The General Land Office (Land Office) will evaluate potential projects for funding from the coastal erosion response account based on a three-stage evaluation process as described in this section.

1. (1) Initial evaluation--project goal summaries submitted to the Land Office by potential project partners.

   1. (A) A potential project partner seeking funds from the coastal erosion response account must submit a project goal summary to the Land Office. The project goal summary must include the following:

      1. (i) the name of the entity that will be the potential project partner and the name, address, and telephone number of the person who will represent the potential project partner and be the primary point of contact with the Land Office;
      2. (ii) the location and geographic scope of the erosion problem;
      3. (iii) a description of the erosion problem and the severity of erosion in the area;
      4. (iv) the economic impacts of erosion in the area;
      5. (v) a description of how public infrastructure or resources have been impacted or threatened by erosion in the area;
      6. (vi) the natural resource impacts of erosion in the area; and
      7. (vii) the desired outcome or goals of seeking funding from the coastal erosion response account.

   2. (B) The Land Office will accept project goal summaries by:

      1. (i) mail sent to the General Land Office, Attn: Director, Coastal Projects Division, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495;
      2. (ii) fax sent to (512) 475-0680; or
      3. (iii) email sent to coastalprojects@glo.state.tx.us.
   3. (C) The Land Office will evaluate project goal summaries received based on the following criteria: the severity of erosion in the area, the economic impacts of erosion, the degree to which public infrastructure or resources are at risk, and natural resources threatened by erosion. Each criterion will be weighted by the Land Office, and the Land Office will assign a total score to each project goal summary. The Land Office will conduct the initial evaluation in consultation and coordination with the potential project partner, as deemed necessary by the Land Office.
   4. (D) The Land Office encourages potential project partners to submit additional information if it is available on the presumed causes of erosion, other potential project partners in the area, a recommendation on projects to address erosion in the area, and possible funding alternatives that have already been explored. The Land Office will not use this additional information during the initial evaluation stage, but it may be used to expedite the evaluation process in later stages.
   5. (E) The Land Office will inform the potential project partner of the outcome of the initial evaluation and subsequently post the outcome on the Land Office's website at www.glo.state.tx.us.
   6. (F) If, as a result of the initial evaluation, the Land Office chooses not to continue the evaluation into the next stage, the potential project partner will be notified in writing of this result. The Land Office will retain the project goal summary and may reevaluate it if future conditions warrant.
   7. (G) If the Land Office's initial evaluation results in a score that is sufficiently high to warrant an evaluation of alternatives, the Land Office will invite the potential project partner to continue to work cooperatively with the Land Office by becoming a qualified project partner.

2. (2) Evaluation of alternatives with qualified project partners.

   1. (A) The process of evaluating alternatives will begin with the Land Office and potential project partner entering into a project cooperation agreement. Upon entering into a project cooperation agreement, the potential project partner will become a qualified project partner. The Land Office and qualified project partner will cooperatively evaluate alternatives for addressing the erosion problem(s) identified in the project goal summary.
   2. (B) The project cooperation agreement with the qualified project partner will explicitly define the activities to be undertaken by the Land Office and the qualified project partner in the evaluation of alternatives. The Land Office may, at its sole discretion, fund studies or activities that are part of the alternatives-evaluation process. Funds expended by a qualified project partner in conformance with the project cooperation agreement can be used to offset the qualified project partner's cost-sharing requirement.

   3. (C) During the alternatives-evaluation process, the Land Office will evaluate projects based on the following criteria:

      1. (i) the feasibility of alternative projects in meeting the goals of the project goal summary;
      2. (ii) whether the qualified project partner has already made or received a binding commitment to fund all or a portion of a given project; and
      3. (iii) whether funding can be leveraged with sources other than the coastal erosion response account.
   4. (D) At the completion of the alternatives-evaluation process, the Land Office in consultation with the qualified project partner will choose one or more preferred alternatives for addressing the erosion problem in the area identified. Each preferred alternative will be scored based on the factors detailed in §15.21(2)(C) of this section. If new information becomes available during the alternatives-evaluation stage, the Land Office may adjust the score for the initial evaluation of the project goal summary.
   5. (E) Based on the scores from the first two stages of the evaluation process, the Land Office will determine whether any of the preferred alternatives are viable projects for funding from the coastal erosion response account. If the Land Office determines that one or more of the preferred alternatives are viable projects, the Land Office will request that the qualified project partner continue to work cooperatively to seek funding.

3. (3) Final prioritization of preferred alternatives by the Land Office.

   1. (A) If the qualified project partner chooses to continue the application process for funding a preferred alternative, the Land Office will further score the preferred alternative based on the following criteria:

      1. (i) the distribution of other erosion response projects in Texas that have received funding from the coastal erosion response account;
      2. (ii) whether federal and local financial participation in the project is maximized;
      3. (iii) whether the project achieves efficiencies and economies of scale;
      4. (iv) the cost of the preferred alternative and the amount of money available in the coastal erosion response account;
      5. (v) if the project is located within the jurisdiction of a local government that administers a beach/dune program, whether the local government is adequately administering its duties under the Open Beaches Act (Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 61) and Dune Protection Act (Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 63); and
      6. (vi) whether the project will address an emergency situation in the area.
   2. (B) After the Land Office assigns weighted, numerical scores to the criteria detailed in §15.21(3)(A) of this section, the Land Office will generate a final cumulative score for each preferred alternative based on the scores achieved by the project in each of the three stages of the evaluation process.

Source Note:The provisions of this §15.21 adopted to be effective November 21, 1999, 24 TexReg 10132.