The EIS process, to date has identified six alternatives. Additionally, it has been explained that combinations of the alternatives will be considered. In the most recent workshops it has become apparent that the cost figures for all the construction alternatives do not include any amounts to Swain County for damages. This is an error. The matter at hand is to find a way to discharge and satisfy obligations that presently exist, not solely the obligations that existed in the year 1943. The frame of reference is 2005 not 1943. There presently exists the specific issue of the road and also the issue of the damages suffered by Swain County as a result of the 62 year delay. The delay has been the result of irregular funding from Congress and from conscious decisions of government officials after money was appropriated. This has not been addressed by the EIS process despite practically unanimous support from all parties providing input to the EIS, the chairs of the groups represented, and the local, state and federally elected officials.

The selection of a preferred alternative, known specifically in advance, that does not have any hope for approval from the Swain County Commissioners, would be irresponsible to Swain County, NPS, and the citizens of the United States . Except for the Settlement option, no other alternative can reasonably be selected without some advance written recognition from the Swain County Board of Commissioners that such an alternative would be received favorably. The EIS process of selecting a preferred alternative is fatally flawed for any alternative selected that does not include an assessment of how it would be received by the Swain County Board of Commissioners.

The Department of Interior should not ignore its own recent renewed commitment to local government participation. The Department recently proposed changes to its NEPA regulations which would require that Swain County be allowed to participate more fully in the EIS development process. See Notice of Proposed Changes to Procedures; Request for Comments, 70 FR 13203. The proposed regulations would require the Park Service to invite Swain County to participate in the EIS development as a cooperating agency, and then to ensure that throughout the development of an EIS, the Park Service would collaborate with Swain County to the fullest extent practicable. Swain County has made clear that it supports only the monetary settlement option as a resolution. See Swain County Board of Commissioners Resolution of Feb. 11, 2003. Swain County has also made clear that it has been ignored in the process of creating an EIS to discharge and satisfy obligations under the 1943 Agreement.

As a professional architect, I am very skeptical of the conclusions of the team evaluating the EIS. From the beginning, the alternatives put forward for consideration, with the exception of “no action” and “monetary settlement” have been what one would expect from a huge engineering firm...huge engineering projects. In simple terms, I do not believe that it is appropriate to ask an engineer if he would rather build a road or not. The firm has consistently minimized both the cost and impact of road building. In the end, if the road is built, the engineers chosen to design it may be the only ones to truly benefit from the project.

I appreciate the fact that you are seeking public comment on the proposed “Road to Nowhere” completion. A number of issues are involved in this project which makes decisions difficult. On one hand are a limited number of persons who seek access to graves of their ancestors. On the other hand is the welfare of and environmental impact on the most visited national park in the United States.

The impact analysis was very good, particularly the economic studies. I want to keep in mind that the North Shore Road will be limited access with zero possibility for commercial development.

We would like to request a more balanced study of the potential impacts which the North Shore Corridor Road would have on the surrounding communities. The Preliminary Alternative Report is biased, reporting on the potential for job creation but not reporting the potential negative impacts associated with this project. We think these potential negatives need to be addressed as well.

Reasonable

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, you must consider all reasonable alternatives. “To be reasonable, an alternative must not create any truly unique problems such as unusual factors, extraordinary magnitude of cost compared to benefits, community or environmental disruption of extraordinary magnitude, loss of irretrievable GSMNP resources, or an accumulation of these factors.” Preliminary Alternatives Report, p. 5.

“Additional information obtained at any time in the NEPA process may cause elimination of an alternative if that alternative is found not to be reasonable or feasible in the future.” Preliminary Alternatives Report, p. 5. When Congress appropriated $16 million to study the alternatives, the full build alternative was estimated to cost $150 million. See North Shore Road Newsletter 1, p. 3 (Feb. 2003). The cost estimates are already more than twice this amount and all mitigation costs are not included. “The cost of public projects is a relevant element in all of them, and the government, just as anyone else, is not required to proceed oblivious to elements of cost. And when serious problems are created by its public projects, the Government is not barred from making a common sense adjustment in the interest of all the public. United States v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 554 (1946). The growing cost estimate, as well as repeated indications that the road would cause environmental degradation, renders a full build option no longer reasonable.

The reasonableness of building and maintaining a road must be considered within the context of the Park's funding reality.

Of the four action alternatives identified for detailed study, only the monetary settlement both serves the purpose and need of the project and passes the test of reasonableness stated by the NPS.

Although the Preliminary Alternatives Report asserted that all alternatives chosen for detailed study, including the North Shore Corridor, satisfied the Service's test of reasonableness, the Service noted that a new evaluation might be warranted as new information became available later in the course of the study. The NPS now has new information warranting such a reevaluation and establishing by any standard that the North Shore Corridor alternative is not reasonable. In particular, the North Shore Corridor alternative is not suitable as a preferred alternative because of the “extraordinary magnitude of cost compared to benefits.” The NPS has revised its estimate of road construction from $150 million in the Preliminary Alternatives Report to $374 million, and that includes only some of the costs of mitigation. At this price, the cost of the North Shore Corridor alternative is more than seven times the cost of the Monetary Settlement alternative. Even this revised estimate understates the true cost of constructing the North Shore Corridor alternative.

Given the extraordinary magnitude of the $374 million cost estimate for construction of the North Shore Corridor alternative, a number which is likely a significant underestimate of the final cost, the North Shore Corridor alternative cannot survive the test of reasonableness identified by the NPS for this project because it is neither prudent nor feasible.

The NPS must select the monetary settlement as its preferred alternative because only the Monetary Settlement Alternative meets the test of reasonableness articulated by the NPS for the project. For purposes of this project, the NPS has defined a reasonable alternative as one that is both “prudent” and “feasible.” PAR at 4. “To be reasonable, an alternative must not create any truly unique problems such as unusual factors, extraordinary magnitude of cost compared to benefits, community or environmental disruption of extraordinary magnitude, loss of irretrievable GSMNP resources, or an accumulation of these factors.” PAR at 4. Of the four action alternatives identified for detailed study, only the Monetary Settlement alternative both serves the purpose and need of the project and passes this test of reasonableness.

Public Involvement

Public participation is a right created by Congress through NEPA which “provides for broad-based participation” and requires “a cross-pollinization of views.” Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1093 (10th Cir. 1988), National Park and Conservation Ass'n v. Federal Aviation Admin., 998 F.2d 1523, 1531 (10th Cir. 1993)(”Congress, through . . . NEPA, has determined that the public has a right to participate in actions affecting public lands.”). The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA-implementing regulations require that “Agencies shall: (a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.” 40 C.F.R. 1506.6. Public information boards are located at each end of the Lake Shore Trail. These should have been used to communicate the consideration of a plan to obliterate the Trail. Many of the people who use the Trail are not from the Swain County area and so would not have seen newspaper notices. The Park Service had placed notices of a change in the Trail route, so it is clearly possible to place notices where they will be seen by users of the Trail.

The public review process conducted by the National Park Service found that an overwhelming number of respondents would prefer a cash settlement option in lieu of construction of the North Shore Road.

You have conducted a number of public hearings, all in close geographic proximity to the Park. While the opinion of those living near the Park is important, you must not forget your larger mandate. Road construction will benefit only some of those who actually visit the Park (and interfere with the enjoyment of others), but the scientific, wildlife, and state of mind benefits of maintaining the largest unfragmented area in the Southeast are shared by a much larger number of people whose interests you must also consider and protect.

I want to thank you for the September Newsletter, especially for the map showing the Old Roadway and the Cemeteries. The description of the various proposals was very clear and I look forward to meeting you. Again thank you for the excellent newsletter.

Attached please find a copy of a letter written by [name omitted] to the pro road supporters along with copies of comments as suggested by her for them to send in regarding the EIS process. Please note the highlighted sections on each enclosed sheet. You will see from these copies how [name omitted] continues to try to influence the outcome of the EIS process by asking even children's names be signed to such comments. Tactics of this nature should be given no credence whatsoever. It is my opinion that all comments should be weighted according to their accuracy and their understanding of the issue. The post-it notes that were placed on the boards at the hearings (unsigned) should be disregarded. These same 30 to 40 people have made the same comments over and over. There can be nothing of value derived from this kind of procedure. I must once again ask you to consider this issue and base your findings on facts instead of the emotions of a few persons.

Concerning "September 2003 Comment Sheet Summary," "February/March 2004 Comment Sheet Summary," and Appendix D, "Public Comment Summaries" of the "Preliminary Alternatives Report," these three summaries of public comments are nearly useless:

A. Comments backed up by cogent analysis of facts are treated on exactly the same footing as comments that perpetuate misconceptions. (For example, the misconception that the NPS purchased the land in question and drove people from their homes, whereas in fact the land was purchased by the TVA, and people would have been driven from their homes whether or not the land ultimately became part of the national park.) Instead of trying to correct such misconceptions, the "Preliminary Alternatives Report" proudly states that the remarks are reported with equal weight even though they "do not necessarily reflect actual events and/or factual information" (Appendix D, page 2).

B. There is no quantitative information about the amount of support for various positions. When I wrote (6 November 2004) to protest this suppression of information, Imelda Wegwerth responded (10 January 2005) that summarization was the same "regardless if the comments were made by one individual or one thousand." I imagine that the project team would summarize the 2004 US Presidential election by saying that "some people voted for George W. Bush, and some people voted for Michael Anthony Peroutka". This is correct but not accurate: it ignores the fact that 200 people voted for Bush for every one person who voted for Peroutka (the candidate of the Constitution Party) and it also ignores all those who voted for Michael Badnarik (the candidate of the Libertarian Party)!