North Shore Rd Project

meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 02B .0225 including any additional requirements
listed for the specific waterbody.
4. In section 4.4.1.1, the methodology for assessing impacts to wetlands describes the impact
thresholds for negligible, minor, moderate, and major impacts. As stated in our comments dated
March 1, 2006, DWQ feels that the impact thresholds should be adjusted to reflect the rarity and the
relative significance of wetlands in the mountains of North Carolina. DWQ feels that any impact to
wetlands greater than 0.1 acres should be considered a major impact, especially considering the rare
plant and animal communities, and thus, the significant functions and protections to water quality
that these wetlands prove.
In general, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) reports that the proposed Partial Build
to Bushnell and Northern Shore Corridor alternatives would have moderate to major, adverse, long-
term impacts to wetlands, streams, lakes, water quality, aquatic ecology and vegetation
communities. These alternatives would not meet the stated goals of the proposed project. NCDWQ
does not feel that the potential benefits of the Purpose and Need justify the level of adverse impacts
to these resources.
6. DWQ is extremely concerned about the long-term impacts to water quality resulting from the
exposure of acid-producing (AP) rock formations during road construction. Construction of
previous projects in areas with AP rock has resulted in degradation of water quality with no
practical solutions available to reverse the impairment. The DEIS indicates similar rock formations
are present throughout the study area, and the Northern Shore Corridor would involve construction
in the area with the highest potential for acid production. Please provide a discussion of the
strategies that would be implemented to prevent water quality impairment due to runoff from AP
rock.
7. In section 4.4.3.2, the document states that for the build alternatives, Water Quality Standard.
violations may occur or are likely to occur. A North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification can
only be issued for a project that provides adequate assurances that Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines will not be violated. Based on the information provided in the FEIS, NCDWQ
may not be able to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the build alternatives associated with
this project.
In August 2005, NCDWQ biologists completed a benthic macroinvertebrate survey of several
representative tributaries along the north shore of Fontana Lake to determine if the streams qualified
for Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation. All benthic macroinvertebrate collections
evaluated scored an excellent bioclassification and indicates the tributaries to the north shore of
Fontana Lake qualify for ORW designation. In addition, the biologists noted that every sample
collected from this study included at least one rare mayfly or caddisfly. An extremely rare
caddisfly, Mayatrichia ayama, was collected at the Eagle Creek site. This particular taxon appears
just eight times in over 5,800 of NCDWQ's benthological collections throughout the State. The
presence of such rare and diverse benthic communities demonstrates the pristine habitat and water
quality provided by streams along the northern shore of Fonatana Lake. NCDWQ is particularly
concerned about the potential loss of these unique resources if any of the Northern Shore Corridor
build alternatives are pursued.
General Comments:
9. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
10. Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
11. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the permittee is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical.
In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {1 5A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event
that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
12. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {1 5A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
13. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
14. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
The permittee shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
15. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC DWQ's Policy on the assessment of
secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
16. The permittee is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
17. Where streams must be crossed, the NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, the permittee should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
21. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the permittee and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
22. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
23. Whenever possible, the NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
24. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
25. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete shall not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible
aquatic life and fish kills.
26. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
}
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due (firm deadline)
C) srl p-7 a910_7
a`(4
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air _ Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management
_ Mooresville - Aquifer Protection ? Wildlife _Dc,,jc,., .c.` twv1
Raleigh ?land Quality Engineer _ Forest Resources
Washington Water Resources _ Environmental Health
Wilmington arks & Recreation _ Solid Waste Mgmt
Winston-Salem L/4ater Quality Radiation Protection
Air Quality Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
_ No objection to project as proposed
No comment
Insufficient information to complete review
Other (specify or attach comments)
Ft-;zk[Row?
'IT 0 8 2007
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
OEM
-rlANDS AND STORMW.4TR 3WdCH
North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
rl Terry L. Pierce, Director
toa
;9 N Public Water Supply Section
Division of
Environmental Health Jessica G. Miles, Section Chief
State of North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
William G. Ross, Secretary
Memorandum
Date: February 13, 2006
To: Jim McRight, Environmental Engineer
Technical Services Branch
From: Ray McCall, Water Treatment Plant Consultant
Public Water Supply Section, Asheville Region 4
Subject: Environmental Assessment Review Comments
North Shore Road Project, Swain & Graham Counties
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
We have completed a review of the above North Shore Road Project which, will traverse the shoreline of Lake
Fontana. From our review we offer the following comments:
1. As proposed this major road project will impact water quality along the shoreline and into Lake Fontana,
which is a source of drinking water supply for the Fontana Village Resort community.
2. Although this Environmental Assessment does address source water impacts, this assessment does not
address direct impacts to this drinking water source. Should the "Southern-Fontana Dam" option be
chosen, there is a chance that direct water quality impacts could occur very near this water supply
intake.
3. It is not apparent what direct impacts may occur to the Fontana Village Resort water source with each -
option that is proposed and what actions may be taken to better protect the drinking water source.
Should you have questions concerning these comments or need further explanations or information please feel
free to contact us at [phone].
2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina, 28778-8211 One
Telephone [phone] ? Fax [phone] NorthCarollina
http://ncdrinkingwater.state.nc.us/ Aawra"/ff
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
W A' Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q?
Z9
Q? pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
\
Uj Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
o ?
March 1, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ Lw
Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ9?44
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for North Shore Road in Swain County, State
Clearinghouse No. 06-0214.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. The Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Document Specific Comments:
1. In general, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) reports that the proposed Partial
Build and Northern Shore Corridor alternatives would have major adverse impacts to wetlands,
streams, lakes, water quality, aquatic ecology and vegetation communities. These alternatives
would not meet the stated goals of the proposed project. At this time, DWQ does not feel that the
potential benefits of the Purpose and Need justify the level of adverse impacts to these resources.
2. The document states that the Partial Build and Northern Shore Corridor alternatives would
provide access for some cemeteries and remove access for others. Based on removal of access of
some cemeteries, it is unclear how the Partial Build and North Shore Road alternatives would
meet the goal of protecting the tangible aspects of cultural resources. Please provide additional
information to clarify this issue.
3. In section 4.2.8, the document states that adverse impacts to cemeteries would occur as a result of
the Partial Build and North Shore Alternatives due to "cutting current NPS-provided vehicular access." It is unclear what the NPS-provided vehicular access consists of. Please describe the
NPS-provided vehicular access.
4. DWQ is extremely concerned about the longterm impacts to water quality resulting from the
exposure of acid-producing (AP) rock formations during road construction. Construction of
previous projects in areas with AP rock has resulted in degradation of water quality with no
practical solutions available to reverse the impairment. The DEIS indicates similar rock
formations are present throughout the study area, and the Northern Shore Corridor would involve
construction in the area with the highest potential for acid production. Please provide a
discussion of the strategies that would be implemented to prevent water quality impairment due to
runoff from AP rock.
Noce ithCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit A`turat't'iy
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncvvetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
March 1, 2006
Page 2 of 5
5. In section 4.3.1.2, the DEIS states that up to 2.9 million cubic yards of excavated material would
be produced by the Northern Shore Corridor alternative. This is a significant amount of
excavated material. Due to the geological setting, there is the potential for much of this material
to be unsuitable for fill material in the construction of embankments associated with the road.
This is especially true for areas of AP rock. The DEIS does not discuss a disposal plan for this
material. Please describe how and where this material will be disposed of and what the costs
estimates of the disposal would be. This description should include best management practices
for treatment and their associated costs. Please be aware that the DWQ will not allow disposal of
excavated material in streams or wetlands. In addition, any storm water drainage that contacts
excavated material identified to contain AP rock will not be allowed to discharge untreated to
surface waters.
6. The DEIS states that up to half a million tons of limestone would be needed for encapsulation of
AP rock to be used in embankments, and that the nearest quarry is 85 miles away. Do the
construction costs for the proposed alternatives include the limestone hauling costs? If not, these
costs should be included in the cost analysis. In addition, the cost analysis in Appendix E, only
discusses the treatment of embankment material for AP rock. All excavated and exposed AP rock
would require treatment not just material used for embankment. The cost analysis should reflect
additional costs of treating runoff from this material.
7. In section 4.4.1.1, the methodology for assessing impacts to wetlands describes the impact
thresholds for negligible, minor, moderate, and major impacts. DWQ feels that the impact
thresholds should be adjusted to reflect the rarity and the relative significance of wetlands in this
area. DWQ feels that any impact to wetlands less than 0.1 acres is at least a moderate impact,
especially considering the rare plant and animal communities that occur in these wetlands.
8. In Appendix M the DEIS presents the individual stream impacts for each alternative. It is unclear
whether these impacts are direct, indirect, or the combined direct and indirect impacts for each
stream. Please provide the impacts associated with each stream for each alternative broken down
into direct and indirect impacts. In addition, please provide corresponding figures and maps that
show the location of each impact.
9. In section 4.4.3.2, the document states that for the build alternatives, Water Quality Standard
violations may"occur or are likely to occur. A North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
can only be issued for a project that provides adequate assurances that Water Quality Standards
and discharge guidelines will not be violated. Based on the information provided in the DEIS,
DWQ may not be able to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the build alternatives
associated with this project.
10. Section 4.4.3.4, provides a discussion of the Impairment Evaluation. "Impaired waters" is a term
related to surface waters that do not meet associated water quality standards. These waters are
listed on the 303(d) list of Impaired Waters in accordance with the Clean Water Act. It is unclear
whether use of the words "impairment" or "impaired waters" in the document corresponds with
the meaning of the words in the Clean Water Act. Please provide a definition and a more in-
depth discussion of "impairment" in the DEIS.
11. DWQ disagrees with the conclusion that Impairment of water quality is unlikely based on current
information. At several points in section 4.4.3, the Draft EIS states the water quality standards
March 1, 2006
Page 3 of 5
violations are likely to occur if any build scenario is selected. If these violations occur as
expected, water quality impairment is a likely outcome.
12. It is worth noting that the Northern Shore Corridor alternative could potentially impact over 4
miles of streams in the project area much of which includes the Great Smokey Mountain National
Park and a nominated Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watershed. It is our understanding
that impacts of this magnitude would not be in accordance with the National Park Service
Organic Act as stated in section 3.2.5.1.
13. In August 2005, DWQ biologists completed a benthic macroinvertebrate survey of several
representative tributaries along the north shore of Fontana Lake to determine if the streams
qualified for Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation. All benthic macroinvertebrate
collections evaluated scored an excellent bioclassification and indicates the tributaries to the north
shore of Fontana Lake qualify for ORW designation. In addition, the biologists noted that every
sample collected from this study included at least one rare mayfly or caddisfly. An extremely
rare caddisfly, Mayatrichia ayama, was collected at the Eagle Creek site. This particular taxon
appears just eight times in over 5,800 of DWQ's benthological collections throughout the State.
The presence of such rare and diverse benthic communities demonstrates the pristine habitat and
water quality provided by streams along the north shore of Fonatana Lake. DWQ is particularly
concerned about the potential loss of these unique communities if any of the Northern Shore
Corridor build alternatives are pursued.
14. The streams along the northern shore of Fontana Lake have been nominated for ORW
designation. The NC Environmental Management Commission - Water Quality Committee has
approved staff to distribute draft rules for public comment. These rules include special
restrictions on construction activity within the affected area. These restrictions may add
additional cost to construction projects. It is unclear whether these additional costs have been
included in the cost analysis for the proposed project. Please include the estimated costs of
meeting these additional restrictions in the cost analysis for the build alternatives.
15. In the event that a construction alternative is selected, substantial mitigation will likely be
required. It is unclear whether sufficient mitigation sites are available within the 8-digit
hydrologic unit code (HUC) and/or eco-region. Little or no mitigation is available on-site, as the
project lies within a Biosphere Preserve, and most similar watersheds outside the park boundary
fall within National Forests. Please provide a discussion of potential mitigation strategies for this
project.
General Comments.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the Applicant is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical.
Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1 acre and/or to jurisdictional streams
exceed 150 linear feet, mitigation will be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules
115A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)1.
March 1, 2006
Page 4 of 5
2. As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, the Applicant is respectfully
reminded to include specifics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it
should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. We understand
that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program for offsite mitigation.
3. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should
continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
4. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
5. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application.
6. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, bridge bents should not be installed in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
7. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
8. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification
and could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
9. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
10. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the Applicant and written concurrence from the
NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and
minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of
March 1, 2006
Page 5 of 5
an acceptable storm water management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans
where appropriate.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: Steve Lund, US ACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Marla Chambers, NC WRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mike Parker, Asheville Regional Office, NC DWQ
Alex Marks, NC DWQ, Planning Branch
File Copy
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
March 3, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
#L
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
SUBJECT: North Shore Road DEIS - Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Swain County
REFERENCE: 06-0214
The Natural. Heritage Program has a few records of rare species from the project area, and
essentially the entire North Carolina portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a
Registered Natural Heritage Area. However, because the national park has its own natural
heritage program and database, much of which has not been shared with the North Carolina
NHP, our Program defers to the National Park Service for information about the significant
natural heritage resources in the project area.
Because our data are incomplete for the project area, and because our Program understands that
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources is planning to comment on the DEIS,
we defer to the Department regarding the proposed North Shore Road project.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NOrthCarohna
Phone: [phone] -FAX, 919-715-3060 - Intemet: www.enr.state.nc.us ?aturaltlt
An Fnnnl nnnnrhtniiv - Affrrnativa Arlin Fmnlnv??r-50 % Receded -10 % Post ConsumerPaoer

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affai
FROM: Dave McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator c?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 20, 2006
SUBJECT: Comments on the North Shore Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement
OLIA 06-0214
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) reviewed the North
Shore Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Comments on the DEIS from the
Commission are offered in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332
(2)(c)•
The DEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of alternatives being considered by the National Park
Service (NPS) to satisfy the 1943 Agreement between the United States Department of Interior, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, Swain County, and the state of North Carolina to build a road along the north shore of
Fontana Lake. The build alternatives would affect portions of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
(GSMNP) in Swain County.
Considerable adverse effects on high quality fish and wildlife resources and habitats can be expected with
implementation of the build alternatives. Sedimentation of streams during construction and from roadway
and stream channel erosion after construction is identified in the DEIS as a primary concern for aquatic
resources. Unstable geology and steep topography in most of the project area would make erosion control
with the build alternatives; some of which would involve considerable earthwork, difficult if not almost
ineffective. Of particular concern would be North Shore corridor alternatives that would cross at least 120
streams. Acute and chronic erosion and sedimentation at stream crossings in conjunction with losses,
fragmentation, and degradation of productive streams, riparian areas, wetlands, and rare terrestrial
communities from construction, hydrologic alterations, invasive species introductions, and other factors are of
sufficient magnitude to warrant elimination of build alternatives on an environmental basis.
Like the mandate for the NPS in the Organic Act of 1916, the Commission is similarly obligated to conserve
the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of North Carolina for the betterment of its citizens. For this reason
and the significant, adverse effects expected with the build alternatives, the Commission strongly encourages,
the NPS to select the Environmentally Preferred Alternative outlined in the DEIS as the Preferred Alternative.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
North Shore Road DEIS Page 2 February 20, 2006
The alternative identified as the preferred alternative is the Monetary Settlement Alternative. Selection of a
build alternative would do avoidable, long-term harm to fish and wildlife resources that are critical to the
natural integrity of the GSMNP and the mission of the NPS.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIS regarding effects of the project on
fish and wildlife resources. If you need to discuss these comments please call me at [phone]
extension 24.
cc: Mrs. Cyndi Karoly - NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401 /Wetlands Unit
Ms. Becky Fox - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. David Baker - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Mr. Brian Cole - US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville

t

s

f

e
c

1

J
4

t
s

NORTH SHORE ROAD FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
September 2007
Lead NEPA Agency:
National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Cooperating Agencies:
Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
Tennessee Valley Authority
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Project Location:
Swain County, North Carolina
Contact:
Dale Ditmanson, Superintendent
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
107 Headquarters Road
Gatlinburg, TN 37738
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
The purpose of the proposed action is to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of the
United States associated with the July 30, 1943, Memorandum of Agreement among the
Department of Interior, Tennessee Valley Authority, Swain County, North Carolina, and the state
of North Carolina. The 1943 Agreement contained a provision for construction of a road through
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), along the northern shore of the newly formed
Fontana Lake. Approximately 7.2 miles of the originally proposed North Shore Road (known as
Lake View Road) have been built within GSMNP. Due to environmental concerns with acid
rock, high construction cost, and construction feasibility, construction of Lake View Road was
stopped in 1972. The need of the project is to determine whether or not it is feasible to
complete the road and to evaluate other alternatives that would satisfy the obligation.
Five alternatives were studied in the EIS, including: No-Action, Monetary Settlement, Laurel
Branch Picnic Area, Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, and the Northern Shore Corridor. For
each alternative, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts were analyzed for a variety of human,
environmental, and cultural resources. The National Park Service Preferred Alternative for
the North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement is the Monetary Settlement
Alternative. The Monetary Settlement Alternative would ensure that resources of GSMNP and
the Appalachian Trail would be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. It would
fulfill project goals and objectives including the protection of natural, cultural, and recreational
resources. The Monetary Settlement Alternative has been recommended by Swain County and
supported by the state of North Carolina to satisfy the 1943 Agreement.
Questions regarding the North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement may be sent
to the following address:
North Shore Road Project
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
PO Box 30185
Raleigh, NC 27622
Email: [e-mail]

i

1

r

I

s

1

lk?
n
n
0
Z
Cl)

t
f

t

1
n

t

List of Acronyms
AADT annual average daily traffic
AAL Acceptable Ambient Levels
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADAAG Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
ADHS Appalachian Development Highway System
ADT average daily (2-way, 24-hour) traffic
AMSL above mean sea level
ANSI American National Standard Institute
AP acid-producing rock
APE area of potential effect
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
ASA Acoustical Society of America
ASMIS Archeological Sites Management Information System
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AT Appalachian National Scenic Trail
ATBI All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory
ATC Appalachian Trail Conference
BA Biological Assessment
BBD beech bark disease
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP best management practice(s)
BMT Benton MacKaye Trail
BMTA Benton MacKaye Trail Association
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CCC Civilian Conservation Corps
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability List
CFR code of federal regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CRSM Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science
CWA Clean Water Act
DAT Deposition Analysis Thresholds
dBA decibel (A-weighted scale)
DBE disadvantaged business enterprise
DED Dutch elm disease
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEM digital elevation model
DLIA Discover Life in America
DO Director's Order
DOI Department of the Interior
DOT Department of Transportation
EA Environmental Assessment
EBCI Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
ECR Existing Conditions Report
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ Environmental Justice
Acronyms - A-1
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Ll
EMT emergency medical technician
EO executive order
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FISWRG
FLAG Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group
FLM federal land management/manager
FSC federal species of concern
ft foot
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GIS geographic information system
GMP general management plan
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GPS global positioning system
GSMA Great Smoky Mountains Association
GSMNP Great Smoky Mountains National Park, also referred to as "the Park"
GSMR Great Smoky Mountains Railroad
ha hectare
HAP
HWA hazardous air pollutants
hemlock woolly adelgid
ICEC International Classification of Ecological Communities
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
ICOWET International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation
IMPLAN impact analysis for planning
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
in
INHS inch
Illinois Natural History Survey
[SSG Invasive Species Specialist Group
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ISTEA-21 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century
ITE Institute for Transportation Engineers
km kilometer
kph kilometer per hour
LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
Leq sound equivalents
LOS level of service
LRTP long-range transportation plan
LUST leaking underground storage tank
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
m meter
MACT maximum achievable control technology '
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCSD Master Comment Summary Database
MDN Mercury Deposition Network
mg/1 milligrams per liter
lag/I micrograms per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
lag/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
mm millimeter
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
mph miles per hour
MSE mechanically stabilized earth
msl mean sea level
MST Mountains to Sea Trail
Acronyms - A-2
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

0

I

t

1
P

NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAC noise abatement criteria
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NCBI North Carolina Biotic Index
NCCGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality
NCDEH North Carolina Department of Environmental Health
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDOA North Carolina Department of Administration
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDFR North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
NCDLR North Carolina Division of Land Resources
NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCOSA North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
NCTSI North Carolina Trophic State Index
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHI National Highway Institute
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHS National Highway System
NOA Notice of Availability
NO[ Notice of Intent
NOX oxide of nitrogen
NORMs Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory
NTI National Transit Institute
NTMB Neotropical Migratory Bird
NTP Notice to Proceed
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
03 ozone
O&M operations and maintenance
OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratories
ORWs Outstanding Resource Waters
OSHA Occupational, Safety and Health Association
oz ounce
PA Programmatic Agreement (Cultural Resources)
Pb lead
PE professional engineer
PIP public involvement plan
PM particulate matter
Ppm parts per million by volume
PSD prevention of significant deterioration
PUC Public Utilities Commission
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Acronyms - A-3
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
ROD Record of Decision
ROE right-of-entry
ROW right-of-way
RR railroad
SAM[ Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SEAC Southeast Archaeological Center
sec second
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Areas
SOD sudden oak death
SOF Statement of Findings
so, dioxide of sulfur
sq ft square feet
SR significantly rare
SRO Southeast Regional Office
STAMINA standard method of noise analysis
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
t metric tonnes
T/E threatened and/or endangered species
TCM transportation control measure
TCP Traditional Cultural Property
TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
TIP Transportation Improvement Plan
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TN-EPPC Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council
TPY tons per year
tpy tonnes per year
TSM Transportation System Management
TSP total suspended particulate
TTST
TVA tractor-trailers and semi-trailers
Tennessee Valley Authority
TVPPA Tennessee Valley Public Power Association, Inc.
UATMP Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
UKB United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USASI
USC United States of America Standards Institute
United States Code '
USCG United States Coast Guard
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation (sometimes DOT)
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS
USGS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VCP variable circular plots
VOC volatile organic compounds
VPD vehicles per day
WPP Wellhead Protection Program
YTD year to date
Acronyms - A-4
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

t

f

Cl)
n
'00? I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary
n

0

In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et.
seq.), the National Park Service (NPS) has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze
alternatives for resolving issues related to the North Shore Road. The project study area is in western North
Carolina and includes a portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP, also referred to as
the Park) in Swain County and a portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) in Swain and
Graham counties. Both the GSMNP and the AT are individual units of the national park system within the
NPS. All alternatives requiring construction are located within the GSMNP and some alternatives cross the
AT. The Record of Decision for this EIS would serve as a General Management Plan (GMP) Amendment
for GSMNP if an alternative that is not consistent with the Park's GMP were selected for implementation.
S-1. Project Background
In July 1943, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), the state of North Carolina, and Swain
County, North Carolina, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(1943 Agreement) that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and
Reservoir and the resultant flooding of lands and roads within Swain
County. As part of the 1943 Agreement, 44,170 acres (17,875 hectares
[ha]) of land were ultimately transferred to the DOI and made part of
GSMNP. The 1943 Agreement also contained a provision by which the
"ontana Lake state of North Carolina was to construct a road from Bryson City to the
GSMNP boundary, and'the DOI was to construct a road through
GSMNP, along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir, to replace the flooded NC 288. The
state of North Carolina completed this obligation in 1959.
The obligation of the DOI to construct the road was subject to and contingent on an appropriation by
Congress of all funds necessary for the road's construction. The United States was at war when the 1943
Agreement was executed, and no funds were appropriated for construction. After the war, between 1948 and
1970, the DOI, through the NPS, built 7.2 miles (11.6 kilometers [km]) of the proposed road.
(Approximately 30 miles [48.,3 km] have not been constructed.)
During the early construction projects, it was discovered that the route of the proposed road would be
through very unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides, both during and after construction,
and requiring more invasive engineering techniques than originally considered. In addition, a particular
stratum encountered produced acidic drainage when disturbed and not properly handled and contained. Due
to these environmental concerns and associated costs, construction was stopped in 1972.
In October 2000, Congress appropriated $16 million to the U.S. Department of Transportation "for
construction of, and improvements to, North Shore Road in Swain County, North Carolina." Advocates of
building a road maintain that the government has an obligation to uphold the 1943 Agreement as a matter of
principle and credibility. Families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee River prior to the
flooding of the river and the transfer of land to GSMNP feel that the road would allow access to old home
sites and family cemeteries. Other proponents believe the road would provide economic benefits to Swain
County in the form of increased tourism. Local and national environmental groups contend that construction
Summary - S-1
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

and use of the road would harm Park resources. Some support a cash
settlement in lieu of the road to boost Swain County's economy.
S-2. Purpose and Need
The purpose of this action is to discharge and satisfy any obligations on
the part of the United States that presently exist as the result of the 1943
Agreement. The need of the project is to determine whether or not it is
feasible to complete the road and to evaluate other alternatives that
would satisfy the obligation.
While addressing the project's purpose and need and ensuring that resources within GSMNP, as well as
along the AT, are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the following goals will be fulfilled:
¦ Ensure that proposed management actions are consistent with legislative and executive mandates and
NPS policies.
¦ Protect the significant and diverse natural resources and ecosystems (forest communities, water
resources, and soundscapes) and the intangible benefits (peace and solitude) currently available in the
areas where natural processes dominate.
¦ Protect the tangible (archaeological sites, cemeteries, historic structures, landscapes, and Traditional
Cultural Properties [TCPs]) and the intangible (feelings of attachment, family life, myth, folklore, and
ideology) aspects of the cultural resources.
¦ Foster and build relationships with Swain County and other North Carolina gateway communities.
¦ Continue to provide the traditional recreational activities of hiking, camping, fishing, and horse use.
¦ Avoid alternatives that would require taking of privately held lands.
S-3. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
The North Shore Road Project has over a 60-year history related
to the constriction of the Fontana. Dam in western North
Carolina. For decades prior to the onset of the EIS and official
start of the public involvement program, the public and media
have commented on issues surrounding the land that is now'
included in the EIS study area and on the North Shore Road.
There is a strong interest in this project among numerous people
with various viewpoints, both locally and nationwide. Publics
involvement has been an essential component of the EIS,
areas. supporting an informed decision-making process. It has been
integral in selecting appropriate study alternatives, analyzing
potential impacts, and fulfilling NEPA requirements. In accordance with NEPA and implementing
regulations, the NPS and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed an extensive public
involvement program. The North Shore Road Public Involvement Program has included a variety of media
to inform the public on the status of the EIS planning process and to solicit and incorporate public feedback.
It included numerous public meetings at multiple locations, social advertisements in local newspapers,
Summary - S-2
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1

t

J
constructed in 1970.

I

t

t
lam'

national press releases, a comprehensive mailing list for project newsletters, and an interactive project
website.
In addition, interagency coordination and informal consultation facilitated distribution of project information,
open communication, and the collection of comments. Input from state and federal resource and regulatory
agencies was incorporated throughout all phases of the project's planning process. Meetings were held to
collect existing data, discuss necessary fieldwork, solicit comments on the planning process, obtain
concurrence on the draft EIS (DEIS) detailed study
alternatives, review impacts, and provide an opportunity
for the public to comment on the DEIS.
S-4. Proposed Alternatives
S-4.1 Development of
Preliminary Study Alternatives
Simplified List
of the Five Detailed Study Alternatives
1) No-Action
2) Monetary Settlement
3) Laurel Branch Picnic Area
4) Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (two route options and two road type
options)
5) Northern Shore Corridor (eight route options and two road type options)
Comprehensive List
of Options for Route and Road Type Combinations
An extensive list of approximately 100 initial options to
be considered was compiled after review of previously
documented concepts and recommended alternatives.
Alternatives were evaluated based on a list of variables
that includes environmental, social, economic, and
engineering constraints, as well as documented data on
existing conditions. Those alternatives that were likely
to have the greatest impacts or that appeared to offer
little benefit to the study area were eliminated from
further study. The results of this initial review assisted
in the decision to suggest six preliminary study
alternatives for more detailed evaluation in the DEIS.
These six alternatives were presented to the public and
resource agencies. Public and agency comments and
review of GSMNP visitor needs were considered in
determining the facilities, amenities, and alternatives to
be studied in the DEIS. One alternative was eliminated
due to conflicts with the United States Forest Service
(USFS) Nantahalw/Pisgah Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan). Other alternatives
that included additional corridor options to cross Forney
Creek, as well as another to access the Proctor area,
were considered
S4.2 Detailed Study Alternatives
As a result of the preceding review and input from the
public, resource agencies, NPS, FHWA, and private
consultants, five alternatives were selected for detailed
study in the DEIS. Two of the alternatives, the Pardal-
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
A) Baseline (northern route at Forney Creek), Primitive Park Road
B) Baseline (northern route at Forney Creek), Principal Park Road
C) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Primitive Park Road
D) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Principal Park Road
Northern Shore Corridor.
A) Baseline (northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks with a
terminus at NC 28), Primitive Park Road
B) Baseline (northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks with a
terminus at NC 28), Principal Park Road
C) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive Park Road
D) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and terminus at NC 28, Principal Park Road
E) South em Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
,Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive
Park Road.
F) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Principal
Park Road
G) 'Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam, Primitive Park Road
H) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam, Principal Park Road
I) Southem Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Primitive Park Road
J) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Principal Park Road
K) Northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks, and Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam, Primitive Park Road
L) Northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks, and Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam, Principal Park Road
W Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Primitive Park Road
N) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Principal Park Road
O) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive Park Road
P) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Principal Park Road
See Figure 2-8 for route locations.
Summary - S-3
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor, are presented throughout the document
as baseline routes with segment options and two road type options. The baseline routes for these
alternatives share the same northern alignment for 8.0 miles related to the Primitive Park Road and 5.8
miles related to the Principal Park Road Baseline routes for each road type have been compared to
existing conditions re., the No-Action Alternative). Impact analyses for the options are shown as a
difference from the associated baseline route. Southern crossings of embayments and the terminus
location provide options that may be used in any combination to form alternate routes for the Northern
Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build Akernative to Bushnell These two alternatives are described and
were analyzed in this fashion to simplify the information for the public and reviewers Refer to the
previous page for a comprehensive list of route and road type combinations
The study alternatives analyzed in Chapter 4 are described below:
No-Action Alternative: NEPA requires the No-Action Alternative as a basis for comparing the potential
benefits and impacts of other alternatives. This alternative would avoid study area disturbance and adverse
impacts to cultural and natural resources.
Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative): The Swain County Commissioners passed a
resolution on February 11, 2003, that stated the county would accept a monetary settlement to settle the 1943
Agreement. The use of the Monetary Settlement Alternative proceeds would be at the discretion of Swain
County and a range of potential uses could exist. In their resolution, the county indicated that the proceeds
of a settlement would allow the county to avoid tax increases, fund services such as education and social
services; and establish a favorable bond rating. Swain County may choose to pursue economic development
opportunities within the county's jurisdiction, which would potentially enhance public facilities, employment
opportunities, and/or the local tourism industry. Without a defined list of projects (including details
regarding timing, cost, and specific project descriptions) that might be planned by Swain County, the precise
impacts to the environment of the surrounding
region are not fully known. Swain County
would need to conduct the appropriate
environmental documentation and permitting for
these projects as required.
Laurel Branch Picnic Area (partial-build): The
Laurel Branch Picnic Area would consist of a
day-use area on the north side of existing Lake
View Road, just east of the existing tunnel
parking area. A new, two-way, paved
entrance/exit road would provide access to the
day-use area. Outdoor facilities would include a
Laurel Branch Picnic Area - Conceptual Plan multi-use picnic shelter, picnic tables, several
loop trails, drinking fountains, and restrooms.
The trails would provide an opportunity to explore stream ecology along Laurel Branch and to present local
history. Wayside exhibit panels would provide a tribute to local heritage. Occasional ranger-led programs
would be conducted from the day-use area, including educational programs.
Summary - S-4
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

E

Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell: This alternative would include up to 8 miles (12.9 km) of new roadway
from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement. This alternative would
include a bridge crossing Forney Creek north of the impounded waters (also referred to as the baseline). The
alternative would provide a boat launching ramp and restricted boat dock. The dock would accommodate
NPS or concession-operated boats that would provide transportation on Cemetery Decoration Days from
Bushnell or Cable Cove, as appropriate. The boat dock would also be used for scenic boat tours and would
be available to the public for temporary docking to access concessions, restrooms, and other facilities.
Exhibit space would be designed to highlight local heritage of the area and may include concession
opportunities. Located near the terminus of the new roadway would be a multi-use picnic shelter and picnic
tables, a backcountry permit station, an information kiosk, restrooms, and a parking area. Interpretive, self-
guided loop trails would recognize local heritage through a series of wayside exhibits explaining particular
points of interest along the trails.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would also include provisions for enhancements at Hazel Creek for
the former community of Proctor. A new, accessible trail from the boat dock to Proctor and new wayside
exhibits would convey the history of the area.
The Bushnell Area would
provide a unique park
experience because it would
have the only boating access
directly in GSMNP
boundaries. It would likely
attract a broad range of visitors
to the North Carolina side of
GSMNP. If this alternative
were selected, a Commercial
Services Plan would be
prepared to determine the type
of concessions that would be
necessary and appropriate,
financially viable, and of
service to the public. In
conjunction with the design
and construction of the roadway leading to the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell's destination, planning
and public involvement activities would be conducted to detail the final complement of facilities and design
their location on the landscape.
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embaymenr A major bridge crossing of the Forney Creek embayment
was studied as an option to the baseline corridor. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would
continue west past the existing tunnel and turn to the south to cross the Forney Creek embayment. This route
is approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 km) to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) shorter in length than the baseline.
Northern Shore Corridor: The Northern Shore Corridor is the only full-build alternative evaluated in the EIS.
It would connect Lake View Road to NC 28. The alternative (or baseline corridor) would include a small
Summary - S-5
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
L
bridge crossing of
Forney Creek north of
the impounded waters
and would avoid
major bridge crossings
of the Hazel Creek
and Eagle Creek
embayments. The
corridor would turn
north just west of
Calhoun and Mill
branches to follow
Lakeshore Trail to the
vicinity of the former
Proctor settlement.
Once north of the
Hazel Creek embayment, the corridor would turn to the west and continue through a portion of Flint Gap.
West of Eagle Creek, the corridor would turn to the south and continue west to NC 28 toward Deals Gap.
The estimated length of the baseline corridor is 30.8 miles (49.6 km) or 34.3 miles (55.2 km) depending on
road type. Depending on options chosen at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks and the western terminus, the
length ranges from approximately 24.9 to 34.3 miles (40.2 to 55.2 km). These three options are discussed in
more detail below.
The Northern Shore Corridor would include provisions for the development of an auto-tour guide describing
the historic and natural points of interest along the route for the study area, telling local history, and
illustrating the location of trails and backcountry campsites. Wayside exhibit panels would be provided
along the new road and at appropriate pull-off areas and overlooks. Interpretation would be provided at
Proctor. Also, restrooms would be built at appropriate locations.
Major bridge crossings of the embayments of Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks were studied as options to the
baseline corridor. In addition to these options, another option for the western terminus would involve the
corridor tying into Fontana Dam Road and crossing Fontana Dam before intersecting with NC 28. (Lengths
vary depending on the road type.)
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment: This option would continue west past the existing tunnel and
turn to the south to cross the Forney Creek embayment. This route is approximately 1.3 miles (2.1 km) or
1.5 miles (2.4 km) shorter in length than the baseline.
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments: This option would continue west past Calhoun and
Mill branches, bridging Hazel Creek and Eagle Creek embayments. This route is approximately 2.3 miles
(3.7 km) or 3.1 miles (5.0 km) shorter in length than the baseline. This option would turn to the north near
Calhoun and Mill branches.
Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam: This option would tie the Northern Shore Corridor into the
existing GSMNP roadway segment that crosses Fontana Dam. This connection would have less roadway
Summary - S-6
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

t

t

construction (approximately 1.5 miles [2.4 km] or 1.6 miles [2.6 km] shorter in length than the baseline
corridor).
All detailed study alternatives include continued cemetery access into GSMNP. Annual ferry service, as it is
currently provided by the NPS, would continue under alternatives that would not include provisions for a
new road, would not intersect an administrative road, or would reach only a portion of the cemeteries.
Several enhancement features are
recommended for consideration with all
detailed study alternatives. These include
coordinating with the TVA to rehabilitate and
enhance interpretive exhibits at the Fontana
Dam visitor information center to include local
history; adding informational exhibits at the
GSMNP boundary, in the vicinity of Bryson
City, to orient the public; and providing
scheduled, ranger-led programs.
Road Types: Two road types, Principal Park
Road and Primitive Park Road, were
recommended for detailed study in the DEIS
for the partial-build and build alternatives.
Principal Park Road: The proposed roadway
typical section for the Principal Park Road has
a two-way, asphalt surface with two 10-foot (3-
meter [m]) travel lanes and 3-foot-wide (1=m)
grass shoulders. It has a maximum posted
speed limit of 30 mph (50 kilometers per hour
[kphD•
Primitive Park Road: The proposed roadway Bottom Photo: Primitive Park Road (example)
typical section for the Primitive Park Road has
a two-way, gravel surface with two 9-foot (2.8-
m) travel lanes and 2-foot-wide (0.6-m) grass shoulders. It has a maximum posted speed limit of 15 mph (25
kph).
I S-4.3 Cost

Costs were developed for construction, operation, and maintenance of the detailed study alternatives. Costs
for the detailed study alternatives are presented in Table S-1.
Summary - S-7
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table S4. Costs (in 2006 dollars)
Total Additional GSMNP Increases to GSMNP
Operations and Annual Operations and
Alternative Capital Costs and/or Funding Maintenance Costs Maintenance Costs
Associated with
Construction Post-Construction
No-Action N/A N/A N/A
Monetary $52
000
000 N/A N/A
Settlement ,
,
Laurel Branch $13
700
000 $454,000 $313,000
Picnic Area ,
,
Primitive Principal Primitive Principal Primitive Principal
Park Road Park Road Park Road Park Road Park Road Park Road
Partial-Build
Altemativeto $92,200,000 $148,600,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $951,000 $951,000
Bushnell (baseline)
Southern Option at
Forney Creek
000 -$18
900
000
600
+$7
change change
change change
,
,
,
, from baseline from baseline from baseline from baseline
Embayment
Northern Shore $344
000 $589
700,000
900 $14,284,000 $14,310,000 $1,391,000 $1,523,000
Corridor (baseline) ,
,
,
Southern Option at
Forney Creek
+$7
600
000 -$18,900,000 No change No change No change No change
Embayment ,
, from baseline from baseline from baseline from baseline
Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle
000 -$24,500,000
+$37
000 No change No change No change No change

Creek Embayments ,
, from baseline from baseline from baseline from baseline
Southern Option
Crossing Fontana
600
000
-$9
800
000 -$13 No change No change No change No change
,
,
,
, from baseline from baseline from baseline from baseline
Dam
Notes. Numbers for op tions are the difference in cost compared with the baseline corridor. The southern options do not
after the operati ons and maintenance costs for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell or the Northern Shore Corridor. Costs
include currently anticipated mitigation. Additional mitigation would be identified during final design.
1 Since 1980, the Park has been committed to providing access to cemeteries along the northern shore of Fontana Lake as
discussed in the Park's GMP (NPS 1982). The Park has provided this service without any allocation or budget increases.
Because the Park is committed to maintaining current cemetery visitation practices for all the aftematives, the Park will prioritize
a budget increase that will specifically describe the operations and maintenance costs to continue these activities.
S-5. Environmental Consequences
The following section summarizes the primary impacts by resource topic. Impact topics were based on
federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders; NPS management policies; and resource studies and
knowledge of existing conditions. Impact topics were identified by the study team (NPS, FHWA, private
consultants) and finalized through input from the public.
Summary - S-8
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
1
The potential impacts of each alternative, including road type where applicable, were analyzed and
quantified to establish an understanding of the magnitude of the likely impact. Potential impacts were also
1 evaluated for consideration of potential impairment to the resources and values of GSMNP and the AT.
Alternatives that would avoid impacts or have negligible impacts are generally omitted from the following
summary, however, negligible impacts are identified with some impact topics for clarification, as well as
for the Preferred Alternative in all cases
The Summary of Impacts Table (Table S-2) included at the end of this Summary provides a comparison
matrix of the study alternatives by impact topic. More detailed impact evaluations are provided in Chapter 4.

t
1

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts were analyzed. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at
the same time and place. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines indirect impacts as those
"that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). The CEQ regulations to implement the NEPA require assessment of
cumulative impacts in the decision-making process. Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts on the
environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes
such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable fixture actions in the area are
discussed throughout Chapter 4 and summarized in
Section 4.1.2.1.
This EIS documents the analysis of impacts without
detailed mitigation, based on information known to date.
Detailed mitigation plans would be developed before
implementation-of a partial-build or build alternative. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be
developed between the NPS and FHWA to document
the commitment of the two agencies to jointly produce
detailed mitigation plans if a partial-build or build
alternative were selected for implementation. Final
design and detailed mitigation may reveal site-specific
impacts that are not currently known. Additional NEPA
analysis would be required if impacts were found to be
greater than identified in this EIS for any of the partial-
build or build alternatives.
S-5.1 Traffic, Mobility, and Access
Each of the partial-build and build alternatives is
expected to generate a relatively low volume of traffic.
The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road)
would generate the most traffic, 475 annual average
daily traffic (AADT), followed by the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) which would generate 226 AADT. The Laurel Branch Picnic
Area would generate the least amount of traffic, 64 AADT.
Summary - S-9
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

During construction, traffic would increase in the areas surrounding the project, including Bryson City and
the Fontana Dam area. The construction traffic, composed primarily of trucks hauling materials and
equipment, would adversely affect local intersection and roadway capacities during this phase of the project.
The Northern Shore Corridor (any option) would result in beneficial or indeterminate, long-term changes to
mobility and access in the study area and the surrounding region. These impacts would be moderate for the
Principal Park Road, but minor for the Primitive Park Road due to the additional length and the extremely
low-speed road conditions. The Northern Shore Corridor (any option and either road type) would create a
new travel route between Deals Gap and Bryson City, providing between 24.9 (40.1 km) to 34.3 miles (55.2
km) of additional road into the Park and improved access to some cemeteries. The Northern Shore Corridor
(any option) would also result in moderate, adverse impacts during the 15-year construction period.
The effects of the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option) on
mobility and access would be minor for the Principal Park Road and
negligible to minor for the Primitive Park Road, due to road conditions
and lower traffic volumes. The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
(any option) would also result in moderate, adverse impacts during the
five-year construction period and would actually result in the greatest
daily truck traffic due to the amount of earthwork and the construction
schedule.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would
result in negligible, indeterminate changes to mobility and access in the
study area and surrounding region.
S-6.2 Community Impacts
Community impacts consist of population, housing, and community infiastructure impacts and social
infrastructure impacts. In regard to community effects, few standards exist as to what constitutes beneficial
or positive changes and those considered adverse or negative. For example, the TVA's construction of
Fontana Dam during World War II resulted in new jobs but required relocations. This event may be viewed
as adverse by some and beneficial by others. For this analysis, an attempt was made to capture the major
issues that frame whether various groups view an alternative positively or negatively. Local and national
special interest groups have expressed deep-rooted concern, as well as passionate support for different
alternatives. It is important to note that while representative groups shave some issues and values, an
individual may hold any one or a set of these values differently than another individual and may feel much
more or less strongly about a given value than others do.
S,5.2.1 Population, Housing, and Community Infrastructure
The Northern Shore Corridor, the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, and the Monetary Settlement
Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would likely result in changes to population, housing, and infrastructure
in the communities in and around the study area. Rental and permanent housing stock may increase in
response to increased demands for housing associated with jobs created by road construction in the short-
term, as well as the additional Park staff required and related jobs generated over the long-term once
construction is completed. The degree of impact to the community would depend on these economic
Summary - S-10
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1

from Bryson City to Fontana in
western NC.

PJ

e
1

t

fl
impacts. The construction of the Northern Shore Corridor (any option and either road type) would result in
moderate, beneficial or indeterminate, short-term impacts to population, housing and infrastructure in the
communities in and around the study area. The long-term impacts to population, housing, and infrastructure
would be moderate, beneficial or indeterminate for the Principal Park Road and minor, beneficial or
indeterminate for the Primitive Park Road. The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option and either
road type) would result in moderate, beneficial or indeterminate, short-term and minor, beneficial or
indeterminate, long-term impacts to the population, housing and infrastructure of the communities located in
or around the study area. The impacts resulting from the Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred
Alternative) would be minor, indeterminate, short- to long-term in Swain County, with negligible to minor
changes in Graham and other surrounding counties.
S-5.2.2 Social Infrastructure
All of the alternatives would have social impacts,
some adverse and others beneficial, on a variety of
people, depending on an individual's values or
focus. For example, to individuals focused on
settling the 1943 Agreement with a full-build
alternative, the Northern Shore Corridor would
have major beneficial impacts, and the selection of
any other alternative, especially the No-Action
Alternative, could be viewed as a broken contract Downtown Bryson City
by the federal government. Conversely, to
individuals focused on resource protection and an
undisturbed environment, the selection of the Northern Shore Corridor would have major adverse impacts,
while the No-Action Alternative would have beneficial impacts.
The Northern Shore Corridor (any option and either road type) would have major, adverse impacts in the
short-term and long-term or major, beneficial impacts in the short-term and long-term, depending on an
individual's values or focus. The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option and either road type)
would have moderate, beneficial impacts or moderate, adverse impacts in the short-term and long-term,
depending on an individual's values or focus. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would have major, beneficial
impacts and moderate, adverse impacts in the short-term and long-term, depending on an individual's values
or focus. The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would have moderate, beneficial
impacts or moderate, adverse impacts in the short-term and long-term, depending on an individual's values
or focus. The No-Action Alternative would have moderate to major, adverse, short-term and long-term
impacts or minor, beneficial, short-term and moderate, indeterminate long-term impacts, depending on an
individual's values or focus.
S-5.3 Economic Impacts
Construction of one of the partial-build or build alternatives or the Monetary Settlement Alternative
(Preferred Alternative) would provide a new stimulus to the regional economy, generating economic benefits
for residents, businesses, and local governments in the area.
Summary - S-11
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal
Park Road) would result in major, short-term economic benefits to the area, primarily in Swain and Graham
counties, as jobs would be created during construction. Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) and
the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Primitive Park Road) would result in moderate, short-term
economic benefits to the area, associated with constriction. Differences in short-term impacts to jobs,
income, and retail sales, both in magnitude and duration, would be attributable to differences in project
construction costs (Table S-1).
After construction, these alternatives are expected to increase Park visitation, resulting in minor to moderate
long-term economic benefits to the area. The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road, any option)
would yield the greatest economic benefits in the long-term, due to greater expected increases in visitation.
This alternative would also result in some redirection of travel flows within the region, potentially altering
the established geographic distribution of economic stimulus associated with existing visitation patterns.
Moderate, long-term benefits are expected with the Principal Park Road (any option) and minor, long-term
benefits are expected with the Primitive Park Road (any option). Minor, long-term benefits are also expected
with the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option).
The proceeds of the Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in moderate,
beneficial, short-term and long-term impacts. The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative)
would provide Swain County with an opportunity to spur local economic and community development
efforts.
S-5.4 Land Use Impacts
The Northern Shore Corridor (any option and either road
type) and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any
option and either road type) would change land use within
the Park, resulting in major and moderate impacts,
respectively. Impacts for both alternatives would be
adverse and long-term. These alternatives are not in
compliance with the current GSMNP GMP. With the
Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road),
approximately 823 acres (333.05 ha) would be reclassified
from "Natural Environment - Type I" to "Transportation"
subzone. With the Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive
Park Road) approximately 906 acres (366.64 ha) would be
reclassified. The Southern Option at Forney Creek
Embayment would reduce the area to be reclassified by approximately 34 acres (13.76 ha) with the Principal
Park Road and by approximately 40 acres (16.19 ha) with the Primitive Park Road. The Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would reduce the area to be reclassified by approximately 83 acres
(33.59 ha) with the Principal Park Road and by approximately 60 acres (24.28 ha) with the Primitive Park
Road. With the Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam, the size of the area to be reclassified from "Natural
Environment - Type I" to "Transportation" subzone would be reduced by approximately 41 acres (16.59 ha)
with the Principal Park Road and by approximately 42 acres (17.00 ha) with the Primitive Park Road.
Summary-S-12
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

J

L

n

i
I
11

r1l
Cl
I
fl

1

',J

With the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, the road corridor would also be reclassified from "Natural
Environment" to "Transportation" subzone. For the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, the
Principal Park Road would include approximately 155 acres (62.73 ha) and the Primitive Park Road corridor
would include approximately 205 acres (82.96 ha). The southern option would reduce the size of the
reclassified "Transportation" subzone by approximately 34 acres (13.76 ha) with the Principal Park Road
and by approximately 40 acres (16.19 ha) with the Primitive Paris Road. With the Partial-Build Alternative
to Bushnell (either road type or option), approximately 8 acres (3.24 ha) would be reclassified from "Natural
Environment - Type I" to "General Park Development."
In addition, the Northern Shore Corridor would reduce the area that
would potentially be considered for future wilderness designation, with
the Primitive Park Road having the greatest impact. The Principal Park
Road would eliminate approximately 5,215 acres (2,110.40 ha) from
future wilderness consideration and the Primitive Park Road would
eliminate approximately 5,314 acres (2,150.46 ha) from future
consideration. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would
reduce the impact by approximately 258 acres (104.41 ha) with the
Principal Park Road and by approximately 451 acres (182.51 ha) with
the Primitive Park Road. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek
Embayments would reduce the impact by approximately 630 acres
(254.95 ha) with the Principal Park Road and by approximately 687
acres (278.01 ha) with the Primitive Park Road. With the Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam, the impact would be reduced by
approximately 551 acres (222.98 ha) with the Principal Park Road and
by approximately 550 acres (222.57 ha) with the Primitive Park Road.
With the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, the area that would potentially be considered for
future wilderness designation would be reduced by approximately 1,658 acres (670.96 ha) with the Principal
Park Road and by approximately 1,839 acres (744.20 ha) with the Primitive Park Road. If the Southern
Option at Forney Creek Embayment were selected, this impact would be reduced by approximately 258
acres (104.41 ha) with the Principal Park Road and by approximately 451 acres (182.51 ha) with the
Primitive Park Road.
The reduction of acreage potentially considered for future wilderness designation resulting from the Northern
Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell does not affect the potential for the future
wilderness designation of the remaining acreage within GSMNP. However, urbanization and
suburbanization along the eastern seaboard of the United States have resulted in a reduction in the amount of
undeveloped areas including open space, forested land and other natural areas. The portion of the project
study area within GSMNP, along with a larger portion of GSMNP contiguous to the study area, is one of the
largest land tracts in the eastern United States that is not impacted by or easily accessible from modern roads.
Land use outside GSMNP is likely to be affected by the construction of either the Northern Shore Corridor
or the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell. The Northern Shore Corridor would have a minor (Primitive
Park Road) to moderate (Principal Park Road) indirect impact on land use outside the Park, especially in
downtown Bryson City. At the western terminus, the Northern Shore Corridor would likely create
development potential on privately owned properties on the south side of NC 28 outside GSMNP. The
Summary - S-13
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
hiking trails and administrative
access roads.

Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would have a minor, indeterminate impact on land use change and
development patterns outside the Park, primarily along Fontana Road and in downtown Bryson City.
Development potential is also likely as a cumulative impact if either the Northern Shore Corridor (either road
type or any option) or the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (either road type or any option) is
constructed. Impacts resulting from the Northern Shore Corridor, when added to the development expected
in Bryson City, Cherokee, and surrounding counties, would result in greater cumulative impacts to
surrounding communities than would other alternatives. However, development potential in the region is
limited by the large percentage of land under public ownership.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact land use or affect
development in GSMNP or the study area. It would not impact the area that would potentially be considered
for future wilderness designation.
S-5.5 Visitor Use and Experience
The majority of impacts would be felt by the casual and active visitor.
In most cases, the active visitor would be displaced to other areas of
GSMNP. Over time, the loss of this backcountry area and the
displacement of visitors to other areas would deteriorate resources,
causing some active users to no longer recreate in GSMNP. Some
new opportunities would be created for the passive and casual
visitors, including additional driving, day-hiking, and picnicking
opportunities. New interpretive opportunities would be created for all
visitors. The opportunity for visitors to experience the Park as a Kiosk provides visitor information.
sanctuary and refuge from life's daily activities and routines would be
impacted. The intrusion of the partial-build and build alternatives into the backcountry would reduce the
sense of wildness and solitude in this area of the Park. While the loss of some resources could be mitigated,
the intangible values and experiences that some Park visitors desire during their visit could not. Overall,
visitor experience would be adversely impacted as a result.
The Northern Shore Corridor (any option and either road type), the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
(any option and either road type), and the Laurel Branch Picnic Area are likely to impact visitor experience
in the Park. Whether impacts are perceived as adverse or beneficial depends upon the perspective of the
individual visitor. Three visitor types -- passive, casual, and active -- were used to differentiate between
adverse and beneficial impacts. In general, all the partial-build and build alternatives would have beneficial
effects on the passive visitor. The Northern Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
would adversely impact the casual and active visitor by reducing opportunities for backcountry experiences
and solitude.
The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) would have major, adverse, long-term impacts, resulting
from the loss of seven backcountry campsites and impacts to three trails, including the loss of 30.9 miles
(49.7 km) of Lakeshore Trail. This alternative would require the AT to cross a new roadway, resulting in a
major, adverse, and long-term impact to the AT. This alternative would also result in major, adverse, long-
term impacts to horse use; moderate, adverse, long-term impacts to wildlife viewing, photography, and
nature study; major, adverse, long-term impacts to nostalgia/refuge; and moderate to major, adverse, long-
Summary-S-14
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

F1

w

I

tern impacts to solitude for casual and active visitors. This alternative would also result in major, adverse,
long-term impacts to general scenic views; and major, adverse, long-term soundscape impacts, which affect
the visitor's experience. Long-term impacts to fishing would be moderate and adverse related to boat and
trail access changes and moderate and beneficial due to improved access related to trailhead parking. Minor
to moderate beneficial, long-term impacts provided by this alternative include interpretive and scenic driving
opportunities, as well as opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, nature study, nostalgia/refuge,
general scenic views, and solitude for passive visitors. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
would avoid impacts to one trail, including 0.8 miles (1.3 Ian) of Lakeshore Trail. The Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would avoid impacts to one trail, including 5.7 miles (9.2 km) of
Lakeshore Trail. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam would entail re-routing a 0.8 mile (1.3 km)
portion of the AT.
The Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would also have major, adverse, long-term impacts,
resulting from the loss of seven backcountry campsites and impacts to six trails, including the loss of 31.3
miles (50.4 km) of Lakeshore Trail and impacts to the AT. Adverse impacts to fishing would be major in the
long-term. This alternative would also result in moderate, adverse, long-term soundscape impacts. Other
impacts are similar to the impacts resulting from the Principal Park Road for this alternative. The Southern
Option at Forney Creek Embayment would avoid the loss of one backcountry campsite and impacts to three
trails, including 1.2 miles (1.9 km) of Lakeshore Trail. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek
Embayments would avoid the loss of two backcountry campsites and impacts to one trail, including 5.7 miles
(9.2 km) of Lakeshore Trail. The impacts resulting from the Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam
(Primitive Park Road) would be the same as the impacts resulting from the Principal Park Road for this
option.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would have moderate impacts, resulting in
the loss of two backcountry campsites and impacts to three trails, including 7.9 miles (12.7 Ian) of Lakeshore
Trail. This alternative would result in minor to moderate, adverse, long-term impacts to horse use. Impacts
to wildlife viewing, photography, and nature study would be minor, adverse, long-term for casual and active
visitors and minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term for passive visitors. Impacts to nostalgia/refuge would
be moderate, adverse, long-term for casual and active visitors and minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term
for passive visitors. Long-term solitude impacts would be minor to moderate, adverse for casual visitors and
major, adverse for active visitors, but minor to moderate, beneficial for passive visitors. This alternative
would also result in major, adverse impacts to general scenic views for casual and active visitors and
moderate, adverse soundscape impacts, which affect the visitor's experience. Long-term impacts to fishing
would be moderate and adverse related to boat and trail access changes and moderate and beneficial related
to the new boat ramp. Benefits would also include minor to major impacts for new interpretive, scenic
driving, day-hiking, and picnicking opportunities. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would
avoid impacts to one trail, including 0.8 miles (1.3 Ian) of Lakeshore Trail.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Primitive Park Road) would have moderate impacts, resulting in
the loss of two backcountry campsites and impacts to five trails, including the loss of 8.3 miles (13.4 Ian) of
Lakeshore Trail. Adverse soundscape impacts would be minor, while impacts to fishing would be major in
' the long-term. Other impacts are similar to the impacts resulting from the Principal Park Road for this
alternative. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would avoid the loss of one backcountry
campsite and impacts to three trails, including 1.2 miles (2.9 km) of Lakeshore Trail.
' Summary - S-15
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would not impact existing campsites or trails and would add interpretive,
scenic driving, day-hiking, and picnic opportunities, resulting in a minor, beneficial impact. However, the
development of the day-use area and associated increase in visitors would result in minor, adverse impacts to
the sense of wildness and solitude currently experienced by active visitors in this area of the Park. In
addition, the Laurel Branch Picnic Area site development would have minor, adverse, long-term impacts to
scenic views for casual and active visitors.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is anticipated to have negligible impacts to
camping, hiking, horse use, fishing, interpretive opportunities, scenic/driving opportunities, other visitor
experiences (wildlife viewing, photography, nature study, and nostalgia/refuge), solitude, and general scenic
views.
S-5.6 Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires the identification and
evaluation of impacts to historic properties. As part of the Section 106 consultation, a Programmatic
Agreement (PA) was developed to document the Section 106 process as it pertains to the North Shore Road
EIS. Potential impacts were assessed for three types of cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites, historic
structures, and TCPs) and one separate potential historic resource, the AT.
S-5.6.1 Archaeological Sites
NPS conducted sample archaeological surveys of approximately 10 percent
of the study corridor between the Chambers Creek vicinity and the Lake
View Road tunnel to predict landforms likely to contain significant
archaeological sites. Approximately 15 percent of the unsurveyed parts of
the study corridors (excluding Fontana Lake) are considered to be moderate
to high probability areas for site occurrence: If the alternative selected in the
Record of Decision is a partial-build or build alternative, additional
identification and evaluation efforts may be needed.
The Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would result in the most
adverse impacts to archaeological resources. The baseline Northern Shore
Corridor (Principal Park Road) would result in adverse, long-term impacts to
six known archaeological resources, including one major impact, one moderate impact, and one minor
impact, as well as impacts to three unevaluated sites. This alternative would also impact 41 potential historic
period archaeological sites, and approximately 63.81 acres (25.8 ha) of unsurveyed moderate to high
probability area. If the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment were chosen (Principal Park Road), it
would result in one less impact to an archaeological site and would impact an additional 3.65 acres (1.5 ha)
of unsurveyed, moderate to high probability area. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek
Embayments (Principal Park Road) would result in one less potential impact to an unevaluated site, 27 fewer
impacts to potential historic period archaeological sites, and would impact 17.40 fewer acres (7.04 ha) of
unsurveyed moderate to high probability area. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam (Principal Park
Road) would result in five fewer impacts to potential historic period archaeological sites and would impact
5.32 fewer acres (2.16 ha) of unsurveyed, moderate to high probability area.
Summary-S-16
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1

C
entering the area in the
1820s.

t
1

1
n

Impacts resulting from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would vary slightly from
the impacts due to the Principal Park Road. This alternative would result in adverse, long-term impacts to
four known archaeological resources, including two major impacts and one minor impact, as well as impact
one unevaluated site. This alternative would also impact 45 potential historic period archaeological sites and
would impact approximately 59.35 acres (24.02 ha) of unsurveyed moderate to high probability area. The
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Primitive Park Road) would result in one less major impact
to an archaeological site but would add a potential adverse impact to an unevaluated site. It also would
impact an additional 4.42 acres (1.79 ha) of unsurveyed, moderate to high probability area. The Southern
Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments (Primitive Park Road) would result in one less potential
impact to an unevaluated site, 27 fewer impacts to potential historic period archaeological sites, and would
impact 14.67 fewer acres (5.94 ha) of unsurveyed, moderate to high probability area. The Southern Option
Crossing Fontana Dam (Primitive Park Road) would result in five fewer impacts to potential historic period
archaeological sites and would impact 4.43 fewer acres (1.79 ha) of unsurveyed, moderate to high
probability area.
The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road)
would result in major, adverse, long-term impacts to two archaeological
sites and a minor adverse impact to an additional site. This option would
also impact one identified but unevaluated site, two potential historic
period archaeological sites, and about 6.87 acres (2.78 ha) of unsurveyed
moderate to high probability area. The Southern Option at Forney Creek
Embayment (Principal Park Road) would result in one less impact to an
archaeological site and an increase of 3.65 acres (1.48 ha) of unsurveyed
moderate to high probability area that would be impacted.
with the Ritter Lumber operations
at Proctor
Impacts to known archaeological sites would be similar if the Primitive
Park Road is selected for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell. The only difference is that the Primitive
Park Road would not impact an unevaluated site. However, because of its length and location, the Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell (Primitive Park Road) would have slightly greater potential for impacts to
unknown archaeological resources than the Principal Park Road. This option would impact three potential
historic period archaeological sites, and 7.66 acres (3.10 ha) of unsurveyed moderate to high probability area.
The Southern Option at Forney Creek would result in one less major impact to an archaeological site, but
would potentially impact one identified but unevaluated site. It would no longer impact any potential
historic period archaeological sites and would increase the unsurveyed moderate to high probability area by
4.42 acres (1.79 ha).
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would impact one potential historic period archaeological site and
approximately 3.95 acres (1.60 ha) of unsurveyed area with moderate to high probability for archaeological
sites.
' The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not affect archaeological sites within the
Park.
Summary - 5-17
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-5.6.2 Historic Structures
The Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would result in
impacts to up to six historic structures that are potentially eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments (both
road types) would eliminate those potential impacts, while the
Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam (both road types) would
impact the Fontana Dam, a NRHP-eligible property and potential
National Historic Landmark. The Monetary Settlement
Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not affect historic structures within the Park.
S-5.6.3 Traditional Cultural Properties
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are defined as places that are associated with the cultural practices or
beliefs of a living community. Both beneficial and adverse indirect impacts to TCPs, primarily related to
Decoration Days, would result from the Northern Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell. These impacts would be due to either elimination of current NPS-provided vehicular access or
increased ease in private vehicular access to cemeteries resulting from the elevation and location of a new
roadway. None of-the alternatives would involve relocation of known grave sites.
The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) would result in a moderate, adverse access impact to one
contributing resource to the Cemetery Decoration Days TCP (Woody Cemetery.) and minor, indeterminate,
access impacts to two cemeteries (Orr and Payne cemeteries), but would have major, beneficial, access
impacts to three cemeteries (Bradshaw, McClure, and Proctor cemeteries) and to the potential Proctor
Baptizing Hole TCP; moderate, beneficial, access impacts to eight cemeteries (Bone Valley, Calhoun, Hall,
Higdon, McCampbell Gap, Mitchell, Walker, and Wike cemeteries); and minor, beneficial, access impacts to
two cemeteries (Cook and Fairview cemeteries). All these impacts would be long-term. This option would
also result in adverse, short-term impacts due to trail disruptions during construction. These impacts include
minor access impacts to 15 cemeteries (Bone Valley, Bradshaw, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap,
Mitchell, Orr, Payne, Pilkey, Posey, Proctor, Walker, Wike, and Woody, cemeteries) and to the potential
Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Principal Park Road)
would eliminate the long-term and short-term access impacts to the Woody Cemetery. The Southern Option
at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would eliminate major, beneficial access impacts to the potential
Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP and to two contributing resources to the Cemetery Decoration Days TCP
(Bradshaw and Proctor cemeteries); the moderate, beneficial access impacts to seven cemeteries (Bone
Valley, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap, Walker, and Wike cemeteries); and minor, short-term,
adverse access impacts to the potential Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP ind to nine cemeteries (Bone Valley,
Bradshaw, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap, Proctor, Walker, and Wike cemeteries). The Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam (Principal Park Road) would eliminate two minor, long-term, indeterminate
access impacts and two short-term, adverse, access impacts (Orr and Payne cemeteries).
The Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would result in moderate, adverse access impacts to
three contributing resources to the Cemetery Decoration Days TCP (Hoyle, Pilkey and Posey cemeteries)
and a minor to moderate, indeterminate, access impact to one cemetery (Woody Cemetery) due to
elimination of current NPS-provided vehicular access. It would result in major, beneficial, access impacts to
Summary - S-18
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

w

L'
1

1

t

t

three cemeteries (Bradshaw, McClure, and Proctor
cemeteries) and to the potential Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP;
moderate, beneficial access impacts to eight cemeteries
(Bone Valley, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap,
Mitchell, Walker, and Wike cemeteries), and minor,
beneficial, access impacts to two cemeteries (Cook and
Fairview cemeteries) due to increased ease in private
vehicular access, and minor, indeterminate, access impacts to
two cemeteries (Orr and Payne cemeteries). All these
impacts would be long-term. The option would also result in
the following adverse, short-term impacts: a minor to
located north of Fontana lake. moderate access impact to one cemetery (Hoyle Cemetery)
and minor access impacts to 15 cemeteries (Bone Valley,
Bradshaw, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap, Mitchell, Orr, Payne, Pilkey, Posey, Proctor, Walker,
Wike, and Woody cemeteries) and to the potential Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP, all due to trail disruptions
during construction. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Principal Park Road) would
eliminate the long-term and short-term access impacts to the Hoyle and Woody cemeteries. The Southern
Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would eliminate the major, beneficial access impacts to the
potential Proctor Baptizing Hole TCP and to two cemeteries (Bradshaw and Proctor cemeteries); moderate,
beneficial access impacts to seven cemeteries (Bone Valley, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell Gap,
Walker, and Wike cemeteries); and the minor, adverse, short-term access impacts to the potential Proctor
Baptizing Hole TCP and to nine cemeteries (Bone Valley, Bradshaw, Calhoun, Hall, Higdon, McCampbell
Gap, Proctor, Walker, and Wike cemeteries). The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam (Principal Park
Road) would eliminate the minor, indeterminate, long-term access impacts and the adverse, short-term
access impacts to two cemeteries (Orr and Payne cemeteries).
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would result in a moderate, adverse, long-
term access impact to one contributing resource to the Cemetery Decoration Days TCP (Woody Cemetery)
by eliminating current NPS-provided vehicular access. The option also would result in a major, beneficial,
long-term access impact to the McClure Cemetery and a minor, beneficial, long-term access impact to the
Welch Cemetery, in both cases by improving current access. Finally, the option would result in a minor to
moderate, adverse, shortterm access impact to the Woody Cemetery and a minor, adverse, short-term access
impact to the McClure Cemetery due to trail disruptions during construction. The Southern Option at Forney
Creek Embayment (Principal Park Road) would eliminate the long-term and short-term access impacts to the
Woody Cemetery.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Primitive Park Road) would result in a moderate, adverse, long-
term access impact to one contributing resource to the Cemetery Decoration Days TCP (Hoyle Cemetery)
and a minor to moderate, indeterminate or adverse, long-term access impact to a second contributing
resource (Woody Cemetery), in both cases by eliminating current NPS-provided vehicular access. The
option also would result in a major, beneficial, long-term access impact to the McClure Cemetery and a
minor, beneficial, long-term access impact to the Welch Cemetery, in both cases by improving current
' access. Finally, the option would result in minor, adverse, short-term, access impacts to the two cemeteries
(Woody and McClure cemeteries), and a minor to moderate, adverse, short-term access impact to one
cemetery (Hoyle Cemetery) due to trail disruptions during construction. The Southern Option at Forney
Summary - S-19
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Creek Embayment (Primitive Park Road) would eliminate the long term and short-term access impacts to
two cemeteries (Hoyle and Woody cemeteries).
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not affect TCPs within the Park.
S-5.6.4 Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT)
Adverse impacts to the AT, a potential historic property, would
result where a partial-build or build alternative crosses the trail
or where an alternative is visible from the trail. Compared to the
baseline Northern Shore Corridor (both road types), the southern
options are likely to result in greater impacts to the AT. Visitor
use and experience impacts associated with the AT are
summarized in Section S-5.5.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would result in moderate, direct, and negligible to
minor indirect, adverse impacts to the AT. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Principal
Park Road) would also result in an additional minor, indirect, adverse impact to the AT, due to construction
of a bridge across the Forney Creek embayment that would be visible from the trail. The Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would also result in additional minor indirect, adverse impacts to the
AT because bridges across the embayments would be visible from the trail. The Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam (Principal Park Road) would result in additional direct and indirect, adverse impacts to the AT.
It would nm along the existing AT route for about 3,800 feet (1, 15,8 m), resulting in a moderate, indirect
impact to the trail, and would also be visible from the trail at several locations, constituting minor, indirect
impacts to the trail.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell with the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (both road
types) would also result in an additional minor, indirect, adverse impact to the AT, due to construction of a
bridge across the Forney Creek embayment that would be visible from the trail.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact the AT.
S-5.7 Topography, Geology, and Soils
Major adverse impacts to geology would occur with all,partial-build and build alternatives because they
would require rock and soil excavation and embankment with the potential to produce acid. All disturbed
rock and soil would require testing for acid potential and could require major mitigation and monitoring
efforts such as encapsulation, removal, and pre- and post-construction monitoring. Capital costs (Table S-1)
capture the costs associated with encapsulation methods, based on functional designs and an assumption that
all excavation requires treatment.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) would involve excavation of approximately 2.9
million cubic yards (2.2 million m) and embankment of approximately 2.5 million cubic yards (1.9 million
m) of rock and soil, resulting in a major, adverse, long-term impact. The baseline Northern Shore Corridor
(Primitive Park Road) would involve excavation of approximately 1.7 million cubic yams (1.3 million m)
and embankment of approximately 1.3 million cubic yards (1.0 million m), also resulting in a major adverse
Summary - S-20
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

7

1

J

1

t

impact. The southern options (both road types) would decrease these volumes. While problematic rock
formations are located throughout the study area, the Northern Shore Corridor would involve construction
west of the confluence of Hazel Creek and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are believed to have
the highest potential for acid production and are likely to contain higher concentrations of metallic minerals
than the surrounding rocks.
The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would involve excavation of
approximately 945,100 cubic yards (722,600 m3) and embankment of approximately 662,800 cubic yards
(506,700 in), while the Primitive Park Road would involve excavation of approximately 693,900 cubic
yards (530,600 in) and embankment of approximately 356,500 cubic yards (272,500 m). Adverse impacts
due to both road types would be major and long-term.
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would involve excavation of approximately 24,700 cubic yards (18,900 in)
and embankment of approximately 23,300 cubic yards (19,300 m), resulting in a major, adverse, long-term
impact.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is not expected to cause adverse impacts to
topography, geology, or soils.
S-5.8 Floodplains and Floodways
The Northern Shore Corridor (all options and either road type) and the
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (all options and either road type)
would encroach on the 100-year floodplain at major stream crossings.
The encroachments consist of fill in the existing floodplains due to
roadway embankments. The intensities of the impacts result from the
increase in 100-year flood elevations due to the size of the proposed
drainage structures and the site topography. All impacts noted would be
adverse and long-term. The intensity of the impacts would vary with the
amount of fill and length of bridge encroachment within the floodplain.
If an alternative involving construction were selected for
implementation, encroachments could be minimized during more
detailed design.
Impacts for the baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) would include approximately 4.8
acres (2.0 ha) of minor impacts, 1.6 acres (0.7 ha) of moderate impacts, and 1.6 acres (0.6 ha) of major
impacts caused by fill. This alternative would also include 570 linear feet (174 m) of minor impacts caused
by bridge encroachment within the floodplain. As compared to the baseline, the Southern Option at Forney
Creek Embayment (Principal Park Road) would have approximately 100 additional feet (30 m) of bridge
encroachment related to minor impacts. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments
(Principal Park Road) would avoid minor and major impacts caused by fill and have approximately 1.2 fewer
acres (0.5 ha) of fill related to moderate impacts. This option would also have approximately 180 fewer
linear feet (55 m) of bridge encroachment related to minor impacts. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana
Dam (Principal Park Roads), as compared to the baseline, would have approximately 0.2 fewer acres (0.08
ha) of fill related to moderate impacts.
Summary - S-21
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
and/or minimized by bridging the
streams and associated floodplains.
L?
,
Local impacts for the baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would include approximately
3.7 acres (1.5 ha) of minor impacts, 2.3 acres (0.88 ha) of moderate impacts, and 1.7 acres (0.7 ha) of major
impacts caused by fill. This alternative would also have approximately 180 linear feet (55 m) of minor '
impacts caused by bridge encroachment within the floodplain. The Southern Option at Forney Creek
Embayment (Primitive Park Road) would have approximately 0.3 fewer acres (0.12 ha) of fill related to
moderate impacts. However, it also would have roughly 420 additional feet (128 m) of bridge encroachment '
related to minor impacts. As compared with the baseline, the Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek
Embayments (Primitive Park Road) would have 3.7 fewer acres (1.5 ha) of fill related to minor impacts, 1.3
fewer acres (0.5 ha) of fill related to moderate impacts, and 1.6 fewer acres (0.6 ha) of fill related to major ,
impacts. This option would also have 180 fewer linear feet (55 m) of bridge encroachment relaxed to minor
impacts. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam (Primitive Park Road), as compared to the baseline,
08 ha) of fill related to moderate impacts
0
2 fewer acres (0
would have a
roximatel
'
.
.
.
y
pp
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would include approximately 390 linear feet
(119 m) of bridge encroachment, resulting in minor impacts. The Southern Option at Forney Creek '
Embayment for the Principal Park Road would include an additional 100 linear feet (30 m) of bridge
encroachment.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Primitive Park Road) would include approximately 0.3 acre (0.12
ha) of fill within the floodplain, resulting in moderate impacts. The Southern Option at Forney Creek

Embayment for the Primitive Park Road would avoid fill within the floodplain; however, the southern option '
for the Primitive Park Road would have roughly 420 feet (128 m) of impacts related to bridge encroachment
within the floodplain. ,
Impacts for the Laurel Branch Picnic Area would include approximately 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) of fill within the
floodplain. While the areas of impact would be smaller than those for the Northern Shore Corridor (all '
options and either road type), the impacts would be major due to anticipated inundation of the entrance/exit
road during storm events.
'
s Order #77-2, a Statement of Findings for
In compliance with Executive Order 11988 and Director
floodplains would be developed and released for public review if a partial-build or build alternative were
selected for implementation. '
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact floodplains in the
project study corridors.
S-5.9 Air Quality
Air quality impacts are likely to occur during construction for the proposed partial-build and build
alternatives as a result of the actions of disturbing soil, clearing timber, and paving. Concurrently, the '
internal combustion engines in the construction equipment used for the project, such as excavators, dozers,
and dump trucks, would also contribute emissions of regulated air pollutants within the area of construction.
Emissions from these activities are estimated to produce localized impacts on air quality, especially for '
particulate matter (dust). These impacts were estimated for each partial-build and build alternative using
emission rate calculations, emission rate models and dispersion modeling techniques.
Summary - S-22
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement '

Air quality impacts from construction activities are expected to be major and adverse for particulate matter
with aerodynamic diameters of up to 10 microns (PM,o) and sulfur dioxide (SO2); moderate and adverse for
nitrogen oxides (NO.); minor and adverse for carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC); and negligible and adverse for benzene at various locations for each of the partial build and build
alternatives. These activities may cause reductions in visibility and increased pollutant deposition that are
' considered major. The location of the highest impacts is likely to occur predominantly within the immediate
vicinity of the active construction area (approximately 1,000 feet [300 m]), dissipating rapidly with distance.
Consequently, as the active construction area would proceed over the length of the project for the 5-year and
' 15-year construction periods for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor,
respectively, so too would the location of the maximum air quality impacts of these pollutants. Generally,
the areas requiring the greatest volume of earthwork (i.e. highest intensity of construction activity) were
' found to have the highest impacts of these pollutants to air quality. Impacts to visibility would be major and
adverse at low levels near the construction area, but are expected to decline rapidly with height. Impacts to
sulfa and nitrogen deposition would be major and adverse for every partial-build and build alternative.
' Once the roadway is open to traffic the internal combustion engines in the vehicles traversing the road would produce emissions of regulated air pollutants. Emissions of NOX and CO from motor vehicles have
the greatest potential to impact the local air quality. Using projected traffic volume information, emission
rate models, and air dispersion and deposition modeling techniques, the potential impacts from tail-pipe
' emissions are shown to have negligible impacts of PMIO, PM2_5, SO2, CO, and benzene. Impacts of NOX and
VOC are also negligible for the partial-build alternatives, but minor for the Northern Shore Corridor (either
road type). Potential effects of tail-pipe emissions on visibility are estimated to be negligible once the road
alternatives are in operation. Nitrogen deposition rates and sulfur deposition rates were also evaluated within
the GSMNP (specifically at Clingman's Dome) and are expected to be negligible for all partial build and
build options. '
' The draft air quality conformity analysis indicates that the projected future vehicle emissions for the Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Roads) as potential worst-
case alternatives are expected to be lower than 20021eyels and, therefore, the partial-build and build
alternatives conform to the regional plan to attain the 8-hour ozone standard (NCDOT 2006).
The Monetary Settlement Altemative (Preferred Alternative) would not change ambient levels of regulated
air pollutants originating in GSMNP.
' S-5.10 Soundscapes
Compared with the overall size of GSMNP, soundscape impacts from traffic noise are small for the partial-
build and build alternatives. However, Park visitors that have an aversion to any perceptible change in sound
levels would be adversely affected even with a relatively small impact area. An increase of 1 dBA is the
smallest change in sound levels that can be detected by people 'during active listening.
' The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) has the highest projected traffic volumes of the
' study alternatives, and adverse soundscape impacts would be moderate and long-term. This alternative
would result in sound level increases at or greater than 1 dBA above the existing levels within 202 feet
(61.6 m) of the edge of roadway. Soundscape impacts related to traffic noise for the Northern Shore
Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would include sound-level increases equal to or greater than 1 dBA above
Summary - S-23
' North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
the existing levels within 82 feet (25.0 m) of the edge of roadway. Soundscape impacts would also be
moderate and long-term. The traffic noise associated with all of the southern options (both road types)
would be equivalent to the sound levels expected with the baseline route.
Soundscape impacts from traffic noise for the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would include
increases equal to or exceeding 1 dBA above existing levels within 169 feet (51.5 m) of the edge of the
Principal Park Road and 94 feet (28.7 m) of the edge of the Primitive Park Road. Adverse impacts would be
moderate and long-term with the Principal Park Road and minor and long-term with the Primitive Park
Road. The traffic noise associated with the southern options (both road types) would be equivalent to the
sound levels expected with the baseline route.
Soundscape impacts from traffic noise for the Laurel Branch Picnic Area would include sound level
increases at or exceeding 1 dBA of existing conditions within approximately 58 feet (17.7 m) of the edge of
roadway. Long-term impacts for the Laurel Branch Picnic Area would be adverse and minor.
An individual event, such as a motorcycle or other loud vehicle, may produce a higher level of sound
traveling a further distance at a given point in time compared with the traffic noise level impacts above,
which represent the overall profile of traffic over a period of an hour. The Northern Shore Corridor
(Principal Park Road) would attract a substantially higher percentage of motorcycle traffic, especially during
peak tourist seasons in the summer and fall months.
The highest sound levels would occur during construction. The equivalent sound levels would likely be
greater than 80 dBA 100 feet (30 m) from the roadways during the construction period. These impacts are
considered short-term.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not change sound levels in GSMNP
There are no anticipated short-term or long-term impacts to soundscapes.
S-5.11 Natural Resources
S-5.11.1 Wetlands
Field surveys within the study corridors identified 69 wetlands
totaling approximately 6.9 acres (2.8 ha). Direct impacts to
wetlands would occur within the construction footprint of a
partial-build or build alternative due to a new roadway's
embankment (fill), or due to significant alteration of hydrology
or vegetation. Changes to hydrology, vegetation, or other
environmental factors that influence the composition and
function of wetlands may result in indirect impacts upstream or
downstream from the construction footprint. Impacts would be
adverse and permanent.
The Northern Shore Corridor would have greater impacts than the other alternatives. With the baseline
Northern Shore Corridor, the Principal Park Road would have more direct impacts than the Primitive Park
Road and approximately equal indirect impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and special aquatic habitats. The
Summary - S-24
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

I?

J
u

area, but have a high diversity of plant
and animal species.

H

P,
7

Principal Park Road would directly affect 15 jurisdictional wetlands comprising approximately 1.60 acres
(0.65 ha). Of the 15 wetlands, 13 are rare communities and comprise approximately 0.98 acre (0.40 ha).
These direct impacts would be major. The Principal Park Road would directly impact two special aquatic
habitats comprising approximately 0.03 acre (0.01 ha); however, both are rare communities, so the impacts
would be moderate. The Principal Park Road would indirectly impact 16 jurisdictional wetlands comprising
approximately 2.09 acres (0.85 ha), of which approximately 1.85 acres (0.75 ha) are rare, and eight special
aquatic habitats comprising approximately 0.57 acre (0.23 ha), of which all are rare. Therefore, indirect
impacts would be major to both wetland types for the Principal Park Road.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would directly impact 10 jurisdictional
wetlands comprising approximately 1.23 acres (0.50 ha), of which nine are rare communities comprising
approximately 1.02 acres (0.41 ha). These impacts would be major. The indirect impacts from the Primitive
Park Road would be similar to the indirect impacts from the Principal Park Road. The Primitive Park Road
would indirectly impact 16 jurisdictional wetlands comprising approximately 2.18 acres (0.88 ha) and six
special aquatic habitats comprising approximately 0.53 acre (0.21 ha). Thirteen of the 16 jurisdictional
wetlands are rare (approximately 1.61 acres [0.65 ha]), and all of the special aquatic habitats are rare.
Similar to the Principal Park Road, the Primitive Park Road would have major indirect impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and special aquatic habitats.
Selection of any of the southern options would reduce the potential for
direct wetland impacts. As compared with the baseline Northern
Shore Corridor, the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
(both road types) would avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
special aquatic habitats associated with Forney and Gray Wolf creeks
by bridging the Forney Creek arm of Fontana Lake. However, this
option would impact wetlands associated with Glady Branch. The
Principal Park Road would reduce direct impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands, including rare communities. Indirect impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands from the Principal Park Road would increase,
but indirect impacts to rare communities would decrease. The
Principal Park Road would directly and indirectly impact fewer acres of special aquatic habitat. All of these
special aquatic habitat areas are classified as rare communities. The Primitive Park Road would reduce
direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, but increase indirect impacts. With the Southern Option at Forney
Creek (Primitive Park Road), there would be no change in the amount of direct or indirect impacts to special
aquatic habitats from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor.
When compared with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor, the Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek
Embayments would eliminate impacts to wetlands associated with these two stream systems but would
increase indirect impacts. For this option, both road types would have similar footprints with almost
identical impacts. The Principal and Primitive Park Roads would reduce direct impacts to two jurisdictional
wetlands; both are rare communities. There would be no change from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor
in the direct impacts to special aquatic habitats for both road types. The indirect impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands would also be the same for both road types. There would be an increase in indirect impacts, all of
which are in rare communities. There would be a slight difference in the amount of indirect impacts to
special aquatic habitats for the two road types. The Primitive Park Road would impact one additional special
Summary - 5-25
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
providing unique habitat in GSMNP.
i
I i
?J
aquatic habitat, and there would be no change from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor for the Principal
'
Park Road.
The Southern Option Crossing Fontana. Dam would only decrease impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and special aquatic habitats, as this section of road
would not impact any additional wetlands (for both Principal and Primitive
Park Road designs). All impacts would be reduced from the baseline
Northern Shore Corridor due to the avoidance of wetlands. In addition, the
reductions would be the same for both road types and are discussed together.
The direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be reduced
by avoiding five wetland areas, all of which are rare communities. There
would be no change from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor in the
amount of special aquatic habitats directly impacted for either road type, but
indirect impacts would be reduced by avoiding one rare wetland community.
The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would impact wetlands in
three general areas: Gray Wolf Creek, Forney Creek, and Glady Branch. The Principal Park Road would
directly impact five jurisdictional wetlands totaling approximately 0.42 acre (0.17 ha), of which
approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha) are classified as rare, and indirectly impact two jurisdictional wetlands
totaling approximately 0.13 acre (0.05 ha), which are also classified as rare. The direct and indirect impacts
would be major due to the presence of rare communities. Impacts to special aquatic habitats may also occur
from the Principal Park Road. Impacts would directly occur to one special aquatic habitat comprising
approximately 0.007 acre (0.003 ha) and indirectly occur to three special aquatic habitats comprising
approximately 0.26 acre (0.11 ha). All four are rare communities. The direct impact to special aquatic
habitat for the Principal Park Road would be moderate, and the indirect impacts would be major. The
Primitive Park Road would directly impact one jurisdictional wetland totaling approximately 0.21 acre (0.09
ha) and indirectly impact four jurisdictional wetlands totaling
approximately 0.22 acre (0.09 ha). All four of the jurisdictional
wetlands that may be indirectly impacted are rare. The Primitive
Park Road would have no direct impacts to special aquatic habitat
areas, but may indirectly impact approximately 0.26 acre (0.10 ha) of
three wetlands classified as rare. Direct impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and special aquatic habitats would be moderate; however;
due to the presence of rare communities, the indirect impacts would
be major.
are found along medium-sized
streams and are rare in GSMNP. As compared to the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (both road types)
would avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and special aquatic habitats associated with Gray Wolf and
Forney creeks. However, this option would impact wetlands associated with Glady Branch. The Principal
Park Road would reduce direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, including rare communities. Indirect
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands from the Principal Park Road would increase, but indirect impacts to rare
communities would decrease. The Principal Park Road would directly and indirectly impact fewer acres of
special aquatic habitat. All of these special aquatic habitat areas are classified as rare communities. The
Primitive Park Road would reduce direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands but increase indirect impacts.
Summary - S-26
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

u
n
I

provide habitat for
salamanders and other
amphibians.

I

For the Primitive Park Road, there would be no change from baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
for direct or indirect impacts to special aquatic habitats.
In compliance with Executive Order 11990 and Director's Order #77-1, a Statement of Findings for wetlands
would be developed and released for public review if a partial-build or build alternative were selected for
implementation.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact jurisdictional
wetlands or special aquatic habitats in the project study corridors.
S-5.11.2 Water Quality
Each stream crossing creates an opportunity for a water quality impact. The steep terrain causes streams to
respond quickly to rainfall events, and any pollutants would quickly enter waterbodies during these events.
The entire watersheds of all streams and creeks that drain to the north shore of Fontana Lake between Eagle
Creek and Forney Creek (inclusive) have been designated as part of the Fontana Lake North Shore
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) Area.
The primary water quality concerns for the construction of a road in the project study area are the presence of
potentially acid-producing rock and sedimentation due to land-disturbing activities. Exposure or disturbance
of acid-producing rock could result in increased acidity, increased sulfates, increased heavy metals, and
aquatic wildlife mortality in streams and lakes within the project study area. Construction activities would
' likely result in decreased dissolved oxygen from decomposition of organic material in receiving waters and
from increased sedimentation from land-disturbing activities and erosion. These adverse impacts would
result from all the partial-build and build alternatives.

Ir
L?

1

Impacts with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor would be the greatest of the partial-build and build
alternatives, due to its length, proximity to known acid-producing rock, and 141 stream crossings. The
southern options, which have 12 to 17 fewer stream crossings, would reduce the potential water quality
impacts. However, the intensity of the impacts would not change. Impacts to water quality would still occur
but at fewer locations. For the most part, little difference in impacts is expected between the Principal Park
Road and the Primitive Park Road
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact water quality in
GSMNP.
S-5.11.21 pH
Impacts to pH with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor (any option and both road types) would be major
(violations likely to occur), long-term and permanent due to intrusive rock between Eagle and Hazel creeks.
Since detailed geology is unknown, impacts for the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would be
moderate (violations may occur), long-term and permanent due to the potential of acid-producing rocks (any
option and both road types). With the Laurel Branch Picnic Area, impacts would be moderate (violations
may occur), long-term and permanent if there were no special mitigation or avoidance of acid runoff.
Summary - S-27
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
n
S-5.11.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen I
With the Northern Shore Corridor (any option and both road types), the short-term and long-term impacts '
from decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) would be moderate (violations may occur). After construction was
completed, the DO concentrations would return to pre-construction levels since no additional organic matter
(vegetation) would be entering the system. Thus, permanent impacts to DO would likely be negligible. The
short-term and long-term impacts resulting from the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option and
both road types) would be moderate (violations may occur), and the permanent impacts would be negligible.
Moderate (violations may occur), short-term impacts would be anticipated with the Laurel Branch Picnic
Area.
S-5.11.2.3 Heavy Metals
Based on the geology for the Northern Shore Corridor, there would be major (violations likely to occur) ,
impacts for the baseline Northern Shore Corridor. The potential for the impacts would exist in the short-term
and long-term during construction, when the minerals could be exposed at unknown locations. There would
be subsequent permanent impacts if these areas were not mitigated. Due to the low traffic volumes, the
permanent impacts from vehicular sources of metals would be negligible for the Principal Park Road and
minor for the Primitive Park Road.
Based upon the geology for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (any option and both road types),
moderate (violations may occur), short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts would be anticipated from
potential naturally occurring heavy metals. Due to the potential recreational and parking facilities at
Bushnell, minor, long-term and permanent impacts are anticipated from vehicular sources and runoff from
parking areas.
l
h Pi
i
Branc
cn
c
Minor, short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts would be anticipated with the Laure
Area if there were no avoidance or minimization techniques. Due to the anticipated traffic volume, impacts
from vehicular sources of heavy metals would be minor, long-term, and permanent.
S-5.11.2.4 Turbidity
.
Sedimentation and an increase in turbidity would have the greatest impact at stream crossings. The baseline
Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would have major (violations likely to occur), short-term and
long-term impacts during construction. The permanent impacts would be negligible for the Principal Park ,
Road and minor for the Primitive Park Road. The southern options would reduce stream crossings, but
overall impact intensities would not change.
Major, short-term and long-term impacts due to construction runoff and sedimentation would occur with the
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types). The permanent impacts would be negligible for the
Principal Park Road. The permanent impacts would be minor for the Primitive Park Road due to runoff from
the gravel surface of the road.
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would have major (violations would likely occur), short-term impacts due to ,
sedimentation from construction-related activities. Long-term and permanent impacts from runoff from the
parking lot and recreational activities would be minor.
Summary - S-28
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
i

1
C

fl
S-5.11.3 Aquatic Ecology
Adverse impacts to aquatic wildlife within lakes, streams, and
wetlands (collectively referred to as aquatic habitat) are expected as a
result of a partial-build or build alternative. Impacts to aquatic
wildlife habitat could result from sedimentation altering habitat or
decreasing visibility, stream crossings causing fish-passage barriers,
riparian buffer removal altering available food and thermal
The olive darter is a Federal Species regulation, runoff from exposed acid-producing rock, and water-level
of Concern.
fluctuations. Any partial-build or build alternative would have
impacts to aquatic wildlife, with the Northern Shore Corridor having the greatest potential and the Laurel
Branch Picnic Area having the least potential.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor would have major, and long-term to permanent impacts to aquatic
wildlife habitat within streams for both the Principal and Primitive Park Roads. This alternative would
potentially impact greater than 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of riparian buffers along three streams: Shehan Branch,
Hazel Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Cheoah Lake. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
would avoid impacts to Forney Creek. This option would reduce direct impacts of the Principal and
Primitive Park Roads by approximately 10 percent as compared with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor.
Indirect impacts would still occur, but would be reduced from the baseline Northern Shore Corridor. The
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would reduce direct impacts by approximately 36
and 41 percent, respectively, for the Principal and Primitive Park Roads, as compared with the baseline
Northern Shore Corridor. Indirect impacts would be expected, but would be reduced from the baseline
Northern Shore Corridor due to fewer stream crossings. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana. Dam would
avoid up to 16 streain crossings, potentially reducing the direct and indirect impacts to aquatic wildlife
streams by approximately 11 percent for each road type.
The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, which includes a boat ramp, would result in the complete
loss of approximately 0.34 acre (0.14 ha) of aquatic habitat within Fontana Lake. Impacts from the boat
ramp would be moderate and permanent. Indirect impacts to aquatic habitat within Fontana Lake would be
moderate, long-term, and permanent. Impacts,from both road types, based upon the area of impact, would
have major, permanent direct impacts and major, long-term indirect impacts to stream and wetland aquatic
habitat. With the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, the potential for direct and indirect impacts
to aquatic habitat would be reduced from the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell for both road
types by crossing 50 percent fewer streams.
Direct impacts to aquatic wildlife habitat within streams would be moderate and permanent with the Laurel
Branch Picnic Area. Indirect impacts would be moderate, and short-term and long-term.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly impact aquatic wildlife in
the project study corridors.
Summary - S-29
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
L
S-5.11.4 Vegetation Communities
Direct impacts to vegetation communities would occur as land is disturbed
in constructing a partial-build or build alternative. Potential alteration of
downstream hydrology; changes in environmental conditions associated
with edge effects such as alteration of atmospheric moisture levels,
increased wind and sunlight exposure, and changes in temperature regimes;
and the increased potential for human disturbance have the potential to
indirectly impact the distributions of vegetation species and thus alter the
vegetation community type. These impacts would be adverse and
permanent.
The Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would result in major
Yellow-fringed orchid can be found in upland hardwood impacts to rare vegetation communities and major impacts to secure
communities. vegetation communities. The Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park
Road) would directly impact approximately 36.4 acres (14.7 ha) of rare
vegetation communities and approximately 351.53 acres (142.26 ha) of secure vegetation communities. The
Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park Road) would directly impact approximately 38.1 acres (15.8 ha) of
rare vegetation communities and approximately 358.95 acres (145.26 ha) of secure vegetation communities.
For both road types, the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment and the Southern Option at Hazel and
Eagle Creek Embayments would reduce direct and indirect impacts. The Southern Option at Forney Creek
Embayment (Principal Park Road) would reduce the direct impacts to rare vegetation communities by
approximately 7.29 acres (2.95 ha), and to secure communities by approximately 8.00 acres (3.24 ha). The
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Primitive Park Road) would reduce the direct impacts to rare
vegetation communities by approximately 5.51 acres (2.23 ha) and to secure communities by approximately
4.30 acres (1.74 ha). There would be an associated proportional decrease in the indirect impacts (both road
types). For the Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, the Principal Park Road would
reduce the direct impacts to rare vegetation communities by approximately 18.47 acres (7.48 ha), and to
secure communities by approximately 19.02 acres (7.70 ha), while the Primitive Park Road would reduce the
direct impacts to rare vegetation communities by approximately 19.49 acres (7.89. ha), and to secure
communities by approximately 10.18 acres (4.12 ha). There would also be an associated proportional
decrease in the indirect impacts to both community categories. For the Southern Option Crossing Fontana
Dam, there would be no change from impacts to rare vegetation communities from the baseline Northern
Shore Corridor (both road types). However, the impacts to secure communities would be reduced by
approximately 18.80 acres (7.61 ha) with the Principal Park Road, and by approximately 18.86 acres (7.64
ha) with the Primitive Park Road with an associated proportional decrease in the indirect impacts to the
secure vegetation communities.
Impacts resulting from the partial-build alternatives would be
less than from the Northern Shore Corridor. The Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would directly
impact approximately 19.90 acres (8.05 ha) of rare vegetation
communities and approximately 71.53 acres (28.95 ha) of secure
vegetation communities. The Primitive Park Road would impact
approximately 18.34 acres (7.34 ha) of Appalachian Montane
Alluvial Forest, a rare community. Additionally, approximately
Summary - S-30
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
L
t

0

IE

i
1

L

?I

80.76 acres (32.70 ha) of secure vegetation communities would be directly impacted. The direct and indirect
impacts to rare communities were assessed to be major and the direct and indirect impacts to the secure
communities would be minor (both road types). The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
(Primitive Park Road) would reduce the direct impacts to Montane Alluvial Forest Community by
approximately 5.51 acres (2.23 ha), and to secure communities by approximately 4.30 acres (1.74 ha). The
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment (Principal Park Road) would reduce the direct impacts to raze
vegetation communities by approximately 7.29 acres (2.95 ha), and to secure communities by approximately
8.00 acres (3.24 ha).
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would directly impact approximately 3.40 acres (1.38 ha) of Appalachian
Montane Alluvial Forest. This impact to this rare community would be minor, while the indirect impacts to
the remaining local portions of the raze vegetation communities would be minor. In addition, approximately
5.54 acres (2.24 ha) of secure vegetation communities would be directly impacted. The direct and indirect
impacts to the secure communities from this alternative would be negligible.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not directly or indirectly impact
vegetation communities in the project study corridors.
S-5.11.5 Terrestrial Wildlife
All of the undeveloped areas within the study corridors are considered to
be habitat for the range of terrestrial wildlife known to live in GSMNP.
Both direct and indirect impacts to terrestrial wildlife may result from a
partial-build or build alternative. A direct impact to terrestrial wildlife
would be the loss of habitat within the construction footprint, while
indirect impacts could include habitat fagmentation, interruption of
migration patterns, increased sound from human activity, and decreased
habitat quality. Impacts are adverse and directly related to the length of
the partial-build or build alternative and its distance from the northern
shore of Fontana Lake.
The greatest impacts are associated with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor, which would result in the
direct loss of approximately 392.2 acres (158.8 ha) and 400.6 acres (162.2 ha) of potential terrestrial habitat
associated with the Principal Park Road and Primitive Park Road, respectively. Impacts due to the direct loss
of habitat, as well as from ecosystem fragmentation, are anticipated to be major and permanent (both road
types). Impacts related to sound level increases would most likely be major and long-term. The southern
options, which bypass a more interior portion of the Park, would result in less fragmentation of habitat. For
the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, the Principal Park Road would reduce the direct loss of
habitat by approximately 15.9 acres (6.4 ha), and the Primitive Park Road would reduce the direct loss of
habitat by approximately 9.5 acres (3.8 ha). The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments
would reduce the direct loss of habitat by approximately 37.1 acres (15.0 ha) with the Principal Park Road,
and by approximately 25.4 acres (10.3 ha) with the Primitive Park Road. With the Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam, direct loss of habitat resulting from construction of the Principal Park Road would be reduced
by approximately 21.2 acres (8.6 ha), and direct loss of habitat associated with the Primitive Park Road
would be reduced by approximately 20.7 acres (8.4 ha).
Summary - S-31
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Bufo amwicanus americans)

The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would result in the same
type of impacts that would result from the Northern Shore Corridor,
but the area of direct impact would be reduced. The baseline Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would result in
the direct loss of approximately 92.4 acres (37.4 ha) of habitat. The
Primitive Park Road would result in the direct loss of approximately
99.4 acres (40.2 ha) of habitat. Impacts due to the direct loss of
habitat within the construction footprint and due to habitat
fragmentation (both road types) would be minor and permanent.
Impacts due to sound created by human activity, such as roadway
construction, would be minor and long-term (both road types). As compared to the baseline Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell, the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would reduce the overall impacts
within the project study corridors. The Principal Park Road would reduce the direct loss of habitat by
approximately 15.6 acres (6.3 ha) and the Primitive Park Road would reduce the direct loss of habitat by
approximately 9.5 acres (3.8 ha).
An estimated 9 acres (3.6 ha) of habitat would be lost from building the Laurel Branch Picnic Area. Impacts
from direct loss of habitat would be negligible and permanent. The sound created by construction and other
human-caused disturbance activities would directly affect wildlife by causing avoidance of habitat.
Soundscape impacts from traffic noise would be negligible and long-term.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not impact terrestrial wildlife within
GSMNP.
S-5.11.6 Migratory Birds
The migratory bird species that winter and breed in the project
study area are critical components of ecosystems within
GSMNP. Assessment of impacts to migratory birds and their
habitats is required by law prior to any action, as directed by
Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bind Treaty Act
(MBTA). Secondly, these impacts are outlined due to the
importance of migratory birds to biodiversity, ecosystem
functions, and to human monitoring of environmental
conditions.
Potential impacts resulting from the partial-build and build
alternatives include migratory bird habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation/edge effect, and soundscape disturbance. Impacts
would be adverse and permanent, with the exception of
construction-related impacts, which would be long-term. The
Northern Shore Corridor would have the greatest impact on
migratory birds, as compared with the other alternatives, due to
the size of the construction footprint and the expected duration
of construction. The Principal Park Road would impact
approximately 392.2 acres (158.8 ha) of migratory bird habitat,
LJ

k
fl

Summary - 5-32
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement ,
Timber rattlesnakes are found in
mixed oak pine forests, open grassy
areas, and mature cove forests.

L

and the Primitive Park Road would impact approximately 400.6 acres (162.2 ha) of migratory bird habitat.
Potential impacts due to habitat loss, impacts from sound generated by construction activities and facility
operations, and effects related to habitat fragmentation and edge effects would be major (both road types).
Impacts would be slightly reduced with the southern options, as these options would impact less migratory
bird habitat than would the baseline Northern Shore Corridor. Also in these options, decreases in sound
levels and habitat fiagmentation may accompany the smaller construction footprint. For both road types, the
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would provide a small decrease in the construction footprint,
soundscape intrusion, and possible negative effects of habitat fiagmentation relative to the baseline Northern
Shore Corridor. The Principal Paris Road would reduce the construction footprint by approximately 15.9
acres (6.4 ha.), and the Primitive Paris Road would reduce the construction footprint by approximately 9.5
acres (3.8 ha.). The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would impact approximately
37.1 fewer acres (15.0-ha) of habitat with the Principal Park Road, and approximately 25.4 fewer acres (10.3
ha) of habitat using the Primitive Paris Road. These options would also result in less soundscape intrusion
and habitat fragmentation than with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor. Construction of the Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam using the Primitive Park Road would impact approximately 20.7 fewer acres
(8.4 ha) of migratory bird habitat than the baseline Northern Shore Corridor. The Principal Park Road under
this option would affect approximately 21.2 fewer acres (8.6 ha) than the baseline Northern Shore Corridor.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, which has a smaller construction footprint and shorter
construction period, would result in fewer impacts than the Northern Shore Corridor. Possible impacts for
this alternative also include migratory bird habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and soundscape disturbance.
These impacts would be minor for the Principal Paris Road and Primitive Park Road. The construction
footprint resulting from the Principal Park Road would be approximately 92.4 acres (37.4 ha), and the
construction footprint resulting from the Primitive Paris Road would be approximately 99.4 acres (40.2 ha).
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not impact migratory birds within
GSMNP.

L

S-5.11.7 Invasive Exotics
The partial-build and build alternatives would create conditions such as
disturbed roadside, forest edges, and open spaces that favor invasive
exotic species. These adverse impacts would cause the loss of native
plant habitat due to the loss of shading, temperature changes, new wind
patterns, changes in soil conditions, and creation of roadside habitats.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor would have the greatest potential hemlock trees.
to create favorable conditions for invasive exotics, as compared with the
other alternatives. The baseline Northern Shore Corridor would impact 30.8 miles (49.6 km) with the
Principal Park Road and 34.3 miles (55.2 km) with the Primitive Park Road. These impacts would be major
and permanent. The southern options decrease the potential for invasive species to penetrate to more interior
portions of the Park. The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would result in 1.3 fewer miles (2.1
km) of impact for the Principal Park Road and 1.5 fewer miles (2.4 km) of impact for the Primitive Park
Road. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would have 3.1 fewer miles (5.0 km) of
impact for the Principal Park Road and 2.3 fewer miles (3.7 km) of impacts from the Primitive Park Road.
Summary - S-33
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Hemlock woolly adelgid has become
a serious threat to the survival of

The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam would have 1.5 fewer miles (2.4 km) of impact from the
Principal Park Road and 1.6 fewer miles (2.6 km) of impact for the Primitive Park Road.
The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would cause approximately 6.5 miles (10.5 km) of impact
from the Principal Park Road and approximately 8.0 miles (12.9 km) of impact from the Primitive Park
Road. Impacts from both road types would be minor and permanent. The Southern Option at Forney Creek
Embayment would have 1.3 fewer miles (2.0 km) of impact for the Principal Park Road and 1.5 fewer miles
(2.4 km) of impact for the Primitive Park Road
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not involve alterations to the natural
environment within GSMNP. Therefore, this alternative would likely have no impact from invasive exotics
to existing Park flora and fauna.
S-5.11.8 Protected Species
S-5.11.8.1 Federally Protected Species
Impacts are assessed on the known population of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and potential
habitat for the bald eagle and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) within or near the study corridors. The Indiana bat
is listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered. The USFWS has delisted
the bald eagle in the lower 48 states of the United States from the federal list of endangered and threatened
wildlife, effective August 8, 2007. Prior to delisting, the bald eagle had been listed as a threatened species.
Surveys, resulting documentation and information discussed in the FEIS were conducted and developed
while this species was federally listed as threatened. Text pertaining to the bald eagle has been retained for
informative purposes.
The Final Rule pertaining to the determination of recovery and delisting of the bald eagle was published in
the July 9, 2007 Federal Register Part 111 50 CFR Part 17. The bald eagle will continue to be protected by
the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and populations will
continue to be monitored for at least another five years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Direct loss of habitat for both the Indiana bat and the bald eagle would occur within construction limits.
Soundscape impacts from traffic noise associated with road construction activities and human disturbances
from the utilization of a roadway and any associated facilities are anticipated with the Northern Shore
Corridor and Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell for the bald eagle and with the Laurel Branch Picnic Area
for the Indiana bat. These impacts would be adverse and permanent. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal
agencies to consult with the USFWS when any action that the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may
affect a listed endangered or threatened species.
Indiana Bat
Inipacts to the Indiana bat due to direct habitat loss and potential reduction in habitat utilization surrounding
the new roadway and any associated facilities would be greatest with the baseline Northern Shore Corridor.
Approximately 387.03 acres (156.63 ha) of potential habitat would be impacted by the Principal Park Road.
The Primitive Park Road would impact approximately 397.79 acres (160.98 ha) of potential habitat. Impacts
due to direct habitat loss and potential reduction in habitat utilization surrounding the road and facilities '
Summary - S-34
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

would likely be minor. These impacts are the same for both the Primitive and Principal Park Roads. All of
the southern options would likely decrease possible impacts due to decreases in the construction footprint,
human influence zone, and habitat fragmentation.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would impact approximately 91.43 acres (37.02 ha) of habitat with
the Principal Park Road and approximately 100.42 acres (40.64 ha) of habitat with the Primitive Park Road.
Impacts due to direct habitat loss and potential reduction in habitat utilization surrounding the road and
facilities would likely be minor. These impacts are the same for both the Primitive and Principal Park
' Roads. As compared to the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, the impacts would likely be
reduced for the Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment.
Approximately 8.96 acres (3.63 ha) of habitat within GSMNP would be impacted by the Laurel Branch
Picnic Area. Impacts due to direct loss or potential reduction of habitat utilization surrounding the road and
facilities would likely be minor.
If a partial-build or build alternative is selected, NPS would develop a comprehensive survey plan for the
Indiana bat to determine this species' status in the vicinity of the alternative. Coordination with the USFWS
would be ongoing to determine the need for additional recommendations to protect or mitigate for impacts to
the Indiana bat.
' Bald Eagle
As noted previously, the USFWS has delisted the bald eagle from the federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife, effective August 8, 2007. Surveys, resulting documentation and information discussed
in the FEIS were conducted and developed while this species was federally listed as threatened. The
following text pertaining to the bald eagle has been retained for informative purposes.
The majority of the construction footprint for any option, as well as both road types, associated with the
Northern Shore Corridor is located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of open water, resulting in potential impacts to
the bald eagle habitat. Approximately 300 linear feet (91 m) of the baseline Principal Park Road would be
within the secondary management zone for bald eagles. Impacts due to sound associated with construction
' activities and due to human disturbance from utilization of the road and facilities would likely be minor,
long-term to permanent with the Principal Park Road and the Primitive Park Road. For the Southern Option
at Forney Creek, approximately 2,375 linear feet (725 m) of the Principal Park Road and 3,775 linear feet
' (1,150 m) of the Primitive Park Road would be located in the secondary eagle management zone. This
option has an increased potential for impacts due to its greater presence in the vicinity of a bald eagle nest.
The remaining southern options would likely increase possible impacts due to proximity to bald eagle
habitat.
' The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would impact foraging activities of the bald eagle due to increased
boating associated with lake access at the proposed facility. Development of the Bushnell area, especially
the boat ramp, would likely lead to increased boating activity in the vicinity of a known bald eagle nest.
Portions of Fontana Lake in the vicinity of the eagle nest are within areas designated as primary and
secondary bald eagle management zones. Approximately 300 linear feet (91 m) of the baseline Principal
Park Road are within the secondary bald eagle management zone. Impacts due to sound associated with
construction activities would likely be minor and long-term. Impacts due to human disturbance from
Summary - S-35
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

utilization of the road and facilities would likely be minor and permanent. Impacts on foraging activities due
to increased boating associated with potential increased lake access at the proposed facility would likely be
adverse, local to regional, permanent, and moderate. ,
As compared to the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, the Southern Option at Forney Creek
would have approximately 2,375 linear feet (725 m) of the Principal Park Road and 3,775 linear feet (1,150
m) of the Primitive Park Road within in the secondary eagle management zone. The possibilities for other
impacts are likely to be increased due to proximity to bald eagle habitat.
If an alternative involving construction, other than the Laurel Branch Picnic Area, were selected for
implementation, NPS would develop a comprehensive survey and monitoring plan for the bald eagle to
determine this species' status in the Park. Coordination with USFWS would be ongoing to determine the
need for additional recommendations to protect or mitigate for impacts to the bald eagle.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not impact bald eagles or Indiana bats
within GSMNP.
S-5.11.8.1 Other Species
The USFWS has identified 25 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) for Graham County, North Carolina and ,
46 FSCs and one candidate species for Swain County, North Carolina. These species are not protected under
the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Additional species receive protections under
North Carolina General Statutes or state laws. NPS policy includes protection of FSC, candidate, and state
protected species to the same level as threatened and endangered species. Of these species (FSC, candidate
or state protected), there are 12 vertebrates, 5 invertebrates, and 3 plant species known to occur within the
project study corridors.
The total range and status of FSC and state protected species in GSMNP is not complete. Investigations
undertaken for this study have discovered species new to the Park, new records for species known from the ,
Park, and species new to science. These investigations did not constitute a comprehensive survey of the
project study corridors and they covered less than 1 percent of the total land contained within the Park.
Olive Darter
There are two confirmed populations of the olive darter within GSMNP, one each in Forney and Hazel '
creeks. There is also a potential population in Noland Creek; however, this population has not been
observed in the last 15 years.
The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) would have major impacts due to potential
'
loss of individuals, habitat modification, and negative changes in water quality. Impacts from this
alternative could reduce one population of this fish. The baseline Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive Park
Road) would have major impacts due to potential loss of individuals, habitat modification, and negative
changes in water quality. These impacts could lead to a reduction in two populations of olive darter. The
southern options for this alternative (both road t)pes) would likely reduce the impacts.
Summary - S-36
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

61

I

J

The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) would have minor impacts. The
Primitive Park Road would have major impacts due to potential loss of individuals, habitat modification,
and negative changes in water quality. These impacts could lead to a reduction in one population of olive
darter. The southern options for these alternatives (either road type) would likely reduce the impacts.
Impacts to FSC, candidate, and state listed species would not be anticipated from the Monetary Settlement
Alternative (Preferred Alternative).
S-5.12 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
The Northern Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell would adversely impact
visual resources in the project area. All impacts
would be long-term. Impacts were evaluated by
assessing 14 views that have the potential to be
substantially altered by the partial-build or build alternatives.
Within the study area, viewpoints located at higher locations would generally have greater impacts because
more segments are visible from the higher elevations. The magnitude of bridges necessary to cross the
embayments of Eagle, Hazel, and Forney creeks with the southern options would result in a greater impact at
the viewpoints along the AT and those at lake level. Other visual impacts resulting from partial-build and
build alternatives would include light pollution due to car headlights and the sun reflecting off vehicles,
producing glare visible to nearby hikers.
Portions of the baseline Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would be visible from seven of the 14
viewpoints, resulting in major impacts to the viewpoints at Shuckstack, AT South of Shuckstack, Proctor,
Fontana Dam and High Rocks; and minor impacts to the viewpoints at Tsali and Meetinghouse Mountain.
The Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment would result in one less major impact to the view from
High Rocks. The Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments would be visible from 6
viewpoints, including additional major impacts to the views from Black Gum Gap (during leaf-off
conditions), Fontana Dam, Shuckstack and the NC 28 Hazel Creek Overlook; a moderate impact to the view
from Cable Cove; and a minor impact to the view from Fontana Lake (below Lakeshore Trail). The intensity
of the impact to the view from the Shuckstack viewpoint would increase with this option, and the major
impact to the view from Proctor would be avoided. The Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam would
result in an additional major impact to the viewpoint at Fontana Dam, but would avoid the major impact to
the view from the AT South of Shuckstack.
Portions of the baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types) would be visible from two
viewpoints, resulting in major impacts to the views at High Rocks and Tsali. The Southern Option at Forney
Creek Embayment would eliminate the major impact to the view from High Rocks.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would result in no direct impacts to the views
from the viewpoints chosen for detailed analysis.
Summary - S-37
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Pendleton Creek Overlook
S-5.13 Collective Impacts, Sustainability, and Long-Term Management
A review of collective impacts was undertaken to consider all impacts to social, economic, natural, and
cultural resources that would result from the proposed alternatives. Sustainability and long-term
management of GSMNP resources and the ecosystem and the biodiversity values for which the Park was
created were considered. The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types) and the Northern Shore
Corridor (both road types) would have the greatest effects on both short-term uses of the environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity within ecological systems. Effects of all of the
partial-build and build alternatives would involve permanent changes to a variety of social, economic,
natural, and cultural resources.
The local short-term impacts of Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types) and the Northern
Shore Corridor (both road types) would be largely related to construction and include substantial impacts
related to air quality, disturbance of acid-producing rock and related impacts to water quality, wildlife, and
vegetation; introduction of invasive exotics; alteration of the backcountry landscape and potential for
wilderness designation; and visual resources. The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative)
would not affect short-term uses of the environment, and maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity of ecological systems within the Park.
An EIS should disclose to the public the long-term, permanent effects of proposed actions on a park's
resources. "Irreversible impacts are those effects which cannot be changed over the long-term, or are
permanent. An effect to a resource is irreversible if it (the resource) cannot be reclaimed, restored or
otherwise returned to its condition prior to disturbance. An irretrievable commitment of resources is an
effect to a resource that, once gone, cannot be replaced" (NPS 2001a).
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types) and the Northern Shore Corridor (both road
types) would result in the permanent loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, affect movement of species, and
introduce roadway mortality and habitat fragmentation. The long-term effects to water quality and aquatic
species would be substantial for these alternatives, caused by construction and disturbance of the geology,
soils, and hydrology of the area. These alternatives would impact the maintenance and enhancement of
GSMNP's aesthetic experience as well as the backcountry experience by altering the landscape and
eliminating backcountry.campsites and portions of Lakeshore Trail. Increased sound levels also would be
disruptive to backcountry visitors, as well as to some wildlife species. New recreational amenities would be
provided and new access would be added to cultural resources in GSMNP, including areas with local
traditional importance. Visitation increases associated with the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both
road types) and the Northern Shore Corridor (both road types) would require in an increase in NPS
management of these areas. The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would not
irreversibly or irretrievably commit Park natural, cultural, or recreational resources.
Federal funds would be committed to both the construction and long-term maintenance of the partial-build
and build alternatives. The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would also involve a
commitment of federal funds. The economic investments for all of the action alternatives would result in
short-term economic benefits during construction and long-term benefits to the local tourism industry.
Proposed actions may result in impacts that could not be fully mitigated or avoided if the proposed action
were implemented. The majority of social, economic, natural, and cultural resource impacts associated with
Summary - S-38
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
t

the Laurel Branch Picnic Area are substantially less than impacts for the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell (both road types) and the Northern Shore Corridor (both road types). The southern route options
for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (both road types) and the Northern Shore Corridor (both road
types) could avoid or minimize some of the short and long-term effects to natural resources, geology and
soils, backcountry campsites, and cultural resources, although the bridges would introduce aesthetic impacts.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would likely avoid impacts within the Park.
If any partial-build or build alternative route or road type were selected for implementation, avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation would be undertaken to reduce individual and collective impacts to resources.
However, construction of any of the partial-build or build alternatives would result in adverse impacts to the
local geology, soils, backcountry campsites, trails, visual resources, cultural resources, and natural resources
that cannot be avoided or fully mitigated.
' S-6. Impairment Evaluation
The purpose of GSMNP is provided in the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and in the legislation establishing the
' Park. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 states that the NPS: "shall promote and regulate the
use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified... by
such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and
1 reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The Park's enabling legislation states that GSMNP is
' for the benefit and enjoyment of the people" and directed that the newly created park be administered,
protected and developed under the direction of the Secretary of Interior. As further refined in the Park's
2005-2008 Strategic Plan, the purpose of GSMNP is "to preserve its exceptionally diverse natural and
cultural resources, and to provide for public benefit from and enjoyment of those resources in ways that will
leave them basically unaltered by modern human influences."
NPS Management Policies define "impairment" as "an impact that, in the professional judgment of a
responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities
that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values" (NPS 2006b). An impact
would be more likely to constitute an impairment (as defined by NPS policy) to the extent that it affects a
resource or value whose conservation is:
¦ necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;
¦ key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or
¦ identified as a specific goal in the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS planning
documents.
' This EIS evaluates several build and partial-build alternative corridors, as well as the "no action" and
monetary settlement alternatives. A thorough evaluation of social, economic, natural, and cultural resource
impacts has been undertaken. There are various environmental impacts associated with the build and partial-
build alternatives, some of which likely would be reduced when designing the project; however, all impacts
cannot be eliminated. The DEIS concluded that, as planned, the proposed alternatives were not likely to
harm the integrity of GSMNP or AT resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be
Summary - 5-39
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. Based on both individual resource and cumulative
environmental impacts identified, it is anticipated that any alternative being considered could be
implemented without creating impairment to GSMNP or the AT.
For the partial-build and build alternatives, there is a potential for impairment should best management
practices as related to a context sensitive design that minimizes and mitigates impacts fail, specifically in the
area of natural and cultural resources. However, NPS policy guides park managers to make a determination
of impairment based on the action, not for the potential of a failure of the action. That is the basis of the no
impairment decision for these alternatives. NPS fully comprehends the magnitude of the impacts that would '
be created by any of the partial-build and build alternatives and the potential for impairment to GSMNP or
AT resources should best efforts fail.

The Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) will not impair resources of the GSMNP or the
AT. The Monetary Settlement allows continued fulfillment of the specific purposes identified in the
enabling legislation of these parks; it has the least potential to impair the resources that are key to the natural
and cultural integrity of these parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of them; and it is consistent with the
goals in the general management plans of these parks and other relevant NPS planning documents. ,
S-7. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
As defined by the CEQ: "The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the
national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative
that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which '
best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (CEQ 2005a). After
consideration of Section 101 with regards to the detailed study alternatives, the Monetary Settlement
Alternative (Preferred Alternative) was selected as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for this project
because it best adheres to the goals described by CEQ. This alternative is not necessarily the same as the
Preferred Alternative nor is the NPS required to select this alternative as the Preferred Alternative.
S-8. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in
conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), contain substantive environmental
criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material. Under these guidelines, no discharge can be
permitted if a practicable alternative with less adverse impact on the aquatic environment (unless the
identified alternative poses other significant environmental consequences) is available. The USACE requires
that an EIS, being prepared for an action which will require a Section 404 permit, identify the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) on the aquatic environment in accordance with
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In that the Monetary Settlement Alternative (Preferred Alternative) would
not involve fill in "Waters of the United States," and would have no effect on the aquatic environment, it
would not require a Section 404 permit. If a partial-build or build alternative were selected for
implementation, a LEDPA would be documented in the ROD.

r
Summary - S-40
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement ,
t
I S-9. Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is the alternative that best meets a project's purpose and need and accomplishes
the project's goals and objectives. "This is the alternative the park service believes would best accomplish its
goals after the in-house NEPA analysis has been completed, when the choice of an alternative as `preferred'
is appropriate" (NPS 2001a). After full review of the DEIS and careful consideration of comments, the
Monetary Settlement Alternative has been identified by NPS as the agency's Preferred Alternative.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative has the potential to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of
the United States that presently exist as a result of the 1943 Agreement among the DOI, TVA, Swain
County, and the state of North Carolina by providing an alternative that can achieve the consent of the
signatories to settle the agreement, thus meeting the Purpose and Need described in Section 1.1. As
discussed in Section 2.2.2, the Swam County Commissioners passed a resolution on February 11, 2003, that
stated the county would accept a monetary settlement to settle the 1943 Agreement (Appendix D).
Correspondence from the Governor's office of the state of North Carolina has been submitted to the project
supporting a monetary settlement for Swain County (Appendix P). The use of the funds would be at the
discretion of the county and as discussed in Section 4.2.3.2.2, these proceeds would provide an opportunity
for Swain County to spur local economic and community development, stimulate economic diversification,
and enhance intraregional competitiveness.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would avoid impacts to natural, cultural, and recreational resources
within GSMNP, including the AT. While addressing the project's purpose and need, and ensuring that
resources within GSMNP, including the AT, are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the
Monetary Settlement Alternative would fulfill the project Goals and Objectives presented in Section 1.2.
The Monetary Settlement would allow for the continued protection of the significant and diverse natural
resources and ecosystems of the Park (forest communities, water resources, protected species, soundscape#
It would avoid disturbance to the Park and allow the Park to protect resources from adverse effects of
problematic geologic formations and acidic runoff. The Monetary Settlement would also allow for the
continued protection of the tangible (archaeological sites, historic structures, landscapes, cemeteries, and
TCPs) and intangible (feelings of attachment, family life, myth, folklore, and ideology) aspects of cultural
resources in the Park. As noted in Table S-1, for this or any alternative, NPS is committed to maintaining
current cemetery visitation practices and the Park will prioritize a budget increase that will specifically
describe the operations and maintenance costs to continue these activities, including annual ferry service.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would be consistent with NPS management of the portion of the Paris.
within the study area as backcountry, as well as NPS policies regarding management of potential wilderness
areas. The Monetary Settlement Alternative would allow for the continued provision of the traditional
recreational activities of hiking, camping, fishing, and horse use in this backcountry area of the Park. It
' would maintain the existing balance of visitors and resource use in this backcountry area of GSMNP and
preserve the associated peace and solitude currently available there. The Monetary Settlement Alternative
would not require the GMP to be amended.
In addition to meeting project goals and objectives, the Monetary Settlement Alternative would be consistent
with goals established in Section 101 of NEPA which are discussed in Section 2.6. The Monetary
Settlement Alternative would allow the Park to continue to accommodate the existing uses of this area of the
Summary - S-41
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Park, while stewarding the resources of this portion of the Park for future generations. It would permit the
Park to continue to preserve the beauty and recreational opportunities of this area, and maintaining visitor
safety. The Monetary Settlement Alternative would allow for the preservation of important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage present in the Park. It would permit the continued provision of
backcountry choices in this area of the Park that support diversity of experiences and variety of individual
choice for visitors to the Park. As noted previously, the Monetary Settlement Alternative would maintain the
existing balance of visitors and resource use in this backcountry area of GSMNP, allowing visitors to
continue to enjoy the existing amenities in the area, including the peace and solitude currently available
there. '
Public and agency input, including comments from individuals, organizations, agencies, elected officials, and
tribal representatives, was fully considered in the identification of the Preferred Alternative. NPS conducted ,
a comprehensive and inclusive public involvement program as a part of the EIS. The public involvement
program is discussed in Section 6 and public comment summaries are presented in Appendix J. I
THIS SPACE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEI• T BLANK.

