We urge your opposition to Lankford Amendment #3210 which may come to the Senate Floor during consideration of S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act.

The Lankford amendment would place needless restrictions on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)’s statutorily-directed purpose in order to address maintenance needs at our national parks and require the use of LWCF to address maintenance costs. It creates a false choice that would frustrate numerous public needs, including acquisitions that are needed for cost-effective protection of existing public lands.

It also creates bureaucratic red tape, impedes the choices of willing-seller landowners and local communities and thwarts efforts to ensure access to public lands for hunters, fishermen and other outdoors enthusiasts. Moreover, it threatens to hamper LWCF projects that can actually help to reduce parks’ maintenance and other operating costs. While inadequate funding of the NPS operations and maintenance budget is a critical problem that Congress needs to address, LWCF was created nearly 50 years ago to serve different, diverse and equally critical needs and to provide an asset-for-asset permanent investment on behalf of the American people. These programs stand together to safeguard our country’s natural and cultural heritage, and Americans clearly support both.

The carefully crafted Murkowski-Cantwell language in Section 5002 of the Energy Policy Modernization Act represents a commonsense bipartisan compromise that addresses these issues in a balanced and reasonable way. In addition to provisions for permanent reauthorization of LWCF, Title V also creates a new National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund that is over and above LWCF—NOT taking authorized dollars away from LWCF—from Outer Continental Shelf energy revenues. This agreement therefore addresses critical needs for our public lands on two fronts: improving existing facilities and resources, and protecting the integrity of those parks and other public lands from incompatible development through LWCF investments. It has broad support and has passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee twice by a wide bipartisan margin.

Land acquisition at the National Park Service generally does not add to the maintenance backlog. Most lands acquired with LWCF funds are within the existing boundaries of federal parks, refuges, forests and other recreation areas, where LWCF projects improve management efficiency without raising costs. These acquisitions can reduce costs (including wild land-urban interface firefighting costs that have been exponentially growing), resolve conflicts, and help agencies address ongoing management issues such as invasive species, wildfire, etc. These benefits enhance visitor experiences and allow managers to focus their attention on other pressing needs.

LWCF funding is a critical tool for safeguarding our national parks, which are on pace to set a record for annual number of visitors. While Congress continues to seek to address park maintenance needs -- through the Murkowski-Cantwell bill, recent action in the transportation bill and increases in regular appropriations -- it is also true that the parks and other federal units are not yet complete and face significant threats.

Should the Lankford amendment come up for a vote, we strongly urge you to oppose it.

American Hiking Society

American Society of Landscape Architects

Appalachian Mountain Club

Back Country Horsemen of America

California Council of Land Trusts

Chesapeake Conservancy

Clear Creek Land Conservancy

Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts

Colorado Advantage Business Council

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts

Columbia Land Conservancy

Crested Butte Land Trust

Crow Canyon Archeological Center

Eastern Sierra Land Trust

Endangered Habitats League

Environmental Learning for Kids

Environmental Protection Information Center

Florida Wildlife Federation

Friends of Minuteman National Park

Georgia Wildlife Federation

Hispanic Access Foundation

Ice Age Trail Alliance

Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts

Inland Northwest Land Conservancy

Klamath Forest Alliance

Lake County Land Trust

Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce

League of Conservation Voters

Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative

Maine Coast Heritage Trust

Mojave Desert Land Trust

Montana Association of Land Trusts

Montana Wildlife Federation

National Parks Conservation Association

National Wildlife Federation

New Jersey Conservation Foundation

North Carolina Camouflage Coalition

North Carolina Wildlife Federation

North Shore Land Alliance

Northern Sierra Partnership

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Ohio Conservation Federation

Open Space Institute

Orange County Land Trust

Pacific Crest Trail Assocaiton

Parks and Trails New York

Partnership for the National Trails System

Pennsylvania Land Trust Association

San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust

Santa Lucia Conservancy

Save the Redwoods League

Sequoia Riverlands Trust

Sierra Foothill Conservancy

Smith River Alliance

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

South Carolina Wildlife Federation

South Metro Land Conservancy

Southeast Land Trust of New Hampshire

Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy

The Conservation Fund

The Land Conservancy of New Jersey

The Nature Conservancy

The Trust for Public Land

The Wilderness Society

Transition Habitat Conservancy

Vet Voice Foundation

Voyageurs National Park Association

Washington Association of Land Trusts

Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition

West Virginia Land Trust

West Virginia Rivers Coalition

Western New York Land Conservancy

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Western Reserve Land Conservancy

Wildlife Heritage Foundation

OPPOSE LANKFORD LWCF AMENDMENT (#3210)

AMENDMENT WOULD RESTRICT CONSERVATION OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

• Lankford Amendment #3210 would place needless restrictions on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)’s statutorily-directed purpose in order to address maintenance needs at our national parks and require the use of LWCF to address maintenance costs. It creates a false choice that would frustrate numerous public needs, including acquisitions that are needed for cost-effective protection of existing public lands.

• The Lankford amendment creates bureaucratic red tape, impedes the choices of willing-seller landowners and local communities and thwarts efforts to ensure access to public lands for hunters, fishermen and other outdoors enthusiasts. Moreover, it hampers LWCF projects that actually address the maintenance backlog and reduce the Park Service’s annual operating costs.

• While inadequate funding of the NPS operations and maintenance budget is a critical problem that Congress needs to address, LWCF was created nearly 50 years ago to serve different, diverse and equally critical needs and to provide an asset-for-asset permanent investment on behalf of the American people. These programs stand together to safeguard our country’s natural and cultural heritage, and Americans do not support trading off one for the other.

• The carefully crafted Murkowski-Cantwell language in Section 5002 of the Energy Policy Modernization Act represents a commonsense bipartisan compromise that addresses these issues in a balanced and reasonable way. In addition to provisions for permanent reauthorization of LWCF, Title V also creates a new National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund that is over and above LWCF—NOT taking authorized dollars away from LWCF—from Outer Continental Shelf energy revenues.

• This agreement therefore addresses critical needs for our public lands on two fronts: improving existing facilities and resources, and protecting the integrity of those parks and other public lands from incompatible development through LWCF investments. It has broad support and has passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee twice by a wide bipartisan margin.

• Land acquisition at the National Park Service does not add to the maintenance backlog. Most lands acquired with LWCF funds are within the existing boundaries of federal parks, refuges, forests and other recreation areas, where LWCF projects improve management efficiency without raising costs. These acquisitions reduce costs (including wild land-urban interface firefighting costs that have been exponentially growing), resolve conflicts, and help agencies address ongoing management issues such as invasive species, wildfire, etc. These benefits enhance visitor experiences and allow managers to focus their attention on other pressing needs.

• LWCF funding is a critical tool for safeguarding our national parks, which are on pace to set a record for annual number of visitors. While Congress continues to address park maintenance needs -- through the Murkowski-Cantwell bill, recent action in the transportation bill and increases in regular appropriations -- it is also true that the parks and other federal units are not yet complete and face significant threats.

• LWCF funds are used to protect our national forests, wild and scenic rivers, national recreation areas, wildlife refuges, national trails, and other natural and cultural treasures that fuel the $646 billion outdoor recreation and tourism economy. They also protect working forests and ranches that support local economies while expanding access for hunting, fishing and other activities.

We urge you to oppose the Lankford amendment #3210.

OPPOSE LANKFORD LWCF AMENDMENT THAT WOULD RESTRICT CONSERVATION OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND P