Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues

Summary

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to help preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens. The law created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the U.S. Treasury as a funding source to implement its outdoor recreation goals.

The LWCF has been used for three general purposes. First, it has been the principal source of monies for land acquisition for outdoor recreation by four federal agencies—the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. Second, the LWCF also funds a matching grant program to assist states in recreational planning, acquiring recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities. Under this traditional state grant program, a portion of the appropriation is divided equally among the states, with the remainder apportioned based on need, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. The states award their grant money through a competitive selection process based on statewide recreation plans and establish their own priorities and criteria. For FY2014 and FY2015, Congress appropriated funds for a competitive state grant program in addition to the traditional state grant program. Third, beginning in FY1998, LWCF has been used to fund other federal programs with related purposes, such as the Forest Legacy program of the Forest Service and grants under the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The LWCF is authorized through September 30, 2015, to accrue $900 million annually from multiple sources. However, nearly all of the revenue is derived from oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Congress determines the level of discretionary appropriations each year, and yearly appropriations have fluctuated widely since the origin of the program. Of the total revenues that have accrued throughout the history of the program ($37.1 billion), less than half have been appropriated ($17.1 billion). FY2001 marked the highest funding ever, with appropriations exceeding the authorized level by reaching nearly $1 billion. For FY2015, the most recent fiscal year, the appropriation was $306.1 million.

A variety of issues pertaining to the LWCF are the subject of legislation, hearings, and other debate. Some of them are being considered as part of deliberations over whether to reauthorize the LWCF beyond September 30, 2015. Issues include the optimal level of funding for LWCF overall and its individual components, whether to permanently reauthorize the LWCF, and whether to retain discretionary appropriations or provide additional mandatory appropriations. Other issues involve whether LWCF funds should be used for additional purposes, such as maintenance, or set aside for particular priorities, such as securing additional access to federal lands for recreation. The priority of the state grant program vis-à-vis federal acquisition is being debated, as is how funds for this program should be apportioned among the states.

Introduction

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965¹ was enacted to help preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation resources. A main goal of the law was to facilitate participation in recreation and strengthen the "health and vitality" of U.S. citizens. The law sought to accomplish this goal by "providing funds" for federal land acquisition and for federal assistance to states in recreation planning, acquisition of lands and waters, and development of recreation facilities.

The law created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Treasury as a funding source to implement the outdoor recreation goals it set out. While the law initially did not specify the authorized level of funding, it has been amended several times to specify and provide increasing levels of authorizations. The fund was first authorized at $900 million for FY1978; the authorization has remained at this level. The fund is currently authorized through September 30, 2015, to accrue revenues of $900 million annually from three specific sources. The LWCF accumulates revenues from the federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales. To reach the annual authorized level, the fund accumulates the majority of its revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Monies in the fund are available for outdoor recreation purposes only if appropriated by Congress, except that a portion of the appropriations for the state grant program are mandatory.² The level of annual appropriations has varied widely since the origin of the fund in 1965. Of current debate is whether to reauthorize the LWCF beyond September 30, 2015, and alter the operation of the fund. Alterations under discussion include whether to permanently reauthorize the LWCF, make the appropriations mandatory (rather than discretionary), direct monies to be used for particular purposes provided for in the LWCF Act, or authorize the fund to be used for additional purposes.

Perennial congressional issues include (1) deciding the amount to appropriate for federal land acquisition, determining the level of acquisition funds for each of the four agencies, and identifying which lands should be acquired; (2) deciding the level of funding for the state grant program; and (3) determining what, if any, other purposes should be funded through LWCF and at what level. The primary context for debating these issues traditionally has been the annual Interior appropriations legislation.

The LWCF is not a true trust fund as 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 (except a portion of the state grant funds). From FY1965 through FY2015, about $37.1 billion has been credited to the LWCF. Less than half that amount—$17.1 billion—has been appropriated, leaving an unappropriated balance of $20.0 billion in the fund.³ Further, interest is not accrued on the accumulated unappropriated balance that has been credited to the LWCF. While some supporters assert that the LWCF was originally intended to be a revolving fund, whereby the money would be maintained in an account separate from the General Treasury that could accrue interest, this has not been the case. The fund's basic purpose has not been altered even though the authorizing legislation has been amended, most notably to raise the authorization ceiling and to mandate that offshore oil and gas leasing revenues should make up any shortfall from other specified financing sources.

Appropriations from LWCF have been made for three general purposes: (1) federal acquisition of land and waters and interests therein; (2) grants to states for recreational planning; acquiring recreational lands, waters, or related interests; and developing outdoor recreational facilities; and (3) related purposes.⁴ Each year, Congress determines the total appropriations from the fund, and the amount for each of these three general purposes.

The LWCF Act states that not less than 40% of the appropriations from the fund are to be available for federal purposes. This language resulted from a 1976 amendment, at a time when funds were being appropriated for federal land acquisition and for the stateside program. Funding for other federal purposes did not occur until FY1998. This provision replaced language in the LWCF Act that had provided that, "in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the Act making an appropriation from the fund," the appropriation from the fund was to be 60% for state purposes and 40% for federal purposes. That language had specified that during the first five years in which appropriations were made from the fund, the President could vary these percentages by not more than 15 points to meet the needs of states and the federal government.

(not adjusted for inflation)

(in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

Fiscal Year

Land Acquisition

Other Purposes

Total

1965

$6

$10

$0

$16

1966

$38

$84

$0

$122

1967

$36

$59

$0

$95

1968

$40

$64

$0

$104

1969

$64

$48

$0

$112

1970

$66

$65

$0

$131

1971

$168

$189

$0

$357

1972

$102

$259

$0

$362

1973

$113

$187

$0

$300

1974

$5

$71

$0

$76

1975

$122

$186

$0

$307

1976

$136

$181

$0

1977

$356

$182

$0

$538

1978

$491

$314

$0

$805

1979

$361

$376

$0

$737

1980

$202

$307

$0

$509

1981

$108

$180

$0

$289

1982

$176

$4

$0

$180

1983

$220

$115

$0

$335

1984

$227

$75

$0

$302

1985

$213

$74

$0

$287

1986

$121

$47

$0

$168

1987

$176

$35

$0

$211

1988

$150

$20

$0

$170

1989

$186

$20

$0

$206

1990

$212

$20

$0

$231

1991

$308

$33

$0

$342

1992

$294

$23

$0

$317

1993

$256

$28

$0

$284

1994

$228

$28

$0

$256

1995

$189

$28

$0

$217

1996

$137

$1

$0

$138

1997

$158

$1

$0

$159

1998

$896

$1

$72

$969

1999

$328

$0

$0

$328

2000

$406

$41

$20

$467

2001

$449

$90

$456

2002

$429

$144

$105

$677

2003

$313

$97

$118

$529

2004

$170

$94

$225

$488

2005

$164

$91

$203

$459

2006

$120

$30

$213

$363

2007

$120

$30

$216

$366

2008

$129

$25

$101

$255

2009

$152

$19

$104

$275

2010

$278

$40

$132

$450

2011

$177

$40

$84

$301

2012

$199

$45

$78

$322

2013

$187

$43

$74

$303

2014

$180

$48

$78

$306

2015

$178

$48

$80

$306

Notes: Figures do not reflect $76 million provided for the transition quarter from July 1, 1976, to September 30, 1976. Also, dollars represent the appropriations in the fiscal years indicated and thus are not adjusted for inflation.

Another spike occurred in FY2001, when appropriations again exceeded the authorized level and totaled nearly $1 billion. This record level of funding was provided partly in response to President Clinton's Lands Legacy Initiative, which sought $1.4 billion for 21 resource protection programs including the LWCF. It also was provided in response to some congressional interest in securing increased and more certain funding for the LWCF. The 106^th Congress considered legislation to fully fund the LWCF and to make it operate like a private sector trust fund. Such proposals sought to divert offshore oil and gas revenues to a Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) Fund and to permanently appropriate receipts credited to the LWCF, among other related purposes.

When it became clear that CARA legislation would not be enacted, Congress included aspects of the legislation in the FY2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations law (P.L. 106-291). These provisions established the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), with the LWCF as a major component in the CSC. The CSC provisions set a target for total funding for all the component programs in FY2001 at $1.6 billion, including $1.2 billion through Interior appropriations and $400 million through Department of Commerce appropriations. Under law, the target was to increase each year until it reached $2.4 billion in FY2006. However, Congress generally did not use the CSC structure in appropriating funds to the LWCF and related programs. The CSC was authorized in Interior Appropriations law through FY2006, while the Commerce Appropriations law authorized it for only FY2001.

(in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

Purpose

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

Land Acquisition

Bureau of Land Management

$8.6

$8.6

$8.9

$14.8

$29.7

$22.0

$22.3

$21.2

$19.5

$19.7

Fish and Wildlife Service

$28.0

$28.0

$34.6

$42.5

$86.3

$54.9

$54.6

$50.8

$54.4

$47.5

National Park Service

$34.4

$44.4

$45.2

$86.3

$54.9

$57.0

$52.8

$50.0

$50.8

Forest Service

$41.8

$41.9

$41.2

$49.8

$63.5

$32.9

$52.5

$49.8

$43.5

$47.5

$7.3

$7.4

—

—

$12.1

$12.1

$12.7

$12.0

$12.2

$12.0

Total Land Acquisition

$120.1

$120.4

$129.1

$152.2

$277.9

$176.8

$199.1

$186.6

$179.6

$177.6

State Grants

$29.6

$29.6

$24.6

$40.0

$39.9

$44.9

$42.6

$48.1

$48.1

Other Purposes

$213.1

$216.1

$101.3

$132.5

$83.8

$78.3

$74.2

$78.4

$80.4

Total

$366.1

$255.1

$275.3

$450.4

$300.5

$322.3

$303.3

$306.0

$306.1

Notes: Dollars represent the appropriations in the fiscal years indicated and thus are not adjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year

Appropriation for Other Purposes

Other Purposes as % of Total Appropriation

FY1998

$969.1

$72.0

7%

FY1999

$328.2

$0

0%

FY2000

$466.9

$20.0

4%

FY2001

$456.0

46%

FY2002

$677.2

$104.6

15%

FY2003

$528.9

$118.4

22%

FY2004

$488.1

$224.7

46%

FY2005

$459.0

$203.5

44%

FY2006

$362.8

$213.1

59%

FY2007

$366.1

$216.1

59%

FY2008

$255.1

$101.3

40%

FY2009

$275.3

38%

FY2010

$450.4

$132.5

29%

FY2011

$300.5

$83.8

28%

FY2012

$322.3

$78.3

24%

FY2013

$303.3

$74.2

24%

FY2014

$306.0

$78.4

26%

FY2015

$306.1

$80.4

26%

Notes: Dollars represent the appropriations in the fiscal years indicated and thus are not adjusted for inflation.

Some pending bills would expand or otherwise alter the federal purposes for which LWCF appropriations could be used. H.R. 201 (Sec. 213), for example, would authorize appropriations of $50.0 million (for specified fiscal years) for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to provide financial assistance to entities to carry out park and infrastructure projects.²⁷

Through legislation, hearings, and other debates, Congress is considering an array of issues related to the LWCF. Some of these issues arise in the broader context of whether to reauthorize the LWCF. Several issues are summarized below.

There are differing opinions as to the optimal level of LWCF appropriations. The LWCF has broad support from resource protection advocates, many of whom seek stable and predictable funding through consistent levels of appropriations. Most of these advocates seek higher appropriations in general. For instance, for several years the Obama Administration proposed appropriations of $900 million for LWCF. Some advocates have specific priorities, such as higher acquisition funding for one of the four federal agencies, the state grant program, or a particular site or area. Advocates of higher federal land acquisition funding promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive areas and natural resources.

In addition, there is broad opposition to the LWCF based on varied concerns, with opponents generally seeking reduced levels of funds for LWCF. Some opponents seek to reduce the size of the federal estate and minimize further federal acquisition of land either generally or at specific sites, especially in the West, where federal ownership is already concentrated. Other concerns involve preferences for private land ownership or state and local ownership and management of resources, impacts of federal land ownership on uses of private lands, and reduced local tax revenues that result from public ownership. For instance, for FY2016, the House Budget Committee supported reducing the federal estate, giving state and local governments more control of resources within their boundaries, and maintaining existing resources rather than establishing mandatory funding for the LWCF.²⁸ Others have sought LWCF reductions as part of a broader focus on reducing the federal deficit or on the grounds that there was inadequate cooperation among LWCF programs and between LWCF and other programs.²⁹

Some advocates of higher LWCF funding seek partial or full permanent appropriations. For instance, the Obama Administration proposed $900 million for LWCF for FY2016 through a combination of discretionary ($400.0 million) and mandatory ($500.0 million) appropriations. Further, the Administration proposed amending current law to appropriate mandatory funding of $900 million annually beginning in FY2017.³⁰ As attributes of the mandatory approach, advocates cite the certainty and predictability of program funding generally and in particular in fostering the ability of agencies to undertake multiyear, large scale, and collaborative acquisitions.³¹ They also note the existence of a dedicated funding stream for LWCF at the authorized level of $900 million and the original intent of Congress that revenues to the fund be used for the LWCF Act's purposes. Questions include how to offset any new permanent appropriations and how to allocate permanent appropriations among different LWCF programs and purposes.

Proponents of discretionary appropriations support retaining Congress's authority to determine annually the level of funding needed for LWCF overall and for the various program components. They note that through the discretionary process, the need for LWCF appropriations can be assessed in comparison with other natural resource programs and broader governmental needs. This approach also provides recurring opportunities for program oversight.

There are differing opinions as to how LWCF funds should be used. Some Members and others have asserted that maintaining (and rehabilitating) the land and facilities that federal agencies already own should take priority over further acquisitions. They sometimes cite the deferred maintenance needs of the agencies as requiring funding through additional sources, including LWCF.³² For instance, in an opening statement, the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources expressed interest in shifting "the federal focus away from land acquisition, particularly in Western states, toward maintaining and enhancing the accessibility and quality of the resources that we have."³³ Further, a 113^th Congress House bill (H.R. 5220) sought to bar funding for federal acquisitions while authorizing funding for maintenance.

Supporters of retaining a strong LWCF role in acquisition cite a continued need to preserve iconic resources and provide additional opportunities for public recreation and other land uses. They assert economic benefits of federal land ownership and improvements of federal land management through consolidation of ownership.³⁴ In addition, since federal agencies cannot use LWCF funds for maintenance, some supporters of this priority favor more funding to other accounts that can be used for maintenance while retaining the LWCF for acquisitions.³⁵ Such accounts are within the land management agency budgets as well as within the Department of Transportation (for roads).

While the public has access to most federal lands, some areas have limited access or are unavailable to the public. This is sometimes the case because private or state lands, or geographical features such as mountains or rivers, limit or block public access. Proponents of enhanced recreational access have sought to amend the LWCF Act to set aside a portion of funding for federal acquisitions for this purpose. The focus has been on acquisition of lands and interests (e.g., easements and rights of way) that support hunting and fishing, among other recreational pursuits. Proponents cite insufficient opportunity for recreating in some areas and broader health, economic, and other values of recreating on public lands.

Opposition to such a set-aside could relate to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership, preferences for prioritizing LWCF for other purposes, or satisfaction that the agencies are sufficiently prioritizing recreational access. According to BLM, for instance, "nearly 100 percent of LWCF funding over the past several years has been used for projects that enhance public access for recreation."³⁶ For the Forest Service, 39 of the 40 acquisitions completed in FY2014 with LWCF funding provided improved access or legal access where none existed, according to the agency.³⁷ However, the extent to which agencies prioritize acquisition funding for recreational access might vary among all agencies and from year to year.

One area of congressional focus has been the level of funds for the stateside program. In some years, Congress and/or the Administration have not supported funds, or have supported relatively low levels of funds, for new stateside grants. Reasons include that state and local governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland acquisition and development, the current program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate results, the federal government supports states through other natural resource programs, and large federal deficits require a focus on core federal responsibilities.

Stateside supporters contend that the program contributes significantly to statewide recreation planning, state leadership in protection and development of recreation resources, and long-term outdoor recreation in areas that are readily accessible to communities. They see the program as a way to help fiscally constrained local governments and leverage state and local funds for recreation. Further, advocates assert that investments in recreation save money in other areas; for instance, they say that these investments promote healthier lifestyles and thus save health care expenditures.³⁸

Whether to amend the LWCF Act to specify a percentage of the appropriations for the stateside program is part of the debate. The level of funding for the stateside program is likely to be of continued interest in part due to the expectation of increased funds for the program under GOMESA, beginning in FY2018.

Whether to change the way that funds are apportioned to the states has been under consideration. Under the traditional state grant program, a portion of the appropriation is to be distributed equally among the states, with the percentage varying depending on the total amount of appropriations. Further, the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to apportion the balance based on need, and population has been the biggest factor in determining need. For FY2014 and FY2015, Congress approved a portion of the state grant funds for a competitive grant program. The extent to which the state grant program should be competitive, and the criteria that should be used in any competitive program, are of ongoing interest.

Another focus has been which, if any, purposes other than land acquisition and stateside grants should be funded through the LWCF. As discussed above, whether to use the fund for maintenance is under examination. Some seek to channel LWCF funding to a broader array of purposes to protect federal lands. For instance, the Bush Administration sought LWCF funds for cooperative conservation programs through which federal land managers partner with other landowners to protect natural resources and improve recreation on lands under diverse ownership. The Obama Administration also has supported the use of LWCF funds for other purposes, although generally fewer than the Bush Administration. A factor in the debate has been the unappropriated balance in the fund, and whether to allow these funds to be used for broader purposes beyond those currently authorized. Traditional fund beneficiaries have expressed concern about expanding the uses of appropriations if that expansion is accompanied by reductions in the amount available for federal land acquisition or state grants.

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

Act of September 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq. The text of the law had been codified at 16 U.S.C. §§460l-4 et seq. It was recodified under P.L. 113-287 to 54 U.S.C. §§200301et seq.

Monies provided to the state grant program under §105, Division C, P.L. 109-432 are permanently appropriated, as discussed below.

These figures are derived primarily from the Office of Budget, Department of the Interior, http://www.doi.gov/budget/budget-data.cfm. See the entry for "Land and Water Conservation Fund: MS Excel Spreadsheet." Data updated on March 5, 2014.

Hereinafter, these purposes are referred to respectively as (1) federal land acquisition, (2) the stateside program, and (3) other purposes.

For information on the extent of federal land ownership by these agencies and the Department of Defense, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

For more information on the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, see the FWS land acquisition section of CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, by [author name scrubbed] et al.

54 U.S.C. §200306(a).

The Administration includes recreational access as among the benefits of its entire request for federal land acquisition for FY2016 ($574.9 million in discretionary and mandatory funding). However, $20.0 million was specifically requested to foster recreational access. See Department of the Interior, FY2016 Interior Budget in Brief, pp. DH-15 – DH16, http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/highlights/upload/DH013.pdf.

54 U.S.C. §200306(b).

In addition, a portion of the NPS appropriation has been specified for the American Battlefield Protection Program for grants for nonfederal acquisition of lands (and interests) in eligible battlefields. For additional information on these acquisition grants, see the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/abpp/grants/grants.htm.

These figures were provided by the NPS in a communication to CRS on July 14, 2014.

This information was provided by the NPS in a communication to CRS on July 14, 2014.

54 U.S.C. §200305(b).

Specifically, the law provides that 40% of the first $225.0 million, 30% of the next $275.0 million, and 20% of all additional appropriations are to be apportioned equally among the states.

The apportionment among states (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories), for FY2002 through FY2014, is on the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/funding.html.

For more information on the stateside program, see the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program: Federal Financial Assistance Manual on the NPS website at http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf.

See, for example, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. LASA-34-35.

Details of the grant program are at http://www.grants.gov/custom/viewOppDetails.jsp?oppId=257670.

§105, Division C, P.L. 109-432.

Ibid. Revenues generated in one year are available in the next year.

54 U.S.C. §200306(a).

The LWCF had accumulated receipts sufficient to cover an appropriation exceeding the annual authorization. Specifically, in 1997 the LWCF had a balance of $11.9 billion in unappropriated receipts, which represented the difference between the receipts into the fund and the appropriations from the fund since its creation.

A relatively small amount (less than 1%) of the total appropriations for federal land acquisition was provided to other agencies or offices (e.g., to the Office of the DOI Secretary for land appraisal services).

In addition to the measures discussed in this section, amendments pertaining to LWCF have been considered in the 114^th Congress. For instance, the Senate considered LWCF-related floor amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. One such amendment sought to permanently reauthorize the LWCF and dedicate not less than 1.5% of LWCF appropriations for recreational access. Another amendment to S. 1 sought to express the sense of the Senate that reauthorization of the LWCF should be a priority and include "improvements to the structure of the program to more effectively manage existing federal land." Neither amendment was agreed to by the Senate. Further, House and Senate committees have held oversight hearings on LWCF. See, for example, "Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment," House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, April 15, 2015, http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398249 and "Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)," Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.

As of the date of this report, action following introduction has occurred on the following bills discussed in this section: S. 338 and S. 405 are on the Senate calendar, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on S. 556.

House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2016, H.Rept. 114-47 on H.Con.Res. 27, p. 119.

See, for example, the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 2584, providing FY2012 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 14-15.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2016, p. LASA-1, http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/upload/FY2016_NPS_Greenbook.pdf.

Testimony of Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior Michael Connor, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.

For information on the deferred maintenance estimates of the land management agencies over ten years, see CRS Report R43997, Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2005-FY2014 Estimates, by [author name scrubbed].

Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., April 22, 2015, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.

See, for example, Host of Fresh Tracks and On Your Own Adventures Randy Newberg, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment, hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., April 15, 2015, pp. 2-4, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/newbergtestimony.pdf.

Statement of Senator Maria Cantwell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Reauthorization and Potential Reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., April 22, 2015, p. 3, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9a8c795c-f8fe-4168-af7c-1a89ff5a3fee.

Statement of Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Operations Steve Ellis, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing on S. 556, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 12, 2015, p. 6, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.

Testimony of the Forest Service's Deputy Chief for National Forest System Leslie Weldon, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing on S. 556, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 12, 2015, pp. 5-6, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.

As an example of testimony supporting increased funding for the stateside program, see Prepared statement of Administrator, Wyoming State Parks Administrator and Vice President of the National Association of State Park Directors Domenic Bravo, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Federal Land Acquisition and its Impacts on Communities and the Environment, hearing, 114^th Cong., 1^st sess., April 15, 2015, pp. 1-2, http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bravotestimony.pdf.