QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL VITAL FEW GOAL OF
NEGOTIATED TIMEFRAMES

[Introduction]{.underline}

FHWA's Environmental Vital Few Goal (VFG), as well as FHWA's Performance
Plan calls for the following measures to improve the timeliness of both
the Federal-Aid and Federal Lands Highway Program environmental process:

-   **Establish timeframes for Environmental Assessments (EAs) and
    Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and meet the schedules for
    90% of those projects by September 30, 2007;**

-   Decrease the median time it takes to complete an EIS from 54 months
    to 36 months by September 30, 2007; and

-   Decrease the median time to complete an EA from approximately 18
    months to 12 months by September 30, 2007.

Through the Catchball Process in 2002, the Environmental Vital Few Goal
Team (consisting of four Division Administrators, senior leadership from
Headquarters' Office of Planning, Environment and Real Estate Services
and Office of Chief Counsel staff) with input from the rest of FHWA
selected negotiated timeframes as one component of the three
Environmental Vital Few Goals. This objective was selected because it
fulfills the statutory direction of Section 1309 of TEA-21 to establish
concurrent review timeframes as a cornerstone of Environmental
Streamlining. Similar provisions regarding timeframes were included in
the Department of Transportation's (DOT) SAFETEA proposal. President
Bush's recent Executive Order 13274, *Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews,* also highlights the need
to streamline the environmental review and development of transportation
projects.

Congressional directives and statutory mandates focus heavily on the
Federal environmental review process as a source of project delay, and
FHWA must respond to that. In support of this focus, the Administration
felt it important to rigorously pursue the improvement of timeliness and
thus selected a target goal of 90% of EIS and EA timeframes being met by
2007. State and local impediments have also been identified as
significant sources of delays throughout the entire project development
process. However, we believe it is important to focus this objective
solely on the environmental review process to be responsive to
Congressional direction.

An integral component of this objective is the documentation of
adjustments to established timeframes and the associated reasons for
delay. By documenting the tracking of timeframes, FHWA will develop a
better understanding of the key impediments to the environmental review
process, enabling us to help deliver projects in a more predictable and
timely manner. Gathering data on the key impediments will allow FHWA to
better articulate the sources of delay and address the concerns of
Congress, the States, and other stakeholders.

All EIS and EA projects initiated after the start of FY 04 (October 1,
2003) are to have negotiated timeframes for the environmental review
process.

[Questions and Answers]{.underline}

1.  **What is meant by the term "negotiated timeframes"?**

> The term "timeframe" refers to the establishment of a schedule or
> timeline for the environmental review or National Environmental Policy
> Act (NEPA) process. The term "negotiated" means that schedules should
> be developed in consultation with others involved in the review.
> Section 1309 of TEA-21 calls for a "cooperatively determined time
> period." The environmental review schedule is generally part of a
> larger project schedule that includes final design, ROW acquisition,
> and construction. Therefore, negotiating the timeframes for the
> environmental review should be considered as part of the overall
> project schedule.

The development of project schedules is not a new concept and most State
DOTs already develop schedules as an essential element of managing their
projects and utilize project management software for this purpose. In a
recent AASHTO survey on the "State of the Practice in Preconstruction
Engineering Management," 38 states responded that they currently track
the environmental phase of the project development process in their
management system. The ongoing scheduling efforts of each State DOT
should be capitalized and built upon in the implementation of this
objective. (For more information on the survey, visit
<http://design.transportation.org/references.html>)

There is considerable variability in current scheduling practices when
it comes to the involvement of Division Offices and environmental
resource and permitting agencies. This objective requires Division
Offices to be engaged in the process and work collaboratively with State
DOTs to set environmental review schedules on a project-by-project
basis, for groups of similar types of projects, or for NEPA classes of
actions. In keeping with the intent of this objective and Section 1309
of TEA-21, State DOTs and Divisions Office should negotiate these
timeframes in consultation with the involved environmental review and
permitting agencies. Timeframes should be established based on the
complexity and characteristics of the project(s), as well as the State's
own sense of priority. Defining the timeframe for the environmental
review process may be as simple as coming to an agreement at a scoping
meeting that all parties have the resources and workload priorities to
accommodate the agreed upon timeframe. A complex project may require
acknowledgement upfront that a long timeframe will be required and that
as the project progresses, ongoing assessment and tracking must be
provided to determine if it is necessary to modify the timeframe.

2.  **What are the benefits of establishing timeframes?**

The establishment of timeframes for the environmental review process
should be viewed as an element of good project management. The very
activity of having to think about what it will take to get through all
the reviews, forces an assessment of resources and issues. Timeframes
can provide goals and structure for the process. Setting timeframes can
be an effective continuous process improvement tool to identify
bottlenecks, conflicts, and systematic issues, as well as to monitor
progress.

Establishing timeframes will require upfront discussion among FHWA, the
State DOT and other involved agencies (Federal, State and local) and can
lead to the realization of project efficiencies:

-   [Improve timeliness of the process]{.underline}: The existence of a
    timeframe should help to create a sense of accountability and it
    will also allow all agencies input into setting the timeframe. If an
    environmental review schedule is agreed to and publicized, there
    will be an expectation to keep to the schedule.

-   [Identify issues early]{.underline}: The process of establishing a
    schedule will require potential project issues, analysis
    methodologies, and environmental impacts to be considered early on
    in order to develop a realistic schedule for the environmental
    review process. Setting timeframes forces early and complete
    scoping.

-   [Encourage early participation of environmental resource and
    permitting agencies]{.underline}: By acknowledging project issues
    early, the interested parties and affected environmental resource
    and permitting agencies can be identified and brought to the table
    sooner. The importance of their involvement and input must be
    stressed. It is important to educate the resource agencies that this
    will be a benefit to them also. Good transportation infrastructure
    is a critical resource.

-   [Recognize resource limitations upfront]{.underline}: By
    establishing a general level of priority for the project early, all
    parties (FHWA, State DOT, and environmental resource and permitting
    agencies) can address limitations of human, financial, and time
    resources.

3.  **When is the best time in the process to establish timeframes?**

Timeframes or environmental review schedules should be developed as soon
as the Division Office and State DOT have sufficient information to
determine project environmental concerns or issues and identify agencies
that will need to be involved in the project. If a schedule is
established prior to scoping, it should be revisited pursuant to
information gained from the public and agencies, or at any other time
the Division and State deem necessary.

4.  **Who should be involved in negotiating or setting up timeframes for
    the environmental review process? Do timeframes have to be set
    project-by-project or can they be done for groups of projects?**

Timeframes may be set on a project-by-project basis, for groups of
similar types of projects, or for NEPA classes of actions. This allows
for flexibility in how each State and Division Office chooses to
implement the objective to meet their specific needs for various
projects. There are many different models for establishing timeframes
that range from a schedule unilaterally being established to a timeframe
jointly developed and agreed to by an interagency team. Timeframes may
also be set for broad groups or categories of projects via programmatic
agreements or memoranda of understanding.

Division Offices and State DOTs should work collaboratively to set
schedules. The schedule should cover the environmental review process
and spell out milestones as well as set a target completion date. In
keeping with Section 1309 of TEA-21, States should consult environmental
resource and permitting agencies in the establishment of the timeframe.
The schedule should be consistent with any relevant time periods
established under Federal and/or State law. Schedules should also
account for the necessary review periods by the FHWA Division Office and
State DOT offices, legal sufficiency reviews by FHWA Office of Chief
Counsel, and allow adequate time for consultants or document preparers
to develop work products or respond to feedback.

When establishing a timeframe for the environmental review process, the
following factors should be considered:

-   Overall size, complexity, and characteristics of the project;

-   Current and anticipated workload, committed resources, and
    priorities of agencies involved in the project;

-   Sensitivity of the natural and historic resources that could be
    affected by the project;

-   Responsibilities of cooperating agencies under applicable laws;

-   Potential for controversy and public support;

-   State's sense of priority for the project;

-   Overall schedule for and cost of the entire project; and

-   Provision of resource agency support via FHWA/State funding of
    positions.

5.  **The other two measures associated with this VFG objective to
    improve the timeliness of the environmental review process set out
    specific targets of decreasing the median completion time for EISs
    and for EAs to 36 months and 18 months respectively, by
    September 2007. Should all timeframes be set to these targets?**

Each timeframe should be set based upon the factors identified in
Question #4 and should be realistic for the individual project, groups
of similar types of projects, or NEPA classes of actions. Establishing
an ambitious but realistic and achievable schedule, as well as
documenting the negotiation and any changes to the schedule, are key to
success for this component of the objective. In pursuit of the overall
goal of improving the timeliness of the environmental review process and
reducing the median processing times, Division Offices and State DOTs
should continue seeking efficiencies in the process and explore the use
of programmatics or other streamlining mechanisms.

It is important to recognize that the EIS and EA targets are
[median]{.underline} times that represent a [national]{.underline}
aggregate of processing times. Using the median, rather than the mean,
presents a more representative snapshot of typical timeframes for the
environmental review process that can be disproportionately skewed by
one or two projects that are exceedingly long or short to process. While
meeting the 36-month review time for EISs may not be realistic for
certain projects, there are other projects around the nation that will
be able to complete the environmental review process in 36 months or
less.

6.  **Should the number of active EISs/EAs or the size of the State's
    highway program be taken into account when developing timeframes?**

The process of establishing timeframes should not become over burdensome
or a source of delay itself. For those States with a large program
and/or a high number of EISs and EAs, it is likely that establishing
general timeframes for groups of similar projects will be the most
effective and efficient manner to implement this objective. In the case
of extremely complex, controversial, or unique projects, it is
recommended that project specific timeframes be established. Many
Division Offices and State DOTs routinely establish interagency project
teams involving resource and permitting agencies for these types of
projects. The negotiation of a schedule for the environmental review
process should be an initial action item for this team.

7.  **What are the consequences if the time frames are not met or if
    things don't proceed?**

> There are no legal consequences of not meeting the established
> timeframes. Timeframes should create a sense of accountability with
> the public and agencies. Loss of trust and accountability with the
> public and with other agencies may be a consequence of not meeting
> those expectations. The establishment of timeframes should be done
> collaboratively, therefore, not meeting the agreed upon commitment
> could reflect negatively on interagency coordination and the working
> relationship between agencies.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere, timeframes should be considered a project
> management tool. When new issues arise or priorities change, the
> schedule should be reviewed and revised as necessary. Any schedule
> changes should be well documented and shared with Cooperating
> Agencies. Reasons for schedules delays should be analyzed for lessons
> learned and, where appropriate, these lessons should be applied to
> other projects. Documenting sources of delays is an integral part of
> this objective. This data will enable the agency to better articulate
> reasons for project delays and to develop appropriate countermeasures.
>
> We acknowledge that unforeseen issues may arise late in the process,
> such as changes in program/political priorities, which are outside the
> control of FHWA or the State DOT. Other impediments such as funding,
> politics, and local controversy are often sources of delays and also
> outside the control of the parties involved in negotiating timeframes.

8.  **Concern has been expressed over timeliness being the sole outcome
    measure of this objective. Some fear that the goal to set and
    establish timeframes will drive decisions, instead of using the
    decision process to drive timeframes. If speed is the only important
    characteristic, are we still making good decisions and isn't there a
    potential for document quality to decline?**

We recognize that timeliness is only one aspect of environmental
streamlining. This objective should be viewed together with the other
Environmental Vital Few Goal objectives and in the larger context of
FHWA's focus on environmental stewardship and environmental
streamlining. The other objectives provide complementary measurements of
the quality of decision-making. FHWA is promoting widespread use of
Context Sensitive Solutions and Integrated Approaches to improve the
environmental quality of transportation decisionmaking as well as the
advancement of ecosystem initiatives. In short, we do not believe that
timeliness objective will compromise quality. If the timeframe is
consistent with the complexity of the project, quality should not be
compromised and can be improved by increased management, oversight and
productive involvement by the environmental resource and permitting
agencies.

Quality decision-making is an essential element of streamlining.
Environmental streamlining is the timely delivery of transportation
projects while protecting and enhancing the environment. Nothing in the
objective should be construed as relieving FHWA of its responsibility to
provide quality environmental documents that ensure quality
environmental decisions.

9.  How receptive are the other agencies to establishing and abiding by
    timeframes?

> The Federal environmental resource and permitting agencies have been
> very involved in FHWA's environmental streamlining efforts. As one of
> the first measures to implement Section 1309 of the TEA-21, DOT and
> six Federal agencies entered into a National Environmental
> Streamlining Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in July 1999. The six
> agencies included the Environmental Protection Agency, the Advisory
> Council on Historic Preservation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and
> the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture and the Interior. In the MOU,
> all of the agencies agreed to streamline environmental review
> processes in accordance with TEA-21 and other relevant environmental
> statutes in ways that reinforce the Federal responsibility to protect
> the environment. With respect to establishing timeframes, the MOU
> calls upon all agencies to:
>
> *Support and encourage field offices to explore flexible streamlining
> opportunities on their own and with state transportation and
> environmental partners including developing MOUs to lay out mutual
> expectations, funding agreements in support of streamlining, and
> concurrent review within cooperatively determined time frames.*
>
> President Bush's Executive Order 13274, *Environmental Stewardship and
> Transportation Infrastructure Project Review,* reinforces the need to
> enhance environmental stewardship and streamline the environmental
> review process for transportation projects. The interagency
> Transportation Infrastructure Streamlining Task Force, established as
> part of the Executive Order, is aimed at determining the appropriate
> mechanisms to coordinate agency consultation, review, approval, and
> permitting of projects. The Task Force oversees the expedited review
> of selected Priority Projects. The establishment of schedules and
> milestones has been a component of these Priority Projects. Lessons
> learned from the Priority Projects should be applied to all projects.
>
> FHWA's emphasis on establishing timeframes is also a discussion item
> at the FHWA sponsored interagency Conflict Resolution Workshops held
> in each of the ten standard Federal regions. Participants are from
> various Federal and State resource and permitting agencies. These
> timeframe discussions have yielded interesting feedback. Many resource
> agency staff indicated that knowing the schedule upfront helps to
> balance workloads and can lead to timely coordination. Agencies
> acknowledge that resource limitations affect their level of
> participation in projects. However, many agencies have expressed the
> desire to know the State DOTs' priorities to enable workload planning
> and optimization. Discussing timeframes upfront with agencies involved
> can add predictability to the process and result in trust building
> between the agencies. Many agencies noted that the more information
> they have upfront, the easier it will be for them to commit to a
> timeframe.
>
> The current level of involvement by environmental resource and
> permitting agencies in the development of project specific timeframes
> varies significantly. Some State DOTs meet routinely with these
> agencies and overview upcoming projects and anticipated schedules.
> Other DOTs regularly share their STIPs with these agencies.
>
> Setting negotiated timeframes for environmental review by agreement is
> a key to meeting project and resource agency expectations.

10. Often, the regulatory time periods are not being met, let alone
    making the review times any shorter. How do we address this?

> The regulatory required time periods for review or consultation should
> be used as the baseline or milestones in the environmental review
> process schedule. If regulatory time periods are currently not being
> met, Division Office and State DOTs should work with the appropriate
> environmental resource and permitting agencies to identify the sources
> of delays. We should be sure to fulfill our responsibility as lead
> federal agency to facilitate the process. Workload, resources, and
> other priorities should be assessed when discussing timeframes with
> environmental resource and permitting agencies. With upfront and early
> coordination on timeframes, realistic time periods for agency reviews
> can be factored into the schedule. If an agency will be unable to meet
> the regulatory time period, upfront discussion will allow this to be
> considered in the timeframe. This type of early coordination may
> result in agencies negotiating for a quicker review on the project(s)
> with the highest priority in the State while acknowledging that lower
> priority projects will receive a longer review. To assist in the
> timeliness of environmental reviews, State DOT headquarters should
> prioritize EIS and EA projects and send this list to the review
> agencies on a periodic basis.
>
> Unless agreed to by the agency, it is generally not feasible to
> request a review period that is shorter than what is required by
> regulation. The exception will be in cases where the State DOT is
> funding environmental resource and permitting agency positions and the
> agreement spells out conditions for an expedited review. It is
> reasonable to expect quicker reviews from resource agency staff in
> funded positions. TEA-21 allows State DOTs to use Federal-aid funds to
> provide additional resources to Federal agencies to meet newly
> established time limits for environmental reviews, conditioned upon
> the review time periods being less than the customary time necessary
> for such reviews.

11. How should timeframes be tracked?

> The FHWA internal Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS) should
> be used to track timeframes. Currently the system contains a data
> entry field for timeframes. The field first asks for a yes/no response
> to the question "Did project schedule include agreed upon timeframes
> for completion of other agency reviews?" and then allows for comments
> to be provided in a text box. The target completion date should be
> entered into the system. If the schedule is revised, the reasons for
> revision should be documented in the text box. Both the amount of
> delay time and the reason for delay need to be documented.
>
> HEPE is currently revising this data entry field to better capture
> information on why a scheduling problem happens and tracking changes
> in the target date.

12. What are the differences in negotiating timeframes for projects
    requiring an EA versus an EIS?

> Generally the same procedures for establishing a timeframe should be
> followed for both EISs and EAs. The same project factors listed in
> Question #4 should be considered for both types of projects. EISs do
> have a more defined process including formal scoping that may make the
> initial establishment of the schedule and involvement of environmental
> resource and permitting agencies easier. A lack of well-defined
> milestones in the EA process coupled with the wide variation in the
> scope of EAs from State to State may present challenges.
>
> Division Offices and State DOTs should work collaboratively to set
> project EA schedules on a project-by-project basis or for groups of
> similar types of EAs. As with EISs, the discussion about establishing
> a schedule should begin when the Division Office and State DOT have
> sufficient information to determine project environmental concerns or
> issues and identify agencies that will need to be involved in the
> project. If possible, a consistent initiation point for all EA
> projects within the State should be selected.

13. **What actions have been taken so far by some of the Division
    Offices and State DOTs to establish and negotiate timeframes?**

> Many State DOTs are using project management or scheduling software to
> establish timeframes, but involvement by FHWA Division Offices and
> environmental resource and permitting agencies in the development of
> those schedules varies greatly. Historically, most State DOTs and
> Division Offices have developed environmental review process schedules
> as needed on a project-by-project basis for the most complex or
> highest priority projects in the State. Often, the resource and
> permitting agencies have been engaged in schedules for these select
> types of projects. Very few State DOTs routinely set schedules in
> consultation with environmental resource and permitting agencies. A
> sampling of Division and State activities associated with establishing
> timeframes is provided below:

-   **[Ohio]{.underline}:** The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
    has established a goal of 90%+ on-time delivery of projects. Current
    project delivery in Ohio is over 90% on-time.  On-time project
    delivery is defined as awarding a project to construction contract
    at or prior to the date established in the ODOT database. This goal
    was established by ODOT's environmental section and uses Microsoft
    Project to develop schedules for the completion of environmental
    documents in 1998. The output of this software is a Gantt Chart
    which is a graphical representation of the steps that are necessary
    and the critical path required to complete the process. In 2001 the
    use of Gantt Charts was also expanded to cover the entire project
    delivery process. The Gantt Charts are developed early in the
    project development process. Templates have been developed as a
    starting point for common classes of projects. The timeframes used
    in the templates are based on historical data. However, project
    specific timeframes are occasionally negotiated with the resource
    agencies. The use of Gantt Charts greatly assists in the development
    of reasonable milestone dates. The project milestones are then taken
    from the Gantt Chart and entered into ODOTs project tracking
    database. Gantt charts are also used on some of the more complex CE
    projects, and all projects have associated milestone dates that are
    entered into the ODOT database.

> The milestone dates in the project database are adjusted as necessary
> during project development, but "lock down" dates have been
> established for all critical decision points. For example, on January
> the 15th of each year, ODOT \"locks down\" the construction sale dates
> for the next 18 months.
>
> ODOT\'s executive leadership, the FHWA Division Office and all levels
> of District management hold monthly meetings to discuss scope,
> schedule and budget concerns on any of ODOT\'s \"major\" projects
> (projects over \$5 million). In addition, the project environmental
> teams meet monthly and even weekly (in some cases) with resource
> agencies to ensure all reviewers are aware of schedule and scope
> demands.  All agencies, including FHWA and ODOT, are tracked for
> on-time completion. If problems occur, they are communicated with each
> agencies management on a monthly basis.  This helps to ensure that if
> an agency is performing at a low level of on-time delivery, that they
> are aware of it and will usually take measures to make improvements.

For more information on Ohio's project milestones tracking, please
contact David Snyder at 614-280-6852.

-   **[Texas]{.underline}**: The Environmental Affairs Division of Texas
    Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has developed an electronic
    spreadsheet that calculates and estimates process time for
    environmental clearance, ROW, and PS & E based on a number of
    factors. Texas had accelerated four EIS projects in central Texas,
    and completed the process in 2 ½ years because resources (time,
    money and staff) were dedicated to those projects. The Division has
    found that concurrent review of TxDOT District documents by the
    TxDOT Central Office and FHWA has really helped streamline the
    review process.

Currently the Division Office and TxDOT develop and agree upon
timeframes on a project-by-project basis for large complex projects. On
those projects, a project team is established and that team negotiates
the timeframe. A more formal negotiated timeframe was implemented on the
1,000-mile long I-69 project. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was
formed with membership from FHWA, TxDOT, State and Federal resource and
permitting agencies, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. A product
of the TAC is I-69 Process Manual. This manual formally established the
timeframes for the I-69 project though the NEPA process. Now that the
Process Manual has been approved by the I-69 Steering Committee
(consisting of agency executives), TxDOT is considering implementation
of similar Process Manual approach for a multitude of mega projects in
Texas.

For more information on Texas' accomplishments, please contact Sandy
Allen at 512-536-5944.

-   [Indiana]{.underline}: The Indiana Division Office has recently
    begun the process of negotiating schedules. The Division uses a
    spreadsheet with key milestones listed for each project, and works
    with Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) to update the
    schedules on a quarterly basis. When updated, the schedules are sent
    to the resource and permitting agencies and the milestones are then
    updated in the Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). These
    milestones are called "consultation points" rather then "concurrence
    points". Sixty days prior to a consultation point, a package is sent
    to the resource and permitting agencies for their consideration.
    About 30 days later, a meeting is set up to discuss the package with
    the involved agencies. For an EIS, consultation points are
    considered for the purpose and need, selection of preliminary
    alternatives, alternatives screening, and preferred
    alternative/mitigation agreement. The beginning or the end of yearly
    quarters are used for the milestones instead of specific dates, as
    the Division Office and INDOT believe that is as close as they can
    estimate accomplishment. Actual dates are put into the spreadsheet
    and EDTS when they are accomplished, or the schedule is adjusted
    based on further consultation with INDOT. Schedules have not been
    negotiated with the resources agencies; however the agencies are
    comfortable with the established consultation process, and
    appreciate knowing when to expect the next consultation package in
    the mail.

> For more information on Indiana's activities, please contact Robert
> Dirks at 317-226-7492.

-   **[Arkansas]{.underline}**: The Arkansas Division Office has
    developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on "Environmental
    Streamlining and Interagency Cooperation on Environmental and
    Transportation Issues." The agreement sets forth principles for
    establishing reasonable document review timeframes resulting in
    effective and efficient use of agency resources. FHWA, Arkansas DOT,
    USACOE, USFWS, EPA, and the SHPO are signatories on the MOA.

For more information on this MOA, please contact Randal Looney at
501-324-6430.

14\. Are there any follow-up activities to this guidance?

> The Office of Project Development and Environmental Review (HEPE) will
> sponsor a web conference(s) to address any questions on this guidance.
> This web conference(s) will be a follow-up step to the initial
> Performance Measurement Forum that was held on September 30, 2003, and
> focused on negotiated timeframes. The September forum, sponsored by
> the DA Council and the Office of Corporate Management, was part of a
> series of web conferences addressing the eight measurement areas
> representing the key business processes and the Vital Few.
>
> Following the web conference, HEPE will establish a small working
> group of Federal-aid and Federal Lands Division Office, Resource
> Center, and Headquarters representatives to further explore the
> implementation of this objective. Input from this work group will be
> sought in the development of training and technical assistance tools.

15\. What tools or technical assistance will be available to Division
Offices or State DOTs in developing timeframes?

> HEPE will be developing an electronic template to assist Division
> Offices and State DOTs in identifying all Federal data requirements
> and permit schedules. The electronic template will be an interactive
> tool used to illustrate how agency involvement can be better
> coordinated and required processes better integrated to provide for a
> more efficient transportation project development process. HEPE has
> engaged the services of the Volpe Center to develop this template.
> Prior to developing the template, the Volpe Center will gather
> information from Divisions Offices and State DOTs to identify existing
> practices related to the development of timeframe agreements. The
> Volpe Center will also develop an overview of the Federal
> transportation and resource protection requirements as well as a
> process flowchart.
>
> Input from the working group mentioned above will be sought in the
> development of the template. HEPE anticipates finalizing the template
> in the summer of 2004.