U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–271 2017

S. HRG. 114–310 

REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS 

TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION 

FUND (LWCF) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 22, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Connor, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior ...... 10 

Ledford, Lewis, Executive Director, National Association of State Park Directors ........................................................................................................................ 19

Scarlett, Lynn, Managing Director, Public Policy, The Nature Conservancy ..... 84 

Watson, Reed, Executive Director, Property and Environment Research Center .......................................................................................................................... 92 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Association of Northwest Steelheaders: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 183 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Trout Unlimited: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 184 

Bellone, Andrew: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 186 

Benjaminson, Hon. Eric: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 187 

Brown, Chad: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 188 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Caplin, Michael: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 190 

Catalyst Wilderness Therapy Program: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 215 

CH2MHILL: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 216 

City of Hillsboro, Oregon: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 217 

Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 218 

Confluence: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 220 

Connor, Hon. Michael: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 10 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 12 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 139 

Craft3: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 221 

Frederick, Hon. Lew: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 222 

Gardner, Hon. Cory: 

Photograph of Colorado landscape .................................................................. 126 

Photograph of Baca Ranch in Colorado .......................................................... 127 

Ledford, Lewis: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 19 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 21 

Page

IV 

Ledford, Lewis—Continued 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 163 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe: 

Photograph of the New River Gorge area in West Virginia .......................... 130 

Marr, Timothy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 223 

Metro Council: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 224 

Monroe, Hon. Rod: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 225 

(The) Mountaineers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 226 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

National Association of State Park Directors: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 110 

National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 112 

National Recreation and Park Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 108 

National Recreation and Park Association, et al: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 227 

National Trust for Historic Preservation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 230 

Neil Kelly: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 236 

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 237 

Oregon Economic Development Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 238 

Outdoor Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 239 

Outdoor Industry Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 241 

Outdoor Industry Association and the Conservation Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 244 

Outdoors Alliance for Kids: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 247 

Plum Creek Timber Company, et al: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 249 

Plum Energy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 251 

Portland General Electric Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 252 

QuadState Local Governments Authority: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 253 

Roblan, Hon. Arnie: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 264 

Rola, Jeff: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 265 

Scarlett, Lynn: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 84 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 86 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 174 

Schafer, Bruce: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 266 

Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 267 

Tindall, Barry: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 268 

Walker, Hon. Bill: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 271 

Washington Outdoor Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 273 

Watson, Reed: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 92 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 94 

Page

V 

Watson, Reed—Continued 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 180 

Western Landowners Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 275 

Willamette Valley Vineyards: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 277 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 5 

Zedwick, Matthew: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 278 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We will call this hearing to order. 

We have several votes scheduled in less than an hour and obviously a great deal of interest in this topic this morning, so I would 

like to get started as quickly as possible. 

I want to thank you all for being here as we meet to consider 

the reauthorization and reform of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. I think it is fitting that we look at this Act today 

given that today is Earth Day. Over the past 50 years it has played 

a key role in creating our nation’s world class State and Federal 

outdoor recreation system. 

I fully support reauthorizing this Act this year in a way that reflects the changing needs and evolving viewpoints about conservation in the 21st century. 

We have a lot to cover today, so let’s begin first with land acquisition. In its first 50 years this Act was largely focused on building 

a recreation system. To do that Congress agreed that it was necessary to acquire lands at both the Federal and the State levels. 

Back then LWCF land acquisition was largely expected to occur in 

the Eastern states. Even 50 years ago there was a strong recognition that we should focus on areas with a lack of public lands and 

therefore, fewer opportunities to recreate. 

The Senate and the House Committee reports made that point, 

and the Act itself includes an express spending limitation for the 

Forest Service. The agency cannot spend more than 15 percent of 

its LWCF funds to acquire lands west of the 100th Meridian. However, over the years we have seen both congressional intent and 

limitations ignored. The Forest Service, for example, has spent almost 37 percent of its LWCF funds on land acquisition in the West. 

Now I am not opposed to reasonable and justified acquisitions, but 

coming from a state like Alaska where close to 63 percent of our 

2 

lands are already held by the Federal Government, I do approach 

the need for additional Federal purchases with some skepticism, 

particularly when we are dealing with tough budgetary times. 

It seems counterintuitive, particularly in Western states with 

high percentages of public lands, to add more to what we already 

have and already struggle to properly care for, except perhaps 

when there is a case to be made that the acquisition would reduce 

long-term administrative costs. I think we recognize that makes 

sense. 

As we meet today the Federal Land Management agencies face 

a growing maintenance backlog, about $22 billion in total, and 

more than $11 billion of that is at the National Park Service. As 

we look to reauthorize LWCF, I believe that it makes sense to shift 

the Federal focus away from land acquisition, particularly in Western states, toward maintaining and enhancing the accessibility and 

quality of the resources we have. This is the best way to put our 

nation’s recreation system on the path of long-term viability. 

Now some have said that using LWCF dollars for maintenance 

is inappropriate, but I would just direct you back to the act itself. 

The act states that it is not just about the quantity of recreation 

resources. It is also about the quality of those resources. 

Using LWCF moneys for maintenance activities is not new. From 

FY’98 through Fiscal Year 2001, LWCF was used to address the 

maintenance backlog at all four land management agencies. I 

strongly believe conservation in the 21st century must include taking care of what we already have, what we choose to conserve first 

instead of simply pretending that more is always better. 

We always talk a lot about access to our public lands, and we 

have been looking at different ways to use LWCF funds to increase 

it. This is another area that is of particular interest to me. 

Many of Alaska’s really prime recreation resources are accessible 

only by plane or by boat. So access is not just about land acquisition. It is also about development of recreation facilities like boat 

launches, trails, and roads. These are the kinds of facilities that 

are a critical link between users and otherwise inaccessible lands. 

We also need to recognize that bringing land into Federal ownership does not always equate with making it accessible to the public. 

You have heard me talk here in this Committee about the situation 

with a day care provider with little children, four, five, and six year 

olds, who went out on a picnic in the Tongass, and the day care 

provider was fined by the Forest Service for not having a permit 

to utilize the picnic table. 

The Federal lands access provision’s also one of the primary and 

most popular provisions in the bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act that I 

have been working on with Senator Heinrich. There are many access-related issues we can focus on this year. 

I have, again, brought up before the Committee my efforts to 

allow small scale filming on public lands to continue by making 

sure that they have access to filming rather than be denied access. 

For LWCF I would like to see greater emphasis on conservation 

easements rather than fee acquisitions so that we can continue 

lands as working lands and ensure public access. 

3 

When we talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

these days it is almost exclusively discussion about Federal land 

acquisition, and that is a little disappointing to me. 

Many seem to have forgotten the pivotal role that states have in 

conservation and outdoor recreation under the Act. From the start 

the Act recognized that states were the lynch pin and provided 

Federal funding for state grants for recreation planning, land acquisition and development. The state grant programs require a 50/ 

50 match. In some cases the states exceed this requirement so that 

every Federal dollar is highly leveraged. On the state side these 

dollars go to outdoor recreation facilities near where people actually live from local city playgrounds, baseball fields to local fishing 

holes in state parks that clearly rival some of our national parks. 

From the start LWCF monies were to be allocated each year so 

that Federal agencies would receive no less than 40 percent and 

the states, the remainder. But once again, with over 85 percent of 

LWCF funds going to Federal land acquisition it is clear to me that 

we are not meeting that congressional intent. This has happened 

even though states have been strong, public advocates of public access and have worked with our sportsmen and sportswomen to provide hunting and fishing and recreational shooting opportunities on 

our Federal and State lands. 

The current approach also ignores an area where states can and 

are doing a good job. 

Alaska State Parks is the largest state park system in the country. It is our state’s largest provider of recreation facilities such as 

public campgrounds and it boasts twice the visitation of Alaska’s 

National Parks. So instead of leaving them on the sidelines, I believe that states need to be given the opportunity to lead here. 

States are in the best position to understand and accommodate the 

needs of our citizens and not every state has access to Federal 

recreation resources. 

Now there are some who attempt to minimize the roles of the 

states in land management, and there is an attempt to drive a 

wedge between those who work and recreate on public lands. In 

fact some have tried to politicize an amendment that I offered on 

the budget several weeks back that would provide a budget reserve 

fund for Federal land transfers and exchanges with the states. 

Now those who are not from the West may not realize it, but this 

Committee effectively serves as a real estate exchange for the 

West. Buying and selling land often takes, literally, an act of Congress. These types of transfers and exchanges both with the states 

and private parties are the means of maximizing the value of public lands for hunting and recreation while allowing Western communities continued access to those lands best suited for multiple 

use. 

Ironically these same entities that have criticized the budget 

amendment have praised the public lands package that I negotiated and fought to include on the NDAA bill last year. That package struck a balance. It designated new parks and conservation 

units and transferred and exchanged land for development. It designated new wilderness as well as releasing wilderness study 

areas. 

4 

Advocates of conservation and development both recognized that 

this type of balance was necessary to move significant legislation, 

and that package almost fell apart over budget issues. Facilitating 

that type of a package was exactly, what I had in mind with the 

budget amendment. 

So I do look forward to the discussion about how we deal with 

Land and Water Conservation Fund and its reauthorization, but I 

think that there clearly and fairly are good issues to be discussing 

here. As we begin those conversations I do hope that they will be 

productive and constructive as we work to address areas of significant interest and concern. 

I have taken longer in my opening statement than I usually do, 

but I felt it was important to lay out some of the history of this 

very, very significant act, its purposes, its design and where, in my 

view, we have failed in adhering to the sum of the contours of that. 

With that, I turn to my Ranking Member for her comments this 

morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for 

scheduling this important hearing today on Earth Day to review 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund which is one of our nation’s most successful conservation programs. 

I want to say at the outset that I know my colleague, Senator 

Wyden, is unable to be here this morning because we are starting 

a markup in the Finance Committee on the Trade Promotion Act 

which will also pull me away at some point in time this morning. 

But he is a big supporter of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, and he and I are co-sponsors of legislation to permanently 

reauthorize this and provide certainty to funding. 

In addition, we will add his statement to the record and very 

much appreciate his leadership on that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95271.001

Sen. Ron Wyden Statement for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

April 22, 2015 

M. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to submit these remarks for the record. This is such an 

important subject that I had to have the voices of Oregonians heard on it. As such, I have for the 

record, in addition to my statement, letters from Oregonians in support ofLWCF including 

letters I have received over the past year in support of the program, letters directed to the 

Committee, and letters from several veterans explaining the importance of the outdoors and 

LWCF to combat veterans and their families. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a critical tool for protecting our nation's 

public lands and providing access for the outdoor activities that so many Americans enjoy. In 

Oregon, hunting, fishing, and camping are ways of life, and the LWCF has been ensuring that 

people have outlets for those activities for fifty years. Since its inception, LWCF has proven to 

be a rewarding investment for the places that make this country special, for the people who 

benefit from access to those places, and for the local economies that host these truly remarkable 

resources. LWCF not only helps protect the environmental health of these places, but it leads to 

human health benefits as well: Clean air, clean water, and the mental health benefits of getting 

outdoors are great examples. 

Well over 50 percent of the sources for clean water in the United States start on public lands. 

The 85 percent of our U.S. population that lives in urban areas relies on those water sources and 

LWCF has ensured their protection over time. In addition, programs like Vet Voice, which has 

supported the LWCF for years, help get our military veterans out into nature with their families 

to enjoy the lands they have fought so hard to protect. 

I am sure there will be a robust debate today about future funding for LWCF and proposed 

changes to the program, and I will submit questions for the record for the witnesses, but I just 

want to make a couple of quick points. 

First, it's disappointing that LWCF has been authorized at its full $900 million since 1976, yet in 

most years, the program receives far less than that. L WCF is funded through revenues received 

from oil and gas leasing meaning it does not rely on taxpayers to fund this critical program. 

And over the years roughly $35 billion has been directed to the program but less than half of 

that, only around $16 billion, has actually ended up being appropriated for use by the LWCF 

program, since 1965. Making LWCF a mandatory program and fully funding it every year, 

which is what the bill that Senator Cantwell and I introduced would do, will allow the benefits of 

the program to be fully realized and would be a shot in the arm to local economies that support 

outdoor recreation. 

Some have suggested that LWCF should be directed more toward paying for maintenance 

backlogs than land acquisition. I hear my colleagues' concerns about caring for the land we 

already have. I share those concerns, but we have one major law for special, unique land 

acquisition and a myriad oflaws for operations and maintenance. Let's keep LWCF for its 

unique purpose. And let's work together in a bipartisan manner to fix or beef up those operation 

and maintenance authorities. 
6 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95271.002

l fully support the need to catch up on the National Park operation and maintenance backlog, and 

intend to look for ways to take care of that $11 billion debt. But raiding the LWCF is not the way 

to do it. Raiding the LWCF will simply result in lost opportunities, for the purchase of 

inholdings, for instance, that will cost us more in the long-run. Another example is the 

importance of the Forest Legacy Program a part of LWCF. Let me quote from one of the 

letters submitted for the record from the commercial timber industry: "The Forest Legacy 

Program has led to the conservation of over 2.2 million acres of working forest lands, primarily 

through conservation easement purchases, with almost 50 percent of project costs leveraged from 

other non-federal sources. FLP is a voluntary conservation program that brings together federal, 

state and private partners to achieve the common goals of protecting and maintaining forest jobs, 

recreational access, wildlife habitat and clean water." Laudable goals, all. 

The success ofLWCF is evident and its impacts on local communities are profound. Just 

yesterday, I was notified that a northeast Portland neighborhood would be getting a brand new 

park and soccer field thanks to LWCF, which is great news for that community. And across 

Oregon and the country LWCF has helped secure public access to federal and state lands for 

sportsmen and hikers and has helped protect miles of trails, wildlife habitats, and critical 

watersheds. Success stories like these are why LWCF works. Fully funding the program, and 

keeping its current mix of authorities and flexibilities, will allow for future land acquisitions, 

even more state grants, and many more success stories. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bi-partisan manner to reauthorize and fully 

fund this important law. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and the accompanying 

letters be entered into the record for this hearing. 
7 

Senator CANTWELL. In the 50 years since this act was first put 

into law, and I should point out by Scoop Jackson of Washington 

State and as a suggestion by then-President Kennedy, if you look 

at the original focus of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it 

was really in the 60’s as the country started to urbanize and to 

grow in population, people wanted to make sure that we were setting aside lands in those growing areas. So I am sure for some of 

my colleagues that represent more rural states or less densely populated states, the concept of Land and Water Conservation Fund 

might not be as prevalent for them. 

But I can walk around the State of Washington today, particularly within Puget Sound, and point to various parks and recreation areas that exist within the urban center that are great examples of preservation made possible by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They have made the urban center a possible place 

to work and live and recreate. That is what is so important to me 

about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. To me, this hearing 

this morning is about our relationship to stewardship. We should 

remember on Earth Day that Earth is lasting a lot longer than all 

of us, and the question is what good stewardship we provide in the 

meantime. 

So this iconic program that has helped protect many of our nation’s most iconic and most popular national parks, forests, and 

public lands is, I think, a treasure in itself. The fund has provided 

countless opportunities for hunting and fishing and other recreation uses, and it has helped support state and local conservation. 

Many of us with significant public lands in our state have seen 

the impacts of protecting these landscapes and providing for outdoor recreation which brings strong economic benefits. The Outdoor 

Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports more than 6,000,000 jobs nationwide and generates almost 

$650 billion annually in direct consumer spending. I hate to say 

that I am a frequent user of REI, and probably have contributed 

somewhat to that number myself. 

In Washington State, visitors to Federal lands in the state spent 

over $1.3 billion last year. So protecting our public lands is not 

only good for our environment, but also good for our economy, and 

that includes many of our small, local businesses. 

I think it is helpful to keep in mind the history of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund and its funding mechanisms. A few years 

ago, after the fund was enacted, it became clear that the initial 

funding sources would not be sufficient to fulfill the tremendous demand for land protection and for development of new recreational 

opportunities. As a result, Congress amended the law to direct a 

portion of the revenue from oil and gas development on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) to the fund. 

The concept behind linking OCS to the Land and Water Conservation Fund was based on the principle that a portion of revenues obtained from the depletion of non-renewable resources belonging to all Americans should be dedicated to preserving other 

natural resources of lasting benefit to the nation. It was a sound 

concept then and is one that we should continue to adhere to today. 

But as the matter now stands, unless Congress acts to extend that 

authorization, the authority to credit the Land and Water ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:17 Jan 24, 2017 Jkt 095271 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95271\H95271.TXT H95271
8 

servation Fund with OCS revenues will expire at the end of this 

fiscal year. That is less than six months from now. 

So I want to make clear that I will do everything I can to make 

sure that funding for one of the most successful conservation programs will not lapse. I have introduced legislation, as I mentioned, 

with Senator Wyden and others to permanently reauthorize the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund and to explore opportunities to 

move that legislation forward. There has already been a strong 

vote for the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund earlier this year on the Senate floor, which I think is evidence that there is broad bipartisan support for this program. 

So I hope that today’s hearing will be a good first step in helping 

us find a way forward toward reauthorization. I know there are 

concerns that our nation should not be acquiring land while land 

management agencies have backlogs of deferred maintenance. Observers of this Committee know that the Chairman and I do not 

always see eye to eye, but I hope that she and I can work through 

this issue. I do not believe that we have to choose between one or 

the other, and I hope that we can work together and find a solution. 

The National Park Service deferred maintenance backlog is the 

most often cited example of the agency’s maintenance needs, and 

I agree we must find a way to increase maintenance funding. But 

it is a mistake to assume that the only funding options we have 

are between land acquisition and maintenance. 

So, in fact, funding for maintenance is already authorized and 

every year the land management agencies receive appropriations 

for maintenance activities. So there is not a need to force maintenance activities to compete directly for Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars. Nearly half of the Park Service’s estimated backlog is attributed to needed repairs for roads and highways within 

the National Park. The single biggest improvement we could make 

in reducing the maintenance backlog would be to increase the funding level in the Transportation bill for park roads. 

So I think it is also important for our colleagues to recognize that 

the fund is already a flexible program that offers many different 

tools to enable us to protect and improve public lands. The program 

is most well-known for allowing Federal land management agencies 

to acquire land within the boundaries of designated conservation 

areas, for helping to protect wildlife habitat, and for providing new 

opportunities for hunting and fishing and recreation. 

In addition, over the past 50 years the Land and Water Conservation State Assistance Program has provided over $4 billion 

through 40,000 matching grants to states and local governments 

for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation 

areas and facilities. In recent years, the Fund has increasingly 

been used to conserve private lands as well. For example, the Forest Legacy Program, which helps pay for protection of these privately-owned forest lands. I can tell you that I hear a lot from a 

variety of groups in my state about their support for that. Similarly, cooperative endangered species grants provide funding to 

states to help protect threatened and endangered species. Furthermore, over the past decade roughly half of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund expenditures have been for conservation proVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:17 Jan 24, 2017 Jkt 095271 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95271\H95271.TXT H95271
9 

grams directed by state and local governments rather than for traditional Federal land acquisition. 

So I do want to say I support both Federal and State programs 

and continued funding for both Federal and State programs. 

For those that are questioning whether enough funds are being 

directed to the state program, I think it is important to remember 

that under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, better known 

as GOMESA, the states will be receiving as much as $125 million 

each year in mandatory funding, not subject to congressional appropriations. So while I definitely want to see something more permanent to make sure that funding is spent in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, I strongly believe that Federal expenditures 

need to be part of the equation. 

So again, there are not many programs that I think provide more 

tangible results than the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I believe our nation can afford this level of investment. As I said at the 

beginning, it is about stewardship. 

It is about stewardship. It is not about what opportunities we 

take for today, but it is about what stewardship we are going to 

provide for the future. I hope all of us on Earth Day will think 

about stewardship. 

I thank the Chair for holding this important hearing, and I appreciate the witnesses making themselves available for this subject 

today. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

With that, let us begin with our witnesses. I will introduce each 

of you. We will proceed here from my left beginning with Mr. Connor and go down the table. 

Given that we have two votes at 10:45 it is the intention of the 

Chair that we will hear from our witnesses. We will then proceed 

to ask questions of five minutes each, but we will keep the Committee moving, and therefore, we will not adjourn for votes. 

So pardon the jack-in-the-box exercise, but we are multitasking 

here today. We appreciate not only your indulgence with that but 

your willingness to come before the Committee and provide your 

testimony. 

We will begin with the Honorable Michael Connor, who is the 

Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Interior. We have had 

many opportunities to see Mr. Connor before the Committee, and 

we welcome him back. 

Next to him is Mr. Lewis Ledford, who is the Executive Director 

for the National Association of our State Park Directors. Welcome. 

Next we also have a familiar face to the Committee from a previous Administration, this is Ms. Lynn Scarlett, who is the Managing Director for Public Policy at The Nature Conservancy. Thank 

you for being here. 

Our final witness on the panel today is Mr. Reed Watson, who 

is the Executive Director for the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). 

Welcome to all of you. 

Mr. Connor, if you would like to begin this morning. 

10 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and 

discuss reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Fifty years ago Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as a bipartisan commitment to safeguard 

natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage and to provide 

recreation opportunities for all Americans now and in the future. 

The LWCF has been and continues to be an innovative and highly 

successful program. By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and 

gas activities in the public lands the LWCF both through state and 

Federal programs has proven to be one of the nation’s most effective conservation tools. 

Simply put, LWCF makes economic sense. It makes environmental sense, it makes fiscal sense, and it makes sense for future 

generations. For these reasons this Administration believes it critically important to reauthorize and secure mandatory funding for 

this successful program. 

I’ll quickly summarize some of the key points in my written testimony. 

First, LWCF makes economic sense. Today the National Park 

Service announced a record number of visitors to the national 

parks which translated to $29.7 billion in economic activity and 

supported nearly 277,000 jobs, and these statistics just build on 

what we already know from a recent analysis by the Federal Interagency Council on outdoor recreation that in 2012 recreation activities on federally-managed lands and waters contributed approximately $51 billion to the economy and 880,000 jobs. 

Second, the Land and Water Conservation Fund makes ecological 

sense. Parks and other public lands and waters are not just supporting our economy, they are supporting critical environmental 

needs. Pursuant to another National Park Service release today we 

know that national parks in the lower 48 states absorb 14.8 million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide each year with an economic value of 

about $582 million. In LWCF conservation easements have also 

protected water sources, species and ecosystems. 

At Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, through a 

years-old public/private collaborative effort, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has partnered with the Bar Boot Ranch to place over 

13,000 acres of working land under conservation easement. The 

ranch and the refuge are working together to ensure survival of native fish and wildlife on public and private land by protecting the 

upstream reaches of the Leslie Creek Watershed while also helping 

sustain the ranching business operation at Bar Boot Ranch. 

Third, the Land and Water Conservation Fund makes fiscal 

sense. In times of tight budgets we must prioritize programs which 

successfully reduce management costs and can be administered in 

partnerships across the country. To date, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided over $4 billion to state and local governments for these purposes and over 40,000 projects have been 

funded in every state throughout the nation in 98 percent of the 

nation’s counties. 

11 

Of particular importance Federal land acquisition reduces land 

management costs. In the past five years 99.25 percent of the lands 

acquired by the Department of the Interior were inholdings within 

the external boundaries of existing conservation units. The acquisition of inholdings can reduce maintenance and manpower costs by 

reducing boundary conflicts, simplifying resource management activities and easing access to and through public lands. 

As an example in the ’16 budget the Administration proposed 

Land and Water Conservation funding for acquisitions at Alaska’s 

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, that are expected to yield 

significant savings over time from reduced firefighting costs associated with native allotments. The National Park acquisition of these 

tracts would eliminate the requirement to commit firefighting resources to suppress fires on these tracts and would yield an estimated savings of $60,000 per tract during each firefighting season. 

Finally, LWCF is important for future generations. A half century ago Congress made a historic commitment to the American 

people. As a result we have irreplaceable natural, historic and recreational outdoor places that otherwise might not exist or might 

have been lost. To try and explain the end of the Civil War without 

the Appomattox Courthouse or the sacrifice of those who gave their 

lives on Flight 93 would be impossible without the LWCF. To share 

with future generations the grandeur of Acadia, the Tetons or the 

Great Smokey Mountains could not have been maintained without 

the LWCF. 

The importance of this funding cannot be overstated. We live in 

an era when people, especially young people, are increasingly disconnected from the outdoors and history. Maintaining our vitality 

as a nation relies in part on more opportunities for outdoor recreation and more green spaces, particularly in urban areas. Some may argue that spending $900 million on recreation and 

conservation is a luxury we can’t afford. In reality we can’t afford 

not to. Outdoor recreation is a huge economic engine that contributes an estimated $640 billion to the nation’s economy and supports 6.1 million jobs which also translates to increased tax revenues at all levels of government. 

For all these reasons and more this Administration strongly supports reauthorization. And we look forward to working with Congress before the program expires at the end of this year. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95271.003

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONNOR 

DEPUTY SECRETARY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

April 22, 2015 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss reauthorization of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this innovative, highly successful 

program. 

Fifty years ago, Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as a 

bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage, and to 

provide recreation opportunities for all Americans, now and in the future. The Act established a 

fund in the US. Treasury dedicated to preserving, developing and assuring accessibility to 

outdoor recreation resources and to strengthening the health and vitality of US. citizens by using 

a portion of the proceeds from the development of our public lands and waters for investments in 

conservation and recreation. 

By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and gas activities into public lands, the LWCF has 

proven to be one of the nation's most effective tools for preserving treasured landscapes; 

expanding historic, cultural and outdoor recreation sites; protecting rivers, lakes and other water 

resources; enabling access for sportsmen and hunters; and providing grants to states for 

recreation and conservation projects. Simply put, the LWCF has greatly contributed to the 

quality of life of our citizens. 

Furthermore, the LWCF generates economic activity throughout the nation. ln 2012, recreation 

activities on federally-managed lands and waters contributed approximately $51 billion and 

880,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. 

To date, the LWCF has provided over $4 billion to state and local governments for these 

purposes and over 40,000 projects have been funded in every state throughout the nation. These 

projects support local recreation and conservation and impact the lives of people in our 

communities every day. And federal land acquisition from the LWCF has protected lands in 

national parks, forests, refuges and public lands in areas too numerous to list, from Cuyahoga 

Valley National Park in Ohio to Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida; from Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park in West Virginia to Mount Rainier National Park in Washington; and 

from Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico to Gates of the Arctic National Park 

and Preserve in Alaska. 

The Administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the LWCF, which, without action 

from Congress, will expire on September 30, 2015. In President Obama's FY 2016 Budget 

request, he proposed to fully and permanently fund the LWCF program at its authorized level of 

1 
13 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95271.004

$900 million. This funding level would support 173 projects across four land management 

agencies in 43 states as well as provide assistance to states and local governments for close to 

home recreational opportunities. 

With respect to reforms to the LWCF, the Administration believes that mandatory funding is a 

key component of the L WCF program. The unpredictable nature of discretionary funding has 

limited the ability of agencies and partners to engage in the multi-year planning that is necessary 

for effective collaboration with local communities, for large-scale conservation projects, and to 

provide for recreational and sportsmen access. We look forward to working with Congress to 

expeditiously reauthorize this program for another fifty years before it expires on September 30, 

2015. 

A summary of the LWCF program, the role of the Department of the Interior and a discussion of 

the Administration's budget request follows. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The LWCF Act provides that each fiscal year until September 30, 2015, not less than $900 

million must be deposited into the LWCF. These funds consist of certain revenues from offshore 

oil and gas activities, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus real and personal property and 

motorboat fuel taxes. 

Although set aside in a discrete fund, these moneys are currently only available for expenditure 

through annual appropriations. Each year, in accordance with the Act, the Administration 

submits to Congress, along with the budget, a comprehensive statement of estimated 

requirements for appropriations from the LWCF. Congress then appropriates moneys from the 

LWCF for assistance to the states and for federal acquisition of lands and waters. 

In making its budget request, and in implementing the provisions of the Act, the Departments of 

the Interior and Agriculture work in cooperation with local communities to identify and 

maximize opportunities to secure rights-of-ways, easements, and fee simple lands from willing 

sellers that are important to the local community. The Administration supports broad 

collaboration around locally driven priorities and more efficient and coordinated ways of 

investing in, restoring, and managing the Nation's natural and cultural resources. 

L W CF State Assistance Program 

Once moneys are appropriated from the LWCF, the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to provide financial assistance to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for the acquisition and 

development of public outdoor recreation sites and facilities. The Secretary, through the LWCF 

State Assistance Program, apportions the grant funds among these states and areas in accordance 

with the apportionment formula contained in the Act. This formula includes a factor for equal 

distribution of a portion of the fund among the states, as well as factors for distribution on the 

basis of population and need. These grants are provided to the states, and through the states to 

2 
14 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95271.005

local governmental jurisdictions, on a matching basis for up to fifty percent of the total project 

costs. Grants to the insular areas may be for l 00% assistance. 

The National Park Service currently administers the LWCF State Assistance program. The Act 

provides that to be eligible to receive the funds, states must submit a comprehensive statewide 

outdoor recreation plan to the Secretary, and update it at least once every five years. This plan 

evaluates the public outdoor recreation resources throughout a state, identifies capital investment 

priorities, assures community participation, and coordinates outdoor recreation programs 

throughout the state. Specific LWCF projects proposed by a state are submitted to the Secretary 

for approval to ensure consistency with the plan. Any property that is acquired or developed 

with LWCF assistance must remain available for public outdoor recreation purposes. However, 

the Secretary does have the authority in certain circumstances to convert the property to another 

use. 

The LWCF State Assistance program has a significant impact on the daily lives of people in our 

local communities and touches virtually all of America. State and local parks and projects that 

have received assistance from the LWCF are located in over 98 percent of counties in the United 

States. The LWCF State Assistance Program has, with the help of local communities, funded 

baseball fields, skate parks, and shooting ranges, it has funded access roads in state and 

municipal parks, it has helped construct playgrounds, ice rinks, boat ramps and equestrian parks, 

it has helped provide lighting for local baseball and soccer fields, funding for swimming pools, 

off road vehicle areas, and golf courses. It has funded projects as far away as Nuiqsut on the 

arctic slope, where funds were used to develop a softball field, which also doubles as the location 

for "nalukataaq," the spring whaling celebration for the village of 400 people; to an a urban 

Bronx neighborhood in New York where the funds were used to develop lighting at the Roberto 

Clemente baseball field. 

These local recreation areas are the places we visit every day, the places where we go for a walk 

in the evening, the playgrounds where parents take their kids to run around between errands, and 

the fields used by the youth soccer club. Since the origin of the program in 1965, over $4 billion 

has been apportioned to the states for these recreation purposes. The federal investment has been 

matched by state and local contributions for a total LWCF grant investment of over$ 8.2 billion. 

An additional $66.2 million has been provided to states through competitive grant programs. 

These competitive programs include FWS Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation grants 

for states and territories to work with private landowners, conservation organizations and other 

partners to protect and conserve the habitat of threatened and endangered species, the American 

Battlefield Protection program grants, and the NPS Urban Parks and Recreation grants. 

Forest Legacy Program 

The Forest Legacy Program, administered by the U.S. Forest Service, provides grants funded by 

the LWCF to protect environmentally important forest lands while maintaining private 

ownership and working forests. More than 50 percent (over 420 million acres) of our nation's 

forests are privately owned, and family forest owners and timber companies are facing increasing 

pressure to sell, subdivide, and develop their land. Through the Forest Legacy Program, the U.S. 

3 
15 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95271.006

Forest Service provides grants to state partners to protect these important lands with the focus on 

working forests. Forest Legacy helps landowners continue to provide forest products and 

resource based jobs, protects air and water quality, provides recreational opportunities and 

important fish and wildlife habitat including for threatened or endangered species. These lands 

are protected through conservation easements and fee-simple purchases with partners such as 

state agencies, private owners, and other conservation partners. To date over 2.47 million acres 

of important forestland has been protected under this program. 

Federal Land Acquisition 

The Act provides that moneys appropriated to the LWCF for federal purposes must be used by 

the President for acquisition oflands, waters and interests in lands and waters as specified in the 

Act for the national park and national forest systems, as well as for other federally managed 

public lands. It also authorizes acquisitions for the national wildlife refuge system, including 

acquisitions for endangered and threatened species. 

This funding secures access for the American public to their federal lands for recreational 

opportunities-from hunting and fishing to canoeing and bird watching. When done 

strategically, these acquisitions of fee title or easement interests in lands strengthen national 

parks, national wildlife refuges, and other federally managed public lands, resulting in cost 

savings that can offset most, if not all, additional operational costs and provide economic 

benefits for local economies. 

Federal land acquisition reduces land management costs. In the past five years, 99.25% of the 

lands acquired by the Department of the Interior were in holdings of existing conse1vation units. 

The acquisition of inholdings can reduce maintenance and manpower costs by reducing 

boundary conflicts, simplifying resource management activities, and easing access to and 

through public lands. This focus maximizes management efficiencies for the agencies and, in 

many cases, reduces costs. 

For example, at San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in California, the purchase of inholdings 

through the LWCF reduced management costs while conserving wildlife habitat corridors. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service added six small, but important, inholdings to the refuge, which helped 

consolidate ownership in the heart of the refuge and protect areas of coastal sagebrush and 

chaparral that support a variety of rare plants and animals. 

Similarly, in the FY 2016 budget, the Administration proposed LWCF for acquisitions at 

Alaska's Lake Clark National Park and Preserve that are expected to yield significant costsavings from reduced firefighting costs over time. For firefighting purposes, native-allotment 

tracts such as those proposed for acquisition in Lake Clark National Park, are designated at the 

"full" protection level, meaning they are high priority for extensive fire suppression actions, and 

can incur significant costs to protect. NPS acquisition of these tracts would eliminate the 

requirement to commit this level offirefighting resources to suppress fires on these tracts, and 

would yield an estimated savings of $60,000 per allotment during fire events. 

4 
16 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95271.007

Federal land acquisitions also provide economic benefits. For example, since 2001, the Bureau of 

Land Management has acquired approximately 2, 700 acres within the Sandy River Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. The Sandy River and the nearby Oregon National Historic 

Trail, offer exceptional recreational opportunities for fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, nature 

study, and non-motorized boating and river floating. This area is 20 miles from Portland the 

Northwest's second largest metropolitan area- and receives approximately a half million visitors 

per year. This area is an important economic asset to the local community and supports many 

local businesses. 

Federal land acquisition also protects history. This month, during her visit to the Appomattox 

Court House National Historical Park, Secretary Jewell visited the site of some of the final 

battles of the Civil War in Virginia. The LWCF was used to expand Appomattox Court House 

National Historical Park by 383 acres in the 1970s. More recently, the LWCF has been leveraged 

to enable the NPS to work in partnership with the Civil War Trust to preserve six additional 

properties associated with the battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, 

totaling 108 acres at a value of nearly $2.6 million. Those sites help protect the viewshed around 

the historic village where the McLean House- the site of surrender- stands. LWCF has been 

used to acquire land at other Civil War battlefields including Antietam in Maryland, 

Fredericksburg in Virginia, Chattanooga in Tennessee, Harpers Ferry in West Virginia, and 

Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. 

Finally federal land acquisition supports local priorities. For example, Secretary Jewell recently 

toured the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in Georgia. This area was originally 

created with support from the LWCF in 1979 and has benefited over the years from additional 

LWCF funding to expand and further protect it In addition to providing recreational facilities, 

hiking and biking trails, and conserving the river and watershed, the area has had an important 

economic impact on the local communities. Last year, visitors to Chattahoochee National 

Recreation Area spent over $123 million and supported l, 723 jobs. 

In the Prairie Pothole Region of North and South Dakota, the LWCF is helping preserve the 

ranching tradition, by supporting the rural economy and protecting important habitat for wildlife. 

To date, more than 5,000 landowners have partnered with the FWS to place land under perpetual 

easements, which preclude land conversion and the draining of potholes but permit the 

landowner to retain all other rights of use and access. This conserves the native prairie and 

wetlands, protecting important wildlife habitat while supporting the continued operation of the 

region's traditional livestock and ranching enterprises. 

And, at Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, through a years-old public-private 

collaborative effort, the FWS partnered with the Bar Boot Ranch to place over 13,000 acres of 

working land under conservation easement at the refuge with funding support from the LWCF. 

The voluntary conservation easement limits subdivision and surface development on the ranch 

and permits watershed restoration activities, while continuing to allow traditional ranching uses. 

The easement will help ensure continued water supplies to sustain native fish, wildlife, and 

plants, including federally-listed threatened and endangered species, while also helping sustain 

the ranching business operation at Bar Boot Ranch. 

5 
17 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95271.008

The Department's FY 2016 Budget Request 

As these examples demonstrate, the LWCF makes economic sense, it makes environmental 

sense, it makes fiscal sense and it makes sense for future generations. For these reasons, this 

Administration believes it is critically important to reauthorize this successful program. 

In recognition of this important program, the President's FY 2016 budget request would fully 

fund the LWCF at $900 million annually and would permanently authorize the LWCF. 

Beginning in 2017, funding for LWCF programs would be mandatory. Mandatory funding is 

critically important to increasing the financial certainty needed to build and enhance local and 

community conservation partnerships. It will also optimize valuable investments by leveraging 

other Federal and non-Federal funds, and, with predictability, it will enable efficiencies in 

managing LWCF programs and facilitate a more inclusive process. 

The FY 2016 budget requests full funding, of which $672.3 million is requested for the 

Department's programs. The request supports simpler, more efficient land management; creates 

greater access for hunters and anglers and other recreation opportunities; creates long-term cost 

savings; addresses urgent threats to some of America's most special places; and better supports 

state and local conservation priorities. 

Some of the highlights for the funding requested for the Department's programs include: 

• $447 million (both discretionary and mandatory) for federal land acquisition, of which 

$150 million is for acquisition of Collaborative Landscape Planning projects. These 

acquisitions address specific high-priority conservation values identified through 

collaboration conducted by the Department's land managing bureaus and the U.S. Forest 

Service; 

• $15 million (both discretionary and mandatory) for sportsmen access for sporting and 

recreation in parks, FWS refuges, and BLM public lands ($20 million if national forests 

are included); 

• $100 million (both discretionary and mandatory) for NPS State Conservation grants, 

intended to create and maintain a legacy of high quality recreation areas and facilities to 

stimulate non-federal investment in the protection and maintenance of recreation 

resources across the country; and 

• $25 million for Urban Parks and Recreation Fund grants, through the NPS. 

Overall, of the $900 million funding in FY 2016 for the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture combined, approximately $575 million will support conservation, sportsmen access, 

and recreational opportunities on federal land 

As noted above, the Administration's request includes continued funding for the Collaborative 

Landscape Planning LWCF initiative. This important interagency program brings the 

Departments of the Interior and of Agriculture together with local stakeholders to identify large 

natural areas where LWCF funds can achieve the most important shared conservation goals in 

the highest priority landscapes. Conserving large-scale natural areas provides multiple resource 

6 
18 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95271.009

and economic benefits to the public, including clean drinking water, recreational opportunities, 

protected habitat for at-risk and game species, and jobs generated on and off these lands. 

Finally, enactment of a mandatory LWCF program is central to protecting the American heritage 

of conservation and recreation for the American people. Mandatory funding also will help 

achieve the original intent of the LWCF Act-the dedication of a meaningful portion, $900 

million, of the revenues private companies pay to access the Nation's offshore oil and gas 

reserves for the preservation of the Nation's lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, 

now and in the future. The Energy Information Administration projects that offshore crude oil 

development is expected to increase an average of 1.3% per year through 2040 (see ETA Annual 

Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040), with production expected to reach 2.10 million 

barrels/day by 2020. That is a 37% increase over 2015. At any level of crude oil prices 

projected in the Report, the incremental production of offshore oil over current levels would 

yield over $2 billion in increased revenues to the Federal treasury, well exceeding the 

Administration's funding request. 

Conclusion: 

Over its 50-year history, the LWCF has reinvested a small portion of revenues from offshore oil 

and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf in over 40,000 local conservation and outdoor 

recreation projects that protect our nation's land, water, wildlife and cultural heritage. In this 

manner, the LWCF has protected conservation and recreation land in every state and supported 

tens of thousands of state and local projects. These investments not only conserve lands in or 

near national parks, refuges, forests, and other public lands-including landscapes identified for 

collaborative, strategic conservation-they also enable access to lands for sportsmen and 

hunters, protect historic battlefields, and provide grants to states for recreation and conservation 

projects improving the quality oflife in cities and towns across this country. 

7 
19 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Connor. 

Mr. Ledford, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS LEDFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PARK DIRECTORS 

Mr. LEDFORD. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Lewis 

Ledford, the Executive Director of the National Association of State 

Park Directors and prior to that served as the State Park Director 

in North Carolina and also the State Liaison Officer for LWCF. 

America’s state parks provide wonderful outdoor recreation experiences and unique historical, scientific and environmental education opportunities. There are some 2,200 state parks and over 

10,000 areas in our country when you consider all the recreation, 

natural and historic sites. Further they encompass 18,000,000 

acres and include numerous facilities including over 217,000 campsites. 

LWCF has been a key reason for this vast diversity of intense 

public recreation and accounting places from the expansive mountainous landscapes in Alaska to a coral reef in Florida to the longest stalactite in the world in an Arizona cavern to locations where 

the European settlers first came to America. The splendor of the 

beauty of the mosaic of the natural resources and the cultural fabric of America are the reasons that 739,000,000 people visited the 

state park systems last year. The economic impact of our state 

park system is estimated to be $20 billion annually. 

Congress enacted LWCF visionary legislation. It’s forward thinking in reinvesting back in the conservation and recreation. From 

open space greenways to trails to playgrounds to swimming pools, 

camping facilities, ball fields, state-assisted funding has benefited 

98 percent of the counties in the country. 

The state’s ability to access local decision makers like governors, 

commissioners, city managers and most importantly the soccer 

moms, the users, the skateboarders, the mountain bikers and their 

friends’ groups are crucial to ensure that the needs of each state 

and local community are met. 

The state assistance funds must be matched on a 50 percent 

level. It’s a tremendous fund raising tool for communities that 

reach out to many partners, a formal allocation of the funds on an 

equal basis to all states and territories. State agencies are well positioned with good planning and management for LWCF projects 

because they’re well connected with their communities. 

They’re wonderful examples in the 42,000 projects from the City 

of Bremerton, Washington where they restored the beauty of a 

park on the Puget Sound Waterfront to the city of Bethel in Alaska 

where they provided park improvements for Pinky’s Park, a Native 

American community of 6,300 people accessible only by river and 

by air. 

The LWCF Act was designed to create close to home recreation 

opportunities. Priorities continue to justify those needs for state 

and local level; however, in 1976 a change was made to remove the 

60 percent funding guarantee for the State Assistance Program. In 

20 

1998 the program was expanded to allow for spending for related 

purposes. 

Since Fiscal Year 2004 the state portion of the program has averaged only 12 and a half percent of the total appropriation. The 

charts and the table that I provided in my written testimony readily show the impacts of these changes. 

Restoring the state share consistent with the original intent of 

the legislation would mean more spent on close to home recreation 

and on priority projects determined by the state agencies in a 

transparent process, who well know what their constituents want 

and need in terms of outdoor recreation. While not every community has a wonderful national park, every community has outdoor 

recreation resources. State and local parks are used by people of all 

ethnic groups, all income levels, all abilities and all ages on a daily 

basis throughout the year. 

The National Association of State Park Directors therefore supports the reauthorization of LWCF with full and dedicated funding 

and equitable allocation up to 60 percent such as in the original 

permit or establishment of the law. It supports the use of state 

funds for renovation, restoration and facilities and stewardship of 

the recreation areas. It also supports the reevaluation of the state’s 

6(f) conversion obligation. And it would also encourage addressing 

the percentage relative to the citizens living in the urban and the 

rural areas. 

In 1965 the U.S. population was 194,000,000. Today it’s estimated to be 321,000,000. State and local outdoor recreation opportunities and demand continue to be there. We need to address the 

population and provision for these shifting demographics and increases. Reauthorizing LWCF with a balanced and equitable funding will have great impact today and for future generations in 

meeting the purposes of the original act. 

Madam Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak 

with you this morning. We appreciate your consideration for the 

support of America’s state and local parks, the largest chain of 

wellness and economic drivers on the planet. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ledford follows:] 

21 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95271.010

Lewis Ledford, Executive Director, National Association of State Park Directors 

Written Testimony, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

April 22, 2015 

Good Morning Madam Chair Senator Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Lewis Ledford, Executive Director of 

the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD). I accepted this role just over 

one year ago following retirement from a lengthy career that began at the entry level with 

North Carolina State Park and Recreation; it concluded with the last eleven as the director. 

I also served on the board of directors for the National Recreation and Park Association for 

the past six years. I also served as the LWCF state liaison officer for North Carolina for the 

eleven years I served as the parks director. Parks and conservation has been the mainstay 

of my entire professional life. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of the discussion on 

this important issue today about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (LWCF) 

The mission ofNAPSD is to promote and advance the state park systems of America for 

their own significance, as well as for their important contributions to the nation's 

environment, heritage, health, and economy. We are devoted to helping state park systems 

effectively manage and administer their state parks. Though it's preceding organization 

dates back to the early 1900s, NASPD officially met for the first time in 1962 at Illinois 

Beach State Park on the shores of Lake Michigan near Zion, Tllinois. 

America's State Parks provide wonderful outdoor recreation experiences and unique 

historical, scientific and environmental education opportunities. There are 2,224 state parks 

and 10,234 areas when all the state recreation sites, natural areas, historic sites, education 

and scientific areas, forests and other sites are considered that encompass 18,207,318 acres. 

They include numerous facilities, including 217,367 campsites. 

LWCF has been a key reason for the vast diversity from intense public recreation to iconic 

places- from the expansive mountainous landscape in Alaska to a coral reef in Florida to 

the world's longest stalactite formation in an Arizona cavern to locations where European 

settlers first came to America and much more. The mosaic of the natural resources, the 

cultural fabric of America, and the splendor of its beauty were enjoyed by 739,615,816 

visitors last year. The economic impact of State Parks exceeds $20B to local and state 

economies. Indeed, State Parks provide important contributions to the nation's 

environment, heritage, health, and economy. 

In preparing this testimony I have jointly worked with National Recreation and Park 

Association (NRP A) and the leadership of the National Association of State Outdoor 

Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO). NRP A is a nonprofit organization working to 

advance parks, recreation and environmental conservation efforts nationwide. Leveraging 

their role in conservation, health and wellness, and social equity, NRP A members touch the 

lives of every American in every community every day. Their primary membership of 

1 
22 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95271.011

14,000 public agencies and 48,000 citizen and professional members represent park and 

recreation departments primarily in cities, counties, townships, special park districts, and 

regional park authorities. NASORLO represents the states and territories and provides a 

liaison to Congress and the Department of Interior in the administration of matching funds 

to state and local governments for outdoor recreation. Each state or territory has a 

gubernatorial-appointed State Liaison Officer. 

Congress created the LWCF in 1965 as a bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, 

water resources, and our cultural heritage and provide outdoor recreation opportunities. 

This Act will expire in September 2015, unless reauthorization occurs. 

This legacy act established a funding mechanism for Federal lands and State Assistance for 

state and local parks. For the state and local governments, this matching grant program is 

the only federal grant program for outdoor recreation. These funds help develop, acquire 

and improve outdoor recreation in parks and protected areas. States and territories have 

provided new or expanded recreation and conservation opportunities through more than 

42,000 projects. State and local projects run the gamut from open space to trails, 

neighborhood playgrounds, swimming pools, camping facilities and ball fields. LWCF 

state assisted funding has benefitted nearly every county (98%) in the country. 

States select high priority state and local projects using criteria from their Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, or SCORPs, as required in the LWCF Act. The 

SCORP's are one of the many ways to assure that local stakeholders, including the public,-

help shape the recreation landscape within the state assistance program of the 

LWCF. Statewide plans along with the states' ability to access local decision makers like 

Governors, County Commissioners, City Managers and local park and recreation 

professionals, and most importantly the users (soccer moms, skate boarders and friends 

groups) are crucial to ensuring that the needs of each state and local community are met. 

Examples: 

Washington, City of Bremerton 

Lions Park Waterfront Redevelopment grant in 2010 for $510,000. 

"Ihe 1970s-era design at this park paved much of the 1, 900 feet bordering Puget 

Sound and blocked stunning views with non-native trees. in rethinking the park, the 

City of Bremerton removed more than 2.5 acres of asphalt, restored the shoreline, 

and redeveloped park infrastructure with sustainable elements including porous 

paving, green roof~. rain gardens, and a nature-themed playground. The federal 

investment, less than 30% of the project, was matched with grantsfrom the Lion's 

Foundation andfrom the state." Source: NPS LWCF State Assistance Report 

from 2011 

Washington, City of Tacoma, George B. Kandle Park Aquatics Facility (Park 

Renovation) grant for $509,000 in 2011. 

2 
23 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95271.012

Alaska, City of Seldovia received a $98,280 grant in 20 II to "Upgrade and 

Expand" Seldovia Wilderness Park 

Alaska, City of Bethel 

A community of 6,300, predominantly Native American, accessible only by air and 

river, the community is located inside the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. 

Pinky's Park, the City's main public outdoor recreation site, received a $125,000 

grant in 2014 to fund improvements. The Park has received $425,000 in total from 

the LWCF State Assistance Program over the past 37 years first grant of$200,000 

was made in 1978. 

The State Assistance Program funds are allocated through the National Park Service, for 

specific projects; by law, those projects must receive at least 50 percent of their funding 

from the state and local project sponsors. The stateside money is apportioned to the 

individual states using an established formula. The formula allocates some of the money on 

an equal basis across all states and territories, with the remainder apportioned based on 

needs; needs are determined, in part, based on the state population. Projects are then 

tracked until completion and inspected every five years by the State Liaison Officer (SLO) 

or his/her designee to assure compliance in perpetuity. 

State agencies are strategically positioned to ensure good planning, budgeting and 

accountability for LWCF state assistance projects because we are immersed within our 

states and local communities. In general, state governments are in tune with the pulse and 

feelings of the population and must assume leadership roles in recreation. 

The federal side has provided a funding source for our national parks and monuments to 

assist in acquisition and development and the federal side has a pass through funding for 

state and local wildlife and wetland habitat, endangered plant conservation projects, and 

timberland conservation programs. Recipients of these funds include the Bureau of Land 

Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 

The LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way "trust fund" is generally understood in the 

private sector. The fund is credited with revenues totaling $900 million annually, but these 

credited monies cannot be spent unless appropriated by Congress. 

The national priorities identified in 1965, 1980, and more recently in 2010 continued to 

verify needs within local communities and the states for additional outdoor recreation areas 

and facilities. The LWCF Act was designed to create close-to-home recreation 

opportunities. Originally 60% of the funds in this program were specifically designated 

for state and local projects. The remaining 40% was for federal agency land acquisition. In 

1976, LWCF was changed to remove the 60% guarantee of funding for the LWCF State 

Assistance Program. 

Since fiscal year 2004, the state assistance portion of the program has averaged only 12.5 

percent of the total appropriation, while the federal land acquisition and other federal 

programs have received 87.5% of the funding. The following chart LWCF 

Appropriations: FY 1965-FY20l.f clearly defines exactly when the State Assistance's 

severe decline started. 

3 
24 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95271.013

millions 

figut·e I. lWCF Appropriations, FY 1965-FY20 14 

fl State Grants 

land Acqvisition 

Programs 

Notes; The graph does not reflect $76 miiilon pt·ovicled for the transition quarter from july t, 1976, to 

September 30, 1976, Also, doll>rs ate not ad!usted for inflation, 

The legislative amendments, or changes, that have occurred since L WCF was enacted 

include: 

• 1968 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas royalties added 

• 1976 Removed the 60% guarantee for state assistance program, but left "not less 

than 40% available for federal (land acquisition) purposes" 

• 1977 Funding level increased to $900 million 

• 1998 Expansion of funds through appropriations to include "related purposes" 

other than land acquisition, no change in the Act 

The following chart illustrates the resulting allocation changes to the LWCF State 

Assistance Programs, 

4 
25 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95271.014

1007-2012 

LWCF Appropriations 

$4.5billion 

{61%) 

$0.8 billion 

(11%) 

$2.2 billion 

Technically, there was no change made to the LWCF Act in 1998. The Act says, "Moneys 

appropriated from the fund for Federal purposes shall, unless otherwise allotted in the 

Appropriation Act making them available, be allotted by the President to the following 

purposes and subpurposes ... " It goes on to list the guidance on acquisition of land, waters, 

or interests in land or waters for which the President may use the funds. Congress 

appropriates funds for other purposes based on the part that is in italics. 

Funds used for related purposes have gone towards the following: 

• BLM: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PIL T), Maintenance 

• FS: Forest Legacy, road rehabilitation and maintenance, State and Private Forestry 

Programs 

• FWS: State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, Cooperative Endangered Species 

Conservation Fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Fund, Deferred 

Maintenance, Landowner Incentive Program, Private Stewardship Grants 

• NPS: Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), Historic 

Preservation Fund, Elwha Ecosystem Restoration, Deferred Maintenance 

Some funds have also gone to USGS and Bureau ofindian Affairs for non-acquisition 

purposes. The total amount that has gone towards other purposes is approximately $2.1 

billion. Funds were appropriated for other purposes in FY1998, FY2000, and every year 

smce. 

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GO MESA) designates 12.5 percent of 

revenues associated with certain Outer Continental Shelf leases in the Gulf of Mexico are 

directed to the LWCF stateside program. These funds are automatically available and do 

not require any action by Congress to appropriate them. Congress can appropriate 

additional funds to the stateside program if it wants to. GOMESA revenues are divided into 

two phases. Phase I (FY2009-FY2016) includes qualified revenue from leases issued in 

5 
26 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95271.015

two small geographic areas within the Gulf of Mexico Program Area. Phase II includes 

qualified revenues from the majority of existing leases issued since December 20, 2006, in 

the Gulf of Mexico Program Area and any future leases issued there. Phase II will begin in 

2017 with funds disbursed to the LWCF the following year in 2018. Revenues under Phase 

II are expected to be much higher; however, the combined amount designated to the LWCF 

stateside program and the Gulf States is currently capped at $500 million through 

FY2055. The most that the LWCF stateside program could receive is 12.5% of revenues 

from Phase I plus a maximum of $125 million from Phase II revenues beginning in 

FY2018. 

Restoring the state share consistent with the original intent of the legislation would mean of 

course millions more spent on close to home recreation on the priority projects 

determined by state agencies, in a transparent process, who know best what local 

constituents want and need in terms of outdoor recreation. It is estimated that 

dedicating 60% offunds to the state assistance program would more than triple the funds 

available to local communities under the status quo. Ensuring state-controlled planning 

(SCORP) that includes mandated federal agency participation is critical moving forward. 

Providing flexibility to State Liaison Officers for LWCF stateside funds to include 

renovation, restoration & stewardship oflands for outdoor recreation is an important 

component of the act. Additionally, NASPD and NRPA are committed to addressing the 

increasing urban needs that have arisen over the years. The state representatives know and 

understand the needs within their respective jurisdictions. 

We all recognize the current limitations on the Federal budget. But every member of 

Congress can agree that the dollars invested through the LWCF State Assistance 

Program for local projects like parks, ball fields, pools, and playgrounds which 

preserve those spaces in perpetuity are very worthy investments in the future health 

and well-being of America. Open space, greenways and trails are vital to the quality 

of life in communities. As new initiatives like the "Every Kid in a Park" targeting fourth 

grade students to get in a safe outdoors park emerge, so should the ability to provide 

accessible and walkable green space. The health benefits are undeniable and new studies 

continue to evolve on how important unstructured outdoor play is to all citizens. The 

economic benefits of the construction of these projects should not be ignored. 

LWCF State Assistance Program funds have been objectively and effectively administered. 

Over two-thirds ofLWCF State Assistance projects have been awarded to over 10,800 

municipal, county and Territorial public agencies including Native American communities. 

And nearly a third has been used to acquire and/or develop America's State Parks. LWCF 

State Assistance has been essential in creating the building blocks of State and local park 

systems. Assisted sites provide conservation and recreation access for citizens of all ages 

and abilities. LWCF is brilliant in that it is a public policy that encourages truly long-term 

investment and fiduciary stewardship. 

In summary, the State Assistance Program, which was founded as a core priority program 

at the time of the LWCF's creation, has been especially neglected over the last two 

decades. 

6 
27 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95271.016

It's a fact that State Assistance has been the victim of the major changes to the LWCF Act 

to not only change the mandatory allocations, but also add new and loosely defined "related 

purposes" as eligible uses for LWCF dollars. These "related purposes" or new programs 

were added to the law in 1997. While certainly serving worthwhile goals, these additional 

accounts have effectively squeezed the State Assistance allocation down to no more than 

12% to 13% of total LWCF appropriations since 1998. 

This has lead the State Assistance Program again, a core tenant and justification for the 

very creation of the LWCF 50 years ago to receive an average annual appropriation of 

about $35 million since 2006, while these "other purposes" have averaged $120 million 

annually for the same period. That is $35 million intended to address critical conservation 

and outdoor recreation needs in all 50 states and six territories. 

All this as state and local agencies must comply with important conditions such as the 

dollar-for-dollar match and 6(f), which we do because we understand that those are part of 

what makes the State Assistance Program successful. Consider, however, the example of 

Alaska, which has received an average of only about $375,000 in State Assistance 

apportionment each year since 2000 to address its many state parks and local parks 

departments. 

Therefore, it's simple to understand how many states- having seen their funding so 

severely diminished while still required to match their grants dollar-for-dollar AND 

maintain and protect these sites for public recreation use in perpetuity have begun to 

question the program's return-on-investment (ROI), let alone the return-on-objective 

(ROO) which is to address the critical close-to-home conservation and outdoor recreation 

priorities in their communities. 

While not every community has a national park, every community has local outdoor 

recreation resources. These parks are used by people of all ethnic groups, all income levels 

and all ages on a daily basis throughout the year! 

The State Assistance Program: 

• Provides healthy outdoor recreation areas and facilities close to home 

• Doubles the impact of the federal grant; many grants are matched significantly 

more than the required dollar-for-dollar 

• Stimulates strong support and involvement from the local citizens 

• Allows for the ongoing upgrade and renovation of existing facilities 

• Provides ready access to healthy options to address the national priority for 

improving the activity level of children and adults 

• Addresses the needs of providing new and improved areas in metropolitan areas to 

address urban growth and redevelopment 

• Provides economic stimulus through active outdoor recreation that contributes 

$646 billion annually to the economy, support 6.1 million jobs, and generates $40 

billion in tax revenue 

• Makes our communities and cities attractive places for industry and professional 

job growth. 

