Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes October 6, 2020
and Criteria for Allocating Funds
Carol Hardy Vincent,
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.) was enacted to
Coordinator
help ensure access to outdoor recreation to promote the health of U.S. citizens. The law created
Specialist in Natural
the LWCF to implement this goal. Under the LWCF Act, the fund accrues $900 million annually
Resources Policy
in revenues, with nearly all derived in recent decades from offshore oil and gas leasing. Through

FY2020, these revenues were available only if appropriated in subsequent law (i.e., discretionary
R. Eliot Crafton
spending). The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152) makes the $900 million mandatory
Analyst in Natural
spending beginning in FY2021. The LWCF receives additional revenue under the Gulf of
Resources Policy
Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA, 43 U.S.C. §1331 note); this revenue also is

mandatory spending. Under the LWCF Act and GOMESA combined, there is a maximum of
$1,025.0 million in mandatory spending for LWCF programs for most years.
Anne A. Riddle
Analyst in Natural
The LWCF Act sets out purposes for which the fund can be used. These include land acquisition
Resources Policy

by the four major federal land management agencies—Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (FS)—and a
Laura A. Hanson
program that provides outdoor recreation grants to states. In addition, the fund has been used for
Senior Research Librarian
other programs. For instance, for about two decades, the LWCF has funded the Forest Legacy

Program (FLP, 16 U.S.C. §2103c), which provides financial assistance to states to conserve
privately owned forest lands threatened with conversion, and financial assistance under Section 6

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1535). Financial assistance under Section 6 of
the ESA is sometimes referred to as Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund grants. P.L. 116-152 prescribes a
procedure for allocating the $900 million among programs. Under the procedure, the President is to specify—generally as
part of the annual budget submission to Congress—how the monies would be allocated among accounts, programs, and
projects. P.L. 116-152 also provides that appropriations acts may specify an “alternate allocation.” Under GOMESA, the
appropriations are used only for outdoor recreation grants to states.
The allocation of LWCF funds among agencies, programs, and states has been a topic of congressional interest. Congress has
determined the total amount and type of appropriations for the LWCF, established funding allocation criteria and methods,
created and amended programs that receive LWCF funding, and overseen agency administration of LWCF-funded programs
and expenditures of related funds.
Agencies that administer LWCF-funded programs use different processes and criteria for prioritizing and allocating
appropriations. These processes and criteria are based on statutes; distribution formulas; and programmatic, agency, and state
priorities, among other factors. For land acquisition, the agencies identify priorities through selection processes that typically
progress through the field, regional, and headquarter offices. In evaluating acquisition project requests from the field,
regional and headquarter offices typically rank and score requests based on selected criteria, such as significance, urgency,
management efficiencies, preservation, recreational value, and species and habitat. For outdoor recreation grants to states, the
Secretary of the Interior allocates total funding for traditional/formula grants among states. Each state generally awards its
traditional/formula grant monies based on its own plans, priorities, and selection criteria, and NPS awards competitive grants
based on grant announcements that prioritize urban and disadvantaged areas. For the FLP, FS provides grants to states for
projects selected through a competitive process, which requires state approval and then federal approval and ranking. For
financial assistance under Section 6 of the ESA, FWS makes grants to states and territories through a combination of
formula, national, and regional allocation processes.
Throughout the LWCF’s history, varying amounts of LWCF appropriations have been allocated for use in each state. The
variation stems from diverse program requirements in law, agency mission statements, and state priorities; the extent of
federal lands and types of resources on lands; and other factors.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 23 link to page 24 Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Sources of Revenue and Mandatory Spending ..................................................................... 1
Land and Water Conservation Fund Purposes ...................................................................... 2
Amendments in the Great American Outdoors Act .......................................................... 3
Allocation of LWCF Funds Among Purposes ...................................................................... 4
Amendments in the Great American Outdoors Act .......................................................... 5
Allocation Processes and Criteria: Land Acquisition by Federal Agencies ................................ 5
Authorities for Agencies to Acquire Lands..................................................................... 5
Common Acquisition Criteria in the LWCF Act.............................................................. 6
Agency-Specific Acquisition Criteria............................................................................ 7
Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................. 7
Fish and Wildlife Service....................................................................................... 8
National Park Service ........................................................................................... 9
Forest Service .................................................................................................... 10
Allocation Processes and Criteria: Outdoor Recreation Grants to States ................................. 12
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 12
Traditional/Formula State Grants ............................................................................... 12
Competitive State Grants .......................................................................................... 13
Allocation Process and Criteria: Other Programs................................................................ 15
Forest Legacy Program............................................................................................. 15
State Process ..................................................................................................... 15
National Process ................................................................................................ 16
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund .................................................... 17
Endangered Species Act, Section 6 Financial Assistance........................................... 18
Factors Affecting Allocations Among States ...................................................................... 20

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

link to page 8 Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Introduction
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to help preserve,
develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation to foster the health of U.S. citizens. The law
created the LWCF in the U.S. Department of the Treasury as a funding source to implement its
outdoor recreation goals. The fund accrues revenues from multiple sources. Monies in the fund
are mandatory spending, al ocated among a variety of purposes.
This report first identifies the LWCF’s revenue sources and discusses the mandatory nature of the
appropriations from the fund. It next identifies the purposes for which the LWCF can be used. It
focuses on the two primary purposes that are set out in the LWCF Act—(1) land acquisition by
federal agencies and (2) outdoor recreation grants to states. It also focuses on two other programs
that have received appropriations from the LWCF for about two decades—(1) the Forest Legacy
Program (FLP) and (2) financial assistance under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The latter program is sometimes referred to as Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund (CESCF) grants.
This report then sets out the method for al ocating LWCF appropriations among the fund’s main
purposes. For each of these purposes, the report describes the processes and criteria for
prioritizing and using appropriations from the LWCF. The processes and criteria differ based on
statutes; distribution formulas; and programmatic, agency, and state priorities; among other
factors. The report concludes with a discussion of why LWCF funding has varied widely among
states since the LWCF’s origin.
In recent years, the al ocation of LWCF funds among agencies, programs, and states has been a
topic of congressional interest. Congress has several roles related to the al ocation of LWCF
funds. These roles include determining the total amount and type of appropriations for LWCF
programs through enactment and amendment of statute. For instance, under the LWCF Act,
Congress set the appropriations at $900 mil ion annual y. Previously, the monies had been
discretionary, as discussed in the next section. More recently, through enactment of the Great
American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), Congress amended the LWCF Act to permanently
appropriate the $900 mil ion (i.e., mandatory appropriations). Congress also has established
methods of al ocating LWCF funds, as per the al ocation method set out in P.L. 116-152. (See
herein “Amendments in the Great American Outdoors Act” under “Al ocation of LWCF Funds
Among Purposes.”) Further, through statute, Congress has established programs and activities
which receive LWCF funding. Congress may add, alter, or abolish such programs or change their
eligibility for LWCF monies. The outdoor recreation grants to states program, for instance, is
established in statute and has been amended over time. Further, Congress oversees agency
management of programs that receive LWCF funding and agency expenditures of LWCF
appropriations.
Sources of Revenue and Mandatory Spending1
The LWCF Act provides for $900 mil ion in specified revenues to be deposited annual y into the
LWCF.2 Under these provisions, the fund accumulates revenues of $900 mil ion annual y from
three sources: (1) surplus property sales; (2) the federal motorboat fuel tax; and (3) revenue from

1 Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst on the Congress and Legislative Process, contributed to discussions in this report on the
operation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) .
2 54 U.S.C. §200302(b),(c).
Congressional Research Service
1

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf (OCS). Since the early 1990s, nearly al revenues
deposited in the LWCF have been from OCS receipts.
Through FY2020, the $900 mil ion in revenues that accrued to the LWCF were authorized to be
appropriated each year but were available only if appropriated in subsequent law (general y, in
annual appropriations acts), which was considered discretionary spending. The Great American
Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152) makes the $900 mil ion in annual deposits into the LWCF available
for obligation without further legislative action beginning in FY2021, thus permanently
appropriating the $900 mil ion each year. Such permanent appropriations are categorized as
mandatory spending.
In addition to the $900 mil ion under the LWCF Act, the LWCF receives other revenue from OCS
leasing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA, 43 U.S.C. §1331
note).3 GOMESA specifies that this revenue is mandatory spending, not subject to annual
appropriation by Congress. GOMESA further specifies that this revenue is to be in addition to any
appropriations under the LWCF Act, available until expended, and used only for grants to states
for outdoor recreation purposes.4 Under GOMESA, states can receive a maximum of $125.0
mil ion annual y in mandatory funding (except in FY2021 and FY2022, when the maximum is
$162.5 mil ion). Thus, a maximum of $1,025.0 mil ion in mandatory spending for LWCF
programs general y is available each year under the LWCF Act and GOMESA combined.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Purposes
The LWCF Act mandates that, of the total made available through appropriations or deposits
under GOMESA, not less than 40% is to be used for “federal purposes,” and not less than 40% is
to be used to provide “financial assistance to states.”5 The LWCF Act sets out the federal
purposes for which the President is to al ot the appropriations from the fund “unless otherwise
al otted in the appropriation Act making them available.”6 The primary federal purpose is
acquisition of land by federal agencies. In particular, the LWCF is a principal funding source for
land acquisition by the four major federal land management agencies (FLMAs): Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)—
al in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)—and Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA). The LWCF can be used to purchase titles to lands or interests in lands.7
The LWCF Act general y permits the use of appropriations only for acquisitions that have been
previously authorized by law.8 In 2019, Congress amended the federal purposes to specify that a
certain amount or percentage of each year’s LWCF appropriations is to be used for land
acquisitions that foster access to federal land for recreational purposes.9

3 P.L. 109-432, Division C, §105. For current law, see 43 U.S.C. §1331 note.
4 P.L. 109-432, Division C, §105(a),(e). For current law, see 43 U.S.C. §1331 note.
5 54 U.S.C. §200304(b).
6 54 U.S.C. §200306.
7 Purchase of title sometimes is referred to as “purchase of lands in fee” and means full ownership. An interest in lands
is something less than full ownership, such as an easement or mineral, timber, or water rights.
8 However, the act allows LWCF appropriations to be used for pre-acquisition work where “authorization is imminent
and where substantial monetary savings could be realized.” 54 U.S.C. §200306(b).
9 T his change is in P.L. 116-9, §3001, as codified in 54 U.S.C. §200306(c). Specifically, the LWCF Act directs that of
the amounts appropriated annually—not less than 3% or $15.0 million, whichever is greater—is to be used for
acquisitions that foster recreational access. T o this end, the agencies must develop priority lists of acquisitions to
facilitate access for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, or other outdoor recreation purposes.
Congressional Research Service
2

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Under the heading “financial assistance to states,” the LWCF Act sets out a program that provides
grants to states for outdoor recreation. It addresses how the Secretary of the Interior is to allocate
among states the appropriations for these state grants.10 It also identifies the purposes for which
states can use the grants: planning, acquisition, and development. The grants described in the
LWCF Act sometimes are referred to as “traditional” or “formula” state grants.11 In addition, there
are “competitive” state grants, although the LWCF Act does not explicitly authorize a competitive
grant program. Instead, beginning in FY2014, competitive grants from the LWCF have been
supported and funded though appropriations laws. As noted, appropriations under GOMESA are
used only for grants to states for outdoor recreation, and they have been provided for only the
traditional/formula grants.
In addition to federal land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states, appropriations laws
have provided funding from the LWCF for selected “other” federal programs and types of
grants.12 For example, for about two decades, LWCF funds have been appropriated annual y for
grants under the FLP and Section 6 of the ESA (i.e., CESCF grants), although these programs are
not explicitly referenced in the LWCF Act. The FLP, administered by FS, provides matching
grants to states for acquisition of lands or easements to preserve privately owned forest lands
threatened by conversion to nonforest uses. The CESCF, administered by FWS, is authorized
under Section 6 of the ESA. It provides grants to states and territories for species and habitat
conservation actions on nonfederal lands.
Amendments in the Great American Outdoors Act
In 2020, P.L. 116-152 amended the LWCF Act related to the purposes for which the fund can be
used. It provided that the mandatory spending would be available “to carry out the purposes of
the Fund (including accounts and programs made available from the Fund pursuant to the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94; 133 Stat. 2534)).” There are two parts to this
provision. First, the “purposes of the Fund” would include those set out in the LWCF Act. As
noted above, the LWCF Act provides that the fund is general y available for the purposes of
federal land acquisition and grants to states for outdoor recreation and may be al otted (for other
federal purposes) in appropriations acts.
Second, the provision specified that the mandatory spending also may be used for “accounts and
programs” for which appropriations were provided from the LWCF pursuant to P.L. 116-94.13 P.L.
116-94 contains appropriations from the LWCF for programs not explicitly referenced in the
LWCF Act, including
 the FLP, from appropriations for FS’s State and Private Forestry account;
 Section 6 of the ESA from appropriations under FWS’s CESCF account;

10 54 U.S.C. §200305.
11 Hereinafter these grants are referred to as “traditional/formula” grants.
12Appropriations from the LWCF for “other purposes” were first provided in FY1998 and have been provided each
subsequent year (except FY1999). T he monies have been directed to an array of activities related to natural resources
beyond land acquisition and grants to states for outdoor recreation , as shown in CRS Report R44121, Land and Water
Conservation Fund: Appropriations for “Other Purposes”, by Carol Hardy Vincent .
13 Appropriations from the LWCF were included in the Department of the Interior (DOI), Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94, Division D).
Congressional Research Service
3

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

 the American Battlefield Protection Program from appropriations for NPS’s Land
Acquisition and State Assistance account;14 and
 the DOI Appraisal and Valuation Services Office from appropriations for the DOI
Departmental Offices account, Office of the Secretary.15
Allocation of LWCF Funds Among Purposes
The LWCF Act requires that the President’s annual budget include “a comprehensive statement of
estimated requirements during the ensuing fiscal year for appropriations from the Fund.”16
Through FY2020, when appropriations under the LWCF Act were discretionary, the President’s
annual budget submission identified the agencies, accounts, and programs for which the President
sought monies from the LWCF. These programs typical y included land acquisition for each of the
FLMAs. The budget submission for each agency usual y listed the particular land parcels (or
interests in lands) the agency sought to acquire. In recent years, the Administration sometimes has
requested a portion of the federal acquisition funding for acquisitions that would facilitate access
to federal lands for recreational purposes. Typical y, the Administration also has requested LWCF
funding for NPS to make outdoor recreation grants to states.17 In addition, for more than two
decades, the Administration usual y has requested LWCF appropriations for purposes other than
land acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states.
Congress has reviewed agency requests and has determined the total appropriation from the
LWCF and the portion for each agency, account, and program. Appropriations laws typical y have
provided funds for land acquisition for each agency. In accompanying report language, Congress
usual y has identified the funding level for land acquisition projects sought by the Administration.
Historical y, appropriations laws also typical y have contained funds for traditional/formula
outdoor recreation grants; in recent years, these laws also have provided funding for competitive
grants. As noted, traditional/formula grants began receiving mandatory spending after enactment
of GOMESA. Final y, appropriations laws have provided funding for purposes other than land
acquisition and outdoor recreation grants to states, as noted.

14 T he American Battlefield Protection Program is codified at 54 U.S.C. §§308101 et seq. T hough this program is not
explicitly referenced in the LWCF Act, in recent years, Interior appropriations laws have provided for LWCF monies to
fund the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant Program. T his program awards matching grants to state and local
governments to acquire eligible battlefield land or interests in batt lefield land. Additional information on the operation
and funding of the American Battlefield Protection Program is contained in CRS In Focus IF11329, Am erican
Battlefield Protection Program , by Mark K. DeSantis; and NPS, “ Battlefield Land Acquisition Program,” at
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/battlefields/battlefield-land-acquisition-grant -program.htm.
15 T hough the DOI Appraisal and Valuation Services Office account is not explicitly referenced in the LWCF Act, in
the past, LWCF appropriations sometimes have been used to fund the activities of this office. For instance, P.L. 116-94,
Division D, appropriated $10.0 million for this office. For an overview of the role and activities of this office, see DOI,
“Appraisal and Valuation Services Office,” at https://www.doi.gov/valuationservices.
16 54 U.S.C. §200304(a).
17 In some years, the Administration has not sought funding for land acquisition projects or outdoor recreation grants to
states as part of the annual budget submission. For instance, for FY2018-FY2021, the T rump Administration initially
did not seek funds for individual land acquisition projects in the annual budget justifications to Congress. Congress
subsequently directed the Administration to submit priorit ized acquisition project lists for consideration during the
appropriations process. For instance, the FY2020 Interior appropriations law directed that for FY2021, the Secretary of
the Interior (for the three DOI agencies) and the Secretary of Agriculture ( for the Forest Service [FS]) submit to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees “prioritized and detailed lists of Federal land acquisition projects … that
have been identified by each land management Agency.” See P.L. 116-94, Division D, §427(a).
Congressional Research Service
4

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Amendments in the Great American Outdoors Act
P.L. 116-152 prescribes a procedure for al ocating the $900 mil ion in annual LWCF deposits,
which were made mandatory spending. Under the procedure, the President is to include “detailed
account, program, and project al ocations” for the full amount available, general y as part of the
annual budget submission to Congress.18 However, the law also provides that subsequent
appropriations acts may specify an “alternate al ocation,” including “al ocations by account,
program, and project.”19 Further, if alternate al ocations have not been enacted before “the Act
making full-year appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for the applicable fiscal year” has been enacted, the President would have the authority
to al ocate the available amount from the LWCF as the President determines. Similarly, if
legislation containing alternate al ocations of less than the available amount were enacted, the
President would have the authority to al ocate the remaining amount. P.L. 116-152 specifies that
appropriations under the al ocation procedure are to be consistent with provisions of the LWCF
Act that direct a portion of funding to acquisitions fostering recreational public access. Final y,
under the law, the President is to report to Congress annual y on the “final” al ocation of
appropriations by account, program, and project, together with the status of obligations and
expenditures.
Allocation Processes and Criteria: Land Acquisition
by Federal Agencies
The agencies use different processes and criteria for prioritizing funds for each program funded
by the LWCF, as noted. This section details the processes and criteria used by the FLMAs to
prioritize requests for land acquisition with LWCF funds. It begins with an overview of the
authorities of the FLMAs to acquire land.
Authorities for Agencies to Acquire Lands
The four FLMAs have varying standing authorities for land acquisition.20 BLM has relatively
broad authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.21 By contrast, NPS
has no general authority to acquire land (except in limited circumstances), although laws creating
park units typical y authorize NPS to acquire lands within their boundaries. Although FWS has
various authorities to acquire lands, the agency often uses the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1929
because of the availability of mandatory funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund.22 Many authorities govern the FS land acquisition process. Most broadly, the Secretary of

18 For FY2021, P.L. 116-152 requires the information to be submitted to Congress no later than 90 days after
enactment. Enactment occurred on August 4, 2020.
19 P.L. 116-152, §3.
20 In general, all four of the federal land management agencies (FLMAs) are authorized to accept land as gifts and
bequests. In addition, each agency generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through
condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner. T his practice is controversial, and the FMLAs
rarely use it.
21 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1781.
22 Migratory Bird T reaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§703, et seq.
Congressional Research Service
5

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Agriculture can acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of
National Forest System (NFS) units.23
Land acquisition by DOI agencies typical y occurs within or adjacent to agency lands. Al three
DOI agencies have sizeable landholdings in Alaska and the 11 western states.24 FWS and NPS
each manage an additional several mil ion acres in other states, whereas BLM manages relatively
little land in other states. The NFS contains federal and nonfederal lands. In practice, FS land
acquisition typical y occurs within or adjacent to NFS units. One of the purposes of the NFS is to
protect watersheds and water supplies, and NFS units are located mostly in forested areas, often
in rural areas, mountains, and river headwaters.25
In addition to the standing authorities, Congress has enacted various laws to authorize and govern
specific land acquisitions by the FLMAs. Numerous other authorities also guide the land
acquisition process. These authorities include laws; regulations; department and agency-specific
strategic plans and objectives; and guidance in agency manuals, handbooks, memoranda, and
other sources. For example, one authority general y requires federal agencies to offer market
value when acquiring lands.26 A comprehensive review and discussion of al relevant sources is
beyond the scope of this report.27
Common Acquisition Criteria in the LWCF Act
Each year, the four FLMAs typical y seek appropriations from the LWCF for acquisitions
reflecting agency-specific priorities.28 Agencies identify their priorities through selection
processes that typical y progress through the field, regional, and headquarter offices. Land
acquisition projects that are selected by headquarters general y have been reviewed at the
department level and by the Office of Management and Budget before being included in annual
budget requests to Congress.
Over time, the FLMAs have developed and used their own criteria to identify and prioritize
acquisition project requests. In 2019, Congress amended the LWCF Act to establish common

23 Currently, new National Forest System units can be created only by law.
24 T he 11 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
25 For additional discussion of the authorities of the four agencies to acquire land, see CRS Report RL34273, Federal
Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, by Carol Hardy Vincent et al. For information on the amount
and location of federal land managed by each of the four FLMAs, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership:
Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Laura A. Hanson .
26 43 C.F.R. §24.102(d); and T he Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions,
2016, pp. 89-90, at https://www.justice.gov/file/408306/download.
27 In discussing each agency’s policies, criteria, and processes for acquiring land, the omission of a particular policy
should not be understood to mean the lack of a particular p olicy. For instance, all four FLMAs typically acquire land
from willing sellers, though this is not discussed in the summary for each agency.
28 T hese acquisitions sometimes are referred to as “core” acquisitions. For some years in the past decade, the four
agencies also requested funds for “collaborative” land acquisition projects. Under the collaborative process, DOI and
FS together identified high-priority landscapes of shared interest in conservation and land acquisition. Initially, a
federal T echnical Advisory Committee evaluated and scored landscape proposals based on four criteria: process,
outcomes, urgency, and contribution to national priorities. Next, a National Selection Committee ma de final
recommendations to the Secretaries. T his committee considered various factors, such as opportunities to leverage
funds, strength of partnerships and local support, and Administration priorities.
Congressional Research Service
6

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

criteria for the agencies to take into account in considering which lands to acquire with monies
from the LWCF.29 As amended, the LWCF Act currently specifies seven criteria:
1. significance of the acquisition;
2. urgency of the acquisition;
3. management efficiencies;
4. management cost savings;
5. geographic distribution;
6. threats to the integrity of the land; and
7. recreational value of the land.
In addition to the criteria in the LWCF Act, agencies use other criteria and processes for
prioritizing requests for land acquisition funding, as discussed below.
Agency-Specific Acquisition Criteria30
Each agency has developed a process and criteria for requesting land acquisition funds based on
the laws and policies under which it operates, priorities of the Administration, and other factors.
Agency-specific procedures and criteria have evolved over time. The summaries below are based
on FY2021 guidance for each of the FLMAs.31 They focus on the criteria for developing priority
lists of land acquisitions to be funded from the LWCF.32
Bureau of Land Management33
For FY2021, land acquisition project requests from BLM field offices were reviewed by BLM
state offices, with each state office selecting priority projects for further evaluation at the national
(headquarters) level. BLM land acquisition selections were guided by broad DOI-wide

29 P.L. 116-9, §3001, codified at 54 U.S.C. §200306(d).
30 T his section focuses on “core” acquisitions. In addition to the processes described in this section, the agencies may
use other processes and criteria for acquisitions that would enhance access to federal lands for recreational purposes
and/or for acquisit ions they regard as “ emergencies,” “ hardships,” or other time-sensitive acquisitions. T ime-sensitive
acquisitions might arise, for instance, when properties come up for sale unexpectedly, such as following the death of
the landowner, and thus were not included in the agencies’ annual core prioritization processes. Each agency typically
receives an appropriation for such time-sensitive situations, which is allocated thereafter by the agency. For
recreational access, the LWCF Act requires the agencies to develop priority lists of projects but does not outline a
particular process for doing so. See 54 U.S.C. §200306(c).
31 For the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and FS, the guidance explicitly
pertains to FY2021. For the National Park Service (NPS), though the guidance documents identify FY2019 in their
titles, the agency confirmed with CRS (by email on April 15, 2020) that this guidance was used for FY2021 as well.
T he guidance for FY2021 was developed prior to the enactment of P.L. 116-152, which provides mandatory spending
from the LWCF for land acquisition. It is unclear if (or how) agencies might amend their guidance because of the
change from discretionary to mandatory appropriations.
32 For additional information on the processes and criteria used by the four agencies, see U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Variety of Program s Supported, but Im prove m ents in Data
Collection Needed at BLM, GAO-19-346, May 2019, pp. 12-29.
33 Information on the BLM process and criteria for requesting and selecting land acquisition projects is derived from
BLM, Instruction Memorandum 2019-040, Congressional T echnical Assistance Response for Fiscal Year 2021 Land
and Water Conservation Fund Core Project Submissions and Fiscal Year 2020 Land and Water Conservation Fund
Recreational Access Submissions, (and attachments), July 12, 2019, at https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2019-040
(hereinafter BLM, IM 2019-040). This report includes selected information on the BLM process and criteria. For more
complete information, see the BLM website at https://www.blm.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
7

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

priorities—such as to create a conservation stewardship legacy, ensure tribal sovereignty, and
protect people and the border—and by secretarial priorities on topics including outdoor recreation
and public access. Other guidance pertained to the availability of a wil ing sel er and
identification of acquisition priorities in BLM land-use plans. Further, under BLM policy,
acquisitions were to be completed within three years of receiving an appropriation and could not
exceed $5.0 mil ion without prior review by the relevant BLM state and BLM headquarters.34
For each land acquisition request, the guidance required each BLM field office to submit a map
and photos of the area and a project data sheet containing information on specific topics. These
topics were to relate to certain resources and values, such as the extent to which the acquisition
would protect cultural and historic resources, reduce unwanted wildfires, conserve habitats or
species, benefit water quality and/or quantity, and support traditional uses on working lands (e.g.,
forestry, ranching, or farming).35 Other topics were to focus on budgetary and administrative
aspects of the proposed acquisition, such as the expected cost of the parcels, estimated operation
and maintenance costs and savings, cooperators and partners, and acreage previously acquired
and remaining to be acquired (for phased acquisitions involving multiple parcels). The field office
also was to identify the congressional district in which the parcels were located.
The acquisition requests from BLM field offices were evaluated and ranked based on the extent
to which they met certain criteria.36
 Public Access: improves or increases access to BLM lands for hunting and
fishing.
 Opportunity: increases opportunity for a variety of recreational uses and has
community support for access.
 Variety of Access: provides for a variety of types of public recreation, both land-
and water-based and motorized and nonmotorized.
 Contribution: has an outside contribution, including a nonmonetary contribution
or transaction assistance.
 State Directors’ Ranking: is ranked for acquisition by the BLM state director.37
Fish and Wildlife Service38
For FY2021, land acquisition project requests from FWS refuges were reviewed at the regional
level, with each region selecting priority projects for further evaluation at the national
(headquarters) level. A number of factors guided FWS land acquisition selections. They included
Administration priorities, such as those expressed in secretarial orders to expand hunting, fishing,

34 See BLM, IM 2019-040, Attachment 1, pp. 1-2, at https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/33375.
35 See BLM, IM 2019-040, Attachment 2, at https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/33376.
36 See BLM, IM 2019-040, Attachment 1, at https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/33375.
37 T his criterion was used for evaluation at the headquarters level.
38 Information on the FWS process and criteria for requesting and selecting land acquisition projects is derived from
FWS memoranda. See Memorandum from Cynthia Martinez, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, FWS, to
regional refuge chiefs, FWS, “Request for List of Refuges with Potential Willing Sellers and Regional
Recommendations for FY 2021 Land and Water Conservation Fund Funding,” DOI, FWS, April 3, 2019; and Acting
Chief, Division of Realty, FWS, to regional realty officers, FWS, “Obtaining T ar geted Resource Acquisition
Comparison T ool (T RACT ) Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2021 Land and Water Conservation Fund Budget
Process,” DOI, FWS, April 9, 2019 (hereinafter FWS, T RACT Assessments for FY2021 Land and Water
Conservation, April 9, 2019). T his report includes selected information on the process and criteria. For more complete
information, consult the FWS memoranda.
Congressional Research Service
8

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

and recreation and to conserve western big-game winter range and migration corridors. Other
factors included the availability of wil ing sel ers, extent of congressional support, and regional
information about wildlife habitat conservation needed to support conservation targets. In
submitting refuge acquisition requests to headquarters, the guidance required each region to
identify its top five projects and a cost per acre estimate for each of those projects.
Further, the acquisition requests proposed by FWS refuges were evaluated and prioritized based
on how they would meet three biological criteria.39
 Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species: fosters prescribed acquisition
in threatened or endangered species recovery plans.
 Implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan: contributes
toward achieving the waterfowl population objectives identified in related plans.
 Conservation of Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern: contributes toward
achieving population objectives in related plans.
National Park Service40
For FY2021, numerous laws, department and agency policies and priorities, and other factors
guided NPS land acquisition selections.41 For each land acquisition request, the guidance required
each park unit (or trail unit) to submit a request form containing a narrative summary and
information on an array of variables. Park units seeking multiple acquisitions were to indicate the
priority of each.
Land acquisition requests proposed by park units were scored and ranked at the NPS regional
level and the national (headquarters) level, with each level focused on particular criteria. Regional
level evaluations considered the criteria below.42
 Resource Threat: describes the nature and imminence of potential harm to the
lands.
 Preservation of Resource: sets out the importance, scarcity, and certain benefits
of the resource.

39 T he evaluation based on these biological criteria is called the “T argeted Resource Acquisition Comparison T ool”
(T RACT ) biological assessment. See FWS, T RACT Assessments for FY2021 Land and Water Conservation, April 9,
2019.
40 Information on the NPS process and criteria for requesting and selecting land acquisition projects is derived from
NPS memoranda provided by NPS to CRS. As noted, although the document titles specify FY2019, this guidance also
was used for FY2021, according to NPS. T he memoranda include the following: “Instructions for Use of the National
Park Service Land Acquisition Ranking System (LARS) FY 2019”; “Instruct ions for Use of the National Park Service
Land Acquisition Ranking System (LARS) for Fiscal Year 2019 to be Used by the Submitting Park or T rail Unit”
(hereinafter “Instructions for Use of NPS LARS for FY2019: Submitting Park or T rail Unit”); “Instructions for Use of
the National Park Service Land Acquisition Ranking System (LARS): to be Used by the Regional Representatives”
(hereinafter “Instructions for Use of NPS LARS: Regional Representatives”); and “Instructions for Use of the National
Park Service Land Acquisition Ranking System (LARS): to be Used by the WASO Land Resources Division FY2019”
(hereinafter Instructions for Use of NPS LARS: WASO Land Resources Division FY2019”). T his report includes
selected information on the process and criteria. For more complete information, consult the NPS memoranda.
41 T he NPS’s annual solicitation to the field for land acquisition projects did not specifically cite to agency guidance,
however.
42 See “Instructions for Use of NPS LARS: Regional Representatives” and “Instructions for Use of NPS LARS for
FY2019: Submitting Park or T rail Unit.”
Congressional Research Service
9

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

 Visitor Use Facility and Infrastructure Need: demonstrates the necessity of
acquisition for development of a structure or facility needed for visitor use or
administrative purposes.
 Commitment Made to Acquire: addresses the extent of commitment to acquire the
parcels (e.g., an owner-signed offer to sel ).
 Nonprofit/Partner Involvement: identifies partners that can provide financial or
other substantive support.
 Continuity: continues ongoing activities, such as a multiphased acquisition or an
effort to connect species, ecosystems, or landscapes.
 Recreation: enhances recreational opportunities and has funding for recreational
development.
 Hardship: addresses circumstances contributing to a landowner’s need to sel ,
such as medical or financial circumstances.
National-level evaluations focused on additional criteria.43
 Legislative Authority: conveys whether authority to acquire the parcel has been
established or proposed.
 Ability to Obligate Funds: describes the pre-acquisition work that has been done
(e.g., a land appraisal).
 Current LWCF Funds: identifies any carryover monies and matching funds if
required.
 Regional Priority: awards points for projects that have been ranked by regions as
priorities.
 Current Economic Price Escalation Factor: reflects the extent of inflation to land
prices.
 Congressional and Local Support: summarizes the extent of support at the local
and national levels, including from the congressional delegation.
 Park Type: awards points for types of park units that reflect the Administration’s
theme(s) during the budget cycle.
 Out-Year Costs or Savings: reflects costs or savings in operation, administration,
and maintenance that would result from the acquisition.
Forest Service44
For FY2021, land acquisition requests from FS forests (and other FS areas) were reviewed at the
regional level, with each FS region selecting top-ranked projects for further evaluation by a panel
at the national (headquarters) level. Broad agency guidance providing context for FS land
acquisition selections included USDA-wide strategic goals, priorities of the FS chief, and FS
strategic goals and plans.45 Other objectives included priority for acquisitions that would

43 See “Instructions for Use of NPS LARS: WASO Land Resources Division FY2019.”
44 Information on the FS process and criteria for requesting and selecting land acquisition projects is derived from FS,
Lands and Realty Management, “LWCF Purchases,” at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/#LWCF. T his report
includes selected information on the process and criteria. Fo r more complete information, see the FS website.
45 See FS, 2021 LWCF Core Criteria and Guidance (PDF), pp. 1-2, at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/
Documents/2021_LWCF_Criteria_and_Guidance.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

consolidate NFS lands within existing national forest boundaries and meet goals and objectives of
FS resource management plans. A particular emphasis was on “demonstrating that land
acquisition can support local economies, contribute to effective and efficient stewardship of
national forests, support shared stewardship through partnerships, and help deliver excel ent
customer service.”46
For each land acquisition request, the FS forest also was required to submit a land acquisition
project sheet, map of the area, and other information. Further, the FS guidance indicated that
“support letters from members of Congress, local officials, partners and stakeholders are strongly
encouraged.”47 The forest also was to identify the congressional district in which the acquisition
was located.
Most FS regions were al owed to submit five land acquisition requests for review by
headquarters. The Eastern Region and the Southern Region were each al owed to submit up to
seven requests because the LWCF Act had required that outside of congressional y designated
areas, not more 15% of the land added to the NFS could be west of the 100th meridian.48 This
provision pertaining to FS acquisitions west of the 100th meridian was repealed by P.L. 116-152.
FS LWCF acquisition requests were evaluated and ranked based on the extent to which they met
specific criteria.49
 Recreation and Recreational Access: creates or enhances opportunities for
recreation and access to FS lands for recreation.
 Watershed Protection/Climate Resilience: contributes to watershed protection
and restoration.
 Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitat: protects or restores habitat for
endangered, threatened, or candidate species.
 Tract Location: has higher levels of protection such as congressional y
designated areas (e.g., “wilderness”).
 Connecting Communities/Partner Support: evidences public support,
partnerships, and community involvement.
 Regional Ranking: awards points based on specific regional goals and
circumstances.50
 Operation and Maintenance: contributes to cost savings or other quantifiable
efficiencies.51
Additional criteria were evaluated at the headquarters level. They included whether the request
was for the final phase of a multiphase acquisition, the area was ready to be acquired (e.g.,
whether an appraisal had been completed), anticipated appropriations levels, and unobligated
balances of prior year appropriations for acquisition.52

46 See FS, LWCF 2021 Reply Due Project Nominations Letter, pp. 1-2, at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/
Documents/FY-2021-LWCF-Project -Nominations.pdf.
47 See FS, LWCF 2021 Reply Due Project Nominations Letter, p. 1.
48 T his provision had been codified at 54 U.S.C. §200306(a)(2)(B)(iii).
49 See FS, 2021 LWCF Core Criteria and Guidance (PDF), pp. 3-7.
50 T his criterion is scored only at the regional level.
51 Of the listed criteria, only the operation and maintenance criterion is not scored.
52 See 2021 LWCF Core Criteria and Guidance (PDF), p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
11

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Allocation Processes and Criteria: Outdoor
Recreation Grants to States
This section details the processes and criteria used for al ocating LWCF funds for outdoor
recreation grants to states. It contains an overview of the two types of outdoor recreation grants to
states: (1) traditional/formula grants and (2) competitive grants. It describes how the Secretary of
the Interior al ocates total traditional/formula grant funding among states, how states award their
traditional/formula grant monies, and how NPS awards competitive grants.
Introduction
A portion of the LWCF administered by NPS provides matching grants to states (including the
District of Columbia and U.S. territories) for recreation planning, acquisition of lands and waters,
and facility development.53 Grants are provided for outdoor recreation purposes only, rather than
for indoor facilities (e.g., community centers). As a condition for receiving grant funding, each
state must develop a comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.54 This plan is to include an
evaluation of the demand for and supply of outdoor recreation resources and facilities in the state
and a program to implement the plan. It also must identify the state agency with authority to
represent and act for the state in dealing with NPS (on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior).55
The plan general y does not have to include specific projects. The LWCF Act requires the
Secretary to approve plans; in practice, the Secretary has delegated this responsibility to NPS.
Under the traditional/formula grant program, the Secretary of the Interior (acting through NPS)
divides the total appropriations among the states. Each state awards its appropriation through a
statewide competition, selecting recreational projects based on the state’s own plans, priorities,
and criteria. States may receive competitive grants in addition to traditional/formula grants. Under
the competitive program as developed by NPS, the service awards grants for urbanized areas
meeting certain criteria, upon application by states.
Under both the traditional/formula and competitive grant programs, states may “sub-award”
grants to state agencies, local units of government, and federal y recognized Indian tribes.
Additional information on traditional/formula and competitive grants is provided below.
Traditional/Formula State Grants
The LWCF Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to apportion appropriations for state grants
under a formula process.56 The formula cal s for a portion of the appropriation to be divided
equal y among the states.57 The remaining appropriation is to be apportioned based on need, as
determined by the Secretary. Under law, the determination of need is to include the population of

53 T he territories specified in 54 U.S.C. §200301 are Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. Acquisitions funded through LWCF state grants must remain in recreational use in
perpetuity, unless the Secretary of the Interior approves the conversion of the land to another use and acceptable
replacement lands are substituted.
54 T he LWCF Act refers to this plan as a “comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.” However, the LWCF
grant manual issued by NPS refers to the plan as the “ statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan”; thus, the plan
often is referred to by the acronym SCORP.
55 54 U.S.C. §200305(d).
56 54 U.S.C. §200305.
57 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.
Congressional Research Service
12

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

the state relative to the population of the United States, the use of outdoor recreation resources
within a state by people outside the state, and the federal resources and programs within a state.
In current practice, population is the biggest factor in determining state need. No state can receive
more than 10% of the total appropriation. To be eligible for a grant, a state must prepare and
update a statewide outdoor recreation plan.
Appropriations laws usual y have not included directions to guide how traditional/formula
outdoor recreation grants are to be distributed or spent in each state. Rather, each state has
determined how to al ocate its grant. States have up to three years to use the money—the federal
fiscal year in which the apportionment is made and the next two fiscal years. It is rare for a state
not to use the money during this time. Under law, the Secretary is to reapportion any amount that
is not paid or obligated during the three-year period.
The states award their grant money through a competitive, open project selection process based
on their recreation plans and their own priorities and selection criteria. They can use the money
for state projects or for pass-through (e.g., to localities or tribes). States send their ranked projects
to NPS for formal approval and obligation of grant money. Under law, payments to states are
limited to 50% or less of a project’s total costs. The remaining cost is borne by the state (or local)
project sponsor.58
Competitive State Grants
NPS also awards competitive state grants. Competitive grant projects must comply with the
LWCF Act and other program requirements that apply to traditional/formula state grants (e.g., a
nonfederal funding match and development of a comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation
plan). They also must meet the specific objectives in the related grant announcements. As
developed by NPS, competitive grants have focused on land acquisition and development for
outdoor recreation in densely settled areas. Under a January 2020 grant announcement, the goals
were to fund projects in urban areas (with 50,000 or more people) and neighborhoods or
communities that are economical y disadvantaged or underserved in terms of outdoor recreation
opportunities.59 Other priorities included creating jobs; stimulating local economic development;
engaging and empowering communities in the development of projects; creating or expanding
public-private partnerships, particularly to leverage resources; and coordinating among the public,
government, and private sectors. Projects also were to meet the priority needs identified in
comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans.60
For each state, grant applications were to be submitted by the lead agency designated to
implement the LWCF.61 Under the announcement, each state’s lead agency could nominate up to
four projects to NPS for consideration in the national competition. Project proposals were
reviewed and evaluated based on a “pre-application.” Grant pre-applications were to include

58 For more information on the state grant program, including project selection by states, see DOI, NPS, Land and
Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program : Federal Financial Assistance Manual , October 1, 2008, at
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/upload/lwcf_manual.pdf; particularly, see Chapter 3, “ Acquisition and Development
Project Eligibility,” and Chapter 6, “Application and Evaluation Procedures.”
59 See Grants.gov, “ P20AS00029, Land and Water Conservation Fund Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program
Round 4,” January, 31, 2020, at grants.gov website at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?
oppId=324077; and Grants.gov, “ Full NOFO for ORLP Round 4,” p. 1, at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-
opportunity.html?oppId=324077. Under the announcement, applications from state lead agencies were due to NPS by
July 10, 2020.
60 See “Full NOFO for ORLP Round 4,” p. 4.
61 See a state contact list at NPS, LWCF, “Contact List,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/contact-list.htm.
Congressional Research Service
13

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

certain elements,62 such as a letter of recommendation from the state, a standard form for federal
grant applications, a description of the project and its costs, and maps. Optional information
included photos of project areas and letters demonstrating public support.
Applications that met the basic eligibility requirements were to be reviewed and scored by two
panels. A technical panel of NPS staff was to focus on the requirements stemming from the
LWCF Act.63
 Project Alignment with Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan and Other Applicable
Plans: advance the priority recreation needs and goals of the state.
 Project Readiness: show readiness to be implemented, likelihood of successful
execution, and viability of the period of performance for project execution.
 Applicant and Partner Capacity: demonstrate the ability and likelihood of the
project sponsor and partner to initial y complete, then manage and sustain, the
project area.
 Viability and Reasonableness of Budget: evidence eligibility and reasonableness
of costs and firmness of funding commitment.
 Partner Support and Leveraging: involve partner support through money,
supplies, land, and services, as wel as financial leveraging of the federal share
with nonfederal financial support.
A merit panel, which could include federal and nonfederal experts, was to assess the project’s
purposes, benefits, and relevance to the grant objectives through specified factors.64
 Recreational Access and Deficiencies: improve physical and recreational access
and addresses recreation deficiencies.
 Recreation Service and Economic Opportunity for the Target Population:
enhance recreational opportunities for low- to moderate-income areas with
recreational deficiencies and creates jobs and economic benefits in the
community.
 Project Engagement and Participation: involve partnership among the project
sponsor, community residents and organizations, and the private sector.
 Innovation and Transformative Attributes: exhibit innovation, especial y in ways
that can be transformative for revitalizing the community.
Ultimately, the reviews and scores of the two panels were to be used to produce a ranked list of
projects for selection by NPS.

62 NPS requires pre-application projects that are selected to be updated and resubmitted as final applications. Final
applications are to include additional documentation, such as information to substantiate the project’s compliance with
environmental, historic, and cultural laws.
63 For additional information on the criteria and the NPS selection process, see “Full NOFO for ORLP Round 4,” pp.
20-23.
64 As noted above, additional information on the criteria and the NPS selection process is contained in “Full NOFO for
ORLP Round 4,” pp. 20-23.
Congressional Research Service
14

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Allocation Process and Criteria: Other Programs
This section details the processes and criteria used for al ocating LWCF funds for the two main
“other” programs that have been funded by the LWCF over the past two decades: (1) the FLP and
(2) CESCF grants. For the FLP, this section describes how FS provides grants through a
competitive process that requires state approval and then federal approval and ranking. For
CESCF, it describes how FWS makes grants to states and territories.
Forest Legacy Program
The FLP, administered by FS, provides financial assistance to states to conserve privately owned
forest lands.65 As defined by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, the term state includes all
50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the
United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the territories and
possessions of the United States.66 Under the FLP, FS awards grants to state partners (generally,
state forestry agencies or the equivalent) to acquire lands or conservation easements to preserve
private forests threatened by conversion to nonforest uses. As of 2019, FS reports that 49 states
and three territories are enrolled in the FLP; approximately 2.8 mil ion acres have been protected
since the program was authorized in 1990.67
The FLP is implemented primarily through the states, which general y acquire, hold, and
administer the easements or land purchases—although the federal government also may do so.
Under law, FLP grants are limited to 75% or less “to the extent practicable”; thus, they general y
require at least 25% matching from nonfederal funding sources.68 FS awards FLP grants through
a two-tiered competitive process. This process involves a state-level project prioritization and
selection process followed by a national project ranking and award process.
State Process
As a condition of enrollment in FS’s state and private forestry financial assistance programs,
participating states are required to have a State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee
(SFSCC) and a State Forest Action Plan (Plan).69 To participate in the FLP, a state Plan must
include specific components. The Plan must include an evaluation of current forest conditions and
trends causing conversion of forest to nonforest uses.70 The Plan also must define eligibility
criteria that the state wil use to delineate areas from which FLP projects can be nominated,

65 As noted, the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is codified at 16 U.S.C. §2103c. For additional information on the FLP,
see CRS Report R45219, Forest Service Assistance Program s, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
66 16 U.S.C. §2109d(1).
67 North Dakota is the only state not enrolled in the FLP. FS, The Forest Legacy Program: Keeping Working Forests
Working, 2019.
68 16 U.S.C. §2103c(j).
69 16 U.S.C. §2101a, 16 U.S.C. §2113b. State forest action plans must contain a statewide assessment of forest resource
conditions and a long-term statewide forest strategy.
70 FS, “Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines,” FS-1088, May 2017 (hereinafter, FS, Forest Legacy
Guidelines).
Congressional Research Service
15

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

known as Forest Legacy Areas (FLAs).71 These eligibility criteria derive from two general
factors:
 environmental importance, which encompass one or more public values of the
forest area, such as timber and other forest commodities, scenic resources, public
recreation opportunities, riparian areas, or other ecological values; and
 threat of conversion, which encompass the likelihood the area wil be converted
to nonforest use.72
Within these general factors, the state determines what specific criteria wil be used for FLA
designation. For instance, a state might use a combination of soil productivity, species richness,
population density, and distance from roads as criteria to delineate FLAs.
Based on the criteria it selects, the state identifies specific areas for designation as FLAs, which
require approval by FS. For each FLA, the Plan must identify how the FLA’s public values could
be protected or conserved and what governmental entity could hold lands or interests in lands in
the FLA.73 The Plan also must outline how the state would evaluate and prioritize individual
project proposals. FS guidance specifies that the SFSCC may advise on these Plan components
related to the FLP.74
To nominate land for inclusion in the FLP, interested landowners may submit project proposals to
the state.75 The state reviews project proposals to ensure they are eligible for consideration (e.g.,
they are at least partial y within an FLA, and the landowner is wil ing to sel or donate the interest
in the land). If deemed eligible, the state would evaluate the proposal according to the procedure
established in the Plan and, if desired, would assign the proposal a priority ranking. Each state
may transmit up to three eligible projects for consideration at the national level annual y. The
SFSCC may contribute to reviewing and recommending projects at the state level.76
National Process
After participating states submit projects, FS undertakes a national-level project ranking. The
national ranking is based on the following criteria specified by the FS:77
 Importance, or the potential public benefits from protecting the lands. Public
benefits include environmental values and social and economic benefits, such as
threatened and endangered species habitat and economic benefits from timber,
watershed protection, public access, and others. Importance can be demonstrated
by contribution toward federal initiatives, land designations, or the purposes of

71 16 U.S.C. §2103c(e).
72 16 U.S.C. §2103c(e) specifies that to be eligible, lands “ shall have significant environmental values or shall be
threatened by present or future conversion to nonforest uses.” Forest Legacy Area (FLA) boundaries must encompass
forests; they also may include nonforest areas if they are an integral part of the landscape and are within the area’s
logical boundaries.
73 In the case of federal ownership of the land, the state identifies what governmental entity would be given
management responsibility for the land were it to be enrolled in the FLP. FS, Forest Legacy Guidelines.
74 16 U.S.C. §2103c(e); and FS, Forest Legacy Guidelines.
75 16 U.S.C. §2103c(f).
76 FS, Forest Legacy Guidelines.
77 FS, “Forest Legacy Program Project Scoring Guidance,” July 2020, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy-
2022-flp-project -scoring-guidance-508c.pdf (hereinafter, FS, FLP Project Scoring Guidance
Congressional Research Service
16

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

federal laws (such as protecting endangered species habitat or a national
recreational trail) or by being general y aligned with the purposes of the FLP.78
 Threatened, or the likelihood of the forest’s conversion to nonforest uses,
resulting in a loss of public benefits and forest values. Likelihood of conversion
can be evaluated by considering adjacent land uses, land and landowner
circumstances (e.g., aging landowner, land has been subdivided), existing
protections (e.g., zoning, easements), and physical attributes of the area.
 Strategic, the ability of the project to contribute toward larger conservation goals.
The strategic relevance of the project is evaluated by considering its relationship
to other conservation goals, initiatives, or strategies at any level of governance
(e.g., state, federal) and how the project complements other protected lands.79
The national ranking is determined through a scoring procedure, where each project is assigned a
numerical score for each of the three criteria. Numerical scores are based on how many attributes
the project has within each criterion and whether the attributes are “significant and high
quality.”80 FS may consider other issues, such as any state priority ranking (if a state submitted
more than one project) and state readiness and performance.
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
Funding from the LWCF also has been used for certain activities authorized by the ESA. Section
6 of the ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to
“cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the [s]tates” to conserve threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they rely.81 As defined by the ESA and used
in this section, states would be any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands.82 The authorities vested in the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce under
the ESA, including through Section 6, have been delegated to FWS in DOI and to the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
in the Department of Commerce. Although both FWS and NMFS administer financial assistance
programs under Section 6, typical y only FWS financial assistance has received some of its
funding from the LWCF.83 As such, the remainder of this section focuses on programs
administered by FWS.

78 T he National T rails System Act is codified at 16 U.S.C. §§1241-1251. For a full list of attributes considered under
this criterion, see FS, FLP Project Scoring Guidance.
79 FS, FLP Project Scoring Guidance.
80 FS, FLP Project Scoring Guidance.
81 Section 6 of the ESA is codified at 16 U.S.C. §1535. T wo purposes of the ESA at 16 U.S.C. §1531(b) are “ to provide
a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved
[and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.”
82 16 U.S.C. §1532(17) and 50 C.F.R. §81.1(i) define state in the context of the ESA to be “ any of the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the T rust
T erritory of the Pacific Islands.” T he T rust T erritory of the Pacific Islands has since terminated, and of the T rustees,
only the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is still in political union with the United States. For
more information, see 48 U.S.C. §1681 and 48 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.
83 T he National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administers grants for species recovery, Atlantic salmon, and Pacific
salmon. Funding for these programs is typically included within funding for Protected Resources Science and
Management within NMFS Operations, Research, and Facilities appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
17

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

In addition to authorizing technical and financial assistance to states, Section 6 establishes a
funding source for financial assistance activities. This fund, administered by the FWS, is known
as the CESCF.84 In recent years, funding for Section 6 financial assistance typical y has been
appropriated from both the LWCF and the CESCF through annual discretionary appropriations
bil s.85
Endangered Species Act, Section 6 Financial Assistance
FWS al ocates Section 6 financial assistance to states through four grant programs, which are
described in an FWS fact sheet:86
 (Traditional) Conservation Grants, which “provide financial assistance to States
and Territories to implement conservation projects for listed species and at-risk
species. Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status surveys,
public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting
surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans.”
 Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants, which “provide funds to States
and Territories to support the development of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
through support of baseline surveys and inventories, document preparation,
outreach, and similar planning activities.”
 HCP Land Acquisition Grants, which “provide funding to States and Territories
to acquire land associated with approved HCPs. Grants do not fund the
mitigation required of an HCP permittee; instead, they support land acquisition
by the State or local governments that complement mitigation.”
 Recovery Land Acquisition Grants, which “provide funds to States and
Territories for the acquisition of habitat for endangered and threatened species in
support of draft and approved recovery plans. Acquisition of habitat to secure
long-term protection is often an essential element of a comprehensive recovery
effort for a listed species.”
In recent years, funding for these grant programs has been provided from both the LWCF and the
CESCF pursuant to annual discretionary appropriations laws. Typical y, the amount in the law
appropriated from the LWCF has equaled the amounts in accompanying funding tables for grants
for HCP land acquisition and recovery land acquisition. Similarly, the amount in the law
appropriated from the CESCF typical y has equaled the amounts in accompanying funding tables

84 16 U.S.C §1535(i). T he amount of funding deposited in the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
(CESCF) is determined pursuant to statute: 16 U.S.C §1535(i)(1) and 16 U.S.C. §1540(d). Division D of the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) appropriated
funding “to carry out section 6 of the [ESA]” with funds from the LWCF and CESCF un der the heading of
“Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.” In this report, the fund itself is referred to as the CESCF, and
financial assistance authorized under Section 6 is referred to as “ Section 6 financial assistance.”
85 For example, see P.L. 116-94, Division D. Although depositing funds into the LWCF and CESCF is required by
statute, in the past, allocating funds from both accounts for assistance under Section 6 of the ESA required further
discretionary appropriations. P.L. 116-152 changed this for the LWCF, making LWCF appropriations mandatory
beginning in FY2021. (A portion of the appropriations may be allocated for financial assistance under Section 6 of the
ESA.) Allocations from the CESCF continue to be made through discretionary appropriations (under 16 U.S.C
§1535(i)).
86 FWS, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act),
September 2016, at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/section6.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

for program administration and grants for traditional conservation and habitat conservation
planning assistance.87
Section 6 of the ESA and the associated implementing regulations provide several requirements
that states must meet to be eligible to receive Section 6 financial assistance.88 First, each state
must have an “adequate and active program for the conservation of various endangered and
threatened species.”89 Second, the state must have entered into a cooperative agreement with the
Secretary of the Interior. Third, under law, grants general y are limited to up to 75% for projects
in one state and 90% for projects undertaken by two or more states. State grant recipients are
required to provide the remaining cost share, at minimum 25% or 10%, from nonfederal funding
sources.90
Section 6 financial assistance is awarded to states through a mixture of formula and national and
regional competitive al ocation processes,91 which can vary by grant type and location.92 In
determining which eligible states are to receive funding, the Secretary of the Interior must
consider93
 the international commitments of the United States to protect endangered or
threatened species;
 the readiness of a state to proceed with a conservation program consistent with
the objectives and purposes of the ESA;
 the number of endangered and threatened species within a state;
 the potential for restoring endangered and threatened species; and
 the relative urgency to initiate a program to restore and protect an endangered or
threatened species.

87 For example, in FY2020, P.L. 116-94, Division D, T itle I appropriated funding to FWS “[f]or expenses necessary to
carry out section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1535), $54,502,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $23,702,000 is to be derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and of
which $30,800,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.” T he funding table in the
accompanying explanat ory statement identified the $23.7 million from the CESCF as divided among traditional
conservation grants ($13.0 million), habitat conservation planning assistance grants ($8.0 million), and program
administration ($2.7 million). It also identified the $3 0.8 million from the LWCF as divided between grants for species
recovery land acquisition ($11.2 million) and for habitat conservation planning land acquisition ($19.6 million). See
explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 1865 (enacted as P.L. 116-94) at House debate, Congressional Record, vol.
165, no. 204, book III (December 17, 2019), p. H11306.
88 16 U.S.C. §1535(d) and 50 C.F.R. Part 81.
89 16 U.S.C. §1535(c) and 50 C.F.R. §81.2.
90 16 U.S.C. §1535(d)(2) and 50 C.F.R. §81.8. T he U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI are
exempt from grant -matching requirements up to $200,000 under all FWS grant programs pursuant to a May 9, 2003,
Director’s Memorandum. Also, see 48 U.S.C. §1469a.
91 For more information, see FWS, “Endangered Species: Grants|Grants Programs,” at https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/grants/grant -programs.html.
92 For example, see FWS, “FY2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) T raditional
Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (Revised),” June 25, 2020, at https://www.grants.gov/
web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=326053. Also, see FWS, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (CESCF) Non-T raditional Grants (Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Planning Assistance, HCP Land Acquisition,
and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants) (FY2019), March 15, 2019, at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-
opportunity.html?oppId=313856.
93 16 U.S.C. §1535(d)(1).
Congressional Research Service
19

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Factors Affecting Allocations Among States
Throughout the LWCF’s history, varying amounts of LWCF appropriations have been al ocated
for use in each state.94 The variation among states general y stems from diverse requirements in
law, other authorities governing each of the programs funded by the LWCF, the different
al ocation mechanisms used for those programs, agency mission statements, and the priorities of
agencies and states. Other variables include the extent of federal lands, land values, and types of
resources (e.g., species and habitats targeted for conservation), among others.
For each of the main purposes funded by the LWCF, there are a number of specific reasons why
LWCF funding may differ among states. For federal land acquisition funding, one determinant
may relate to the amount of federal lands in a state. In seeking monies to acquire lands, the four
FLMAs often prioritize purchasing nonfederal lands within the boundaries of existing federal
land units (inholdings) and nonfederal lands on the borders of existing federal land units (edge
holdings). Therefore, states with relatively large amounts of federal lands may receive larger
amounts of appropriations. A related determinant is the value of a potential land acquisition.
Because acquisition general y is based on the fair market value of the parcels to be acquired,
acquisition projects in more expensive real estate areas may necessitate higher amounts of
appropriations. Another determinant is the specific agency mission statements or management
requirements under law. For instance, acquisitions proposed by FWS refuges have been evaluated
based on biological criteria related to threatened and endangered species, waterfowl population
objectives, and conservation of migratory birds, among other variables. Accordingly, acquisition
funding may be used in states with high-quality resources central to an agency’s mission.
For the traditional/formula outdoor recreation grants to states program, funding differences
among states derive from the components of the funding mechanism in law. Components of the
LWCF Act ensure a share of funding for each state, provide that the remaining appropriation is
apportioned by the Secretary of the Interior (through NPS) based on a determination of need, and
set out some factors the Secretary is to consider in determining need. One of these factors is state
population; in current practice, this has been the biggest factor in determining state need. For this
reason, states with larger populations have tended to receive higher al ocations of funding for
traditional/formula outdoor recreation grants than less populous states. For competitive outdoor
recreation grants to states, funding variations result from state prioritization of projects that would
meet the criteria of the grant announcements. The criteria focus on recreational enhancements in
urban areas that are economical y disadvantaged or underserved in terms of outdoor recreational
facilities.
Additional factors influence the variation in state-level LWCF funding for the other programs.
For example, because it is intended to protect private forest land from development, funding for
the FLP tends to be focused on states containing a certain amount of privately owned forest land
(general y in the East) or states where there is more (or increasing) development pressure. The
distribution of FLP funding among states also depends on the priorities selected by states for
ranking at the national level. For the CESCF (Section 6 financial assistance under the ESA), state
al ocations are contingent upon several factors, including the various distribution formulas,
programmatic priorities, and presence of species and habitats targeted for conservation.

94 T here has been no comprehensive agency source of LWCF funding by state since the origin of the LWCF in
FY1965.
Congressional Research Service
20

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds

Author Information

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Anne A. Riddle
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

R. Eliot Crafton
Laura A. Hanson
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Senior Research Librarian

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46563 · VERSION 1 · NEW
21