The question is, what constitutes a wetland? From what I've read over the years, they don't seen to consider water a necessity for it to be wet. They look at the plants and animals there. If they find something that's normally found near water, they call it a wetland even though there is none. They do the same thing with endangered animals. If they find an area with plants or prey animals that an endangered animal normally uses, they will call it 'suitable habitat' and restrict it even though no endangered animals are found there.
Wrong, at least for some agency's determinations. Plants can be part of the rationale for the determination, but not the sole one. Things like soils can tell a LONG story if you know what you're looking at.
