For Immediate Release, April 26, 2012
Contact: Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357
Arthur Feinstein, Sierra Club, (415) 680-0643
Neal Desai, National Parks Conservation Association, (510) 368-0845
Judge Cites Evidence Sharp Park Golf Course Is Harming Endangered Frogs, Awaits U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Input
Order Discusses Harm, Population Impacts to Red-legged Frogs
SAN FRANCISCO— U.S. District Judge Susan Illston today rejected the City of San Francisco’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by six conservation organizations over the ongoing killing of red-legged frogs at Sharp Park Golf Course. Explaining that new evidence and recent Fish and Wildlife Service restrictions have called into question San Francisco Park Department claims that the frog population at Sharp Park is growing, the court ordered the city to obtain authorization from the Fish and Wildlife Service for golf course activities that could harm endangered species. The judge ruled conservation groups have legal standing to bring the case, but stayed the lawsuit until October, when San Francisco could face a court trial over Endangered Species Act violations if it does not obtain a federal permit.
“The
court’s ruling lays bare the damage golf course activities such as
draining water from wetlands exacts on two of the Bay Area’s most
imperiled animals,” said Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild
Equity Institute. “We expect the Fish and Wildlife Service to require
that the golf course cease killing endangered species and propose a
comprehensive mitigation and restoration plan as part of any permit.”
The Park Department argued that draining aquatic feeding and breeding habitats for the California red-legged frog and San Francisco
garter snake at Sharp Park Golf Course somehow benefits the species. In
rejecting these assertions, the court cited contradictory testimony
from the city’s own experts and staff that the golf course activities
harm and kill protected wildlife.
“The
endangered species permit process will weigh the biological impacts of
excessive water pumping and habitat destruction to protect one golf
course,” said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The
permit should force the Park Department to change golf course operations
to actually protect imperiled frogs and snakes.”
The
Park Department has killed endangered frogs six of the past 10 winters,
and its so-called “compliance plan” for endangered species has been a
complete failure. In February, the department was caught again killing
threatened red-legged frogs at the course, draining Sharp Park’s wetlands in a failed attempt to prevent frogs from breeding in their historic ponds.
The
Washington, D.C. public-interest law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein &
Crystal represents the coalition of conservation groups in the lawsuit.
Background
The Fish and Wildlife Service last year notified
the golf course that it was specifically prohibited from handling or
moving frog egg masses at Sharp Park and must obtain a permit for any
golf course activities affecting protected species. The Service also
denied the Park Department’s request to drain wetlands and dredge
lagoons at Sharp Park,
cynically referred to by the city as “habitat management and scientific
studies.” Water pumping, dredging and other activities harmful to frogs
can only occur if the department obtains a federal “incidental take”
permit with an accompanying conservation plan.
The city-owned golf course at 400-acre Sharp Park in Pacifica is plagued by crumbling infrastructure, annual flooding problems and ongoing environmental violations. More than three-dozen San Francisco
community, recreation, environmental and social-justice groups have
called for closing the golf course and creating a more sustainable
public park at Sharp Park. A 2011 peer-reviewed scientific study
by independent scientists and coastal experts concluded that the most
cost-effective option for
Sharp Park is to remove the golf course and restore the functions of
the original natural ecosystem, which will also provide the most benefit
to endangered species.
The
Park Department has refused to consider this option, and is instead
pursuing a plan that would evict endangered species from the site and
bail out the golf course’s financial problems with tens of millions of
dollars of taxpayer money. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed
legislation in December 2011 to prevent this from happening, but Mayor
Ed Lee, an avid golfer, vetoed the legislation. Further action by the
board is expected this year.
Submitted by Lionel Emde
11 comments:
Brent Plater's self-serving press release naturally fails to tell the whole story. Wild Equity Institute, et al, sought a summary judgment from the court that,"the City's water pumping activities cause 'take' of the California red-legged frog". This request was DENIED. Mr. Plater's ability in portraying this loss as a victory is an important element of his fund-raising efforts.