7 
28 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95271.017

The National Association of State Park Directors, therefore supports: 

• Reauthorization ofLWCF with full and dedicated funding, including the original 

allocation of up to 60% allocation for matching grants through the State Assistance 

Program 

• The ongoing use of state and local grants to use all or part of LWCF stateside funds 

for renovation, restoration & stewardship of lands and outdoor recreation areas and 

facilities 

• Relaxation or elimination of some of the state's 6(f) conversion obligation 

especially for smaller projects 

• The elimination of 6(f) responsibilities of the states, if adequate funding is 

unavailable, as it then becomes an unfunded mandate placed upon the state 

• A formula that fairly dedicates stateside funds within each state's allocation based 

on the relative percentage of citizens living in metropolitan statistical areas and 

rural areas. For example, if33% of a state's citizens live in MSAs, then the SLO 

would be mandated to award 33% of funds to projects serving an MSA. 

In 1965 the US population was 194 million. The US Census agency projects the 

population to reach 321 million this year. State and local outdoor recreation opportunities 

must grow to keep pace with a growing population and shifting demographics. 

Reauthorization ofLWCF, with balanced and equitable funding of the State Assistance 

allocation, will have great impact today, and for future generations, in meeting the purposes 

of the original Act. Thank you for your consideration. 

Madam Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the committee, 

thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. We appreciate your 

consideration and support for America's state parks -the largest chain of well ness 

centers and economic drivers on the planet! Thank you. 

References: 

CRS Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History. and Issues 

Outdoor Industry Associatiou, 2012 

National Association of State Park Directors. 2013 

NASPD. Statistical Report of State Park Operations: 2013-2104, NCSU-PRTM 

Attachments: 

NRPA LWCF State Assistance Program Fact Sheet. 2015, l page 

NRPA State Sheets 2014,50 pages 

NASPD Inventory, Total State Park Areas and Total Trails, l page 

NASPD Inventory, Total State Park Visitation, I page 

8 
29 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95271.018

Support the reauthorization of the L WCF, induding full and permanent funding< 

Protect the Interests of states and local communities 

Assistance Program of no Jess than 40% guaranteed 

recreation, This is the same amount required by taw to be a !located to the lWCF federal land acquisition program. 

!n absence of authorizing legislation, exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40 percent of 

the total l.WCF funding in FY16 to the State Assistance Program, with a dedicated amount being provided to the 

"Outdoor Recreation Legacy Program" competitive grant initiative. 

In 1965, the land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was 

the health of U.S. citizens. 

Congress creatBd LWCF to meet the nation's growing need for 

access to close-to-home outdoor recreation, The money for the 

environmental impacts associated with resource extract ton by 

ensuring that new parks and opel, spaces are accessible to all 

Americans. 

Lasting Impact on Local Economie.<> and Quality of Life 

The LWCF State Assistance Program requires states and local 

communities to match the federal investment dollar-for-dollar. 

Since 1965, the LWCF State Assistance Program has: 

Provided over $4 billiort to states, territories and local 

commumties. Combtned with the local match, LWCF 

State Assistance funds have yielded a totalmvestment of 

more than $3 billion. 

Funded more than 42,000 local and st<1te projects in 

every county in America. 

That Continued lmpm:t is At-Risk 

LWCF funding to statBs and locai communities has 

steadily declined from $376 million in 1979 to $45 mH!Jon 

In FY14. 

From 1965-1976,60 percent of LWCF appropriations 

went to the State Assistance Program, 

Since 1988, only 13 percent of LWCF appropriations hav~e 

gone to the State Assistance Program. 

Creating Jobs and Stimulating the Economy 

The outdoor ri!creation industry is one of the nation's most 

important economic drivers. 

The LWCF State As51Stam::e Program stimulates active 

outdoor recreation, which contributes $646 billion 

annually to the economy, supporting 6.1 million jobs, as 

Americans spend more annually on bicycling gear and 

trips ($81 billion) than they do on airplane tickets and 

fees {$51 billion). L 

20 new jobs are created for every $1 miilion Invested in 

park and recr<:>ation conservation projects such as those 

funded through LWCF State Assfstance.1 

The 725 million annual visits to America's state park 

Every State and Territory Annually Receives Funding 

States do not have to compete against other states for funding< 

Each year, a set percentage of LWCFState Assistance funding is 

equally distributed to the states and territories. Remaining 

funds are then aliocated based on population. 
30 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95271.019

Avaifobf~ T<:~ ond Us~d By E'vttry Amttrkon 

While not evttrV C<lmmw,lty has a 1'\3\IOn*l P31tk. ilNC(y 

community hiJS local outdoor recreational resources. These 

parks are used by people of an ethnic groups, all income le\'eb 

and all 'ees on a daily basis throue,hout 1he v&ar. LWCF StCit~ 

Assjstan~e funding ensures dos~tG-I'lome pub!k recreation 

r~:>sour«S \Vith parh and projectsloeated in every countY in 

Amtric;~ . 

Wl$e Ust of Fed~ral Fund~ With No D~fklt mpo~t 

• lWCF is budget neutrat having: been authorized with a 

d•dicated fur'!dfng source of Outer Contifl~nta iSt;~ t (OCS) 

offshore oi1.and gas le3sins revenues for nearly five 

dec<~ des. 

NOTE: OCS N!Vtnue.s jot 101.3 (1/()1)~ tOtOifd $9 Sll.UON 

• Statf'S and localities are required to match federal funds 

doiiM·for·doUar. This dC>t1bl~ the inv~ mtnt in .state and 

local park and recreation projects, the;eby creating more 

jobs. 

• land used for LWCF Stofq A.uistanu projects must remain 

m Je<:reat;on.:.l..ne in perpetuity. This ~ns~.JrQS that th• 

federal. state and lo~a l investmel\ts remain avai!abie for 

future genefations of Americans. 

l Sour<:e: Outdoor ln du~try Association lOll 

'Pol,tl<:al Ec-onomy fte<>earth IMtttute Ullivetsltyof MA 1 N.1tion.11 AS'S«i.tiiQtl Qf Stnt\" P~rk Oift(fOf$ 

• • lo J.Yl~ th~ fin;~ I con rc:"'c: ~pprop atiom; bill pto'lldtd $4S 

mlilion fOf tM lWCf SUite Aui~tai'ICe p10f1tam. Howt"vt-r, an 

across the board g.owr~~Ment fuodu\g f:l.lt •tsulted •n chat numb.er 

btoillS. ' u¢~ to $4tll$,000 whkh is the &mount •PPOJtiOnt d 

to tat~. 

•••tn f't'l 4 lWC$Statq Assht.ance funding totall.'d S4Sm . .... hk h 

included $4.2m In Otmul.aQ<~nt~ tothe$tate~ and $3m in 

"'CO"'Jlt'titlve-• gfJnt$. 

~ 

~A National Recreation 

andParkAssociation Advocacy@nrpa.org 1 800.626.NRPA 1 www.nrpa.org/Advocacy 
31 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95271.020

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

acquisition program. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

Am<ulnt >Pr•g:: ·... . ...... ..:7 

I m2 $45 million* $659,868 $2,025,000 

lm'l $39.9 million** $625,353 $1,927,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mi!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. sm.rce. www.doi.gov/budget/upload/LWCFRFCE/PTS~·fs 

Phil Campbell Splash Pad Project 

Every Child's Playground 

Town of Phil Campbell 

City of Guntersville 

City of Troy 

8/29/2012 

3/26/2012 

8/31/2012 

$149,100 

$50,000 

$50,000 
32 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95271.021

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a!Jocation . 

··.· •.. ., ...... '"'~·~· ...;~., •"• •"• _,. .. · .. 1 w12 $45 million* $381,919 $1,170,000 

1 'f)'1a $39.9 million** $361,943 $1,109,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322,5 million in FY12 and $305A million in FY13. Source: www.doi.gov/budget/up!oud/LWCFRFCEIPTS.xls 

Skater's Lake Park Metlakatla !nd!an Community 

Alaska Division of Parks 

City of Seldovia 

4/6/2011 

7/25/2011 

4/6/2011 

$98,280 

$172,133 

$98,280 
33 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95271.022

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCf 

Program. 

AU data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

:" . •. Stabi •ll.,..tion 

.·. "' 

lrm $45 million* $838,710 $2,576,000 

1 !'lis $39.9 million** $794,841 $2,538,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322,5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source: www.doi.gov/Di!dgetfupload/LV1lCFRECEIPTS.xfs 

Slide Rock State Park Improvements 

Eagar Sports Compiex 

Pinetop-Lakeside Multi-Use Facility Lighting 

Arizona State Parks 

Town of Eagar 

Town of Pinetop/Lakeside 

However, an across the board government fundmg cut 

3/13/2008 

3/13/2008 

4/25/2007 

$174,071 

$148,995 

$155,000 
34 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95271.023

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including fuJI and dedicated funding. 

AH data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

$231,716,346 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

;l'rog~!• ... . .. , . .,, .·· 

'"" I FU2 $45 million* $525,907 $1,613,000 

I !'Y:u $39.9 million** $498,399 $1,537,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mi!!lon in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. source. www.do!.gov/bwdget/wploodfi !!JCFRECE/PTS.~·fs 

Delta Heritage Trail 

Monticello Multi-Park Development 

Pine Bluff Park Improvements 

Arkansas State Parks 

City of Monticello 

City of Pine Bluff 

HowFver, an across the board government funding cut 

9/18/2013 

5/2/2012 

7/31/2012 

$398,228 

$128,442 

$258,959 
35 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95271.024

,. Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, indudtng full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program, 

AU data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

"" ...... rPrograin·. 

. .:~ :;: "' I m2 $45 million* $3,603,254 $11,089,000 

1 r/13 $39.9 million** $3,414,784 $10,443,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 minion m FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. somce. www.doi.gov/DI;dge/upload/LWCFRECEIPTS.xl,; 

Live Oak Park Amphitheater 

Brerrtvvood Park Development 

Griffith Recreation Center Development 

San Diego County 

City of Costa Mesa 

City of Los Angeles 

5/16/2012 

5/16/2012 

9/18/2002 

$214,000 

$294,250 

$389,614 
36 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95271.025

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at least 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

... .... :·'.'' p,~;;:;;; ·Sial,.lloo~!ion _,,,, ~~.: ' 

lm:t $45 million* $734,450 $2,255,000 

I Fna $39.9 million** $696,034 $2,175,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 minion in FY12 and $305A million in FY13. sm_,ne. www.doi.gov/hwag<>t/lipload/tWCFRECFIPTS.xi> 

Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road 

Cottonwood Creek Trail- Safe Passage 

City of Fort Co !!ins 

City of Colorado Springs 

State of Colorado 

8/15/2012 

9/14/2011 

9/14/2011 

$258,320 

$222,713 

$547,565 
37 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95271.026

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, induding full and dedicated funding. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

... .... ~ .. •Pro~::~• 

i"m $45 million* $640,008 $1,965,000 

1 F-its $39.9 million** $606,532 $1,832,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $3225 mil! ion in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. Souru;. www.doi.gov/b(!dget/wp!oad/LWCFRECF/PTS.xls 

Howe11er, an across the board government funding cut 
38 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95271.027

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, induding full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

LWCF 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

AlJloon!A!ll>fcprlatod to tho ... .... •"• State Assistance Program 

I· f\'12 $45 million* $401,465 $1,230,000 

lms $39.9 million** $380,466 $1,172,000 

LWCF appropriations tot<JIIed $322,5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. Somrr: www.dm.gov/hwJget/up!ood/tWCFRfCE!PTS.;.:b 

Cape Hen!open State Park- Primitive Cabins DNREC- Division of Parks and Recreation 

DNREC- Division of Parks and Recreation 

DNREC- Division of Parks and Recreation 

3/29/2012 

9/8/2009 

9/9/2008 

$300,000 

$100,000 
39 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95271.028

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

>IM W!l•t•!JIIo w<>ulli havo 

ro••lw<l wlib 40'~ •llocalkm 

1 F\'12 $45 million* $1,878,632 $5,777,000 

1 F\'13 $39.9 million** $1,780,369 $5,642,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Sourr:e. www.dm.gov/hudqet/upload/LWCFRECE/PTS.xf> 

SlmsPark 

Sanford Marina Day Boat Slips 

Mobbly Bayou Wilderness Preserve 

Clty of NRE Port Richey 

City of Sanford 

Clty of Oldsmar 

8/23/2012 

5/10/2012 

3/26/2012 

$200,000 

$200,000 

$150,000 
40 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95271.029

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, inc!uding full and dedicated funding. 

local 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

'fqialnumbe~ of Projeet~ 

lun~od.ln s!alelly LWCFS!ale, "'" ............... ,, -~~· , <t>l< UD'llot OlliiG , 

A.sisllmoo 1965-2013 

1,007 $83,419,866 $123,000,000 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

1 1'\'12 

I F(13 

City Park Playground 

Wills Park~City Pool 

,AI)l(>llillc,'. 

>Program 

$45 million* 

$39.9 million** 

City Pond Park-Miracle League Complex 

City of Maysville 

City of Alpharetta 

City of Covington 

', 

$1,045,953 

$991,244 

$3,213,000 

$3,146,000 

8/30/2012 

8/22/2012 

8/21/2012 

$52,500 

$105,000 

$105,000 
41 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95271.030

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation . 

~·· ,;,;,., 'Program ~ .. ~lin ••• . ··. .... IF.Ytt $45 million* $446,693 $1,369,000 

1 rtu $39.9 million** $423,329 $1,299,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rnil!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. SOt,~ce· www.dm.gov/budget/uplood/LWCFRFCFIPTS.xfs 

Ala Wa1 Community Park, Oahu 

Hap una 8-each State- Recreation Area 

Pana'ewa Rainforest Zoo and Gardens 

City and County of Honolulu 

Department of Land & Natural Resources 

County of Hawaii 

9/9/2011 

9/S/2010 

9/8/2010 

$518,656 

$100,000 

$290,000 
42 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95271.031

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

, ... Sl•lliallo .. !ion ~ .... •rt• , P!ogr;mt :;:,;, ... "" I f(12 $45 million* $441,329 $1,353,000 

I FY1S $39.9 million** $418,245 $1,302,000 

LWCF appropriations totaHed $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. soune: www.do!,gov/hudgt>t/l;pload/LWCFRECEJPTS.xi5 

Memorial Playground 

American Falls Skate Park 

Majestic Park Development 

City of Barcroft 

City of American Falls 

Citv of Rathdrum 

11owever, on across the boord government Juflding cut 

9/20/2013 

4/5/2012 

2/7/2012 

$40,000 

$82,250 

$117,927 
43 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95271.032

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCf, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

Amrumf, >Prog:!" Sta!O allototlon "" ..... ~., 

1m? $45 million* $1,451,699 $4,464,000 

I FYU $39,9 million** $1,375,767 $4,105,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305-4 million in FY13. Source: www.(lm.gov/m.<dget/up!ood/I.WCFRECEIPTS.xis 

Mossville Soccer Complex 

The Grove Addition 

Wise Ridge State Natural Area 

Peoria Park District 

Glenview Park District 

!l!inois Department of Natural Resources 

However, an across the board govcmmer>t funding cut 

8/18/2012 

8/25/2011 

7/23/2009 

$393,700 

$750,000 

$476,026 
44 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95271.033

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including ful! and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

$2,398,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. sourre· www.d('l gov/budg(>tjupload/IWCFRECEIPT5.~·1s 

Robe Ann Park 

Riverside Garden Park 

Archbold Wilson Memorial Park 

City of Greencastle 

Leo~Cedarville Park Board 

Ossian Park Board 

9/13/2013 

4/18/2012 

4/9/2012 

$200,000 

$199,550 

$137,058 
45 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95271.034

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a!tocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AU data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

Amrnml. .... ~,;.,;. ........ Whatslate'1!V<lulliha\le .,, r~~eived wilh 49% allocation 

I .m2 $45 million* $552,351 $1,694,000 

I FY13 $39.9 million** $523,460 $1,598,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13, sowce. www.doi.gov/bildgc:t/i;p!oad/LWURECE!PrS.x!s 

E. B. Lyons Interpretive Area 

Pool Renovation 

Bigelow Park Improvement 

City of Dubuque 

CityofPostvi!le 

Woodbury County 

9/13/2013 

12/8/2011 

9/8/2010 

$175,000 

$75,000 

$179,427 
46 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95271.035

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

$523,366,800 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

$1,693,000 

$1,599,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source. www.do!.gov/budget/upioaJ/LVYCFRECEIPTS.:(/:;; 

43rd Avenue Park 

Hillsdale State Park Campground 

Perry State Park Improvements 

City of Hutchinson 

Department of Wildlife and Ptlrks 

Department of Wildlife & Parks 

9/16/2013 

9/16/2013 

9/15/2009 

$200,000 

$253,236 

$170.000 
47 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95271.036

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program< 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how thf: state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

~.~ ..... '"'"'g;; 1m2 $45 million* $630,368 $1,934,000 

I ma $39.9 million** $597,396 $1,833,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305,4 million in f.Y13, Sour(e. www.dm.gov/budgetjup!oad/LWCFRECE!PTS.xls 

Pikeville Bob Amos Park Horse Riding Area 

Calvert City Country Club Tennis Court 

Lake Reba Handicap Accessible Playground 

City of Pikeville 

CityofCa!vertCitv 

City of Richmond 

8/7/2012 

7/18/2012 

3/12/2012 

$60,000 

$50,000 

$50,000 
48 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95271.037

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the totall.WCF 

Program. 

A!! data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source: www.dm.gov/bwig(>tjup!ood/LWCFRFCEIPTS.x!,; 

Lamendola Dog Park 

William T. Polk City Park 

Cassidy Spray Park and Canoe Launch 

Clty of Gonzales 

CltyofVldalia 

City of Bogalusa 

However, an across the board government funding mt 

8/9/2012 

8/9/2012 

8/27/2012 

$200,000 

$200,000 

$200,000 
49 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95271.038

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCf, including ful! and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a Hecate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location . 

. ~;:!: .. What Mat. would na"" 

"'' ...... ree¢i~ with 40% allocatkm · 

I m~ $45 million* $412,512 $1,264,000 

I ms $39.9 million** $390,935 $1,188,000 

lWCF appropriations tota!ted $322,5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Sourre: www.do!guv/budget/l;p!ood/LWCFRFCFIPTS.xfs 

Colonial Pemaquid Pier Restoration Project 

Standish Johnson Park Playground Project 

State of Maine, Bureau of Parks and lands 

State of Maine. Bureau of Parks and lands 

Town of Standish 

However, an across the board govtmment funding cut 

7/13/2012 

7/12/2012 

5/24/2012 

$59,141 

$107,530 

$27,966 
50 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95271.039

,. Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

·".':::?~' state anocation What s.lale WOQ!d n•va 

·.·.· ,..,., .... with 40% allo•allon 

I m~ $45 million* $815,659 $2,505,000 

1 F'£13 $39.9 million** $772,996 $2,363,000 

LWCF appropriations totaHed $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 rni!lion in FY13. Source. www.do!.gov/budget/up!oori/tWCFRECEIPTS.xl> 

Newtowne Neck State Park 

Spriggs Farm on the Magothv River 

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad SP 

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 

However, an across the board qovemment fu!'ding cut 

9/13/201] 

9/8/2010 

9/9/2009 

$400,000 

$700,000 

$1,191,312 
51 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95271.040

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the Impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

LWCF appropriations totalled $3225 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. sm,m;· www.dol.gov/budget/wpload/LWCFRFCE/PTS.Kfs 

Goodwill Park Playground 

Fisher Hill Reservoir Park 

Community Field 

Town of Holliston 

Town of Brookline 

Clty of Holyoke 

However, an across the board government funding cut 

4/11/2011 

9/9/2010 

9/9/2010 

$111,587 

$500,000 

$500,000 
52 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95271.041

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding, 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the Impact to the state through a 40% a !location . 

lib<!. • •• .. :, .•. ' ;;: '"'"ll"'"' I FY12 $45 million* $1,139,797 $3,503,000 

1 rna $39.9 million** $1,080,179 $3,183,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mi!!ion in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13, Source, www.rioi,gov/twdget/wpload/LWCFRFCEIPTS.xl:> 

Bayfront Phase 1: Clinch Park Beach 

Crawford County Sports Complex 

Township Park Multi-Purpose Pavll!on 

City of Traverse City 

Crawford County 

Township of Plymouth 

7/18/2012 

6/8/2012 

6/8/2012 

$113,550 

$113,550 

$113,550 
53 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95271.042

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

AtricuntAppropriat-edto.t:he. What stal< would h•ve 

Sta!• A••1$1anco Progr""' , ',,' roto!illd wllb4!l% allomilk>n 

1 F\'12 $45 million* $737,644 $2,264,000 

I rm $39.9 million** $699,061 $2,142,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 minion in FY12 and $305A million in f.Y13. >ouru www.dm.gov/iHidget/uploo<l/LWCFRECEIPTS.xl> 

Forestville State Park 

Memorial Park 

Stan Holmass Memorial Park 

Department of Natural Resources 

Douglas County 

Citv of Newfolden 

7/9/2012 

1/17/2012 

1/17/2012 

$489,662 

$50,000 

$58,000 
54 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95271.043

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including fuB and dedicated funding. 

local 

LWCF 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

••••• I !'log;:~~ 

I FY12 $45 million* $527,054 $1,616,000 

[rna $39.9 million** $499,486 $1,518,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rni!!ion in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. sm,ne. www.do!.g(!li/bwdget/l•plnad/! wcrRECE!PTS.xi> 

Roosevelt State Park~ Water Park 

Great RivE>r Road Day Use Area 

Tishomingo State Park- Swimming Pool 

Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks 

Dept. of Wildlife, flshE>ries & Parks 

Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks 

3/29/2012 

8/27/2012 

12/17/2008 

$505,170 

$150,000 

$415,000 
55 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95271.044

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program, 

AU data provided by National Park Service {NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% aHocation. 

~h ,.,!!~.111~ . ~··"'·'·· ''"' . ; Wh~hlala would haw 

.... recoiv•d wtlh40% allocallcn 

I .FY12: $45 million* $787,059 $2,416,000 

ll'f:ia $39.9 million** $745,892 $2,271,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322,5 million in f.Y12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Sm1ne, www.dm,gov/lwdyet/upload/rWCFRECEIPTSx·fs 

Gerald City Park ADA improvements 

Houston Soccer fields 

Parr Hill Trail Renovation and Extension 

City of Gerald 

City of Houston 

City of Joplin 

8/21/2012 

8/1/2012 

6/18/2012 

$83,334 

$52,500 

$222,253 
56 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95271.045

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

. "'•'• •Program stale alloi>ation . ·-" 

1 P/iz $45rnillion* $397,434 $1,218,000 

1 f'lu $39.9 million** $376,646 $1,154,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Sour(e. www.dol.gov/lnldgf't/uplnad/t.WCFRECEIPTS.xls 

Shelby Splash Park City of Shelby 

Whitehall School District 

Mount Ascension Natural Park Expansion City of Helena 

8/23/2012 

8/23/2012 

8/23/2012 

$91,200 

$91,200 

$91,200 
57 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95271.046

;oo Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation . 

~:":"" ..... ., ' l>rog:.~· .. ~.. •""'~"' '• 

I .. m2 $45 million* $470,250 

1m3 $39.9 million** $445,653 

Cambridge Splash Pad City of Cambridge 

Spoilsman's Park Village of Johnson 

Ceresco Playground Improvements-Ceresco Village of Ceresco 

..... 

$1,442,000 

$1,366,000 

www.dm govjb(idgetjwpload/LWCFRECE!PTS.x/-, 

However, an across the board government {uflding cut 

8/7/2012 

8/1/2012 

5/21/2012 

$62,500 

$112,004 

$94,134 
58 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95271.047

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

$1,643,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source: www.d01 gov/budget/uplood/lWCFRECEIPTS.xl$ 

Wildhorse SRA Campground Renovation 

Mogul Park Playgmund Resurface 

In· Town Skate Park Refurbish 

Nevada Division of State Parks 

Washoe County 

City of Fernley 

7/31/2012 

2/6/2012 

1/24/2012 

$150,000 

$86,750 

$42,450 
59 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95271.048

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AJJ data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

stato. sl<!re~llo.,.tio!l Whahtal• would ha,.. . .·· 

""~'""'· fecetvedWitll·40% atlocatkln 

1 tuz $45 million* $424,156 $1,300,000 

I ma $39.9 million** $401,970 $1,228,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Sourre· www.d01 gov/i)udyet/upload/LtYCFRECEIPTS.xls 

