Endangered Species Demonstrators Cited by Highway Patrol

Today at about 8:30 am at the San Rafael Merrydale crossing over highway 101 two Highway Patrol cars and two Highway Patrol motorcycle officers ordered that our sign come down. One of these officers had told us that he ordered the sign to come down from the freeway while in his car. This we did not hear clearly but complied when this small show of force showed up next to us. Ron Ford and myself, John Parulis were cited for refusing to obey an order, which wasn’t true because when asked up close and where we could hear them, we did. When we asked the officers to cite which law we were breaking, none of them could do so. This was odd, since yesterday two Highway Patrol officers and one San Rafael police officer told us that we were fine to hold the sign where we were.
We plan to contest the tickets, but this isn’t the important part of the story. Killing endangered species is.

Here’s an open letter to SMART board president and Marin County Board of Supervisors president, Charles McGlashan. A few days ago McGlashan violated the free speech of SMART train opponents by suing them in court charging that their ballot arguments were deceptions and lies. McGlashan is way out of line here and wrong himself.
This letter was sent to him and the other members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.







Dear Supervisor McGlashan

I was shocked and dismayed by what I believe was your emotional and poorly thought out legal strategy to file suit against -SMART critics for their oppositional language in the upcoming voter information guides for the November 4th elections.

Your 2004 Supervisor Candidate’s web site lists one of your top priorities as
“Preservation of All Habitat” Your re-election web sites tout you as an
“Environmental Leader”. One of your first acts as supervisor was to host Science and Environmental Health Network’s Carolyn Raffensperger and her presentation on the Precautionary Principle in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. I think you’ve forgotten about the Precautionary Principle, which at that time, you wholeheartedly endorsed, so I am reminding you of it again.

The Main Points of the Precautionary Principle from SEHN are

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

"In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public,
should bear the burden of proof.

"The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open,
informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.
It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives,
including no action."

The Essence of Precaution:

Critics say that the precautionary principle is not well-defined.
However, the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) points
out that, in all formulations of the precautionary principle, we find
three elements:

1) When we have a reasonable suspicion of harm, and

2) scientific uncertainty about cause and effect, then

3) we have a duty to take action to prevent harm.

The precautionary principle does not tell us what action to take.
However, proponents of a precautionary approach have suggested a
series of actions we can take:

(1) Monitor carefully (pay attention), and heed early warnings.

(2) Set goals;

(3) Examine all reasonable ways of achieving the goals, intending to
adopt the least-harmful way;

(4) Shift the burden of proof -- when consequences are uncertain, give
the benefit of the doubt to nature, public health and community
well-being. Expect responsible parties (not governments or the public)
to bear the burden of producing needed information. Expect reasonable
assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just
as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of
safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.

(5) Throughout the decision-making process, honor the knowledge of
those who will be affected by the decisions, and give them a real
"say" in the outcome. This approach naturally allows issues of ethics,
right-and-wrong, history, cultural appropriateness, and justice to
become important in the decision.

(6) Monitor results, heed early warnings, and make mid-course
corrections as needed;

Instead of asking the basic risk-assessment question -- "How much harm
is allowable?" -- the precautionary approach asks, "How little harm is
possible?"

In sum: Faced with reasonable suspicion of harm, the precautionary
approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives for the
purpose of preventing or minimizing harm.





There is an active federally endangered California clapper rail population near the current train tracks at the Gallinas Creek marsh system. I know this for a fact, because I have videotaped them there as part of a 2 year effort to provide useful data to agencies and scientists trying to protect them. Along the route through the Gallinas Creek area, the train and adjacent bike path will seriously displace their habitat. No meaningful mitigation has been provided by SMART for this problem and none may be found. This is a violation of the Precautionary Principle’s attention to the “reasonable suspicion of harm”. SMART’s rush to build the rail system through the Gallinas Creek corridor is also about asking “how much harm is allowable” rather than “how little harm is possible”.

In the north, the related NCRA’s train operations pose similar problems to endangered species living in or along the Eel River.
Gravel mining, that is a component of NCRA operations, has been known to disrupt and displace endangered salmon spawning grounds. This selection from The Friends of the Eel River web site brings up more violations of the Precautionary Principle in the trains’ northern route to Eureka:
“The entire route hosts a variety of threatened and endangered California and federally listed species. The route crosses through wetlands, including those in the Pacific Flyway. Construction, repairs and freight operation through all of these areas will inevitably cause environmental impacts, the extents of which are yet unknown.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that under the California Environmental Quality Act, project definitions must include "the whole of the project." Yet, in its recent notice of preparation for the environmental review underway, the NCRA project description specifically excludes the track serving Eureka and Island Mountain. Novato argues this is illegal and is a clear attempt to deceive the public. We agree and so did the Marin County Board of Supervisors, which decided to file its own amicus in support of Novato.
The only way to assess these impacts and ensure minimal damage is through comprehensive environmental reviews, and an inclusive, responsive, and transparent public process. Clearly, the NCRA, a public agency, is attempting to avoid this important oversight.”

Given the serious nature of the environmental impacts on these two different regions, how can you say that you now subscribe to the wisdom of the Precautionary Principle? If anything, your actions have fragmented the strong environmental communities in Marin and Sonoma. Attacking Barbara Salzman is a career mistake, and a big one, one that I believe you will regret taking for the rest of your political career. I think you’ve become lost in the false promises of SMART and lost your sense of equanimity. Turning your honest gaze away from the real problems that SMART poses to the environment has left you in a leadership void that I pray you may find the wisdom, some day soon, to overcome.


John Parulis. Friends of Gallinas Creek. Co-Director and principle nature photographer.