FEBRUARY/MARCH 2004 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

1. Which alternative do you most prefer? Please explain what you like about this alternative and any suggestions you have to further improve it.

Many respondents commenting on specific questions in the Comment Sheet Questionnaire directed their feedback toward Question 1 within the subsequent questions. For this reason, many of the responses to Questions 2 through 4 were integrated into the summaries for No. 1 on the Comment Sheet Questionnaire.

Overview

The public acknowledges the various opinions regarding the best solution for the area along the northern shore of Fontana Lake . These include concepts focusing on preservation and conservation, growth and economic opportunity, access, heritage, and fulfilling the promise from 1943.

Some local citizens favor satisfying the terms of the 1943 Agreement, which they feel would only be accomplished by building an east-to-west route along the northern shore of Fontana Lake.

Others comment that the build alternatives do not comply with the park purpose or the original NPS Organic Act. They state that any of the proposed build alternatives are a direct violation of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Department of Transportation Act, and the Wilderness Act of 1964, among others. Many focus on protecting and preserving the natural and cultural resources associated with GSMNP and state that they will do whatever it takes to avoid destruction of GSMNP resources.

and the surrounding area. Some individuals comment that there may be potential compromise solutions, such as partial-build alternatives, that would serve various parties' interests by minimizing the potential negative environmental impacts while providing benefits to the local citizens (i.e., strengthening the local economy and providing more access).

As indicated through the various viewpoints included in the public comments, the public values the tract of land among the northern shore of Fontana Lake for many reasons. People value the history behind the land, the current beauty and solitude it offers, the vast amount of flora and fauna present in GSMNP, and the potential for enhanced opportunities in the area.

Suggested Modifications to All Alternatives

People comment that a few modifications need to be made to all alternatives in order to better represent the various views of the public. These modifications include: improving existing roads to cultural sites and trailheads in the North Shore area; designing/obtaining new handicapped-accessible boats for use in transporting people across Fontana Lake; providing more consistent service across the lake (whenever lake levels permit); creating innovative ways to deal with lake-level fluctuations to ensure more consistent access; creating new park positions to operate the boats to provide for more regular trips; using improved roads to lead guided tours of cultural sites and to transport visitors to these areas or to access remote trailheads; and creating a cultural heritage center that celebrates the cultural and natural history of the area. Most people agree that the government needs to acknowledge the sacrifices made by the relocated families.

No-Action

The public acknowledges that the No-Action Alternative is required by NEPA for a baseline study. People comment that although this is the least costly and least environmentally damaging alternative and does not intrude into parklands, it is politically unviable.

Some feel that catering to the needs of the formers residents of the road (any alternative) is wrong. Others question why the government would want to change something that has been working for over 60 years and would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Some people comment that while they prefer the No-Action Alternative, they understand that it would cause too much hostility with local citizens. For this reason, these individuals shift their support to a second choice, the Monetary Settlement Alternative.

Others state that if the No-Action Alternative is selected, the EIS process will result in a broken contract and the government should return the land to its original occupants.

Monetary Settlement

There are diverse views regarding the Monetary Settlement Alternative. Many people feel that a monetary settlement for Swain County would raise the standard of living for local residents and could be used to benefit the county's infrastructure and public works. Others suggest that the citizens or government would be able to use the interest from investing the settlement for tourism or to provide jobs that pay a wage comparable to the statewide average.

People state that the monetary settlement would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in both initial construction and short- and long-term maintenance costs when compared with build alternatives. Others state that the monetary settlement is the obvious solution because it has the political backing necessary for implementation. (The Monetary Settlement Alternative has been agreed to by four-fifths of the Swain County commissioners and is supported by Senator John Edwards and Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina ). Others comment that the settlement fairly disposes of the government's obligation, provides a significant savings to taxpayers, prevents construction of an unnecessary road, preserves the wild integrity of GSMNP, and provides the greatest public good. Individuals state that this alternative is the most environmentally, socially, and culturally reasonable, responsible, and effective solution. In addition, the settlement preserves the unique recreational opportunities that exist in GSMNP, some state.