1
Summary - S-42
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
1

N
V
0

l
N
_d
r ?

1
U O C ;ID O C

C
, C 0

C
- 0)

C 0) N

C
C m
• r
U N
, C
C O)
'
0) m 0
m N
m - L 0) - L
O
O
•
O
O N m

N O
' z U

N 0 i 0)
r>

0 S.
01 U
j C C
N O
O r
U
mN0)
j C C
' O
O
N r -p, N
r •
p
O-Cr m L O O.C
m L -6
• aU C(nZ raU CfnZ
I O N`
C m L
C m.7.a(n m
mL
.7-.aCA r
a
r co N`
mL N`
•OU V 0) U N`
mL N
ram U 0) U
N E m Or N E co O
• m O> N C U m O Z N C U
U
U O U O E
n C 2 O U O i
i O ? N
m O i._ 0.0 _ 0= i
O m E -0 N ; O`•_ a) `
O m EO N
0)
V =N- mi a)
V -N=m
E r ` a U 0U) O' E C` a U Un 0 7'N in mL? m
O 7 NC` U in
m C`
E m?0y00 C
C` U p 0) U ?rmt OmOOCM
E i ` U O 0) U N
N
m 0 0 O U M L' Co 0 0 O U m L O O y`- O O O
._ ._ 00 ' co O O 0) U 7 r
O, - O O m U 7 O
(nZU ?QafD; tnZU ?Qatn ax S
(?ZU to ?mZ(1 ;(n IAZUD a) a U, (n ZUO m O C U
' U o l
O O C N 10
E
C O) m r C 0 m 0)

o
N C C

0 0)
F)
O m E U r C 01

r '? m E U
;
o
o .9 o2: N
Er- •o
?uJ ?Z a? cyZ `
• ° 2 mr
c m lam mt
«7atn a
; co Co ? d 2.2
am s t5 m mL ? 2
am v a) 0
0
co O, co 0

m` O >N C U' m` N C U 0 U O

i0 C) ` E O U O

` O

' m O _ U? 2

` O E 'O N
_
i 0 " w .?
2
E O m E:5
N
• 0) t -O = N -- 0), 0) t :0 _ N •- N
E r `
V y 0
U y O' E r E _
N N L -0 f0
Q 7 co -
r -U N (0 = 'O
N
'C ` ; 0)
r E (0 t :O 0.2 C N
? -C C
' U N r m L a N O O C
U O
U
O
p
m 0 0 U m L' co 0 0 U m L £
O O w ._ O O O E
O O
r m p 0)
O O 7 O
2 D
; E
N
O O D U 7 O
CQZU ?Qa(n'(nZU ?Qa(n a2 S 6 ZU m ?(nZU 'm (nZU
) S U ?(nZ00 0)'O s U
m O i ; y O L
C r C ()
C 0)
C 0) N
C C 4) r m N
r C C V
O
0) c6 N m
N O 0; N O
0 N m
N O N
?n 0 U

, O y U

N C C
O
O r
m
, G C
N
O
?
'O E O C
m L O E O -i m n
a(n rCo Z at clnZ
• V 0)
C CG L
o m 7 0 d
m L
CO wa a
; m L m N
m
acn r m r N
'atn
m

m O, co O
R E O r 6i C U' E O Y 4i C U r
O U O
N C 2 E p
U O
E O

' a U
O
E O y E •O N _
o i
O
' E `o m E 'o
N
• U L N, 0) L d
a U N O' E't ` a U N 0 _
7 'y N L 'O m
Q 7 N. .O '` •U in L 'a
m •` r U
, E N L 2
t` O 0) U N' t m C S CO N
V) r -? U O 0) U in
m 0 0 O U m L' m 0 0 O U m L
co Z U Q a N, Cn z U ¢ a m O O ?Z - 0 0 O
n. x U Z U U 9 0 0
U Z U ' m
; U - O O D U 7
(7 Z U (D -O C O' 0 0 0) U 7 O
U; fn ZOO () -O U

O) N N 6)
N N C N
0)
C 0
C
r m O
r cV C N C

m 0 C E

w 6

w
co
0 w
0 0, -2
C
>
> 7? w N 0-
r- m
O V C U
N
2 U r
'> ?
E
C _
i
C

C
C 01 ¢
Q
'O -O 0)
'O m m o co 'O co m.0 C',
= 0) C
2
a co
w p
0) L
O
a
C r
0)
a m 0
U C
0)
i m a
0 m 0) E m r Q co d E 0)
>
a O 6-S C U
m 0) N E ' N
m d E m
m r y E 0) E
a m
m m
m m m
52
U
U
O
, m a)
a) 4)
C
7 y a)
m
r U
'C 0) m
;
'C
U
N E 'o
S) '
9 '
O Y
O N
001 r- 00, O•oE
-O
N
0 O'o E. E O N

0 M>0

O?m -
O
O
mtoC
2E 2E2-0 v ?2wE.S am?E: cn2ma m ?Na ;2NEo
N N
N U N N
U C ,
S m N
C 0) j 0)
C
m C O
N N N
C OD
; 0) fn 'O N
r C M
C
U .-
• y Q w ; y Q w U
7 '
= U N ` 0)
O
i >o m C C N

7. N U
U)
U? N` EC N

' N 7 .N U
O m m O m
m
a ca .a ca ` m N co

a ?a a

m .,
(
m
0
a ?' o
.
C
??? o
-
N- CO O- N- Co O-
m U1 w N ; m U T 0) O ` O- O-
0) 01 N
; co U
O- U
N E i O. V N
U
d E
U C - N C r U C __ f6 C
N
E N E N a
E N a C f0 C (O C
0
•
N O
N i 0)
E l0 C o
C
N , c0 C o
-
N
E
0 -
m 7 7 ; m 7 O 7 .
O E
E
O C ._ 7 0. _ 7
m OU
E
7
U O O C
E
0
7 U O
(nm m05 M, (nm ?lnm a m(nm (n(nm m v
m d 2 o ;inm m U
m

m
y m a m N 6
ID E2
O
O

c m m
O

d m E

m E

E
U U> 013,
U> C
Q,0 z Q -O m
4) 0
O 7 C i0
x 0) C y C ,>
0) p E; o
4)
U C C
T3
; C C
0
'Om m vm m
o m°)E 0 .p m i a om
Om?2 Na ci
N
- - amo
mE? r0)m
0)E

O QQ _a W .U-

r
.

ca w i N -U
?°
N
c-2
0
O c' m
i

(?
w
?

' a 2,0
c
_?
Q =m
Q =0)
E?£? ?
?Smv
a)
C a)
RmE o a)
a) 0 a)
N OOL"O
V OOL
N O C ?; N N C w r m?
OCO
CL m O N a C d 00 -0 C;m
co m m co m, (n Or O)
N a 'mL 0)
N a
Y Y Y Y Y Y
L a N

IL a R , t a 0

r
R
a
L
a
CL a ? CL
E o c o =E o ; c o E o c o
CL at a a..? a`IX
m
`5
.
C L O) v
cc
O ti a3 O
C m
mw
?
N L r
t m
N
O
N N R

m N 7 m
O m U 06 E

- 0)
E 7 N
U d 0) N

-O
O

C
02 O

"
C
.
T
A = N ``) Z V" d
`a
5 C !n .? 8 ? `a
U
min E L m a
rnw co
U
-
0
- L 07
2 EF
O
C
E E
?
0
(O ?¢ m ?a 0 0
ax C (D z N c _0
(n Cm m M? Q
)
0)
,
Z.0 wN
m i p)
N
C o f 3 'v E E

4) U ¢ 0) C
E -O Gi E N m 2 g N O) 0 m
C C C m
7
- E C m 7 C 0 N a (Un O

U U
'
C N O

m -

> •O N >, a E
_ m .0 r)
U c
o) 0 a
E
(6 C N a
O
C
C m>
m
`
m m O
f` '(,) C

Co
C
O. w a U O E
O O () "O
O. 3 m O) N
00 0) -O m
m
EU 9 '6 E
O O C m
m
•O C E
0 0)
L
H-0 o 2Z C N ax sZ S UM m 2-0
9
N
T
N T
•? U

00 E
E o
ci Q O
U W

m
F
C
(V
N
v
C
CQ
C
co
LV
Cb E
p
E W
E (a
3 UL
(4
0
L
U)
L
0
Z
U)
V
CL.
E
O
w
v!
??NA?
v!
_d
C i C N N U N d

• m a) a) . a1

> m

7 a) co

N a
?N
V
N
j
NL . NL

L(/I L
. fn

a1 >.C-

?E -O

i U m E

a) N r TQa
U

= N
U

•
O . O
m 0 c O
co a
.N. N co
O •-
NO N •
3
y 0) a
O +N„ N
O- N a)
E a 7 a) m
U i r
. O N
r 0 (a 3
co a
N
V
W a

? a
_ _
L- L.-
E U co . a)
O 0
co C N U a) U
fl1 C 7 C
O
a r a1 • a
r co C m ..
U O
b N 3
a
0 0 ' E 0 0
mzU ;u?zU - U . N
? ;? U '. N
Q`am N a U
SEc s L r
d N
Fes' O?'m r U o
;Qa v) O-
SEC Hm
m
a1 ' a)

N
N

O f/1
N N U
m a)
a

w f/l

ID N

co

•
(Q - ' CO L
.0(0 Qtn >
N r L0
co M
5;, .
°'a
0
m N
U N 0
N
a U
r T C•
rn
E 7
U
L 2 •N..
U
n
o ? $

`
` a)
. N 0
-
6
y o w
vi a)
7
o -
-
d
co

E

• N
o N
N L "O L wm m
N 0 , a) 1? o,y
O N U c
i??
tll U 7 C ?aa)iav
a) C N -
V U a
U
E 0 0 . E p p
U) z 0
igz0 O-a . N
E 2 m L N
i O m N as
i U a L N N
2 O e m r
?
. U
p N
`
h as
E N
a
s
V
¢a m ¢a
N =
d F
- m
C ' m C co N N
C
m
N 75 m
N ' M
> N
7 a)
w
w N
N

M t Co L
.0 .Q U)
r .0 0
m
T
mm
U N O
29tLn
U N
a w

rnN
U N O
L
PL .
..
V

4 E r O E
0- 0 a) 0
-
a3 , N
N m a)
V
'
o c6
N N 0a7
co,
W E
U N
O E a N N a
71
U V rN. N
' co
, _O
a
0
U
U M E O.

a
• a7 L O (a L
6
E o
E o d
U
as E a3 U
n a) L
° E c N U 7 0 CO
N
a 7 t p N V a)
'
L o 7 N a)
° E N
o 7
o
o
lnz0 U)ZU E m In v
2
Q m 2coz n
U I- p m E c Q E If
SfnZ (>
F

N
Y
°
S
°
`

0 >

1

E

- E
?O
s

E
a
a
a _o
-
41
i N
L
+
N
a) E
E m
7 O y
m
O> C
0) ?_
C> r a) m
7 O >mE_c
N a
.
L. = m .
.
w a)) •
> a) a) O i> a) C -D
o
6
p 0 a

O) co

i E p O

O N co
C (6 O
a
l6 . `N
m
7 C O
o) L
C.N..
a Va E .N
-.
N NC ' CO fA
E a
N- E N' o m
a) O.
(
O
0 O O
O
E W _ O
CwN, Ew E
E
1 Ny O >
7 N E; O N -?
N N 2a
C
7
W
_ C ' w
O
O O E -C N E Ur
6
a) V=r
-NO 0 O a), N N
N ,N.,
L E U a)
i
$ a)
O
0
?) N U
t2
N a) O N
V
i ) N
O
Z6
U. a)
o
a)
6 .N-. a) .-
N
N O
N E C f`a' •c6 O a
°) 2 ° N O ->0 13
m ? 2, U) IL O)
i C C
Q a) 2 N O U
Sam a s a
U 00 O a -p
F E N E
2 a O. a L
L N O C i N E
0 2 E
< E : N
An 0>
S
m 0
a 0> C
w
a) , a Co
I-
a a 42
C , C
- 0
: 0 NN
m C E
co O ra)
a Na)
N C N
co
• N r N a
N
N r> a
a) 7 N N N E 3 N
a a N ?° mN m

2 m m? CtP -0
-0
>a U)
3 co 0
co
co
a1 O
N L
CO (a
a) CL O a)
N
U 0)
8 L Q.
N C , N C
L L U r
r N
co _
co 0
Cc p
01
N C
2 U
N
N U 7 0 r a) a
r a) m U N a)
a) C Q)
N U
E7 E
7

cnm
° M

E
i°

.y
E co7

0-0 L0>n

?N

N_E?

na
m U) Q Sv?m I- O a m Sco f m

• N m a7,
N ... Car
pEpo
>
CN
N
NC?oEN?) 0)
X00
(a

Na)
N a) Ni a) ;
-N « N N
> m 'D- _-2
C
0> ' C
' a) ?
.N..... O
M C m E E -
p 7 O N
U
m
c6 ' 0)
N 7 O> O
L
C .? r a)
E C E «' N

I O a
N m co: O co 0)
O O_ E 2:5
N .W O f6
O W
N
Y O E C () E
7 N p) ' O ->O L
V) O:2
) O
g
C« O
2 N a) O' N
Y O) y O)w' N
(D N m y
LE U p)
N a) y$ E s y
0 a) U U p) i m 0
7 U m N m N
a O)
a1 Ei E
a3
O
N C > OI
r E f6
a) -
a) ?
C
i C a
s t: O?
-O E W C
N O U O
C -> N p
C i L 0
L N p 2 •(6 E O C
ul d p C N
0>
O
a).
a. .-, ? N
p
z m z a; 0 a- C
Q W _ .
0
S z F- E w(a E o O Z; Q E?5 p U p
S Z F E LN m
Y `
IL a Y Y
a a Y
a Y
a
>

a >
_ a
C

m

E m c A
E m ccc _
E cc a
a

a`W °
a..re a`?
9La: o
a`12

O ?,N a) N N N
N a
E ca

N
cr
.02 .5 N O)

• m•
U

O) N
O)
- 7 N-
_m
-
N' i
0 w
0 1
0
C 7 N
of y
N N C
O
L C
C N' 0= 0
7 N
N

N
Z 1
C E
C
o•-cN
Z Es
n 4 a
,
NL7
2o o U
QZ = mZ jE
y
C o L o
O ?
. t- Z
Z
N
cc 0
O a U
O
7
E C N m
C
N T N U a) N co N
Oa z
O
a
• rna is a j a
N C UI N C O LA y 0) O) " N O)
m C w
- a) O C w
N 4) o
C N a O 0) 0) U 2-5
L
C
C
O) a N
Q) (D N a N
O a) N C C a
0I D
O N O U O L 00
Z07 z07 Qz Sz F z 02z
N
`

N c
C
N V
7
D N o N
L
0 Q
J WW
> j
U
1
1
1
C
d
76
U
cQ
C
cu
l^ ?
VI E
p
c C
E W
f6
???)
VJ
f6
N
0
L
U)
t
Z
1

t
r
V
E

E
v!
N
CO)
d

N i
V C ° 0 C C C
CL
-0 W
N O r 7 , O
y O , O
y 0 ' y 0
7 N
w vi co 0 ;
cc . co a L m-o , d
tnw d co Mt , L
CO
m ?L ; ?L
co :
? m ; m
co m
•• 0
U
` ..y.. 'D ? w -O

0'
m o
' N
o 4) o
' m O
°
E Z5; E
.-a V
m
C) '
U
7C
Z5 V
U
Ui U
ca la w
•0
_L. E 'm fb 0 V
_L.C 'a) N 0 m -0
_L _c C: U
U
U U
Cc

L N N fl.
O.-0i °--0
E 7 E
E
E Y
'
E r ' E
'
a'O a-0

O m Lm
E E. E e 00p m
05zU > cn 00
m
V5 z0 ;m OO
._ 00
6,z 8z8
E E' E ?
y a) N a1 N ' m d ; m
O_ aT m j '> m N '> d N ' d y N ; y
m E N
w N N` DL O .0
m
co ?L Q
tn co ?L ?L
?
? N m w C i1
L
n Co co 'a

N
y i i
o
1 o o
o mv °-- my
°-
0
° E
° V `U
• 7 c m
_
-' m:
+
co m
N° 3 N1
N L .0 L U, a)
r m
0 0
fa L. o O' O
(a L -0 m L -° y
N N N N
V U U co U V U Co
cc
C

0
L y
d

-0 O' -O
- t: E
t:
E O O m co
E

E 0 0 ' m

O O' E O O o
2 :3

:3
•0 n U ' -0 O. U
p a) m

m
E
T. E

cnzUw 2 u)

cnzU U)

cnzU;a)z0

? o E c
()
C O' a)
C a1 N
C C m

N
N
y
y
m N i m N
y cc 0
N N
?a
O mL
m ; N O ?i 7, O

im
a? 0 , O
?? o 0
?? ;sue
m C m ; N
• N m m

oiw0 N ca

w
°
;Y
°
y
O` ._? N;
o`3a);m
O E y
`o m
O E 0 0
o'
`o -0
E m m , m m
NN ??N

7
•• m
N m a
i
a
i
U: U
N
Co m

N
a)
7 y
m
L y
m
N "°; N U
' m
U U co V U m
N
O
L N O- U 7j
7
d°- 0 . E
r
E O O
' C . E
E O O r
' E o
E O N O CO m m
-° °• U -0 Q U
p m E c E m. E m m
m p
i)zUw (o m
c) .? O
0
cnzU'cnzU _
p m E c -p m E C
m

C C
o ° m ai
- o ; O

W ' W
E

=
6

E

L
o? 6

ai
O 0
C C

m co

N °
C
C E; E
m w
O O o o
* 2 E w
: ID
E
E o

E2
U U

N j y d
U
.°
m m a) C i O C
a N , O
a) i II r
O) i
0
O L O C .U ,o i N
m a) N
N
c ?
Em 3ayi 'E go.
o
-
.m--O, > m
-°
N y o m

d d N '>

aiE .a > >

-om o(1c)
o 2 m y N
m N m
m o)N a)y
m ° (D m Co CO m
o)o E a) 7Oa

C (6 L N O C c m; c d

O -O. °-> o f E

m . m a
i
?? ?? E
a)-
a) -
; m °'o o) E

O C ' N o f T
o f
a ' f0
a
m
a E m O m E o p
Z co z m C/) 0
0
z m Z co 0) 22 2 m
0
2 n- ;2 n?

E a)
U Y
a) o
a)
m ; m
a) ; m
o ma
• C
V c 3 y
- c O c E
' m 0 ; m
N
N N '
y
O)-
O
7 O N ' N
C 7 i 0
Co N N . m N O
L . m N
N
m ; co +
'
N C ' m c

7

m O
y
U 'a
a)
ca '
co 0

0
0 .2
N m .2

a) 0

° N N ' -O N y
L
U -
-
U ' U m
m
c 0 i
m e , a) m C , 0 m C m C
L D U m D U m
j
a) o m CO
L y> ?_ o
m
O. , ?- V N 7 E
E
- N E
E n y
, E
E m N
N 7 m NL
-0 CL V V
U
O d E E' E c 7
m
fAm > ?U 7 m
Um ?U 7
7
Um ?Um E
? E c ?D Ll E c
E O)
ai C O)
C
E N 0)
C ; m C
N
m
w
°O) E2 O
> iO6 O
a) '> O ..Lm.
E
> > ' .y..
d ;> _
Ln NL
>Taia
.. i co N 0 ; m LO N ;moo e
o ° 0 ;moo E2 ; oa E2 E ; 12 a
3 a
C Co N m
m a
N E? m V m
•° y m
O N O E i y
-° ; d E
d -° N ' '>0 N

.
7
0 2-0)
m
16
co Cca

a)
.fl a) L m

E2 'FM (D a)
I
m ' 2
m a m c ' m r-

M
: CO (a
c c t° c
ID N 0 O C" c c E
o C p. ° E E
N m rn> rnrn E
a) V a) C m (D
?_ E ''o o)
O C 4)
° E o E ; o E
O N N m m a
M-0 O 2 z 2 o; z E.2 2m ; co Z m z o ; U) ? a) ; 2 o 2 ?_2 n; 2 n?
Y Y Y . Y Y :.x Y Y Y Y
L
a L
a a L
a
a L L
a a
CL . a a

• m

a . m
a > . Ta
_
CL A

_ a > `a

a
o; '&v
Em, cm "o 0
Em cm ?G U-6
Em ;cm "C vo
Em cm ? 6 uv
Em cm
o, -o
aLa: a`Q: co o
n.I •a`n ?o o
a? •a`? - ` o 0
o a`? 0 _o
a`? o`er
N N tOn
°1
O 0
m

u
a)
->0
4)
o f C

0 m E m

E

)
m Co .n
Z5 a ai m rn

° m ° rn °)° o m> E
m
a) °c
C
O
20 ?o L
zEN zcam ?2 Z
° a) m d m
L D Q L d
D) 2) O) O) O1
0)
C tm
C 0)
C 0)
C 0)
C
O
z O
z O
Z O
z O
z
N

C O
L N
s
T
_ N
0
N C
p
a
C ?p m 9
a A m 3 to
v
cc

a
O 0)

0
0) CF

C

m y
0
. CL
0 Q O 3
U F O U)
C7
C
N
N
U
fa
Q
E
vJ E
O
C
Cc
C w
C m
3 LL
O
N
O
t
L
O
z
U)
V
Q
O
v!
N
ca
_d
NN
`6?m rdm
c0?m? a)
c
N ?
N N
a)
a m
0 r
0 O
rat
m
a U co La
CL 1
U) ?.
C13 co
CL -.9
c (D r 0
•• £ E O w a a
r E 2 E
-
N a E ' N
ca E
a N N 7
a ; N
6 n3

r-
a
? ;
.
.
pmt??
' N --r
Q-
E ?

0 ???

-
E £ Np

N O
Y ?a)m

m
N °
a)
_
0 0
O NZU
0'tq ZU
z0 C) a 0 0
UZU ' cc
U
a
co -
>>
(n> a)
(
, n
0 a)
N
y (D
- a) d
V V
?
N O -- i
? N
' N p ? N`
N O N
O N
U U m
>
Qaln ? ?? . 0
0U
0
M
ca CL
Ea 0° 0 y
a) °
-°
E O E D y y O` O E N
v 7N
Co N N
• a)ta m o
r m.r p nsta a) a
v;
a) O
O
m m° 0 0 m
ca m

OyZUEC
r E M
M CO 4)
m
C
of
CD ZU coZU to Jm E
Na) ?
a)
C m

N `O C

CD p

> .N.

N N N

>
r

• a1 t
ca Ca
.n U r O
; N
ca *0
0. O.
-0 -0
0 a) C a)

'-0 -

• l
o
O E
p
N ca
,
r a
U
O
w E
N
N
-V

ca
' a)

7
N N

f/1 J -Np O -O NQ,
E -0 r- a) M
co
' N

r

E o Co
a-0
E N .
C
E 0 0

ca

N m a)
fa U U U m
0. =3 m as 2
a) a) 0
E
cn Z U N C C 6

U
d
°- U

L)
' L
2
E `o E

?
O
E

A U
E?
am
i2 a )
I
C
N =p c
m2
(
D m
0 ?5
2) 0) (D o?a
O)
>
O)->6 C

() E2
,
_ -C5 > C
O C
O °C O c
N m a) m
N ;
' as O co a
o
O cc U
N
i Co

?? .
-.
a) a a) E
o)?
ca
c a) co
co

Z E
V
N Na ° E

°
as
a)
c o` co
p
w
d
a) O m Ln a
N
N i ()
a
a
U E c 0 a) C
as n._

a)
Z? a O °) ° a
°? c ?->p co Y >-° f0a
? >aa E
O.?n was mZ Occo rU Jma) >
fn>ca ca ca
?m

•
C
; 2 3
N
C
N
N U N
•
y
' N
N
i>
.N.
m d ? V

?
>

cc
0

te'

ca
a

M U

co a

Ey Omn

r.°o
.
N m
,a a
as
1
cc N
N a)
co a
E a
N O -O N E a) m
O
m C
E U
cc co C a)
N E a C U N
co Ca
0 J ;
a)
a)7
U) M ?n

?0 _EN
O E
co p
ca a CL
roa) 2!
E E
j m
. Um ,(n J C C
U) N (n

• U U
m a) E a)
a5
a' ?
E
" E O i N
E
E U
.. a y a
G1 C > m a
,a i co C E C >
p a C
o O
E v C N O .d. C ..0. .N-. U
0a)a 01
a (0 O)
2 r a) m 0-12
_ 0
a)
6C•

0--
0)1 C
Co
r C> C

p N m N c r

r a) a)
r
Q O m c N
y
w
ID C O ca C N a C p

; N p

r
N

.. c
Ca
m ° a) a m
mca)c -
mao)
c
m

co

ai )i

c i c aai E 00)
ai

N a

aai c
ca ?pEoE a)mp°-)(
DVCo m

rE riia?° m
n? mo c
a
N Na.°
- N U
pNZ5
Z O. ' O?N?
O_ O. p>aN0 c
a) m z E 2 O
u) NaCd _g >ad y>a N>
J ca co -O m m c
m 'YE
J >aN
- m a
a) a cc co a) as a
Y
CL Y
a i

a Y

a Y

a Y
m`
a
• _
`0
CL > a >
- A

o
E o c E ca
c
o
E m
c m
o IL a`? a`? a`lz
y o° m
c r E c
° 4? C
m
.. a s
m C o
m a N

0
m `? O
a a)
W N C
'?6 ID

n!
m
m m m
O -a) N -00 a)
c rn N m m E
a) ' a) O d D O'
E
U N M
N N

Z
°
O
a a
?EO m m Em n
a)a
° E

m cn2 p a c
JZa) 0.
cc ca

roa

?

?

Z
m d m
Z
O)

E 0)
a)
C O)
a)

Z
Z C
O
Z
O
w
co
c37
a?
-
?
_O
o
Cc v w
m v 2 m o
3 C
L
a
,. a
1

1
r
c
(D
N
U
`a
ca.
CE
C
C
?'?^ a)
VJ E
O
ca c
C
C m
'D
D
(0
O
O
.r-
co
t
Z

1
1

1

V
I E-

G
E
7
N
.Q

1

1

V m
C
"O m
m U

2
m
C m

W W 4

fA. U
a)
,
a)
,>
7 L
• £ d)
N i
i W N W
O 7 m m
d ,
, m °
NO y6 2 -7 co
CL -
s E m , 0
:10 m , LO
i cc
£ 0` 'C W N JCS co C m E ' N J c W M
? N

Z5
Uco a).0

x'£6

m

?a ?ao
m

E°
m

m

m

9£

m
o
UU

m
'- C 'C 0
U E Q. 7 , E c
i
;p. Z p_ 7 i
c
.O D. 7 mc
i
N 7 , E 01 Q. 7 N , E n 7 , E
KIAZU a)
A )
co 2 E m
;m m co
xx 9 ?
SLL.
Z
mU
ma `m
;(A
E ?
;uA
?

