38
Appendices
Table of Contents
Open Project Selection Process……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..A1
Recreation Provider Survey Instrument…………….…………………………………………………………………………………..B1
Recreation Provider Survey Results………………………..……………………………………………………………………………B15
Public Participation Survey…………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………C1
SCORP Focus Group Summaries…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….D1
SCORP Public Review Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………E1
Recreation-Related Economic Impact Studies………………………………………………………………………………………..F1
Appendix A
Open Project Selection Process
A1
IDAHOS OPEN PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
The National Park Service requires a public review process for establishing criteria for LWCF grants. That
process is called the Open Project Selection Process (OPSP). It is meant to assure that priorities
identified in Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP) are included in the LWCF
grant process. OPSP also recognizes local priorities. Priorities change over time, so it is important that
states go through the OPSP process on a regular basis in conjunction with SCORP so that outdoor
recreation grant criteria are in alignment with actual needs.
Review of proposed changes by the LWCF Advisory Committee, SCORP Steering Committee and State
and Federal Aid Program staff is a part of that process.
Matching Ranking Criteria with Public Need
The draft criteria for ranking Idaho’s LWCF projects were created using a combination of public input
and the expertise of a cross-section of outdoor recreation professionals. Our public input started with an
opinion leader SWOT analysis to identify outdoor recreation issues and opportunities in Idaho. A
facilitator conducted a focus group in six cities across Idaho with recreation professionals to identify the
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of outdoor recreation in Idaho.
IDPR then conducted a follow up survey with recreation providers to further understand the issues
identified during the focus group sessions. In addition to these exercises, staff also conducted an
informal survey of Idaho outdoor recreation participants. This online survey yielded more than 1900
responses, and helped inform the development of this plan.
Administering the Program Fairly
In order to better serve the public and assure that grant money is administered more efficiently, State
and Federal Aid Program staff at the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation recommended two
changes in the Open Project Selection Process. The changes are:
1). Entities with unresolved Land and Water Conservation Fund conversion issues will not be
considered for grants until those issues are resolved, unless the National Park Service negotiates a
special condition on the original project agreement.
2). Projects will only be considered if they are primarily for use by the general public. Property must be
readily accessible and open to the public during reasonable hours and times of the year.
A2
LWCF EVALUATION COMMITTEE PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Project Name: ________________________________________________________ Date:____________
Evaluator’s Name: _____________________________________________________
Please evaluate the project on the basis of the following criteria:
7-8 = Excell
ent or Extensive
5-6 = Good or Considerable
3-4 = Fair or Moderate
1-2 = Poor or Little
0 = None or Missing
A. Degree to which the project aligns with the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,
particularly Chapters 3 and 4.
B. Degree to which the project benefits the general public and the facility is open and usable for
outdoor recreation during reasonable hours.
C. Degree to which the costs are reasonable, accurate and relate to an acceptable cost-to-benefit
ratio.
D. Degree to which the property and/or design is well planned and suited for the intended uses.
E. Degree to which the facility will encourage universal accessibility beyond minimum
requirements.
F. Degree to which the applicant has demonstrated a financial commitment for the ongoing
operation and maintenance of the site. (Is there a maintenance budget and/or impact statement
for 3-5 years of commitment?)
G. Degree to which the applicant understands environmental issues and will take action to mitigate
any concerns for potential resource damage or health and safety matters.
H. Degree to which the project creates new or improved recreational opportunities supported by
the community.
I. Degree to which project is reflected as a user need in a current agency plan (this could include a
city master plan, local parks and recreation master plan, or county comprehensive plan.)
J. Degree to which the project brings outdoor recreation activities closer to users and/or
underserved demographics.
K. Degree to which the applicant demonstrates public outreach to sufficiently identify community
needs. (Excellent or extensive scores should be reserved for projects that include either
statistically valid surveys or public meetings specific to the project.)
TOTAL
A3
Do you feel that this project meets the criteria and general quality necessary to merit approval by the
Idaho Park and Recreation Board? ___Yes ___No
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A4
AppendixB
OutdoorRecreationProviderSurvey
ThissurveywassentasafollowuptothefocusgroupsconductedwithIdahopublicrecreationproviders
andlandmanagers.Thepurposeofthissurveywastoprovidefurtherfeedbackandtoclarifythelevelof
importanceoftheissuesidentifiedduringthemeetings.
B1
Thank you for participating in the 2017 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey. This survey will
help inform the development of Idaho’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP), a 5-year plan outlining strategies to address the needs and issues impacting outdoor
recreation across the state. As a land manager or outdoor recreation provider, your feedback is
important to our understanding of statewide and regional issues. Please complete this brief survey.
If you have any questions, please contact Adam Straubinger at (208) 514-2457 or
adam.straubinger@idpr.idaho.gov. Thank you!
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey 2017
1. Agency/Entity Name:
Other (please specify)
2. How would you identify your agency/entity?
Local government agency or recreation district
State government agency
Federal government agency
Private recreation provider (e.g. ski resort, private campground, golf course, hunting club)
Outfitter/guide
3. Using the map below as a reference, please select the Idaho region(s) you serve. You may select more
than one region.
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Statewide (serve all regions)
B2
SCORP Regional Map
B3
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey 2017
4. What do you see as the most important issues facing the area you serve over the next 5 years? Please
rank the issues below.
Funding for programming and interpretation
N/A
Maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure
N/A
Communication between providers and the public
N/A
Population growth and increased use/overcrowded areas
N/A
Balancing protection of natural resources with provision of recreation
N/A
Building new/unique partnerships
N/A
Engaging youth in outdoor recreation
N/A
Connecting with new users, including minority populations
N/A
Improving education and stewardship/respect for the resources
N/A
Adapting to new activities/changes in activities
N/A
Blending technology with outdoor recreation
N/A
Improving access for people with disabilities
N/A
B4
5. What do you consider the greatest barrier or threat to providing outdoor recreation in the area you serve
over the next 5 years?
Loss of public lands
N/A
Lack of sufficient funding
N/A
Ability to hire and/or retain quality staff
N/A
Reduced public interest in recreation
N/A
Inability to meet changing demands
N/A
Resource degradation
N/A
B5
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey 2017
Not satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied N/A
6. Considering the population you serve, how would you estimate the overall level of satisfaction with the
current condition of the facilities you provide?
ŠÛ ŠÛ ŠÛ ŠÛ ŠÛ
Demand
greatly
exceeds
supply
(more facilities
needed)
Demand
slightly
exceeds
supply
(need some
more facilities)
Demand about
the same as
supply
(no more
facilities
needed)
Supply slightly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Supply greatly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Not sure/facility
not offered
Multi-use trails (paved,
non-motorized)
Multi-use trails
(unpaved, non-
motorized)
Hiking trails (unpaved)
Mountain biking trails
(unpaved)
ATV trails
Motorbike trails
(singletrack)
UTV/Jeep Trails
Snowmobile trails
Cross-country skiing
trails
Downhill
skiing/snowboarding (lift-
service)
Equestrian trails
Equestrian arenas
(outdoor)
Developed trailheads
(parking, restrooms and
information)
7. Considering the region(s) and population you serve, please describe the demand (public interest) for the
following facilities compared to the supply:
B6
Primitive campsites (no
electricity, water, or
restrooms)
Semi-developed
campgrounds (vault
restroom, no water or
electricity)
Developed campground
(water, electricity,
restroom and/or
showers)
Equestrian camping
Cabins or yurts
Outdoor shooting ranges
Outdoor archery ranges
Picnic shelters
Historical and/or cultural
sites
Dog parks
Playgrounds
Tennis courts (outdoor)
Pickleball courts
(outdoor)
Basketball courts
(outdoor)
Skate parks (outdoor)
Soccer fields
Football fields
Softball fields
Baseball fields
Disc golf courses
Volleyball courts
(outdoor)
Golf Courses
Demand
greatly
exceeds
supply
(more facilities
needed)
Demand
slightly
exceeds
supply
(need some
more facilities)
Demand about
the same as
supply
(no more
facilities
needed)
Supply slightly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Supply greatly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Not sure/facility
not offered
B7
Boat launch (motorized)
Boat launch (non-
motorized)
Marina slips
Docks (for boating)
Docks or boardwalks for
fishing
Shoreline fishing
Swimming beaches on
lakes and rivers
Outdoor swimming pools
Spray pools and splash
pads
Other 1 (indicate below)
Other 2 (indicate below)
Other 3 (indicate below)
Demand
greatly
exceeds
supply
(more facilities
needed)
Demand
slightly
exceeds
supply
(need some
more facilities)
Demand about
the same as
supply
(no more
facilities
needed)
Supply slightly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Supply greatly
exceeds
demand
(many facilities
underutilized)
Not sure/facility
not offered
Other (please specify other activities if indicated above)
8. Of the outdoor recreation activities you provide, which do you feel are the top three in terms of overall
participation? In other words, what are the three activities people primarily visit your park/land for?
