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
Omar Unveils Bill to Block US Security Aid to Human Rights Abusers
"I will never apologize for speaking out on behalf of children hiding under their bed somewhere like I was, waiting for the bullets to stop. I am proud to introduce the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act."
Mar 08, 2023
Citing her experience as a Somali war refugee, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Wednesday unveiled the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, which "imposes universal human rights and humanitarian conditions on security cooperation with the United States."
"I am a survivor of civil war, and I understand personally how it terrorizes children around the world," the Minnesota Democrat said. "I also know the moral authority the United States carries on human rights and international law. We have an opportunity to live up to these values, to ensure that no child lives through violent conflict like I did, and to mean what we say when it comes to championing human rights worldwide."
"That is why I cannot remain silent in the face of children being bombed in buses in Yemen," she explained, referencing the U.S.-backed assault led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. "That is why I cannot remain silent as the poorest countries in the world face climate devastation—even though they are the least able to afford it and are the least responsible for its causes."
"We have an opportunity... to ensure that no child lives through violent conflict like I did, and to mean what we say when it comes to championing human rights worldwide."
"And that is why I will never apologize for speaking out on behalf of children hiding under their bed somewhere like I was, waiting for the bullets to stop," Omar added. "I am proud to introduce the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act to ensure that there are consequences to human rights abuses regardless of who commits them. America has led the world in standing up for human rights before. It's time for us to seize the mantle of leadership again."
The legislation would establish a bipartisan, independent commission—modeled after the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom—that would determine when other countries cross "red lines" in terms of human rights and international law. Nations that commit these violations would be barred from receiving any U.S. security aid, from arms sales to exchanges with U.S. law enforcement.
Such sanctions would only be lifted if the violations ceased and the country took steps to ensure they are not committed in the future. The bill specifically mentions criminal prosecutions of perpetrators; reparations to victims; structural, legal, and institutional reforms; and truth-telling mechanisms.
Although the proposal has no clear path forward in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, countries that could be impacted by the bill, if passed, include Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter is currently facing global criticism, including from American Jews, for violence against Palestinians in illegally occupied territory.
The legislation is part of Omar's "Pathway to Peace" and comes about a month after the House GOP, led by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), voted to remove her from the chamber's Committee on Foreign Affairs. She declared at the time that "I didn't come to Congress to be silent... My leadership and voice will not diminish if I am not on this committee for one term."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Norfolk Southern's 'Safety Plan' Includes Automation That Could Further Endanger Workers
"You can't just replace the manpower with a machine when it's not always as effective," said one railroad worker.
Mar 08, 2023
With railroad operator Norfolk Southern involved in numerous significant train derailments and other accidents in recent weeks, the company on Monday unveiled a "six-point safety plan" that officials claimed would "immediately enhance the safety of its operations."
But critics including rail workers were quick to point out that one aspect of the plan could worsen the growing problem of reduced railroad crews, which they say has contributed to dangerous conditions on railroads.
The plan calls for a number of improvements to Norfolk Southern's systems to detect overheated wheel bearings, which the National Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report appeared to be the cause of the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio on February 3.
In addition, Norfolk Southern said it aims to accelerate its "digital train inspection program" by partnering with Georgia Tech Research Institute to develop new safety inspection technology the company claims could "identify defects and needed repairs much more effectively than traditional human inspection."
The technology would use "machine vision and algorithms powered by artificial intelligence," the plan reads—offering what journalist Sam Sacks said is likely a thinly veiled proposal for "further reductions" in the company's workforce.
\u201cNorfolk Southern put forward a safety plan that likely includes further reductions in its workforce.\u201d— Sam Sacks (@Sam Sacks) 1678116938
As Common Dreams reported last month, the national inter-union organization Railroad Workers United (RWU) has called for comprehensive legislation and robust action from regulators to keep rail workers and communities safe, warning that rail companies including Norfolk Southern have been lobbying for years for federal approval to reduce train crews and loosen safety protocols.
Rather than rail companies developing safety plans themselves, federal action is needed to guarantee "proper and adequate maintenance and inspection of rail cars and locomotives, track, signals, and other infrastructure, RWU co-chair Gabe Christenson said in a statement Monday.
Rail workers have "predicted stuff like" an increased reliance on automation, railroad worker and RWU steering committee member Matt Weaver told Common Dreams on Tuesday, as "the Precision Scheduled Railroading [PSR] business model" used by rail companies "calls for doing more with less."
Under PSR, rail companies attempt to maximize profits by running trains on strict schedules and cutting back on equipment and staff. Railroad unions have said the system and the resulting lax safety protocols are an underlying cause of recent train accidents including the East Palestine derailment, another derailment that took place in Michigan less than two weeks later, and a collision between a Norfolk Southern train and a dump truck on Tuesday in Ohio, in which conductor Louis Shuster was killed.
Weaver noted that RWU and his own union, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED), aren't opposed to the use of automation in inspections entirely.
"We used to have 12-man gangs that put all the ties in by hand and everything, and now we have lots of machines which do help us live longer and not have our backs or our hips, knees, shoulders [get injured]," he told Common Dreams. "But you can't just replace the manpower with a machine when it's not always as effective. Eyes on the rails and the tracks can catch some things the machines do not."
"We've accepted those as additional help," he added. "Not as a replacement."
Last year, as railroad companies including Norfolk Southern demanded that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) allow them to continue pilot programs testing automated safety inspections, BMWED noted that according to FRA data, the causes of 48 train accidents that took place between 2016 and 2021 could only be detected through visual inspections while just 14 could be detected through "enhanced track geometry inspection" done by machines.