•
O
W
O U
C w

7
Em
N
m?
, O w
N-
o3m
O
m?
U
co
, O
m
y 0
o?E
3 co
Sim
, O
co
i 0
m

.
E m
0 .C W co JCS m C m £ N J C m ° ' N m
N
0
42
•

42
m E

m

U U

° U

a)

m
1

° U

N

o
' m

2
° U

m
U
O_ 7 U E Wp. 7 i E S] p_ 7
' 01 n 7
N " N 7
" i£ 9 co 7 d
L W
m £ D. 7 E
W O
? E m a) O
WOE ? W
(q O
m ca
IM E 2 O
6)
x(i E m p
O
Z m , 6)
co ' co °
:ELL E ? m m
.0
in c`6 cc
'U)
-92 , m
:
co

>
o
co m
c`6
m
p
a
co C

N

>

>
_m m m N i 0 N co

o Q , m .a

, V) .2
N d
D N 0
N 0
i 0
C O 'C W ' N C3 O C m

a) 42 -0
E N
W J C W
a) 0 m

O ' ca
: (a W
42
W ' N

W
E U$ - E U
7 W 6 Y6 U V
W 16 E
p d
O) W m U , m
'£ B £ U m
5), > W O
L N V m U
3
m E Q 7
'O c
) E'a 7
-O ,£
' 7
a D
'O 7
:6
co -0 N 7
.O a)
, m 7
N O O_
7
O i 0.
O £
m o
af OE m m O
coo E 2 W
U) c6 m
xx E ? M
S(i E ?
z a)
m 6
x(i m
m5? c6
co ?
E
' m

U)

C
1 W
N C
m
O
.6 C 6j
O i
W m
0-
W

U
0
m
m
a) 7 m m c m m m m
0 c m
E m co m (1) >
m°
E> C
E £ m?
p> C , 1]
c6 N m m
NO 7 n 0) m p
i2 > C? ,
-0
m N- m
p w0 a '0
.c.. m Q
W 4)
> C s
m
ca C U N C N J d LL £

6 J
15 N

2 6 O
L

N

N m

N
U - m i t
- m , m R m E2 ' W m
- , m £ E2 m y i , m m i m
Wcd 67 "? m?m'v W mm -p mmm 0C m W L-o a)m-0 m mm ?m
am as (off o.s !A xx W x2 n Z 2 y SLL W ma m U) a fA
'D
U
• v
U v
U v
U a
U
U - a
U
- 7 7 'O 7 7 m U 7 C O 7

N
£

N
N

W

N 1)

R co
L

00
co

w

cl)
m

N
J

m

m 0

O
OE N 7 N N O
J Q N C N E ' N ,
w
J C N O m co
U m
E i W
m
:°:6 m m
E W
a) m
0E C
> i W .N W
N Q U

m E co

0 ' E L Wp_

W(a mu
L 0) Q N 7
W? O-° '£ :8 W

co L N N '£

W co
'
m
(A
U W
U)
22
xLL Z m
co
xLL E m m W
m.0 .o
U m
fq
c
cc m c
W c 0 0
W m c
E m m U m
7? £ cm
n i 0 =N O - (m i 0 O E - E , O E O

E> `
E
> ,L
W N m
p 7>
a) d C
C O ,L
m y'
N d 0
vN p
m ,
m
C
Q C O
C
m C i
m J U m C _
m m m i
c p
J a) a) _
~O m i
cc W r ' co
U 'mom W im ;
a y0 -m «6EL m i im ?£i2 mLti im W im
7
2 ,
as ca a) O N C O W W M C m W T->p O -p> m W T->p m a) >O ca C m W
?2 CL (qM O_C ;m xx? o. T- LL m z m co , 2LL Co m-0 W (A d ?fn
Y
m i Y
c`6 Y
m Y
`m Y
m Y Y

`m i Y

•
a a
. a a
, a a L a .a
CL c > c. c
"o
E m vv
c v
E m ?v
; c m "ti
E zig
c
£
c

` m
`
` m m
` m m
`
a
I a
M IL ? a a
W aI a
K
U
N (D
N U
W>
'
C
O
W e
O c
C
m V
C N
m V
C N
O 7 m
C CC W.2
O O
c
=
C
C
?1
•7 W C m
m •7 S] 60 :0 y
J ('S a m C 6j
:2 m J N R N N
c c m N al
O C .. (a m C (
B a) C
£ W
m E E c 7 E .?
E rn
v W C
E? ..m. W i m ».6 E m
C
a S rn> £ m m
m rn> E
v >
a co L
E
` W `) m W
-O > E
o m W
> E
W o-m m
>
c mom-pmc ?
mmm -p W m o £
om-p ?
m °-p rnm
`mmm W
m7m°'Om )
m-0 a`)
WOU? 00 - CU (AUZ m O m I I Z m O_ xLL Z Z Z m: xLL2 m Ow9 mSa? m Q Z W O.
m
a m
s m
a m

a
m rn rn 'm
W 0 4 0
c
0
Z c
0
Z c
0
Z c
0
Z
.m

C d N
T
_
O « d m
.m.. 3 i6 m
m £ Y O
m
O
m m

F
C
E
16
0
m
Q
dC
G
p
N W
7
(n UL
(B
0
d
0
.c
U)
L
0
Z
N
V
R
a
E
0
I'll
R
N
N
R
I--
w

i>

o N
>
° U 4

E? i
m

a

N
o

i m

0
d
m co m m n
; co
m m mm (6 m L
co
.°U) r
r m
« U
°
m ray
m a
fa N "O CO mr m
c v v W .4
U m; y C

U C1
0)
r -E E ' N

m °' m
c
)
a? r
E m
m n 7 v amr E ° :3 0 Q E m-E ? ' E
E m c E m m E cnzc);cn

'>
r m O c > N y
N 2 O 0-0
m
(
N
>
' a)
'

;m ' 0
'.m a) .O
a> ; m
6 N
coo 7Nw E CL
Q
0 '-0 >
°

.0 a
m
cc,
1 Qd
E 0
- n
N
U)
ca
t N

• co V
Q 7
i m
j N
E
m w m m w yr Co
C U V W U CO: N
m m 7 -p m m; E
N C
c
N c Qa U w
U 3 N 7 a) 7p
-0 3:
r m

' m
N N
N
co m
r m

' N
'p

E m r
'va.o Q m
c E m m E cr
0
0Q
?m
Q°
E
E

m
QY ocv K
;cn
S 'co
o c > N
p , > N O O n
ca
O
> >

m
m

m
.. m m '
m
m
; co
m 7 N
ana5 m

9
r
co

' O

m
y mom
m
W V
C U
N a "' V N
° R ; co ?
-° ' m

a 7 E U
CO
m m m
E
ca a c
.
-2 7
r
a
3
" °
'
U , m

Em
m a a o - m p
cE?
pE y
c o
U° 0
?
>c cm m
2 n E

m m a 7

Ed r E
.
p O O O m O O O
O m O E w m w N m w
U N w Nm

N
> ?
Co - > U /) U
ma >a
a;a> ;ma
0> -p
a?am
`o °'
m
>

`m ;>°

c m ;0
d

4i 0 E2 E -aE
d- co NE iE

d' o m -aE

m"- 2E?

m o E0

E c o
>
m c ' m
Q
a) > N

N > r>

-0 a)
'a C N

N C

-0 O ' m
ca i
E2 cc lL y
?
r_ U Co M
V
U

ca a) 4)
R N U
co
N

N
O r E
co m> •p > r E
'D- c o. v E CL
N 0 O Q ' O n
ic
m v E vQi O E m
6 O N
> r E
ma i 0 mpd ; m
- m m m Q r co N
4)
QN CL, mN
NN
QM O4)
.2 QV (
0 N
cx O'
O
m ; m
i U)
U
7

> U °
7 p_
E
> N G1 2
O c _> N ry)
° c
N N
; o c 2
N N N
3
d
O o
m
r 0
N i
2 a
m
U a) p•?
f
-' w

i aQ mp-

E m >
0

m r m
co N
m
m
m m ? y N
U) -=
XCL0
E p •V 0) N
0 a,
E p v
N-
-
m i m
co

U Cc
r N co
co ca
C U W U . a)
N c
Q "o i U "- (D
' N c Q zu
() U)

a
E

m c
m a C ; c
'O C
7v co
_° ?r N 7 m 7
O o t0 f? 'C

(D '6
-0 0
' 'O 3 N
' o 02

>
7 C
'°
N
O• r
m
' E
i V)
c E co m r U)
Q Y O ?. "O K

Q

Q Y O

0
2' Q

E

co
U)

' °
O Q
C c O N 0 0
N m N
U N U 0 0
N N
U U 0
aj N
` U

O

N
i> E
E>> m m
a) Q > Q m m
N Q> ; m Q m
> Q
N
i N
>
> °
m o o
CO a N m O r 0 N N m N 0 r N m m r
i
r ID _ N
0 _0
?. m m Co y W m y m; m
a) m G (L C
V
m
cc M C U m c U
N m e
U m r m
E E ? o o rn E. E

- CL I
° E N v E a
c ° E o
mr ° E N

tf
v E o.
o

E
m
_
Q m
; m O "O <a O c N' m
m m E o Q U) m N O m N m mN
m :.s m V
n? nrn CL a; n? O m N
D. CD m ; co
U)
Y Y
M ` Y
cc
s Y Y Y Y
IL CL

as a
cc
as
cc
i

aa.

IL
. >
- rCL j C i
c N
?- R
a d
w iR
a
E o 6
o £ o o w
£ p cam E m c m
IL Ix 'a`te a`? am (La: a`I° a`? ;dam
ai m

. ai m (D

fa m m
m v m '5.2)
m
N

N p
n
0)

' > > m p -m.

m
_?
y C

m m
m
C co
fa
c m w m
.
d c N N
rn?m?m
m c N N (` d
-mi?u?
C .N-. N
cc 04)

°i

rn> E

m "O a)

T 0 E -o c

.O -- m m 0

m m E m o

N ->
O
m
o E m o p m

Q a °
C
o

E M 'O

Q m

\

Z m Q
?? Q mZ U 4)
.
Z m Q N m
"
Q N M m
n
Q N O
Z
m
9 A
a m
-z d
-z
rn 0 m 0)
°'

c
(D rn
a) rn
m

Z
Z c
Z c
Z

U) V

?' m a
O is N
N

U
m
N 'O V -O ar
o
x
O d ?'aw
m
N
O
m a m C co
.'_2 (a

y y
d
a ,

C?
to
> W
m .U)
d V U) m 7
c M
0 a c O
00 Q N
LL LL U R
w
1
1
1
1

c
0)
c
t5
M
Q
E
E
o
c
(a C
E W
m
=3 LL
cu
w
O
.r-
U)
L
It
z
LJ
11

J

1

%16,
0
r
m
O
n
O
I
m
z
Cl)
i

Volume I
Acronymns A-1
Summary S-1
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Project Purpose and Need: the 1943 Agreement 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2.1 Goals 1-2
1.2.2 Objectives 1-2
1.3 Cooperating Agencies 1-2
1.4 Project History and Background 1-3
1.4.1 Legislative History 1-3
1.4.2 Project History 1-3
1.5 Project Setting 1-4
1.6 System Linkage 1-4
1.6.1 Road Networks 1-4
1.6.2 Railroads 1-4
1.6.3 Airports 1-4
1.6.4 Bicycles and Pedestrians 1-5
1.7 Study Issues 1-5
2. Description of Alternatives 2-1
2.1 Development of Preliminary Study Alternatives 2-1
2.1.1 Screening Criteria 2-1
2.1.2 Roadway Design Criteria 2-1
2.1.3 Initial Options Considered 2-2
2.1.4 Initial Partial-Build and Build Concepts Considered 2-4
Table of Contents - i
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Description of Preliminary Study Alternatives 2-4
2.2.1 No-Action 2-5
2.2.2 Monetary Settlement 2-5
2.2.3 Partial-Build Corridors 2-6
2.2.4 Build Corridors 2-6
2.2.5 Potential for Major Bridges 2-7
Framework for Decision-making: Summary of Potential Impacts 2-8
2.3.1 Comparison Matrix 2-8
2.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study 2-8
2.3.3 Alternatives Initially Suggested for Detailed Study in the DEIS 2-9
Alternatives Refinement 2-12
2.4.1 Two Road Types Recommended for Detailed Study 2-12
2.4.2 Elimination of the Cable Cove Bridge Corridor 2-12
2.4.3 Addition of the Proctor Option (Modified Version of the Flint Gap
Corridor and part of the Baseline Northern Shore Corridor) 2-13
2.4.4 Addition of the Forney Creek Crossing Option 2-13
Detailed Study Altematives 2-14
2.5.1 No-Action 2-15
2.5.2 Monetary Settlement 2-15
2.5.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area 2-15
2.5.4 Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell 2-16
2.5.5 Northern Shore Corridor 2-17
2.5.6 Options to the Baseline Corridors 2-17
Consistency with Sections 101(b) and 102(1) of NEPA 2-18
2.6.1 No-Action 2-19
2.6.2 Monetary Settlement 2-19
2.6.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area 2-19
2.6.4 Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell 2-19
Table of Contents - ii
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.6.5 Northern Shore Corridor 2-19
2.7 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 2-20
2.8 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 2-20
2.9 Preferred Alternative 2-20
2.10 Cost 2-22
2.10.1 Capital Costs/Funding 2-22
2.10.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs 2-23
2.11 Comparison of Alternatives 2-24
3. Affected Environment 3-1
3.1 Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions 3-1
3.1.1 Roadway and Traffic Conditions 3-1
3.1.2 Roadway Capacity 3-2
3.1.3 Accident Analysis 3-4
3.2 Existing Human Environment 3-4
3.2.1 Socioeconomic and Community Features 3-4
3.2.2 Land Use (Existing and Future) 3-7
3.2.3 Utilities 3-10
3.2.4 Cultural Resources 3-10
3.2.5 Parkland, National Forest, and Recreational Facilities 3-21
3.3 Existing Physical Environment 3-26
3.3.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 3-26
3.3.2 Floodplains 3-27
3.3.3 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks 3-28
3.3.4 Air Quality 3-28
3.3.5 Soundscapes 3-35
3.4 Existing Natural Environment 3-37
3.4.1 Wetlands 3-37
Table of Contents - iii
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.2 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 3-40
3.4.3 Water Quality 3-43
3.4.4 Aquatic Ecology 3-45
3.4.5 Vegetation Communities 3-49
3.4.6 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-55
3.4.7 Black Bears 3-60
3.4.8 Migratory Birds 3-62
3.4.9 Invasive Exotics 3-64
3.4.10 Protected Species 3-65
3.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 3-72
3.5.1 Summary of Existing Conditions 3-73
4. Env ironmental Consequences 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Impact Methods/Thresholds 4-2
4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts 4-3
4.1.3 Impairment (as defined by NPS policy) 4-10
4.2 Impacts to the Human Environment 4-11
4.2.1 Traffic, Mobility, and Access 4-11
4.2.2 Community 4-24
4.2.3 Economics 4-35
4.2.4 Land Use 4-47
4.2.5 Visitor Use and Experience 4-55
4.2.6 Environmental Justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 4-83
4.2.7 Utilities 4-84
4.2.8 Cultural Resources 4-85
4.2.9 Public Health and Safety 4-98
4.3 Impacts to the Physical Environment 4-100
Table of Contents - iv
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1

C

rI

n

C

n

4.3.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils 4-100
4.3.2 Floodplains and Floodways 4-107
4.3.3 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks 4-114
4.3.4 Air Quality 4-115
4.3.5 Soundscapes 4-143
4.4 Impacts to the Natural Environment 4-152
4.4.1 Wetlands 4-152
4.4.2 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 4-162
4.4.3 Water Quality 4-169
4.4.4 Aquatic Ecology 4-185
4.4.5 Vegetation Communities 4-198
4.4.6 Terrestrial Wildlife 4-208
4.4.7 Black Bears 4-217
4.4.8 Migratory Birds 4-224
4.4.9 Invasive Exotics 4-231
4.4.10 Protected Species 4-239
4.5 Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4-253
4.5.1 Methodology for Assessing Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual
Resources 4-253
4.5.2 Summary of Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4-255
4.5.3 Views Created by Alternatives 4-258
4.5.4 Options to Address Potential Impacts 4-259
4.5.5 Impairment Evaluation 4-260
4.6 Energy Impacts 4-260
4.6.1 Continuing Energy Consumption 4-260
4.6.2 Construction Fuel Consumption 4-263
4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts 4-263
4.7 Private In-Holdings 4-263
Table of Contents - v
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.7.1 Summary of Impacts to Private In-Holdings 4-264
4.8 Collective Impacts, Sustainability, and Long-Term Management 4-264
4.8.1 Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and Long-Tenn Productivity 4-264
4.8.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-266
4.8.3 Adverse Impacts that Could Not Be Avoided 4-267
4.9 Impairment Evaluation Summary
4-268
4.9.1 Background 4-268
4.9.2 Conclusions 4-269
5. Agency Consultation and Coordination 5-1
5.1 Interagency Meeting No. 1: Scoping (March 12, 2003) 5-2
5.2 Notice of Intent (April 24, 2003) 5-2
5.3 Interagency Meeting No. 2: Existing Conditions (September 10, 2003) 5-2
5.4 Interagency Meeting No. 3: Alternatives Development (March 24 and April
22, 2004) 5-2
5.5 Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting No. 1 (August 4, 2004) 5-3
5.6 Natural Resources Agency Field Meeting (October 19, 2004) 5-4
5.7 Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting No. 2 (February 8, 2005) 5-4
5.8 Interagency Meeting No. 4: Impact Analysis (February 23, 2005) 5-4
5.9 Endangered Species Act Coordination 5-4
5.10 Consultation Regarding the Clean Air Act 5-5
5.11 Continued Section 106 Consultation and Coordination 5-6
5.12 Coordination between the Signatories of the 1943 Agreement 5-6
5.13 Other Coordination 5-7
5.14 Notice of Availability 5-7
5.15 Agency Comments and Responses on the DEIS 5-8
5.15.1 Agency Comments on the DEIS 5-8
5.15.2 Study Team Responses 5-37
Table of Contents - A
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.16 List of Preparers 5-62
5.17 List of Reviewers 5-70
5.18 List of DEIS Recipients 5-72
5.19 List of FEIS Recipients 5-74
6. Publi c Involvement 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Media Strategies 6-1
6.2.1 Mailing List 6-2
6.2.2 Newsletters 6-3
6.2.3 Website 6-3
6.2.4 Other Document Locations 6-4
6.2.5 Press Release and Public Announcements 6-4
6.2.6 Social Advertisement 6-4
6.3 Enhanced Outreach 6-5
6.4 Public Participation Opportunities 6-5
6.4.1 Project Timeframe 6-5
6.4.2 Public Meetings 6-5
6.5 Public Comments 6-8
6.5.1 Master Comment Summary Database (MCSD) 6-8
6.5.2 Public Comment Summaries 6-8
6.5.3 Thank You Response 6-10
6.5.4 Public Comments on the DEIS 6-10
7. Refe rences, Acronyms, Glossary, and Key Word Index 7-1
7.1 References 7-1
7.2 List of Acronyms 7-27
7.3 Glossary 7-32
7.4 Key Word Index 7-52
Table of Contents -vii
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Tables
2-1 Roadway Design Criteria Guidance
2-2 Length of New Roadway
2-3 Capital Costs and/or Funding Amount
2-4 Total Additional Annual GSMNP Operations and Maintenance Costs
Associated with Construction
2-5 Increases to GSMNP Operations and Maintenance Costs
Post-Construction
2-6 Comparison of Alternatives and Impacts
3-1 Archaeological Sites and Isolated Finds in North Shore Road EIS Study
Corridors
3-2 Traditional Cultural Properties In and Adjacent to the Study Corridors
3-3 National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards
3-4 Typical Human Hearing Levels
3-5 Approximate Area by USFWS Classification of All Wetlands within the
Project Study Corridors
3-6 Approximate Area by TNC Vegetation Classification of All Wetlands within
the Project Study Corridors
3-7 Summary of Stream Flow Classifications within the Project Study Corridors
3-8 Targeted Aquatic Species List
3-9 Detailed Vegetation Communities and Their Global Ranking
3-10 Targeted Terrestrial Species List
3-11 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Their State
Status Evaluated for Potential Occurrence within the Project Study
Corridors
3-12 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species Found within the
Project Study Corridors
4-1 2025 Traffic Volumes
4-2 Monthly Traffic Volume Percentages
4-3 Vehicle Classification Assumptions
4-4 Intersection Level of Service - Unsignalized (2025)
Table of Contents - viii
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

F
n
4-5 Intersection Level of Service - Signalized (2025)
4-6 Level of Service - 2025
' 4-7 Level of Service for an Alternative's New Roadway - 2025
4-8 Projected Annual Recreation Visitor Use, Total and Net New for the
Partial-Build and Build Alternatives
4-9 Impact of the Southern Options on Annual Jobs During Construction
' 4-10 Annual Long-Term Increases in Personal Income and Net Retail Sales
4-11 Lengths of GSMNP Trail Eliminated or Rerouted
' 4-12 Cultural Resources Threshold Definitions
4-13 Construction Phase Emissions within 1,000 feet (300 m) of the
Partial-Build and Build Altematives
' 4-14 Operational Emissions of the Partial-Build and Build Alternatives
4-15 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
4-16 Year 2025 Average Traffic Noise Contours
4-17a Direct and Indirect Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts within the Proposed
' Partial-Build and Build Alternatives
4-17b Direct and Indirect Special Aquatic Habitat Impacts within the Proposed
Partial-Build and Build Alternatives
4-18 Direct Stream Impacts within the Proposed Partial-Build and Build
Alternatives
' 4-19 NCDWQ Water Quality Standards per Use Classification
4-20 Water Quality Impacts - Quantity and Usage Classification of Streams
within the Partial-Build and Build Alternatives
' 4-21 Direct Impacts to Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Within the Construction
Footprint for Each Partial-Build and Build Alternative
' 4-22 Invasive Exotic Impact Indicator - Length of New Roadway
4-23 Partial-Build and Build Alternatives 2025 Future Traffic Volumes
' 4-24 Energy Consumption
5-1 List of Preparers
' 5-2 List of Reviewers
5-3 List of DEIS Recipients

Table of Contents - ix
' North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
5-4 List of FEIS Recipients
6-1 Initial Project Mailing List
6-2 Current Project Mailing List
6-3 Public Workshop Information
6-4 Comment Numbers per EIS Planning Phase
6-5 Number of Comments Received on the DEIS
6-6 Comments Received on the DEIS by Type
6-7 DEIS Review Comment Topics
Charts
4-1 Annual Jobs During Project Construction
4-2 Long-Terms Jobs After Project Construction
Volume 11
Figures
1-1 General Vicinity Map
2-1 Photographic Examples of Road Types
2-2 Principal Park Road Typical Section
2-3 Special Purpose Park Road Typical Section
2-4 Primitive Park Road/Administrative Access Road Typical Section
2-5 Initial Concepts Considered
2-6 Preliminary Study Alternatives
2-7 Alternatives Initially Suggested for Detailed Study in the DEIS
2-8 Detailed Study Alternatives
2-9 Laurel Branch Picnic Area Conceptual Plan
2-10 Laurel Branch Picnic Area Example Structures
2-11 Bushnell Area Conceptual Plan
2-12 Bushnell Area Example Structures
Table of Contents - x
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

E

1 3-1 Census Boundaries
3-2 GMP Proposed Management Zoning
' 3-3 Floodplains
3-4 Ambient Sound Levels
' 3-5 Streams and Wetlands
3-6 Vegetation Communities
3-7 Viewpoints for Detailed Analysis
4-1 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (No-Action)
4-2 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (Laurel Branch)
' 4-3 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (Bushnell - Primitive)
4-4 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
' A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (Bushnell - Principal)
4-5 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
' A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (Northern Shore Corridor - Primitive)
4-6 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Peak Hour Volumes
A.M./P.M. Year 2025 (Northern Shore Corridor- Principal)
' 4-7 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year
2025 (No-Action)
4-8 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year
2025 (Laurel Branch)
4-9 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year
' 2025 (Bushnell - Primitive)
4-10 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year

4-11 2025 (Bushnell - Principal)
Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year
2025 (Northern Shore Corridor - Primitive)
' 4-12 Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis Intersection, Level of Service Year
2025 (Northern Shore Corridor - Principal)
4-13 Backcountry Campsite and Trail Elimination
4-14 Private In-Holdings
Table of Contents - A
' North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Errata and Addenda to Appendices
A 1943 Agreement
D Local Government Resolutions and Correspondence
H Programmatic Agreement Among the National Park Service, Federal
Highway Administration, and the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer for the North Shore Road Project
I Topography, Geology, and Soils Technical Report
J Public Involvement Comment Summary
L Cherohala Skyway: An Evaluation of Construction Techniques, Water
Quality, and Similarities with the North Shore Road Project
M Water Resources Technical Report
N Terrestrial Resources Technical Report
P Agency Consultation and Coordination Letters
Q Great Smoky Mountains National Park Enabling Legislation
R Independent Review of Cost Estimate for the North Shore Road Project
Table of Contents - xii
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

J

I?kk
'10? I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1. Introduction
1.1 Project Purpose and Need: the 1943 Agreement
The purpose of the proposed action is to discharge and satisfy any
obligations on the part of the United States that presently exist as the
result of the July 30, 1943, Memorandum of Agreement (1943
Agreement) among the United States Department of Interior (DOI),
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Swain County, North Carolina,
and the state of North Carolina. The 1943 Agreement, which is
included in Appendix A, dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Fontana Dam
Reservoir (referred to as Fontana Lake) that caused the flooding of lands and roads within Swain County. As
part of the 1943 Agreement, 44,170 acres (17,875 hectares [ha]) of land were ultimately transferred to the
DOI and made part of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP, also referred to as the Park). The
1943 Agreement contained a provision by which the DOI was to construct a road through GSMNP, along the
north shore of the newly formed Fontana Lake (generally located between Fontana Dam and Bryson City,
North Carolina), to replace the flooded NC 288. The 1943 Agreement also called for the state of North
Carolina to construct a road from Bryson City to the GSMNP boundary. That road (Fontana Road [SR
1364]) was completed in 1959.
Approximately 7.2 miles (mi) (11.5 kilometers [km]) of the originally proposed North Shore Road (known
as Lake View Road) have been constructed within GSMNP, with the last segment being completed in the
' 1970s. Due to environmental concerns with acid rock, high construction cost, and construction feasibility,
construction of Lake View Road was stopped in 1972. The need of the project is to determine whether or
not it is feasible to complete the road and to evaluate other alternatives that would satisfy the obligation.
Recognizing that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) requires
consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives that would address the purpose and need for a proposed
action, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes several different alternatives for detailed study.
I The detailed study alternatives include: No-Action, Monetary Settlement, Laurel Branch Picnic Area,
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, and the Northern Shore Corridor. The development of these
alternatives was based on their ability to address the purpose and need, while attempting to avoid known and
sensitive resources. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS would serve as the General Management
Plan (GMP) Amendment for GSMNP if an alternative that is not consistent with the Park's GMT were
selected for implementation. Since the Laurel Branch Picnic Area is included in the current GMP and
because the Monetary Settlement would not involve changes to GSMNP, neither would require the GMP to
be amended.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Project goals and objectives are what the National Park Service (NPS) intends to accomplish by taking the
proposed action. They are meant to protect the Park's resources and to ensure the action is meaningful. The
project study team developed the goals and objectives for the project by reviewing the GSMNP's GMP,
other management documents, and public and agency input.
Draft goals and objectives were presented to the public and agencies at March 2003 scoping meetings. After
reviewing all public and agency comments, the study team finalized the goals and objectives below.
Introduction -1-1
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.2.1 Goals I
While addressing the project's purpose and need and ensuring that resources within GSMNP, including the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT), are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the
following goals will be fulfilled:
¦ Ensure that proposed management actions are consistent with le
islative and executive
d
t
d
g
man
a
es an
NPS policies.
¦ Protect the significant and diverse natural resources and ecos
stems (forest communities
t
y
, wa
er
resources, and soundscapes) and the intangible benefits (peace and solitude) currently available in the
areas where natural processes dominate.
¦ Protect the tangible (archaeological sites
cemeteries
historic structures
landsca
es
and Traditi
l
,
,
,
p
,
ona
Cultural Properties [TCPs]) and the intangible (feelings of attachment, family life, myth, folklore, and
ideology) aspects of the cultural resources.
¦ F
oster and build relationships with Swain County and other North Carolina gateway communities.
¦ Continue to provide the traditional recreational activities of hiking, camping, fishing, and horse use.
¦ Avoid alternatives that would require taking of privately held lands.
1.2.2 Objectives
Alternatives will incorporate natural resource management strategies that include the following elements:
¦ Protect streams, seeps, wetlands, floodplains, and other water resources. '
¦ Protect federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats.
¦ Develop alternatives that minimize areas of disturbance. If disturbance is required, maximize the use of '
previously used roadway corridors.
¦ Protect park resources from adverse effects of problematic geologic formations and acidic runoff.
Alternatives will incorporate cultural resource management strategies that include the following elements:
¦ Ensure that
h
i
f
b
any
uman rema
ns,
unerary o
jects, objects of cultural patrimony, or traditional grave sites
are treated in accordance with the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act, and any other applicable laws and regulations. '
¦ Protect TCPs present within the study area.
¦ Ensure that all cultural resources located within the study area are evaluated and considered in
accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
NPS will complete a comprehensive and inclusive public involvement program that will incorporate full

consideration of all input provided by the public. '
1.3 Cooperating Agencies
When more than one federal agency is involved in approving a proposed project, NEPA regulations
encourage the agencies to work together to produce only one NEPA document. The lead agency is in charge
Introduction -1-2
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
I

1

of preparing the environmental document and all other agencies with jurisdiction by law, permitting or
funding authority, or special expertise in an area of the document are cooperating agencies. For this project,
NPS is the lead agency and FHWA, TVA, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are
cooperating agencies.
FHWA is a cooperating agency because it manages the Federal Lands Highway Program. TVA is a
cooperating agency because it owns property below elevation 1,710 feet (ft) (521 meters [m]), which would
be affected by several alternatives, and because permits would be needed for road crossings and shoreline
facilities under Section 26a of the TVA Act. Also, TVA was a signatory to the 1943 Agreement. USACE is
a cooperating agency because of its permitting jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
1.4 Project History and Background
1.4.1 Legislative History
The 1943 Agreement, described in Section 1. 1, stated that the obligation of the DOI to construct the road was
subject to and contingent on the appropriation by Congress of all funds necessary for the road's construction.
The United States was at war when the 1943 Agreement was executed, and no funds were appropriated for
construction at that time. After the war, between 1948 and 1970, the DOI, through the NPS, built 7.2 mi
(11.6 km) of the proposed road. (Approximately 30 mi [48.3 km] remain to be constructed.)
' In October 2000, Congress budgeted $16 million of U. S. Department of Transportation appropriations "for
construction of, and improvements to, North Shore Road in Swain County, North Carolina." Because the
road would be constructed on federal land with federal money, the Federal Highway Administration-Eastern
1 Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFLHD) and the NPS are preparing an EIS in accordance with
Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA.
1.4.2 Project History

Construction of North Shore Road began in 1947, with roughly 7.2 mi (11.6 km) completed (1 mi [1.6 km]
on the Fontana Dam side of GSMNP and 6.2 mi [10 km] on the Bryson City side of GSMNP). Due to
environmental concerns and funding issues, the project ended in 1972 after completion of a tunnel on the
Bryson City side of GSMNP. Today, the two completed segments of North Shore Road are known as Lake
View Road (also known as Lakeview Drive).
The North Shore Road Project has a long and contested history, spanning more than six decades. Advocates
of building a road maintain that the government has an obligation to uphold its part of the 1943 Agreement
as a matter of principle and credibility. Families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee
River prior to the flooding of the river and the transfer of land to GSMNP feel that the road would allow
' access to old home sites and family cemeteries. Other proponents believe the road would provide economic
benefits to Swain County in the form of increased tourism. Local and national environmental groups oppose
the road because they contend that construction and use of the road would harm both terrestrial and aquatic
species. Some support a cash settlement in lieu of the road to boost Swain County's economy.