Type in the comment box or choose from the list below. Please only select three choices.
Hiking
Trail running
Walking/jogging on paved trail
Mountain biking
Biking (paved surfaces)
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
ATV riding
UTV/Jeep riding
B8
Other (please specify one or more activities below)
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Picnicking
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Canoeing/Kayaking
Stand-up Paddle Boarding
Disc Golf
Golf
Tennis
Pickleball
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
Soccer
Swimming in pools
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Fishing
Hunting
Tent camping
RV/Camper camping
Education/interpretation
9. Of the activities you provide, which have had increased participation over the past 5 years? Please
enter activities with the greatest increase.
Type in the comment box or choose from the list below. Please only select three choices.
Hiking
B9
Trail running
Walking/jogging on paved trail
Mountain biking
Biking (paved surfaces)
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
ATV riding
UTV/Jeep riding
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Picnicking
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Canoeing/Kayaking
Stand-up Paddle Boarding
Disc Golf
Golf
Tennis
Pickleball
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
Soccer
Swimming in pools
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Fishing
Hunting
Tent camping
RV/Camper camping
Education/interpretation
B10
Other (please specify one or more activities below)
10. Of the activities you provide, which (if any) have had decreased participation over the past 5 years?
Please enter activities with the greatest decrease.
Type in the comment box or choose from the list below. Please only select three choices.
Hiking
Trail running
Walking/jogging on paved trail
Mountain biking
Biking (paved surfaces)
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
ATV riding
UTV/Jeep riding
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Picnicking
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Canoeing/Kayaking
Stand-up Paddle Boarding
Disc Golf
Golf
Tennis
Pickleball
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
B11
Other (please specify one or more activities below)
Soccer
Swimming in pools
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Fishing
Hunting
Tent camping
RV/Camper camping
Education/interpretation
B12
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey 2017
11. Please list any activities you've recently seen demand for that require facilities you currently do not
provide.
Other (please specify)
12. What would you consider the most trending outdoor activities in your region? I.e. relatively new
activities with quick growth in participation.
Paddle boarding
E-bike riding
UTV riding
Disc golf
Drone flying
Wake surfing
Pickleball
13. As a recreation provider, are there any other issues, needs or trends this survey didn't address that you
feel should be considered in the development of Idaho's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan?
B13
Thank you for competing the 2017 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey. Once completed, the
SCORP and results from this survey will be available online at
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/scortp.
If you have any questions, please contact Adam Straubinger at (208) 514-2457 or
adam.straubinger@idpr.idaho.gov. Thank you!
Thank You!
B14
37.31% 25
32.84% 22
29.85% 20
Q2 How would you identify your agency/entity?
Answered: 67 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 67
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Local government agency or recreation district
State government agency
Federal government agency
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B15
24.29% 17
20.00% 14
30.00% 21
10.00% 7
10.00% 7
7.14% 5
22.86% 16
4.29% 3
Q3 Using the map below as a reference, please select the Idaho region(s)
you serve. You may select more than one region.
Answered: 70 Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 70
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Statewide (serve all regions)
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B16
Q4 What do you see as the most important issues facing the area you
serve over the next 5 years? Please rank the issues below.
Answered: 62 Skipped: 8
10.34%
6
10.34%
6
8.62%
5
6.90%
4
6.90%
4
10.34%
6
5.17%
3
5.17%
3
8.62%
5
6.90%
4
13.79%
8
5.17%
3
1.72%
1
29.51%
18
22.95%
14
8.20%
5
1.64%
1
9.84%
6
3.28%
2
6.56%
4
1.64%
1
3.28%
2
3.28%
2
1.64%
1
6.56%
4
1.64%
1
1.69%
1
3.39%
2
11.86%
7
11.86%
7
15.25%
9
18.64%
11
11.86%
7
10.17%
6
0.00%
0
13.56%
8
1.69%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
18.33%
11
8.33%
5
6.67%
4
10.00%
6
6.67%
4
5.00%
3
8.33%
5
5.00%
3
3.33%
2
5.00%
3
6.67%
4
15.00%
9
1.67%
1
19.30%
11
17.54%
10
19.30%
11
12.28%
7
1.75%
1
3.51%
2
3.51%
2
7.02%
4
3.51%
2
3.51%
2
3.51%
2
5.26%
3
0.00%
0
3.39%
2
11.86%
7
6.78%
4
6.78%
4
15.25%
9
11.86%
7
3.39%
2
5.08%
3
11.86%
7
6.78%
4
11.86%
7
5.08%
3
0.00%
0
5.36%
3
8.93%
5
16.07%
9
10.71%
6
5.36%
3
7.14%
4
8.93%
5
5.36%
3
10.71%
6
10.71%
6
5.36%
3
1.79%
1
3.57%
2
1.75%
1
3.51%
2
7.02%
4
5.26%
3
7.02%
4
3.51%
2
10.53%
6
10.53%
6
14.04%
8
7.02%
4
12.28%
7
14.04%
8
3.51%
2
3.45%
2
3.45%
2
8.62%
5
13.79%
8
13.79%
8
12.07%
7
6.90%
4
13.79%
8
5.17%
3
6.90%
4
6.90%
4
3.45%
2
1.72%
1
1.72%
1
8.62%
5
6.90%
4
15.52%
9
3.45%
2
10.34%
6
15.52%
9
8.62%
5
12.07%
7
3.45%
2
3.45%
2
10.34%
6
0.00%
0
6.78%
4
3.39%
2
0.00%
0
1.69%
1
11.86%
7
5.08%
3
10.17%
6
13.56%
8
16.95%
10
6.78%
4
10.17%
6
8.47%
5
5.08%
3
Funding for
programming ...
Maintaining
existing...
Communication
between...
Population
growth and...
Balancing
protection o...
Building
new/unique...
Engaging youth
in outdoor...
Connecting
with new use...
Improving
education an...
Adapting to
new...
Blending
technology w...
Improving
access for...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N/A
Funding for
programming and
interpretation
Maintaining existing
facilities and
infrastructure
Communication
between providers and
the public
Population growth and
increased
use/overcrowded areas
Balancing protection of
natural resources with
provision of recreation
Building new/unique
partnerships
Engaging youth in
outdoor recreation
Connecting with new
users, including minority
populations
Improving education
and stewardship/respect
for the resources
Adapting to new
activities/changes in
activities
Blending technology
with outdoor recreation
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B17
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
1.69%
1
5.08%
3
1.69%
1
5.08%
3
6.78%
4
11.86%
7
5.08%
3
23.73%
14
13.56%
8
20.34%
12
5.08%
3
Improving access for
people with disabilities
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B18
Q5 What do you consider the greatest barrier or threat to providing
outdoor recreation in the area you serve over the next 5 years?
Answered: 62 Skipped: 8
18.64%
11
11.86%
7
11.86%
7
8.47%
5
11.86%
7
27.12%
16
10.17%
6 59 3.28
54.10%
33
27.87%
17
9.84%
6
0.00%
0
1.64%
1
4.92%
3
1.64%
1 61 5.20
6.90%
4
31.03%
18
20.69%
12
12.07%
7
15.52%
9
6.90%
4
6.90%
4 58 3.80
5.26%
3
1.75%
1
1.75%
1
19.30%
11
24.56%
14
33.33%
19
14.04%
8 57 2.18
6.78%
4
18.64%
11
20.34%
12
27.12%
16
20.34%
12
1.69%
1
5.08%
3 59 3.57
10.17%
6
8.47%
5
33.90%
20
27.12%
16
16.95%
10
3.39%
2
0.00%
0 59 3.58
1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A TOTAL SCORE
Loss of public lands
Lack of sufficient funding
Ability to hire and/or retain quality staff
Reduced public interest in recreation
Inability to meet changing demands
Resource degradation
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B19
Q6 Considering the population you serve, how would you estimate the
overall level of satisfaction with the current condition of the facilities you
provide?
