1 / 13

Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements

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.

roy
Télécharger la présentation

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements

  2. SCORP Cycle & Priorities • Extend to 10 – year planning cycle • 5-year SCORP update, accomplishment report • Status report • State issues driven

  3. 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

  4. 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 $

  5. Technical Planning Assistance Federal staff experience in SCORP planning beneficial – strengthen in future Budgetary climate does not support change now Engage professional orgs

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. SCORP Planning Options • 3-tiered approach is logical • State choice • Flexibility to choose elements within tiers

  10. Pre-Conference Survey • LWCF Reauthorization • 17 State responding • SCORP-related questions • Incorporating AGO priorities into SCORP • Eligible activities • Federal agency participation in SCORP development

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

More Related