wetlands

I've written before about the complexity of California's regulatory environment, and the constraints that imposes on restoration efforts. One example is the existence of multiple state wetland definitions, including a one-parameter approach favored by the Coastal Commission and streambank alteration agreements used by Fish & Game (not formally a wetland definition, but in practice a means of regulating riparian habitat).

In 2009 a State Water Board technical advisory committee published a recommended wetland definition for the State of California. Key attributes included goals of compatibility with federal (Corps of Engineers) delineation methods, and a basis in science.

Here's the definition:


"An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, it (1) is saturated by
ground water or inundated by shallow surface water for a duration sufficient to
cause anaerobic conditions within the upper substrate; (2) exhibits hydric substrate
conditions indicative of such hydrology; and (3) either lacks vegetation or the
vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes."

if only this could be employed consistently across all state agencies. It's simple, it's science-based, and it's consistent with federal policy without arbitrarily excluding wetlands isolated from navigable waterways. It covers the range of wetlands in this diverse state, including everything from streams in temperate rainforest to  unvegetated examples such as playas or ephemeral washes. From a restoration perspective, because it's a three-parameter approach it encourages restoration (re-establishment) of historical wetlands which have been degraded by loss of one or two parameters.