Sharp Park Golf Course has little value proposition, especially during annual winter flooding

San Francisco’s money-losing, endangered species killing Sharp Park Golf Course once again left City taxpayers with a whopping bill at the close of this fiscal year, bringing the grand total of taxpayer subsidy to 1.8 million dollars over the past decade- losing $160,467.16 per year, on average.

Sharp Park Golf Course cost the city over $350,000 in fiscal year 2014-2015 alone– if losses continue at this rate, San Francisco taxpayers can expect to have to cough up another $1.6 million over the next 10 years in order to subsidize further operations at SPGC.

In addition, we should acknowledge that the costs associated with Sharp Park Golf Course are expected to increase in the coming years. As Wild Equity has noted in the past, the cost of operating Sharp Park Golf Course in the coming years is expected to be nearly $48.8 million, costs including: the $1.6 million noted above, $12-14 million for a full renovation, $32 million to restore the seawall for protection from storms, erosion, and sea level rise, and $1.2 million in permitting, habitat restoration, and construction relating to the Sharp Park Safety, Infrastructure Improvement, and Habitat Enhancement Project.

Sharp Park Golf Course should be able to cover its operating costs with the money that it brings in each year, but has consistently failed to do so. This financial burden to taxpayers is unacceptable.

Why spend all this money in a failing golf course when we can instead restore Sharp Park at no cost to the city? Don’t let San Francisco keep pouring taxpayer dollars into this unprofitable golf course. Click here to find out how you can take action and help our campaign to restore Sharp Park.

On March 11, 2015 Wild Equity appeared at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in our ongoing legal challenged to the money-losing, endangered species killing Sharp Park Golf Course. A few days later the court issued a short opinion that clears the way for Wild Equity to “vacate” a mistaken element of a district court decision issued in 2012.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Wild Equity that our challenge became “moot” due to intervening events. Wild Equity proposed that the court therefore must either (1) declare the case moot so that the lower court opinion could be vacated, or (2) wield an exception to the mootness doctrine and rule that the lower court opinion was wrong on the merits. The court chose the former option, and now Wild Equity can move forward with vacating the mistaken element of the lower court’s position.

This ruling upholds Wild Equity’s lower court victories finding the Golf Course illegally killed endangered species for years, harming their populations, and ordering the Golf Course to pay nearly $400,000 in court costs for its illegal actions. It also paves the way for new legal challenges against the Golf Course for its actions that harm taxpayers and the environment. Stay tuned for the latest updates in our campaign to Restore Sharp Park.

Tuesday, March 25, 3:00pm – Please join the Wild Equity Institute at San Francisco City Hall to speak up and demand a full environmental review of the Sharp Park Pumphouse Project. We need to pack the chamber with supporters!!!

A full environmental review is needed because:

• Experts have stated even a mitigated Pumphouse Project will have significant impacts on the California Red-legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake populations at Sharp Park.

• After reviewing the mitigation proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, in writing, that it does not have the resources to implement the measures listed by Recreation and Park Department.

• The Pumphouse Project will have significant environmental effects on the water quality and hydrology at Sharp Park.

• Experts have proposed a feasible alternative to the current Pumphouse Project: allow the wetland complex’s water levels rise in spring and summer to drowned the aquatic vegetation that grows only in shallow water.

• Sharp Park is suffering from a piecemeal approach to planning.

• The Pumphouse Project conflicts with the Coastal Act.

• The impact on the recovery plan for the California Red-legged Frog is not addressed in the Pumphouse Project.

• RPD staff refuse to analyze alternatives.

• The Board deserves to at least have a less harmful alternative reviewed before it approves such a controversial project in RPD’s most ecologically important asset.

Download a summary of the appeal here. The full appeal is available in three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Please RSVP above or through our Meetup group San Francisco Wildlife Enthusiasts

The Wild Equity Institute along with our partners: Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Save the Frogs!, and Golden Gate Audubon have appealed the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration released for the Sharp Park Pumphouse Safety and Infrastructure Improvement Project, a project led by San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department (RPD). The appeal will go before the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday March 25, 3:00pm at City Hall Room 250. We need you to join us at the Board of Supervisors meeting!

If the Pumphouse Project is approved in its current form it will be disastrous for the federally protected California Red-legged Frog population of the Laguna Salada Wetland Complex. The only way to get a full assessment of the significant environmental damage of the Pumphouse Project and to have an environmentally superior alternative considered is to have a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the project.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has the power to order a full EIR. Our coalition has never lost a vote on this issue at the Board—so far. But we need you to attend this hearing and raise your voice for: the California Red-legged Frog, the San Francisco Garter Snake, this rare wetland complex and all of us who want a more environmentally friendly and fiscally responsible RPD. Please join us on March 25 at 3:00pm at San Francisco City Hall Room 250!

Here are some talking points to include in your comment to the Board of Supervisors on March 25:

• The Recreation and Park Department’s (RPD) Pumphouse Project proposes an invasive dredging project in a wetland complex that is the most biologically important part of RPD’s property.

• The Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration did not consider any alternatives to the Pumphouse Project; a full EIR is needed to adequately consider environmentally superior alternatives.

• After reviewing the mitigation proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, in writing, that it does not have the resources to implement the measures listed by RPD.

• The remediation plan for the acids that the dredging project will release into the water column has not been reviewed or approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Experts have proposed a feasible alternative to the current Pumphouse Project: allow the wetland complex’s water levels rise in spring and summer to drowned the aquatic vegetation that grows only in shallow water.

