2.5

2.5 Detailed Study Alternatives
The detailed study altematives are described in
Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.6.3. The partial-
build and build alternatives 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 baselir�e
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 �nay be used in
any combination to form alternate routes for
the Northern Shore Co�^idor 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
co�nprehensive list of �oute 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 ihe Fontana Dam visitor information center to
include local history; adding informational
Simplified List
of the Five Detailed Study Alternati�es
1 } No-ACtion
2} Nionetary 8ettlement
3} Laurel B�anch Picnic Area
4} Partia9-6uild Alternative to Bushnell {twa route �ptions and two rQad 4ype
optians}
5J Nvrthern Shore Carridor {eighf route apfions and hvo rnad fype pptions]
Gamprehensi�e L�ist
af Options for E2oute and Road Type Comk�inations
Pa�tial-Build Alternative to Buahnell:
�� Base3ine (northem route at Forney Creek), Primiti�e Park Ftraad
B1 Baseline [northern route at Fvrney Creek], Principal �ark �toad
C; f Southern dption at Far�ey Creek Emt�ayment, Primi�ive Park RQad
Da Southem Option at Forney Greek Embayment, Pnneipal Park Raad
Northern Shore Corrid4r:
A� Baseline (northern routes at Fvmey, Hazel, and Eag[e creeks with a
termin�€s at �1C 28j, Primitive Park Raad
B) Base3ine (northern routes at Forney, Hazel, and Eagfe creeks with a
terminus at �TJG 28j, Principal Park Raad
C� Southern Option at Fomey Creek Emhaymen4, northem raute at Hazel
and �agle creeks, and terminus at NG 28, Primitdw�e Park Road
D) Southem �ptivn at Farney Creek EmE�ayment, northem raute at Rlazel
and �agVe creeks, and terminus at NC 28, Principal Rark Rc�ad
f:� Southem Option at Forney Creek Embaymend, Southern Option at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Em�ayments, and terminus aE NC 28, Primitive
Park Road
F� Southern Option at Forney Creek Em6ayment, Sauthern Option at
Hazel and E�gle Creek Em�ayments, and terminus at NC 28, Principal
Park Road
Gl Southern Option at Forney Creek Ernkaaymenrt, Southern Opti4n at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Sauthem C7qtion Crossia�g
Fontana Dam, Prirn�tive Park Road
f-I � Svuthern Opti�n at Famey Greek Embayment, Soukhem 4ptian at
Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments, and Sauthem Option Crossing
Fontana D�m, Principal Park Raad
I> Southern Optivn at Forney Cre�k Emkrayment, norihern route at &lazel
and Eag1e creeks, and Southern Option Crossing Fvntana Dam,
Primitive Park Read
J1 SQUlhem flption at Forney Creek Em�aymenk, nvrthem route a# Eiazel
and EagVe creeks, and Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam,
Prineipal Park Road
K� Nvrthern rautes at Fomey. Hazel, and Eagle creeks, and Southem
C7ption Crossing Fontana bam, Prirniti�e Park Road
I_� Northern routes at Forney, Ha�etl, and Eagle creeks, and 5outhern
47ption CrQSSing FanC�na dam, Prhncipal Park Road
�1y Northern raute at Fvmey Creek, Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments, and Southern Qption Crossing �vntana f}am,
Primitive Park Road
N) Northern raute at FArney Creek, Sauthem C7ptian at Hazel an� Eagle
Creek Embayments, and 5outhern �ption Crossing Fontana Dam,
Principal Park Rvad
O� Narthern route at Fomey Creek, Southem Optior� at Hazel and Eagle
Creek Embayments„ and #erminus af NC 28, Primitive Park Road
Y) Northern route at Fpmey Cre�k, Southem C7pti4r� at Haz�l and Eagle
Creek Embayments„ arc�d terminus at NC 28, Principal Park Raa�
3ee Figure 2-8 for route locatians.
Description of Alternatives — 2-14
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

exhibits at the GSMNP boundary in the vicinity of Bryson Ciry 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
Laurel Branch Picnic Area
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (baseline)
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
Northern Shore Corridor (baseline)
Southern Option at Forney Creek Embayment
Southern Option at Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments
Southern Option Crossing Fontana Dam
Length of new roadway in miles (km)
0.8 (1.3)
Primitive Park Road Principal Park Road
8 (12.9)
-1.5 (-2.4)
34.3 (55.2)
-1.5 (-2.4)
-2.3 (-3.7)
-1.6 (-2.6)
Note: Lengths for options are the difference in length compared with the baseline corridor.
2.5.1 No-Action
6.5 (10.5)
-1.3 (-2.1)
30.8 (49.6)
-1.3 (-2.1)
-3.1 (-5)
-1.5 (-2.4)
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 22.2 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 Counry 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 Counry, 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 pennitting for these projects as required.
2.5.3 Laurel Branch Picnic Area
A conceptual plan of the day-use development area is shown in Figure
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 exbibit, consisting of a
Conceptual Plan
three-panel display, would be built at the existing Lake View Road
tunnel parking area to provide GSNINP 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. Tbe loop Lrails 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 publisbed.
2.5.4 Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell
The Partial-Build Altemative 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
embayment, by crossing Forney Geek north
� "�
- ��`
��.,,
�"�% :: �' _.
'� � t'.:� ' .`��
r<. r :
..� . � ��� ��
' � ,x- i. , �..
,� , ; .
d �.
� �
�►�o '" ✓� �-`,�...�
� � ''� ' -� �`�+ ' "� � -
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell — Conceptual Plan
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 visitar centers would provide information about the day-use
area to pro�mote this destination.
Exhibit Center (example)
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 Altemative to Bushnell would also include
provisions far 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 GSMNP boundaries. It is likely to attract a broad range of visitars to the North Carolina side of GSMNP.
If this alternative is selected, a Comvnercial 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

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
2.2.4.1. The revised alternative, or baseline corridor,
� ,�.._. i � `
� ��� `
' � '�
��� �
._ � �+�
� �
��- f
d.' �� �:3 � � ����I�
1M, .� �
-�i _ < I r-� � ... ve�' �
d� � ��' e " t �
�' � � : , '
� d �` �+
;�y--,�� s ' a .
4� �: �.r.
�=� - _�..�' '' '�r.w
- �,
�.��� +� � .. �" ,�i
�.
��� � , �� . �
Lakeshore Trail
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 tum 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 Northem 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 rying 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
This option would tie the Northern Shore Corridor into the existing GSMNP roadway segment that crosses
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
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 ] 02(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:
L"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;
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
enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources" (CEQ 2005b).
To comply with NEPA, the 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 tbe United States shall be interpreted and
administered in accardance 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 ] O1(b). With
environmental safeguards included in partia]-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