Lessard-Sams council outlines process for Outdoor Heritage Fund grants, projects and invasive-species work

The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council told the House Legacy Finance Committee how it selects, oversees and measures outcomes for habitat projects funded by the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

Mark Johnson, executive director of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, and Joe Pavelko, assistant director, explained that the council makes annual recommendations to the Legislature. Pavelko said the council asks every applicant a basic screening question: "Does it protect, restore, enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, or habitat for fish, game and wildlife?" That question, he said, directs eligibility and scoring under the council's statutory guidance.

Pavelko summarized the grant cycle: call for proposals in April, proposal review and hearings in June'July, and council recommendations in October'November. He described a required "accomplishment plan" for each approved appropriation, a budget and work plan that grantees must follow; funding is reimbursement-based and the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) typically administers contracts and approves reimbursements.

The council also administers a small-grants program (CPL) through the DNR for projects from roughly $5,000 to $500,000 intended for smaller local groups such as sportsmen's organizations, lake associations and others. Pavelko said more than 1,000 CPL grants have been awarded and that more than $100 million has gone to small grants to date.

Pavelko provided program totals and implementation statistics: over the first 16 years the OHF has supported roughly $1.88 billion in allocations to restore, protect and enhance habitat, leveraging about $647 million in additional funds; he said about 1.3 million acres have been restored, protected or enhanced. The council currently has about 265 open appropriations (from 2015 to present) totaling about $960 million, Pavelko said.

Committee members asked about extensions for projects delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pavelko said the council granted many extensions during COVID for weather- or permit-related delays; extensions have declined in recent years and the council this year recommended three extensions tied to weather and permitting.

Members asked about the role of program managers and whether money given to non-government organizations flows directly to those groups. Pavelko said the council uses the term "program manager" for the organization managing an appropriation (for example, Pheasants Forever); those program managers often hire staff or contractors to deliver restoration work. He said the DNR does not take a percentage cut of appropriations but does receive a modest appropriation to administer contracts (presentation cited an example administrative appropriation of about $430,000 in a recent year). Pavelko emphasized that payments are reimbursement-based and that DNR review is part of contract administration.

The council described examples of projects, including wetland and prairie restorations, creek and trout-stream restorations, seed harvest and planting work by DNR roving crews, and invasive-species projects. On narrowleaf (hybrid) cattail, Johnson and Pavelko said the council will consider proposals for mechanical removal and other approaches; they noted Voyageurs National Park used an OHF-funded mechanical removal pilot that allowed wild rice to reappear the following season. Pavelko said the council and DNR also fund large-scale cattail treatments and that the council encourages proposers and local governments, soil-and-water conservation districts and lake groups to consult with staff when developing project ideas.

Johnson also described a one-time $12 million appropriation for an invasive carp response funded late in the prior session; he said a DNR-led federal partnership (Army Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey and others) is developing final plans, with updates to the council forthcoming.

Representatives thanked council staff for oversight and asked staff to provide additional breakdowns at a future hearing, including acreage-by-activity (protect, restore, enhance) and the funding split between acquisitions and on-the-ground restoration work. The council agreed to provide that information when the committee considers the appropriation bill.