FEBRUARY/MARCH 2005 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

Do you think that a combination of any of the final study alternatives better meets the purpose and need of the project?
If so, please describe here.

No combinations

"No, any combination of alternatives is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars."

"I do not think a combination of alternatives would better meet the purpose."

"Any combination would take away the ability of many of the residents of Swain County to enjoy the uniqueness of this Park."

"No road or a settlement. Anything else is a compromise of the public trust."

"No, need to better state benefits of 1 and 2 (No-Action and Monetary Settlement)."

"No."

"That would be a cop-out."

No road construction/development

"The No-Action choice is non-existent in my mind. The picnic area, corridor and partial build all are developing ideas that will damage something living that does not need to be damaged, regardless of an official agreement. Too many scrupulous feelings arise to go into detail here."

"Though many are opposed to the road per se, it is the damage done during construction, and not so much the additional tourists that concern me the most. The mountain environment is fragile and it cannot take a multi-year construction project and the accidents that are sure to occur."

"The GSMNP is rated the #1 most polluted park in the USA . Under no circumstances, should a road be built that would contribute to the continued environmental degradation of the park."

"I believe that to disrupt nature anymore would be wrong, so no."

"Rarely get to go back."

"We don't need more roads."

"No, 3, 4, 5 (Laurel Branch Picnic Area, Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, Northern Shore Corridor) assume some kind of construction."

"Keep development of any kind out of this area. The GSMNP is already growing and harmed by the tremendous public use. Don't increase it anymore."

"I think any road building is a clear indication of unnecessary government spending."

"I believe that wilderness is a gift and we should cherish and improve our gifts, not destroy them."

"Partial build and road alternatives will require voluntary budget appropriations for NPS for maintenance and operations; NPS' budget is already inadequate to meet existing demands."

"No build alternatives would best serve the long-term interests of all citizens."

No-Action

"I feel that the current status is sufficient, the ferry system is apparently working."

No-Action/Monetary Settlement

"No, unless the Monetary Settlement/No-Action combination."

Monetary Settlement

"Please pay Swain County . It is like giving them 8 years of what their tax base provides."

"It would be wrong to rob this county of a settlement and leave them with a picnic table or two."

"Only if it is limited or restricted to primarily a Monetary Settlement."

"No, settle up."

"Do Monetary Settlement with airtight legal documents and let's wrap this up."

"Settlement better to environment."

"The Monetary Settlement is satisfactory."

"If the purpose and need of this project is to settle the 1943 Agreement, then the only alternative that does this is the Monetary Settlement Alternative."

"Pay the county. Maybe pay the families. Don't build the road."

"I think the best plan is a monetary payment to Swain County. This will by far do more for the county than the road."

"Monetary Settlement and no new road."

"Only thing I can suggest is to come to a Monetary Settlement."

"Buy them up, shut them up."

"The Monetary Settlement is the best option to resolve conflict and uphold the integrity of the NPS mission."

"Only the Monetary Settlement."

"You could combine other alternatives with the settlement to help satisfy some people, but I think that no matter what, it will be decided that constructing a road through old-growth wilderness would be devastating to the entire park. I think the option not to build there should be exercised."

"The Monetary Settlement is the best solution in itself."

"I greatly prefer a financial settlement over any and all construction."

"Swain County just ought to be paid a reasonable fee for foregoing development rights."

"Only the Monetary Settlement will directly help the people of Swain County. Any of the building options will unnecessarily harm the park's ecosystems."

"No I do not, but in the event of a cash settlement, I feel at least half of the money should be paid to the refugees who were forced to leave and are now reaching the age for rest homes, etc. They, and not the Swain County Government, were most economically affected."

Monetary Settlement/Laurel Branch Picnic Area

"I support the Monetary Settlement; however, I would not object to development of a picnic area where the existing road ends."

"No not really, although the day use area does have some appeal. I still believe the Monetary Settlement is the best choice."

"Laurel Branch Picnic Area second choice, but if cost of construction lessens the amount of Monetary Settlement, I would not be in favor of this option."

"Monetary Settlement and Laurel Branch might make the Monetary Settlement a hit easier to accept for those that want the road."

"A blend of the Monetary Settlement and the Laurel Branch Picnic Area could be a good compromise between the two extremes of not building and complete development of the forest."

"Combine Monetary Settlement and the Laurel Branch Picnic Area into one alternative."

"I believe that the Monetary Settlement coupled with the Laurel Branch Picnic Area gives to the American public, the owners of the Park, the best deal for their tax dollars. The existing road would then not be a complete waste, and the public would come to know a portion of our park, largely wilderness, which most have never seen before, indeed most may not even realize exists."

"Probably the addition of Laurel Branch to the Monetary Settlement would be good."

"Cash settlement plus Laurel Branch Picnic Area, win-win."

"I think cash settlement is the best option. A picnic area at the tunnel is good but it is not an alternative, it is an addition. As long as Swain gets full settlement, then Laurel Branch Picnic Area is okay."

"Monetary Settlement and development of the Laurel Branch Picnic Area is an alternative that would promote a reasonable use of the existing road."

"I think that the Monetary Settlement should be combined with construction of the Picnic Area, since it is already a part of the General Management Plan. Perhaps this would give the pro-road faction some feeling of accomplishment without extending a new road into the backcountry."

"Monetary Settlement and Laurel Branch Picnic Area."

"Yes, adding the Laurel Branch Picnic Area will answer some of the needs and provide a tourism benefit."

"I am not sure if a combo of options (Monetary Settlement and Laurel Branch Picnic Area) would not be best, but only if the settlement is reduced to account for $5 million to build Laurel Branch Picnic Area. You could then have an exhibit reflecting victory of folks who lived in the area and give recognition to Swain County residents."

Laurel Branch Picnic Area

"Maybe a smaller version of the Laurel Branch Picnic Area."

"Complete a picnic area at Laurel Branch."

"It is always good to have scenic routes and picnic areas for people to enjoy, that will keep them coming back."

"Just the picnic area is suitable."

"I'd be pleased to see development of a picnic area at Laurel Branch."

Laurel Branch Picnic Area/Northern Shore Corridor

"The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would also be a nice thing to add to the Northern Shore Corridor. But I would rather have the Northern Shore Corridor with no options any day over the Laurel Branch Picnic Area."

"As I said before the Northern Shore Corridor is the only thing we need. If possible, the Laurel Branch Picnic Area is a place to picnic. I would like it especially if I could have the Northern Shore Corridor too."

Northern Shore Corridor

"Northern Shore Corridor is only option."

"Make it easier to get to where my ancestors lived and get to cemeteries; now. We want principal park roads. Who would what to go on a 26 mile gravel road?"

"Over 800 miles of trails; 37 miles of road is needed."

"The road could go along the shore line of the lake and end at Fontana Dam."

"The Northern Shore Corridor most aptly meets the needs of all the people to have equal access to the park."

"The road should be built as promised and the survivors of these disadvantaged residents should have the enjoyment of these acres. I think the corridor road would best access this property."

"Road needs to be completed; and county needs compensation for 60 years."

"If I signed a contract to clean your house, but only cleaned one room, would you be happy? No you would not, and we will never be happy, neither will the promise be honored until the road is completed."

"At least a road to the dam."

"No, alternatives were not part of the agreement."

"No alternative; agreement called for a road and agreement should be fulfilled as called for."

"Monetary Settlement as voted upon by Swain County Commissioners does not reflect the best interest of the community or long-time citizens. Anything less than full-build is not a viable alternative to satisfy the 1943 Agreement."

"I think the road meets all needs and hopes."

"Eliminate the costly bridges over Eagle, Hazel, and Forney creeks. This is better because it gives better access to the cemeteries."

"The entire road meets a commitment and provides a means of getting to and out of the area. A partial would only allow in and out in the same place and wouldn't benefit the area. And giving money to politicians is something like wasting it."

"All we want is the road that was promised in 1943."

"If the road must be built, build with least amount of environmental damage. Build as close to lake as possible with all three major bridges, environment should not be sacrificed to save costs."

Northern Shore Corridor/Monetary Settlement

"Building the road is first priority, which should be combined with a cash settlement. Amount to be at least equal to any "under runs" in total costs."

"I think the road should be built completely, then Swain County should be compensated for the time taken before it was built."

"The only final study alternative that addresses the 1943 Agreement is to build a primary road through the entire Northern Shore Corridor. Other road alternatives do not satisfy the agreement. However, I do not think it practical to build the road now. A cash settlement would therefore be required to satisfy the government's obligation to the county."

"Build road (hard surface) then include Monetary Settlement. If road comes in under estimates, let Swain County have difference as a settlement."

"If after the road is built, there is any short (or if it comes in under estimated costs), give the difference to Swain County."

Other

"I think our natural resources and parks should not be negatively impacted in any way. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a treasure that should not be disturbed, not only for us to enjoy today but our children and their children."

"Monetary Settlement, picnic area, and heritage center at the tunnel area, not into the Park."

"I like the alternative approach to the Northern Shore Corridor. I would rather see a partial-build, as it would impact wildlife less."

"I'm for keeping promises, but here's a case for choosing what is the greater good and the ultimate health of the Park."

"We frequently travel to present North Shore Road and hike through the tunnel and onto the trails. It is a nice drive. We also plan to visit Hazel Creek and want to see the park undisturbed and intact in its natural state."

"I do not advocate building any road; but if a road is built, I would prefer the primitive road option."

"Maybe some small refinement of the Tunnel Area."

"After building the road, they need to construct a cultural center to house pictures and information about the people who lived there. What they worked at and how content and happy they were."

"Northern Shore Corridor, museum, picnic area, and permit station."

"You can't keep Little Parson Branch Road open, let alone this new, more complex road."

"Studies of alternatives is a waste of taxpayer dollars."

"Only if "no action" is involved; Laurel Branch Picnic Area would be third choice, however it appears considerable destruction would still be involved."

"Only alternatives that address the 1943 Agreement should be pursued in this context."

"If there's surplus monies after paying the Monetary Settlement, use it to finish the Foothills Parkway, provide more environmentally sound transportation in the Park, better maintain the current facilities, etc. That's a wiser use of the taxpayers money in my opinion."

"The purpose and need of “protect and preserve” are best met by combining the Northern Shore Corridor, the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, and the Laurel Branch Picnic Area in the bottom of a trash can."

<Back