Paul Slavin
Slavin's self-serving comment naturally ignores the whole story. He conienently forgot to mention that the golf nutters also asked to dismiss the lawsuit and that too was denied but with one really big caveat, the Judge cited evidence that cast doubt on the city’s claims that they were acting in good faith, in other words she caught them in their lies.
So she put the onus on them, much to their horror and why the SF golf alliance hasn't touted this "victory" with their typical blaring PR release (since there is no really no good way to spin it)- the judge ORDERED the city to obtain authorization from the Fish and Wildlife Service for activities that might harm the species, and do so before the next rainy season. In other words they have until October to prove that they are acting reasonably. Why does this SCARE the crap out of the golfers? First of all they've already been put on notice by FW that their activities won't be tolerated any longer and second they will have to come up with a new plan that can pass scientific muster, you know the peer-reviewed plan that they've been trying to ignore for a year.
Because the judge has put this entire issue onto the path of science, the golfers have painted themselves into a no win situation. No more "it's historic" or "it's a salt water marsh" or "the snakes came from over the hill" or "it's a natural area because Mary Ann Nihart says so!" or all the other claptrap Slavin & Co. have been trying to pass off as legitimate arguments.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, but grind they must.
Battles, wars? It ain't over til the fat frog sings.
Factually, Plater did not win. That's the key here. Enviros asked for a summary judgment based on their alleged evidence of huge enviro damage to frogs. Judge did not buy that.
Here is the abbreviated rule on summary judgment: A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A major criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: there must be no genuine issues of material fact,
So since Plater did not get his judgment, facts are disputed; judge declined to side with either; golf course remains open. Yes SF has to get permits, that is a matter of law. So Judge is showing no urgency, plater lost. If Judge was concerned about any part of golf activity, she could have issued a partial summary judgement stoping whatever she though was improper. That did not happen. As for science allegedly siding with Plater--that has not happened over the months of debate. What does that tell you?
We can look forward to more self-serving Plater broadside. Wonderful.
"Wild Equity Institute, et al, sought a summary judgment from the court that,"the City's water pumping activities cause 'take' of the California red-legged frog". This request was DENIED." (Paul Slavin, 4/27/9:39 AM).
DENIED! I think I understand what that means, Anon 10:26 AM. Happy fundraising.
Solutions? Why not move the frogs next door to GGNRA Mori Point where there's a pond and better all year frog weather? Or, consider working with the GGNRA to relocate frogs to their new Montara property pond devepment.
What this city sure doesn't need is another unproductive large-scale "open space" park. Solutions, not lawsuits. Tear down 80 year existing Sharp Park golf course in favor of frog habitat? Insane! Any frogs on your poperty? If so, better not mention it to your pal, Brent Plater or his eco-legal cottage Institute.
Ns Meeh, you obviously did not read or are unable to understand the courts ruling. The denial is conditional - "..The Court considers this stay to be for a
finite duration. The Court will review updates on the progress of the FWS consultation and, if by
October 2012 a Biological Opinion has not issued or plaintiffs’ claims are not otherwise mooted or
resolved, plaintiffs may move to lift the stay."
Get it? No? If no FWS approved plan by October (needs to pass scientific muster) the judge reinstates the stay. Clock is ticking.....
Anon commenter's cannot read the mind of a federal judge. Nothing in this court case is mandatory on the judge, nor has she ruled anything will invoke a mandatory decision if and when fish and wildlife makes a report. Given the glacial pace of FWS work, it's highly doubtful anything will be finished by Oct. The only thing certain is come Oct the judge will review the information. Oh, it it's absolutely certain Plater and gang will still be caterwauling. Bet on that.
FWS still has the power to close that course. How hard will SF work to prevent them from closing a course in Pacifica?
Wasn't there already a requirement for Sharp Park to get a plan approved by Fish and Wildlife?
If so, how can Wild Equity claim that this is some kind of big victory?
"The denial is conditional.."
Anonymous 1:56pm, I get it, and I get you.
Further, I suspect Steve's 2:31pm comment that San Francisco probably checked-in with Fish and Wildlife prior is reasonable. There was an EIR, that may have happened then.
I been eating them frogs for years. Very tasty.
Ridiculous environmental extremists should take a long walk off the pier.
Post a Comment