SEPTEMBER 2003 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

Do you have any comments concerning the current existing conditions information?
(Please Note: Detailed technical support documentation is under way.)

Many individuals express concerns about the acidic rock formations located throughout the study area. Individuals comment that more detailed information on the geological formations needs to be provided to permit a viable analysis of the existing geologic/soil conditions. Some people state that “conflicting information” was shown in the public involvement materials regarding the effects of acidic rock on water quality and aquatic species, although no additional clarification is provided. Others comment that the use of limestone to neutralize acidic rock does not work as a long-term solution. Individuals voice that while expensive, methods do exist to neutralize and mitigate any effects from construction through acidic areas. Overall, people comment that more information needs to be provided on how much acidic rock is located in the study area, details on mitigation techniques, analysis of mitigation costs, studies of existing encapsulation methods, and similar projects where encapsulation has worked/failed.

People suggest that the EIS needs more information on the actual economic benefits of the cash settlement versus building the road. Individuals believe that more information needs to be shown on the actual cost of building the road, including the cost in mitigating acidic rock effects, cuts and fills through rough terrain, bridge design costs, and maintenance costs. Individuals also mention that the EIS needs to be clear in stating that fulfilling the 1943 Agreement is contingent on receiving federal funding. People feel that economic benefits resulting from similar roadways, such as the Cherohala Skyway, need to be evaluated.

People comment that the EIS needs more detailed information on natural resources, including threatened and endangered species, and exotic and invasive species. Some individuals suggest that an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory and more detailed field verification during multiple seasons need to be conducted to analyze the existing environmental conditions within the study area. Individuals also comment that the 2-year EIS study timeframe is too short to gather accurate data on geology and natural resources. Other concerns regard potential impacts to biodiversity and habitat fragmentation in the study area. People also comment that the EIS needs to state that GSMNP is “one of the largest roadless areas east of the Mississippi River” and acknowledge how this affects human enjoyment and solitude. More description on the preservation of the natural character of the area also needs to be included, some commenters suggest.

People also comment that the EIS does not include enough information demonstrating the local heritage and historic features. These people suggest providing more pictures of old roadbeds, coal mines, and communities for those who believe the area to be roadless. There are also concerns that more information on cemeteries needs to be provided, particularly which alternatives, if any, will take into account addressing cemetery visitations. Individuals comment that EIS needs to include information on the methods NPS uses to provide cemetery access, and each alternative needs to explain how and if these accommodations will continue or be eliminated once the Agreement has been resolved. Other individuals comment that the EIS needs to clarify that cemetery access is not an issue because of the 1983 Supreme Court case. There are also concerns made regarding potential detrimental impacts to the cemeteries if increased access is obtained in the preferred alternative.

Comments also suggest that more information on the effects of a road on the existing viewsheds in the area needs to be provided. Individuals comment that a more quantifiable approach needs to be taken to address viewsheds, and visual quality needs to be addressed in more detail. People fear the potential topographic cuts and fills and say scars may be visible from “hundreds of miles.”

<Back