Evaluate each property identified during the survey in conformance with this section and document in the technical report and on the LA archaeological site record or HCPI form. Depending on the complexity and scale of the project, present evaluations in both narrative and tabular form.

1. A. Apply the criteria for integrity and significance to evaluate each property over 50 years old identified during the survey pursuant to 36 CRF Part 60.4. Identify the property as a district, site, building, structure or object. Indicate whether the property should be listed on the state register or should be determined as eligible for national register listing. Properties less than 50 years old should be evaluated if it is apparent that they will be eligible for the state or national registers within 5 years of the date of survey. Properties less than 50 years old that may be eligible for inclusion in the national register based on exceptional significance should be evaluated using national register criteria consideration G. If a property has been previously nominated for either the state or national registers, discuss the register status of the property.

2. B. Significance statement. Prepare a clear statement of significance for each archaeological site, historic structure or building, or other cultural property identified during the project. Indicate the level of significance as local, state or national and include in the technical report.

   (1) If the cultural property is recommended as not significant or not eligible for listing, provide a clear discussion and complete documentation to support the recommendation. For archaeological sites, the discussion shall demonstrate that the site has been thoroughly studied, that surface artifacts and features have been recorded and that sufficient subsurface tests have been performed to support a conclusion that the site is unlikely to contribute important information. The lack of subsurface deposits is not in itself sufficient to support a recommendation that a site is not significant or not eligible. If the cultural property is from the historic period, provide basic archival documentation to augment field information and support the significance evaluation.

   (2) If the cultural property is recommended as significant or eligible for listing, provide evidence supporting its significance including reference to historic contexts and scholarly research in the region. Include a specific, evidence-based argument, linked to specific research topics and characteristics (historic values) observed. The recommendation shall be documented on the LA archaeological site record, HCPI form or other HPD-approved inventory form. For archaeological sites provide detailed descriptions of the types and numbers of surface artifacts and the types and numbers of features visible on the surface or in arroyos or road cuts. The presence of a large artifact scatter or the potential for subsurface deposits is not sufficient information to support an eligibility recommendation without additional discussion. If the cultural property is historic, include the results of archival research to support the evaluation.

   (3) Survey data alone may not be sufficient to evaluate the property. For archaeological sites, it may be necessary to conduct more extensive test excavations, beyond survey-level study and limited tests, to gather sufficient information to evaluate the specific research potential to support a recommendation for listing or not listing the property on the state or national registers. Additional archival research and detailed documentation may be necessary to evaluate the specific potential and criteria for historic structures, buildings and engineering features. Provide a clear explanation that details the need for additional information. Document the recommendation on the LA archaeological site record, the HCPI form or other HPD-approved inventory form.

[4.10.15.16 NMAC - N, 1/01/06]