N.M. Code R. § 19.1.3.12
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
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
[19.1.3.12 NMAC - N, 7/30/2010]