46 



toward permanent protection, either through fee acquisition or 

 through permanent easements. The Senate Report states that 



" [w] here possible, the term "long-term conservation" 

 should be interpreted in a manner that will result in 

 habitat being reserved in perpetuity for fish and 

 wildlife conservation. Easements to conserve wetland 

 ecosystems for 25 years or more, while less desirable 

 than perpetual easements, also would be consistent with 

 the requirement for long-term conservation. In some 

 cases, purchase of easements to conserve habitat for 

 less than 25 years, or even for 10 years or less, may 

 be appropriate if the purchase is likely to result in 

 the landowner agreeing to a longer term conservation 

 agreement at the expiration of the initial easement. 

 Senate Report 101-161, p. 5. 



Similarly, the House Report stated that " [i] t is the 

 Committee's preference that the lands be protected in perpetuity. 

 In cases where an agreement cannot be reached to protect the land 

 in perpetuity, the land should be protected for as long a period 

 as possible." House Report 101-269, p. 13. 



I bring this language to the Committee's attention for two 

 reasons. First, this Act has now been in existence more than 

 four years, during which time more than 275 projects have been 

 funded. The program has an established track record. Second, we 

 have heard today that the number of applications for funding 

 under the Act continues to grow and that recently the Council was 

 unable to fund, due to lack of funds, 26 U.S. proposals for which 

 partners had committed $21 million in matching funds. 



Although I certainly believe that it is appropriate for the 

 Council to recommend, at times, the funding of projects that 

 propose to protect land for less than a permanent time period, I 

 believe this practice, consistent with Congressional intent, 

 should be the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, when 

 such exceptions are made, they should be for a project where a 

 less than permanent easement is but a component of a larger 

 project, or where it is part of a pilot or demonstration project. 

 Giving funding priority to permanent protection is especially 

 important now given that the Act has an established track record 

 and that the demand for Act dollars exceeds supply. 



I encourage the Committee to reaffirm -- either in report 

 language or by definition in the Act -- that the term "long-term 

 conservation" means protection in perpetuity. While I favor 

 continuing to give the Council some latitude to recommend funding 

 for less than permanent protection for pilot projects and other 

 research-type proposals, use of this discretion should remain the 

 exception. 