• Higher water levels will prevent the vegetation from growing back permanently.

• This alternative is the environmentally and economically sustainable plan. It would reduce the amount of aquatic vegetation in the wetland complex without harming the frog, would not require regular intensive dredging, and would cost taxpayers less money.

• This alternative will meet the project objective of eliminating aquatic vegetation and will not increase flood risks for the golf course because it will not affect winter rainy season water levels.

• RPD staff refuse to analyze this alternative, and has not presented it to the Commission or the Board of Supervisors for consideration.

• The Board deserves to at least have this less harmful alternative reviewed before it approves such a controversial project in RPD’s most ecologically important asset.

• RPD’s proposal will establish a vicious cycle of dredging and vegetation regrowth: intensive dredging to remove vegetation and increase wetland drainage rate, increased drainage rate lowers water levels in spring and summer, aquatic vegetation grows back during spring and summer in low water levels, vegetation regrowth slows drainage rate, intensive dredging to remove aquatic vegetation and increase drainage rate, and the cycle repeats over and over. The repetition of this cycle will have significant negative cumulative effects.

• Experts have stated that even a mitigated Pumphouse Project will have significant negative effects on the local California Red-legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake populations.

• Experts have stated that the Pumphouse Project will have significant environmental effects on the water quality and hydrology at Sharp Park.

• The overgrowth of vegetation in the wetland that the Pumphouse Project proposes to remove was itself caused by mismanagement of the wetland.

• Sharp Park is suffering from a piecemeal approach to planning.

• The Pumphouse Project is inconsistent with several laws and plans:
o California Coastal Act
o 1995 and 2006 Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plans
o San Francisco Bay Basin Water Control Plan
o California Red-Legged Frog Recovery Plan

Download a summary of the appeal here. The full appeal is available in three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Wild Equity appealed the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration released for the Sharp Park Pumphouse Project, arguing that the city should do a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We will be going before the San Francisco Planning Commission to make our case for a full EIR as soon as it the item is placed on the agenda.

We believe a full EIR is necessary because:

• Experts have stated even a mitigated Pumphouse Project will have significant impacts on the California Red-legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake populations at Sharp Park.

• The Pumphouse Project will have significant environmental effects on the water quality and hydrology at Sharp Park.

• There are alternatives to the Pumphouse Project and an EIR is needed to adequately consider these alternatives.

• Sharp Park is suffering from a piecemeal approach to planning.

• The Pumphouse Project conflicts with the Coastal Act.

• The impact on the recovery plan for the California Red-legged Frog is not addressed in the Pumphouse Project.

For more information, Wild Equity’s appeal document is available for download. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

For Immediate Release, July 31, 2013

Contacts:
Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Mike Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon Society, (510) 843-9912

Fish And Wildlife Service Caught Rubber-Stamping
Permits To Kill Endangered Species

Lawsuit launched to end back-room deals for industry consultants

“What is the Fish and Wildlife Service afraid of?” asked Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute. “If the activities of the industry consultants can’t withstand the light of day, then the Service shouldn’t be permitting them.”

The Wild Equity Institute discovered the practice when it attempted to submit comments on a permit for Swaim Biological Inc., a private, for-profit firm that was issued an endangered species permit for work at Sharp Park Golf Course.

In 2011, biologists from San Francisco State University observed Sharp Park Golf Course’s wetlands being pumped out and drained in a project overseen by Swaim Biological. Disastrously, this draining exposed dozens of California red-legged frog egg masses to the air, killing them and jeopardizing an entire generation of this protected species. The biologists witnessed several of these dead egg masses and identified their location.

The SFSU biologists immediately informed Swaim Biological’s staff of the wanton destruction of this protected species.  When the SFSU biologists returned to the site in the next days, the dead egg masses were gone.

A desiccated California Red-legged Frog egg mass at Sharp Park.

The identical location showing egg mass was removed.

The Wild Equity Institute was attempting to report the incident to the Service when it learned that Swaim Biological’s permit to manage endangered species needed renewal. Wild Equity asked that the Service investigate that matter further, but the organization was told that the Service had already reissued the permit without any oversight or public notice and comment. Wild Equity was further told that the agency routinely renewed permits for industry consultants without any public oversight, and had been doing so for years.

Swaim Biological had a limited permit to harm endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, Section 10(a)(1)(A).  Under Section 10(c), all permits to harm endangered species must go through a public notice and comment period before they are issued or are renewed, and the Service must determine if permit terms and conditions are complied with before renewing permits under these provisions. The Service failed to follow this procedure thus allowing a consultant to receive a permit without first conducting an investigation into whether the applicable permit standards were met.

“Public review of endangered species take permits is essential, especially where there is a history of questionable management that has resulted in direct take of protected species,” said Mike Lynes, executive director of Golden Gate Audubon Society. “But, instead, the Service appears to be rubber-stamping permits for industry consultants to kill endangered wildlife without public oversight. The Service’s process should be open and transparent before another generation of endangered species is lost.”

Background

The California red-legged frog, Rana draytonii, is the largest frog native to the western United States. It has been lost from over 70% of its historic range, and has suffered a 90% population decline. It is currently only found in select coastal drainages from Marin County south to Baja California, with a few isolated populations near the Sierra Nevadas and the Transverse ranges. In 1996, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the California red-legged frog as a threatened species under the ESA.

