November, 16 2009, 12:35pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
San Francisco Park Department Ignores Science, Promotes All-Golf Alternative for Sharp Park Although No-Golf Option Shown to Be Best for Environment, Budget, and Outdoor Recreation
Surreal Report Actually Suggests Picnicking, Not Golf Course, Greatest Threat to Endangered Species at Sharp Park
SAN FRANCISCO
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department this
month released a deeply flawed and incomplete alternatives report for
restoring Sharp Park
in Pacifica, after a directive from the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors to explore a range of alternatives for the future of the
park to protect and restore endangered species habitat at the site.
Despite deliberate attempts to constrain the scope of the report,
omission of any credible discussion of the impacts on habitat due to
sea level rise with climate change, an apparent lack of any expertise
on coastal lagoon ecosystems, and the unprofessional mixing of the Park
Department's personal preferences with supposed "science" on the
restoration options, the report still confirms that management
activities at the controversial Sharp Park golf course are harming
endangered species and will continue to drain city coffers.
"This
report, while disappointing, is not surprising, since the Park
Department seems incapable of any objective analysis of the true costs
of the golf course, the benefits of restoration, or uses other than
golf," said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for
Biological Diversity. "The report is extremely unprofessional and
frankly, should be embarrassing to the city. The Park Department
falsely inflated and fabricated the costs of wetlands restoration and
with no factual basis tried to make impacts from the golf course appear
benign."
"The ecological illiteracy in
portions of this report is appalling," said Miller. "It shows a
complete and willful misunderstanding of how the coastal lagoon
ecosystem will respond to changes with sea level rise and misstates
their own consultant's conclusions on salinity intrusion. Not
surprising, since the department refused input from anyone with coastal
geomorphology or hydrology expertise. It also shows an inexcusable
misunderstanding of and unfamiliarity with coastal wetland restoration.
It is an unprofessional mix of the Park Department's personal biases
with cherry-picked and misconstrued fragments of the consultants'
reports. Send it back with an 'F'."
In
the report, the City's so-called "expert" on endangered species
actually claims that picnicking is one of the most significant threats
to the red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake
at the site while downplaying the extensive golf course impacts. There
are no reports of crazed picnickers ever killing an endangered species
at the site. In contrast, it has been documented that golf-course
activities have serious impacts to endangered species and illegally
kill them. An endangered snake was run over recently by a lawn mower,
hundreds of frogs have been killed due to pumping the pond, gophers and
their burrows that both endangered species depend on are routinely
destroyed, and the golf course pollutes the wetlands with harmful
fertilizers and pesticides.
"The best
economic, environmental and recreational option for the future of Sharp
Park is clearly to add it to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area,"
said Miller. "Then the park can provide free recreational opportunities
for everyone to enjoy, save San Francisco tens of millions of dollars,
and allow restoration of the Laguna Salada wetlands and surrounding
habitat for the long-term survival of the San Francisco garter snake
and red-legged frog.
"The Park
Department claims that experts on the species endorse the 18-hole
alternative but they have done no such thing," said Miller. "The Park
Department also promised peer review of this report. Now they are
refusing to allow hydrology and coastal lagoon experts to peer review a
report that was clearly constrained and doctored by the Park Department
- what are they trying to hide?"
The
report states the obvious: the less restoration work put into Sharp
Park, the cheaper it will be to get done. But the minimal habitat
enhancement proposed by the Park Department in the 18-hole alternative
is inadequate to allow the recovery of the garter snake and frog at the
site, and is set up to fail with climate change and sea level rise. It
will cost tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure to protect the
golf course - and armoring the coast to do so will destroy the beach in
the process. Continued pumping of the wetlands will ensure that the
small areas left behind for endangered species will become more saline
and uninhabitable. For far less money, a restoration project can allow
the coastal habitat to adapt to climate change, while focusing
engineering solutions closer to houses and infrastructure rather than
fighting the ocean.
