N.M. Admin. Code § 19.1.3.12 - APPLICATION REVIEW

A. The committee shall review applications that are timely, that are complete and that comply with the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and 19.1.3 NMAC and evaluate them against the criteria in Subsection B of 19.1.3.12 NMAC. The committee may reject untimely applications, incomplete applications or applications that do not comply with the Natural Heritage Conservation Act or 19.1.3 NMAC. The department secretary, upon request by the committee, may provide technical assistance through staff assignment or a group of public agency and private individuals selected to assist during a specified review cycle. After review, the committee shall make its recommendations on all evaluated conservation projects to the department.

B. The committee shall evaluate applications for conservation projects based upon the following criteria:

(1) the degree to which the conservation project serves the purposes of the Natural Heritage Conservation Act;

(2) the extent of cash and in-kind matching financial support for the conservation project from sources other than the state, in context with the amount of funding requested and available overall;

(3) the applicant's and partner's technical qualifications and its ability to complete and maintain the proposed conservation project;

(4) the degree to which the conservation project fosters and integrates with existing conservation plans, strategies and initiatives;

(5) the potential for benefits at the landscape and ecosystem scale;

(6) the potential for improved public access for outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing;

(7) the potential for economic benefits, including direct commerce and ecosystem services, of the completed conservation project;

(8) complementary or strategic values through proximity to other conservation actions, priorities or projects;

(9) conservation project readiness for completion on a timely schedule;

(10) degree and extent of partner involvement;

(11) the likelihood that the conservation project as proposed will have long-term success in achieving its purposes and will have long-term sustainability, including involvement of land dedicated to conservation purposes and an explicit monitoring plan.

C. The committee will evaluate and categorize applications according to the following matrix of factors and relative values and base its assessment and recommendations on the matrix. The committee has discretion to determine how to use the information from the matrix to determine value assignments among features of each application, in consideration of any limitations identified in the application cycle announcement as provided for in Subsection A of 19.1.3.11 NMAC.

Factor	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Serves purposes of the Natural Heritage Conservation Act	Clearly serves all purposes	Clearly serves multiple purposes	Clearly serves one purpose and may serve others	Questionable if any purposes are adequately served
Extent of matching cash and in-kind financial support	Applicant/Partner provide more than 75% of project costs	Applicant/Partner provide 50 to 75% of project costs	Applicant/Partner provide 25 to 49% of project costs	Applicant/Partner provide less than 25% of project costs
Qualifications and ability of applicant and partners to complete and maintain proposed project	Substantial past experience and continuing capability to do proposed work and follow-up	Demonstrated completions of similar work and is fully structured to do similar work	Demonstrates some past ability and basic documented qualifications and infrastructure	Indicates uncertain capability or has no prior experience and necessary infrastructure
Degree of fostering existing conservation plans, strategies and initiatives (PSIs) specified in the cycle announcement	Project has substantial relation to most PSIs and directly fosters several	Project clearly fosters multiple PSIs and directly relates to several	Project has clear relation to one PSI and possible service to others	Project has uncertain relation to any PSIs or no clear degree of fostering
Potential for benefits at landscape or ecosystem scale	Substantial landscape and ecological scale benefits are evident in completed work	Substantial landscape or ecological scale benefits are evident in completed work	Desired scale benefits are evident, but are judged minimal	No clear benefits are evident at desired scale
Potential for improved public access to outdoor recreation opportunities on or off project site	Multiple enhanced recreation opportunities are evident, including hunting and fishing	Some enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities are evident and have prospect for growth	Some enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities are evident but are limited	Proposal has no discernible outdoor recreation elements
Potential economic benefits of completed project	Project has multiple economic benefits at multiple scales	Project has some economic benefits locally and broader	Project shows economic benefits, at least locally	Project has no discernible economic benefits
Complementary or strategic values through proximity to other ongoing or completed conservation actions, including any priority areas formally identified by the committee	Project is within a priority area or directly links to nearby completed or ongoing conservation actions and provides added heritage values	Project is within a priority area but has limited relationship to other conservation actions that will provide synergistic heritage values	Project is not within a priority area but has proximity to other actions that may provide synergy or economy of scale or cost effectiveness	Project has no proximity to other conservation endeavors and is not otherwise distinctive as a starting point
Degree of readiness to start and complete project on timely schedule	Readiness and time schedule are clear and background work is complete; timely execution is essentially assured	Readiness and time schedule are clear and reasonable to the project, but could experience some delay	Readiness and time schedule are clear, but have acknowledged or likely delays inconsistent with the nature of the project	Readiness and completion scheduling is unspecified, unclear or uncertain
Degree and extent of partner involvement	Multiple entity project where reasonable partnering is included with clear and substantive involvement and contribution	Multiple entity project where reasonable partnering is included beyond minimal but is not extensive	Single or multiple entity project where partnering is included, but is minimal	Single entity project with no partner involvement when such partnership is possible and advised
Likely long-term success and sustainability	Project is well-described and accomplishable with substantive provisions for sustained maintenance and routine outcome assurance	Project is well-described and accomplishable with basic provisions for sustained maintenance and periodic outcome assessment	Project is inherently achievable but contains limited provisions for maintenance over the long-term	Project appears basically achievable, but long-term outcome is questionable or uncertain

D. A summary of committee judgments, without attribution to individual committee members, among factors described in Subsection C of 19.1.3.12 NMAC will be made public regarding all applications that are recommended to the department for funding and those that are not recommended to be funded.

Notes

N.M. Admin. Code § 19.1.3.12

19.1.3.12 NMAC - N, 7/30/2010