Under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service may issue permits to industry consultants if they claim that their work will “enhance the propagation or survival of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.” These permits allow the permit holder to harass, harm, pursue, kill, trap, capture, or collect endangered species.  In part because of the breadth of these permits, applications for such permits, whether new, amended, or renewals without changes, must be published in the Federal Register and the public must be given an opportunity to submit comments, as required under 16 USC § 1539(c), 50 C.F.R. § 17.22, and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own Director’s Order 143.  But the Fish and Wildlife Service in several regions has adopted a policy to avoid all public oversight for permit renewals so long as the permittee did not request any changes to its original permit.  This policy allowed permits to industry consultants to be renewed indefinitely and without any public oversight in perpetuity, and precluded the Service from receiving new information about the permittee’s qualifications or activities.

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

https://www.wildequity.org/

###

July 2, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989


Conservationists Win Lawsuit
Sharp Park Golf Course Must Pay $386,000
for Illegally Killing Endangered Species

San Francisco— U.S. District Judge Susan Illston today found that six conservation organizations “prevailed” in a lawsuit against the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department’s (SFRPD) Sharp Park Golf Course, and ordered the golf course to pay $386,000 for illegally killing endangered species.

“Sharp Park Golf Course illegally kills endangered species, and San Francisco taxpayers continue to foot the bill for this environmental crime,” said Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute. “We look forward to working with the City to implement today’s order and craft a new public park at Sharp Park everyone can enjoy—including endangered wildlife.”

In the order, Judge Illston wrote that “defendants denied they were causing any take of the [threatened California red-legged frogs] or [endangered San Francisco garter snakes] at Sharp Park,” but expressly rejected this defense, noting that “as a result of construction activities and golf course maintenance operations, all Frogs, all Snakes, and 130 egg masses will be subject to incidental take.” Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the definition of “take” includes acts that kill, injure, and harass protected species.

Judge Illston went on to state that “plaintiffs’ litigation goal was the halt [SIC] defendants’ taking of the Frogs and Snakes without first obtaining authorization pursuant to the ESA. . . . The Court also finds that this objective was met.”

Although Judge Illston did not award all of the fees requested by the conservation groups, the $386,000 award adds to the financial losses facing Sharp Park Golf Course, which is bleeding San Francisco’s recreation budgets dry. In its most recent budget, SFRPD has proposed to increase the General Fund subsidy to golf courses by $2.5 million, a 47% increase over last year (p. 5). RPD claims that this massive shortfall is caused by low demand for golf and environmental problems at Sharp Park Golf Course (p. 2).

None of these expenditures would be necessary if SFRPD would consider creating a 21st Century public park at Sharp Park in partnership with the National Park Service. Congress has preapproved this new public park, the National Park Service has stated on several occasions that it would be willing to manage the property as a new National Park, and a majority of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has voted to implement this plan on five different occasions.

The Washington, D.C. public-interest law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal represents the coalition of conservation groups in the lawsuit.

Background

Sharp Park is a wetland owned by San Francisco but located in San Mateo County. The City drains Sharp Park year-round to operate a golf course on the land. The golf course loses money, harms two endangered species, and puts the surrounding community at risk when the course floods. The Wild Equity Institute is working to build a better public park at Sharp Park, a park that saves San Francisco money, protects the environment, sustainably adapts to sea level rise and climate change, and provides recreational opportunities that everyone can enjoy.

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. This request was supported by a 2011 peer-reviewed scientific study by independent scientists and coastal experts which 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 San Francisco Board of Supervisors most recently passed legislation in December 2011 to create this 21st Century public park, but Mayor Ed Lee, an avid golfer, vetoed the legislation.

Under the Mayor’s direction, SFRPD is instead pursuing a plan to invest millions into recreating Sharp Park Golf Course’s original design, a design so poorly conceived that it was destroyed by coastal storms and flooding within a few years of the course’s opening date.

If the Mayor’s plan succeeds, Sharp Park’s endangered species will be lost, prices at Sharp Park Golf Course will likely rise to between $80 and $120 per round, and millions of dollars in general fund monies will be diverted annually from San Francisco’s neighborhood parks and community services to subsidize a suburban golf course.

To find out more about Wild Equity’s campaign to build a new National Park at Sharp Park visit https://www.wildequity.org/.

The Wild Equity Institute is building a healthy and sustainable global community for people

and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth.

https://www.wildequity.org/

###

There is going to be a special session of the Budget and Finance Committee tomorrow, Friday, 21 June at 10:00 am, City Hall, Room 250. This your opportunity to give public comment on the Mayor’s proposed budget. We need you to let the Supervisors know that the money allocated for golf, specifically for the Sharp Park Golf Course, could be spent more efficiently.

Here are the facts:

• The Mayor’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 presumes that revenue from the City’s golf courses will decline by $1.4 million compared to last year.
• This makes sense, because the Golf Fund will fall almost $1 million short of its projected revenue for FY2012-13.
• The City’s own budget updates explain that the shortfall was caused by low demand for golf and the environmental problems at Sharp Park Golf Course.
• Nonetheless the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for FY2013-14 authorizes the Golf Fund to spend approximately $2.5 million more than the Golf Fund earned during FY2012-13.
• To make up this difference the Mayor is proposing to increase the general fund subsidy to the Golf Fund by approximately $2.5 million.
• That’s $2.5 million that the City could spend on just about anything: HIV prevention, maintenance of neighborhood parks and community centers, reducing fees at the Arboretum, after school programs, legal services to the poor….or anything else that might reflect our priorities.
• Instead, the Mayor is proposing to throw this money at a suburban golf course in San Mateo County that consistently has lower than projected demand, floods every winter, and kills two endangered species as it operates.
• San Franciscan’s deserve better.

