This alternative does satisfy the purpose and need requirement. Both Swain County and the State of North Carolina have stated officially that a cash settlement would satisfy them in their capacities as signatory parties to the 1943 Agreement. Previously the TVA and GSMNP have supported this concept. It is very likely that the signatories to the 1943 Agreement are in agreement as to the preferred alternative. This alternative is the only alternative that, in and of itself, will satisfy the 1943 Agreement. It would be tragic indeed for an alternative to be selected via intimidation that did not have the full and un-coerced support of even one of the signatory parties.

The most important piece of Alternative #2 is that it would have no impact on the natural environment. It is the only alternative that does not harm to wildlife or plant habitat. It leaves the largest unfragmented tract of mountain land in the east. It avoids the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species. Additionally, Alternative #2 leaves intact the forest canopy necessary to a healthy population of neotropical migratory songbirds. Other alternatives would create an orphan strip between the proposed road and Fontana Lake; a strip that cannot support the rich biodiversity that currently exists.

This alternative satisfies the purpose and need of the EIS. Swain County has repeatedly requested a monetary settlement of $52 million in full and fair settlement of all issues arising our of the 1943 Agreement. Acceptance by Swain County of this settlement in lieu of construction of the North Shore Road would satisfy and discharge all obligations of the United States under the Agreement.

The only reason that the Park Service is considering constructing an expensive and damaging road through the most popular national park in the United States is because of a very old agreement that benefits none of the original signatories. This is insanity. You have indicated that you will choose a preferred alternative. The only logical alternative is the $52 million settlement coupled with no build. This is the only alternative that will both protect the Park and end forever the recurring revisiting of this now-ancient agreement.

This alternative is the only one that has no impact on the environment. The purpose of the EIS is to identify and weigh impacts on the environment. The party to the 1943 Agreement most affected by the project is asking that the alternative be chosen which has zero environmental impact.

This alternative is economically the most favorable to Swain County . A cash settlement of $52 million, upon its receipt, will begin immediately to yield to the county $2 million to $2.5 million a year in interest. This yield will begin at once, not many years in the future. In fact, there is a good chance the road will never be completed. If it is completed, a completion date of only 15 years after construction starts is overly optimistic, as there would have to be regular and repeated appropriations for each stage.

This alternative is also more economically favorable to the United States Government. A complete build of the North Shore Corridor road would cost a minimum of $374 million. Swain County is asking for only $52 million in a cash settlement. The minimum cost of the road is more than seven times the cost of the monetary settlement. This comparison using the cost of a principal park road is appropriate. The 1943 Agreement calls for a road “finished throughout its length with a dustless surface not less than twenty (20) feet in width; . . . “The only construction standard that meets that specification is that of a principal park road. This alternative is the only alternative that offers any hope for a legal end to the situation. All the other alternatives hold the potential for serious and protracted litigation with uncertain outcomes both to Swain County and the government.

Paying Swain County $52 million the government can avoid spending $374 million, more than seven times the settlement amount. The economic benefit to Swain County from a settlement would be approximately four times the benefit to the county from the benefit from completing a $374 million road. Swain County is a signatory of the 1943 Agreement, and it is the benefit to it that is the most important. Any settlement with Swain County should be the one with the most direct economic benefit to it.

Swain County has offered the federal government the bargain of a lifetime. The build options without paying damages to Swain County will not resolve the 1943 Agreement. This should be a no-brainer. It is coercion and intimidation that complicates the issue. Yielding to it means selecting an alternative that does not have the support of any of the signatory parties. Absent intimidation, the Settlement alternative has the full support of all the signatory parties and permanently resolves the 1943 Agreement.

In 1946 the Supreme Court of the United States had to decide on whether the 1943 Agreement was valid. The Court held it was. In doing so, the Court pertinently said:

“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. [Citation omitted.] 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.”

The Supreme Court has put its finger on the situation here. It behooves the National Park Service to pay attention to the costs of this project, and to settle with Swain County at a fraction of the cost of building the road. Such a settlement would be in accord with both the Redwood Amendments and with the reasoning of the Court: it would be in the interest of all the public.

The monetary settlement alternative is the common sense alternative. It is the only way to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the 1943 Agreement that is both logical and prudent.

We support the monetary settlement alternative, which calls for a cash settlement of $52 million (2004 dollars) to Swain County, North Carolina .

Swain County is willing to accept substitute performance of $52 million rather than construction of an unnecessary road. See Swain County Board of Commissioners Resolution, Feb. 3, 2003 (Commissioners voting 4 to 1 in favor of settlement). In addition to benefiting the residents of Swain County , settlement is a much better deal for the people of the United States who would otherwise have to pay for road construction, mitigation, maintenance, security, and the litigation costs certain to accompany any plan to destroy the serenity and seclusion of a large swath of the Park. In his concurrence to Welch, Justice Reed made a statement that rings equally true today:

[When the [TVA] was faced with the problem of justly compensating the occupants of the forty-four thousand acre area between the Fontana Dam Lake and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Swain County for the destruction of Highway No. 288, it could within its delegated powers purchase or condemn the lands affected or build a substitute highway whichever appeared cheaper. The United States is not barred from the exercise of good business judgment in its construction work. (emphasis added). Exercising even a modicum of good business judgment, the Park should take this opportunity to please all of the signatories, save the American taxpayer some money, and settle this nagging issue forever. The Secretary must give appropriate weight to the Swain County Board of Commissioners' wishes for substitute performance. The Swain County Board of Commissioners is the only body with authority to settle contracts on behalf of the County. North Carolina Statutes 153A-1 1, 153A-34. The Secretary of Interior is required to “(a) carry out the programs, projects, and activities of the agency. . . that implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that: (iii) properly accommodates local participation in Federal Decision making” [Federal Register: August 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 167)] [Page 52989-52990] EO 13352 (Aug 26, 2004).]

We are unalterably opposed to any further construction whatsoever beyond the current terminus of Lakeview Drive. We support the monetary settlement alternative, which calls for a cash settlement of $52 million to Swain County, North Carolina .

This alternative does resolve the 1943 agreement and does the best job of empowering Swain County to build a sustainable and better future. [Organization affiliation omitted] supports a financial settlement to Swain County of at least $52 million to be placed in trust. Such a fund held by Swain County would enable the County to work creatively to more fully tap the educational, recreational, health, environmental and economic potential of the A.T., approximately 64 miles of which are located in Swain Co.

On February 11, 2003, the Swain County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution supporting a financial settlement as a substitute, which would satisfy any debt in lieu of construction of the road.

Instead of offering an estimate for a range of possible outcomes the NPS has assumed only that Swain County would spend the entirety of the monetary settlement within 18 years on small capital projects. That scenario is not based on any plan or suggestion by Swain County as to how it would invest the $52 million provided by the Monetary Settlement alternative.

NPS analysis falls short of its duty to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” alternatives under consideration. Directors Order 12 and MP 2001 requires that The NPS management decisions must be “based on ample technical and scientific studies,” and “guided by high-quality, scientifically acceptable information.” To meet these standards and to allow comparison among the alternatives, the NPS must consider a range of possible uses for the monetary settlement and their impact on the Swain County economy. Those uses could include education, economic development seed money, and other programs that would improve the long-term economic productivity of the county.

The cash settlement is the only reasonable and legal alternative. No other alternative satisfies both the need for this action to settle the 1943 agreement and satisfy the legal and policy requirements to avoid impairing park resources and values. In addition, the full build alternative fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness established by the NPS. The extraordinary cost of the road, the probable underestimation of costs, and the opposition of key parties to the full build alternative make it unreasonable and unviable. The Settlement Alternative, which will cost a fraction of the full-build alternative and have no impairment of park values and resources makes the Settlement Alternative the only reasonable, viable, and legal alternative.

We support the monetary settlement because the North Shore Road will cut through the heart of the largest unfragmented tract of mountain terrain in the eastern United States, causing severe negative impacts to the resources within the park and wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Only two of the five alternatives retained for detailed study, the monetary settlement and the North Shore Corridor, will serve the purpose and need for this project: discharging the United States ' commitments under its 1943 agreement with Swain County , the State of North Carolina , the Department of Interior (DOl) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Of these two alternatives, only the Monetary Settlement complies with the Organic Act, National Park Service (NPS) Management Policies, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) General Management Plan (GMP), and the screening criteria identified by NPS for this project. Accordingly, the Service must select the monetary settlement as its preferred alternative.

Of the alternatives under consideration, the monetary settlement provides the greatest benefit with the lowest cost and risk to park resources. Both the Swain County Commission and the Bryson City Board of Aldermen have officially resolved to accept a monetary settlement of the 1943 agreement of $52 million. The monetary settlement has two significant advantages: 1) it will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars less, and 2) it has the potential to provide greater benefits than any other alternative under consideration.

The monetary settlement option would avoid the impairment to park resources that would result from selection of any of the build alternatives. The full-build alternative must not be chosen as the preferred alternative because, as described below, it will cause adverse impacts to park ecosystems, individual species, water quality, cultural resources, recreation, and security that are inconsistent with the conservation mandate of the NPS and with NPS policy.

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 articulated by NPS. “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.”

The question of how to satisfy the 1943 Agreement has plagued NPS for over six decades. The reasons that NPS stopped building the North Shore Road in the early 1970s, namely that the environmental and economic costs were so extreme the road could not be justified are even truer today. The people of Swain County have spoken through the Swain County Commission and have demanded a monetary settlement in lieu of the North Shore Road . [Organization affiliation omitted] stands with Swain County in support of a monetary settlement. The monetary settlement is the only solution that is consistent with both federal law and NPS policy, will not impair park resources or waste taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

I stand with the citizens of Swain County and the state of North Carolina in support of the cash settlement alternative in lieu of the proposal to build the North Shore Road within our Great Smoky Mountains National Park. My family visits Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The last thing we want to see is an unnecessary road through this precious wilderness.

The cash settlement fulfills a promise to the people of Swain County made in 1943 and protects the beautiful backcountry of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park . North Carolina has defiled enough backcountry with roads and exploitive actions. Let's build the future of Swain County , not another road through the Smokies! Please take this matter to heart. I have traveled extensively and still consider the Smokies to be among the most beautiful places on earth.

Please build a future for Swain County. Please build a beautiful ecological legacy for children yet to come all over America ! Do the right thing for the American citizens.

Another thing that's happened, large amounts of money, this business of settlement of money. Large amounts of county money had been stolen. No assurance that settlement would not slip away. Money goes away because of politicians behind the scenes. $400,000 which first came at the beginning of agreements disappeared, and I ask “Why wasn't anything done?” No one knew about it for years. They found out later. Money corrupts and there are no assurances that in receiving the money there will be no corruptions and it will not satisfy the promise of the government. I am dismayed by the government, what they did to the Cherokees in the Trail of Tears. Because these people were driven out and people who had cars, some of the cars have been left there. There are still there because the bridges were blown up so the people could not get in and out, because a lot of people didn't want to leave and didn't leave. The road there is beautiful.

Recommend cash settlement. Makes the most economic, environmental, and social sense. It's what many of the people of Swain want, and what many of NC want. Environmental degradation would be huge. Impact people's health, and it would impact the economy, so cash settlement is the best option.

Monetary settlement because people have voiced that they would accept the money. Best alternative to fulfill agreement.

Support cash settlement. Only two alternatives satisfy the agreement: building the road and the cash settlement. Settlement is in line with park service mission, makes most sense for environment and people of Swain.

Support cash settlement. Costs are too high for the road. Park Service should look at Corridor K in TN, through the Ocoee River gorge, 20 miles of road estimated at $1.5 billion. Issues associated with additional access should play a huge role in the decision making.

I'm the executive director of the [organization omitted], which is an environmental organization made up of over 800 residents of Western North Carolina . And our position is we are in favor of the cash settlement because we think that the construction of the road would be environmentally destructive, needlessly costly and would not create the sort of benefits that the pro-road folks are representing. There are a whole slew of environmental concerns that we have with the road, from the opening up of the Anakeesta acidic rock formation to destroying wetland habitats and the whole laundry list of problems with road construction. And we think that the Park Service should stay true to its mission to provide a park that is unimpaired for our future generations. And the cash settlement is the only -- the only end of this process that would meet those requirements.

I want to make a few comments about what I would support on this issue. First of all, I think there are many considerations but the ones that I hold the strongest are the impacts to the park itself, to the wildlife and all of the humanity from outside the state and in the state that is going to use this park. So I think the best thing to do is not build anything and to provide funds for Swain County to use as -- to their own benefit. And I think used wisely it will bring much more benefit to the people of the county. Now, one thing we don't consider enough of is -- is the people that don't get a vote or don't get to write an opinion, and that's all the wildlife in this area. I know -- I'm very aware from reading about many of the environmental negative impacts on it, such as air quality and the heavy use of the park, I -- there are already a lot of problems and I don't see how any of them will be solved by building another road in here. I would advocate measures that would actually do more to protect the park. So I think that it is important to maintain your commitments, but here's a case where a commitment actually is -- going very specific to the commitments made back in the ‘40's would serve a few people but the broader service to the public and to the area would be best served by not building. So, again, I would like to say that I would advocate not building and providing the money to the citizens of Swain County .

So what alternative is left which would satisfy the parties to the 1943 agreement? The Monetary Settlement is the only viable alternative. It will protect the resources in the Park, satisfy the Federal Government's obligation and best serve the interests of the majority of the people in Swain County. This is supported by the fact that our elected officials on the local and state level support a cash settlement. We support the Monetary Settlement Alternative.

I am writing to comment on the North Shore Road EIS. I am in support of Alternative #2 which involves a $52 million cash settlement to the people of Swain County , North Carolina. The County Commissioners are also in support of a monetary settlement. By paying Swain County a cash settlement, the natural environment of this remote area of Smoky Mountain National Park will not be harmed or impacted by road-building. Only Alternative #2 offers protection for wildlife and plant habitat while avoiding the introduction of exotic species into the area as a result of cutting trees for the building of a new road.

My wife and I wish to thank you for this opportunity to send comments on the North Shore Road . We have attended most of the recent public meetings on this issue in Bryson City and share a great interest in seeing this issue resolved in the most equitable and balanced manner for Swain County. We live in Jackson County and have enjoyed the Park for the past 30 years. We support Alternative #2, the $52 Million financial settlement for Swain County as the only viable alternative that meets the purpose and need of this project. The Swain County Commissioners and Town of Bryson City (as well as the State of North Carolina) have clearly indicated their preference for such a settlement. The estimated $2.5 Million annual interest from the Settlement Trust Fund would benefit Swain County and its citizens far more than building the road, providing money for education, economic development seed money, social services, and other programs that would improve the long-term economic productivity of the county.

I am writing you to give an opinion about the alternatives proposed for the North Shore Road Project. After reading over the alternatives, it seems to me that the alternative that would satisfy the most people and be in the best interest of the National Park is the one that requires the Department of Interior to pay Swain County a cash settlement of $52 million in lieu of building the North Shore Road.

I urge you to cancel the proposed North Shore Road in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. A reasonable and prudent alternative exists between Bryson City and Fontana Dam via a four-lane highway covering two-thirds of the distance on the south side of Fontana Lake . The remainder is built to modem specifications. NC 28 serves all the transportation needs. As an alternative to the North Shore Road, the economic benefit to the area would be heavily weighted by a cash settlement in lieu of the “1943 Agreement”. The Swain County Commission and Bryson City Aldermen have approved a cash settlement in lieu of the road.

The controversy over the proposed North Shore Road between Bryson City and Fontana Dam is still in progress. This letter is to inform you that we strenuously oppose the construction of the proposed North Shore Road. We believe that the alternative, a cash settlement to Swain County in lieu of the road, is fair and equitable to all concerned.

The Swain County Commission, in whose county the proposed project is located, have voted to accept a financial settlement in lieu of completing the road. The impact on tourism was not judged to be of paramount concern. Governor Easley also has favored the financial settlement, which would benefit the County for years to come. (The funds would be placed in a trust fund with interest used to benefit Swain County.)

This argument could go on for many more years; but resolution is in sight. I ask that the decision-makers come to a solid conclusion; namely, that this proposed road-building would not be in the interest of the greater public good.

I would like to take this opportunity to voice my support of the Monetary Payment Alternative (No Road-building) in the North Shore Road Environmental Impact Statement. This option would permanently settle the 1943 Agreement for a very reasonable price, especially in comparison to the high cost and environmental folly of building an unneeded road in an irreplaceable wilderness area. I hope that park managers will be able to fully protect the natural and cultural resource treasures within Great Smoky Mountains National Park and preserve this outstanding mountain wilderness area intact for future generations.

A road must not be constructed north of Fontana Lake and in the GSMN Park. According to the “1943 Agreement”, between $59 and $69 million dollars would be paid to Swain County, in lieu of several hundred million dollars for the construction of the subject road.

To me it seems the most equitable and satisfactory solution to this issue for everyone (including the US taxpayers) would the Monetary Settlement to Swain County Alternative.

I am writing to provide input regarding my view of what should be the resolution to the proposal to construct the North Shore Road within the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It is clear to anyone who is conservative and concerned about the natural integrity of this valuable natural resource that the only alternative that satisfies the 1943 Agreement is the cash settlement option. This solution has been accepted by Swain County and the state of North Carolina — the principal participants in the original agreement. It will be less expensive for the US government and provide greater and more immediate economic benefits for Swain County than the construction of the road. It will also protect the integrity of the GSMNP which would be devastated by the construction of this road.

Much has changed since the 1943 Agreement was signed. No one could foresee how valuable a resource this large and intact natural area would become. The cash settlement meets all of the criteria necessary to discharge the responsibility of the United States government in settling this issue. It does so in a fashion that is conservative economically and is also environmentally responsible. Now is the time to put an end to controversy and settle this issue properly.

Forty to fifty million dollars, invested wisely, can give Swain County a very bright future. A needless, destructive road which will cost five or ten times as much as the cash settlement, do little or nothing for Swain County, and will do great harm to the National Park is a fool's choice. The people of Swain County aren't fools; I don't believe they will let it happen!

I can no longer go to meetings but I have had the good fortune to have hiked in the Smokies for 50 years and want the Park to be available for future generations. The proposed North Shore Road is the worst threat to the Park since its establishment. The cash settlement to Swain County in lieu of the proposed road is a win-win solution. To insure the preservation of the Park for the sake of wildlife and the environment and for future generations of citizens I urge you to oppose the road and support the cash settlement to Swain County .

We believe that the alternative, a cash settlement to Swain County in lieu of the road, is fair and equitable to all concerned.

This road has been a festering sore in this county for too long. As one of the poorest areas in the state, a cash settlement for Swain County , carefully crafted to ensure long-term use of the proceeds for the benefit of education or job creation, makes eminently more sense. It is our strong opinion that the cash settlement option is the only sensible, realistic, environmentally sound solution to this decades-old controversy.

We are okay with giving Swain Co. a lump-sum payment in lieu of the road, if the amount is not too inflated.

I support the monetary settlement plan; this will provide the financial benefits to Swain county that supposedly would be generated by the road, without the negative impacts. If necessary, additional funds should also be allocated so that the National Park Service can provide more timely and convenient opportunities for members of the families relocated to make way for Fontana Lake to visit the graves of their ancestors.

As we have previously notified Arcadis, the National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration, in order to settle the 1943 Agreement the only alternative acceptable to Swain County is the $52 million settlement. We reject all other alternatives. Please consider this to be Swain County 's only position as a signatory to the 1943 Agreement.

Next Page >