Town of Belmont Pavilion and Riverwalk 

Newfound Pathway 

Caroenter Park Recreational Enhancement 

Town of Belmont 

Town of Hebron 

Town of Chichester 

6/20/2012 

3/16/2012 

1/31/2012 

$99,944 

$112,070 

$110.590 
60 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95271.049

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including ful! and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

~~~~·l•.l•t•WQtl!d ~ ... 

received With 40% allocation 

$3,456,000 

$3,193,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rni!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. source: www.dot,gov/budget/t•pload/t.WCFRFCF!PTS.xf" 
61 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95271.050

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

AioountApproprl~le<ltolhe ¢h """"""· State Assistance Progra!f! 

t.I'Yit $45 million* 

I FVis $39.9 million** 

Oasis State Park Development 

BluewatN Lake State Park Development 

Pancho Villa State Park Development 

$489,038 

$463,459 

New Mexlco State Parks 

New Mexico State Parks 

New Mexico State Parks 

What state Wt)l)ld have. 

received With 40% allocation 

$1,500,000 

$1,430,000 

7/23/2012 

7/23/2012 

7/23/2012 

$175,000 

$400,000 

$175,000 
62 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95271.051

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including ful! and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a!Jocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

The chart below shows ho~;v the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

AmountAP\1fopnotollte·iho «•*"•"• ,,iN, W~•hla!e W<lUid have 

Slate AsslslonllllP!ogram rece.lved with40*k allocation 

1 ~.12 $45 million* $2,030,805 $6,247,000 

I mil $39.9 million** $1,924,583 $5,693,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. source-. www.dm gmjbur!gt:>t/upload/LWCFRFCFIPTS.x/s 

Sunken Meadow Golf Course Irrigation New York State OPRHP 

Installation of Playground Equipment at 4 Parks New York State OPRHP 

Cher1ango VaHey State Park- Water Systems New York State OPRHP Central Region 

8/31/2012 

7/26/2012 

9/9/2011 

$1,200,000 

$60,000 

$525,000 
63 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95271.052

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation . 

[rm 

[rm 

Research Triangle Park 

Neighborhood Park 

... 

Burt Gillette Athletic Complex 

... .... 1P1ogram· 

$45 million* 

$39.9 million** 

Town of Morrisville 

Town of Castalia 

City of Wilson 

... , .~ ... $983,747 

$932,292 

:c:,, 

$3,020,000 

$2,988,000 

www.d01 gov/bwdget/upload/LWCfRECE/PT'>.xl~ 

9/13/2013 

9/13/2013 

1/16/2008 

$200,000 

$200,000 

$100,000 
64 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95271.053

., Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!! data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

'~~~~~a~•· .· ~ .. ·"···~· 

1.P112 $45 million* $377,509 $1,156,000 

I FYU $39.9 million** $357,763 $1,095,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source-: www.doi.gov/Dudget/up!ood/rWCFRECEIPTS.xls 

Bismarck Lions Park Playground Renovation 

Beulah Central Park Playground Renovat\on 

State of North Dakota 

BismarckParkDlstrict 

Beulah Park District 

7/27/2012 

1/5/2012 

1/5/2012 

$316,680 

$35,362 

$26,445 
65 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95271.054

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

Winesburg Park 

Hiram School Park 

Elyria Township 

Paint Townsf!!p Trustees 

Village of Hiram 

7/16/2012 

3/30/2012 

3/21/2012 

$71,696 

$54,320 

$75,250 
66 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95271.055

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

''"· ' SjO!t>~llqcaflon ... ~ ...... >Program· 

I m2 $45 million* $606,648 $1,861,000 

I F'!13 $39,9 million** $574,917 $1,758,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 minion in FY12 and $305,4 ml!lion in FY13. source. www.do!.guv/b(idgJ?t/up!uad/lWCrRECEIPT$.xl:s 

Sunrise Park Splashpad 

Hennessey Park & Aqtlatk Center~ Phase I 

Collinsville City Park 

City of Yukon 

Town of Hennessey 

City of Collinsville 

8/28/2012 

8/13/2012 

8/13/2012 

$107,200 

$390,709 

$132,303 
67 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95271.056

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

·•""'""'' Slll!ea!l<>llo~on .·· w~alstal•·woilld ha,. State~ni<b ,., ... ~. receiVed with 40% aUocatron 

I F\'12 $45 million* $634,155 $1,946,000 

I rm $39.9 million** $600,985 $1,857,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $3225 mi!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Somce-: www.do!.gov/twJget/up!wd/!WCFRFCFIPTS,xls 

Pioneer Park Development City of Silverton 

Oregon Parks and Recreation 

Lake Ewauna Trail- Phase 2 City of Klamath Fa I! and Klamath County 

3/30/2012 

7/24/2012 

8/24/2011 

$140,888 

$414,808 

$72,516 
68 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95271.057

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the totallWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

~ ......... >Ping;:;,• ·.·· .. ·· ··. -"· 

I FY12 $45 million* $1,366,663 $4,201,000 

I w~a $39.9 million** $1,295,179 $3,893,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $3225 mi!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Soune. www.rlo,,gm/budget/liploo(l/IWCFRECFIPTS.xls 

Altoona Cty- Juniata Memorial Spray Park 

York City- Penn Park Phase i 

Altoona City 

York City 

Brentwood Borough 

8/28/2012 

8/28/2012 

9/1/2011 

$318,500 

$265,000 

$838,000 
69 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95271.058

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AU data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location . 

~ .... ,p,"gram St•te atloo•ll•• .·. . Wiiat state.W<Juld haY!l 

''" .... reeaiveilwt1:i140.% allocation 

I .mz $45 million* $425,690 $1,305,000 

1 ma $39.9 million** $403,424 $1,220,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rni!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. SmHu;;: www.doi gov/burlget/wplood/LWCFRFCEIPTS.xl> 

However, on across the board qovemmentfunding cut 

East Matunuck State Beach $727,845 

Ponagansett River Greenway $281,280 
70 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95271.059

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

AU data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

2!)1;? llnm•t Need 

$220,000,000 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

A!ll!lnul Awropnata<t.t• !be .·. Wba!slote lllllul<l.haVI! 

SmloAs•l•lanca Pflll!t'!ffi > .. re~et~. witb40% anoelttiori 

I rn~ $45 million* $651,500 $1,999,000 

I rm $39.9 million** $617,423 $1,944,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. sm,rce: www.fioi,gov/n:.,dget/up!ooa/LWCFRECEIPTS.xfs 

McCleod Plantation Park 

Riverview Park Adaptive Playground 

Givhans Ferry Stae Park River Access 

City of North Augusta 9/4/2012 

SC Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism 9/4/2012 

$250,000 

$100,000 

$150,000 
71 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95271.060

" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

.,_ '!It• : ·. .. .. :. :.: •Program · .. 

1 it12 $45 million* $385,024 $1,179,000 

lm~ $39.9 million** $364,885 $1,121,000 

LWCF appropriations totaHed $322.5 million in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. sow:e. www.dm.gov/b:.;clgd/uplow:I/LWCFRECEIPTS.x!> 

Starline Park Project 

Blood Run Road/Comfort Station 

City of Sturgis 

State of South Dakota 

City of Madison 

~lowever, on acros> the board government {uflding cut 

9/12/2013 

7/24/2012 

12/15/2010 

$29,486 

$179,096 

$46,376 
72 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95271.061

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedfcated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

~tat .. u~ootion Whohtot• Wllold lla"' 

!l'rogt'llll received. with 40%. allocation 

I FV1il $45 million* $786,939 $2,416,000 

1 ma $39.9 million** $745,778 $2,312,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $3225 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13, Souruc· www.d('l govjb(lrlgtCt/upivod/!WCFRECEIPT5.~·1s 

Pickwick Landing State Park Playground 

T.O. Fuller State Park- Nature Center 

Tennessee State Parks 

Tennessee State Parks 

iennessee State Parks 

9/18/2013 

8/30/2012 

8/31/2011 

$59,866 

$36,610 

$466.527 
73 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95271.062

,. Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program, This is the same amount required by law to be 

LWCF 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

>Progranj Sllll!>allocoll<>ll 

t F'/12 $45 million* $2,297,113 $7,063,000 

I FilS $39.9 million** $2,176,962 $6,987,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. source: www.do1 gov/btldget/uplood/LWCFRECFIPTS.xls 

Rotary Park 

Shady lane Park 

CltyofFortWorth 

City of Houston 

Wi!lacyCounty 

9/17/2013 

9/17/2013 

9/1/2011 

$:110,000 

$220,000 

$500,000 
74 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95271.063

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

A!l data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation . 

. <toh ........ ,p,.g:!· ... ......... _,;., 

I F\'12 $45 million* $551M2 $1,690,000 

I ms $39.9 million** $522,220 $1,645,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rni!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 ml!lion in FY13. Soura:. www.do!.gov/budget/up!oad/LWCFRFCEIPTS.Kis 

Sky Ridge Park 

Salt Hallow Park 

Fairview City Sports Park 

City of Hurricane 

City of Hvrum 

Fairview City 

7/11/2012 

1/26/2012 

2/15/2011 

$148,117 

$150,000 

$200,379 
75 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95271.064

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program, This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to a !locate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AJJ data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

AmountA:pprol)rlat~ tO the . •· Stateallnll3tion Sllllel\!!sisl~noe Progt.,. ,;,,, "' 

11'1''12 $45 million* $368,626 $1,129,000 

li:m $39.9 million** $349,345 $1,067,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source www.do1 gov/Dtldget/(>piood/tWCFRECEIPTS.xl$ 

Cabin Construction- Three State Parks 

Lyndon Skate Park 

Newark Street Playground 

Town of Lyndon 

Town of Newark 

2/14/2011 

2/10/2011 

$153,638 

$32,220 

$20,000 
76 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95271.065

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

minimum of 40% of 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service \NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

·~···· 

•.lh• ~··"' ........ :::. . """"""· . 1 Pit:~. $45 million* $939,443 $2,885,000 

1 !"11a. $39.9 million** $890,305 $2,770,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. Source-. www.d01 gov/btldgt:>t/uplomi/lWCFRECFIPTS.xls 

Paradise Creek Nature Park 

Sleepy Hole Park Boat Ramp 

Ches.s.ie's Big Backyard at Lee District Park 

Clty of Portsmouth 

CltyofSuffolk 

Fairfax County Park Authority 

9/20/2013 

8/20/2012 

8/15/2012 

$168,550 

$125,000 

$200,000 
77 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95271.066

'" Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, indud!ng full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exerdse discretionary appropriations authority to aHocate at !east 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

AH data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% a !location. 

Amiwnt APJ>rop!foledl~ I~• 

Stato Assl$tilRGe Program "" I ma $45 million* $869,140 $2,669,000 

I ma $39.9 million** $823,679 $2,564,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 million in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. source. www.dt'! gov/bwdget/uptood/~WcrRFCEIPTS.x!5 

Claybell Park Redevelopment 

Shane Park Playground 

Kandle Park Aquatics Facility 

City of Richland 

Clty of Port Angeles 

Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma 

8/6/2012 

8/6/2012 

1/18/2011 

$399,231 

$40,875 

$509,900 
78 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95271.067

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

local communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

Program. This is the same amount required by law to be 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

!a .......... rP!ugram .... I m2 $45 million* $451,386 $1,383,000 

1 Ff13 $39.9 million** $427,776 $1,306,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322,5 mi!!ion in FY12 and $305,4 million in FY13. 5ource: www.do1 gov/bwdgetj(;p!oad/LWCFRFCE!PTS.xls 

Wheeling Park St\fel Playground 

Wterans Memorial Park 

Pool Park Complex 

Wheeling Park Commission 

CityofCiar·ksburg 

Pleasants County Parks & Rec Commission 

9/20/2013 

9/20/2013 

9/20/2013 

$100,000 

$100,000 

$100,000 
79 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95271.068

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation . 

. : "'•"'•"• •"• '·. 

I l'l'iz. $45 million* $762,714 $2,342,000 

1 F¥1s $39.9 million** $722,820 $2,202,000 

lWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 rni!!ion in FY12 and $305.4 million in FY13. Source-: www.dot.gov/bi,dget/up!oadftWCFRECFIPTS.xls 

Abendschein Park Development 

Simmons !stand Park Boardwalk 

City of Oak Creek 

City of Kenosha 

Dept. of Natural Resources 

8/13/2012 

8/3/2012 

6/4/2012 

$202,965 

$250,026 

$250,837 
80 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95271.069

"' Support the reauthorization of the LWCF, including full and dedicated funding. 

communities by requiring a minimum of 40% of 

LWCF State Assistance Program. This is the same amount required by !aw to be 

acquisition program. 

exercise discretionary appropriations authority to allocate at least 40% of the total LWCF 

Program. 

All data provided by National Park Service (NPS) 

The chart below shows how the state has fared in recent years and the impact to the state through a 40% allocation. 

>lho State anO~ation .· .. , ····•· >Program • 

1 F¥i2 $45 million* $371,027 $1,136,000 

l~"~ta $39.9 million** $351,620 $1,077,000 

LWCF appropriations totalled $322.5 mil! ion in FY12 and $305.4 mHiion in FY13. So1,rce. www.dOI.gov/budget/up!oadftWCFRFCEIPTS.xfs 

Undine Park Splash Pad~ Phase 2 

West View Park 

Holliday Park Expansion 

City of Laramie 

City of Moorcroft 

City of Cheyenne 

lfowf'ver, an acros_< the booEd gov<>rnmct>tfunding cbt 

8/24/2012 

8/23/2012 

8/23/2012 

$58,075 

$90,916 

$31,193 
81 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95271.070

:J()[J. 20l.f i-lnlwalln(ormution ExchawN Report 

Table 1: Inventory 

(page 1 of 5) 

Inventory pertains to the real property assets of a slate park system, i.e. the Ymions areas of land and water 

managed directly by the slate parks agency. Inventory is measured in terms of number of areas and total acreage. 

Parks Recreation Areas 

Alaska 48 48 2.998,258 80 80 337,874 49,320 

Arizona 14 14 21,915 686 29,869 

Arkansas 10 10 23,668 19 19 10,295 17,457 

Connecticut 42 42 23,124 48 48 9,812 

Delaware 16 16 20,411 260 13 6 4,917 

Florida 52 56 262.303 34 34 28,133 34 36 369,660 

Idaho 19 19 33,083 4 13,723 

Illinois 44 44 77,523 22 22 62,371 117 117 48,906 

indiana 24 25 63,126 1 700 

Kentucky 17 17 29,997 23 23 '12,427 

Louisiana 29 22 34,124 7,002 

Maine 13 13 28,123 77 62 28,744 17 11 38,820 

Michigan 69 54 184,8'19 236 236 105,816 5 1,339 

Minnesota 66 66 258,007 25,754 

Mississippi 24 24 23,891 700 

Missouri 51 48 143,684 

Montana 54 54 44,235 

Nebraska 8 31,680 59 59 101,394 

Nevada 13 13 82,185 57,699 

New Hampshire 34 34 63,340 19 18 13,581 18 18 6,466 

New York 180 180 334,339 332 332 31,101 1,369 1,369 2,927,075 

North Carolina 35 34 155,556 13,256 20 3 23,896 

North Dakota 13 13 14,224 9 3,230 9 15 4,323 

Oregon 51 49 59,768 74 71 8,778 32 26 14,678 

Pennsylvania 113 113 290,247 3 3 2.241 

Rhode Island 27 24 8,897 

Tennessee 40 40 127,470 4 35,417 

Texas 76 74 523,142 8 100,189 

Utah 42 42 147,652 300 

Washirgton 119 118 98,984 20 14 10.716 12 1,509 

West Virginia 24 24 80,337 262 

Wisconsin 61 59 75,580 18,453 

Wyoming 11 11 116,195 1.009 

Total 2,214 2,169 9,036,345 1,236 1,209 1,360,447 1,910 1,845 3,991,181 

6 
82 


Insert offset folio 233 here 95271.233

2013- 2014 Annual brformqtiqn E:rrhange Renort 

Table 1: Inv entory 

(page 4 of 5) 

Total Areas Total Trails 

Number Number 

STATE Number oeeratlng Acreage Number oeerating Miles 

Alabama 22 22 48,164 119 119 194 

Alaska 139 139 3,386.702 102 102 550 

Arizona 31 30 64,090 81 81 124 

Arl<ansas 52 52 54,466 143 143 409 

California 280 280 1,624,216 2,323 2,323 4,755 

Colorado 613 588 1,238.488 466 466 728 

Comecticut 138 138 206,988 6 6 95 

Delaware 34 26 26,071 64 64 161 

Florida 171 171 758,031 549 549 2,294 

Georgia 64 64 92,880 303 303 543 

Hawaii 68 68 33,780 44 44 92 

Idaho 32 29 58,922 3 108 

llirois 322 322 480,818 6 262 

ndlana 35 36 172,180 

Iowa 188 177 71.234 6 

Kansas 25 47 163,975 2 82 

Kentucky 51 51 45,180 178 178 333 

Lot.isiana 61 37 43,851 26 26 132 

Maine 139 115 98.298 14 14 331 

Maryland 66 66 134,539 27 27 789 

Massachusetts 339 317 353,889 35 35 2,145 

Michigan 315 310 293,703 24 24 644 

Mimesola 1,719 1,719 287,029 25 25 1,323 

Mississippi 25 25 24,591 38 38 115 

Missotri 87 85 207.219 242 242 980 

Montana 66 66 46,035 

Nebraska 77 77 135,464 324 

Nevada 25 23 146,225 114 114 290 

New Hampstlre 91 90 231,164 131 131 3,864 

New Jersey 118 112 444,170 378 378 990 

New Me)Qco 39 39 196,677 60 60 140 

New York 3.220 3,220 4,264,102 292 292 5,438 

North Carolina 70 41 221,843 4 806 

North Dakota 37 40 34,792 36 36 3,252 

Otio 74 74 173,887 498 498 1,498 

Oklahoma 35 35 70,031 36 36 402 

Oregon 256 220 108.499 6 154 

Penns }'tva ria 120 120 297,170 963 963 1.470 

Rhode Island 79 67 9,630 16 16 112 

South Carolina 56 56 90,167 153 153 370 

South Dakota 131 131 101,987 129 129 1,922 

TefVlessee 55 55 168,617 220 220 998 

Texas 97 94 629,339 97 

Utah 50 50 150,758 105 105 302 

Vermont 103 86 70,570 47 47 249 

Virginia 43 37 71,704 298 298 508 

Washington 208 177 121.983 5 5 467 

West Virginia 47 47 177,133 2 2 149 

Wisconsin 80 78 156,508 42 39 2,021 

Wyoming 41 41 119,559 286 286 129 

Total 10.234 9,990 18,207.318 8,647 8.640 43,146 

9 
83 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95271.071

201 S 20 l J Annual lnfOrmalion Exclwngc Report 

Table 3A: Visitation and Use- Attendance 

(page 2 of7) 

Arizona 1,638,583 672,161 2,310,744 

Arkansas 7,251,133 833,364 8,084,497 

Connecticut 8,005,543 279,733 8,285,276 

Delaware 4,795,817 241,526 5,037,343 

Florida 24,689,379 2,482,727 27,172,106 

Georgia 6,462,097 1,036,379 7,498,476 

Hawaii 13,968,607 63,120 14,031,721 

Idaho 4,777,250 230,886 5,008,136 

Illinois 39,422,003 742,626 40,164,629 

Indiana 13,681,243 3,115,209 16,796,452 

Kentucky 5,906,989 979,665 6,886,654 

Louisiana 1,061,500 685.912 1,747,412 

Maine 2,320,686 237,430 2,558,116 

Michigan 18,986,148 4,339,204 23,325,352 

Minnesota 7,874,598 982,973 8,857,571 

Mississippi 439,187 689,775 1,128,962 

Nebraska 12,059,809 545,151 12,604,960 

Nevada 3,008,620 208,505 3,217,125 

New Hampshire 958,537 169,610 1,128.147 

New York 58,073,966 2,772,689 60,846,655 

North Carolina 14,445,293 326,675 14,771,968 

North Dakota 913,622 234,623 1,148,245 

Oregon 43,815,369 2,470,526 46,285,895 

Pennsylvania 36,401,192 1,598,498 37,999,690 

Rhode Island 1,142,393 91,384 1,233,777 

Tennessee 30,523,097 1,540,033 32,063,130 

Texas 4,461,762 2,300,741 6,762,503 

Utah 2,759,121 777,583 3,536,704 

Vermont 552,777 409,166 961,943 

Virginia 7,942,721 1,095,179 9,031,900 

Washington 31,567,608 2,229,051 33,796,659 

West Virginia 7,043,021 660,610 7,703,631 

Wisconsin 14,939,338 586,681 15,526,019 
84 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ledford. 

Ms. Scarlett? 

STATEMENT OF LYNN SCARLETT, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

PUBLIC POLICY, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Ms. SCARLETT. Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell and 

all members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

The Nature Conservancy, where I now direct public policy globally, has over 60 years of pioneering private conservation in cooperation with agencies and thousands of private landowners 

across this nation. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many of you 

during my nearly eight year tenure at the Department of the Interior in the George W. Bush Administration. 

Madam Chairwoman, Secretary Cantwell and other members on 

this Committee, I appreciate your leadership in striving to address 

the conservation and resource management needs of this nation. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund over these past 50 years 

has helped our nation address many conservation and resource 

management challenges, Federally, in states and locally. Three 

issues point to why LWCF is as relevant today as it was 50 years 

ago. 

First is the role public lands play in enhancing economic well 

being. Second is the role the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

plays in improving the capacity of public land managers to manage 

these lands effectively and efficiently. Third is the role the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund plays in helping maintain the very 

natural systems upon which all life depends. Watersheds, for example, store water and keep it clean. Coastal systems can reduce impacts from coastal storms. 

Let me turn first to economic benefits. Many analysts have documented the direct economic benefits of Federal and State public 

lands through, for example, outdoor recreation opportunities. These 

benefits are important, but they are just a drop in the overall economic benefit bucket. Increasingly this nation has become what 

economist, Ray Rasker, refers to as a knowledge-based economy of 

finance, marketing design and management. 

As this shift occurs Rasker notes, and I quote, ‘‘The bulk of economic value of public lands lies in its ability to attract people and 

their businesses who want to live near protected lands for quality 

of life reasons.’’ 

Let me turn now to the issue of efficiency. Concerns about future 

land investments arise in the context of significant maintenance 

backlogs both on Federal and State lands. I appreciate these concerns. During the Bush Administration I spent hundreds of my personal hours on this issue. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund complements sound 

public management. In many cases LWCF investments actually 

contribute to management efficiencies. One example illustrates how 

continued acquisitions of this sort can improve that efficiency. At 

Mount Rainier National Park, for example, LWCF funding allowed 

for purchase of lands enabling a campground to be relocated out of 

an expensive and flood prone area in which flood maintenance costs 

for a single year were $750 million. 

85 

I now turn to the third benefit of continued LWCF investments. 

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the broad role that nature and natural systems play in sustaining thriving communities. 

I sometimes sum up those benefits by saying nature is not just nice 

it is essential. I have already noted that watersheds help store 

water and sustain clean water supplies. Protecting coastal systems 

can also contribute to coastal community’s safety. 

Consider for example investments in Massachusetts in the Silvio 

O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge contiguous with the 

area’s watershed. Land acquisitions there contributed to the goals 

of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which has avoided the need to build a $250 to $350 million filtration plant because 

of implementing a water supply improvement program that includes investment in protection of watershed lands. 

It also contributes, of course, fundamentally to sustaining water 

quality for communities within the watershed. In the Cascades the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund supported land acquisitions 

that are also contributing to water retention and storage. 

No brief testimony can do justice to 50 years of results that the 

LWCF has generated for the American public, but as we look to reauthorizing it we need to ask some basic design questions as Chairman Murkowski did. 

Let me suggest three design principles. 

First is program flexibility. It is important as circumstances vary 

by location and over time. Maintaining flexibility in the statute 

itself while preserving annual congressional authority to review 

and approve how funds are allocated best aligns with the realities 

of annual variations in needs. 

Second, dedicated funding. 

The third principle, enhancing public access to outdoor recreation. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

working with the Committee and Madam Chairman, as you consider reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:] 

86 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95271.072

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Hearing on the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

April 22, 2015 

Testimony by Lynn Scarlett 

Managing Director, Public Policy 

The Nature Conservancy 

Madam Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, and All Members of the Committee; 

Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), its 

legacy, and its future. I have had the opportunity to meet with many of you during my nearly eight-year 

tenure at the Department of the Interior in the G.W. Bush Administration, including nearly three years 

as Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer of the Department. 

During my tenure at the Interior Department, I became familiar with LWCF and the broader and complex 

context within which LWCF plays a part. I now serve as the global Managing Director of Public Policy at 

The Nature Conservancy, an organization with over 60 years of pioneering private conservation in 

coordination and cooperation with federal, state, local, and tribal governments and thousands of private 

landowners across the nation. 

Madame Chairwoman, Senator Cantwell, and others on this committee, I appreciate your leadership in 

striving to address the conservation and resource management needs of this nation. The challenges are 

many. They include fiscal constraints, the evolving requirements of reducing risks of catastrophic 

wildland fires, the importance of ensuring secure and clean water supplies for all of America's 

communities, the need to power our homes and businesses, the bedrock importance of enhancing 

economic opportunity, and the imperatives of sustaining healthy lands and wildlife and outdoor 

recreation opportunities for each and every American. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund, over these past 50 years, has helped address many of these 

challenges-and, through its reauthorization, I believe it will continue to help this nation sustain healthy 

lands and waters and the associated outdoor recreation access such areas provide; help support thriving 

communities, and contribute to dynamic economies. 

I will: 1) highlight three significant benefits of the LWCF and their importance to this nation's continued 

well-being; and 2) briefly address several "design issues" as this Committee and the Congress consider 
87 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95271.073

reauthorization of the Act. But, first, let me turn briefly to a summary of the Act and some of its 

contributions. 

LWCF Legacy in Brief 

Since 1965, the LWCF has invested over $16 billion in land and water conservation and outdoor 

recreation across every state and several territories. Ninety-eight percent of all counties in the United 

States have received some direct investments from LWCF funding. Over 42,000 grants of $4 billion have 

supported protection of 3 million acres of recreation lands and over 29,000 recreation facility projects in 

states, matched by local monies and driven by local priorities. And, at the federal level, national parks, 

refuges, and forests have been created or enhanced through LWCF funding. These national lands 

protect our history; they ensure outdoor recreation opportunities that tally up some 407 million visits 

each year; they secure opportunities for fishing, hunting, and countless other outdoor activities. 

The program has evolved in modest ways to include such programs as the Forest Legacy Program and 

the Cooperative Endangered Species (ESA Section 6) program; the Highlands Conservation Act, and an 

American Battlefield Protection Program. But the Act has remained constant in its basic mission, as set 

forth by the Congress 50 years ago. That mission is: 

[T]o assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States 

of America of present and future generations . .. such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation 

resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable . .. to strengthen the health and 

vitality af the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal 

assistance to the States in planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water 

areas and facilities and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition and development of 

certain lands and other areas. 

As significant as the purposes of the Act is its source of funding. LWCF investments derive not from 

taxpayer dollars but from a small portion ($900 million) of offshore oil and gas revenues that now 

typically range from $6 billion to over $18 billion per year. This funding source is significant, because it 

reflects congressional understanding, at the time the Act was passed, that even as the nation benefits 

from development of some federal energy resources, so, too, does the nation benefit from protecting 

and conserving lands, waters and wildlife for present and future generations. 

The mission and corresponding investment of LWCF funds have sustained widespread, bipartisan 

support of the 50-year history of the program. A 2013 survey shows 85 percent of voters supporting 

continued investment of funds from offshore oil and gas revenues in the LWCF program. 

LWCF-Looking Ahead 

All public programs warrant periodic review and assessment of their continued relevance to addressing 

national issues and challenges. Three issues point to why LWCF is as relevant-indeed, perhaps, more 

relevant-today as it was 50 years ago. First is the role public lands play in enhancing economic wellbeing. Second is the role LWCF, specifically, plays in improving the capacity of public land managers to 

manage these lands efficiently and effectively. Third is the role LWCF plays in supporting conservation 
88 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95271.074

investments with immense benefits for people and wildlife. These conservation investments not only 

sustain opportunities for outdoor recreation and protect historic sites; they also help maintain the very 

natural systems-watersheds that store water and keep it clean, coastal systems that reduce impacts 

from storms, vegetation that supports pollinators-upon which all life depends. 

Economic Benefits 

Federal agencies, the outdoor recreation community, and academic analysts have all documented the 

direct economic benefits of federal (and state) public lands. The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates 

that outdoor recreation generates some $730 billion each year to the U.S. economy. The National Parks 

Conservation Association estimates that some $13 billion flows annually to towns that are gateways to 

national parks. 

These economic benefits are important. But they miss what is perhaps most significant: increasingly, as 

this nation has become what economist Ray Rasker refers to as a "knowledge-based economy" of 

finance, marketing, design, management, and so on, "companies," he writes, "seeking to attract 

employees place a premium on locating in places with amenities ... " Rasker continues, noting that the 

"bulk of the economic value of public lands lies in its ability to attract people-and their businesseswho want to live near protected lands for quality of life reasons." (Rasker, 2009, "Economic Benefits of 

the LWCF"). Rasker's research, and that of numerous other economists, suggests that there is actually 

"little evidence of an economic downside from public lands". Instead, the evidence points toward such 

public lands as assets that attract investment and skilled workers to communities. 

Such conclusions are not simply academic abstractions. A poll of one county in Utah with significant 

state and federal public lands shows nearly two-thirds of businesses viewing public lands as extremely 

important to their businesses. Similar results emerge in other communities. Or, consider results of a 

2002 National Association of Homebuilders survey on that found that "trails are a top amenity (behind 

highway access) sought out by potential homeowners." 

But let me offer a few examples. In 2008, the Bair Ranch Foundation contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to present the idea of a public purchase of their property. In a model partnership that included 

the Bair Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and others, an eight thousand-acre land 

acquisition was orchestrated. The lands provide high quality water for a world class fishery; habitat for 

species of concern; and recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, and snowmobiling. The 

lands contribute to the Meager County, Montana economy; ensure public access to lands; maintain 

traditional uses; and provide opportunities for coordinated management among different agencies and 

partners. LWCF was a key source of support for this effort. 

Or consider Willapa Bay and Ellsworth Creek, in southwest Washington. Since 2000, The Nature 

Conservancy has engaged in a joint management plan with a national wildlife refuge. The Conservancy 

owns 7,500 acres adjacent to a 7,500 acre refuge of which over one-quarter was acquired using LWCF 

monies. Revenues from forest thinning on the lands go back into stewardship and management of the 

lands, supporting local jobs and contractors; protected areas help ensure clean water that supports a 

$30 million per year oyster industry in Willapa Bay. 
89 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95271.075

Efficiency Gains 

This nation benefits from many national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and multiple use public 

lands managed by the Bureau of land Management. In addition, states and local governments manage 

public parks and other lands. looking at the future of lWCF, some have suggested that, perhaps, the 

task set forth 50 years ago is completed-that the nation needs no new public lands or other lWCF 

investments. In particular, concerns about future land investments arise in the context of significant 

maintenance backlogs-both on federal lands and state lands. I appreciate these concerns. During the 

GW Bush Administration, we targeted the maintenance backlogs-in parks and other public lands-and 

put in place cyclic maintenance programs, as well as investing in systems to actually document the 

backlogs, better understand their causes, and invest in diminishing that backlog. I spent hundreds of 

hours of my time on this issue. 

But the remedy to these backlogs does not reside in shifting offshore oil and gas funds to that purpose 

rather than to a continuation of lWCF for two fundamental reasons: 1) in many cases, lWCF 

investments actually contribute to management efficiencies; and 2) the fundamental premise of the 

original act remains sound-that as the nation extracts resources from the public domain, we should, in 

turn, invest in conserving resources for our children and their children thereafter. 

Most lands acquired with lWCF funds are within the existing boundaries of federal parks, refuges, 

forests, and other recreation areas, and much of the rest is used for conservation easements and state 

grants that do not add to federal management costs. Many such inholdings still remain. Within national 

parks, for example, there remain some 2.6 million acres of in holdings. I want to underscore that not all 

of these inholdings merit consideration for acquisition. But in some cases, existing owners would like to 

sell their lands into public ownership-and such sales can significantly improve management 

efficiencies. 

A few examples best illustrate how continued acquisitions of this sort can improve management 

efficiency-and provide enhanced economic benefits. 

The Nature Conservancy worked on what are referred to as Plum Creek Timber acquisitions that include 

three projects involving over 500,000 acres. The transactions address long-standing checkerboard land 

structures and associated management challenges of operating in that context. In addition, there are 

cost savings for avoided fire suppression on land that, if developed, would have dramatically increased 

fire management costs. 

In a very different example, at Mount Rainier National Park, lWCF funding allowed for purchase of lands 

enabling a campground to be relocated out of an expensive and flood-prone area in which flood 

maintenance costs for a single year were $750,000. The purchase also enabled conversion of a historic 

house into a new visitor center. 

In the eastern United States, at Rocky Fork, Tennessee, multiple partners worked together, using lWCF 

funds, to leverage state, local, and private funding to protect world-class recreation opportunities 

through acquisition of an in-holding surrounded by National Forest Service lands. The acquisition helped 
90 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95271.076

the Forest Service utilize prescribed burns that cost 93 percent less than suppression costs (based on a 

recent fire event). And there are other avoided costs: anticipated development of the property would 

have caused watershed damage and associated significant costs. 

Thriving Communities 

When the Congress passed the LWCF legislation 50 years ago, many champions focused on the 

significance of outdoor recreation as fundamental to human well-being and to the health of 

communities. That basic linkage endures-and many modern-day champions have persuasively 

described those benefits and the role LWCF has played in securing them. I want to reaffirm the 

importance of those benefits. 

But I also want to draw the Committee's attention to the broader role that nature and natural systems 

play in sustaining thriving communities. I sometimes sum up those benefits by saying, "nature is not just 

nice; it is essential." I have already noted that watersheds help store water and sustain clean water 

supplies. Protecting and restoring natural coastal systems can reduce impacts to communities from 

coastal storms-often cost-effectively relative to other infrastructure. Increasingly, LWCF is helping 

states and local communities sustain these natural systems and the basic services they provide, while 

also providing the more commonly understood outdoor recreation and wildlife benefits. 

Consider, for example, investments in Massachusetts in the Silvio 0. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, a 

refuge contiguous with the area's watershed. land acquisitions there contribute to the goals of the 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which has avoided the need to build a $250-$300 million 

filtration plant because of success in implementing a water supply improvement program that includes, 

as a significant component, investment in protection of watershed lands. The refuge fulfills the 

fundamental goals ofthe LWCF by providing outdoor recreation opportunities and conserving habitat, 

but also contributes fundamentally to sustaining water quality for communities within the watershed. 

In New Jersey, LWCF allocations through the Forest Legacy Program provide a tool to maintain the 

benefits of working forests that include protections of valuable watersheds and drinking water supplies. 

These funds have helped protect drinking water for more than 2 million residents of northern New 

Jersey, as well as residents of Little Rock, Arkansas; Worcester, Massachusetts; Whitefish, Montana, and 

many other locations. In the Cascades, LWCF-supported land acquisitions are contributing to water 

retention and storage, complementing the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan-a plan supported by the 

Yakima Indian Nation; county, federal, and state agencies; irrigation districts; conservation 

organizations; and private agribusinesses. 

Designing the Future of LWCF 

No brief testimony can do justice to 50 years of results that the LWCF has generated for the American 

public. These benefits are numerous, and we only now still learning of the role conservation plays in 

sustaining community economies, enhancing public health, and maintaining basic needs such as water 

quality. But as we look to reauthorizing LWCF, we need to ask some basic design questions. Are there 
91 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95271.077

important principles drawn from past experience that might help guide that design? Let me suggest 

several: 

Program flexibility is important, as circumstances vary by location and over time. Approximately 

half of LWCF funding has gone to states and half to federal agencies over recent years, but 

actual allocations vary year-to-year, reflecting the different opportunities and needs that arise. 

Maintaining flexibility in the statute itself, while preserving annual Congressional authority to 

review and approve how funds are allocated, best aligns with the realities of annual variations in 

needs and opportunities. 

Dedicated funding, as originally envisioned 50 years ago, remains an important principle, as it 

helps local, state, and federal agencies, along with private landowners, better plan what are 

often complex and multi-stage transactions. 

Continued emphasis on enhancing public access to outdoor recreation opportunities through 

conservation easements and land acquisition is especially important as this nation urbanizes and 

fewer people have opportunities, in their own backyards, to connect with nature. 

From the Alaskan tundra to rolling Midwestern grasslands to the Gulf of Mexico, the lands and waters of 

the United States capture our imaginations and inspire us. But these places are more than beautiful 

vistas and vacation destinations. They are critical resources that maintain livelihoods, communities and 

economies-their value includes, but goes far beyond, the outdoor recreation dollars they generate or 

the commodities they provide. Healthy forests, rivers and coasts benefit people by providing clean, 

abundant water supplies, storm surge protection, flood prevention, carbon sequestration and many 

other services. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a central foundation for catalyzing and 

leveraging conservation investments that help provide these many benefits. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to working with the Committee as you 

consider reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
92 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Scarlett. 

We will now go to Mr. Watson. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF REED WATSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER 

Mr. WATSON. Madam Chair Murkowski, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on potential 

reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

My name is Reed Watson. I’m the Executive Director at PERC, 

the Property and Environment Research Center, in Bozeman, Montana. I’m also an avid outdoorsman and frequent visitor to our Federal lands. Indeed, just this past Sunday I was bear hunting in the 

Gallatin National Forest, unsuccessfully, I might add, or successfully if you’re a bear. 

My testimony today will focus on the critical importance of maintaining the quality and accessibility of our Federal lands and not 

sacrificing that quality or that accessibility by unsustainably increasing the size of the Federal estate. The growth of the Federal 

estate funded largely by LWCF has outstripped the operations and 

maintenance budgets of our Federal land agencies. 

As a consequence the total deferred maintenance backlog at the 

Department of Interior currently exceeds $20 billion, as Chair Murkowski noted. The Park Service alone carries a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion. National Park Service Director, Jonathan Jarvis, summarized the issue aptly in his March 17th testimony before 

the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands, as he said, ‘‘Americans 

love and are rightly proud of their national parks but too often 

they’re greeted by facilities in disrepair instead of a seasonal ranger ready to answer their questions.’’ 

Let me share a few tangible examples of a deferred maintenance 

issue taken from the National Park Service’s own 2016 budget proposal. In Grand Teton National Park sewer system upgrades are 

needed immediately to prevent raw sewage from spilling into the 

park’s rivers. In Glacier National Park a failing electrical system 

poses fire and public health safety concerns in the park’s historic 

hotels. And in Yosemite National Park a deteriorating water distribution system is leaking thousands of gallons of chlorinated 

water each day into the Mariposa Grove threatening the Park’s ancient stands of giant Sequoias. 

Unfortunately the issue of deferred maintenance is not limited to 

the national parks. The Forest Service has approximately $5.5 billion in deferred maintenance, of which $1.4 billion is critical, meaning it poses a serious threat to public health or safety and natural 

resource or the ability of the agency to carry out its mission. The 

majority of that critical deferred maintenance is needed for roads, 

meaning the public can’t safely access much of our existing national forests. 

And this deferred maintenance issue is not just about roads and 

bathrooms. The deferred maintenance backlog at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service directly threatens habitat. Across the entire Federal estate, particularly out West, billions of dollars are needed for 

waste water system repairs, campground and trail maintenance, 

93 

building repairs and the transportation infrastructure necessary for 

public access. 

Ignoring the deferred maintenance issue threatens the environmental health of our Federal lands as well as the quality of the experience when we visit them. If we were to liken the Federal estate 

to a house, we would find a crumbling driveway, a leaking roof, 

rusted pipes and a failing septic system. But strangely enough 

rather than devoting the time and money to those essential repairs, 

the owner of the house is considering an addition. A private banker 

wouldn’t lend money for such an addition and likewise Congress 

should not appropriate additional funds for Federal land acquisition until we address the deferred maintenance backlog. That is, 

until we get our house in order. 

Reauthorization of the LWCF presents an opportunity for Congress to get the Federal estate in order. First, we must clarify that 

maintenance counts as a related purpose for which LWCF funds 

can be used. And second, I would urge you to consider prioritizing 

the allocation of LWCF funds for maintenance before we devote additional funds to land acquisition and stretch our already too thin 

budgets further. To be sure, at its current funding level of $900 million annually, 

the LWCF is not sufficient to address the entire maintenance backlog alone. And relying exclusively on congressional appropriations 

to address these needs has not, unfortunately, been a prodigal policy solution in the past. 

User fees are also needed to address the deferred maintenance 

backlog, and our Federal land managers must be allowed to retain 

most of those fees onsite. Doing so would align the incentives of 

land managers and land users, and would help land managers determine which maintenance projects are the most critical to our 

Federal land visitors. 

As conservationists on this 45th Earth Day and with the National Park Service Centennial coming up next year, we should acknowledge the inherent tradeoff between acquiring more lands and 

conserving what we’ve got. Stewarding as Ranking Member Cantwell mentioned what we’ve got. 

With more than 640,000,000 acres now under Federal ownership 

and a ballooning maintenance backlog on those lands, spending 

nearly $1 billion each year to acquire more lands is not responsible 

land conservation. We should all remember that the LWCF is the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, not the Land and Water Acquisition Fund. 

As my father told me growing up, if you ever find yourself in a 

hole, the very first thing you do is stop digging. It’s time to stop 

digging. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:] 

94 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95271.078

Testimony of 

REED WATSON 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER (PERC) 

Before the 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

"The Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund" 

April 22, 2015 

Introduction 

Madame Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of and potential reforms to the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. My name is Reed Watson and [am the Executive Director of the 

Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a nonprofit research institute in Bozeman, 

Montana, that has studied public land issues for more than three decades. 

My testimony today will explain why reauthorizing the LWCF in its current form would likely 

do more harm than good for our federal lands. The reason is simple: we are failing to maintain 

most of the 635 million acres already owned by the federal government. Using the LWCF to 

acquire additional land-without first addressing the billions of dollars in deferred maintenance 

on the existing federal estate-will threaten the ecological health, public accessibility, and 

economic productivity of these precious lands. 

Congress should reform the LWCF to address the critical yet unfunded needs that exist on lands 

currently administered by the federal government. In particular, Congress should require that the 

LWCF be used to reduce the massive backlog of deferred maintenance projects on existing 

federal lands before it can be used to acquire new federal lands. 

Conservation, at its core, is about the care and maintenance of the land. Spending hundreds of 

millions of dollars each year from the LWCF to expand the federal estate when we are currently 

failing to maintain the existing federal estate is not responsible conservation. Reauthorization of 

the LWCF gives Congress an opportunity to prioritize conservation over acquisition. 

L WCF Background 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the principal funding source for federal land 

acquisitions for conservation and recreational purposes. Created in 1964, the LWCF is 

authorized at $900 million per year, with the vast majority of revenues currently derived from oil 

and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. Through the appropriations process, L WCF 

funds are used for three general purposes: (1) federal acquisition of land and waters; (2) grants to 

states for recreational planning; acquiring recreational lands, waters, or related interests; and 
95 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95271.079

developing outdoor recreational facilities, collectively the "stateside program;" and (3) related 

purposes. Rarely has Congress fully appropriated the LWCF for these purposes. Since 1965, 

more than $36 billion has been credited to the LWCF, but less than half of that amount ($16.8 

billion) has been appropriated to LWCF programs1 

Of the total LWCF appropriations since 1965, the majority ($10.4 billion) has gone to federal 

land acquisitions. These acquisitions were made by four agencies-the National Park Service, 

the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Of 

the four agencies, the National Parks Service has received the most LWCF funding at $4.4 

billion, or 42 percent of the total LWCF federal land acquisition appropriations. Federal land 

acquisitions since the LWCF's creation total approximately 5 million acres 2 

The stateside program has received the second-largest portion of total LWCF appropriations 

($4.2 billion). In the early years of the program, more funds went to the stateside program than to 

federal land acquisition, but stateside appropriations have declined since the early 1980s3 

The stateside program received no appropriations in FY1996 through FY1999, with zero 

stateside budget requests in FY200l, FY2002, and FY2006 through FY 2008.4 

The third category, generally described as "related purposes" or "other federal purposes," has 

received the smallest portion of total LWCF appropriations ($2.1 billion). No funds were 

provided for related purposes until FY1998, but Congress has since directed 29 percent of the 

total LWCF appropriations to this category. Some of these appropriations were directed to the 

Forest Service highway rehabilitation and maintenance, but the majority has supported other 

programs such as the Historic Preservation Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, and 

various forestry and habitat programs off the federal estate. 

With the LWCF set to expire on September 30tl' of this year, disagreement has emerged over 

whether, for how much, and for which purposes the Fund should be reauthorized. The Obama 

Administration has proposed amending the law to appropriate mandatory funding of $900 

million annually beginning FY20165 Many oppose reauthorization on the grounds that federal 

ownership restricts certain land uses and reduces local tax revenues. 

Research conducted at PERC has shed light on an additional consideration: whether the LWCF 

should be used to acquire additional land when our federal agencies are unable to maintain the 

the existing federal estate. lands the backlog of deferred maintenance projects on the existing 

federal estate. 

1 Carol Vincent Hardy. 2014. "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues.·· 

Congressional Research Service. RL33531. .!Jt!J!riL!lil1!2l1:J.!illl!illo:g;lJ1&L.QJIDIT'.:: 

contcnt/uploads/asscts/crs/RLl:i531.pdf 

2 Zinn, Jeffrey. 2005. ''Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues." Congressional Research 

Service Report for Congress. June 10. Zim1 reports acquisitions as of 2005 was 4.5 million acres. 3 Margaret Walls. 2009. "Federal Funding for Conservation and Recreation: The Land and Water Conservation 

Fund." Resources for the Future Backgrounder. http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documcnts/RFF -BCK-ORRG_LWCF.pdf. 1 Despite receiving no stateside budget requests. Congress appropriated $319 million to the stateside program in 

those years. with 2002 stateside funding of $144 million. the most stateside appropriations since 1980. 

' U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. Budget Justifications and Performance Information. Fiscal Y car 

2015. p. LASA-1. 

2 
96 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95271.080

Unfunded Projects on Existing Federal Lands 

Spanning some 635 million acres, the federal estate accounts for 28 percent of the total land area 

in the United States. That is an area roughly nine times the size of Nevada-a state that, itself, is 

81 percent federally owned. Federal ownership is concentrated in the West, where nearly half of 

the land is owned by the federal government. Besides Nevada, western states where the federal 

government owns more than half of all land include: Oregon at 53 percent federal, Alaska and 

Idaho, each at 62 percent federally owned, and Utah at 67 percent6 

As the federal estate has grown, so too has the backlog of maintenance projects on federal lands. 

In 2010, the Department of the Interior estimated that its total deferred maintenance backlog may 

be as high as $20 billion7 Last month, the National Park Service announced that its deferred 

maintenance backlog has reached a total of$11.5 billion8 The agency estimates that 90 percent 

of its roads are in "fair" or "poor" condition, dozens of bridges are "structurally deficient" and in 

need of reconstruction, and 6,700 miles of trails are in "poor" or "seriously deficient" condition9 

As the National Park Service (NPS) prepares to celebrate its 100-year anniversary in 2016, this 

deferred maintenance backlog represents a glaring blemish in a system known for the "crown 

jewels" of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon. Aging infrastructure and facilities, 

increased visitor use, and insufficient funding all contribute to the growth of the NPS backlog. 

Table 1 lists the deferred maintenance backlogs in several popular national parks as of 

September 2014. 

Table 1: Deferred Maintenance Backlogs in Popular National Parks (2014) 10 

Yellowstone $656,547,010 

Yosemite $552,778,696 

Grand Canyon $329,458,168 

Rainier $298,3 72, 13 7 

Grand Teton $201,840,685 

Glacier $178,517,042 

Consider a few of these backlogged NPS projects: More than $20 million is needed to fix the 

deteriorated condition of the waste water facilities in Y ellowstone. 11 As much as $200 million is 

"Gorte. Ross W .. eta!. 2012. "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data." Congressional Research Setvice. 

Interior: Major Management Challenges." GA0-11-
97 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95271.081

needed to fix busted water pipelines and ensure safe drinking water for visitors at Grand Canyon 

National Park. 12 More than $3 billion in high-priority road repairs are needed across the national 

park system. 13 According to the latest NPS estimates, the backlog consists of $1.8 billion in 

building repairs, $62 million in campground maintenance, $472 million in trail maintenance, 

$255 million in waste water systems, and $5.6 billion in unfunded transportation-related 

infrastructure needs. 14 

In addition to unfunded maintenance projects, federal land agencies also face operational 

constraints that prevent the agencies from adequately managing and protecting the lands under 

their control. For instance, in Region 1 of the National Forest Service, budget cuts have created 

at least 15 law enforcement vacancies. 15 The Forest Service has been forced to cut full-time 

employees in non-fire programs by 35 percent over the last decade, and the agency expects 

further employment cuts in 2016. The result is a diminished capacity for the agency to 

appropriately monitor and protect our national forests. 

The care and maintenance of existing federal lands is an appropriations decision that often loses 

out to other political considerations. Congress has shown more interest in appropriating funds to 

acquire new federal lands than it is to provide funding for routine mruntenance projects on those 

lands. Similarly, presidents have been more likely to seek new federal land acquisitions or create 

new federal designations under their executive authority-as President Obama did in December 

with the creation of seven new units of the national park system-than they are to prioritize the 

maintenance of existing federal lands. These political considerations have contributed to the 

steady increase in the deferred maintenance backlog over the last several decades, despite claims 

by several recent administrations to begin addressing the issue. 

The continued expansion and acquisition of new federal lands has contributed to a steady growth 

in the maintenance backlog across the federal estate. As the NPS recently noted, "[N]ew 

legislation and executive orders have transferred to the NPS additional assets in poor condition 

compounding the NPS already limited capacity to provide stewardship to existing assets." 16 

Since 2005, more than a dozen additional parks with transportation assets were added to the 

national park system, in addition to land acquisitions funded by the LWCF. The agency 

anticipates that the backlog will continue to grow as a result of additional land acquisitions 

combined with the unavoidable effects of inflation and asset deterioration. 

4 
98 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95271.082

Opportunities for Reform 

As currently authorized, the federal portion of the LWCF allows the federal government to 

purchase additional lands, but it makes no explicit provision for the care and maintenance of 

existing federal lands or the lands to be acquired with LWCF funds. Throughout its 50-year 

history, the LWCF has added approximately 5 million acres to the federal estate, almost all in the 

West. In so doing, the LWCF has created additional maintenance and operational needs without 

providing a means to address those needs. In FY2015, federal land agencies sought a combined 

total of 163 land acquisitions through the LWCF. 

Given the current size of the federal estate, and the extent of the management needs on those 

lands, spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually through the LWCF to acquire new lands 

is irresponsible. These acquisitions exacerbate the problem by creating even more unfunded 

maintenance projects and by stretching already insufficient maintenance budgets over even more 

acres. 

Conservation, at its core, is about the care and maintenance of the land. As such, the federal 

government has a responsibility to maintain and adequately fund the land it owns for 

conservation and recreational purposes. The relevant question is whether Congress should give 

federal land managers the resources they need to maintain and conserve the existing federal 

estate, or whether we should burden them further, and stretch their budgets thinner, with 

additional land acquisitions. 

There is ample evidence that Westerners value the care and maintenance of existing federal 

lands. The latest "Conservation in the West" survey, conducted by Colorado College, found that 

95 percent of voters in the West believe that Congress should ensure that public land managers 

"have the resources they need to take care of public lands and provide services to visitors." 17 

While the survey is commonly cited as evidence that conservation programs such as the LWCF 

are popular among Westerners, this finding suggests that properly maintaining and caring for 

existing federal lands is a top priority among Western voters. 

Conservationists and lawmakers should acknowledge the tradeoffs that are inherent in 

appropriation decisions over conservation measures such as the LWCF reauthorization. Funding 

that is allocated to land acquisition means less funding is available for other purposes such as 

deferred maintenance backlogs and operational needs on existing federal lands. Deferred 

maintenance has not been a political priority, at least not measured by the history of 

congressional appropriations. Therefore, arguing that the LWCF should be used exclusively for 

federal acquisitions or the stateside program, and that the deferred maintenance backlog should 

be addressed in the general appropriations process is not a credible policy position. 18 Rather, 

conservationists must recognize these tradeoffs and seek out opportunities that enable federal 

land agencies to meet these challenges. 

17 The 2015 Conservation in the West Poll: A Snrvey of the Attitndes of Voters in Six Western States. 

opposes LWCF clmnges," Greenwire, 

April quoting Interior Secretarv Sanv Jewell: "As a result Jewell said. ··we do not support the idea of using land 

and water conscryation fund dollars for maintenance or operations. We think that· s a part of the regular budget." 

5 
99 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95271.083

LWCF reauthorization is one such opportunity. Reauthorization presents an opportunity for 

Congress to address many of the critical needs on existing federal lands and to prevent further 

increases in the deferred maintenance backlog. To do this, Congress must first clarify that 

maintenance counts as a "related purpose" for which LWCF can be used. Second, Congress 

should prioritize the allocation ofLWCF funds for maintenance before we devote additional 

funds to land acquisition 

Even with these changes, the LWCF is not sufficient at its current funding level of$900 million 

to erase the entire maintenance backlog. Indeed, the NPS estimates that it would have to spend 

nearly $700 million each year on deferred maintenance projects just to hold its backlog steady at 

$11.5 billion. 19 Given this reality, Congress must identify and tap additional funding sources that 

can help federal land managers tackle the maintenance backlog. 

One funding source that has already given federal land managers much needed budget t1exibility 

is user fees 20 Allowing managers to charge (or, in some instances, continue to charge) user fees 

and retain the majority of the fees collected on-site would better align the incentives ofland 

managers and land users. Retained receipts would also help land managers prioritize 

maintenance projects in a way that would complement and perhaps direct any LWCF funds 

approptiated exclusively for maintenance. 

Conclusion 

The reauthorization of the LWCF presents an opportunity for Congress to address many of the 

critical unfunded needs on existing federal lands and prevent further increases in the deferred 

maintenance backlog. As Congress considers reauthorizing the LWCF, policymakers should seek 

to reform the program to provide a steady and reliable source of funding for maintenance, 

repairs, and revitalization of existing federal lands before those funds are used to expand the 

federal estate. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and present my views on this important subject. 

19 Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis. Director. National Park Service. Department of the Interior. Before the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natuml Resources. for an 0\·ersight Hearing to Consider SuJlple:mcntal 

to the National Park Service's Efforts to Address Deferred Maintenance and Opeml:ional 

6 
100 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Watson. 

Thank you, each of you, for your testimony this morning. 

I want to, kind of, take your comments, Mr. Watson, and kick 

this over to the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Connor, because I think you 

have articulated it well. We are at a place where our Federal Government managers have approximately 640,000,000 acres under 

Federal management. That is nearly 30 percent of the United 

States of America, which is significant. 

I think we would all agree on this dais here that our public 

lands, our lands in this country, are treasures. We do have a responsibility, a stewardship responsibility, to them. How we address 

this is the crux of what we are dealing with here today. 

When we were looking through the history of LWCF and recognizing that this was enacted 50 years ago and when the bill was 

moving through the process, the Senate version of the bill originally had development in it. It is my understanding that they 

dropped that in conference because there were some who felt that 

there was this urgency to acquire lands before either the values 

skyrocketed or they were privately developed. 

Since LWCF was enacted we have had 104,000,000 acres in Alaska added through ANILCA and nearly 5,000,000 additional acres 

aquired with LWCF. Again, Alaska has about 30 percent of the 

United States acreage. 

The question I think that we are dealing with is do we keep adding to that land bank without focusing on the responsibility for 

management and maintenance of what is contained within that 

bank? At what point, Mr. Connor, should we start taking care of 

what we already own rather than the continual focus on acquisition? As Mr. Watson reminded us, this is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, not the Land and Water Acquisition Fund. 

At what point do we say we have to put a priority on the maintenance and the backlog? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you for the question. 

I think that is the question we should be asking. Are we merely 

adding to the Federal estate through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the acquisition side of it, or what purposes are our 

acquisitions for? 

As I mentioned in my testimony 99.25 percent of the acquisitions 

in the last five years have been within the exterior boundaries of 

conservation units. And I think what we are trying to accomplish 

with respect to that is we’re trying to certainly add to the conservation value, to connect habitats but that eases overall management. 

We’re addressing inefficiencies in our management, as I mentioned 

with respect to our inholdings and the fact that that drives up fire 

suppression costs. 

The CHAIRMAN. At some point don’t you run out of these 

inholdings that will allow you to have continued efficiency? 

I understand what you are saying. I think we are all agreeing 

here, but at what point do we say we have an obligation, a financial obligation and a stewardship obligation, to care for these lands 

that we have now under our Federal management? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely, we do. But I don’t think the choice is 

do we address the deferred maintenance issue within the National 

101 

Park Service and other land management agencies. Is that a competition with the Land and Water Conservation Fund? 

I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund improves management, improves our ability to meet state priorities. It has a lot 

of conservation benefits. It’s a necessary program to address a lot 

of needs both for Federal land management agencies, but also for 

state and local priorities. 

Deferred maintenance is a very real issue, and I think we share 

the view that that is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. 

Our budget—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But how—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Also does that through a separate mechanism. 

The CHAIRMAN. How are we proposing then to do that because 

the Administration is seeking to turn LWCF into a permanent 

mandatory-funded program? How do we do that? 

So far as I know, we have not identified any offset which is an 

issue here when we are dealing with CBO scoring. How do we ensure that, in fact, we have in place the means to address this because LWCF is not a true trust fund here? It has always been subject to appropriations. You acknowledge that there is a need to address it, but what we have not seen is how we effectively pay for 

it. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, there are, overall in the budget as we’ve 

talked about in our budget hearing, there are offsets in the overall 

budget for both the mandatory funding request for Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and the specific initiative we have within the 

Park Service budget to address the deferred maintenance issue. 

Two hundred forty-three million dollars in the ’16 budget specifically through the discretionary appropriations process to address 

deferred maintenance issues, plus $300 million in mandatory funding for a three-year period, each year for a three-year period, to address that deferred issue—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But I think we—— 

Mr. CONNOR. In association with the National Park Centennial 

with our goal is to take those highest priority assets, that $2.2 billion that we’ve identified as our highest priority, non-transportation assets, and get them in good condition over a ten-year period 

intended to address the deferred maintenance issue. So we have 

offsets in the overall budget that provide for both the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund mandatory request and the deferred 

maintenance issue with the Park Service budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I think we recognize that the identified offsets that you have come up with are probably offsets that will not 

be acceptable within this Congress. 

So where do we start? 

Let us go to Senator Cantwell, and I do not know whether votes 

have been called, but as members come and go we will just keep 

moving. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I would like to continue on this dialog because I think it is 

an important one, particularly with the anniversary of the national 

parks coming up and the question of what we want to do to improve our park system in recognition of where we have been over 

the last 100 years. But I just want to be clear because I think just 

102 

because the name of it is The Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

I am okay with changing the name to put the name acquisition in 

there. It is clearly in the statute, reading from the statute, that the 

purpose of this is for the acquisition of lands, waters, or interests 

in land and water as follows. So it is clearly in the Act. That is 

what is authorized. That is the purpose of it, so the Act is not just 

to theoretically conserve. 

I do think that the backlog issue is a real issue. Now I have 

ideas that I think that we should do the roadless area rule and 

take care of backlogs at the same time, set aside what we are not 

going to do because it is in an unattractive part from the perspective of actual timber harvest, and then make investments in areas 

where we do have backlog. But to blame the entire Federal system 

backlog on the Land and Water Conservation Fund I just think is 

not the right direction. We have got to own up to what our obligations are, to improve our Federal lands and continue to see areas 

in which Federal land acquisition might be done. 

So with that, Ms. Scarlett, you have been involved in these 

issues from two different perspectives, your role in the Department 

of Interior during the Bush Administration and now your position 

with The Nature Conservancy. In fact, I would like to say that 

some of the best environmentalists on the Republican side of the 

aisle usually come from previous Administrations who then decide 

that those were the right policies. There are many Republicans who 

push Presidents, who push great land policies, and I certainly want 

us to look at this as a bipartisan effort. 

But what can we do to make sure that we have land and water 

acquisition and also take care of maintenance? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator. I want to offer several points 

on this. 

Looking at the backlog issue I think we first have to look at its 

composition. So about half of it is roads and I think appropriately 

we should be looking in the transportation reauthorization at addressing some of those challenges. 

Secondly a not insignificant portion actually comes from disasters that have occurred and in which emergency supplemental 

funding has not covered the responses on Federal public lands and 

so including when those emergency supplemental approves funding 

to actually address those will also help. 

But I want to get to a much more important and central issue 

which is I think the remedy to the maintenance backlog really 

needs to be tied to ways that reinforce sound agency management. 

I think the Fish and Wildlife Service offers a recent example. 

They’ve actually decreased their maintenance backlog by about half 

in just a few short years. And they did that first by clearly characterizing those assets that needed repair and replacement. Second 

by prioritizing and recognizing that everything on the list didn’t 

really need to be addressed. A remote, unused or seldom used, for 

example, road might have been on the list doesn’t really need repair. So they set clear priorities, management discipline and then 

struck out to actually, within the appropriated annual budget, address them. I think the other agencies can similarly do the same. 

I want to make another point. I spent so many hours on this 

issue during my time at Interior, and one of the things we did was 

103 

to actually look at industry standards. The backlog itself is a little 

bit misleading because even in the private sector there’s always a 

backlog. What you want to do is to keep that backlog less than ten 

percent of your capital asset replacement cost. Fish and Wildlife 

Service now has its backlog down to four percent, well within that 

industry best practice. 

Other ways to address it? Recreation fees and keeping them onsite, extraordinarily important. 

And then I’ll conclude with another remedy. Increasingly The 

Nature Conservancy, when we partner in Land and Water Conservation Fund efforts, brings some matching philanthropic funds 

to the table and actually create some endowments that can actually 

contribute to some management of those lands. 

So I think there’s a lot of remedies here that are worth exploring. 

Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, Mr. Connor, what about that, looking 

at percentages and looking at various tools that would help for 

each of the individual backlogs? I mean, I think we should at least 

all come to an agreement as members of this Committee. Believe 

me, we are a very diverse group of people here, but we ought to 

just come to an agreement. 

What is the maintenance backlog within the Department of Interior? Let’s put the number out there, and then we can decide what 

we want to do about it. But as I said, instead of blaming it all on 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund as the source for taking 

care of all the backlogs on Federal lands, I think we have to come 

up with other remedies. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well as a former Deputy Secretary I listen to Lynn 

as much as possible, and it’s been good advice since she’s been giving it, and I think she’s giving some good advice today. 

I think she’s absolutely right. If we look at the maintenance backlog, we quantify it. It is 11 and a half percent, I mean, $11.5 

billion for the Park Service. It does approach $20 billion across the 

board, although that may include Bureau of Reclamation. 

There’s always going to be some level of backlog, so we’ve got to 

separate and prioritize, and that’s what we’ve done with respect to 

the Park Service, and that’s what the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

done. So we’ve identified our highest priority, non-transportation 

assets. We do think the Transportation bill should be looked at. 

But there are these other programs, fees, as well as, particularly 

for the Park Service, the private, the philanthropic organizations, 

the National Park Foundation, which is stepping up with respect 

to the Centennial coming up, raising lots of private dollars because 

there is an interest in doing that. And we’ve got to marry up all 

these programs to deal with that overall deferred maintenance 

issue which has gotten a little excessive. It is a priority. We just 

don’t think that that needs to compete with the LWCF. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking 

Member Cantwell for this hearing today. 

The natural resources in Montana are so important to driving 

our economy. Many, many Montanans make their living off the 

104 

land whether it is agriculture, whether it is mining energy industries or, of course, showcasing really world class vistas in the public 

lands to visitors around the world. 

In fact I grew up in Bozeman. We are an hour away from Yellowstone National Park, literally 50 minutes away from public lands. 

It is really the heart of where Brad Pitt and Robert Redford created fly fishing in a movie called, ‘‘A River Runs Through It.’’ 

Having said that we built a software company there that had 

1,000 employees and in part because people enjoy the quality of life 

in Montana and now that technology has moved, geography is a 

constraint. It was really our access to the lands and the amazing 

quality of life we had. It was an important driver to creating a 

business that capitalized nearly $2 billion. In fact our recruiting 

website was, I love it here, dot com, to get new employees. 

So with that as background and my support certainly for LWCF 

I want to address my first question to Ms. Scarlett. 

Thank you for being here today. The Nature Conservancy has 

used LWCF very well in Montana. I am hoping you can address 

some of these concerns that it’s solely to increase the Federal estate. 

It is my understanding that a majority of the projects in Montana are in fact addressing the checkerboard nature of ownership 

inholdings, easements that actually increase access to public lands, 

improve land management and ensure that our multigenerational 

