Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monitoring Separation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee wants consultant to monitor and recommend mitigation; implementation to be procured separately
Summary
The committee emphasized that the hired consultant should develop monitoring and adaptive triggers and recommend mitigation measures, but implementation (construction, dredging, mitigation) should be procured separately to avoid conflicts of interest.
Committee members repeatedly said they want the consultant to be objective and not the same party implementing mitigation measures. Delia described the intended structure: the consultant will prepare a monitoring and adaptive management plan and carry out monitoring; the actual implementation of mitigation would be procured separately.
Delia: "We're asking a consultant to review all of the existing material. They prepare what you've called a conceptual site model... and then... develop an adaptive management plan that will have a year 1 and that triggers for how that gets modified for year 2 and year 3." Several members emphasized the importance of impartial recommendations: "we don't want the implementer be the same as the person recommending because they're gonna say, oh, we're gonna recommend what services we have in house."
The committee agreed the monitoring plan should include measures to evaluate ecological benefits; members noted that adding habitat impact evaluation could increase scope and cost and that the consultant should indicate whether additional surveys are necessary.