"Over 50% of the accidents that happened from 2016 to 2021 do not even have the ability to be found by the technology that they're looking to use," Roy Morrison, director of safety for the union, toldFreight Waves last May.
In recent days rail unions have denounced an attempt by Norfolk Southern to use workers' demands for paid sick leave against them—offering BMWED members four days of sick leave in exchange for the union's support for its automated inspection program.
"Norfolk Southern's proposal was ultimately for the union to be complicit in Norfolk Southern's effort to reduce legally required minimum track safety standards through supporting their experimental track inspection program without a sensible fail-safe or safety precautions to help ensure trains would not derail," wrote Jonathon Long, general chairman of the American Rail System Federation of the BMWED, in a letter to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. "In other words, Norfolk Southern's proposal was to use your community's safety as their bargaining chip to further pursue their record profits under their cost-cutting business model."
Weaver argued that strong comprehensive railroad safety legislation is needed to compel railroad companies to keep workers and communities safe. RWU has expressed support for some aspects of the bipartisan Railway Safety Act of 2023, introduced last week, but warned that loopholes will allow companies to "avoid the scope of the law without violating the law" and ultimately use the legislation to reduce staff.
"That's kind of their ultimate goal," Weaver told Common Dreams. "And you can't trust a capitalist industry, a for-profit industry to self-regulate. We have to have government intervention. So it's time for the regulators to regulate and the public servants to serve the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Back Bipartisan Push to End US Military Presence in Syria
"We strongly urge all offices to vote 'yes' on the Syria War Powers Resolution in accordance with the Constitution," said the policy adviser for the watchdog group Demand Progress Action.
Mar 08, 2023
The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and outside advocacy groups are urging lawmakers to vote yes Wednesday on a war powers resolution aimed at ending the United States' yearslong troop presence in Syria.
Led by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, the resolution instructs the president to withdraw all remaining U.S. forces from Syria within 180 days of passage unless Congress debates and authorizes an extension of the occupation, which began in 2015 during the Obama administration.
More than 900 U.S. troops and hundreds of contractors are currently in Syria, and the Pentagon insists they are still needed in the country to prevent a resurgence of ISIS—a claim disputed by the official who served as the Obama administration's ambassador to Syria.
In a Tuesday note urging its more than 100 members to back the Gaetz resolution, the Congressional Progressive Caucus leadership wrote that "this measure to remove unauthorized deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Syria unless a specific statutory authorization is enacted within six months is largely consistent with previous bipartisan efforts led by CPC members to terminate such unauthorized military presence within one year, for which 130 House Democrats voted yes last year."
Cavan Kharrazian, policy adviser for the watchdog group Demand Progress Action, said in a statement Wednesday that "while we are disappointed that Representative Gaetz did not consult the bipartisan group of organizations advocating for a Syria War Powers Resolution on the timing, language, and approach of this bill, and did not obtain an original cosponsor from across the aisle, we still fully support the policy outlined in H.Con.Res.21."
"Given that U.S. servicemembers remain in harm's way in Syria, triggering the need for a congressional vote under the War Powers Resolution, Congress owes it to them, their families, and the American people to have a serious, public debate and vote over our endless mission in Syria," said Kharrazian. "We strongly urge all offices to vote 'yes' on the Syria War Powers Resolution in accordance with the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and the broader bipartisan mission to reevaluate and end our endless wars overseas."
The advocacy group Just Foreign Policy echoed Kharrazian, noting that a similar measure led by Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York last year garnered 155 House votes—not enough to pass the chamber.
"We're hopeful that Rep. Matt Gaetz's [war powers resolution] will spur more House Republicans to oppose endless war in Syria," the group wrote on Twitter.
A vote in the Republican-controlled House is expected Wednesday afternoon.
"Given that U.S. servicemembers remain in harm's way in Syria, triggering the need for a congressional vote under the War Powers Resolution, Congress owes it to them, their families, and the American people to have a serious, public debate and vote over our endless mission in Syria."
Also backing the resolution is Robert Ford, the Obama administration's Syria ambassador who previously supported U.S. intervention in the country.
In a letter to Congress obtained by The Intercept, Ford wrote that "after more than eight years of military operations in Syria there is no definition of what the 'enduring' defeat of ISIS would look like."
"We owe our soldiers serving there in harm's way a serious debate about whether their mission is, in fact, achievable," Ford added.
While President Joe Biden has not added to the U.S. troop presence in Syria, he has authorized special forces operations and several airstrikes in the country without congressional approval, drawing criticism from progressive lawmakers and foreign policy analysts who argued the actions lacked legal authority.
"This is not an ambiguous case," Rep. Ro Khanna(D-Calif.) said after the U.S. military carried out airstrikes in 2021. "The administration’s actions are clearly illegal under the United States' law and under international law."
Khanna, a member of the CPC, wrote on Twitter late Tuesday that he is a yes on the Gaetz resolution.
\u201cI am voting Yes.\u201d— Ro Khanna(@Ro Khanna) 1678248901
The Intercept's Ryan Grim noted Tuesday that "in 2019, Gaetz and a handful of other Republicans backed President Donald Trump's push for an end to the U.S. presence there and were joined by [Rep. Ilhan] Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.), who bucked their party to back Trump's proposed withdrawal."
"Trump, while urging a withdrawal, also said he'd leave behind a force to 'keep the oil," Grim continued. "He suggested a major American firm like ExxonMobil would come in to exploit Syria's oil, but so far, no big American company has been involved, and the Kurds are exporting oil largely in collaboration with al-Assad's government."
Omar, the deputy chair of the CPC, told Grim that while she wishes "Gaetz worked more closely with the coalition of groups that have been working on this and the CPC," she plans to vote yes on the Syria war powers resolution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.