Directions for the Program

• Survey coordinators and staff regarding knowledge of all intrinsic qualities and potential bias toward scenic qualities.
• Review gaps within landscapes and physiographic regions.
• Encourage the designation of long distance routes to expand landscape diversity.

• Establish an expert panel on landscape and physiographic diversity.

NOTE: The expert panel option, while potentially advisory in nature, involves a "top-down" approach. The preferred options are integrated into an approach that uses State, Indian tribe and local byway groups to evaluate their own landscapes and physiographic regions.

• Continue existing policy; not all States or Indian tribes are required to participate.
• Consider partnerships with existing designated byways or touring routes in states without byways programs.
• Survey States without byway programs to determine reasons.

NOTE: The preferred options approach this issue by having informal conversations with non-participating states to clarify their current thinking on the Program. A process is recommended for involving non-participating states by thinking of new ways to partner byways with other similar resources.

• Require all States and Tribes to participate in the Program.
• Determine if interested groups in States not participating in the National Scenic Byways Program have awareness and access to the program.
• Invite groups from non-participating States and Tribes to advance byway nominations.
• Invite direct applications from eligible potential byways in States or Tribes not participating in the Program.

NOTE: The underlying tone of these alternate options is that some States, Indian tribes and local groups in under-represented states and non-participating states are somehow not fully aware of the Program. The alternate options suggest actions should be taken by the Program to directly contact these local groups rather than relying on their individual interest or initiative to pursue participation in the Program.

• Evaluate regions to determine if intrinsic qualities are well represented.
• Evaluate regions to determine whether defined intrinsic qualities are accessible to the traveler.
• Combine a multiple byways with complementary or shared intrinsic qualities into single byways.

• Discourage new byways that repeat existing intrinsic qualities within a region.

NOTE: This report recommends allowing states to define for themselves if repeated intrinsic qualities are desirable.

• Establish the land and people concept.
• Establish the Central Opportunities, Resources and Experiences (CORE) concept.

• Adopt a flexible policy concerning an average number of byways-per-State.

NOTE: The preferred option encourages states to consider an optimum number of byways. This approach fits best with the Program's history of grassroots decision-making.

• Establish a defined limit on the size of the Americas Byways collection.
• Let the program be self regulating.
• Make the standards for designation more rigorous.
• Reduce the number of byways through de-designation.
• Adopt criteria requiring a minimum level of available funds per byway.

• More carefully define standards for corridor management plans.
• Adopt more rigorous standards for regional and national significance.

NOTE: Rather than explicitly changing designation standards, which are widely considered adequate, the preferred options focus on higher quality corridor management plan requirements and clearer standards for significance as ways to encourage high quality submissions.

• Adopt a minimum set of State and Indian tribe byway designation standards.

• Encourage byways to cooperate and make linkages.
• Encourage byway coordinators and local groups to review major themes and stories in their States, tribal lands and regions.

NOTE: The preferred option sets the stage for marketing cooperation without FHWA directing or establishing policies regarding how cooperation might occur.

• Adopt national policy objectives regarding the marketing of byways and encouraging partnerships.

NOTE: This alternate option suggests a policy position on how byways should be marketed, and how States, Indian tribes and communities should cooperate. This option may be too formal for the Program, but nevertheless raises questions for discussion and debate.

• Establish clearer program direction and guidance for multi-State and International byways.
• Strengthen marketing funding.
• Strengthen the amount of attention given to intrinsic quality and resource protection.

• Do not change anything.

NOTE: This alternate option suggests that all partnerships are optimum and that no initiatives are needed. This report recommends that partnerships can be strengthened in a variety of noted ways.

• Pursue a policy of re-designation.
• Tie re-designation to reviews of corridor management plans.

NOTE: It is recommended that re-designation be an automatic process if byways demonstrated continued interest and activity. This approach still leaves open the State or Indian tribe prerogative to de-designate if intrinsic quality erodes significantly.

• Consider a limit on the number of years a byway may be designated.

NOTE:This alternate explored whether and how re-designation should be handled. The concept of limiting the number of years a byway could be designated as a way to force a formal re-designation process has consistently met with objections from state scenic byway coordinators.

• Require byways to prepare annual action plans.
• Introduce grant selection criteria that relate to quality enhancement.

NOTE: The preferred options will encourage byways to think about their annual activities within the framework of quality. Grant selection will also encourage quality.

• Require the regular review and update of corridor management plans to maintain designation.
• Tie grants to projects identified in corridor management plans.

• Require corridor management plans to address the concept of quality.
• Require byways to produce periodic reports on efforts to enhance the quality of the route.
• Collect annual information categorized by quality component and summarized for the entire program.

• Allow the natural evolution to occur wherein top performing byways set the standard for excellence.

NOTE: This alternate option does not help individual byways and the Program to more clearly define what quality is and how it can be maintained. This option provides no clear guidance for different types of byways.

• Distinguish the quality of intrinsic resources at time of designation from the subsequent quality of the byway experience. The former establishes the right to be designated; the latter defines whether travelers find the byway satisfying.
• Prepare materials that clarify how byways can measure and monitor the quality of the byway experience.
• Integrate measurement and monitoring of quality into grant selection criteria, re-designation criteria, and corridor plan update standards.

NOTE: The preferred options encourage the Program to define quality and provide materials to assist byways in pursuing quality.

• Establish a byway report card.

• When considering designation, recognize the differences between loosely organized grassroots byways groups and byways managed by professional land management staffs.
• Publish general criteria for de-designation.

NOTE: The first alternate option suggests a distinction that would not be helpful to the long term health of the Program – i.e., discriminating against loosely organized byways. The second alternate option requires a change in policy. It considered that the existing de-designation policy is sufficient.

• Require an annual byway group performance report.
• Require State and Indian tribe byway coordinators to give their local byway groups an annual performance grade.
• Integrate byway group evaluations and performance reports into grant competitiveness.
• Require reporting on the effectiveness of grant expenditures.
• Require from local byway groups a clear definition on the quality of experience offered now and potentially in the future.

NOTE: The preferred options encourage more local thinking about annual work objectives, more transparency on levels of activity, more accountability on the performance of grant funds, and clearer thinking on how all of these issues relate to the quality of the byway experience.