Baye Slams SF Plan for Sharp Park Golf Course

San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department just spent five months with three consultants to study Sharp Park Golf Course and produce a report, which will not pass peer review, according to ecologist Peter Baye, who says the report's flaws are "...  severe enough to make the wetland conclusions and recommendations of the report unreliable and misleading for any coastal land use planning or environmental restoration planning decisions by either the City of San Francisco, or adjacent landowners (National Park Service), particularly for long-term planning. ..." Baye says the report describes a process that will result in the sure death of red-legged frogs and their predator, the San Francisco garter snake. Click the link to download Baye's full response: Download SFPRD Sharp Park Alts Report Baye comments 111709

Comments

[kathy Jana]

This talk will be on tv Monday, November 3O, at 6:3O p.m.

http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2009/11/peter-baye-on-lagoon-ecology-november-30.html

[Butch Larroche]

"I recently taped a talk by Peter Baye and Bob Battalio (Pacifica's resident hydrologist), and hope to make that talk available to the public soon."

Unlike the meeting that Plater and Davidson spoke at, I'm sure this tape will somehow not be lost or unpostable.

[Steve Sinai]

Peter doesn't make a compelling case at all. That he claims at the start of the report that he's not affiliated with any organization, when in fact he's long been a member of the (cough, cough) "Restore" Sharp Park group, is an indication that this isn't an honest, objective report.

Didn't he give a tour along with Brent Plater (who says he's not affiliated with CBD, even though he was a former attorney and director of the local CBD chapter) a week or two ago at Mori's Point?

There's an old adage along the lines of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs." That's what I kept thinking while reading Peter's report, and there's no way the SF Board of Supervisors will understand it. It reads like gibberish. The Tetra-Tech report is clear and makes sense.

[ian butler]

Peter makes a compelling case. It would be folly for San Francisco to spend $6 million on a restoration plan that ignores basic science.

I recently taped a talk by Peter Baye and Bob Battalio (Pacifica's resident hydrologist), and hope to make that talk available to the public soon. It should help clear up the numerous misconceptions and false assumptions that have thus far dominated the debate.