Answered: 49 Skipped: 21
0.00%
0
10.20%
5
22.45%
11
32.65%
16
30.61%
15
4.08%
2 49 3.87
NOT SATISFIED (NO LABEL) SATISFIED (NO LABEL) VERY SATISFIED N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
S
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B20
Q7 Considering the region(s) and population you serve, please describe
the demand (public interest) for the following facilities compared to the
supply:
Answered: 54 Skipped: 16
32.08%
17
32.08%
17
20.75%
11
3.77%
2
1.89%
1
9.43%
5 53
23.08%
12
40.38%
21
23.08%
12
1.92%
1
3.85%
2
7.69%
4 52
25.00%
13
32.69%
17
30.77%
16
0.00%
0
1.92%
1
9.62%
5 52
19.23%
10
36.54%
19
26.92%
14
7.69%
4
3.85%
2
5.77%
3 52
21.15%
11
40.38%
21
15.38%
8
5.77%
3
0.00%
0
17.31%
9 52
22.00%
11
24.00%
12
36.00%
18
4.00%
2
0.00%
0
14.00%
7 50
15.38%
8
30.77%
16
32.69%
17
9.62%
5
0.00%
0
11.54%
6 52
21.15%
11
34.62%
18
23.08%
12
1.92%
1
0.00%
0
19.23%
10 52
20.00%
10
24.00%
12
38.00%
19
2.00%
1
0.00%
0
16.00%
8 50
24.53%
13
30.19%
16
16.98%
9
5.66%
3
1.89%
1
20.75%
11 53
15.69%
8
33.33%
17
29.41%
15
3.92%
2
0.00%
0
17.65%
9 51
9.62%
5
25.00%
13
50.00%
26
1.92%
1
3.85%
2
9.62%
5 52
21.57%
11
31.37%
16
19.61%
10
3.92%
2
1.96%
1
21.57%
11 51
18.52%
10
29.63%
16
29.63%
16
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
22.22%
12 54
13.21%
7
24.53%
13
43.40%
23
1.89%
1
0.00%
0
16.98%
9 53
9.62%
5
15.38%
8
55.77%
29
9.62%
5
1.92%
1
7.69%
4 52
15.38%
8
36.54%
19
23.08%
12
1.92%
1
0.00%
0
23.08%
12 52
19.23%
10
25.00%
13
32.69%
17
0.00%
0
1.92%
1
21.15%
11 52
DEMAND
GREATLY
EXCEEDS
SUPPLY
(MORE
FACILITIES
NEEDED)
DEMAND
SLIGHTLY
EXCEEDS
SUPPLY(NEED
SOME MORE
FACILITIES)
DEMAND
ABOUT THE
SAME AS
SUPPLY(NO
MORE
FACILITIES
NEEDED)
SUPPLY
SLIGHTLY
EXCEEDS
DEMAND(MANY
FACILITIES
UNDERUTILIZED)
SUPPLY
GREATLY
EXCEEDS
DEMAND(MANY
FACILITIES
UNDERUTILIZED)
NOT
SURE/FACILITY
NOT OFFERED
TOTAL IGHTED
ERAGE
Mountain biking
trails (unpaved)
Multi-use trails
(unpaved, non-
motorized)
Developed
trailheads (parking,
restrooms and
information)
Hiking trails
(unpaved)
Multi-use trails
(paved, non-
motorized)
Boat launch (non-
motorized)
Picnic shelters
Docks or
boardwalks for
fishing
Boat launch
(motorized)
ATV trails
Developed
campground (water,
electricity, restroom
and/or showers)
Shoreline fishing
UTV/Jeep Trails
Semi-developed
campgrounds (vault
restroom, no water
or electricity)
Primitive campsites
(no electricity,
water, or restrooms)
Historical and/or
cultural sites
Docks (for boating)
Swimming beaches
on lakes and rivers
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B21
13.21%
7
26.42%
14
39.62%
21
1.89%
1
0.00%
0
18.87%
10 53
20.75%
11
28.30%
15
18.87%
10
7.55%
4
3.77%
2
20.75%
11 53
9.62%
5
34.62%
18
28.85%
15
3.85%
2
5.77%
3
17.31%
9 52
13.46%
7
34.62%
18
19.23%
10
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
32.69%
17 52
18.87%
10
32.08%
17
11.32%
6
1.89%
1
0.00%
0
35.85%
19 53
46.67%
7
6.67%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
46.67%
7 15
19.23%
10
25.00%
13
17.31%
9
1.92%
1
1.92%
1
34.62%
18 52
11.54%
6
17.31%
9
38.46%
20
3.85%
2
1.92%
1
26.92%
14 52
11.54%
6
38.46%
20
11.54%
6
1.92%
1
0.00%
0
36.54%
19 52
11.76%
6
15.69%
8
35.29%
18
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
37.25%
19 51
17.65%
9
9.80%
5
33.33%
17
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
39.22%
20 51
12.00%
6
18.00%
9
30.00%
15
2.00%
1
0.00%
0
38.00%
19 50
5.88%
3
25.49%
13
27.45%
14
5.88%
3
0.00%
0
35.29%
18 51
9.80%
5
17.65%
9
33.33%
17
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
39.22%
20 51
5.66%
3
20.75%
11
32.08%
17
3.77%
2
0.00%
0
37.74%
20 53
13.73%
7
21.57%
11
17.65%
9
1.96%
1
0.00%
0
45.10%
23 51
9.80%
5
21.57%
11
19.61%
10
5.88%
3
1.96%
1
41.18%
21 51
12.00%
6
18.00%
9
24.00%
12
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
46.00%
23 50
2.00%
1
10.00%
5
50.00%
25
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
38.00%
19 50
10.00%
5
16.00%
8
26.00%
13
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
48.00%
24 50
3.85%
2
9.62%
5
36.54%
19
9.62%
5
0.00%
0
40.38%
21 52
3.92%
2
13.73%
7
35.29%
18
1.96%
1
1.96%
1
43.14%
22 51
2.08%
1
8.33%
4
35.42%
17
16.67%
8
2.08%
1
35.42%
17 48
11.54%
6
11.54%
6
23.08%
12
3.85%
2
0.00%
0
50.00%
26 52
3.92%
2
13.73%
7
31.37%
16
3.92%
2
3.92%
2
43.14%
22 51
1.96%
1
13.73%
7
35.29%
18
1.96%
1
0.00%
0
47.06%
24 51
33.33%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
66.67%
6 9
6.00%
3
6.00%
3
30.00%
15
2.00%
1
2.00%
1
54.00%
27 50
Cross-country skiing
trails
Motorbike trails
(singletrack)
Equestrian trails
Cabins or yurts
Outdoor shooting
ranges
Other 1 (indicate
below)
Dog parks
Snowmobile trails
Outdoor archery
ranges
Soccer fields
Softball fields
Skate parks
(outdoor)
Playgrounds
Baseball fields
Equestrian camping
Marina slips
Disc golf courses
Spray pools and
splash pads
Football fields
Outdoor swimming
pools
Downhill
skiing/snowboarding
(lift-service)
Volleyball courts
(outdoor)
Golf Courses
Pickleball courts
(outdoor)
Tennis courts
(outdoor)
Ba
sketball courts
(outdoor)
Other 2 (indicate
below)
Equestrian arenas
(outdoor)
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B22
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
6 6
Other 3 (indicate
below)
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B23
Q8 Of the outdoor recreation activities you provide, which do you feel are
the top three in terms of overall participation? In other words, what are
the three activities people primarily visit your park/land for?Type in the
comment box or choose from the list below. Please only select three
choices.
Answered: 52 Skipped: 18
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B24
34.62% 18
26.92% 14
26.92% 14
26.92% 14
19.23% 10
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hiking
ATV riding
Hunting
RV/Camper camping
Fishing
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B25
15.38% 8
13.46% 7
13.46% 7
11.54% 6
9.62% 5
7.69% 4
7.69% 4
7.69% 4
7.69% 4
7.69% 4
7.69% 4
5.77% 3
5.77% 3
3.85% 2
3.85% 2
3.85% 2
3.85% 2
3.85% 2
1.92% 1
1.92% 1
1.92% 1
1.92% 1
1.92% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 52
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Mountain biking
Soccer
Walking/jogging on paved trail
Motorbike riding
Biking (paved surfaces)
UTV/Jeep riding
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Picnicking
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Tent camping
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Trail running
Horseback riding
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Swimming in pools
Education/interpretation
Canoeing/Kayaking
Disc Golf
Golf
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
Snowshoeing
Stand-up Paddle Boarding
Tennis
Pickleball
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B26
Q9 Of the activities you provide, which have had increased participation
over the past 5 years? Please enter activities with the greatest
increase.Type in the comment box or choose from the list below. Please
only select three choices.
Answered: 50 Skipped: 20
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B27
36.00% 18
32.00% 16
28.00% 14
26.00% 13
24.00% 12
20.00% 10
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
ATV riding
Mountain biking
RV/Camper camping
Hiking
UTV/Jeep riding
Fishing
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B28
18.00% 9
18.00% 9
16.00% 8
16.00% 8
16.00% 8
14.00% 7
14.00% 7
14.00% 7
12.00% 6
12.00% 6
10.00% 5
10.00% 5
10.00% 5
10.00% 5
10.00% 5
8.00% 4
8.00% 4
8.00% 4
4.00% 2
4.00% 2
4.00% 2
2.00% 1
2.00% 1
2.00% 1
2.00% 1
0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 50
Biking (paved surfaces)
Disc Golf
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Canoeing/Kayaking
Pickleball
Walking/jogging on paved trail
Stand-up Paddle Boarding
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Trail running
Education/interpretation
Motorbike riding
Snowmobiling
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Soccer
Hunting
Cross-country skiing
Picnicking
Tent camping
Horseback riding
Snowshoeing
Golf
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Tennis
Basketball (outdoor)
Swimming in pools
Football
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B29
Q10 Of the activities you provide, which (if any) have had decreased
participation over the past 5 years? Please enter activities with the
greatest decrease.Type in the comment box or choose from the list
below. Please only select three choices.
Answered: 22 Skipped: 48
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B30
40.91% 9
18.18% 4
18.18% 4
13.64% 3
13.64% 3
13.64% 3
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
Tennis
Snowmobiling
Hunting
Tent camping
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B31
13.64% 3
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
9.09% 2
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
Total Respondents: 22
Education/interpretation
Hiking
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Picnicking
Disc Golf
Golf
Football
Fishing
Trail running
UTV/Jeep riding
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Motorized Boating (including tow-sports)
Swimming in pools
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B32
Q11 Please list any activities you've recently seen demand for that
require facilities you currently do not provide.
Answered: 32 Skipped: 38
# RESPONSES DATE
1 We believe there is a big need for an indoor walking path and an indoor play area. We do not have
these in our city and plan to address this need.
9/18/2017 1:35 PM
2 Dirt bike/ATV/UTV trails Swim/wading area Dog Park Drone area 8/15/2017 8:57 AM
3 mountain bike specific trail opportunities winter play area opportunities (snow shoe trails, sledding
areas, etc)
7/12/2017 4:39 PM
4 Dog Parks Water Access (marina or more boat docks on river) 7/11/2017 5:18 PM
5 Mountain bike trails 7/7/2017 12:23 PM
6 In Region 1, we have more moisture during the shoulder seasons which makes our trails have
frequent resource damage, especially our trails open to single track motorized. If there was a
motor-cross park where the motorized community can access in the area, the Forest Service
motorized trails system might be more resilient through lower use during the mud season.
7/6/2017 10:38 AM
7 UTV /Jeep trails 7/3/2017 1:20 PM
8 More ATV/UTV trails 6/28/2017 8:45 AM
9 RV Camping 6/27/2017 12:43 PM
10 Mountain bike trails Paved walking trails Group camping 6/27/2017 11:15 AM
11 N/A 6/27/2017 9:20 AM
12 Dog Park. We have received two grants so we will provide this service some time this summer. 6/27/2017 9:10 AM
13 additional locations to access the river 6/27/2017 8:53 AM
14 Dog Parks Pickleball River/Pond Beach Access Year-Round Disc Golf Note: We provide some
amenities for some of these, but demand is growing and much higher than available amenities.
6/27/2017 8:20 AM
15 pickle ball 6/27/2017 7:27 AM
16 Bigger and bigger UTVs. RV hookups. 6/26/2017 4:00 PM
17 Improved camping facilities. 6/26/2017 3:02 PM
18 Larger campsites for larger vehicles and equipment. Non-motorized boat access. 6/22/2017 9:32 AM
19 mountain biking trails 6/21/2017 7:42 AM
20 Additional parking for non motorized fishing/boating access as well as additional parking for
ATV/UTV use.
6/19/2017 12:15 PM
21 None so far 6/13/2017 5:05 AM
22 shade for picknicking 6/11/2017 12:03 PM
23 mt biking UTV 6/9/2017 10:59 AM
24 dog park 6/9/2017 9:15 AM
25 Dog Parks, Adult Softball Facilities w/ and w/out lights, nature based play areas and education
centers,Splash Pads, Pools,
6/8/2017 1:53 PM
26 Lacrosse, Mountain Biking, Splash Pads 6/8/2017 1:38 PM
27 recreaton center 6/7/2017 8:55 PM
28 None 6/7/2017 2:44 PM
29 utv / atv trails Close by RV spots with dump facility's 6/7/2017 2:34 PM
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B33
30 Whitewater kayaking park, but mostly just need more - bike paths, motorized and non-motorized
boat facilities, camping, mountain bike, UTV trails, etc
6/7/2017 12:47 PM
31 UTV driving 6/7/2017 12:35 PM
32 Indoor swimming 6/7/2017 11:12 AM
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B34
47.06% 24
43.14% 22
27.45% 14
23.53% 12
21.57% 11
19.61% 10
13.73% 7
Q12 What would you consider the most trending outdoor activities in your
region? I.e. relatively new activities with quick growth in participation.
Answered: 51 Skipped: 19
Total Respondents: 51
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
UTV riding
Paddle boarding
Drone flying
Pickleball
Disc golf
E-bike riding
Wake surfing
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B35
Q13 As a recreation provider, are there any other issues, needs or trends
this survey didn't address that you feel should be considered in the
development of Idaho's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan?
Answered: 24 Skipped: 46
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Disc Golf is on the rise; all bike related activities including BMX; skate parks and funding for those 9/18/2017 1:35 PM
2 connectivity of trail systems across land public (fed and state) land ownerships providing state
wide trail riding systems that connect (ATVs/UTVs) addressing a collaborative effort to provide trail
maintenance and decrease deferred maintenance needs (trail brushing etc)
7/12/2017 4:39 PM
3 IDPR has great programs that have been critical in providing the public the quality services that
the Forest Service and the State of Idaho expect. With the assistance of RV, Waterways,
Motorbike, ORMV grant sources, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests are able to manage
recreation sites and trails to a better standard. Also, critical programs such as the Trail Rangers,
Mini Ex & Sweco tours, have allowed our forest to improve our motorized trail systems within the
State. A few suggestions in the future would be working on education campaigns associated to
motorized use and possibly State Trail Rangers for OHV's (ATV & UTV). This would be similar to
what the State has already with the single track motorized trail ranger program. Also, need to work
together and getting relevant information to the users on the right platform (Technology gap) as
well as connecting with youth. As with many states, there continues to be issues to long term
maintenance associated to non-motorized trails. It is in both agencies best interest to work with
user groups for a more reliable volunteer source or finding creative funding sources.
7/6/2017 10:38 AM
4 decreasing federal budgets! 7/3/2017 1:20 PM
5 no 6/28/2017 8:45 AM
6 Cell service reception Internet connection Many people would stay longer if they had better
connectivity. To those in the rec field for a long time this may seem counter-intuitive, as people
come outdoors to get away from electronics - yes some do, but many of our visitors now depend
on internet access to pay bills, schedule appointments, manage businesses, manage finances and
communicate with family. Remote developed campgrounds/facilities need help providing this now
needed service where it may not be profitable for communications companies to provide.
6/27/2017 11:15 AM
7 As population grows, the demand for core amenities and facilities also continues to rise. Ballfields,
playgrounds, picnic shelters, multi-use sports fields, dog parks, skate parks, etc. all are seeing
greater demand than available facilities.
6/27/2017 8:20 AM
8 maintaining access roads to recreation sites 6/27/2017 7:27 AM
9 Funding for non-motorized trails 6/26/2017 4:00 PM
10 Would like to see IDPR manage improved camping facilities on state endowment ground so that
there is less dispersed camping and chance of fire starts.
6/26/2017 3:02 PM
11 The definition of access needs to be more clearly identified to the public. 6/26/2017 2:57 PM
12 > There is a lack of statistically valid research in the recreation field. > There is a lack of public
land management and funding for maintenance of existing facilities.
6/22/2017 9:32 AM
13 Need for improved non motorized fishing/boating access sites, ADA river access sites. 6/19/2017 12:15 PM
14 No 6/13/2017 5:05 AM
15 Advertising. What to do and where 6/11/2017 1:09 PM
16 You asked if activities have increased or decreased, but did not ask if they were appropriate or a
priority for the lands we manage.
6/9/2017 10:59 AM
17 no 6/8/2017 1:38 PM
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B36
18 Improved access to public lands through private property or by obtaining easements would
enhance the recreation opportunities in Owyhee County
6/8/2017 10:16 AM
19 none that fits our mission 6/7/2017 8:55 PM
20 No 6/7/2017 2:44 PM
21 unlocking federal lands for local park use. 6/7/2017 2:34 PM
22 A increase in wildfire activity has created a situation in which Forest trails are requiring more
maintenance and thus an increase in funding.
6/7/2017 1:35 PM
23 Need more developed access to recreational sites. It wasn't one of the options in earlier questions,
but I would say that is our number one challenge in Region IV. Many of our sites are primitive or
do not have access at all. Those that do are quickly becoming crowded.
6/7/2017 12:47 PM
24 The State needs to recognize and fully endorse public lands managed by the FS and BLM. Unlike
State lands, BLM/FS lands are truly public. The State has a legacy of selling State land to private
interest that then lock the public out. The FS/BLM have restrictions on motor vehicle use, but
everything else is almost without regulation.
6/7/2017 12:35 PM
SCORP Recreation Provider Survey
B37
AppendixC
PublicParticipationSurvey
IDPRprovidedthissurveyonlinetothegeneralpublicduringthesummerof2017.Thissurveywasnot
conductedusingarandomsample,butyieldedapproximately1,900responses.Thesurveyincluded
responsesonoutdoorrecreationparticipationfromIdahoresidentsandtourists.

C1
Thank you for participating in the 2017 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey. Your
participation is both voluntary and anonymous.
This survey will help inform the development of Idaho’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP), a 5-year plan outlining strategies to address the needs and issues
impacting outdoor recreation across the state. As a resident of Idaho or someone who visits our
state to participate in outdoor recreation, your feedback is important to our understanding of
demands, needs and issues impacting the provision of recreation.
Please complete this brief survey. If you have any questions, please contact the Idaho Department
of Parks and Recreation at (208) 514-2457. Thank you!
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey 2017
1. Are you currently an Idaho resident?*
YES
NO
C2
Idaho Residency
2. Please select your county of residence from the drop down menu below.
3. How would you describe your place of residence?
In a large city or urban area
In a suburban area
In a small city or town
In a rural area on a farm or ranch
In a rural area NOT on a farm or ranch
Not sure
C3
Regional Participation Idaho Resident
4. Using the map below as a reference, please select the Idaho region(s) where you participated in outdoor
recreation during the past 12 months. You may select more than one region.
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
C4
Idaho Regional Map
C5
Activity Participation Idaho Resident
5. During the past 12 months, please select all activities you participated in from the list below.
Hiking
Trail running
Walking/jogging on paved pathway
Mountain biking
Biking (on paved surfaces)
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
ATV riding
UTV riding
Jeep riding
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Downhill skiing/snowboarding (lift serviced)
Backcountry skiing/snowboarding
Ice skating (outdoor)
Rock climbing (outdoor)
Picnicking
Wildlife viewing and/or bird watching
Outdoor photography
Visiting historical/cultural sites
Motorized boating (including tow-sports)
Jet boating
Canoeing/Kayaking (flatwater)
Whitewater paddling (raft/kayak/canoe/SUP)
Stand-up paddle boarding
Disc golf
C6
Other (please specify one or more activities below)
Golf
Tennis
Pickleball
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
Soccer
Baseball
Softball
Volleyball (outdoor)
Skateboarding/BMX riding (at a skate park)
Bocce ball
Swimming in outdoor pools
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Fishing from a motorized boat
Fishing from a non-motorized boat or float tube
Fishing from shore/wading
Fishing from docks or boardwalks
Big game hunting
Upland bird or small game hunting
Waterfowl hunting
Target/skeet/trap or sporting clay shooting
Rock hounding and/or recreational mining
Archery
Tent camping
RV/Camper camping
Equestrian camping
Boat camping
Education/interpretation activities
I did not participate in any outdoor recreation activities during the past 12 months
C7
Barriers and Issues Idaho Resident
6. In general, do you plan on participating in outdoor activities in Idaho more, less, or about the same as
you have in the past 12 months?
More
About the same
Less
I don't know
7. If applicable, which of the following may hinder your ability or desire to participate in outdoor recreation?
Competing priorities (school, family, work, etc.)
Lack of programs or facilities that appeal to your interest
Travel distance to recreational opportunities and associated travel costs
Lack of skills/opportunities to learn
Cost to participate (entrance fees, registration, equipment, etc.)
Lack of accessible information on programs and/or facilities offered
Limited access to public lands/parks
Other (please specify)
8. Please rank these recreation-related issues in terms of their importance to you, with "1" being the most
important.
Population growth and increased use/overcrowded areas
Degradation of existing facilities and infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc)
Inadequate access to public lands and waters, including closure of lands/trails
Connecting youth to the outdoors
Balancing protection of resources with the provision of recreation
Inadequate funding for new programs and facilities
C8
9. Thinking of the park, trail or open space you most frequently visit, how far from your home do you
travel to get there?
1/2 mile or less
1/2 to 1 mile
1-3 miles
3-5 miles
5-10 miles
More than 10 miles
C9
10. How would you rate the quality of the outdoor recreation facilities IN YOUR COUNTY?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
11. How would you rate the quantity and availability of the outdoor recreation facilities IN YOUR COUNTY?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
C10
Other (please specify facilities below)
12. Which (if any) outdoor recreation facilities would you like to see built or provided IN YOUR COUNTY?
Paved pathways (non-motorized)
Playgrounds
Community parks
Campgrounds
Hiking/walking trails
Trailheads/parking
Off-road vehicle areas/trails
Snowmobile trails
Cross-country skiing/snowshoeing trails
Off-leash dog areas
Soccer/football fields
Motorized boat ramps
Fishing docks/piers
Tennis courts
Equestrian trails
Mountain biking trails
Disc golf course
Shoreline access for fishing
Baseball fields
Softball fields
Skateparks
Swimming pools
Splash pads
C11
Idaho Outdoor Recreation Provider Survey 2017
13. Are there any other issues, needs or trends this survey didn't address that you feel should be
considered in the development of Idaho's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan?
C12
Non-Resident Survey
14. Have you participated in any outdoor recreation activities IN IDAHO during the past 2 years?*
YES
NO
C13
Non-Resident Survey (2)
Other Country/Territory (please specify)
15. Please select your current state of residence from the drop down menu below. If you are from another
country or US Territory, please list in the comment box.
C14
Non-Resident Survey (3)
16. Using the map below as a reference, please select the Idaho region(s) where you participated in
outdoor recreation during the past 2 years. You may select more than one region.
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Not sure
C15
Idaho Regional Map
C16
Non-Resident Survey (4)
17. Thinking about your trip(s) to Idaho in the past two years, please select all activities you participated in
from the list below.
Hiking
Trail running
Walking/jogging on paved pathway
Mountain biking
Biking (on paved surfaces)
Horseback riding
Motorbike riding
ATV riding
UTV riding
Jeep riding
Snowmobiling
Cross-country skiing
Snowshoeing
Downhill skiing/snowboarding (lift serviced)
Backcountry skiing/snowboarding
Ice skating (outdoor)
Rock climbing (outdoor)
Picnicking
Wildlife viewing and/or bird watching
Outdoor photography
Visiting historical/cultural sites
Motorized boating (including tow-sports)
Jet boating
Canoeing/Kayaking (flatwater)
Whitewater paddling (raft/kayak/canoe/SUP)
Stand-up paddle boarding
Disc golf
C17
Other (please specify one or more activities below)
Golf
Tennis
Pickleball
Basketball (outdoor)
Football
Soccer
Baseball
Softball
Volleyball (outdoor)
Skateboarding/BMX riding (at a skate park)
Bocce ball
Swimming in outdoor pools
Swimming in lakes and/or rivers
Fishing from a motorized boat
Fishing from a non-motorized boat or float tube
Fishing from shore/wading
Fishing from docks or boardwalks
Hunting big game
Hunting upland birds or small game
Hunting waterfowl
Target/skeet/trap or sporting clay shooting
Archery
Tent camping
RV/Camper camping
Equestrian camping
Boat camping
Education/interpretation activities
I did not participate in any outdoor recreation activities during the past 2 years
C18
Non-Resident Survey (5)
18. How would you rate the quality of Idaho's outdoor recreation facilities?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
C19
Other (please specify facilities below)
19. Which (if any) outdoor recreation facilities would you like to see built or provided in the IDAHO
REGION(S) you visited?
Paved pathways (non-motorized)
Playgrounds
Community parks
Campgrounds
Hiking/walking trails
Trailheads/parking
Off-road vehicle areas/trails
Snowmobile trails
Cross-country skiing/snowshoeing trails
Off-leash dog areas
Soccer/football fields
Motorized boat ramps
Fishing docks/piers
Tennis courts
Equestrian trails
Mountain biking trails
Disc golf course
Shoreline access for fishing
Baseball fields
Softball fields
Skateparks
Swimming pools
Splash pads
C20
Thank you for completing this survey. If you have any questions, please contact the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation at (208) 514-2457. Thank you!
Thank you!
C21
Appendix D
SCORP Focus Group Summaries
D1
SCORP Focus Group Summaries
Boise SCORP Focus Group Summary
1-18-2017
Attendees:
Dave Parrish Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Caitlin Straubinger City of Eagle
Danelle Highfill US Forest Service
Robin Fehlau Bureau of Land Management
Troy Elmore IDPR OHV Trail Manager
Gary Shelley IDPR Eagle Island State Park and Lucky Peak State Park Manager
Steve Siddoway City of Meridian
John Idaho Department of Lands
Strengths:
Public land
Diversity of lands
Access
Diverse recreational opportunities
Trail systems and connections/proximity to communities
Unique water-based opportunities
Interagency cooperation
Community partnerships
Proximity to natural resources (rivers, foothills, mountains)
Free recreation opportunities
Tournament facilities and resulting economic impact
Weaknesses:
Funding for new development/renovations
Language barriers
Cultural differences
Lack of natural resource based education/school field trips
Funding for maintenance and operations
Population growth exceeding staffing abilities
Political attitudes towards public lands
Limited quality OHV experiences
No central organization for promoting efforts/ideas
Litigation and liability
Low income families and cost of participation
Lack of adequate resource for enforcement
Transportation to recreation opportunities is a barrier
Disconnected trails in developed areas
Crowding on major highways that access recreation areas (HWY 55)
D2
Opportunities:
Volunteers
Education first time users
Programs and opportunities for teens and senior community
Establishing a system for funding
Connecting kids to the outdoors
Expand and grow facilities to attract new user groups
Professional marketing
Public/private partnerships
Availability of information regarding the economic impact of outdoor recreation
Technology for information, sharing experiences via social media
Offering places for people to unplug and disconnect
Shared economy (RVs, private land for camping, AirBnB cabins)
Threats:
Wildfires and natural disasters
Technology
Lack of funding
Litigation/liability
Social entitlement
Loss or privatization of public land
Climate change
Fees for access
Damage from new types of vehicles
Lack of outdoor skills
Aging infrastructure
Not adapting to new trends, like e-bikes and drones
D3
Coeur d’Alene SCORP Focus Group Summary
10-26-2016
Attendees:
David White IDPR
Eve Skillman Bureau of Reclamation
David Fair City of Post Falls
Bryan Myers City of Post Falls
Steve Klatt Bonner County
Ron Hise IDPR Heyburn State Park Manager
Randall Butt IDPR Farragut State Park Manager
Mick Schanioc Idaho Dept. of Lands Priest Lake
Chip Corsi Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Lawson Tate Idaho Dept. of Lands
Tami Johnson IDPR
Marsha Bell Selkirk Recreation District
Melvyn Bailey Independent Highway District
Bob Helmer Idaho Dept. of Lands
Strengths:
Diversity of recreation opportunities
Availability of public land and resources
Natural environment
Quality of natural resources
Community support and volunteers
Strong partnerships
Variety of providers
Quality of facilities; well planned and don’t cause a lot of resource damage
Wide range of opportunities
Access
Proximity of recreation to the communities
Weaknesses:
Funding
Non-residents not paying to play
Threatened and endangered species conflicting with access/rec. development
Overuse resulting in resource damage and erosion
Aging infrastructure
Hard to keep pace with increasing demand
User conflicts: motorized and non-motorized, wake boats and other boats, user groups and land
managers
Lack of respect for other users and resources
Private land closures/reduction of access, resulting strain on public lands
D4
Technology and the challenge to get people outside
Opportunities:
Technology: user data to improve facilities, blending with existing facilities and interpretation, embrace
technology to promote experiences
Connecting youth trough school programs
Securing private land for public recreation (easements)
Connecting trails across several land management boundaries (public and private) to connect and
extend opportunities
Expanding programs and outreach for underserved demographics
Threats:
Resource damage, loving it to death
Lack of respect of the resources, sense of entitlement
Over crowdedness ruining the experience
Loss of access
Fees
Wildfire
D5
Idaho Falls SCORP Focus Group Summary
12-06-2016
Attendees:
Paul Holm Jr. City of Idaho Falls
Chris Horsley City of Idaho Falls
Jim White Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Kirk Rich IDPR Bear Lake State Park Manager
John Banks City of Pocatello
Kaye Orme US Forest Service Caribou-Targhee N.F.
Lance Clark City of Pocatello
Ken Knoch City of Ammon
June Willsey Bonneville County
Jennifer Park IDPR
Tamara Cikaitoga Fremont County
Sven Taow Teton County
Cindy Riegel Teton County
Tom Curot Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Strengths:
Access to public lands
Natural resources
Natural beauty and open space
User group support
Rich history and community involvement
Diverse opportunities in summer and winter
Not crowded
Snow based opportunities
Trails in close proximity to urban environment
Weaknesses:
Funding
Access to Federal lands, can’t always get across private lands to access
User conflicts
Resource damage, fragile ecosystems
Aging infrastructure and mounting maintenance needs
Lack of marketing
Private land owners buying up land and closing access
Remote, spread out, can be difficult to get to opportunities
Lack of enforcement to protect resources, sometimes results in closures
Changes in technology and new types of recreation cause conflicts
Lack of equipment to participate
Providers are reactive not proactive regarding technology and trends in the industry
D6
Opportunities:
Technology access to wifi to know what facilities are nearby
Education connecting kids to recreation through youth programs
Programs that teach recreation-related skills
More and better public partners
Funding partnerships
Marketing showing Idaho is a place to come to recreate, not just potatoes
Partnerships between government agencies, manufacturers/industry and user groups
Diverse opportunities for different cultures and underserved populations
Increased connectivity between communities and public lands/trails/parks
Events to encourage families to learn how to participate in recreation and how to use equipment
Threats:
Lack of political support
Expanding private developments
Loss of public lands
Increased demand on resources
Lack of funding
Trending away from outdoor recreation and towards virtual recreation
Climate change and natural disaster/wildfires
User group conflict
Obesity
Lack of appreciation for nature
D7
Ketchum SCORP Focus Group Summary
12-07-2016
Attendees:
Ted Stout National Park Service, Craters of the Moon
Jim Keating Blaine County Recreation District
Stephanie Cook City of Hailey
Jody Wisner US Forest Service, Salmon-Challis N.F.
Phil McNeal US Forest Service, Salmon-Challis N.F.
Joni Hawley IDPR Land of the Yankee Fork State Park Manager
Susan James US Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area
Zach Poff US Forest Service, Sawtooth National Forest
Jen Smith City of Ketchum
Strengths:
Access to quality natural resources and wilderness
Diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities
Historical sites
Partnerships between local, state, federal and rec. districts
Low population, less crowded campgrounds and facilities
Relatively healthy, active community
Engaged community, local support
Beautiful scenery
Diverse communities with diverse needs
Weaknesses:
Funding
Sustainable access to public lands
User conflicts, dogs, new trends like e-bikes, fat bikes and drones
Lack of employee base (difficult time staffing in some remote areas, hard to afford housing in resort
areas)
Lack of travel management
Balancing providing opportunities with managing natural resources
Public information and awareness of opportunities
Underserved segments of population, especially low socioeconomic groups are not being engaged
Changes in population and expectations for access
Not enough funding to provide what users want
Maintaining partnerships is tough in some areas
Some small communities resist change
No dominant agency/organization that will take the lead
Climate change, wildfires and the impact on providing opportunities
Resource degradation, public not caring for resources
D8
Opportunities:
Partnerships/sponsorships
Youth programs and engaging schools
Meeting needs of underserved population, offering bilingual interpretation/education opps. And
providing outreach to underserved populations
Offering diverse opportunities based on the needs of the community
Improving access to technology in the region
Connecting people to unique opportunities outside of the Wood River Valley and Stanley (Challis area)
Improving public information (websites, apps)
Better representation for the region with Idaho Tourism
Central location for information
Threats:
Politics and changing priorities, uncertainty
Climate change, longer fire seasons means less funding for recreation
Invasive species
Shoulder visitation is increasing when agencies are typically short staffed
E-bikes and potential use conflicts
Virtual experiences more preferred that outdoor experiences
Technology makes people feel safe, they are often underprepared
Population growth and changing demographics keeping up with tends
Budget restrictions
People don’t value recreation and natural resources
Aging facilities and infrastructure, not being able to maintain what’s there
D9
Lewiston SCORP Focus Group Summary
12-13-2016
Attendees:
Sam Martin US Army Corps of Engineers, Dworshak
Kearstin Edwards US Forest Service, Nez Perce-Clearwater N.F.
Tim Barker City of Lewiston
Steven Kinzer IDPR Hells Gate State Park
Charlie Chase IDPR Hells Gate State Park Manager
Nathan Blackburn IDPR Dworshak State Park Manager
David White IDPR North Region Manager
Nate Sparks IDPR North Region Trails
Ray Hennekey Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Don Jenkins Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Cliff Swanson Troy Recreation District
Stefani Spencer US Forest Service, Potlach
Allison Tompkins Nez Perce County
Redgy Erb Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Strengths:
Variety of outdoor guides and places to buy equipment
Access
Large amounts of public land
Water access
Four seasons of weather, always something to do
Natural resources, scenery and wildlife
Diverse opportunities
Fishing and hunting opportunities
Developed facilities
Not overcrowded, opportunities for solitude
Agencies work well together
Weaknesses:
Funding
Lak of enforcement
Public vandalism and resource damage
Keeping pace with technology
Red tape/process involved to implement grants and agreements
Regulations
Marketing the states opportunities, more than just potatoes
ADA accessible facilities
Keeping up with trends in recreation
Operational boundaries between agencies
D10
Inadequate camping facilities, lack of group camping opportunities
Lack of public respect for resources
Need more positivity, tell people what they can do instead of what they can’t do
Opportunities:
Educate youth on how to participate in recreation and respect resources
Technology bring to outdoor areas, but also maintain areas where people can unplug
Better partnerships
Marketing to youth to get them outdoors
Organize grassroots partnerships for maintenance
Make information easier to get, especially maps (digital)
Provide higher quality vs. quantity
Create recreation and resource related apps that don’t need wifi connection
Threats:
Loss of access
Public lands being sold for private development
Lack of political support
Funding loss, recreation viewed as “non-essential” service
Lack of interest from younger generation
Climate change, fire risk and drought
Overuse/misuse of facilities
Facilities not keeping up with current trends
Ability of recreation agencies to attract quality people because of economic challenges, especially
housing prices and low wages
D11
Twin Falls SCORP Focus Group Summary
11-16-2016
Attendees:
Fred Noland Idaho Power Company
Mark Brunelle Twin Falls County
Gary Warr Jerome Recreation District
Doug Megargle Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Wallace Keck IDPR City of Rocks National Reserve and Castle Rocks State Park Manager
Wendy Davis City of Twin Falls
Strengths:
Unique public lands, Snake River Canyon and high desert opportunities
Access, public open space
Opportunities for solitude, not a lot of developed recreation facilities
Easy access to recreation opportunities
Free recreation opportunities
Diversity of opportunities
Extreme outdoor enthusiasts (eg Twin Falls bridge BASE jumpers)
New people moving to the area and demanding recreational facilities they are used to having
Cultural diversity
People are moving to the area in part for recreational opportunities
Low cost of living
Weaknesses:
Funding
Keeping up with growth and changing demands/trends
Lack of education/experience, people don’t know how to participate in recreation
Old school vs new school mentality, some resistant to change
Inadequate infrastructure
Cultural differences in participation, especially Hispanic communities, facilities may not meet needs
Expectations of what different people feel is adequate regarding recreational opportunities
Lack of statewide and regional level research and data on outdoor recreation participation and needs
Lack of creativity in rec. offerings
Public not knowing where to get information
Politicians not acknowledging link between recreation and tourism
Planning and zoning not planning for future recreation needs
Decrease in traditional team sports like baseball
Opportunities:
Public/private partnerships with education groups and outdoor businesses/industry
Protect public access
Social meet up groups (online)
D12
Training and education teaching how to safely participate in recreation and how to protect resources
Understanding conflict
Measure and promote success, learn from failures
Linking technology and outdoor experiences
Customer mapping, what do they do when they visit, how do they experience the park/area
Threats:
Overuse
Preserving access to public lands
Conflicting management priorities, excessive regulations and restrictions
Change in public expectations and not meeting them
Climate change, reduction of winter opportunities in the region
Maintaining infrastructure, always behind/backlogged
User group competition and conflict
Liability concerns\Development and growth not accommodating recreation opportunities
Public indifference, lack of public involvement
Sale of public lands to private individuals, loss of access
Losing Idaho’s “legacy” of outdoor recreation
D13
Appendix E
SCORP Public Review Comments
E1
Comments on Draft SCORP Plan Received During Public Review
December 19, 2017 – January 21, 2018
Hi, Adam;
I read all of the plan. Good summary of all the agencies and entities involved in Idaho
recreation. Looks like motorized recreation and motorized trails are well covered in the Issues
and Recommendations in Chapter 4 and IDPR is focusing in the right direction.
I specifically like that IDPR will continue to work towards a non-motorized user's fee to get non-
motorized users to help pay for maintenance on their trails and help with projects and facilities
that benefit motorized and non-motorized users. Things like trailheads, restrooms, and bridges
that are funded through the state motorized funds also benefit non-motorized users and they
should contribute something.
Bernie Hermann
After reviewing the Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), it was apparent that ATV and UTV riding has
emerged as a significant activity within Idaho. Our family uses both ATV and UTV vehicles. One issue
that is of concern is that the USFS, at least on the Payette and Boise Forests, have been slow to
recognize the impact of UTVs on their land. Although the Plan points out that OHV manufacturers have
produced 50 “ UTVs, the majority of sales are in the 60”-64” wide UTVs. In future planning, I think the
USFS should consider increasing the width of OHV trails to 60”. Riding on logging or mining roads is
fine, but for our group, trails are preferred.
I know the USFS budget has been reduced. As a result, when our group rides, we carry chain saws to
clear the dead and down. In all my years of riding, I have yet to encounter a USFS trail crew clearing
trail.
Recently, the local snowmobile group in Long Valley reached an agreement to groom several
snowmobile trails on DF development land. If possible, I think it would be a positive development if the
OHV community could reach agreement to access DF development roads and trails.
We are grateful for the roads and trails that are available in Idaho.
Lou Nilsen
Adam: The Idaho Horse Council has updated our Equine Study (census) every 5 years since 1987. The
University of Idaho, Social Science Research Unit has done the work and in the last Study reported as
follows: Idaho has 221,000 equine, with 14% of all households owning equine. Equine owners have a
total of $1.4 billion in assets related to their equine. Primary uses of equine in Idaho 19% Hunting and
Packing, 38% Pleasure Riding. Types of Equine 84% Riding Horses.
E2
Because of Idahos history of Mining and Logging, many of our trails, exist because of equine. The use of
equine has changed from the early days of mining and logging to what is now a more recreational
use. However, equine in Idaho continue to use and appreciate our wondrous State.
If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact our office at
idahohorsecouncil@yahoo.com
. Additional information may also be found at our web site
idahohorsecouncil.com.
Sincerely, Charlene Cooper, President
Adam,
Very good document about Idaho and IDPR. The document covers everything I can think of except
"catastrophe wildfires".
Would it be possible to mention that Public Land agencies (Forest Service and BLM) need to aggressively
pursue thinning and fuels reduction on Public land they manage? I believe wildfires definitely take away
from the recreational experience.
I've also been trying to read the Idaho Roadless rule....big doc.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd557237.pdf
It limits "road building" but I don't think it prohibits motorized and non-motorized trail building and
recreation. The Forest Service doesn't seem to be willing to pursue this venue.
I wonder if it's possible to secure a grant to build a trail in some area of Idaho's Roadless rule area?
Thanks for sending me the draft.
--
Jim McIver
Overall the information provided was good and was much better than the previous SCORP plan; there
just wasn’t enough of it in my opinion.
Suggestions:
The comprehensive survey data of users is needed as mentioned in the report so baseline data
can be established to form objectives and document progress on accomplishing the goals. How
can you do a comprehensive plan without the data?
I never saw any true measurable objectives described to help meet the goals projected in the
SCORP Plan. Without the measurable objectives how do you know if you are meeting your
goals?
Bye,
Mark Brunelle
R&D/Grants Director
Twin Falls County
E3
Adam,
Rick Just forwarded me the DRAFT 2018 SCORP for comments. It is very nicely done. I have
two comments.
1) On page 9 (pdf 10), the Off Road Motor Vehicle Fund speaks to the $500,000 available for
grants each year, but fails to mention the $800,000 per year spent on trail dozers, groomers,
ATVs, and other trail maintenance equipment. The equipment is provided through
appropriations that come off-the-top before the grants process, but it looks odd to only talk
about the $500,000 because the ORMV Fund gets as much gas tax money as WIF.
Perhaps the wording could be adjusted to say something like, "The ORMV is funded with a
portion of the state gas tax revenues. After taking into account about $800,000 per year in
direct trail maintenance equipment purchases, funding levels for the grant program are typically
about $500,000 annually." You might want to visit with Steve Martin.
2) On page 20 (pdf 21), you show a graphic titled, "Top Activities for Tourists." I am confused
about the two sets of data for each category and what that means.
First, I'm assuming you mean units are percent of marketable overnight trips (the footer is not
clear about the units).
Next, for example: Hiking/Backpacking first set of data: 28% marketable overnight trips Idaho
(red) &10% marketable overnight trips US Norm (blue)
vs second set of data: 27% marketable overnight trips Idaho (red) & 37% marketable overnight
trips US Norm (blue)?
Did the 2015 Idaho Visitor Report identify Hiking/Backpacking as a top marketable overnight
activity more often or less often than the US Norm?
Again, very nicely done. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Ray Houston
Adam, I've just given this a cursory skim. In general, it looks just fine. I did find one confusing
chart. On page 20, the chart at the bottom of the page lists five activities but displays 10 double
bars.
Thanks,
Rick Just
President
Friends of Idaho State Parks
E4
I have reviewed the 2018 Draft Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and
have the following comments and suggestions:
1.
On page 10 where the report describes the role of the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game I would like to see a little more clarification. I suggest the following be added after
the last paragraph:
IDFG does allow some camping, picnicking and hiking on lands that it administers. But
generally it is not responsible for providing for general outdoor recreation use and the
facilities it provides are minimal, normally only consisting of parking places and vault
toilets.
2.
On page 11 where the report describes the role of the Idaho Department of Lands I would
like to see a little more clarification. I suggest the following be added after the last
paragraph:
However, IDL does not have any statutory responsibility for providing for recreation
on its lands. Recreation is allowed when it does not impact its core responsibilities.
3.
I like the pie chart on page 11 titled “Spotlight on Idaho Land Ownership.” It illustrates just
how dependent we are on the Federal sector for outdoor recreation opportunities in Idaho. I
am suggesting that you add a logical extension of this illustration. I suggest you add a pie
chart that shows the public land ownership of the three significant land managing agencies
within the Idaho State Government, namely, the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
(IDPR). The IDPR lands total should include not only lands owned by the department but also
lands under the administrative control of the department through leases, agreements, etc. I
believe this illustration would enhance the plan as the IDPR is the premier agency of state
government for providing outdoor recreation opportunities, yet the pie chart will show how
small its land base is compared to the other two state agencies. I believe this means that
when it comes to outdoor recreation, the State of Idaho is “under-invested” in outdoor
recreation when it come to its own public land base.
4.
The chart on page 20 titled “Top Activities for Tourists” is confusing to me. The narrative
makes reference to the five top activities. Further, the chart provides this five top activities
on the left hand side. Yet, there are a total of 10 bars on the bar graph. Am I missing
something here? It seems that five bars are not labeled on the chart.
5.
I think that the text box on page 21 titled “Spotlight on the Economic Impact of Outdoor
Recreation” is a good illustration. But I would like to see more detail in regards to the Idaho
State Parks item. Now that the Economic Impact and Importance of State Parks in Idaho Report has
been released I would suggest that this item be expanded somewhat with information from the
executive summary and introduction sections of that report. Better yet, I suggest an additional text
box titled “Spotlight on the Economic Impact of the Idaho State Parks.”
E5
6.
On pages 23 and 24, there are charts that show participation rates in various outdoor
recreation activities. I recall from the 2017 meeting of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Advisory Committee that “skate parks” were included in several requests and it was an
item of significant discussion. (See your chart on page 28 titled “LWCF Local Assistance
Applications” as proof of this.)The previous SCORP made little or no mention of this activity
and it was hard for me to see how skate parks and skateboarding fit in, especially when
trying to figure out just how popular this activity is and the average percentage of the
population that wishes to engage in this activity. In other words, there was no direct link
between skate parks (skateboarding) and the SCORP. So I am suggesting that this activity be
included in some way in this section of the SCORP. If the NRSE 2011 report included this
activity, then try to include it in the charts even if the “percent participating” is low. If it
wasn’t included in the NRSE 2001 then at least include a discussion of skate boarding and
skate parks in the narrative somewhere. I realize that skate parks does appear on the chart
on page 27 titled “Top Results: Facility Demand Exceeds Supply” but, I think more discussion
in the narrative is still necessary.
7.
I like the chart on page 25 titled “Idaho RV Registrations.” It illustrates the ever increasing
number of these type of vehicles being used within the State of Idaho. The owners of these
vehicles use a variety of locations to camp such as: RV parks, state parks, BLM and Forest
Service lands, etc. depending upon their personal preferences. But it could be said that the
IDPR is the only public agency in Idaho that actually caters to their needs for electrical, water,
and sewer hook-ups. Further, they are one of the only public agencies that has built and
remodeled their campgrounds with large parking spurs to accommodate the ever growing
size of the average RV. Further, unlike the typical RV park, the IDPR campgrounds are
designed in a manner to provide for privacy and esthetics. So I am suggesting that
somewhere in this section a few sentences need to be inserted that illustrate the very high
demand for camping space in the more popular state parks like Priest Lake, Farragut, and
Ponderosa. Perhaps there are occupancy rate figures that could illustrate this. Even
campgrounds without hook-ups like Redfish Lake and Stanley Lake are becoming increasingly
difficult to get a campsite in. The bottom line is, nothing illustrates the demand for state park
camping space more than visitors pulling up to the park gate expecting to camp there and
only to be turned away by the campground full sign. I don’t know why “RV camping” did not
end up on the chart on page 27 titled “Top Results: Facility Demand Exceeds Supply.”
8.
In the “Access” discussion on page 33, there is a sentence that reads: “Idaho must
continue to provide access to opportunities for its citizens and visitors, ensuring that public
lands and parks remain open to a variety of recreational uses throughout the state.” While
that is fine and good, when it comes to access for off-highway vehicles (OHVs), the State of
Idaho should also recognize those things that may be beyond their control and authority.
For example, the primary federal agencies that have traditionally provided access for OHVs
are the Forest Service and the BLM. Both of these agencies are subject to the requirements
of Executive Order 11644 on “Off-Road Vehicles.” In essence, the Forest Service and the BLM can
E6
only allow for the use of “off- road” vehicles when they have provided for public safety, prevention
of user conflict and that the use will not cause adverse environmental affects. It is these factors that
drive decisions on what areas, roads, and trails are to remain open to OHV access. These are
decisions beyond the direct control of the State of Idaho. So in order to keep access open, the state
should find ways to assist these federal agencies in mitigating the factors that may lead to closure.
This is part of the “many challenges in meeting this task.” The language “must continue to provide
access” is just placing a responsibility where it does not totally belong.
9.
The importance of Idaho’s State Park System should not be under-rated in this plan.
Providing over 5,460,780 visitor days on an annual basis is nothing to scoff at. The economic
impact of operating and maintaining the system is also important here. I do realize that the
SCORP is primarily a vehicle for administering LWCF grants. But I just believe that it may also
be an opportune place to mention the significance and importance of the state park system
in providing for outdoor recreation. I would suggest adding to the stewardship goals on page
35, something like the following:
L.
The IDPR should operate and maintain the Idaho State Park System in a
sustainable manner that will ensure its perpetuity. There should be no net loss in
the number of state parks, the availability of facilities, or in the total land base in the
system.
M.
Consideration should be given to expanding the State Park System in a manner
that is commensurate with Idaho’s population growth. This should include additional
parks, expanded facilities, and additions to its land base.
10.
I support the requirements included in the “Idaho Open Project Selection Process”
found on page 38.
Sincerely,
Dennis McLane
LWCF Advisory Committee
Member
Vice President of Friends of Idaho State Parks
Idaho Recreation and Tourism Initiative Committee Member
I suggest a specific name of the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail crossing Washington, Idaho and
Washington; mainly because it was the first one and maybe still is the only one.
Bryan
E7
The drafted plan does a very good job of identifying all the outdoor uses by residents and nonresidents
and supports the vital importance of a multiuse agenda that is compatible with the current and future
population of Idaho.
Well done.
Earl Christiansen
Twin falls ID
Summary of Comments from US Forest Service Region 1 (phone call)
The plan should address population growth of Spokane Valley (WA) area. Due to proximity to Idaho’s
border, ease of access and recreational opportunities not offered in immediately adjacent areas in
Washington, there is a lot of use in Idahos northern region from Spokane area residents. Heavy use of
motorized and non-motorized trails, as well as waterways and camping areas.
There is little information regarding trends and emerging activities for snow-based recreation. I n
particular, motorized snow-bikes, and new trackless snow bikes that are debuting in the 2018 Winter X
Games are all trends that will impact the provision of winter recreation over the next 5 years.
The USFS and other trail managers should seek to provide a trail system that is socially (i.e. minimal user
conflict), economically and resource sustainable.
Federal land managers should consider the role of recreation during the development of landscape scale
vegetation plans.
US Forest Service
Kent Wellner, Region 1 Program Manager for Trails, Dispersed Recreation and Travel Management
Josh Jurgensen, Forest Recreation Staff, Idaho Panhandle National Forests
E8
Appendix F
Recreation-Related Economic Impact Studies
F1
The Outdoor Recreation Economy Idaho (Outdoor Industry Association)
https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/OIA_RecEcoState_ID.pdf
Economic Impact and Importance of State Parks in Idaho (IDPR)
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Economic%20Impact%20a
nd%20Importance%20of%20State%20Parks%20in%20Idaho.pdf
Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation: An Analysis of Idaho Counties (IDPR)
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Recreation/OHV%20Websi
te/FINAL%20OHV%20ECON%20STUDY%20SUMMARY.PDF
Economic Impact and Importance of Snowmobiling in Idaho (IDPR)
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Recreation/Snowmobile/S
nowmobile%20Econ%20Study%20FINAL.pdf
Economic Impact and Importance of Powerboating in Idaho (IDPR)
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Recreation/Boating/IDPR%
20Powerboating%20Report_December%202016_0.pdf
Idaho Visitor Report 2015 (Idaho Tourism and Longwoods International)
https://commerce.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2016/06/Idaho-2015-Visitor-Final-Report.pdf
Idaho Horse Census and Economic Impact (Idaho Horse Council)
http://idahohorsecouncil.com/?page_id=41
2013 Sportsmen’s Economic Impact Report Idaho (Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation)
http://congressionalsportsmen.org/reports/2013-sportsmens-economic-impact-report-idaho
F2
The Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is produced by the Idaho Department of
Parks and Recreation. For additional inquiries regarding this plan, please contact IDPR at (208) 334-4199.