Please join Wild Equity at City Hall, Room 250 on Friday, 21 June at 10:00 am and ask the Board of Supervisors to stop the bailout for Sharp Park Golf Course, and redirect the money the City saves toward San Francisco’s true priorities.

Need proof that golf courses can be closed and restored to wildlife habitat? The Trust for Public Land just did it at the Ocean Meadows Golf Course in Goleta, CA.

40 years after wetlands were destroyed to create Ocean Meadows Golf Course, the wetlands are being restored. Under the leadership of the Trust for Public Land and many supporters, the golf course in Santa Barbara County will soon return to its unique natural habitat.

The restored wetland will provide habitat for wildlife; recreational opportunities for adults and children; and educational programs for students in the surrounding area.

The soon-to-be-restored Ocean Meadows Golf Course.

Are we going to let Southern California reap all the benefits of wetland restoration? Write to Mayor Ed Lee today and urge him to invest in San Francisco city parks and protect endangered species by closing Sharp Park Golf Course and turning it into a national park for all to enjoy!

January 7, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Neal Desai, National Parks Conservation Association, (415) 989-9925
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357

Protections Sought for Endangered Frogs, Snakes at Pacifica’s Sharp Park

San Francisco — Conservation groups filed a legal appeal today to secure essential protections for endangered frogs and snakes that live at Pacifica’s Sharp Park. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently found that pumping water from wetlands, habitat alteration, mowing, gopher control, and other activities at the Sharp Park golf course, run by the city of San Francisco, are hurting and killing threatened California red-legged frogs and highly endangered San Francisco garter snakes.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service has rejected San Francisco’s baseless position that its golf-course activities do not harm federally protected species,” said Neal Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association. “It’s clear our lawsuit was needed to bring professional oversight of the city’s operations. This is a step forward in the campaign to safeguard the precious biodiversity in the Bay Area. The appeal we are pursuing will guarantee that San Francisco abides by the same rules as every other city when it comes to protecting endangered species.”

“Sharp Park ought to be a safe place for red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes, two of the rarest animals in the region,” said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s unfortunate and frustrating that the city’s management of the golf course has continues to put these species in danger. We’re taking action to make sure these animals finally get the protection they deserve.”

Sharp Park is an important wildlife habitat adjoining National Park Service properties in Pacifica. Today’s appeal, filed in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, seeks to ensure that appropriate and legally binding protections are implemented to prevent and reduce the ongoing killing and harming of endangered species by the golf course’s operations.

Background

In March 2011 the Center for Biological Diversity, Wild Equity Institute, National Parks Conservation Association, Surfrider Foundation, Sequoia Audubon Society and other organizations sued San Francisco under the Endangered Species Act for illegally killing and harming — “taking” is the legal word — protected species through operation of the golf course. San Francisco was manipulating water levels in wetlands and stranding frog eggs during the breeding season, as well as mowing habitat areas occupied by endangered species, without any federal permit.

San Francisco maintained that its golf-course activities were not harming either species, but shortly after the lawsuit was filed the city initiated a formal consultation process under the Endangered Species Act — a step that sought approval to harm and kill protected wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the golf course’s impacts and has issued conservation measures that both San Francisco and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the federal agency that issues a permit for wetlands degradation on the site) must adopt.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s October 2012 “biological opinion” vindicates the position of conservation groups: that golf-course operations adversely affect both the frog and the snake. The Service prescribed dozens of protection measures that the city and the Corps of Engineers must adopt to address impacts, including the construction of new habitats to compensate for wetlands the city is destroying or degrading.

In light of the Service’s biological opinion, the lower court recently dismissed the conservation groups’ pending lawsuit, ruling that the Endangered Species Act claims have now been adequately addressed, although the Corps has yet to issue its permit adopting the conservation measures prescribed by the Service. In their filing today, conservation groups are appealing the ruling to press for further assurances that the habitat needs of endangered species will be addressed.

The city-owned golf course at 400-acre Sharp Park 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 end golf-course operations and restore the functions of the original natural ecosystem, which will also provide the most benefit to endangered species.

But the Park Department has refused to consider this option, and is instead pursuing a plan that would harm endangered species at the site and bail out the golf course’s financial problems with 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 vetoed the legislation.

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

https://www.wildequity.org/

###

On Monday, November 19, at 1:00 p.m. in San Francisco’s City Hall Room 250, the Board of Supervisors will vote to remove a plan to redevelop Sharp Park Golf Course from the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan, so that these two different projects with very different purposes can stand or fall on their own merits.

We need you to be there to support this resolution: attend the hearing and tell the supervisors to vote YES on the resolution!

Background.

Sharp Park is a wetland owned by San Francisco but located in San Mateo County. The City drains Sharp Park year-round so people can play golf on the land. The golf course loses money, harms two endangered species, and puts the surrounding community at risk when the course floods. The Wild Equity Institute is working to build a better public park at Sharp Park, a park that saves San Francisco money, protects the environment, sustainably adapts to sea level rise and climate change, and provides recreational opportunities that everyone can enjoy.

A restoration vision for Sharp Park.

The Promise.

In 2005, San Francisco submitted its Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan for environmental review. The Plan included some modest restoration activities at Sharp Park, but left the golf course in tact. At the time, Wild Equity staff and others requested that the City consider a more ambitious restoration opportunity: closing the golf course and creating a new National Park at Sharp Park. San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department responded in writing, stating ‘should changes to the Sharp Park Golf Course be proposed, they would undergo a separate regulatory review, including CEQA environmental review.’

A Promise Broken.

But in 2011, the Recreation and Park Department went back on its written word. It jammed a multi‐million dollar golf course redevelopment plan into a chapter of the environmental review document for the Natural Areas Program: a completely different project with completely different purposes. Adding injury to this insult, they refused to consider any restoration alternatives to its golf course redevelopment plan for Sharp Park, claiming that the golf course was an ‘historic landmark,’ even though the City’s own Historic Preservation Commission disagreed with this conclusion.

The Solution.

Now the Supervisors are considering a resolution that would undo this duplicitous act by the Recreation and Park Department: a resolution that orders the Department to separate out its plan to redevelop the golf course and put that plan through “a separate regulatory review, including CEQA environmental review,” as the Department promised the public from the start.

What You Can Do.

Please attend this critical hearing and tell the Supervisors to vote YES on the resolution. Meet us at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, at the Land Use Committee, Room 250, 1:00 pm. RSVP using the form above right away!

Talking Points.

• I support the resolution to segregate out the Sharp Park Golf Course redevelopment plan from the Natural Areas Program Management Plan Environmental Impact Report, and I ask the Supervisors to support this resolution too.
• The Recreation and Park Department must make good on its commitment to conduct separate reviews of these two different projects, and that is what this resolution makes the Department to do.
• The resolution orders the Department to stay true to its word by removing the Sharp Park Golf Course project from the Natural Areas Plan and allowing these two different projects to be considered by the public and policymakers through their own environmental review processes.
• The resolution was introduced in July of this year, and no comments in opposition have been submitted by the Department to date. Now is the time to finally put the Department back on track with these projects.
• The resolution does not change the status quo at Sharp Park Golf Course and does not plan for or modify any land activity at Sharp Park. This is a procedural resolution to ensure the Department make good on its word to the public and policymakers.
• This resolution does not attempt to control the future of Sharp Park Golf Course in any way, and therefore a vote supporting the resolution does not mean the Supervisor is taking a position on Sharp Park’s future.
• The resolution does not affect the City’s discretion to propose alternatives or select a preferred alternative for either project in any way.

The Wild Equity Institute has filed a formal legal petition and submitted supporting comments to add the San Francisco gartersnake to the list of species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”). The request could be implemented as soon as March 3, 2013, when the CITES Conference of the Parties will be convened in Bangkok, Thailand.

Formal legal petition to add the San Francsico gartersnake to the list of species protected by CITES.

Although the Endangered Species Act has protected the San Francisco gartersnake since 1973, it has never been protected under treaties that prohibit international trade in endangered species and/or their parts. This has been the case even though poaching has been documented to adversely impact the San Francisco gartersnake, often referred to as “the most beautiful serpent in North America.”

Strangely enough, Northern Europe—not Northern California—is the global hotspot for San Francisco gartersnake fanciers and breeders. The snakes used in Northern Europe were originally taken from the wild, either before the Endangered Species Act was passed or illegally after the snake was protected. In either case, unregulated breeding—often solely to enhance the color and pattern of the species’ beautiful stripes—has in most instances made these specimens unsuitable for reintroduction to the wild.

Unregulated breeding and trade is not only impacting the stock of captive animals, it is also encouraging poaching. The Wild Equity Institute has obtained information about possible poaching events in 2005 and 2006, and an ongoing desire for breeders to obtain “fresh stock” from the wild to address inbreeding and other problems associated with the captive San Francisco gartersnake populations in Northern Europe.

With Sharp Park Golf Course killing individual animals in the wild, poaching of wild animals cannot be countenanced. But because the Endangered Species Act only regulates trade to and from the United States, only CITES can regulate the trade happening across Northern Europe and other non-U.S. locations.

The Wild Equity Institute expects a response to its petition in the coming months. In the meantime, you can support our work to conserve the San Francisco gartersnake by becoming a Wild Equity Institute member on-line today.

On May 19 over 35 tailgaters for endangered species converged on Sharp Park Golf Course’s parking lot to protest an outrageous ‘celebration’ of the endangered species-killing, money losing Sharp Park Golf Course. With their message of drumming for frogs and occupying Sharp Park(ing lot), the tailgaters ate good food, played some interesting beats, and enjoyed good company, all while explaining to the media and the public why Sharp Park Golf Course should be closed and the land transformed into a new national park everyone can enjoy.

Below are a few photos of the event. Thanks to Save the Frogs! for organizing!

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.

https://www.wildequity.org/

###

Thank you for your help creating a new national park at Sharp Park!

If you do one thing this month to build a new national park at Sharp Park, make it this: attend the Recreation and Parks Commission hearing tomorrow, Thursday November 19, 2pm, at San Francisco’s City Hall, Room 416.

