2.1

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 tbe 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 Qualiry (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 ofbeing 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, ar 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 ar feasible in
the future.
The selection and evaluation of partial-build and build preliminary study alternatives included consideration
of a variery of screening criteria, which consisted of environmental, social, economic, and engineering
constraints. Suggested impact topics utilized in screening altematives were presented to the public at the
March 2003 Scoping Meetings and were finalized at the September 2003 Public Workshops. Tbese 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 rypical sections (road types) for each of the partial-build and build preliminary study alternatives.
The road types evaluated include: Principal Park Road, Special Purpose Parlc 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 2-4, 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 rypical 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 li�nit
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 l2-foot (3.7-m) travel lane and 3-foot-wide (1-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 pr�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, Transpo�tation 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 FHWA; and electronic correspondence
sent to the project website.
All options were given consideration during development of tbe 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

Type of Facility
Design Year Average Daily
Traffic Volume'
Percentage of Tractor-Trailers
and Semi-trailers (TTST)
Percentage of Single-unit Truck
with Dual Tires (Duals)
Percentage of Directional Split
Terrain Type
Design Speed Range
Proposed Design Speed
Posted Speed z
Typical Section Type
Travel Lane Width
Sidewalks
Bicycle Lanes
Width of Grass Shoulder 3
Without Guardrail
With Guardrail
Surface Pavement Type
Grade
Maximum 4
Minimum
Minimum K Value 5
Sag
Crest
Horizontal Alignment
Maximum Superelevation
Minimum Radius
Spiral Curves
Cross Slopes
Pavement
Grass Shoulder
Clear Zone
Notes:
Table 2-1. Roadway Design Criteria Guidance
Primitive Park Road/
Administrative Access
Road
2-lane, 2-way
< 200 vpd
0%
$o�a
60°/a
Mountainous
15 mph (25 kph)
15 mph (25 kph)
15 mph (25 kph)
2-lane
9 ft (2.8 m)
None
None
2 ft (0.6 m)
5ft(1.5m)
Gravel
17%
0.3°/a
10 (3)
3 (1)
4%
70ft(15m)
None
0.02
0.08
2 ft (0.6 m)
Principal Park Road
2-lane, 2-way
400 —1,000 vpd
0%
8%
60%
Mountainous
25-35 mph (40-60 kph)
35 mph (60 kph)
30 mph (50 kph)
2-lane
10 ft (3.0 m)
None
None
3 ft (1.0 m)
6 ft (1.8 m)
Asphalt
13%
0.3%
26 (9)
49 (18)
6%
185-380 ft (55-135 m)
None
0.02
0.08
5ft(1.5m)
Special Purpose Park
Road
1-lane, 1-way
< 400 vpd
0%
$o�a
NA
Mountainous
15-30 mph (20-50 kph)
20 mph (30 kph)
20 mph (30 kph)
1-lane
12 ft (3.6 m)
None
None
3 ft (1.0 m)
6 ft (1.8 m)
Asphalt or Gravel
16%
0.3°/a
17 (6)
7 (2)
4%
125 ft (35 m)
None
0.02
0.08
3 ft (0.9 m)
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); however, a 10 percent maximum grade is primarily utilized in
the functional design.
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 variery of strategies for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of
existing transportation facilities. Since the study area's main east-west route (NC 28, US 19/LTS 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.
Mass Transit 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 ha�e adequate capaciry 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 Ciry 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 Setilement, Laurel Branch Picnic Area, Bushnell Area (since referred to as the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnel]), Buckeye Branch Bridge Corridor, Cable Cove Bridge Corridor, Northern Shore
Corridor, Interiar 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