Future Considerations LWCF Administrative & Planning Elements

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