It has been reported that only 6% of the full corridor has been (or will be for purposes of the DEIS) tested for archeological artifacts. Shovel tests have been conducted only between the end of the tunnel and the Bushnell area. NPS acknowledges in the EC Report that the park contains a higher than expected density of upland prehistoric sites relative to nearby property. The shovel tests have revealed that the area is rich in both Native and Euro-American artifacts including Cherokee dwellings. It is well documented that Cherokee grave sites are closely associated with dwellings; therefore there is a high likelihood for artifacts and burial sites within the road corridor.

NPS chose to extrapolate the probability of artifacts and human remains based on their very limited study and concluded that there are approximately 63 acres of moderate to high probability area that has not been and will not be examined before a preferred alternative is chosen. In addition, NPS through its agent Arcadis has brazenly stated that they do not believe there are any “show stoppers” within that untested 63 acres. This statement (as well as the choice of shovel test sites) suggests that a decision has already been made in regards to the outcome of the EIS process and that NPS is willing to shape study findings to conform to the desired outcome of road construction. That is unacceptable. NPS has an affirmative duty to protect the cultural resources within its boundary and must include a complete analysis of the artifacts that are present within the proposed road corridor.

GSMNP's responsibility to protect its remaining cultural resources is particularly important in light of cumulative impacts of recent park losses. For example, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) recently acquired the Ravensford tract in North Carolina. It had been established that the Ravensford tract was one of the richest deposits of archeological artifacts in the park. The silver lining in that story is that the EBCI are dedicated to a thorough process of resource recovery on the tract, but the fact remains that the NPS must explain how the park can afford to lose another rich source of cultural artifacts as well as explain how it will conduct complete resource recovery in the inaccessible and difficult situation that exists in the North Shore Road study area.

The Park has not done the archaeological studies necessary to determine the impact of the full or partial build alternatives. “No large-scale intensive [archaeological] surveys have been conducted on GSMNP.” EC, p. 61. Only 3% of the study area has been evaluated and/or inventoried, EC p. 61, and one site in the Nantahala National Forest and a large cemetery (also not within the Park) represent the only extensive archaeological studies. EC, p. 61. With so little information, it is appropriate that the Park consider all recorded sites in the GSMNP to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, EC, p.62; however this does not remove the obligation to protect sites not yet identified.

The Department of Interior's regulations, state that Alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a [historic] property will be avoided. 36 C.F.R. 68.3(a)(2) (2002). Building a road through an area that clearly contains cultural resources and which has not been thoroughly surveyed does not comply with this obligation.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] is a “stop, look, and listen” provision that requires each federal agency to consider the effects of its programs. Under NHPA, a federal agency must make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties, 36 C.F.R. S 800.4(b); determine whether identified properties are eligible for listing on the National Register based on criteria in 36 C.F.R. 60.4; assess the effects of the undertaking on any eligible historic properties found, 36 C.F.R. 800.4(c), 800.5, 800.9(a); determine whether the effect will be adverse, 36 C.F.R. 800.5(c), 800.9(b); and avoid or mitigate any adverse effects, 36 C.F.R. 800.8(e), 800.9(c). Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir., 1999) (some citations omitted).

The Existing Conditions Report acknowledges a higher than expected density of upland prehistoric sites. P. 63. Therefore, it is not clear why the Park Service apparently intends to rely on a site prediction model that was developed outside of the Park. EC, p. 64. In addition, given the history of the Cherokee taking refuge high in the mountains to avoid removal in the 1800s, it seems likely that some historical sites might be found in atypical locations. Have you considered this?

While a number of archeological sites have been located, building a road will increase the danger to them. Some may be directly impacted, being in the route of the road. All of them will be exposed to increased danger from looting because ease of access and larger numbers of people searching for the sites.

We have learned that Cherokee inhabitants of this area buried their dead near their dwellings. Find a dwelling site and it is likely a burial site will be found next to it. The study team has assumed, without any basis, it can extrapolate the locations of these significant sites from a small sample. A much more detailed study is required to locate exactly all these Native American sites.

The statistical sampling techniques used are flawed and unscientific. Extrapolation is only statistically valid when it is known that the sampled area is representative of the larger area. There is no reason to believe that the area sampled is representative of the larger area. The burden of proof is on the person or organization making the assumption to first establish this representative validity. That is totally lacking.

Cost estimates relating to archaeological surveys should be revised in light of recent costs on the Ravensford tract by the ECBI.

Cultural resources in the park will be at risk from construction of any of the road alternatives. Already the locations of the many archeological sites are kept secret to prevent looting and vandalism. Any road, however, will open the known cemeteries to looting and vandalism, and will expose the secret archeological sites to discovery and looting by knowledgeable vandals.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail

Construction of the road will subject the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to damaging impacts from both inside and outside the park.

Cemeteries

A road will have a damaging impact on the known cemeteries. The privacy now enjoyed by cemetery visitors will be lost. Their reflection and prayers will have to be conducted as others nearby talk, laugh and play and the motorcycles zoom by. The introduction of large numbers of new visitors traveling the road will increase the danger from looting and vandalism.

The cemetery access issue is a “wolf in sheep's clothing”. The group seeking access to cemeteries is attempting to hijack the 1943 Agreement as the means to their ends. They refuse to abide by the court ruling that they have no legal standing. They also ignore the most recent county election where [name omitted] lost to [name omitted] by 37% to 63% in the vote. Refusing that they have no legal standing, refusing how soundly they were defeated in the election, and taking advantage of any situation where one person's opinion can be exaggerated through repetition and loud demeanor, they falsely claim to be the voice of Swain County. The single issue for them is cemetery access. All the rest is spin. Should this alternative be selected, the can of worms will have just been opened. With that in hand, their next objective would be to re-engineer the road course based on the locations of cemeteries. Following that will be parking areas, suitably located, connecting ramps to existing back roads, vehicle access through park gates and perhaps even chauffeuring by park employees. Following that will be equity issues as to how one cemetery has better access than another and that the park must rectify this.

The word cemetery is not in the 1943 Agreement, but this groups demands are permeating every aspect of the DEIS. This group and those conducting the EIS are completely ignoring the reality that for the most of them it is impossible to complete any type of road during their lifetime. The battle to build a road to provide access to cemeteries has long been lost. That fact must be recognized. It is lost legally, politically, financially and now also practically in terms of individual longevity.

The overall picture and long-term view is that the settlement will satisfy everyone except the cemetery proponents. This build alternative requires the sacrifice of the wishes and needs of most of the country for the hopes of a few. All it will provide is renewed hope, and that renewal will be short-lived. It will not provide the level of access they desire and it will not be available during their lifetime. The settlement alternative addresses the needs and wishes of essentially the whole country while preserving the current level of access to cemeteries.

They have a problem and do endure hardship to visit their cemeteries. We sympathize with that plight. There is no reasonable solution available to them, unless they wanted to move the graves.

Mother and father from North Shore. We go back each year to decorate Chamber's Creek and Bone Valley. Grandmother's grave is at Bone Valley. Many family members buried in different cemeteries. We enjoy this very much, but would like to have a road to travel on to get here. Boat isn't bad if the weather is good. Boat isn't good when it gets rainy. Would like very much to have the road.

For the road. Does not matter whether it's gravel or paved, TN side has many roads, and we can tackle the same problems. Road is not impossible. Minerals seeping into the water have been addressed before and have not been a problem. Waited too long for this to be resolved, could have been resolved if people got off their tush and done what they were supposed to. Sierra Club and “transplants” into Swain want the money, but their families were not relocated and did not have their lives destroyed. Were paid little for land; Served in the wars and got land taken away. Had to move quickly, families were separated for months, even years. A lot of family buried in Proctor Cemetery. I can't make the one mile climb. I would like to have access through a road. Would like to visit when it's convenient for me, not convenient to the park service. Once a year is not enough. This has gone on too long, divided the town. Division in the high school, had to debate for or against in my daughter's science class. Many old lumber roads which have not damaged anything, old lumber trucks didn't damage. Perfect plan would be to give us $16 million and the road. No to the road is only going to cause more hard feelings. Cemeteries not in contract, but in a letter sent later. Government has lied to these families, and its time for government to step forward and say “Okay we screwed up.” We're going to build the road. People in the county don't deserve monetary compensation. Families should get the compensation. I would like to go where my father lived, but I am not physically able to. None of us are going to give up; it is time to settle this.

Also, I once made an unplanned trip across Fontana Lake with a group making their annual visitation to the Bone Valley cemetery as provided courtesy of the Park Service. I hiked while the cemetery visitors were transported to the cemetery by vehicles. No one brought any flowers to decorate the graves and most of the group appeared young enough to be grandchildren of those buried at Bone Valley. By the time I arrived at Bone Valley, everyone was eating a picnic lunch and seemed to be in a festive spirit. Road advocates who use cemetery access as a reason to build the North Shore Road want the road for some other reason than cemetery access in my opinion. This road cannot be justified under any pretense.

My family is originally from Swain County; my grandfather helped to clear the land for Fontana Lake , and I probably have distant relatives buried in graves within the park. However, I do not feel that access to cemeteries or the building of a road just because it was promised 60 years ago is justification for such an environmentally damaging project. I support the alternative of providing a payment to Swain County in lieu of building a road.

I deeply sympathize with those who grew up in the Park and who have loved ones buried there. They should be treated with consideration by GSMNP, provided with scheduled access by boat, and by scheduled Park Service van service to North Shore Road cemeteries, as long as no new roads are built or no major road construction is needed.

Even if this road were completed all the way to the Fontana Dam or Deal's Gap, it still doesn't go anywhere that isn't already serviced by a scenic road. U.S. 28 ends up in the same place the road would. The only difference is it doesn't service a number of gravesites still within the Park, a major argument for construction of the road. However, proponents of the road admit that cemeteries are not an issue to be used in the decision process. Access may not be “drive-up” convenient, but the road wouldn't serve all of them anyway. To me, this must be a non-issue.

The novel "Cold Mountain", by Charles Frazier, tells a story in which the woman Ruby, whose father has recently died in the mountains of western North Carolina, wonders whether to move his body or to bury him where he died. She decides "If it was me, I'd about rather rest on the mountain than anywhere else you could name."

The Internet site Western Attractions contains a "North Shore of Fontana Lake Cemetery List". (Similar information can be gleaned from pages 142 to 148 of the "Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report".) Of the 33 cemeteries listed, 14 can currently be approached by au tom obile via Lakeshore Drive, or via NC 28, or via the Fontana Dam Road . Building the North Shore Road will not ease au tom obile access to any of these 14 cemeteries. Proctor Cemetery is listed twice, leaving 18 cemeteries that will have easier access if the North Shore Road is completed. But while access to these cemeteries will be “easier”, it cannot be said that access will be “better”. According to Orley Trentham, the first au tom obile in Sugarlands came in 1922. ( Michael Frome, "Strangers in High Places", page 240). Undoubtedly au tom obiles reached Proctor at about the same time. Most of those buried in these 18 lovely and calming mountain cemeteries never witnessed an au tom obile. It is sometimes said (e.g. Smoky Mountain Times, 25 February 2005) that these cemeteries are not accessible today. That's false. The cemeteries are accessible today by foot and by horse, the same forms of transportation familiar to those buried in them.

Like Ruby in " Cold Mountain ", I can hope that when my mortal remains are laid to rest they will occupy a site as beautiful and as peaceful as the north shore of Fontana Lake is today. The spirits of the individuals buried in these 18 cemeteries cannot speak, but I believe that if they could they would ask to be left in peace, and would oppose the noise, clutter, and confusion that would follow the building of the North Shore Road .

The other pro-road argument I heard at the meeting seemed to be more widely held and a little harder to understand because I do not have the memories some of them do. During the Q&A session, a 7I year old man took the microphone and angrily shared his recollections of 1943… (some cut off)… forced to sell their land to make way for Fontana Lake. They moved to Tennessee , but his grandparents remained in a cemetery that now sits in the national park. “I want you to stop beating around the bush and do what you promised to do,” he scoffed at the officials. “I don't know why you're listening to the environmentalists. I want you to build the road.” I can appreciate his bitterness. If I had to leave my home and the place I love, I would harbor some resentment as well. But with all due respect to that man and the other folks who view the road think not of our parents and grandparents but of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If this road is built, they will never be able to enjoy the tranquility of Fontana Lake while mesmerized by the unbroken terrain of the beautiful and incredibly unique Smoky Mountains . Once built, that road isn't going away. It will scar the mountainsides forever. The decision whether or not to build it should ultimately hinge on the future, not the past.