farmers, ranchers even, stay working on the lands. 

Could you expand on how LWCF is used in Montana? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, thank you, Senator. 

You’re absolutely right. Increasingly we are seeing, especially 

through the Forest Legacy Project, as part of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, the use of both conservation easements so one 

sustains working lands, but also acquisition of checkerboard lands 

that in some instances actually make access difficult. 

A couple of projects, I’ll flag the Trumbull Creek watershed 

project in Montana, a Forest Legacy project. That was an easement. It yielded jobs, protected drinking water and sustained access. 

Another major one, The Nature Conservancy, has been involved 

in was the Montana Legacy Project, an enormous project, also 

many, many partners, working with Plum Creek Timber Company 

on some 310,000 acres of land. Again, one of the key goals was sustained access but also keeping lands contiguous and therefore better able to be managed. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, and on that issue of access. In Montana we 

have approximately 2,000,000 acres of public land that are inaccessible to the public. Access to public lands for outdoor recreation is 

such an important way of life for us. It really distinguishes, I 

think, America from virtually any other country in the world in 

terms of what we have here, that the average, hardworking, middle-class Montanan has access to lands. 

How was LWCF used in Montana to improve the sportsmen access to existing Federal lands? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, absolutely. 

Again, I want to flag the Forest Legacy Project Program because 

it has particularly focused on trying to enhance that access along 

105 

with improving forest management, and so the vast majority of 

those projects actually go very specifically toward enhancing access 

or at least having that as a component. 

Again, in some instances where you have private lands which we 

all celebrate, of course, they also make it difficult in some instances 

to access some of the premier fishing areas, hunting areas, that are 

on the public lands. Again, one of our goals with The Nature Conservancy in addition to, of course, meeting our habitat conservation 

goals has also been to help ensure that access to, after all, the 

hunters and fishers who are among our greatest conservationists. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Scarlett. 

Mr. Connor, I have a question for you. Certainly in Montana we 

understand that management of Federal lands must be improved, 

and we also are very aware of the current budget constraints and 

increasing appropriations for maintenance of existing Federal lands 

is a real challenge that we have already heard some debate here 

today. 

Could you expand further on how you see how LWCF has actually created cost savings within the Federal agency’s budget and 

how LWCF can make Federal land management more effective and 

efficient? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely, Senator Daines. Thanks for the question. 

One example is a specific Montana example that we have in the 

Lolo National Forest which had a very significant fire that rapidly 

spread in 2013 and became a high priority area during the firefighting season. Of great concern during that fire were a number 

of inholdings, and it was a particularly checker-boarded area. And 

from that standpoint there were increased firefighting costs associated with protecting those inholdings. There was concerns about 

that situation being exacerbated because of the Wildland Urban 

Interface that could exist there if those properties were developed. 

So in the aftermath LWCF was used to acquire a number of 

those parcels which, I think, the Forest Service identified as a very 

high priority to ease firefighting suppression costs. And that’s one 

example. 

And just overall it’s been estimated that about 13 percent of 

those inholdings that are the Wildland Urban Interface are developed at this point in time and do have properties and structures 

within them. If that was expanded at just 50 percent of those parcels, the Forest Service estimates that that would eat up the vast 

majority of their suppression budget in any particular firefighting 

season. 

So it’s a real concern about, how do we reduce costs, but also how 

do we avoid costs in the future? 

Senator DAINES. Okay, thanks, Mr. Connor. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Watson cited a figure, I think it was $11.5 billion, that is the 

maintenance backlog at the National Park Service. I would remind 

all of us that roughly half of that backlog is the responsibility of 

the Department of Transportation and state transportation agencies. I think we need to take that portion of the backlog seriously, 

but the way to address that backlog should be to get very serious 

106 

about passing a transportation reauthorization bill that actually includes a sustainable and long-term funding source to address that 

backlog. Blaming LWCF for that backlog really misses the point. 

LWCF is a program that works. If everything in government 

worked as well as LWCF we would have a lot of time on our hands. 

We, as the Congress, have created the backlog, and we should address that shortcoming through the appropriations process. 

In addition, I want to point out the fact that we only get to sell 

oil and gas once. We lease a lot of oil and gas in the State of New 

Mexico, but our oil and gas reserves, including these reserves offshore that fund LWCF, are depleteable assets. Once we spend the 

revenue from them, it is gone. That is why LWCF was set up to 

make permanent investments in conservation and recreation, not 

just pay for regular operations. So when we sell our energy reserves they should be invested in some sort of permanent investment in conservation, not for routine operations and maintenance. 

I hope we remember that if this program was as broken as some 

would suggest, I seriously doubt that LWCF reauthorization would 

have gotten 59 votes on the floor of the Senate as it did just a few 

weeks ago. 

So with that, Secretary Connor, I want to ask about something 

you know a little bit about, something about which is water. As you 

know water is one of the most economically, culturally important 

resources that we get from our public lands, particularly in the 

Southwest in places like New Mexico. In fact, almost half of our 

surface water comes from our national forests. 

In Taos County the county commissioner requested that the Carson National Forest purchase a property that was up for sale because development on it would threaten drinking water supplies for 

the Town of Taos and surrounding communities. Can you talk a little more about what LWCF does in terms of protecting water supplies for communities and farmers across the country? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

And yes, and particularly these days with the dramatic droughts 

going on in the West and just the fact that the water resources are 

most affected by increasing temperatures, most immediately, we 

notice the impact on water resources. There is a renewed focus 

within the LWCF to specifically look at investments that protect 

watersheds. And I’ll be sure to go back and look at the Carson National Forest example that you mentioned. 

But two examples. As I mentioned in my verbal comments, the 

Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge and 13,000 acres of a conservation easement and a ranch there. They specifically highlighted 

four watershed protection purposes. It has other benefits. It keeps 

working lands in production. It helps facilitate the financial aspects 

of that operation. But that is one of the most stunning examples 

of where watershed protection is the highest priority and to restore, work with the ranch and restore the landscape, improve the 

health of the overall watershed and the yield that it has overall. 

Great Sand Dunes National Park, the headwaters of the Rio 

Grande in Colorado, is another example where we are prioritizing 

acquisitions. I think in the budget there’s a 5,000 to 6,000 acre parcel which is just part of a number of inholdings intended to particularly protect that watershed. 

107 

Senator HEINRICH. Those are great examples, and I want to 

thank Senator Daines for bringing the issue of access up as well. 

One of the ways that the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

has been used in recent years that is really critical from a local economic viewpoint is being able to purchase easements whether it is 

into a water course, a river that does not have fishing or boating 

access, whether it is getting access into these isolated pieces of 

public land that over time have been surrounded by private property. 

Can you talk a little bit about how the Department of Interior 

is using Land and Water Conservation Funds to leverage the outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing economy by getting access to 

places that the public already owns? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

I think, just quickly, this is an area where I think the Administration has plowed new ground with respect to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund assets which is the use of conservation easements and the use of funding for particularly access for hunting, 

fishing. And so there’s a number of examples in Colorado on the 

Yampa River, the Niobrara Scenic River, the North Platte Special 

Management Area in Wyoming, where the focus has been access to 

the river for fishing as well as hunting access, particularly in the 

Yampa River in Colorado. 

It’s been a high priority. It’s a continued need that we hear more, 

and it’s one of the refinements. I think you mentioned, Chairman 

Murkowski, that we do need to look at access more and more, and 

I think that’s appropriate. 

Senator HEINRICH. And to give credit where credit is due there 

is a Sportsmen’s Act that Senator Murkowski and I are working 

on. It does attempt to address this very issue which is critical for 

many, many Western states. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely, I appreciate you bringing that up, 

Senator Heinrich. 

One thing that you mentioned though that I would agree with 

you on is we have got to deal with this aspect of the maintenance 

backlog as it relates to the roads within our public lands and how 

we deal with that, but it is my understanding that that responsibility is still on the Federal side, not kicked over to state DOT. 

There has been some argument about that, but it is still on the 

Federal side of the ledger, and that is why it tips it so out of 

whack. 

I am going to dash off and vote. Senator Barrasso will be up 

next. I know that there are a whole host of other members that will 

be back, so again, we will be jumping up and down. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Connor, recently this Committee has received letters from 

the National Recreation and Park Association, the National Association of State Park Directors and the National Association of 

State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers. I am going to submit 

those letters for the record. Obviously there is nobody here to object, so they are part of the record now. [Laughter.] 

[The information referred to follows:] 

108 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95271.084

February 6, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

& Natural Resources Committee 

Senate Office 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: LWCF Reauthorization and State Assistance Program 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell: 

The National Recreation and Park Association followed, with great interest, last 

week's Senate discussion on the reauthorization Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (L WCF), which occurred during floor debate on the Keystone XL pipeline. 

As a result, the NRP A deems imj)Oli:ant that we clearly state our position in support of 

changes being needed in the of the LWCF. 

The NRPA represents over 14,000 state and local and recreation as well as 

more than 48,000 individual members in co1a1nmntitH;s both large and in all states. 

We your support for: the reauthorization of the L WCF including 

full, permanent and 2) with fair treatment for the State Assistance 

of no less than 40% guaranteed for formula grants to the states for 

outdoor recreation. 

What we find is lost in the em1·ent discussion over the reauthorization of the 

L WCF is, first foremost, the issue of fairness in how L WCF dollars are being 

distributed. While four-out-of-five Americans live in metropolitan areas, the 

L WCF is now only about 13% of overall to the very program State 

Assistance-- where they live, and recreate, the most Urban 

communities, in the severe lack of resources currently 

through the State Assistance program. 

The State Assistance Program is consistently listed as a key tenant of the overall LWCF 

We value preserving and access to om· national treasures for all to 

but we want to remind you many treasured areas are NOT located on federal 

property. 

In of State Assistance allocations have been 

local across the country. 

fre,quemtly go well the required one-to-one 

22377 Belmont 
109 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95271.085

Chairman Murkowski 

Member Cantwell 

L WCF Reauthorization 

2 

Described as the most effective conservation effort in America and 

'"!5·'~"'""'" in 1965 when L WCF was authorized, the 

SEC. 4. ALLOCATION-There shall ... 

the nm"·nnri,C>tirm 

and diversions, the State A.ssistance 

centum 

recent years averages 13%. We the considerable COlllD(~tirt!! ,...,;,.,.,.;,,o 

honest review will confirm the effectiveness, the demand and the apj;ropriatene;;s 

a fair and balanced allocation that resembles the 

of outdoor 

Pem1anent reauthorization with a u<:<J!U·'""'"· 

the State Assistance allocation, will have tremendous 

m the purposes of the Act. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Barbara CAE 

President and CEO 

National Recreation and Park Association 

cc: Members of the and Natnral Resources Committee 

of 
110 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95271.086

February 4, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: LWCF Reauthorization, Stateside Allocation 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell: 

We noted with great interest the discussions last week on the Senate floor 

regarding the proposed amendments for the reauthorization of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. 

What sometimes gets lost in the talking points is the significant impact that 

LWCF has provided the state parks -the some 8000 distinct park areas in 

all 50 states. Portions of available stateside allocations have been 

administered very successfully to virtually every local community across the 

country. The respective local partners frequently overmatch stateside grants. 

This is to respectfully request due consideration be given for fair and 

equitable allocation of the fund as you consider permanent reauthorization of 

LWCF. Described as the most effective conservation effort in America and 

widely recognized as visionary legislation in1965 when LWCF was 

authorized, the original allocation designated was: 

With legislative changes and diversions, the Stateside portion of the fund in 

recent years averages just over 12%. We recognize the considerable needs, 

but a due review will confirm the effectiveness, the demand and the 

appropriateness of providing a fair and balanced allocation that meets the 

original intent of the law. 
111 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95271.087

The Honorable Murkowski 

The Honorable Cantwell 

LWCF Reauthorization 

Page 2 

America's State Parks provide wonderful outdoor recreation experiences and unique historical, 

scientific and environmental education opportunities. LWCF has been a key reason for the vast 

diversity- from the expansive mountainous landscape in Alaska to a coral reef in Florida to the 

world's longest stalactite formation in an Arizona cavern to locations where European settlers 

first came to America and much more. The mosaic of the natural resources, the cultural fabric of 

America, and the splendor of its beauty are enjoyed by 730 million state park visitors annually. 

State Parks provide important contributions to the nation's environment, heritage, health, and 

economy. 

Permanent reauthorization of LWCF, with balanced and equitable funding of a stateside 

allocation, will have great impact today, and for generations, in meeting the purposes of the 

original Act Thank you for your consideration. 

~ Lewis R. Ledford, Exec 

National Association of 

cc: Members, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
112 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95271.088

National Association of 

State Outdoor Recreation liaison Officers 

Kansas 

Wyoming 

Arkansas 

Alaska 

South Carolina 

Nevada 

573.353.2702 p 

573.882.9526 F 

nasorlo@embaramail.com 

www.nasorlo.org 

February 5. 2015 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Because of the recent discussions about the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) taking place 

during the Keystone Pipeline debate, our organization felt it important that we clearly state our position that 

we believe changes are needed in the reauthorization of the LWCF. 

The National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO) represents the outdoor 

recreation interests of all states. We respectfully request your support lor reauthorization of Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act with full and dedicated funding that returns a lair and equitable distribution to 

states, which was an important and key tenant of original LWCF Act. 

As Stateside LWCF Program leaders, we have developed partnerships in thousands of cities, towns and 

counties across the United States resulting in parks and outdoor recreation opportunities near and where 

people live. Parks and recreation areas created and developed through the visionary LWCF law, are 

important community assets, plus economic drivers and job creators in our communities. Furthermore, 

LWCF sites will forever be available for public use. 

While LWCF investments combined with local funds have created over 40,000 outdoor recreation sites, our 

nation and its outdoor recreation needs continue to grow and change resulting in significant unmet outdoor 

recreation needs across America. It is urgent and timely to renew the commitment to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Program and commit to a fair and equitable share lor states and local communities. 

Your commitment to supporting our request is critical to carry forward the visionary legacy of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund that today serves people across America and the Territories. 

CC: Committee Members 

by inVBSli!lQ 
113 

Senator BARRASSO. I might put a couple other things in too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. As part of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund reauthorization, all of these organizations are seeking a more 

fair and equitable share of the LWCF funds for states and local 

communities. The original 1965 Land and Water Conservation 

Fund law which Secretary Jewell has called a landmark law provided for 60 percent, 60 percent, of the funding to go to the states. 

According to the National Association of State Park Directors in recent years the state side portion has averaged just over 12 percent. 

I do not think anyone would say that 12 percent is fair and equitable, especially when the original intent was 60 percent. So can 

you talk a little bit about what you think is a fair and equitable 

percentage for the states that the Administration would support as 

part of reauthorization? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question. 

I do acknowledge, I think, absolutely you’re correct with respect 

to the original intent of the act. I believe that was changed by a 

subsequent amendment. But the question is still valid. What is the 

appropriate mix between Federal dollars and State dollars? 

We look at it a little differently with respect to the state side allocation. It’s more than just the state side program itself which, I 

think, is out of the $900 million request in our 2016 budget, $100 

million is identified for the state side program which then gets allocated to states pursuant to a formula—40 percent to every state 

and 60 percent based on population and etcetera. 

We look at the allocation in our budget as being actually 60 percent going to the Federal side and 40 percent to the State side because we look at the grant programs that have been developed, the 

Cooperative Endangered Species grants, the Forest Legacy Program, the National Park Service Urban Parks and Recreation 

grants, as going directly to state or local entities for their priority 

conservation needs. In many cases it is for conservation easements 

or acquisitions that they do in addition to the parks and ball fields 

and the recreational areas that they develop as part of the state 

side program. 

So that 60/40 split is what we think we’ve been adhering to with 

respect to the program in recent years, and we think that’s appropriate. With respect to the state side programs and the mix of 

grant programs, we think that gives us flexibility to deal with a lot 

of the state and local needs through those different programs and 

those priorities. So we think that’s an appropriate allocation. We 

think that’s working fairly well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Ledford, as a doctor I understand how important daily exercise is to a healthy lifestyle. In your testimony you touch on how 

state and local parks impact the health and wellness of, as you say, 

Americans in every community, every day. In your view why are 

state and local parks ideally positioned to increase the health and 

wellness of Americans every day? 

Mr. LEDFORD. What comes to mind is the breadth and depth and 

the locations of these around the country and where they’re located. There’s a study from the Charlotte/Mecklenburg area where 

the proximity of parks, if you’re living within one half mile of a 

114 

park or playground you’re five times, as a child, to be more 

healthy. So I think there’s a direct correlation with all the studies 

that are going on in today’s society about the benefits of activities 

in the outdoors and the direct relationship. 

Senator BARRASSO. Again Mr. Ledford, in Ms. Scarlett’s testimony she talks about the economic benefits to communities with 

proximity to public land because it attracts people and their businesses. In your career with the North Carolina State Parks Department have you witnessed economic benefits or revitalization efforts 

in areas where biking paths or recreational facilities, playgrounds 

or other protected open spaces are provided? 

Mr. LEDFORD. Absolutely. Whenever we bought property or acquired parks or started new areas some of the property that we 

would later want to acquire for that property or that park, the 

value was increased because of the proximity. The values of the 

property go up because of the type of use and the facilities and the 

accommodations that we’re providing. 

A local example in Mecklenburg County again was the $53 million annually spent by the tourists that come to the parks and $3.9 

million annual increased tax benefit to those property values going 

up just in Mecklenburg County alone in North Carolina. 

Senator BARRASSO. So do you believe that returning to that original intent of the law to provide 60 percent of the funding for state 

purposes that that will lead to a greater economic revival in local, 

rural, as well as urban communities? 

Mr. LEDFORD. I think it would provide, Senator, a considerable 

increase to the local, states and local departments, and states to 

provide additional funds for that purpose. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks. 

Mr. Watson, the testimony from the Administration and The Nature Conservancy argue additional land acquisitions increase public 

access, increase landscape health and increase conservation. 

Your testimony, Mr. Watson, about conservation goes in a different direction by saying conservation at its core is about the care 

and maintenance of the land. You believe acquiring more land 

would actually, as you say, do more harm than good and will 

threaten the ecological health and public accessibility and economic 

productivity of public lands. 

Can you talk about why you believe conservation is more closely 

aligned with addressing our deferred maintenance backlog than acquiring new lands? 

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I do. I wish Ranking Member Cantwell were here for this question because I do think there’s a inherent tradeoff between acquiring more lands and maintaining the lands that we’ve got. And if 

my comments led some members of the Committee to believe that 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund was the exclusive driver 

of the maintenance backlog then I apologize. It wasn’t my intent. 

Rather that, moving forward as we consider reauthorization of the 

act and the fund, that we consider how that money would best be 

spent. I think there is an inherent tradeoff between acquiring more 

lands and stretching the existing operations and maintenance 

budgets further, thinner. 

115 

And to the issue of inholdings, I think there’s perhaps legitimate 

claims to be made that acquiring those inholdings can reduce maintenance costs. But there’s also another mechanism for doing that 

which is land swaps. Someone has mentioned the issue of 

checkerboarding, checkerboarded, I would say, exterior borders. 

And swapping some of those lands and interior holdings for land 

outside the Federal estate would actually be perhaps a more cost 

effective and more revenue neutral approach. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Watson. 

Yesterday Secretary Jewell announced Federal grants to eight 

cities to establish or restore parks in outdoor recreation facilities 

in low income, disadvantaged neighborhoods. So I think that by 

highlighting these types of projects, projects that are typical of 

what states do with funding, I see this as an acknowledgement 

that we need a more robust and more fair state side program. 

Senator Cassidy? 

Senator CASSIDY. Yes. Mr. Watson, great testimony. 

Mr. Connor, is it true that we are dumping chlorine into the 

river that is the water supply for those Sequoias? 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m not familiar with that. 

Senator CASSIDY. Mr. Watson, do you have documentation of that 

now? 

Mr. WATSON. It’s actually from the Department of Interior’s 

budget request for 2016. So, yes. 

Senator CASSIDY. Wow, there is no way to prioritize that? I 

thought that Ms. Scarlett’s comment was well taken. We need to 

prioritize. Ms. Scarlett spoke and I, again, good testimony, all of 

you, about ten percent being acceptable, sort of, this is the backlog. 

Fisheries has it down to four percent. Whatever standard Ms. 

Scarlett is using, you all know each other, so you must be familiar 

with that standard, I presume. What percent? If it is four percent 

for fisheries, what is it for the other agencies? 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m not familiar, off the top of my head, with where 

we are with the other agencies. I do think that’s a good industry 

standard that we should be looking at. I’m happy to look at that 

for the record. 

[The referenced information was not received at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. CONNOR. We’ve quantified. But as far as what percentage 

that is, I’m not quite—— 

Senator CASSIDY. What is the total budget of those agencies be- cause you said there is a $20 billion backlog in the aggregate? So 

when you do back of envelope, if you will, if we knew their total 

budget? Now granted that would not be the total budget only for 

management. That would include personnel costs, etcetera. So do 

you know the total budget they have for all like, managing lands? 

Mr. CONNOR. Our budget overall for the Interior Department is about $12 billion. 

Senator CASSIDY. You have got a $20 billion backlog. [Laughter.] 

That’s over four percent. Ms. Scarlett, any comments on that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, I want to clarify that number that I used, 

that is, the ten-percent standard is not of a total budget. What that 

is is an industry standard where you look at the costs of your 

maintenance backlog relative to your total capital asset value. 

116 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Ms. SCARLETT. So that’s the figure, and I’m sure I could look at 

that in the Park Service. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now Mr. Watson, you suggest that I implied, 

I forget if it is outright stated, that state park management has 

done a better job in terms of realizing the cost, etcetera, etcetera, 

all the nice little litany of things that were suggested that could 

be done better. The State of Alaska has done a better job with state 

parks in terms of, you name it, upgrading, maintaining, realizing 

dollar value from than has the Federal management. Do you have 

that information? 

Mr. WATSON. Actually and this wasn’t a staged question, but we 

do. PERC just released a report comparing management of State 

verses Federal lands because, as you are probably well aware, 

there’s a growing lobby, I would say, to transfer some of the Federal estate to state management. So we started a research project 

to look at the economics of that transfer issue and what sort of 

management tradeoffs or differences we see between State and 

Federal management. 

And the results, the data, were overwhelming that states do a 

better job of managing their lands, partly it’s because they’ve got 

a clear instruction as far as how those lands should be managed. 

But overwhelmingly I wouldn’t say across every state park, but if 

you had to characterize, as we do in our divided lands report, 

which I’m happy to share with all the members of the Committee, 

the maintenance issue was much smaller and less pressing need 

for state lands than they are on Federal lands. 

[The referenced information was not received at the time of 

printing.] 

Senator CASSIDY. So there is better maintenance on state lands? 

Mr. WATSON. Correct. 

Senator CASSIDY. That is interesting. 

Mr. Connor, any comments on that? It seems like we should be 

giving the parks to the states. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think, as with all reports, we would certainly want to look at that and make sure it’s an apples per apples 

comparison. I know that other folks have looked at the report, and 

I haven’t, so I have no personal judgments on that, but I know they 

raised issues with respect whether it’s a looking at a multiple-use 

mandate, how certain costs like firefighting costs have been dealt 

with in that particular report. So I think it’s a piece of work that 

deserves to be looked at. And we’re happy to do that and comment 

for the record. 

Senator CASSIDY. Sounds good. 

[The referenced information was not received at the time of 

printing.] 

Senator CASSIDY. Now next on the infilling. It is easy for me to 

imagine that some infilling could lead to the need for more 

infilling. That if you have something shaped like a U and then you 

begin, kind of, making a bridge it then becomes a circle, and now 

you have got to continue to buy within that circle. How much of 

the infilling leads to the need for more infilling, so to speak? 

117 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think overall when we’re acquiring 

inholdings within conservation units we do think that the more 

that you can acquire through the willing seller process, the more 

you’re increasing your management efficiencies from all different 

standpoints. 

Senator CASSIDY. I guess that is not my point. If you have an upside down U and then you, kind of, building a gap by building a 

bridge for whatever reason, between the bottoms of the U, now you 

have got a circle. So now you have got to spend another 99 percent 

of your money, if you will, on filling in the circle. I guess I am asking is, when we do this, knowing that it is contiguous, does it contribute to the checkerboarding or to the kind of vacuous nature or 

does it begin to fill in those that are hollow? Obviously we want 

to get out of having to spend 99 percent of our budget on infilling. 

So, thoughts? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think overall where we’ll look at it—mostly it is 

a checkerboard as opposed to the circular situation. And we’ll look 

at trying to strategically acquire those inholdings in a way that 

doesn’t facilitate, ongoing. We want each acquisition to stand on its 

merit as improving management efficiencies as much as possible. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay, and just one more thing. Wiggle room, 

as in, overall, I agree with Senator Murkowski and with Mr. Watson. If we are not maintaining why are we acquiring more, and this 

is a compelling reason. If you could share with the Committee, kind 

of, the map of what you have done not to dispute, but just so I can 

understand. Oh, yes, here it is truly, completely coloring in, but 

every now and then we kind of bridge a gap. 

If you could do that, again, I say that not to dispute or to accuse, 

but just to understand. 

Mr. CONNOR. No, I think we’ve got some information like that 

that we’ll be happy to provide to the Committee. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

[The referenced information was not received at the time of 

printing.] 

Senator CASSIDY. I yield back. 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. 

I want to pursue a little bit more the discussion about state side 

verses Federal side because, as I mentioned in my statement, when 

LWCF was first established 50 years ago it seemed that there was 

a more directed congressional intent in terms of how the allocations 

would go. It seems that we have really deviated from what that 

original intent was. 

Mr. Ledford, you have suggested a specific allocation to states. I 

do not remember if you said 60 percent or over 60 percent should 

be allocated then to state side. To effectively put that in more concrete terms so that we do not have the discretion, some would call 

it the flexibility, but the discretion to put more toward the Federal 

acquisition side. I would ask you, Mr. Connor, why have we seen 

such a shift to the Federal acquisition side moving directly against, 

again, the initial intent which was a more even allocation between 

State side and Federal side? 

118 

Is that fed piece just using muscle? What is happening, and do 

you think it is a bad thing that we should go back to the original 

intent? 

Mr. CONNOR. We talked a little bit about this in Senator 

Barrasso’s questions, and he referenced the 60 percent original goal 

for state side. And that was, I think, modified by subsequent 

amendment to the act itself. 

And what I represented is we’re about at a 60/40 split from our 

perspective. We’ve moved in that direction because we’ve got more 

flexible tools now, I think, to deliver resources to the state and 

local entities. It’s not just the state side program, the traditional 

program, of giving money directly to the states according to the formula. 

We’ve got the grant programs which all go to local entities, particularly for legacy program within the Forest Service, the Cooperative Endangered Species Grant Program which goes to the local entities in a lot of cases to acquire conservation easements associated 

with habitat and conservation plans which achieve local goals, as 

well as the Urban Parks and Recreation Programs which Senator 

Barrasso mentioned, that we made an announcement yesterday. 

So the 40 percent of the resources are really going to state side 

local entities, not to any Federal entity, not for any Federal acquisition. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Mr. Ledford if he agrees with all 

that. 

Mr. LEDFORD. To clarify from my point of view, the state program receives 12 and a half percent, on average, in the recent 

years. Those other programs don’t go through the competitive 

planned process that come to the states. There are more Federal 

programs that are given directly to other programs verses the 

match that the 50 percent at least match that the local communities are providing with the state. So we’re actually at a 12 and 

a half percent or there about allocation. And then the local governments or institutions are matching that fund, but it is in the 12 

and a half percent that goes through the state assistance program. 

The related purposes would be what you would consider that were 

added in 1998 that allow for the other funds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you another question on that because 

some have suggested that the oversight or the accountability measures with regards to state assistance LWCF programs, there are 

some issues as to whether or not the funds are going in the direction where the programs are authorized. What kind of oversight do 

we have? What kind of accountability do we have on the state side? 

Mr. LEDFORD. Well each state has a gubernatorial-appointed 

state recreation liaison officer that manages the program for their 

state. It’s watched the entire time with the program, every five 

years there’s an inspection and authorization that the projects stay 

in perpetuity to the intents that it was set up to be established for 

the operation of the outdoor facilities for the park. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we do have a level of oversight in place that 

is pretty clearly defined then? 

Mr. LEDFORD. Absolutely, and I would like to go on to clarify 

with some of these other points that the state side does allow for 

land acquisition as well. 

119 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, right. 

Mr. LEDFORD. On the state programs, not just facilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, understood. 

Let us go next to Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the discussion. 

In 1985 and 6 I was Chairman of President Reagan’s Commission on Americans Outdoors and one of the major recommendations 

was to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and do 

it in a mandatory way. That has never been, in fact, realized because of the way our budget system works here. But after spending 

a year and a half chairing, I was a Governor then, looking at all 

these issues, I came to the conclusion that maybe we needed a conservation policy for the Western United States and a different one 

for the Eastern United States. And I still feel that way. 

I can understand how Senator Murkowski feels about acquiring 

more land in Alaska because, the Federal Government owns so 

much of Alaska. Tennessee, North Carolina, we are different, you 

know? We have got the national park, the Great Smokey Mountains is 500,000 acres which we bought and gave to the Federal 

Government and then there is the Cherokee National Forest. And 

that is close to it. 

We like the fact that Land and Water Conservation money is 

used to help acquire Rocky Fork which was a Forest Service priority, and so there is a completely different attitude, and I think 

one of the great things about our country is that we are big and 

diverse, and we are not one size fits all. So why should a one size 

conservation policy fit every single state? Why shouldn’t we say to 

a state like Tennessee that if you want to use your Land and 

Water Conservation Fund money to acquire more lands have at it? 

And to a state like Alaska, if you want to use some of it to maintain what you have, you can do that. What would be wrong with 

that, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator. 

I think we’ve acknowledged and I heard Secretary Jewell acknowledge and I think this came up in our budget hearing the fact 

that there is probably more enthusiasm for the LWCF in the Eastern states vis-a-vis the Western states, probably not because of 

more interest in conservation, but it’s probably the land acquisition 

piece in and of itself. I’m not quite sure how a different kind of conservation policy East and West would play out. 

Senator ALEXANDER. One way to express itself the last time we 

dealt with this it seemed like, when we created a little bit of mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund a few 

years ago it all went to the state side because the westerners did 

not want any more Federal land acquired. So that was an implicit 

recognition of what I just said. 

While I am on that how much money, so far, has been produced 

by the one-eighth of cent, I guess it was, of mandatory funding for 

the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Energy bill of 2005 or 7, whichever it was, 2007? 

Mr. CONNOR. It hasn’t manifested itself in great amounts so far. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But how much? 

120 

Mr. CONNOR. I think it’s probably in the neighborhood of $4 to $8 million. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, I think it is $3.6 million. Is that right? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is probably right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. And maybe—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. You ought to know that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. If it is only $3.6 million. That is the only 

mandatory funding we have, isn’t it, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund? 

Mr. CONNOR. It is. But as you know, as of 2017 the amount that 

that applies to, that incremental value of revenues does increase. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It could increase or does increase. What 

happens in 2017? 

Mr. CONNOR. So it was a sliver of those oil and gas revenues of 

an area within the Gulf of Mexico. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. 

Mr. CONNOR. It was eligible to be used for those revenues for the 

state side program. That area increases substantially in 2017. So 

as of 2018 I think we’re looking at a cap of about $125 million. It 

could get to that cap and you could have $125 million for the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund state side program depending on 

where oil prices are at that point in time. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It could get to it. 

Mr. CONNOR. It could. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It could get to it. 

Mr. CONNOR. Exactly. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But so far it is $3.6 between 2009 and now 

which is not a whole lot of money. 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would like to reintroduce the subject of 

user fees. Every time I have looked at the maintenance backlog of 

the National Park System it is mostly roads and that kind of thing. 

Roads ought to be paid for by people who drive. I do not know why 

it’s not part, as it has been before, of our National Transportation 

system program. I don’t know why we would take valuable dollars 

that we should use, that we need to use, to maintain parks and use 

it to maintain roads. 

For example, there is one road through the Great Smokey Mountain National Park, only one. It is a major highway. Maintaining 

it is a big deal. I assume that comes out of the National Park Service funds. Is that correct? 

Mr. CONNOR. There are some funds. We are looking at fees 

and—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, I mean, the road through the Great 

Smokey Mountain National Park. Is that paid for by park funds or 

by highway funds? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think we would prioritize most of the major work 

that needs to be done out of the Transportation bill, the highway 

funds, but I’m sure there are some Park Service funds that go toward that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Do you—— 

Mr. CONNOR. We could look—— 

121 

Senator ALEXANDER. Do you not know that? 

Mr. CONNOR. I do not know that off the top of my head. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, why don’t you know that? I mean, 

that is the most visited National Park. It is the only road through 

the park. You are the Deputy Secretary. You ought to know that. 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m going to know that very soon, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, I think you should. I mean you ought 

to know exactly how much money is coming out of the mandatory 

fund in LWCF. You ought to know how much money, I mean, if we 

are going to be having a whole hearing about maintenance, we 

ought to know whether the highway funds are coming out of the 

Federal highway system or whether they are coming out of the 

park system. 

My time is up, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warren? 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a good example about 

how environmental protection and economic growth can reinforce 

each other. A recent report by the Trust for Public Land found that 

for every dollar invested in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

returns of $4 came in economic value, not only through the benefits 

of recreation and tourism but also through less obvious benefits 

such as protecting water quality, water supply, guarding against 

floods. Some of these you referred to in your testimony. 

But Mr. Deputy Secretary, could you just give me one or two 

quick examples of how Federal land acquisition under the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund generates economic value? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

There are ancillary benefits that are certainly real from an economic standpoint. As you mentioned, protecting our water supply 

and Ms. Scarlett gave a very good example of how in one instance 

there was, I think it was in the Connecticut River Basin, the protection of the water supply alleviates the need for doing certain 

maintenance activities. And so, that’s an example. 

But certainly I think there are numerous examples of recreational benefits of enhancing that outdoor recreation industry, 

and that certainly is through our access programs, the Niobrara 

National Scenic River, the Smith River National Recreation Area 

in Oregon. These are all areas that have been identified as a high 

priority by not just the Federal Government, but the state and 

local communities because of the economic viability of those recreation areas and the yield to the local economies. 

Senator WARREN. Well some have suggested that the Federal 

Government is using these tools to expand the footprint of Federal 

lands in our states. So I actually want to focus on this. When land 

is acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund does 

it represent an expansion of the Federal footprint or does it mostly 

involve infill, that is buying up properties that are already surrounded by Federal land and creating an easier to manage unified 

piece of land? 

Mr. Deputy Secretary? 

Mr. CONNOR. Over the last five years it greatly goes to 

inholdings within existing conservation units. 99.25 percent of the 

acquisitions have been within those external boundaries. In fact 

122 

the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service only 

acquire lands within their external boundaries. 

The Bureau of Land Management does have the ability to acquire them outside but they prioritize inholdings and edge holdings. And there are, that 99.25, that small percentage that’s not 

inholdings is BLM and it’s three acquisitions that they’ve made 

within the last five years. 

Senator WARREN. Sir, I just want to underline that number. That 

is 99.25 percent of all lands purchased for the Department of the 

Interior go for filling in holes that were privately held in the middle of Federal park lands. 

Now in Massachusetts the National Park Service recently expanded the Cape Cod National Seashore area in precisely this 

manner by acquiring an easement of the North Highland Campgrounds which was already surrounded by National Park land. Can 

you walk us through why these purchases, in many cases, actually 

reduce the cost to taxpayers and make it easier to manage Federally protected lands? 

Mr. CONNOR. From many levels we’ve talked about how these 

inholdings require additional fire protection activities which certainly is an additional cost on a yearly basis. 

Ease of management, quite frankly, where we have inholdings 

and private property. We have to take care to limit access to those 

private properties and keep people within the publicly available 

lands, so it’s a management challenge. 

From a habitat standpoint it’s also a management challenge, and 

it eases overall management goals with respect to connectivity and 

habitat and water supply restoration efforts. If we’ve got one ownership and it’s part of a conservation unit and so on many different 

levels there’s efficiencies to be gained from addressing the issue of 

inholdings. 

Senator WARREN. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate you 

all being here today. 

In Massachusetts the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 

been a very strong success. It protects a diverse collection of areas 

from forests and watersheds such as the Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge that provides many ecological benefits to important 

historic sites such as the Minute Man National Historic Park. Good 

for our environment, good for our economy. 

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and fully fund this program so we can continue to have all of 

the tools we need to protect this land for our kids and our 

grandkids. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let us go to Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to step back and talk about the original purpose of 

the law. This is one of the most far-sighted, in fact, visionary statutes passed in the last 100 years. I have always thought that the 

people who had the foresight to set aside Central Park in Manhattan at a time when that island was very sparsely populated and 

to preserve that land is one of the great acts of genius in our country. 

123 

Of course, the national parks fit into the same category. Ken 

Burns said they were America’s best idea. They are one of the few 

things we can do around here that is permanent, as permanent as 

anything can be. Laws and statutes come and go, but once land is 

set aside for the public, it is there permanently. 

I think it is important to realize that the funding source here, 

the offshore oil and gas revenues, those resources belong to the 

public, and we are using that money that comes from property that 

is owned by boys and girls in Bangor, Maine and people that live 

in Alaska and people that live in San Francisco or Alabama or New 

York. Those are their assets and we are allowing people to use 

them for commercial purposes. There are fees involved, and turning 

that money back into access for people to the public is absolutely 

essential it seems to me. This whole discussion, to me, is a great 

big example of the failure of Congress to adequately address the 

country’s needs. 

Mr. Watson, you made an eloquent case for adequately funding 

the national parks not raiding the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund to do what Congress should be doing in the budget of the national parks or how about this? Funding the Highway Trust Fund. 

That would be a good idea. It goes broke in 30 days. We have 

patched it, I do not know, ten or 11 times. Senator Warren just 

whispered, embarrassing, and that is what it is. 

We are like a search light searching for pots of money that can 

be sucked up to meet the needs that we ought to be doing in the 

ordinary course of budgeting. By the way, Mr. Connor, I do not let 

the parks all fall together. I have gone after Secretary Jewell about 

the failure to collect fees adequately at the parks, and you need to 

modernize that system because a lot of people that come to the national parks, I know people come to Acadia, tell me, ‘‘We would like 

to pay, but we could not figure out where the entrance was.’’ So we 

need to work on that. 

But I just think the fundamental question here is once we start 

saying well this is a slush fund for covering deferred maintenance 

then, forget it. We may as well repeal the statute and name it 

something else because it is not going to be living up to its purpose. 

And this country is growing. 

It is also interesting this is a regional issue because it is very different in the West. I was just talking to Senator Risch from Idaho. 

Two-thirds of the land in Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. That is not true in the East where public lands are so important in terms of people’s access to the out of doors, people’s recreational access. 

The other thing we need to remember is this money is not just 

for Yosemite or Acadia National Parks. I met recently with some 

friends in Maine, Steve Balboni, Tracy Willette and Denise 

LeBlanc. They are local park officials in Bath, Maine, Bangor, 

Maine, Skowhegan, Maine. They run summer programs for kids, 

and they have recreational opportunities. They work with the 

school lunch program. This is real important. We are not hugging 

trees here, we are hugging kids nationwide, and I think that is 

very important. 

Finally I am passionate about this because my wife and I are 

RVers, and we have stayed in some sensational state parks. Dead 

124 

Horse Point State Park in Utah, state parks in Georgia, state 

parks in Washington State, national parks all over the country. 

This is who we are, and it is one of the greatest things about this 

country. I am just very intent, as you might be able to tell, that 

we not, in effect, convert this statute, this far-seeing visionary act 

of genius by our forbearers in this institution, to a maintenance 

fund to fix roads and curbsides in our nation’s parks and in our 

community parks across the country. 

I have used up all my time, so if you could find a question in 

there you are welcome to it. [Laughter.] I just feel so strongly about 

this, and I appreciate all of you coming. Mr. Watson, I know I cited 

you in particular, so certainly. 

Mr. WATSON. I found a question there, if I may? 

Senator KING. I want you to come to the Appropriations hearing 

and make the same case for funding the roads and the bridges in 

the national park. 

Mr. WATSON. I’d be happy to. 

I hear you wholeheartedly, and I think raiding the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund to turn it into a maintenance fund is the 

wrong idea. But as I said and I said it colloquially, as my Dad said 

to me, when you’re digging a hole, when you find yourself in a hole, 

stop digging. 

And that’s the point. That’s the thrust of my testimony is we 

should probably stop acquiring more lands and stretching those 

maintenance dollars further rather than raiding the fund for maintenance. But we need to do something. 

The National Park Service itself estimates that it needs $700 

million a year just to hold the line, just to maintain the current 

backlog, not even to start drawing it down. So this is a significant 

financial issue. You said who we are. This is who we are, and I 

couldn’t agree more. 

And as we think about celebrating the National Park Centennial 

what are we going to celebrate? Are we going to celebrate acquiring 

a lot of lands that are no longer maintained, the roads are crumbling and inaccessible and wildlife habitat is deteriorating? And 

we’re literally poisoning our Sequoias with waste water or 

chlorinated water or do we want to celebrate stewardship? 

And I think back 50 years to what the original forbearers who 

passed this visionary law were thinking about, and I suspect they 

were thinking about stewardship and conservation, not necessarily 

acquisition in the name of acquisition. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

It looks like we are in charge, Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER [presiding]. Thank you. We have to find questions all over the place now, you and I. 

Thank you very much to all of you for being here today. 

It is great to see you, Lynn. It is great to see you. Thank you, 

Ms. Scarlett, as well for being here. And thank you to the Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member for holding the hearing 

today on a very popular and bipartisan program. 

Over its 50 year history the LWCF has conserved iconic landscapes in every state and is our nation’s most important conservation program. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife since the 

inception of the program approximately for every $1 approximately 

125 

in LWCF grants that have been made in Colorado it was leveraged 

with $2.50 in investments dedicated to the construction and maintenance of outdoor recreation throughout my state. 

This type of conservation system has helped Colorado establish an outdoor recreation economy that contributes $10 billion of economic activity to our communities and supports over 107,000 good 

jobs. I was proud to support Senator Burr’s amendment during the 

Keystone debate that would have permanently reauthorized LWCF. 

Furthermore, in the past LWCF funds have helped eliminate the 

threat of water exports from the San Luis Valley in Colorado to 

help create the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. 

We have a picture here of somebody who is really mad that 

water is interfering with their fence, but beautiful. In the background you can see the sand dunes and the mountains in the back. 

And because of LWCF we have these lands in Colorado that may 

not have been preserved otherwise or protected for current and future generations to enjoy. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

126 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95271.089
127 

I would like to share this picture along with another photo that 

we have of the Baca Ranch just to show one, of the many opportunities that we have across this country to preserve some of the 

greatest landscapes that we have. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95271.090
128 

So to Director Scarlett, I have seen the value that LWCF can 

bring to a community by helping purchase inholdings on Federal 

lands. Could you speak to the importance of purchasing inholdings 

at a broader level, a national level? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

As those gathered know when the Congress designates parks, 

refuges, etcetera, they designate the boundaries of those places. 

But sometimes at the point of designation not all the lands within 

those boundaries are actually available and so many of those lands 

end up as Deputy Secretary Connor suggested, with inholdings. By 

being able to actually acquire those inholdings there are a number 

of benefits, not only in terms of recreation, in terms of preventing 

land fragmentation and indeed, even undermining some of the 

original purposes of the parks or the wildlife refuges but significant 

management benefits. 

And I do want to say, I think it’s a mistake, as Reed Watson suggested, to think that land acquisition is in competition with management enhancement. 

Let’s think of wildland fire, something in your state you’re really 

well familiar with. Prescribed burns cost about 95 percent less than 

mechanical treatment. And to be able though to do those prescribed 

burns actually requires that you have some contiguous lands. It’s 

very difficult to do them where you have inholdings for fear of encroaching on those private lands. That’s one example. There are 

many, many others where those acquisitions significantly enhance 

management. 

I think Secretary or Deputy Secretary Connor also mentioned the 

issue of public access. And one of the challenges where you have 

inholdings is from the public standpoint they don’t know where 

that private boundary begins and the public one ends. And so 

there’s a challenge for the agency of managing those boundaries to 

make sure people don’t trespass on those private lands. Removing 

that challenge by acquiring that inholding can significantly benefit 

the public in terms of trail continuity, but also the agency in terms 

of management. Really the list goes on and on. 

Senator GARDNER. Yes. 

Deputy Secretary Connor, Colorado has been fortunate to have a 

very successful state program, Great Outdoors Colorado. They have 

done amazing work, but there are areas where the Federal Government just simply has to take the lead. 

Rocky Mountain National Park is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, and there is one particular inholding on one of the 

main park roads that has become available for acquisition by the 

park. The State of Colorado, Larimer County most likely, will seek 

to secure that inholding. 

Would you please address a little bit about what Ms. Scarlett 

said in terms of the two not being in competition with each other, 

the land acquisition, inholding acquisition, those two efforts—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. I absolutely agree. They’re both high 

priorities. 

I think it shouldn’t be looked at as LWCF adding to the maintenance burden because of all the efficiencies that we’ve talked about 

today with respect to management and not only firefighting efforts 

which I talked about to some extent. But also, absolutely, the preVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:17 Jan 24, 2017 Jkt 095271 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95271\H95271.TXT H95271
129 

scribed burn, the daily type of maintenance and management activities that we have to do to take care of these lands which are 

made more easy by acquiring these inholdings. So there’s efficiencies in those programs that don’t make it necessarily an additional burden. It actually helps in our overall management and our 

efficiency in managing public lands. We do need to deal with, separately though, the backlog of deferred maintenance. 

And I think Mr. Watson’s absolutely right. We have the park’s 

Centennial coming up. That’s the reason why we have this initiative in the 2016 budget to get on a very definite program to deal 

with that $11.5 billion maintenance backlog of which about $4.9 

billion is non-transportation assets, about $5.6 billion are transportation assets and get, particularly, prioritize as our highest priority 

assets and have this ten-year program to not only get them back 

into good condition but ensure that we can maintain them in good 

condition. Our budget proposal does provide for that just as it provides for the Land and Water Conservation reauthorization and 

mandatory funding. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, there was only one attempted rebellion while you 

were gone, so we were happy to restore order. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Senator Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In the great State of West Virginia we know the importance of 

protecting our public lands. They are a source of economic activity 

and connection to our heritage. Each year nearly a million people 

take advantage of the beauty, beautiful, public lands in West Virginia, and we are very proud of that. We generate about $7.6 billion in consumer spending and 82,000 

jobs which we are very appreciative for that. These jobs provide 

about $2 billion in wages and more than half a billion in state and 

local tax revenue. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided over $230 million to West Virginia over the past 50 years including nearly $50 million for the New River Gorge area, the picture of which I have with me. As you can see it’s a very, very beautiful place. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

130 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95271.091
131 

The New River is one of the oldest rivers on Earth. It was home 

to early coal mining and company towns, railroads and farms, and 

today it is known for world-class whitewater rafting as well as 

hunting, fishing, camping and just about any outdoor activity. Protecting lands like these across the United States should continue 

to be a priority for Congress which is why I am proud to co-sponsor 

a bill this Congress to both reauthorize and fully fund this important program. 

Let me ask you all, with GOMESA funding currently the only 

sure funding going to LWCF, can you please share your thoughts 

on the challenges our network of public lands, State and Federal, 

will face if one of the LWCF programs has guaranteed funding and 

the others do not, where your priorities may be? Who would want 

to jump in on that? 

Mr. LEDFORD. From the state perspective GOMESA, you know, 

we are very appreciative of all the funds that we have available. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. LEDFORD. But there is a cap and ceiling on that that would 

be just over $125 million total coming in. So that doesn’t get us 

back to the amount of equitable allocation that we would seek to 

have from the reauthorization of LWCF. But again, we’re very appreciative of all those funds to be brought to the table. 

Senator MANCHIN. How do you all categorize and pick the ones 

you think are most effective because we do not want to lose any. 

So we will be sitting here defending our states and all the programs that we have, and they have all been helpful. But as you 

start prioritizing because of budget restraints, where do you go? 

How do you go? Do you hear from us? Listen to us or our states? 

Do you ask us to prioritize which ones we need the most and have 

the most effect or do you just cut across the board because it is 

easier that way? 

Mr. LEDFORD. Each state has a statewide comprehensive outdoor 

recreation plan that analyzes and prioritizes based on demand, 

trends, supplies, opportunities. That’s a very open process to select 

those highest priority projects. 

Senator MANCHIN. So you do not pick any one of the programs 

within your jurisdiction as far as one you are going to that you 

think has the most return and the most good for the people? 

Mr. LEDFORD. We try to go through those priorities that is established by that statement. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well I am saying your funding, coming from 

the Federal Government. If it starts cutting back do you just go 

across the board and take all the cuts? 

Mr. LEDFORD. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. That is the way—— 

Mr. LEDFORD. Well on the state side, yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Federal side too. 

Mr. LEDFORD. Yes, we—yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. On the Federal side we’ll continue to prioritize with 

whatever resources we have. We think the mandatory funding proposal is incredibly important to add stability to the program to 

allow the benefits of efficiency and long term planning, but we have 

prioritized our acquisitions based on conservation value, the manVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:17 Jan 24, 2017 Jkt 095271 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95271\H95271.TXT H95271
132 

agement efficiencies we get out of it and the threats to the resource, quite frankly. 

And so each agency has its own set of priorities that are doing 

acquisitions. We also have a collaborative conservation program 

that looks at large landscapes, and we’re doing that very much 

across the Federal Government and with the state and local entities. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me go to one more question then. 

As you may know, West Virginia is proud to be the third most 

forested state in the nation. I have my dear friend here from Maine 

who may be trying to take claim for one of the other ones. Close 

to 80 percent of the entire state is forested in West Virginia. It is 

unbelievable. 

Timber production from these forests are critical to the state’s 

economy, but they are equally important for providing clean water, 

outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing and many other uses. Importantly 87 percent of our forest land is privately-owned while only 

13 percent is in public-ownership. 

You mentioned in your testimony the Forest Legacy Program 

which helps maintain private forest land and its other related purposes with LWCF. Can you go into more detail in how the Forest 

Service uses this particular program to work with the states and 

private landowners to protect public lands? How do you coordinate 

that? 

Mr. CONNOR. The Forest Legacy Program, I know that it’s highly 

valued by the states. It’s at the Department of Agriculture so I’m 

probably a little spare on the details itself. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOR. But I do know that they’ve used this very effectively to keep working lands in production as much as we do with 

respect to range land within the BLM. 

The Forest Service has looked at these as opportunities to support the conservation easements, working lands, those forests, to 

achieve conservation goals, but to ensure that they stay in those 

ownership, that they don’t get developed and that they can be used 

for revenue production also. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield my 

three seconds back to the Senator from Maine. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

It looks like we have got an opportunity for a couple more questions here. Again, I apologize that we have been in and out 

throughout this hearing. 

As I have come in and out I have heard you all repeating comments that you had made previously in response to other members, 

and I apologize for that. Maybe you are just reinforcing your statements here. 

One of the things that I wanted to ask that I hope has not yet 

been addressed was how you identify for purposes of purchasing 

lands through LWCF funds to address the public access issue. I 

mentioned in my comments, again, that in Alaska and many remote parts, I think you, Senator Daines, mentioned that there are 

parts of Montana, parts of Alaska, parts of the country that it is 

really difficult to access these public lands whether it is for hunting, fishing, recreational opportunities. What do you do, Mr. ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:17 Jan 24, 2017 Jkt 095271 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95271\H95271.TXT H95271
133 

nor, in terms of identifying and how are our sportsmen and women 

incorporated into a process of prioritization? 

As you have heard, Senator Heinrich and I are working on this 

bipartisan Sportsmen’s bill. We have some pretty good provisions 

within that, but we want to make sure that the interest, the voices 

of the users of our public lands, are heard as well when you are 

identifying priorities. 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Well we do rely on the local land managers working with the 

local communities on identifying those high priority access issues. 

And through that effort we have gradually increased what is essentially a set aside within our programs to ensure access. And I think 

in the 2016 budget across Interior and USDA it’s a $20 million set 

aside out of the overall request. 

I would say also we’re sensitive with respect to—so there’s the 

specific set aside for specific recreational access to sportsmen and 

sportswomen for hunting, fishing, those type of activities. There’s 

also, I think, overall we’ve looked at our acquisitions and about 90 

percent of the acquisitions do allow for public access too. There are 

some instances where we have conservation easements on private 

lands where private access is not or public access is not part of the 

acquisition in that sense and more that’s for conservation efforts 

and to maintain the working nature of those lands. But we do try 

and ensure access through the overall program as well as the specific set aside. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the NAWCA, the grant proposals there are reviewed, 

they are ranked by a conservation NAWCA Council. It is a nine 

member board that is established by the Act, and they make recommendations for funding for specific projects. Some have suggested a similar process for sportsmen to weigh in and to provide 

input for a prioritization. Is that something that the Department 

would be favorable to? 

Mr. CONNOR. We would certainly consider that and think that’s 

worthy of discussion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

As we think about our public lands and the issues relating to 

maintenance and the backlog, we must absolutely place the priority 

there. The second concern that I am hearing from folks that are 

utilizing our lands in Alaska is—these are public lands but it sure 

does not feel public to us. It feels like it is only the land managers 

themselves that seem to have access to some of these places. Particularly in Alaska, because of the remoteness the access issues are 

real. It is something that I want us to look critically at and again 

incorporate the views of those who will be using these lands. 

I want to go to Senator Daines, and then we will probably have 

a chance to wrap up unless anybody else comes in with one more 

opportunity. 

Senator DAINES. Thanks, Chairwoman Murkowski. 

I want to go back and reemphasize that point regarding the importance that our lands play in terms of our economic development 

in a place like Montana. I talked a little about the software company that we built there. I talked about that I love it, dot.com, 

here, was a recruiting website. We also had another ad we went 

134 

by that says work where you also like to play. We really can have 

it all. You can work and get a good wage, and yet, you are just 50 

minutes away from access to trails and a stream. 

I think we do need to sort out as a Committee this issue on 

maintenance backlog. How do we continue to fund and support 

LWCF? How do we also address the issue here with a backlog and 

taking care of the existing lands? 

I want to go back to Mr. Connor. Could you help the Committee, 

maybe provide an estimate of the cost savings within Federal agencies by acquiring these inholdings, by consolidating these checkerboard ownerships? Because I think part of what we are trying to 

do here is simplify sometimes a very complex land ownership map. 

I am referring to cost savings associated with perhaps the management costs of managing the complexity of a checkerboard situation 

verses the savings that you mentioned by not developing it that relate to wildfires. 

I would assume it is easier and simpler to manage consolidated 

lands than have to figure out a way, it is pretty inefficient to manage a very checkerboard situation. So is there any way you can 

quantify, looking for how we are saving money by consolidating 

and providing better access to our public lands? 

Mr. CONNOR. There have been some quantifications in specific 

situations. Such as I mentioned in my testimony with respect to 

the National Park in Alaska where we acquired native allotments 

and the projection for the Park Service said that the savings were 

about $60,000 per tract that had been acquired with respect to reduce wildfire fighting costs. And so I know we have anecdotal 

quantification of the benefits. We can check and see. You can get 

as much information in different contexts. 

I think Ms. Scarlett raised a very good point, not just fire fighting in the premium that we have to have on inholdings to protect 

structures or private property, it also the ease that we have with 

respect to prescribed burns as a way of managing the resource as 

opposed to mechanical issues. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, I would think there would be efficiency 

gains, again any sportsmen in Montana knows you have to spend 

about half your time looking at your GPS wondering where in this 

checkerboard arrangement. I would think we gain efficiency and 

more effective management through the investment in LWCF 

funds where we consolidate and bring greater access. I think that 

would be a strong argument, again, for additional benefits for 

LWCF as we look at moving forward here on reauthorization. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, there are savings on many levels. 

Senator DAINES. I think if you could help us on that it would be, 

I think it would be a compelling argument as well here too. 

I want to turn to Mr. Watson. It is always good to see somebody 

from my home town of Bozeman here. 

You propose using portions of LWCF to fund the maintenance 

and operation of existing Federal lands. I know there was the Tenderfoot acquisition in Montana where there was a private entity 

that set aside five percent of the purchase price to assist the Federal agency in land management of that acquisition. Do you think 

encouraging similar arrangements would that help alleviate some 

of your management concerns? 

135 

Mr. WATSON. Possibly, but one of the points we made earlier in 

the hearing was this is such a large issue now that, truth be told, 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund is somewhat a drop in the 

bucket. As I said earlier the National Park Service is estimating 

$700 million a year just to hold the line in their current maintenance backlog. 

I think we’ve got to think more holistically about this. Land and 

Water Conservation Fund can be a component of a larger strategy 

to address the maintenance backlog issue. Another one being, as I 

mentioned earlier, perhaps land swaps to address the 

checkerboarding and inholding issue that you just mentioned in a 

more revenue neutral manner. And third and finally, the one point 

I would emphasize here too is the user fees and charging the people who are driving much of this maintenance backlog, particularly 

in terms of transportation in terms of roads maintenance. That’s an 

important point to consider as well. Allowing Federal land managers to charge fees and retain those receipts onsite is a pretty effective mechanism for addressing many of these issues. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. I am just about out of time. Ms. 

Scarlett, do you have any thoughts on that as well? I could see you 

nodding your head. There’s something there that probably needs to 

be said. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We have two challenges as we think about the 

maintenance backlog. 

One is, of course, the size of that backlog and one of the various 

tools to address it. Since half of that backlog is roads thinking 

about the reauthorization of the Transportation bill and ensuring 

that the portion for Federal lands is incorporated and incorporated 

sufficiently is important. 

Certainly recreation fees during my time at the Interior Department we managed to work with the Congress to get passed the 

Federal Recreation Enhancement Act which fundamentally was focused on user fees. 

But there’s a piece that we keep missing, I think, in this conversation. It goes back to something I said about the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. What we need to be sure of is that the approach 

we utilize to address the maintenance backlog is actually one that 

imbeds into the annual management structures of the agency. Incentives to do that work well. 

And I look to the Fish and Wildlife Service as a case in point. 

Without any additional funds but simply by setting up very clear 

priorities, understanding what their maintenance backlog actually 

was, realizing that some of the items categorized were really pretty 

low priority. Roads not used by anybody but perhaps some of their 

own staff in remote places. They actually have been able to half 

their maintenance backlog in just a few short years, and I think 

looking at those management tools, something I spent some time 

on while I was at Interior is critically important. Not just thinking 

of giving a slug of money because that won’t necessarily change the 

management structures. Really focusing on those structures, I 

think, is part of the picture. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Scarlett. I am out of time. 

Thanks for the time here, Madam Chair, and I do think Congress 

needs to continue to do more in this area with LWCF as well as 

136 

that we are looking at the timber reform for our healthy forests. 

We can improve all ten of our national forests back home in Montana and help revitalize the timber economies, create jobs. I am 

looking forward to additional work we are doing on this Committee 

here in these areas. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. 

Good comments and good testimony this morning from all. 

Mr. Watson, you made a point at the end there as we were talking about how we find efficiencies, and I think we all want to find 

efficiencies. We have to from a fiscal perspective, it is a priority. 

There are other ways to do it short of the Federal, the land acquisitions. As you mention it is the land swaps. It is the exchanges. 

It is exactly what we did with the package that we put together 

within the NDAA last year where we were looking to address some 

of the inefficiencies that are inherent in this process, so that is one 

way to address the checkerboard and to do so in a revenue neutral 

way. I think that that is worthy of exploration. 

I think it is also worth noting that when we are talking about 

the effort to make the land acquisition and we are seeing this real 

benefit in buying up these inholdings. It is only within the National Park Service that it is, as I understand it, a statutory requirement to limit land acquisitions to inholdings. It is not a requirement for other management agencies to limit acquisitions to 

inholdings. So maybe that’s something that we look at for the others. 

We also recognize that every time we add a new park to the lineup of our national parks as we did in NDAA. We add additional 

conservation units that have to be maintained. It then, kind of, 

builds on itself in terms of then how we have to deal with efficiencies because we have more areas that we have brought on line 

under our Federal management system. So it is something that I 

think we need to look critically at. 

I am chewing on the thoughts that were raised by Senator Alexander about how land management is viewed in different parts of 

the country, and we just have to stipulate to the fact that it is different in Alaska than it is in Maine. We recognize that. Yet, as 

Senator Alexander has pointed out, we have a one size fits all type 

of an approach or mentality. I guess this is where I am coming 

from as I learn more to say, what are we doing on state side because that is how you really can allow for the differences in attitude and approach toward land ownership. 

If you are from a western state that has big spaces and already 

a lot of public land you are going to be viewing it differently. The 

flexibility that state side LWCF can offer you, I think, does allow 

you the ability to not only provide for great spaces for people in our 

respective states and around the country, but again, allows for a 

level of flexibility. 

These are some of the things that we are exploring as a Committee as we work toward reauthorization, again, something that 

I do support. 

I do not think that LWCF is broken. There were some who suggested that was perhaps my leaning. It is not broken, but as with 

any program, there is always room for improvement. 

137 

This is a measure that was put in place 50 years ago, so I think 

it is right and appropriate and legitimate that we look at it in the 

context of how it is operating today because when it was put in 

place 50 years ago we were at a different place in terms of where 

we were with our land management and also in terms of where we 

were with issues such as maintenance and backlog. We probably 

could not have imagined that we would be looking at $20 plus billion when were talking about our backlog. 

So as the times change we look at our laws and we review them. 

We should not get all excited that somehow or other we are going 

to be pulling the plug on an Act that has provided great benefit for 

Americans across the country. 

I do think it is appropriate that we review it for its timeliness 

and ensure that the great benefits that we have seen historically 

will continue into the future for our kids and our grandkids and 

again, with a responsibility and a stewardship that we are all going 

to be proud of. 

So I look forward to working with you. Know that we have good 

things that we have learned today. We will be doing more in the 

weeks and months ahead. 

With that, I thank you. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(138) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

139 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95271.093

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Many federal lands that have great benefit to sportsmen and women are 

inaccessible to varying degrees. What is the administration's plan to address access 

challenges on federal lands? 

Response: The need to assure public access to the lands and waters we have is a 

critical component of our commitment to the American people. The 

Administration is continually looking at ways to increase access to federal lands 

for recreation purposes, both systematically and in individual situations as access 

issues arise. 

For the last 5 years, the Administration has focused on the acquisition of 

inholdings (99.25% for DOI) to assure that all Americans can access these lands 

for future generations. Acquiring inholdings from willing sellers helps maintain 

the integrity of the lands where there is already a federal investment and protects 

them from harms that would result from incompatible uses on adjacent lands. The 

Administration is also utilizing funds that have been made available for easements 

and purchases of land to enhance access to the parcels of public lands that are not 

currently legally accessible to the public. The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(L WCF) has been a critical component in ensuring this access. 

As for improving access to federal lands specifically for sporting and recreation, 

the FY 2016 Budget contains over $20 million in discretionary and mandatory 

funds for this purpose. This includes discretionary funds of$8.5 million for 

Interior and $5.0 million for the Forest Service and mandatory funds of$6.5 

million for Interior for improved access for sportsmen and hunters. 

Question 2: On March 12, BLM testified before this Committee that the Department 

"strongly supports" the reauthorization of the Federal Land Transfer Facilitation Act 

(FL TF A). Since FLTF A was enacted, has the BLM used it to sell public lands at auction 

to the highest bidder? What portion of those sales conducted under FL TF A has been 

made to private citizens or companies? 

Response: The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) was enacted 

on July 25,2000 (P.L. 106-248). FLTFA was originally authorized for a 10-year 

period and first expired July 24,2010. On July 29,2010, Congress passed an 

emergency supplemental appropriations bill which extended FL TF A for one year 

to expire July 25, 2011. All funds in the Federal Land Disposal Account on July 

24,2010, and on July 24,2011, when FLTFA expired were deposited into the 

General Treasury, LWCF account which is subject to annual appropriations. 

During FLTFA's 11-year history, 27,249 acres were sold under this authority and 

18,093 acres of environmentally-sensitive and significant lands were acquired. 
140 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95271.094

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

The BLM conducted competitive land sales and sold land to the highest bidder 

using the General Services Administration online auctions process and in-person 

competitive land sales. The sales were made predominately to private citizens 

and companies and the acquisitions involved willing sellers. The acquired lands 

were within or adjacent to certain Federally-designated areas with exceptional 

resources managed by the NPS, FWS, BLM, and the U.S. Forest Service. 

Question 3: States are required to engage in planning for their outdoor recreation needs 

and to select, based on established criteria in those plans, high priority state and local 

projects. What kind of planning process exists on the federal side for land acquisitions? 

Does the L WCF Act require a planning process on the federal side for land acquisitions? 

How is the public engaged in the process? 

Response: The Department's federal land acquisition process includes robust 

public engagement. For example, at the Department level, the FY16 L WCF 

request includes funding for the Collaborative Landscape Projects, which are 

projects developed cooperatively with local communities to address specific 

conservation priorities identified through a collaborative process. Proposed 

Federal land acquisition projects are developed with the support of local 

landowners, elected officials, and community groups; agencies routinely field far 

more interest from willing sellers than they are able to meet with available 

funding. This broad collaboration around locally driven priorities provides an 

efficient and coordinated way to invest in, restore, and manage the country's 

natural and cultural resources. And, each Department bureau utilizes an 

established process to rank land acquisition priorities for itself based on available 

resources, mission objectives and local community and landowner input. 

Question 4: How many acres have been acquired with L WCF funds since the beginning 

of the program? For the federal acquisitions acres, please include a table that lists the 

acquisitions by agency (National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Forest Service) and includes the acres and the state for each. 

Response: The Department can provide the appropriated funding by field unit 

and state, along with acres planned for acquisition when the funding was enacted 

for its bureaus for the time period 2006 through 2015. During this period, the 

total amount of acres planned for line item project acquisition when the funding 

was enacted was over 500,000 for line-item projects only. This table is attached. 

The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service was contacted regarding an 

accounting of its Federal land acquisitions, and will provide that information 

separately. 

2 
141 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95271.095

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natnral Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Question 5: Is the $11.4 billion maintenance backlogwithin the National Park Service 

for high priority assets only? What is the maintenance backlog for medium and low 

priority assets (listed separately) within the National Park Service? 

Response: As of the end ofFY 2014, the total deferred maintenance backlog 

stood at $11.5 billion. Of this total, $2.2 billion is attributable to the NPS' highest 

priority non-transportation assets. Of the more than 75,000 assets managed by 

NPS,just over 6,700 are considered highest priority, and of these, 4,000 

contribute to the deferred maintenance backlog. The National Park Service 

strategy is to focus its resources on these most important assets. The NPS has not 

separately listed the medium and lower priority assets. 

3 
142 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95271.096

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Question 6: Can you please share the primary sources of revenue to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (L WCF)? There are members of the committee, as well as some of 

you, who have advocated for the L WCF to be reauthorized and fully funded. While I 

agree that the L WCF needs to be re-authorized, I believe we can derive revenues for the 

fund through increased access to our energy resources on the Outer Continental She!£ 

Could or should an increase in funding to the L WCF come from future OCS exploration 

and production as opposed to an appropriations increase that may require an offset? 

Response: By statute, $900 million is deposited into the L WCF account 

annually and is funded primarily through a small portion of revenues from federal 

oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. Contributions from Surplus 

Property Sales, and Motor Boat Fuels Tax vary each year but are nominal 

compared to the amount from receipts on the Outer Continental Shelf. The 

Administration's mandatory funding proposal for LWCF provides full mandatory 

funding for L WCF projects beginning in 2017. This mandatory funding, in 

addition to increasing financial certainty, enhancing local conservation 

partnerships and optimizing investments, will achieve the original intent of the 

LWCF Act-the dedication of a small portion of the money collected from oil 

and gas development and invest it into conservation and recreation projects for the 

benefit of all Americans. It will also eliminate the need for offsets to any 

increases in annual appropriations. 

4 
143 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95271.097

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Ron Wyden 

Question 7: The National Park Service is dealing with a maintenance backlog in the 

nation's parks. What has the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service 

done, or what does it plan to do in the future, to take care of the maintenance backlog so 

that programs like LWCF don't get needlessly reorganized to pay for that backlog? 

Response: The Department changed the focus of the Five-Year Deferred 

Maintenance and Capital Improvement planning beginning in FY 2015 to the 

highest priority assets that are mission critical. In addition, the Department 

requires that bureaus dedicate three percent of their construction budgets to the 

disposal of assets, eliminating deferred maintenance on unused assets. During 

times oflimited budgets, focusing on the highest priority, mission-critical assets is 

a strategically sound plan that makes the best use of the maintenance funds 

available. 

The FY 2016 budget request includes a significant commitment to address the 

NPS deferred maintenance backlog. The NPS strategy is to focus resources on 

the highest priority, mission-critical assets. As of the end ofFY 2014, the total 

backlog stood at $11.5 billion; of this, $2.2 billion is attributable to the NPS' 

highest priority non-transportation assets. If fully funded, the levels requested in 

FY 2016 would restore all these highest priority non-transportation assets to good 

condition over ten years, and maintain them there through regular cyclic 

maintenance. 

Question 8: In your testimony you mentioned that federal land acquisition actually 

reduces the cost of managing federal lands. Can you explain how inholdings are 

identified for acquisition and the process for completing the purchase of the land? And, 

how specifically does acquisition of inholdings improve maintenance and land 

management on large tracts of federal lands? 

Response: Proposed Federal land acquisition projects are developed with the 

support oflocallandowners, elected officials, and community groups. Agencies 

routinely field far more interest from willing sellers than they are able to meet 

with available funding, and must prioritize which projects to include in the budget 

request each year based on criteria including project readiness, resource values to 

be protected, threat to the resource, and local support. Once funding is 

appropriated for a project, the agency works with Interior's independent Office of 

Valuation Services to appraise the property, completes title work and 

environmental site assessments, and finally makes an offer to the landowner for 

the appraised fair market value. 

Acquisition ofinholdings generally does not require additional operating costs as 

rarely are new staff or equipment required to manage new lands within existing 

5 
144 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95271.098

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

boundaries. Occasionally, agencies may incur up-front costs to remove existing 

improvements (fences, buildings, etc.) from an acquired property. When possible 

or practical, the agencies require the landowner to remove such improvements 

prior to transfer of title to avoid inheriting these costs. By removing unwanted 

structures on newly acquired land, agencies avoid adding to ongoing O&M 

requirements. 

Acquisition ofinholdings can greatly simplify land management for federal 

managers and neighboring landowners. Eliminating checkerboard ownership 

within federal units simplifies nearly every aspect of land management. For 

example, wildland fire managers can apply appropriate fuels reduction, planned 

burns, and fire suppression treatments more easily and at less expense across an 

unfragmented landscape. Law enforcement and public safety personnel can more 

easily patrol and respond to emergencies when public ownership is consolidated, 

and recreation managers can more easily provide access for the public to enjoy 

their public lands. One additional major cost saving measure is eliminating 

potential trespasses from adjacent landowners which may be complicated and 

expensive to resolve. 

Question 9: In the hearing, there was a lot of discussion around the source of the 

maintenance backlog, and that somewhere around 50% of the maintenance backlog was 

due to roads and other transportation projects within park boundaries that should actually 

be paid for by the Department of Transportation rather than the federal land management 

agencies. Can you provide the breakdown for the National Park Service- how much of 

your maintenance backlog consists of transportation projects and how much consists of 

other work such as facilities repairs or trail maintenance? 

Response: As of the end ofFY 2014, the NPS deferred maintenance backlog 

stood at $11.5 billion: 

• $5.9 billion attributable to non-transportation assets, and 

• $5.6 billion due to transportation assets. 

Nearly half of the deferred maintenance backlog is in roads, bridges, and 

tunnels-all critical infrastructure, which historically receive support from 

funding provided in Transportation bills. 

6 
145 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95271.099

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Apri122, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Debbie Stabenow 

Question 10: In your testimony, you stated that over the last five years, 99.25% of the 

lands acquired by the Department of the Interior were inholdings. You also described 

how the acquisition of inholdings helps to reduce maintenance costs within federal land 

units. 

With funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund being used almost exclusively 

to acquire inholdings, and the role these acquisitions play in reducing maintenance, 

would you say that the L WCF is already helping to combat maintenance backlogs? 

Response: To the extent that the acquisition of inholdings reduces operating 

costs for federally managed lands, that acquisition frees up funding for other 

purposes, including addressing maintenance backlogs. 

Question 11: Could you provide a few additional examples, beyond those in your 

written testimony, that demonstrate how acquiring inholdings reduces maintenance costs? 

Response: Examples of enhanced management resulting from land acquisition: 

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

St. Vincent NWR is an island off the panhandle coast of Florida in Apalachicola 

Bay, off the Gulf of Mexico. Acquisition of the 5-acre tract on the mainland of 

Apalachicola Bay provides permanent deep water mooring with launch site, 

secure parking and equipment storage. Daily boat access for St. Vincent NWR 

staff is required 24/7 for all island management activities, such as sea turtle nest 

monitoring and protection, habitat management, prescribed burning, hunting and 

fishing management and protection, and response to visitor emergencies. As the 

refuge is only accessible by water, the site reduces staff travel time from the 

refuge office to transfer supplies and heavy equipment. The acquisition of the site 

also eliminates the annual $12,000 lease payment for the prior site and provides 

significant savings in fuel for vehicles. 

Prior to the acquisition of the deep water mooring and launch site, the FWS 

conducted a critical review and analysis of deep water mooring and access options 

in the general vicinity of the refuge. Only two or three options were possible, 

with the acquisition of the acquired site being the most cost effective and safest 

for staff. The other sites involved longer nautical travel distances at nine miles, 

were more costly as public boat launch sites, and did not offer the security needed 

for refuge equipment. 

San Joaquin NWR, CA 

In 2006, the FWS acquired a 371-acre tract at San Joaquin NWR, including 

riparian water rights. Along with other acreage acquired within the Refuge, 2,700 

7 
146 


Insert offset folio 100 here 95271.100

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

acres have been restored to riparian woodland habitat. After three years, 

irrigations for the riparian restoration ceased. The land acquired was cropland 

that used approximately 24,000 acre-feet of water every year. With the land 

restored to riparian woodland habitat, the 24,000 acre-feet of water is not used for 

irrigation on the Refuge; the water stays in the San Joaquin River and benefits instream flow, aquatic species, and downstream users. The use of riparian water 

rights via lift pump on the Stanislaus River has saved the refuge approximately 

$140,000 in the past seven years ($20,000 annually). Previously, water was 

acquired by paying for expensive pumped well water. With the riparian forest 

rehabilitation within the Refuge, the riparian brush rabbit population has returned 

from the brink of extinction due to habitat loss and degradation. 

8 
147 


Insert offset folio 101 here 95271.101

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natura) Resources 

April 22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 12: Part of the cost of acquiring new Federal land should be mitigating the loss 

of a vibrant tax base for local governments. In FY2002, PIL T payments were made from 

the LWCF and in the Department ofinterior Budget hearing in this committee two 

months ago Secretary Jewell suggested that a portion of the funding stream currently 

dedicated to LWCF could be dedicated to PILT. Would you elaborate on the Secretary's 

suggestion that L WCF funding streams could be used to meet PIL T obligations? 

Response: The Administration has requested reauthorization of and funding for 

PILT consistently, including in the FY16 budget. The 2016 budget proposes to 

extend PIL T permanent funding for one additional year, while a sustainable longterm funding solution is developed for the program. The proposal assumes 

extension of the PIL T payment formula, which is based on a number of factors, 

including the amount ofFedemlland within an eligible unit oflocal government, 

its population, and certain other Federal payments the local government may 

receive. The cost of a one-year extension is estimated to be $452 million in 2016. 

The Administration would support a package that reauthorizes both L WCF and 

PILT, but does not support paying for PILT out ofLWCF. Providing PILT 

payments in this manner would not be consistent with the intent of L WCF: 

balancing the permanent depletion of one federal resource with the permanent 

protection of lands and waters, another non-renewable resource. 

Question 13: In your written testimony you express the amount of inholdings that were 

purchased by the DOl over the past five years as a percentage of the total amount of land 

purchased by the DOl during that time. In your response to questions on this subject 

during the hearing you referred to "edgeholdings." Please define the term "edgeholding" 

and provide, by state and by agency (BLM, NPS, and FWS), the amount of land acquired 

over the past 10 years under LCWF authorities which were completely surrounded by 

Federal land and which were on the boundaries of Federal land. Please compare these 

amounts to those L WCF acquisitions by the Forest Service over the same time period. 

Response: In the past five years, 99.25% of the lands acquired by the 

Department of the Interior were inholdings of existing conservation units. The 

acquisition of inholdings can reduce maintenance and manpower costs by 

reducing boundary conflicts, simplifying resource management activities, and 

easing access to and through public lands. This focus maximizes management 

efficiencies for the agencies and, in many cases, reduces costs. 

Since 2011, Congress has appropriated funding for four projects where 

acquisitions did not lie completely within the boundary of an existing 

conservation unit at the time of the appropriation, but were adjacent to or bisected 

by the boundary ("edgeholdings"). In all instances, acquisitions using L WCF 

9 
148 


Insert offset folio 102 here 95271.102

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

funding were authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and 

include the following: 

1. In FY20 11, Congress appropriated $640,000 to NPS to purchase an 18.23 

acre tract on the boundary of Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland. Upon 

receipt ofthe appropriation, NPS completed a minor boundary adjustment. 

The tract was thereby included within the boundary at the time of 

purchase. 

2. In FY2015, Congress appropriated $982,000 to BLM to acquire 

approximately 1,900 acres adjacent to San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe 

Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in California. The 

acquisitions funded in FY2015 help reduce the ownership checkerboard 

and support improved land management of this sensitive landscape and 

recreational access. San Sebastian Marsh is open to hiking and is a popular 

area for nature study. 

3. In FY2015, Congress appropriated $1.2 million to BLM to acquire 

approximately 440 acres at Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

in Colorado. Funds were appropriated to protect two properties straddling 

the boundary that were facing immediate threats from rural residential 

development, vandalism, and degrading land use practices. 

4. In FY2013, Congress appropriated $4.5 million to BLM to acquire 

approximately 366 acres at the California Coastal National Monument. 

The unique oceanfront edgeholding was offered by a highly motivated 

willing seller, at a time when coastal properties in California face 

inunediate threat from commercial and rural residential development. 

10 
149 


Insert offset folio 103 here 95271.103

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Rob Portman 

Question 14: I am a very strong supporterofLWCF, and as you know I also am 

strongly committed to addressing the critical unmet maintenance needs in our national 

parks and other public lands. Clearly, we need L WCF to secure the inholdings and other 

lands that make our parks the important resources they are for the American people. At 

the same time and for similar reasons, we absolutely need to address the Park Service 

maintenance backlog as we head toward the Centennial of the National Parks, which I am 

working to do. 

Regarding L WCF, I have seen the critical importance of strategic acquisitions of key 

properties and conservation easements in my own state at Cuyahoga Valley National 

Park, which is among the top most visited urban National Parks in the entire country, 

where lands secured by the Park Service at the Blossom Music Center, the old Cleveland 

Cavaliers coliseum site, and elsewhere were essential to maintaining the character of the 

Park and now provide well-used recreation opportunities. And we are seeing it too at 

Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historic Park, which already includes some of the 

most pivotal sites needed to tell the story of the birth of aviation, such as the Wright 

brothers' famous bike shop, but which has yet to protect other features including the 

actual Wright Company factory buildings where they built the world's first airplanes. 

These places are important to our communities not only for their recreational, scenic, and 

historic value, but also for their economic value as well. With 2.2 million visitors each 

year, Cuyahoga Valley is a major component of Ohio's recreation economy, which the 

Outdoor Industry Association affirms is responsible for $17.4 billion in consumer 

spending in my state and supports 196K direct Ohio jobs. Similarly, Dayton Aviation 

does more than fire up the imagination of visitors from around the world-it also is 

bringing tourist dollars to Dayton and serving as the focal point for an Aviation and 

Aerospace Innovation District, with deep local government and nonprofit engagement, 

that could play a vital role in the city's future. The beautiful landscape at Cuyahoga and 

the irreplaceable factory buildings at Dayton are the infrastructure for these economic 

engines, and investments through L WCF have been and will continue to be crucial to that 

infrastructure. 

Meanwhile, these and other parks face another infrastructure crisis, with roads and 

facilities in desperate need of repair and rehab. It's really two sides of the coin: to do 

right by visitors to our parks and the communities that depend on them, we need to fix 

what's broken in our parks and secure the inholdings that are essential to the natural or 

historic reasons people visit in the first place. 

Mr. Connor, can you comment on the connection between maintenance and acquisition 

needs in the Parks, and how your Department plans to address both, as I believe we must? 

11 
150 


Insert offset folio 104 here 95271.104

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Response: We agree we must do both: address the most urgent needs for 

recreation, species and habitat conservation, and the preservation of landscapes 

and historic and cultural resources while we address the deferred maintenance 

backlog. 

The L WCF protects, with land acquisition, conservation and recreation resources 

for the benefit of the American public- from national parks, forests, and wildlife 

refuges to local playgrounds and historic areas. But the L WCF is not a substitute 

for adequate annual appropriations to support the operations of the federal land 

management agencies, including their operations and maintenance requirements. 

The FY 20 16 budget request includes a significant commitment to address the 

deferred maintenance backlog and requests additional cyclic maintenance to keep 

the repaired assets in good condition. 

Question 15: Can you please describe for me the Bureau of Land Management's role in 

permitting conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas production in Ohio's, 

Wayne National Forest prior to issuance of the agency's new fracking rule. How will 

BLM's role change now that the fracking rule is final? 

Response: The BLM manages only the federal mineral estate on the Wayne 

National Forest. The overall ownership of mineral estate on the Wayne National 

Forest is highly complex. More than half of the mineral estate on the Wayne 

National Forest is privately owned, which means the oil and gas regulations of the 

State of Ohio apply to those minerals and the BLM has no role in the permitting 

and regulation of those wells. The new hydraulic fracturing rule would not apply 

to private mineral estate. 

As for the remaining mineral estate, that which is federally-managed, federal rules 

and regulations currently, and would continue to, apply. These federal rules and 

regulations would include the new hydraulic fracturing rule after the effective 

date. 

12 
151 


Insert offset folio 105 here 95271.105

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 16: Mr. Connor, Secretary Jewell often talks about the importance of taking a 

landscape-scale approach to ecosystem health and watersheds. In your testimony you 

also talked about the importance of being able to acquire private inholdings within 

exterior federal land boundaries. 

Do you believe the over 18 million acres of state parks and forests, recreation sites, and 

natural areas should be treated as an integral part of the overall landscape? Should states 

have the resources to address the needs of their parks and forests and to acquire private 

inholdings from willing sellers within the exterior boundaries of state parks and forests? 

Response: State parks and forests, recreation sites, and natural areas should be 

treated as an integral part of the overall landscape; but we cannot comment on 

how the States spend their resources. Through the L WCF, the Administration 

provides States with funding for parks and recreation facilities through grants that 

require a fifty percent match. In order to apply for the grants, the State must have 

a statewide recreation plan and must maintain the assisted area or facility. 

13 
152 


Insert offset folio 106 here 95271.106

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Question from Senator AI Franken 

Question 17: Conservation investments play an important role in improving public 

access to federal lands for recreational purposes, such as hunting and fishing. But 

conservation is also essential for maintaining the natural system, and for helping to 

mitigate the impacts of climate change. For example, the Northwoods of Minnesota help 

to reduce the impacts of climate change by capturing and storing a significant amount of 

carbon, while protecting the water quality of some of our nation's greatest rivers and 

lakes. When choosing which land acquisition projects to prioritize for conservation, do 

the four land management agencies consider the potential for carbon capture and climate 

change mitigation? 

Response: The Administration has identified land conservation as an important 

tool for climate change mitigation, and using land conservation to increase carbon 

storage is part of the President's Climate Action Plan, which notes that 

"conservation and sustainable management can help to ensure our forests continue 

to remove carbon from the atmosphere while also improving soil and water 

quality, reducing wildfire risk, and otherwise managing forests to be more 

resilient in the fact of climate change." 

Developing a greater understanding of climate change vulnerability and biological 

carbon sequestration is of increasing Importance for Interior agencies. In the 

FYI6 President's Budget Request, FWS requested an increase of$500,000 to 

support the development of decision support tools for land managers and other 

users: "The Service recognizes the importance of considering carbon 

sequestration values in the protection and management of its lands, and is 

continually looking for data and tools to assist its land acquisition, management, 

and restoration practices. The US Geological Survey Biologic Carbon 

Sequestration Assessment (LandCarbon Project) has identified lands with high 

carbon sequestration capacity and the potential for future climate change, wildfire, 

land use change, and land management activities to modify that capacity. Using 

LandCarbon data products and maps, the Service will develop and test tools and 

guidelines that can be used to identify the lands with the greatest current or 

potential carbon stocks and/or sequestration values for projects supporting: (I) 

restoration and acquisition activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System, such 

as the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and other lands in Iowa, and {2) 

ecological restorations associated with Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

settlements and with restoration work conducted through Habitat Conservation 

programs. These tools and guidelines will help the Service choose the highestpriority lands for conservation or restoration by including biological carbon 

sequestration in the suite of factors used for conservation priority-setting." 

14 
153 


Insert offset folio 107 here 95271.107

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question 18: Fate of Landscape Proposals 

The FY 2016 President's Budget request includes a substantial amount ofLWCF funding 

for the Island Forests at Risk Collaborative Landscape Proposal. Portions of this 

landscape proposal, which seeks to purchase lands in Hawaii, are the number one priority 

in both the National Park Service's and US Fish and Wildlife Service's land acquisition 

budgets. These agencies have identified acquisition needs at Hawaii Volcanoes National 

Park and Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge totaling 45,760 acres and $38 million. 

If L WCF were fully funded at $900 million these projects could be completed. Based on 

historic funding levels, however, it is likely that Congress will appropriate much less, 

leaving a considerable number of unfunded federal needs in my state and across the 

country. Can you speak on the importance of having a dedicated and fully funded Land 

and Water Conservation Fund to address these needs now and in the future? 

Response: Over its 50-year history, the L WCF has protected conservation and 

recreation lands in every State and supported tens of thousands of State and local 

projects. The authority for LWCF expires on September 30, 2015, at which time 

revenues will cease to be deposited in the L WCF unless Congress reauthorizes the 

program. 

The President's FY2016 budget includes a request to permanently authorize 

annual funding from the LWCF, without further appropriation or fiscal year 

limitation. This proposal, if enacted, would provide $900 million annually in 

permanent funds starting in 2017, and would ensure that agencies and partners 

will be able to engage in multi-year planning required for large-scale conservation 

and effective collaboration with local communities, such as the projects you note 

in Hawaii. Enactment of the Administration's FY2016 LWCF request would 

support broad collaboration around locally driven priorities and provide more 

efficient and coordinated ways of investing in, restoring, and managing the 

country's natural and cultural resources. 

Question 19: National Park Service Funding 

It is my understanding that out ofthe government's entire budget, the National Park 

Service has recently received roughly one-fifteenth of one percent of that budget. That is 

0.0007% of the entire federal budget to pay 22,000 individuals to protect and maintain 84 

million acres and provide a pleasant experience for almost 300 million visitors each year. 

Given the small budget that the Park Service has to work with, they have an estimated 

maintenance backlog of around $11.5 billion. Can you comment on how much land 

acquisitions funded by the L WCF have contributed to this maintenance backlog? What 

15 
154 


Insert offset folio 108 here 95271.108

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

would the maintenance backlog look like if Congress were to adequately fund the 

National Park Service and address critical transportation legislation? 

Response: The United States has a significant investment in federal lands within 

National Park System boundaries that has accrued over time. These lands need to 

continue to be protected and preserved in order to maintain the current 

investment. Acquiring inholdings from willing sellers helps maintain the integrity 

of the lands where there is already a federal investment and protects them from 

harms that would result from incompatible uses on adjacent lands. 

The majority ofland acquired within NPS boundaries is unimproved, with no 

improvements planned. In those cases, no increase in the maintenance backlog is 

associated with the acquisition. In some instances, land acquisition will require 

future maintenance for portions of trails to increase public access, for upkeep of 

historic structures, or for eradication of invasive species. These instances are 

relatively rare. In the FY2016 NPS request, only 11 of the 40 line-item land 

acquisition requests anticipate outyear costs for operations and maintenance of the 

lands, while 9 project savings and 20 are neutral. 

Question 20: State Involvement 

One of the arguments used in support of reforming the LWCF is that state agencies and 

local stakeholders are best at identifYing what local constituents want and need for 

outdoor recreation and that more L WCF funds should be allocated to the Stateside Grant 

Program. 

Can you speak a little bit on the number and variety of partners involved in planning and 

development ofLWCF proposals? Are there instances when state agencies have not 

played a significant role in working with the federal agencies to identifY and prioritize 

projects? 

Response: Over its 50-year history, the LWCF has protected conservation and 

recreation lands in every State and supported tens of thousands of State and local 

projects. The President's FY2016 budget includes funding for Collaborative 

Landscape Projects, which are developed cooperatively with local communities to 

address specific conservation priorities identified through a collaborative process 

conducted by land management agencies. The Administration's FY2016 LWCF 

request would support broad collaboration around locally driven priorities and 

provide more efficient and coordinated ways of investing in, restoring, and 

managing the country's natural and cultural resources. 

The Administration's Budget has consistently proposed-- and Congress has 

consistently provided -- a balance among federal and state conservation under 

L WCF. Over the last I 0 years, state grants have averaged well over 40% of total 

16 
155 


Insert offset folio 109 here 95271.109

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy Secretary Michael Connor 

L WCF appropriations, and the President's FY2016 discretionary budget 

maintains that exact same balance. 

The projects funded through those various state grant programs all have been 

requested by the states, on their own behalf or on behalf of localities. L WCF 

Stateside assistance is community- and state-driven, and so are DOl's 

Cooperative Endangered Species grants and USDA's Forest Legacy Program. 

17 
156 


Insert offset folio 110 here 95271.110

~ 

1i 

~ 

""' u .sa 

~ "§ 

,..l ~ <c 

~ Q I "' = .. ~ "' "" "' "' ""' ~ 

" 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

g 

~ :5 

E 

! 

~ 5 ~ < 

E ~ ~ u j § '" ~ I < 

~ § 

l ~ ~ 2 

I d ] 

I g, 

] 1 8 ~ ~- t ~ g 7: 

• ~: 1 ~ ~ 0 

1: ' 3l ~ ~ a Jl ~ ;: 3 

Insert offset folio 111 here 95271.111

, ... ,.., , ... 

-

Federal LWCF 

Bureau Details 

(SOOO's) 

2<)10 

State I Acres Enacted I Acres Enacted I Acres Enacted I Acres Eaa<'ted I A<'res Ena<'led 

CrookedNWSR OR 

Grande Ronde National Wild and Seemc River OR 

John Oav National Wild and S<:enic: River OR 

Ore131on National Wild and Scenic Rivers!Nonh Fork OR 662 641 

Owvhee NWSR OR 

Paeific Crest National Swnic Tmil OR 

Sandy RJVer/Oregon National Historic Trail OR 

GrandStairease·EscalanteNM tiT 

RedCiiffsNCA tiT 

CmiJ,l. Tbo!IU!5 Little Mountain SMA WY 

Colorado River SMRA UT 

North Plane River SRMA WY 

'" 1,5771 I I 1351 1,3501 48 2,1001 

2.000 

soo 1.1821 2SO 

283 :1 I I 1

: Indicates that this is a cost per acre The enac1ed budget was either more, or less.. than requested in lhe President's budget. Cost per acre was detennined by the numbers 

rcoortc:dintllePres-ident'sbudl!:elthencxltaoolatedtolheeiUl(:tedamount 

UN: Indicates that this funding w:as not specifically requested in the President's budget. so enacted acres canno1 be detennined, 

lOll "" 2012 

Reprogram{ 

Revised 

Enacted I Enacted Acres Fundin 

"' 1,500 7001 

377 2.700 

I 

AC"res Enactl!d 

2013 

2014 I 

Al:res Enacted Acre

4.000 

Insert offset folio 112 here 95271.112

Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWS LWCF ACQUISITION TOTAl, 

Land Acquisition Management 

lnholdings, Emergencies and Hardsh1ps 

Exchanges 

Unc-ltemProjects• 

Sponsmcn/RecrcauonalAccess 

Delaved Proiect Savin!!S 

Une-ltemProjscts 

Alaska Maritime NWR 

ToaiakNWR 

YukonDeltaNWR YukonflatSNWR 

BonSecourNWR 

Cahaba River NWR Cache Rtver NWR 

U:slieCanvonNWR 

GrasslandsWMA 

SunDie®NWR San JoaQUin River NWR 

Stewan McKinncv National Wildlife Refu11e Silvio 0. Conte NWR 

Highlands Conservation 

Prime Hook NWR 

Crvstal River NWR 

Ever111adcs NWRJCA 

Suwannee NWR 

National Kev Deer NWR 

St.MarksNWR St.VincentNWR 

Rnnd Swamn NWR 

SavannahNWR 

LoneJeafPme Okefenokee NWR 

James Cnmobcll NWR 

DriftlessAreaNWR 

Upper Mississippi River NW&FR 

Northern Talll!fllSS Pmitie NWR 

Red R01;k Lake$ NWR 

CvoressCreekNWR 

Patoka River NWR FtintHillsl..emte\'ConservationArea 

Clarks River NWR 

Red River NWR 

Tensas River NWR 

UpperOullehitaNWR 

81aekwBter NWR 

Federal LWCF 

Bureau Details 

(SOOO's) 

,... I 

State l Acres Enacted! Acres Enacted! Acres Enoeted] Acres Enacted I Acres Enacted 

1006 1007 1008 1009 

AK AK 

AL 

AL I 110 

AR 493 

AZ 

CA CA CA I 65 

g, 20 

MA, 

NHVT 

CT,NJ, 

NY.PA 

DE I 16 

FL FL 

fL fL fL FL 

OA 

GA 

27,990 

10,063 

2,9$6 

1,478 

14,971 

·1.478 

.!!.W 

18,1146 

9,93.3 

2,978 

1,485 

13,650 

!MlQ 

34,596 

9,490 

2,953 

1,4n 

20.676 

42:,455 

'·"" 3,000 

1,500 

29,315 

.J.OOO 

22-illi 

, .. , I I 1.145 4001 1,100 

-

N/A..,. 495 

480 394 2.173 

-

415 "" 

7971 370 495 

2.04o 3ool I I 3.335 

473 

.. ,

1 

I I 132 900I 2.213 20 699 N/A•••• 

640 202 1,969 1,600 3,815 665 

N!N 1,9801 NIA• 1,723! NIA• 1,5001 N!N 

2461 1 1 

57 uool 

51 1.028 

890 uool I I 143 

""' I I"' 3.938 112 m 

::.::· 386 493 192 406 224 404 

230 7.0001 222 

66 250 119 

45 500 160 

IDIMT ,., ""'I ,.. 

lL 

IN I , "'I I ,., 491 LA 492 492 2,127 1,872 1.520 1248 

MD 125 394 

616 

160 

385 500 1.151 669 7501 669 

666 

200 

J.oool 1.000 

86,3411 

12,555 

5,000 

2,000 

66,7&5 

§&.ill 

, .. 

325 

'" 

500 500 

1,000 

2.000 

2,000 

2,500 

4,000 

1,000 1.500 

500 

1200 

7,400 

.,. 

1,200 

500 

..... 

,.. 

1.150 

,,. 

1,000 

.,. 2.000 

10t1 

564 

,. 

166 

865 

750 

, .. 

"' 

2.158 

1.200 

9ll9 

'

lOll 

Enaeted Enoctl!d 

54,890! 54,632: 

12.5301 12,535 

4,99D 4,492 

1,996 2,496 

35,374 35,109 

12.llil llJQ2 

1,369 

2.000 "' 2,308 

1,000 

400 

uoo 

..... 

3,000 

1,500 

399 

499 

4.243 

3.994 

6,490 

4,992 

998 

3,994 

!.248 

2,746 

lOll lOU 

'" 

1.657 

473 

, .. 

812 

NIA• 

"' "'' 

1.4!0 

••• 

563 

......... ml 

Revised 

Fundln 

54,632: 

12,535 

4,492 

2,496 

35,109 illJl2 

99 

4.143 

., ... 

1,0001 247 

2.9941 167 

6,4901 1,04! 

4,9921 N/Nu 

1.5001 750 

998 

2.398 

1.248 

2,246 

3.708 

'" 

166 

4.380 

3.333 

SI,77S 

12,865 

4,257 

2,365 

32,288 

1,000 

1.000 1,500 

'" 

3.000 

1.000 

3.000 

1,000 

500 

2.822 

1.000 

1014 

Enacted 

54,422 

IO.SOO 

7,351 

1,500 

35,071 

ll.Q1! 

""' 

5

l

7

NtA• 

1,250 soool 6

3,900 9,481 

Insert offset folio 113 here 95271.113

Federal LWCF 

Bureau Details 

(SOOO's) 

2006 I 2007 I 2008 2009 1010 2011 I 2012 1012 I :2013 I 2014 I 

Rop ... nm/1 

Stale Aeres Enacted A<>res EMitted Aert!l Inaded A"" Enatted Enacted Enacted Enacted Aen:s Fundine """"' Acres Enacted I Acres Enatted Ac

Coastal Islands NWR ME 71 1.000 

Rache-l Carson NWR ME 37 591 93 3.000 

Bie.MuddvNF&WR MD " 300 Pamhl:f Swam!) NWR MS '" 500 BlaekfootVallevCA MT 5.3001 t.sool 7.500 8.750 4680 Rockv Mountain Front CA MT 2,676 985 6300 1.910 2.220 LllOO 8.157 uso 11.777 3.333 7.800 13,124 7.2601 Bear River Watershed ConSCfVation Area 110/UT!WY} Multi 

Alliaator River NWR NC 

NorthDakotaWMA NO 5.714 LOOO 5.714 LllOO 

Dakota 0fliSS!and CA ND.SD 1.666 320 J.oool 4.160 1.0001 10.333 23.053 8.6501 1Daknta Ta11JU'3SS Prairie NWR NO .SO 2.465 493 1.250 500 2.220 1.000 2.222 1.020 Rainwater Basin Wetlands Management District NE 160 500 160 500 

NH 789 493 641 1.000 64\ 1.000 2.240 2.240 

CaneMavNWR NJ 7 492 56 2.000 

Edwin B. Fon;vthe NWR NJ 96 296 28 1.100 10 250 

Great Swamp NWR NJ 230 1.181 146 750 194 1.000 

SUPI!Wimll MeodOW$ NWR NJ 24 1.500 

Wallk!IINWR NJ 250 1,400 

SevilletaNWR NM 20 soo 

Vatlev de Oro NWR {VICe Middle Rio Grande NWRl NM I I 570 1.2581 100 1.500 

Nestueca Bav NWR OR 120 1.000 

Utlt:l«Klamath OR 878 1.971 L362 3,475 

Cherrv Vallev NWR PA 127 750 

John H. Chafeee NWR Rl 10 700 \3 900 

Rhodels!andRefuaeComplex Rl 13 S\7 74 492 Ernest F Ho!linES ACE Basin NWR sc 122 soo usol 749 193 249 WaecamawNWR sc 257 600 434 998 soo 998 

ChickasawNWR TN 239 500 

Balcones Canyonlands NWR TX \61 493 142 271 340 1.000 \87 soo LagunaAII!SCOsaNWR TJ( 2,201 394 447 soo 1,198 0 Lower Rio Grande VaUC'\1 NWR TJ( "' 788 422 492 143 soo 4\0 1.000 841 uool 2.:S61 1.167 1.996 Neches River NWR TX 2.1:SO I 640 1.001) 

San Bernard NWR-Ausun's Woods Unit TX 500 1.250 1.001 2.112 

Trinitv River NWR TJ( 

Bew'RiverMBR UT 434 IJOO S33 1.600 

Back BavNWR VA 90 497 27 S4S 

Eastc:m Shore ofVumnia NWR VA \52 1.971 26 1.971 22 1.575 

Great Dismal Swamp NWR VA 18 SilO 

James River NWR VA 63 1.575 12S Rmmahannock RiVl:r NWR VA \6S 4S3 180 l.500 \50 ., 200 1.0001 I I I 

NiSQua\lvNWR WA 36 SilO 208 1.000 TumbuiiNWR WA 900 I,SOO 

WillanaNWR WA \80 750 

Canaan Valley NWR wv 70 187 S4S 1.4n 830 2.250 350 950 Ohio River Islands NWR wv IS soo 

"HighlandsConseMtion is a matching grant program and acreage 1snot mad\lance. 

""Yukon Flats NWR S495.000 appropriated for EIS. 

u•omnt administrative expenses for Conservation. unsB McKinney funds reprogrammed to Umbagog NWR in FY 2012, Tract was acquired with Joint Venture Grant funds; no other !Tad$ were available. At Umba1:10g NWR, 

\,950atreswcrcacquiredwilhthereprogrammedfunds. 

Insert offset folio 114 here 95271.114

National Park Service 

NPS LWCF ACQUISITION TOTAL 

Acquisition Administration 

Emergency/Hardships 

In holdings/Exchanges 

Amerieun Battlefield Grants 

line-ltemProJCCIS 

R"reationalAecess 

Cancellalion gf Prior· Y car &lances 

Line-Item Projects 

Alaska Region 

Wnngeii-St.EiiasNationalf>arkandPrcserve 

LiltleRiverCanyonNationaiPreserve 

FortSmlthNaliona\HistoricSite 

PetrifiedForestNationaJPark 

Golden Gate Nalionnl Recreation Area 

MoJave, Joshua Tree NP. Death Valley NP 

Pinnades Natiunal Monument 

RedwoodNP 

Sanlfl Monica Moumains NRA 

Whiskeylo'WllNRA 

MesaVerdeNP 

BlgCypressNa!sonaJPreserve 

EvergladesNalionaJPark 

TmlucuanEcologicalandHistoricPreserve 

Chan.ahoochee River National Reereation Area 

Ala Kahakai National Tmil 

Ha\caka\aNationaiPIIfk 

Minidoka N~~ctlonal Historic Site 

lndianaDunesNationall.akcshore 

Cumberland Gap NHP 

Cape Cod National Seashore 

New England National Scenic Trail 

Catoctin Mountain Park 

Piscataway Park 

AcadiaNP 

NonhCountryNationaJSeenieTrail 

Slecping8CIIf0unesNationa\Lakeshore 

Yoyageun;NP 

Harry S Truman Na!ional Historic Site 

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield 

Gulflslands NS. Cat island• 

NatchezNationaiHistoricaiParlt 

GlacieJNP 

CivitWarBaulelieldSIIes(Grants) 

2006 2007 2008 2009 

Federal LWCF 

Bureau Details 

(SOOO's) 

2010 

State I Acres Enacted! Acres Enacted! Acres Enacted! Acres Enacted I Acres Enactt:d 

AK 

34,395 

9,605 

2,463 

2,463 

29,633 

-9,769 ~ AK I 378 739 

AL 

AR.OK 

34,402 

9,786 

2,:541 

2,:540 

19,535 

!2.lli 

44,367 

9,3:52 

2,461 

2,461 

30,093 ~ 45.,190 9,250 2,500 2.500 33,440 ·2,500 ll.:!1!! 86,266 9,500 3,000 5,000 68,766 2!.122 

80 1,500 

3 362 

ZOIJ 

CA AZ I 15 517 IPre-Aoq "'I 356 1,969 I 1,000 4,000 I 28,308 1,:500 

CA Pre-Acq 

4,5751 24,000 

5,000 1,000 

1,000 584 

CA l 1,001 2,956 

CA 

CA 

CA 

co 

FL 

FL 

FL 

GA 

HI 

HI l 3,937 3,645 

ID 

IN 

KY I I 950 900 

MA 33 2,000 

MA 

MO 

MD l 73 69<11 

ME 90 900 

Ml 

Ml l 59 5,222 

MN 

MO 

MO I 210 1.132 

MS 

MS 

MT 

Multi 2,956 0 4,000 

"' 1,000 66 460 

325 1,575 

31 \,969 21 3,100 

128 3$0 17 350 

150 1,417 

910 1,8701 1,268 1,150; 

24 1,969 10 1,750 

904 1.150 

18 

" '" 21 750 23 

345 60 500 100 1,000 

1,300 

41 443 

1,969 

264 

2,9:53 4,0001 9,000 

CIUso,.\plwb!IIOol>ln!Oids\DOI LA 2006Wu2111' EMC!edb) pmj<CI worl.mg lile(21 

I 

2012 

Enacted Enacted 

54.,8901 56,969 

7,1341 9.485 1,007 2,995 

5,000 4,992 

8,982 8,986 

32,767 30,511 

ll.:wl ~ 0 

:5,100 

4,100 

867 

... 

2012 I 

Reprogram/ 

RC'\'ised Acre~~ Fundi!llt __ 

56,969 

9,485 

2,995 

4.992 

8,986 

30511 ~ 5,551 43,000 5.551 

24,960 477 24,960 

6401 

1,7001 

"' 

2013 

A"" 

26,495 

193 

114 

Enacted 

53,989 

8,9891 

2,838i 

4,731 

8,516 

28,9151 

2.t.'ill 

5,000 

1,977 

1,200! 

2014 ,,~ 2,800 

262 

37 

Enac:led 

50,010 

9,500 

3,093 

6,364 

8,986 

22,067' 

2J.9§1 

2,278 

2,031 

5,269 

!,030 

Acr

Insert offset folio 115 here 95271.115

Federal LWCF 

Bureau Details 

(SOOO's) 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1011 2012 

,.., I 2013 I 2:014 I 

Reprogram! Sla~ Aeres Enacted Aeres Enacted Acres Enacted Aera Enacted A<~ Enacted Enm:led EMcted A<"' Fund """"' in A<"' Enacted A<"' Enacted .4,e

CtviiWarSesquicentenniaiUnits Mulli 200 5,~1 826 5,500 National Rivers and Trail Mult1 Pre-A~:q 4,000 

wtd37 

Guilford Courthouse National Militruy Park NC 4 828 4 880 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail NH 3 .. 1,375 4,n7 1.375 I I 

Delaware Water Ga-p NRA NJ " !,000 El Malpais National Monument NM 32<l 150 

PecosNHP NM I I I I 

Petroglyph National Monument NM 2 1,0001 Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS NY 2 1,250 

CuyahogaValleyNP OH 2 300 233 4,000 330 5,400 

Lewis and Clo.tk National Historical Park OR '"' 1,576 Appalachian National Scenic Trnil PA l,OSO 1,820 

Flight 93 Natinnal Memorial PA 1,656 5,000 1,656 4,922 

W.:nysburgNationalMilitruyPark PA 80 2,215 

'·'"' 

1,4001 I I I 

CongareeNationa!Park sc 837 2,69<l 410 436 355 1,4211 

WindCaveNP so 5,555 8,315 

Chickamauga..Chananooga NMP TN 145 1,714 148 1,000 148 1,792 

Great Smokey Mmmtams NP TN Pre-1\cq 250 

ShllohNMP TN Prc:·Acq 250 

Big Thicket National Prc:sc:rve TX 1,000 1,971 609 2.000 634 1.231 "' 1,000 2.803 5,000 FortDavisNHS TX 41 500 

Palo Allo Baulefic:ld National Historic Site TX 1,354 4,120 

SanAntonioMissionsN!IP TX 

1,2501 I I I 40 '·"'I Blue Ridge Parkway NC, VA 163 Captain John Smith NHT VA 

Shenandoah Valley Battlefield National Historic Di~trict VA 0 985 0 984 0 1,985 

(Grant5) 

Fredericksburg&. Spot5ylvania Counry Baulefields NMP VA 

2)501 

9 

zoo' 

23 

'001 I 2,7381 

I 

Prince William Forest Park VA 8 .,, 

VlrginlsllllldsNationalPark VI 50 93 3,250 " 2JOO 14 3 2,771 Appalachian National SceniC Tmil VT 996 .,, I 

Ebey'sl..andinsNHR WA 38 492 

Gateway WA 1,181 

Lake Chelan NRA WA 9 900 

Lewis and Ciarlo: National Historical Park WA 267 2,SOO 

MountRainierNationa!Park WA 276 168 

'·"'I 

164 2,1501 I I 226 1,000 

Olyrnp1cNationaiPark WA 2 3,000 

SanJuanlsfandNationaiHistoricalPark WA 312 6,000 

lecAgcNSP WI 0 .. , 0 1,378 0 1.000 0 2.00<JI I I I I 

Gauley Ri11er NRA wv " 493 89 '" 338 492 30 780 llarper'sFerryNHD wv 71 1,971 • 2,000 New River Gor_gc: National River wv 761 1,971 440 492 442 500 

Grand TetonNP WY I I I I 86 8,000 

•1n fi$Clll years 2006 through 2010, funding for Ice Age NST was appropnated for grants. In fiscal year 2008, fund1ng for Gulf Island NS. Ctltlslnnd wa5 

appropriatedrorgrants. 

Consolidated Appraisal Services 1A06 7~93 17,6701 18.0121 12,136 12,111 11,691 ll,692 12,770 11,168 

-~~~ (' IIJsen\ptwk:n\D<w.oobub\DOI LA 2006111"' 201~ F~ by rroJ<"'' """kong r.Je(2) 
162 


Insert offset folio 116 here 95271.116

~ a 

" 1 

~ 

" j 

= 

i 

"' 

~ 

l 

'"" 

.. 

= 

' 

!l 

~ 

'2 

i 

.. 

'll 

~ 

r.. 

0 

~ 

Q 

; 

-' 

J 

i 

c 

! 

0 

... 
163 


Insert offset folio 117 here 95271.117

U.S. Senate Committee on Ene1·gy and Natural Resources 

April 22,2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: What are the benefits or advantages of giving LWCFfunds to states 

compared to the federal government? 

For the state and local governments, this matching grant program is the only 

specific federal grant program for outdoor recreation. I emphasize matching 

grant program. As a minimum, every dollar to the State Assistance Program has 

been matched at least on a 1:1 basis. Many project have been overmatched. 

State and local officials are best suited to determine the needs for their respective 

communities. States select high priority state and local projects using criteria 

from their Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, or SCORPs, as 

required in the LWCF Act. The SCORP's are one of the many ways to assure that 

local stakeholders, including the public, help shape the recreation landscape 

within the state assistance program of the LWCF. Statewide plans along ·with the 

states' ability to access local decision makers like Governors, County 

Commissioners, City Managers and local park and recreation professionals, and 

most importantly the users (soccer moms, skate boarders and friends groups) are 

crucial to ensuring that the needs of each state and local community are met. 

In 1965 the US population was 194 million. The US Census agency projects the 

population to reach 321 million this year. State and local outdoor recreation 

opportunities must grow to keep pace with a growing population and shifting 

demographics. It is a benefit we respectfully request that Congress provide. It 

truly must begin now, if we are to provide this important benefit in the future. 

Question 2: How often and in what ways do state projects involve partnerships to help 

leverage resources and build community support? 

Virtually all of the state assistance program projects leverage resources and build 

lasting partnerships. Obviously there is the 1:1 match requirement. But it is 

typically much more. Here are a few examples recently highlighted inA Smart 

Investment for America's Economy, LWCFby the City Parks Alliance: 

1. Sugar House Park, Salt Lake City, UT Set in the Sugar House neighborhood 

of Salt Lake City, Sugar House Park is a gem that attracts residents from 

around the city for events, sledding, sports, gardens and an extensive trail 

network. Multiple L WCF grants have supported a renovation of the park 

and trail connections to nearby Sugar House Business District, Parley's Rail 

to Trail and the Jordan River Trail. These new connections have increased 

biking and pedestrian access to the business district and contributed to over 

$200 million in new housing, retail and commercial development. Source: Salt 

Lalce City, Paries and Public Lands, data provided by stqff, November, 2014. 
164 


Insert offset folio 118 here 95271.118

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natm·al Resources 

April 22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

2. Reedy River Falls Park and Liberty Bridge, Greenville, SC In 2004, 

Greenville transformed its downtown by restoring Reedy River Falls Park, 

originally protected by LWCF, and building Liberty Bridge. The pedestrian 

bridge is the capstone of a park that has inspired a wave of prosperity 

throughout the West End, including construction of a minor league baseball 

park. "Greenville never had an iconic image; the bridge and waterfalls 

became that. We spent $13 million on the park and within two years had 

about $100 million in private investment. LWCF's initial investment led to 

permanent protection of the site and the support that has since flowed into 

the park and surrounding area."- Greenville Mayor Knox vVhite Source: 

Connor, E, Liberty Bridge: Half Century in the Making, Greenville News, Oct. 2014. 

:J. Confluence Park on the South Platte River, Denver, CO LWCF's $1.2 million 

in grants for the South Platte River in Denver galvanized over $2.5 billion in 

local public and private funding, an investment that has revitalized Denver's 

downtown and continues to drive economic development and job creation. 

Leveraging two thousand dollars in local public and private funding for every 

federal dollar spent is a smart national investment. source: Harnik, P., From 

Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile: How Urban Park Systems Can Rest Promote Health and Wellness, 

Trustfor Public Land, 2011,32. 

4· Indian Bend Wash, Scottsdale, AZ Eight LWCF grants over the past 40 years 

have enabled the creation of the Indian Bend Wash, an oasis of parks, lakes, 

paths and golf courses traversing 11 miles through the heart of Scottsdale. 

Developed initially as an alternative to cement culverts, the greenbelt has 

successfully protected the city, including a 65 square mile drainage area, 

from flood damage during many record-setting rainfalls. This world-renown 

flood control project is rated among the top urban green spaces in Arizona. 

Source: A Smart Investment for America's Economy- The Land and Water Conservation Fund, City 

Parks Alliance, 2015 

s. Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia's 10,334 acre park system, developed in part 

with $12 million in LWCF funds, is saving the city $6 million PER YEAR in 

stormwater management costs.(l) As part of its Green City, Clean Waters 

initiative, over the next 25 years Philadelphia will be investing $2 billion in 

parks and green infrastructure to capture 85% of the city's stormwater, 

saving the city $16 billion that would otherwise be spent on underground 

pipes and tunnels. (2) LWCF grants can match these water utility 

investments to ensure that stormwater management investments are 

simultaneously creating outdoor recreation opportunities. Sources: 1. Hamik, P., 

Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System, Trust for Publie Land, 2009, 12., 2. Featherstone 

eta!. Creating a Sustainable City: Philadelphia's Green City Clean Waters Program, 47th ISOCARP 

C.ongress, 2011, 1, 10. 

2 
165 


Insert offset folio 119 here 95271.119

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

Question 3: In your view, why should Congress amend the LWCF Act to include a 

specific stateside allocation? 

State agencies are strategically positioned to ensure good planning, budgeting 

and accountability for LWCF state assistance projects because we are immersed 

within our states and local communities. In general, state governments are in 

tune with the pulse and feelings of the population and must assume leadership 

roles in outdoor recreation. Restoring the state share consistent with the original 

intent of the legislation would mean of course millions more spent on close to 

home recreation on the priority projects determined by state agencies, in a 

transparent process, who know best what local constituents want and need in 

terms of outdoor recreation. It is estimated that dedicating 6o% of funds to the 

state assistance program would more than triple the funds available to local 

communities under the status quo. Ensuring state-controlled planning 

(SCORP) that includes mandated federal agency participation is critical moving 

forward. Providing flexibility to State Liaison Officers for LWCF stateside funds 

to include renovation, restoration & stewardship of lands for outdoor recreation 

is an important component of the act. 

It is important that we clarify exactly what are state grants, consistent with the 

language and original purposes of the LWCF, and what we define as the 

"Stateside" component of the LWCF. We prefer to be clear in stating our interest 

in the LWCF is specifically with the State Assistance Program - formula grants to 

the States for local conservation and active recreation. The State Assistance 

Program is one of the original core tenants and priorities of the program from 

when the LWCF was created in 1964. Further, the original Act designated that the 

distribution of annual funding for the LWCF be allocated as follows: 

SEC. 4· (a) ALLOCATION.-There shall ... (i) the appropriation therein 

made shall be available in the ratio of 6o per centum for State purposes 

and 40 per centum for Federal purposes... Source: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsysjpkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg897·Pdf 

Question 4: Mr. Connor claimed that some of the "other programs, " such as Forest 

Legacy, benefit states and that appropriations from the LWCF have historically been 

balanced between state and federal purposes. Do you agree? Do the "other programs·· 

serve the same pwposes as the State Assistance Program? 

They do not serve the same purposes. The loosely defined "related purposes" or 

new programs were first considered in 1997. While serving worthwhile goals, 

3 
166 


Insert offset folio 120 here 95271.120

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

these additional accounts are NOT what we determine to be "State purposes" as 

intended under the original Act. 

For example, the "related purposes" which the Administration is attempting to 

include under the "Stateside" umbrella, are NOT subject to the same conditions 

placed upon the State Assistance Program. These "related" programs: 

• Are NOT incorporated, or even considered, under the LWCF 

mandated "Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" 

(SCORP) which defines priorities and the manner which states 

intend to utilize their State Assistance funding over what is typically 

a five-year period. The SCORP is supposed to be used, in tandem 

with an "open selection process" when making decisions on all state 

uses of the grant funding. 

Being outside of the SCORP process, these programs are not 

managed with the direct assistance of the State Outdoor Recreation 

Liaison Officer- a governor-appointed position required under the 

State Assistance Program. 

• These programs are identified as "voluntary" and "highly 

competitive" indicating that states cannot depend on receiving 

funding in a given year for these purposes and that major decisions 

with regard to where the funding ends up are being made in 

Washington, DC. 

Projects funded under these "related purposes" are not subject to 

the same financial threshold of the dollar-for-dollar match that is 

required of all projects funded through the State Assistance 

Program. 

Finally, these "related purposes" include programs which are not 

under the management or responsibility of the Department of the 

Interior, but which, over time, have utilized over $650 million in 

direct LWCF support. I refer you to the chart provided on page 5 of 

my written testimony. 

While we recognize the considerable competing priorities, and acknowledge the 

worthwhile purposes these programs were created to address, any honest review 

will confirm that they are NOT the same, in manner or purpose, as the "State 

purposes" laid out in the original Act. Therefore, claiming, "40% (of existing 

LWCF support) is going to the stateside," of the program is misleading, at best. 

4 
167 


Insert offset folio 121 here 95271.121

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: Air. Ledford, you heard my question to Mr. Connor about what is a fair and 

equitable percentage for the states the Administration would support as part of 

reauthorization. You also heard his answer. He did not give what he felt was a fair 

percentage, but did claim states were getting 40%, not 12% as you have stated. What is 

your re5ponse to the Administration's claim? 

We strongly affirm our original statement. By way of illustration, note the 

comments in the answer provided regarding the Administration's FY2016 Budget 

request. It includes a total of $400 million in discretionary funding for the LWCF 

with the $50 million (12.5%) allocated to the State Assistance Program 

continuing the pattern of falling well short of a fair and equitable percentage 

being made available for state and local outdoor recreation. We note that it would 

take $160 million of overall LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance 

Program to achieve the 40% threshold - the minimum percentage of annual 

appropriations the law currently requires be made available for federal land 

acquisition ("Federal purposes" under the original Act). 

In the enabling legislation, the "State purposes" designated under the Act was the 

State Assistance Program. As I explained in the written testimony, through 

legislative changes and diversions, the State Assistance portion of the fund has 

been effectively squeezed to the point of being no more than 12% to 13% of total 

LWCF appropriations since 1998. 

As provided in a response to a similar question (#4) from Chairman Murkowski, 

the loosely defined "related purposes" or new programs were first given 

consideration in 1997. While they may serve worthwhile goals, these additional 

accounts are NOT what would readily be determined to be "State purposes" as 

intended under the original Act. 

Funds used for related purposes have gone towards the following: 

BLM: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Maintenance 

FS: Forest Legacy, road rehabilitation and maintenance, State and Private 

Forestry Programs 

FWS: State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, Cooperative Endangered Species 

Conservation Fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Fund, 

Deferred Maintenance, Landowner Incentive Program, Private 

Stewardship Grants 

NPS: Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UP ARR), Historic 

Preservation Fund, Elwha Ecosystem Restoration, Deferred Maintenance 

Some funds have also gone to USGS and Bureau of Indian Affairs for nonacquisition purposes. The total amount that has gone towards other purposes is 

5 
168 


Insert offset folio 122 here 95271.122

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April 22,2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

approximately $2.1 billion. Funds were appropriated for other purposes in 

FY1998, FY2ooo, and every year since. 

Question 2: Mr. Ledford, you spoke about the importance role LWCFprojects play to 

increase health and wellness and economic prosperity in low income areas. Would you 

give the committee some state specific examples? What it would mean for individuals in 

low income communities physically, mentally, and financially if LWCF was returned to 

the original intent of the lmv and more state prcJjects were accomplished? 

Coincidentally today as I draft these responses, I met with a personal physician. 

As we spoke about what constitutes healthy lifestyles for both America's youth 

and population in general, his unsolicited comment, was that "movement" as a 

whole is the most important factor in maintaining good health. 

It is well established that physical activity helps prevent obesity and related 

medical problems, and there is mounting evidence that providing close-to-home 

places to exercise-parks, primarily-can improve health. People who live close to 

parks that are easy to get to and well-maintained are more likely to use them; 

conversely, people who live far from parks are apt to use them less.' 

Participating in outdoor recreation, starting at a young age with close-to-home 

accessible activities, leads to greater participation in a wider variety of outdoor 

activities throughout life. The most popular of these "gateway" activities are 

walking, running, bicycling, fishing and hiking, which can all be pursued in local 

urban parks and trails. 2 

Half of all Americans get less than the minimum recommended amount of 

physical activity. Of the half of Americans who participate in outdoor recreation, 

over 70% say their primary motivation is to get exercise, yet one in ten 

Americans, from teens to seniors, say they are not active outside because the 

places to recreate are too far away. Children, in particular, suffer from a lack of 

access to close-to-home recreation, which has led in part to the highest rates of 

childhood obesity in the world. 3 

The United States is the most overweight nation in the world. An obese American 

racks up nearly $1,500 more per year in health care costs than an American of 

normal weight, for a national total of $147 billion in direct medical expenses. 4 

The vitality of our nation depends on the vitality of our people. LWCF is a smart 

investment for keeping Americans active, an investment that will save lives, save 

costs and contribute to creating a strong, secure and healthy America. 

The CDC's report, America Walk, brings the importance of walking to center 

6 
169 


Insert offset folio 123 here 95271.123

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

stage. This report on walking provides an opportunity for states, communities, 

and partners to mobilize around the importance of environmental and 

programmatic supports for walking and the many health benefits of an active 

lifestyle. To this end, the CDC calls everyone to be mindful of and to take action 

on this key message: "Better spaces and more places for walking can get people 

more active." 

The Community Guide for Preventive Services also provides three recommended 

strategies to support walking: 

1. Creating, or enhancing access, to places for physical activity combined with 

informational outreach such as walking trails and paths and joint use 

agreements; 

2. Street-scale urban design and land-use policies such as lighting and safe street 

design; and 

3· Community-scale urban design land use policies such as pedestrian and 

recreational master plans and development of mixed used communities. 

There is extensive research that shows that living near a park makes a difference 

in these neighborhoods. 

Pyschological Science 

http: I/ pss.sagepub.coml content/ early I 2013/04/23/09.56797612464659 .abstract 

. This article and study shows that living near a park- an urban park with green 

space, one that is nature-filled and bird-filled- can make a difference in 

lowering mental distress and raising a feeling of well-being or life-satisfaction. 

These were the conclusions of a recent study in Psychological Science, results 

released by a team of four researchers out of the Universities of Plymouth and 

Exeter in the UK. 

Not only did these researchers conclude that people are happier when living in 

urban areas with greater amounts of green space, they measured a "life 

satisfaction boost" generally equivalent to one-fifth to one-quarter of the increase 

associated with finding a job or being married. The increase in life satisfaction 

that accompanied nearby green space "was equivalent to 28% of the effect of 

being married rather than unmarried and 21% of being employed rather than 

unemployed." 

In another recent study published in the International Journal of Health 

Geographies, it showed that pre-school kids who live in greener neighborhoods 

are more likely to play outside. The study by Diana S Grigsby-Toussaint, SangHyun Chi and Barbara H. Fiese (PDF) showed that:: 

" ... [E]xposure to greener neighborhoods encourages children to spend more 

time outdoors where they may reap both physiological and cognitive benefits. 

Conversely, children with the lowest levels of neighborhood greenness were 

least likely to spend time playing outdoors, engaging in active or quiet play 

(rainy day kids)." 

7 
170 


Insert offset folio 124 here 95271.124

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

In addition to their own research, the authors point to examples including 

"initiatives using landscape architecture to create green elementary school 

grounds in Canada, which found a 70% increase in light and moderate physical 

activity among children." 

Those of us lucky enough to grow up with backyards and trees get this, and a 

growing body of research shows why it's especially important: children who 

play outside are healthier, more creative in their play and more 

likely (PDF) to have positive attitudes toward nature (and environmentally 

conscious behavior) when they grow up. Plus, all those "physiological and 

cognitive benefits." 

In an issue of Science Dailey newsletter, an Oregon research project is 

presented that indicates, "One way to help address the epidemic of obesity in the 

United States is improve access to pleasant hiking trails and ambitious parks 

and recreation programs .. " This study cites one example in West Virginia where 

a community with high obesity rates and limited access to recreation facilities 

noted that 25% of people using a new trail had previously been sedentary. They 

conclude the article by stating that "state and local policy makers who are dealing 

with competing budgetary demands become more informed about the health 

benefits of outdoor recreational opportunities and consider them in their 

allocations of scarce resources." Science Daily (Jan. 15, 2010 ) 

I will conclude the response to this question by sharing that personally my 

growing up in western North Carolina, and having ready access to the outdoors, 

including the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Pisgah National Forest and 

the Blue Ridge Parkway made it simple for me to get outdoors. Unfortunately for 

many urban youth today in particular, getting to a national park is virtually a 

once a year vacation, if even that frequent. The stateside assistance program of 

LWCF provides the opportunity for close to home, quality outdoor recreation. 

1. Harnik, P., From Fitness Zones to the i\1edical Afile: Hmtt Urban Park Systems Can Best Promote Health and 

Wellness, Trust for Public Land, 2011, 1, 

2. Outdoor Foundation, Outdoor Participation Report, 2013, 26. 

3. Outdoor Foundation, 2013, 29. 

4, Harnik, 20ll, 5, 

Question 3: Last week Domenic Bravo, Wyoming State Parks Administrator testified in 

the House that, "realigning spending with the original intent of the legislation would 

mean millions more spent close to home on priority projects determined by state actors 

who know best what local constituents want and need in terms of outdoor recreation. " 

Mr. Ledford, in addition to supporting state parks and local projects such as pools, 

playgrounds, and trails, is it correct a State can also acquire land using its Land and 

8 
171 


Insert offset folio 125 here 95271.125

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

Water Conservation Fund dollars if it chooses to do so? Could states use the fimding to 

acquire private inholdingsfrom willing sellers within the exterior boundaries o.fstate 

parks and forests? 

Yes. During the time that I served as the state parks director in North Carolina it 

was not uncommon to acquire land for state parks, and to administer grants for 

land acquisition to local communities, that used the matching grants from the 

stateside assistance program from LWCF. Nationally, for the LWCF state 

assistance program, 77% of the funds have been used for 

development/construction projects to develop basic outdoor recreation facilities, 

the balance, 23%, supporting acquisition and of nearly 3 million acres for state 

and local parks in American. 

Yes. States can use the funding for acquisitions and interior holdings based on 

their approved state outdoor recreation plans. A key difference is that state and 

local acquisitions are made in an open environment with the knowledge of key 

elected officials; therefore typically most are not controversial. In North 

Carolina, for example, public notice is required prior to acquisitions being 

approved. 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Questions: Can you please share the primmy sources of revenue to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF)? There are members of the committee, as well as some of 

you, who have advocatedjiJr the LWCF to be reauthorized andfidlyfimded While I 

agree that the LWCF need5 to be re-authorized, I believe we can derive revenues for the 

fimd through increased access to our energy resources on the Outer Continental Sheff 

Could or should an increase in funding to the LWCF come from future OCS exploration 

and production as opposed to an appropriations increase that may require an o.ffset? 

It is recognized that the waters off of Louisiana generates the overwhelming 

majority of the existing Outer Continental Shelf revenues. ·while there are some 

benefits, such as the jobs this creates, as I understand the question, you would 

like to see "new" OCS revenues used for LWCF? 

In essence, the National Association of State Park Directors recommends that 

Congress use the Outer Continental Shelf revenue for the intended purpose of 

"when taking/utilizing/consuming one finite natural resource-- to use the 

revenues from it to go back into conservation, recreation and environmental 

benefits." If you want to do more, it is strongly recommended to formally 

establish a true trust ftmd for L WCF, including the State Assistance Program. 

9 
172 


Insert offset folio 126 here 95271.126

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

The Outer Continental Shelf is presently generating over $6 billion in an 

"average" year. The most that has ever been allocated for the total LWCF 

program is $goo million, which is the administration's recommendation for the 

current budget. We respectfully request that you advocate for Congress to 