Some local citizens comment that the Swain County commissioners' vote favoring the settlement does not represent the views of the residents of Swain County . They view the settlement as an attempt to buy out the local community, and they state that the county government would misuse the settlement. People also comment that a monetary settlement was not mentioned in the 1943 MOA and the only legal alternative is to build the road.

Other people state that the Monetary Settlement Alternative should be tied in some meaningful way to the environmental and educational goals of the National Park Service.

Environmental and Cultural Resources

Some people state that they understand the history and grief surrounding the project within Swain County , but add that they are more concerned with the global issue of a national park. They comment that the monetary settlement is a small price to pay to secure the future of limited public lands in the eastern United States . These individuals comment that the Swain County citizens deserve a monetary settlement and the whole country deserves the GSMNP protected and preserved for future generations. Many people who favor a monetary settlement say they are concerned with the potential negative environmental impacts associated with any build alternative.

Commenters feel that this alternative protects natural resources, including water quality, air quality, threatened and endangered species, acidic rock, and topographic scars, and it prevents habitat fragmentation in GSMNP. In addition, individuals state that this alternative would be the least damaging to the cultural resources within the study area.

In order to further limit development, some comment that roadway access should be limited in GSMNP. People also suggest restricting horse use and motor access, as well as closing the current road and tunnel, to minimize environmental impacts.

People also comment that there are no guarantees for how the monetary settlement would be used and that it may be used for development, which would result in environmental impacts.

Funding Amount and Allocation

Comments address the desired amount for the monetary settlement. Some say that the $2.5 million (approximately 5 percent interest) Swain County would receive in interest would be a benefit to the people who deserve a settlement. Others state that $52 million is not enough. These individuals comment that the monetary settlement amount should equal the estimated cost of building the North Shore Road (Northern Shore Corridor), including the bridges, but not less than $52 million. Others state they would prefer cash or bonds equal to the total amount that Swain County paid off for the submerged road (old NC 288) at present (2004) value. People also suggest that North Carolina should receive annual payments based on what Tennessee receives for providing GSMNP access. In addition, people suggest using the remainder of the $16 million EIS funding toward a settlement once a record of decision has been reached. Some who are weary of the allocation method state that the money for the settlement cannot come from the Park Management Budget, as an extensive backlog already exists.

One public concern is to not provide a lump-sum amount, but provide a yearly payment schedule to ensure an improved quality of life and to prevent money being squandered. Those who oppose the monetary settlement say they feel that it would be misappropriated by city and state politicians, lawyers, and unelected officials. They voice concern that the money would never get to the local citizens and that the local community would never reap the benefits of such a settlement.

People countering this argument say that there is proposed legislation that eliminates the possibility of money squandering. Comments state that the money would be deposited with the North Carolina Local Government Commission and that the commission would have the expertise and experience to invest it. Others comment that the money would only be expended by Swain County under a resolution approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the registered voters of the county.

Others recommend that the financial settlement include restitution for the estimated revenues lost and to be lost due to the lack of a road. In contrast, people comment that the government should make payments to Swain County as compensation for maintaining the wild integrity of GSMNP.

Some feel that citizens of Graham County should be provided a portion of the monetary settlement. Some state that there was nowhere for their families to relocate to in Swain County and they were forced to move to Graham County (when referring to relocation in 1943). These individuals contend that a portion of relocated families now resides in Graham County and insist these families should be compensated.

Suggestions for Use

The public makes suggestions on how to potentially allocate and implement the monetary settlement.

Suggested uses for the settlement include: improving cemetery access programs with more frequent visits and upgraded roads, as well as improved bridges; providing maintenance and protection of cemeteries and other cultural resources; giving a portion of the monetary settlement to those families displaced by the 1943 Agreement; providing a settlement to enhance community infrastructure and public works; maintaining all existing programs and upkeep of the Fontana Lake area by NPS; increasing service amenities in the park; improving pedestrian bikeways; providing motorized access from the lakeshore to amenities via Lakeshore Trail and other trails within the southern boundary; providing seed money for grants; using bond monies for “green” programs, such as education on sustainable forest management strategies; providing a green corridor for foot travel with overlooking vistas; increasing public safety (law enforcement, new jail), emergency services (ambulance, fire), and healthcare/human services; developing recreation, camping, and hiking utilities; enhancing the educational system, providing salary supplements for teachers, and developing scholarship funds; enhancing community functions and services; and enhancing the employability of Swain High School graduates, as well as the general workforce.

Some people also suggest using the money to purchase more land, extend NPS borders, and create a true wilderness corridor between GSMNP and the Nantahala National Forest land. People also comment that NPS could provide boat tours, with services contracted to local vendors. Other people comment that the monetary settlement should fund the development of management plans to increase opportunities for low-impact, non-motorized recreational opportunities. Others suggest providing a 10 percent stipend of the monetary settlement figure for economic development of the study area. In addition, some comment that a portion of the monetary settlement needs to go to the Cherokee Indian Reservation.

Combinations with other Alternatives

There are suggestions for combining the monetary settlement with modifications of other alternatives. Some people suggest combining the Monetary Settlement Alternative with the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative to provide a settlement plus a destination at the end of Lake View Road with camping, picnic areas, waysides, and interpretive possibilities. Suggestions are made for constructing a dirt road to the Laurel Branch Picnic Area in lieu of a two-lane, paved road. Others suggest that a permanent, frequently scheduled ferry service from Fontana Dam or a new location on the southern shore needs to be provided to take tourists, hikers, and cemetery visitors to various destinations along the northern shore of Fontana Lake.

Some suggestions would combine the monetary settlement with the Partial Build Alternative to Bushnell or similar cultural interpretive area focusing on local history and culture. People comment that the settlement could be used to purchase private, undeveloped land for the cultural museum area.

Opinions differ about whether the money for associated destination areas or amenities should come from the original monetary settlement figure.

Laurel Branch Picnic Area

People comment that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative would provide a destination for many people who view the current roadway ( Lake View Drive ) as “The Road to Nowhere.” People also state that the alternative would provide long-term benefits by contributing to local business without destroying the environment. The public also comments that the alternative would allow access and enjoyment by creating a use of the existing infrastructure ( Lake View Road and tunnel) without forfeiting the beauty and solitude of GSMNP. Other people comment that enhanced facilities at Laurel Branch would provide more income to the local residents and to Bryson City . Many of the people who prefer the Monetary Settlement Alternative state that they oppose all alternatives that build roads except for the Laurel Branch Picnic Area.

Some commenters, acknowledging that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative is already included in the National Park Services' General Management Plan (GMP), comment that it is not a meaningful alternative since it will probably be developed without the study.

Some road proponents feel that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative is an embarrassment to the local community. They state that this alternative provides the least benefit to relocated families and their descendants. Some people who advocate more road construction state that they already have picnic areas and that this is not what $16 million was appropriated for and it does not fulfill the Agreement.

People against development within this area state that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area would attract more people and destroy much of the charm of the “abandoned” tunnel. Other individuals oppose any development, including the Laurel Branch Picnic Area, stating a concern about increased litter and traffic on the northern shore of Fontana Lake . People also mention concern for increased impacts associated with everyday picnic areas, including noise, smoke, and associated clean-up.

Recreational Use – Trails

People comment that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative would provide more trails with a staging area for hikers on Laurel Branch and Noland Creek. Suggestions are made to extend the existing road ( Lake View Drive ) a minimal distance to a picnic or staging area where a trail could lead to the cemeteries. Other suggestions include an unpaved roadway/bikeway/hiking trail extending to the Fontana Dam area. Others suggest extending the road southward from Laurel Branch to Carson Mill, along the eastern shore of Fontana Lake .

Amenities

People comment that the alternative would provide better interpretive possibilities than currently exist. They suggest an interpretive center or visitor's center and campground facilities near the picnic area, including bathroom facilities and historical informational kiosks. Other suggested amenities that include pre-cast, concrete tables; wilderness-style sanitary facilities; spur trails with connections with existing trail system in the interior; and conducted, park-guided vehicular access to cemetery sites.

One respondent commented that the tunnel could be renovated as an educational classroom. Other suggestions include converting the tunnel into an exhibit describing the history of converting the area back to a natural resource, while complementing the cultural center in Bryson City .

Suggestions are also made for the road to stop prior to the tunnel as a tourist attraction showing the attempt to violate mountain wilderness. Others state that the tunnel should be removed if this alternative is chosen.

Combinations with Other Alternatives

One combination alternative mentioned states that in addition to the Laurel Branch Picnic Area, there should be another picnic area or visitor center at Flint Gap, just west of the Eagle Creek confluence, to provide access in the western portion of GSMNP. Visitors could learn about each area's cultural resources without building a road along the northern shore of Fontana Lake , some state. Some suggest that there should be a combination of the Laurel Branch Picnic Area and a heritage center at Bushnell. Other people suggest providing a staffed, interpretive center at Laurel Branch and/or Cable Cove instead of at Bushnell, or west of Flint Gap.

Suggestions are also made to combine the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative with the Monetary Settlement Alternative, using the settlement money for trail maintenance and preservation of existing cultural and recreational sites on the north shore.

Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell

Some proponents state that the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would provide long-term benefits by bringing business and tourism into the area. The public comments that this alternative would provide an economic benefit to residents of both Swain and Graham counties by providing a unique attraction likely to interest a wide range of visitors, from backpackers and day hikers to heritage tourists and former area residents and their descendents. People also comment that this alternative would add value to GSMNP, satisfy the 1943 agreement, and create a scenic drive for sightseers. A cultural heritage center would also provide opportunities for locals and park staff to interact and to build trust and meaningful relationships, some add. Some feel that although this concept may not fulfill the original promise, it may fulfill the general intent of the original agreement by providing increased access into the northern shore of Fontana Lake .

Some opponents to this alternative are concerned with providing development in the area of Bushnell because of the expenditures associated with maintenance and management. Others state concern about constructing a facility in a location unable to utilize existing public works and utilities, including water and sewer lines and electricity. In addition, most who view the Northern Shore Corridor as settling the 1943 Agreement state that the Agreement would not be satisfied solely with this alternative.

Amenities

Some people suggest amenities such as a campground, boat-access area, a large parking lot, a heritage center, a picnic area with hiker access points, and wildlife-viewing areas. Others comment that an education and heritage center would be sufficient at this location, but that the first priority is the road (the Northern Shore Corridor without the bridges). Others comment that the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would be attractive if camping, history of the area and GSMNP, and lake access are provided. People comment that this alternative addresses the interests of former residents of this area who do not live in Swain County .

Suggestions are made to create a cultural heritage museum that celebrates the history of the area and the sacrifices that local residents made for WW II and includes an overview of the legacy they have left behind—GSMNP. This would include oral histories, photos, and stories about the history of this tract of land on the northern shore, including the controversies surrounding it. People also comment that this museum could provide exhibits, guided excursions to local areas, and interpretive trips with exhibits to historic sites within the area. Others suggest hiring a local artist and writer to document the history of the area through a publication.

Suggestions are given to build the museum and/or interpretive center in other locations, such as Bryson City , Proctor, or another location outside the park.

Environmental

Some people state that this alternative would allow access and enjoyment of the northern shore area with minimal impacts to the beauty, solitude, and GSMNP wilderness. In addition, some state that the backcountry experience would largely be protected and any potential adverse environmental impacts of a road would be significantly reduced under this alternative, including poaching. People also comment that access to trails and the lakeside provided by a 4-mile road would not negatively impact the general wilderness area. Some state that a bridge would impact the wilderness and modifications for the road to go north of the water body (Forney Creek) need to be made. Some comment that this alternative would be less expensive than building the road (Northern Shore Corridor) and would potentially provide more benefits to all interested parties than would the road itself.