Introduction -1-3
I North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.5 Project Setting
The project study area, shown in Figure 1-1, is in western North
Carolina and includes a portion of GSNM in Swain County and a
portion of the AT in Swain and Graham counties. Both the
GSNM and the AT are individual units of the national park system
within the NPS. The study area extends from just west of Fontana
Village to the eastern municipal limits of Bryson City, covering an
area of roughly 120,000 acres (ac) (48,562 ha). Fontana Lake
divides the study area into halves to include land south and north of
the lake. The southern limits of the study area are parallel to and
just south of NC 28 and US 19/US 74, while the northern limits follow an arc that includes the majority of
land transferred in the 1943 Agreement.
To provide the full range of study alternatives and thorough analyses that are required by NEPA, the EIS
study area covers a large expanse of land. Specifically, the inclusion of land south of Fontana Lake is
necessary to evaluate the existing roadway network, the area's transportation needs, and potential access
options across Fontana Lake. The inclusion of rural communities such as Lauada, Almond, Stecoah, and
Bryson City, to name just a few, provides insight on the local population's economy, demographics, and
social values.
1.6 System Linkage
1.6.1 Road Networks
The existing road network services the areas surrounding Fontana Lake and connects Bryson City and
various secondary roads to regions outside the study area. The primary east-west roadways in the study area
include US 19, US 74, and NC 28. US 19 is a two-lane facility that goes through downtown Bryson City
before merging with US 74 southwest of town. The merged US 19/US 74 is a four-lane, divided facility
with a grass median, which then transitions to a five-lane, undivided section west of the Little Tennessee
River. In the study area, NC 28 extends from US 191US 74 in Swain County to Lake Cheoah in Graham
County.
1.6.2 Railroads
The Great Smoky Mountains Railroad (GSMR) services the Bryson City region, connecting Dillsboro,
Bryson City, and Nantahala. The 53-mi (85-km) line was owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad until 1988,
when it was purchased by the state of North Carolina and leased to the Great Smoky Mountains Railroad,
Inc. It is now primarily used for passenger travel as a tourist attraction for the area. No other passenger or
freight service is available in the study area.
1.6.3 Airports
No airports are in the study area. The nearest airport, Macon County Airport, which has one landing strip,
is off NC 28 south of the study area. The nearest major airport, McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville,
Tennessee, is roughly 50 mi (80.5 km) northwest of the study area.
Introduction -1-4
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

L!

1

T
u

t

Park entrance sign

1 1.6.4 Bicycles and Pedestrians
There are no North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)-designated bicycle routes within the
study area. However, due to the scenery and recreational characteristics of the study area in proximity to
the AT, the Mountains to Sea Trail, and the Blue Ridge Parkway, cyclists, hikers, and pedestrians are a
common sight along some of the roadways within the study area, especially during the summer months.
More information concerning biking and hiking trails within GSMNP and the Nantahala National Forest is
included in Section 3.2.5 of this document. Within Bryson City, sidewalks and roadways serve pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. Outside the city limits, all roadways are either two-lane rural highways with minimal
shoulders or four-lane freeways, which are not bicycle or pedestrian friendly. No dedicated bicycle lanes
are within the study area.
1.7 Study Issues
Environmental impact topics were identified by the study team and finalized through input from the public
The impact topics that were identified, and analyzed in Chapter 4, include: community, economic, land use,
visitor use and experience, environmental justice, cultural resources, public health and safety, geology,
floodplains, air quality, soundscapes, wetlands (jurisdictional and special aquatic habitats), streams and
lakes, water quality, aquatic ecology, vegetation communities, terrestrial wildlife, black bears, migratory
birds, invasive exotics, federally protected species, and visual resources. Other topics with discussions of
effects in Chapter 4 include utilities, hazardous materials, energy, indirect and cumulative effects, private in-
holdings, and sustamability and long-term management.
Topics that were dismissed from further analysis in this EIS were farmlands, relocation, Section 4(f), and
Section 6(f).
' Farmlands are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) ("the Act"),
which establishes criteria for identifying and considering the effects of Federal programs on the conversion
of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The project study area does not meet the Act's definition of farmland.
Therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply to this project.
None of the detailed study alternatives would directly result in relocation impacts. All partial-build and build
alternatives are located within GSMNP. Furthermore, offsite disposal of pyritic rock would not require
relocation of any residences or businesses. Potential property acquisitions due to actions undertaken with the
Monetary Settlement would depend on local use of funds.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, stipulates that the FHWA will not
approve any program or project which requires the use of publicly owned park land, recreation area, wildlife
or waterfowl refuge, or land of a significant historic site unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative
and all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use is included. However, this provision
does not apply to any project for a park road or parkway under Section 204 Federal Lands Highways
Program, of Title 23, USC. The partial-build and build alternatives would be constructed as park roads
under the Federal Lands Highways Program. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply.
Introduction - 1-5
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF) protects grant-assisted areas
from conversions. It requires replacement of any land improved with LWCF monies that is converted to
non-recreational purposes. No portions of GSMNP in the study area were funded with LWCF monies.
Therefore, there is no use of Section 6(f) resources.

THIS SPACE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. I
1

Introduction -1-6
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Ill

A

i

e

P

1

11
1
1

r
1

s
I

2. Description of Alternatives
2.1 Development of Preliminary Study Alternatives
2.1.1 Screening Criteria
All study alternatives must meet the purpose and need for the project, adhere to the project's goals and
objectives, and be reasonable. The purpose and need for the project and the project's goals and objectives
are described in Section 1.1 and Section 1.2, respectively.
The regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for the implementation of NEPA
require an objective evaluation of "all reasonable alternatives." These regulations do not provide a definition
for reasonable. However, "reasonable" can be defined as prudent ("wise in the management of practical
affairs'") and feasible ("capable of being done or carried out'"). To be reasonable, an alternative must not
create any truly unique problems such as unusual factors, extraordinary magnitude of cost compared to
benefits, community or environmental disruption of extraordinary magnitude, loss of irretrievable GSMNP
resources, or an accumulation of these factors. This initial review for reasonability provided an appropriate
level of detail to proceed with the NEPA process. Additional information obtained at any time in the NEPA
process may cause elimination of an alternative if that alternative is found not to be reasonable or feasible in
the future.
The selection and evaluation of partial-build and build preliminary study alternatives included consideration
' of a variety of screening criteria, which consisted of environmental, social, economic, and engineering
constraints. Suggested impact topics utilized in screening alternatives were presented to the public at the
March 2003 Scoping Meetings and were finalized at the September 2003 Public Workshops. These impact
' topics provided the foundation of the screening criteria, shown in Appendix B. Also included in the criteria
were the various laws and requirements addressed under the NEPA planning process. Both partial-build and
build alternatives were located to avoid previously documented sensitive areas to the greatest extent possible
and to minimize potential impacts without compromising the engineering standards of the project or
unreasonably increasing construction costs.
2.1.2 Roadway Design Criteria
Roadway design criteria (also referred to as roadway design standards) were developed to determine the
proposed typical sections (road types) for each of the partial-build and build preliminary study alternatives.
The road types evaluated include: Principal Park Road, Special Purpose Park Road, Primitive Park Road,
and Administrative Access Road. A Primitive Park Road and an Administrative Access Road follow the
same roadway design criteria; however, they differ in that a Primitive Park Road would be open to public
access at all times while an Administrative Access Road would be gated and only open to the public based
' Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary. Accessed on October 20, 2003.
Description of Alternatives - 2-1
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
on a pre-arranged schedule. The roadway design criteria are shown in Table 2-1. (Note: The roadway
design criteria in Table 2-1 show standard guidance, which may require variations during implementation.)
Figure 2-1 shows photographic examples of these road types, and typical sections are shown in Figures 2-2,
2-3, and 24, respectively. Section 2.4.1 explains the elimination of the Special Purpose Park Road and the
Administrative Access Road from further study.
Principal Park Road
The proposed roadway typical section for the Principal Park Road has a two-way, asphalt surface with two
10-foot (3-m) travel lanes and 3-foot-wide (1-m-wide) grass shoulders. It has a maximum posted speed limit
of 30 mph (50 kph).
Special Purpose Park Road
The proposed roadway typical section for the Special Purpose Park Road has a one-way, asphalt or gravel
surface with one 12-foot (3.7-m) travel lane and 3-foot-wide (I-m-wide) grass shoulders. It has a maximum
posted speed limit of 20 mph (30 kph).
Primitive Park Road/Administrative Access Road
The proposed roadway typical section for the Primitive Park Road/Administrative Access Road has a two-
way, gravel surface with two 9-foot (2.7-m) travel lanes and 2-foot-wide (0.6-m-wide) grass shoulders. It
has a maximum posted speed limit of 15 mph (25 kph). (Note: A Primitive Park Road would be open to
public access at all times while an Administrative Access Road would be gated and only open to the public
based on a pre-arranged schedule.)
2.1.3 Initial Options Considered
An extensive list of initial options to be considered was compiled after review of previously documented
concepts and recommended alternatives from various sources. NCDOT files related to Lake View Road and
GSMNP documents were reviewed. GSMNP documents included: the GMP, GMP Final EIS, Road System
Evaluation, Transportation Concepts, and the Development Concept Plan Environmental Assessment for
Deep Creek and Laurel Branch. The 1943 Agreement was taken into consideration as well as various other
correspondences spanning the project's history, including public comments received since the study began
and agency letters. Public comments were obtained through court reporter transcripts from public meetings;
written correspondence sent to the project post office box, NPS, and FEWA; and electronic correspondence
sent to the project website.
All options were given consideration during development of the preliminary study alternatives. Preliminary
review of the list of approximately 100 options determined if the options met the following criteria, which
were described previously: purpose and need, 1943 Agreement, goals and objectives, reasonability of the
option, and screening criteria. Those that did not meet the criteria were eliminated from further
consideration. In addition, those options that were considered to have a substantially higher magnitude of
adverse impact were eliminated from further consideration. The initial options are shown in Appendix C.
This list was included in the handout provided at the public workshops in February/March 2004 and on the
project website.
Description of Alternatives - 2-2
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
t

Table 2-1. Roadway Design Criteria Guidance

P
i
i
P
k R
d/
i
m
ve
ar
oa
r
t Special Purpose Park

Type of Facility Administrative Access Principal Park Road
Road
' Road
2-lane, 2-way 2-lane, 2 -way 1-lane, 1-way
Design Year Average Daily < 200 vpd 400 -1,000 vpd < 400 vpd
Traffic Volume
Percentage of Tractor-Trailers 0% 0% 0%
and Semi-trailers (TTST)
Percentage of Single-unit Truck 8% 8% 8%
with Dual Tires (Duals)
Percentage of Directional Split 60% 60% NA
Terrain Type Mountainous Mountainous Mountainous
Design Speed Range 15 mph (25 kph) 25-35 mph (40-60 kph) 15-30 mph (20-50 kph)
Proposed Design Speed 15 mph (25 kph) 35 mph (60 kph) 20 mph (30 kph)
Posted Speed 2 15 mph (25 kph) 30 mph (50 kph) 20 mph (30 kph)
Typical Section Type 2-lane 2-lane 1-lane
Travel Lane Width 9 ft (2.8 m) 10 ft (3.0 m) 12 ft (3.6 m)
Sidewalks
Bicycle Lanes None
None None
None None
None
Width of Grass Shoulder 3
Without Guardrail 2 ft (0.6 m) 3 ft (1.0 m) 3 ft (1.0 m)
' With Guardrail 5 ft (1.5 m) 6 ft (1.8 m) 6 ft (1.8 m)
Surface Pavement Type Gravel Asphalt Asphalt or Gravel
Grade
Maximum 4 17% 13% 16%
Minimum 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Minimum K Value 5
Sag 10(3) 26(9) 17(6)
Crest 3(l) 49(18) 7(2)
Horizontal Alignment
Maximum Superelevation 4% 6% 4%
Minimum Radius 70 ft (15 m) 185-380 ft (55-135 m) 125 ft (35 m)
Spiral Curves None None None
Cross Slopes
Pavement
Grass Shoulder 0.02
0.08 0.02
0.08 0.02
0.08
Clear Zone 2 ft (0.6 m) 5 ft (1.5 m) 3 ft (0.9 m)
Notes:
1 The average daily traffic volumes were preliminary assumptions based on the range of traffic appropriate for each roadway type.
2 Roadway curvature advisory postings may have lower speed limits.
3 The width of grass shoulders may vary in some locations.
' 4 Slopes shown represent maximum grades listed in AASHTO (2001)
the functional design. ; however, a 10 percent maximum grade is primarily utilized in
5 The K Value is associated with vertical curvature and stopping sight distance (AASHTO 2001).

Description of Alternatives - 2-3
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation improvement projects typically include consideration of Transportation System Management
(TSM) and Mass Transit alternatives. These alternatives are usually relevant only for major projects that are
proposed in urbanized areas with populations over 200,000.
The TSM alternative can include a variety of strategies for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of
existing transportation facilities. Since the study area's main east-west route (NC 28, US 191US 74) is
operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS) and the purpose and need for the project does not include
travel efficiency improvements, TSM options were eliminated from further study.
M
T
i
ass
rans
t includes reasonable and feasible transit options, such as bus or rail. No public bus service is
currently operating in the area. Furthermore, because of the need for flat grades and gentle curves, the
construction of a rail line through the study area would cause much greater environmental damage than any
of the partial-build or build alternatives evaluated in this document. For these reasons, Mass Transit was
eliminated from further study.

Whereas NC 28 and US 19/US 74 have adequate capacity to serve through and local east-west traffic south
of the lake, they offer no access to the north shore of Fontana Lake. Although the existing route adequately
serves local and through traffic, it does not provide a visitor driving experience within GSMNP. The 1943 ,
Agreement specified a road on the north shore of Fontana Lake, connecting Bryson City and Deal's Gap.
While the existing road system provides an east-west connection from Bryson City to Deal's Gap, it is
doubtful that improving the present system would meet the full intent of the 1943 Agreement because NC 28
does not traverse north of Fontana Lake. Therefore, any plans to improve existing NC 28 were eliminated
from further consideration. '
2.1.4 Initial Partial-Build and Build Concepts Considered
The initial partial-build and build concepts are shown as corridor segments in Figure 2-5. These concepts
were part of the initial options previously discussed, which during preliminary review met the project's
purpose and need, goals and objectives, and were considered reasonable. The screening criteria and roadway
design criteria were used to locate these corridor segments. Because of the rugged terrain, engineering
constraints such as the horizontal and vertical alignment were given careful consideration in the development
of these corridor segments. After a review of the corridor segments, certain segments and destination
locations were eliminated from further study due to the anticipated magnitude of their impacts as compared
with the other corridor segments. The anticipated impacts included the likelihood for greater habitat
fragmentation, wildlife segmentation, and other impacts to the backcountry experience. These potential
segments would also likely have required substantial earthwork, resulting in deeper cuts and higher fills. The
remaining segments are shown in Figure 2-6 as the preliminary study alternatives. The partial-build and
build preliminary study alternatives were analyzed as entire corridors rather than by individual segment.
2.2 Description of Preliminary Study Alternatives
After consideration of approximately 100 initial options and a number of potential roadway alignments, nine
preliminary study alternatives were developed. They are described below and include: No-Action,
Monetary Settlement, Laurel Branch Picnic Area, Bushnell Area (since referred to as the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell), Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor, Cable Cove Bridge Corridor, Northern Shore
Corridor, Interior Corridor, and Flint Gap Corridor. For purposes of describing some of the alternatives,
Description of Alternatives - 2-4
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

reference is made to the Northern Shore Corridor. The Northern Shore Corridor is the most east-west
corridor, and segments of many of the other corridors, both partial-build and build alternatives, utilize the
same path. Since it is the most common link among the alternatives, it is used as a basis for describing the
other corridors (Figure 2-6). The lengths noted in Section 2.2.3 and Appendix C (Preliminary Alternatives
Comparison Matrix, as discussed in Section 2.3. 1) are approximate and based on the centerline of the
preliminary study corridors.
NPS provides annual ferry service for cemetery access on a scheduled basis for the public. Eleven trips are
made to visit 20 cemeteries along the northern shore of Fontana Lake each year. The annual ferry service
would continue if.
¦ an alternative does not include provisions for a new road,
¦ a partial-build or build alternative does not intersect an administrative road, or
¦ a partial-build or build alternative only reaches a portion of the cemeteries.
If a partial-build or build alternative intersects a maintained GSMNP administrative road, the public would
be allowed access to the administrative road on a scheduled basis for cemetery visitation. Transportation
would be provided by NPS or personal vehicle, depending on the condition of the road.
2.2.1 No-Action
The No-Action Alternative would forego any improvements to Lake View Road with the exception of
routine maintenance. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the existing conditions within the
study area. No compensation would be provided in lieu of building the road. NPS would continue to
provide transportation across Fontana Lake for annual cemetery visits and would maintain current amenities,
policies, and practices of GSMNP.
NEPA requires a No-Action Alternative. Because the No-Action Alternative would avoid any adverse
environmental impacts, it provides a basis for comparing the potential impacts and benefits of the partial-
build and build alternatives.
2.2.2 Monetary Settlement
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would provide monetary compensation to Swain County. No
ntana
additional roadway would be constructed. NPS would continue to provide transportation across Fo
Lake for annual cemetery visits and would continue current amenities, policies, and practices of GS
The Swain County Commissioners passed a resolution on February 11, 2003, that stated the county
accept a monetary settlement of $52 million to settle the 1943 Agreement. Bryson City passed a sine
resolution on March 3, 2003. Copies of these resolutions are included in Appendix D. The amount
million was assumed for analysis purposes in Section 4.2.3.
Description of Alternatives - 2-5
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
NM.
would
lar
of $52

2.2.3 Partial-Build Corridors
2.2.3.1 Laurel Branch Picnic Area (Initial Concept) I
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would include a day-use area just prior to the existing tunnel. Lake View
Road would end at the existing parking area east of the tunnel. A new, two-way, paved entrance/exit road
near the parking area would provide access from Lake View Road to the picnic area. Outdoor facilities
would include covered picnic tables, an interpretive trail, drinking fountains, and restrooms. Section 2.5.3 of
this report details the refined concept for this alternative.
2.2.3.2 Bushnell Area (Initial Concept)
This alternative would follow the Northern Shore Corridor to the vicinity of Monteith Branch and provides a
new destination that would offer some type of visitor services, a tribute to local heritage, and educational
opportunities. This corridor would require a major bridge crossing of the Forney Creek embayment. The
total length of this corridor is 4.7 mi (7.6 km). Section 2.5.4 of this report details the refined concept for this
alternative.
2.2.3.3 Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor
The Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor would follow the Northern Shore Corridor roughly 4.9 mi (7.9 km) to
just east of the Chambers Creek embayment. At this point, it would continue south to southwest toward
Fontana Lake. After bridging the lake, the corridor would tie into Meetinghouse Mountain Road south of the
lake in the Nantahala National Forest. The corridor would follow this road to NC 28. This corridor would
involve approximately 7 mi (11.3 km) of new construction within GSMNP, in addition to approximately 5.4
mi (8.7 km) of improvements to Meetinghouse Mountain Road in the Nantahala National Forest.
2.2.3.4 Cable Cove Bridge Corridor
The Cable Cove Bridge Corridor would follow the Northern Shore Corridor to just east of Hazel Creek. At
this point, the corridor would cross Fontana Lake, tying into Cable Cove Road west of the Cable Cove
Recreation Area. Cable Cove Road is on Nantahala National Forest lands and has an existing intersection
with NC 28. Improvements to Cable Cove Road would be necessary with this corridor. The total length of
this corridor is 21.4 mi (34.4 km), approximately 19 mi (30.6 km) of which are within GSMNP.
2.2.4 Build Corridors
The following build corridors noted in Sections 2.2.4.1 through 2.2.4.3 below have two options for the
western terminus, both in the vicinity of the Fontana Dam. One of the options would tie the proposed
corridor directly into the existing GSMNP roadway segment that crosses Fontana Dam, while the other
would follow a short portion of an old roadbed to tie directly into NC 28. The connection closest to Fontana
Dam would have less roadway construction (roughly 1.5 mi [2.4 km]) as compared with the other terminus.
However, introducing additional vehicles over Fontana Dam may generate security concerns and would have
the potential to increase the structure's maintenance costs.
Description of Alternatives - 2-6
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.2.4.1 Northern Shore Corridor
1 The Northern Shore Corridor continues west past the Lake View Road tunnel on a course that generally
follows the northern shore of Fontana Lake to the vicinity of Fontana Dam, for a total length2 of roughly
27 mi (43.5 km). This corridor utilizes remaining portions of NC 288 to the extent possible. Major bridge
crossings of the Forney Creek, Hazel Creek, and Eagle Creek embayments would be necessary.
2.2.4.2 Interior Corridor
The Interior Corridor turns to the north from the Lake View Road tunnel to follow Bear Creek Valley as it
continues into the interior of GSMNP. After its climb levels off, the corridor follows the mountainside. Just
east of Hazel Creek, the corridor turns south to tie into the Northern Shore Corridor in the vicinity of the
confluence of the Hazel Creek embayment and Fontana Lake. Major bridge crossings of the Hazel Creek
and Eagle Creek embayments would be required. This route continues to follow the Northern Shore
Corridor to the vicinity of Fontana Dam. A tunnel would be required where the topography transitions from
valley to mountainside. This corridor is roughly 26 mi (41.8 km) long.
1 2.2.4.3 Flint Gap Corridor
The Flint Gap Corridor would follow the Northern Shore Corridor from the Lake View Road tunnel for
roughly 16 mi (25.7 km) to just east of Hazel Creek. From here, it would continue north to northwest toward
the interior of GSMNP. Just west of Eagle Creek, the corridor would turn south to tie into the Northern
Shore Corridor in the vicinity of the confluence of the Eagle Creek embayment and Fontana Lake. This
route would continue to follow the Northern Shore Corridor to the vicinity of Fontana Dam. This corridor is
the longest of the preliminary study alternatives, with a total length of roughly 34 mi (54.7 km).
2.2.5 Potential for Major Bridges
The partial-build and build alternatives have the potential to cross one or more very deep and wide bodies of
water. Fontana Dam created a reservoir that is in excess of 200 ft (61 m) deep. This area includes Fontana
Lake as well as the impounded waters of major creeks, such as Forney, Hazel and Eagle creeks. It is
anticipated that crossings of these water bodies would have spans ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 ft (457.2 to
914.4 m) in length. Bridge substructure height (water depth plus height above water) could range from 300
to 600 ft (91.4 to 182.9 m). Preliminary consideration of major bridge crossings indicates the need for non-
conventional structures.
Non-conventional structures are able to accommodate the expected combination of relatively long spans and
high substructure support columns related to the deep water levels and the height above water. These types
of structures would allow potential roadway designs to follow the existing topography more closely at major
creek and lake crossings. This ability to more closely follow the topography would minimize impacts by
eliminating or reducing the need for steep cuts (reducing excavation) and would potentially reduce the
quantity and area of retaining walls that may be required.
2 Length is approximate and based on the centerline of the preliminary study corridor. However, functional designs provide more refined
detail, which is reflected in the updated lengths provided in Section 2.5
Description of Alternatives - 2-7
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

There are several options for designing non-conventional structures, including steel-arch bridges and cable-
stayed bridges. These structures are typically large, which may impact visual resources within the existing
environment. To minimize these impacts, special application and visualization techniques may be applied to
create a more aesthetically sound structure that blends with the existing landscape. If a partial-build or build
alternative requires a major bridge, the most appropriate and sensitive method would be utilized in the
design. Opportunities to reduce bridge size may exist using a longer roadway, lower design speeds, or
incorporating specialized engineering techniques that are appropriate for sensitive areas.
2.3 Framework for Decision-making: Summary of Potential Impacts I
2.3.1 Comparison Matrix
The nine preliminary study alternatives were examined using the Preliminary Alternatives Comparison
Matrix shown in Appendix C. The matrix evaluated the preliminary study alternatives based on a list of
variables that includes environmental, social, economic, and engineering constraints, and on documented
existing conditions data. The results of this initial review led to the elimination of two, modification of one,
and the continued study of six preliminary study alternatives for more detailed evaluation.
The quantities shown in the matrix were an approximation of known data within the 2,000-foot-wide (609.6-
m-wide) study corridors for each preliminary study alternative and do not equate to impacts. These
approximations were based on data obtained for the January 2004 Existing Conditions Report (ECR).
Benefits and/or impacts for the Monetary Settlement Alternative were not addressed with regard to what
Swain County would do with the money. The county could choose to spend the money in ways that result in
impacts and/or benefits to environmental (human and natural) and cultural resources. These potential
benefits and/or impacts were not taken into account in the matrix, as they are unknown.
2.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Three of the nine preliminary study alternatives were suggested for elimination from further study based on
the matrix. The suggestions were made by comparing the alternatives, and those that were likely to have
higher impacts were suggested for elimination. In addition, those alternatives that appeared to offer little
benefit to the study area were also suggested for elimination. The three alternatives suggested for
elimination are the Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor, the Interior Corridor, and the Flint Gap Corridor.
Reasons for elimination are discussed in Sections 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, and 2.3.2.3.
2.3.2.1 Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor
When compared with the other preliminary study alternatives, this corridor would have minimal benefits for '
local communities and GSMNP visitors. Benefits associated with this alternative would include a short
segment of new vehicular access within GSMNP and a new connection between GSMNP and the Nantahala
National Forest. These benefits were not expected to justify the cost and environmental impacts associated
with the corridor and a major bridge crossing of Fontana Lake. This alternative was recommended for
elimination because it would likely provide few enhancement opportunities to the GSMNP experience and
likely would not satisfy the 1943 Agreement.
Description of Alternatives - 2-8
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

n.

1

2.3.2.2 Interior Corridor
When compared with the other corridors, the Interior Corridor would likely have a high potential to fragment
habitat, impact wildlife, and alter the backcountry experience. While problematic rock formations are
located throughout the study area, this corridor would involve construction west of the confluence of Hazel
Creek and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are believed to have the highest potential for acid
production and are likely to contain higher concentrations of metallic minerals than the surrounding rocks.
An alternative in this corridor may generate moderate increases in the number of visitors to the study area,
and the new access in GSMNP may indirectly provide moderate economic development opportunities in
Bryson City and other communities in the study area. This corridor would have the potential to have major
impacts to the AT. Although this corridor complies with the original intent of the 1943 Agreement, the
cumulative impact of the factors mentioned above were expected to be greater than those of the alternatives
recommended for detailed study. Therefore, this corridor was recommended for elimination.
2.3.2.3 Flint Gap Corridor
The Flint Gap Corridor, when compared with the other corridors, would likely have a high potential to
fragment habitat, impact wildlife, and alter the backcountry experience. In addition, this corridor would
likely impact a high number of potential cultural resource sites and streams. While problematic rock
formations are located throughout the study area, this corridor would involve construction west of the
confluence of Hazel Creek and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are believed to have the highest
potential for acid production and are likely to contain higher concentrations of metallic minerals than the
surrounding rocks. This corridor may generate moderate increases in the number of visitors to the study area
and may indirectly provide moderate economic development opportunities in Bryson City and other
communities in the study area. This corridor would have the potential to have major impacts to the AT.
This corridor would avoid major bridge crossings at the Hazel Creek and Eagle Creek embayments by
diverting north from the Northern Shore Corridor toward the interior of GSMNP. While this corridor would
comply with the original intent of the 1943 Agreement, the Flint Gap Corridor was initially recommended
for elimination because of the impacts mentioned above. (Note: Based on public interest, this corridor was
modified and incorporated into the Northern Shore Corridor for detailed study. The modification of the Flint
Gap Corridor (since referred to as the Proctor option and as part of the Northern Shore Corridor baseline)
addressed public requests to avoid major bridge crossings and provide access to the former community of
Proctor. The modifications are explained in more detail in Section 2.4.3.).
2.3.3 Alternatives Initially Suggested for Detailed Study in the DEIS
Six alternatives were initially suggested for detailed study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and presented to the public and resource agencies for review and comment. Information on why
these alternatives were suggested for detailed study is included below. Four of the six alternatives suggested
for detailed study are partial-build or build corridors. The remaining two alternatives are the No-Action
Alternative and the Monetary Settlement Alternative. Figure 2-7 shows the partial-build and build
alternatives that were initially suggested for detailed study in the DEIS.

Description of Alternatives - 2-9
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
LJ
2.3.3.1 No-Action Alternative I
NEPA requires the No-Action Alternative as a basis for comparing the potential benefits and impacts of
other alternatives. This alternative would avoid disturbance and adverse impacts to cultural and natural
resources.
2.3.3.2 Monetary Settlement ,
Based on the Swain County Board of Commissioners Resolution, the Monetary Settlement may be a viable
solution to settle the 1943 Agreement. It was suggested for detailed study because it would avoid
disturbance and other adverse impacts to the existing natural environment, cultural resources, and
recreational resources (including GSMNP, the AT, and the Nantahala National Forest). It would also
provide Swain County with a monetary benefit. The use of the Monetary Settlement Alternative proceeds ¦
would be at the discretion of Swain County and a range of potential uses could exist. In their resolution, the
county indicated that the proceeds of a settlement would allow the county to avoid tax increases, fund
services such as education and social services, and establish a favorable bond rating. Swain County may
choose to pursue economic development opportunities within the county's jurisdiction, which would
potentially enhance public facilities, employment opportunities, and/or the local tourism industry. This
alternative does not directly provide new opportunities to interpret local heritage within GSMNP, but Swain
County may choose to pursue interpretive possibilities for local heritage within the county's jurisdiction.
2.3.3.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area (Initial Concept)
Although the Laurel Branch Picnic Area (proposed to be located along or at the end of the existing section of
Lake View Road) does not comply with the original intent of the 1943 Agreement, it may be a viable
solution to settle the 1943 Agreement. It was suggested for detailed study because it would provide a new
destination and additional opportunities to interpret local heritage with relatively few impacts to the natural
environment and almost no impact to the GSMNP backcountry experience. This alternative would avoid
disturbance and other adverse impacts to the AT and the Nantahala National Forest. The new facilities
would likely attract visitors to the Bryson City entrance of GSMNP. The interpretive trail would provide an
opportunity to explore stream ecology along Laurel Branch, while roadside signs would provide a tribute to
local heritage. In addition, this alternative may indirectly provide minor economic development
opportunities for Bryson City. Section 2.5.3 of this report details the refined concept for this alternative.
2.3.3.4 Bushnell Area (Initial Concept) I
Based on public comment, the Bushnell Area may be a viable solution to settle the 1943 Agreement. It was
suggested for detailed study because it would provide a new destination and new vehicular access within
GSMNP with relatively low potential impacts to the natural environment and the GSMNP backcountry
experience as compared with the other preliminary study alternatives. This alternative would avoid
disturbance and other adverse impacts to the AT and the Nantahala National Forest. It would likely attract
visitors to the Bryson City entrance of GSMNP, which may indirectly provide moderate economic
development opportunities for Bryson City. This alternative would avoid construction west of the
confluence of Hazel Creek and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are believed to have the highest 1
potential for acid production and are likely to contain higher concentrations of metallic minerals than the
surrounding rocks. In addition, this alternative has the potential to provide access to cultural resources for
Description of Alternatives - 2-10
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement I

interpretive opportunities and heritage recognition. Furthermore, it would offer a new trailhead for access to
the backcountry. Section 2.5.4 of this report details the refined concept for this alternative.
2.3.3.5 Cable Cove Bridge Corridor
The Cable Cove Bridge Corridor was suggested for detailed study because it would likely have fewer
impacts than the other build alternatives and appeared to be a viable solution to settle the 1943 Agreement by
providing vehicular access along most of the northern shore of Fontana Lake. This new route and
connection between GSMNP and the Cable Cove Recreation Area may generate moderate increases in the
number of visitors to the study area. This alternative may also have the potential to indirectly provide
economic development opportunities for Bryson City and other communities in the study area. As compared
with the alternatives that terminate near Fontana Dam, this alternative's crossing over Fontana Lake would
avoid two other major bridge crossings (one each at the Hazel Creek and Eagle Creek embayments). While
problematic rock formations are located throughout the study area, the Cable Cove Corridor would avoid
construction west of the confluence of Hazel Creek and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are
believed to have the highest potential for acid production and are likely to contain higher concentrations of
metallic minerals than the surrounding rocks. In addition, this alternative would avoid impacts to the AT.
Overall, environmental impacts associated with this alternative are expected to be generally moderate as
compared with the other preliminary study alternatives.
2.3.3.6 Northern Shore Corridor
This corridor was suggested for detailed study because it would likely have fewer impacts than the two build
and Fontana Lake, where the underlying rocks are believed to have the highest potential for acid production
and are likely to contain higher concentrations of metallic minerals than the surrounding rocks. Impacts
fragmentation. The Northern Shore Corridor would have major impacts on the GSMNP backcountry
Description of Alternatives - 2-11
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
'
alternatives recommended for elimination and would comply with the original intent of the 1943 Agreement
by providing vehicular access along the northern shore of Fontana Lake. This new vehicular access may
have the potential to indirectly provide moderate economic development opportunities for Bryson City and
other communities in the study area. In addition, this alternative may generate moderate increases in the
number of visitors to the study area. While problematic rock formations are located throughout the study
area, the Northern Shore Corridor would likely involve construction west of the confluence of Hazel Creek
through this area would be reduced through the use of major bridge crossings at the Hazel Creek and Eagle
Creek arms of Fontana Lake. As compared with corridors that are located farther north toward the interior of
GSMNP, the proposed location of this corridor along the northern shore of Fontana Lake would involve
topography with generally less drastic elevation changes and would reduce the potential for habitat
experience, and its terminus near Fontana Dam would have the potential for major impacts on the AT, as
compared with the other alternatives. This study corridor, relative to the other corridors, would traverse the
largest amount of the water supply watershed critical area, the most wetlands (per the National Wetland
Inventory [1,M]), and the largest area of floodplains (per the 100-year designations by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]). Overall, environmental impacts associated with this alternative
are expected to be generally moderate to high as compared with the other preliminary study alternatives.

