SEPTEMBER 2003 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

What three features in the study area do you value most? Why are these features important to you?

The public holds diverse opinions about the most valuable features within the study area and why they are important. Many people highly value the natural environmental aspects of GSMNP and the study area. Some individuals also value the “wilderness value of the region” and are concerned that the EIS does not capture this appropriately. One individual commented, “One population that can’t speak for itself is the wildlife.” Individuals state that the special resources within GSMNP contribute to the value of serenity and solitude felt when hiking throughout the study area. Some individuals believe further access into GSMNP would create an opportunity to pollute the existing environment and would allow access for poaching and other illegal activity. Others believe new access would allow more people to see the beauty of the area. Individuals also feel that GSMNP has a high recreational value through activities including fishing, hiking, and horseback riding and that those potentially would be impacted by a build alternative.

The public notes concern for potential negative environmental impacts to the ecosystem, including aquatic ecology/water resources, threatened and endangered species, terrestrial habitat, geology, and air quality. In addition, many people value the current aesthetics/viewsheds as an important feature, and some anticipate potential negative visual impacts if a build alternative is selected. Individuals are concerned not only with the potential impacts of this project, but the indirect and cumulative effects caused by similar projects in surrounding communities. Other individuals value the integrity and mission of GSMNP and feel that it may be jeopardized by any action associated with this project. These people do not want to set precedents for other parks in similar circumstances and suggest incorporating GSMNP goals and objectives into any potential actions.

Individuals comment on the importance of GSMNP as a “World Heritage Site” with a vast amount of cultural resources. These individuals are often local residents with direct ties to the study area. Some of these commenters lived on the land north of Fontana Lake prior to 1943 and have family members buried in the study area cemeteries. These individuals often participate in the annual “Decoration Days” to remember their ancestors and the communities on the northern shore. Individuals attending the cemetery visitations comment on the value of having access to the cemeteries, but add that the infrequent and unsafe methods of traveling (ferry service and motor vehicles) are not acceptable. Individuals comment that the Americans with Disabilities Act needs be implemented within GSMNP so everyone can enjoy it. Many individuals want their children and grandchildren to be able to visit their homeplaces and value the heritage of communities once present within the study area. Some commenters also want “what is owed from ’43,” because the promise of a road is all that is left from the broken contract (1943 Memorandum of Agreement). A promise is what some people value most, stating that it has been “almost 70 years now; I won’t live another 70 years.” These individuals often have negative feelings toward the government and feel that the promise needs to be fulfilled and an apology needs to be made to the local community (citizens of Swain County). Others comment that people need to address the current situation within GSMNP by today’s standards, stating it is necessary to “think of the greater good.”

People are also interested in the economy of Swain County and the effects a possible action could have on jobs within the study area. Commenters suggest that a monetary settlement would provide for the most economic development within the study area. These individuals state that the interest on $52 million would be enough to invest in community features, including social and civic facilities, hospitals, tourism interests, and education. Some individuals also feel that the monetary settlement would benefit GSMNP through restoration and preservation measures. Some individuals comment that the EIS needs to include specifics on what would happen to money appropriated for a cash settlement. Some fear that the money might go to the state of North Carolina and that local communities might never reap the benefits from the settlement. Individuals suggest a three-fourths commission vote to prevent any potential misuse of the settlement.

Others comment that building a road would provide for more economic development opportunities through tourism within the area. These individuals feel that Tennessee has gained most of its tourism dollars through roadway access and development into the GSMNP. Some individuals fear commercial intentions of further development and do not want GSMNP to “look like another Gatlinburg.” Individuals state that there should be no development, just a “20-foot-wide, dustless surface, as promised in ’43.” Other concerns regard the potential for a high maintenance and personnel cost in an environment in which funding may be unavailable and a maintenance backlog already exists.

<Back