187 



regional trails and park facilities. The 

 coalition's planners developed their 

 own project cost estimates and funding 

 plan and presented their Modified Plan 

 at all the same meetings attended by the 

 public and government agencies at 

 which the Selected Plan was presented. 



The advocacy planning strategy in- 

 troduced alternatives and, therefore, 

 controversy into the Army Corps of 

 Engineers' planning sessions. The 

 strategy eventually forced a change in 

 the planning process from one in which 

 citizens were to be bnefed on the final 

 Selected Plan chosen by the county 

 board of supervisors and the corps of 

 engineers to one in which citizens be- 

 came active participants in determining 

 the design of the final plan. Also, citi- 

 zen participation evolved from a Citi- 

 zen Advisory Committee with hand- 

 picked members who could be depend- 

 ed on to vote for the Selected Plan to an 

 open process in which anyone affected 

 by the plan could help to determine the 

 design. 



With the county, corps of engineers, 

 and community at loggerheads, the 

 stall of state Assemblyman Bob Camp- 

 bell helped to negotiate a planning 

 process that used combined govern- 

 ment-citizen design and funding teams 

 to arrive at some consensus. Camp- 

 i bell's staff also helped North Rich- 

 mond residents meet their share of the 

 project costs by identifying stale fund- 

 ing sources made accessible by the 

 broader objectives of the final "Con- 

 sensus Plan." Thus, the coalmon used 

 us Modified Plan lo force the consider- 

 ation of a multi-objective plan back into 

 the planning process. 



On 19 February 1985, the Contra 

 Costa County Board of Supervisors 

 approved the Selected Plan for con- 

 struction but left the door open for 

 multi-objective designs if funds be- 

 came available. In June 1985, the U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service had reviewed 

 the Selected Plan and issued their legal- 

 ly required Biological Opinion, which 

 prevented the corps from implement- 

 ing the Selected Plan because of its 

 probable impacts on the marshes and 

 their endangered species. The Fish and 

 Wildlife Service then adopted the coali- 

 Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 



tion's Modified Plan as "the prudent 

 and reasonable alternative. " 1J In addi- 

 tion, the San Francisco Bay Conserva- 

 tion and Development Commission did 

 not find the Selected Plan consistent 

 with the requirements of the McAtccr- 

 Petns Act for the protection of San 

 Francisco Bay wetlands." But the com- 

 mission found it could permit the Mod- 

 ified Plan. A combination of pressure 

 from federal and state environmental 

 and regulating agencies, the endurance 

 and persistence of community leaders, 

 and press coverage resulted in the 

 adoption by the Contra Costa County 

 Board of Supervisors of a multi-objec- 

 tive Consensus Plan. Construction on 

 the Consensus Plan began in 1 987 and 

 still continues. 



Design by Consensus 



When the corps of engineers found, 

 in June 1985, that it could not imple- 

 ment the Selected Plan, the county 

 board of supervisors established a proj- 

 ect design team to construct a plan in 

 which the concerns of the government 

 agencies with regulatory powers over 

 the project would be properly coordi- 

 nated and integrated with the concerns 

 of the public. The design team was not 

 formed because an enlightened county 

 or corps aimed to pioneer consensus 

 planning; it was formed out of a crisis 



Under the Consensus Plan, this part of 

 Wildcat Creek is lined Kith gabions (on 

 the left) and a rock bank. The trees have 

 been saved and more native species will 

 be planted. (Photo: Bob Walker) 



situation caused by the lack of support 

 for the project on the part of stale and 

 federal regulatory agencies and by the 

 negative publicity the proposed Select- 

 ed Plan had generated. The team was 

 to produce a fundable project that the 

 regulatory agencies would accept and 

 that the coalition could endorse. Team 

 members included representatives from 

 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

 California Stale Lands Commission, 

 the California Department of Fish and 

 Game, the San Francisco Bay Conser- 

 vation and Development Commission, 

 the California Coastal Conservancy, 

 the East Bay Regional Park District, 

 state Assemblyman Bob Campbell's 

 office, state Senator Dan Boatwrighl's 

 office. Congressman George Miller's 

 office, the coalition and its own profes- 

 sional experts, local land and nursery 

 owners, and, of course, the Contra 

 Costa County Rood Control District 

 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- 

 neers. Meetings occurred no less than 

 once a month, and, in 1985, the meet- 

 ings were sometimes scheduled as often 

 as once a week. Throughout the plan- 