2.4 Alternatives Refinement I
Public and agency comments and review of GSMNP visitor needs were given consideration in determining ,
the facilities, amenities, and alternatives that were chosen for detailed study. Revisions to the initially
suggested study alternatives include the following:
¦ elimination of the Special Purpose Park Road,
¦ elimination of the Administrative Access Road,
¦ elimination of the Cable Cove Bridge Corridor,
¦ addition of the Proctor Option (modified version of the Flint Gap Corridor and part of the baseline
Northern Shore Corridor), and
¦ addition of a northern crossing of Forney Creek.
2.4.1 Two Road Types Recommended for Detailed Study
The Special Purpose Park Road was eliminated from further study due to the problems associated with a ,
very long road (roughly 30 mi [48 km]) that provides travel in only one direction. A road would provide
new vehicular access for emergency service vehicles attending to both visitor and vehicular incidents;
however, the one-way road would not be able to provide a quick return route. The return route would '
include NC 28 and US 191US 74 which, as compared with a two-way road, would delay the return of
emergency vehicles. Also, motorists are not expected to utilize a long one-way road due to the
inconvenience of this return route. The use of a pair of one-way, one-lane roads could reduce travel time
and improve the usefulness of the road. However, the area of impact would be greater than that of the
two-lane road types recommended for further study.
The Administrative Access Road was also eliminated from further study. Since the Administrative Access
Road would not be opened to the public on a regular basis, the benefits for local communities and GSMNP
visitors were not expected to justify the anticipated cost and environmental impacts associated with
construction of the roadway. In addition, the roadway's designated use is inconsistent with the intent of the
1943 Agreement.
The remaining two road types, Principal Park Road and Primitive Park Road, were recommended for further
study for the partial-build and build corridors (as described in Section 2.1.2 and illustrated in Figure 2-2 and
Figure 2-4).
2.4.2 Elimination of the Cable Cove Bridge Corridor
The Cable Cove Bridge Corridor was proposed to cross Fontana Lake via a major bridge crossing to tie into
Cable Cove Road within the Nantahala National Forest lands. Upon review, the United States Forest Service
(USFS) determined and stated in a June 29, 2004 letter that the Cable Cove Bridge Corridor is not consistent
with their current standards and guidelines as defined in the Nantahala/Pisgah Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan). The USFS manages many of these areas for wildlife habitat and quality
scenery, with limited disturbance from motorized vehicles. Many of these areas are also classified as
Retention Visual Quality Objective because of visibility from Fontana Lake. This classification does not
Description of Alternatives - 2-12
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement I

allow visual evidence or differentiate impacts to the surrounding characteristic landscape. In addition, the
USFS' Transportation System Management guidelines require limits on motorized vehicles in certain areas,
and the area that would be affected by the proposed alternative already exceeds that limit.
NPS could not proceed with implementation of this alternative without revision to the Forest Plan and USFS
' approval. In addition, based on comments received, the alternative seemed to lack public interest and
support. Therefore, this alternative was dropped from further consideration.
2.4.3 Addition of the Proctor Option (Modified Version of the Flint Gap Corridor and part of the
Baseline Northern Shore Corridor)
' As noted in Section 2.3.2.3, the Flint Gap Corridor was modified to reduce impacts and to address the
public's desire to avoid major bridge crossings and to have access to the Proctor area. The Flint Gap
Corridor modification was renamed the Proctor option and incorporated into the baseline Northern Shore
Corridor. The Proctor option would turn north just east of Hazel Creek to follow Lakeshore Trail for
approximately 2.7 mi (4.3 km). The Proctor option would then turn to the west continuing to follow
Lakeshore Trail to the vicinity of Fontana Lake and the Eagle Creek embayment. This route is shown on
Figure 2-8 as the Northern Shore Corridor.
In addition to the Proctor option, another route was considered to address the public's desires. This route,
the Deep Gap route, would turn north in the vicinity of Pilkey Creek and Clark Branch and continue through
the Deep Gap for approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) (this route was considered during the initial-options phase
and is shown on Figure 2-5 as segment 31). From here, this route would follow Lakeshore Trail to the west,
overlapping the route of the Proctor option.

' The Deep Gap route, as compared with the Proctor option, was expected to have a greater potential to inhibit
the
problems.
4.4 ability for Addition of vehicles the to stop Forney (due to Creek steep Crossing grades), Option more frequent road closures, and increased erosion
the The use public's of steep concern grades for regarding long the distancesaesthetic, impact especially and financial with the nancial cost presence of associated with precipitation, major is a
'
bridge
crossings, two options for crossing Forney Creek are under consideration for the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor (Figure 2-8). In addition to the original crossing proposed at the
Forney Creek embayment, an option was added to avoid the major bridge crossing by following a northern
' route to cross Forney Creek upstream of the impounded waters. This northern route will be considered the
baseline for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor in the detailed
analysis. The option around the Forney Creek embayment is more than a mile (1.6 km) longer than the
option that crosses it.
greater concern with the Deep Gap route than with the Proctor option. More than half the length
(approximately 2.7 mi [4.3 km]) of the Deep Gap route involves continual steep grades. In addition or to snow
and ice necessitating road closure, frost occurrences would likely hinder proper vehicle control and cause
more closures for the Deep Gap route. Based on these concerns, the Deep Gap route was not recommended
for further study.
Description of Alternatives - 2-13
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
Ll
2.5 Detailed Study Alternatives
The detailed study alternatives are described in
Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.6.3. The partial-
build and build altematives are shown in Figure
2-8.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and
the Northern Shore Corridor include a
baseline route, as well as road types (discussed
in Section 2.4.1) and options (discussed in
Sections 2.5.4 through 2.5.6.3). The baseline
routes and all options were afforded the same
level of detail during the analysis. Southern
crossings of embayments and the terminus
location provide options that may be used in
any combination to form alternate routes for
the Northern Shore Corridor and the Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell, as shown on
Figure 2-8. These two alternatives are
described in this fashion to simplify the
information for the public and reviewers
Refer to the adjacent table for a
comprehensive list of route and road type
combinations.
All detailed study alternatives would include
continued cemetery access into GSMNP.
Annual ferry service, as it is currently provided
by the NPS, would continue if an alternative
does not include provisions for a new road or
does not intersect an administrative road or if an
alternative only reaches a portion of the
cemeteries.
Several enhancement features were
recommended for all detailed study alternatives,
including the No-Action, Monetary Settlement,
Laurel Branch Picnic Area, Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell, and Northern Shore
Corridor alternatives. These include
coordinating with the TVA to rehabilitate and
enhance interpretive exhibits currently housed
at the Fontana Dam visitor information center to
include local history; adding informational
Simplified List
of the Five Detailed Study Alternatives
1) No-Action
2) Monetary Settlement
3) Laurel Branch Picnic Area
4) Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (two route options and two road type
options)
5) Northern Shore Corridor (eight route options and two road .type options.)
Comprehensive List
of Options for Route and Road Type Combinations
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell:
A) Baseline (northern route at Forney Creek), Primitive.Park Road
B) Baseline (northern route at Forney Creek), Principal Park Road
Q Southern Option at Forney Creek. Embayment; Primitive Park Road
D) Southern Option at Forney Creek' Embayment, Principal Park Road'
:Northern Shore Corridor-
A) Baseline (northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks with a
terminus at NC 28), Primitive Park Road
B) Baseline (norther routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks with a
terminus at NC 28), Principal Park Road
C) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, norther route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive Park Road
D) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and terminus at NC 28, Principal Park Road
E) Southern Option at Forney Creek. Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive
Park Road
,F7 Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and. Eagle Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Principal
Park Road
G) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam, Primitive Park Road
H) Souther Option at Forney Creek Embayment, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing
Fontana Dam; Principal Park Road
I) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Primitive Park Road
J) Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment, northern route at Hazel
and Eagle creeks, and Souther Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Principal Park Road
K) Northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks, and Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam, Primitive Park Road
L) Northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagle creeks, and Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam, Principal Park Road
M) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Primitive Park Road
N) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Principal Park Road
O) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Primitive Park Road
P) Northern route at Forney Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and terminus at NC 28, Principal Park Road
See Figure 2-8 for route locations.

1

1

Ili
D

1
Description of Alternatives - 2-14
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement ,

i exhibits at the GSMNP boundary in the vicinity of Bryson City to orient the public; and providing scheduled,
ranger-led programs.
The lengths of the partial-build and build alternatives, based on functional designs, are shown in Table 2-2.
' Table 2-2. Length of New Roadway
Alternative Length of new roadway in miles (km)
Laurel Branch Picnic Area 0.8 (1.3)
Primitive Park Road Principal Park Road
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (baseline) 8(12.9) 6.5 (10.5)
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment -1.5(-2.4) -1.3(-2.1)
Northern Shore Corridor (baseline) 34.3 (55.2) 30.8 (49.6)
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment -1.5(-2.4) -1.3(-2.1)
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments -2.3(-3.7) -3.1(-5)
Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam -1.6(-2.6) -1.5(-2.4)
Note: Lengths for options are the difference in length compared with the baseline corridor.
1 2.5.1 No-Action
The No-Action Alternative, as required by NEPA, remains the same as described in Sections 2.2.1 and
2.3.3.1.
2.5.2 Monetary Settlement
The Monetary Settlement Alternative remains the same as described in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.3.2. As noted
in Section 2.3:3.2, the use of the Monetary Settlement Alternative proceeds would be at the discretion of
Swain County and a range of potential uses could exist. Without a defined list of projects (including details
regarding timing, cost, and specific project descriptions) that might be planned by Swain County, the precise
impacts to the environment of the surrounding region are not fully known. Swain County would need to
conduct the appropriate environmental documentation and permitting for these projects as required.

i
1

2.5.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area
A conceptual plan of the day-use development area is shown in Figure
ur v'' ° °' 2-9 and example structures for the picnic area are shown in Figure 2-
10. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would consist of a day-use area
on the north side of existing Lake View Road, just east of the existing
tunnel parking area. A new, two-way, paved entrance/exit road would
Laurel Branch Picnic Area - provide access to the day-use area. A wayside exhibit, consisting of a
Conceptual Plan
three-panel display, would be built at the existing Lake View Road
tunnel parking area to provide GSMNP orientation information and to indicate trails, backcountry campsites,
and the Laurel Branch Picnic Area. Outdoor facilities at the day-use area would include a multi-use picnic
shelter, picnic tables, several loop trails, drinking fountains, and restrooms. The loop trails would include a
Description of Alternatives - 2-15
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

short and a long trail as well as an interpretive, self-guided trail. The trails would provide an opportunity to
explore stream ecology along Laurel Branch, and the interpretive trail would present local history. Wayside
exhibit panels would provide a tribute to local heritage. Occasional ranger-led programs would be conducted
from the day-use area, including educational programs. In addition to the above amenities, a publication
telling the story of the area would be published.
2.5.4 Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
would include up to 8 mi (12.9 km) of new
roadway from the existing tunnel west to the
vicinity of the Bushnell area where a day-use
area would be developed. Figure 2-11 shows
the conceptual plan for the day-use
development area and example structures are
shown on Figure 2-12. As stated in Section
2.4.4, the baseline corridor would avoid the
major bridge crossing of the Forney Creek raniai-Mlla Hiternative to busnneu - L;onceptuai Tian
embayment, by crossing Forney Creek north
of the impounded waters. The day-use area would include a boat-launching ramp and restricted boat dock.
The dock would be used to house NPS or concession-operated boats that would provide transportation on
cemetery decoration days from Bushnell or Cable Cove, as appropriate. The boat dock would also be used
for scenic boat tours and would be available to the public for temporary docking to access concessions,
restrooms, and other facilities.
Exhibit space would be designed to highlight local heritage of the area. This alternative may also include
concession opportunities to sell camping and hiking supplies, local goods, boat tours, and publications
pertaining to the region and GSMNP. GSMNP visitor centers would provide information about the day-use
area to promote this destination.
Located near the terminus of the new roadway would be a multi-use
picnic shelter and picnic tables, a backcountry permit station, an
information kiosk, restrooms, and a parking area to accommodate
motorized vehicles and horse and boat trailers. Interpretive, self-
guided loop trails would recognize local heritage through a series of
wayside exhibits explaining particular points of interest along the
trails.
The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would also include
provisions for enhancements at Hazel Creek for the former community of Proctor. A new, accessible trail
from the boat dock to Proctor and new wayside exhibits would convey the history of the area.
The Bushnell Area would provide an experience unique to GSMNP, by having the only boat access directly
in GSNM boundaries. It is likely to attract a broad range of visitors to the North Carolina side of GSMNP.
If this alternative is selected, a Commercial Services Plan would be prepared to determine the type of
concessions that would be necessary and appropriate, financially viable, and serve the public.
Description of Alternatives - 2-16
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

I'
L_J

[l

11

Exhibit Center (example)

In conjunction with the design and construction of the
roadway leading to the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell's destination, planning and public involvement
activities would be conducted to detail the final
complement of facilities and design their location on the
landscape.
2.5.5 Northern Shore Corridor
' The Northern Shore Corridor is somewhat different from
the preliminary study alternative described in Section Lakeshore Trail
2.2.4.1. The revised alternative, or baseline corridor,
would include a smaller bridge crossing of Forney Creek north of the impounded waters and the Proctor
option (discussed in Section 2.4.3) that avoids the major bridge crossings of the Hazel Creek and Eagle
Creek embayments. Following the Proctor option, the corridor would turn north just east of Hazel Creek to
follow the Lakeshore Trail to the area of the former Proctor settlement. Once north of the Hazel Creek
embayment, the corridor would turn to the west and continue through a portion of Flint Gap. Past Eagle
Creek, the corridor would turn to the south and continue west to NC 28 toward Deals Gap (an option that
would cross Fontana Dam was also studied for the western terminus and is explained in Section 2.5.6.3).
The estimated length of the baseline corridor is 34.3 mi (55.2 km). Depending on options chosen at Forney,
Hazel, and Eagle creeks and the western terminus, the length ranges from roughly 25 to 34.3 mi (40.2 to 55.2
km). These three options are discussed in more detail below.
The Northern Shore Corridor would include provisions for the development of an auto-tour guide describing
the historic and natural points of interest along the route for the study area, telling local history and
illustrating the location of trails and backcountry campsites. Wayside exhibit panels would be provided
along the new road and at appropriate pull-off areas and overlooks. Interpretation would be provided at
Proctor with the baseline corridor. Also, restrooms would be built at appropriate locations.
2.5.6 Options to the Baseline Corridors
As described in Sections 2.2.5, 2.5.4 and 2.5.5, the major bridge crossings of the Forney Creek, Hazel Creek,
and Eagle Creek embayments are options to the baseline corridors of the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor, respectively. In addition to these options, another option exists
' for the western terminus of the Northern Shore Corridor that would involve the corridor's tying into Fontana
Dam Road and crossing the Fontana Dam before intersecting with NC 28.
2.5.6.1 Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment

This option would continue west past the existing tunnel and turn to the south to cross the Forney Creek
embayment. Refer to Table 2-2 for information on the length of this option.
2.5.6.2 Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments
This option would continue west past Hazel Creek, bridging Hazel Creek and Eagle Creek embayments.
Refer to Table 2-2 for information on the length of this option.
Description of Alternatives - 2-17
' North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.5.6.3 Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam I
This option would tie the Northern Shore Corridor into the existing GSMNP roadway segment that crosses I
Fontana Dam. Refer to Table 2-2 for information on the length of this option.
2.6 Consistency with Sections 101(b) and 102(1) of NEPA I
NPS requirements for implementing NEPA include an analysis of how each alternative meets or achieves the
purposes of NEPA, as stated in Sections 101(b) and 102(1). Section 101(b) of NEPA establishes goals for ,
carrying out the policy set forth in the Act. The section states "it is the continuing responsibility of the
Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the
Nation may:
1. "fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding ,
generations;
2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation
risk to health or
,
safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain,
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living
and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
'
6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources" (CEQ 2005b).
To com
l
ith NEPA
h ,
p
y w
, t
e proposed project should be consistent with these goals and not hinder the
Nation's ability to attain them. It should be noted that, given the wide-ranging and subjective nature of these
goals, consistency may be interpreted differently by various individuals or groups, depending on their values.
Section 102 of NEPA provides a means for carrying out NEPA policy. Section 102(1) states that, to the
fullest extent possible, "the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in the Act."
While all alternatives would result in both adverse and beneficial impacts, the magnitude of these impacts
would vary. (The extent of these impacts is detailed in Chapter 4 for each alternative and resource topic.)
All alternatives would be consistent, to varying degrees, with the goals established in Section 101(b). With
i
l
env
ronmenta
safeguards included in partial-build and build alternatives, a wide range of beneficial uses of ,
the environment could be obtained without degradation or unintended consequences. In addition, no
inconsistencies between the alternatives and other environmental laws and policies were found, as directed
by Section 102(1).
Description of Alternatives - 2-18
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement '

1

t

r

Each alternative was further analyzed as to how it meets the goals outlined in Section 101(6). The following
sections provide a comparative summary.
2.6.1 No-Action
The No-Action Alternative would avoid disturbance and adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources in
the Park Based on NPS management policies for the Park as stated in the GMP, the No-Action Alternative
would be consistent with the purposes ofNEPA as stated in Sections 101(b) and 102(1). However, the No-
Action Alternative would not offer a full range of choices, as compared to other alternatives.
2.6.2 Monetary Settlement
The Monetary Settlement would also avoid disturbance and other adverse impacts to the existing natural
environment, cultural resources, and recreational resources (including GSMNP, the AT, and the Nantahala
National Forest). It would also provide a monetary benefit to Swain County. While this alternative would
meet the purposes of Sections 101(b) and 102(1), the degree of consistency would depend on how Swain
County uses the funds.
2.6.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area
The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would involve development in a small portion of the Park. This alternative
would provide a beneficial use with the least environmental impact as compared to the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor. With mitigation of impacts, the Laurel Branch
Picnic Area would be consistent with the purposes ofNEPA as stated in Sections 101(b) and 102(1).
However, this alternative would not offer the range of choices afforded by the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor.
2.6.4 Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
Overall, the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would be consistent with Section 101(b) and 102(1) of
NEPA. The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would provide a wider range of beneficial uses in the Park
than the No-Action Alternative, Laurel Branch Picnic Area, and the Northern Shore Corridor. With
appropriate mitigation included in this alternative, this wide range of beneficial uses of the environment
could be obtained without degradation or unintended consequences. This partial-build alternative would
involve development in a smaller area of the Park than the Northern Shore Corridor.
2.6.5 Northern Shore Corridor
The Northern Shore Corridor would allow a larger segment of the population to access the Park than the
No-Action and Monetary Settlement alternatives, and would provide access to a larger area of the Park than
the Laurel Branch Picnic Area and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell. Providing motor recreation in
the form of a recreational road is one possible way of attaining a wide variety of beneficial uses of the
environment. But the Northern Shore Corridor would result in undesirable consequences to the environment.
As compared with the other study alternatives, this alternative has the most severe impacts to Park resources
overall. However, with appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation it would be consistent with the
Description of Alternatives - 2-19
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

general purposes set forth in NEPA Sections 101(b) and 102(1). NPS policies provide a framework to '
balance visitor use and resource protection and values to be preserved for future generations.
2.7 Environmentally Preferred Alternative '
As defined by the CEQ: "The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the '
national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative
that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which
best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (CEQ 2005a). '
After careful consideration of Section 101 with regards to the detailed study alternatives, the Monetary
Settlement Alternative was selected as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for this project because it
best promotes the goals described in the requirements above. The Monetary Settlement Alternative is not
expected to impact GSMNP resources. This alternative is not necessarily the same as the Preferred
Alternative nor is the NPS required to select this alternative as the Preferred Alternative. '
2.8 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
i
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in
conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), contain substantive environmental
criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material. Under these guidelines, no discharge can be
permitted if a practicable alternative with less adverse impact on the aquatic environment (unless the
identified alternative poses other significant environmental consequences) is available. The USACE requires
that an EIS, being prepared for an action which will require a Section 404 permit, identify the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) on the aquatic environment in accordance with
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. '
In that the Monetary Settlement Alternative would not involve fill in "Waters of the United States," and
would have no effect on the aquatic environment, it would not require a Section 404 permit. If a partial- '
build or build alternative were selected for implementation, a LEDPA would be documented in the ROD.
2.9 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is the alternative that best meets a project's purpose and need and accomplishes the
project's goals and objectives. "This is the alternative the park service believes would best accomplish its '
goals after the in-house NEPA analysis has been completed, when the choice of an alternative as `preferred'
is appropriate" (NPS 2001 a). After full review of the DEIS and careful consideration of comments, the
Monetary Settlement Alternative has been identified by NPS as the agency's Preferred Alternative. '
The Monetary Settlement Alternative has the potential to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of
the United States that presently exist as a result of the 1943 Agreement among the DOI, TVA, Swain ,
County, and the state of North Carolina by providing an alternative that can achieve the consent of the
signatories to settle the agreement, thus meeting the Purpose and Need described in Section 1.1. As
discussed in Section 2.2.2, the Swain County Commissioners passed a resolution on February 11, 2003, that '
stated the county would accept a monetary settlement to settle the 1943 Agreement (Appendix D).
Correspondence from the Governor's office of the state of North Carolina has been submitted to the project
Description of Alternatives - 2-20
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

supporting a monetary settlement for Swain County (Appendix P). The use of the funds would be at the
discretion of the county and as discussed in Section 4.2.3.2.2, these proceeds would provide an opportunity
for Swain County to spur local economic and community development, stimulate economic diversification,
and enhance intraregional competitiveness.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would avoid impacts to natural, cultural, and recreational resources
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would be consistent with NPS management of the portion of the Park
t
within the study area as backcountry, as well as NPS policies regarding management of potential wilderness
areas. The Monetary Settlement Alternative would allow for the continued provision of the traditional
recreational activities of hiking, camping, fishing, and horse use in this backcountry area of the Park. It
would maintain the existing balance of visitors and resource use in this backcountry area of GSMNP and
preserve the associated peace and solitude currently available there. The Monetary Settlement Alternative
'
would not require the GMP to be amended.
within GSMNP, including the AT. While addressing the project's purpose and need, and ensuring that
resources within GSMNP, including the AT, are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the
Monetary Settlement Alternative would fulfill the project Goals and Objectives presented in Section 1.2.
The Monetary Settlement would allow for the continued protection of the significant and diverse natural
resources and ecosystems of the Park (forest communities, water resources, protected species, soundscapes).
It would avoid disturbance to the Park and allow the Park to protect resources from adverse effects of
problematic geologic formations and acidic runoff. The Monetary Settlement would also allow for the
' continued protection of the tangible (archaeological sites, historic structures, landscapes, cemeteries, and
TCPs) and intangible (feelings of attachment, family life, myth, folklore, and ideology) aspects of cultural
resources in the Park. As noted in Table S-1, for this or any alternative, NPS is committed to maintaining
current cemetery visitation practices and the Park will prioritize a budget increase that will specifically
describe the operations and maintenance costs to continue these activities, including annual ferry service.
In addition to meeting project goals and objectives, the Monetary Settlement Alternative would be consistent
with goals established in Section 101 of NEPA which are discussed in Section 2.6. The Monetary
Settlement Alternative would allow the Park to continue to accommodate the existing uses of this area of the
' Park, while stewarding the resources of this portion of the Park for future generations. It would permit the
Park to continue to preserve the beauty and recreational opportunities of this area, and maintaining visitor
safety. The Monetary Settlement Alternative would allow for the preservation of important historic, cultural,
' and natural aspects of our national heritage present in the Park. It would permit the continued provision of
backcountry choices in this area of the Park that support diversity of experiences and variety of individual
choice for visitors to the Park. As noted previously, the Monetary Settlement Alternative would maintain the
' existing balance of visitors and resource use in this backcountry area of GSMNP, allowing visitors to
continue to enjoy the existing amenities in the area, including the peace and solitude currently available
' there.
Public and agency input, including comments from individuals, organizations, agencies, elected officials, and
' tribal representatives, was fully considered in the identification of the Preferred Alternative. NPS conducted
a comprehensive and inclusive public involvement program as a part of the EIS. The public involvement
program is discussed in Section 6 and public comment summaries are presented in Appendix J.
Description of Alternatives - 2-21
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement
C
2.10 Cost I
Costs were developed for construction, operation, and maintenance of the detailed study alternatives.
2.10.1 Capital Costs/Funding
Construction estimates were developed using information from sources including FHWA-EFLHD, NPS, '
NCDOT, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Tennessee contractors and quarries. Costs
for the day-use development areas, which are included with the Laurel Branch Picnic Area and the Partial- '
Build Alternative to Bushnell, were developed based on historical construction data of similar facilities, RS
Means Construction Cost Estimating resources, and costs specific to NPS for certain Park amenities. For
more details on the development of construction costs, see the Capital Cost Estimate Assumptions
(Appendix E). The following assumptions were used for calculating cost:
¦ FY 2006 dollars without further inflation or incremental funding. '
¦ Costs include currently anticipated mitigation; however, additional mitigation may be identified during
final design. '
¦ Assumes pyritic rock throughout the study corridors.
¦ Construction is continuous over a specific time period: ,
• 2 years for Laurel Branch Picnic Area
• 5 years for Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell '
• 15 years for Northern Shore Corridor
The Monetary Settlement Alternative would involve federal funding. Whether or not these funds would '
result in construction expenditures would depend on use of these funds by Swain County. The Swain County
Commissioners passed a resolution on February 11, 2003, that stated the County would accept a monetary
settlement of $52 million to settle the 1943 Agreement. Bryson City passed a similar resolution on March 3,
2003 (Appendix D). The amount of $52 million was used for analysis purposes in Section 4.2.3.
Costs for the detailed study alternatives are presented in Table 2-3. Due to the magnitude of the alternatives ,
and the level of public interest in project capital costs, an independent review of project cost estimates was
developed by an outside consultant on behalf of FHWA and NPS. The Final Report Independent Review of '
Cost Estimate for the North Shore Road Project, Swain County, North Carolina was finalized on December
20, 2006 and is attached as Appendix R. Estimates from the cost review are detailed in Appendix R and
include an estimate of $13 million for the Laurel Branch Picnic Area. Review estimates for the baseline '
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell range from $117 million for the Primitive Park Road to $174 million
for the Principal Park Road. Review estimates for the baseline Northern Shore Corridor range from $416
million for the Primitive Park Road to $729 million for the Principal Park Road. The independent review '
capital cost estimates are approximately 20% higher than the project capital cost estimates for the partial-
build and build alternatives presented in Table 2-3 and reflect substantial inflation since the time of the
project estimates for construction materials such as Portland cement and steel.
Description of Alternatives - 2-22
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement '

I Table 2-3. Capital Costs and/or Funding Amount
Alternative Costs (in millions of 2006 dollars)
No Action N/A
Monetary Settlement 52
' Laurel Branch Picnic Area 13.7
Primitive Park Road Principal Park Road
' Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (baseline) 92.2 148.6
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment +7.6 -18.9
Northern Shore Corridor (baseline) 344.9 589.7
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment +7.6 -18.9
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments +37.0 -24.5
' Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam -9.8 -13.6
Note: Numbers for options are the difference in cost compared with the baseline corridor.
2.10.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs
The partial-build and build alternatives involving construction in GSM" would create the need for
additional staff and equipment to serve this area of the Park. Additional Park staff and equipment would be
required to help plan for construction and to address construction impacts and mitigation requirements of the
partial-build and build alternatives. Once construction is completed and roadways and new facilities are
' opened to visitors, impacts are expected to Park maintenance of roads, buildings, and trails, management of
natural and cultural resources, and provision of visitor services, as well as the demand for rangers and law
enforcement and activities associated with long-term mitigation requirements. In addition to annual
operations and maintenance costs, the partial-build and build alternatives would create the need for capital
outlays for equipment and maintenance yards to serve this area of the Park.
Current operations and maintenance practices and costs were reviewed with GSMNP staff from the Park's
South District. Impacts to operations including staffing and equipment needs were discussed and reviewed
' with the South District staff. Operations and maintenance for the day-use development areas for the Laurel
Branch Picnic Area and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell as well as the Northern Shore Corridor are
included in the estimates. More information on operations and maintenance costs can be found in the
' Regional Economic Impacts Technical Report (Appendix F).
Total GSMNP operations and maintenance costs associated with construction of the partial-build and build
' alternatives including initial capital outlays for equipment and maintenance yards are presented in Table 2-4.
1

Description of Alternatives - 2-23
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement