Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/17/2026

Home

Mk DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2026 Protect Community Forests Application evaluation scoresheet Selection Criteria and Weight The steering committee will be reviewing each application according to the scoring process outlined below. Applications are reviewed on a 100-point scale, and past grant performance on a 5-point scale. Scores will be used to develop final recommendations. Applicants are encouraged to score their own applications using the evaluation score sheet below before submitting the application. While not required, this step may help applicants meet the criteria that grant reviewers will be evaluating their project with. To be funded, the application must meet Minimum Required Project score of 60, or greater, and either no Past Grant Performance Score (e.g. no Grant Closeout Form was available) or a Minimum Past Grant Performance score of 3, or greater. Applications must meet all requirements for funding (see "Application Requirements"), applicants will be funded based on their eligible request, application score, and amount of available funding. PROJECT APPLICATION SCORING (maximum score is 100) Application projects for the Protect Community Forests for Community Resiliency grants will be evaluated and ranked according to the following criteria and points: 1. Project Overview and Need • Response is clear, complete, descriptive, consistent with supplemental documentation (e.g., map), and clearly meets all minimum and additional requirements. (6 points) • Community has a readiness to take on a project of the proposed scope and size. (8 points) • Application details the projects impact and shows significant need for project and state grant funding. Evaluation is based on project's impact and effectiveness. (8 points) • Project serves underserved populations and application identifies the underserved populations affected. Examples of underserved populations include, but are not limited to, individuals living in areas with high exposure to negative environmental conditions, who are low-income, persons with disabilities, individuals with less than a high school education, those with limited English proficiency, populations experiencing low life expectancy, older adults, veterans, and persons of color. (4 points) • Project seeks to maintain or expand tree canopy through planting, replacement planting, canopy preservation, proactive management or other eligible activities. (4 points) 2. Project Timeline • Timeline provides specific dates for all activities. (3 points) • Timeline is easy to read and comprehend. (3 points) • Timeline explicitly accounts for grant execution, reporting, and end dates. (3 points) • Timeline follows best management practices. (5 points) • Timeline is realistic given the extent of the proposed project activities and the resources available and requested to accomplish the project. (6 points) 3. Project Budget and Budget Explanation • Budget explanation is detailed and provides specific dollar amounts for anticipated use. (2 points) • Budget totals equal amount requested and match budget attachment. (3 points) • Financially realistic and cost effective. (3 points) • Project budget uses grant funds only for eligible expenses. (2 points) 4. Community Engagement and Impact • Planning and collaboration clearly serves and includes residents within the project area, with explicit consideration for underserved populations, as defined above and in the Project Evaluation section of this document. (3 points) • Application details actionable goals for resident engagement. (2 points) Points 30 20 10 2U2b