Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview of
November 2, 2021
Appropriations, Authorities, and Issues
Carol Hardy Vincent
Four federal land management agencies (FLMAs) administer about 95% of federal land. They
Specialist in Natural
are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the
Resources Policy
National Park Service (NPS), all in the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service (FS) in

the Department of Agriculture. These agencies administer lands for diverse purposes, including
Eric P. Nardi
recreation. Most federal lands are accessible to the public, but some areas have limited access or
Research Librarian
are unavailable to the public. Recreational access to federal lands and related appropriations are

of interest to Congress and Administrations.

The FLMAs receive appropriations to acquire lands and interests in lands (e.g., easements). The
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of acquisition funding. In FY2021, the $900 million in
annual deposits to the fund became available as mandatory spending under the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).
In FY2013-FY2021, Congress specified portions of LWCF appropriations for acquisitions that foster recreational access to
federal lands. The total for all FLMAs’ recreational access acquisitions increased from $4.8 million to $67.5 million during
the period, with most of the increase since FY2019. The share of the total land acquisition funding specified for recreational
access increased from 3% in FY2013 to 18% in FY2021. For each of FY2013-FY2015, Congress specified recreational
access appropriations for FS only or for both FS and BLM. Thereafter, all four FLMAs received such appropriations. From
FY2013 to FY2021, BLM and FS each received roughly one-third of the totals, and FWS and NPS together received about
one-third.
Several factors may influence how Congress determines the FLMAs’ appropriations levels for land acquisition and the
portion, purposes, and conditions for recreational access funding.
Statutory Requirements. Some statutory requirements are broad, such as the LWCF Act provisions that generally seek to
foster access to federal lands for recreation. Other provisions of law are more specific, such as those enacted in P.L. 116-9
providing a threshold level of funding for recreational public access projects based on agencies’ priority lists.
Project Criteria and Selection Processes. Typically, agencies identify “core” acquisitions (individually identified priority
parcels), for inclusion in the President’s budget submission, through selection processes involving ranking at the field,
regional, and headquarter levels. The FLMAs typically have not identified specific recreational access projects as part of their
budget submissions. After receiving an appropriation from Congress, the FLMAs selected recreational access projects using a
process similar to that used for core projects. BLM and NPS used all, or nearly all, of the same criteria to select their core
acquisitions; FWS and FS used different criteria. After the FLMAs selected recreational access projects, the agencies
provided project lists to Congress for informational purposes, according to a 2019 Government Accountability Office report.
Congressional and Agency Guidance. Congress provided guidance on recreational access funding during consideration of
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills in each of FY2013-FY2021, often in the explanatory
statements accompanying enacted bills. The guidance pertained to prioritization of areas and purposes, agency processes for
selecting recreational access acquisition projects, and agency requirements to report and disclose information. The FLMAs
provided guidance on recreational access appropriations in budget justifications. The information varied among FLMAs and
over time, including differences in the kinds of recreation specified, the amount and type of information provided, and the
processes and criteria for selecting recreational access acquisitions.
Potential issues for Congress may arise in determining and assessing appropriations levels for recreational access acquisitions
and the purposes and conditions for this funding. One such issue is the lack of a single definition of recreational access
during FY2013-FY2021, making it difficult to compare past funding across years; Congress may evaluate whether the
recreational purposes specified in P.L. 116-9 provide sufficient guidance. A second issue is whether an assessment of all
funding sources for recreational access would foster decisionmaking on LWCF appropriations for recreational access and the
challenge in determining all appropriations. A third issue is the availability and sufficiency of information, both on how
agencies select and use recreational funding and on the extent to which FLMA lands are accessible for recreation.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 24 link to page 30 Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Appropriations for Recreational Access Acquisitions ..................................................................... 2
Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................... 6
Acquisition Selection Processes and Criteria .................................................................................. 8
Recreational Access Project Selection ...................................................................................... 9
Bureau of Land Management ............................................................................................ 10
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................... 10
National Park Service ........................................................................................................ 11
Forest Service ................................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Guidance on Recreational Access Acquisitions ..................................................... 12
Specified Areas and Purposes ................................................................................................. 12
Agency Selection Processes .................................................................................................... 13
Reporting and Other Disclosure Requirements ....................................................................... 14
Multiple Objectives ................................................................................................................. 14
Agency Guidance on Recreational Access Acquisitions ............................................................... 15
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 16
Definition of Recreational Access ........................................................................................... 17
Identification of Total Funding................................................................................................ 17
Availability of Recreational Access Information .................................................................... 19

Figures
Figure 1. Total Recreational Access Appropriations by Agency and Fiscal Year, FY2013-
FY2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Total Recreational Access Appropriations by Agency for FY2013-FY2021
Combined ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Combined Appropriations for Recreational Access and All Acquisitions for Four
Agencies, by Fiscal Year .............................................................................................................. 6

Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for Recreational Access Acquisitions and All Acquisitions, by
Agency and Fiscal Year (FY2013-FY2021) ................................................................................. 3

Appendixes
Appendix. Agency Guidance on Recreational Access Acquisitions (FY2013-FY2021)............... 21

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 27

Congressional Research Service

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Introduction
Most federal lands are accessible to the public, but some areas have limited access or are
unavailable to the public. This is sometimes the case because private or state lands or
geographical features (e.g., mountains or rivers) limit or block public access. Recreational access
to federal lands has been a continual focus of Congress and successive Administrations. In 1964,
Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act to foster outdoor
recreation on federal land.1 A 1992 General Accounting Office (GAO) report focused on
“inadequate” public access to federal lands for recreational opportunities and other purposes,2 and
a 2002 House Appropriations Committee report on FY2003 Interior appropriations addressed
recreational access.3 In 2010, President Barack Obama signed a presidential memorandum
establishing the America’s Great Outdoors initiative to promote conservation and reconnect
Americans to the outdoors,4 which established a goal to “increase and improve recreational access
and opportunities.”5 More recently, the 116th Congress enacted changes in law to foster
recreational access.6
Four federal land management agencies (FLMAs) administer about 95% of federal land. They are
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the
National Park Service (NPS), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service
(FS), in the Department of Agriculture.7 These agencies administer lands for diverse purposes,
including recreation.
The FLMAs receive appropriations to acquire lands and interests in lands.8 The LWCF is the
primary source of acquisition funding.9 Monies in the LWCF became available as mandatory
spending in FY2021.10 Previously, the money had been available only if appropriated in

1 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.
2 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Federal Lands: Reasons for and Effects of Inadequate Public Access,
GAO/RCED-92-116BR, April 1992. The GAO was renamed the Government Accountability Office; in this report,
GAO is used for the former and current names.
3 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2003, report to accompany H.R. 5093, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-564 (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2002), especially p.16 and pp. 114-115.
4 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “A 21st Century Strategy for America’s Great Outdoors,” presidential
memorandum, April 16, 2010, at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-
americas-great-outdoors.
5 Council on Environmental Quality et al., America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations, February
2011, p. 17.
6 The “Statutory Requirements” section of this report discusses provisions contained in the John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9), enacted on March 12, 2019, and in the Great American
Outdoors Act (GAOA; P.L. 116-152), enacted on August 4, 2020.
7 For an overview of the four agencies, see CRS In Focus IF10585, The Federal Land Management Agencies,
coordinated by Katie Hoover; and CRS Video WVB00399, Introduction to Federal Lands, by Mark K. DeSantis and
Katie Hoover.
8 An interest in land (e.g., an easement or mineral, timber, and water rights) is something less than full ownership. In
this report, “acquisition” generally is used to encompass acquisitions of full ownership and of interests, though
“interest” is noted in some cases for emphasis.
9 Some agencies have other sources of funding. As one example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authority.
10 54 U.S.C. §200303. The GAOA, enacted on August 4, 2020, made the annual deposits to the fund available as
mandatory spending beginning in FY2021. For a summary of provisions of this act, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The
Congressional Research Service

1

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

subsequent law and thus was considered discretionary spending.11 Congress has appropriated
LWCF funding to the FLMAs for different types of acquisitions. They include “core” acquisitions
(individually identified priority parcels), “emergency” situations (time-sensitive),12 inholdings
(nonfederal lands within the boundaries of federal land areas), and recreational access (which
fosters recreational land uses). Appropriations for recreational access are the focus of this report.
A variety of factors may influence congressional determinations of the FLMAs’ appropriations
levels for land acquisition, the portion (if any) specified for recreational access, and the purposes
and conditions for using recreational access funding. General factors include broad congressional
and administrative priorities and the types of acquisition funding most suitable for each agency.
More specific factors relate to statutory requirements, acquisition project criteria and selection
processes, and congressional and agency guidance, among others.
This report examines appropriations from the LWCF specified for recreational access in recent
years (FY2013-FY2021). For each year, it first provides the total LWCF appropriations for
acquisitions by the FLMAs and the portion specified for recreational access acquisitions. It next
sets out some of the authorities and processes that affect the levels of appropriations for
recreational access. They include statutory requirements, agency acquisition selection processes
and criteria, congressional guidance to FLMAs, and other guidance used by the agencies as set
out in their annual budget justifications. The report then discusses issues for Congress related to
appropriations for recreational access stemming from the analysis of the FY2013-FY2021 period.
They include the lack of a consistent definition of recreational access, the challenge in
determining appropriations for recreational access from all funding sources that may foster
recreational access, and the sufficiency of information on agency priorities for recreational access
funding and the extent to which FLMA lands are accessible for recreation.
Appropriations for Recreational Access Acquisitions
From FY2013 to FY2021, Congress specified LWCF appropriations for recreational access for
each year, with an average of $21.3 million annually across all FLMAs.13 Annual appropriations
for recreational access increased throughout FY2013-FY2021, from $4.8 million to $67.5 million

Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr.
11 For an overview of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act as it operated with discretionary spending,
see CRS Report RL33531, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
12 Emergency acquisitions typically are time-sensitive; for example, when a property unexpectedly becomes available
for purchase due to changed circumstances, such as the death of the landowner. Some agencies use the term “hardship”
acquisitions in addition to or instead of emergency acquisitions.
13 For FY2010-FY2021, CRS consulted several sources to identify when Congress enacted appropriations specifically
for recreational access. FY2013 was the first year for which CRS identified such funding. The source of the FY2013
appropriation is a detailed funding table prepared by the Appropriations Committees dated May 29, 2013. The table
contained $4.8 million for the Forest Service (FS) for “priority recreational access.” Other sources consulted did not
identify FY2013 funding for FS for recreational access acquisitions. More generally, recreational access appropriations
typically are not specified in the annual appropriations laws, but instead in congressional documents accompanying the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Accordingly, CRS searched the documents
accompanying this bill, especially the detailed funding tables contained in explanatory statements and committee
reports. Other sources included the Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Budget, DOI’s annual Interior Budget in
Brief, and annual budget justifications for the four federal land management agencies (FLMAs). In some cases, these
sources differed as to amounts of appropriations for acquisitions for a particular agency in a given year. This is likely
due to factors such as the date of the information and the inclusion (or exclusion) of rescissions, emergency funding,
and other funding actions subsequent to the initial appropriation. CRS attempted to identify and present herein the most
authoritative figures, though in some cases it may not have been possible to do so.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

for the FLMAs, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. For each of FY2013-FY2015, approximately
$4 million to $5 million was appropriated for recreational access acquisitions by the FLMAs. For
each of FY2016-FY2019, about $17 million to $20 million was appropriated. The appropriation
roughly doubled from FY2019 to FY2020 and increased by 80% from FY2020 to FY2021.
(Amounts in this paragraph are not adjusted for inflation.)
Table 1. Appropriations for Recreational Access Acquisitions and All Acquisitions, by
Agency and Fiscal Year (FY2013-FY2021)
($ in millions of current dollars)

BLM
FWS
NPS
FS
Total

Rec
All
Rec
All
Rec
All
Rec
All
Rec
All
FY2013
$0
$21.2
$0
$50.8
$0
$44.3
$4.8
$49.8
$4.8
$166.1
FY2014
$0
$19.5
$0
$54.4
$0
$41.0
$4.7
$43.5
$4.7
$158.4
FY2015
$2.0
$19.7
$0
$47.5
$0
$41.9
$2.0
$47.5
$4.0
$156.6
FY2016
$8.0
$38.6
$2.5
$68.5
$2.0
$53.7
$8.0
$63.4
$20.5
$224.2
FY2017
$8.0
$31.4
$2.5
$60.0
$2.0
$42.0
$4.7
$54.4
$17.2
$187.8
FY2018
$8.0
$24.9
$2.5
$63.8
$2.0
$46.9
$4.7
$64.3
$17.2
$200.0
FY2019
$9.0
$26.5
$2.5
$65.2
$2.0
$34.4
$5.0
$72.6
$18.5
$198.7
FY2020
$13.0
$29.9
$8.0
$67.1
$7.0
$53.1
$9.5
$76.9
$37.5
$227.0
FY2021
$20.5
$60.7
$15.5 $111.8
$14.5
$93.8
$17.0 $118.3
$67.5
$384.6
Total
$68.5 $272.4
$33.5 $589.2
$29.5 $451.2
$60.4 $590.7 $191.9 $1,903.5
Sources: Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Budget, Interior Budget in Brief (annual); budget
justifications for BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS; and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior
appropriations bil .
Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; and
FS = Forest Service. For each agency, the column with the “Rec” heading reflects the appropriation specifically
identified for recreational access acquisitions, and the column with the “All” heading reflects the total
appropriation for acquisitions by the agency. Amounts are current appropriations—they represent the
appropriations in the fiscal years indicated and are not adjusted for inflation. Amounts shown for acquisition
appropriations of NPS do not include appropriations for the American Battlefield Protection Program. In some
cases, the sources consulted differ as to amounts for a particular agency in a given year due to factors including
date of publication and inclusion (or exclusion) of rescissions. CRS has attempted to present the most
authoritative figures, including rescissions, though it was not possible to do so with certainty in some cases.
For FS, the FY2013 appropriation is derived from a detailed funding table prepared by the Appropriations
Committees dated May 29, 2013. The FY2014 appropriation was provided for “Critical Inholdings/Cash
Equalization/Recreational Access” and thus may have been intended for purposes in addition to recreational
access.
For FY2021, appropriations reflect rescissions of prior year funds for BLM ($5.4 mil ion) and FS ($5.6 mil ion) in
the land acquisition accounts in Division G, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2021, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). The law did not contain
a rescission for the FWS land acquisition account and specified that a rescission in the NPS Land Acquisition and
State Assistance account was to come from grant programs (as distinct from federal land acquisition).
In each of FY2013 and FY2014, Congress specified recreational access funding for FS only. In
FY2015, both BLM and FS received appropriations for recreational access. For each of FY2016-
FY2021, Congress provided appropriations to each of the four FLMAs for recreational access
acquisitions. Figure 1 depicts the agencies that received recreational access funding each year
and the relative amounts of funding provided to each agency.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 8
Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Figure 1. Total Recreational Access Appropriations by Agency and Fiscal Year,
FY2013-FY2021
($ in millions of current dollars)

Sources: DOI Office of Budget; annual Interior Budget in Brief; budget justifications for BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS;
and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior appropriations bil .
Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; and
FS = Forest Service. Amounts are current appropriations—they represent the appropriations in the fiscal years
indicated and are not adjusted for inflation. They reflect the appropriations specifically identified for recreational
access acquisitions. In some cases, the sources consulted differ as to amounts for a particular agency in a given
year due to factors including date of publication and inclusion (or exclusion) of rescissions. CRS has attempted to
present the most authoritative figures, including rescissions, though it was not possible to do so with certainty in
some cases. For information on particular fiscal years, see the notes for Table 1.
Congress appropriated a total of $191.9 million in recreational access appropriations from the
LWCF for FY2013-FY2021. Each of the four FLMAs received different amounts of this total, as
shown in Table 1 and Figure 2. Two agencies each received roughly a third of the total: BLM
with $68.5 million (36%) and FS with $60.4 million (32%). FWS and NPS together received
about a third of the total. Specifically, FWS received $33.5 million (17%), and NPS received
$29.5 million (15%).
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 9
Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Figure 2. Total Recreational Access Appropriations by Agency for FY2013-FY2021
Combined
($ in millions of current dollars)

Sources: DOI Office of Budget; annual Interior Budget in Brief; budget justifications for BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS;
and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior appropriations bil .
Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; and
FS = Forest Service. Amounts are current appropriations—they represent the appropriations in the fiscal years
indicated and are not adjusted for inflation. They reflect the appropriations specifically identified for recreational
access acquisitions. In some cases, the sources consulted differ as to amounts for a particular agency in a given
year due to factors including date of publication and inclusion (or exclusion) of rescissions. CRS has attempted to
present the most authoritative figures, including rescissions, though it was not possible to do so with certainty in
some cases. For information on particular fiscal years, see the notes for Table 1.
Congress increased LWCF appropriations for all acquisitions over the FY2013-FY2021 period,
from $166.1 million in FY2013 to $384.6 million in FY2021 (Table 1 and Figure 3). Annual
appropriations fluctuated throughout the period, averaging $211.5 million. The share of the total
acquisition funding specified for recreational access increased from 3% in FY2013 to 18% in
FY2021. More specifically, for each of FY2013-FY2015, approximately 3% of the total
acquisition appropriation went to recreational access. For each of FY2016-FY2019,
approximately 9% of the total acquisition appropriation went to recreational access. For each of
FY2020 and FY2021, the percentage was about 17%-18%.14

14 This report does not address recreational access appropriations or all acquisition appropriations as a percentage of
total discretionary appropriations for the FLMAs. In the past, both recreational access appropriations and all acquisition
appropriations tended to be a relatively small portion of total discretionary appropriations for the FLMAs. For example,
for FY2021, the $67.5 million appropriated for recreational access was a relatively small portion of the four agencies
combined regular discretionary appropriations of $13.44 billion.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 6
Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Figure 3. Combined Appropriations for Recreational Access and All Acquisitions for
Four Agencies, by Fiscal Year
($ in millions of current dollars)

