CURRENT ISSUE

SUBSCRIBE

ABOUT CALIFORNIA WILD

CONTACT US

ADVERTISING

SEARCH

BACK ISSUES

CONTRIBUTORS'
GUIDELINES

THIS WEEK IN
CALIFORNIA WILD

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Mountain Lake

As manager of the Mountain Lake Research Project, I am writing to thank your staff for conveying the flavor of our program through the eyes of our students. I am proud of the observations and analysis of Mountain Lake’s diversity that these individuals have learned and then shared.

As your story shows, our program strives to be as accurate as possible. We wanted to clarify a few important details.

While the Mountain Lake Research Project provides an enriching component to the community surrounding Mountain Lake, the main enhancement plan is a project of the Golden Gate National Parks Association, the National Park Service, and the Presidio Trust. We would not have had the opportunity to do research without their support and hard work, and we look forward to the improvements they make.

The majority of Mountain Lake’s watershed includes the Presidio Golf Course. We have monitored water chemistry and algal growth at the lake, however we have not drawn direct links to connect fertilizer application and algal blooms. We continue to investigate this complex relationship.

Once again, my students and volunteers appreciate the attention this article focused upon our efforts and the needs of Mountain Lake.

The Bolsa Chica Story

Please indulge me but there are several misstatements of historical facts in Allan Schoenherr’s otherwise fine article on the Bolsa Chica in California Wild (Winter 2001).

“Until the 1960s it was a productive oil field.” The Bolsa Chica is still a productive oil field.

“...in 1973 the state of California purchased 300 acres...” The state did not purchase the 300 acres. They were deeded to the state by the land owners in exchange for permission to fill and dredge the remaining 900-plus acres of lowlands for a massive marina development. That deal led to the Amigos de Bolsa Chica’s 1979 lawsuit against the state and the land owners. Most observers agree that it was that lawsuit that prevented the Bolsa Chica from becoming another Long Beach Marina.

“In April 1999, all of the lowlands were permanently protected....only the 215-acre mesa...remained available for development.” In February 1997, the state purchased 880 acres of Bolsa Chica lowlands. There still remains about 100 acres of lowlands that are in private hands, the Fieldstone property and Edwards Thumb, both flat and developable.

In addition, there is a small wetland on the Shea property, a few small wetlands and vernal pools on the privately owned mesa, and of course Warner Pond, although protected as an ESHA (environmentally sensitive habitat area) is still in private hands. Nothing is permanently protected. “Protected” is a relative term that depends on the political party in power that is interpreting it. Vigilance is the only protector of the environment.

“...throwing taxpayers’ money in the ocean. ‘The state will spend over 90 million dollars to acquire and restore Bolsa Chica.’” Neither taxpayers nor the state paid for the acquisition and restoration of the Bolsa Chica. The funds (about $80 million) came from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach from fees paid by shippers for the use of the port facilities.

Allan Schoenherr responds: As an author I must take full responsibility for what is said in an article that is published under my name. On the other hand, after numerous rewrites I was not fully attentive to editorial revisions that crept into the text, particularly in what I considered a minor issue, the details of land acquisition. The point of my article was that a wetland ecosystem includes all sources of runoff, and that true restoration would have to include the upland habitats as well as the wetland itself. While I was familiar with the “facts” concerning who acquired the land and how it was brought about, I allowed some misconceptions to fall through the cracks of proofreading.

I believe David Carlberg was a part of the original group known as the Amigos de Bolsa Chica that generated the lawsuit that effectively stopped plans for a marina. Although details of the actual settlement are muddy, I probably should have mentioned their role in the process. Although, again, that was not my thrust.

The comment about Bolsa Chica still being a productive oil field is stretching a point. There is still a small oil lease there, but “productive” is in the mind of the beholder. Obviously the land was worth more for development than it was for oil.

Regarding “throwing taxpayers’ money into the ocean,” neither I nor Connie Boardman actually said that. Nevertheless, funds acquired from the ports belong to the state, and it would be a thorough waste of money to allow complete restoration of Bolsa Chica to be spoiled by a residential development on the upland.

The 100 acres in private hands are not likely to be developed because of present-day tentative agreements and problems such as access and pollution. A trial court in San Diego upheld protection of Warner Pond, and the Coastal Commission ruling in November 2000 prevents development of the lower bench. True, given the constant fight between developers and environmentalists, vigilance is the only protector of the environment. In a recent communication to me, Connie Boardman stated, “He (David Carlberg) is right (about vigilance), (but) there is no shortage of people in the community willing to be vigilant to protect Bolsa Chica. We are not going away.”

Plant Presses to Plant Powers

It was with keen interest that I read your article on the life and work of the early California botanist David Douglas (“Trials of an Intrepid Botanist,” Summer 2001), whose name will endure as long as California flora lasts.

It is curious, however, to note how many plants this scientist introduced from our country to England. There, I am sure, many are considered “nonnative,” having escaped from local gardens. Perhaps some are even considered a "threat” to local indigenous specimens of plants there. So often the assumption among modern day naturalists is that introduced plant species have arrived by accident, not by conscious intent, as in the case of Douglas, a trained scientist. Of course, the nineteenth century was a time of massive global migration, and humans carried homegrown seeds with them, wherever their destination, a welcome reminder of the Old Country left behind. How odd that now these same imported plant specimens have become the “enemy,” an “invasive” target of native plant enthusiasts.

Perhaps it is time to return to a more beneficent attitude, one that nurtures a spirit of cordial coexistence among members of the plant world, as a token of respect for individuals like Douglas. His motivation in introducing flora to alien shores surely was in part one of a good will ambassador, promoting a multicultural tolerance for all members of the plant kingdom, wherever their origin.