FSHP Evaluation Report...2017/02/08 · Florida Scenic Highways Program Evaluation Report 2009 3 In...

I

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 PROGRAM HISTORY ................................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 CURRENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 STATUS OF FLORIDA’S SCENIC HIGHWAYS ........................................................................................ 4 3.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................... 9 3.4 ELIGIBILITY, DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES ......................................................... 10 3.5 PROGRAM MANUAL ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.6 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 12 3.7 PROMOTION AND MARKETING ....................................................................................................... 13 3.8 ANNUAL REPORTS PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 15

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 15 4.1 PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY .................................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 OVERALL PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 TRAINING RATING, OPTIONS AND CHANGES ........................................................................ 17 4.1.3 AGENCY COOPERATION, COORDINATION AND PROMOTION ............................................... 19 4.1.4 PARTICIPANTS GOALS ............................................................................................................. 21 4.1.5 PARTICIPANTS CONCERNS ...................................................................................................... 21 4.1.6 PARTICIPANT SUPPORT .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1.7 ELIGIBILITY AND DESIGNATION PROCESSES ........................................................................... 24 4.1.8 REVIEW PROCESSES ................................................................................................................ 25 4.1.9 DSHC, CAG AND CME FUNDING ............................................................................................. 26

5.0 FSHP STATEWIDE CONFERENCE/WORKSHOP ATTENDEE FEEDBACK ................................................... 28 5.1 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES RESPONSES .............................................................................. 28 5.2 MISCELLANEOUS RESPONSES .................................................................................................... 29 5.3 FUNDING RESPONSES ................................................................................................................ 29 5.4 PROMOTIONAL RESPONSES ...................................................................................................... 30 5.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATION RESPONSES ................................................................... 30 5.6 INTER‐BYWAY COMMUNICATION RESPONSES ......................................................................... 30 5.7 ENHANCEMENT RESPONSES ..................................................................................................... 30

6.0 ON‐GOING FEEDBACK ........................................................................................................................... 31 7.0 ANNUAL REPORTS FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................... 32 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 34 9.0 FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM – “THE ROAD AHEAD” .............................................................................. 35 10.0 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ 36 APPENDIX A – SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 41

Florida Scenic Highways Program Evaluation Report 2009

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) was established by state in 1993. Since then twenty‐four (24) State Scenic Byways have been designated. The program includes two (2) National Scenic Byways. Since the program inception there has been over $30 million in federal and state funds distributed to the highways. The Florida Scenic Highways Program Evaluation Report briefly summarizes the history of the program, provides an overview of the current program, gathers/evaluates participant feedback and provides recommendations for the future of the program. The purpose of this report is to determine what is and isn’t working within the program by evaluating on‐going feedback, Statewide Conference attendee feedback, Annual Reports feedback and surveying participants. The survey consisted of preparing detailed questions, conducting phone interviews (April‐May 2009) and compiling the feedback. The survey feedback, Statewide Conference feedback, Annual Reports feedback and on‐going feedback was then evaluated for the purpose of developing recommended future actions. These recommendations are:

1. Provide more promotional and marketing efforts specifically aimed at educating local governments and communities

2. More promotion and marketing with a focus on websites and internet based marketing 3. Institute changes to insure consistent SHAC membership representation. Perhaps

responsibilities could be shared among several people within a particular agency 4. Provide consistent and differentiated training for all participants throughout their involvement

in the program 5. Require FDOT to coordinate project and maintenance efforts with CMEs 6. Promote inter‐byway communication and education 7. Focus on the implementation phase as much as the designation phase 8. Align designation requirements with National Scenic Byway Program requirements 9. Provide better communication of training, promotion and coordination efforts to all participants 10. Increase the frequency of Statewide Conferences/Workshops 11. Provide CMEs with resources and self‐checks for maintaining membership 12. Provide CMEs with additional resources for pursuing funding 13. Provide consistent funding and time resources for DSHCs 14. Make designations more restrictive to improve quality of designations 15. Provide more and better resources for CMEs 16. Better communicate the availability of resources to CMEs 17. Streamline, simplify and shorten eligibility/designation process 18. Extend interaction and promotion among state and federal agencies 19. Hold regular SHAC and DSHC meetings 20. Improve the Annual Reports process in terms of ease of use and content


2

1.0 PURPOSE The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) Evaluation Report briefly summarizes the history of the program, provides an overview of the current program, gathers/evaluates participant feedback and provides recommendations for the future of the program. This report will determine what is and isn’t working within the program by evaluating attendee’s feedback from the previous Statewide Conferences, Annual Reports, on‐going efforts and surveying participants. Participants surveyed were asked questions to determine the effectiveness of the FSHP program in terms of achieving participant’s goals, program administration, training, coordination, promotion, funding, the application/reporting review process and the future of the program. The on‐going efforts include feedback received by program staff and consultants on a day‐to‐day basis. The Statewide Conferences feedback is taken from the Goal Setting Forum section of the 2008 Statewide Conference proceedings. The Annual Reports feedback was obtained by reviewing the 2002‐2008 annual reports for problem areas. This feedback is then evaluated, based on popular responses and merit, to determine future actions of the program.

2.0 PROGRAM HISTORY The National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP) was established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, continued with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21) (1998‐2005) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) (2005‐2009). The purpose of the NSBP was to recognize and enhance roads that have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational and archaeological qualities and to support state scenic highways initiatives. When developing the framework and guidelines for the NSBP, the National Scenic Byways Advisory Committee decided that roads should first be designated as scenic byways by individual states before receiving “National Scenic Byway” or “All‐American Road” status. This decision prompted the enhancement and development of state scenic highways programs across the country. Grants and other federal monies were made available through ISTEA to establish new state programs or enhance existing state or federal byways. Prior to the ISTEA legislation, several communities and local governments in Florida had designated scenic and/or historic corridors under their jurisdiction, but no statewide standards of quality or criteria for designation had been established. Many of these corridors were adopted into the jurisdictions’ comprehensive plan or were protected by local regulations.


3

In 1993, Section 335.093 of the Florida Statutes was passed to allow for the designation of scenic highways in the State of Florida. The purpose of this legislation was to identify and preserve the intrinsic qualities of designated scenic, cultural and historic corridors in Florida. In addition, the legislation allowed the state, through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), to establish a Scenic Highways Program that met the eligibility requirements for federal funding purposes under ISTEA. In 1994, the FDOT received a $150,000 National Scenic Byways Grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop the Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP or the Program). FDOT used this funding to develop a community‐based (or grass roots) process that is designed to strengthen local commitment to the preservation, enhancement and maintenance of the intrinsic resources valuable to local communities and regions; create the Program’s Manual and develop a Pilot Training program. The procedures and criteria for designation were established in Florida Administrative Rule 14‐12.021. To further substantiate the program, Thomas F. Barry, Jr. (Secretary of the FDOT) approved and signed FDOT Procedure Topic Number 650‐050‐005 to establish the FSHP as an official program of the Department. In April 1997, the FHWA presented the FDOT with an Environmental Excellence Award for Excellence in Environmental Process for its creation of the FSHP and the FSHP Manual. The Florida Scenic Highways Program effort was selected out of 154 other applicants, representing 34 states, to receive this recognition. The success of this program has been exemplified by the recognition it has received and the interest of communities wishing to attain scenic highways designation for their own corridors. Information regarding the FSHP has been submitted to many other Department of Transportation agencies including Maine, Ohio, New Mexico and Alabama, to assist in the development of their state scenic programs. The FSHP Manual was also utilized as a guide to develop the scenic highways program in Cape Town, South Africa. The Florida Scenic Highways Program has had numerous accomplishments in recent years. These accomplishments have included Statewide Conferences, tourist and program DVD production, website development, brochures and marketing items, the implementation of training and Roadside Chats and a re‐configuration of the Annual Reports process. The FSHP program has pending efforts that include two new websites, new Hi‐Definition videos and GPS itineraries for hand‐held personal GPS/Navigation units. Recent efforts have attempted to focus on technological advancements of the program and to be a front runner of this area across the entire National Scenic Byway community.


4

3.0 CURRENT PROGRAM The Florida Scenic Highways Program is a result of the FDOT Central Environmental Management Office (EMO) working closely with the Scenic Highways Advisory Group (SHAC), Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG), Corridor Management Entities (CME) and District Scenic Highways Coordinators (DSHC). These groups created the Program’s mission statement, which reflects the interconnected nature of Florida’s roadways, resources and communities. A key component of the Program is its grass roots approach that requires substantial public participation and community support.

3.1 MISSION STATEMENT

3.2 STATUS OF FLORIDA’S SCENIC HIGHWAYS There are currently twenty‐four (24) state designated scenic highways in the State of Florida (See Table 1). The program includes (2) National Scenic Byways. The Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway and the A1A Scenic and Historic Coastal Byway (a combination of the Scenic and Historic A1A, A1A Ocean Shore and A1A River & Sea Trail State Scenic Highway) have both received national designation. The Tamiami Trail was de‐designated in 2008 due to a failure of the Corridor Management Entity (CME) membership and eroded public support. In addition to the network of designated scenic highways, there are currently three (3) candidate corridors actively pursuing state‐level designation.

1. J.C. Penney Memorial Scenic Highway ‐ Currently seeking designation 2. Martin Grade Scenic Highway ‐ Currently seeking eligibility 3. State Road A1A Broward County ‐ Currently seeking designation

Since the program inception there has been over $30 million in federal and state funds distributed to the highways (See Table 1). The majority of funds have gone to Green Mountain Scenic ($7.8 Million), Tamiami Trail ($8.6 Million) and Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway ($2.9 Million).

The Florida Scenic Highways Program will preserve, enhance and maintain the intrinsic resources of scenic corridors through a sustainable balance of conservation and land use.

Through community based consensus and partnerships, the program will promote economic prosperity and broaden the traveler’s overall recreational and educational experience.

Number

Cor

rido

r N

ame

District

Length (Miles)

Date of LOI

Date of Eligibility

Date of FSH Designation

Date of NSB Designation

Date of 5-Year CMP Update

Nam

es o

f Gra

nts

and

Proj

ect T

ype

Date Applied

Amount of Grant

Tot

al

FDO

T gr

ant t

o de

velo

p th

e C

MP

2000

$25,

000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Im

plem

entin

g a

Gat

eway

Sys

tem

to E

nhan

ce

Pub

lic A

cces

sibi

lity

to In

trins

ic R

esou

rce

2002

$78,

000

City

of F

lagl

er B

each

: Mat

chin

g G

rant

for G

atew

ay S

yste

m20

02$7

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Pha

se II

fund

ing

to c

onst

ruct

gat

eway

faci

litie

s.20

03$2

20,0

00

FDO

T gr

ant t

o de

velo

p th

e C

MP

2000

$25,

000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Im

plem

entin

g a

Mul

timod

al G

reen

way

Sys

tem

2002

$330

,000

Flag

ler C

ount

y: M

atch

ing

Gra

nt fo

r Mul

timod

al G

reen

way

Sys

tem

2002

$250

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay D

iscr

etio

nary

Gra

nt: P

hase

II fu

ndin

g to

con

stru

ct a

mul

ti-m

odal

gr

eenw

ay s

yste

m.

2003

$670

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Web

site

Dev

elop

men

t20

03$4

0,00

0

Flor

ida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n D

istri

ct 2

: Web

site

Dev

elop

men

t20

03$5

,000

Flor

ida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n D

istri

ct 5

: Web

site

Dev

elop

men

t20

03$5

,000

FDO

T G

rant

: Con

sulta

nt s

ervi

ces

to p

repa

re 3

NS

B g

rant

app

licat

ions

.20

03$2

4,92

6

2003

TA

BL

E 1

- FS

HP

DE

SIG

NA

TE

D A

ND

EL

IGIB

LE

SC

EN

IC H

IGH

WA

Y IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

1 2 3

7/10

/06

7/22

/06

09/0

7/00

06/1

3/02

*

06/0

7/01

06/1

3/02

*

06/0

6/01

06/1

3/02

*A

1A O

cean

Sho

re S

ceni

c H

ighw

ay*P

art o

f the

A1A

Sce

nic

& H

isto

ric C

oast

al B

yway

- N

atio

nal S

ceni

c B

yway

57

08/2

2/97

06/1

0/98

04/0

3/00

512

A1A

Riv

er &

Sea

Tra

il Sc

enic

Hig

hway

**P

art o

f the

A1A

Sce

nic

& H

isto

ric C

oast

al B

yway

- N

atio

nal S

ceni

c B

yway

A1A

Sce

nic

& H

isto

ric

Coa

stal

Byw

ay*

*Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay m

ade

up o

f thr

ee in

divi

dual

Fl

orid

a S

ceni

c H

ighw

ays

2, 5

71

DE

SIG

NA

TE

D H

IGH

WA

YS

$398

,000

$1,2

75,0

00

FDO

T G

rant

: Pro

vide

faci

litat

ion

serv

ices

to N

atio

nal S

ceni

c B

yway

CM

E20

03-

2004

$34,

355

FDO

T G

rant

: Pro

vide

NEP

A do

cum

enta

tion

to F

HW

A p

rior t

o th

e co

nstru

ctio

n of

gat

eway

fa

cilit

ies

and

mul

ti-m

odal

gre

enw

ay s

yste

m.

2004

$22,

191

FDO

T G

rant

: Pro

vide

mat

chin

g fu

nds

for 2

004

NS

B S

eed

Gra

nt fo

r Fin

anci

al D

evel

opm

ent

Pla

n.20

04$6

,250

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay S

eed

Gra

nt- C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n20

05$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay S

eed

Gra

nt- C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n20

06$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: V

isito

rs W

elco

me

Inte

rpre

tativ

e/ In

form

atio

n C

ente

r20

07$2

00,0

00

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: N

orth

ern

Gat

eway

Kio

sk20

07$7

2,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion-

Yea

r 320

07$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: S

ceni

c O

verlo

ok20

07$1

20,0

00

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: F

lagl

er C

ount

y Fa

cilit

ies

Impr

ovem

ents

2007

$152

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

ell P

hone

Tou

r20

08$5

0,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion

for

Org

aniz

atio

nal S

usta

inab

ility

2008

$80,

000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: F

lagl

er B

each

Gat

eway

Pro

men

ade

Impr

ovem

ents

2008

$373

,520

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: W

ayfin

ding

/Way

show

ing

Sig

nage

Sys

tem

Pla

n20

08$1

20,0

00

$1,3

80,2

42

Number

Cor

rido

r N

ame

District

Length (Miles)

Date of LOI

Date of Eligibility




Nam

es o

f Gra

nts

and

Proj

ect T

ype

Date Applied

Amount of Grant

Tot

al

TA

BL

E 1

(Con

td.)

- FSH

P D

ESI

GN

AT

ED

AN

D E

LIG

IBL

E S

CE

NIC

HIG

HW

AY

INFO

RM

AT

ION

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay G

rant

: Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent P

lan-

Yea

r 120

07$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay G

rant

: Blu

eprin

t for

Roa

dsid

e In

terp

reta

tion

and

Way

findi

ng20

07$8

1,33

2

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay G

rant

: CM

P Im

plem

enta

tion

& F

undi

ng S

trate

gy -

Year

220

08$4

3,00

0

Tran

spor

tatio

n E

nhan

cem

ent F

unds

- B

ike

path

2003

$300

,000

Tran

spor

tatio

n E

nhan

cem

ent F

unds

-Sid

ewal

ks, L

ands

capi

ng20

05$3

00,0

00

Ann

a M

aria

Isla

nd C

ham

ber o

f Com

mer

ce -

Wel

com

e S

ign

2005

$2,2

00

FDO

T G

rant

: Lan

dsca

ping

2004

$20,

000

FDO

T G

rant

: Gat

eway

Sig

n20

03$1

0,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n U

pdat

e20

07$3

1,16

0

6C

ourt

ney

Cam

pbel

l Sce

nic

Hig

hway

79.

504

/02/

0104

/23/

0305

/23/

05FD

OT

Cen

tral O

ffice

2006

$400

,000

$400

,000

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- E

ligib

ility

App

licat

ion

2005

$50,

000

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n20

06$6

0,00

0

Priv

ate

Don

atio

n20

01$1

10,0

00854 7

06/2

2/01

12/1

2/00

Bra

dent

on B

each

Sce

nic

Hig

hway

1

116.

2

2.8

Flor

ida

Key

s Sce

nic

Hig

hway

610

604

/30/

97

02/0

9/00

09/0

8/00

04/1

7/01

$110

,000

Big

Ben

d Sc

enic

Byw

ay

322

002

/29/

00

$149

,332

10/2

8/05

Flor

ida

Bla

ck B

ear

Scen

ic B

yway

5

10/1

2/06

, 02

/13/

07Le

on

Cou

nty

Por

tion

Add

ed

07/2

4/06

02/2

0/08

$663

,360

12/1

7/04

,

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Int

erpr

etiv

e/M

aste

r Pla

n20

03$1

20,0

00

Mon

roe

Cou

nty:

Inte

rpre

tive/

Mas

ter P

lan

2003

$40,

000

Flor

ida

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n: In

terp

retiv

e/M

aste

r Pla

n20

03$4

0,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: K

ey D

eer H

abita

t Pre

serv

atio

n20

08$1

,400

,000

Tran

spor

tatio

n E

nhan

cem

ent F

unds

- C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n20

01$2

5,00

0

Fl. D

ept.

of E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n, O

ffice

of G

reen

way

and

Tra

ils: D

edic

ated

B

icyc

le/P

edes

trian

Fac

ility

2002

$75,

832

Tow

n of

Mon

tver

de: D

edic

ated

Bic

ycle

/Ped

estri

an F

acilit

y20

02$1

8,95

8

Flor

ida

Com

mun

ities

Tru

st: P

urch

ase

land

on

Lake

Apo

pka

2004

$3,5

00,0

00

FDO

T G

rant

: Pro

vide

FS

HP

doc

umen

tatio

n to

ext

end

exis

ting

corr

idor

thro

ugh

the

Tow

n of

O

akla

nd a

nd in

to W

inte

r Gar

den

2004

$15,

000

Flor

ida

Com

mun

ities

Tru

st, L

ake

Cou

nty

and

St.

John

s R

iver

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Dis

trict

; La

nd P

urch

ase

for F

ernd

ale

Pre

serv

e on

Lak

e A

popk

a20

04$4

,025

,000

Cas

tle a

nd C

ooke

, Inc

.; A

pplic

atio

n fo

r Add

ition

al C

orrid

or20

05$7

,500

Ora

nge

Cou

nty

BO

CC

; App

licat

ion

for A

dditi

onal

Cor

ridor

2005

$3,7

50

City

of W

inte

r Gar

den;

App

licat

ion

for A

dditi

onal

Cor

ridor

2005

$3,7

50

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay S

eed

Gra

nt- C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n20

06$2

5,00

0

Tran

spor

tatio

n E

nhan

cem

ent G

rant

- Mas

ter p

lan

2006

$100

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion-

Yea

r 220

07$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n P

roje

ct -

Year

320

08$3

5,07

8

513

.25

04/0

2/01

Gre

en M

ount

ain

Scen

ic B

yway

$1,7

10,0

00

07/0

5/02

7/19

/200

4

10/3

1/05

E

xten

sion

A

war

ded

$7,8

59,8

68

9

Number

Cor

rido

r N

ame

District

Length (Miles)

Date of LOI

Date of Eligibility




Nam

es o

f Gra

nts

and

Proj

ect T

ype

Date Applied

Amount of Grant

Tot

al

TA

BL

E 1

(Con

td.)

- FSH

P D

ESI

GN

AT

ED

AN

D E

LIG

IBL

E S

CE

NIC

HIG

HW

AY

INFO

RM

AT

ION

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- E

ligib

ility

App

licat

ion

2005

$25,

000

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n20

060

FDO

T gr

ant t

o de

velo

p th

e C

MP

2000

$25,

000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Lag

oon

Hou

se20

01$8

00,0

00

Fl. D

ept.

of T

rans

porta

tion:

Mat

chin

g N

SB

Gra

nt fo

r Lag

oon

Hou

se20

01$1

00,0

00

Fl. I

nlan

d N

avig

atio

n D

istri

ct: M

atch

ing

NS

B G

rant

for L

agoo

n H

ouse

2001

$100

,000

Sce

nic

Hig

hway

Bea

utifi

catio

n G

rant

2001

$147

,780

Priv

ate

Don

atio

n: F

urni

shin

gs fo

r Lag

oon

Hou

se20

01$9

7,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Re-

cons

truct

ion

of M

elbo

urne

Bea

ch H

isto

ric

Pie

r20

02$1

45,3

46

Tow

n of

Mel

bour

ne B

each

: Mat

chin

g G

rant

for M

elbo

urne

Bea

ch H

isto

ric P

ier

2002

$54,

605

FEM

A/D

CA

: Mat

chin

g G

rant

for M

elbo

urne

Bea

ch H

isto

ric P

ier

2002

$73,

063

Fl. D

ept.

of T

rans

porta

tion:

Inva

sive

Pla

nt S

peci

es M

anag

emen

t Pla

n20

03$8

1,50

0

FDO

T G

rant

: Int

egra

ted

trans

porta

tion

faci

lity

stud

y w

ith w

ater

taxi

feas

ibilit

y.20

04$5

2,50

0

2/27

/06

516

605

/14/

99In

dian

Riv

er L

agoo

n N

atio

nal S

ceni

c B

yway

04/0

3/00

06/1

3/00

6/13

/02

$2,9

06,7

92

$25,

000

1110H

erita

ge C

ross

road

s:

Mile

s of H

isto

ry S

ceni

c H

ighw

ay5

125

05/0

5/05

07/0

6/07

11/1

9/08

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay G

rant

: Im

plem

enta

tion

of C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (S

eed

Gra

nt)

2004

$25,

000

FDO

T gr

ant f

or s

hore

line

reha

bilit

atio

n20

05$2

4,99

8

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay S

eed

Gra

nt- C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n20

05$2

5,00

0

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- C

orrid

or E

xten

sion

2006

$15,

000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay S

eed

Gra

nt- C

MP

Impl

emen

tatio

n20

06$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion-

Yea

r 120

07$2

5,00

0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: P

edes

trian

Ped

way

2007

$500

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: W

ater

front

Acq

uisi

tion

2007

$540

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: S

eed

Gra

nt 2

008

2008

$50,

000

12In

dian

Riv

er L

agoo

n T

reas

ure

Coa

st

Scen

ic H

ighw

ay4

42.1

308

/07/

0212

/19/

0301

/01/

06N

atio

nal S

ceni

c B

yway

s G

rant

: Inl

et A

cces

s Im

prov

emen

ts20

08$1

,600

,000

$1,6

00,0

00

13L

emon

Bay

/Mya

kka

Tra

il Sc

enic

Hig

hway

(SR

776

)1

47.9

06/0

6/06

02/1

3/07

02/2

0/08

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- E

ligib

ility

and

Des

igna

tion

App

licat

ions

2007

$146

,763

$146

,763

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: M

aste

r Pla

n 20

06$1

05,4

40

VIS

IT F

LOR

IDA

Mar

ketin

g G

rant

200

620

06$5

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: P

ayne

s P

rairi

e P

rese

rve

Vis

itor C

ente

r20

07$1

60,0

00

FDO

T P

lann

ing

Gra

nt- E

ligib

ility

App

licat

ion

and

CM

P20

05-

2006

$85,

000

FDO

T G

rant

s fo

r CM

P d

evel

opm

ent

2005

-20

06$4

2,00

0

06/0

7/01

12/1

4/99

4804

/03/

00O

ld F

lori

da H

erita

ge H

ighw

ay2

04/0

4/03

an

d 05

/05/

05$1

27,0

00

$270

,440

15O

rmon

d Sc

enic

Loo

p &

Tra

il(C

ompo

sed

of H

isto

ric O

rmon

d-by

-the-

Sea

Tra

il an

d th

e O

rmon

d B

each

Sce

nic

Loop

)

533

.98

14

10/2

2/04

an

d 07

/24/

06

07/0

6/07

Number

Cor

rido

r N

ame

District

Length (Miles)

Date of LOI

Date of Eligibility




Nam

es o

f Gra

nts

and

Proj

ect T

ype

Date Applied

Amount of Grant

Tot

al

TA

BL

E 1

(Con

td.)

- FSH

P D

ESI

GN

AT

ED

AN

D E

LIG

IBL

E S

CE

NIC

HIG

HW

AY

INFO

RM

AT

ION

Inla

nd N

avig

atio

nal D

istri

ct: B

oat r

amps

2004

$25,

000

Div

isio

n of

For

estry

: 75

trees

pla

nted

2004

$10,

000

FDO

T H

ighw

ay S

yste

m L

ands

capi

ng F

unds

: Hig

hway

Lan

dsca

ping

2003

$250

,000

FDO

T Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Enh

ance

men

t Fun

ds: R

estro

oms

2004

$200

,000

Gra

nt m

atch

from

Bon

go's

, Bur

dette

& A

ssoc

iate

s, C

ente

x R

oone

y C

onst

ruct

ion

Co.

, City

of

Brad

ento

n, E

nviro

nmen

tal A

ffairs

Con

sulta

nts,

and

Kee

p M

anat

ee B

eaut

iful:

Plan

ting

trees

2004

$14,

512

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Int

erpr

etiv

e P

lan

1999

$43,

070

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Mas

ter P

lan

2000

$120

,000

Pre

serv

atio

n 20

00 F

unds

and

the

City

of P

ensa

cola

: Lan

d P

urch

ase

2000

$1,2

00,0

00

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion-

Yea

r 120

07$2

9,22

7

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Gra

nt: V

olun

teer

Coo

rdin

ator

2008

$29,

230

18T

he R

idge

Sce

nic

Hig

hway

1

38.7

05/2

8/03

04/3

0/04

02/1

6/05

$019

Riv

er o

f Lak

es H

erita

ge C

orri

dor

510

303

/01/

0610

/18/

0703

/12/

09FD

OT

Pla

nnin

g G

rant

- Elig

ibilit

y A

pplic

atio

n20

06$3

5,25

1$3

5,25

120

Scen

icH

ighw

ay30

A3

2801

/21/

0402

/13/

0702

/20/

08

16 17

4

05/0

1/97

Pens

acol

a Sc

enic

Blu

ffs

311

Palm

a So

la S

ceni

c H

ighw

ay

05/2

1/96

1

04/2

4/98

$1,4

21,5

27

05/0

2/02

08/2

7/03

05/2

8/04

$499

,512

20Sc

enic

Hig

hway

30A

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Mas

ter P

lan

2003

$400

,008

St.

John

s C

ount

y: M

aste

r Pla

n20

03$1

00,0

02

22Su

ncoa

st S

ceni

c Pa

rkw

ay

Turn

pike

4203

/21/

0305

/23/

0507

/24/

06$0

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Int

erpr

etiv

e P

lan

1999

$36,

930

Publ

ic L

ands

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Vis

itor C

ente

r--Bi

g C

ypre

ss P

rese

rve

1999

$2,1

00,0

00

Dep

artm

ent o

f Int

erio

r, V

isito

r and

Saf

ety

Am

eniti

es (f

or th

e B

ig C

ypre

ss N

atio

nal P

rese

rve

on T

amia

mi T

rail)

: Wel

com

e C

ente

r19

99$5

,000

,000

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ays

Dis

cret

iona

ry G

rant

: Mas

ter P

lan

2000

$240

,000

Nat

iona

l Par

k S

ervi

ce-F

DO

T S

tate

wid

e E

nhan

cem

ent F

unds

: His

toric

Pre

serv

atio

n P

roje

ct

at M

onro

e S

tatio

n (C

ollie

r Cou

nty)

2004

$785

,000

US

Fis

h an

d W

ildlif

e S

ervi

ce-F

DO

T S

tate

wid

e T

rans

porta

tion

Enh

ance

men

t Fun

ds: T

en

Thou

sand

Nat

iona

l Wild

life

Ref

uge

Trai

l and

Sce

nic

Ove

rlook

(Col

lier C

ount

y)20

04$4

80,0

00

24T

amia

mi T

rail

Scen

ic H

ighw

ay W

indo

ws

to th

e G

ulf C

oast

Wat

ers

170

03/1

2/02

04/2

8/03

12/1

9/03

FDO

T S

tate

wid

e E

nhan

cem

ent F

unds

: Ped

estri

an Im

prov

emen

ts (S

aras

ota,

Man

atee

C

ount

ies)

2004

$300

,000

$300

,000

25W

illia

m B

artr

am S

ceni

c &

His

tori

c H

ighw

ay2

1704

/14/

9806

/28/

0210

/31/

05$0

$30,

420,

027

1J.

C. P

enne

y M

emor

ial S

ceni

c H

ighw

ay2

4.33

05/2

4/06

02/2

0/08

2M

artin

Gra

de S

ceni

c H

ighw

ay4

1205

/08/

08

3St

ate

Roa

d A

1A B

row

ard

Cou

nty

428

09/1

5/00

01/0

1/06

$0$3

0,42

0,02

7

21 23

CA

ND

IDA

TE

CO

RR

IDO

R T

OT

AL

DE

SIG

NA

TE

D C

OR

RID

OR

TO

TA

L

CA

ND

IDA

TE

HIG

HW

AY

S

PRO

GR

AM

TO

TA

L

6/15

/00

12/0

9/98

12/0

2/97

Tam

iam

i Tra

il Sc

enic

Hig

hway

(D

e- D

esig

nate

d)08

/06/

96

04/1

6/98

1

52Sc

enic

& H

isto

ric

A1A

*Par

t of t

he A

1A S

ceni

c &

His

toric

Coa

stal

Byw

ay -

Nat

iona

l Sce

nic

Byw

ay

50

2

$8,6

41,9

30

06/1

3/02

*1/

17/2

002

06/1

4/00

$500

,010


9

3.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPANTS There are four (4) key groups currently involved in the Program:

• The Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG)/Corridor Management Entity (CME)

• The District Scenic Highways Coordinators (DSHC)

• The State Scenic Highways Coordinator

• The Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC) The Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) and Corridor Management Entity (CME) are comprised of citizens, professionals and government representatives. The CAG is responsible for maintaining momentum, fostering community support and developing the documentation that supports the highway’s designation application as a Florida Scenic Highway. Once the corridor attains designation, the Corridor Management Entity assumes responsibility for ensuring that the Corridor Management Plan is implemented and that the quality and integrity of the corridor is maintained and/or enhanced. The District Scenic Highways Coordinator (DSHC) is the local representative of FDOT that provides technical support and guidance to the local corridor groups. Each of the seven (7) FDOT districts and the Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise has an identified DSHC. In addition to providing technical support, the DSHC also serves as the FDOT representative on the CME. The State Scenic Highways Coordinator is the statewide representative of the Florida Department of Transportation for the Scenic Highways Program. The Statewide Scenic Highways Coordinator is responsible for implementing the Program, setting program policies and serving as an ad hoc member of the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee. The Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC) consists of a representative from each of the following agencies:

1. Florida Department of State 2. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3. Florida Department of Community Affairs 4. Florida Department of Agriculture 5. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 6. Federal Highway Administration 7. Visit Florida

The SHAC is responsible for reviewing all documentation submitted for designation, recommending action on applications to the Secretary of FDOT and ranking projects for federal grants.


10

3.4 ELIGIBILITY, DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES The FSHP process is divided into three (3) phases: Eligibility, Designation and Implementation. The process is sequential in nature, incorporates critical decision points and builds on work done in the previous phases. The process was specifically designed in this manner in order to minimize unnecessary work effort and maximize the probability of success once a corridor is determined to be eligible. The Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual guides applicants through each of the phases, which are briefly summarized here.

Eligibility To be eligible for designation as a Florida Scenic Highway, a corridor must possess at least one (1) of the following six (6) intrinsic resources identified by the National Scenic Byways Program:

1. Cultural 2. Historical 3. Archaeological 4. Recreational 5. Natural 6. Scenic

The initial step in this phase is the organization of the CAG, who serves as the applicant throughout the entire process. Following the submission of the Letter of Intent (LOI) to FDOT, the CAG develops its Eligibility Application. Three (3) assessments must be completed as part of the Eligibility Phase: a Background Assessment, an Intrinsic Resource Assessment and a Criteria Assessment. Descriptions of each assessment and their content requirements are located in the FSHP Manual. Once all of the assessments are completed, the CAG develops the Corridor Vision and Initial Goals for the corridor. A tentative schedule of completion of the Corridor Management Plan (CMP) is also prepared. The three (3) assessments, Corridor Vision and schedule are packaged together as the Eligibility Application, which is submitted to the DSHC for review. After the DSHC review, a copy of the application is sent to each member of the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC). The SHAC holds a meeting to vote on the candidate corridor. If the SHAC determines that the corridor qualifies for “Eligibility”, a Recommendation of Eligibility will be forwarded to the FDOT Secretary who will make a formal decision.

Designation The purpose of the Designation phase is to evaluate the opportunities and constraints that exist within the corridor and develop a plan that effectively incorporates or addresses these issues. This phase is an expansion of the information compiled during the Eligibility phase and analyzes the relationships between the corridor and its features. The end result is the creation of an effective management and protection plan for existing and future conditions, known as the Corridor Management Plan (CMP).


11

The Corridor Management Plan consists of fourteen (14) elements, which are listed here and described in the FSHP Manual:

1. Background Conditions Analysis 2. Intrinsic Resource Assessment 3. Designation Criteria 4. Corridor Vision 5. Goals, Objectives and Strategies 6. Corridor’s Story 7. Corridor Management Entity 8. Community Participation Program 9. Local Support 10. Protection Techniques 11. Funding and Promotion 12. Comprehensive Plan Relationship 13. Partnerships and Agreements 14. Action Plan

To foster a sense of responsibility and ensure a commitment by local government(s) and partners to implement the CMP, portions of the CMP must be incorporated into the appropriate local government comprehensive plan(s). The Designation Application consists of a completed designation application form and the CMP. Once compiled, the CAG submits the preliminary Designation Application to the District Scenic Highways Coordinator (DSHC), who circulates it among all Unit Managers within the respective District(s) for review. Following revisions, the Designation Application form is signed by the CAG Chairperson and an authorized representative from each participating local government through which the corridor passes. The final Designation Application is then sent to the DSHC for distribution to the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC). If the SHAC recommends designation of the corridor, the FDOT Secretary will be notified and a letter will be sent to the CAG. Each designated corridor may have a Dedication Ceremony to commemorate the new Florida Scenic Highway. The CAG is responsible for determining the details of the ceremony and coordinating with partners to make it happen.

Implementation The primary duty of the CME is to implement the strategies identified in the Action Plan of the CMP. The CME is also responsible for on‐going activities within the corridor. As corridors do not remain static but change with their surrounding environments, reviews of the actual corridor and the CMP are part of the Implementation phase. The CMP must adapt to the changing conditions of the corridor while continuing to work toward the goals set forth by the Corridor Vision. To accomplish this CMEs prepare an Annual Report and a Five‐year CMP Update for review by the FDOT.


12

The Annual Report serves two purposes:

1. Provides a status report on the intrinsic resource conditions, implementation strategies and other CME activities.

2. Compels the CME to analyze and discuss the effectiveness of corridor strategies in relation to the Corridor Vision.

The Corridor Management Entity (CME) completes a more comprehensive review of the scenic highway corridor and its CMP every five (5) years after the date of designation. The purpose of this Five‐Year CMP Update is to assess, from a longer historical perspective, things like: the successes and failures of the CMP, the realization of corridor goals and objectives and the effectiveness of other areas within the CMP. As part of this update, the Corridor Vision and Goals can be re‐evaluated and amended, if necessary.

3.5 PROGRAM MANUAL The Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual was first prepared in 1996 and last updated in 2009 in order to establish the procedure and administrative process by which public roads are to be nominated and designated. The Manual was designed to give applicants step‐by‐step instructions on completing the three phases of the program. As the Program grows, the Manual is revised to keep it current.

3.6 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES To assist all the participants of the Program, training on each phase of the Program is available upon request from the Florida Department of Transportation District and Central Offices. The training program has been developed and organized in modules in order for communities to receive personalized training sessions relevant to their progress within the program process. The individual training courses are presented upon request to CAG/CMEs. The implementation of numerous training opportunities, workshops and Roadside Chats has taken place over the last few years. Roadside Chats are when the state scenic coordinator provides on request, fact‐to‐face assistance to address CAG/CME’s issues. FSHP staff has given Introduction Eligibility training to groups submitting a Letter of Interest and Eligibility Application, Designation training to groups submitting a Corridor Management Plan and Implementation training for newly designated groups. Grant workshops and other corridor specific workshops have been given across the state by National Scenic Byways representatives and FSHP staff. Roadside Chats were developed by the State Scenic Highways Coordinator


13

and FSHP staff to allow for all of the scenic highway groups across the state to get their own specific visits and question and answer sessions. Many more workshops and Roadside Chats are planned for the future. Statewide Scenic Conferences/Workshops were held in 2001, 2006 and 2008 in Cocoa Beach, Bradenton and Sarasota. These workshops were significant successes for the FSHP community and will continue to provide networking and training in years to come. Conferences are held every two years and from 2006 to 2008 the FSHP Statewide Conference attendance doubled. Almost all feedback received by FSHP staff was positive feedback about sessions and gatherings that were held during both conferences.

3.7 PROMOTION AND MARKETING A Marketing Plan for the Florida Scenic Highways Program was prepared in April 2000 and updated in 2004. These plans identified 25 target markets for the development of print and electronic marketing materials. Five (5) of these were established as major markets towards which all FSHP marketing efforts would be focused. The five (5) major target markets are: (1) tourism industry; (2) surrounding corridor communities; (3) media; (4) public institutions; and (5) travelers. The plan also identified specific marketing and promotional items to be utilized when marketing to the five (5) major target markets. Some of these items are the program website, brochures, press kits, trinkets/giveaways, travel displays at Florida Welcome and Visitors Centers, coloring books and local event sponsorships (e.g. 10K runs, bike races, ribbon cutting ceremonies). The mission of the Marketing Plan is: “Develop and produce dynamic promotional media designed to promote activity along the network of Florida’s Scenic Highways.”

The Florida Scenic Highways Program has had numerous marketing and promotional accomplishments in recent years. These accomplishments have included tourist and program DVD production, website development, brochures and other marketing items. In addition the FSHP program has pending efforts that include two new websites, new Hi‐Definition videos and GPS itineraries for hand‐held GPS units. Two DVDs (tourist and program‐based) were produced in 2005‐2006 that have become more than useful to tourists and potential program entrants. Filming took place in 2005 that highlighted many of the major resources along the designated highways back then and were used for the DVDs. Hundreds of tourist DVDs has been


14

distributed at trade shows, byway celebrations, festivals and conferences around the United States. These have helped to attract many travelers to the scenic highways of Florida. In addition program DVDs have been distributed to potential groups looking to join the FSHP community. These highlight the required program documents and outline what is required of groups wanting to start the designation process. A current effort exists to create Hi‐Definition film footage that are a result of having thirteen (13) newly designated scenic highways since the previous DVDs were made in 2005‐2006. These videos are a result of significant program and program manual changes. The ten (10) previously designated corridors and the recent thirteen (13) will all have Hi‐Definition footage as a result. An original website was developed a few years ago through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Environmental Management Office (EMO).This website was the first Florida Scenic Highways Program website and contained links for all candidates and designated highways. There is a main candidate highways page that lists all of the candidate highways. Once a highway is designated more links are provided, including views of the highway, a map of the highway, activities and tour directions. There are also program related pages like funding opportunities and useful information for all highways. Two new websites are currently in development, to be unveiled in 2010. These efforts include a complete revamping of the current website and making that into a program website and a general tourist website. Both of the websites will be mobile device compatible websites so users can access them wherever they need to and on the go. The program website will be centered on the FSHP community and will have a calendar of events, workshop/training information, important bulletins and other information just for members of the FSHP. The tourist website will be geared towards the travelers of all Florida scenic highways and will have maps, videos, feedback sections and other information just for travelers to the state of Florida and its scenic highways. A future effort of the FSHP is to create GPS itineraries of all the designated scenic highways. GPS itineraries are an entirely new area of technology that will be used in personal GPS navigation units. GPS/Navigation units have recently become popular travel tools for many people. The FSHP GPS itineraries will contain all of the Florida Scenic Highways and their significant resources and will be made available to the public via civilian GPS/Navigation units and in other popular software formats. In addition the itineraries will be posted to the FSHP web site, point of interest sites and itinerary sharing websites such a Tomtom.com, POIFriend.com and Garmin.com. Many other marketing and promotional items have been produced over the past years that feature the FSHP. Different versions of the Capture Florida statewide brochure have been produced with updates adding new scenic highways every couple of years. These brochures have been distributed all over the state of Florida and around the world. Florida Visitor Centers have displayed and distributed the brochures, as well as members of the FSHP community, at numerous festivals and events. Other promotional items like beach balls, water bottles, stickers, pens, pencils, playing cards, etc. have been developed and distributed. All of these brochures and promotional items have helped to make the FSHP more widely known all over the United States and around the world.


15

3.8 ANNUAL REPORTS PROCESS The Annual Reports process, implemented in 2002, is an all‐electronic process that groups can complete online. This allows each CME to complete their Annual Reports on a more precise and timely basis. There is a series of questions that all groups must answer to complete their Annual Reports and the online format is a simplified process. All of the FSHP staff can then look at a certain group’s Annual Report online, which allows them to review the reports easier. The Annual Reports webpage will be re‐configured again in the future and incorporated into the new website.

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Phone interviews of participants in the Florida Scenic Highways Program were conducted in April and May of 2009. The interviews were conducted by a neutral party to assess the programs strengths and weakness and to improve the overall quality of the program. Feedback was obtained from administration to the grass roots level. Four (4) participant groups were also interviewed: Corridor Management Entities (CME), Corridor Advocacy Groups (CAG), Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC) members and the District Scenic Highways Coordinators (DSHC). The respondents were asked a variety of questions (See Appendix A). The questions were designed to determine the effectiveness of the FSHP program in terms of achieving participants goals, program administration, promotion, training, coordination, funding and review processes. Questions were tailored to the appropriate group based on relevance. Some questions are open ended and broad by design. The purpose allows the respondents to define issues. Some questions are rated to help evaluate the current Evaluation of the program and establish a baseline for future program evaluations.

4.1 PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY The following results represent the common themes and responses from the various respondents. Since many questions were open‐ended the responses vary widely. That being said, not all responses are presented here. Responses presented represent the most common and relevant responses. Rated responses are based on a percentage factor with 100% being a perfect rating. Respondents were asked pick a value between one (1) and ten (10). The scale uses one (1) as least desirable and ten (10) as most desirable. The responses were then averaged to come up with a percentage approval rating. The following results are based on previously prepared questions that were asked to respondents during phone interviews (See Appendix A). Some respondents had multiple answers for a single question. Each these answers were included in the results.

4.1.1 OVERALL PROGRAM The following results show responses in terms of technology, suggestions, program challenges, program longevity, preservation techniques and rating the FSHP.


16

The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked to (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the overall FSHP in terms of achieving the CAG and CMEs goals. The averaged approval ratings are:

1. Combined Overall Program Approval Rating 79% 2. CAG Overall Program Approval Rating 90% 3. CME Overall Program Approval Rating 77% 4. SHAC Overall Program Approval Rating 78% 5. DSHC Overall Program Approval Rating 80%

The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked “If you could change one thing about the Florida Scenic Highways Program what would it be?” Responses are sorted by the percentage of responses:

1. Change nothing (28%) 2. Streamline, simplify and shorten the process and FSHP manual (22%) 3. More support from FDOT, FSHP staff and DSHC (22%) 4. Limits on designations and different types of designations (10%) 5. More state legislator support (3%) 6. Increased Marketing (3%) 7. More consistency in grant application scoring (3%) 8. More training for SHAC (3%) 9. Site visits as part of review process (3%) 10. More training for CAGs and CMEs (3%)

CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked “What measures need to be taken to insure the program’s long‐term success?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Increased funding (22%) 2. Improve quality of designations (13%) 3. Increased promotion (13%) 4. Improved participant training (10%) 5. Improve staffing (10%) 6. Enhanced state support (10%) 7. Federal support (7%) 8. Don’t know (7%) 9. Stronger FDOT support (2%) 10. Stronger Public support (2%) 11. Inter‐agency cooperation (2%) 12. Clear objectives and strategies (2%)

The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked “How can technology further the CME’s goals or better the program as a whole?”

1. Websites (45%) 2. Internet based marketing (13%) 3. Cell phone tours (9%) 4. Support media (9%)


17

5. GPS data (9%) 6. Webinars and web based documents (9%) 7. E‐Mail (6%)

SHAC members were asked “Does your agency have any resource preservation techniques that could be incorporated into the Florida Scenic Highways Program” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. No improvements suggested (50%) 2. Land acquisition techniques (25%) 3. Mitigation of impacts (25%)

DSHCs were asked “What challenges is the Florida Scenic Highways Program currently facing?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Funding (50%) 2. Sustainability of the participant organizations (10%) 3. Keeping CMEs organized and together after designation (10%) 4. CAG/CME membership (10%) 5. Local government support (10%) 6. Educating the public (10%)

DSHCs were asked “Would restricting the number of designations per year benefit the overall Florida Scenic Highways Program?” The best response for this question was “Don’t restrict and don’t dilute.” All others, with the exception of one (1), did not think that restricting the number of designations per year was a good idea. The individual that thought it was a good to restrict the number of designations was concerned with maintaining the quality of designation.

4.1.2 TRAINING RATING, OPTIONS AND CHANGES The following responses indentify and rate training received by and training suggestions from CAG, CME and SHAC members. The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked to (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the training they received. The averaged approval ratings are:

1. Combined Overall Training Approval Rating 61% 2. CAG Overall Training Approval Rating: 95% 3. CME Overall Training Approval Rating 63% 4. SHAC Overall Training Approval Rating 68% 5. DSHC Overall Training Approval Rating 51%

What training options are respondents aware of in order of the most common response?

CAG/CME 1. Statewide Conferences/Workshops (33%) 2. Webinars (19%)


18

3. FDOT Staff or Consultants (15%) 4. Conference calls (10%) 5. Unaware of any available training options (8%) 6. Other training avenues mentioned include compact discs, manual, meetings, roadside chats

and guest speakers (3% each) SHAC

1. Manual (50%) 2. FDOT staff and conferences\workshops were all mentioned equally (25% each)

DSHC 1. Unaware of any available training options (27%) 2. FDOT staff or consultants (27%) 3. Conference calls (19%) 4. Webinars, internet research and conferences/workshops were all mentioned equally (9%

each) Training options most utilized in order of most frequent responses: CAG/CME

1. Statewide Conferences/Workshops (40%) 2. FDOT staff or consultants (23%) 3. Webinars (13%) 4. Conference calls (9%) 5. Other training avenues mentioned include compact discs, manual, meetings, roadside chats

and guest speakers (3% each) SHAC

1. Learn as you go (33%) 2. Manual (33%) 3. FDOT staff and conferences/workshops all utilized equally (16% each)

DSHC 1. Unaware of any available training options (38%) 2. Consultants (26%) 3. Conference calls (12%) 4. Internet research (12%) 5. Conferences/workshops (12%)

Recommended Training Improvements: CAG/CME

1. No suggestions (29%) 2. Inter‐byway communication and training (17%) 3. More training at the beginning of the FSHP eligibility/designation process (13%) 4. Optimize locations of training so that CAG/CMEs can attend (9%) 5. Continue offering Statewide Conferences/Workshops (4%) 6. Face‐to‐face training (4%)


19

7. Training directly from FSHP staff//consultants (4%) 8. Grant application training (4%) 9. Best management practices for CMEs (4%) 10. Post designation Training (4%) 11. Specialized workshops (4%) 12. FSHP staff should better communicate training options (4%)

SHAC 1. New member training (25%) 2. Updated training more often (25%) 3. Yearly conferences/workshops (25%) 4. Promoting training options (25%)

DSHC 1. New coordinator training (13%) 2. More training options (13%) 3. Meeting with all coordinator (13%)s 4. Annual DSHC meetings (13%) 5. Educating CME and public on preserving intrinsic qualities (13%) 6. Technical training (13%) 7. Conflict management (13%) 8. Lessons learned training (13%)

4.1.3 AGENCY COOPERATION, COORDINATION AND PROMOTION The following results show respondents views on the programs promotional efforts and the cooperation and coordination among involved agencies and local governments. CAGs and CMEs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the cooperation you’ve received from local governments?” The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 79%. CAGs and CMEs were asked “What can be done to improve cooperation from local governments?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Educating, marketing and communicating to local municipalities (64%) 2. No improvements suggested (32%) 3. Manage grants locally (2%)

The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked to (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the FSHP’s state and federal agency coordination efforts. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Unaware of coordination efforts (64%) 2. Those aware of the coordination efforts (36%) gave an averaged approval rating of 79%

The DSHC and SHAC members were asked “Are there any state agencies, not currently represented, that should be involved in the Florida Scenic Highways Program?” They responded:

1. No agencies suggested (43%) 2. Fish and wildlife (15%)


20

3. Division of Community Development (7%) 4. Department of Community Affairs (DCA) (7%) 5. Department of Forestry (7%) 6. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (7%) 7. State Park Service (7%) 8. State or other tourism boards (7%)

The DSHC and SHAC members were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the cooperation between involved agencies?” Three (3) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. They responded with an averaged approval rating of 89%. When asked what improvements they would suggest they responded:

1. No improvements suggested (67%) 2. Education of other agencies (11%) 3. Increase involvement with local agencies (11%) 4. Educate agencies that CMEs are not a regulatory agency (11%)

The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members were asked what state and federal coordination efforts they would like to see. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Make sure the SHAC is fully staffed and trained (17%) 2. Work with agencies at local levels (17%) 3. State parks department (8%) 4. Communication among any agencies that may be interested (8%) 5. Would like to see better coordination within the FDOT itself (8%) 6. Have scenic chapter in FDOT Maintenance manual (8%) 7. Coordination with VISIT FLORIDA (8%) 8. Train relevant agencies (8%) 9. Road user groups. Bike/pedestrian etc (8%) 10. Water management, forestry, DEP and land management agencies (8%)

CAGs, CMEs and DSHCs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s promotional and marketing efforts?” The respondents gave the program’s promotional and marketing efforts an averaged approval rating of 66%.

CAGs, CMEs and DSHCs were asked what improvements they would like to see for the program’s promotional and marketing efforts. The results are in order of occurrence:

1. More of the same and/or updates to existing efforts (31%) 2. No improvements suggested (15%) 3. Website improvements (12%) 4. Communication marketing efforts to participants (12%) 5. More interaction with VISIT FLORIDA (9%) 6. Educating public and local governments (9%) 7. Improved signage (6%) 8. Internet marketing (3%) 9. Improved use of technology (3%)


21

4.1.4 PARTICIPANTS GOALS The following results identify the participant’s goals and the effectiveness of the program in achieving those goals. CAGs and CMEs were asked “Why did you seek designation as a scenic byway?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Promote (41%) 2. Preserve (39%) 3. Enhance (20%)

The CMEs were also asked if achieving designation has helped to achieve their goals. All but three agreed that being designated has helped to achieve their goals. CMEs were asked “How has being designated as a Florida Scenic Highway helped to further your goals?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Improved community support and cohesiveness (36%) 2. Achieve funding (18%) 3. Credibility (14%) 4. Promotion (14%) 5. Improved support from local government (11%) 6. Achieve national designation (7%)

CAGs and CMEs were asked “What unexpected benefits have you received from the Florida Scenic Highways Program process?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. No unexpected benefits (37%) 2. Community recognition and cohesiveness (29%) 3. Funding opportunities (19%) 4. Increased support from local governments (10%) 5. Increased byway attractions (5%)

SHAC members were asked “Are the goals of your agency being furthered by the Florida Scenic Highways Program?” All but one (1) member thought their agencies goals were being furthered. The department of Forestry representative presented that maintenance measures like controlled burns aren’t always well received by scenic byways. SHAC members were asked “Have you found the goals of the participants to be in line with your agencies goals?” All SHAC members thought that the participant’s goals were in line with their goals.

4.1.5 PARTICIPANTS CONCERNS The following results identify the CAGs and CMEs general concerns and suggestions.


22

DSHCs, CAGs and CMEs were asked “What road blocks have you (CAGs and CMEs) experienced?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Local government (25%) 2. No major roadblocks (21%) 3. Funding (14%) 4. Membership (11%) 5. Time and scheduling (11%) 6. Community support (6%) 7. Development (6%) 8. Administrative Support (6%)

CMEs were asked what areas of maintaining support has been an issue and if so what are the causes. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. No problems with support (36%) 2. Membership (28%)

A. Maintaining interest (43%) B. Lack of population along byway (29%) C. Motivation (14%) D. Volunteer coordinator (14%)

3. Local government (28%) A. Lack of education and understanding (43%) B. Political representation (29%) C. Consistency of relationships (14%) D. Time (14%)

4. Community (8%) A. Lack of continued exposure (50%) B. Lack of volunteer coordinator (50%)

CAGs and CMEs were asked “What is the key component to your CME/CAG’s sustainability?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Maintaining membership (45%) 2. Maintaining leadership, interest, an enthusiasm (17%) 3. Funding (8%) 4. Community support (8%) 5. Maintaining local government support (6%) 6. FSHP Annual Report process (2%) 7. Achieving goals (2%) 8. Maintaining uniqueness of intrinsic resources (2%) 9. Administrative (FDOT) support (2%) 10. Establishing nonprofit structure (2%) 11. Nonprofit structure (2%)


23

CAGs and CMEs were asked “What do you think will be the key component to maintaining your byway’s designation?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Maintaining membership (26%) 2. Promotion and marketing (10%) 3. Local government support (10%) 4. Maintain and improve corridor (10%) 5. Maintaining leadership, interest, an enthusiasm (10%) 6. Funding (10%) 7. Community support (6%) 8. Achieving goals (6%) 9. CMP adherence (6%) 10. Preventing development (3%) 11. Relationship with DSHC (3%)

4.1.6 PARTICIPANT SUPPORT The following results identify and assess the support resources available to CAGs and CMEs. CAGs, CMEs and DSHCs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the assistance given by your District Coordinator? (DSHC)” The DSHCs were asked to (on a scale of 1‐10) rate themselves in terms of the assistance they give. The averaged approval ratings are:

1. Combined approval rating of 84% 2. The respondents gave the DSHCs an approval rating of 87% 3. The DSHCs gave themselves an approval rating of 74% 4. CMEs and CAGs were asked if their DSHC responded in a timely manner. All except one (1)

responded positively CAGs and CMEs were asked “Have you established a good working relationship with the DSHC?” All respondents said they had established a good working relationship. CME and CAGs suggested these DSHC improvements:

1. No improvements suggested (82%) 2. Better education (10%) 3. Assistance with grant writing (4%)

4. Dedicated DSHC (4%) DSHCs were asked “In what ways do you assist CAGs and CMEs?”Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Attend meetings (28%) 2. Moral support (18%) 3. Keep informed (12%) 4. Obtaining funding (12%) 5. Technical support (12%)


24

6. Provide staff and consultants (12%) 7. Liaison to FDOT Central Office (6%)

DSHCs were asked “What else could you do to assist CAGs and CMEs?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Nothing more they could be doing (45%) 2. Give them more time (22%) 3. Administrative support (11%) 4. Attend more meetings (11%) 5. Need more funding to do more (11%)

DSHCs were asked “What additional resources, if any, could you use?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Time (22%) 2. Training (11%) 3. Funds (11%) 4. Personnel and/or consultants (11%) 5. Educate communities (11%) 6. Educate CMEs (11%) 7. More training options (11%) 8. Clearly defined job description for DSHC (11%)

CAGs and CMEs were asked “How would you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the availability of resource materials?” The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 84%.

1. CAGs and CMEs suggest the following improvement for resource materials : A. No improvements suggested (52%) B. Communicate available resources (14%) C. Website resources (9%) D. Best practices document (9%) E. Grant resources (4%) F. Interconnectivity with other byways (4%) G. Update program manual (4%) H. CME bylaws (4%)

4.1.7 ELIGIBILITY AND DESIGNATION PROCESSES The following results assess the current state of the eligibility and designation processes. CAGs and CMEs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the eligibility/designation process?” Some respondents (3) indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 75%.


25

CAGs and CMEs were asked “What could be improved about the eligibility/designation process?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. No improvements suggested (48%) 2. Streamline and shorten (32%) 3. Funding (5%) 4. Would like to see requirements consistent with the NSBP (5%) 5. Sunshine law support (5%) 6. Clarification of types of designation (5%)

SHAC members were asked “Would you like to see any changes to eligibility requirements?” They responded:

1. No (50%) 2. Yes (50%) Would like to see stricter requirements and see scenic qualities.

SHAC members were asked “Would you like to see any changes to designation requirements?” They responded:

1. No (75%) 2. Yes (25%). Applicants should make preservation techniques a priority and be clearly represented

in documents

4.1.8 REVIEW PROCESSES The following results assess the current state and effectiveness reviewing designation, eligibility and Annual Reports.

CMEs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the Annual Report process?” Nine (9) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 72%.

1. The CMEs were asked what improvements could be made. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses: A. No improvements suggested (65%) B. Simplified and eliminate redundancy (21%) C. Communicate requirements (7%) D. Deadline flexibility (7%)

The DSHCs and SHAC members were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the Annual Report process in terms of monitoring designated byways?” Four (4) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 80%.

SHAC members were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the resources available to you for reviewing eligibility documents?” The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 80%.

1. When asked “What resource improvements would you like to see?” they responded: A. No improvements suggested (50%)


26

B. Training on eligibility review (25%) C. Electronic documents (25%)

SHAC members were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate the resources available to you for reviewing designation documents?” The respondents’ averaged approval rating was 83%.

1. When asked “What resource improvements would you like to see?” they responded: A. No improvements suggested (33%) B. Training on designation review (33%) C. Would like to see hard copies of documents (33%)

SHAC members were asked “Do eligibility/designation documents provide you with sufficient information for review?” The respondents all answered positively. Only one (1) respondent suggested that site visits or videos of the corridors would be useful for eligibility review. DSHCs and SHAC members were asked “Do you have sufficient time to review the eligibility/designation documents?” All answered yes. When asked how much time they require they responded one‐two (1‐2) weeks for eligibility documents and two‐four (2‐4) weeks for designation documents. DSHCs and SHAC members were asked “Do you review the Annual Reports”. Half of the SHAC members said they review Annual Reports. Six (6) out of nine (9) DSHCs said that they or their consultants review the Annual Reports.

4.1.9 DSHC, CAG AND CME FUNDING The following results are aimed at assessing and identifying program and participant funding sources and concerns. DSHCs were asked “Where did you get your funding?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. FDOT District Funding (29%) 2. Grants (29%) 3. No funding (14%) 4. Private fundraising (14%) 5. FDOT Grants (7%) 6. Planning office (7%)

DSHCs were asked “What do you use the funding for?” Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. Consultants and staff (45%) 2. No funding (22%) 3. Assisting CAG/CMEs (11%) 4. Right of way (ROW) acquisition (11%) 5. Feasibility study (11%)


27

CAGs and CMEs were asked “How do you (on a scale of 1‐10) rate ability to obtain funding?” Two (2) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. The remaining respondents’ averaged approval rating was 67%. CAGs and CMEs were asked “What channels of funding have worked?” Three (3) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. NSB grants (33%) 2. State grants (19%) 3. State program funds (19%) 4. Local governmental agencies (15%) 5. Private fundraising (7%) 6. FDOT transportation funds (7%)

CAGs and CMEs were asked “What channels of funding have not worked?” Three (3) respondents indicated that they had no knowledge and hence their responses were excluded. The most common explanation as to why efforts didn’t work had to do with competition for grants and lack of support to pursue funding sources. Responses are sorted by percentage of responses:

1. All efforts have worked (50%) 2. NSB grants (20%) 3. Private fundraising (20%) 4. State Greenways (5%) 5. VISIT FLORIDA funds (5%)


28

5.0 FSHP STATEWIDE CONFERENCE/WORKSHOP ATTENDEE FEEDBACK The Following is an excerpt from the Florida Scenic Highways Program Goal Setting Forum section of the Florida Scenic Highways Program 2008 Statewide Conference Proceedings.

During the final session of the conference FSHP staff asked that the participants provide input on the goals, obstacles, opportunities and constraints they are facing in the program.

The participants were asked to break into groups based on the tables at which they were sitting and provide feedback on the following types of questions: What can the program do better for participants? What are the obstacles CAG and CME groups face? What new items could the program develop to help CAG and CME groups succeed?

The participants spent some time within their respective groups brainstorming ideas and strategies for the program. FSHP staff collected the results and led each group in presenting their results to the entire delegation.

The following outlines the suggestions, obstacles, and ideas conference participants presented. This input is broken down by common program areas. The percentages of responses presented by common program areas are:

1. TRAINING AND CONFERENCES (35%) 2. MISCELLANEOUS RESPONSES (22%) 3. FUNDING (17%) 4. PROMOTIONAL (9%) 5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATION (7%) 6. INTER‐BYWAY COMMUNICATION (7%) 7. ENHANCEMENT (3%)

All of the responses from the "Goal setting session" are listed in the following sections. For the purpose of this report the responses were broken out by common program areas. Some responses covered several program areas and are listed in each area. The number of responses (if more than one) is denoted in parenthesis [i.e. (2)].

5.1 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES RESPONSES 1. Continue the biannual conference 2. FDOT Coordination/Training


29

A. Uniform MSG/Policies/Program Consistency of information 3. Next conference

A. Listen more and talk less B. CMEs‐ Story/Successes/Failures C. Sustainability of CMEs

4. Regional, quarterly Scenic Highway meetings ‐ roundtable style 5. Add an “Orientation” portion of conference vs. issues for long‐established CMEs 6. Training to develop technical skills for media outreach 7. Specific Workshops to address issues

A. Grants/fundraising B. Publicity C. CME Organizational D. Advocacy

8. Hold state FSHP conference annually 9. All district coordinators have on‐going training & coordination 10. Roadside chat – for CAG/CME support 11. CAG/CME/Board Training 12. Sunshine Law workshop relating to the FSHP (3) 13. Governance and Incorporation Guidance

5.2 MISCELLANEOUS RESPONSES 1. Certain characters foul up the Annual Report format 2. Limit the number of designations 3. Future years‐ No FDOT

A. All highways are designated roadways/corridors, then sustainability through CMEs 4. 501(c) (3) application training process 5. Scenic Highways have more impact in regulating decisions 6. Provide more statistics/data on economic benefits of Scenic Highways 7. Online Resource Center (samples, information) 8. Non‐Profit Designation 9. Central Archive provided for public records 10. Clear Information and Direction On:

A. Federalization of Road • If you get a grant

11. Better Coordination‐ between CME & FDOT 12. Non‐federal money

5.3 FUNDING RESPONSES 1. More funding for grants 2. More money is needed 3. More money needed 4. Need to know what’s expected

A. To Get a Grant


30

B. After we get a grant • How to process • How to manage • Reporting requirements

C. Must all Federal Rules be followed • RFPs • Licenses • Minority owned companies

5.4 PROMOTIONAL RESPONSES 1. FSHP branding materials for each CAG/CME to be used for public outreach programs, i.e.

banner, brochures and give‐a‐ways 2. Standardize symbols for all scenic highway maps 3. Training to develop technical skills for media outreach 4. Sell T‐Shirts 5. Have state develop a strategy to integrate tourism into scenic highway organizations

5.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATION RESPONSES 1. Closer partnering with local government to ensure timely completion of grant projects 2. JPA/LAP Issue

A. Process/Information Flow 3. Have state develop a community Toolkit to educate community and local officials 4. Governance and Incorporation Guidance

5.6 INTER‐BYWAY COMMUNICATION RESPONSES 1. Field trips to different byways 2. More CME group discussions 3. Enhanced coordination among CME 4. Create networking tool on website (state) so CAGs/CMEs can communicate with each other

5.7 ENHANCEMENT RESPONSES 1. Encourage the state to remove billboards from Scenic Highways 2. Facilitate placement of utility lines underground


31

6.0 ONGOING FEEDBACK On‐going feedback for the FSHP has been both positive and negative. The main thing that the FSHP staff and consultants have been praised for is their knowledge of the program, ability to help everyone associated with the program and their responsiveness to people who need help. The process that has been developed with the requesting and delivering of promotional items for events and festivals has received very positive feedback. Members of the FSHP simply request items and they are immediately sent to them by a member of the FSHP staff. Another area that has received acclaim over the past few years is the Statewide Conferences/Workshops. FSHP staff has been told time and time again how relevant the sessions are and how the conferences are overall an enjoyable experience for most that attend. Some of the negative feedback has involved the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC), Annual Reports, the de‐designation of The Tamiami Trail National Scenic Byway, issues with the website and the overall difficulty of the designation process. The SHAC has had some trouble in recent years keeping members, as changes to governmental agencies have caused members to have to resign their post on the SHAC. After a member leaves the SHAC it usually takes some time to find a replacement. There were also problems with the SHAC meeting schedule in the past. The meetings were irregular and there was no formal schedule. This has since been fixed with the development of annual SHAC schedule. The Annual Report process was incorporated on the website to make the process easier, but there have also been some technical difficulties with it. Some groups have had difficulty entering information and character style limits and word limits have caused problems when submitting Annual Reports. In 2008, the FSHP and the National Scenic Byways Program had its first highway de‐designated in the Tamiami Trail National Scenic Byway. This was due to an absence of a CME agreement and lack of a grass roots effort in the area. This unfortunately caused some negative feedback for the FSHP and NSB. The website that was developed for the FSHP a few years ago was certainly a welcome addition to the program, but it has had some problems. It is done through the FDOT with little information for travelers to the state. The site mainly contains information for the FSHP community, which is hard to find at times. Updates to the site’s layout have been minimal and content is just updated as needed. This will soon be remedied with the development of two new websites, a program and tourist website. There have been a few complaints about the difficulty of the designation process also. Some feedback has been received from groups that the process takes too long and is difficult for many grass roots programs

POSITIVE FEEDBACK: Program staff/consultants are able and responsive Promotional items well received Statewide Conferences/Workshops well received NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Maintaining SHAC is a problem Regular SHAC meetings implemented Annual Reports technical difficulties Tamiami De‐Designation Web site improvements Designation process too long and complicated


32

to go through. The process for designation will be analyzed in the near future to determine how and if it can be streamlined. All on‐going feedback, whether positive or negative, is greatly appreciated and will be taken in account whenever it is received. The FSHP staff would like to thank everyone involved with the program for their continued efforts, thoughts and ideas. The FSHP can only get better with the feedback that is given.

7.0 ANNUAL REPORTS FEEDBACK The 2002‐2008 FSHP Annual Reports were reviewed for common problem areas listed by CMEs. The CMEs were instructed to “Describe any problems that have arisen regarding the corridor.” The responses were grouped by relevance to common problem areas. Some individual responses covered several different problem areas and were counted as one (1) response for each of those areas. Problem areas that were repeated each year were counted as one (1) response for each year mentioned. The problem areas mentioned in order of prevalence are:

1. No problems listed (15%) 2. Report not completed (14%) 3. Preservation (13%) 4. Neglected to report (12%) 5. Local government support (11%) 6. Development (9%) 7. FDOT coordination (5%) 8. Funding (5%) 9. Public support (4%) 10. Membership (3%) 11. Time delays (3%) 12. Promotion (2%) 13. Administrative support (2%) 14. Safety (2%)

The “Reports not completed” area indicates that either there was no information entered or a response of “Not Applicable” was entered. The exact reasons for this are either that the CME was just designated, or the CME had filed its five (5) year CMP update. The complexity of the process was addressed by a 2005 update and improvements are evidenced by almost all of reports for 2006 having a status of completed. The “Neglected to report” area indicates the number of designated corridors that when required to complete the annual reports did not complete any sections on the web site and have a status of “In progress”


33

The “No problems listed” area indicates that the CMEs completed portions of the report but did not list any problem areas. The “Preservation” area responses centered around decreased intrinsic resources due to hurricane damage, development and roadway maintenance or improvements. The “Local government support” area responses focused around local official resistance, lack of regulatory impact, lack of education and bureaucratic red tape. The “Development” area had to do with the preexisting development or new developments infringing on or destroying intrinsic resources. Respondents in this area also discussed the lack of impact the CME had on making or implementing regulatory changes in regards to development. The “FDOT Coordination” area has to do with coordination problems between the FSHP and FDOT itself. The common complaint was that FDOT maintenance or projects did not consider or coordinate with CMEs before proceeding with work on their corridor. The “Funding” area focused on the CMEs’ ability to obtain funding and administration of funding once achieved. The “Public support” area mostly has to do with educating the public as to promote support and diminish resistance. The “Membership” area responses were centered on either maintaining members or having enough members to accomplish goals. The “Time delays” typically dealt with the inability to expedite projects due to local government or administrative impedance. The “Promotion” area mostly had to do with adequately promoting their byway to the public, local government, or tourists. The “Administrative Support” area had to do with having the manpower necessary to oversee and implement projects on a day to day basis. The “Safety” area had to do with the inability to implement changes that would improve safety because of poor designs or illegal road racing.


34

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are a summary of the results received from the goal setting session at the Statewide Conferences, on‐going feedback, Annual Reports feedback and survey feedback. These recommendations are based on, but not limited, to the respondents’ most common themes and suggestions. Some suggestions are included based on their merit and not on the occurrence in responses. While these recommendations should be taken into consideration they are not necessarily recommended as program priorities. These recommendations reflect the feedback given by respondents regardless of priority or feasibility. The feasibility and priorities of these recommendations will be determined by the programs administration. Many respondents are quite pleased with the program and whose only suggestion, if any, was more of what the program is currently doing. For a complete picture of respondents’ feedback please see the Survey Results, On‐going Feedback, Annual Reports Feedback and Statewide Conferences/Workshops sections in this report.

1. Provide more promotional and marketing efforts specifically aimed at educating local governments and communities

2. More promotion and marketing with a focus on websites and internet based marketing 3. Institute changes to insure consistent SHAC membership representation. Perhaps

responsibilities could be shared among several people within a particular agency 4. Provide consistent and differentiated training for all participants throughout their involvement

in the program 5. Require FDOT to coordinate project and maintenance efforts with CMEs 6. Promote inter‐byway communication and education 7. Focus on the implementation phase as much as the designation phase 8. Align designation requirements with National Scenic Byway Program requirements 9. Provide better communication of training, promotion and coordination efforts to all participants 10. Increase the frequency of Statewide Conferences/Workshops 11. Provide CMEs with resources and self‐checks for maintaining membership 12. Provide CMEs with additional resources for pursuing funding 13. Provide consistent funding and time resources for DSHCs 14. Make designations more restrictive to improve quality of designations 15. Provide more and better resources for CMEs 16. Better communicate the availability of resources to CMEs 17. Streamline, simplify and shorten eligibility/designation process 18. Extend interaction and promotion among state and federal agencies 19. Hold regular SHAC and DSHC meetings 20. Improve the Annual Reports process in terms of ease of use and content


35

9.0 FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM – “THE ROAD AHEAD” The history of the FSHP has been a story of increasing success and quality. This is evidenced by the increase of state and nationally designated byways from nine (9) in 2003 to twenty‐four (24) currently (2009). Further evidence of this is the funding distribution has more than doubled since 2003. This report and previous reports, indicates a history of the program’s efforts to maintain a high‐level of quality and efforts to improve quality. The vision for the future, as in the past, should focus on achieving participant’s goals. Preserve, Promote, Protect and Enhance. These goals can be achieved by maintaining and improving the quality of the program, achieving the highest quality designations and maintaining the quality of existing designations. The highest levels of quality will be attained by constantly improving, promoting, educating, monitoring and maintaining consistency within and without the program. Let’s remember why we’re here, who were here for and what we are preserving. Let’s keep the road ahead beautiful!


36

10.0 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS “All‐American Roads” are public roads that have been designated by the federal government as satisfying National Scenic Byways criteria and have satisfied the additional criteria and requirements for designation as All‐American Roads pursuant to the National Scenic Byways Program and its implementing legislation and regulations. “Archeological Resources” are the physical evidence or remains of known historic or prehistoric human life, activity or culture in Florida. For example, significant ruins, artifacts, inscriptions, structural and/or human remains may all be considered archeological resources. These resources differ from historic resources in that they may have existed before written records were kept in an area. “Corridor Advocacy Group” (CAG) means a group of interested citizens, business interests, civic groups, local government representatives, Indian Tribal Councils and other corridor advocates formed to seek designation for a roadway as a Florida Scenic Highway. “Corridor Management Entity” (CME) means an organization created through joint powers of agreement or memorandum of understanding, or other agreement to perpetually administer, manage and monitor the designated corridor. “Corridor Management Plan” (CMP) means a formal policy and plan recognized by the Department, elements of which are adopted by a local general purpose government(s), as applicable, into its comprehensive plan. The CMP addresses the goals, policies and objectives, standards, management strategies, regulatory controls and practices and Action Plans applicable to a designated Florida Scenic Highway. Each Florida Scenic Highway shall have a CMP intended to preserve, enhance and maintain the intrinsic resources of the corridor and maintain roadway safety. The CMP also shall address tourism and the local economy within the designated corridor. “Corridor Video” means a videotape made of the corridor. It simulates or represents the traveler's experience and will be used by the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee in determining eligibility. “Cultural Resources” are portions of the human environment that express aesthetics, traditions, values and customs. Traditions are usually associated with distinct groups of people which are passed on from one generation to the next. Cultural Resources may include crafts, music, arts, dance or drama, rituals, tribal or ethnic customs, festivals, languages, museums, foods, special events, vernacular architecture, physical or recognized legacies, non‐resource based recreational activities and customs practiced by people, either in the past or present. “Department” means the Florida Department of Transportation.


37

“Designation Application” means the package of information, including the Corridor Management Plan (CMP) that is submitted to the Department for review to determine whether a roadway should be officially designated as a Florida Scenic Highway. “Designation Phase” means the second phase of the process for the Florida Scenic Highways Program which ends with an approval/denial for state designation. “Designation Classification” means a Florida Scenic Highway must fall into one of two (2) classifications: Scenic or Heritage. Scenic Corridors are those highways that meet program criteria for natural, recreational or scenic resources. Heritage Corridors are those highways that meet program criteria for historic, archeological or cultural resources. “District” means one (1) of the eight (8) Florida Department of Transportation Districts within the State. “District Scenic Highways Coordinator” (DSHC) means a person who has been appointed to implement the Florida Scenic Highways Program within the District. “Eligibility Application” means the package of information submitted to the Department for determination of a roadway’s eligibility as a Florida Scenic Highway. “Eligibility Phase” means the first phase of the process for the Florida Scenic Highways Program where the Department determines whether or not a roadway is eligible for designation as a Florida Scenic Highway. “Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)” is the federal agency which oversees all highway transportation issues for the nation. “Florida Scenic Highway” means any public road that is so designated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 335.093, Florida Statutes. These roadways offer travelers views of cultural, historical, archeological, recreational, natural or scenic resources and provide a relaxed recreational and educational experience. The intrinsic resources of the corridor must be considered of significant value by the surrounding communities. The corridor often includes vistas, rest areas and other amenities in harmony with the scenic character of the road. “Florida Scenic Highways Program” (FSHP) encompasses the process and criteria that define a system of public roads that are officially designated by the Secretary as Florida Scenic Highways. It may also include public roads that are part of the National Scenic Byways Program. The FSHP is voluntary and grass roots in nature and there are no penalties attached for local general purpose governments not participating in the program.


38

“Heritage Classification” means a level of designation within the Florida Scenic Highways Program emphasizing historical, archeological and cultural qualities which dominate the corridor. “Historical Resources” means distinctive physical elements in the landscape, either natural or manmade, that reflect actions of humans as they relate to past events, sites, or structures. These historical resources symbolize an important era in Florida history and portray a legacy of Florida that educates viewers while providing an appreciation of the past. Resources may include buildings, Indian habitations, trails, engineering structures, settlement patterns and landscapes. “Implementation Phase” means the third phase of the process for the Florida Scenic Highways Program where, following designation, a Corridor Management Entity implements the actions and requirements developed in the Corridor Management Plan (CMP). “Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)” refers to the federal legislation which initiated the development of the National Scenic Byways Program. “Intrinsic Resources” means the cultural, historical, archeological, recreational, natural or scenic qualities or values along a roadway that are necessary for designation as a Florida Scenic Highway. Intrinsic resources are features considered significant, exceptional and distinctive by a community and are recognized and expressed by that community in its comprehensive plan to be of local, regional, statewide or national significance and worthy of preservation and management. “Legislatively Designated Scenic Highways” are roadways designated scenic and/or historic by actions of the Florida Legislature. “Letter of Eligibility” means the written notification form the Department to the applicant stating the Department’s decision to grant eligibility as a Florida Scenic Highway and initiate the Designation Phase. This letter would also apply for the National Scenic Byways Program. “Letter of Intent” (LOI) means the written notification form submitted by the applicant to the Department stating the applicant’s intent to pursue designation for a roadway as a Florida Scenic Highway. “Local Government” means a county, municipality, or consolidated city‐county government. “Local Government Comprehensive Plan” refers to the local government plan for regulating land use and development within their jurisdiction, as defined by Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes. “Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO)” means the forum for cooperative transportation decision making for the metropolitan planning area, as defined by Federal Transportation Planning Regulation 23 CFR 450.104. MPOs


39

designated prior to the promulgation of this regulation remain in effect until redesignated in accordance with § 450.106 and nothing in this part is intended to require or encourage such redesignation. “National Scenic Byway” means a scenic highway which is designated by the federal government as satisfying the criteria for a National Scenic Byway pursuant to Section 1047(f) of Title 23 USC and any federal regulation and/or guidelines. These roadways offer drivers and passengers views of cultural, historical, archeological, recreational, natural or scenic resources and provide a relaxed recreational and educational experience. “Natural Resources” means the natural environment such as wetlands, marshes, geological features, forests, landforms or topography, as well as water bodies and vegetation that are indigenous and characteristic of Florida and its differing regions. These resources should show minimal evidence of exotic vegetation and adverse human disruption. “Program Manual” means the Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual created by the Department to guide an applicant seeking designation for a roadway as a Florida Scenic Highway. It details each phase in the Program Process and offers step‐by‐step instructions. The Manual also contains all forms an applicant needs to submit to the Department for eligibility and designation. “Program Process” means the graphical representation or flowchart of the process that defines the Eligibility, Designation and Implementation Phases of the Florida Scenic Highways Program. “Public Road” means a road which is open and available for use by the public and dedicated to the public use, according to law or by prescription. “Recreational Resources” are those that provide either active or passive outdoor recreational activities directly dependent upon the natural or cultural elements of the landscape. These activities may include boating, saltwater and freshwater fishing, hiking, canoeing, camping (RV/Trailer and tent), biking, saltwater beach activities, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, driving, hunting and picnicking. “Scenic Classification” means a level of designation within the Florida Scenic Highways Program emphasizing natural, recreational and scenic qualities which dominate the corridor. “Scenic Highways Advisory Committee” (SHAC) means the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee as appointed by the Secretary. “Scenic Highways Coordinator” means the statewide Scenic Highways Coordinator as recognized by the Secretary. The Scenic Highways Coordinator will be responsible for implementing the Florida Scenic Highways Program and will be assisted by District Scenic Highways Coordinators.


40

“Scenic Resources” are a combination of natural and manmade features that give remarkable character to the visual landscape. These resources are striking in appearance and provide a pleasing and memorable experience to those who view them. “State Highway System” means the following, which shall be facilities to which access is regulated: (a) The interstate system; (b) All rural arterial routes and their extensions into and through urban areas; (c) All urban principal arterial routes; and (d) The urban minor arterial mileage on the existing State Highway System as of July 1, 1987, plus

additional mileage to comply with the two (2) percent requirement. “Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA‐21)” refers to the federal legislation which followed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and continued the implementation of the National Scenic Byways Program and its grant program.


41

APPENDIX A – SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONS


42

FLORIDA SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE Date: 4/22/09

SURVEY QUESTION INTENT AND FORMATION: The Florida Scenic Highways Programs participants will be interviewed to assess current status and effectiveness. The CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members will all be interviewed. Questions are specific to CAG, CME, DSHC and SHAC members. The CME’s and CAG’s questions are aimed at establishing the program’s effectiveness in accomplishing CAG and CME goals. The DSHC and SHAC questions are aimed at establishing the program’s effectiveness in regards to administration, training, coordination, funding and the review process. Some questions are open ended and broad by design. The purpose is to allow the participants to define issues. Rated questions will help to evaluate the current status of the program. Rated questions will also help establish a baseline for future program evaluations. Questions with ratings have a range of 0‐10. Zero indicating no opinion or knowledge, one (1) indicating least desirable and ten (10) indicating most desirable.


43

CAG QUESTIONS: 1. In terms of achieving your goals, what overall rating would you give the Florida Scenic

Highways Program? 2. If you could change one thing about the Florida Scenic Highways Program what would it be? 3. Why are you seeking designation as a scenic byway? 4. How do you rate the cooperation you’ve received from local governments?

A. What can be done to improve cooperation from local governments? 5. Have you received training?

A. How do you rate the training you’ve received? B. What training options are available to you? C. What training options did you utilize? D. What training improvements do you recommend?

6. What road blocks have you experienced? 7. How do you rate your ability to obtain funding?

A. What channels of funding have worked? Why? B. What channels of funding have not worked? Why?

8. How do you rate the eligibility/designation process? A. What could be improved about the eligibility/designation process?

9. How would you rate the availability of resource materials? A. What improvements do you suggest?

10. How do you rate the assistance given by your district coordinator? A. What improvements do you suggest? B. Have you established a good working relationship with the DSHC? C. Does your DSHC respond in a timely manner?

11. In what ways can technology better the Florida Scenic Highways Program? 12. How do you rate your impressions of Florida Scenic Highways Program’s state and federal

coordination efforts? A. What additional coordination efforts would you like to see?

13. What is the key component to your CAG’s sustainability? 14. What do you think will be the key component to maintaining your byway’s designation? 15. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s promotional and marketing efforts?

A. What improvements would you like to see? 16. What unexpected benefits have you received from the Florida Scenic Highways Program

process?


44

CME QUESTIONS 1. In terms of achieving your goals, what overall rating would you give the Florida Scenic

Highways Program? 2. If you could change one thing about the Florida Scenic Highways Program what would it be? 3. Why did you seek designation as a scenic byway?

A. Has the designation helped to achieve those goals? 4. How do you rate your ability to obtain funding?

A. What channels of funding have worked? Why? B. What channels of funding have not worked? Why?

5. How do you rate the cooperation you’ve received from local governments? A. What can be done to improve cooperation from local governments?

6. How has being designated as a Florida Scenic Highway helped to further your goals? 7. Have you received training?

A. How do you rate the training you’ve received? B. What training options are available to you? C. What training options did you utilize? D. What training improvements do you recommend?

8. How do you rate the Annual Report process? A. What improvements could be made?

9. How do you rate the eligibility/designation process? A. What could be improved about the eligibility/designation process?

10. What road blocks have you experienced? 11. Have you found that maintaining support has been an issue?

A. If so in what areas? (Member, community, local government) B. What are the causes for lack of support?

12. How do you rate the assistance given by your district coordinator? A. What improvements do you suggest? B. Have you established a good working relationship with the DSHC? C. Does your DSHC respond in a timely manner?

13. How would you rate the availability of resource materials? A. What resource improvements do you suggest?

14. In what ways can technology further your goals? 15. What is the key component to your CME’s sustainability? 16. What is the key component to your maintaining your byway’s designation? 17. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s state & federal coordination

efforts? A. What additional coordination efforts would you like to see?

18. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s promotional and marketing efforts? A. What improvements would you like to see?

19. What measures need to be taken to insure the program’s long term success? 20. What unexpected benefits have you received from the FSHP process?


45

SHAC QUESTIONS 1. In terms of achieving the participant’s goals, what overall rating would you give the Florida

Scenic Highways Program? 2. If you could change one thing about the Florida Scenic Highways Program what would it be? 3. Are the goals of your agency being furthered by the Florida Scenic Highways Program? 4. Have you found the goals of the participants to be in line with your agencies goals? 5. Would you like to see any changes to eligibility requirements? 6. Would you like to see any changes to designation requirements? 7. How do you rate the resources available to you for reviewing eligibility documents?

A. What resource improvements would you like to see? 8. How do you rate the resources available to you for reviewing designation documents?

A. What additional resources would you like to see? 9. Do eligibility documents provide you with sufficient information for review?

A. What would you like to see added? 10. Do designation documents provide you with sufficient information for review?

A. What would you like to see added? 11. Do you have sufficient time to review the eligibility documents?

A. How much time do you require? 12. Do you have sufficient time to review the designation documents?

A. How much time do you require? 13. Do you review the Annual Reports? 14. How do you rate the Annual Report process in terms of monitoring designated byways? 15. How do you rate your impressions of Florida Scenic Highways Program’s state and federal

coordination efforts? A. What additional coordination efforts would you like to see?

16. How do you rate the cooperation between involved agencies? A. What improvements could be made?

17. Are there any state agencies that should be involved in the Florida Scenic Highways Program?

18. Have you received training? A. How do you rate the training you’ve received? B. What training options are available to you? C. What training options did you utilize? D. What training improvements do you recommend?

19. Does your agency have any resource preservation techniques that could be incorporated into the Florida Scenic Highways Program?

20. In what ways could technology benefit the Florida Scenic Highways Program? 21. What measures need to be taken to insure the program’s long term success?


46

DSHC QUESTIONS 1. In terms of achieving the participant’s goals, what overall rating would you give the Florida

Scenic Highways Program? 2. If you could change one thing about the Florida Scenic Highways Program what would it be? 3. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s effectiveness in accomplishing the

participant’s goals? 4. What do you use consultants for?

A. Should we speak with them? 5. How do you rate yourself in terms of assisting participants to accomplish their goals? 6. What challenges is the Florida Scenic Highways Program currently facing? 7. Do you review the Annual Reports? 8. How do you rate the Annual Report process in terms of monitoring designated byways? 9. Do you receive any funding from your district?

A. Where did you get your funding? B. How much funding do you receive? C. What type of funding do you receive? D. What do you use the funding for?

10. How do you assist CME’s and CAG’s in obtaining funding? 11. What road blocks have your CAG/CMEs encountered? 12. What obstacles have you encountered implementing the Florida Scenic Highways Program? 13. What additional resources, if any, could you use? 14. In what ways do you assist CAGs?

A. What else could you do? 15. In what ways do you assist CMEs?

A. What else could you do? 16. Would restricting the number of designations per year benefit the overall Florida Scenic

Highways Program? 17. Have you received training?

A. How do you rate the training you’ve received? B. What training options were available to you? C. What training options did you utilize? D. What training improvements do you recommend?

18. In what ways can technology better the Florida Scenic Highways Program? 19. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highways Program’s promotional and marketing efforts?

A. What improvements would you like to see? 20. How do you rate the Florida Scenic Highway Program’s state & federal coordination efforts?

A. What additional coordination efforts would you like to see? 21. How do you rate the cooperation between involved agencies?

A. What improvements could be made? 22. Are there any state agencies that should be involved in the Florida Scenic Highway Program? 23. What measures need to be taken to insure the program’s long term success?

FSHP Evaluation Report...2017/02/08 · Florida Scenic Highways Program Evaluation Report 2009 3 In...

Documents

Transcript of FSHP Evaluation Report...2017/02/08 · Florida Scenic Highways Program Evaluation Report 2009 3 In...