Each criterion for a project will receive a base score of 0-10. The base score is then multiplied by the criterion weight (shown in parentheses), which yields the score for that criterion. The total application score is the sum of all criteria scores. FWP staff review and rank RTP applications with input from the State Trails Advisory Committee.

1. Benefit To Most. The degree to which project provides for the greatest number of compatible recreation purposes and involves unique or innovative corridor-sharing techniques. Identify all types of trail uses that will benefit from the project.
   (Weight = 3)
2. User Demand. Clear user demand for the project proven by letters of support and/or contributions from organizations. Priority is given to trail clubs, trail associations, chambers of commerce, government agencies, school districts, senior citizens centers, youth centers. (Weight = 3)
3. Trails Near Homes & Workplaces. Does this project link homes with work places, schools, businesses, senior centers, youth centers, commercial areas, or benefit nearby homes, businesses, etc? Remember that homes and businesses occur in the urban, rural and backcounty areas and businesses can benefit from urban, rural and backcountry trails. Consider the degree to which the project provides linkages between existing trails, trail systems, greenways, scenic byways or other natural, cultural, historical and recreation areas. (Weight = 3)
4. Public & Volunteer Assistance. The level of public and volunteer assistance or non-traditional labor involved in project including public funds, private funds and fund donations, in-kind service, donated materials and labor. The score is based upon the level of sponsor investment in the project. (Weight = 3)
5. Project Readiness. Provide a timeline displaying project initiation and completion; project plans and timelines can depict phase projects and future plans beyond 2012 grant cycle. Delineate the current project status and detail major activities that must still be accomplished. At a minimum, please reference land acquisition requirements, status of detail design and relevant permits and approvals that have been obtained for this project. (Weight = 2)
6. Partnerships. The degree to which the project creates partnerships between trail users, private interests and public agencies. The score is based upon the number of partnerships reported. (Weight = 2)
7. Interpretation. The level the project includes or is part of a trail that provides cultural or natural resource interpretation, ethics, safety education or other information of benefit to trail users. (Weight = 2)
8. Resource Protection And Enhancement. Protect and enhance natural resources or consider avoidance of problem areas or mitigation of unavoidable damage to the resources. (Weight = 2)
9. Quality Of Application. This criterion is an incentive to write an excellent, complete application that is presented in the required format as described in the application package. (Weight = 2)
10. Access. The degree to which the project addresses access, use, and benefits of trails by persons with disabilities, senior citizens, and other challenged groups. (Weight = 1)
11. Long-Term Maintenance. Commitment to long-term maintenance of the project. Describe how maintenance will be accomplished and who will be the responsible party. (Weight = 1)
12. Applicant's Prior Performance. The sponsor's previous grant performance. This is a negative scoring criterion. Acceptable prior performance will be scored a zero. Unacceptable performances may score as much as a negative seventy-five points.
13. Quality of Wildlife Review Responses. Has the biologist reasonably and professionally addressed potential impacts to wildlife populations? (Weight = 1)
14. Quality of Fisheries Review Responses. Has the biologist reasonably and professionally addressed potential impacts to fish populations? (Weight = 1)
15. Quality of Environmental Review. Are the checklist topics reasonably addressed and are the detailed descriptions of impacts and possible mitigations plausible and thoughtful? (Weight = 1)
16. Quality of Weed Plan. Is the weed plan "site specific?" Does it address existing and potential weed infestations, and propose control methods? (Weight = 0.5)