future considerations lwcf administrative & planning elements
DESCRIPTION
Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements. SCORP Cycle & Priorities. Extend to 10 – year planning cycle 5-year SCORP update, accomplishment report Status report State issues driven. Funding SCORP Planning. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Future Considerations
LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements
SCORP Cycle & Priorities
Extend to 10 – year planning cycle 5-year SCORP update, accomplishment report Status report State issues driven
Funding SCORP Planning
State’s should retain option to determine planning $$ levels
Gives states flexibility to determine level of investment in planning processFunds not from stateside
allocationBetter SCORPs cost more
Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation
(FICOR)FICOR:
Advance best planning practicesAccept state issues/priorities in a tier up approach to developing federal prioritiesSupport development of a digitally-based US outdoor recreation inventorySupport/require fed agency participation w/ fed $
Federal staff experience in SCORP planning beneficial – strengthen in future Budgetary climate does not support change nowEngage professional orgs
Technical Planning Assistance
Outdoor Recreation & Conservation Cooperatives
Federal agency participation in stateside planning And, implementationSome states doing this today in SCORPs, large scale landscape initiatives, other activitiesState outreach, communication early & often
Spatial Data & Analyses
Support creating GIS-based outdoor recreation data within SCORP grants GIS is a powerful analytical tool
valuable in ORI analysis gap analyses investment decisions stewardship review – 6(f), env review landscape evaluation
SCORP ContentEncourage more integrated, comprehensive plans
None traditional topics – special pops, wildlife, water conservation, othersIntegrate for broader utility, collaboration, diversity, science-based, robust outcomes
None outdoor rec topics defined state by state – what’s relevantGreater recognition of current & changing O.R. uses, needs, trendsStress value of existing LWCF sites – to fulfill today’s needs
SCORP Planning Options
3-tiered approach is logicalState choice
Flexibility to choose elements within tiers
Pre-Conference SurveyLWCF Reauthorization
17 State responding
SCORP-related questions• Incorporating AGO priorities into
SCORP• Eligible activities• Federal agency participation in SCORP
development
Incorporating AGO priorities into SCORP• States know priorities – State’s Plan
• State priorities are generally developed from state-level surveys/public participation
• Concern that fed priorities override state priorities ; or compete
• Include federal priorities if broadly framed – i.e., health promotion, encouraging equitable access; engaging youth & families to get outdoors
• State already incorporates fed priorities; SCORP’s should be more inclusive of fed partner’s needs
• Do not bind states to AGO priorities, but do include in SCORP
• All AGO initiatives within states are tied to a federal agency – who’s priority is it?
• Unfulfilled state need far greater than any potential AGO projects
• AGO process is not based in science/social science research – SCORP’s develop reliable data
SCORP Process Improvements (Suggested by states)
Funding• Better SCORP’s will cost more• Small staff states - reduce costs w/ standardized survey
questions
Eligible Planning Projects• Economic impact study of parks & recreational facilities • GIS data building
States’ success involving federal agency in SCORP development
Mixed success; most respondents unsuccessful• A state does want fed involvement – they get their
own $• Federal agencies actively engaged, others minimally• Fed agencies do not see direct benefit • State staffing loses led to less fed participation