2.6

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

Each alternative was further analyzed as to how it meets the goals outlined in Section l Ol (b). 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 Altemative
would be consistent with the purposes of NEPA 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 altet-natives.
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 Farest). It would also provide a monetary benefit to Swain County. While this alternative would
meet the purposes of Sections l Ol (b) and ] 02(l ), 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 of NEPA as stated in Sections 1 O1(b) and ] 02(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 Altemative to Bushnell would be consistent with Section 101(b) and l 02(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 altemative 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 l02(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 histaric, 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
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 Altemative 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 Counry Commissioners passed a resolution on February 1 l, 2003, that
stated the counry would accept a monetary settlement to settle the l 943 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