mailbag - Aug. 23, 2001

Robert Winchell’s explanation (“Inlet Not Best Way to Save Wetlands”

Aug. 16) why the tidal inlet plan for the restoration of the Bolsa Chica

wetlands is bad and the alternative without an inlet is good leaves out

one important consideration: biology. Omitting a tidal inlet in the

wetlands restoration would be like sealing up all the doors and windows

of one’s house. Sooner or later the house would be unlivable.

The alternative plan that Winchell touts would rely on sea water

coming all the way from Anaheim Bay to flush the wetland through tide

gates once every couple of weeks. Between flushings, the water in the

wetlands would remain motionless, overheated by the sun and nearing

oxygen depletion. There would be little ecological improvement over

present conditions for birds or fish and in fact for certain fish such as

the California halibut, conditions would be detrimental.

Twice a day a direct tidal inlet would allow fresh, oxygenated sea

water to enter and nourish the restored wetland, creating a rich and much

improved environment that will provide a wide range of feeding, nesting

and resting habitats for an enormous variety of birds, including several

endangered or threatened species. For instance, frequent tidal action is

necessary to support cord grass, which is essential habitat for the

endangered California light footed clapper rail. The tidal inlet will

attract fish into the wetlands to feed, avoid predators orspawn, as in

the case of the California halibut, resulting in greatly improved fishing

off our coast. Experience in other coastal wetlands has shown that a

direct tidal inlet can increase biodiversity by factors of 10 or more.

Winchell suggests that the state and federal agencies are holding the

Bolsa Chica hostage by claiming no inlet means no money for restoration.

The agencies basically have nothing to lose if the Bolsa Chica is not

restored. The money will still be available to spend on wetlands

elsewhere. It cannot be used for the no-inlet plan; the habitats it would

create would be too poor to be worth any significant mitigation credit.

The real losers will be the innumerable citizens who have spent as long

as 25 years or more working toward seeing the Bolsa Chica restored, and

the tens of thousands of birds, fish and other wildlife that could have

used the Bolsa Chica if the wetland had been properly restored.

David M. Carlberg (retired microbiology professor)Huntington Beach, CA