A.1 Federal lands access Is the project located on a Federal Lands Access Transportation Facility (FLATF)? (1)

A.2 Project type Is the proposed project an eligible project type? (2)

A.3

Title or maintenance 

responsibility

Is the title or maintenance responsibility vested in a State, county, town, township, tribal, 

municipal, or local government? (3)

A.4 Endorsed by FLMA

Is there evidence that the applicant cooperatively engaged with the respective FLMA and 

the FLMA supports and endorses the project? (4)

A.5 Non-federal share

Application shows that the applicant or partner can provide funding to meet the minimum 

match requirements for the program? (5)

High priority(15)

Medium High priority (10)

Medium Low priority (5)

Not supported (0)

KANSAS FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM - CYCLE 3 CALL-FOR-PROJECTS PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS 

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) of each state makes programming decisions. This is done in cooperation with Federal Land Management 

Agencies. The PDC of each state develops the evaluation criteria to meet the requirements of the FAST Act, FHWA guidance, and specific goals and 

requirements developed specifically for each state by the PDC. The following is the three part evaluation process that will be used for project proposals 

received in the Kansas 2018 Call for Projects.

IS THIS PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM ( Must answer Yes to all questions above ) ?

YES or NO

YES or NO

YES or NO

YES or NO

YES or NO

YES or NO

PART A - ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION: 

This section determines if the project proposal meets minimum requirements to be eligible for FLAP funding. The proposal must have a 'Yes' answer to all of the following questions to be considered for 

evaluation for funding.

Part B - FLMA PRIORITY

B.1 FLMA priority What is the FLMA priority ranking? (6) 15

Regional representatives from each Federal Land Management Agency are asked to prioritize each project proposal submitted where there Agency's land is being accessed through the project.
Close proximity, high significant facility, and only access to federal lands 

(10)

Far to federal lands, low significance, and multiple accesses to federal 

lands (0)

Very high use rec site and/or fed economic generator (10)

High use rec site and/or fed economic generator (7)

Medium use rec site and/or fed economic generator (5)

Low use rec site and/or fed economic generator (3)

Not a rec site or economic generator (0)

Improves access for 3 types of users (10)

Improves access for 2 types of users (7)

Improves access for 1 type of users (4)

Does not improve access for any users (0)

Improves safety for wide range of users (10)

Improves safety for some users (5)

Does not improve safety for any users (0)

Large improvement (5)

Some improvement (2)

No improvement(0)

Large improvement (5)

Some improvement (3)

No improvement(0)

Unreasonable scope/cost or other large risk items(-5)

Imprecise scope/cost or other medium risk items (-3)

No Risk (0)

Overmatch by 15% + (5)

Overmatch by 10% + (4)

Overmatch by 5% + (3)

Overmatch by 3% + (2)

Overmatch by 1% + (1)

No Overmatch (0)

Meets vision of program (5)

Does not meet vision of program (0)

75 TOTAL POINTS

C.1

Federal lands access 

proximity and significance

What is the proximity of the project to the federal lands? What is the significance if access 

through the project area was lost? Is the FLATF the only access to the federal lands? 10

C.2

High-use recreation site 

and/or Federal economic 

generator

5

C.7

Project cost and scope 

risk

Does the overall project scope and cost seem reasonable? Does the project have a high 

probability of failure or delay due to environmental issues, ROW issues, utility impacts, or 

other issues?

0 

C.3 Improves public access Will the project result in improving access to the federal lands for motorized, nonmotorized, emergency vehicles, and/or transit users 10

Will the project reduce pollution, improve wildlife connectivity, protect or improve wildlife 

habitat, or protect a watershed?

C.4 Safety improvement Will the project result in improved safety for users? 10

5

Will the project improve the structural capacity or PCI of a roadway structural section, 

deficiency rating of a bridge, and/or the size or load limit of a facility? Will the project 

reduce the future maintenance costs for the FLATF? (8)

C.5 Preservation

C.6 5

Sustainability and 

Environmental Quality 

Benefits

C.9 Program vision Does the overall project meet the vision of the program?

Is the project providing match over the minimum required of 20.00%? 

Overmatch/leveraging of (9)

funds C.8

Scoring ranges from 0 to the maximum score in 1 point intervals. General guidance is provided to show different points within 

each range, but PDC member are allowed to select any point value within the full range.

5

Are the federal lands accessed considered a high use recreation site and/or a Federal 

economic generator? (7) 10

Part C - FLAP AREAS OF ASSESSMENT EVALUATION

Each project proposal is evaluated against criteria established by the KS PDC based on the goals of the FLAP program.
Notes

(6) FLMA ranking should take into account their regional priority with preference to high-use recreation sites and federal economic generators. Adjust tiers and scoring based on the # of applications for 

the FLMA.

(7) Recreation site is any site that can be used by the public to recreate on federal public lands. High-use is relative to the region and/or local area and the relative use the site gets per the local and/or 

regional population base.

Federal economic generator refers to any use of/on federal lands that results in economy generation for the local community and/or region.

(8) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical index between 0 and 100 which is used to indicate the general condition of a pavement. The method is based on a visual survey of the number and 

types of distresses in a pavement. 100 represents the best possible condition and 0 represents the worst possible condition.

(9) Overmatch is all types of cash match above 20.00%.

(2) Eligible project types include:

a. transportation planning, research, engineering, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction i. adjacent vehicular parking areas and:

 i. acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;

 ii. provisions for pedestrians and bicycles;

 iii. environmental mitigation in or adjacent to Federal land to improve public safety and reduce vehicle- caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity;

 iv. construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas, including sanitary and water facilities; and

 v. other appropriate public road facilities, as determined by the Secretary;

b. operation and maintenance of transit facilities. 

 i. includes the operation of all components of a transit system, including the acquisition of public transportation vehicles. 

 ii. applies solely to transit facilities.

c. any transportation project eligible for assistance under title 23, United States Code, that is within or adjacent to, or that provides access to, Federal land. 

 i. includes transit capital projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that are also eligible under title 23.

(3) Includes letter committing the local agency to formalizing title or maintenance responsibility prior to construction.

(4) Signed support form and/or letter of support from the FLMA.

(5) KS FLAP Requires a minimum of 20.00% cash match. 

(1) FLATF is defined as "a public highway, road, bridge, trail, or transit system that is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands