Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons

California Assembly California Documents

1984 Status and Trends of California Wetlands California Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons

Recommended Citation California Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends, "Status and Trends of California Wetlands" (1984). California Assembly. Paper 410. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly/410

This Committee Report is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Assembly by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

s

Nona iet ]]

PRODUCTIOH

., J l..L tra] j <:1

ESA/HADRONF.,

A dj Ed or' f Frwi romnental Science Associ atE-'8, IDe.

No~a o and San Francisco, California

PROJECT ~1ANAGER

Charles rrPn and Associates

A FORWORD • • • • • i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . iii ISSUES AND NEEDS: ADDENDUM • • xvi

PART I: THE WETLAND RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA •• 1 Introduction .•.•••••• 1 The Resource . • • . . • • . 8 Uses and Abuses of Wetlands 26 PART II: PROGRAMS AND POLICIES 41 Federal Level • • • • . • • • • • • 41 State of California •..• ...... 52 Local Governments .•..• 62 Private and Local Initiatives 64

PART III: THE REGIONS OF CALIFORNIA WETLANDS • • • • • • 65

Central Valley • • • • • . • • • • • • • .•••••• • • • • 65 San Francisco Bay ••.••••••••••••• • • • • 72 Klamath Lakes Basin and Modoc Plateau ..•••••••••• 78 North and Central Coast 82 South Coast Region 96 Desert Region • • 109 REFERENCES CITED . • 11 5 APPENDICES:

A. Wetland Definitions ...•.•••.••••••••• • A-1 B. Characteristic Wetland ant Species •••••••••• • • • • B-1 C. Current Midwinter Waterfowl Use of California Wetlands • • • • • C-1 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Historic 2 Figure 2. Wetland Losses in 3 Figure 3. Geographic Regions of California 6 Figure 4. Wetland Processes • . • • • • 23 gure 5. Corps neers 46 gure 6. Central Valley Marshes and stori cally Subject to Overflow ••.•• 66 Figure 7. San Francisco Bay Region .•••• 73 Figure 8. Major California Coastal Wetlands 83

List of Tables

Table i. California Wetlands: Summary of Historic Losses and Current Trends • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i Table 1. California Wetland Issues and Their Regulation 42 Table 2. Acres of Managed Wetlands and Associated Upland in the Central Valley ••••••••••••••• 70 Table 3. Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges • 79 Table 4. Major North and Central Coastal Wetlands 90 Table 5. Major South Coast Wetlands 106 is on

r on res i ia became a converted to

wetland

ic use wetlands how can

rst:

resource.

nto

lists some readers and Bi iography should serve as a " as 1 as rev from informal working 1 vol by ESA/Madrone.

-ii- s i a s no 1 mate 9% c ways. Agricul ons, metropolitan centers have aced most e 's natural heritage. re decisions on to remai ng resource will better informed if by an the causes and effects of converting wetlands to other uses, of the opportunities and values that are lost as ands are , and effective, workable means by which wetlands can be conservsed.

CALIFORNIA REGIONS AND THEIR WETLANDS

This report traces the story causes and losses in six geographic subregions: Klamath Lakes in California and southern Oregon; the Oregon border to Point Conception; South Coast, from Point the Desert, encompassing the Great n, ave, desert areas from County to the Colorado ver.

geographic ons i a ety ecting the wi range of ons can occur within the Mediterranean is common to 1 of them. i d food attracts millions of rds California wetlands for overwi nteri or use enroute to regions. The Pacific Flyway is one of the or north-south gratory routes in the nation.

The most significant and largest wetland areas that remain in California are in the Klamath Basin, Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh, and the Central Valley. The Paci c Coast holds a string of many nor ands

ii- es acres

tat. s coll if unpredictable Basin 1 1 1 akes in y Small oasi washes and

ver offer rt i sco Bay, 's largest estuary, brackish as 1 as 1 arge areas ( 1y restorable ked storic ands.

HI OF LOSSES

e i zes osses a s nee 1 outlines

osses in 9th area loss The ta, ch once d to 4,000,000 acres anas, became a rich agricultural center, but val1ey 1 s native ands. Agricultural on, federal water projects, prompted a 60% conversion wetlands in amath Basin.

Extensive marshe areas have been converted to tural use along the coast and in San Francisco Bay, particul y 1 tidal floodplains, where fertile soil is a product of a pa oodi and wetland regime.

v- California 5 mi 11 ion 450,000 175, See Regions Klamath Lakes 189,000 :mknown 1,375 total Agricultural reclamation of Basi 60'; 81 wet1 private and managed wetlands

Modoc Plateau 40 ands in Modoc n- National Forest Some conversion to agricultural uses North and Central unknown unknown Sedimentation of wetlands due Coast to logging and agricultural practices in adjacent water­ shed Agricultural reclamation Preservation as parks and recreation areas San Francisco Bay 200,000 acres 37,700 a,cres 43,750+ Pressure for filling of diked of v

lfcompiied from Department of Fish and Game, National Wildlife Refuges, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, California vlaterfow1 Habitat Owners Alliance and the California Waterfowl Association. -v- es,

1 and lted in and of , or s i remain in Los Angeles as one observer.

Francisco marshes and bay surface have also been dredged ports and harbors 11 to accommodate urban expansion and industrial development. Of the historic marshes, 25% remain. The north and central coa has been least impacted by dredging and lling of wetlands. Urban pressures are ; however, early agricultural conversions and silvic tural practices removed large areas from tidal influence and/or caused massive siltation into estuaries and lagoons.

Flood control and water development projects account for major losses of wetlands, particularly n the Central Valley throughout the state as well. The necessary associ on of wetl riparian areas with episodic inundation by tides or freshwater these habitats will be lost as flood ows are regul or water is Maintenance of wetlands in the Central Vall ls competi on for scarce and costly water. or ows i nated most adjacent an areas; a control in Los es Counties. version nand Owens Valley dewatered a or part both ns, i parian vegetation and wetlands.

VALUE OF WETLANDS

Wetlands have been used abused n many ways partly because they are viewed in different ways. Regarded as a land resource, wetlands have been drained, leveled, cleared and lled to make them more useful as dry land. Viewed as a water resource, they have been dredged and deepened for navigation or flood control. ons

ons wetl are now endangered; 4) sco the on; 5 ands on on, as for e, the Marin County o Bay; 6) wetlands have demonstrated r abil suspended sediments and transform water quality pollutants by ogi means, thus providing water treatment; 7} and estuaries support commercial and game sheri es by pro vi tat. Beyond these onal services, wetlands have i space special ecosystems for the recreation, enj c interest the residents and vi tors to Cali user-day count of publicly owned refuges, parks and duck clubs is an index to the important role

EFFECTS OF CONVERSIONS

e osses on to on, de the to 5, less than 500, ooded reduction i the 1 i populations n values. Changes n 1d1ife species and numbers oss is documented in many specific cases. species, such as tule elk, have been entirely nated to loss of habitat and overhunting; others are dimini in Twenty-four animal species are listed as rare, endangered or threatened, in part because their continued survival depends on wetland tats. Several species are listed as endangered for the same reason. Salmon, sturgeon, flounder, smelt, shrimp, ams, commerci

is concentrations 6 1ion 1 mi 11 ion, c yway. Sixty percent of these California winter feeding are now more limiti to popul gratory shorebirds and once numerous coast, have but a few areas left in which ons removal of even small amounts of isolated groves of gnificant. Wildlife dependent an r source or parian grove (in the Mojave Desert, 76% 1 species able to relocate to the next, often distant,

Continuing Pressures

The two greatest areas nue to come from 1) conversion of i i ve agriculture and changes in ces· opment on south coast i conversion in the Central Valley is encouraged dable economic pressures: primarily property taxes. continued maintenance managed wetlands requires a range of incentives of California's population lives in San Francisco Bay Area. The majority occurs south Ventura County, while only 3% is ations will continue to place unevenly stri res on remaining wetlands and their watershed lands. y

s is 1ower i nterti some

I IC

a agencies. Their j ered in some and iargely avenues are areas {Suisun 1 ted , stream

no

use on

iance means federal lands in Cali a, such as Force, Navy, Forest Service BLM, on {together 45% of Ca1ifornia•s total land area) as waters are subject to the basic environmental icy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Act ), among others. These

x- aws and most i r own i a.

es n vers and

Act. these programs over on 10 program addresses ons into navigable waterways; scharge of 1 and dredge admi ni j broadened to encompass from waterways. While numerous ues emphasis has been placed on i ue documented.

Section 10 j a as a stinct authority for projects in u ct, for example, asserts Section th or without Section 1 ed. In ic

especi on Di ) ' in ta, to waterways, as on vers.

Under provi ons on Ac ----U.S. and Wildlife Service ce both comment on ~~~~~~----~----~------Corps Public Notices. 50 ays an active review role under ifornia, these agencies together play a 1 three sricts of the Corps in their on to andowners to enter r land be managed as from stamps ( gratory on ), is as to of acres it can support as

The encouraged that provide tax ons, i c low interest loans, crop price supports, etc., to assi in , l eve 1 i ng and cul vati wetl a butor to reduction wetlands onwi as 1 as n Bureau Department of ture also restoration of wetlands on r lands and in

i a direct permit ty its regula tory ons in Coastal Zone; covers a on the is resource; San isco Conservation regulate bay 11 to the 11 1 i ne n a 100-foot shoreline band. 11 Fi storic tidelands in San Francisco Bay are precluded by the definition of

Bcoc•s jurisdiction. A state ~u ... u~,~ i a and Nevada) rgulates land use in certain wet areas (stream zones a wet meadows) around Lake Tahoe.)

-xi- is state's basic charter or device {EIR) for exami ng si policies are genera 1 ; speci Joaquin Delta, Wild and Scenic vers) , are considered

s exerci by Lands Commmssion undi lands where sto c dal action can be verified and up to the high water mark in ear Lake. Since the state's interest must be demonstrated on a se s, SLc•s effectiveness in protecting wetlands has c

Until recently, state a Basic Wetland Protection Policy, set forth in 1977 the The policy was never tested in a court law, was ve deterrent to indiscriminate development in wetlands and was i in negotiation of mitigation for some wetland losses. i of review and revision (April, 1984); in its present form it de1ine in the state•s review of specific applications for ands.

The Department ncipal agency charged with protection of the resourcaes. Under the Fish and Game Code, the ng among its many responsi lities •• agreements with applicants whose projects will ter }. Some of these are in wetlands. has no rect over wetlands. DFG 1 S comments on 404 Permit actions, conveyed under sh and Wildlife Coordination Act through the rces gh heavily in Corps decisions. DFG has been successful in a va ety of ways in protecting specific California wetlands research, sition, dedication, and by active contributions to mitigation s.

The state's Porter-Cologne Act, which established the State Water Resources Control Water Quality Control Boards, comes closest to the in its authority to regulate

i- of 1 i state indirectly protecting The the onal Pollution Discharge Section 402 of the ean Water Act are empowered under Section 401 to certify that 404 Permit actions meet the 1 S water ity objectives. Under Section 208 (Clean Water Act), n ans, i denti i rect (nonpoint} sources of pollution to wetlands and water bodies.

The state has indicated concern for wetlands in other ways. The Keene-Nejedly Wetlands Preservation Act (1976) affirmed the need to develop public policy directed at wetlands preservation and restoration, but it was supported by only limited funds for acquisition. Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 (1979) instructed DFG to develop a plan, identifying ways to increase remaining wetlands by 50% by the year 2000. The completed report released on December 1, 1983, suggests many possible economic incentive and funding methods to increase inland waterfowl habitat. The Grasslands Bill (1956) is a federal limited incentive program that provides low cost water for maintenance of wetland habitat in the grasslands area of the San Joaquin Valley.

local Governments and special districts throughout California are required to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and state anning law; through indirect means, these provide some protection to sensitive habitats such as wetlands. However, few California counties or ci es have adopted strong wetland policies; fewer have adopted the ordinances necessary to ement them. In addition, few local governments have ordinances that protect watersheds from erosion and sedimemtation.

A fourth major type of protection in some California wetlands is nonregulatory. The federal government began acquiring and managing wetlands for waterfowl in California in the early 20th century, at the same time that federally sponsored reclamation was actively draining other wet areas for cultivation. National Wildlife Refuges are now concentrated in the Klamath Basin, the Central Valley, Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, certain coastal wetlands, Salton Sea, and the Colorado River. Two national estuarine sanctuaries, managed by DFG, have been established on the coast at Elkhorn Slough and Tijuana Estuary under OCZM 1 s Estuarine Sanctuaries program.

-xiii- as management areas in 1 The California grants restoration of va ous coastal resources, i through public-private redevel

ands protection have been pro vi The managed wetlands of Suisun Marsh are protected 1 y because r political influence, which has also called for ta outflow. Most of the remai ng wet1 in 1 are owned and managed either as private duck clubs or refuges. Federal incentive programs for retai ng wetlands in pri p encourged preservation but not fully compensated owners mai Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Lands have aggressively pursued wetland acquisitions in coastal areas, and the Cali a Waterfowl Associ on, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and many local and regional organizations have made important contributions to this effort/

Summary. The Corps Section 1 program, despite certain inadequacies (monitoring and enforcement) presents strongest program statewide for protection of wetl areas. In ons, it is the only program. The State of California directly protect wetlands: on the coast, in the San in sun Marsh. These programs, while c , are li ted in territory or application of cy.

Although the state has expres a ic concern for wetlands in a number of ways, general pol es and nee instruments to carry them out are lacking. The state has come to federal presence, assuming that the basic charge and protection would be federally directed, secondarily reinforced by state policy. At present, the state is reluctant, as are all other states, to assume egation of the Section 404 program, even though statutory instruments or administrative mechanisms could be tailored to do so.

v- an areas are ly are agencies: downstream wetlands, no red.

trend toward reduci federal regulatory authority, evidenced by Corps of Engineers regulations, aces future of wetlands in Cali a in an unce in position. However, thout a reliable mix of acqui tion, ated protection, and economic ncentives it is safe to ct that Cal fornia 1 s remai ng wetlands wil continue to dwindle, acre-by-acre.

-xv- on s a ve to issues r report summa zes c t

ow are ' couc i on. It is s

r Waterfowl

, or es or plans.

me i ons on s

coast, in Suisun ons of Lake Tahoe (bistate compact). or have no regulatory on. Any si i cant cations to! federal program or in is could weaken the te 's 1 ity pirotect wetland resources. Even th a strong statutory program on the coast, enormous pressures still ic ownership; most i coast must be regarded as i on. A similar prediction might be rendered Central Valley.

a de use and conservation A strong state protec on program speci ca11y protected by other 1 I primary purpose would be to make form for wetlands not presently protected ess duplication of effort in those areas already protected.

The second, ly i ve policy and program would be to on that wetlands are areas deserving of spec on. Such a policy would tell landowners that wetlands are i anning guidelines to local jurisdictions, and support 1 to acquire ownership interest in wetlands, thus ture public funds in protecting targeted areas. A an implementing program are viewed as necessary precursors to cos ve acquisition.

2. Definition of

A comprehensive i res a concise and workable definition of the resource, suffici cover ifornia 1 S diverse wetland condi ons. Protective c ng fruition without a consistent basis for d i on gn management and restoration programs.

The United States sh 1 i ce nition and classification system /29/ is the most fically sound method in current use. It is thoroughly some adaptation, to California's wetlands and in been used extensively. The California Department of Fi is ng the system into a form that

i- y, ones. a

3

ic a ic in resource lands. , offers the only guarantee tory to extent rely on cia1s; II on one is a sli on on. 11 /156/

effective, on mu coupl restore or enhance degraded or se wetlands; 2) improve of publicly owned 3) necessary research; 4) offer nducements (Economic ow) wetland owners; ..;.;._as ___ _ 5) acquire valuable wetlands. le acquisition is the most desirable form protection, publ c will limited. In evaluating e land preservation ves, es are obligated to wei ts to be acquire and/or actions, ori es encourage i ve and vate In d assist in assuring 1evel s and verse sources of funds.

