This first decision point ensures agreement about the project process, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various participating groups.

This decision point was met with the approval of the Decisionmaking Structure and Proccess Memo by the Oversight Team at their September 27, 2006 meeting.

The second decision point establishes the need for the project and defines the problems the project is expected to address. The product of this step is an agreed-upon Purpose and Need Statement that is used throughout the project and in the environmental impact statement (EIS).

This decision point was completed when the Task Force recommended the Purpose and Need Statement on November 15, 2006 to the Oversight Team, which adopted it on November 21, 2006. The CETAS agencies reviewed the document and gave their concurrence (did not recommend any changes) in March 2007.

The third decision point creates a tool to assist in evaluating alternatives. The evaluation framework sets criteria and performance measures for gauging the effectiveness of alternatives—how well each alternative solves the identified problems and how well each alternative performs against the broad range of stakeholder values.

As an example, if an area of concern is impacts on parks, the evaluation measure might be “number of acres of park land affected.” This number would be determined for each alternative being studied.

The product of this step in the process is an agreed-upon set of evaluation measures (Evaluation Framework Memo) and a description of how the measures will be applied to the alternatives in subsequent steps in the process.

This decision point was completed after the Task Force recommended and the Oversight Team adopted the Evaluation Framework in March 2007.

The fourth point in the decision process determines the range of alternatives to be considered. At this point, all alternatives or solutions that could potentially solve the identified problem are considered. The aim is to ensure stakeholders have been consulted and all of their ideas get put "on the table."

Newsletter 2 explains the project's progress through May 2007. The June 26 and 27 open houses presented the information about the preliminary concepts and asked for public comments for possible improvements or new ideas.

Read the August 2007 Project Update memo, which describes the actions taken during that month by the Task Force and Oversight Team.

This decision point was completed after the Task Force recommended and the Oversight Team adopted 13 preliminary alternatives to be studied in greater detail, on August 2007.

The fifth decision point applies the evaluation criteria (established in decision point three) to the alternatives (developed in decision point four), screening out those that do not meet the minimum requirements or the project Purpose and Need. A small number of alternatives are selected for detailed evaluation in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS).

Read the December 2007 Project Update memo, which describes the actions taken during that month by the Task Force and Oversight Team.

In the sixth decision point, the draft environmental impact statement will study the impacts of the alternatives. The Task Force and Oversight Team will use this information to help make a recommendation for a preferred alternative. The public will also have a chance to comment on the document. After all comments have been gathered, a locally preferred alternative will be selected and then documented in the final environmental impact statement.

Read the January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, and June 2008 project update memos, which describe the actions taken during those months by the project team.

The seventh decision point is FHWA's approval of the Environmental Impact Statement, including the preferred alternative. All local land use actions must be completed by this time and the funding and mitigation plans must be in place.