August 2000 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Spring Training

Autumn may be approaching, but the folks in the Bay Area Wetlands Planning Group (BAWPG) are getting ready for a "spring training" of sorts. Instead of working on changeups and base stealing techniques, they'll be trying to figure out how to help wetland restorers plan their projects and, hopefully, ease their way through the maze of agencies and regulations governing them.

Formed in 1995, BAWPG is an ad hoc, interagency effort chaired by the California Resources Agency. In the last six months, it has worked to develop a supportive structure for implementing the 1999 Habitat Goals report recommendations for the region's baylands. At a June 20 public forum in Oakland, the Group outlined its objectives and first steps - a "very flexible vision - " as EPA's Mike Monroe told the audience.

The Wetlands Recovery Project, as it is currently called, is aimed at helping wetlands project planners, both public and private, to design better projects and navigate the permitting process. It will put together a committee of technical experts, including biologists, ecologists, engineers, and so on. The project proponent could bring their preliminary plan to this committee, which would review it to see if it meets with the objectives of the Habitat Goals, suggest improvements in the design, scope out potential technical and regulatory problems, and provide guidance for monitoring. A committee of high-level agency decision-makers will be formed to review and try to resolve policy issues and interagency conflicts.

The Regional Board's Peggy Olofson says that the first preliminary meetings of the technical committee will take place in late August. These will be the "spring training" phase, she says. Committee members will pick one or two projects in order to get a feel for how things will work. After a few of these practice runs, it will report to a committee of agency decision-makers, hopefully in October or November, and gradually refine the process as it broadens its scope to work on more projects. After a year, the Recovery Project will conduct a more formal review of what was, and wasn't, accomplished.

Certainly, there are more questions than answers right now. At the public hearing, representatives from various agencies and organizations raised a number of concerns and shared their very different perspectives. Most were quite supportive of the concept and overall goals. One audience member opined that the process could ensure that, "the right (type of) wetland goes in the right place." But others worried that the review would bring another layer of bureaucracy and slow down, rather than speed up the process, and wondered how much a review would cost. Another big question was whether or not mitigation projects would be eligible for the reviews. Some people were concerned that the process could actually speed up some controversial waterfront projects - developers might try to use the review process to move their mitigation proposals more quickly. Several participants urged BAWPG to be careful to include public input and participation at all stages of the process.

Olofson stresses that the Recovery Project planners will listen and learn. "We haven't cut off any options yet," she says. "There are lots of different issues on lots of different projects. We're taking very much an adaptive approach."

Contact: Peggy Olofson (510) 622-2402

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project