SEPTEMBER 2003 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY

<Back

Do you have any comments concerning how the planning study is being conducted?

Some commenters think that the planning process is being conducted well, with fair, neutral representation on both sides of the issue. Others feel that this process is slow, expensive, and needs to move to identifying, discussing, and analyzing alternatives. Some individuals want to extend the EIS timeframes to obtain more detailed information on features such as natural resources. Others comment that the study process has been going on for over 60 years and that something needs to happen.

Individuals want consistency between the North Shore EIS planning process and the GSMNP 1980 General Management Plan. Some comment that the review time for the Existing Conditions Report needs to be extended and that people do not have enough time to comment.

Many comment that specific details on who is making the final decision need to be given to the public. Some seek clarification of the role the consultant has in preparing the EIS. Individuals comment that the study team needs to ignore political pressure and evaluate alternatives based on which are most “reasonable and feasible.” People feel that the EIS should not be driven by political or monetary motives. Others suggest that the planning process needs an additional step in which information is submitted to an impartial jury to make a decision.