31 



Interestingly enough, Congresswoman Lambert, you have men- 

 tioned what the shorter term projects do for waterfowl, but I just 

 yesterday learned of a study that was done by the Point Reyes Bird 

 Research Lab out in California, doing some oversight on the work 

 that has been done under this program in the California rice fields 

 of the Central Valley. They did some shorebird counts there in the 

 winter of 1992 to 1993, and found out there were more shorebirds 

 on flooded agricultural land than any other kind of area in the 

 study area. Forty-five percent of the shorebirds they saw were on 

 flooded rice fields. 



So in terms of short-term benefits or agricultural land, it is not 

 only ducks. There are a lot of shorebirds and neotrops being served 

 as well. 



One thing we need to keep in mind when we are talking about 

 long term is that the difference between this program and one like 

 a WRP or a CRP, is this one strives to be international. As a mat- 

 ter of fact, it is required to be international. Fifty percent of the 

 money, the Federal money, has to be spent north or south of the 

 border from the United States. 



There are laws on the books in Canada which severely restrict 

 the ability of land acquisition out in the prairies, which is where 

 their land has been most severely affected and changed over time 

 from its natural state and where most of the threatened endan- 

 gered species are, that restrict the ability to do work on property 

 in terms of longer than 25 years. 



Acquisitions there of more than 10 acres have to go through local 

 land boards. It has been a delicate ballet that has been worked out 

 up there. It has worked really well, but nonetheless, if we do some- 

 thing here in terms of this legislation which ties the hands of the 

 people in Canada to continue to work on the Prairies with the local 

 land control agencies out there and with their Federal Government, 

 we could kill the program without intending to, if we are going to 

 maintain the match. 



Because if we cannot spend the money in Canada, we cannot 

 spend it in the United States. 



Ms. Lambert. When you say kill the program, you are referring 

 to H.R. 4308 or? 



Mr. Sutherland. The Wetlands Conservation Act, yes. Because 

 we are not doing the CRP or WRP work up in Canada, just this 

 one. 



Ms. Lambert. I certainly did not allude to any idea of replacing 

 one with the other. I simply was looking for your comments wheth- 

 er or not there is a complimentary situation and what the CRP and 

 WRP could provide to the Wetlands Conservation Act, because I do, 

 as I said, feel like it has been tremendously successful. 



I guess that would be, if I can ask one more quick question, and 

 that is, do you all agree or not agree or would you think that it 

 would be beneficial to continue the CRP and the WRP contracts 

 past their current expiration dates? Because most of the CRP con- 

 tracts begin to expire in 1995. Are they complimentary enough that 

 we would like to see that happen, or what is your opinion on that? 



Mr. Sutherland. Short answer for Ducks Unlimited; Absolutely! 

 We are working hard to maintain CRP and see if we can get it re- 

 authorized. I am not sure the extension that is proposed now of five 