At this hearing, the Recreation and Parks Department’s General Manager Phil Ginsburg will recommend that San Francisco move forward with an all-golf alternative at Sharp Park. This alternative would reduce recreational access to the site, divert millions of taxpayer dollars from our neighborhood parks and the recreational activities Bay Area residents actually demand, and ensure that the endangered species on the property are lost forever. We can stop this proposal from being adopted, but only if you stand up for the “underfrog” by attending this hearing and telling the Commission that we deserve a better, more sustainable future at Sharp Park.

And we can do better: if we restore Sharp Park in partnership with the National Park Service, we can provide recreational opportunities everyone can enjoy, protect the environment, defend our coastal communities from the impacts of climate change, and ensure that San Francisco’s neighborhood parks no longer face cutbacks because the City subsidizes golf in San Mateo County.

A restoration vision for Sharp Park

So please attend the Recreation and Parks Commission hearing tomorrow, Thursday November 19, 2pm at San Francisco’s City Hall, Room 416. Sharp Park is the fifth item on the general calendar, so plan your afternoon accordingly!

Thanks for all you do,

Brent Plater
http://www.restoresharppark.org

ps—If you cannot attend the hearing, you can click here to send in your comments by email or phone.

December 6, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Michelle Myers, Sierra Club, (415) 646-6930
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357

San Francisco Supervisors Vote to Consider Partnership with National Park Service for Sharp Park
Amended Ordinance Increases Collaboration, Improves Access to Golf

SAN FRANCISCO— The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today voted 6-5 to consider a management agreement with the National Park Service for city-owned Sharp Park in Pacifica. The ordinance requires the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to begin discussions towards developing a long-term management agreement proposal for Sharp Park with the National Park Service, and to submit that proposal for subsequent review by the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance will complement existing golf-only proposals being reviewed by the Park Department and ensures policy-makers can review diverse proposals for best addressing key city and resident concerns, such as recreation supply and public access, environmental protection and strategic financial investments.

“The status quo is not sustainable at Sharp Park,” said Supervisor John Avalos. “A partnership with the National Park Service will make Sharp Park more accessible while allowing the City to reinvest resources into our neighborhood golf courses, parks, and recreation centers.”

“This ordinance gives us all an opportunity to review all available options to address the complex problems facing Sharp Park,” said San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. “It is an important first step, and I look forward to reviewing the proposals when they become available and hope to find a solution that is ecologically sound and financially sustainable.”

“This measure provides us an opportunity to work with the National Park Service and create solutions that balance sustainability, the recreation priorities of our residents and minimizing fiscal cost,” said Supervisor Jane Kim.

The golf course at 400-acre Sharp Park is plagued by crumbling infrastructure, annual flooding problems and ongoing environmental violations. The site is home to two federally protected species, the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Conservation groups have sued the Recreation and Park Department for continuing to kill and harm endangered species by pumping of water from wetlands where frogs lay eggs and mowing vegetation used by garter snakes. 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.

The approval of the ordinance is a preliminary step to an agreement with the Park Service for long-term managament of Sharp Park. If the legislation is not vetoed by Mayor Ed Lee, the Park Service is expected to work in partnership with the city. Any management plan would go through an environmental review processes, public review and hearings, and come back to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The ordinance allows the city to negotiate with other parties to manage the park, such as San Mateo County or Pacifica, but ensures city decision-making considers the potential Park Service partnership proposal as well.

The Park Service is expected to propose restoring the site to coastal habitat with a trail network and other public-serving amenities. Sharp Park is within the legislative boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and adjacent to the Park Service’s Mori Point, where a successful, multimillion dollar wildlife habitat and trail-restoration project accommodates neighbors, school groups and families in a community-based model of park creation. Coastal restoration experts released a scientific study and restoration proposal for Sharp Park showing that removing the golf course and restoring the natural lagoon, wetlands and beach processes is the least costly and only sustainable solution for the land. Restoration will provide the most public benefit and best protect endangered species, at much less expense than the Park Department’s costly plan to dredge wetlands and physically alter golf holes.

If a long-term management plan is reached that closes the golf course, a transition plan would allow for continuation of golf during the planning phase under certain conditions that safeguard endangered species. Pacifica residents would be allowed to pay San Francisco resident rates at San Francisco’s five other golf courses and jobs held at Sharp Park golf course would be redeployed from Pacifica to San Francisco, to help improve neighborhood recreation and park facilities within San Francisco. Lincoln Golf Course, a potential beneficiary of these new staff resources, was identified in a 2007 National Golf Foundation study as needing increased maintenance staff to improve course conditions to attract more players and revenue.

###

November 30, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357
Michelle Myers, Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, (415)-646-6930

Lawsuit Over Sharp Park Golf Course Harm to Endangered Species Will Continue to Trial
Judge Denies Temporary Emergency Protections for Endangered Species

SAN FRANCISCO— A federal district court judge has denied a request for an immediate injunction against golf-course operations documented to kill and harm endangered species at Sharp Park in Pacifica. The court referred to a temporary injunction as “extraordinary relief,” and will wait until the scheduled trial next summer to consider measures to address the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department’s pumping of water from wetlands where California red-legged frogs lay eggs and mowing of vegetation used by critically endangered San Francisco garter snakes.

“The judge did not think that immediate restrictions on the golf course are necessary and intends to address these matters at trial,” said Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute and legal counsel on the suit. “We are excited to go to trial and expect the judge to craft appropriate relief once she has heard the merits of the case.”

“It’s shameful that San Francisco intends to continue draining and mowing sensitive wetlands for another winter — you’d think the ‘green city’ would do right by its namesake endangered species,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Because San Francisco garter snake numbers are so dangerously low, golf-course mismanagement that kills a single snake threatens the species as a whole.”

