Board staff presented benchmarking examples from other states and federal programs to show how equity objectives are embedded into scoring and program design, and the board discussed how to operationalize the statute’s language prioritizing historically marginalized, underrepresented and underserved communities.

Staff highlighted that many funds give equity or community-impact criteria a modest share of total scoring (commonly 1.5%–10% of points) but that application support and targeted outreach often have outsized effects on who applies and receives awards. The presentation included Land for Maine’s Future examples, Vermont Working Lands approaches, and a federal environmental-justice program that ties project scoring to community benefits.

Board members debated different approaches: reserved pools for qualifying communities, scoring bonuses, set-asides for technical assistance, or annual landscape analysis to adapt priorities based on available appropriation levels. A recurring question was how to make definitions specific enough to target scarce funds without excluding viable projects; several members noted that broad statutory categories (rural, low-income, communities of color) could encompass large parts of the state if left undefined.

The board did not adopt a single approach. Staff was asked to draft options that balance accessibility with due diligence, including possible metrics and processes for annual reassessment.