20120285_002_P_DEISGaston_ChP_Preface_20101222

 
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS
P-1
PREFACE

P.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
P.1.1 REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, requires Federal agencies
to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, document their
analyses, and make this information available to the public for comment prior to project or
program implementation. NEPA requires Federal agencies to use an interdisciplinary approach
in planning and decision-making for any action that adversely impacts the environment (Federal
Highway Administration [FHWA] Web site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp).
While NEPA established the basic framework for integrating environmental considerations into
Federal decision-making, it did not provide details of the process that should be followed. Federal
implementation of NEPA was the charge of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which
interpreted the law and addressed NEPA provisions in the form of regulations and guidance
(FHWA Web site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp).
To assist Federal agencies in effectively implementing NEPA, the CEQ issued Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508). The CEQ also has issued additional guidance and other information covering a
variety of issues relevant to the NEPA process (CEQ Web site:
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm).
To address the NEPA responsibilities established by CEQ, the FHWA issued regulations in
Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR Part 771). The FHWA guidance
complementing the regulations was issued in the form of a Technical Advisory (T 6640.8A) titled
Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. The
Technical Advisory provides detailed information on the contents and processing of
environmental documents. Additional guidance and information on the FHWA NEPA process
and other environmental requirements are found in the Environmental Guidebook (FHWA Web
site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp).
The proposed Gaston East-West Connector will involve federal actions and funding, so it is
subject to NEPA. The lead federal agency is the FHWA. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority
(NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are the state agencies
sponsoring the project as joint lead agencies. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a
cooperating agency. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been invited to be
a cooperating agency (see letter in Appendix A-5).
This Preface, Sections P.1, P.2 and P.3, provides background on the National Environmental Policy Act, explains how 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) will be used in the decisions made about the project, and 
describes the organization of this Draft EIS.  Section P.4 provides information about the North Carolina Turnpike 
Authority. 

PREFACE Chapter P

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS P-2
P.1.2 DOCUMENTATION
The following is from the FHWA Web site:
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd4document.asp.
“Documentation (along with dissemination) is an essential component of the
NEPA project development process, which supports and complements public
involvement and interagency coordination. Documenting the NEPA process
provides for complete disclosure to the public; allows others an opportunity to
provide input and comment on proposals, alternatives, and environmental
impacts; and provides the appropriate information for the decision maker to
make a reasoned choice among alternatives.
Transportation projects vary in type, size and complexity, and potential to affect
the environment. To account for the variability of project impacts, there are
three basic "classes of action" that determine how compliance with NEPA is
carried out and documented: Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental
Assessment, and Categorical Exclusion.”
The proposed project is being evaluated and documented as an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). An EIS is prepared for projects where it is known that the action will have a significant
effect on the environment (FHWA Web site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
projdev/docueis.asp). The EIS process is completed in the following ordered steps: Notice of
Intent (NOI), Draft (Draft EIS), Final (Final EIS), and Record of Decision (ROD). Following a
formal comment period and receipt of comments from the public and other agencies on the
Draft EIS, the Final EIS is developed and issued. The Final EIS addresses the comments on the
Draft EIS and identifies, based on analysis and comments, the Preferred Alternative. The ROD
identifies the Selected Alternative, presents the basis for the decision, identifies all the
alternatives considered, specifies the "environmentally preferable alternative," and provides
information on the adopted means to avoid, minimize, and compensate for environmental
impacts.
P.2 HOW THIS DRAFT EIS WILL BE USED
This Draft EIS is an informational document intended for use by both the decision makers and
the public. As such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning
the proposed action. This document, together with public and agency input and comments
received on this document, will be used to identify a Preferred Alternative for the project. The
Preferred Alternative will be identified in the Final EIS. The Final EIS also will respond to
comments received on the Draft EIS.
The FHWA NEPA process allows transportation officials to make project decisions that balance
engineering and transportation needs with social, economic, and natural environmental factors.
During the process, a wide range of partners, including the public, businesses, interest groups,
and agencies at all levels of government, provide input into project and environmental decisions
(FHWA Web site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd3tdm.asp). The conclusion of the
NEPA process, through the completion of the ROD for this project, will result in a decision that
addresses multiple concerns and requirements.

PREFACE Chapter P

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS P-3
P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DRAFT EIS
This Draft EIS is divided into fifteen chapters, as described briefly below:
• Chapter P is this Preface.
• Chapter PC lists the special project commitments that NCTA has agreed to implement
for the Preferred Alternative.
• Chapter S provides an executive summary of the Draft EIS.
• Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for the project.
• Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered for the project. It discusses the
development and screening of alternatives, including alternatives eliminated from
detailed study and the reasons for elimination. It also identifies and describes the
Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs). In addition, this chapter identifies the DSA
identified as the Recommended Alternative. The Preferred Alternative will be identified
in the Final EIS.
• Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 describe existing conditions and projected impacts of the DSAs
on the human, physical, cultural, and natural environments. The existing conditions for a
resource are described, directly followed by the projected impacts to that resource.
• Chapter 7 describes the project’s estimated indirect and cumulative effects.
• Chapter 8 describes how the project will result in the irretrievable and irreversible
commitment of resources, and the relationship between short-term uses and long-term
benefits from the project.
• Chapter 9 summarizes the public involvement and agency coordination activities
conducted for the project.
• Chapters 10, 11, and 12 provide lists of the following: the preparers of the Draft EIS;
agencies, organizations, and persons sent a copy of the Draft EIS; and the references and
supporting documentation used in the preparation of the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS also includes appendices that are referenced throughout the document, and are
available with the document. The Draft EIS, graphics, and appendices are available for
download on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org). The supporting documentation listed in
Section 12 is comprised of technical memoranda and reports incorporated by reference to the
Draft EIS. These are available for review upon request by contacting NCTA (via email to
[e-mail] or telephone [phone]), with most also available on the NCTA Web
site, as noted in the Draft EIS.
P.4 ABOUT THE NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE
AUTHORITY
In October 2002, the North Carolina General Assembly created the NCTA with approval of House
Bill (HB) 644 that amended the North Carolina General Status (NCGS 136-89.180 through
136.89-197). In August 2005 HB 253 authorized the NCTA to develop, construct, operate, and
maintain up to nine toll facilities. The proposed project is one of these candidate toll facilities.

PREFACE Chapter P

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS P-4
Local officials may request that NCTA consider any planned road or bridge project for
development as a toll facility. To be considered as candidate turnpike project, the project must
meet selection criteria approved by the NCTA Board of Directors in April of 2006, which include:
full control of access, availability of free alternate routes, financial feasibility, reasonable
expectation of local support, a high probability of being able to start construction within a
reasonable time frame, and giving special consideration to those projects that would play a
significant role in the statewide or regional highway system or serve major economic generators.
The NCTA 2006 Annual Report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee
notes the advantages and “…reality of these projects taking shape and delivering them to the
motoring public years or decades sooner than would be possible through traditional means…”
[NCTA is] “…proving that financing projects with tolls avoids the vastly inflated (construction)
costs from project delay and reduces the risk of not being able to build at all.” In addition, with
the NCTA paying both construction and maintenance costs, hundreds of millions of highly
competitive public dollars will be returned to the state’s transportation program for other critical
highway projects.