Committee unanimously recommends re-referral of $168 million Outdoor Heritage Fund package

The Minnesota House Legacy Committee voted 9-0 on March 5 to recommend that House File 1250, a roughly $168 million Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) appropriations bill, be re‑referred to the House Ways and Means Committee for further consideration.

The bill packages 22 habitat programs and a mix of acquisition, restoration and enhancement projects across the state after review and prioritization by the Lessard‑Sams Outdoor Heritage Council. Mark Johnson, the council’s executive director, told the committee the package represents the council’s competitive selections after 16 years of OHF work: “The bill is about $168,000,000 — it’s not small.”

The recommendation matters because OHF money supports land protection, restoration and habitat projects across Minnesota and is one of the state’s constitutionally created legacy funds. Committee members questioned staff about how the money would be spent, how much acreage was included, how phased projects work and how the state may leverage federal conservation dollars.

Johnson and Joe Pavelko, the council’s assistant director, walked members through major subdivisions of the bill. Highlights discussed during the presentation included:

- Funding mix and scale: The package includes prairie, forest and wetland sections. Johnson described about $35 million for prairie work, roughly $20 million for forest projects, about $30 million for wetlands and a larger “habitats” subdivision covering mixed acquisitions, restores and enhancements. Overall total was presented as about $168 million in appropriations.

- Project types and acreage: The council groups projects as protect (fee title), protect (easement), restore and enhance. Pavelko gave per‑acre averages the council uses to plan budgets: approximately $2,570 per restored acre, $630 per enhanced acre, $9,065 per acre for protect‑and‑fee with PILT, $4,051 per acre for protect‑and‑fee without PILT and $3,979 per acre for easements. The bill’s protect‑and‑fee with PILT line item was shown at 2,485 acres; protect‑and‑fee without PILT at 4,076 acres (including an ~2,700‑acre Itasca County acquisition).

- Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) grants and equity set‑asides: The CPL (small grants) line is $15 million with statutory 10% match required; Johnson said $4 million of the CPL funds are earmarked for the seven‑county metropolitan area and another $4 million are earmarked for new applicants, leaving the remainder for other eligible projects.

- Roving crews and operations: The bill includes funding for DNR roving crews (phase 3). Johnson said the crews focus on on‑the‑ground habitat work and will restore or enhance roughly 26,000–28,000 acres in the first year they operate under this appropriation.

- Phased projects and pipeline management: Pavelko explained why the council funds many projects as multi‑phase proposals: bundling similar site work reduces administrative overhead, lets large geographically focused efforts (for example, St. Louis River Estuary or statewide acquisition programs) progress steadily, and keeps the project pipeline full.

- Carryforwards, extensions and cancellations: The bill contains one‑year extensions to allow completion of prior appropriations (for example a Trough Stream restoration and projects in the St. Louis River Estuary) and a corrective change to the core‑functions expiration date. The council also proposes cancelling a small portion of an unused appropriation tied to a Heron Lake project so those dollars can be reallocated to core functions; Johnson said the exact cancellation amount was not specified in committee comments.

- Federal leverage and a statutory clarification: The bill would amend Minnesota Statute 97A.056 to explicitly allow interests in real property purchased with OHF dollars to be used to leverage federal conservation funds (examples cited: Pittman‑Robertson, Dingell‑Johnson and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act). Johnson said the council recommends the clarification because the federal grant conditions — typically requiring lands to remain in conservation use — align with OHF constitutional and statutory intent. Legislative counsel and MNHS legal staff described that the change clarifies when federal restrictions create an interest that would otherwise require council approval.

Committee members asked detailed questions about regional balance and the shift toward more restoration/enhancement acres versus acquisitions, the Itasca County acquisition (about 2,700 acres surrounded by other public lands that county officials plan to manage as working forest), the moose‑habitat work in northern counties, and how tribal partners are engaged. Johnson and Pavelko described outreach to counties, cities, watershed districts, nonprofit partners and tribes and noted that the council’s call for proposals is broadly publicized each year.

The committee resolved only the referral motion; no policy changes were adopted during the session. Representative Burkle moved to recommend re‑referral of House File 1250 to Ways and Means; the roll call recorded nine ayes (Chair McDonald, Vice Chair Scrabba, Representative Burkle, Representative Shaw, Representative Heintzeman, Representative Lilly, Representative Mamani Hiltzley, Representative Olson and Representative Sean). Representative Hussain was excused; the record showed no nays. The motion passed.

Next steps: Because the committee recommended re‑referral, House File 1250 will advance to the House Ways and Means Committee for fiscal evaluation and potential amendment before further floor action.