The program is fraught with so much ambiguity and conflict that it not successful 

 from either a conservationist or regulatory perspective. Major problem areas 

 associated with the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program include a history 

 of intense interagency, public, and private conflict over the basic questions 

 of what is a wetland; whether-or-not mitigation is reasonable for (the frequently 

 occurring) after-the-fact permits; and the contingent loss of social benefits 

 that seems to always follow permit issuance. To further protect the remaining 

 Rainwater Basin wetlands and reduce protracted and bitter interagency squabbling 

 from the application of the 404 permit process, the Advanced Identification of 

 Disposal Sites Process (commonly called the 230.80 process) was instituted in 

 1985 in accordance with Section 230.80 of the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean 

 Water Act. 



One objective of the 230.80 process was designation of wetlands in the 17 

 county Rainwater Basin area that were subject to 404 permit regulation and were 

 unsuitable (from a conservationist perspective) for fill under Section 230.80 

 of EPA's guidelines for Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Another goal 

 was to collect information for making jurisdictional and delineation determina- 

 tions. Other goals and objectives of the interagency team formed to implement 

 the 230.80 program included increasing public awareness of the 404 permit process 

 and of the social benefits conferred by wetlands. The interagency team pursued 

 various concurrent activities, such as construction an inventory of existing 

 Rainwater Basin Wetlands and an economic study of wetland conversion. 



The outside economic consultant hired by the Environmental Protection 

 Agency concluded that drainage of on-farm temporarily flooded wetlands is 

 marginally profitable; drainage of seasonally flooded and semi -permanently 

 flooded wetlands for conversion to croplands is currently unprofitable. The 

 unpublished research report is now being circulated to farmers throughout the 

 17-county region in an effort to persuade farmers to forego further drainage 

 activity. 



84. Dornfeld, R., J. Piehl, and T. Rondeau. 1988. Wetland potential on CRP 

 Land. Pages 68-71 in P.J. Stuber, coordinator. Proceedings of the 

 national symposium on protection of wetlands from agricultural impacts. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(16). Washington, DC. 



Private leasing of farm land for use as a hunting or fishing recreation 

 site is fairly widespread throughout many regions of the country. Dornfeld et 

 al . report on a program to lease certain on-farm lands for a wetlands (habitat) 

 restoration project in the prairie pothole region (Douglas, Grant, and Ottertail 

 Counties) of Minnesota. The farm lands in question were all enrolled in the U.S. 

 Soil Conservation Service's Soil Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The 

 Conservation Acreage Reserve subtitle of the 1985 Food Security Act provided 

 effective incentives to these Minnesota Farmers for enrollment in the program. 

 In fact, the benefits of soil erosion reduction, crop surplus reduction, a 

 guaranteed income for 10 years on the enrolled acreage, and wildlife habitat 

 improvements were so attractive to area farmers that the large CRP enrollments 

 overwhelmed regional USDA offices. 



Land enrolled in CRP was the focus of an effort to find funding sources 

 for wetland restoration efforts. The former wetlands in question had been 



62 