The interim ruling does not affect the ongoing lawsuit filed by conservation groups over the Parks Department’s documented killing of endangered species. Although the court declined immediate relief, it is reserving judgment on the merits of the lawsuit until trial, which begins in July 2012. The Parks Department has no viable plan to comply with the Endangered Species Act or adequately protect endangered species.

“Though we are saddened there will be another season where harm will fall on these fragile creatures, we are confident in our ability to make a strong case for protection of both species in trial,” said Michelle Myers of the Sierra Club.

The judge ruled conservation groups did not show irreparable harm would occur before the case is resolved at trial. Although San Francisco does not deny golf-course operations harm endangered species and the city lacks required permits, the judge relied on assertions by Parks Department staff and hired biologists that ongoing stranding and killing of frog eggs is not hurting the overall frog population and the department’s “compliance plan” can adequately protect frogs and snakes in the short term.

Background

Ongoing killing of endangered frogs at the golf course and a Parks Department “restoration” plan that would actually evict endangered frogs and garter snakes from Sharp Park led to conservation groups filing suit under the Endangered Species Act and asking for an injunction on certain golf-course activities hurting endangered wildlife. Leading experts submitted declarations supporting the temporary injunction.

The city’s Parks Department cited increased observations of frog eggs last winter as evidence of an improving population trend for red-legged frogs in Sharp Park, yet restored habitat conditions at adjacent Mori Point, managed by the National Park Service, a wet winter, and increased surveys and scrutiny by biologists are more likely explanations. Leading scientific experts, with collective experience of more than seven decades of research and study of California amphibians and reptiles, have explained that the golf course is a “population sink” that kills more frogs than are bred and alters suitable habitat, threatening the long-term survival and recovery of both frogs and snakes. The experts also objected to the Parks Department’s alleged compliance plan, which is not being followed, as “unworkable.”

Sharp Park Golf Course faces crumbling infrastructure, annual flooding problems and ongoing environmental violations. Dozens of San Francisco community, recreation, environmental and social-justice groups are calling for a more sustainable public park at the site. A San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee will vote Dec. 5 on legislation introduced by Supervisor John Avalos that would create a long-term solution for Sharp Park by transitioning management to the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This change would not only protect endangered wildlife but also improve recreation and public access and save San Francisco taxpayers’ money. The proposed partnership would end the city’s legal and financial liabilities for Sharp Park and put the National Park Service in charge of protecting endangered species and providing public recreation, allowing San Francisco to reinvest its scarce resources in city-based parks, recreation centers and golf courses.

A new report issued by SPUR (the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association) makes several recommendations that support building a new national park at Sharp Park. It also provides helpful suggestions that have improved legislation pending before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“SPUR’s report makes clear that the City of San Francisco must immediately cease all activities that harm endangered species at Sharp Park, and begin a process that builds a better public park on the land,” said Brent Plater, Executive Director of the Wild Equity Institute. “SPUR’s comments have also been incorporated into Supervisor Avalos’ Sharp Park Ordinance: substitute language now ensures restoration planning occurs in a collaborative and deliberative process, and we thank SPUR for helping make these processes possible.”

Among other things, SPUR’s report recommends that:

• Over the next 1-3 years “the city should proceed as quickly as possible to implement a legally sound plan to restore and protect frog and snake populations”
• Over the next 3-10 years “SFRPD should evaluate the feasibility of partnership with another entity to manage and/or operate the site, including the GGNRA”
• Over the next 5-50 years “SFRPD should consider a change of land use for the entire Sharp Park site. A more naturalistic setting, including an enlarged lake with an outlet to the ocean, may provide better habitat conditions and recreational opportunities, and be less expensive to manage on a day-to-day basis than a frequently flooded golf course”

SPUR also made suggestions to help improve legislation pending at the Board of Supervisors. Recognizing that changes at Sharp Park deserve to be made through a deliberative process, Supervisor John Avalos’ Sharp Park Ordinance makes clear that San Francisco must only move forward with a new management agreement at Sharp Park if the National Park Service agrees to partner with the City, and only after scrupulously complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). If either CEQA compliance or partnerships with the National Park Service are not possible, the City’s obligations under the ordinance end.

“The Avalos legislation provides the missing piece to the Sharp Park puzzle—an environmentally preferable, financially sound project the City can actually adopt,” said Plater. “As amended, the legislation will allow all risks, costs, and liabilities to be assessed in the light of day, ensuring that the best public policy outcome at Sharp Park is reached.”

September 26, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 669-7357
Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, (415) 572-6989
Arthur Feinstein, Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, (415) 680-0643

Court Motion Filed to Restrict Illegal Sharp Park Golf Course Activities, Protect Endangered Species

SAN FRANCISCO— Six San Francisco conservation groups are seeking a preliminary injunction in federal court against the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department to stop illegal pumping of water from wetlands and prohibit harmful mowing and motorized golf-cart use on ten golf course holes near wetlands at the Sharp Park golf course in Pacifica. The injunction will help protect endangered San Francisco garter snakes and California red-legged frogs from these harmful activities.

“No more business as usual at Sharp Park — illegal pumping and mowing of wetlands stops now,” said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The best scientific experts on endangered species are calling for a moratorium on harmful golf course activities in and near wetlands habitat, and we hope the court agrees.”

The Wild Equity Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Surfrider Foundation, Sequoia Audubon and Sierra Club filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday on golf-course activities that are hurting endangered species. The injunction would last until a pending lawsuit is heard or the Recreation and Parks Department adopts an approved “habitat conservation plan” and obtains legal permits under the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs are represented by the environmental law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal.

“These science-based restrictions will protect our most imperiled wildlife from harm while allowing golf on many of the course areas,” said Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute. “Their duration will provide us all an opportunity to evaluate proper permitting options and restoration activities at Sharp Park.”

A restoration vision for Sharp Park.

Leading scientific experts on the red-legged frog and gartersnake, with collective experience of more than seven decades of research and study of California amphibians and reptiles, submitted declarations in support of the requested injunction. These experts contend that golf course activities impair the long-term survival and recovery of the species and that the Parks Department’s alleged compliance plan is not being followed and is unworkable. See quotes below from these experts explaining why the injunction is justified.

Crumbling infrastructure, annual flooding problems, declining conditions and ongoing Endangered Species Act violations at the golf course require changing how Sharp Park is managed, but such changes are not financially feasible for San Francisco’s strained budget. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote next month on legislation introduced by Supervisor John Avalos to repurpose the golf course and transition management of Sharp Park to the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area to improve recreation and public access, protect endangered wildlife and save San Francisco taxpayers money. The proposed partnership will end the city’s legal and financial liabilities and put the National Park Service in charge of protecting endangered species and providing public recreation, allowing San Francisco to reinvest its scarce resources back into city-based parks, recreation centers and golf courses.

For more information and background, visit wildequity.org.

Quotes From Scientific Experts:

• Dr. Vance Vredenburg is an assistant professor in biology at San Francisco State University, research associate at the California Academy of Sciences and U.C. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, and an expert on California amphibians and the red-legged frog.

“Sharp Park must have successful recovery actions implemented, or it will one day lose its red-legged frog population, and potentially jeopardize populations at nearby properties as well.”

“The city is not, and cannot, actually implement the Compliance Plan…making it virtually certain that California red-legged frogs will be taken unless the relief requested by the plaintiffs here is granted…San Francisco must be ordered to cease all pumping at Sharp Park.”

• Dr. Marc Hayes is a biologist with four decades of experience studying reptiles and amphibians in California. He wrote the Department of Fish and Game’s “Amphibians and Reptiles of Special Concern in California” and submitted the petition that led to listing the red-legged frog as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

“Unless golf-course operations that cause ongoing take of these species are halted, both populations at Sharp Park may be lost, and the San Francisco garter snake’s entire species will be in jeopardy.”

“The Recreation and Parks Department should be prohibited from operating the pumps at Sharp Park until a decision is rendered in this matter…the court should grant plaintiffs’ request to prohibit all mowing and golf-cart use within roughly 200 meters of the delineated wetland.”

• Wendy Dexter is the principal biologist at Condor Country Consulting, with 20 years of experience in herpetology, particularly regarding the San Francisco garter snake and red-legged frog, and specializes in endangered species compliance and permits.

“The San Francisco garter snake’s habitat at Sharp Park has not been secured, and the subspecies has been taken, and will continue to be taken in the foreseeable future, by the continued operations and management of Sharp Park Golf Course…I am certain that undocumented deaths of snakes occur annually if not more frequently.”

“Unless the golf-course operations that cause take of the San Francisco garter snake are halted in areas where the snake is likely to be found, the Sharp Park/Mori Point population will continue to decline, increasing the potential for the population to become extirpated.”

On September 6, 2011, Supervisor John Avalos introduced legislation at San Francisco City Hall to restore Sharp Park in partnership with the National Park Service! Now the Board of Supervisors needs to hear from you: tell them to support this legislation and restoring Sharp Park!

Watch this short video to learn about the problems facing Sharp Park,
and Supervisor Avalos’ bold legislative solution.

San Francisco is renowned for its thoughtful-yet-impactful environmental policies, and Supervisor Avalos’ legislation is one of the City’s most important ideas yet. The legislation will enable San Francisco to partner with the National Park Service to transition land management at Sharp Park from an unsustainable golf course into a new National Park that everyone can enjoy. In the process, we can sustainably adapt the land to sea level rise and climate change; help save two endangered species; and provide recreational opportunities that match modern recreation demands. The legislation also gives Pacifica residents access to San Francisco-resident rates at San Francisco’s remaining five public golf courses, ensuring that affordable golf is made more accessible than ever.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors will pass this ordinance: but only if they hear from you. Please write the supervisors using this Action Alert, and then call your member of the Board regularly to let him know you want Sharp Park restored!

In a meeting organized by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who continues to pursue a public bailout of the money-losing and endangered species-killing Sharp Park Golf Course, federal agencies delivered a serious blow to the controversial all-golf alternative for Sharp Park promoted by San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department.

Calling the City’s all-golf proposal a mitigation plan for the golf course’s killing of endangered species rather than a species recovery plan, federal officials stated that San Francisco could not pursue the all-golf alternative unless it invested millions in trust to pay for maintenance of restored areas and obtained ownership of adjacent private lands where the City intends to relegate future generations of California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes.

We all deserve better than the City’s myopic plan for Sharp Park, and with continued support from federal agencies we will build a better public park for all. Please call Congresswoman Speier and e-mail San Francisco officials and ask them to stop the golf bailout and start building a better public park at Sharp Park!