• Restore Sharp Park — Latest News

April 26, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357
Arthur Feinstein, Sierra Club, (415) 680-0643

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.

 The Wild Equity Institute is building a healthy and sustainable global community for people
and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth.

http://wildequity.org/

###

Comments

1. Brent Plater — 04 May 2012 - 09:24

   Judge Illston: “[D]efendants have not established at the summary judgment stage that the Frog population is, in fact, growing. . . . New evidence and recent FWS activity have called into question the growth of the Frog population at Sharp Park.”



2. Brent Plater — 04 May 2012 - 09:24

   Judge Illston: “Plaintiffs have also pointed to testimony that calls into question whether the Frog population is increasing. They cite defendants’ expert Lisa Wayne, Sharp Park’s Natural Areas Program Manager, who testified at deposition that she could not say whether the population trend of the Frog at Sharp Park was increasing or decreasing, and that while the 2010-2011 rainy season was the highest she had seen, the egg mass population fluctuates from year to year.”



3. Brent Plater — 04 May 2012 - 09:24

   Judge Illston: “[T]he scarcity and elusiveness of the Snake cannot, by themselves, proscribe a finding of standing. It would be incongruous with the purposes of the ESA to hold, as a matter of law, that a private citizen cannot bring suit simply because an animal is difficult to see, or worse, that because there are so few of the animal left, a person cannot be harmed by continued take.”



4. Brent Plater — 04 May 2012 - 09:25

   Judge Illston: “Plaintiffs have claimed impaired enjoyment of seeing animals in and around a specific pond in a park they live near and visit frequently. They have pinpointed specific dates at which they’ve visited the Park, seen or otherwise searched for the Frog and Snake, and expressed not only their intention but specific plans to return. They have fully described defendant’s activities that they characterize as harmful, provided evidence of them, and alleged how those activities specifically impact their enjoyment of the park. This is sufficient for the purposes of standing.”

If you sign up and log in, you can post comments.