Sources DOI Office of Budget; annual Interior Budget in Brief; budget justifications for BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS;
and congressional documents accompanying the annual Interior appropriations bil .
Notes: Amounts are current appropriations—they represent the appropriations in the fiscal years indicated and
are not adjusted for inflation. For each fiscal year, the first bar reflects the combined appropriation specifically
identified for recreational access acquisitions for the four FLMAs, and the second bar reflects all acquisition
appropriations for FLMAs. Amounts shown for all acquisition appropriations do not include appropriations to
NPS for the American Battlefield Protection Program. In some cases, the sources consulted differ as to amounts
for a particular agency in a given year due to factors including date of publication and inclusion (or exclusion) of
rescissions. CRS has attempted to present the most authoritative figures, including rescissions, though it was not
possible to do so with certainty in some cases. For information on particular fiscal years, see the notes for
Table 1.
Statutory Requirements
Provisions of authorizing statutes likely influence congressional decisions in appropriating funds
for land acquisition generally and recreational access acquisitions in particular.15 Some of these
statutes are broad. For instance, the LWCF Act lays out broad outdoor recreation goals for the
nation and generally seeks to foster access to federal lands for recreational purposes. As enacted
in 1964, the LWCF Act set out its purposes as follows:
to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United
States of America of present and future generations and visitors who are lawfully present
within the boundaries of the United States of America such quality and quantity of outdoor

15 The recent statutes addressed in this section are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Other recent statutory changes
also sought to foster recreational access and use. For instance, the 115th Congress reauthorized and amended the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) in P.L. 115-141, Division O, Title III. The law renewed mandatory
spending authority for land acquisition with proceeds from BLM disposal of certain lands. It is codified at 43 U.S.C.
§§2301 et seq. and discussed in this report under “Issues for Congress.”
Congressional Research Service

6

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable for individual
active participation in such recreation and to strengthen the health and vitality of the
citizens of the United States.16
The LWCF Act sought to accomplish these purposes in part by “providing funds” for federal land
acquisition.17 The law created the LWCF in the Treasury as a funding source to implement its
outdoor recreation goals. In addition, other broad statutes pertaining to each of the FLMAs
generally allow for and govern recreation.18
To foster recreational access to federal lands, recent Congresses have discussed whether to amend
the LWCF Act or other laws or to establish other new authorities. These debates resulted in new
statutory requirements governing funding for recreational access. For example, the 116th Congress
enacted P.L. 116-9, with both funding and policy provisions related to recreational access. P.L.
116-9 amended the LWCF Act to set aside a portion of federal acquisition funding specifically to
foster access to federal lands for recreational purposes. It set an annual threshold for such
acquisitions—not less than $15.0 million or 3% of amounts made available for expenditure
(under 54 U.S.C. §200303), whichever is greater.19 The law required the funding to be used for
projects identified on a priority list developed by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture. It directed the Secretaries, in consultation with the heads of affected agencies, to
develop annual priority lists of acquisitions that “secure recreational public access” to lands under
their jurisdiction for “hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, or other outdoor recreational
purposes.”20
Other provisions of P.L. 116-9 required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to prepare priority lists of FLMA lands where the public is allowed to hunt, fish, or
use lands for other recreational purposes but for which there is no public access or significantly
restricted public access. The law required the priority lists to be prepared within 1 year of
enactment and biennially thereafter over 10 years and to be publicly available on agency
websites. With respect to lands included on a priority list, the law also required the Secretaries to
report to Congress on options for resolving access issues,21 including by acquiring lands or
interests in lands.22

16 Act of September 3, 1964; §1(b), P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897.
17 The law also established a program for grants to states for outdoor recreation purposes, among other provisions.
18 For example, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) manages lands for multiple uses, including recreation.
19 This change was enacted in P.L. 116-9, §3001(d), on March 12, 2019, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200306(c). P.L. 116-
9 also set out a threshold level of appropriations for “federal purposes” of which recreational access appropriations is
part. The law stated that of the total amount made available to the fund through appropriations or deposited in the fund
under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), not less than 40% shall be used for “federal
purposes” and not less than 40% shall be used “to provide financial assistance to states.” See P.L. 116-9, §3001(b),
enacted on March 12, 2019, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200304(b). Under GOMESA, as codified at 43 U.S.C. §1331
note, states can receive a maximum of $125 million annually in mandatory funding, except in FY2021 and FY2022
when the maximum is $162.5 million. These monies can be used only for the outdoor recreation grants to states
program set out in the LWCF Act at 54 U.S.C. §200305. They are in addition to the mandatory appropriations provided
under the LWCF Act.
20 This change was enacted in P.L. 116-9, §3001(d), on March 12, 2019, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200306(c).
21 The Secretaries are required to report to the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Senate Committee on Appropriations, and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
22 These provisions were included in P.L. 116-9, Title IV, §4105, enacted on March 12, 2019, as codified at 16 U.S.C.
§7915. Title IV of the law, pertaining to “Sportsmen’s Access and Related Matters,” contained other provisions on
facilitating access to federal lands for recreation, especially hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
Congressional Research Service

7

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Another 116th Congress law, the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA; P.L. 116-152), also
contained provisions related to recreational access.23 Under the LWCF Act, $900 million is
deposited annually into the fund.24 GAOA made the $900 million in deposits available as
mandatory spending. Prior to GAOA, the money had been available only if appropriated in
subsequent law and thus was considered discretionary spending. The annual appropriations
typically were less than $900 million.25 To allocate the mandatory funds, GAOA generally
required the President to submit annually to Congress detailed account, program, and project
allocations for the full amount available. GAOA also provided for alternate allocations by
Congress through appropriations acts. If Congress does not enact an alternate allocation by the
date of enactment of full-year appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, the
President is to allocate amounts. GAOA also required amounts expended from the fund to be
consistent with the requirements for recreational public access in 54 U.S.C. §200306(c).26 The
requirements in Section 200306(c) pertain to a threshold level of funding for recreational public
access projects based on a priority list developed by the Secretaries, as discussed above (in the
context of P.L. 116-9).
Changes in law in the 116th Congress may account for some of the increase in appropriations for
recreational access in FY2020 and FY2021. The appropriations for those two years were provided
after enactment of P.L. 116-9, which set a threshold level of funding for acquisitions that foster
recreational access to federal lands. The appropriations for FY2021 were provided after
enactment of GAOA, which provided a higher total level of funding for LWCF programs ($900
million) than generally had been the case in recent decades.27
Acquisition Selection Processes and Criteria
Numerous authorities guide the FLMAs in seeking to acquire lands with LWCF funding. They
include differing standing authorities to acquire land, which range from relatively broad authority
for BLM to no general authority (except in limited circumstances) for NPS.28 In addition,
Congress has enacted various laws to authorize and govern specific land acquisitions by the
FLMAs. Provisions of the LWCF Act also govern land acquisitions, for instance, through the
establishment of common criteria for agencies to take into account in considering which lands to
acquire with LWCF funds. The criteria include the recreational value of the land.29 Other
authorities that guide the land acquisition process include regulations; department and agency-

23 P.L. 116-152, enacted on August 4, 2020, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200303.
24 54 U.S.C. §200302.
25 This resulted in an unappropriated balance in the fund of approximately $22 billion through FY2019.
26 P.L. 116-152, enacted on August 4, 2020, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200303(c)(3).
27 Congress set out the allocation of $900 million in mandatory appropriations for FY2021 in the explanatory statement
for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021. “Explanatory
Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House
Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division G, Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021),” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 166, no. 218-Book IV (December 21, 2020), pp. H8554-H8556.
28 However, laws creating park units typically authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire lands within the
boundaries of the units. For an overview of the land acquisition authorities of the FLMAs, see CRS Report RL34273,
Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
29 Common criteria are set out in the LWCF Act at 54 U.S.C. §200306(d).
Congressional Research Service

8

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

specific strategic plans and objectives; Administration priorities; and agency manuals, handbooks,
memoranda, and other sources.
Under the procedure in the LWCF Act, the President is to include detailed account, program, and
project allocations of the $900 million in mandatory spending as part of his budget submission to
Congress, though appropriations acts may specify an alternate allocation, as noted earlier.30
Agencies typically identify priority core projects for inclusion in the President’s budget
submission through selection processes that progress through the field, regional, and headquarter
offices.31 In evaluating projects from the field, regional and headquarter offices typically rank
and/or score requests using point values for each criteria they consider. Agency-specific criteria
and processes have evolved over time.32 Land acquisition projects selected by headquarters
generally have been reviewed at the department level and by the Office of Management and
Budget before being included in annual budget requests to Congress. Congressional
decisionmaking on levels of appropriations for recreational access acquisitions is based on the
agencies’ budget submissions.
Recreational Access Project Selection33
A 2019 GAO report on the LWCF included a review of the processes and criteria the FLMAs
used to identify potential land acquisitions to be funded by the LWCF, including recreational
access acquisitions. The report focused on the processes and criteria used by the agencies in
FY2018. In conducting the review, GAO interviewed agency officials and examined agency
guidance. This section of the report summarizes portions of the GAO report pertaining to the
processes and criteria FLMAs used to select recreational access acquisitions.34

30 P.L. 116-152, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200303(c)(1). The law provided that appropriations acts may specify an
“alternate allocation,” including “allocations by account, program, and project.” Further, if alternate allocations 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 allocate the
available amount from the LWCF as the President determines. See 54 U.S.C. §200303(c)(2).
31 For BLM, “field” refers to field offices; for the other agencies, “field” refers to a field unit, such as a national
wildlife refuge or a national park. In this report, “field” encompasses BLM offices and other agencies’ units. For BLM,
the selection process typically involves the state office; for the other agencies, it involves the regional office. In this
report, “region” or “regional” is used to encompass BLM state offices and other agencies’ regional offices.
32 For additional information on the processes and criteria used by the FLMAs to allocate funding for land acquisition
projects, see CRS Report R46563, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds,
coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
33 This section summarizes information contained in a GAO report. See GAO, Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Variety of Programs Supported, but Improvements in Data Collection Needed at BLM, GAO-19-346, May 2019
(accessible text versions), at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-346. Hereinafter referred to as GAO-19-346.
34 GAO-19-346 is based on processes and criteria used by the agencies for FY2018. CRS has not examined the extent
to which the agencies have used the same processes and criteria each year since the GAO report was issued. However,
the FY2021 process and criteria used by the agencies for core (individual) acquisitions were similar to those shown in
the GAO report. The FY2021 process and criteria are summarized in CRS Report R46563, Land and Water
Conservation Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Moreover, the
explanatory statement for the FY2021 Interior appropriations law identified an appropriation for each of the FLMAs for
recreational access acquisitions but did not identify individual recreation access projects. See the explanatory statement
for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021. “Explanatory
Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House
Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division G, Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021),” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 166, no. 218-Book IV (December 21, 2020), pp. H8554-H8556.
Congressional Research Service

9

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

According to GAO, FLMAs did not submit recreational access projects to Congress as part of
their budget submissions, unlike for core acquisition projects. Instead, after they received an
appropriation from Congress, the agencies initiated the process of selecting recreational access
projects using a process similar to that used for core projects. Under this process, field units
identify priority projects, these projects are reviewed at the regional level, and regions select
projects for review at the headquarters level.35 After the FLMAs selected recreational access
projects, they provided lists of selected projects to Congress for informational purposes,
according to GAO.
In selecting recreational access acquisitions, BLM used the same criteria and point system as
used to select core acquisitions. This also was the case for NPS, except that NPS had an
additional criterion—that the projects provide access to land that lacked access. By contrast, FWS
and FS used different criteria to select recreational access acquisitions than they used for core
acquisitions. Moreover, neither agency used a point system to score recreational access
acquisitions. The GAO report contained additional detail on the process and criteria used by each
FLMA to select recreational access acquisitions, as discussed below.
Bureau of Land Management
BLM began the selection process for recreational access acquisitions after receiving its land
acquisition appropriation. To evaluate recreational access projects, BLM used the same criteria
and point system that it used for core projects, as noted. The criteria related to the following:
 Public Access: creates or increases access to previously inaccessible BLM lands.
 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 outside funding or is being sold below market value.
 State Directors’ Priority: is a priority of the BLM state director.36
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
After receiving its land acquisition appropriation, FWS began the selection process for
recreational access acquisitions. To evaluate recreational access projects, FWS used different
criteria than those used for core projects. Further, FWS did not use point values. The criteria
related to whether projects
 provide hunting and/or fishing access to inaccessible refuge areas;
 improve access to federal lands that are open to hunting and/or fishing;
 acquire areas that could be readily opened to hunting and/or fishing;
 acquire areas that create or expand opportunities for wildlife viewing,
interpretation, environmental education, or photography; and
 are ready to close by a certain date.37

35 GAO-19-346, pp. 16-17. For recreational access projects, NPS headquarters consulted with regional offices about the
viability of projects that were not funded as core projects but that provided recreational access. Thus, recreational
access projects may not have repeated the full three-step process.
36 Information on the BLM process and criteria is derived from GAO-19-346, pp. 46-47.
37 Information on the FWS process and criteria is derived from GAO-19-346, pp. 50-52.
Congressional Research Service

10

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

National Park Service
Following receipt of its land acquisition appropriation, NPS headquarters reviewed requests for
core acquisitions that were not funded to identify those that would provide recreational access.
After confirming with the regional offices that the acquisitions were still viable, NPS
headquarters distributed funds to regions. Because NPS considered projects proposed as core
acquisitions that were not funded, the agency assessed recreational access projects using the same
criteria and point system as used for core projects. In addition, acquisitions were to provide
access to lands where it was lacking.
NPS used different criteria at the regional and headquarters levels to evaluate potential
acquisitions. Regional criteria were as follows:
 Resource Threat: describes the nature and imminence of potential harm to the
lands and whether the resource could be repaired if harmed.
 Preservation of Resource: sets out the importance, scarcity, and certain benefits
of the resource.
 Visitor Use and Infrastructure: demonstrates whether the acquisition supports a
proposed structure or facility.
 Commitment Made to Acquire: addresses the extent to which the seller has
committed to convey the parcel.
 Nonprofit/Partner Involvement: identifies whether a nonprofit/partner is involved
in the acquisition.
 Continuity: considers whether the acquisition is part of a multiphase project or
planned effort.
 Recreation: enhances recreational opportunities.
 Hardship: addresses circumstances contributing to a landowner’s need to sell,
such as medical or financial circumstances.
Headquarters criteria were
 Legislative Authority: conveys whether legislative authority is needed for the
acquisition.
 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.
 Regional Priority: identifies projects that have been ranked by the regions as
priorities.
 Current Economic Price Escalation Factor: reflects the extent of inflation to land
prices.
 Congressional and Local Support: conveys the political support for the project.
 Park Type: considers types of park units that reflect the Administration’s
priorities during the budget cycle.
 Out-year Costs or Savings: reflects costs or savings in operation, administration,
and maintenance that would result from the acquisition.38

38 Information on the NPS process and criteria is derived from GAO-19-346, p. 55 and p. 57.
Congressional Research Service

11

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Forest Service
FS began the selection process for recreational access acquisitions after receiving its land
acquisition appropriations. To evaluate recreational access projects, FS used different criteria than
those used for core projects. FS did not use a point system. The criteria related to whether
proposed projects
 meet key recreation needs for increasing access to hunting, fishing, and other
recreational activities; and
 support the forest from a resource management perspective.39
Congressional Guidance on Recreational Access
Acquisitions
Congress has addressed recreational access during its consideration of annual Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills each year from FY2013 through
FY2021. For some years, Congress included guidance in explanatory statements accompanying
enacted appropriations bills.40 The guidance sometimes specified areas and purposes to prioritize
for recreational access funding. Other guidance addressed the processes that agencies use to select
recreational access acquisition projects. In other cases, the guidance directed agencies to report
certain information to the Appropriations Committees or disclose information in agency budget
documents. Still other guidance had a combination of these provisions or other objectives.
Congressional guidance is likely to affect the amount of appropriations agencies request for
recreational access acquisitions, the processes agencies use to select acquisitions, and agency use
of appropriations for recreational access. Provided below are examples of various types of
congressional guidance.
Specified Areas and Purposes
In several years, explanatory statements accompanying appropriations bills specified the types of
recreational purposes for which funding should be used. They typically emphasized hunting,
fishing, and other recreational activities. For example, the FY2015 explanatory statement directed
both BLM and FS “to prioritize recreational access projects that significantly enhance access to
existing public lands that have inadequate access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational
activities.”41
In some years, Congress identified specific units or types of areas as priority candidates for
recreational access funding. For FY2018, for example, the explanatory statement provided that
“funds provided for recreational access are available to close gaps in national trails, including the

39 Information on the FS process and criteria is derived from GAO-19-346, pp. 61-62.
40 For some years, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations also included guidance in their reports on
annual appropriations bills or addressed related issues during hearings on these bills. CRS did not consistently seek to
determine the extent to which recommendations in reports of these committees or issues addressed at hearings held by
these committees may have been reflected in or superseded by language in the explanatory statements on the enacted
measures. Accordingly, this section of the report focuses on guidance in explanatory statements.
41 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 83 (Division F, Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
160, no. 151- Book II (December 11, 2014), pp. H9760, H9768.
Congressional Research Service

12

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Ice Age, North Country, and New England National Scenic Trails. The Committees urge the
[National Park] Service to consider geographic distribution to ensure that investments for the trail
system are reflected in project prioritization.”42 For FY2019, the conference report expressed the
understanding of the conferees “that projects … such as the Upper Snake/South Fork River
Special Recreation Management Area, meet the criteria for recreational access funding and
should receive full consideration from the amounts included for recreational access.”43
For FY2021, the explanatory statement noted the newly established Green River National
Wildlife Refuge was eligible for recreational access and inholding funding and encouraged FWS
“to continue to use these additional funding tools to purchase parcels as they become available, as
it does for other units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.”44
Agency Selection Processes
Congress sometimes addressed agency processes for selecting recreational access projects. For
instance, for FY2019, conferees expressed that the “agencies are expected to work with their
respective regions, State offices, and/or management units to identify potential recreation access
projects and to inform the Committees on project selections prior to proceeding.”45
With regard to recreational access, the FY2020 explanatory statement indicated, “the Department
of the Interior and the Forest Service shall follow the direction contained in the S.Rept. 116-
123,”46 the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the FY2020 Interior appropriations
bill. Among other provisions, that committee report included guidance on completing acquisitions
of selected projects.
The Committee remains concerned about the prioritization of projects and the ability to
allocate funds once appropriated. The Committee strongly encourages the [Forest] Service
to quickly close projects once funds have been made available and a willing seller has been
identified, an appraisal has been completed, and a purchase contract has been agreed to.47

42 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
Regarding the House Amendment to Senate Amendment on H.R. 1625 (Division G, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164, no. 50-
Book II (March 22, 2018), p. H2616.
43 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2019, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 31, 116th
Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 116-9 (Washington DC: GPO, 2019), p. 712.
44 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(Division G, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021),”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166, no. 218-Book IV (December 21, 2020), p. H8525.
45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2019, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 31, 116th
Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 116-9 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), p. 708.
46 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
Regarding H.R. 1865, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (Division D, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165, no.
204-Book III (December 17, 2019), p. H11282.
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2020, report to accompany S. 2580, 116th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 116-123 (Washington,
DC: GPO, 2019), p. 109.
Congressional Research Service

13

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Reporting and Other Disclosure Requirements
In some years, Congress directed the agencies to report to the Appropriations Committees on
recreational access activities and processes for selecting projects. In other cases, Congress
directed the agencies to disclose related information in future agency budget justifications.
Some reporting requirements pertained to recreational access actions broadly. For example, the
FY2014 explanatory statement directed DOI and FS to report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees within 120 days regarding actions taken to “preserve and improve
access to public lands for hunting, fishing, shooting, and other recreational activities.... ”48
Several reporting and disclosure requirements pertained to how the agencies would use, or did
use, acquisition funding. For FY2016, for instance, the explanatory statement noted the
following:
The Committees believe increasing access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and other
recreational activities is important. This agreement includes new funding for these
activities for the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service while increasing
funds for the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. The Committees expect the
agencies to report within 30 days of enactment of this Act on how this funding will be
spent, and the agencies should include a description and explanation of the use of funds in
future budget requests.49
Multiple Objectives
Some of the congressional guidance had multiple objectives. For instance, some explanatory
statements included a combination of the three types of provisions discussed above, pertaining to
the purposes for which recreational access funds could be used, the agency processes for selecting
recreational access projects, and requirements for agencies to report certain information to the
Appropriations Committees or disclose information in their annual budget justifications. Provided
below are a few examples.
For FY2017, the explanatory statement noted as follows:
The Committees urge each of the agencies to comply with any Congressional requests for
full and accurate accounting of cost, acreage, and location data of lands acquired with
LWCF funds. In future budget justifications, the agencies are directed to include a detailed
explanation on the use of prior year funds for recreational access projects and inholdings.
The Committees direct the agencies to continue to consider and rank Federal land
acquisition projects consistent with the process used in prior years, and upon request, to
provide a prioritized project list for any funding levels above the budget request being
considered by the House or Senate Committees. The Committees believe increasing access
to our public lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities is important and
again include funding for these projects. The Committees expect the same factors used to
determine suitability of listed projects will apply to recreational access projects and the

48 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 3547, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division G, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2014),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, no. 9-Book II (January 15, 2014), p. H972.
49 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding House Amendment No. 1 to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 2029-Continued, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Division G, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2016),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161, no. 184-Book III (December 17, 2015), p. H10211.
Congressional Research Service

14

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

agencies should work through their respective regions, State offices, and/or management
units to consider projects that may not rise to the level of listed projects. The agencies are
directed to include an explanation of the process and criteria used for allocating funds for
recreational access in future budget justifications. Further, the Committees are to be
informed about the selection process and how the agencies are meeting the outlined
objectives prior to proceeding with projects.50
For FY2018, the explanatory statement expressed the following:
The Committees expect recreational access projects to be selected based on their role in
meeting key recreation needs and the agencies should work with their respective regions,
State offices, and/or management units to identify potential projects. The Committees are
to be informed about the selection process and how the agencies are meeting the outlined
objectives prior to proceeding with projects. Further, the agencies are again directed to
include in future budget justifications an explanation of the process used for allocating
funds for recreational access in the previous year.51
For FY2020, the explanatory statement directed agencies to follow the direction in S.Rept. 116-
123, as noted.52 The Senate Appropriations Committee report contained language similar to the
FY2018 explanatory statement, set out above.
The Committee expects recreational access projects to be selected based on their role in
meeting key recreation needs, and the agencies should work with their respective regions,
State offices, and/or management units to identify all potential projects. Further, the
agencies are again directed to include in future budget justifications an explanation of the
process and criteria used to allocating funds for recreational access in the previous year.53
Agency Guidance on Recreational Access
Acquisitions
Over the years examined (FY2013-FY2021), the FLMAs provided guidance on recreational
access appropriations in their annual budget justifications. The information varied among the
agencies and over time. The variation extended to the kinds of recreation specified, the amount
and type of information provided, and the processes and criteria used for selecting recreational
access acquisitions, among other factors. The variation likely stems from new congressional
direction, changes in Administration priorities, and the evolution of the LWCF to acquire parcels
expressly for recreational access. This section summarizes some of the differences in guidance
among the FLMAs.

50 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendments on H.R. 244 (Division G, Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
163, no. 76-Book II (May 3, 2017), p. H3874.
51 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
Regarding the House Amendment to Senate Amendment on H.R. 1625 (Division G, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164, no. 50-
Book II (March 22, 2018), p. H2609.
52 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
Regarding H.R. 1865, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (Division D, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165, no.
204-Book III (December 17, 2019), p. H11282.
53 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2020, report to accompany S. 2580, 116th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 116-123 (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2019), p. 7.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 24 Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

In their annual budget justifications, the FLMAs sometimes included guidance as to how
recreational access funding is to be or has been spent, including policies, plans, and past
performance. For FY2013-FY2021, the information differed among agencies in several respects.
One difference is the types of recreational activities highlighted by the agencies. For instance, in
some years, BLM identified “a variety” of recreational activities, including hunting and fishing;
FWS identified wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, observation,
photography, environmental education, and interpretation; NPS identified entry and exit points
for watercraft along waterways and connecting gaps in scenic trails; and FS identified both
motorized and nonmotorized recreation. These examples do not represent the full range of
recreational activities identified by, or authorized on, the lands of each of the FLMAs, though
they may point to some differences in emphasis. Agency variations in the types of activities
specified may stem in part from their diverse missions and authorities for managing lands.
Another difference relates to the amount and type of information provided across the FLMAs.
BLM budget justifications, for example, contained relatively little information on the purposes of
recreational access acquisitions and the processes used to prioritize and select these acquisitions.
In contrast, FS budget justifications typically included fuller information covering purposes,
eligibility, rating criteria, application procedures, and broad summaries or illustrative examples of
prior year acquisitions. In lieu of (or in addition to) budget justifications, some agencies may
detail recreational access purposes and processes in other sources, such as in guidance from
headquarters to field offices.54
Where the FLMA budget justifications described the selection of recreational access projects, the
processes and criteria outlined often varied among the agencies. For instance, the FWS budget
justification for some years identified four categories of acquisitions in priority order. They
ranged from refuge areas inaccessible for hunting and/or fishing to areas that create or expand
opportunities for wildlife viewing, interpretation, environmental education, and photography.
Some NPS budget justifications noted that recreational access acquisitions were selected from
projects using the same merit-based criteria used for core acquisitions. These criteria
encompassed a broad range of factors, such as threat to the resource, involvement of partners, and
recreational opportunities.55 The FS budget justifications for some years set out a list of questions
for evaluating parcels, such as “How does the acquisition solve a specific access problem or
overcome a barrier to access?”56 Again, these examples do not fully identify the variations in
processes and criteria among the FLMAs over the years. Instead, they point to differences that
likely derive in part from differing agency missions, priorities, and authorities.
The Appendix contains agency-specific summaries that detail how each of the four FLMAs
discussed recreational access in annual budget justifications to Congress. The summaries cover
FY2013-FY2021, the years for which CRS identified specific funding for recreational access.
Issues for Congress
Potential issues for Congress arise in determining and assessing appropriations levels for
recreational access acquisitions and the purposes and conditions of such funding. One issue has

54 CRS did not comprehensively analyze such other guidance in preparing this report.
55 See, for instance, NPS, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justifications, p. LASA-14. The criteria used for FY2017 were
threat to the resource; preservation of the resource; visitor use facility accommodation; involvement of partners,
nonprofit groups or availability of matching funds; continuation of an ongoing effort; recreational opportunities; and
local support for the acquisition.
56 FS, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Justification, May 2017, pp. 132-133; FS, FY2020 Budget Justification, March 2019, p.
153; and FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 143.
Congressional Research Service

16

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

been the lack of a single definition of recreational access during the period covered by this report
(FY2013-FY2021), making it difficult to compare funding across years. A second issue is
whether an assessment of all funding sources for recreational access would foster decisionmaking
and the challenge in determining total appropriations. A third issue is the availability and
sufficiency of information, both on how agencies select and use recreational funding and on the
extent to which FLMA lands are accessible for recreation.
Definition of Recreational Access
No uniform definition of recreational access acquisitions appears to have been used during the
years examined. This makes it difficult to compare past funding across years and may make it
challenging to determine or compare future appropriations.
In some cases, recreational access acquisitions may have referred to purchases of lands and
interests (e.g., easements) adjacent to areas currently in federal ownership, where the federal
lands are suitable for recreation. In other cases, recreational access acquisitions may have referred
to purchases of lands that may be suitable for recreational purposes. Further, the types of
recreation intended to be fostered by recreational access acquisitions may have varied over the
years. In recent years, one focus has been on access for hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. Another has been on access for these activities and broader recreational pursuits, such
as bird watching and viewing other species and land resources, picnicking, camping, hiking,
biking, boating, driving for pleasure, swimming, snowmobiling, and off-highway travel, among
other uses (though some forms or recreation are not allowed on certain types of lands or in
particular areas).
P.L. 116-9 may have helped clarify congressional meaning regarding recreational access
acquisitions. As noted, the law required portions of LWCF funding to be used for acquisition
projects on a priority list developed annually by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture in consultation with the heads of affected agencies. The list is to include acquisitions
of lands (or interests) that would “secure recreational public access to Federal land under the
jurisdiction of the applicable Secretary for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, or other
outdoor recreational purposes.”57 This language would encompass a variety of types of recreation,
though the types and locations allowed on each agency’s lands would depend on its mission and
authorities.
Congress may evaluate whether the recreational purposes specified in P.L. 116-9 provide the
desired clarity and flexibility or uniformity that Congress intended. One issue may be the extent
to which certain types of recreational acquisitions are to be prioritized across agencies or by a
particular agency, in the context of the differing statutes that govern FLMA land use. Congress
also may consider the extent to which the agencies’ priority lists meet the recreational access
needs of the public, in terms of the type of acquisition (i.e., full ownership or an interest) and the
purposes, locations, and acreages of proposed acquisitions.
Identification of Total Funding
It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine total appropriations for acquisitions that benefit
recreational access. Information on total appropriations could foster decisionmaking on the
portion of LWCF appropriations that Congress may wish to specify for recreational access.

57 P.L. 116-9, §3001(d), enacted on March 12, 2019, as codified at 54 U.S.C. §200306(c).
Congressional Research Service

17

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

This report identifies LWCF appropriations for the FLMAs that were specified for recreational
access. However, other portions of LWCF funding might foster recreational access, though they
might not be labeled as such. For example, in its 2019 report, GAO noted, “Core projects and
time-sensitive projects can also improve recreational access.”58 Moreover, according to BLM
testimony in 2015, “nearly 100 percent of LWCF funding over the past several years has been
used for projects that enhance public access for recreation.”59 For FS, 39 of the 40 acquisitions
completed in FY2014 with LWCF funding provided improved access or legal access where none
existed, according to agency testimony in 2015.60 However, the extent to which agencies
prioritize acquisition funding for recreational access might vary among FLMAs and from year to
year.
In addition, FLMA acquisitions with non-LWCF funding sources may enhance recreational
access. For instance, in P.L. 115-141 (Division O, Title III), the 115th Congress reauthorized and
amended the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), renewing mandatory spending
authority for land acquisition with proceeds from BLM disposal of certain lands.61 It renewed the
authority of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to use the funds to
acquire inholdings and lands adjacent to certain federally designated areas that contain
“exceptional” resources. P.L. 115-141 also amended the operation of FLTFA to foster recreational
access and use. For instance, one change authorized the funds to be used for acquiring lands or
interests in lands adjacent to BLM areas that are open to the public for hunting, fishing,
recreational shooting, and other recreational purposes but for which there is no access or
“significantly restricted” public access. Another change directed the Secretaries to develop a
procedure to prioritize acquisition of inholdings and nonfederal lands with exceptional resources
that meet certain criteria, including the extent to which acquisition “will increase the public
availability of resources for, and facilitate public access to, hunting, fishing, and other
recreational activities.”62
An issue for Congress each year is determining the optimal level of funding for recreational
access acquisitions. To foster this decisionmaking, Congress might wish to assess LWCF funding
specifically for recreational access and LWCF funding for other types of acquisitions (e.g., core,
emergency, and inholding) that enhance recreational access. Similarly, Congress might assess
sources of funding under other authorities, such as FLTFA, that enhance recreational access.
Considerations may pertain to the purposes, requirements, and amounts of funding available
under different authorities and their adequacy for the varying recreational needs of the FLMAs
and the public.

58 GAO-19-346, p. 9, footnote 18.
59 Statement of BLM’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, 114th Cong., 1st
sess., March 12, 2015, p. 6, at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=
f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.
60 Testimony of FS’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, 114th
Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2015, pp. 5-6, at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-
meetings?ID=f46d20ea-6d78-4c4a-a582-2881bbb5abca.
61 P.L. 115-141, Division O, Title III codified at 43 U.S.C. §2301 et seq.
62 43 U.S.C. §2305(c)(3)). Unlike the GAOA, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) did not specify a
role for Congress in allocating the mandatory appropriations.
Congressional Research Service

18

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Availability of Recreational Access Information
It is not clear if in past years the FLMAs generally provided Congress information on areas
lacking recreational access. Further, the quality of any information provided is uncertain. For
example, during the years examined (FY2013-FY2021), FLMA budget justifications typically did
not include information on areas lacking recreational access or lists of acquisition projects to be
prioritized for recreational access funding. Comprehensive information might assist Congress in
appropriating funding for recreational access.
The 116th Congress enacted legislation relating to the accessibility of federal lands for recreation.
For instance, P.L. 116-9 required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, on
behalf of the FLMAs, to publish information on the accessibility of federal lands for recreation.
Specifically, the law directed the Secretaries to identify and publish on agency websites “priority
lists” containing the location and acreage of land on which the public is allowed to hunt, fish, and
engage in other forms of recreation but for which there is no access or “significantly” restricted
access.63 The areas listed are to consist of at least 640 acres. The law further directed the agencies
to report to the appropriations and authorizing committees on options—including acquisition—
for providing access.64 In response, the FLMAs developed priority lists that were posted online in
2020.65 P.L. 116-9 also required the Secretaries to prepare and publish priority lists biennially
during the 10-year period following the completion of the first lists.66
In addition, academic and other nongovernmental entities have published information on the
extent to which federal lands are available for recreation.67 Some of them also have called for
federal agencies to develop standardized datasets of existing access easements to improve public
awareness of legal access points and help federal agencies identify areas where access is most
limited.68 Although P.L. 116-9 does not explicitly require FLMAs to make recreational access
priority lists available in geospatial format, the FLMAs are engaged in activities to make
geospatial information publicly available. According to recent BLM testimony, the agency has
“begun an internal initiative to digitize recreational access information into geospatial files and
make that information available to the public by the end of FY 2022.”69 As of October 2021,

63 P.L. 116-9, §4105, enacted on March 12, 2019, as codified at 16 U.S.C. §7915.
64 These committees are the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Natural Resources, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
65 The lists are available at the following agency websites: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/dingell-act.htm;
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/dingell-act-priority-list.html; https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/
1503445/570; and https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/lands-realty-management/dingell-cmra. In some cases,
agency information indicated that the lists on these sites were still under review, not final.
66 P.L. 116-9, §4105, enacted on March 12, 2019, as codified at 16 U.S.C. §7915.
67 See for example, John W. Sheridan, “The Legal Landscape of America’s Landlocked Property,” Journal of
Environmental Law 37 (2019); Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Off Limits, But Within Reach: Unlocking
the West’s Inaccessible Public Lands (August 2018), at https://www.trcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TRCP-onX-
Landlocked-Report-8-26-2018.pdf; and Center for Western Priorities, Landlocked: Measuring Public Land Access in
the West (2013), at https://westernpriorities.org/2013/11/25/new-report-landlocked-measuring-public-land-access-in-
the-west/.
68 Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Off Limits, But Within Reach: Unlocking the West’s Inaccessible
Public Lands (August 2018), p. 8; and Testimony of President and CEO Joel Pedersen, Mule Deer Foundation, in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Regarding the MAPLand Act and SOAR Act, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 8, 2021, pp. 2-3, at
https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pedersen,%20Joel%20-%20UPDATED%20Testimony%20-
%20NPFPL%20Leg%20Hrg%2006.08.21.pdf.
69 Statement of BLM Assistant Director of National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships Mark
Lambrecht, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Congressional Research Service

19

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

BLM had publicly released data on acquired public access easements in Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Alaska.70 FWS, NPS, and FS also have publicly released geospatial datasets
that provide parcel-level information for many purposes, including recreational access.71 The
amount and presentation of data vary from agency to agency. Many access easements and other
parcel-level records have not been digitized and are not represented in these public data files.
An issue for Congress may be whether agency budget justifications contain sufficient information
about how agencies select and use recreational access funding. Congress also may evaluate
whether the requirements in P.L. 116-9, and agency actions thereunder, provide adequate
information for determining recreational access funding through the LWCF. The processes
agencies use to develop priority lists, as well as the frequency, format, and completeness of
information, might be among the areas of focus. Specific questions might explore whether the
minimum size of 640 acres is an optimal threshold, the value and extent of digitization of data,
and the extent to which agencies should coordinate in the development of priority lists.

Public Lands, H.R. 3113 Modernizing Access to Our Public Lands Act, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 8, 2021, p. 2 at
https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Lambrecht,%20Mark%20-%20Testimony%20-
%20NPFPL%20Leg%20Hrg%2006.08.21.pdf. BLM has released public lands access data for some areas on data.gov.
70 These datasets are publicly available on Data.gov.
71 NPS, FWS, and FS geospatial data files are available through Data.gov, the websites of the agencies, or both.
Congressional Research Service

20

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

Appendix. Agency Guidance on Recreational Access
Acquisitions (FY2013-FY2021)
This appendix contains agency-specific summaries of selected guidance on recreational access
acquisitions. It details how each of the four federal land management agencies (FLMAs)
discussed recreational access in annual budget justifications to Congress. The summaries cover
FY2013-FY2021, the years for which CRS identified specific funding for recreational access.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) FY2013-FY2017 budget justifications requested funds
to acquire small parcels of land, access easements to improve public access to “landlocked” BLM
lands, or both. BLM estimated “23 million acres (or 9 percent) of BLM-managed public lands
lack public access or have inadequate public access, primarily due to checkerboard land
ownership patterns. Securing and improving public access to these lands will serve various
recreational activities, including hunting and fishing.”72 BLM indicated the requested “funds will
invest in acquisitions to better meet recreation access needs by working with willing landowners
to secure rights-of-way, easements or fee simple lands that provide access or consolidate Federal
ownership so the public has unbroken spaces to recreate, hunt, and fish.”73
BLM’s FY2018-FY2020 budget justifications did not request funds for recreational access
projects, citing the “Administration’s priority to focus available budget resources on maintaining
current BLM lands rather than acquiring additional lands.”74 The FY2021 budget justification
included $3 million for recreational access projects. It noted that project proposals would be
given priority consideration if they “provide substantially added access to the public than at
present; provide substantially added opportunities for visitor use than at present; provide a variety
of recreational access for the public to enjoy; are under contract or option or have been pre-
purchased by a third-party partner; and include non-BLM leveraged funding or are offered as a
bargain sale.”75
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) FY2013-FY2014 budget justifications did not
address recreational access projects. The FY2015 budget justification sought mandatory funding
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and noted “FWS will focus $2.5 million in

72 The quoted text appears in each of the FY2013-FY2017 budget justifications. See Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2013, p. X-8; BLM, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2014, p. IX-8; BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information:
Fiscal Year 2015, p. VIII-8; BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2016, p. VIII-10;
and BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2017, p. VIII-10.
73 See BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2015, p. VIII-7; BLM, Budget
Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2016, p. VIII-9; BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2017, p. VIII-10; BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year
2018, p. VIII-10; and BLM, Budget Justification and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2021, p. VII-8.
74 See BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2018, p. II-10; BLM, Budget
Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2019, p. VII-11; and BLM, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2020, p. VII-8.
75 BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2021, p. VII-8.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 25 Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

mandatory funding towards projects to acquire access for sportsmen/recreation.”76 FWS
explained, “these funds will invest in acquisition to better meet recreation access needs by
working with willing landowners to secure rights-of-way, easements or fee simple lands that
provide access or consolidate Federal ownership so that public has unbroken spaces to recreate,
hunt, and fish.”77
FWS’s FY2016 budget justification requested “an additional” $2.5 million to
acquire and conserve important wildlife habitat to share with the public for recreational
use, including hunting and fishing. Refuges that may not have project funding but have
willing sellers, may request funds to acquire land to provide access for families and
recreationalists to enjoy wildlife recreation, such as observation and photography of
wildlife, and enjoying environmental education and interpretation.78
In the FY2017 budget justification, FWS noted that “sportsmen and recreational access” funds
covered the following:
Acquisition of small parcels of land to conserve important wildlife habitat that also provide
recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing. Refuges that do not have project
funding, but have willing sellers, may request funds to acquire land to provide public access
for wildlife-dependent recreation, such as wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation. The Service will be able to acquire choice
lands quickly and make them accessible to young people and the country’s growing urban
population that lives within an hour’s drive of a national wildlife refuge.79
Starting in the FY2018 budget justification, FWS proposed “to eliminate dedicated funding for
sportsmen and recreational access within the acquisition program to allow the Service to support
other higher priorities.”80 Nevertheless, FWS indicated that the criteria for this funding were, in
priority order, the following: “Provide access to refuge areas previously inaccessible for hunting
and/or fishing; Acquire areas that can be readily opened to hunting and/or fishing; Acquire areas
that expand existing hunting and/or fishing opportunities; and Acquire areas that create or expand
wildlife viewing, interpretation, environmental education, and photography opportunities.”81 In
FY2019 and FY2020 budget justifications, FWS did not request funding for recreational access
“in order to support higher priorities.”82
For FY2021, FWS included $3.0 million in “funding to acquire tracts that provide or improve
public access to Service lands for wildlife dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing.”83
Under “Sportsmen and Recreational Access,” the FY2021 budget justification indicated as
follows:

76 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2015, p. LA-
6. Mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was not authorized in FY2015. Mandatory
funding for LWCF programs first became available in FY2021 under provisions of the Great American Outdoors Act
(GAOA; P.L. 116-152).
77 See footnote 76.
78 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2016, p. LA-4.
79 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2017, p. LA-8.
80 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2018, p. LA-4.
81 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2018, p. LA-9.
82 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2019, p. LA-4; and FWS, Budget
Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2020, p. LA-7.
83 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2021, p. LA-7.
Congressional Research Service

22

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

This activity provides funding for acquisition of small parcels of land to conserve important
wildlife habitats that provide public recreational opportunities, including hunting and
fishing. Refuges that have willing sellers may request funds to acquire lands to provide
public access for wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.84
The budget justification also provided criteria for proposed acquisitions, which were the same as
those reflected in the FY2018 justification (as listed above).85
National Park Service
The National Park Service’s (NPS’s) FY2013-FY2014 budget justifications discussed
recreational access in connection with the Obama Administration’s America’s Great Outdoors
initiative but did not specifically request funding for recreational access projects. Both budget
justifications provide the following:
Federal land acquisition is an important tool to achieve the AGO [America’s Great
Outdoors] goals of enhancing recreational access and opportunities…. Since its inception
in 1916, the NPS has served as the ultimate caretaker of the country’s most valuable natural
and cultural resources, while providing for public use and enjoyment of those resources.
Today the National Park System has a vast and diverse portfolio of assets under its care
totaling more than 84 million acres, yet 2.7 million acres of private land remains within
NPS boundaries. Of the remaining private land, approximately 1.8 million acres are either
unprotected or are not available for public use, and have therefore been identified to be
purchased either in fee or through scenic/conservation easement interest. The public
strongly recommended providing full funding for LWCF programs to support public access
to recreational lands during the America’s Great Outdoors listening sessions this past
summer.86
The NPS FY2015 budget justification proposed dedicating $2.5 million for land acquisition
“projects that specifically address recreational access.”87 For FY2016, NPS requested a $2.0
million “funding increase” so as “to invest in acquisitions to better meet recreation access needs
by working with willing landowners to secure rights-of-way, easements or fee simple lands that
provide access or consolidate federal ownership so that the public has unbroken spaces for
recreation on park lands.”88
NPS requested $2.0 million for recreational access acquisitions in FY2017.89 The budget
justification also provided information on FY2016 recreational access acquisitions:
Funds that were appropriated in FY2016 for Recreational Access lands or interest in lands
within NPS boundaries are intended to be used where lands or interest in lands are being
considered for acquisition that would improve access to the resource and the recreation
potential within a unit of the national park system. Currently, many projects that meet the
criteria were previously submitted by Regions through the NPS ranking process. Those
projects which have already been vetted by the Regions, and did not receive funding, will

84 FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2021, p. LA-6.
85 Ibid.
86 National Park Service (NPS), Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2013, pp. LASA-8 –
LASA-9; and NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2014, pp. LASA-10 – LASA-11.
87 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2015, p. Overview-9.
88 NPS, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justifications, p. Overview-45.
89 NPS, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justifications, p. LASA-17.
Congressional Research Service

23

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

be looked at on the basis of the ranking and current ‘ripeness’—is the owner a willing
seller, etc., and then funds will be allotted to appropriate acquisition projects.90
NPS specified, “in FY 2016, it is anticipated that these funds will be used at two units to protect
620 acres of trail and river corridor for hiking and canoeing.”91
The budget justification also noted that
acquisitions proposed for FY 2017 were selected from the requested acquisitions using
merit-based criteria established by NPS and by the Department, including:
● threat to the resource
● preservation of the resource
● visitor use facility accommodation
● involvement of partners, non-profit groups or availability of matching funds
● continuation of an ongoing effort
● recreational opportunities
● local support for the acquisition92
NPS’s FY2018 and FY2019 budget justifications proposed to eliminate funding for recreational
access acquisitions. The FY2018 budget justification stated the following:
The National Park Service proposes to eliminate funding for Recreational Access in FY
2018. Funding for land management priorities is supported in part by reductions in lower
priority activities such as new major acquisitions of federal land. This program works with
State, local and private land owners to purchase parcels adjacent to existing NPS lands that
will create, supplement or enhance recreational opportunities for the public; additional
acres may be purchased to allow visitors to access entry or exit points for watercraft along
waterways, connect gaps in scenic trails or provide a buffer to protect park resources as
well as provide protection for neighboring private land owners. Elimination of this funding
would preclude the NPS from acquiring lands in support of recreational access and use,
resource protection, and sporting activities available to the public.93
The FY2019 budget justification noted, “the FY 2019 President’s Budget request does not include
funding for recreational access projects.”94 The FY2020 budget justification proposed to reduce
funding for recreational access from the FY2019 appropriation of $2 million to $1 million and
indicated NPS would “continue to work with State, local and private land owners to purchase
parcels adjacent to existing NPS lands that will create, supplement, or enhance recreational
opportunities for the public. Additional acres may be purchased to allow visitors to access entry
or exit points for watercraft along waterways, connect gaps in scenic trails, or provide a buffer to
protect neighboring land owners.”95
The FY2021 budget justification proposed to reduce funding for recreational access from the
FY2020 appropriation of $7 million to $4 million. The FY2021 budget justification noted that the
recreational access subactivity

90 NPS, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justifications, pp. LASA-13 – LASA-14.
91 NPS, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justifications, p. LASA-14.
92 Ibid.
93 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2018, p. Overview-35.
94 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2019, p. LASA-12.
95 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2020, p. LASA-11.
Congressional Research Service

24

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

provides funds to allow NPS to work with State, local, and private land owners to acquire
parcels adjacent to existing NPS-managed lands where authority permits. These parcels
will create, supplement, or enhance recreational opportunities for the public. Additional
acres may be acquired to allow visitors to access entry or exit points for watercraft along
waterways, connect gaps in scenic trails, or provide a buffer to neighboring land owners.
Lands to be acquired through this subactivity are chosen by first applying the same criteria
as general acquisition requests are subject to in the annual priority setting process, and then
additional scrutiny for recreational opportunities is explored. These include access points,
recreational opportunities such as expanded hunting or fishing, equestrian trail
connectivity, watercraft use such as kayaking, canoeing, or boating, and hiking or walking
trail connectivity or safety concerns. Each request has an expressed willing seller and
activity to protect the resource and make it available to the public is ready to commence
once funds are approved.96
Forest Service
FS proposed funding recreational access acquisitions in its budget justifications to Congress
between FY2013 and FY2017. For example, in the FY2013 budget justification, FS proposed to
“use up to $5 million of FY2013 LWCF funds in a one-year endeavor to acquire parcels that
provide access to NFS lands whereby access is not currently available or is impeded…. For the
purposes of this funding we intend ‘access’ to include both motorized and/or non-motorized.”97
In contrast, the FY2018-FY2021 budget justifications proposed eliminating land acquisition
funding. In the FY2018 budget justification, FS noted, “No new land acquisition projects are
proposed in the FY 2018 budget.”98 The FY2019-FY2021 budget justifications cited other agency
priorities. For example, the FY2019 budget justification noted, “elimination of this program is
proposed because the Forest Service will focus on maintenance of existing National Forest
System lands in FY 2019, which currently comprise about 30 percent of the Federal estate.”99 The
FY2020 budget justification reported, “elimination of the [land acquisition] program is proposed
in FY 2020 because the Forest Service will focus on reducing wildland fire risk, contributing to
the improvement of forest and grassland conditions across shared landscapes, and contributing to
rural economic prosperity.”100 The FY2021 budget justification indicated, “the Forest Service will
focus on active forest management, maintaining and improving infrastructure, and effective
wildfire response.”101
Regardless of whether the agency sought acquisition funding, FS consistently provided
information on recreational access projects, including eligibility, rating criteria, and/or application

96 NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2021, pp. LASA-10 – LASA-11.
97 Forest Service (FS), Fiscal Year 2013 President’s Budget: Budget Justification, February 2012, p. 7-3. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations discussed the proposed one-year endeavor to acquire priority recreational access parcels
during hearings on the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, Fiscal Year
2013. See questions submitted to Tom Tidwell by Sen. Jack Reed in S.Hrg. 112-731, p. 169. For subsequent fiscal
years, references are FS, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification, April 2013, p. 7-3; FS, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
Justification, March 2014, p. 7-3; FS, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justification, February 2015, pp. 229-230; and FS,
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justification, February 2016, p. 254.
98 FS, FY2018 Budget Justification, May 2017, pp. 132-133.
99 FS, FY2019 Budget Justification, February 2018, p. 104.
100 FS, FY2020 Budget Justification, March 2019, p. 91.
101 FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 79.
Congressional Research Service

25

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

procedures in its budget justifications to Congress between FY2013 and FY2021. For instance,
the FY2013 budget justification in part stated the following:
[Recreational access] parcels will be identified by the public with the support of a non-
governmental organization, and funding decisions will be based on a regionally
competitive process. Upon receipt of an appropriation, we will allocate funds to Forest
Service Regions, based on visitor use. The Forest Service’s Washington Office will issue
a request for proposals (RFP) that outlines conditions and instructions for how to nominate
a parcel and apply for funding, includes a simple application form, that will include
information about when and where to submit applications to the Regional Offices.102
The FY2013 budget justification also specified eligibility and rating criteria. The FY2014 budget
justification identified recreational access rating criteria as follows:
Projects will be evaluated on the degree to which previously inaccessible lands are made
accessible, or the importance of the inholding acquisition to protect and enhance habitat,
recreation, access, restoration and/or viewsheds. This can be quantified in terms of area
(acres), a linear measure (e.g. stream frontage), and/or costs savings and operational
efficiencies for access and inholding purposes achieved by the acquisition. The Regional
Forester will make final project recommendations for project selection. The Deputy Chief
of NFS has final approval for selecting projects for funding.103
As another example, the FY2018, FY2020, and FY2021 budget justifications identified several
criteria for evaluating potential recreational access acquisitions:104
● How does the acquisition solve a specific access problem or overcome a barrier to
access?
● What is the size and configuration of the tract relative to the National Forest System
lands around it?
● How much of the tract borders existing National Forest System or other publicly
accessible lands?
● What types of recreational access would the land provide? Hunting, fishing, hiking,
other?
● Has the public indicated that more or improved access is needed in this area?
● What is the level of local support for the acquisition?
FS also has provided broad summaries of prior recreational access acquisitions and specific
examples as part of budget justifications. For instance, broad summaries were included in the
budget justifications for FY2019 and FY2021. The FY2019 budget justification summarized,
“acquisitions completed in 2017 supported new and improved recreational access for a wide array
of outdoor activities in 21 States (11 eastern States and 10 western States) with an average
acreage of 533 acres.”105 The FY2021 budget justification noted, “Congress appropriated $5
million in FY 2019 for priority recreational access projects. In FY 2019, the Forest Service
acquired 19,515 acres of land that provided or improved public access.”106

102 FS, Fiscal Year 2013 President’s Budget: Budget Justification, February 2012, p. 7-3.
103 FS, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification, April 2013, p. 7-3.
104 FS, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Justification, May 2017, pp. 132-133; and FS, FY2020 Budget Justification, March
2019, p. 153; and FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 143.
105 FS, FY2019 Budget Justification, February 2018, p. 107.
106 FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 143
Congressional Research Service

26

Recreational Access Acquisitions: Overview and Recent Funding History

More specific recreational access acquisitions were identified in the FY2017 and FY2021 budget
justifications, for instance. The FY2017 budget justification mentioned using recreational access
funds to complete a series of acquisitions in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in
Montana.107 The FY2021 budget justification noted, “The Forest Service acquired Fall Creeks,
Montana in FY 2019, which is located on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest about 30
miles southwest of Augusta…. The acquisition permanently opened access to 26,000 acres of
public land along the majestic Rocky Mountain Front.”108
In addition, FS sometimes has referenced and responded to congressional directives in its annual
budget justifications. For example, the FY2021 budget justification stated, “Congress requires the
Forest Service to ‘annually develop a priority list for projects that, through acquisition of land (or
an interest in land), secure recreational public access to Federal land under the jurisdiction of the
applicable Secretary for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, or other outdoor recreational
purposes’ (54 U.S. Code §200306(c)).”109 The justification then set out the acquisition criteria in
the LWCF Act at 54 U.S.C. §200306(d) and additional criteria used by the agency to evaluate
recreational access acquisitions as shown in the bulleted list, above.

Author Information

Carol Hardy Vincent
Eric P. Nardi
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
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 not 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.

107 FS, FY2017 Budget Justification, February 2016, pp. 254-255.
108 FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 81.
109 FS, FY2021 Budget Justification, February 2020, p. 143.
Congressional Research Service
R46957 · VERSION 1 · NEW
27