Combinations with Other Alternatives

Some individuals state that this option should be combined with the Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor. Others feel this alternative should be developed in combination with the Monetary Settlement Alternative or the Laurel Branch Picnic Area.

Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor

Some people suggest that this alternative would provide similar benefits to the Interior Corridor, but would be shorter, less expensive, and would disturb less of the park environment. These respondents feel that the Interior Corridor and Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor should not be eliminated.

Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove

Some individuals state that the Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove is the best of the build alternatives because it would be the least environmentally obtrusive. Others comment that the alternative would provide more overall benefits to Graham County . Some state that the location of Cable Cove is a good point-of-entry to NC 28, especially after the recent widening to four lanes.

 Opponents of the alternative comment that it would intrude on the Nantahala National Forest , destroy the Lakeshore Trail, and dramatically alter the landscape. Others suggest that this alternative should not include a recreational center south of Fontana Lake in Cable Cove because that is critical habitat for the cerulean warbler, a potentially threatened and endangered species. Others state that the cost of constructing and maintaining a bridge across Fontana Lake is not feasible. In addition, some comment that this alternative should be eliminated because it does not follow the intent of the 1943 Agreement.

Combination with other Alternatives

Some suggestions are made for a heritage center in the vicinity of Cable Cove Recreational Area in combination with the Monetary Settlement Alternative, beginning at NC 28. People comment that in addition to the Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative, the development of a one-way road from the tunnel to Cable Cove would provide for future good management practices in the area. Another commenter suggests constructing an aerial tram from Cable Cove to Welch Ridge as an attraction to view GSMNP waterfalls.

Interior Corridor

Some prefer the Interior Corridor because of the increased opportunity it provides to access the interior portion of the northern shore area of GSMNP by car, increasing access for day-trip hiking. Some also state that the Interior Corridor provides the elderly and disabled greater access to visit home sites and cemeteries deeper inside GSMNP. People comment that this alternative would have the most favorable economic impact on the communities on the south side of GSMNP due to the potential future development of new destinations.

Opponents of the Interior Corridor Alternative state that this alternative would cause more negative ecological, archaeological, economic, and recreational impacts than the other build alternatives. People comment on the value of protecting the undisturbed mountain land and vistas within GSMNP and state that the Interior Corridor Alternative would disrupt one of the few remaining wilderness areas in the eastern United States . Other people comment that this alternative does not provide enough access to historical locations as compared with the Northern Shore Corridor.

Combinations with other Alternatives

The public suggests modifications to this route by using the Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove to avoid having two bridge crossings. People also suggest combining the Interior Corridor Alternative with the Flint Gap Corridor Alternative.

Flint Gap Corridor

Those who favor the Flint Gap Corridor state that the alternative provides deeper access for the elderly and disabled to visit home sites and cemeteries.

Opponents of this alternative comment that they do not want any disturbance in the most remote part of GSMNP. People comment that the alternative would ruin streams, fishing, camping, and hiking in the area. People also comment that the Appalachian Trail views would be diminished by the major bridges. They also state that the Appalachian Trail would be forced to move and people would be required to travel longer on a paved road.

Combinations with other Alternatives

Many people comment that they prefer the Northern Shore Corridor with modifications of the Flint Gap Corridor to avoid major bridges over Eagle and Hazel creeks. Others suggest combining the Interior Corridor from Lake View Road to the Flint Gap Corridor.

Northern Shore Corridor

The Northern Shore Corridor is the longest alternative recommended for detailed study in the DEIS. For this reason, there was a large focus placed on the alternative by the public, with supporting and opposing viewpoints. Those individuals who favor roadway alternatives typically favor the Northern Shore Corridor, stating that it complies with the intent of the 1943 Agreement. People state that the other alternatives do not honor the Agreement, and they comment that their heritage is not for sale. Many proponents of this roadway alternative suggest focusing on the original promise before implementing any other ideas (partial- and no-build alternatives). People comment that the federal government's promise should be fulfilled because funds have been made available. Other individuals comment that the Northern Shore Corridor would begin the healing process between the citizens of Swain County and the federal government.