The report
deliberately inflates the costs associated with habitat restoration and
fails to include major infrastructure costs that will be required to
keep and maintain the golf course. The Park Department added the absurd
and unjustified cost of expensive off-site spoils disposal to the
no-golf alternative and outrageously proposes draining the lagoon, and
expensive and unnecessary damaging impact, to make restoration seem
infeasible. The report does not mention the $32 million armoring of the
sea wall needed to protect the golf course, the $7 million dollar
project to provide recycled water for the thirsty and wasteful
golf-course greens, nor the millions of dollars of fines and damages
the City is liable for illegally killing endangered species.
Background
Sharp
Park Golf Course is owned by the city and county of San Francisco but
is located to the south of the city on the coast, in Pacifica.
Maintenance and management of the golf course has killed and harmed
endangered San Francisco garter snakes and threatened California
red-legged frogs. In 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity filed
notice of intent to sue San Francisco for harming endangered species at
Sharp Park, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.
In
May the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Sharp
Park restoration planning ordinance directing the Park Department to
develop a plan, schedule, and budget for restoring endangered species
habitat at the park and to consider whether to transfer the property
to, or develop a joint management agreement with, the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, Pacifica, or San Mateo County.
Nine
prominent scientists sent a letter in August to the Park Department
noting that many of the golf-course management activities are
incompatible with restoring healthy populations of the garter snake and
red-legged frog and that restoring wetlands and uplands habitats and
connecting them with protected adjacent open space is the best option
to ensure the long term survival of the species in the area. The
signatories to the letter were biologists, herpetologists, ecologists,
and hydrologists with collective expertise regarding wetlands habitats,
the endangered species at the site, and amphibians and reptiles.
Nine
different assessments of Sharp Park's financial state since 2005 have
concluded that the golf course loses from $30,000 to $300,000 each year
from the golf fund alone, and millions more are expected to be lost on
capital-improvement projects to maintain the course. Potential fines
for violations of the Endangered Species Act, or seeking environmental
compliance through a permit associated with a federal Habitat
Conservation Plan could cost many millions more.
The
ongoing environmental problems at the golf course are largely due to
its poor design and unfortunate placement. To create the course in the
early 1930s, areas around the Laguna Salada were dredged and filled for
14 months. Not surprisingly, Sharp Park has had problems with flooding
and drainage ever since.
Restoring the
wetlands at the park will complement habitat-restoration work within
the nearby Golden Gate National Recreation Area for the garter snake
and the frog at adjacent Mori Point and Sweeny Ridge, and could reduce
flooding risk for nearby neighborhoods. A broad coalition of community
and conservation groups support the restoration of the native ecology
of Sharp Park, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Nature in
the City, Neighborhood Parks Council, San Francisco Tomorrow, Golden
Gate Audubon Society, Sequoia Audubon Society, Pacifica Shorebird
Alliance, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Yerba Buena
Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, Action for Animals, and
Transportation for a Livable City.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Warren Says Trump Will 'Try to Ban Abortion Nationwide' If He Regains Power
"Donald Trump is proud that he overturned Roe v. Wade, he's proud he ripped away a fundamental freedom from millions of women," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Mar 18, 2024
Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned Sunday that Donald Trump will aggressively pursue a national abortion ban if elected to another term after the former president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee boasted about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade—a move that opened the floodgates for draconian attacks on reproductive rights across the country.
Trump nominated three of the five Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe in 2022, and he stacked lower federal courts with far-right extremists.
In a Fox News interview that aired Sunday, Trump said the justices "did something that from a lot of standpoints is extremely good" and repeated commonplace right-wing lies that Democrats support infanticide—claims that are frequently used to justify further rollbacks of reproductive freedoms. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case brought by right-wing groups that could dramatically weaken access to medication abortion.
The former president said he will be deciding "pretty soon" on a specific abortion policy for his 2024 campaign for the White House. The New York Timesreported last month that Trump has told advisers and allies that he "likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban with three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother."
Asked during the Fox News interview whether he thinks a 16-week abortion ban would be "politically acceptable," Trump responded, "We're gonna find out."
Trump's campaign previously dismissed the Times reporting as "fake news."
Trump on if a national 16 week abortion ban would be politically acceptable: "We're gonna find out."
He then lies about Democrats supporting the murder of born babies. pic.twitter.com/B5e41m9ftm
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 17, 2024
Warren (D-Mass.) said in response that "Donald Trump is proud that he overturned Roe v. Wade, he's proud he ripped away a fundamental freedom from millions of women, and if he regains power, he will go even further and try to ban abortion nationwide."
"By overturning Roe, Trump put judges and politicians in the driver's seat of women and their families' most personal healthcare decisions," said Warren. "He opened the door to even more extreme restrictions on our freedoms: criminalizing doctors, passing bans with no exceptions, and restricting access to IVF—and he brags about it."
"Trump said we're going to find out if the country will accept his plans for a national abortion ban, and he's right," the senator added. "He's going to find out this November when the majority of Americans who support reproductive freedom turn out to send President Biden and Vice President Harris back to the White House and remind Donald Trump that we will not go back—not now, not ever."
"As Project 2025 makes clear, opponents will not stop until abortion is banned and out of reach in all 50 states."
Right-wing groups, including the coalition known as Project 2025, have been working for months on a range of proposals that would further curtail reproductive freedoms at the federal level and undercut people's ability to receive basic medical care.
"In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access," Politicoreported last month. "Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded—rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don't require congressional approval."
Project 2025, a coalition of dozens of right-wing groups—including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion organizations—is "drafting executive orders to roll back Biden-era policies that have expanded abortion access, such as making abortions available in some circumstances at VA hospitals," and "collecting resumes from conservative activists interested in becoming political appointees or career civil servants and training them to use overlooked levers of agency power to curb abortion access," according to Politico.
"Donald Trump is to blame for the ongoing abortion access crisis," Planned Parenthood Votes said in a statement earlier this month. "Because of his first-term actions, 21 states—and counting—now ban some or all abortion; and one in three women are blocked from access in their home states. As Project 2025 makes clear, opponents will not stop until abortion is banned and out of reach in all 50 states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia's Putin Secures Another Term
The controversial leader won a record number of votes for a post-Soviet candidate even as opponents organized a protest at noon on the election's third and last day.
Mar 17, 2024
Despite protests on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin won reelection with more votes than any candidate since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Exit poll the Public Opinion Foundation (POF) put the final tally after three days of voting at 87.8%, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) at 87%, and Russia's Central Election Commission (CEC) at 87.3%. Putin will now serve another six-year term, meaning he will have been at the helm of the Russian state for longer than any leader since Catherine the Great, surpassing Josef Stalin.
The election comes less than a month after the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and is likely to lead to more tensions between the Russian and U.S. governments.
"It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia."
"For a U.S. administration that hoped Putin's Ukraine adventure would be wrapped up by now with a decisive setback to Moscow's interests, the election is a reminder that Putin expects that there will be many more rounds in the geopolitical boxing ring," Nikolas Gvosdev, director of the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Russia Matters project.
With most of Putin's prominent opponents either dead, imprisoned, or in exile, the elections results were considered a foregone conclusion by both friends and foes of his administration.
A Putin spokesperson said in 2023 that the election was "not really democracy" but instead "costly bureaucracy," according to CNN. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said the election was "obviously not free nor fair."
However, Russian opponents of Putin did find a way to demonstrate their position with a protest called "Noon Against Putin." The protest was called for by St. Petersburg politician Maxim Reznik, according to The Guardian. Participants were instructed to head to a polling place at noon and cast a paper ballot for one of the candidates running against Putin, or to write-in another candidate or spoil their ballot.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had endorsed the protest before his death last month in a Russian prison, leading the Independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper to dub it "Navalny's political testament."
The action drew crowds to polling places both in Russian cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg and at Russian embassies around the world.
"This is the first time in my life I have ever seen a queue for elections," one woman waiting in line in Moscow told
CNN. Russian journalists reported that the lines at some stations within the country reached the thousands, according to Reuters.
Navalny's widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who had also endorsed the protest, voted at the embassy in Berlin, while several protesters gathered outside the embassy in London.
"I expected there to be a lot of people, but not this many," London-based participant Maria Dorofeyeva told The Guardian, adding, "It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia. And we want to stop it."
Ruslan Shaveddinov of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation told Reuters:
"We showed ourselves, all of Russia and the whole world that Putin is not Russia (and) that Putin has seized power in Russia."
"Our victory is that we, the people, defeated fear, we defeated solitude—many people saw they were not alone," Shaveddinov said
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Netanyahu Spreading 'Flat Out Lies' About UNRWA
The Maryland senator defended the organization on CBS and said there was no evidence that it was a "proxy for Hamas."
Mar 17, 2024
U.S. Senator for Maryland Chris Van Hollen continued his defense of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its work in Gaza in an appearance on CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
"The claim that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and others are making that somehow UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas are just flat out lies, that's a flat out lie," he told journalist Margaret Brennan.
The U.S. was one of many Western countries that paused funding for UNRWA after the agency announced in January that it had fired 12 staffers over Israeli allegations that they had been involved in Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. However, some countries including Canada, Sweden, the European Union, and Australia have since restored funding. A report has also emerged that Israel tortured UNRWA staffers into falsely confessing to involvement in the Hamas attack.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own."
Van Hollen's remarks on Sunday come days after he argued for the restoration of UNRWA funds on the floor of the U.S. Senate and criticized Republican legislators who wanted to permanently end funds for the organization that supports some 6 million Palestinian refugees in countries across the Middle East, including around 2 million in Gaza.
During his speech, he pointed out that the Netanyahu government had not shared the underlying evidence that UNRWA staffers participated in October 7 with either UNRWA itself or the U.S. government. He also urged his colleagues to read a classified Director of National Intelligence report on Netanyahu's claims of UNRWA complicity with Hamas.
On "Face the Nation," Van Hollen said that the person in charge of operations on the ground in UNRWA was a 20-year U.S. Army veteran.
"You can be sure he is not in cahoots with Hamas," the senator told Brennan.
He also repeated claims that Netanyahu has wanted to eliminate UNRWA entirely since at least 2017.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own," Van Hollen said, adding that the right-wing Israeli leader's "primary objective" was preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, the dismantling of UNRWA would be especially catastrophic amid Israel's ongoing bombardment and invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 31,000 people and put the survivors at risk of famine. No other organization has the infrastructure in place to distribute the necessary aid.
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medial assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," Van Hollen said.
He also said that only 14 of the agency's 13,000-strong staff in Gaza had been accused of participating in the October 7 attack.
"We should investigate it, we should hold all those people accountable, but for goodness' sake, let's not hold 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians who are dying of starvation... accountable for the bad acts of 14 people."
Van Hollen also repeated his call for President Joe Biden to condition the sale of offensive military weapons to Israel on the country obeying international law and allowing aid into Gaza. While Israel sent the U.S. a letter saying it was in compliance with the law, "the day it was signed, clearly the Netanyahu government is not in compliance, because we see that they're continuing to restrict humanitarian assistance," he told Brennan.
Also on "Face the Nation" Sunday, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Chief Executive Catherine Russell described the impact that a lack of aid was having on the children of Gaza.
"We know now that children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza," she told Brennan.
Russell said that not enough aid was reaching those who needed it, calling both air drops and sea deliveries "a drop in the bucket."
She also called for greater transparency into what was actually happening in Gaza and the difficulties of delivering aid.
"The world should be able to see what's happening and make their own judgments about what's going on," Russell said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular