25 



existing procedures and any alternative procedures they might 

 identify. 



They will meet with others besides the Federal agencies. They 

 will conduct their business independent of Army, EPA, and the 

 other Federal agencies. So it is quite difficult to predict what their 

 recommendations may be. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. I understand. That was a hypothetical question. 

 But let's say the delineation is just as the 1989 manual, which was 

 controversial for a number of reasons, was in fact correct, will they 

 then, since the policy is not only no net loss but a net gain of wet- 

 lands, be the practice or the policy to be implemented and the Soil 

 Conservation Service people who are here who are part of the de- 

 lineation process and the Corps people who are part of the process, 

 will there be a mechanism put in place, I think you should antici- 

 pate this as a possibility, so they can change their manner of delin- 

 eation? 



Mr. Wayland. Whatever direction their recommendations might 

 take, I do not anticipate that there would be an abrupt change in 

 the program. We need to field test any changes and have a com- 

 ment process on any recommended changes. So I think there would 

 be inevitably a delay between the recommended changes and the 

 time any changes are implemented. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. I understand there would have to be a delay and 

 certainly a learning process in that. 



Another quick question. We hear a great deal and I agree with 

 an understanding of putting in to our policy watershed manage- 

 ment. Can watershed management, which I think is the way to go, 

 be compatible with mitigation or artificial wetlands mitigation? 



I suppose there needs to be integrated into this some incentive or 

 justification for not using or not having jurisdiction over prior con- 

 verted croplands. Can these three things be compatible? 



Mr. Wayland. I think they clearly can. First of all, prior con- 

 verted croplands do not exhibit and have not exhibited wetlands 

 characteristics. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. But there is some understanding that after a few 

 years they would return to a functioning wetland. 



Mr. Wayland. If abandoned, and no longer manipulated- 



Mr. GiLCHREST. If they continued to be farmed — well, my time is 

 up. I see a farm a heck of a lot better as far as open space and 

 habitat for wildlife than a shopping plaza. 



Mr. Wayland. Those prior converted croplands represent an im- 

 portant opportunity for wetlands restoration. The hydrology can be 

 restored and they will come back. Wetlands mitigation and water- 

 shed planning offer you the opportunity to identify the best places 

 to put wetlands restoration so that you are assured of realizing the 

 full set of ecological values that a restored wetland can provide. 



Mr. Studds. It is sort of like a cranberry bog. The gentlewoman 

 from Arkansas. 



Ms. Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of my questions 

 really come on the heels of the questions my colleagues have pre- 

 sented. How do you really define the term "agricultural land" and 

 will aquaculture and irrigation systems be included in that defini- 

 tion. 



