The future of Sharp Park

Two weeks ago in these pages, Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), wrote of a new, independent, peer-reviewed, scientific study he commissioned in conjunction with Brent Plater's Wild Equity Institute (WEI). 

The study claims to save endangered species and taxpayer's money by eliminating the 80-year-old landmark Sharp Park Golf Course and creating an exclusive sanctuary for Red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes. They would also save adjacent residential property from flooding by removing the seawall.

The report, which was bought and paid for by CBD, was authored by Peter Baye, and Bob Battalio is listed as Project Director. These two men have worked as consultants for CBD since at least mid-2009, and had submitted arguments in favor of CBD's close-the-golf-course campaign during the public proceedings at the San Francisco Rec & Park Dept. Hardly "independent."

The "peers" that reviewed the report were carefully chosen from local environmental colleagues. This is not the way the scientific peer-review process usually works. I might just as well say that this article was peer-reviewed by Butch Larroche.

Miller claims the study makes several key findings, No. 1 of which is: "Restoring the natural ecosystem of the Laguna Salada and barrier beach is by far the cheapest option, particularly compared to the San Francisco Park Department plan or maintaining the status quo." He goes on to estimate that his restoration plan would cost $5 million over 50 years.

CBD/WEI hope their plan will replace the November, 2009, "Sharp Park Conceptual Restoration Alternatives Report", prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. and Swaim Biological. This plan offered three alternative scenarios: 1) Habitat enhancement and an 18-hole golf course; 2) Habitat enhancement with a 9-hole golf course; 3) Habitat enhancement with no golf. San Francisco held public hearing for months, as I mentioned above, heard all of CBD's arguments, and went with option 1.

The only reason I bring up this ancient history is that Tetra Tech prepared a detailed cost analysis for each alternative, and I would have thought that their "no golf" estimates would be pretty similar to CBD/WEI "no golf" estimates. But that is not the case. For what Plater and Miller say they can do for $5 million, Tetra Tech was estimating $13,991,110 to $23, 616,600.

I looked at the spreadsheets and supporting text a little closer. A CBD/WEI goal (pg. 7) is "Rehabilitate native plant communities..", which sounds great, but would require removing the existing, invasive kikuyu grass, hauling it away, backfilling new topsoil and re-planting. On Tetra Tech's detailed estimate, just the excavation costs for this job range from $192,000 to $9,727,490, depending on how far the debris had to be hauled. The CBD/WEI cost estimates (Table 1, pg. 34) mention some excavation and planting around Sanchez Creek, with a total cost of $520,000. That's a far cry from rehabilitating the entire golf course. And the kikuyu grass would have to go, the native plants can't withstand it. Then there's all those 80-year-old cypress trees to chop down; that could be expensive. There must be quite a few other discrepancies to account for such a difference in the two cost estimates. In fact, Tetra Tech, in considering all the changes involved in actually transforming a golf course into a frog and snake sanctuary, determined that was the MOST expensive alternative. $5 million looks like a low-ball bid, designed to get the job, look good for the boss, and deal with the cost overruns later.

Another item I didn't see on Table 1, although the authors deemed it "critical", and an "essential concept" of their plan, is their idea of building a "migration corridor" connecting Laguna Salada with Arrowhead Lake atop Sweeny Ridge. (pg. 20, 21) This will entail building a "viable Highway 1 underpass or overpass specific to SFGS (San Francisco Garter Snake) needs." (pg.26) It would have to be a structure at least 150 yards in length, to clear the highway and frontage streets, and God knows how wide. Brent Plater has alluded to something "like the Doyle Drive project" in San Francisco. The official cost estimate on that baby is over $1 billion. You can understand why it's not on Table 1.

But money aside, what's the best plan for the threatened Red-legged frog and the endangered garter snake?

Biologist Karen Swaim, the recognized authority on the species, developed a plan that would allow the animals to "thrive" at Sharp Park. Removing sediment and encroaching vegetation from the lagoon will greatly enhance the habitat, while some of the golf course will be reconfigured to avoid any possible impact.

Maintenance procedures, including fertilizing, watering, mowing, etc., were scrutinized and revised as necessary. The plan was wholeheartedly adopted by San Francisco Rec & Park and the Sharp Park staff, and is being successfully implemented at this time. The unquestionable, tangible proof of that success is that Sharp Park has a record-high crop of new red-legged frogs in 2011. Some egg masses were lost, of course, but that's the way things work in nature. If every egg developed into an adult frog, we'd be knee deep in them.

And there wasn't a single snake killing. This year's record is very good news for all concerned. Or most of all concerned. Despite Mr. Miller's strident claims to the contrary, the plan is working just fine.

There is, of course, the question of the seawall, and at this time, nobody seems to have the definitive answer. I readily understand, in these financial times, that there is no money to rebuild it. I also understand, from an ecological perspective, it is not the best, long-term approach. But, as a Fairway Park homeowner, the alternatives I've heard are not encouraging. Brent Plater speaks vaguely of sand dunes over here and a smaller berm, over there somewhere. A while back, some of my neighbors and myself were calling for an Army Corps of Engineers study of the seawall. The CBD was vehemently opposed. But if a qualified and truly independent engineer, without a stake in the game, came up with a clear, detailed and proven plan, I'd go along with it. Until then, we should at least maintain the seawall.

But to get back to the frogs and snakes - biologists are concerned that the species should not be strictly confined to the lagoon. They need some elbow room, a change of scenery, some different habitats, to successfully survive. I know exactly how they feel. The CBD/WEI plan has them heading east from Laguna Salada, presumably across a devastated, denuded ex-golf course, towards the billion dollar bridge. But another option would have them head south from the lagoon, to the lush marsh and green pastures of Mori Point. Karen Swaim liked the southern route, and her plan calls for upgrading the pathway from Laguna Salada, along the canal, to Horse Stable Pond, and thus to Mori Point. She noted the "high-quality upland habitat" and, "rodent burrows and grass in sufficient quantity to provide cover".

There are already SFGS populations at the North Pond, east of Horse Stable Pond, and at the Mori Point Ponds. But the real kicker is, the GGNRA already owns Mori Point, they've already spent a ton of money building roadways, boardwalks and connecting ponds, removing invasive plants and putting in native species, installing cute signs and benches. And, so far, very few people use it. Some occasional joggers, a rare tourist wandering up from Rockaway. I'm out there a couple of times a week, and usually, it's just me and my dog.

From the height of Mori Point I look down on the golf course crawling with people and wonder, "Where did they get that idea about a park that everyone can enjoy, not just the golfers?" I mean, there's a lot of empty space in Pacifica, about 50 percent of our land is set aside for one thing or another, from the top of the ridge right down to the beach, can't "everyone" enjoy that? To destroy the one area that plenty of people ARE enjoying right now, at the rate of over 50,000 paid rounds a year, is about the most ridiculous land-use suggestion I've ever heard.

Nothing I've read in the CBD/WEI report convinces me otherwise. The financial predictions are shaky, to say the least. Destroying the golf course is clearly not essential for the species to survive, and might even be counter-productive. They'd be better off expanding towards Mori Point. Some of the hydrological issues developed are clearly important and deserve further study, as does the seawall, but these are not matters that would warrant closing the course.

The "Historical Ecology," while interesting in a chicken-or-egg sort of way, probably isn't too relevant today.

This report is a wash-out, a gimmicky re-hash of old, discredited ideas. Besides, I don't think they'd get the billion dollars to build that bridge.

Paul Slavin