Future Considerations
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 13

Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 90 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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 process

Funds not from stateside allocation

Better SCORPs cost more


Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR)

  • FICOR:

    • Advance best planning practices

    • Accept state issues/priorities in a tier up approach to developing federal priorities

    • Support development of a digitally-based US outdoor recreation inventory

    • Support/require fed agency participation w/ fed $


Technical Planning Assistance

Federal staff experience in SCORP planning beneficial – strengthen in future

Budgetary climate does not support change now

Engage professional orgs


Outdoor Recreation & Conservation Cooperatives

  • Federal agency participation in stateside planning

  • And, implementation

  • Some states doing this today in SCORPs, large scale landscape initiatives, other activities

  • State 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 Content

  • Encourage more integrated, comprehensive plans

    • None traditional topics – special pops, wildlife, water conservation, others

    • Integrate for broader utility, collaboration, diversity, science-based, robust outcomes

    • None outdoor rec topics defined state by state – what’s relevant

    • Greater recognition of current & changing O.R. uses, needs, trends

    • Stress value of existing LWCF sites – to fulfill today’s needs


SCORP Planning Options

  • 3-tiered approach is logical

  • State choice

    • Flexibility to choose elements within tiers


  • Pre-Conference Survey

  • LWCF 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


  • Login