Potential sources of ng operating funds and sources of revenue of are scussed in detail in the SCR 28 Report. These include, , increased appropriations from the State Energy Resource General increased user charges, such as hunter and nonhunter fees; and increased duck stamp costs.

ii- i a public has been resources - for example, sco Bay, and

e are aware continuing losses of If ve resource are to be preserved, ic and government better informed about the vi e wetl More important, protection of wetl must be reali as a matter political will, rather mply as a reaffi ecol c si ficance.

c agencies a more ve e in informing the public and local government ands. They should consider, for example, adopting non-profit organizations such as Trust for Public Land ves, ow), which assists local community groups to ve methods of protecting wetlands to supplement direct on. vate wetland owners should be informed more ons iable to them as incentives to maintain their property as resource 1

5. Coordi

A are involved in what s to decision-making over cases are generally in isolation; many acti are unregulated because they 1 i e j outsi attempt is made to integrate control. Coordi agreement on how to protect wetlands are lacking on a areas even on a regional basis.

This piecemeal approach to is inefficient and ineffective but ght be resolved force, including also important public sector partici state s a useful history of

x- issues some

sector

a , several recent concur that wi 1 ecol cal systems of i y managed for habitat bi In turn,

owners should and ng wetland areas. resources ons should an areas, habitats planned through

6. ons

n in ons, energy costs of water i

problems are so y in Report and Sacramento Valley Waterfowl Habitats Report, i c recommendations are made. For example, water rights or assurances ivery to wetlands should be secured as new federal water supplies are developed or as State Water Proj are renewed. Wildlife should be

-xx- ri priorities are 1 ect d be delivered to rates.

played an active role in California in acquire wetlands. The Trust for Urban Lands r ic land program at the December 6 Hearing. The State so represented at the Hearing, reviewed similar are ng developed in various coastal and bay ons to more ve use of public funds in preserving resource

on encouraging rather than imposing land use Conservancy have developed techniques such as community groups in formation of land trusts; use laws to e donations of land; encouraging small development ri • partial development, land on easements to enable wetland preservation in appropriate development. These techniques are all designed from public grants, leading eventually to acquisition e wetlands.

been in effect in some Central Valley (see Status Trends Report), but they are y , aggressively pursued, nor are they offered at Sacramento ley Report recommends state legislation that or reduce income property taxes in exchange for reducing or al in privately owned wetlands, actively and areas, or y preserving wetland features.

-xxi- 8.

It is increase and acreage by 50% in state is toward continuing i on on ements in s, cumul ve result is generally a on in acreage. The Department of sh and Game stated at the December 6, 1983, ng that further reduction in wetland acreage is unacceptable; only means of tigation that are consistent with the goals of SCR 28 are to 1 t e uses wi n wetlands and require a minimum acre-for-acre compensation for wetland losses incurred and/or require creation of new wetlands of equival size and quality.

Coastal Commission's position is similar to DFG s. In evaluating proposals in wetlands, "balancing may not be appropriate- where so much has ready been lost, there must a preservation as. 11 /156/ Nevertheless, tigation is the principal focus of controversy among land owners, developers, local govenment and trustee es, cularly along the coast and in San Francisco Bay and the Delta. one has agreed on what constitutes adequate tigation (1-to-1?; ?; 3-to-1?}, nor has there been agreement on level of protection mitigation to be accorded to 11 degraded" ) wetlands. Opponents to gations as condi ons of approval on ctable and excessive. 1 state arrived at a i and basis for valuing and conservi wetlands, mi gation 11 continue to be a hotly disputed concept.

-xxii- PART 1:

CALIFORNIA WETLANDS: THEN & NOW PART I: THE WETLAND

I ON

OVERVIEW OF WETLANDS: THEN AND NOW

California once contained between three and five million acres wetlands and an unknown acreage of riparian forest (Figure 1). In of authentic records and a clear definition of historic wetlands, is de variance in current estimates of the total wetland acreage that sted in about 1850, when active settlement of the new state of California began. To the Central Valley alone, some estimates attributed 4 million acres seasonal wetlands and permanent freshwater marsh and 775,000 acres parian forest.

The two largest rivers, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, c ing runoff from both Sierra Nevada and Coastal Ranges, met in a 400,000+ acre delta of sloughs and marshy islands. Over 380,000 acres of dal and brackish marshes lay along the 1 ,072-mile California coastline and ne San Francisco Bay, geographically discrete but connected functi migrations of shorebirds and waterfowl. The Klamath Basin, which straddles the Oregon-California border, held a series of large i and r lakes in excess of 190,000 acres. Patches of small wetlands Plateau in the northeastern corner of the state. The eastern in and southern desert with their arid climates accounted for a of small but important 11 oases 11 of springs, marshland and riparian Seventy-one thousand acres of riparian forest filled the historic floodplains and ox-bows of the Colorado River. /131,122/

wetlands are nearly gone, reduced by over 90% statewi 2). ,134/ In exchange, the Central Valley became a productive agricultural through flood control and reclamation most of i freshwater marshes. The southern coast has but one tenth of its origi ti wetlands; the ance has been filled or dredged for urban uses, ports and harbors, and Lower Klamath Lake \ll

~I Freshwater Marsh Eagle~ Lake Q Horse ~ Lake Riparian Forest

r. Honey~ "J Lake '\':, Coastal Brackish Marsh • Coastal Salt Marsh

)'\Clear Lake Tahoe ~Lake

I••

Mono A Lake~

Owens ("\ Lake t/

Kern Lake

~ Lake Elsinore

SOURCE: The California Water Atlas, 1978. FIGURE 1 Historic Wetlands

-2- 5 ·.·.':'.~--- 1850 4.1-5.0 million acres of wetlands ·.·.·.·.·····.·.-.~-- .....· .· .· .· ...... ·.·.·.· .... ·. ·..... ·.· .. ·~..... ·.. 1906 3.7 *1 ·:·:·:·:·:·:·::::·:·:·:·:·:·:·.:·:·:;:::«.~ ..~. 1922 1.2 1954 482,000 acres of wetlands 4 ·.·.·.··:·_:·:·.·.;~:;_::-;;_:;:;:_:·:·:·:-:·::.:·:-:·:·:·:.:.:.;~~.~ ~ ...... ---...... ·...... : ._...___ Present 300,000

:!:::

0 3 ::I (I) 0 -]> ..,(") 2 (I) (I) I I w I

0~--~-----r------r-----~----~~----~--~-,------TT-----r------r-----~~--~------~----~

1922 Survey Survey Survey

* Estimates prior to 1900 range from 4.1 to 5 million acres.

SOURCE: Concept Plan for Wintering Waterfowl FIGURE 2 Habitat Preservation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, February 1979. Wetland Losses in California Revised 1983. Pacific Flyway Waterfowl in California's Sacramento Valley Wetlands. for water, ood control, and transportation systems ch support i centers. Sedimentation opment has contributed oss. In isco es storic disappeared similar reasons.

predominantly rural character of north and central coasts has most wetlands. However, agricultural reclamation, watershed erosion sedimentation, and harbor development have reduced tidelands and marshes up 60% in certain estuaries. Klamath Basin lost nearly 60% of its wetlands to agricultural reclamation as did certain areas of the Modoc Plateau. Water impoundments have drained or flooded the most extensive of desert riparian forest along the Colorado River.

Throughout California, loss of wetland and parian areas has induced drastic declines in populations of specially adapted wildli species, now assified as rare or endangered, and in large populations of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds that follow the Pacific Flyway. Loss of wetlands has so reduced opportunities for hunting, fishing, shellfish digging, and other recreational pursuits as well as functions associated with wetlands such as

, the largest expanses of wetland are in the Klamath Basin, Central 1 • Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, and sun Marsh. In the Klamath sin and Central Valley most remaining ands are either arti cia11y

11 11 maintained ( managed ) by public or private ownership, or are seasonally flooded for agricultural purposes. Humboldt and San Francisco Bays both contain tidal and nontidal salt and brackish marshes as well as large areas of reclaimed farmland and other diked historic tideland that offers important bird habitat in the winter. The managed brackish wetlands of Suisun Marsh one se 10% of the state's total resource. Along fie Coast, a ng ver mouths and estuaries contain smaller wetlands; on the south , marsh remnants have labell pieces." A few major (1,000 acres) remain in Elkhorn uana San Diego Bay. 30,1 REGIONAL AND HISTORIC FRAMEWORK

i a is a ngl e on wetl are connected by concentrations and movements of wa , shorebird and r wildlife populations that depend on the distribution and capacity of wetlands statewide. The state also can be divided into smaller regions (Figure 3). h region contains particular types of wetlands within the overall resource; each reveals different physical and biological conditions as well as different economic and political pressures and attitudes toward conservation. The Central Valley region, for example, contains some of the 1 remaining acreages of wetlands in the state. These are also among the most significant wintering areas for waterfowl in the country. However, the majority are in private ownership, and in the face of rising taxes, energy costs, competing demands for water, and attractive land markets, the economic and po1i cal pressures to convert native or managed marsh to cultivated agriculture or urban development are chronic. Other regions demonstrate similar but distinctive conditions and problems. Part III of this report focuses on the conditions of each of the six regions.

Changes to wetlands are evident throughout the 180-year recent history of California. The destruction of native wetlands began shortly after the 1849 Gold Rush. Reclamation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta began in the 1860s and continued over the ensuing 80 years, ultimately converti 400,000 acres of tidal and floodplain wetlands to agriculture. The United States government conveyed 2,200,000 acres of 11 Swamp and Overflow Lands" to the state under the Arkansas Swamp Act of 1850. These lands, which also i uded some tidal lands, were sold to private owners and for the most part subsequently reclaimed. Urban concentrations and agricultural conversion began to displace shoreline and tidal flats in San Francisco and southern California. Reclamation to agriculture was a continui trend along the 1 state.

-5- SAN

FIGURE 3

Geographic Regions of California --

-6- During the 1920s to 1960s, rapid urban and industrial development filled major and areas in the growing itan ons of Los Angeles, Orange ego coast A environmental concern in the 1 1 enactment both federal and state environmental laws and regulations. and other legislative actions and policies in the early 1970s were partially effective

1 in "holding the line• , that is in reducing the rate of loss of wetlands, di or indirectly (Figure 2).

is brief chronology concludes with the present decade 1980s, which constitutes a critical period for poli cal and soci is ions concerning the future of California 1 S diminishing wetland resources.

STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE

Information on California wetlands is almost as dispersed as the wetlands themselves. Certain bays and particular wetlands are well-studied, and the historic changes in their shorelines and uses are documented. San Francisco, Humboldt, and San Diego Bays are examples. California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Commission, State Coastal and universities have conducted research or inventoried many coastal wetlands, but no single comprehensive document covers all of them. The present waterfowl habitats of the Central Valley and Delta have been given thorough examination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game /19,134,151,152/. However, historic information on many parts of the Central Valley is lacking. The Delta has been investigated in much greater detail in connection with state and federal water projects.

The desert region, Klamath Basin, and Plateau are particularly poor in wetland inventories. A recent report on riparian resources has helped to fill this gap /144/.The Bureau of Land Management Desert Conservation Plan is informative on existing wetl and riparian areas, but does not describe historic land use changes. In contrast, an losses the Colorado River have been especially well-researched University of Arizona and Department of Fish and Game. Overall, the information base on wetl and riparian resources in a is incompl is the to compile and 1 e 1

RESOURCE

Wetlands are transitional between water and land environments. This imposes unusual conditions for survival of plants and mals and varied and ingenious strategies for reaping the rich supply of ents associated with wetlands. ifornia wetlands include such diverse areas as t and brackish marshes and lagoons, both dal and intertidal mudflats; inland freshwater marshes and swamps. including relatively rare tidal freshwater marshes; desert ngs; parian forests creeks and rivers; and vernal pools (small seasonal ponds). For of this report, it is important to begin with a common understanding a wetland is.

and boundaries, 1i the e movement water, vary th topography. with flood and drought cycles, with high and low tides, and the season. For example, gh groundwater levels al vers and creeks growth of riparian forest. A ngle year of drought may see e-back of the trees, but a subsequent flood year may renew and expand the boundaries. Wetlands that have been altered by humans demonstrate the e in a fferent way. Around San Francisco Bay levees separate many c ti ands from tidal flows. Yet continue to pond water from rains sufficient to maintain wetl plants and support flocks of ng In a dry year, higher portions of di wetlands may not at 1. Ruderal (weedy) vegetation may crop up 1 the floods of a year inundate these "i ands," them once again with wetland ants. ked ands on the south coast. demonstrating lar seasonal li • are frequently called "degraded" wetl In both examples 1 li t and can vary season or with the ous ewpoints on just what a wetland is have produced a variety of c and administrative definitions. definitions on the one or more ons: low (including year-round or seasonally; hydric or satu soils; and prevalence of plant species (hydrophytes) adapted to water-logged soil condi ons and periodic submergence. The agencies that regul activities in wetlands or set policy have formulated admi strative definitions based on sties. (See Appendix A)

agency with jurisdiction must first determine the of wetlands in act on a proposed change wetland. The of Engineers' Section 404 program for example, uses all three of these criteria including elevation in relation to tidal datum, to make a wetland nation in both tidal and nontidal areas. The California Coastal Commi on guidelines state that only one the three condi ons need be present to determine wetland status. /8/ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed the most comprehensive and technically defensible classification wetlands and applied it to a national wetlands mapping project. /29/ The USFWS system may require adaptation for ready application 1 of California and

TYPES AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF WETLANDS

and stri ons in each region ifornia are ve in plant species, water sa1ini , topography, and relationship to es. In varying degree, however, they all fulfill three basic a listed above.

Wetlands

Pacific coast, salt marshes quiet sloughs and bays where freshwater from coastal mountain streams and rivers meets salt water.Many are , some are seaonally cut off from the tides by sandbars, while , such as the lagoons of the San Diego coast, are now fully closed ine or brackish systems. The diked former tidelands of San Francisco Bay and south coast exhibit a range of natural and altered ons. c ands as

dal t (MLHW). in doubt, ncides 11 debri s Other that

and in ddle to high zones. Cordgrass intertidal zone in evations marsh a mix , sea 1 , saltgrass, frankenia, jaumea, gumpl Appendix B) on cordgrass, 1 of species can ve in diked, mars is e

a are more ine on

11 zones, as in ant

of salt lowest form

ments. , on narrow sms Brackish marshes typically occur where freshwater predominates over marine influences, as in Suisun Marsh and Napa Marsh, or where tides eliminated and saline soils receive winter rains and freshwater uplands. On the north and central coast, brackish marshes are common in river and creek backwaters, the upstream portions of estuaries, and upper borders of salt marshes. These marshes support a flora of greater variety than salt marshes. Common species include slough sedge, Lyngby's sedge, alkali rush, pacific silverweed, and many others.

The natural and managed brackish marshes of Suisun Marsh support a great variety of species, such as alkali bulrush, Olney's bulrush, tules common reed, brass buttons and cattails. This habitat was at one time extensive in South San Francisco Bay, particularly in the upper reaches of and Guadalupe Sloughs. Brackish and freshwater marshes may have fill upper portions of several south coast wetlands which were fed by artesian spri such as Freeman River at Bolsa Chica Bay. /136/

Inland Wetlands

Freshwater marsh at one time filled large portions of river ns, and bordered seasonal ponds and lakes such as Tulare and Buena Vi permanent water bodies of the Central Valley and the Delta. This most widespread and diverse of all historic wetland types in Cali from the Klamath Basin in the north to the small marshes of the (e.g., San Sebastian Marsh} and floodplains along the Colorado River. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta contained a network-mosaic of tidal wate island marsh, brackish in the far western Delta and fresh in the central eastern Delta. A few small pristine tidal marshes remain. The agricul peatlands which now occupy most of these islands are below sea level; nter flooding of croplands creates seasonal "wetlands" comparable as waterfowl habitat to the native conditions, but with few of the native plant species.

Small, 2-3 acre incidental wetlands dot the agricultural lands of Central Valley. Tules and cattails are the main components of the

-11- parsl sedges. lilies, spike rush, are so common ver as 1 an trees.

cl ic 1 c freshwater and draining to ues, such as • spi rush, sma the hydro 1 i c to n n c n the marsh Many of the freshwater duck c1 in the • Suisun Marsh, San isco area, and on retained wetl for hunti in spi them. . s. 1 refuges and wil ife management areas in various hunting and other recreational

vers and creeks in the ci to in t

are the 1 developed 1 d bl 1 d rose, 1d es

n ver in

y ver Riparian groves of cottonwoods and willows grow along primary water courses in the Mojave Desert. Cheesebush, saltbush, rabbit bush, and aw appear in seasonal washes and drier stream beds. Springs are of willow, screwbean mesquite, and common reed. Palm oases, dominated the Washington palm, occur only in the Colorado Desert. /97/

Vernal pools are small, shallow, seasonally wet depressions, typically occurring in grassland overlying a clay hard pan layer which prohibi downward percolation of water. Rainwater forms ponds in these ons and over the spring evaporates, leaving a series of blooms of various ower species ringing the pool. Many of the diverse plant types and species are unique to this habitat. Commonly called "hog wallows 11 by farmers, pools have been replaced by cultivated agriculture and grazing. Remaining vernal pools lie along the coastal mesas of San Diego County, in Prairie of southern Solano County, and in Contra Costa, Yolo and a erra foothill and Central Valley counties.

WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES

Although ers in the new state of California {ca. 1850) values of wetlands as habitat for game, they viewed the vast reaches in the Central Valley largely as obstacles to their cultivation of the land. Crops had a higher functional value, and marshes were so extensive then that possibility of their future need for preservation was not evident.

Present day land owners, developers, regulatory agencies, and sci in California are not in agreement on the value of wetlands. A landowner or developer may see a wetland only as flat, developable real estate, made more valuable by i proximity to a waterfront. Traditionally, communities viewed wetlands as convenient dumping grounds. Engineers acknowledge functional uses of wetlands for floodwater regulation or shoreline p on, and are concerned with the potential hazards of building in them •. Sci and educators place a high value on biological productivity and wildlife habitat of wetlands. A hunter appreciates wetlands for the waterfowl support, while a farmer may regard a wetland as unproductive unless and cultivated.

-13- fferences in perceptions are compounded by the wide on that dual wetlands in their i c values and on an i s. Some can be assigned a dollar value and their 1 oss on this basis.

I ues

In a typically uses cost/benefit analyses i the a resource, supporters of wetland preservation y litarian functions of wetlands. However, wetlands i nsic ues are ther functional nor quantifiable; their worth to soc cannot be bought or sold in ordinary currency.

e come to recognize the intrinsic quali es wetl and For instance, travelers along a and 1 of a green expanse of vegetation, water, and 1dlife add vari 1 on the shore.

n crowded urban areas such as Francisco coast, the open expansiveness of even a 1 1 clams, or j ng beside i sco Bay, 11 The offer i c 1 hunters 1 similar easures in r

e enti c and educati i i and shorebi ng animals have environments, which have as es sci c interactions. In the San Francisco Bay area five universities conduct research in wetland areas. Along the south coast and in Humboldt Bay many colleges and universities use wetlands as teaching and research 1 es.

Both conservationists and scientists argue that unaltered ecosystems have a worth beyond any specific benefits which society may gain from them, thus warranting their preservation. Unmodified wetlands serve as models of the native condition for analysis of the impacts wrought by man-induced changes to natural systems. Modified wetlands, for example diked areas, provide opportunities to measure change and to develop techniques for restoration of "natural" conditions. Such knowledge should lead to better planning.

Visitor use of wildlife refuges is one useful means of gauging public attitudes toward wetland areas in the state. Eighteen national wildlife refuges (NWF) in California encompass large wetlands. Visitors to these refuges totalled almost 900,000 in 1981. /68/ There are also eleven state wildlife management areas (WMA) and over 20 state ecological reserves which contain wetlands, in addition to four state parks, two national estuarine sanctuaries, and the Pt. Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, as well as numerous local parks and reserves that include wetland areas.

The national wildlife refuges and state and local parks that are located in metropolitan areas are heavily used by nearby urban residents. For example, in the San Francisco Bay NWR, self-guiding interpretive trails, guided nature walks, and other wetlands-oriented educational experiences the general public and school groups attracted over 48,000 participants in 1981. Educational programs are also available at Elkhorn Slough and Tijuana Estuary National Estuarine Sanctuaries and in Pescadero Marsh and the Palo Alto Baylands, among others. /68/

Functional Values

Scientists have studied the functional values of physical and biologi processes in wetlands. Most thoroughly researched are the extensive ti

-15- marshes of the southeastern Atlantic and gulf coasts. For many years, scientists and conservationists in California applied the func ons Atlantic salt to Paci c salt marshes without fully differences. ifornia wetland researchers are now beginning ze and study the distinctive conditions and functions of Pacific coast and interior wetlands.

Primary Producti ty

The primary productivity of an ecosystem is measured by of plant fiber and al which grow over an area of ground in a speci time. This productivity supports entire food chains and complex food webs. t and freshwater marshes have higher annual rates of primary produc ty than forests and many other ecosystems. Exposed to full light for s and suppli ous water, marsh plants and algae typi a dense cover over wetland mud, given the proper aquatic regime. Within the mud, microorganisms that can live with little or no oxygen process , thus supporting pl production even when plants are submerged or dormant.

Studies in California tidal marshes have demonstrated i al gh levels productivity. /148,149/ Plant produc in Francisco compares favorably with producti in c coast marshes. As in southern California marshes, a1 surfaces of mudfl contribute substantially to overall production. /148/

The movement plant detritus (decomposed plant materi nutrients marshes and adjacent estuaries in California s Detritus produced in the marsh is used by invertebrates and sh which i t and sloughs. These filter feeders sieve fine material from the tidewater, ng the "secondary productivity 11 level of marsh and contri to further decomposition and nutrient ing. consumers, in are eaten by shorebirds and other animals, i migrations nutrients of areas While the productivity of brackish and freshwater marshes in Cali ia has not been investigated in detail except in relation to waterfowl food values, limited measurements of biomass (plant material) of b sh marsh plants indicate a higher annual productivity than salt marshes but yield little information as to the movement (export vs. import) of nutrients and utilization by animals other than waterfowl. /3/ Overall, the salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes in California produce large amounts of plant and gal material and provide a rich food base, as evidenced in their wildli populations.

Wildlife Habitat

Decades of observations and reports document the function of California wetlands as habitat for wildlife. Annual concentrations of waterfowl on Central Valley wetlands amazed early visitors and settlers of California. Southern California coastal wetlands had some of the finest duck hunting in the state; tule elk and river otter inhabited San Francisco Bay and Delta wetlands. Although the numbers of animals inhabiting wetlands have dramatically decreased, migratory birds and resident species 11 depend on remaining habitat. Inland wetlands of California continue to be among the most significant freshwater marshes for waterfowl in the United States.

With the exception of the plants, the wetland food base for ldli is relatively inconspicuous. Dense communities of invertebrates, (worms, clams, crabs, shrimp, amphipods and insects) inhabit the shallow depths ats and sloughs of tidal and brackish marshes, each species adapted to a of the substrate (sediments). Some invertebrates, such as barnacles and crabs, undergo their early larval stages in tidal sloughs and sheltered shallow water areas. The commercially important Dungeness crab, for example, inhabi north coast estuaries and the San Francisco Bay; immature crabs feed in grass beds, mudflats and marsh sloughs. /47,95,120/

Freshwater wetlands support a different array of invertebrate species; dragonfly and damselfly nymphs, insect larvae, aquatic insects, worms snails cover stems and roots of submerged plants, and many i inhabit the substrate. /41/

-17- Most wetlands that contain tidal sloughs or other permanent open water support fish populations. Staghorn sculpin, three-spine stickleback, California killifish, topsmelt and others are common in tidal estuarine marshes. The arrow goby shares a mud burrow with worms and crabs. /76/ Seasonally, fishes such as surfperch, eulachon, flat fish, and rockfish from nearshore waters move into estuaries and marshes to feed or have their young. The Pacific herring, a commercially important species, lay their eggs on eelgrass or submerged rocks in subtidal areasand on and among brown and red algae on intertidal mudflats. California halibut and diamond turbot lay their eggs in the open ocean, and juveniles migrate into estuaries to feed and mature. Striped bass and white and green sturgeon also rely upon the estuarine environment for portions of their life cycle. And tidal rivers of the north coast and San Francisco Bay probably play an important role in anadromous (e.g. steelhead and salmon) fish growth. /88,145/ Juveniles of several anadromous species (migrating between fresh and salt water, such as salmon} may spend several months in river estuaries prior to entering the open ocean. /57,58,63,93/

Although the precise contribution of salt marshes in reproduction and growth of fishes is largely unknown, evidence suggests a chain of dependency of fishes on salt marshes: small resident fish species of sloughs feed on invertebrates in channels and mudflats; these smaller fish are prey to larger, often commercially important species that move out of the estuary into the Pacific Ocean. Highly modified estuaries and lagoons which lack marsh and mudflats have demonstrated significantly lower habitat value for sh. /148/ At least indirectly, and probably directly, wetlands contribute to the needs of both commercial and game fish species.

Fish species in inland freshwater wetlands vary greatly with wetl ze, amount of vegetation, water flow, and water quality and temperature the marsh. A greater number and diversity of fish inhabit backwater marshes a1 the Colorado River than the main channel. In these large marshes, ve species such as Colorado squaw fish, bonytail and humpback sucker are still resident in limited numbers. /138/ Small freshwater marshes upstream in rivers of the north Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay area are habitat to small sh such as three-spine stickleback and gobies.

-18- Riparian forest is important in maintenance freshwater and s. The ck forest shades deep summer temperatures whi are j and to newly hatched young.

Birds are the most conspicuous form of wildlife in Cali a Paci c Flyway, the major western migratory route for shorebirds small passerines, connects the nesting grounds Canada wi wintering grounds in California and South ca. fall millions of waterfowl and shorebirds mi wetlands California to spend the winter months or feed prior movi U. sh Wildlife Service states that, "the single function remaining United States wetlands is to provide winteri for waterfowl". /134/ Appendix C li

1 alone accommodates more than 90% of the over 6 1 ion that overwinter in California. /134/. ing such as , pintail, mallard, gadwall green-wi species feed primarily on marsh pl i n managed wetlands and seasonally flooded Valley and Suisun Marsh. The ons e goose, cackling goose, Ross goose and an winter in Ca1ifornia 1 s i and wet1

ous wetlands in search of food areas. , in a late rain season, waterfowl stay n 1 Central Valley wetlands are fl move among the wetlands within the in ooding regimes and c management areas.

Coastal including Francisco Bay, are r species - both dabbling and sea 1 as numerous shorebirds. San Francisco Bay alone hosts canvasbacks, , ehead n ands. A low tide in coastal wetlands brings flocks of shorebirds and down in the or scooping their bills through the searchi i t marshes are less used feeding, but birds seek refuge amongst the marsh plants to t des and storms. When extreme high tides submerge all of the rna lands - transition zones - provide essential "back-up" food and shel both waterfowl and shorebirds. One of the most striking California coastal and bay salt marshes, both tidal and r seasonali a summer-dry diked 11 Wetl and 11 comes to 1 i it is wetted by winter ns; flocks of migratory birds exploit resources.

The most important coastal wetland areas for migratory bi are 1 i in Appendix C. migrants will go to those areas where s and move as food levels decrease, visiting many along coast in one season. The coastal chain of wetlands thus des a series of geographi dispersed habitat areas for these mi ies, many of which nue their travel to Central and South America.

i and wetlands, wadi rds such as and tterns are resi of fresh and brackish marshes. cranes migrate i to the freshwater marshes of the Central Val1 overwi ls ous types inhabit mars as do ne such as wrens, sparrows and red-winged blackbi species such as hawk, led • merlin, owls hunt in coastal and inland wetland areas.

Passerine small songbirds and warblers, are and residents to an , which harbor high populations support numerous ies. In the desert, the scattered an groves serve as "i ands" of water and food in an se ronment. Mammals, both large and small, forage in or are resi Raccoon, musk , mink, ring-tailed cat, and deer hunt or t, i wetlands. Shrews, ha mice 1 ve in the thi vegetation. Larger mammals live in upl travel to nearby riparian forest and marshland to feed on fish, i 1

ies. The loss of wetland and an ------~----~--- has reduced the populations of at least 24 ies that are now listed by state and/or federal governments as or rare (Appendix C). The populations of animals such as the goose, Cali a apper rail, desert pupfish, or California yell 11 cuckoo have diminished by reduction of available habitat. Others, as the rsh harvest mouse, or salt marsh bird's beak ( evol i i adaptations to the habitat condi ons of pools or parian forests. Their narrow adaptability compounds loss of their habitat. It is not surprising that 20% of federally listed species depend on ands. In almost all cases, populations have because their have been destroyed or reduced to a ze 1 to in vi e ons.

Protection

i absorbing the energy in waves, marsh an vegetation in locations is effective in reducing bank i ne structures. s useful function of a than in other coastal locations for two reasons. Pacific Coast, marshes have developed ons thin bays and river estuaries. The sites t erosion - uffs and beaches - are fully exposed to thus are not veto marsh establishment. However, wi i sco Bay and and estuaries, where the fetch 1 miles, dal marsh vegetation erosion. And where dredgers have permi i 1evees, dense ve effects of wi waves and boat wake.

1- Second, the predominantly fleshy vegetation of California marshes 1imi i function in shoreline protection. Unlike mangrove swamps, whose expanses tangled and branches bind intertidal soils and serve et waves, California coastal marshes contain no woody plants except in higher transition zones infrequently wetted by tides. However, along fresh water streams and in floodplains, riparian thickets of willow and shrubs armor banks by binding soils, slowing flood flows, and trapping sediments and plant debris. /144/

Flood Protection

At one time, freshwater marshes and riparian forests covered the de oodplains of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Colorado and other rivers ifornia. Peak flood water overflowed these wetlands; either they the slowly as river levels subsided or the water evaporated. The wetlands of the Delta reduced downstream flood flows by spreading and detaining them before they entered San Francisco Bay. This in turn moderated shoreline flooding around the Bay. Certain areas of the Central Vall and Delta still serve this function, such as the Sutter and Yolo ch vert flood water from the Sacramento River. /83/ Through pulation of flood flows, these bypasses are allowed to as spreadi basins, providing some winter habitat After drying in the spring, the basins are farmed.

larly, certain of the diked agricultural lands which border San sco, San Pablo. and Humboldt Bays function as detention basins loc waters, providing at the same time seasonal wetland habitat. fl these low-lying areas at high tide and flows into through degates at low tide. In this manner, floodwaters are released gradually through a basin rather than directly through a creek channel, thus avoiding backup over-flow into developed lands that results when coinci with gh de inflow.

Along the Pacific Coast, the capacity of estuarine wetl and 1 moderate ooding has been reduced in two ways. rst, low, areas and deepened or filled, in s .------

PERIODIC INUNDATION WETLAND PROCESSES FUNCTIONAL SERVICES

~ :------. I I I I : High plant productivity : __..,. Food and habitat I I I 1I ---:111-- Food chain support

I Nutrients and ---:111-- Floodpeak reduction N w suspended material Temporary water storage I __..,. Groundwater recharge

Trapping of suspended material ...... ,.. Water quality improvement on, ows

on

Mt. serve as on an

c

on

e or n necessa

can are

as s si on

n

on

ones f

ac ong as the ver ta, n

es as

, commerci on wetlands, n San Diego, 1930s and ation of of , 1 a goon, ands

so 11 d War

a ve 11

central urban use. ons

Port development for mili displaced tidal ands, sco Bay. Large bays was based on shippi ves to port development. ego, San Francisco, and Oakland marshlands. 11 i h Naval 1

1 la

tidelands in Bay, serve the 1 in San

on centers

mpoundment in enabled urban Diversions in ows, ons of desert thousands of riprap and have historic

growth

on, Diego

r has cantly inc isun

n

areas in

on s Bodega

development sediment ng in the nages on

ifornia 1 s suspended water increases

waste

es so inflows (e.g.,

flows were 50/

all sorts. More id of acres of in s are the sludge lagoons and oxidation ponds of many sewage were constructed on the bay plain. While coveri on ponds have been able to provide limited

Salt Ponds

The salt industry is fully dependent on use of tidal lands on of salt from marine water. Salt ponds replaced tidal marshes San Francisco Bay, San Diego Bay, Elkhorn Slough, Upper Newport , and Batiquitos Lagoon. Some ponds have been abandoned in Francisco and San Diego Bays, and Elkhorn Slough are 11 ponds have proved their value as habitat by providing shel and specialized food resources for certain shorebird and waterfowl /46/ The endangered California least tern, for example, on unvegetated salt pond levees in San Francisco Bay. /25/ Salt ponds are ewed as i candidates for restoration to tidal action when i owners scontinue operations. However, abandoned salt ponds in San Francisco (e.g., Bair Island, Redwood City; Bamberg Tract, Hayward) are also development.

Mining

Water, the determining factor for all wetl is also essential in most other desert land uses. such a limited resource often puts wetlands in direct operations. /140/ The Bureau of Land Management mining operations on public lands affect ri an vegetation removal or road building. These operations are in Inyo, Argus and Panamint Ranges.

Urban construction throughout the state cement. Gravel mining in south coast rivers and many increased to pace. As a result river channel geometry and changed, often to the detriment of riparian vegetation on in floodplain. on

an

an

on

on

In ly

se

to opment modi by the ia Coastal ects. Wetl Francisco Bay. and ons is creation of wi1 to the area 1

ranchers 1 around the and sage range vely nesti

Wetl sources:

les the ands and the remai devel ate, areas

an increase to r. ara,

1 are

to

as urban as can harbor

owners.

Central ley and

past ten on are are Basin the in 1 acres (1 ) were 1 1 ands area of the are , or other crops

fewer rice, nee c Ricelands provi ity of the habi is most to managed more , former duck club 1 to rice were res improve hunting success. n where conversion rice

such as ore

r n, on

state avail 1 i roughout the uses no assurrance Cali a i t is

n

n,

rm pre

on

ne freshwater exports are inc i ne waters enc problem of ntai i

advances, ly in rice cultivation, era ted the rate ands and their value to waterfowl ia on's ce; 80% of this is grown 5,000 a peak of 590,000 in 1981, ,000 in Ha fields are significant feedi areas many duck clubs consist largely of ce fi ds. However, water management, intensified land leveling and weed control, early maturing strains, rice growers r el at the expense of both waterfowl food ue n

In , most public and private wetlands depend on ce season water supply. As rice growers i their ng typical water app1i on rates (from 10 acre as little as 2.3 acre r e nage water be

vely improved in ce ire less water, may be and c plants, such as rumex, nation of potholes iminated an aquatic habitat such as on herbicides has contri isms. Watergrass in particular ue invertebrates provide a source and premigration s vely more scarce. The practice In the Delta, corn II Increasingly less eliminates pot crohabitats" that, in the and waterbird habi

Early maturi ce 1 ow ce fields to be pl c the rice has increased early, "clean" rice harvest n on which ntering waterfowl used to feed, 11 continue to leave 5% n

Sedimentation

Erosion and sedi occurs throughout the coast. It is attri harvest practices, and in There is no reason to believe ine. Erosion control ordinanc es. Use of heavy machinery in 1 management PART II:

PROGRAMS & POLICIES II: PROGRAMS AND POLICI

Federal and state programs and policies, and judicial deci ons, influenced i a wetlands over the past 180 years, but the ve programs are less than two decades old. A complex network i es (see Table 1) a patchwork which is multi-tiered in some areas i sco Bay, Costal Zone) and missing altogether in others (much Valley). A statutes and directives address specific wetl or wetlands in general. Most, however, are indirect, influencing through management water quality or quantity, fish and wil i ies, endangered habitats, water navigability, floodplain management, coastal resources, and environmental and land use regul ons. there is no comprehensive policy or approach to managing use any government level in California except along the coast. integrated, systematic means by which such a policy could be i

This analysis has not attempted to compare California's wetlands with that other states. However, almost all (including those bordering the Great Lakes), have programs rect1y ate use coastal wetlands. Most i have speci Through a combination of program ( programs, most coastal wetlands are reasonably and wetlands, which comprise 95% of the generally are regul by the states. /153/

FEDERAL

respect to wetlands and 1 ands in substanti but often conflicting. It i permit authori , such as the Corps of Engineers'; in memoranda i es comment on Corps permit ons · i

-41- TABLE 1 CALIFORNIA WETLAND ISSUES AND THEIR REGULATION

Specific Region Affected wetlands for San Francisco Bay, Humboldt Bay and certain coastal estuaries of tidal San Francisco Bay, primarily North uses, ports, and Central Coast

conversion of Klamath Basin Corps ( 1imi wetlands North Coast of wetlands from North and Central Coasts California State disturbances, San Francisco Bay ( l imi ng, agriculture, Regional Water opment Board (very Local governments ordinances (few in

Sal increases in wetlands San Francisco Bay-Sui sun t1arsh State \~a ter Resources Contra 1 due upstream water diversion Central Valley-Delta Regional Water Board State Bureau of wetlands with San Francisco Bay Envi ronmenta 1 s other than "fill" North Coast or Corps - intended for development Regional Water Qual (i .. , sanitary landfills, 1 ng s 1ash) of vate, managed Central Valley None un1 for agriculture or government uses policies Central Valley

an vegetation Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ( ntenance, bank Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Bureau on State Reclamati levees)

an areas above South Coast and isolated under nation-

South Coast

ands from South Coast watershed (very Local governments ordinances ri forest for Mojave Desert Bureau desert mining activities and lands from feral burro grazing of vegetation Colorado River Bureau of fot' evee rna i ntenance, bank Corps stabi ization Salton Sea Bureau of

-42- d programs and federal works proj n i ves, or leases, some of which actua11 in management of federal 1

statutes y to most federally authori

Act (1969). NEPA and i impl ------~------~--- national charter for protection s importance in wetlands protection la national interest in natural resources, in assure consistent federal protection to wetlands in a. However, it supports the "public interest revi c a Engineers in reviewing permit applications in is ronmental policy guideline for all federal ac ons

11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977) E.O 11 se an wetland policy for all of the federal agencies i a, sponsor federal projects, or 1 ocal projects. The order establ is agencies to fulfill before proposing new ne whether there is a practicable measures to minimize harm ons ); 3) preserve and enhance wetlands; 4} involve the public on proposed in wetlands. E.O. 11990 p stration. At the same s by a11 federal agencies.

11988: Floodplain Management (1977), direc r programs and procedures to avoid ains or to mitigate flood losses if wetlands only indirectly. The to humans by controlling use of ues within the floodplain.

-43- d in conj nsu

nsurance, but so use of land i areas. I s ands.

1 addresses a them. (See i ow. Horn areas coastal zone i udi ng wetl ses and programs to se. Act, other ca a Coastal Plan and

preparation ans cri cal resource areas should receive p 1ocal permit review. CZMA 1 s influence on t i ly funded p 1 Coastal t actions must

i a s

owners pal rection the Corps:

11 ( "works ) in

ean Water Act, regulates disposal of United States, 11 i (5 ic feet per second, average 1 over 1 0 acres; contiguous wetlands, i udi r mark in nontidal waters and mean

1 aw ginally had the intent of protec 1 In 1968, the Corps established "public i ew wei interests such as land use, sh and wildlife, ecology, poll i1 lity of alternatives, permanence were adopted as criteria in 1974.

in kinds of si ons Angeles and Sacramento di ity in areas Watwer [t4HW]). acres in San isco on

on shoreward to mean water mark in nontidal waters r lution Control Act chemical, physical, and biol 11 Water qual ityu (in ous forms) and 11 dredged were not speci ca11y referenced, TIDAL WATERS FRESH WATERS

I SECTION 404 SECTION 404 ~ ---- ,...I... disposal of dredged or fill material ,..I osal of dred2ed or fill material (if wetlands exist behind levees) 1 1 SECTION 10 I SECTION 10 . all structures and work: levees, dock, etc.. [...._all structures and work--.J UPLANDS unfilled areas behind (if watercourse is a navigable] levees that are below I 1 j water of the U.S. ) i 1 historic MHW

I~~ 'I FRESH j I ~~ ~~~,'FRESH I COASTAL WATER ~;y;r?· I WATER .a~ ...,, WETLANDS WETLANDS I SW~MPS I TIDELANDS (Vegetation , associated 1 MARSHES with salt or brackish 1 water) or I High Tide I Line

NOTE: IN ADDITION TO SECTIONS 10 AND 404 JURISDICTIONS, FIGURE 5 THE CORPS REGULATES THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSING Corps of Engineers Regulatory Jurisdiction WATERS !SECTION 103). ons, a11 saline, brackish, or e (or, in some circumstances, i tion. Such lands may occur n a. The San Francisco District exerc in San Francisco Bay diked lands where wetland contrast, although a major part of the Delta and 1 areas are seasonally flooded, they are excluded Di Corps jurisdiction, since they are reclaimed lands c navi rs." /55/ Similarly, the Los Angeles Distri to assert jurisdiction in marginal (e.g., i si ons ess r directives apply (e.g., Endange

rtain ac vities are excluded from Section 404. These are in California wetlands. For example, excavation, clearing, 1eve11i vegetation, including riparian, are not cove A 11 nationwide permit 11 system for the headwaters of c average annual flow), and lakes under 10 acres, exempts a ripa an si ons and ponds and springs from individual ve surve 11ance. The seasonally dry nature of ludes many riparian corridors and small cti on.

on Program has a complex judici have become the regulatory ndamental and controversial differences di federal agencies of the intent and admini s ews its primary regulatory function as resource agencies like Fish and Wildlife Se protecting the integrity of wet1 ha tat as the mary function. In California, these di are in i in all three Corps districts.

exercises 404 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~ permit decisions. In Cali y veloped 404(b) gui ines so

p s an on

ie

a r a Service has concerning waterfowl

National Wi1d1i to bought by r sun Bay, and wi 1 i to reduce c

primarily to ze es.

though the parks The Wild and

resources. s es i ne resources, includi i

ni Stabi 1i zati on agencies. in by the Water Bank Act, are in important gratory waterfowl t 1 i resources e wetlands may enter into for conserving the land as for addi onal ten-year consent stance is provided by SCS, DFG

i to protect 1 offers es al feeding as expaned to cover wetlands that

acres in i a were pa es

acres in

n X acres

ns Wil i Refuges (above). The Bureau ect and other water return systems.

for federal control of actions invol in the state is substantial. Federal lands are on, oil and gas production, grazing, i es, , timber, and other activities. Many of in i a in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s were in i On federal lands throughout the state, (E.O. 11 ), NEPA, Endangered Species statutes (Federal Land and Management Act Act [NFMA], and others) give some assurance resources on federal lands, such as wetlands, will receive However, since the statutes themselves ons, the federal land management agencies can exerc scretion, subject to scrutiny of constituent

11 11 i ons and state resource ( trustee ) agencies

FORtH A

i or exercises variety of general by 11 resource 11 departments, 1 S role in managing the use Cali a statutes in A second analysis ewed • /109/ Both analyses rect authority in wetlands except in three sco Bay, and Suisun Marsh protected; in contrast inland Cali 1 NEPA, Among other icies 1 ons. i c or significance (e.g., Suisun ramento-San ta, 1d and scenic rivers, etc.), and the resource in and an lands) is defined as signi

projects in wetlands will require a use permit some thus the CEQA process unless is a pervasive impact on local land use deci ons and planni process in ia requiring that environmental impact reports on major However, its effectiveness in protection of those which are outsi federal (Corps) or Coastal Commission jurisdi on, is ghly vari e, subject to the diligence wi which it is exerci in local communities and the nature of the action proposed. example, owned wetlands in the Central ley can be agriculture no CEQA requirements.

California Wetlands is other than the Coastal in any act states that there ned

The on of ten wetlands, using funds from seve sources, to rt preparation of a statewide wetlands plan. were ocated in 1976, however.

Resolution -Senate Concurrent Resol 1 , called be developed by January 1, and sites such that the remaining ac of ands in Cali i a could by 50% by the year 2000. an was 1 s cited in this final on the Status and nes a of options and fie recommendations protecting 2) improving new f not ons or

the plan, , is on tat. The numerous i c incentive ng sources, and sources private wetlands use owned zing economic measures th a ic allocations i and waterfowl habitat i ng supply (waste grain); on supplies to wildli and assurrance research funds; i as and c

as an 1a" poli programs of

ta cance of management s not backed law, it has Corps both ta rces Agency in

guide

se ne it i ca 11 y to San Francisco Bay wetlands, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and other water bodies such as ear ver. The policy areas n are nei state permit.

Despite the absence of either legislative authority or j cial test of wetlands policy. the policy lent consi e weight to comments of Agency member departments in state and federal zed actions. The policy is now undergoi ew and revision ( 1, 1984); in m, it serves as a gui

State Lands Division and Commission: Public Trust Doctrine. California the owner of the majority of the ands within i borders when it was tted to the Union on September 9, 1850. Most of Cali a's ands 11 are owned by the state or 1 slature 1 s public grantees in trust under the jurisdiction of State Lands Commission.

so in 1850, under 11 An Act to Enable the State of Arkansas and Other to Reclaim Swamplands within their li ts, 11 granted 11 SWamp and overflowed lands 11 to California. The land was by federal surveyors and by 1871 determi i ude 2,1 acres. Most of the land was sold or 11 patented 11 to private citizens for the purpose of cultural reclamation, much of it in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The 11 Swamp1and 11 which was sold off during the ensuing thirty so included navigable tidelands and submerged lands, which were held in the public trust for 11 Commerce, navigation and sheries. 11

The right to preserve the public trust in delands and known historic waterways (even though obscured by subsequent treatment of land) has given the considerable authority in regulati appropriate use these lands returned revenues where public trust easements have been sold or exchanged after negotiation. The state's ownership of tidal lands and 1 behind levees continues to be uncertain, however. In the Delta many mixed dal and parcels were surveyed and sold and, subsequently, their 1 altered. The public must ned on a case by case s. i s courts have aw public doctrine. i 11 1 i encompass f cases, in seasonal ow water mark all so subject to c trust. Over 4, lakes, ear and r ands, in such areas.

i uence in wetlands an areas. ifornia Fi Wildlife sion), the department's overall ective: to 1 and wildli r i ns c ogical r di benefits man. In parti an's on refers dwindli habi i seasonally 1 to rel problems are 11 , almost 1 ater.

of has es c Resources Game Code, 1 on Act to or comment on es in wetl and parian areas. has responsi on, and law ng taking rare animal ies; it comments on 1 under consideration by r state and ch i resources; it enforces laws, i regul hunting; it manages state-owned wildlife management areas, ecological reserves, national ne es; it is th i c by 1

manage resources; often or flood control improvements are before the Department of Fish has had an opportuni to assi ign habitat A ies on rare es inhabit coastal or i In and law prohibiting taking, possession, e of these species, the does not have direct permit authori over 1 ands on which their are present. However, the department has been acqui c tical i areas since 1970, including a number coastal • /50/

rtment of Fish and Game also comments di y neers concerning fish and wildlife of 404 permit applications and federal flood control and navigation proj The department consistently advocates the maintenance of exi ng sh and l ife resources. If this goal cannot satisfactorily accomplished, ther project denial or approval with mitigative measures is recommended. In commenting on Corps public notices, the department has been a stout defender the state•s basic wetland protection icy, particularly in negotiating ons.

Conservation Board A is ntained by the Department of Fish and on Board to acquire wetlands by purchasing fee title and easements, or 1 ng land from agencies. Ecological reserves are designed to protect rare or plant or animal communities, and wil ife management areas allow regulated hunting and fishing. The CDFG has identified 19 coastal wetlands ority acquisition in California. /7/ The state also manages the Elkhorn Estuarine Sanctuary, the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary, and the Channel Islands and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands Marine Sanctuaries.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC}. The r-Petris Act, which created BCDC in 1965, also authorized the San sco Bay Plan. Piecemeal 11ing had reduced the extent water and i areas of the bay by more than The McAteer-Petris Act preceded the major federal and state environmental statutes probably paved for an effective federal Section 10 and subsequent on 404 program in the bay. has permit authority over 11 in bay waters up to the i ne of action, over uses in a ine ng around some es. ve t in over managed of Suisun Mars

i nvol ng fi 11 are authorized y when no al ve upland on is available, when the amount of 11 proposed is mum achieve , when sh and resources are mi mal, when proj early exceed ment. ects should be li ted to water-o ented uses or ated industry and encourage ample public access to shoreline.

was one of the first agencies in on to an approved Zone Management Program pursuant the Coastal Management Act. , BCDC comments on the consistency of federally approved actions with the an. BCDC has y developed policies concerning protection approximate 52,000 acres of diked c delands a the bay, permit authori over these 1

t are icative being congruent. BCDC covers a wider range of acti ties than the authority extends y to ani ni 11 line tidal 100 foot shoreline band. 11 Corps 1 juri on under on 10 is ti to evations and under Section 404 to ous forms of evidence, including ked lands. Nor are mitigation rements similar the two ies.

a the icies and programs are forth in an. an is admi stered 1 ns ght of

and sri in ano County Protection ng r i es nances i with sons of the act. This process on local agencies, vate 1 ~ such as a no icies and nances for on i thin and to the marsh, a gradi and erosion nance, and an nance regulating development di y adj watercourses n county.

Together with the Coastal Act, s is one few laws in California a specific geographic area an on, and Its effectiveness in protecting largest e area in (10% of total total resource) is in 1 part due to interest political pressure of waterfowl hunti interests. This case so one of the relatively few examples of successful 1 ve ng in California wetlands.

California Coastal Commission. In 1972, of the apppoved on 20 and created the California Conservation In 1975 the California zone and ndings and policies concerni wetlands to energy facili s le coast During the next eight years the regional and commissions more than 50,000 t applications within zone. California communi es prepared 1 Programs to apply coastal zone management poli es the 1 1 • /43/

Coastal Plan addresses such land use questions as scenic and visual ities of the coast, natural land forms, environmental sensi ve areas, access for the public, ting c energy facili es, hazard areas, commercial fishing and ng, and

terms 11 Wetlands, 11 bio1ogica1 11 are c defined n statute, along with icies and 11ing. The Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet in on, on on 11 ands adjacent areas nes n ons for ons n these ands c p1 species a ce.

ew the zes in areas 11 degraded 11 and modi ed) wetlands is fai y has regularly land c losses on California , the ear i the is t the rate resource in small increments. The at issue are the identi cation of wetlands and the on condi on.'' sci c ant and ogy, has on a wetlands, often on. Somewhere between teri a of the practical needs of the planner, is a need will e There is wetland that cases in a.

of wetlands Commission partially ty s 1 in ly greater ation is more gorous than In i stency appropriate Coastal Programs. In instances, nt resource protection federal and programs are i ng.

resources. ons of i a Coastal Commission. 1 ocal and state work out coastal vate ic anning ves, and interests in sensi ve is by a $1 0 mi 11 ion 11ion for conservancy action in (one-half to for enhancement), relating access, and preservation and

speci c marsh on or the Bracut Marsh restoration in compensated 11ing of some of the City ; San on 85 acres 1a goon and ; and Los restoration a 1 re degraded wetland presently used for oil extraction. Conservancy is in the fortunate posi on of having funds wi some of i goals, its sister agencies, the

State Water Resources Control The State Board to se powers set forth in {FWPCAA), and 1 ean are also ble for exercisi contai in ogne Water Control Act, amended 1969.

Regional Boards may issue or ace ons on Section permit applications to ensure that projects will comply with standards in ean Water Act, EPA regulations, and wi state water The State and Regional ty over water , including scharges ands. The ogne Water Quality ty federal 1 aw. It also is at 1 indirectly, 1 ity the Boards is on quali have protection as an indirect recipient, in part because of the Boards' th ean Act wi the recently rescinded i is not an ssue in ogne has 1imi i on.

(g-k}, CWA, provides for delegation to the states of a 404 ified a number of condi ons, such as EPA overview and 1 waters covered by federal navigation servi No state this offered delegation, largely because funding does not It been suggested that the California State and Boards would likely candidates for delegation if California chose it

GOVERNMENTS

communities, counties, and special districts in California have in their boundaries shorelines, bayfront lands, and agricultural governments in California have available an array instruments (general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) and tools , review procedures) for protection and management of natural resources, but their influence over wetlands is largely governed by local economic priorities.

1 use management in California begins with general plans, by law. These are implemented by zoning ordinances to regulate the Policies of the local general plan that can protect or preserve habitats, inc1udi wetlands, are contained primarily in the Open rvation ements which address the conservation, development, use of natural resources and provisions for open space to preserve natural resources, among other ngs.

ifornia ci es and counties have adopted poli es in ir general ial area plans for the conservation wildli habitats, which ands. Habi on varies greatly, however; specific ines and action programs for potecti ldlife resources are usually 1 Ordinances concerning grading or ng and 11i (of wetlands), , ra y consi

land use decisions are also guided several statutes, i ng the California Environmental Quality Act. The State Subdivision Map t requires that findings be made where subdivi ons and proposed improvements are likely to damage fish or wildlife habitats. However, the Act defines the habitats nor the studies necessary n impact.

Using these and other tools, a few 1 effective resource managers by inventorying signi cant wetl areas and defining specific policy; dedicating wetland habitat areas; requiring performance bonds for development within wetland areas; applyi effective conditions to use permits; and defining zoning special (wetland) 11 resource management districts. 11

informal survey of 32 San Francisco Bay Area cities and counties with i ed ked baylands revealed that, while a number had and fill nances in tidal waters, only five or six had adopted some form of diked protection. Others impose use restrictions to protect cultural uses only. Some local governments have Williamson Act contracts (below) for some of the baylands but these may be terminated with appropriate notice. ties and counties have no provisions that protect ands from 11ed or otherwise altered. Local governments in Cali ia will not have the planning resources to prepare the studies, plans. and nances necessary to impose additional restrictions to protect baylands. /103/

to relieve the tax burden on land owners engaged in commercial tural operations through signing of contracts to mai in 11 agricultural 11 • The contract period is 10 years, renewable ly unless through a public hearing process. In 1969, the act was amended i areas of wildlife value as well as other open space lands. The tat areas must have been designated important for the protection or the ldli resources the state. Included in this t ponds, managed areas (e.g., areas mai ned for hunti ), submerged areas, and open space.

Williamson Act does offer one means to reduce landowners' taxes on , but since most ands and riparian corridors are already taxed at low rate, there is not a significant relief. The amendment, to be ve, also requires the local legislative body to make findings of 11 great of the habitat which is being protected.

AND LOCAL INITIATIVES

Duck clubs have been a dominant force in preservation of California Private duck clubs own the majority of Central Valley and Suisun ands and manage these areas for waterfowl. These areas are not open to general public, and club memberships are much in demand.

Local and regional parks, districts and private foundations such as i a Waterfowl Association, The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public and Audubon Society have acquired wetland areas both for habitat on and recreation. Hundreds of acres of wetlands have been thus through direct acquisition, partial interest (easements), and innovative techniques for leveraging the limited public funds lable for land acquisition. For example, the Richard King Mellon on recently gave the Nature Conservancy a $25 million grant toward its to conserve wetland ecosystems in the United States. Other organizations and many local or regional 11 Wetland coalitions," i and game clubs, have also been active in protecting Californi PART Ill: Valley of Cali a the ty of Red north to Bakersfi 1 or parts of ve , the 1 ons were in the Tulare Delta-Suisun were 11 0Verf10W 11 lands, ly flooded by adj were large areas of permanent rna 11,134/

ey is a r in the water of a major river n Delta where le junction. nage basins, ns There are five

Yolo and 1 reflects to a degree the historic distribution -----Basin, sandwiched and sink, a wetland marshes as ow swamps fed by the Sacramento River and Butte Creek. in, the Colusa Basin from Creek to Cac marily overf1 ow rna Sacramento and Feather Rivers during winter and spri this basin were permanently ooded. The Yolo Basin on the north and Sacramento River on the west. Both marshes fill basin. low, central portion held 1 marsh, while ri LEGEND

C-:::::J SEASONAL OR PERMANENT FLOODING- 3,119,000 ACRES c::::;:::> TULE MARSH LANDS- 500,000 ACRES

"'""'"''~'•• CENTRAL VALLEY BOUNDARY

SOURCES: Overflow- Bulletins 26 and 29 DWR I 9 3 I Marshlands- State Geologico! Survey of California 1874

River

Kaweah !?rver

FIGURE 6 Central Valley Marshes and Lands Historically Subject to Overflow

-66- ng up the east

o and American on with the San stine Delta was 1 , surrounded by 1 Shal and spring behind evees. I Delta become a 1 • covered by isco Bay and runoff ramento and in ler Mokelumne and Cosumnes vers. /19/

1 in the upper San Joaquin Valley, received overflow water vers {San Joaquin, Fresno, Chowc lla Merced, umne and an extensive complex of oughs, ands. The Tulare Three large lakes, e block of wetland a. res wetlands, lakes and s an an 11 ed the two

ve ands was their valley, in were a hundred y watered, shaded with 1 kinds ... At all Joaquin River, 11 ows, and

11ions of waterfowl Central Valley and were inhabi by other es, such as wading birds, nk ver e Both resident and es 1 n , creeks and river

1 is bound up in the amation, Hundreds of land were of about 100 years 1 agri cul tura1 were accompanied by habitat. The greatest and loss occurred in 1906 to 1922, when ve amation and effective ned to accelerate the conversion to irrigated and agri

wetlands differs somewhat for Valley, the Del , and 1 ey. In the Sacramento despread reclamation began in , when early farmers diked the dal ns for on demands for farm products ng d rush popul on areas flooded y each winter. Hydraulic in the Sierras left heavy ment in the waterways flooding problems. For 1 on of Sac s between 1860 and 1914 raised 1 dredging along the ver, 11 normal 11 streambed s were restored. The inception of ood Control Proj greatly expedited the on of

on in the ta, nued until by 1930 886 inlets and i and were being aimed in the Delta in the 1 were largely overflow sporadi ly. in a Sacramento until

the be the groundwater water appropriate

was required and i rri gati on federal began , the most eted in Delta ta-Mendota

on and urban Sacramento Burns-Porter al Project was r from the Valley and to the

gradual and

were or levee construction on was never San Joaquin the J and the land ture. /11

on n 1 limited c lability of have determi ons. Of the ands ( four million) that 1 are must be maintained or controli ed The majority of

vate ranchers, or reduce waterfowl ng ow. acres of actual

CENTRAL VALLEY vate

52,115 0 23,580 0 1 ,500 0 12,277 0 34,473 39,000 in 109,910 27,591 ,306 298,946

Plan for Wintering a. *Butte Sink A significant amount of wetlands habitat in the Central Valley is in vately owned duck clubs. In the Sacramento Valley, 305 clubs comprise 111, acres. /37/ The Sacramento-San in contains 25 clubs i ,249 acres; 348 clubs (156, acres are located in the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, the approximate total acreage of Central Valley duck clubs is 292,400 acres; however, only about half of this acreage is retained as 11 natural 11 wetland habitat; the remainder is farmed. /37/

Agricultural lands of the Delta and Central Valley serve as secondary ow habitat. Farmlands in the Delta, nci ly corn, are subject to irrigation salt buildup; they are periodically leached by flooding, creating seasonal 11 Wetlands" which resemble the pristine condition and attract large numbers of migratory waterfowl. The cultivation of rice, a major crop in the Sacramento Valley, requires flooding; these fields support waterfowl which feed on rice left after the harvest and on aquatic weeds and organisms, and water used for flooding is used a second time for maintaining adjacent wetlands. (See also Part I)

-71- i sco Bay s ne and wetland area 4) 1 e watershed Joaquin Valley flows 1a bay itself confer on cance as a

300,000 acres. the 1 northeastern of the bay, added another bay and wetlands approximately

, even prior n the 1800s, was not marshes. of the San Francisco southward, a wide corridor, lining a 1 from a quarter north as Richmond.

n bayfront he 1 d miles upstream from o Bay, which n, was bordered from Carquinez had only were the Napa,

1700s with the farms were i n1 sco a village on Yerba Pablo Bay

PACIFIC

San Francisco East Bay

OCEAN

0 5 South Bay m1!es

(

FIGURE San Francisco Bay Region

-73- s tidel ons ess

1

1 es such as a, Antioch, Redwood

were i ndustri 1 Paci c

1 s

in

were 1 ow t The second World War stimulated more growth and change in the bay area with the establishment of military reservations. Thirteen of the twenty-five military establi in ne-county on cover tide or wetland areas to some extent, and many are oriented toward water transport. /99/

Bay area population increased rapidly in the post World War II years. Extensive housing tracts, associated flood control projects, industrial and commercial centers, and highways were constructed. By 1967, 4.5 million people inhabited bay area, an increase of 3 million in Prior to the 1950s, little construction had occurred on tidal or diked bayfront lands due to the great cost of fill, even though the land was considered cheap. When la development corporations entered the home-building market they were able to support the necessary capital investments.

Popu1 on in nine-county bay region increased by 0.9% annually between 1970 and 1979. /107/ Housing and employment centers for this increase in inhabitants are now distributed over a wi geographic area. Information on the speci c losses from this population increase on the filling and devel wetlands is not available.

All of many marinas and ports established in the early years of the bay devel required maintenance dredging and periodic expansion and renovation. Dredge spoils were formerly disposed of on marshl or to 11 bay lands development. example, the Port of Oakland filled 140 acres for their Seventh Street Terminal, in 1967 the Port of isco created their Army Street Terminal on 68 acres. /99/

The or and other smaller airports overlie tidelands largely because of their need for flat topography and mpeded access. San Francisco airport lled approximately 4,000 acres and Oakland 1,500 acres. Municipal landfills account for some wetland loss; 38% of bay area landfills are on tide and marshland, rate of filling is declining. Power plants and energy faci1i es are also 1 along the shoreline. Six Pacific Gas and Electric power plants collectively cover 650 acres of former wetlands. /99/ The visible presence of the bay to residents and tourists i a deep concern for its welfare. This public concern s Act and formation and Development Commission. Regulation of bay filling by 11ing slowed considerably, as evidenced by the following loss of delands was about 1,500 acres/year between 1850 between 1940 and 1965, 94 acres/year between 1 1 acres in 1970. 00/ Data are not available for 1970 to 1

, state, and local governments acquired some of wetland and tideland areas as parks and wildlife areas. San sco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (16,000 acres, for 22,947 acres), San Pablo National Wildlife Refuge (11, y I 1 i Area, and other state and local 1 i acres). 03/

Several restoration projects have returned about 500 acres 1 tidal action; other projects are planned. Completed in 0 , portions of Alameda Creek flood in n , Hayward ine Area Marsh, anned projects are in , San

Only 1 miles of tidal ands remain in San isco, o, sun Bays. /81/ This figure includes managed sediments. If y the original which 59 square miles remain, the bay remaining tidal marshes are along the urn a Francisco/San Mateo Peninsula and chmond, Gallinas and San Rafael Creeks and Suisun Bay. 1 area of continuous wetland in the acres tidal wetlands. /101/ Although pri around the since 1950, sun y f California 1 s managed wetl wi 1 A large percentage of former tidal wetlands are now salt evaporator ponds (63 square miles) with 28,000 acres in the south bay and 9,000 acres in Napa. Salt production, in the 1870 1 S, nues to be a viable i These ponds demonstrate a specialized 11 Wet1and 11 character. Other diked areas, despite their nontidal condition, retain many wetland characters. Of these 52,000 acres of diked former tidelands, 32,000 acres (62%} are in agricultural use, growing hay and forage crops. /103/ Their low elevation (in San Pablo Bay average elevation is three to five feet below mean sea level) permits ponding to occur during winter months unless regularly pumped dry. Seasonal wetland habitat for water-associated bird species can develop, even though cultivation has eliminated typical wetland plants. The remaining 20,000 acres of diked historic wetlands are highly variable in condition. Typically they are open, undeveloped lands partially filled and/or covered by marsh plant species such as pickleweed.

The most obvious effects of wetland losses, coupled with over-hunting in the 19th Century, have been to fish and wildlife use of the bay. Prior to 1850, sea otters inhabited the bay and migratory waterfowl were present in vast numbers. Both tule elk and bear, as well as other terrestrial mammals, once frequented marshlands. The tidal ats had a fauna of native c organisms which have largely been supplanted by introduced species. Migratory waterfowl use is still extensive, but feeding and resting areas are vastly reduced.

Salmon, sturgeon, ounder and smelt, and benthic animals such as shrimp, clam, and oysters were intensively harvested from 1850 to 1900. In 1 , the oyster industry thrived in San Leandro Bay next to Oakland. These commercial fisheries declined rapidly after 1900 due in part to loss of intertidal and wetland habitats. Over-fishing, upstream diversions, and water poll on were major contibuting factors. There is no longer a commercial crab, am, mussel, or oyster fishery within the bay. /16/ KLAMATH LAKES BASIN AND MODOC PLATEAU

The Klamath Lakes Basin extends from southern central i California and lies within the Klamath River watershed. Several la freshwater lakes, upper and lower Klamath Lake, Tule Lake, Clear and other smaller water bodies constitute the primary wetland areas. r wetlands and lakes totaled 189,000 acres in 1899 and served as a major ng area waterfowl and as summer habitat for numerous other species. /131/ Located at the junction of two major migration in the Pacific Flyway, the Basin still serves as a stopover for from 3 to llion ducks and geese annually. /151/

white settlement in the 1850s prompted amation wetlands for agricultural use; grain and pasture land predominated~ and was limited production of crops such as barley and potatoes. Reel med agricultural lands surround the managed wetlands that remain. Native freshwater wetl are largely gone.

y 1900s brought an era of both preservation and reel on Klamath n. ng in 1908, the federal government took an ve e and areas as national wildlife refuges ( Roosevelt established the Lower Klamath ve ginally encompassing 81,619 acres the numbers of nesting waterfowl which previously had been annually export to San Francisco. Five refuges were created between 1908 Tule , Lower Klamath, Upper Klamath, Klamath Forest, and Clear e 3).

i ng th the federal effort to preserve wetlands was amation to manage the water resources in cultural lands. For instance, in 1915 and 1921 executive orders thdrew large areas of wetland and lake TABLE 3

KLAMATH BASIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

Flooded Waterfowl Total Hunter Wetland Agricultural Production Visitor Use Visitor Habitat Land 1977-81 Days 1981 Days 1981 Lower Klamath NWR 17,583 47,583 27,634 144,700 11,743 Upper Klamath NWR 14,850 7,554 3,695 875 Klamath Forest NWR 14,776 4,615 3,975 90 Tule Lake NWR 13,200 17,400 15,091 187,550 11 ,818 Clear Lake NWR 33,400+ 997 470 100 TOTAL: 93,809 64,983

SOURCE: Robert Field, Manger, Klamath NWR

Klamath Refuge for reclamation to agriculture. The Bureau of Reclamation diverted the Klamath River away from Lower Klamath Lake; within 44 years the lake had dried up. Subsequent partial reflooding in 1942 by water pumped from Tule Lake has created a 17,000 acre managed wetland. Croplands within the refuge are now left unharvested for waterfowl food. The 14,850 acre Upper Klamath Lake NWR lies along the northwestern side of the lake. Extensive reclaimed agricultural lands partially surround the lake. As recently as 1960, 14,000 acres of private wetland on the lake was diked off for agricultural usage.

Tule Lake, which once held 90,000 acres of water and wetlands, was largely reclaimed in the early 1900s for agricultural use through diversion and impoundment of Lost River, the lake's water source. A considerable proportion of the Tu1e Lake refuge, 17,400 acres, is now leased as crop and grazing land with 13,200 acres of marsh and water and 7,518 acres of upland remaining.

-79- Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge includes 33,400 acres 1 i es in Modoc County. Established as a national 1 in 1, 1 been used for irrigation, causing sufficiently to preclude shoreline emergent vegetation. Waterfowl on consequently is quite low, but gulls, terns and cormorants on 1 ake.

The California Department of Fish and Game acquired in 1 a 1 i area at Meiss Lake. This 13,000-acre reserve has several acres freshwater marsh; reserve manager has just completed a an managed wetlands on the lake. Several large areas of marshland are vate ownership: Miller Lake, Swan Lake, Aspen Lake, Alkali areas around the Lower Klamath. In addition, numerous small, unmapped dot the n area.

Of 150,000 acres in publicly owned NWRS in the amath ver 93,000 are in wetland and water acreage. There is an unspeci privately owned wetlands. Approximately half of the national wildli dings are in croplands or are uplands with limited use to seasonal concentrations of 6 million waterfowl present i ed to about 1 million. Present concentrations are 11 in the United States, and over 80% of the waterfowl on use basin wetlands during their migrations

is a semi-arid region of lava flows, or wetland and riparian areas are c ares: Devil 's Garden Plateau of the Modoc Nati Honey Lake ain and other large alkali lakes. The Devil 's storically d 3,400 acres of wetlands, permanent and i freshwater occuring in depressions in the lava rock ateau. 39/ Ranchers who settled the region in the 1850s earthen across small streams, thus impounding water for i better forage than offered the

-80- cover of juniper and silver sage. The emergent marshes created around these impoundments contained rushes and spike , which are more desirable grazing plants.

Since the early 1900's the Forest Service has acquired many these areas. Although not originally intended as waterfowl enchancement projects, these wetlands serve as nesting areas for many species. In 1965, the Forest Service began to improve many of the existing wetlands and to construct new impoundments for waterfowl habitat. This program continues today under both private and federal funding. An average of one wetland per year is being created for a total of 8-10,000 acres of newly created wetlands. The 34,000 acres of wetland in the Modoc Forest include 15,000 acres of permanent water and 19,000 acres of intermittent wetlands. Sizes range from the 6,000-acre g Sage Reservoir to 5-acre ponds.

Several other large water bodies on the Modoc Plateau have limited areas of wetlands. Goose Lake has bulrush marsh along its western shore, and the three Alkali Lakes in Surprise Valley are lined by salt grass. Doris Reservoir and Pi ver in Modoc National Wildlilfe Refuge provide marsh habitat for 39/ Some of the lakes are kaline, dominated by sal calcium rather than sodium, and are not conducive to extensive vegetative growth. Honey Lake, a large al i lake in southern Lassen County, is fill by agri tural i gation return water. The California Deparonent of Fish and Game maintains a 6,000-acre ldli area near the shore of Honey Lake and raises grain for waterfowl./44/ Duck clubs in the Modoc Plateau number 22 covering 43,256 acres. Of these, 10,080 acres are farmed, and 32,236 acres provide marshland habitat. /37/

Riparian vegetation lines the larger vers in the Modoc area where year-round water flows are sufficient to support this vegetation. The Pitt and Susan rivers have riparian borders. Flood control impoundments channels on Pitt River have iminated some woodlands. c s on extends from the Oregon border to corresponding to counties, provide conveni c on of wetland resources. (Figure 5) e 4 li their attributes.

dt Counties

embayments, wide floodplains and coastal lagoons comprise two counties. Most river systems are 1 nous watersheds and forming deltas ain the Smith River, northernmost in the an 8,300-acre tidal delta and freshwater Lake Earl 2, acres in southern Humboldt County, extends upriver seven ,000 acres. /72,73/ Agricultural reel with pastureland. In the early n ng at Crescent City and logging in the the only level, fertile lands on

unlike the Smith or Eel, never devel freshwater outflows scour the mouth and c parian forest lines over 300 miles ifornia. /45/

1 estuary and wetlands complex two wide shallow northern arms narrow channel. The bay surface 27,000 acres. Beginning with the Bay has been the pping y as 1880 the Army Corps of Engineers ng channels. The completion of on by functionally diking Smith River------·-:::;:,,. ------1 Lake Earl­ DEL NORTE I Klamath Rit•er ------I Stone I Dry Lagoon------. Big l..agoon ------I Arcata HUMBOLDT I I I Eel Rit•er ------~

'Ten Mile Rir•er -----._ I Big Rh•er ------~ Albion Rit•er ------._ Garcia Rit•er ------­ I Bodega Bay ------.._ I Estero America no-----_ Estero de San Tomales Bay ------­ Petaluma Rit•er ------=:::::::::""'-=::::;::: Drakes·Limantour Bays ----­ MARIN " Boli.lds Lagoon --·------­ San Fra11cisw8ay­ Pescadero .\Iarsh ------­ SAN FRANCISCO Walsonl'ille Slough -----­ SAN MATEO Eikhom Slough ------SANTA CRUZ ' ""-, ' ' Morro Bay------..._ " ' Dune Lakes----~~ ' Oso Flaco Lake----­ '""' Santa Ynez Rit•er~ · _,_._ __ __,SANTA BARBARA Goleta Slough ~~ '\, El Estero (Carpinteria) VENTURA """' -, Santa Clara Rit•er------.:_>c:,...;;:~"""'l LOS ANGELES McGrath Lake~======~;;;;~~ r' .' J ' ' SAN \ DIEGO_) ------

FIGURE 8 Major California Coastal Wetlands SOURCE: California's Coastal Wetlands, Institute of Marine Resources, 1979

-83- wetlands. In the northern and eastern bay, large areas of tidal marsh were ked and converted to pastureland by 1930. /125/ Oyster in i dal flats of the north bay in the late 1 nues to be a able industry. The changing land uses around Humbol an informative profile.

LAND USES IN ACRES

Commerci & Year Agriculture Wetland Industri 1 17, 3,049 8,738 0* 1948 8,574 17,302 1 '337 1,048 1958 8,467 14,905 1,136 1,595 1969 8,650 13,657 1,128 2,265 1978 8,372 13,750 1,108 2,239 were y some mills in existence in 1871, but none are on the 1

SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Humboldt Bay and ands Analysis. Vol. I.

ked cultural lands in both Humboldt Bay and the Smi ver are low elevation and often pond water during the season s "secondary 11 habitat, although not as high quality as ves, food and resting area for wintering waterfowl.

rocky Mendocino coastline contains no large embayments , a number of narrow, v-shaped river canyons open into ng wetlands and mudflats, and small creeks inc se to twenty acres of wetlands and mudfl and vers have the largest areas of wetland. The Ten-Mile ns a and a tract of salt and brackish marsh occupies in the ver. g River has a large watershed and 1 The river in its lower four miles occupies a broad fl t brackish marshes and mudflats totalling over acres The Al on River drains steep-sided canyons of coniferous forest. Characteri ive eelgrass beds, small saltmarshes extend upstream 1es. ver no 1 areas ands; a fishing harbor repl twenty acres of salt marsh. /13/ The Navarro River descends from the narrow canyons of its upper tributaries and stretches out over a wide floodpl n in i lower reaches (3.5 miles). Large areas of riparian forest and narrow strips of salt marsh border the river. /13/ Early settlement and on of the coast highway modified the estuary somewhat.

The Garcia River, which di Mendocino from from Sonoma contains a 1 area of dunes and marsh at its mouth and over 200 acres of riparian woodlands in its lower three miles. Much of the former has been converted to ng land; remaining salt and brackish marshes are grazed duri summer months. /13/ dal inflows extend two miles upstream, and fres brackish marsh are scattered over the lower floodplain and amongst the sand dunes at the mouth.

The es the f~endocino coast have been significantly altered by sedimentation ated with logging. The hydrologic regime of these rivers appears deposi on wi n the dal portion of river /52,66/, in to larger rivers (e.g., Klamath, Eel) which tend to it oads in upper freshwater reaches. For example, in the Big ver logging has been the primary land use for the past 130 years. on from mber harvesting has shrunk the estuarine channel width as much as feet, and over half of the original salt marsh acreage lted in and isolated from tide water. Sil on on the Ten-Mile on Rivers has had similar effects. /67/

Sonoma

The Sonoma and Marin Counties are primarily large embayments or small 1 s by coastal streams and rivers. Bodega Harbor, Tomales Bay inas Lagoon, all large bays lined wetlands, storically had important ng grounds. Sedimentation resulting from overgrazing and tillage in ng agricultural lands has had a great on each.

-35- Bodega Harbor is an 880-acre embayment fed by a 7 square e The harbor was originally a deep water port; facilities built exported products and lumber. During the 1 1 sedimentation from upstream farming practices, coupled with forest stock, filled in the harbor. By 1862 tidal flats half of the embayment. The harbor is now a shallow bay with comprising nearly 60% of the harbor water surface. A small have been present along the shoreline in 1840, but many 1 Dredge 1 disposal and shoreline developments 1 some these ands and about 100 acres of tidal flats. Eel cover over half of the tidal channels. /115/

Tomales , a 13-mile finger of bay formed along the is by , Walker and Lagunitas. Its history first harbor was built at Walker Creek, and products were by steamer to San Francisco. Potato severe erosion of hill des, and the bay began to silt in. Walker Creek rbor was no longer navigable. The bay then a center for the 1 shing industry, shipping fresh fish rail mariculture thrived in the bay tidal fl non-native species before 1907.

The nal acreage of tidal flats and salt marsh in has been accreting at the mouth of the two t colonize these deltas. Scattered wetlands shoreline total to 405 acres. Few of these marshes filled; some were isolated by the railroad berm, constructed in n as marshes. Mudflats are extensive; when low ats are invaded by both feeding shorebirds 1 ng clams. /1 Eelgrass beds grow in the bay's provide spawning habitat to the herring which are commerci Bolinas Lagoon is also situated on Andreas Fault and was once a deepwater ve timber vation and grazi n in 1 y 1 only small craft could gate shallow channels. The 1,400-acre angular lagoon is mudflat and salt marsh. Eelgrass beds line the subtidal zone. The original acreage of wetlands in the lagoon is not documented. Despite its to sco, the Bolinas shoreline has not undergone or rereational development. Subdivisions line the western t i ne is in i c ownership. lagoon is for the egret and blue herring rookery in adj redwood canyons.

Smaller 1 wetlands are scattered up the coast, over the Pt. Reyes Peninsula, and on ands. is the largest of these and s an oyster farm •• Two ord-1ike estuaries, Estero Americana and San Antonio lie near and along the border of the Marin and Sonoma e 4 lists the features of these various wetlands.

San Francisco Counties

The oceanfront Francisco have been 11 Counties, however, n many small c vers wi in r lower reaches and riparian Mateo coast, south of Half Moon Bay, are nine lagoons ponds which n some wetlands vegetation. Although on of and recent changes are not documented, ine has not been greatly affected by development; agri cul 1 surround many marshes. 8/

Pescadero Marsh is the most gni cant of these wetlands and of major importance to gratory birds as a stop-over between Bolinas lagoon and the historic and brackish marsh were use in the early 1 The shoreline ghway the creek mouth and siltation loggi agricul in drai c 's ve shallowness. /1 Santa Cruz County has many small creek mouth marshes surrounded cultural land in its northern region, a series of coastal l Santa a larger ver system in its

Urban development has displaced wetlands surrounding lagoons and estuaries. Aptos and Soquel Creeks are examples. Yacht Harbor replaced tidal areas in Wood 1 s lagoon. A flood on the San lorenzo River, a major steelhead and salmon spawning created levees recontoured the channel, diminishing n lands. The Pajaro River, separating Santa Counties, has been leveed and its wetlands reclaimed for agricul s ver once meandered over the Pajaro Valley; remnant tributary h as Watsonville, Harkins and McClusky, still drain the floodpl n.

County contains one large wetland area in El many 1 remnant lakes and river estuaries. Elkhorn and i sloughs Moro Cojo and Tembladero were isolated from freshwater i the Salinas River when the river changed course during a large flood. A built near ocean outlet of Elkhorn Slough at Moss landing, was a industry from 1852 until 1888 in Monterey lle, in the upper reach of the long sinuous slough, 1 farms to Moss landing, but was abandoned reac in 1874. Construction of the railroad across r i eastern edge necessitated large amounts Moss Landing, wetlands were diked off on y 1900s. Agricultural reclamation khorn Slough and to a much greater extent on

ng Harbor was built in 1946 to accommodate sardine production. By 1952, 30 to 40 fishing vessels were harbor, and canneries developed in the vicinity. 1 in on. Industrial development, including a and Kaiser urn refractory, began along the slough mouth ine were constructed for off-loading 1

-88-

TABLI__!

MAJOR NORTH AND CENTRAL COASTAL WETLANDS

APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF AREA TYPE OF !oiETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE I~ETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Del Norte Count.): Smith River Delta Freshwater Marsh ll5 Agricultural reclamation Private Adjacent 6,400 acres of flooded agri­ cultural fields provide "secondary" Mudflat 300 wetland habitat to waterfowl. Water­ fowl hunting, sport fishing, major anadromous fish stream. Lake Earl Freshwater Marsh 1,357 Sedimentation, urban California Department of development Fish and Game - State Open Water 933 Wildlife Area Klamath River Brackish Salt Marsh 300 Private and Limited Extensive riparian forest along 270 Public miles of main channel. Anadromous Mudflat 100 fish habitat, sport fishing.

Humboldt Count.):

I Freshwater Lagoon Freshwater Marsh 75 Sedimentation from California Department <..0 logging of Parks and Recreation 0 I Open Water 170 Stone Lagoon Brackish tBig Lagoon Brackish Marsh 520 Sedimentation from California Department of logging Parks and Recreation Freshwater !'4a rsh 50 Ecological Reserve Open Water 900 Redwood Creek Brackish Marsh 5 cultural reclamation Private, National Park Service Little River Brackish Marsh Unknown Lagoon Brackish f4arsh Unknown Mad River Tidal Estuary 100 Agricultural reclamation Unknown TABLU .(continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF AREA TYPE OF \vETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE 14ETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Humbo'ldt Bay Salt Marshes 600 to 970 tural reclamation, Private; Humboldt NI~R­ 13,750 acres of agricultural lands railroad construction, port authorized for 7 acres many of which provide "secondary" Brackish Marsh 250 and industrial development, has acquired 531. waterfowl habitat. Waterfowl urban developn~nt, dredging, hunting, sport and commercial Freshwater Marsh 170 sedimentation. fishing, major anadromous fish stream. Mudflats 7,200 Ee 1 grass Beds 2,935

Ee 1 Ri ve r De 1ta Salt and Freshwater Agricultural reclamation, Private, California 10,800 acres of poorly drained Marshes 1,050 sedimentation from logging Department of Fish and agricultural lands serve as Game, State l~il dl ife secondary waterfowl habitat. Riparian Woodland 2,500 Area - 170 acres Waterfowl hunting, sportfishing, major anadromous fish stream. Mudflats 500 Open Water 2,300

Mendocino County I ~ Ten-mile River Salt and Brackish Marsh 100 Sedimentation from logging, Private Extensive riparian forest I grazing Salt Marsh 9 Harbor construction Private

Big River Salt and Brackish Marhes/Nudfl a ts 200 Sedimentation from logging, Private large riparian forest logging mill construction Eelgrass Beds 15 Albion River Tidal Marsh and Mudflat 100 Harbor construction, sedi- Private mentation from logging Eelgrass 28 Navarro River Salt Marsh and Mudflat 20 Homesite construction, Private; California large acreages of ri an forest highway construction Department of Fish and Game 77 acre ecological Reserve

Garcia River Salt and Brack sh Marshes 64 cultural reclamation, Private large ri forest , sedimentation from Ri Forest 200 ogging Gualala River Fresh and Brackish Marsh 20 Recreational development, Private; Sonoma County large riparian forest water diversion, sedimenta- Regional Parks tion from logging TABLE ~r(continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF AREA TYPE OF \~ETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE l~ETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COM~1ENTS

Sonoma Countr

Russian River Salt f~arsh 100 Gravel mining Private Extensive riparian forest along river channel. Bodega Harbor Salt f•larsh 72 Sedimentation from agri- Private Sport and commercial fishing culture, dredge spoil 14udfl at 500 disposal, urban develop- ment Eel grass 184 Estero Americano Brackish Marsh 391 Unknown Private Open Water 301 Riparian Forest 49

1\larin Countr Estero de San Antonio Brackish Marsh 213 Unknown Private I 1..0 N Mudflat 13 I Open Water 93 Riparian Forest 62 Tomales Bay Salt Marsh 405 Sedimentation from agri- Private; California Oyster mariculture on 800 acres culture, harbor develop- Department of Fish and of tidlands, sport and commercial Mudflats 1,500 ment Game - ecological fishing, large recreational use reserve of 542 acres; Eelgrass beds California Department of Parks and Recreation, National Park Service Pt. Reyes Penninsula Salt and Freshwater (Abbots Lagoon; Marsh/Mudflats 2,330 Unknown Primarily National Park Oyster mariculture in Drakes D-Ranch, Drake's Service Estero, large recreational use and l imantour Esteros; Wildcat, Ocean, Crys ta 1 , Pelican and Bass Lakes) Bolinas Salt Marsh 150 Sedimentation from agri- Public and eelgrass beds, sportfishing culture, urban develop- 700 ment TABLE 4 (continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF TYPE OF !-IETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE I~ETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Rodeo Lagoon Brackish Marsh and Open Water 38 Unknown National Park Service

San Francisco Count~ Nearly all filled Urban development

San Mateo Count~ Pillar Marsh Brackish Marsh/ Open l>later 30 Unknown Private Tuni tas Creek Brackish Marsh/ Lagoon Open Water 11 Unknown Private San Gregorio Brackish Marsh/ Creek Lagoon Open !iater 6 Unknown Private

Pomponio Creek Brackish ~Iarsh/ I Lagoon Open Water 1 Unknown Private 1.0 (.;.) I Pescadero Marsh Fresh and Brackish Marsh 465 Agricultural reclamation, Private; California Depart- Important stop-over for migratory highway construction, ment of Parks and Recreation, birds, large recreation use. Open Water 55 sedimentation from logging San ~1ateo County and agriculture Lake Lucerne Brackish Marsh/Open Water 80 Unknown Private Gazos Creek Lagoon Brackish Marsh/Open Water 2 Unknown

Cascade Creek Lagoon Brackish Marsh/Open Water 9 Unknown Green Oaks Creek Lagoon Brackish Marsh/Open Water 31 Unknown Private

Santa Cruz Count~

Wadell Creek Brackish Marsh/Open liater 11 Unknown Private Scott Creek Brackish Marsh/Open Water 30 Unknown Private

t~i l der Creek Brackish Marsh/Open l~ater 18 Unknown Public Baldwin Creek Brackish Marsh/Open Water 3 Unknown Private Terrace Point !kackish Marsh/Open Water 1 Unknown Private TABLE 4 (continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF - Antonelli's Pond Brackish Marsh/Open Water 2 Unknown Private San Lorenzo River Brackish Marsh/Open Water 2 Urban development, flood Private control

Wood's Lagoon Brackish Marsh/Open Water 6 Harbor development Private Schwann Lake Brackish Marsh/Open Water 4 Unknown Private

Corcoran Lagoon Brackish Marsh/Open Water 6 Unknown Private Moran Lake Brackish Marsh/Open Hater 2 Unknown Private Soquel Creek Brackish t·larsh/Open Water 1 Urban development Private Aptos Creek Brackish Marsh/Open Water 1 Urban development Private Pajaro River Salt Marsh, Mudflat and Riparian Forest Unknown Agricultural reclamation, Public flood control Watsonville Slough Brackish t·1arsh Unknown Agricultural reclamation Public

I Monterey County McC1 Sl Brackish Water 250 cultural reclamation Private khorn Sl Salt ,440 Harbor development, Private; California Waterfowl cultural reclamation, salt ment of Fish and Game - Mudfl 420 construction, railroad 1,000 acre estuarine and industrial construction sanctuary, Moss Salt Ponds 190 Harbor District Open Water 450 Moro Cojo Slough Salt Water 150 cultural reclamation California Department of Fish and Game - 73 acre wi 1dl ife area

Tembladero Sl Salt Marsh/Open Water 10 cultural reclamation Private

Salinas River Sl Brackish Marsh/Open Water 50 Sedimentation Private Salinas River Valley Freshwater Unknown cultural reclamation Private t1arina Ponds Brackish Marsh/Open Water 5 Urban development Private TABLE ~ (continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF AREA TYPE OF !~ETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE WETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Robert's Lake/ Brackish Marsh/Open Water 40 Urban development Private Laguna Grande

Del Monte Lake Brackish Marsh/Open Water 6 Urban development Private and Public El Estero Brackish Marsh/Open Water 15 Urban development Pub 1 i c Ca rme 1 River Salt Marsh 4 Unknown Private Loss of riparian forest from ground­ water overdraft Little Sur River Salt Marsh 7 Unknown Private Big Sur River Salt Marsh 4 Unknown Private

I 1..0 (.;1 I X

around were or t ar c me, on on the

summer as

ood a narrow

of

i ler n southern the sh a Army became established. The greatest impact on the bay wetlands has come not from the bay but from siltation resulting from erosion on overgrazed lands and other land uses in the watershed. /137/ Sedimentation has added 280-420 acres vegetated wetlands and tidal flats in replacement of open water. /38/

Nipomo Dunes in the southern county is a complex of sand dunes, freshwater lakes, and tidal salt marsh. There are five principal wetlands in the complex: Pismo Marsh, Oceano Lagoon, Dune Lakes, Oso Flaco Lakes, and the Santa Maria River mouth. With the exception of the tidal river mouth, these are all freshwater, tucked in depressions amongst the sand dunes. The freshwater wetlands and lakes have not been changed greatly by settlement of the surrounding area. The Pismo Dunes, however, is a recreational area for off-road vehicles (ORVs) as well as a state park. Dune buggies and other vehicles destablilize sand, which drifts into the lakes and has threatened their continuance. /112/

Santa Barbara County

The wetlands of this county consist of small marshes at the mouths of creeks and rivers and several larger lagoon systems. One series of five wetlands is contained almost entirely within the boundaries of Vandenberg Air Force Base. They have escaped major disturbance. /165/

Goleta Slough is a large wetland area sandwiched between the town of Goleta (near Santa Barbara) and the ocean. This marsh was once a deep water harbor until a massive flood in 1861 filled the slough with silt from the coastal mountains. A shallow lagoon was left, and salt marsh invaded the new tidal flats. Filling along the slough•s periphery in the 1940s for the University of California, Santa Barbara Airport and other properties has reduced the area of the marsh by 88%. Most of the slough is salt marsh, dissected with open water channels. /114/ The Santa Barbara City Flood Control District periodically dredges the channel to prevent flooding on adjacent lands. Catchment basins have been excavated on two of the main tributaries to the slough to retard continuing siltation from watershed development and agriculture. /123/

-97- 1

areas

ands, an two

1 e1 i ng until feet

r lie i in the

were 1 birds in the world. 11 /113/ Twenty-three duck clubs dotted the coastline by 1900. Each wetland been ally or filled or dredged and oped for urban use~ li ons~ or harbor ilities. /130/

The railroad arrived in the 1880s, and during the 1890s Los Angeles doubled in population. The next boom period5 1902-1914, saw Los Angeles triple in size and San Pedro become the principal seaport. The appropriation an adequate water supply via the Los Angeles Aqueduct furthered the city•s growth, and shipbuilding became a principal industry during WW II. Oil fields were discovered between 1917 and 1929, and in the 1930s the Los Angeles area added a half million new residents. construction of the Colorado Aqueduct in 1941 further stimulated metropolitan growth. A fourth growth period occurred between 1945 and 1969, with a vast proliferation of housing tracts and shopping centers as the aerospace industry grew, bringing workers and housing. By 1970 the City of Los Angeles had a population 9 million and a contiguous metropolis extending 10 miles around the city.

Orange County, urbanization began in the 1950s as communities replaced groves. Although l had been discovered in the coastal plain in the 1920s, the boom of the aerospace industry in the 1950s triggered urban growth. Between 1950 and 1960 the counties population tripled. The last decade shows an addition of 500,000 new residents. Wetland losses accompanied the rapid expansion of Los angeles and Orange Counties.

The Ballona Creek marsh in northern Los Angeles County was originally 1,550 acres until 1928 when the major lagoons were drained and the land was reclaimed for agriculture and the installation of oil and gas wells. During the 1960s a residential marina project, Marina Del Rey, was created out of 800-900 acres of the salt marsh. /35/ The remaining 200-300 acres of wetland have been isolated from tidal flows by levees, roads and other fill. /35/ Los tos Lagoon, originally composed of 2,400 acres, was reduced by piecemeal filling for residential uses 188 acres n 1923 to the

11 ed ong

the to

by the 11 s in ly

p

was In 1964 Anaheim Bay was designated a Navy Wildlife Refuge. The same year, U.S. Navy, U.S. Fish and 1 i ce and the Department of Fish and worked out a cooperative on of fish and i resources in the refuge. The was eventual transferred to Fish and Wildlife Service wi no public access allowed. 13/

Bolsa Bay originally was not connected Anaheim Bay, but had a separate ocean outlet and contained a marsh of 2,300 acres. Fed by artesian springs of the Freeman River, extensive freshwater marshes filled the interior portion of bay. Marshes were first part of a and cattle ranch but in 1900 came under the ownership of a duck club. The club constructed a dam to limit tidal flows, created dikes and levees to manage the marsh, and connected Bolsa Bay to Anaheim Bay via a new channel.

Oil was discovered throughout the southern section of sa Bay in the 1920s. In 1920, the first well, Bolsa Chica 1, was completed and ten years later the Signal Oil Company began to slant drill from the Bolsa Chica property in order to tap offshore oil deposits. By 1949, a system of levees, dikes, culverts, and roads were built over much of the area that had ously experienced tidal action. /136/

1973 the state was deeded 327 acres of the wetland and leased 320 acres 14 years from the area•s owners, Signal Landmark, Inc. in exchange for nation of state public trust over the area. The Department Fish and Game restored tidal action to 150 acres in 1978 and 275 additional acres of wetland were developed into a housing complex by Signal. Presently 1,200 acres of historic former tidelands and restored wetlands remain undeveloped, representing a wide range of wetland conditions.

Santa Ana River mouth was the site of an extensive marsh, we11 in excess of the 3,000 acres recorded by Department of Fish and Game, which was for agriculture around the turn of the century and filled in increments from 1950 to 1969 for urban development and a fl control proj Scattered parcels totalling approximately 270 acres of wetland remain. /153/ Riparian forests have largely been lost along the river channel. Newport Bay once contained 13,500 acres of estuary and marsh. The lower bay was dredged during the 1940s to create Newport Harbor. Piecemeal filling around the bay occurred in the 1950s. The Upper Bay was ked off for salt evaporation ponds, but the ponds were destroyed in 1969 by a flood and never re-built. The central portion of the bay was also dredged periodically during the 1950s to maintain a water ski area. This practice was stopped in 1974. /33/ The Upper Bay currently has 912 acres of fresh and salt water marsh and 300 acres of mudflats. Sedimentation from urbanization in the large, 145-square-mile watershed has filled in 70% of the salt marsh. Up to 5 feet of sediment has been deposited on the tidal flats.

San Diego County

The wetland and riparian resources of San Diego County include several large bays in the southernmost region, a series of coastal lagoons, and several rivers with small estuaries and substantial riparian areas.

In the northern county several small creeks (San Mateo and Las Flores} contain riparian and freshwater habitats. The larger Santa Marguerita River mouth holds a lagoon and marshes and has a well-developed riparian forest lining much of the watercourse. /77/ The lagoon extends inland for about one mile; approximately 300 acres in the marsh have been denuded by military operations at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. /77/

The San Luis Rey River contains a significant area of riparian vegetation and a tidal lagoon at the mouth. The wetlands at the mouth were developed into Oceanside Harbor and associated resort facilities in the early 1960s and few are remaining. Brackish marsh covers upstream areas, many of which have been filled for urban uses. /126/

Lorna Alta Slough in the City of Oceanside is a small coastal lagoon with 6 to 8 acres remaining of its original 40. /54/ A recreational vehicle park and emergency holding ponds for the city sewage treatment plants now cover former wetlands.

-102- es wetlands are 1 1 nus opment on adj

and lroad across a Department of Fish and Game ecol reserve, acres to commercial and resi al on in this lagoon has been signi cant. , 90 acres of wetland are pri y The lagoon has not been 11 s ntake point for the adjacent power pl

Batiquitos Lagoon is mostly barren salt fl 1 acres the railroad and highway pass over li e 11ing has occurred. In 1901, 25 acres salt were have since been abandoned. Some sediment accumulated in the farming activities; a delta at the interior end has enlarged since opment began. /79/

o Lagoon is a 500-acre lagoon and marsh whi 1 0% of water level is maintained arti r equito Lagoon had an extensive 604-acre which was ly through filling. In 1935, a acres; other filling further In construction of Highway 5 isolated a Wastewater has been discharged Penasquitos Lagoon contains 385 acres ands. opment of the watershed has increased sedimentation rates fi d.

may once have held as much as 4,500 acres and. n Corps of Engineers diverted the San ego ver away from San into Mission Bay. The majority of the bay was dredged and c park with marinas, hotels, In

-103- 1949, the Army Corps the San which diverted the ver sedimentation problems in on (25 acre), Kendall-Frost ver channel. /117/

San Diego Bay, the largest estuary al coastline, has been extensively developed as a port. The stretches for 14 miles along the coast. Formerly, in 1849), Sweetwater, and Otay vers flowed into the percent of the original salt marshes and 50% of the ori been filled or dredged for port and urban development. /11/

In the early 1900s the Navy began developing harbor facilities and greatly expanded the harbor•s operations in the 1940s. 1 and 1946, 25 million cubic yards of sediment were bay and used to fill tidelands. Salt evaporator ponds were created in southern portion of the bay. The San Diego Unified Port District, founded in 1962, made a substantial increase in wharves. /91/ Remaining wetland habi are concentrated in the southern bay at the ver deltas and southern ine.

Tijuana River estuary covers about 1,1 acres represents 10% of the remaining estuarine habitat in California. 18,148/ Li e filling has occurred, and in 1 and Wil i ce the area as an estuarine sanctuary federal Management. The local jurisdiction, City of Imperial h, wanted to develop a marina. /118/

Vernal pools, small isolated depressions seasonally fill with water, are another wetland type found in San are distributed over the mesa tops which separate watersheds in and central areas of the county; many of them host endangered es. Filling and agricultural practices have reduced their ac Overall, the coastal wetlands of southern California have experienced a 75% reduction. Of the 28 original estuaries along the coast, 15 have been modified slightly, 10 have been greatly altered, and 3 have been destroyed. There are now 31,700 acres of estuarine habitat; less than 13,100 is marshland and tidal flats, and 18,600 is open water.

The areas that remain are largely in regions of moderate-to-low population, state or federal refuges or military ownership, or were previously oil fields. The value of privately held real estate in coastal lands has allowed few ares to remain undeveloped.

Two results of wetland losses and removal of riparian vegetation are particularly evident: the habitat of water-associated wildlife and migratory birds has been dramatically reduced; and the natural flow characteristics and channel geometry of coastal streams has been largely replaced. As the capacity of wetland areas has declined in area, waterfowl populations have decreased correspondingly.

-105- TABLE . 5 MAJOR SOUTH COAST WETLANDS

APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF AREA TYPE OF !~ETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE NETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COMMENTS San Luis Obisbo Countx tlorro Bay Salt Marsh 472 Sedimentation from agri- Private; California Sportfishing culture, harbor con- Department of Parks and Mudflat 1,452 struction Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game Nipomo Dunes - Freshwater Marsh 1,285 Off-road vehicle use of Private, California Pismo Marsh, and Open Water adjacent dunes Department of Fish and Oceano ~agoon, Game, California Depart- Dune Lakes, Oso ment of Parks and Flaco Lakes Recreation Santa t1a ria Salt 1•1arsh 35 Agricultural reclamation Private River Mudflat 90 Freshwater Marsh 20 Riparian Forest 170 Santa Barbara I County 1--' 0 m Shuman Creek, Salt and Freshwater Some loss from grazing Air Force I San Antonio Creek, Marsh 7 Canada Honda Creek, Jalama Creek Riparian Forest 379

Santa Ynez River Salt ~Iarsh, Mudflats, 400 Some loss from grazing Air Force Open Water Goleta Slough Salt Marsh, Mudflat, 360 Urban development, sedi- City of Santa Barbara, Open Water mentation from agriculture, California Department of and urbanization Fish and Game

Carpinteria ~Iarsh Salt Marsh, Mudflat, ...,200 Urban development, dredging Private, University of Open Water for flood control, sedi- California Natural Land mentation from urban and Water Reserve System development Ventura Countx Ventura River 10 Urban development, oil Private Riparian forest along river production, flood control project

Santa Clara River Sa 1 t f'1a rsh and Including McGrath Open Water 100 Urban development, oil Private Riparian forest along river Lake and Onrl

Lagoon Salt and Brackish Dredging and filling for Duck clubs Navy property Marsh and Open Water 880 military installation, sedimentation from urban Freshwater Marsh 620 development Los Angeles Countl Ba 11 ona Creek Diked Salt Marsh 200-300 Agricultural reclamation, Private oil and gas production, harbor construction

Los Cerritos Lagoon Salt ~1arsh 188 Urban development Private Wilmington Lagoon Salt Marsh 5-6 Dredging and filling for Private Little to no ri an forest borders (Los Angeles River harbor construction, re­ former river mouth) routing of Los Angeles River

Alamitos Bay Salt and Brackish 11arsh 50 Urban development, flood Private little ri forest remains along (San Gabriel River control projects river ~1outh) I Anaheim Bay Salt Marsh 750 Oil production, construc­ Navy - Navy Wildlife tion of naval installation, Refuge, managed by U.S. I urban development, urban Fish and Wildlife Service park and marina construction Balsa Bay Salt Marsh 1,200+ Oil production, urban Private, California Salt marsh of development Department of Fish and Game 150 acres

Santa Ana River Salt Marsh 270 Urban development and Little ri an forest remains along Mouth flood control projects river Newport Bay Upper Bay - Salt and Freshwater Marsh 912 Harbor construction, urban Private, California lv!udfl ats development, salt evapora­ Department of Fish and 300 tion ponds, dredging, Game - 741 acre Lower Bay - Unknown sedimentation from urban ecological reserve development San Diego Countl San Mateo Creek Freshwater Marsh and Unknown Marine Corps Riparian Forest 125 Las Flores Creek Freshwater Marsh and Unknown Riparian Forest TABLE_ 5(continued) APPROX. CURRENT MAJOR CAUSES OF TYPE OF !~ETLAND WETLAND ACREAGE WETLAND LOSS OWNERSHIP ADDITIONAL COM~IENTS Santa tlarguerita Sa 1 t Marsh and Military operations Marine Corps Extensive riparian forest along river River Open \~ater 800 San Luis Rey River Open Water and Salt Marsh Unknown Harbor construction, urban Private Extensive riparian forest along development river Lorna Alta Slough Salt Marsh and 6-8 Urban development Private Open Water Buena Vista Lagoon Salt and Brackish Urban development, sedi­ California Department of Marsh, Open Water 350 mentation from urban Fish and Game - ecological development reserve Aqua Hedionda Salt t4arsh and Lagoon Open Water 340 Not substantially filled Private and public Batiquitos Lagoon Salt Marsh 100 Salt pond construction Private, California sedimentation from urban Department of Fish and Barren Salt Flats 240 development Game - ecological reserve I ~ San Elijo Lagoon Salt Marsh and 500 Not substantially filled Private, California Restoration plan underway C) I Open Water Department of Fish and Game - ecological reserve San Diequito Lagoon Salt Marsh 269 Racetrack construction, Private, California Restoration plan underway agricultural reclamation, Department of Fish and urban development Game - ecological reserve Los Penasqui tos Salt Marsh 385 Sedimentation from urban Private, California Restoration plan proposed Lagoon development Department of Parks and Recreation Mission Bay - Salt Marsh 25+ Dredging and filling for City of San Diego Riparian forest along San Diego Famosa Slough, aquatic park River, marsh restoration project Kendall-Frost completed Marsh San Diego Bay Salt Ponds 1,400 Dreging and filling for San Diego Unified Port Restoration project on dredge spoils harbor construction, District, Navy, private di sposa 1 site Salt Marsh 359 salt pond construction, Mudflats 614 Naval installation Tijuana River Salt Marsh, Mudflats Sedimentation from upstream U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Open Water 1,182 land uses, illegal filling Service -estuarine sanctuary Vernal Pools - Vernal Pool Flora - Unknown Urban development, agri­ Private 1-tesa tops in including endangered cultural reclamation northern and 1nesa mint centra 1 county area as well Great an areas

, springs, re desert

Deserts

by and east by Gabriel and the desert co and east

a portion is s

over have

1 an zones or five-acre

area c in seedlings f.

r courses

i

1 s.

owe

, and

waters of

i

its

source been

t cedar ies s

area 1

i REFERENCES CITED 1 ons 1980-2000

the : the

/4/ ean escence: an c . Law Quarterly. 8 : 40 9 ' 1 980 . /5/ • 1976. Natural resources Aqua onda Lagoon. a Department of and Game. /6/ Browni B. 1 The resources of Elkhorn Slough. California Department Fish and Game. 171 Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the California Department of Game. 1974. Acquisition priori es for the coastal wetlands of

/8/ Zone Conservation Commission. 1975. California

/9/ sh and Game. 1969. Coastal Wetland Surveys.

0/ 1 Status report on the ia. 1/ Game. 1973. The natural resources of

1 The natural resources of

a 1978. the crossroads, 1 on ifornia 1 s endangered rare sh and wildlife. a State Resources Agency.

1 I 1

c a.

1982

ssion

a

c s,

part cano

n Game. I t

/1 I • 1 • Staff

1 s.

1

ss

1 /1

/128/ an

31 I 1

s

I

an a in

I i a enhancing, ). Sacramento 1ey Waterfowl Paci fie Fl waterfowl in anal s tat ••• a an iation. u.s. ce of /154/ U S. Army Corps of Engineers. programs regulating discharge on and comparison to C.O.E. 404 p APPENDICES WETLAND DEFINITIONS*

means or ground water with a frequen r normal circumstances do or would support a pre ence or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as s wet meadows, river overflows, mudflats, and n 1 added) The joint Corps-EPA 404(b) permit regulations (July 19, define wetlands as follows: 11 The term wetlands means those t are inundated or saturated by surface or ground at duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circums support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." (emphasis added) The Fish and Wildlife Service's wetland classification system (December, 1979 defines wetlands as follows: 11 Het1ands are lands trans1t1ona between terrestr1a an aquat1c systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands more of the following attributes: (1) at least supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) s undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate rated with water or covered by shallow water growing season of each year. 11 The California Coastal Act (1976) defines wetlands as "Land which may be covered periodically or rmanently with and include saltwater marshes, freshwater mars brackish water marshes, swamps, mudfl De nition is broad in scope; the Act liberally construed ... to accomplish obj Commission relies on the presence of hydro of hydric soils.

The Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act ( 1976) defines wetlands as follows: '11 Wetlands' means streams, lakes, reservoirs, bays, estuaries, lagoons, rna underlying and adjoining such waters, whether mittently submerged, to the extent that such wa and contain significant fish, wildlife, recreati scientific resources.J'(Sec. 5812[a]) *Note: No court has specifically considered the s ci particular analytic technique or delineation methodology mining wetland status. Courts generally defer expert agencies or scientists on technical matters and will likely not disturb a selected methodology.

A-1 CHARACTERISTIC

SALT North California

Fat hen Australian salt ush lavender t Jaumea Sand spurrey Marsh ant

Salt Sedge Lasthenia t fleabane heliotrope

ifornicus a

is rd's beak

is ifornicus

verweed

• PONDS, SWAMPS AND ifornicum nued)

atus Central Vall ins Area ation Central 1 5, Butte Basin 1 ' Sutter Basin District 10 Colusa Basin Yolo Basin American Basin Delta San Joaquin Basin 1 ' Tulare Basin Suisun Marsh Total California: Total Pacific Flyway:

SOURCE: and Wildlife Service, Wintering Habitat ifornia

San Francisco

Area s South San sco Bay* Corte Madera Marsh* Napa San Rafael Marsh* North Richmond Petaluma (November and December only)

* Incl acent open bay water. SOURCE: U.S. Fish and ldlife t plan for Waterfowl Wintering Habi iforni a Coast California.

marsh and Lake Delta Bel San Francisco s and Klamath Basin

shaded with ateau and forest Klamath Basin Desert State listed -

Death Val State - rare

Desert marsh Owens Va 11 ey State and federal listed - endangered Seasonal ponds Santa Cruz and Monterey State and federal listed County endangered

Desert and County State 1 sted - rare

an forest Western San Francisco Bay State and federal sted - and San Mateo County Coast endangered

Permanent freshwater Central Valley State 1 sted - rare and lakes Winters in coastal North Coast Federal listed- endangered

San Franci Bay and khorn Sl

Coast

marsh Colorado River State isted - rare

Colorado River, State 1 sted- rare Francisco Bay, Delta, several south coast marshes South Coast and State and federal areas San Francisco Bay forest Scattered locations on State listed- inland rivers

forest Colorado River State listed -

South coast and desert State listed

an range, Inyo County State listed - San Bay State and federal bulrush State listed -

State 1 i sted - marsh Marsh, Sonoma StatG listed-

South State and federal li

sco

County State

and

a 1 isted -

State (continued)

Habitat Type Region

(continued) Sticky orcutt grass Drying mudflats Sacramento County State listed- ,.:::.:.-=..:::..::.::...:..:::. vi sci da) San Diego mesa mint Verna 1 poo 1s Coastal San Diego County State and federal 1 sted - (Pogogyne abramsii) endangered Hickmans cinquefoil Freshwater marsh Coast - Sonoma to State listed - endangered (Potentilla hickmanii) Monterey Counties Tahoe yellowcress Wet meadows Tahoe Basin State listed - endangered (Rorippa subumbellata) Kenwood Marsh ckecker-bloom Freshwater marsh Kenwood, Sonoma County State listed - endangered (Sidalcea oregana ssp. val ida) Pedate checker-bloom 14et meadows San Bernadino Mountains State listed -endangered (Sidalcea pedata)

SOURCES: California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At the crossroads; California Department of Fish and Game. May, 1982. Designated endangered or rare plants.

C-5