Common use of Timelines and Benchmarks Clause in Contracts

Timelines and Benchmarks. ‌ In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long‐term effort. The SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs “include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area” (WAC 173‐26‐201(c)). As a long‐range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Xxxxx County amends its SMP (on or before June 30, 2013), the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the County should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include the following elements: • Reevaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; • Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on‐the‐ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and • Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives.

Timelines and Benchmarks. ‌ In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long‐term long-term effort. The SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs “include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area” (WAC 173‐26‐201(c173-26-201(c)). As a long‐range long-range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Xxxxx County amends its SMP (on or before June 30, 2013), the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the County should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include the following elements: • Reevaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; • Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on‐the‐ground on-the-ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and • Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives.

Timelines and Benchmarks. ‌ In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long‐term long-term effort. The SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs “include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area” (WAC 173‐26‐201(c173-26-201(c)). As a long‐range long-range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Xxxxx County amends its SMP (on or before June 30, 2013), the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the County should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include the following elements: • Reevaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; • Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on‐the‐ground on-the-ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and • Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives.

Timelines and Benchmarks. ‌ In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long‐term long-term effort. The SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs “include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area” (WAC 173‐26‐201(c173-26-201(c)). As a long‐range long-range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Xxxxx Mason County amends its SMP (on or before June 30, 2013), the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the County should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include the following elements: • Reevaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; • Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on‐the‐ground on-the-ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and • Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives.