slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements' - roy


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
slide1

Future Considerations

LWCF Administrative &

Planning Elements

scorp cycle priorities
SCORP Cycle & Priorities
  • Extend to 10 – year planning cycle
  • 5-year SCORP update, accomplishment report
  • Status report
  • State issues driven
funding scorp planning
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
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
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
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
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
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
SCORP Planning Options
  • 3-tiered approach is logical
  • State choice
    • Flexibility to choose elements within tiers
slide10

Pre-Conference Survey

  • LWCF Reauthorization
  • 17 State responding
  • SCORP-related questions
  • Incorporating AGO priorities into SCORP
  • Eligible activities
  • Federal agency participation in SCORP development
slide11

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
slide12

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
slide13

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
ad