There are a number of items that are disappointing in the draft EIS, the lack of some standard analysis. There have been previous documents that have done a lot better job of looking at environmental impacts of building the North Shore Road , the lack of a preferred alternative, when it should be the obvious choice.

In reading the Appendices I feel comfortable evaluating, I find that the DEIS covers many significant issues, but does so in a piecemeal fashion and always paints the adverse effects in a more positive manner than they ought to be. I thought NEPA required integrating all aspects of the environment (…) together in order to get an understanding of the overall potential for environmental degradation. I do not see that. Rather each section stands alone. I suspect the lack of integration is due to the fact that no single alternative was given as the preferred option, thus making it difficult to pull all the information together. It is impossible to evaluate the alternative when only sketchy amounts of generalized information are provided to the reader. Where is the detail for each of the proposed road corridors? Where is the information on what is liable to happen to the GSMNP during the construction phase – is it even mentioned? The document is inconsistent.