Opponents state that the road really does not comply with the 1943 Agreement, stating that the agreement mentions reconstruction only if thought to be a wise or efficient expenditure of public funds. In addition, road opponents state that a road is unnecessary, since NC 28 fulfills the transportation need. People comment that the old NC 288 roadway did not afford a high standard of service and that reconstruction or relocation would not be a wise expenditure. Many road opponents also state they are averse to building a road through the largest roadless area east of the Mississippi River .

Access

Individuals state that the Northern Shore Corridor provides more access to the over 28 cemeteries located on the northern shore of Fontana Lake than any of the other alternatives. They feel that increased access is needed for cemetery visitations and to view their heritage. Some individuals state that the current amenities provided by NPS are inadequate, dangerous, and do not allow for handicapped access into this area. Individuals also want their children and grandchildren (future generations) to be able to enjoy the area and be able to see where the former communities, businesses, and other cultural resources were located. Some state that this would be better accomplished by a road instead of using a boat.

Others state that increased GSMNP access would allow everyone an opportunity to visit some of the most remote land in eastern United States . People comment that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), everyone should be provided access to this part of the park. Some state that the Northern Shore Corridor should be built so everyone can access the hiking trails and wilderness.

Road opponents comment that increased access would place the cultural resources at an increased risk to looters and would expose cemeteries to the threat of vandalism. In addition, people show concern for increased noise, traffic, and litter that would accumulate on the northern shore if access was provided. People also comment that the GSMNP already suffers from overcrowding and deferred maintenance issues.

Economic Issues

People comment that since the Northern Shore Corridor would be in close proximity to old towns, homes, businesses, and cultural resource sites, the alternative would provide for the best tourism route in GSMNP. Some feel the Northern Shore Corridor would most benefit the local economy, provide an opportunity to reopen local mineral mines, and reverse the low-income status that resulted in Swain County because of lost tax base. People comment that most spending and public attention go to the west side ( Tennessee ) of the park, where the NPS park headquarters is located.

Road opponents state that jobs created from road construction would be short-term and that sustainable economic solutions should be sought instead. In addition, opponents state that they do not see the benefits of building a road, except to road builders, politicians, and land owners supporting their own interests. Road opponents also comment that tourism dollars spent along similar roadways, such as the Cherohala Skyway, have decreased since inception. People also comment that tourism in Swain County declines during major construction periods. Another concern is who would provide the funding and which social and/or educational programs the federal government might cut to build the road.

Many people comment on the expense of designing and building the road. They state that the EIS must include cost estimates that take into account a reasonable prediction of the amount of time and money required to build the road, including funding potential legal challenges.

Type of Road

Those who favor the Northern Shore Corridor suggest using the Principal Park Road typical section only, a two-lane, dustless road as promised in 1943.

Some people make suggestions that the road should be a full-access road, while others recommend using a permitted road.

Some comment that the use of the bridges in the Northern Shore Corridor Alternative is a way to make the cost of this alternative astronomical as a scare tactic against road construction. These individuals say the alternative needs to be modified to eliminate the bridges.

Modifications to Corridor Location

Some people suggest modifying the Northern Shore Corridor to include: eliminating the need for huge bridges on Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks; following old road and rail beds; being closer to former home sites, farms, and cemeteries; becoming a tremendous asset to the GSMNP; showing the pioneer-to-1940s history; completing the original Master Plan for an around-the-park road; greatly boosting the economy for Swain and Graham counties; and satisfying the intent of the 1943 Agreement—making up for the loss of more than 44,000 acres of taxable land.

Some comment that building bridges across the creeks is still less expensive than building one across Fontana Lake (Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove), and some suggest building culverts at minor water crossings further north of Fontana Lake.

People also comment that it would be better to use old trails, roadbeds, rail beds, and NPS maintenance roads as the primary corridor where available, including old NC 288 and Lakeshore Trail, to minimize environmental impacts.

Suggestions were also made to continue the corridor to the vicinities of Cable Cove, Proctor, Possum Hollow, and Flint Gap (interior of GSMNP) toward Fontana Dam to tie in to NC 28. People comment that there needs to be a special-purpose road connecting Proctor to the corridor.

People also comment that the Fontana Dam terminus option needs to be a secondary exit because it may be closed for long durations for maintenance and potential terrorist threats. Some also mention that a Fontana terminus would be too close to Deal's Gap, increasing motorcycle noise. Others state that crossing Fontana Dam would provide one of the best scenic views in the eastern United States . People also comment that the Northern Shore Corridor should not extend west of Fontana Dam.

Amenities

There are many suggestions for amenities along the Northern Shore Corridor, including: sheltered picnic areas, pull-offs and parking spaces showing lake views, parking areas at all major creeks, and comfort stations. Others suggest historical markers and plaques to identify local and historical communities, cultural sites, and family homes, farms, churches, and businesses; provide information about the sacrifices people made for the war effort; show the history behind the creation of GSMNP; and provide information on the natural environment. People also make suggestions for improving and developing day-use trails, fishing, and recreational areas. Suggestions for the Northern Shore Corridor also include using rock walls instead of guardrails to create a roadway design consistent with GSMNP environment.

Some suggest managing the facility like the Blue Ridge Parkway or another scenic route, with additional turnoffs and parking areas for cemetery access. Other people suggest gated roads to the cemeteries, opened only for Decoration Days, with picnic areas at the entrances to the cemetery roads. People also suggest combining the Northern Shore Corridor with increased ferry service.

Other suggestions include having locked park administrative roads near areas like Hazel, Eagle, and Forney creeks so that hikers, campers, or sightseers could receive emergency assistance, if needed.

Environmental Concerns

Many people who favor the No-Action and Monetary Settlement alternatives view the Northern Shore Corridor as the greatest threat due to the potential negative environmental impacts. They state that a road would destroy the integrity of the largest unspoiled tract of mountain terrain in the eastern United States . Some comment on the potential negative impacts to the Appalachian Trail and other trails within GSMNP.

People comment on potential negative impacts to flora and fauna and the overall wildlife habitat. People are also concerned with seasonal migrations and assert that a permanent, all-season road may act as a physical barrier to these migratory movements. Some people also comment that making the area more accessible by vehicles will increase the potential for poaching of game animals and rare and economically valuable plant and animal species, as well as increasing the potential for forest fires.

People also comment that the steep and rugged terrain would make extensive blasting necessary, resulting in widespread erosion and vulnerability to landslides. Others mention concern for the underlying acidic-rock formation and the leaching of acid into the high-quality trout streams and Fontana Lake . Other concerns include the degradation of air quality due to increased automobile exhaust in an area already suffering from poor air quality.

Road proponents state that technology exists to mitigate erosion, landslides, and potential acid leaching in water resources.

Some people state that the proposed bridges and roadway would ruin the aesthetics and character of GSMNP. In addition, people comment that the road would hinder GSMNP's becoming a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Road proponents comment that there are many other places to go within GSMNP for a wilderness experience, and the Northern Shore Corridor provides the least amount of habitat fragmentation of the build alternatives due to its proposed location.

Further comments suggest that a roadway alternative would need to provide significant avoidance and minimization measures to mitigate potential negative environmental impacts.

Combinations with other Alternatives

In addition to building the North Shore Road , people suggest building a heritage/educational center at Proctor or Bushnell with comfort stations and a covered picnic shelter. Others suggest the corridor end at Proctor at an interpretive center.

People also suggest combining the Northern Shore Corridor with the Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove. The Cable Cove area could serve as an informational rest area providing scenic overlooks, some suggest.

People also suggest combining the Northern Shore Corridor with the Monetary Settlement Alternative. They say a monetary settlement is owed due to the time of inactivity by the federal government. Others suggest allotting money for the maintenance of the road, trails, cemeteries, and park service vehicles.

<Back