dedicate a similar portion/percentage of those existing revenues to fund the 

program. 

Question from Senator Franken 

Question: The new Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program targets areas with 

low-income and minority populations and that are underserved by recreation 

opportunities. In your testimony, you commented that "NASPD and NRPA are committed 

to addressing the increasing urban needs that have arisen over the years. •· This urban 

initiative is a good idea that desen,es more support. Would you agree that we need to be 

putting more than $3 million toward the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership 

Program if 11•e are going to jitrther enhance public access to outdoor recreation 

opportunities? 

There are communities and neighborhoods in cities across the country that lack 

places and opportunities for residents, especially youth, to play, recreate, or 

otherwise be active outdoors. In large part, LWCF as prescribed in the original 

enabling legislation, addressed many of these needs in communities across 

America. As funds for the Stateside Assistance Program diminished as a result of 

the 6o% for stateside provision being eliminated, and more recently the diversion 

offunds for "related purpose," the ability of the LWCF Stateside Assistance 

Program to address these needs has decreased. The primary advantage to 

utilizing the State Assistance Program would be an objective process to identify 

and prioritize the need through the required Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (SCORP). Its development will ensure engagement by 

community leaders, user groups and organizations, et.al. 

Provided that there are funds for an Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership 

Program "in addition to" the core amount for the State Assistance formula for the 

grants to the states, there would be no objection. Our essential request is to hold 

the State Assistance harmless/no net loss from a fair and balanced allocation. It 

remains our request that the funds for the State Assistance be a minimum of 

40%, or return to the original 6o% allocation, one of the visionary provisions of 

LWCF. Should Congress desire to provide funding for urban parks in addition, 

that's their prerogative and could provide added outdoor recreational 

opportunities. 

10 
173 


Insert offset folio 127 here 95271.127

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Lewis Ledford 

We respectfully reiterate our request that Congress embaces this opportunity to 

update the LWCF to reflect 21st Century needs and priorities and provide a fair 

and balanced allocation to the Stateside Assistance Program that resembles and 

honors the orginal intent of this visionary law. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~ Lewis R. Ledford, Exec 

National Association of 

P.O. Box 91567 

Raleigh, NC 27675 

(919) 218-9222 

lewis@naspd.org 

May15, 2015 

11 
174 


Insert offset folio 128 here 95271.128

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: I appreciate that you state in your testimony that you want to retain program 

flexibility in the LWCF statute for Congress with respect to allocations between the state 

and federal sides, but the Act already specifies that at least 40 percent of the funds are to 

be spent on federal purposes. What do you mean by flexibility? Is it that you support 

flexibility in allocating the 60 percent not specifically dedicated to the federal side, or is it 

that you would support amending the Act to drop the allocation altogether? 

Answer: LWCF works precisely because of the flexibilities already in law, and because 

of the congressional role we have supported and will continue to support. Annual 

funding to the conservation programs now funded through LWCF- the federal side of 

the LWCF and the spectrum of state and local grants programs, including traditional state 

and local assistance grants, Forest Legacy, Section 6 grants, Battlefield program, 

Highlands, and the like is decided by Congress through the appropriations process each 

year. Applying this approach, the Congress has been allocating LWCF funding evenly 

between federal and state needs. Looking back at the numbers for the last 10 years, 

almost precisely half of the funds go to state and local programs, with the other half 

going to federal inholdings and related purposes (please see the attached chart). That's 

how the Congress has been using the flexibility I discussed, and the Congress should 

maintain that flexibility into the future. 

Question 2: Another focus in reauthorizing LWCF has been on which, if any, purposes 

other than land acquisition and stateside grants should be funded through the LWCF. In 

your testimony, you seem to indicate support to channel LWCF funds to a broader array 

of purposes to protect federal lands than just land acquisitions. Other than those currently 

authorized, to what "other purposes" do you think LWCF funds could appropriately go? 

Answer: The Congress should continue the focus ofLWCF on conservation and related 

outdoor recreational opportunities, as envisioned upon the establishment of the law. The 

funding is already authorized, without any limits, for operations and maintenance, for 

restoration, for science, and other needs. In particular, LWCF is the only fund dedicated 

to conservation investments, both fee and easement projects, that improve wildfire 

management and reduce risk, secure public water supplies, resolve inholdings and landuse conflicts, and support a $646B annual outdoor recreation economy. Those are the 

appropriate uses ofLWCF. 

Expanding LWCF's authorized purposes to cover other public land goals that already are 

authorized for funding wouldn't make more dollars available for those non-conservation 

needs, but it would reduce the dollars available for needed conservation investments that 

significantly contribute to ongoing outdoor recreation access and help sustain lands and 

waters essential to the well-being of this nation's communities. 
175 


Insert offset folio 129 here 95271.129

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

I want to emphasize, as I said in my testimony, two points: 1) many LWCF projects 

actually contribute to enhanced efficiency of land management; and 2) these LWCF 

investments often contribute to basic community needs that include maintaining clean 

water and reducing flood and storm impacts. In some cases, failing to protect these 

natural resources simply shifts (and augments) the costs of securing clean water and 

reducing risks to communities. 

One good example is the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts. The Quabbin was created 

by damming the three branches of the Swift River (and tributary of the Chicopee River, 

which in turn is a tributary to the CT River), and then piping the water through Lake 

Wachusett and then through more pipes to Boston, where it provides water for the city as 

well as 40 towns in the Greater Boston MSA Because of land protection in the 

watershed by the state of Massachusetts, the water requires only minimal treatment, 

saving the state of Massachusetts millions of dollars. 

Given these considerations, we don't believe there is a need to expand the purposes of 

LWCF, and, indeed, its current flexibility helps the Congress and agencies anticipate and 

respond to evolving opportunities and needs. 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Questions: Can you please share the primary sources of revenue to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF)? There are members of the committee, as well as some of 

you, who have advocated for the LWCF to be reauthorized and fully funded. While I 

agree that the LWCF needs to be re-authorized, I believe we can derive revenues for the 

fund through increased access to our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf 

Could or should an increase in funding to the LWCF come from future OCS exploration 

and production as opposed to an appropriations increase that may require an offset? 

Answer: The link between LWCF and OCS is decades long and well established, not 

only in history but also in logic- investing proceeds from the use of certain natural 

resources in the protection of other natural assets. That linkage should continue. Annual 

OCS revenues are far in excess of the $900 million that have been authorized annually 

for LWCF, ranging (generally) from $6 billion to $18 billion or more. Moreover, the 

amount appropriated for LWCF is far lower than that $900 million authorized amount. 

To permanently fund LWCF, we need an offset for a program that already has a revenue 

stream. 

That said, any revenue-sharing program should ensure that a significant portion of any 

funds directed to states are used to address the cumulative ecological impacts of OCS 

development Also, the legislation should include dedicated funding for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to support all LWCF programs (including state and 

federal grant programs) to benefit the nation as a whole by addressing conservation and 

recreation needs nationwide. Dedicated funding for LWCF represents an important 

2 
176 


Insert offset folio 130 here 95271.130

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

investment in the nation's significant natural places and the lands and waters that 

generate recreation opportunities, economic benefits, and community well-being using 

revenues derived from the extraction of the nation's valuable natural resources. 

Question from Senator Debbie Stabenow 

Ouestion You testified that approximately half of the backlog on public lands is related 

to roads and suggested that Congress address this problem as part of the next surface 

transportation reauthorization bill. Are there specific policy changes within the surface 

transportation reauthorization bill that would help address the backlog, or is the solution 

simply a matter of providing adequate funding? 

Answer: We support Congress addressing the roads portion of the maintenance backlog 

in the next transportation bill. This issue is largely a matter of providing adequate 

funding to ensure that land management agencies have the resources to maintain these 

roads. Many of these roads are widely used, in some cases as basic public thoroughfares; 

other roads within the jurisdiction of the land managing agencies are critical to public 

access for the more than 400 million annual visits to these lands and are also critical to 

sustaining management of these lands. These are all basic infrastructure needs and should 

be adequately funded as part of the nation's overall transportation infrastructure 

investments. While ensuring funding is critical, we are looking more closely at specific 

policy changes and will follow up with you and the Committee in the coming month. 

Question from Senator Ron Wyden 

Ouestion: During the hearing there was a lot of discussion around the economic benefits 

of public lands and the growing outdoor recreation economy. Public parks in urban areas 

have been shown to improve the health of community members with access to those 

parks, but can you discuss the benefits, both economic and social, ofland acquisitions to 

create parks in rural areas? 

Answer: Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, paddling and other outdoor recreation 

activities contribute a total of $646 billion annually to the economy and support 6.1 

million American jobs, according to the Outdoor Industry Foundation. This sector 

generates $39.9 billion annually in federal tax revenues, as well as $39.7 billion in annual 

state and local tax revenues. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation has found that, 

each year, 3 7.4 million Americans aged !6 and older hunt and fish, spending a total of 

$90 billion. The larger outdoor recreation, conservation, and historic preservation 

economy, con- tributes $1.06 trillion annually and supports 9.4 million American jobs. 

Whether manufacturing, retail or service related, most of these jobs are sustainable 

resource-based or tourism-related jobs and cannot be exported. Looking forward, outdoor 

recreation has the potential to create an additional 100,000 to 200,000 U.S. jobs, again 

with magnified impacts in local and rural communities. Federal lands are keys to local 

3 
177 


Insert offset folio 131 here 95271.131

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

recreation and tourism industries, and visitors to these areas spend money on food, 

lodging, and equipment; for active outdoor recreation trips, $243 billion in retail sales 

created a $379 billion ripple effect for a total economic contribution of $622 billion. 

This ripple effect persists beyond services: for active outdoor recreation gear, $46 billion 

in retail sales created a $62 billion ripple effect for a total economic contribution of $108 

million. The outdoor industry is one of the healthiest sectors of our economy, even in 

difficult times. 

In 2010, 437 million recreational visits to Department of the Interior (DOI)-managed 

lands contributed over $44 billion in economic activity and supported more than 388,000 

jobs- many in rural areas. Use of water, timber, and other resources produced from 

Federal lands supported about 370,000 jobs and $48 billion in economic activity in 2010. 

The $214 million that DOI spent on land acquisition (and easements) in 2010 created an 

estimated $442 million in economic activity-more than doubling the return on 

investment-and generated about 3,000 jobs. 

Beyond recreation, economists have shown that higher-wage services industries are 

leading the West's job growth and diversifying the economy into high-tech, health care, 

real estate, and finance and insurance industries. This growth coincides with a 

concentration of the land base in federal protected status such as national parks, 

monuments, wilderness, and other similar designations (in high-protection counties, jobs 

increased by 345% over the last 40 years, while low-protection counties increased 

employment by 83%). Entrepreneurs and talented workers are choosing to work where 

they can enjoy outdoor recreation and natural landscapes. Increasingly, chambers of 

commerce and economic development associations in every western state are using the 

region's national parks, monuments, wilderness areas, and other public lands as a tool to 

lure companies to relocate. 

But even these figures understate the economic value of LWCF investments. As I noted 

in my testimony, these investments often help secure clean drinking water supplies or 

maintain natural systems that provide protections against coastal or other flooding. Often, 

protecting these natural systems costs less than investing more in mechanical water 

treatment facilities or other "gray" (built) infrastructure. 

Land acquisition programs funded by LWCF do not simply add to the federal estate: they 

include conservation easements that protect working landscapes by ensuring that ranchers 

and farmers are able to stay on their lands and continue acting as tremendous stewards of 

open space. LWCF also funds the Forest Legacy Program, which works with timber 

owners to sustain working forests that provide jobs, forest products, and opportunities for 

recreation, as well as protecting water supplies and important wildlife habitat. The LWCF 

state grants program further supports America's state park system, which contributes $20 

billion to local and state economies. 

4 
178 


Insert offset folio 132 here 95271.132

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

LWCF also helps landowners and local banks recover from economic challenges. For 

many fanners, ranchers, and timberland owners, land is their biggest source of equity. In 

challenging economic times, some landowners face the loss of their properties through 

foreclosure. Working with federal and state land management agencies, the LWCF 

program provides landowners with another option to preserve their equity and keep 

iconic working landscapes intact. LWCF can also provide banks with an important option 

to move foreclosed properties off their balance sheets, strengthening the economic health 

of local communities. 

Question from Senator John Barrasso 

Ouestion: Ms Scarlett, I don't think anyone would say 12 percent is a fair and equitable 

amount of funding for the states to be receiving when the original law was 60 percent. 

What is a fair and equitable percentage of funding for the states to receive that The 

Nature Conservancy would support as part of reauthorization? 

Answer: We appreciate the goal of sustaining benefits through LWCF for both states 

and federal agencies. The 12 percent number is just one aspect ofLWCF funding that 

supports state and local needs. There are a variety of other programs that provide grants 

to states and counties. When taken as a whole, these programs have totaled 

approximately 50 percent over the past decade. As previously noted, TNC believes that 

Congress is doing a good job in terms of equitable distribution, and we support 

maintaining congressional flexibility to determine annually how best to distribute 

funding. In our review ofLWCF spending over the last ten years, we have seen that 

almost exactly 50 percent of LWCF investments are going to state and local programs, 

with the remaining 50 percent available for federal projects, which affirms that Congress 

is taking a balanced approach to LWCF. 

This balance is further reflected as you dig deeper into the constituent programmatic parts 

ofLWCF. Similar amounts ofLWCF each year go to National Parks through the federal 

programs and to state and local parks through the traditional state grants program; to 

National Forests through the federal grants and to state and local forest conservation 

through Forest Legacy; and to National Wildlife Refuges through federal grants and to 

state and local wildlife grants through Section 6. We believe these are the sorts of 

comparisons that are especially relevant in considering allocation ofLWCF funding. 

That said, there is no fixed magic number that would be right for any of the component 

programmatic parts ofLWCF. Congress each year makes the choice regarding the 

balance among national and local recreation needs, between national and state forest 

needs, and so on, based on annual opportunities and needs. That flexibility enhances the 

success of L WCF investments. 

5 
179 


Insert offset folio 133 here 95271.133

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Lynn Scarlett 

Questions from Senator Mazie K Hirono 

Questions: Potential Reform Impacts 

You highlight that the purpose of the LWCF at time of establishment was to balance 

development of federal energy sources with the protection and conservation of lands, 

water, and wildlife for existing and future generations-a purpose that roughly 85% of 

voters support. 

If Congress were to take these funds and use them for purposes other than the original 

intent, what kind of precedent do you think that will set? How will that impact the 

outdoor economy, especially during a time that the Administration is encouraging all 

Americans to get outdoors? 

Answer: The Land and Water Conservation Fund was authorized in 1965. Since then, 

the vast majority offunding forLWCF has come from OCS oil and gas revenues. LWCF 

was designed to ensure that $900 million per year of these revenues would be allocated to 

conserving our nation's natural and cultural heritage and enhancing opportunities for the 

American people to connect with that heritage through visitation, outdoor recreation, and 

tourism. However, since its enactment more than $17 billion in OCS revenues that should 

have gone to LWCF have been diverted to other purposes. Reinvesting in the nation's 

natural places through the LWCF ensures that all citizens can benefit directly from the 

sale of our federal resources by investing some resources from those sales in conservation 

of lands and waters that secure outdoor recreation opportunities and other related benefits 

for present and future generations. 

It is worth noting that the LWCF program is not just about acquiring lands for the public 

trust. LWCF programs conserve working landscapes that support the forest, farming, and 

ranching economic sectors; provide access for hunters, anglers, and other recreation 

visitors to our federal lands and waters; and support the $646 billion outdoor recreation 

industry. LWCF investments have supported projects in every state and 98 percent of 

counties across the country. 

LWCF has been the key to protecting state, local and national parks, wildlife refuges, 

forests and other federal lands, working forests and ranches, recreational trails and 

recreational access points for all Americans. Therefore, we urge support for all LWCF 

programs, including federal and state grants programs. Stateside LWCF programs have 

enabled the conservation of many important natural areas, and federal programs are also a 

critical companion for establishing national parks, wildlife refuges, and other areas that 

can be enjoyed by all Americans. 

6 
180 


Insert offset folio 134 here 95271.134

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Reed Watson 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Why does PERC think the LWCF should be used to address the 

maintenance backlog rather than relying solely on the general budget and appropriations 

process? 

Answer 1: The general budget and appropriations has, heretofore, proven incapable of 

addressing the maintenance backlog on federal lands. Although the LWCF is, by itself, 

insufficient to alleviate the entire maintenance backlog on federal lands, using those 

funds to acquire additional lands while we fail to maintain the current federal estate is 

nonsensical. 

Question 2: What has PERC learned from its research about how the public views 

maintaining and revitalizing existing recreation resources versus new land acquisition for 

recreation purposes? Does it vary by geographic region? 

Answer 2: Our research indicates that public lands users throughout the country support 

maintaining federal lands, particularly as such maintenance translates to public access 

and recreational opportunities. Given that a significant portion of recent federal land 

acquisitions have targeted in-holdings, increases in public access and recreational 

opportunities have been minimal. 

There is ample evidence that Westerners value the care and maintenance of existing 

federal lands. The latest "Conservation in the West" survey, conducted by Colorado 

College, found that 95 percent of voters in the West believe that Congress should ensure 

that public land managers "have the resources they need to take care of public lands and 

provide services to visitors." 1 While the survey is commonly cited as evidence that 

conservation programs such as the LWCF are popular among Westerners, this finding 

suggests that properly maintaining and caring for existing federal lands is a top priority 

among Western voters. 

Question 3: Some LWCF supporters have stated that dedicating LWCF dollars for 

maintenance is not worth doing as it would not make any appreciable difference in the 

size of the maintenance backlog. Can you explain why this is a not a credible policy 

position? 

Answer 3: This is not a credible policy position for two reasons. First, as a logical 

matter, using LWCF funds to acquire more lands would stretch the already too-thin 

budgets further, over even more federally-owned but unmaintained acres. Second, the 

National Park Service estimates it would need $700 million just to maintain the agency's 

1 The 2015 Conservation in the West Poll: A Snrvey of the Attitudes of Voters in Six Western States. 

htlps://www.coloradocollcgc.edu/sta!coHhcrockics!cqJJSCrva!ioninlhcwcst/ 
181 


Insert offset folio 135 here 95271.135

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Reed Watson 

current maintenance backlog, 2 so directing the full $900 million currently designated for 

the Fund would thus "hold the line" and make a non-trivial contribution to reducing the 

backlog. 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Questions: Can you please share the primary sources of revenue to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF)? There are members of the committee, as well as some of 

you, who have advocated for the LWCF to be reauthorized and fully funded. While r 

agree that the LWCF needs to be re-authorized, I believe we can derive revenues for the 

fund through increased access to our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Could or should an increase in funding to the LWCF come from future OCS exploration 

and production as opposed to an appropriations increase that may require an offset? 

Answer: Currently authorized at $900 million per year, with the vast majority of 

revenues currently derived from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.3 The 

general budget and appropriations process has not proven effective at providing the funds 

necessary to maintain the federal estate, so an alternative funding source is likely needed. 

One option to consider is user fees retained at the site of collection. The user fee 

approach, with retained receipts, would provide federal land managers with an incentive 

to maintain the lands, trails, roads, and habitats that are most valuable to federal land 

users. Moreover, user fees with retained receipts would avoid the appropriations and 

offsets issue altogether. 

Question from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question: I am generally cautious of permanent government programs and prefer that 

Congress periodically revisit programs, particularly those that involve significant Federal 

expenditures, as we are doing here today, in order to re-evaluate their necessity and make 

any necessary updates. Do you support locking in the program as it currently exists with a 

permanent reauthorization, or would you rather see it reauthorized for a limited 

timeframe and have it revisited later? 

'Statement of Jonathan B. Jmvis, Director. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Before the 

Senate Committee on Encr!,>y and Natnrdl Resources. for an Oversight Hearing to Consider Supplemental 

Funding Options to Support the National Park Service's Efforts to Address Deferred Maintenance and 

Operational Needs. July 25,2013. 

2014. "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and 

.·on,gre,ssw•nal Research Service. RL33531. http://naiionalag!awccntcrorg/wp2 
182 


Insert offset folio 136 here 95271.136

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

April22, 2015 Hearing: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Reed Watson 

Answer: Our federal land agencies need secure and reliable funding sources in order to 

maintain the lands under their control, but funding need not be permanent in order to be 

secure and reliable. Secure and reliable funding can come from user fees, collected at 

entry points to our federal lands and retained at the site of collection for federal land 

managers to use for maintenance. 

A prefatory issue is whether the LWCF should be used to acquire additional lands and 

further exacerbate the maintenance backlog. The answer to that question is no, at least not 

until the current maintenance backlog is significantly reduced or eliminated. Dedicating 

the LWCF to maintenance until some measurable and objective draw down has been 

achieved. This approach would complement the user fees and retained receipts approach, 

while providing the federal land agencies and managers with a base level of funding for 

deferred maintenance. 

Questions from Senator Mazie K Hirono 

Questions: Endangered Species in Hawaii 

In your testimony you state that LWCF funds should be directed towards maintenance 

backlogs before being used for land acquisitions. The four agencies that administer the 

LWCF have a total estimated backlog of$18.87 billion. Assuming that the LWCF if fully 

funded at $900 million a year, it would take 21 years to get through the existing 

maintenance needs today, not including any additional needs between now and 2036. 

Have you ever been to Hawaii? We are the endangered species capital of the world and 

are very pleased that land acquisitions in Hawaii are a part of the FY2016 budget request. 

These lands are where many threatened and endangered species live, species that attract 

around 358,000 wildlife watchers each year. One of which, an endangered bird called the 

Palila, lost two-thirds of its population between 2003 and 2008-a period of 5 years. Do 

you think that with the ongoing threats of climate change, invasive species, etc. that our 

endangered species in Hawaii have over 20 years to wait for their habitats to be 

protected? 

Answer: No, endangered species do not have decades to wait while the deferred 

maintenance backlog on federal lands is incrementally addressed, which is why my 

testimony presented the LWCF as part of a larger funding strategy to conserve the 

precious lands currently under federal management. Using the LWCF to acquire 

additional federal lands could do more harm than good for endangered species if 

Congress continues to ignore the maintenance obligations of federal land ownership. All 

legislators, but particularly those from states with numerous endangered species, should 

take responsibility for maintaining and conserving federal lands and the endangered 

species habitats those lands contain. 

3 
183 


Insert offset folio 137 here 95271.137

April 17, 2015 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy ~nd Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate !lqilding 

United States Senate 

Washington, PC 20510 

The Honorable Marla Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

United States Senate 

Wash!ngton, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell; 

The Association of Northwest Steelh<laders 

the land and Water Conservation fund. 

resource agencies. 

Furthermore, the land 

value for disappearing habitat$ that fuel multH11flliion 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. One of the most recent acquisitions in the Nestucca Estuary on the North 

Oregon coast will have immeasurable benefits for salmonids as they acclimate to the saltwater phase ol their 

lifecyc«e, Examples such as the ll!estucca purchase can be found throughout the region and demonstrate the 

importance of a full funding package for this program. 

ln Gratitude, 

Bob Rees, Executive Director 

Association of NW Steelheaders 

{503) 812-9036 

Cc: Senator ROll Wyden 
184 


Insert offset folio 138 here 95271.138

April !7, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cannvell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

221 Dirksen Senate Building 

W ashingt.on, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

Overlooked is what LWCF means to the rural and other stetes where economies are 

lagging. Since !965, over $300 million dollars have been used tn enhance the 

and accessibility of our state's natura! resources. By our state's 

enhance the outdoor economy which supports apJpmxirnately 250,000 JQIYs i.n 

and generates nearly $25 billion in consumer the Outdoor 

outdoor jobs simply would not exist if it LWCF to help support our public 
185 


Insert offset folio 139 here 95271.139

There are many Pacific Northwest communities anxiously looking to LWCF to support local projects. 

One that is worthy of future funding is called "Pathways to the Pacific" which spans key riparian areas 

along nearly 500 miles of the John Day and Columbia Rivers where salmon and steelhead runs provide 

recreation and livelihoods for many in both Oregon and Washington. But this will take re-authorization 

ofLWCF. 

We thank you for your support and urge a strong bi-partisan effort to re-authorize this critical fund that 

supports a vital outdoor industry. 

Sincerely, 

Ed Putnam, Chair, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Oregon 

Brian Jennings, Oregon State Coordinator, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers 

Dean 

~ 

Finnerty, SW Oregon Field Representative, Sportsmen's Conservation Project, Trout Unlimited 
186 


Insert offset folio 140 here 95271.140

To whom it may concernOver the last 9 years, 1 have been stationed in some of the most beautiful places in the country. 

The outdoors have always been a big part of my life. Growing up in New England, f and my family 

enjoyed hiking, mountain biking, skiing and camping. lt has been a source of relaxation and way to be 

part of all the beauty that surrounds us. As an active duty service member, I hold the outdoors 

especially dose to my heart as it is not just about me being able to enjoy the activities of my 

surroundings, but also my family members and community. I stand the watch every day to serve and 

protect not only my country but everyone and everything within it. 

While serving and living in the Pacific Northwest, I have been able to introduce my wife and son 

to all the beauty that our special corner of the world has to offer. Being deployed 6-7 months out of 

the year, I cherish this special time I get to spend with my family. We often ride our bikes at Ft. Stevens 

State Park or take our dog for a hike at Ft. Clatsop. At the young age of 5, my son Jackson has already 

stood amongst the Redwoods, looked out to Cape Disappointment, hiked at fcofa State Park and 

listened to his echo while shouting "Hey you guysssssss!" He also enjoyed learning about plants, birds 

and wild life indigenous to our area. We have family members who come from all over to witness the 

natural beauty that we have been fortunate enough to call home. 

I understand that the Land and Water Conservation Fund I up for re-authorization at the end of 

this fiscal year and that Oregon's Senators are ready to vote for that and to push their colleagues for full 

funding. I am hopeful that the lands I have served for and enjoy so much will continue to be cared for by 

this incredible tool so that I and my family and all Americans can count on the lands that we love to 

continue to flourish. 

It is my privilege and honor to serve and protect this beautiful country. Please support the land 

and Water Conservation Fund and help keep our public lands beautiful and thriving. 

Very Respectfully, 

Andrew Bellone 

Petty Officer znd Class, United States Coast Guard 

Astoria, Oregon 
187 


Insert offset folio 141 here 95271.141

Oct. 9, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

U. 5. Senate 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

I returned home late last year to Oregon, after many years serving overseas in Africa, Asia, and Canada 

as a diplomat for the U.S. Department of State, serving finally as U.S. Ambassador to Gabon and to Sao 

Tome & Principe. I could have chosen to retire anywhere, but I missed the spectacular beauty and 

recreational opportunities available in Oregon that I enjoyed during my childhood near Brownsville, OR. 

Many of the places I most enjoy re-discovering, I have recently learned, exist because they were 

protected or enhanced by monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund {LWCF). I understand 

that you are a le<Jder in keeping that program permanently funded, and I want to thank you fur that 

effort. 

Oregon's abundant wildlife is being protected in the Oregon Coast Wildlife Refuges, our working forests 

are being conserved through the Forest legacy Program, and our history is enshrined along the Oregon 

National Historic Trail-· aU initiatives funded by LWCF dollars, From Fort Clastsop to the John Day Fossil 

Beds, Oregon has benefitted from LWCF projects that conserve, expand, and improve some of Oregon's 

most special places and ensure recreational access for literally millions of Oregonians and visitors. 

l WCF dollars have had a positive impact on practically every county in Oregon, and you have 

exemplified leadership in Congress with your efforts to reaffirm the commitment to this valuable 

program. Thank you for your work. 

Sincerely, 

Eric Benjaminson 

Ambassador {Retired) 
188 


Insert offset folio 142 here 95271.142

April20, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

I am a veteran who runs a small business in Oregon called Soul River Runs Deep. My business is unique 

in approach and style. Merging my talent in art, design and fashion with my passion for the outdoors and 

fly fishing, this anthropologic boutique boasts high-end yet accessible gear, unique apparel, locallycrafted accessories, and home decor that anyone can appreciate. Soul River Runs Deep has doors that 

are open to all people of all walks of life. This space knows no discrimination for who can and cannot 

afford, who looks the "part" or does not. It is my belief that public lands, fly fishing, rivers, and allencompassing Mother Nature should be cherished and enjoyed by all. No one is to judge who can or 

cannot be the next ambassador tor conserving our planet's richest asset - nature. Soul River Runs Deep 

believes in giving back which is why I developed Soul River Runs Wild, a program that allows inner 

city youth and military veterans the opportunity to experience public lands first-hand and at zero cost. 

Through all Soul River Runs Deep sales, 15% is given back to the Soul River Runs Wild program. This 

allows us to build a bridge for participants to reach the outdoors. We use fly fishing as a starting-point 

for youth and veterans to build relationships and mentor, as well as learn about rivers, entomology, river 

and land navigation, and outdoor leadership. Soul River Runs Wild averages seven outings per year on 

wild rivers using public lands to instruct, learn, and build community not just for today but for 

tomorrow's ambassadors. We work with local organizations, tribes, and groups closely tied with the 

public lands to which we are using, By partnering with such groups, we are able to richen the 

experiences by creating connections to the history of the land and how we can care for this valuable 

resource today. Both my business and the underserved communities I work with rely on protected public 

lands and healthy rivers. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a major economic driver not only in Oregon, but 

across the country. This program helps protect the places I take my clients fly fishing, and provides 

access the great outdoors for veterans and youth needing to clear their heads and their souls. 

One example of where LWCF has benefitted my business and my community is the Sandy River, which 

empties into the mighty Columbia River. The LWCF brought people together to conserve threatened 

salmon and steelhead in the Sandy River Basin. The LWCF contributed more than a quarter million 

dollars to create Oxbow Regional Park along the Sandy River. This enabled more people to use the river 

for fishing and other recreational activities, and protected habitat for the iconic salmon fisheries of the 

Pacific Northwest. 
189 


Insert offset folio 143 here 95271.143

The LWCF program works. When a tool has worked for 50 years, why remove it from the toolbox. I 

encourage Congress to focus on reauthorizing this invaluable program, instead of trying to change it. 

Without LWCF, I am confident that Oregon's outdoor economy would be weaker and I would have 

fewer places to take my clients, my friends, and the at risk youth from my community. 

Sincerely, 

Chad Brown, US Navy Veteran 

Soul River Runs Deep 

Soul River Inc. 

Portland, OR 

cc. Senator Ron Wyden, Member of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
190 


Insert offset folio 208 here 95271.208

May 6, 2015 

Chair, Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Ranking Member, Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Testimony of Michael Caplin 

Transmitted via email attachment to darla_ripchensky@energy.senate.gov 

Re: Testimony to be included in the record of the hearing on Reauthorization Of and 

Potential Rej(Jrms To the Land and Water Consen•ation Fund," April 22, 2015. 

Dear Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the committee: 

The subject of this hearing has been of interest to me for decades. Thank you for this 

opportunity to provide testimony for the record. 

I expect the Committee will receive an abundance of testimony about the benefits of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(L&WCFA), much from those who profit from them in various ways. With this testimony I try 

to provide some balance by providing specific examples of problems I hope the Committee will 

address. 

Problems fostered by the L&WCF discussed in this testimony are: 

I. The L&WCF fosters acquisition of private land by federal agencies when the acquisition has 

not been authorized by Congress (that is, fosters unauthorized federal land grabs). 

2. The L&WCF fosters the appearance of a contlict of interest between federal agencies in their 

role being responsible for fighting wildfires and their role with the apparent desire to acquire 

ever more private land. 

3. The L&WCF acts to increase the threat of wildfires to lives and property in communities 

near federal land, especially where land is acquired and wilderness is designated near or over 

topographically suitable locations for firebreaks and/or fuel breaks, or along roads used for 

ingress or egress during wildfires. 

4. The L&WCF acts to increase multiple threats to our national security should terrorists choose 

to exploit them. 

5. The L&WCF fosters fraud on American taxpayers. 

To address these problems l propose that: 

l. The L&WCF should be allowed to sunset and not be reauthorized. 

2. New law should be enacted that repeals all existing authority for federal land management 

agencies to acquire private land. For areas east of the !OO'h meridian, new crystal clear 

acquisition authority should be enacted with tight Congressional oversight and local hearings 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of' and Potential RefiJrms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page I of 17 
191 


Insert offset folio 209 here 95271.209

prior to each acquisition. For areas west of the l001

h meridian, no acquisition authority 

should be enacted and each acquisition should require special legislation, which should be 

disfavored by Congress. 

3. For areas west of the JOO'h meridian, all lands in federal ownership that are topographically 

suitable for fuelbreaks or firebreaks should either be sold or granted into private ownership, 

or, at the very least, any wilderness designation should be removed, with generous nonwilderness setbacks on each side to facilitate construction of effective fuelbreaks before 

wildfires and timely opening of firebreaks during wildfires. 

4. Federal land management agencies, which currently have little authority to sell or grant land, 

should be provided broad authority to sell and grant land into private ownership, especially 

for areas west of the 1 oo'h meridian, in order to encourage dispersal of our populations at 

relatively low densities, to help make our nation more resistant to attack by weapons of mass 

destruction. 

At the least, valid solutions to these problems should be decided through open debate in 

Congress, rather than allowed to fester due to benign neglect or opposition by those who have 

priorities other than protection of lives, property and our national security. 

PROBLEMS FOSTERED BY THE L&WCF 

1. The L&WCF fosters acquisition of private land by federal agencies when the 

acquisition has not been authorized by Congress (that is, fosters unauthorized federal 

land grabs). 

The following excerpt from the Congressional Record quoting former Senator Frank Church 

from Idaho, a strong supporter of passage of the L&WCFA, expresses the intent in 1964 when 

L&WCFA's passage was being considered. 

Mr. CHURCH. I shall try to be very explicit. 

The last thing the committee wanted was a land-grab bilL Most of the members 

of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs come from western States. We 

are acutely conscious of the fact that the Federal Government is the largest 

landholder in our States. Federal holdings vary from one-third to more than 90 

percent. In the State ofldaho, for example, 63 percent of the land is owned by the 

Federal Government. No Member of the Senate is more sensitive to the danger of 

abusive Federal land acquisition than is the senior Senator from Idaho. So the 

committee has taken every precaution to make certain that the bill will not 

become a device for any kind of offensive land grab by the Federal Government. 

These are precautions we have taken: 

First, we have written into the bill a provision which prescribes that, with respect 

to any land acquired by the Federal Government, either within the national forests 

or the national parks or the game and wildlife refuges, wherever it may be, of all 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential R~ti:mns To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 2 of 17 
192 


Insert offset folio 210 here 95271.210

the money made available for this purpose in the bill, only 15 percent can be spent 

in the West, where Federal landholdings are already large. Eighty-five percent of 

the money must be spent in the East, where there is a serious need for acquiring 

more land in order that the public may have places to enjoy outdoor recreation. 

That is the first precaution the committee has taken. 

The second precaution is to establish a formula funneling the lion's share of this 

money to the States. Sixty percent of the money, in ordinary circumstances, will 

be tendered to the States as matching funds, to permit the States to go forward 

with recreational development. That is the second precaution we have taken in the 

bilL 

Third, by leaving existing law intact, the effect of the bill is to impose all the 

limitations of the Weeks Act, which has been in effect since 1911 or 1912, and 

which regulates the acquisition ofland by the Federal Government in the national 

forests. 

(Congressional Record-- Senate, August 12, 1964, pages 19120-19121) 

The first precaution noted by Senator Church was codified at the second proviso in 16 USC § 

4601-9(a)(l)(b), repealed and restated as positive law at Title 54 USC§ 200306(a)(B)(iii) (128 

Stat. 3178; Public Law 113-287, Dec. 19, 2014). 

The need for the precaution is demonstrated by the map I have included as Exhibit 1, which 

shows that much of the western United States is owned by the federal government. As enacted, 

the first precaution noted by Senator Church appears to apply only to National Forest System 

acquisitions, rather than all federal acquisitions as believed by Senator Church. I do not have the 

ability to check whether the precaution that" ... only 15 percent can be spent in the West ... " has 

been followed or circumvented, but the Committee should have that ability, perhaps with the 

help of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

The third precaution noted by Senator Church, leaving existing limitations on land 

acquisitions in place, was codified at Title 16 USC § 460l-9(b ), repealed and restated as positive 

law at 54 USC§ 200306(b)(128 Stat 3178; Public Law 113-287, Dec. 19, 2014), which now 

states: 

ACQUISITION RESTRICTIONS.-Appropriations from the fund pursuant to 

this section shall not be used for acquisition unless the acquisition is otherwise 

authorized by law. Appropriations from the Fund may be used for preacquisition 

work where authorization is imminent and where substantial monetary savings 

could be realized. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 3 of 17 
193 


Insert offset folio 211 here 95271.211

That L& WCF A acquisition restriction is consistent with federal appropriations law, as 

expressed by the GAO, which states, 

A federal agency is a creature of law and can function only to the extent 

authorized by law. The Supreme Court has expressed what is perhaps the 

quintessential axiom of"appropriations law" as follows: 

"The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper 

only when authorized by Congress, not that public funds may be 

expended unless prohibited by Congress." 

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). 

(GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Red Book), Third Edition, Volume I, 

page l-2, footnote omitted.) 

As discussed by Senator Church, pursuant to 54 USC§ 200306(b), a mere appropriation of 

funds from the L&WCF does not empower the Forest Service or other federal agency to acquire 

lands " ... unless such acquisition is otherwise authorized by law . " 

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5420 enumerates the Forest Service's land acquisition 

authorities. 

The Weeks Act of 1911, referenced by Senator Church above, " ... is the primary land 

acquisition authority for the Forest Service." (FSM 5420.11a.) Before the Weeks Act, each 

acquisition of land by the Forest Service had to be authorized by Congress with legislation. 

The Weeks Act authorizes the Forest Service to acquire land consistent with the description 

and purposes codified at 16 USC§ 515, which states in pertinent part, 

The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized and directed to examine, locate, 

and purchase such forested, cut-over, or denuded lands within the watersheds of 

navigable streams as in his judgment may be necessary to the regulation of the flow 

of navigable streams or for the production of timber. 

When originally enacted (36 Stat. 961), section 4 of the Weeks Act created the National 

Forest Reservation Commission (NFRC), which provided oversight to help ensure that 

acquisitions proposed by the Forest Service were of the type of! and and for the purposes 

authorized by the Weeks Act. The NFRC would approve "purchase units," which are areas 

outside national forests in which acquisition of land by the Forest Service is authorized as being 

consistent with requirements of the Weeks Act. 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-588, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2961) 

(NFMA of 1976) removed oversight by the NFRC of acquisitions under Weeks Act authority by 

repealing section 4 of the Weeks Act, thereby disbanding the NFRC, and transferred all of the 

functions of the NFRC to the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Hmd," April 22, 20 15 Page 4 of 17 
194 


Insert offset folio 212 here 95271.212

Though NFRC oversight of Forest Service acquisitions under Weeks Act authority was 

removed, and purchase units could now be both proposed and approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the requirements and limitations of Weeks Act acquisition authority remain intact 

and purchase units and attendant acquisitions must still conform with the requirements of the 

Weeks Act. 

The Organic Act of 1956 (Act of 1956) provides additional authority for the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) to acquire land " ... as may be necessary to carry out its authorized work . 

as codified in pertinent part at 7 USC § 428a(a). 

The example given as the need for the Act of 1956 acquisition authority at the hearing on 

H.R. 11682 and H. R. 11699 before the House Committee on Agriculture in 1956, which became 

the Act of 1956, is that the USDA was authorized to construct a seed bank for the storage of 

seeds, but did not have authority to purchase the land on which the seed bank would be built. 

The intent of the Act of 1956 was to authorize the USDA to acquire land on which to carry out 

its authorized work, in that case, constructing the authorized seed bank. (Act of 1956, Hearing 

Before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Eighty-Fourth Congress, 

Second Session, on H. R. 11682 And H. R. 11699 June 27, 1956, pages 21-27.) 

The FSM states that the Act of 1956, " ... serves as the primary authority for administrativesite acquisitions and Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) purchases where the Weeks 

Law or specific authorities do not apply ... (FSM 5420.llb.) 

However, as discussed above, the L& WCF A expressly states it is not authority for 

acquisition of land, saying, "Appropriations from the fund pursuant to this section shall not be 

used for acquisition unless the acquisition is otherwise authorized by law." (54 USC 

§ 200306(b).) 

Senator Church's comments in the Congressional Record show that the reason for the 

L&WCFA acquisition restrictions was to prevent the L&WCF from becoming the source of 

funds for" ... any kind of offensive land grab by the Federal Government." 

The Forest Service's interpretation that an appropriation from the L&WCF provides the 

"authorized work" needed to satisfy the requirements to acquire land in the Act of 1956 

circumvents the third precaution in the L&WCFA discussed by Senator Church, as quoted 

above, and is contrary to the intent of Congress as shown by the discussion during the House 

Committee on Agriculture hearing on H.R. 11682 and H.R 11699, which became the Act of 

1956 (see above). 

The Forest Service's interpretations of the Act of 1956 and the L&WCFA, taken together, 

would effectively mean that the Forest Service has authority to acquire all land in the United 

States, for any purpose, so long as it can obtain appropriations from the L&WCF. 

An additional precaution in the L&WCFA was intended to prevent that, not mentioned by 

Senator Church. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Ptmd," Apri122, 2015 Page 5 of 17 
195 


Insert offset folio 213 here 95271.213

Before the restatement into positive law in 2014, the L&WCFA provided that," ... unless 

otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available ... " the President would allot 

L&WCF money to the Forest Service only for acquisition ofland inside wilderness, inside the 

boundaries of National Forests as they existed on the date of enactment of the L& WCF A, or 

inside purchase units approved by the National Forests Reservation Commission, provided 

however, that up to three thousand acres ofland outside of but adjacent to an existing national 

forest boundary could be acquired if it " ... would comprise an integral part of a forest recreational 

management area." (Formerly 16 USC§ 460l-9(a) through 460l-9(1)(b)). 

The 2014 restatement to positive law appears to have altered the meaning of some of the 

former language with regard to National Park System acquisitions, but seems to have left the 

Forest Service acquisitions meaning intact. 

I live in an area where the Forest Service has been undertaking a land grab for decades, 

having purchased thousands of acres of private land in the area, much outside the boundaries of 

the national forest and over the three thousand acre limit for acquisitions outside a national 

forests. 

Between 1980 and 1986 there were seven bills and amendments in Congress to federalize the 

entire community where we live, Big Sur, California. Some of those bills authorized acquisition 

of all private land in the area. Congress wisely rejected every bill. By the time the last bill was 

introduced in 1986, our then-Congressman Leon Panetta, who had authored his own bill in 1980 

to federalize the area, helped our community oppose the 1986 bill. 

The first bill to federalize our community, introduced in 1980 by Senator Alan Cranston, 

proposed an amendment to the L&WCFA to remove the 3,000 acre limit on acquisitions outside 

the existing boundaries of the Los Padres National Forest. The 3,000 acre limit was found in the 

L&WCFA codified at 16 USC§ 460l-9(a)(l)(b), and has been repealed and restated as positive 

law at Title 54 USC § 200306(a)(B)(iii) (128 Stat. 3178; Public Law 113-287, Dec. 19, 2014) 

In 1980, it appears that the L&WCFA was interpreted to not allow any acquisitions outside a 

national forest over the 3, 000 acre limit. 

Included as Exhibit 2 is a letter from Senator Cranston to his colleagues in the Senate, 

explaining that the 3,000 acre limit in the L&WCFA prevented the Forest Service from making 

any acquisition outside the national forest that would exceed the 3,000 acre limit. In 1980, 

Senator Cranston introduced a bill, S2233, to remove the limit by amending the language in the 

L&WCFA to say that the limit did not apply to the Los Padres National Forest. That bill did not 

pass. The L& WCF A language Senator Cranston sought to avoid has remained the same since 

before he introduced his bill in 1980, but clearly is interpreted differently now as discussed 

below. 

Since 1986, when the last bill to federalize our community failed, the Forest Service and 

other government agencies have been buying up private land in the area, to the point that over 

one third of the private land, or about 20,000 acres, have been acquired by government agencies, 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potemial Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Pimd," April22, 2015 Page 6 of 17 
196 


Insert offset folio 214 here 95271.214

including the Forest Service, exactly the kind ofland grab Senator Church said was intended to 

be avoided when enacting the L& WCF A. 

Included as Exhibit 3 is a table prepared by the Forest Service in 2005, showing land 

acquisitions with L&WCF dollars, including in excess of3,000 acres outside the boundaries of 

the Los Padres National Forest (that is only acquisitions in Monterey County, and does not 

include purchases outside the Los Padres National Forest in other areas). The Forest Service has 

acquired substantially more private land outside the national forest in our community since the 

table was prepared in 2005. 

Individuals have a finite amount of time on this Earth, then they die, at which time their land 

often comes up for sale. The Forest Service and other government agencies do not die, and can 

eventually buy up all land wherever they decide to do so ifthere are no controls in place, or if 

controls exist but are not enforced and are ignored. 

Alan Funt of Candid Camera fame owned the 1,200 acre Brazil Ranch in our community. 

When he died in 1999 his heirs put Brazil Ranch up for sale for about $9.5 million. It sat for sale 

at that price for a couple of years with no buyer. The ranch was three miles outside the boundary 

of the Los Padres National Forest. 

My understanding is that ultimately, the Forest Service acquired the Brazil Ranch from the 

Trust For Public Land (TPL) after TPL was paid about $28 million. I believe TPL made 

$3 million on the deal, and possibly more. I go into more detail on how this worked below in my 

discussion of how federal land acquisitions funded with L&WCF money can work fraud on 

taxpayers. Here however, I will discuss how the Forest Service appears to have falsified its 

authority to acquire the Brazil Ranch. 

After the Forest Service purchased the Brazil Ranch I asked a Forest Service representative at 

a public meeting what acquisition authority the Forest Service had used for the purchase. When 

I was provided the answer later, it stated the authority was the L&WCF A. After I explained that 

the L&WCFA states that an appropriation from the L&WCF is not authority to acquire land, I 

was told that the Act of 1956 was the acquisition authority. However, there was no authorized 

work to support acquisition of the Brazil Ranch under Act of 1956 authority, nothing comparable 

to Congressional authorization to build a seed bank that necessitated acquisition of the Brazil 

Ranch. 

It appears that the 1,200 acre Brazil Ranch was acquired by the Forest Service without lawful 

authority, three miles outside the national forest. A substantial portion of the money used to 

acquire the ranch was from the L& WCF. 

Moreover, though the Forest Service used almost $18 million ofL&WCF money to purchase 

the Brazil Ranch (see the 2002 Bixby/Brazil Ranch acquisitions in Exhibit 3), it appears that TPL 

was paid substantially more for the ranch my understanding is TPL was paid about $28 

million and possibly received more in the form of a donation from the investment fund, 

Woodside Partners, which purchased the ranch from the Funt estate, and for which it appears 

TPL effectively acted as a conduit by purchasing the ranch from Woodside then selling the ranch 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," Apri\22, 2015 Page 7 of 17 
197 


Insert offset folio 215 here 95271.215

to the Forest Service. My understanding is that the California Coastal Conservancy provided $5 

million toward the purchase price, and an anonymous donor provided another $2 million. These 

additional dollars that were paid for the ranch, not appropriated by Congress, appear to have 

violated federal appropriation policy unless Congress provided specific statutory authority for 

the additional money to be used for the acquisition. 

In its Red Book, GAO states, 

As a general proposition, an agency may not augment its appropriations from 

outside sources without specific statutory authority. Restated, the objective of 

the rule against augmentation of appropriations is to prevent a government agency 

from undercutting the congressional power of the purse by circuitously exceeding 

the amount Congress has appropriated for that activity. 

((GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Red Book), Third Edition, Volume 

II, page 6-162 through 6-163.) 

In a further attempt to augment its appropriations, after it acquired the Brazil Ranch, saying it 

does not have sufficient money to maintain the Brazil Ranch, the Forest Service applied to the 

California Coastal Commission for a consistency determination pursuant to the federal Coastal 

Zone Management Act, so it could make money by renting the Brazil Ranch for weddings, 

retreats and other events. Here is a link to a Forest Service sales brochure on its website 

http://goo.gl/LmwJdA. Here is a link to a consistency determination staff report on the Coastal 

Commission's website. http://www.coastaLca.gov/cd/8-2005-Th7c.pdf 

After much controversy over the Forest Service competing with local businesses with a 

business funded with tax dollars, the Forest Service dropped that plan, though there are rumors it 

continues to look for a way to commercialize the Brazil Ranch. 

Another fabrication of acquisition authority appears to be the Lange parceL The Lange 

parcel now forms the northwest corner of the Lost Padres National Forest. Before it was 

acquired it was outside the Los Padres National Forest. 

The Lange parcel was acquired by the Forest Service about 1993, after the owner gave it up 

as part of requirements by Monterey County in exchange for a permit for construction of a road 

on private land. The Supreme Court has called this kind of permit requirement extortion and an 

unconstitutional condition, see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 

837; Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2590, 2595-2597, 

2603. 

Though all of the functions of the NFRC were transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture by 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (as discussed above), the Secretary of Agriculture 

is still required to fulfill the role of the NFRC, which is " ... created and authorized to consider 

and pass upon such lands as may be recommended for purchase as provided in section six of this 

Act." (36 Stat. 962.) The provisions of section six are codified at 16 USC § 515, and are not met 

on the Lange parceL 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reji;rms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 8 of 17 
198 


Insert offset folio 216 here 95271.216

Creation of a purchase unit in the area where the Lange parcel is located, Twin Peaks, is 

noticed in the Federal Register at Vol. 60, No. 59, March 28, 1995, pg. 15897. However, that 

appears to be dated after the acquisition. Moreover, the purchase unit is not in an area that meets 

the requirements of the Weeks Act as discussed above. The purchase unit appears to be a 

fabrication to feign authority to acquire the Lange parcel. 

The Lange parcel was also not acquired with authority from the Act of 1956, as the 

acquisition was not necessary to carry out the Forest Service's authorized work comparable with 

the example of the need to acquire land on which to build an authorized seed bank. (7 USC§ 

428a(a).) 

It appears that none of the Forest Service's acquisition authorities apply to the Lange parcel. 

It is not forested, cut-over, or denuded, is not within the watershed of a navigable stream, and 

was not purchased due to being necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or 

for the production of timber (as authorized by the Weeks Act as codified at 16 USC § 515), or to 

provide land for authorized work (as authorized by the Act of 1956 as codified at 

7 USC § 428a(a)). 

A recent acquisition, within the last several months, which also appears to be unauthorized 

by Congress, is the 120-acre Parrott parcel. 

A Forest Service official told me that the Parrott acquisition will be designated as wilderness, 

apparently administratively. The Parrot parcel is shown in some Forest Service GIS shape files 

as being outside the boundary of the Los Padres National Forest, and is consistently shown as 

being outside wilderness (it has wilderness outside three of its parcel lines, and private land 

outside the national forest and outside wilderness on its north line, being a notch in the perimeter 

of the forest) 

The Parrot parcel is located on Hennicksons Ridge, and is crossed by about 3,000 feet of 

historic firebreak that in the past has been used to protect at-risk communities outside the Los 

Padres National Forest from wildfires that start inside the forest, for example, the 1977 Marble 

Cone Fire (about 178,000 acres), the 1999 Kirk Complex Fire (about 86,700 acres), and the 2008 

Basin Complex Fire (about 163,000 acres). 

Ownership ofland by the Forest Service, especially where it is designated wilderness, and 

especially in fire-prone western states, threatens lives and homes in nearby communities if the 

Forest Service does not maintain effective fuelbreaks before fires, and/or does not open 

firebreaks in a timely manner during wildfires. 

During the 2008 Basin Complex Fire delays opening the historic firebreak inside the Los 

Padres National Forest due to 2002 wilderness additions almost resulted in our community of 

hundreds of homes being burned out. I touch on that below, and intend to submit more detailed 

testimony on that issue for the Committee's May 5, 2015 hearing on "the Federal government's 

role in wildfire management, the impact (}/fires on communities, and potential improvements to 

be made infire operations." 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation rimd," April22, 2015 Page 9 of 17 
199 


Insert offset folio 217 here 95271.217

The Forest Service's statutory authority to acquire land is fairly characterized as a mess, due 

to amendments to statutes upon amendments to statutes that make it effectively impossible for 

the average person, and possibly the average member of Congress, to know whether the Forest 

Service has lawful authority to acquire a particular parcel of land or not. That lack of clarity 

enables to Forest Service to fabricate authority to acquire private land without being questioned. 

What is clear however, is that the Forest Service has managed to turn the L&WCF into 

something that is contrary to the original intent of Congress. The L&WCF has become a funding 

source for what Senator Church called offensive federal land grabs, including in the western 

states, west of the IOO'h meridian where much land is already owned by the federal government. 

Congress should let the L& WCF sunset and repeal all land acquisition authority for the 

Forest Service and other federal agencies, especially for areas west of the 1001

h meridian, and 

provide new highly limited authority for the Forest Service to acquire land ifthere is a critical 

need east of the IOO'h meridian, with Congressional oversight over every acquisition. 

All acquisitions west of the IOO'h meridian should be disfavored, and require special 

legislation in each case, with field hearings in affected communities. 

The Forest Service's refrain that it needs to have the ability to acquire land inside the 

boundaries of national forests for management purposes is belied by its acquisition of the Brazil 

Ranch three miles outside the Los Padres National Forest, and its subsequent purchase of 

additional land outside the forest between the Brazil Ranch and the historic boundary of the 

national forest, and in other areas. 

The Forest Service's drive to acquire private land is contrary to the original intent of 

President Roosevelt's proclamation creating the Monterey Forest Reserve. By Presidential 

proclamation, he declared the area to be off limits to further settlement, but exempted from the 

force of the proclamation any homestead or other legitimate claim to land within the area. I have 

included a highlighted copy of President Roosevelt's proclamation, dated June 25, 1906 as 

Exhibit 4. 

Perhaps the GAO could conduct a review of Forest Service land acquisitions to learn the 

percentage of acquisitions that have been falsely based upon authority that did not apply. 

In the meantime, to avoid the temptation to continue federal acquisition of private land 

fostered by the pot of money that is the L&WCF, and to avoid ongoing acquisitions ofland 

contrary to the intent of Congress, and to avoid further increase in the threat of wildfires to 

communities around federal lands, all current acquisition authorities for the Forest Service and 

other federal agencies should be repealed, certainly for areas west of the 1 OO'h meridian. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Pmentia/ Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservalion hmd," April22, 2015 Page 10 of 17 
200 


Insert offset folio 218 here 95271.218

2. The L&WCF fosters the appearance of a conflict of interest between federal agencies in 

their role being responsible for fighting wildfires and their role with the apparent desire 

to acquire ever more private land. 

For the Forest Service and other federal agencies to have both authority to acquire land, and 

responsibility for fighting wildfires, creates an appearance of a conflict of interest, as land values 

can drop dramatically if wildfires burn through areas where the Forest Service or other federal 

agency has shown an interest in acquiring land. 

This is especially so in the western states, where wildfire danger is high and so much land is 

already in federal ownership, which the Forest Service and other federal agencies seem to be 

driven to expand. 

Here is a link to a youtube video by a person who believes the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) intentionally worked to burn out landowners in the Frenchglen area in Oregon. 

https//goo.gi/TdZ9SS 

When I emailed the person who made the video, he responded by saying that BLM had 

ofiered to buy his land several times, and when he said it was not for sale, " ... their exact 

response was, it will be." As for fire, he em ailed, "They [BLM] now take advantage of what 

would normally be small and insignificant fire events and turn them into mega events." 

This appearance of conflict of interest should be removed, by letting the L&WCF sunset, and 

repealing all authorities for the Forest Service and other agencies to acquire land, especially in 

the western states west of the 100111 meridian, in which there are already vast areas of federal 

lands, and which are subject to high threat of wildfire every fire season. 

3. The L&WCF acts to increase the threat of wildfires to lives and property in 

communities near federal land, especially where land is acquired and wilderness is 

designated near or over topographically suitable locations for firebreaks and/or 

fuelbreaks, and/or along roads used for ingress or egress during wildfires. 

I plan to submit detailed testimony on this problem for the Committee's hearing on the 

Federal government's role in wildfire management, the impact offires on communities, and 

potential improvements to be made in fire operations. 

For this testimony on the L&WCF, I do not have the ability to determine the impact on the 

ability to maintain fuelbreaks before fires, and open firebreaks during fires, for each parcel 

acquired with L&WCF dollars. 

However, if the recent acquisition of the 120-acre Parrott parcel was funded with L&WCF 

money, and if it will be designated wilderness as has been stated by a Forest Service official, 

then the Parrott acquisition is an example of a L&WCF acquisition by the Forest Service that 

will act to threaten lives and property in communities near federal land in the event of wildfire. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Re(i1rms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Flmd," April 22, 2015 Page 11 of 17 
201 


Insert offset folio 219 here 95271.219

The Parrott property is crossed by about 3,000 feet of historic firebreak that was opened to 

protect communities during the 1977 Marble Cone Fire, the 1999 Kirk Complex Fire, and the 

2008 Basin Complex Fire, all of which were started by lightning inside the Monterey Ranger 

District of the Los Padres National Forest. 

Being private land outside wilderness and apparently outside the national forest, there could 

have been no problems caused by wilderness designation opening the firebreak on the Parrott 

parcel during those fires. 

However, during the Basin Fire in 2008, there were delays in multiple locations on obtaining 

authorization to use heavy equipment to open firebreaks in wilderness. 

In the area where we live, authorization to use heavy equipment in wilderness to open the 

historic firebreak was either not requested, or not obtained, allowing the Basin Fire to burn over 

the historic firebreak in the location of the 2002 Little Sur wilderness addition and head toward 

our community with hundreds of homes. 

I have been told by a fire chief, and by a heavy equipment operator who worked on the Basin 

Fire, that there were delays obtaining permission to use heavy equipment in wilderness in other 

areas, causing similar problems. 

In my opinion, every acquisition of land by federal agencies in locations topographically 

suitable for a fuelbreak or firebreak is a threat to surrounding communities, to the extent that 

wilderness, the National Environmental Policy Act or any other federal law hinders or blocks 

maintenance of effective fuel breaks before fires or use of firebreaks in a timely manner during 

fires. 

Given that the L&WCF helps make federal acquisition of such land possible, and to the 

extent fuel breaks are not maintained before fires and firebreaks are not opened during fires in a 

timely manner, the L&WCF is effectively a threat to lives and property in communities near 

federal land. 

4. The L&WCF acts to increase multiple threats to our national security should terrorists 

choose to exploit them 

First terrorist threat increased by federal acquisition and ownership ofland. 

May 31, 2012 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a document titled 

"Terrorist Interest in Using Fire as a Weapon." 

The document includes information on terrorist magazines and web sites on such topics as 

how to construct incendiary devices to start wildfires, a terrorist map that shows priority states 

where wildfires in the United States would be most destructive, naming California and Montana 

as ideal targets, and statements encouraging the setting of wildfires to attack the United States. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 12 of 17 
202 


Insert offset folio 220 here 95271.220

The DRS document explains that using wildfire as a weapon is attractive to terrorists due to 

the low cost to start a wildfire, the low probability the terrorist will be caught, the high cost and 

damage to property and resources that can be caused, and the threat to lives and psychological 

effects wildfire can inflict, saying for example, 

For terrorists, setting fires has several advantages over other methods of attack, 

including sustainability (duration of fire and long-term effects); the potential for 

casualties, economic damage, and wide media coverage; and the accompanying 

psychological effects of fear and terror. 

When the Forest Service or other federal agency owns or acquires land on which firebreaks 

and fuelbreaks are located or topographically suited for such use, and then fails to maintain 

effective fuelbreaks before fire, or fails to swiftly open firebreaks during fire, the Forest Service 

would literally be aiding and abetting any terrorist who may act to use wildfire as a weapon 

against our nation. 

When Congress acts to block federal agencies such as the Forest Service from preparing for 

or defending against wildfires, by such actions as moving wilderness over the location of 

fuelbreaks and firebreaks or by leaving wilderness in place, or by enacting or retaining other 

laws that hinder or block federal land managers from constructing and maintaining fuelbreaks or 

using firebreaks, Congress would literally be aiding and abetting any terrorist who may act to use 

wildfire as a weapon against our nation. 

In Monterey County, California, both the Forest Service and Congress have so acted, leaving 

people in communities around the Los Padres National Forest in jeopardy should terrorists 

decide to use wildfire to attack, as suggested in their magazines and on their websites. 

Second terrorist threat increased by federal acquisition and ownership of land. 

There is a belief among some environmentalists that the solution to impacts humans have on 

our planet is to concentrate people into the footprint of existing cities at ever higher density. 

Search the Internet for the term "smart growth" and you will receive well over one millions hits. 

Until recently, the Sierra Club had a "Healthy Growth Calculator" web page that apparently tried 

to convince people that living at higher density is desirable. (http://tinyurl.com/lox4fc2) 

Though some government employees may be able to live on land owned by the federal 

government, other people typically cannot. One way to move people into cities is to convert 

private land outside cities into government ownership. There are organizations working on that, 

some of which have turned it into a profitable business. 

For example, there is TPL, discussed in this testimony. 

Another example is an organization called the Planning and Conservation League, which has 

convinced California voters to approve bond initiatives that have provided well over a billion 

dollars for public agencies to acquire private land. You can read how it funds its initiatives in 

Planning & Conservation League, Inc. v. Lungren (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 497. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorizarion Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 13 of 17 
203 


Insert offset folio 221 here 95271.221

As more voters move into cities, with their daily experience of concrete, asphalt and smog, it 

becomes easier to convince the majority of voters to support acquisition of more land by 

government agencies, to save it from the fate of where they live in the city. My experience is 

that most people who live in cities think that a much higher percentage of land is covered by 

cities than in reality is so. 

California's population of about 38.8 million people makes up about 12% of the 318.9 

million population of our nation. 

California consists of about l 00 million acres of land. Currently, about 95% of Californians 

live in cities, which comprise about 6% of California's land area. This is largely because there is 

relatively little land available outside cities for Californians to own and live on. 

Almost half of California is owned by various government agencies, most by federal 

agencies, and therefore cannot be owned or lived on by most Californians. 

It is difficult to find hard numbers for land ownership in California by industry, but years ago 

I found what numbers I could and learned that after subtracting land owned by government, 

public utilities, lumber companies, railroads, and farmland, it appears that only about 10% of 

California's land area, outside of cities, is available for Californians to own and live on. 

Every acre of that nominal amount ofland available for Californians to own and live on 

outside cities that is acquired by government agencies, including federal agencies, tends to move 

people into cities at higher density. 

Unfortunately, we live in a world with religious extremists who believe it is an act of their 

faith to kill those who are not members of their faith. Our world also includes weapons of mass 

destruction. These extremists have been following their belief system for over 1,000 years. 

