## Facts

- New York created Minnewaska State Park in the Shawangunk Range and, through the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC), expanded the park’s holdings.
- PIPC acquired a conservation easement over approximately 239 acres around Lake Minnewaska and adjacent lands using federal matching funds under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF Act).
- The easement’s stated purposes included conserving unique scenic areas, protecting ecological values and the lake’s watershed, and preventing development inconsistent with the surrounding park.
- The encumbered area included the lake, wooded land, and an unused golf course and related facilities; it provided scenic vistas and served as a buffer for the park, though the public did not have physical access to the easement parcel.
- A private developer, Marriott Corporation, obtained an option to purchase a larger tract including the easement area and proposed a resort, including expansion of a professional golf course with new holes and facilities on the easement land.
- PIPC voted to amend the easement to allow golf-course expansion, wells, increased water withdrawals from the lake, and use of easement acreage to calculate development density on other lands.
- Marriott offered consideration including extension of the easement area, limited public access to footpaths, restrictions on adjacent development, and public use of the golf course 25% of the time.
- The National Park Service (NPS) advised PIPC that the amendment was not a “conversion” under LWCF Act § 6(f)(3) and therefore did not require approval by the Secretary of the Interior.
- Environmental and local-resident plaintiffs sued federal officials under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the no-conversion determination; the district court granted summary judgment for the government, reasoning the easement area was not for public recreation because it was not physically open to the public.

## Issues

1. Whether amending an LWCF-funded conservation easement to allow private resort-related golf expansion and associated development changes is a “conversion to other than public outdoor recreation uses” under LWCF Act § 6(f)(3).
2. Whether land protected for scenic, environmental, and ecological values can constitute “public outdoor recreation uses” even if the public lacks physical access to the protected parcel.
3. Whether NPS’s determination that no conversion occurred was unlawful under APA review.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the federal defendants and remanded.
- The court held the proposed easement amendment constituted a § 6(f)(3) “conversion” because it altered protected scenic and environmental values tied to public outdoor recreation.
- The court required that the amendment be treated as subject to § 6(f)(3), including Secretary of the Interior approval and the statute’s substitution requirements.
- The court did not decide whether the conversion should be approved; it ruled only that § 6(f)(3) procedures and standards apply.

## Legal Principles

- “Public outdoor recreation uses” under LWCF Act § 6(f)(3) include preservation of scenic, environmental, and ecological conditions that contribute to the public’s recreational enjoyment, not only areas of direct public entry.
- Conservation easements and other partial interests acquired with LWCF assistance are “property” protected by § 6(f)(3).
- An amendment that diminishes the conservation and scenic functions for which an LWCF-funded easement was acquired can be a “conversion,” even if the amendment adds some limited public access.
- Under the APA, an agency interpretation that construes “public outdoor recreation uses” to require physical public access, despite conservation-based recreational purposes, is not in accordance with law.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that modifying an LWCF-funded conservation easement to permit intensified private resort and golf development effects a conversion from protected public outdoor recreation uses, triggering § 6(f)(3) and requiring Interior’s approval and compliance with statutory replacement safeguards.


Friends of Shawangunks, Inc. v. Clark, 754 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1985)