Wetlands Could Be Reduced by Federal Law : Environment: Areas not underwater for 15 or more consecutive days in most years would no longer be protected. The county could lose a quarter of the wildlife habitat.

Thousands of acres of wetlands in Ventura County would no longer be protected under federal law if a proposed Bush Administration policy is implemented, biologists said Monday.

The habitat that supports fish, birds and other wildlife along the county’s rivers would no longer be wetlands under Bush’s proposed redefinition, the biologists said.

The Ventura and Santa Clara rivers and Sespe Creek are dry most of the year, and the adjacent flood plains--now considered wetlands--are inundated only occasionally during heavy rains. Because the areas are not under water for 15 or more consecutive days in most years, the flood plains could be disqualified as wetlands, removing restrictions to development.

Parts of the county’s coastal marshes, which are partly dry, also could lose their designation as wetlands.

Bush’s proposed redefinition would become part of a manual used by key federal agencies that determine whether environmentally sensitive areas can be developed.

Under a provision of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers, with advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, must grant a permit before any development or grading of a wetlands area can be done.

Whether soggy or dry most of the year, the areas are a valuable resource for wildlife and are part of the Pacific Flyway, along which millions of birds migrate each year, biologists said.

“Bush began by declaring a ‘no-net-wetlands-loss’ policy and then he turns around and redefines one quarter of the wetlands out of existence,” said Mark Capelli, a Ventura biologist who teaches at UC Santa Barbara and volunteers with the Friends of the Ventura River.

“In Ventura County, we would lose at least a quarter of our wetlands.”

Wayne Ferren, a wetlands biologist who runs the university’s experimental gardens, said the redefinition is designed for the wet climates of the East and ignores the types of wetlands that are peculiar to arid Southern California. The manuals that federal agencies use to determine which areas are protected against development should be designed region by region, he said.

“We have a lot of riparian zones with high water tables and vegetation that is distinctly wetlands, but those zones never or rarely flood,” he said.

However, he said the proposed change would not leave all wetlands in the county unprotected.

“They are just hacking away at parts of all the systems,” he said.

But Paul Tryon, executive officer of the Ventura County branch of the Building Industry Assn., said a clearer definition of wetlands would be more fair to builders.

“The goal, as it should be, is to protect real wetlands from urban encroachment,” Tryon said. “We’ve certainly seen abuses where the regulations have been used to protect areas that are marginal at best.”

The exact acreage affected in Ventura County was not available because the county’s wetlands have never been mapped, said Russell Baggerly, aide to Ventura County Supervisor Maria VanderKolk. However, he said Monday that the supervisor has applied for $150,000 in grant funds to map the county’s wetlands.

Once mapped out, the wetlands could be protected by county restrictions, Baggerly said.

“There is no reason why local policies can’t be more restrictive than federal policies,” he said.

The existing federal manual, devised in 1989, specifies that areas must be under water or saturated for seven days during an average rainfall year. The redefinition requires inundation for 15 or more consecutive days, saturation to the surface for 21 days or periodic flooding by tidal water in most years.

The proposal also changes the kinds of vegetation that are used to define a wetlands area, including certain plants associated with drier river and coastal systems such as those in Ventura County.

“California already does not have full protection under the existing manual for its wetlands resources,” Ferren said. “The proposed manual takes a situation that is already impacting California and makes it intolerable by deregulating thousands more acres of wetlands.”

The flood plains along the county’s rivers represent the largest segment of wetlands area that would be threatened under the Bush proposal. However, the Navy’s large reserve at Mugu Lagoon, and Ormond Beach, a large stretch of beachfront land proposed for development in Oxnard, also could lose their wetlands status.

Roma Armbrust, a member of Ventura County’s Ormond Beach Observers, a coalition of 12 area environmental and civic organizations, said the move to diminish the protection afforded natural habitats is unconscionable in 1991.

“At this crisis time when the wetlands are vanishing daily and 91% of California wetlands are already gone, anything done at the federal level to diminish the protection must be fought,” Armbrust said.

* RELATED STORY: A3