They are not going away. They have made their intent crystal clear. 1,000 years ago the world 

did not have weapons with the capacity for destruction we have today. The day will likely come, 

possibly sooner, hopefully later, when they will obtain weapons of mass destruction. 

Mutually assured destruction, the defense tactic used for decades with the former Soviet 

Union, is not applicable to religious extremists. We don't know where to find them, and even if 

we could find them, they view it as an act of their faith to be killed while advancing their cause, 

which is to kill those who do not follow their faith. When they obtain weapons of mass 

destruction they will likely use them. 

Weapons of mass destruction are highly effective at killing people who are packed at high 

density into relatively small areas. 

Without the defense of mutually assured destruction, short of intercepting 100% of weapons 

of mass destruction before they enter our country, the best national defense tactic to defeat 

weapons of mass destruction is to disperse our populations over large areas at relatively low 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Oland Potential Relorms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Hmd," April22, 2015 Page 14 of 17 
204 


Insert offset folio 222 here 95271.222

density. High density cities with large populations are equivalent to prime target zones for 

weapons of mass destruction. 

The federal government should be selling or granting land into private ownership in 

California and other western states, where it owns vast areas, making it available for people to 

disperse onto. It will take much time to disperse our populations. It is not prudent to wait until it 

is too late. 

Federal acquisition of yet more land is counterproductive to our nation's defense against 

weapons of mass destruction in the hands of religious extremists, and ultimately will aid them 

should the time come when they attack our nation with weapons of mass destruction, which is 

readily foreseeable over time. 

I believe there are people, radical environmentalists, who would not be bothered if the 

number of humans was reduced dramatically by such cataclysmic events as use of weapons of 

mass destruction on densely populated areas. My take is that those people could easily be the 

vanguard of the next great evil on our planet. They should not be helped, certainly not by our 

government. 

5. The L&WCF fosters fraud on American taxpayers 

Money made available through the L&WCF fosters fraud on American taxpayers. 

To justify acquisition of the Brazil Ranch, discussed above, statements like the following 

were made to the public, which appeared on the Trust for Public Land's website in 2002, 

"This is a great day for the environment and a great day for the Central Coast," 

said Congressman Farr. "Working together, the Trust for Public Land and the 

federal government have protected this stunning coastal treasure from being 

chopped into little subdivisions. 

Exhibit 5 is a screenshot ofTPL's web page from Google's cache of web pages, with the 

above quote (the page was on TPL's website as of this writing). 

I believe that Congressman Farr, TPL and the Forest Service all knew that the Brazil Ranch 

was not in danger of being "chopped into little subdivisions." Rather, the 1,200 acre ranch had 

been in 9 separate parcels since the time it was homesteaded in the mid-1800s. 

Below is an excerpt from a 2005 California Coastal Commission report on a Forest Service 

request for a consistency determination, in which the Forest Service is quoted as saying, 

The lands comprising today's Brazil Ranch were homesteaded in the mid-1800s, 

including a parcel settled by John Brazil. In time, several of these early 

homesteads were sold to the Brazil family, who eventually gained title to nine 

original homestead lots comprising 1,200 acres and known collectively as the 

Brazil Ranch. The property was later sold by the Funt Estate to a real estate 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Rej(mns To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 15 of 17 
205 


Insert offset folio 223 here 95271.223

developer who had learned that the original homesteads remained recorded as 

nine separate tax lots which could potentially be developed. (Italics removed.) 

(See, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/cd/8-2005-Th7c.pdf, page 6.) 

Due to local ordinances, building potential for the 1,200 acre ranch was one residence per 

parcel, for a total of 9 residences on the 1,200 acre ranch. However, 2 parcels already had homes 

on them. As a result, building potential was for 7 more residences on the 1,200 acre ranch. Due 

to the minimum subdivision parcel size of320 acres for most of the land on the ranch, 

subdivision was essentially impossible, certainly impossible for "little subdivisions." 

The Brazil Ranch was on the market for years by Alan Funt's heirs for about $9.5 million. 

My understanding is that Woodside Partners purchased it for about that price. According to a 

local newspaper article, Woodside quickly sold an existing small parcel with one of the homes 

on it for about $7.5 million. My understanding is that Woodside then sold the ranch to TPL for 

$25 million, and about a year later TPL sold the ranch to the Forest Service receiving $28 

million. My understanding is that "conservation" groups like TPL sometime receive donations 

from people they helped sell land to government agencies, so it appears to me that TPL may have 

received more money in the form of a donation from Woodside as a result of the deal. 

Given the millions of dollars made by Woodside Partners and the Trust For Public Land on 

the sale of the Brazil Ranch to the Forest Service, and the minimal development potential for the 

ranch that was falsely promoted as being acquired to prevent it from being chopped into little 

subdivisions, it looks to me like the primary reason for the acquisition was the money to be made 

from the sale of the ranch to the Forest Service. Those millions of dollars came from American 

taxpayers. 

To me, the Brazil Ranch acquisition looks like fraud on American taxpayers, funded in large 

part by L&WCF dollars. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, the L&WCF should be allowed to sunset and not be 

reauthorized. In its place new law should be enacted to repeal all existing land acquisition 

authorities for federal agencies, remove wilderness with generous setbacks from the location of 

historic fuel breaks and firebreaks and from all locations topographically suitable for such use, 

and to provide broad authority for federal agencies to sell and grant federal lands in western 

states to encourage dispersal of our populations at relatively low density to help make our nation 

more resistant to attacks by weapons of mass destruction. 

Rather than reauthorizing the L&WCF, new legislation should be enacted with a different 

name and purpose, perhaps The E-xisting Federal Lands Care and Maintenance Funding Act of 

2015, or better yet, The Act to Provide for Management and Disposal of Federal Land~ to 

Protect Communities and Promote National Security. 

These proposed changes to law are especially important in the western states, where vast 

areas are already in federal ownership and the threat from wildfires is high. 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 16 of 17 
206 


Insert offset folio 224 here 95271.224

These proposed changes are critical in California, where about half the land is in government 

ownership, mostly federal, about 12% of the U.S. population currently lives in cities on about 

6% of California's land, and relatively little other land is available to disperse our populations 

onto due to it being in use for commercial purposes. 

There is no club whose mission is to promote the security of our nation. Promoting 

protection of lives, property, and the security of our nation is properly the role of Congress, 

which l hope is not swayed to do otherwise by those with other priorities. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael Caplin 

38751 Palo Colorado Rd. 

Carmel, CA 93923 

Testimony of Michael Caplin on Reauthorization Of and Potential Reforms To the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund," April22, 2015 Page 17 of 17 
207 


Insert offset folio 225 here 95271.225
208 


Insert offset folio 226 here 95271.226

January 28, 1980 

Dear Colleague, 

~hen the takes up H.R. 3757, the Omnibus 

intend to an amendment to help protect the 

beautiful Big Sur coast of California. 

Currently there is a 3000 acre li1nitation on the total amount of land which the Forest Service can add to the Los PaJrcs 

ional Forest. Although the Forest Service is stl 1 ~i 

taturory l.imit on expansion of the Los Pndrt·s~ 

is not able to acquire -- or even accept as a gift some very desirable parcels along the co.ast because they are very lar11e :1nd ~vould immediately put the for0st nv<;r the rwrc:q:~: 

imitation. My amendment woulJ rc.·nhJVC tfHt 3000 at.:n: limlt. 

does not require the expendittare of federal funds~ ~nd it 

not authorize any new monies. 

1 am only proposing thdt the cap on Los Padres Kation:tl Fvr~st 

additions be lifted so that the Service can accept donations of Big Sur lands. This a stop gap m~~surc to allow for Fore-st Se:rvice acquis.ition during a period t~hcn other proposals to protect Big Sur may bo considered. 

The for the breakup of the large )itnclholclings alo11g the Stlr coast are growing. I anticipate that in the very near there wi11 he prop"rti<'S on the marl..~t whit:h lt would be in th~ JlUblic intcrc~t to acqtlirc. Property owners at Rig Sur 

may wish to mZlke gifts or bargain sales to She federal government It makes no sense to an arbitrary lilnit on the amount ,.r Big Sur land the Service ~an ac4uirc in this fasllion. 

TtJe argument has been made tllat there should be hearings on Big Sur, and I agr·ee. Hearings should be held on possible national 

park or st'ashore clc£-ignation. Rot the .amendment I will offer merely w~ives an arbitrary rule. and I see grcut nncd for a hearing on wf•ether to permit donations of Sur ];lnds to tlte 

govcrJlmCilt and cx1':1n~ion of the Los P:1drcs in the i11tcrim. 

! hopo that I will have your SUIJpOrt 9n this amenJmcnt. 1t is 

Import11nt tc me and to all who know B1g Sur and want to preserve 

it as it is today. ~ 

Since ly, 

At;n?"tvn 
209 


Insert offset folio 227 here 95271.227
210 


Insert offset folio 228 here 95271.228

J:ttM:!ft.:1~, 

~~"''."''''"-<--
211 


Insert offset folio 229 here 95271.229

'" ~ 
212 


Insert offset folio 230 here 95271.230

lof?l 

OUR WORK 

SAN FRANCISCO, 9:24/02-The Trust lor Public Land and the USDA Forest 

Serv1ce announced today the pub!1c acquisition and additiOn to the Los Padres 

National Forest of the final325 acres of the most beloved and photographed 

section of the 81g Sur Coast-the h1'storic also Known as the Bixby 

Ocean Ranch. The 13 m1les south of Cannel, would have been 

split into nme separate properties and sold for development if it had not been 

by the nonprofit T1·ust for Public Land (TPU TPL purchased 

th1s Big Sur coastal gem. easily !dsnt1fled by the histone Bixby Bridge on H1ghway 

i. to p1ot.act it from looming development and sateguard its sweepmg v1ews. rocky 

shmeline. and magnificent tolling hills 

Federal funding for the acquisition was obtained thwugh the efforts of Senator 

Dianne Fei11Stein, Senator Batbara BoxeL and Congressman Sum 

from being chopp-ed mto littfe subdlvislons, Now future generations can enjoy the 

jagged coastline and the dramatiC VIStas. JUSt as we do" Cong1essman FarrIs a 

longtime advocate for the protection of the Big Sur Coast. and a key membm of 

the House Appwpriations Committee_ Senatm Feinstein also played a vital role as 

a sen:or member of the Senate Interior Appropns.tiOns Subcommittee, which 

oversees fundmg for federal !and conservation 

"TPL1s delighted to contmue its partnership with the Forest 8.;-nvice to promote 

the care of this majestic property" says Reed Holderman. Executive Director 

TPL-California "We are very thanl~:ful for the $2.5 million gift from a benevolent 

anonymous donor gene! ous grants made by the state Coastal Conservancy and 

the Wildlife Conservation Board. the fedeJalland and Water Conservation Fund 

monies, and a !ow-interest bndge loan from the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation. and ail of Which made this conservation success possible. We me 

especially gu.1teful for the support of U.S Congressman Sarn 
213 


Insert offset folio 231 here 95271.231

2of3 

Dianna Feinstein, Senat01 Boxer state Senator Bruce McPherson, and Assembly 

Speaker pro Tempore Fred Keeley" 

The Brazil Ranch is named for the pioneer family that worked the land for nearly a 

centwy as a farm. ranch. and dairy operation. Allen Fun! of Candid Camera lame 

purchased the land from Tony and Margaret Brazilm 1977 and operated 1! as a 

cattle ranch and horse breedmg lac1lity until Woodside Partners. prospective 

developers. bought the property in 2000. In October of that year. TPL stepped in 

to keep this pnme real estate off the market and secure fundmg for 1ts public 

purchase. The Forest Service acquired 930 acres of the prope1ty from TPL in 

February of this year. Today's completion of the ranch purchase creates an 

11 ~m!le stretch of permanently protected coas~:ne beginning at the 81xby Bndge. 

extending south through Andtew Molera State Pa1k. and bo1de1ing the offshore 

California Sea Otter State Game Refuge 

Senator McPherson and Assemblyman Keeley co·authored a request for $5 

m1ilion that was allocated to the California Coastal Conservancy lo1 the Brazil 

Ranch purchase 

"The Brazil Ranch 1s an enwonmental and recreational jewel I am thnlled to have 

helped protect this prope1ty for future generations" comments state Senator 

Bruce McPherson (A-Santa Cruz) 

''The Brazil Ranch acquisition is the product of hard work by all the parties 

involved. it is cntical espec1ally u1lhis e1a of budgetary constraints. to work 

together to save California's special places. Big Sur is one of those places that 

deserves our whole·hearted efforts to conserve." said Assembly Speaker pro 

Tempore Fted Keeley (D-Boulder Creek) 

The Forest Serv1ce and the Trust for PubliC Land Will continue working in 

partnership over the com1ng months. aiong with members of the public. to develop 

a vision for the property that integrates community values with the land's unique 

natural and cultural 

"The Brazil Ranch is a special place where history beauty and spkitua!ity merge" 

said Los Padres National Forest Supervisor Jeanine Derby_ "Pro!ect1ng those 

qualities 1s very important to us. and to that end we will work with local 

stakeholders on a vis1on for future stewardship of the land One concept we plan 

to explore 1s a way of meld~ng science. resource conservation and the a1ts to help 

enhance people's experience. understandmg and apprec1at1on for the B1g Sur 

Acco1ding to Monterey District Ranger John Btadford the Forest Service is 

currently ;nvolved in a publtc process to revtse the overall management plan for 

the 1.75 million-acre nattonal forest "The Forest Plan will address appropriate 

access and uses of all of the acqutred lands wtthln the B1g Sur a1ea, including the 

Brazil Ranch." smd B1adford "We welcome the public's participation in this effort," 

he added 

In the short term, John Moon, who has lived and worked on the Braz1l Ranch 

since the tlme it was owned by the Funts. Will continue as on·si!e caretaker of the 

property. ·'My family and I have been dedicated stewards of this ranch for over 25 

years. We feel privtleged to be able to contmue our commitment to th1s unique 

prope1ty With TPL and the Forest Service." said Moon 
214 


Insert offset folio 232 here 95271.232

3 of3 

For m01e mformation about interim management of the Brazil Ranch. contact 

John Bradfotd at (831) 385-5434. For more information about Los Padres 

Nat1onal Forest and opportunities to be involved 1n the land management plannmg 

process Los Padres National 

Forest Public Affairs OffJce at (805) 968-6640 

TPL is a nal1orJalland conservation orgamzation dedicated to conserving land fOl 

people as parks. greenways. wilderness areas and naturaL histone and cultural 

1esources for future generations. Founded m 1972. TPL has protected more than 

1.4 million acres nationwide. For more than 20 years. TPL has worked with the 

Big Sw land Trust and other organizations to p1otect more than 6 000 acres of 

CaiJfornia's pnstlne B1g Sur coastlme 

Our Work 

Parks for People 

OurlandandWater 

Where we work 

Expertise About 

Leadership 

Researchltbrary 

parksroretplorg 

Support Us 

PlannedGtvrng 

WaystoGrve 

Corporatepartner<Ships 

Ourrattngs 

Trips 

WorKt'!\JTrOr.l'llOtetlmn30ot!·cesn::n:onwrde. fhelrus.ttor>'u:JIIcLandofFwsotrotnyeoiSifFV:("eslo:nee n:econse:v<litonneeoso1'ile21stcen!wy 

We C~dp cornmu'ltliec.. rdtse funds co.>duc~ researd1 a.>d p:am11ng acqutre and protect land. and de&.g:> "'·'-' renovah: parks. pl:{ygrouf'ds 

gardons 

a 

II 

l'l"ll 

l\'-.1' 

-

Join ourcmarllisl 

• 
215 


Insert offset folio 144 here 95271.144

April 17,2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Catalyst Wilderness Therapy Program 

1815 SE 35'h Ave., Portland, OR 97214 

Phone: (541) 514-0561 

Visit lYl~lY".~.J!l£\l:C~i\')::L\\!5cJ:fl!:s."'S!lX! 

Email: Bri(mCatalystwildemess.org 

BIN: 46-2455934 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

I wanted to write a letter support for the numerous efforts being made to assist in the 

sustainability of our Land Conservation despite pressure to re-arrange 

funds and allocate elsewhere. LWCF was created nearly ago to serve different, diverse and 

equally critical needs and to provide a pL>rmanent investment in conservation and outdoor recreation 

on behaH of the American people. There was a tremendous amount of foresight applied to the 

creation and purpose of this fund from the onset, designed to counteract future pressures. 

Unfortunately, LWCF expires in September 2015. 

of dollars of the fund into unrelated to the tune 

history. We need Congress to and fully fund 

providing parks, public lands and outdoor recreation for all An1ericans. 

marginalized among us. 

Sincerely, 

Briaime Condon, Executive Director 

Catalyst Wilderness Therapy Program 

cc. Senator Ron Wyden 
216 


Insert offset folio 148 here 95271.148

August 15, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

u.s. senate 

223 Dltksen Senate Ol'lice Building 

Wa~hlngtoo, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

we at CH2M HILL pride oum.lves on our commitment 

to sua:tatoa:bllity and the envir<mment. a moment, Senator, to thank you for 

your similar commitment Your !eade!:ship on the Land and WaterConservatton Fund (LWCI') has 

truly had a lasting impact on Oregon. 

Funds from LWCF have enabled land acqulsill<m programs to protect some of our most scenk vistas, 

like the rocky ou!aoppingscof Smith Rock State Park and the majesty of Cape !Gwenda. Funds from 

and teanls caut!s in Enterprise, park shelters and 

pla;:;aslike Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland. Every project has been welcomed in its commuruty 

for il:s particular benefits: the improved access to recreation, the conservation of natural habitat, the 

preservation of Ul1Sp(>iled beauty. 

With our <mgkleeril'lg 

water, energy, the environment and development by promoting economic growth and soctsl inclusion." 

We recognize that monies from LWCF also promote economic growth, by employing engineering firms 

like ours, canslruction workers, facility managers, and the many adjunct businesses that arise from 

recreational opporturuties to serve both local residents and tourists alike. 

Sincerely, 

David Knowles 

Portland Area Manager 

CH2MHILL 
217 


Insert offset folio 145 here 95271.145

Hillsboro 

November 4, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

O!'l:i!GON 

It's always a pleasure to take a moment to appretiata people for their efforts, rattler than ask 

them for something, so I am relishing this opportunity to thank you for your leadership on the 

land and Water Conservation Fund (lWCfj, which has had such In 

the Hillsboro area. 

As Mayor, I can say with confidence that I..WCF has made a lasting difference to the residents 

and businesses of the Hillsboro area. Renovations completed at Shute Park iS a great example 

of an important improvement funded by I..WCF. This facility Is always in use, appreciated by 

Hillsboro residents, and those who spend their working hours in Hillsboro, but might take the 

time for a the park. As I think about it, the construction of Stub Stewart 

State Park and the in Jewel! are two more standout examples of lWCF funded 

projects in this region, as are the recreational improvements at nearby Hagg lake. 

Projects like these provide our citizens with more than the opportunity to appreciate nature: 

they also contribute to the superb quality of life that lures talented people to the economic 

drivers ofthe Hillsboro area, like Intel, Genentech, FE!, and SolarWorld. These companies often 

have to compete m~tlonally, and even globally, for skilled workers and the wonderful outdoor 

recreation opportunities that have been funded by LWCF help Hillsboro differentiate itself as a 

highly desirable community to live, work, and play. 

In short, lWCF helps the Clty of Hillsboro live up to our city motto, 

and I am sincerely grateful for your past and continuing leadership on this 

program. 

Sincerely, 

CITY OF Hli..I..SBORO 

MolllSO E Moin S!rol.)l, Hillsboro,~ 97123·4028 
218 


Insert offset folio 146 here 95271.146

Aprnnzo15 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Together. 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resoun:es 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Buitdi.ng 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Natural Re&'Onrces 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

W ashlngton, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

Member 

Committee on E-nergy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

221 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washingtun, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowskl, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

Senator Wyden: 

land. 
219 


Insert offset folio 147 here 95271.147

the state and local agencies create and enhance parks and develop close-to-home recreational 

facilities for all Oregonians. 

LWCF has helped land trusts in Oregon protect many important places for communities. For 

example, currently the Wallowa Land Trust is working with Wallowa County to secure LWCF 

dollars that will prevent homes from being built on shores of the iconic Wallowa Lake, instead 

keep that land working via forestry, ranching, and recreation. 

Far from being broken, LWCF works, Currently, half of LWCF dollars go directly to states for 

local projects. Every county in Oregon has received LWCF dollars through the state grants 

program to support playgrounds where kids can play, and fields where they can hit their first 

T -ball. LWCF projects are driven by local communities, and only the best projects with the most 

local support make it to the top to compete for funds. 

LWCF also makes federal land management more efficient- not less- by allowing federal 

agencies to fill in gaping holes in our parks, forests, and other public lands. In other words, 

LWCF helps make park maintenance cost less, not more. For example, LWCF projects in the 

wildland-urban interface decrease firefighting costs. Land trusts in Oregon frequently partner 

with federal agencies to forward LWCF projects that help reduce maintenance costs. 

LWCF is a shining example of a bipartisan model of government that works to support local 

communities and local economies. The reforms to LWCF being proposed are based on 

misperceptions about LWCF and how it is used, and they threaten the promise Congress made 

to the American people 50 years ago. We strongly urge you and your colleagues to resist the call 

for counterproductive changes to LWCF as it works it ways through the reauthorization 

process, and instead hold LWCF up as a shining example of an efficient and effective toolbox 

for every state and county in American to access for community-based conservation, recreation, 

and historic preservation. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Executive Director 

kelley@oregonlandtrusts.org 

office: 503.719.4732 

cell: 503.348.9612 
220 


Insert offset folio 149 here 95271.149

December 5, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

As I'm sure you're aware, the mission of Confluence is to connect people to place 

through art and education. We create spaces that promote moments of insight about the 

confluence of culture, history and ecology along the Columbia River We have 

now completed four of the six planned sites along the 438 mile 

mouth of the Columbia to the gateway to Hell's Canyon. 

As I've !raveled along the river, I've come to recognize that other conservation and 

recreation projects across Oregon and Washington's shared border have enabled 

access to the mighty Columbia, allowing us to both its beauty and its riches. I 

want to take a moment, Senator, to applaud you your unflagging efforts to 

reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has made many of those 

precious sites possible. 

From Fort Stevens on the Oregon's north coast to Minam State Park along the Wallowa 

River, LWCF funds have made a difference. Projects large and small ·-the Columbia 

Gorge National Scenic Area and a boat basin in The Dalles -- so many spectacular 

areas protected and recreational opportunities enhanced for the citizens of the Pacific 

Northwest, and the many visitors who flock to here to partake in our scenic beauty and 

learn our history. 

Senator Wyden, I know both Oregon and Washington would be diminished without the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, and I hope that you will persevere through the 

lame duck session to see that this truly important piece of legislation is reauthorized by 

Congress. 

Sincerely, 

Colin Fogarty 

Executive Director 
221 


Insert offset folio 150 here 95271.150

August 13,2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

U.S. Senate 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Bulldlng 

Washington, DC 20510 

Oear Senator Wyden, 

As it says on our website, "To us, there's no better feeling than knowing you've made a lasting 

impact on a place you love." That's why Craft3 would like to take a moment to thank 

Senator. You have made a lasting impact on Oregon·· and the Pacific Northwest 

nation, for !hat matter --with your leadership on the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF). 

Craft3 is a nonprofit community development financial institution with a mission to strengthen 

economic, ecological and family resilience in PacifiC Northwest communities. We know that we 

are making a difference, by providing loans to entrepreneurs, individuals and others 

who don't normally have access to financing. We are supporting place-based 

strategies that link rural and urban communities of the Pacific Northwest And the millions of 

dollars that have flowed into Oregon and Washington over the 50 of LWCF's existence 

have done the same, creating recreational opportunities far our and visitors, and 

preserving waterways, wetlands, and forests for our fish and wildlife, our blrds and plants and 

trees. 

But the benefits of LWCF dollars extend far beyond environmental impacts. These funds 

enhan<;e the economic health of the communities where they're invested. The Cape Kiwanda 

land acquisition in Tillamook County is a perfect example: protection of that stunning point of 

land has helped spur the development of nearby hotels, RV parks, restaurants and bfewpubs, 

bringing much-needed employment to area where jobs have been scarce. 

At Craft3, we are always looking for creative, effective, triple-bottom-line opportunities to 

achieve our mission. It is programs like LWCF, which we can leverage, that provide a 

tremendous boost to our success, .And it is leaders tike you who help us reach our dream of 

making a lasting impact on a place we love. 

Thank you, SenatorWyden, for your ongoing leadership on this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

John Berdes 

President & CEO 

Craft3 

!lox a~e flowerton Way, I !IW!lo<l, WA 1!86Z4-Ull261 TO! :!00-542-42651 F•• 361J.455·4ll7~ i \INIIW.eraft3,ofll 

Olllcosloool'i'dln,_e, 0f!llgMj ffi<;rni, Oro.goo I Pm~J•ml. O~n jllwooo, Wmirlglon l Port AJlgJJ!l>S, WE/Mingt<m I S<Nltlll>, Wa$hirlglon 

S<ffiticloo en /ng/{1• y I'E$INII!ol 
222 


Insert offset folio 151 here 95271.151

October 15, 2014 

Senator Ron 

221 Dirksen Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Via Fax: (202) 228-2717 

Dear Senator 

LWCF is a critical conrtpornerttin 

across the nation, as nn•,~PTvi"'"" 

protecting wetlands in 

Representative Lew Frederick 

OiilceAddress: 900 Court St, Saiern, OR 973.0·! 

911 NEllth 

Portland, OR, 

Suite 630 
223 


Insert offset folio 152 here 95271.152

To Whom It May Concern, 

As a current service member, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on why I believe that United States' 

public lands mean so much to me. Spending time in the national and state parks and forests is a great 

way to decompress from all the cumulative effects of the stress and hardships that veterans experience 

during their service. It is also a strong reminder of some of the reasons we, as service members, go and 

make the sacrifices we do in the service of the nation. It is important for veterans to have access to the 

serene and recreational landscapes that our nation has to offer. 

Being an Oregonian, I personally make time whenever possible to venture off into the national forests 

and other parks with my family, with my dog and often alone. f find that these excursion center me and 

keep me refreshed and able to meet the daily challenges I seek out in my professional and personal life. 

Between hiking, running, camping, fishing, skiing, climbing and a plethora of other outdoor activities t'm 

not sure what I would do without the great outdoor settings that our vast country offers us. 

I recently discovered a program called the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is such an incredible 

tool for protecting the lands that I spend time in. Without using a dime of taxpayer dollars, we have 

been able to not only maintain our beautiful lands but enhance them. 

I would certainly encourage you to make sure that this valuable program continues as it has for the last 

50+ years and that the funding is available to do just that. 

Sincerely, 

2LTTimothy Marr 

Engineer Officer 

Oregon National Guard 

Hillsboro, Oregon 
224 


Insert offset folio 153 here 95271.153

November 17,2014 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

United States Senate 

221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

On behalf of the Metro Council, I wanted to take a moment and 

reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

significant tool in helping make the trl·county area 

rontlnue, 

The fund is perfectly aligned with Metro's mission. As you 

metropolltan area care deeply about protecting natural areas and or<"e·rvln" 

voters of the region have empowered Metro to acquire more than acres 

natural areas, from wild forests like Chehalem Ridge to urban natural areas like Scouters Mountain, 

This is in addition to many local parks and open space investments. The goals of these investments, 

just like the LWCF, are to improve water quality, restore habitat and create new recreational 

opportunities forQregonians and those who visit our great state. 

The LWCF is an absolutely critical tlnance tool 

legislation was authorized in 1964, more funds have been rli<ctrihn'P<l 

Oregon. Most recently, the fund supported park renovation in the 

modernize a facility that provides access to a colnnmroity 

former mayor of Hillsboro, I tell you from eXJJer'ierrce 

incomes stay healthy and active. 

Again, we want to thank you for your continued 

communities. Our local parks, wllderness areas, and other public 

Your leadership to sustain them through reauthorization 

future. 

I'J!tu 

Tom Hughes 

Metro Council President 
225 


Insert offset folio 154 here 95271.154

ROD MONROE 

STA~SENATOR 

DISTRlCT24 

July 30, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

OR~GON SiATi! SENATE 

:0011 COURT ST HIE 

SALEM, OR 91301 

223 .Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

l know that you've been 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

em:ouragement and appreciation for your efforts 

to re-aut1wrize the 

for this imJ)oritan;t leJ;isl;a:tictn 

places in Oregon and across America," as you 
226 


Insert offset folio 179 here 95271.179

April 20, 2015 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

The Mountaineers, founded in 1906, is a nonprofit outdoor education, conservation, and recreation 

organization whose mission is "to enrich the community by helping people explore, conserve, learn 

about and enjoy the lands and waters of the Pacific Northwest and beyond." Based in Seattle, 

Washington, we have over 13,000 members and guests- a passionate, engaged community of people 

who knowledgeable and care about the outdoors. We work to protect the outdoor experience for 

current and future generations. 

We are writing today in light of the April 22nd hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to 

the land and Water Conservation Fund {LWCF) to share our community's perspectives on the invaluable 

role the LWCF has in creating opportunities for conservation and outdoor recreation. 

The LWCF is the only is the only federal program dedicated to the continued conservation and access to 

recreation in our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness, monuments, and other federal 

conservation lands, as well as creating and developing state and local parks, We believe that the LWCF 

is one of our nation's most important conservation programs. Protecting our nation's, and Washington 

State's, natural places so we all have access to recreate is imperative to the future of conservation and 

growing the outdoor recreation economy. LWCF has funded many projects that our membership enjoys, 

include dose-in opportunities for nature, like the Mount Si Conservation Area, as well as wildernessbased projects, both very important to our human-based recreation community. If it is not reauthorized 

in essentially its current form, critical lands and outdoor recreation sites all across the country will be at 

risk. 

We urge the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources 

Committee to resist the call for counterproductive changes to LWCF as they work through the 

reauthorization process, and instead hold LWCF up as a shining example of an efficient and effective 

toolbox for every state and county in America to tap into when in order to address their communitybased conservation and recreation needs and opportunities. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director, The Mountaineers 
227 


Insert offset folio 155 here 95271.155

Additional Written Comments of National Recreation and Park Association 

National Association of State Park Directors, and 

National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers 

Senate Committee ou Energy and Natural Resources 

Regarding April 22, 2015 Committee Hearing on the Reauthorization and 

Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

May 6, 2015 

Chaim1an Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) 

provided written testimony, in concert with the National Association of State Park Directors (NASPD), 

for the April22, 2015 hearing on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). We appreciate this 

opportunity to provide additional comments for the hearing record, with the assistance of the National 

Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO). 

While Committee members were afforded their opportunity to ask questions of the panel of speakers, 

Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Michael Conner, was asked by Senator Jolm Barrasso of Wyoming what 

the Administration believed constituted a '·fair and equitable" percentage distribution of overall L WCF 

dollars between the federal and ''stateside'' of the program. Deputy Secretary Conner responded that, 

"We (the Administration) look at the allocation in our budget as being actually 60% going to the federal 

side and 40% going to the stateside ... " and he went on to explain the "additional grant progran1s which 

had been developed" which, in their view constituted a total of 40% of overall LWCF dollars going to the 

"stateside" ofthe program and that the Interior Departulenfs FY 2016 budget request reflects that 

amount. 

Our organizations deem important that vvc respond to these comments by clarifying exactly what are state 

grants, consistent with the language and original purposes of the LWCF, and what we define as the 

"Stateside" component of the LWCF. We prefer to be clear in stating our interest in the LWCF is 

specifically with the State Assistance Program formula grants to the States for local conservation and 

active recreation. The State Assistance Program is one of the original core tenants and priorities of the 

program from when the LWCF was created in 1964. Further, the original Act designated that tl1c 

distribution of annual funding for the LWCF be allocated as follows: 

SEC. 4. (a) ALLOCATION.-There shall ... 

(i) the appropriation therein made shall be available in the ratio of 60 per centum for State 

purposes and 40 per centum for Federal purposes, ... 

Source: www .gpo.gov/fd~yspkg!i;T A TUTE-78!pdjlSTA TUTE-78-Pg897.pdf 

Again, at the time, the "State purposes., designated under the Act was the State Assistance Program. As 

explained in the written testimony submitted by the NASPD with the assistance of the NRP A, through 

legislative changes and diversions, the State Assistance portion of the fund has been effectively squeezed 

to the point of being no more tl1an 12% to 13% of total LWCF appropriations since 1998. 

1 
228 


Insert offset folio 156 here 95271.156

This is a direct result of adding loosely defined "related purposes,, as eligible uses for LWCF dollars. 

These "related purposes'' or new programs were added to the law in 1997. While certainly serving 

worthwhile goals, these additional accounts are NOT what we determine to be "State purposes" as 

intended under the original Act. 

For example, the "related purposes" which the Administration is attempting to include under the 

''Stateside" umbrella, arc NOT subject to the same conditions placed upon the State Assistance Program. 

These '·related'' programs: 

Are NOT incorporated, or even considered, under the LWCF mandated "Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP) which defines priorities and the manner 

which states intend to utilize their State Assistance funding over what is typically a five-year 

period. The SCORP is supposed to be used, in tandem with an "open selection process'' when 

making decisions on all state uses of the grant funding. 

Being outside of the SCORP process, these programs are not managed with the direct assistance 

of the State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officer- a govemor-appointed position required under 

the State Assistance Program. 

These programs are identified as "voluntary'' and "highly competitive" indicating that states 

cannot depend on receiving funding in a given year for these purposes and that major decisions 

with regard to where the funding ends up are being made in Washington, DC. 

Projects funded under these "related purposes,, are not subject to the same financial threshold of 

the dollar-for-dollar match which is required of all projects funded through the State Assistance 

Program. 

Finally, these "related purposes" include programs which are not under the management or 

responsibility of the Department of the Interior, but which, overtime, have utilized over $650 

million in direct LWCF support. 

While we recognize the considerable competing priorities, and acknowledge the worthwhile purposes 

these programs were created to address, any honest review will confirm that they are NOT the same, in 

manner or purpose, as the "State purposes" laid out in the original Act. TI1erefore, claiming that "40% 

(of existing LWCF support) is going to the stateside," of the progran1 is misleading, if not disingenuous. 

For the record, we bring to the Committee-s attention Deputy Secretary Connors own comments 

regarding the Administration's FY20 16 Budget request. It includes a total of $400 million in 

discretionary funding for the LWCF with the $50 million ( 12.5%) allocated to the State Assistance 

Program continuing the pattem of falling well short of a fair and equitable percentage being made 

available for state and local outdoor recreation. We note that it would take $160 million of overall 

LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance Program to achieve the 40% threshold- the minimum 

percentage of annual appropriations the law currently requires be made available for federal land 

acquisition ("Federal purposes" under the original Act). 

2 
229 


Insert offset folio 157 here 95271.157

Further, the same budget request includes what can best be described as an ·'optimistic" vision of 

providing an additional $500 million of"pennanent" funding for the LWCF which the Administration 

could than claim gets us to the "full funding" authorized amount of $900 million. Even at that level, the 

amotmt envisioned for State Assistance is $100 million, with an additional $25 million designated for the 

moribund Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Therefore, even under a ·'full 

funding" scenario, the Administration views providing a grand total of 13% to state and local 

conservation and outdoor recreation as adequate to address existing needs and priorities including less 

than 3% of total LWCF resources specifically targeting the needs of"urban" communities. 

Finally, we reiterate that what \VC find has gotten lost in the ongoing discussion over the reauthorization 

of the LWCF is, first and foremost, the issue offaimess in how LWCF dollars are being distributed. For 

nearly 50 years the bulk of the work to carry out the purpose of the Act has fallen on local communities to 

handle alone. While four-out-of-five Americans live in larger metropolitan areas, the LWCF is now only 

providing about 13% of overall funding to the very progran1 - State Assistance -- which impacts people 

where they live, and recreate, the most Urban communities, in particular, suffer from the severe lack of 

resources currently being made available through the State Assistance Program. 

We conclude by stating that we value preserving and providing access to our "national treasures'' for all 

to enjoy, but we want to remind you that many treasured places and areas are NOT located on federal 

property. We respectfully reiterate our request that Congress embraces this opportunity to update the 

LWCF to reflect 21 '' Century needs and priorities and provide a fair and balanced allocation to the State 

Assistance Program tl1at resembles the original intent of the law. 

Faithfully submitted by: 

Tim Hogsett 

President 

National Association of 

State Outdoor 

Recreation Liaison 

Officers (NASORLO) 

4200 Smith School Road 

Austin, TX 78744 

(512) 468-0453 

tim.hogsett@tpwd.texas.gov 

Lewis Ledford 

Executive Director 

National Association of 

State Park Directors 

(NASPD) 

P 0. Box 91567 

Raleigh, NC 27675 

(919) 218-9222 

lewis@naspd.org 

Kevin O'Hara 

Vice President 

National Recreation and 

Park Association (NRPA) 

22377 Belmont Ridge Rd 

Ash bum, VA 20 148 

(202) 520-1084 

kohara@nrpa.org 

3 
230 


Insert offset folio 158 here 95271.158

Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

May6,2015 

Madame Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation's perspectives 

on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). My name is Thomas .J. Cassidy, Jr. and I 

am the Vice President of Government Relations and Policy. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded nonprofit organization 

chartered by Congress in 1949 to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, 

buildings, and objects of national significance or interest. TheN ational Trust has more than 

750,000 members and supporters. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with 13 field offices 

and 27 historic sites, the National Trust takes direct, on-the-ground action when historic sites 

are threatened, advocates to save America's heritage, and strives to create a cultural legacy that 

is as diverse as the nation itself, so all can take pride in the American story. 

In addition to the importance of the LWCF, I will also address the need and opportunities to 

address the maintenance back log of theN ational Park Sen;ice (NPS), the need to reauthorize 

and fully fund the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) and other programs that could derive 

funding from federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The National Trust for Historic 

Preservation supports full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

This fund provides essential funding for land acquisitions to fulfill the promise of our federal 

lands, including historic resources managed by federal and state agencies. 

Three-quarters of national park units were established to protect our country's most important 

historic and cultural resources. These places include such national treasures as Ellis Island 

National Monument, Gettysburg National Battlefield, Chaco Cultural National Historic Park and 

the Washington Monument. Over the past two decades, the NPS has added over 30 new park 

units which are predominantly historical and cultural. These new parks that help tell the stories 

of all Americans include Fort Monroe National Monument, Cesar E. Chavez National 

Monument, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument. 

The LWCF has provided investments to acquire land essential to protecting many of our 

most significant historic and cultural landscapes, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, 

Minidoka National Historic Site, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, Gettysburg National 

Military Park, Martin Luther King ,Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument, and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. 

The American Battlefield Protection Program, which is funded by the LWCF, has protected 

numerous Civil War battlefields and is now authorized to protect War of 1812 and Revolutionary 

Water battlefields. Many of these sites continue be at risk of permanent loss. In 2007, the NPS 

reported that of 667 identified sites associated with the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, as 

many as 335 sites have been lost, destroyed or extremely fragmented. 
231 


Insert offset folio 159 here 95271.159

Our System of National Parks and Protected Areas Continues to Evolve. Our parks 

and protected areas tell the story of America - and our history is still being written. 

The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently issued "Better Reflecting Our Country's 

Growing Diversity," a report that documents both the progress that has been made and the 

work remaining to create a system of protected lands that more accurately reflect the evolving 

diversity of places, cultures and beliefs of our nation. The CAP report documents that 24% of 

460 identified parks and monuments have a primary purpose of recognizing historic figures, 

cultures or important events of traditionally underrepresented communities; 63 of the 112 sites 

have a primary focus on American Indians or Native Alaskans. However, only 26 focus on 

African Americans, 19 on Latinos, 8 on women, 4 on Native Hawaiians and 2 on Asian 

Americans. No such parks and monuments focus on historic figures in the Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual and Transgender community. Congress and the Administration also have a 

responsibility to maintain and repair our national parks and federal lands. 

Our system of national parks is not done. ln a representative democracy, besides protecting 

areas of spectacular beauty and natural resource values, our national parks should tell the 

history and stories of all Americans. We can be sure that LWCF investments will continue to be 

important to protect our nation's history into the future. 

Maintenance Backlog. A number of Senators and witnesses noted that the choice is not fully 

funding the LWCF or addressing the maintenance backlog. Plainly, the NPS maintenance 

backlog of more than $11 billion demonstrates that additional investments and new strategies 

are necessary if we are to meet our stewardship responsibilities. 

But, halting the creation of new parks or preventing acquisition of key properties necessary to 

better manage and tell the story of the parks is not the way to meet the stewardship of our parks. 

Diverting the LWCF from its rich tradition of adding to our system of parks and protected lands 

to address maintenance needs would limit the legacy we protect and pass on to future 

generations. 

TheN ational Park Service is responsible for maintaining the 407 tmits of the National Park 

System, including an estimated 2 million archaeological sites, 3,500 historic statues and 

monuments and more than 27,000 properties listed on or eligible for theN ational Register of 

Historic Places, including 9,600 buildings. 

According to the State of America's National Parks report released by National Park 

Conservation Association in 2011, more than 45 percent of historic buildings and stmctures in 

the So national park units surveyed were only in fair condition, while 25 percent were in poor 

condition. Without funding to stabilize these structures, the condition of these assets will 

continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to repair and preserve in the future. 

Our best understanding is that the total amount of the backlog attributable to historic 

preservation building projects is approximately $4.5 billion. Given the current fiscal 

environment, including the impacts of sequestration, it is plain that funds beyond 

appropriations must be made available to the NPS to solve this problem. 

Of course, our parks and federal lands are not the only national assets confronting a lack of 

federal support. The inability of the Congress to fund the Highway Tmst Fund is another 

example of a policy failure. And in fact, nearly 87 billion of the NPS maintenance backlog is 

2 
232 


Insert offset folio 160 here 95271.160

attributable to inadequately maintained roads. The Committee should work with the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works to ensure that the reauthorization ofMAP-21 includes robust 

funding to address the maintenance needs of park roads. 

The National Trust is committed to addressing the maintenance of historic resources within the 

National Parks. We are supporting the Administration's F¥16 proposal to invest in the repair 

and maintenance of priority projects. However, more is necessary. 

This Committee held a hearing on .July 25, 2013 to consider funding the National Park Service 

for the Next Century." In testimony we submitted for the record, we recommended that 

Congress consider allocating a portion of OCS receipts to address the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Such a proposal for a "Park Legacy Partnership Fund" was included in the 2013 

National Parks Conservation Association and National Parks Hospitality Association report, 

"Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America's National Parks." The specific proposal was 

to use up to $350 million annually from OCS receipts, which in F¥14 produced more than $7.2 

billion, and pattern the use of the Park Legacy Partnership Fund on the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act. Such uses would include repair, maintenance and facility 

enhancements related to visitor enjoyment, access, and health and safety. Such a proposal need 

not be a substitute for LWCF- there are sufficient OCS revenues to fully fund LWCF, the 

Historic Preservation Fund and such a new fund for NPS maintenance. 

In addition to providing annual appropriations or providing new mandatory funding, there are 

other opportunities to engage the private sector, through expanded use of historic leasing and 

the new HOPE Crew program, as described below. 

Historic Leasing. To fulfill its congressionally mandated stewardship responsibilities, the 

NPS should fully use its existing authority to work with non-federal entities to find funding 

solutions. Congressional support for this approach has long existed, as evidenced by grants of 

authority to enter into public-private partnerships and historic leases, which Congress has 

extended to the NPS over the years. In addition, the F¥12 Conference Report for the Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill stated: 

"The Committee encourages the Park Service to pursue the use of cost-effective, innovative 

solutions like historic leases when practical and when the arrangement comports with a 

park unit's enabling legislation. These solutions can help mitigate a growing backlog of 

historic structures in need of preservation." 

The explanatory report of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for its F¥14 

Appropriations Bill states: 

"The Committee believes that historic leases provide a cost-effective, innovative 

opportunity to attract private capital and expertise to the challenges of preserving park 

resources. The Committee applauds the efforts of the Service and private partners to 

successfully implement such leases, and encourages the broader use of this important 

authority to mitigate the maintenance backlog of historic structures." 

The National Trust completed a report on historic leasing in September 2013 that included 

actionable recommendations that, if implemented, would increase the use of! easing in the 

National Park System. Leasing is plainly not the solution to the entire NPS maintenance 

backlog. Some sites, whether due to concerns about public access, because of the scale of the 

resources needed to maintain the site, or for other reasons, are simply not appropriate 

3 
233 


Insert offset folio 161 here 95271.161

candidates for management through leasing. We believe, however, that used appropriately, 

leasing can be one of a suite of tools that over time can alleviate the maintenance backlog. Here 

are a few examples of the many historic leasing success stories, along with a few challenges, that 

illustrate the potential of historic leasing to address the NPS maintenance backlog. 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, Alaska 

The NPS has acquired and restored many of the most historic buildings along the main 

thoroughfare in Skagway, Alaska to ensure protection ofthe cultural landscape features oft he 

park. Local park administrators began an active push to use leases here in 1986 that has been 

very successful. The park is a major destination for cruise ships and records the highest annual 

visitation numbers of any NPS site in Alaska. Seven historic leases have been extended to 

commercial businesses in the park that cater to tourists. Under these leases, the Park Service 

received $368,572 in rent in 2012 that was used to fund historic property maintenance. 

Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania 

Valley Forge National Historic Park is dedicated to preserving and interpreting the winter 

encampment site of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. The park includes 

numerous historic structures that post-date the Revolutionary War and are thus outside the 

historical time period that is the main interpretive focus of the park. In 2009, park staff 

successfully negotiated a 40-year lease agreement for the David Walker Farmstead, a 3.7-acre 

site that is listed on theN ational Register of Historic Places. The lessee is the Montessori 

Children's House of Valley Forge, a non-profit organization that uses the farmstead as a school. 

The Montessori school has invested over $3 million dollars into restoration and maintenance, 

including funding the removal of non-historic elements, such as an adjacent, non-historic 1958 

house. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, Georgia 

To preserve the historic character of Auburn Avenue, and the block of historic houses that 

includes the Birth Home of Dr. Martin Luther King, .Jr., the NPS established the Martin Luther 

King, .Jr. National Historic Site in 1980. The park encompasses 38 acres in the Old Fourth Ward 

neighborhood of Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. King's Birth Home is open to visitors. The NPS funds the 

maintenance for all of the federally-owned houses within the park unit with revenue generated 

by leasing 29 of the federally-owned historic buildings for private residential purposes. These 

structures include apartments, duplexes and single family homes. The leasing program has 

been very popular, leading to the establishment of a waiting list for potential tenants. 

In addition to the private residential leases, another federally-owned building is operated as a 

commercial barber shop, and the remaining homes are used for park employee housing or by 

park partner organizations under cooperative agreements, including the Martin Luther King Jr. 

Center for Nonviolent Social Change and the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church. The nearly 

$2oo,ooo in annual rental revenue collected through these rental agreements is used to perform 

major maintenance and restoration in the historic district while the lessees are individually 

responsible for funding routine maintenance. This leasing model provides an excellent example 

for other sites where the Park Service has management responsibility for a large number of 

historic resources that are unnecessary for federal use or site interpretation. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California 

The Golden Gate N a tiona! Recreation Area is a large park unit that spans multiple sites across 

the greater San Francisco Bay region. NPS personnel have successfully used historic leases and 

4 
234 


Insert offset folio 162 here 95271.162

cooperative agreements to work with a diverse array of local partners to provide assistance and 

funding for historic facility maintenance and repairs. 

A significant success story is found north of the Golden Gate Bridge at Fort Baker in Sausalito. 

Through a long-term lease that permitted utilization of the federal historic tax credit, the former 

officer's residences at Fort Baker have been impeccably restored and transformed into the 

Cavallo Point, the Lodge at the Golden Gate. The Argonaut Hotel is another exemplary leasing 

example in the Pacific West Region. The hotel is located in the century-old Haslett Warehouse 

within the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. Under a 6o-year lease this one-time 

fish cannery is now open to the public as a hotel. The rehabilitated historic building includes the 

park's Visitor Center onsite. The length of the lease term allowed the hotel operators to qualify 

for federal historic tax credits that made the building's rehabilitation financially feasible. 

Without the investment of private funds, and the utilization of the federal historic tax credit, it is 

likely that these beautifully restored buildings would be sitting unused. 

HOPE Crews and The Corps Network. The National Trust has just completed the first year 

of one of our newest initiatives, a partnership with The Corps Network and theN ational Park 

Service: the Hands-On Preservation Experience Crew, or HOPE Crew. This is a program that 

helps young people receive critical training and experience in preservation skills by giving them 

the opportunity to rehabilitate historic places in need. This is a win-win partnership. On one 

hand, young men and women get an opportunity to enter into a high-need field and obtain 

education and training in preservation skills that can otherwise be hard to come by. On the 

other, HOPE Crew helps to alleviate the multi-billion dollar backlog in deferred maintenance at 

National Parks sites. 

In just its first year, over one hundred HOPE Crew members have contributed over 12,000 

hours to serving their communities by restoring historic sites and structures at more than 20 

national park units and national cemeteries, including Martin Luther King .Jr. National 

Historical Site, LB.J National Historical Park, FDR National Historical Site, Grand Teton 

National Park, Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument and Shenandoah National Park. 

Opportunities for Future Legislation. This Committee held a hearing on .July 22, 2014, 

"Leveraging America's Natural Resources as a Revenue Generator and Job Creator." That 

hearing provided an opportunity for testimony and discussion of previously enacted and 

identified important legislative precedents for allocating portions of OCS revenues to vitally 

important programs, including the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GO MESA), the 

RESTORE Act, Secure Rural Schools legislation, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, as well as strongly supported but unsuccessful legislation such as 

the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) in 1999-2000 and the CLEAR Act 

of 2009-2010. 

The National Trust submitted a statement for the record for that hearing. We continue to 

believe strongly that any future legislation that would allocate OCS receipts to fully fund the 

LWCF should build upon the precedents ofCARA and the CLEAR Act and also provide full and 

permanent funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. The HPF was created in 1976 to fund 

the nation's historic preservation programs. The HPF provides formula-based matching funds, 

administered by the National Park Service, to the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) 

and grants to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs). These funds support the 

implementation of the nation's preservation programs, including section 106 reviews, Historic 

Tax Credit applications, nominations for theN ational Register and surveys of historic resources. 

These activities are essential to protecting historic resources while also permitting the utilization 

5 
235 


Insert offset folio 163 here 95271.163

of resources that generate revenues and jobs. For example, the Historic Tax Credit, signed into 

law by President Reagan, has catalyzed the rehabilitation of more than 41,000 buildings 

throughout the nation. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has created 

2-4 million jobs and leveraged nearly $117 billion in private investment. 

Each year, the HPF receives $150 million from revenues generated from oil and gas 

development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Similarly, the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

receives $900 million annually in OCS revenues. However, both funds are presently subject to 

annual appropriations, which vary from year to year. Since FYn, appropriations for the HPF 

have ranged between $53 million and S564 million. Beginning in F¥14, the Interior 

Appropriations Bill provided $soo,ooo to launch an important new program of competitive 

grants for the survey and nomination of properties associated with communities currently 

underrepresented in theN ational Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks. 

Recent studies have documented that less than 8% of such listings identifY culturally diverse 

properties. 

In past years, the HPF also provided funding for the Save America's Treasures and Preserve 

America grants programs as well as grants for Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCU). The F¥16 request would provide significant funding for Civil Rights sites and history, 

including grants to HBCU's. 

Full funding for the HPF would enable more robust funding for a broad range of preservation 

programs, including a restoration of competitive grants to restore nationally significant historic 

properties, similar to the Save America's Treasures program. It would also provide funding to 

meet the continuing demands upon the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and Tribal 

Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) for their preservation services, including the survey of 

historic resources. The funding pressures on THPO's continues to grow, in part because of the 

challenges of an increasing number ofTHPO's participating in the program, from 131 tribes in 

FY12 to potentially 156 tribes in F¥15, with nearly level funding. Finally, investing in digitizing 

legacy historic survey data- and new landscape scale surveys- would improve access to historic 

property records and help expedite federal permitting of important infrastmcture projects. 

Conclusion. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has become a critically important to 

ensure the long-term conservation of natural and historic resources important to the American 

people. We look forward to working with the Committee to ensure this program and the 

Historic Preservation Fund are reauthorized and provided full and dedicated funding. We 

believe that there continue to be important opportunities to provide resources for programs, 

such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Secure Rural Schools and coastal revenue sharing, 

through OCS revenues. Finally, we look forward to working with the Committee and the 

Appropriations Committee to ensure that sufficient resources and effective public-private 

partnerships are directed to addressing the maintenance backlog. 

6 
236 


Insert offset folio 164 here 95271.164

August 11, 2014 

Design/IM!d Remodeling 

HomeForee 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Home Performance 

Custom Homes 

Cabinets 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

1 just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your continued support and 

leadership on the issue ofthe Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCf). At 

Nell Kelly, we strive to incorporate green design and remodeling elements in all 

our practices, we provide home energy retl'l>ftts to maximize the energy 

efficiency of residences, and 1 am personally involved In a number of important 

sustalnabiliW efforts in Oregon. Your efforts on continuing Congressional 

support of LWCF is an important adjunct to the work Nell Kelly ls doing here in 

Oregon, to enhance our state's livability. 

l know that Oregon continues to benefit from LWCF monies with more than 

$657,000 coming to Oregon this year from the LWcF. Parks, hiking and biking 

trails, ball fields, public plazas, and wildlife refuges are all jewels in Oregon's 

crown, and many of those amenities would not be possible without leaders like 

you, working diligently to protect and promote important programs like LWCF, 

Of course, in addition to the benefits of access to recreation across the state, 

those lWcF funds have contributed to significant economicd<evelopment in 

some of the areas of Oregon hardest hit by the recent economic downturn. 

lWCF is more than a conservation program·· it's an unheralded economic tool, 

providing construction, wildlife management and service sector jobs, as well as 

a significant tourism boaster. 

Again, Senator, thank you for your true leadership on this issue. I am passionate 

about Oregon and I know that the state would be diminished without the Land 

and Water Consefllation fund. 

:rz-~-- Tom Kelly - t::) 

President, Neff Kelly 

tft•-tldquar{t•t'£ 

J~·~~u Ct>nh•l' 

$t0-f N. Aliu:~rf<l Str~rf 

PorJiund, (ll•t•~!.lll t)7:.U7 

'l(.Jey,h<>H<<lf~!-2lU!·;\f.ll. 

Fux :m;~,.:.um~ 7-tfH 

ptHtfllitMftfiffln:t•ifkt..fl~·.t"'t1lU 

Wi•J<hiide- Oet'i;ro fA•nkr 

f5;)7:t HW Bn.n:,.,· Ht1ad 

1iitilc !Oil 

Lnki" Osw~~,li!Jt, Orrg1m i}'71tl.} 

'll>tt·phtn\(• 3U;l..-28ft .. ~Eil. 

Fo\ii0:3~44.'?-2l7tl 

Eujtt<ac f)(•'~'it-"JJ Ct.."nh•r 

2817 O~tk Sl<e<'i 

1•:uh"4'tt~+~ OH tn-!03: 

'1\>ltphMc>>! 1-68:!·60!1,5 

!'1n SJi-lli~H)Il97 

llentf l.ksl:;m Ct•nli.'r' 

ttJO ;\J;;. frvin,jt Awmm• 

lknd, 01197701 

'J't•k>phm1'~ ;)4t ... 182w 7.)fl0 

F"' J4J.:l82-~975 

;imttdt•tlE:<!iif..'ltCt'"nt1•r 

S9l)ft(~ft'tm A\'t'ntlr Souilt 

Sttht·H 

Hrlrtll<•·l\'\\llHtlli 

'f'di•pll(Jlle 2!~,.:1.t1•2322 

l'"' 2!lll--105-1M.5 

s,>lnn il0~-!l71H401! 

\ltot•ouwr HMJ-,MNt,.22t~ 

OIHX:3~ U016t>~ 

WA I.&I#N!:lt.KCt !Slll'.t .:;, 
237 


Insert offset folio 165 here 95271.165

PRESIDENT 

VICE PRESIDENT 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Jim Bittle Willie Boats 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Liz Hamilton 

SOENCE & POUC\' ADVISORS 

Maddy Sh~ehal\~ Of Cou1tsel 

April20. 2015 

The I Ionorab!e Usa Mutkowski 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

I am writing on behalf of the Northwest Sp<:>rt!lshing 

to the enimn<oerr!ent 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a valuable too! to 

lands public for outdoorsmen and women. In Wll<hinoton 

public lands sustains over l 0,000 jobs and 

And that is just sportfishing, with activities included, 

every dollar invested in LWCF produced $4 in economic output 

permanent access. With the 

accessible lands are being 

been known to be 

privately owned 

lands. 

LWCF also provides suital>le conservation of waterways and 

habitat, ensuring healthy populations of fish and for 

wildlife viewing. River access LakeChelacn t~atiorml 

Recreational Area LWCF 

public lands, and on ncighl>oring 

L WCF is a weH-oiled program that exemplifies how each state shoui<i address 

their recreation preservation needs. We the Senate on Energy and Natural 

Resource Committee resists any requests unnecessary changes to L WCF as 

they work through this reauthorization process. 

Sincerely, 

Liz Hamilton 

Executive Director 

NSIA 

cc. Senator Ron Wyden 
238 


Insert offset folio 166 here 95271.166

November 16, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate OffiCe Building 

Washington, OC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

The Oregon Economic Development Association (OEOA} is a vocal advocate for Oregon's economy, 

serving as a champion across the state for a balanced, prosperous, and robust eronomy. for that 

reason, I want to thank you for your contribution to our mission. Your work ln securing a permanent 

source offunding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund ls absolutely aligned with our goals, and 

deeply appreciated. 

As President of OEDA, l can say with confidence that LWCF has made a lasting difference to the Oregon's 

economy, to our residents, and to our visitors. From high-visibility projects in the Portland area (e.g., 

construction of Stub Stewart State Park and recreational improvements at nearby Hagg Lake) to the Elk 

Refuge ln Jewell and public tennis court in the town of Athena, these recreational facilities provide 

amenities that make our cities and towns more desirable places to live, work, and play. Ancli..WCf 

dollars have also contributed to the conservation of some of our most visible, and visited, treasures: 

sites along the majestic Oregon coast, stretches ofthe Rogue River, and forests near Crater Lake. 

lWCf projects provide more than simply recreational opportunities· they also contribute to the Oregon 

mystique that lures talented people to our state, enabnng our businesses to successfully compete in the 

global marketplace. 

In short, LWCf funded projects bolster Oregon's economy. These monles gives us places to play, hike, 

paddle, and bunt. The funds protect places that give us pride in our breath-taking beauty, and lWCF 

helps OEDA pursue our organization's mission. I am sincerely grateful for your past and continuing 

leadership on this much valued program. 

Best wlshes, 

Sarah Garrls.on 

President 

Oregon Economic Development Association 
239 


Insert offset folio 167 here 95271.167

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

April 22, 2015 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Committee on 

709 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

and Natural Resources 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: ''Hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF)" 

Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of six member-based representing the 

human powered outdoor recrea!ion community. The coalition includes Access Fund, 

American Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling 

Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, and the Mountaineers, and represents the 

interests of the millions of Americans who climb, paddle, mountain bike, and 

backcountry ski and snowshoe on our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes. 

In light of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's April 22 we would 

like to share our community's perspectives on the critical role of the and Water 

Conservation Fund in supporting opportunities for outdoor recreation and the outdoor 

recreation economy. We believe that LWCF is a tremendously successful program that 

has had positive impacts in every corner of the country, and it should be reauthorized 

and fully funded in its current form. 

Outdoor recreation is a primary way through which Americans come to know their 

lands, providing physical, mental, social, and spiritual benefits while supporting the 

blliion per year outdoor recreation economy and directly employing 6.1 million 

Americans. AU of these benefits depend on access to healthy on our public 

lands. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is an overwhelmingly successful program for 

achieving balanced use of public lands by directing a portion of royalties from off-shore 

oil and gas development toward targeted recreation and conservation land acquisitions. 

Over the life of the program, LWCF has funded critical protections for river corridors in 
240 


Insert offset folio 168 here 95271.168

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

Thank you for your consideration of our on the importance of m~•int .. ininn 

and the land and Water Conservation Fund to ensure nnl~rhm•iti~'•R 

outdoor recreation and the careful management of public lands. 

Best 

Adam Cr.amer 

Executive Director 

Outdoor Alliance 

cc: 

Brady Robinson, Executive Access Fund 

Wade Blackwood, Executive Director, American Canoe Association 

Mark Singleton, Executive Director, American Whitewater 

Michael Van Abel, Executive Director, International Mountain Association 

Mark Manlove, Executive Winter Wildlands Alliance 

Marllnlque Grigg, Executive The Mountaineers 

Phil Powers, Executive Director, American Alpine Club 
241 


Insert offset folio 169 here 95271.169

April 30, 2015 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

OUTDOOR 

INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION 

Chair, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: "Hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF)" 

The outdoor industry is near and dear to Americans and their heritage and a huge 

economic driver that contributes to healthy communities and healthy economies. The 

Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is the leading trade association for the outdoor 

industry, supporting the growth and success of manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, 

sales representatives, and retailers of outdoor recreation apparel, footwear, equipment and 

services. As you would suspect, the management of our outdoor recreation assets, 

including our national public lands and waters, and state and local parks, is profoundly 

important to the 142 million Americans who recreate outdoors each year, and to the 

thousands of companies in our sector. 

Recreation is a significant economic driver, with Americans spending over $646 billion 

on outdoor recreation each year. This is twice as much as they spend on pharmaceuticals 

or cars. Outdoor recreation also contributes $40 billion in federal tax revenue and $40 

billion in state and local tax revenue. Over six million Americans are directly employed 

by outdoor recreation. The outdoor recreation economy depends on availability and 

access to quality trails, waterway, forests and parks-locally, state and federally run. Just 

like any other industry, our businesses rely on investments in quality infrastructure for 

our public lands and waters and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the 

most successful program that has, and we hope continues to, support the growth and 

success of the outdoor industry. 

This bedrock conservation policy was created more than 50 years ago, with a unanimous 

vote in the House, based on the simple premise that as we extract resources from the 
242 


Insert offset folio 170 here 95271.170

earth, we should give something back. LWCF uses a fraction of the $6.7 billion in 

revenues from Outer Continental Shelf development and invests that money in creating 

and maintaining quality outdoor experiences for all Americans. 

From our backyards to the backcountry- LWCF has helped sustain and improve outdoor 

recreation opportunities for the last half-century in every county and every congressional 

district. Our industry depends on having continued access to these recreational 

opportunities and LWCF is a critical policy for the millions of jobs and billions in 

economic activity our industry creates, not to mention the appeal for attracting 

international tourists who visit our public lands and spend money in our gateway 

communities. It is not just the Fortune 500 brands who benefit from LWCF investments 

on our public lands- it is the mom and pop specialty retailers outside a park, the small 

businesses who run outdoor trips in our forests, the specialty manufacturers who make fly 

rods and the thousands of businesses who choose to locate near accessible public lands 

for recruitment and quality oflife. 

Given that there is not a one size fits all approach to managing our state and federal 

public lands, we hope Congress can come to a compromise that keeps all of the tools in 

tact, honoring the original intent of the law. Appropriate land acquisition by the states and 

federal government can reduce management costs and improve accessibility, and local 

input on projects requiring match dollars is a critical component to the stateside program. 

Fully funding LWCF at $900 million annually could only improve the health of 

communities and economies across the country and provide more funds to the federal, 

stateside and forest legacy programs that fuel the outdoor recreation economy. 

As Senator Angus King mentioned in last week's hearing, there are few things that the 

next generation will thank us for, and preserving and protecting public spaces for 

recreation is one of them. Extracting depletable assets compliments the L WCF program, 

which reinvests in permanent, sustainable recreation on public lands and is the "most 

farsighted, in fact visionary statutes passed in the last I 00 years" (Senator King). 

Honoring this farsighted vision means addressing the backlog on our public lands through 

the appropriations process; using LWCF dollars for maintenance is inappropriate, and not 

the original intent of the law. 

With L WCF expiring at the end of September, we urge the committee to call attention to 

this incredible success story and to spread the word about the great projects happening in 

districts and states across the country, with benefits that will be realized for generations 

to come. Not only should L WCF be permanently reauthorized, it should be fully funded 

at the originally intended level of $900 million dollars. LWCF has received only a 

fraction of its intended appropriation, $18 billion less than intended due to diversions. 

Thank you for your attention to an issue that directly affects businesses large and small, 

American citizens, international tourists, and most importantly, future generations. The 

potential benefits to the American people from fully funding LWCF are extraordinary. As 

our nation continues to grow and seek quality outdoor experiences, we urge the 

committee to understand the good work LWCF has done over the last 50 years and 
243 


Insert offset folio 171 here 95271.171

support this vital resource for the next 50 years. Please view the outdoor industry as a 

partner and we look forward to with you in the months on this 

Steve Barker 

Executive Director 

Outdoor Association 

cc 

Jennifer Mull, Backwoods 

Gordon Toad & Co 

Marc REI 

Ann Krcik, The North Face 

Hans Cole, 

Peter Metcalt~ Black Diamond 
244 


Insert offset folio 172 here 95271.172

September 3, 2014 

Dear Members of Congress, 

We represent manufacturers, distributors, retailers and outfitters, small family businesses, 

entrepreneurial start-ups and international Fortune 1,000 companies that make and sell 

products for active use in the outdoors, and are writing to express our strong support for 

full, dedicated funding and reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF). 

This year marks the 50111 anniversary of LWCF and is an historic opportunity to fulfill the 

promise offull and dedicated funding at $900 million annually. We stand ready to work 

with you to ensure that this investment is realized, so that LWCF funding can protect and 

provide recreational access to our nation's irreplaceable outdoor spaces. 

Each year, the outdoor industry supports more than six million American jobs, generates 

$646 billion in direct consumer spending and contributes $80 billion in federal, state and 

local taxes. While many other sectors declined during the recession, the outdoor industry 

continues to be a bright spot in our economy -growing roughly five percent annually 

between 2005 and 201 L To maintain this growth, our businesses depend on access to the 

nation's lands and waters and improved infrastructure in around these places. Full and 

dedicated funding for LWCF will enable communities across the nation to invest in the 

outdoor economy, create jobs and get people back to work. 

L WCF makes investments in our shared outdoor heritage- from backyards to the 

backcountry that are essential to outdoor companies, our consumers and the health and 

vitality of urban and rural communities. This program represents a promise that was 

made to the American people 50 years ago to take the proceeds from natural resource 

development in our nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and invest a small portion of 

those dollars in conservation and outdoor recreation. Yet, nearly every year, the majority 

ofLWCF funds are diverted to other, unrelated purposes. Recent bipartisan polling 

shows that 85 percent of American voters want and expect the nation to continue to 

invest in LWCF, a level of support that has been consistent over the years regardless of 

demographic, income and political differences. 

Our businesses, and the 140 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation 

each year, depend on LWCF for a healthy environment, high quality oflife and access to 

outdoor recreation. Full, dedicated funding and the reauthorization ofLWCF will help 

our businesses grow and give Americans more places to enjoy high quality outdoor 

recreation. 
245 


Insert offset folio 173 here 95271.173

We urge you to support a long-term solution for LWCF that includes full funding at $900 

million annually, and look forward to working with you to find this solution that will 

protect and grow our outdoor economy. 

Sincerely, 

22 Designs 

2"d Wind Sports 

Adventure 16 

Amer 

American Alpine Institute 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Arc'teryx 

Backwoods 

Benchmade Knife Company 

Black Diamond 

Blue Ridge Marathon 

Brook Hopper Consulting 

Broudy/Donohue Photography 

Buff, Inc. 

Burton 

California Canoe & Kayak 

Camelbak 

Cascade Designs 

Cascade Web Development 

Cedar Industries, Inc. 

Centro 

Chaco 

ClifBar & Company 

Coach-Net 

Coaxsher Inc. 

ColdAvenger 

Confluence 

Conservation Alliance 

Conservation Legacy 

Corporate Image Outfitters 

Deckers 

DRO Davidson River Outfitters 

Eagle Creek 

Eagle's Nest Outfitters, Inc. 

ECCO USA, Inc. 

Eddie Bauer 

Elemental Herbs 

ExOfficio 

Exxel Outdoors 

Farm to Feet 

Feathered Friends 

FiT AD 

Fly Low Gear 

Fontana Sports Specialties 

Footloose Communications 

Glacier Clothing Company 

GO Outside Festival 

Good To-Go 

Gore- Tex 

Grassroots Outdoors Alliance 

Greens pace 

HB Tune 

HOWADESIGN 

Ibex 

Joovy 

KEEN, Inc. 

Kelty 

Kialoa 

Kinderlift 

Klean Kanteen 

Kokatat 

Liberty Mountain 

Lightspeed Outdoors 

LOW A Boots 

Lucy 

Marmot 

MercuryCSC 

Merrell 

Metolius Climbing 

Midwest Mountaineering 

Morsel Munk 

Mountain Gear 

Mountain Hardwear 

Mountain Khakis 

MTI Adventurewear 

Mystery Ranch 

Nantahala Outdoor Center 

NEMO Equipment, Inc. 

Nester Hosiery 
246 


Insert offset folio 174 here 95271.174

New Hampshire Division of Parks and 

Recreation 

Nikwax 

Northwest Rafting Company 

Notogroup 

Oboz Footwear 

Osprey Packs 

Outdoor Divas 

Outdoor Gear Exchange 

Outdoor Research 

Outdoor Retailer 

Outpac Designs 

Outward Bound 

Pachner & Associates, LLC 

Patagonia 

Perpetual Motion NW 

Petlzl 

Pinnacle Outdoor Group 

Piragis Northwoods Company 

PlumRive, LLC 

Prana 

Quickfeat 

Rainy Pass Repair, Inc. 

Redington 

REI 

Revolution House Media 

Rio 

Rising Tide Associates 

River Sports 

Roanoke Outside Foundation 

Ruffwear 

Rutabaga 

Sage 

Sanitas Sales 

SCARPA North America, Inc. 

Schoeller Textil USA 

Sea to Summit 

Seattle Sports Company 

Sierra Designs 

SmartWool 

Smith Optics 

Snugpak 

Sorensen's Resort 

SylvanSport 

Tahoe Mountain Sports 

Talic, Inc. 

Terra Public Relations 

The Corps Network 

The Forest Group 

The Mountain Lab 

The North Face 

The Trail House 

Thule 

Timberland 

Toad& Co. 

Turtle Fur 

Under Solen Media 

Uretek LLC 

Vans 

Vapur 

Vasque 

Verde Brand Communications 

Vibram USA 

Warehouse Rock Gym 

Western River Expeditions 

Western Spirits 

Wild Places, LLC 

Wild Things, LLC 

Wilderness Press and Menasha Ridge 

Press 

Woolrich 

Worthwild 

Yakima Racks 

Zumiez 
247 


Insert offset folio 175 here 95271.175

April 21, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senator 

Chairwoman, Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senator 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senate Chairwoman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, 

We, the undersigned members of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids (OAK), urge you to permanently 

reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF provides critical 

resources for ensuring that children, youth and families are able to spend time outdoors. 

The Outdoors Alliance for Kids is a national strategic partnership of businesses and non-profit 

organizations representing more than 30 million individuals from diverse sectors with a common 

interest in expanding the number and quality of opportunities for children, youth and families to spend 

time outdoors. OAK supports public policies and investments that expand outdoor and environmental 

education opportunities, promote community health and well ness, and engage more youth in 

environmental stewardship. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the most successful government programs in modern 

history. LWCF is built on the simple premise that as we extract oil and gas from the earth, we should 

give something back in the form of protecting places for current and future generations. Created 50 

years ago, LWCF takes a portion of royalties from offshore oil and gas development and invests that 

money in protecting America's most important lands- whether our iconic national parks or our 

neighborhood parks and playgrounds. 

Protection of land through LWCF increases opportunities for play and recreation that help keep our kids 

fit and healthy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly two-thirds of 

Americans cannot safely walk to a park from their home. A lack of safe places to play and recreate 

outdoors is a contributor to the childhood obesity epidemic. LWCF increases opportunities for children 

and youth to get physically active- whether in their own neighborhood or on a school or family trip to 

our national parks or public lands. The Fund also provides opportunities for children and youth to learn 

about the natural world and participate in environmental stewardship activities that help them develop 

critical life and leadership skills. 
248 


Insert offset folio 176 here 95271.176

With LWCF expiring this September, we hope your committee will focus on ensuring this highly 

successful program is permanently reauthorized and fully funded. The success of the federal land 

acquisition and state and local assistance programs over the last half-century shows what this program 

could do if fully funded. It is essential that we continue to provide ample opportunities for young people 

to get outdoors regardless of whether they live in urban, rural or suburban areas. 

LWCF protects our open spaces, near and far, and improves access to them for all Americans. As your 

committee examines LWCF, we believe it is clear the program provides incredible value to the American 

people and especially children and youth. In addition to the health and well ness benefits our public 

lands provide, the outdoor recreation economy which is built on the protection of our national, state 

and local treasures, contributes $646 billion to the economy and provides 6.1 million jobs in America. 

We have all benefited from the foresight of the visionaries who created LWCF, and we ask that you also 

look to the needs of future generations and support this critical program. 

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this request. We look forward to having your 

support for the permanent reauthorization and full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Should you or your staff have any questions about this letter, please contact OAK's Chair Jackie Ostfeld 

at 202-548-6584 or J<Jckie.Ostfeld(iilsierradub.org. 

Sincerely, 

ACA I Canoe-Kayak-SUP-Raft-Rescue 

American Forests 

American Hiking Society 

American Society of Landscape Architects 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy 

Association of Outdoor Recreation and 

Education 

Big City Mountaineers 

Children & Nature Network 

Choose Outdoors 

Kids4Trees 

Hipcamp 

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater 

lslandWood 

International Mountain Bicycling Association 

lzaak Walton League of America 

National Military Family Association 

National Park Trust 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Recreation and Park Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

North American Association for Environmental 

Education 

O'Neill Sea Odyssey 

Outdoor Foundation 

Outdoor Industry Association 

Outdoors Empowered Network 

REI 

Sierra Club 

The Maryland-National Capital Park and 

Planning Commission 

The Wilderness Society 

Transforming Youth Outdoors (TYO) 

Trust for Public Land 

YMCA of the USA 
249 


Insert offset folio 182 here 95271.182

Plum Creek Timber LOmJnUliY 

April21, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairwoman 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natttra! Resources Committee 

The H.onorable Maria Cant\ivell 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Port 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Tree Farms 

We are writing to express our strong support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(L WCF), and to in ensuring that this program is reauthorized and ""'m"""'"t 

funded at its million. As 

arnllt·oact•es. reauthorization ofLWCF is of the utmost imjlortanice. is to our ability 

local and maintain jobs in the woods, to 

meet our nation's forest product recreation access tu sportsmen and others, and 

to ensure the future of America's forest 

As some of the nation's major 

economic benefits that L WCF brings, nH'~"'"'nr~v 

Forest Legacy Program is a flexible effective tool 

economy, particularly in rural areas. According to the of Forest Owners, 

U.S. forests support more than 2.9 million jobs and contribute $115 billion towards the GDP. 

The Forest Legacy Program has led to the conservation of over 2.2 million acres 

forest lands, primarily through conservation with almost 50 percent 

project costs leveraged from other non-federal sources. is a voluntary conservation program 

that brings together federal, state and private partners to achieve the common goals of protecting 

and maintaining recreational access, wildlife habitat and clean water. 

L WCF brings crucial and varied benefits to participating communities and to 

business operations. Each year, however, the time-sensitive demands for funding through 

and its component programs far surpass appropriated levels. As in these programs, 

and in light of numerous multiyear projects under consideration or underway, we 
250 


Insert offset folio 183 here 95271.183

recognize that secure, long-term L WCF funding will provide reliability and stability that is 

essential for our business plans. 

Now more than ever, it is critical to enact legislation that will provide a longcterm solution for 

this vital program. 

Finally, we want to remind you that the L WCF does not use taxpayer dollars. It is already paid 

for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. The L WCF program was created to 

offset the depletion of natural resources offshore that belong to all Americans, and it should be 

empowered to fulfill that promise without further diversion of its intended funds. 

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Plum Creek Timber Company 

Hancock Forest Management 

Pope Resources I Olympic Resource Management 

Washington Forest Protection Association 

Green Diamond Resource Company 

Port Blakely Tree Farms 
251 


Insert offset folio 184 here 95271.184

IliA EMAIL AS ATTACHMENT 

July 29, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

As Director of Business Plum Energy, a Pacific Northwest developer of 

small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilfties and value chains, I want to take just a 

moment to laud your leadership on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). 

Considered a dean energy source, LNG is a fuel recognized as environmentally friendly, 

and I am always looking for ways to strengthen that contribution. Your tireless efforts in 

supporting LWCf have .had a significant impact on the ability of citizens of the Pacific 

Northwest to access recreational opportunities and preserve wildlife habitat. LWCF also 

supports working forests at the local, state, and federal levels. the Forest 

legacy Program, critical timberlands are kept forested, accessible, and are able to 

continue providing jobs in rural communities, 

As a graduate of Wfllamette University, I can point to literally dozens of examples of the 

positive impacts of LWCF in my adopted state; protecting and enhancing places like the 

Oregon Dunes on the coast to the Hells Canyon Nation Recreation Area on the eastern 

border, and many more in between. And that goodness also extends into Washington 

State, where Plum has its headquarters. LWCF makes the Pacific Northwest a 

great place to live, play, and do business. 

Funded through fees from oil and gas development of America's ocean floor, lWCF is an 

example of resource industries contributing to society for the ability to access and utilile 

publically owned resources. I appreciate your steadfast support of LWCF and am 

grateful for your leadership. 

Most sincerely, 

Jan Burkheimer 

Director of Business Development 

Of'MCII!. 16040 CHRISTENSEN RD, STE 20!1. SEATTLE. WA 11618!1 

1". 425·55N!69!ll P. 253-237-2106lll!.lAN.BURKHEIMER@PLUMENERGY.COM j 11!1. PLUMENERGY,COM 
252 


Insert offset folio 185 here 95271.185

i'ortlandGenera/.conr 

AugustS, 2014 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

U.RSenate 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden: 

Thank you for your leadership on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). 

At Portland General Electric we take environmental stewa:rrlshin 

diligently to incorporate renewable resources into our 

adoption of electric vehicles and 

signifiicm1t resources to protecting birds 

Support from the LWCF has enabled conservation effurts 

many waterways, like the Deschutes, Cl!1ck:am:as 

salmon stee!head runs and created new facilities. The L WCF is a 

we are worki.ng 

leveraging smart cooservation initiatives and aligns with many of our own su~:tainat>ililty 

Thank you, again, for your continued work to protect Oregon's natural treasures. Your unwavering 

support of the LWCF is greatly appreciated, 

Director, Government Affairs and Envirorunental Policy 
253 


Insert offset folio 186 here 95271.186

Input and Statement for the Record 

By 

Gerald E. Hillier, Executive Director 

QuadState Local Governments Authority 

Submitted to: 

United States Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reform of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

April 22, 2015 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee for permitting me to make 

a statement for the record as a follow-up to the April 22, 2015 hearing on the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF). The federal land acquisition component of this fund and program is a critical 

and important issue among our membership. 

QuadState Local Governments Authority is a nine-county multi-state joint powers authority. The 

counties in our organization organized in 1999 regarding issues associated with the listing and 

subsequent management of public lands associated with the listing of Mojave Population ofthe desert 

tortoise. While retaining that interest, and extending it to the proposed listing of the Sonoran 

Population of desert tortoise in Arizona, we have expanded our interests to include advocacy involving a 

variety of public land issues facing public land dominated local government jurisdictions in the 4-state 

region of the Southwest. 

Virtually all of our counties oppose further expansion of federal estate within their jurisdictions. And 

even those with smaller proportions of public land have reservations regarding expansion of the federal 

ownership and jurisdiction. Much of the concern involves loss of tax base without offsetting payments 

from the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. I will provide some direct commentary on 

that at a point further in this statement. Suffice it to say here that LWCF and PILT are inexorably linked 

as regards counties with significant percentages of federal entitlement acreages. 

In the recent past, several of our member counties have experienced significant losses in private land for 

a variety of purposes, whether by direct acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF), by acquisition by third parties and NGOs for ultimate sale or donation to federal or state 

agencies for management, or by direct "donation" under a philosophy called "compensation" which 

involves transfer of private land to public agencies for mitigation for projects undertaken within habitat 

of listed or candidate species. 

So that it does not get lost in this full statement, I wish to present our recommendations for the LWCF 

program going forward, the principal theme of the April 22, 2015, hearing. 

1. That federal land acquisitions be viewed as a minimum program, and that open ended funding 

not be provided to the land management agencies. There is belief in many quarters now that 

most cannot adequately administer what they currently have, let alone take on additional 

responsibility. In the future all proposed acquisition must be presented, vetted and approved by 
254 


Insert offset folio 187 here 95271.187

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of lWCF, April 22, 2015 

the appropriate Congressional committees on merit and need for expansion of the federal 

estate. 

2. Establish a requirement that all federal acquisitions receive concurrence from the affected local 

government prior to its inclusion in a budget submission. 

3. When land is federally acquired, the losing county will receive property tax payment equivalent 

to the taxation level at the time of acquisition, in perpetuity. In other words, extend Section 

6904 provisions of PllT to all federal agencies, whether the land is in wilderness or not, and 

extend the payments in perpetuity. We see no reason for the 5-year cutoff of these payments. 

This is an especially critical point in counties that are capped under the PllT formula, which are 

most of those in rural and desert West. When this provision was developed in 1976 with 

passage of the PllT legislation, it was assumed acquired lands outside of NPS administration and 

National Forest wildernesses would be added to the productive federal estate and provide 

income and revenue streams to both local governments and local economies. Times have 

changed, and legislation must reflect that most current acquisitions are for "conservation" or 

protection of habitats, and are not likely to be added to a source of revenue production or 

economic growth. 

4. Eliminate federal land acquisition and the concept of "compensation" for mitigation. Agencies 

need to be challenged to come up with innovative and creative means of project mitigation, but 

acquiring a larger federal estate should not be one of them. Further, such compensation adds 

to the federal estate without congressional oversight. As pointed out below, such 

compensation is often at ratios that reach 5 acres "donated" for every acre subject to use or 

development. 

5. Restrict the operation of land trusts activities who acquire private land for the purpose of 

conservation or protection (non-development), with a business plan or model that has the land 

ultimately acquired by a federal agency with lWCF funds. land trusts can often move much 

more quickly to acquire available private land than can an agency, but the process sets in 

motion a track for reimbursement at fair market value after federal acquisition funds are 

appropriated. And in some cases this activity scenario has the land trust setting the acquisition 

priority, and neither the agency nor Congress. At a minimum, a holding period of, say, ten {10) 

years should be applied before any federal reimbursement is made, though gifting, at no cost to 

the federal government would continue. But such gifting should still be subject 

6. Undertake a review of all land acquisition programs initiated by the federal agencies, regardless 

of authority or funding. Conclude the review by adopting direction to the agencies regarding 

acquisition criteria, limitations, and integration of corresponding disposal of unneeded federal 

lands within the same jurisdictions to offset property tax losses. This would specifically include 

those acquisitions that carry out Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under Fish and Wildlife 

Service agreements, as well as the Department of Defense Readiness and Environmental 

Integration (REP I) Program. There may be others. 

2 
255 


Insert offset folio 188 here 95271.188

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

7. Consider changes to the basic LWCF to allow direction of funds to activities other than land 

acquisition by federal agencies, specifically toward maintenance of infrastructure and public 

facilities which are integral part of management of sites and areas for public benefit. It has 

become clear that the maintenance backlog will never be reduced if reliance is placed solely on 

appropriated operating funds. 

The concern of our membership regarding federal land acquisition can best be summed up by a concept 

that seems to have emerged which I call re-federalization of the West. Despite controlling some 75% or 

more of many counties in the West, the agencies, and some from the public, still seek lands which 

passed to private ownership over the past 150 years but which today are believed to today to possess 

public values for "conservation." Simply stated, federal acquisition of these private lands will limit 

future development opportunities, including access to minerals which are increasingly difficult to 

develop even with legislated protections to "valid existing rights." 

The second concern of our membership regarding federal acquisitions is de-population of the West. 

While many acquisitions are aimed at specific tracts, many have occurred regarding ranching and 

farming operations that have become "in holdings" within newly established National Park units or 

simply offered for sale to developers (currently dominated by renewable energy firms) to provide for 

meeting mitigation requirements for the project proposals. When ranches are sold, and federal grazing 

privileges are retired, the families are gone, and a presence on the vast federal land estate is essentially 

left to a shrinking staff of BLM or NPS rangers to oversee public use. 

Re-federalization seems to have an underlying concept that the original settlement laws were somehow 

misguided, and that they must be overcome, and return the land to what it was pre-settlement, say 

1880, though with access and infrastructure being present as current, and despite costs for maintenance 

and provision of services. Such provision of services, included emergency services for search and rescue 

are largely a function of local government, and are expected, even with reduced tax revenue streams 

which are the result of federal acquisitions with no offsetting revenue. 

In our experience both re-federalization and de-population seem to have an underlying bias against 

resource use and development such as mining and ranching. Renewable energy projects have been 

accepted, though not without a degree of controversy relative to impacts to visual landscapes as well as 

access. 

QuadState Local Governments Authority passed a resolution in 2010 opposing further land acquisitions, 

particularly as related to private land acquisitions which were and are occurring as part of providing 

mitigation for the many renewable energy projects being proposed for the Mojave and Sonoran Desert 

parts of several of the member counties. The resolution was carried forward to the National Association 

of Counties (NACo) Public Land Steering Committee, which has continued to renew its agreement with 

it, and has now incorporated it into the NACo Platform. I am attaching a copy of the resolution to this 

testimony. It reflects a unanimous concern of the member counties, even those which are not capped 

for PILT payments, concerning shifts in land ownership from private to public ownership and control. 

3 
256 


Insert offset folio 189 here 95271.189

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

The table below presents a picture of our member counties today. 

Fed. Percentage 

County Total Entitlement of county in 

(members of acres acreage DOD federal 

QuadState within (2014 PILT major control 

LGA) county acreage) holdings (excl. DOD) 

Imperial CA 2,868,480 1,313,723 US Navy, 

West 

Mesa; 

US Navy 

Chocolate 

Mtns 

Range 45.8% 

lnyo CA 6,545,280 5,516,855 US Navy 

NAWS 84.3% 

Edwards 

Kern CA 5 223 209 1 072 553 AFB 20.5% 

La Paz AZ 2 888 960 1 848 763 63.9% 

USAF, 

Lincoln NV 6 807 680 6 411 522 Area 51 94.2% 

Mohave AZ 8 615 040 6 421 638 74.5% 

DOE, 

Nye NV 11 621 760 8 548 942 Nellis 73.6% 

San Bernardino US Army 

CA NTS; US 

Navy 

Mojave B 

Range; 

MCAGCC; 

Edwards 

12 867 200 8 420 373 AFB 65.4% 

Washington UT 1 555 200 1 146 747 73.7% 

PILT 

payment 

per federal 

entitlement 

PILT status acre (2014) 

Capped $2.57 

Capped $0.32 

Open $2.46 

Capped $1.30 

Capped $0.14 

Capped $0.54 

Capped $0.36 

Capped $0.39 

0 en $2.54 

In the table above, several counties have unique characteristics which play a role in their status and 

balance of ownership. 

> Most of the "private" land in lnyo County is owned by Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power. In addition, much of the federal land in the Owens Valley is withdrawn from disposal or 

uses that might conflict with delivery of water to Los Angeles. As a result, only about 3% of the 

county is truly private and subject to local control. 

';> Much of La Paz County is part of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) Reservation, and not 

part of either the public domain or private land. 

> Three of the nine counties have PILT computed under Alternative B, which limits payment to 

$0.36/acre, but does not subtract prior year payments. Note, however, that in all three cases, 

lnyo, Lincoln, and Nye, the counties are further limited by the population cap on payments. This 

means that any expanded federal ownership will not be reflected in offsetting higher PILT 

payments, since a county cannot receive more PILT than its population will allow. 

4 
257 


Insert offset folio 190 here 95271.190

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

In many respects Kern County is the outlier, having a smaller federal acreage, and much private land in 

the prime agricultural region of the San Joaquin Valley. Further, because of private land, and longstanding federal oil and gas leases, it has both a thriving oil and gas industry which has continued, plus 

has provided land for intensive wind energy development in the Tehachapi area. Ironically, but worth 

noting, much of that energy has been developed on private land, the remnant sections from the 

checkerboard land pattern of the railroad land grant. This is the same former railroad grant land that 

has been sought to "block up" federal holdings by both agencies and NGOs. And in the case of San 

Bernardino County the effort has been successful to a large extent. With Kern, the point is proven that 

these lands do have economic viability, if not now, perhaps sometime in the not too distant future. In 

both cases, the grant lands were largely leased to ranching operations, so they land did provide revenue 

streams. 

The capping noted in the table is a subject for another forum. Suffice it to say here that there are 

almost 200 counties which are limited in their PILT payments by the cap established by the population 

calculation in the PILT formula . 

./ The take home message from the table above is that this pattern of dominating federal land 

ownership is not unique to the QuadState LGA member counties. It is repeated throughout 

much of the West. Federal controls on development, settlement, and even historic land uses 

dominate these counties. Adding to the federal estate exacerbates the existing situation of 

diminishing economic value and agency attempts to prevent revenue-producing uses to return. 

The percentages in the table above don't tell the full story. 

lnyo County estimates that only 3% of its jurisdiction is in private ownership and can be 

developed and managed by local interests. The Naval Air Weapons Station (China Lake) takes a 

huge are in the south part of the county. The headquarters area and city where most of the 

staff reside is in Ridgecrest, which is in Kern County, thus lnyo sees no economic benefit from 

this DOD base. 

La Paz County's area is dominated by the CRIT Indian Reservation, and while there is both 

farming and gaming occurring, much revenue flow misses providing community benefits and tax 

revenue to the county. (CRIT also has an area in San Bernardino County.) 

Lincoln County County's 94% federal is actually far worse and likely closer to 98% or more. The 

entire southwest quadrant of the county is included in the U.S. Air Force Nellis Range. This area 

also contains the stuff of myths and legends, but little local revenue: Area 51. 

Mohave County's patterns of ownership and federal acquisitions are difficult to quantify since 

BLM did a major revision of federal entitlement holdings (mostly affecting BLM acreage) in 2005. 

It, too, has significant Indian Reservation land, which is not accounted for in the table. Currently 

the County is battling an acquisition effort led by Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for the Planet 

Ranch property on the Bill Williams River. Part of the ranch property lies also in La Paz County. 

BOR has sought the property for years, since it was acquired for water rights by Scottsdale. 

Arizona Game and Fish has sought the property for years to "redevelop" for the purpose of 

5 
258 


Insert offset folio 191 here 95271.191

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of lWCF, April 22, 2015 

creating/restoring wildlife habitat for implementation of the lower Colorado River Multi-species 

Conservation Plan. The acquisition is convoluted, but involves a mining company retaining some 

of the water and moving rights to another basin, some form of donation and a lease among BOR 

and AGF. What is noteworthy is that the County's concerns relative to productive private land 

and tax base have been totally ignored throughout the entire process. A congressional mandate 

was approved at the end of the 113'h Congress, directing work on the transfers to occur during 

2015. Mohave County has filed suit to restrict the transfer. 

Nye County also has far more federal estate than can be documented here. The U.S. Air Force 

Nellis Range dominates a huge area of the eastern part of the county. The Nevada Test Site of 

the Department of Energy also occupies all or part of 38 townships, some 875,000 acres closed 

to the public and economic use. Nye County is the site of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste 

Site, which has been defunded, but which would have brought at least a small amount of 

contractor and federal employment to the county from the federal land presence. 

San Bernardino County's experience is worthy of a detailed look at what has happened to its 

private acreage as well as its changes in land use. The expansion of the federal estate can be 

well documented as it has occurred over the past two decades. Its experience as the Poster 

Child regarding federal acquisition is worth detailing, since it could well apply in the future to 

any of many other counties in the West. First District Supervisor Robert Lovingood's testimony 

before the House Federal lands Subcommittee at its April 15 hearing touched on some of the 

points, and the full statement expanded on them. But they are worth repeating and expanding 

upon here, since they well may prove a model because of the inter-relationship of lWCF, habitat 

acquisition to carry out programs involving federally listed species, and the PllT program. 

o Rather than 65% federal, the County is 81% federal, with the addition of 1,929,821 acres 

of military land to the federal "entitlement" acreage used for PllT calculation. 

o Since 2000 (the first year for which we have documentation) BlM acreage has increased 

from 5,634,098 acres to 6,2218,816 acres, a gain of 584,718 acres; NPS acreage has 

increased from 1,475,471 acres to 1,679,666 acres, a gain of 204,195 acres. 

o 1994 was the year of reckoning for the County. The passage of the California Desert 

Protection Act (CDPA) led to expanded units ofthe National Park System, a new 

National Preserve administered by NPS which had much private land within it, and 

creation of some 4.5 million acres of wilderness in all three NPS units plus BlM land. 

Additionally, in 1994, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat and 

adopted its recovery plan for the desert tortoise, establishing Desert Wildlife 

Management Areas (DWMAs) which BlM adopted in subsequent planning. This covered 

6.4 million acres in the Mojave and Colorado Desert region across the four states. 

54.5% of all critical habitat lies in San Bernardino County, representing 7 of the 16 

critical habitat units. This sets in motion conservation and protection programs, not 

only in San Bernardino but all the other counties belonging to QuadState, with the 

exception of la Paz. (la Paz has its own issue with the Sonoran Population where listing 

of the tortoise is pending.) 

6 
259 


Insert offset folio 192 here 95271.192

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of lWCF, April 22, 2015 

o The CDPA established the Mojave National Preserve, transferring a million and a half 

acres from BlM multiple use management to National Park Service. Even though 

livestock grazing was specifically allowed to continue in the region, within three years all 

but one of the ranch operations had been purchased by a conservation organization, the 

leases retired, and the private base property turned over to the Park Service. We 

surmise the source of ultimate federal acquisition had to involve lWCF funds. These 

acquisitions contributed to the de-population of the region, as well as its refederalization. NPS paid the ranchers for their property, and then contracted with them 

to dismantle the ranch infrastructure (fences, well equipment, pipelines, etc.) and 

allowed them to salvage the materials. 

o A second anecdote will also add to the aggressiveness with which federal acquisitions 

occur. With the passage ofthe CDPA, the southeast boundary of Death Valley National 

Park was extended east to State Highway 127 and added the Ibex Dunes and Ibex 

Mountain, just south of the In yo County line. The owners of Rainbow Talc Mine had just 

received approval of their plan of operations for re-opening a high value talc mine from 

BlM as the CDPA was passed. The NPS indicated, as the new landlord, the miners must 

start over with full EIS required. After two years of wrangling and analysis (and even 

presentation at a House hearing in the 1996-97 period) NPS finally worn the owners 

down, and paid them for the property. The primary value from the NPS standpoint was 

the presence of a hand-built headframe that the claimants had built over the past 30 

years. (Death Valley NP celebrates its mining past, but assures little to none occurs in 

the present.) From an easy drive to the mine on a dirt trail, access to see the historic 

headframe is now a five-mile hike, and beyond the capacity of most visitors to ever see, 

and the high quality mineral has been removed from any economic use. This pattern 

has been repeated throughout the Southwest, and is likely to continue for the 

foreseeable future as long as "conservation" legislation continues to be passed, and 

National Monuments are administratively designated under the Antiquities Act. 

All of these factors have combined to drive the 788,913 of private land that has been lost to 

federal ownership and control in the county. A significant part of this total transfer was the 

result of the arrangement between the Catellus Corporation (successor to Southern Pacific RR 

land Company), a land trust, and BlM. A significant part of the final payoff for the 

checkerboard lands across the desert came from the land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Currently there are proposals to place a significant part of this land in a National Monument, 

which would have the effect of confirming fears that acquired lands, even by BlM, assume a 

mantel of conservation value and multiple use takes a back seat. 

The West Mojave land Use Plan affects San Bernardino, Kern and lnyo Counties. Begun in 1990, 

it was not completed until a record of decision in 2006. It was subsequently litigated, and BlM 

is still carrying out court-ordered remediation. The Plan, even under BlM decisions, eliminated 

sheep grazing on the mixture of public and private land in the region, again part of the remnant 

railroad checkerboard land. While not advocating for private land acquisition directly, its 

adoption of the DWMA pattern as tortoise conservation areas (TCAs), and doubling for Mohave 

7 
260 


Insert offset folio 193 here 95271.193

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

ground squirrel habitat, it laid out a potential program for reducing or eliminating private land in 

the region. This has proved to be a target for directing persons needing mitigation land to 

acquire for subsequent "donation" to either the BLM or the State of California. (It is fair to note 

that the QuadState member counties intervened in the litigation on West Mojave on behalf of 

the government. The Authority argued on behalf of the Endangered Species Act aspects of the 

case regarding tradeoffs of mitigation and application of the ESA. The Federal District Court 

approved that aspect of the arguments, remanding only BLM's route designations in the region.) 

Outside our QuadState LGA membership, I want to touch on the Clark County Nevada situation. Clark 

did not join the QuadState LGA, preferring to develop its own Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and 

Multi-species Conservation Plan (MSCP), and proceed in cooperation with USFWS. It collected 

development fees from those who built out the Las Vegas Valley, at $585/acre. Using these funds it 

implemented mitigation for desert tortoise, among other conservation actions. While not under the 

aegis of the LWCF, it does reflect the degree to which federal and local officials will aggressively seek 

private land and abate legally authorized activity on public land which is deemed adverse to species 

conservation and recovery. With funds from the development fees, FWS agreed that getting rid of 

permitted livestock grazing was an appropriate mitigation. Clark County then offered to buy out all the 

grazing permits and ranches in the County, 52 in all. All but one sold. (The exception, Ammon Bundy, is 

a case in itself, but I have been assured that he was made an offer.) The point here, once again is the 

de-population effect of land acquisitions regardless of which agency or level of government carries them 

out. In this case, 51 ranch families were eliminated, and it was driven by USFWS and its conclusions that 

domestic livestock use on the range was deleterious to maintaining and improving desert tortoise 

habitat. This was a specific recommendation in the Service's 1994 Recovery Plan. 

A revised recovery plan for desert tortoise was prepared by FWS in 2011. As part of moving forward and 

gaining improved commitment for implementation, FWS organized Recovery Implementation Teams, 

and work groups. They were composed of biologists, a few user representatives, and a single local 

government representative on each of the work groups. Those groups, of which there were three work 

groups in California, three in the Nevada-Arizona-Utah area, and one covering the Red Cliffs Reserve in 

Utah, near St. George. All continued to press for land acquisition as being a top priority action item. 

Renewable energy development created a land rush in the desert. Developers have sought siting for 

projects, primarily solar, but also for wind. Even though excluded from prime desert tortoise habitat, 

most projects, particularly solar, took large areas, some of which unavoidably included habitat for 

tortoise and other species of concern such as Mohave ground squirrel, burrowing owl, and a variety of 

plant species. As a result, developers bought, or took options on available tracts of private land 

throughout the desert because the wildlife agencies, state and federal, required "compensation," at a 

rate often equal to 3:1 and at times reaching 5:1. Three to five acres of private land donated to 

conservation for every acre upon which development is allowed! These compensation lands are then 

either transferred to BLM if public land development is involved, or to the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (CDFW) for private land development. So besides the federal acquisitions which are the 

subject of this hearing, counties have also lost a substantial private acreage to the State of California, 

particularly in an area west of Barstow in the Harper Lake area. 

8 
261 


Insert offset folio 194 here 95271.194

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

The current culmination ofthis program, which affects all four California counties of QuadState, is the 

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). None ofthe counties have signed on (though 

they have participated in meetings and coordination activities), and after release of the draft, BLM and 

the State of California have opted for proceeding with a go-it-alone process. That said, the plan will lay 

out areas upon which renewable energy can take place with minimal environmental impacts. The 

concern is the designation of major "conservation areas" which will serve to mitigate the allowable and 

targeting development goal. Given the amount of wilderness already created in the desert part of 

California under previous acts of Congress, counties are apprehensive regarding additional areas that 

will be set aside for "conservation" which most conclude is restricted use or non-use, and will carry 

further pressure to wipe out private land "inholdings." 

Also continuing is the DOD REP I program. This program, Readiness and Environmental Protection 

Integration, has been active in seeking acquisitions. About three years ago a contract between the Navy 

at China lake and Edwards AFB with The Nature Conservancy sought lands around the bases so as to 

eliminate private land and maintain base boundary integrity without base expansion. It was not 

successful because it coincided with the renewable energy land rush, but it is our understanding it will 

be returning to the desert soon, with emphasis around Ft. Irwin this time. 

One of the issues which draws our negative concern about land acquisitions by the federal agencies 

involves a fundamental tenant of BLM which seems to be disappearing: multiple use land management. 

Acquired lands have increasingly taken on an aura of "conservation lands" which in large part means 

non-use. This is particularly true of mitigation lands. The wildlife agencies insist that non-compatible 

uses such as livestock grazing be prohibited and mining be restricted or prohibited. One of the driving 

forces behind the proposed Mojave Trails National Monument in California in the recently introduced S. 

414, besides protecting iconic Route 66, is to permanently assure the former private land transferred to 

BLM in 1999 and 2000 will not be available for solar or other leases on the acquired land. The National 

Monument would also withdraw the land from the operation of the mining laws from entry and 

location. 

What has all this land acquisition cost? From a direct economic sense of uses foregone, it is impossible 

to analyze a negative. We don't know what kinds of enterprises might have made use of the private 

lands which counties have lost throughout the region. We do know that in the west desert sheep 

grazing which had been an annual activity in the spring for over 100 years, has disappeared. While this 

was the direct result of the desert tortoise listing and a jeopardy opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the secondary effect was that the owner of the private land who leased to the ranchers lost their 

revenue source, thus speeding a decision to simply dispose of land that could no longer produce 

revenue. 

We also know, with the establishment of the Mojave National Preserve NPS and a conservation 

organization moved quickly to liquidate all of the ranching in this valuable high country of the Mojave in 

San Bernardino County. One outfit remains, by choice. But the private land, and the ranching families, 

are gone, as are the support facilities. A similar scenario has played out in Nevada under the aegis of the 

HCP. Part of the effect of re-federalization of land in the West is also de-population of the rural areas of 

the West; they go hand in hand! 

9 
262 


Insert offset folio 195 here 95271.195

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of LWCF, April 22, 2015 

De-population does not mean any less demand for services, especially from County governments. Even 

without residents, the public still needs the county road network, and by inviting more people to visit 

the wildlands the need for emergency services such as search and rescue, and even law enforcement 

actually increase, even with lower revenue coming in. 

What we do know, but can't fully document, is the continuing and permanent loss of county property 

tax revenue. Most of the desert's undeveloped land did pay $1.00 or so per acre in property tax every 

year. Since the total has changed each year, both with respect to actual acreage increasing, and changes 

in private land lost, either to federal, state, or land trust acquisition, and tax rates also change at the 

margin. The areas around the ranches which contained structures were assessed at higher values. It is 

fair to estimate that San Bernardino County, on the basis of the acreages, locations, and assessed 

valuations that the County has lost $1 million to perhaps $1.5 million per year in tax revenue form the 

direct loss of tax base. This loss is in perpetuity, not counting the foregoing of any future economic use 

or activity. Using 2000 as a base year, I will opine that San Bernardino County has lost between 

$15,000,000 and $20,000,000 in tax revenue over the past 15 years. Other counties in the QuadState 

organization have not experienced this degree of loss, but the potential exists for other states to lose 

private lands to a similar extent. 

And relative to economic opportunity I want to bring to the Committee's attention that in California 

industrial-sized solar development has been made tax exempt. So without changes in state law 

removing this status so counties can receive some revenue flow from renewable energy, that 

development source is off the board for revenue flow. And from a federal perspective, there is no 

revenue sharing with local governments from lease payments or royalties. 

I could not make this statement without specific reference to the Payment in lieu of Taxes (Pil T) 

program. While surprising, there is an almost universal lack of knowledge among federal field officials 

regarding this program and its calculations. If there is knowledge, there is the myth, that some have 

reported to me having seen in writing, that land acquisitions cost the county nothing, "they'll just get it 

back in PILT." The table at the beginning of this statement reflects federal payments to each of our 

member counties. For the 2014 payment, the PILT base payment was $2.58 per acre under Alternative 

A, and $0.36 per acre under Alternative B. Without getting into the weeds on Pll T formulas, suffice it to 

say that the optimum or sweet spot for Pll T payment is approximately 1.3 million entitlement acres. 

Above that, and with 50,000 population, PILT remains a constant, adjustable only by the inflation factor 

built into full-funding or the appropriations process. 

,/ The take-home message is simply that for large federal land counties such as lnyo, Nye, Mohave 

and San Bernardino, the transfer of private land to the federal estate, results in no Pll T to offset 

the loss. 

There is an exception. Under Section 6904 acquisitions in National Park Service administered areas, and 

areas within National Forest Wilderness Areas, continue to pay property taxes on acquired land, but 

only for five years. Among our membership the 2014 payments were $1,276 for lnyo County, $22,254 

for San Bernardino, and $76 to Washington County. When Pll Twas written in 1976, there was an 

underlying assumption that private lands acquired in the national forests or BLM areas would produce a 

revenue stream to the agencies and potentially the economic activity would yield benefits to local 

10 
263 


Insert offset folio 196 here 95271.196

Gerald Hillier 

Post-hearing Input Statement 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Re: hearing on reauthorization of lWCF, April 22, 2015 

government. The times have changed, and this outlook is no longer viable. In Clark County Nevada, at 

least its model provided for private land development in the valley, which added to tax base, and offset 

the losses in economic activities on public land and the loss of tax base in rural areas. 

In conclusion, I recommend that committee undertake a review of all federal land acquisition programs, 

both in the context of the reauthorization of the land and Water Conservation Fund, and in providing 

oversight to all the other means in which federal agencies acquire private land and set them aside for 

uses (really non-use in practice) outside their mandated mission. This hearing is likely the start of such a 

review. 

In summary I recommend: 

1. land acquisitions by federal agencies be minimized through congressional direction. 

2. Federal land acquisitions receive concurrence from local governments before they are 

consummated. 

3. Expand Section 6904 of PllT to include property tax payments from lands acquired by all federal 

agencies, and provide that such payments shall continue in perpetuity. 

4. Eliminate the concept of "compensation" as a function of mitigation. 

5. Restrict the activity of land trusts acting as brokers or middlemen in land acquisition by 

providing a minimal holding period prior to any transfer to a federal agency which involves 

payment for the land from appropriated funds. 

6. Provide a full review over all the means by which federal wildlife and land management agencies 

expand their holdings external to congressional oversight and direction, and assure a public 

process and vetting is included in such acquisition. 

7. Amend lWCF authorities to allow the use of funds for infrastructure maintenance. Such change 

in direction should have the outcome of reducing land acquisition, and not be treated as an 

additional program undertaking. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement and input to the Committee. I welcome 

comments, and offer the Authority's assistance to making further input and participation in developing a 

program which reduces the effects of land acquisitions and additions to the federal estate, and assuring 

counties retain sufficient land to provide viable economic development opportunities. 

11 
264 


Insert offset folio 197 here 95271.197

Senator Ron Wyden 

U.S. Senate 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

WalShington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

I am most grateful for 

continued presence at 

event. 

August 2!, 2{)14 

I noticed a news release from Governor Kitzhabe:t's office recently, !UU!OU11clng 

$.6$7,000 to Oregon from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

mental note to a moment to thank you for your continued lendership on this inv:a!u~tble 

funding mechanism. 

J applaud your !endershlp, '"''lf'lll!> "' 

Oregon, while helping ON:got1i~ts. 

can count on my 

tool. 

And, again, thank you for your participation in this week's summit. Your presence added 

significantly to the event. 

Sincerely, 

Sen;nor Arnie Roblan 
265 


Insert offset folio 198 here 95271.198

Sept 8, 2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

I know that you've been working diligently to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) and as a small businessman in the bfofuel industry in Central Oregon, I thought I'd 

take just a moment to give you the encouragement and appreciation for your efforts that you 

so richly deserve. 

I read of your call to re-authorize the l WCF, noting its 50th anniversary, and I share your 

passion for this important legislation which has done so much to "preserve special places in 

Oregon and across America," as you so eloquently put it. 

In Deschutes County alone, almost $2-million in lWCF monies have created numerous 

recreational opportunities including new swimming pools in Bend, a sports complex in 

Redmond, and hiking trail creation and rehabilitation all over Central Oregon. These faciHties 

are used by tens of thousands of people every year, and I have no doubt the many hikers, 

birdwatchers, swimmers and sports enthusiasts who take advantage of these remarkable public 

spaces have no idea how they were funded. 

LWCF is a critical component in creating many ofthe amenities enjoyed in here in Central 

Oregon, as well as the preservation of wildlife areas, the creation of working forests, and the 

protection of wetlands in the more rural areas of Oregon. 

I wholeheartedly encourage you to continue in your efforts to persuade your colleagues of the 

value of lWCF, and I thank you for your work. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Rola 

President, Go Bio Co 

64682 Cook Ave., Suite 71 

Bend, OR 97701 

541.410.6707 
266 


Insert offset folio 199 here 95271.199

Oct.l2,2014 

Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

! just learned of your call for permanent funding for the land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) and I want to take a moment to thank you for your efforts. My professional backgroundis in software engineering and as a university administrator, although I'm now retired, I remain 

active with nonprofrt and educational programs. My enthusiasm for the outdoors includes 

kayaking and sailing where I enjoy Identifying and observing birds, mammals and plants. 

Experience has shown me that a deep talent pool is a requirement for Oregon to successfully 

compete in the global marketplace, and Oregon's livability has been greatly enhanced by 

projects funding by lWCF. The Improvements in our recreation infrastructure, the preservation 

of our most scenic areas, and the conservation of our forests and wildlife- all benefits of 

lWCF -give Oregon an important leg up in attracting and retainlngtalented employees. We 

need the people who come here to hike in our forests, paddle our rivers and estuaries, and play 

ball on our fields. All of these have been enhanced in some way by monies brought to Oregon 

by the LWCF. So I appreciate LWCF not only as a conservation and recreation tool, but as an 

important economic development asset. 

Thank you for your leadership on permanently funding lWCF and for reminding your 

Congressional colleagues of the critical value of this important program. Your efforts are truly 

appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Schafer 
267 


Insert offset folio 200 here 95271.200

soredi 

to help business prosper 

September 10, 2014 

Honorable Senator Ron Wyden 

223 Oirl<sen Senate Office Building 

washington, oc 20510 

Dear Senator Wyden, 

It's a take a few more moments to appreciate people for their efforts, rather than ask them 

for something, so 1 am relishing this opporttJnity to thank you for your lead<>rship on the 

Land and WaterConseMlliOn Fund (LWCf), wt~Jch has had suth a significant posllive 

impact in the Jackson and Josephine Counties. 

As Executive Director of SOREO!, southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc., I 

can say that LWCF has made a lasting difference to the residents and bosinesses of the 

area. The multiple •><P•nsines and Improvements of Utl!ia Pall< bave been funded by 

monies from LWCF, as well as expansiOn of Valley of the Rogue State Park. In Josephine 

County residents and visitors have henefitted from improvement to city parks in Grants 

!'ass, Merlin, and Cave JunctiOn, a!llllanks to LWCF dollars. 

Projects like lllese provide our clll:zans with more than the opportunity to participate in 

recreation and appreciate nature as IIley also contribute to a quaflty of life that lures 

talented people to our region. Our companies frequently compete nationally for Sl<l!led 

workers so tha wond<>rful outdoor recreation opportunities funwd by LWCF llelp Southern 

Oregon be a highly d<>sirable area to live, work, and pley. 

The land and Water Conservation fund has truly played a part of making our regiOn a 

special place and we appredllt<! your contiouing leadership on this important program. 

1:bf 

Ron fox 

EJreCutive Director 
268 


Insert offset folio 201 here 95271.201

May6, 2015 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 

Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Minority 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell 

I write today as a concerned citizen with a professional background in policy research and national 

advocacy for public recreation and parks from 1967 to 2005. From 1975 until retirement I served as 

director of Public Policy for the National Recreation and Park Association, a national membership 

organization of citizens serving on public recreation and park boards and commissions, and executives 

and staff that plan, design and manage an incredible array of public resources and services. One of my 

major objectives was to engage in research in support of annual appropriations, and periodic 

improvements to the land and Water Conservation Fund Act. My organization also supported several 

other national public laws, policies and practices that enhanced recreation access and services. 

I also have a continuing personal interest in parks and recreation and their importance to the health and 

well ness of society at large; Thus, I abhor statements by public officials, the media and, on occasion, 

even the medical community who refer to the "recreational use of drugs." Statements of this nature 

reflect a basic ignorance of the importance of recreation to individuals and to society at large. The 

results of LWCF investments tend to counter thoughtless statements. 

LWCF Reauthorization and Appropriation Levels 

The principal policy objective of the act is first and foremost to improve public health through 50/50 

federal/state public partnerships and federal land systems. This requires thoughtful long term planning, 

program assessments, reliable appropriations, and many other actions to create and sustain 

intergovernmental partnerships and incentives. The 2012 annual LWCF Report (The latest available due 

to severe staff limits), reported unmet state and local needs of $18.6 billion. 

Thus, the LWCF act should be reauthorized for at least ten years and at substantially higher 

appropriation levels, consistent with the annual inflation index or some portion of it. The Presidents 

Commission on Americans Outdoors established by President Reagan and chaired by then Tennessee 

governor Lamar Alexander recommended an annual authorization of $1 billion. Since the present 

authorized funding level of $900 million annually was established in 1979 and continuing to 2015 the 

inflation index has increased by 225.2 percent or to about $3.3 billion. Other actions should also be 

taken, including regular appropriation of authorized but as yet un-appropriated balances credited to the 

LWCF Treasury account. Given the uncertainty of long-term availability of public revenues derived 
269 


Insert offset folio 202 here 95271.202

annually from the Outer Continental Shelf the fund should remain available for future generations by 

"banking" these diminishing public resources. 

Authorized Allocation Formula 

The act should be amended to return to its initial allocation formula of 60 percent state/local and 40 

percent federal land systems as established by Congress for the initial five years of the program. That 

ratio was urged by western members of the House Interior Committee, who also argued successfully 

that state and local governments in the West needed funds for development of facilities to enable public 

recreation access and use. The objective of the initial argument was reiterated by witnesses before the 

Reagan Commission who repeatedly urged members to emphasize policies and funds that addressed the 

need for "close to home" investments. No one should ignore the public imperative to conserve and 

expand the several public values associated with our national resource systems, but recreation use of 

state and local parks tend to dwarf the federal numbers. 

LWCF Program Responsibilities 

During subsequent amendments to the act a House-Senate conference committee adopted an 

amendment, at the recommendation of a western state U.S. senator, that the allocation formula be 

reversed to provide that "not less than 60 %" of annual appropriations be available for land acquisition 

in the four federal systems-national parks, forests, refuges, and the public domain (BLM). That 

amendment, of course, removed all protection for the state/local grants program. 

In an equally stressful action, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (1962)/Heritage Conservation and 

Recreation Service was abolished by secretarial action and its several functions, including alllWCF 

responsibilities, (importantly budget development and requests), were transferred to the National Park 

Service. NPS, of course, as a major federal land managing agency has competing budget interests, thus 

and an immediate budget "conflict of interest" was created. NPS witnesses appearing before Interior 

appropriation subcommittees frequently failed to mention the LWCF grant program, and if asked, 

replied that the budget request was adequate. Subsequently, annual budget requests and 

appropriation levels fell to about $25 million annually for a number of years. 

The committee can and should direct that budget/appropriation requests and administration of the 

LWCF Program be removed from a land management agency and placed in the Office of the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

Budget, Appropriation Levels and Conditions 

Appropriation levels should be sufficient to "make a difference," that is, to encourage state and local 

partners to engage in assessments of present and future needs, to plan investment accordingly, and to 

move aggressively to assure the availability of non-federal matching funds. The present state 

population-based apportionment formula should be retained, with an examination of the present 

Statewide Comprehensive Plan requirements to determine if plans are both strategic and truly meet 

state and local priorities. The committee should consider the practicality of inviting state congressional 
270 


Insert offset folio 203 here 95271.203

delegations to comment during their states planning process. A portion of annual appropriations should 

be retained by the Secretary of the Interior and competitively made available to focus on key national 

goals-improved health and wellness, resource conservation, environmental integrity, special urban 

and/or small community public needs, economic growth, social wellbeing, and perhaps others. The most 

critical projects, especially those in economically distressed places, should be eligible to receive a more 

favorable grant percentage/lower local or state match requirement. 

Traditional "maintenance" would continue to be ineligible as grantees would be expected to have 

sufficient governmental structure, resources, and staff qualified to protect investments. 

Protecting Aided Resources in Perpetuity-Section 6(f)(3) 

The act obligates a state, regional or local grantee to protect LWCF-aided sites {or entire sites if an aided 

project is part of a larger resource area), in perpetuity. This requirement is critical to the continued 

expansion and upgrading of a national network of park and recreation public places. Absent this 

required high degree of protection one informed individual remarked: "Absent this requirement, LWCF 

becomes just another grant program." The legacy of over 42,000 aided projects attests to this. 

I would be happy to meet with you to share further perspectives on these and other aspects of this 

statement. 

Sincerely, 

Barry S. Tindall Falls Church, Virginia 703/533-9855 c.703/231-8101 

My associates and I would be happy to discuss these remarks 
271 


Insert offset folio 204 here 95271.204

S1i\r!- CAP!lO! 

P.O. Bo:..! 10001 

!uncau. N~ 9\.18 I 1-000 I 

907-4\JS-3500 

')07-·165-.1532 

5 )()\'Vest .)evePlh /\Venue, :)wte f 700 

Governor Bill Walker 

STATE OF ALASKA 

April21, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chall·woman 

Senate & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

& Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Rob Bishop 

Chairman 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

House Resources Committee 

1329 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva, 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act was established in 1965 to help preserve, 

develop and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens. 

As you arc well aware, the Act is up for reauthorization this year. I am supportive of reauthorization 

of the LWCF program with the modifications that follow. 

While the original act indicated that 60 percent of the fund was to be available for state 

and 40 percent for federal, a 1976 amendment revised the law so not less than 40 percent 

appropriations from the fund arc to be available for federal purposes. Today) more than 80 percent 

of the fund routinely goes to federal agencies. L\VCF has been the principal source of monies for 

land acquit'iition for outdoor recreation by four federal agencies- the National Park Service, Bureau 

of !.and Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. Beginning in }'Yl998, 

LWCF has also been used to fund an array of other federal programs with related purposes. 

Per the LWCF Act, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues, monies derived from the 

sale of surplus federal real estate, and taxes on motorboat fuel are deposited into the LWCF. OCS 

revenues have historically comprised the overwhelming shatc of money used by the LWCP 

program. 

The State of Alaska has received $35,812,715 since the Act was by Congress in 1965. On 

the State has received $716,254 annually. beginning in 2006, the 

$265,474 per year. Due to the reduced amount, the State now 

of LWCF apportionments before opening a grant round for 

competition. funds have been spent on access and outdoor recreation projects 
272 


Insert offset folio 205 here 95271.205

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

The Honorable Rob 

'lbe Honorable Raul 

AprilZl, 2015 

PageZ 

throughout Alllska, such as building or 

beach access roads, wayside upgrades, 

boat-related infrastructure, crunpgrcmn,ds, 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) acccsst!Jiillty. 

As noted above, l LWCF reauthorization, but request the following modifications: 

L Reinstate the that allocates 60 percent of LWCF revenues for state 

governments percent the 

2. Continued authorization for LWCF 

3. or eliminate the ability for federal to purchase lllrge tracts of 

in the western United States. 

4. to convert land from recreational uses to other uses requited by the Act 

requirement that LWCF-funded lands remain in recreational use in 

perpetuity and allow conversions after 20 to 40 yt'l!rs. 

5. Requite state agencies to submit a Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan every 

five years ~- with a fwe if warranted. 

6. to use funds for 

renovation, restoration and stewardship and outdoor recreational facilities, as well 

states with more flexibility to use I S\ICF funds for administrative 

7. reauthorization and the expansion of Outer Continental 

development-rellltcd revenue sharing to Alaska and other states should he passed at the same 

time. 

I appreciate your consideration of my views on this important issue. If you or your staff would like 

to discuss this matter further, do not hesitate to contact Kip Knudson, my Director of State 

and Federal Relations, or ki[>.krmd.sotl@alaska.go•v. 

Sincerely, 

Bill Walker 

Govcmor 

cc: ]be Honorable Mark Myers, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Ed Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Kip aod Federal Relations, Office of the Governor 
273 


Insert offset folio 177 here 95271.177

Washington Outdoor Alliance 

Access Fund • American Alpine Club • American Whitewater • El Sendero Backcountry Ski Club 

Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance • The Mountaineers • Washington Climbers Coalition 

Washington Trails Association 

April 20, 2015 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

The Access Fund, American Alpine Club, American Whitewater, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, The 

Mountaineers, Washington Climbers Coalition and Washington Trails Association- all human-powered 

recreation organizations in Washington State- come together as a coalition on issues relating to recreation, 

access and conservation. As the group Outdoor Alliance Washington, we represent more than 34,000 

members who recreate on public lands. 

We are writing today in light of the April 22"d hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to the 

land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to share our community's perspectives on the invaluable role the 

LWCF has in creating opportunities for conservation and outdoor recreation. 

The LWCF is the only is the only federal program dedicated to the continued conservation and access to 

recreation in our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness, monuments, and other federal 

conservation lands, as well as creating and developing state and local parks. We believe that the LWCF is one 

of our nation's most important conservation programs. Protecting our nation's, and Washington State's, 

natural places so we all have access to recreate is imperative to the future of conservation and growing the 

outdoor recreation economy. LWCF has funded many projects that our membership enjoys, including closein opportunities for nature, like the Mount Si Conservation Area, as well as wilderness-based projects, both 

very important to our human-based recreation community. If it is not reauthorized in essentially its current 

form, critical lands and outdoor recreation sites all across the country will be at risk. 

We urge the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee 

to resist the call for counterproductive changes to LWCF as they work through the reauthorization process, 

and instead hold LWCF up as a shining example of an efficient and effective toolbox for every state and 

county in America to tap into when in order to address their community-based conservation and recreation 

needs and opportunities. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Sambataro, Northwest Regional Director, Access Fund 

Eddie Espinosa, Northwest Region Manager, American Alpine Club 

Thomas O'Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, American Whitewater 

Gus Bekker, President, El Sendero Backcountry Ski Club 

Glenn Glover, Executive Director, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance 
274 


Insert offset folio 178 here 95271.178

Martinique Grigg, Executive Director, The Mountaineers 

Matt Perkins, Washington Climbers Coalition 

Andrea Imler, Advocacy Director, Washington Trails Association 
275 


Insert offset folio 180 here 95271.180

April17, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairwoman 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Sen. Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

CC: Members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell, 

The Western Landowners Alliance is a \'Vest-wide organization of landowners working to 

sustain healthy, resilient and working lands. We write to express our 

full support for the re~<:wthorizatlon and funding of the Land and WZ!ter Conservation 

Fund (LWCF). The LWCF originated as a visionary bi-partisan effort to conserve this 

nation's land, water and natural resources. We share this vision. Members of the Western 

Landowners Alliance represent diverse political views and interests but find solid common 

ground in embracing our responsibility to endow future generations with the resources and 

opportunities from which we presently benefit. 

The LWCF provides important funding for the conservation of working lands, large 

landscapes economies. The Rocky Mountain Front is just one example 

of where LWCF has applied to the working landscape. The conservation of this 12,130-

acre, multi-generational family ranch through a purchased easement also accomplished 

protection on 17 miles of riparian habitat along the Teton River. LWCF dollars were 

matched in excess of 2:1 by private funds, and will be recycled into the local economy 

through the continuation of this traditional agricultural operation. 

The Forest Legacy program, funded by the LWCF, enables forest landowners to keep these 

working lands in the family, maintain healthy watersheds that benefit their communities, 

and develop forest resources upon which future generations will depend. 

5051\66 11195 3 Road #5, Santa NM 87508 info@westernlandownersaHiance.org: 
276 


Insert offset folio 181 here 95271.181

The LWCF has also helped our rural communities provide parks and recreational 

opportunities, preserve important historic, cultural sites, conserve natural resources areas, 

and supported our state and local economies, We want our children to experience and 

benefit from these lands as we have and without the LWCF, many of these opportunities 

would already have been lost 

We urge your support in the reauthorization and full funding for the LWCF, 

Sincerely, 

At 

Lesli Allison 

Executive Director 

505 466 1495 3 Caliente Road #5, Santa Fe. NM -87508 lnfo@westerniandownersam.ance.o-rg 
277 


Insert offset folio 206 here 95271.206

September 2, 2014 . 

Senator Ron Wyden 

U.S. Senate 

WILLAMETTE VALLEY 

VINEYARDS 

223 Dirksen senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Sen~·~ 

I wanted to take a moment to applaud your efforts on the issue of reauthorizing the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund {LWCF). This piece of legislation, now 50 years old, has made a significant positive 

lmpact on the state of OregonJ conserving some of the most spectacular~ most biologically diverse areas 

of our state and enhancing recreational access for all Oregonians. 

As someone who makes his livelihood from the earth - and provides jobs to more than 120 OregoniansJ 

! consider myself a steward of the land. Taking good care of our environment today1 and for generations 

to come, is the right thing to do. Monies from LWCF have protected waterways like Tenmile Creek and 

Upper Ktamath lake, expanded forest conservation efforts, and built wonderful parks- and recreation 

facilities in communities across the state. Simply put, Oregon would be diminished without the funds 

channeled here by LWCF. 

And as a businessman, I am welt aware that LWCF monies also drive economic development. City and 

county parks mean construction and maintenance jobs" as wen as serve as draws for tourists, whichr in 

turn, creates more jobs. I have no doubt that LWCF funds h(!ve contributed to significant economic 

development in some of the areas of Oregon hardest hit by the recent economic downturn. 

In dosing, Senator, tam truly grateful for your leadership on the land and Water Conservation Funds 

and urge you to continue to lead the ftght to preserve some of our most treasured landscapes. 

Sincerely, 

J::- founder 

Willamette Valley Vineyards 
278 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 207 here 95271.207

To whom it may concern: 

This last week; I had the pleasure of visiting my Oregon Senators DC offices as a volunteer with The Vet 

Voice Foundation to thank and encourage Sen. Wyden and Sen. Merkley to reauthorize and fully fund 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I'd like to share with you how important spending time 

outdoors is to me. 

As a native Oregonian the outdoors have always been a place of refuge, a sanctuary, a place 

where time stands still and my soul can find peace and healing. 

When I was in Iraq I always dreamed of returning to beautiful Oregon again and reminisced of 

times I spent with my family hiking, camping and fishing. I wanted nothing more than be surrounded by 

its towering evergreens, hike Saddle Mountain, Climb Smith Rock, and fish for brook trout in a seclude 

lake in the Cascades with my uncles. 

Since I was a young boy the outdoors have been a great part of my life and many of my brothers 

in uniform that I served with. Its home, it's what we swore to defend and swore to each other we would 

return to. Our National and State Parks give us the freedom and opportunity to come together, to 

remove ourselves from the complications of PTSD in normal day life and find simplicity; the opportunity 

to share our experiences and further build healthy relationships outside a combat zone. 

When we deploy overseas it's not just us, but also the people next to us, our families, our 

friends and neighbors, our communities. When we suffered they suffered with us. The outdoors is not 

just a healing opportunity for soldiers, but for us to reunite with the ones we love and find healing with 

them. 

I know that you are committed to continuing this wonderful program for future generations. Please 

encourage your fellow Senate members to vote to reauthorize the lWCF. Help protect our nations 

beautiful rich outdoors. Please continue the program so that our sons and daughters returning from the 

hardships of war can continue to have a place of healing and to help promote a healthy and vibrant 

outdoors for all Americans to enjoy. 

Very Respectf!JIIy, 

lLT. Matthew W. Zedwick 

Silver Star Recipient, Oregon Army National Guard 

Astoria, Oregon