FEBRUARY/MARCH 2004 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

3. What additional information would you like to see at the next public meeting to help further define or illustrate the alternatives?

Public Involvement

People comment on the specifics of the displays used during the public workshop and suggest including the present park boundary as compared with the 1943 GSMNP boundary. Others suggest including map labels for the Lake Shore Trail; other existing trails, roadbeds, and rail beds; and labels signifying cemeteries and former towns. Individuals state that by providing more cultural resources references on study area maps, people will become more aware of the history behind the project and study area. Other people suggest having viewshed maps from Clingman's Dome and NC 28 present at the public workshops.

Some state that the EIS process is thorough and educational and appreciate unemotional, unbiased presenters. People also comment that no additional information is necessary and that the presented information is adequate for discussion. Other people inquire about the credentials of the speakers and if they were hired during an open-bid process. Some suggest including speakers on both sides of the issue to inform the public of all aspects of the project.

Respondents inquire about what happens to the input collected and the process of integrating comments in the decision-making process. People suggest disclosing the public feedback received and showing the results of polling, as in a democratic voting process. Others state that all comments should be evaluated equally and should all be addressed in the planning process. People also suggest categorizing the number of form letters and those submissions with local versus out-of-area ZIP codes.

The NPS should provide the chain-of-command that the EIS will go through to make the final decision, state some commenters. Some individuals remain concerned about the role of consultants in the preparation of the EIS; they request that the consulting companies' roles be discussed.

People state that the study team needs to evaluate the real need for alternatives, including whether a build alternative is necessary to fulfill the 1943 Agreement.

Environmental

People comment that more environmental information needs to be presented, including various negative wildlife impacts and effects on GSMNP biodiversity. People also recommend that botanical surveys need to be conducted in the spring, summer, and fall months for an accurate depiction of existing environmental conditions. More emphasis needs to be placed on how endangered species would be threatened by various alternatives, environmental advocates comment. Other commenters suggest conducting a chemical impact statement and providing graphics illustrating possible chemical reactions created when geologic features are disturbed.

Economic Issues/Funding

People suggest providing information on the likelihood of receiving funding in today's economic climate. The study team needs to provide specifics on cost estimates for each alternative, including the price and size of any large bridges, suggest some respondents. Commenters suggest conducting a feasibility study on each alternative with tentative costs for each to demonstrate the differences in cost estimates. In considering costs, people comment on estimating the value of the existing conditions of the area. People comment on comparing with benchmark projects such as Cherohala Skyway and Foothills Parkway . Commenters also state the need to provide realistic information about the cost-effectiveness of building roads through mountainous terrain.

People comment that a realistic discussion of alternative possibilities needs to occur considering environmentalist actions, availability of funds, and a sense of events that may occur.

Others state that more information needs to be provided on the monetary settlement alterative.

<Back