Outdoor Heritage Fund Planning
The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (L-SOHC) scheduled planning meetings in August 2009. At each of these five planning meetings,
invited conservation professionals, such as field scientists, identified goals and
objectives for the ecological sections.
The general public was invited to observe the process and then participate in a comment period.
This planning project created five section-specific sets of goals and objectives that the L-SOHC used to develop their
vision for the section and short-term priority actions. These visions and priority actions were, in turn, used review and
recommend requests for fiscal year 2011.
These August planning meetings were not for the purpose of proposing or discussing specific OHF funding requests, however, they did provide guidance
to those who wanted to apply for funding.
They also provide the public with an opportunity to offer input, which was summarized and reviewed by L-SOHC.
The public was also asked to provide written comments and suggestions on the draft goals for each section.
The L-SOHC met in mid-September to review the public input, discuss the goals and objectives from each planning meeting, and seek majority approval.
The plan, containing minimum criteria, statewide priorities and sectional priority criteria, was adopted and a Call for Funding was issued.
The deadline for responses was November 2, 2009. Members reviewed each proposal and evaluated each one by answering the following 3 questions:
1) Does this proposal meet all of the minimum criteria? Members answered yes or no
2) Does this proposal meet all of the statewide priority criteria? Members evaluated this on a scale of 1-5.
3) Does this proposal meet all of the regional priority criteria? Members evaluated this on a scale of 1-5.
Once proposals were evaluated, those scoring the highest for meeting the priorities set forth in the Call for Request for Funding, were asked in for a hearing.
Of those called in for a hearing, a selection will be recommended to the legislature for funding.
2) Does this proposal meet all of the statewide priority criteria? Members evaluated this on a scale of 1-5.
3) Does this proposal meet all of the regional priority criteria? Members evaluated this on a scale of 1-5.
