the ESA as “threatened” or “endangered” in the future. The following assurances apply to the Cooperator only where the Certificate and this ▇▇▇▇ are being properly implemented and only with respect to the Covered Species. (a) Changed circumstances provided for in this ▇▇▇▇. If additional management activities are necessary to respond to changed circumstances and the measures are set forth herein, the Cooperator will implement such measures in the event of changed circumstances. (b) Changed circumstances not provided for in this ▇▇▇▇. If additional management activities not provided for in this ▇▇▇▇ are necessary to respond to changed circumstances, the FWS will not require any management activities in addition to those provided herein without the consent of the Cooperator. (c) Unforeseen circumstances (1) If additional management activities are necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the Director of the FWS may require additional measures of the Cooperator, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within the conservation measures set forth herein for the Covered Species and only if those measures maintain the original terms of this ▇▇▇▇ to the maximum extent possible. Additional management activities will not involve the commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation, or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources available for development or use under the original terms of this ▇▇▇▇ without the consent of the Cooperator. (2) The FWS will have the burden of demonstrating that unforeseen circumstances exist, using the best scientific and commercial data available. These findings must be clearly documented and based upon reliable technical information regarding the status and habitat requirements of the Covered Species. The FWS will consider, but not be limited to, the following factors: (a) Size of the current range of the Covered Species;

Regulatory Assurances. Through this Agreement and the associated Permit, the FWS provides the Safe Harbor regulatory assurances at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(c)(5) and 17.32(c)(5) and the CCAA regulatory assurances at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(d)(5) and 17.32(d)(5) to the non-federal parties to this Agreement, the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission and The Nature Conservancy. AGFC and TNC, in turn, will pass the assurances to the Landowners enrolling under this Agreement via the Landowners’ respective ▇▇▇▇ and Certificate of Inclusion. Neither the FWS nor NRCS can receive the SHA or CCAA regulatory assurances, but as Parties to this Agreement, they may pass the assurances to Landowners enrolling under this Agreement in the same manner as AGFC and TNC. The regulatory assurances shall be incorporated verbatim in each ▇▇▇▇ and Certificate. The regulatory assurances provided through Safe Harbor are set forth in Attachment 4; the regulatory assurances through Candidate Conservation are set forth in Attachment 5, hereto. 10.1 Safe Harbor Assurances Under the terms of this Agreement, a Cooperator will be authorized to make use of their enrolled property in any manner that does not result in reducing the population and/or quantity and quality of habitat for the Arkansas fatmucket, pink mucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot and Harperella below the baseline conditions set forth in the Cooperator’s ▇▇▇▇. The Cooperator’s Certificate will authorize take incidental to otherwise lawful activities on the enrolled property from the time the ▇▇▇▇ becomes effective until expiration of the Certificate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to: driving vehicles, building or fence construction, grazing of livestock, gardening, forestry, hunting, farming, mowing, or cultivation of agricultural crops. A Cooperator may continue current land-use practices, undertake new practices, or make any other lawful use of the enrolled property, even if such use results in incidental take of the SHA Covered Species or the loss and/or degradation of habitat above the Cooperator’s baseline responsibilities provided that each of the following qualifications and conditions is met: 1. The Cooperator is in total compliance with his/her ▇▇▇▇; 2. The Cooperator has maintained his/her Arkansas fatmucket, pink mucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot and harperella baseline conditions as specified in the ▇▇▇▇; 3. The Cooperator will only engage in take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities; and, 4. The Cooperator will not unde...

Regulatory Assurances. The assurances listed below apply to the Permit holder and are conveyed to enrolled Participants by a CI where the conservation measures specified in the Cooperative Agreement are being properly implemented as described. The assurances apply only with respect to species covered by the CCAA. Upon issuance of the Permit, the USFWS provides TPWD with the assurances that no additional conservation activities or additional land, water, or resource use restrictions for the covered species, beyond those voluntarily agreed to and described in section 6.0 Conservation Measures of this CCAA and in the associated Cooperative Agreement, will be required on enrolled properties throughout the 10-year life of the agreement, regardless of listing status of the covered species. These assurances, through the approval of the CCAA and issuance of the Permit, are transferred to Participants through a valid CI. These assurances will be authorized with the issuance of an Enhancement of Survival Permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.

Regulatory Assurances. Upon execution of the Agreement and this Site Plan Agreement and the satisfaction of all other applicable legal requirements, NMFS will issue a ESP under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to assure that the Permittee may incidentally take Covered Species, in accordance with the Site Plan Agreement and Agreement, as a result of implementing the Covered Activities described in this Site Plan Agreement, and except where such activities would result in the diminishment or non-achievement of the Baseline and/or Elevated Baseline Conditions established for the Enrolled Property. This assurance depends on the Permittee maintaining the Baseline Conditions and/or achieving the February 24, 2021 ▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ RIPARIAN DIVERSION: RICE LIVESTOCK REPORTED PROPORTIONAL USE‌ Primary Owner: RICE LIVESTOCK COMPANY Statement Number: S022755 Date Submitted: 06/27/2018 1. Water is used under Riparian Claim 2. Year diversion commenced 1900 3. Purpose of Use Irrigated Crops Multiple Crops Area Irrigated (Acres) Primary Irrigation Method 4. Changes in Method of Diversion Special Use Categories