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