Missing Elements to Wetlands Plan

Re “Restore Bolsa Chica Without Going Broke” (Letters, Sept. 17):

Eileen Murphy’s otherwise persuasive arguments in favor of Alternative 5 for the restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands omit at least two key points. Alternative 5 does not include a direct inlet from the ocean. Instead, it calls for sea water from Anaheim Bay (four miles away) to enter the restored wetlands only once about every two weeks. Between exchanges, the water in the wetlands would remain motionless, lacking any tidal action or significant circulation.

That is equivalent to running air conditioning in an airtight office building for a few hours every two weeks during the summer months. Alternative 5, while low cost, would achieve little in improving the ecological value of the Bolsa Chica.

As Linda Moon’s letter correctly points out, a direct inlet from the sea is also necessary to achieve the type of habitats that provide the mitigation credit for filling portions of Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. Alternative 5 would lack those habitats, meaning the ports would simply pick up their money and spend it elsewhere. Restoration under Alternative 5 has no clear source of funding, and the Bolsa Chica lowlands could remain a deteriorating oil field for another 30 years.

The restoration plan proposed by the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee (the “proposed plan”) has its flaws, but on balance it affords us a superior pathway to return the Bolsa Chica wetlands close to the rich, natural state it once enjoyed.

DAVID CARLBERG

Huntington Beach