6.5

The third series of public workshops was held in February and March 2004 during the Altematives
Development Phase. The workshops were conducted to provide an opporiuniry far the public to review
information on the study alternatives and provide input. This included information on alternatives
development, screening criteria, and detailed study alternatives. A presentation included a review of the
NEPA planning process, alternatives development process, study alternatives descriptions, and current public
involve�nent efforts. The meeting also initiated the public involvement process for compliance with the
NHPA.
During the Impact Analysis Phase in February and March 2005, the fourth series of public warkshops was
held. The workshops provided an opportunity for the public to review information on tbe final alternatives
recommended for detailed study in the DEIS and how they might affect resources in the project area. The
project team solicited feedback on the analysis of impacts to natural, environmental, and cultural resources
for each alternative. Comments from the Impact Analysis Phase are summarized in the Errata and Addenda
to Appendices, Appendix J.
The DEIS was released to the public in January 2006. The document and its appendices were provided on
the project website and at ] 1 public viewing locations in North Carolina and Tennessee. In February 2006,
a series of formal public hearings was held to provide an opportuniry for the public to comment on the
DEIS. Prior to each public hearing, meeting attendees were provided with an errata sheet with updates on
the DEIS. During the hearing, meeting attendees had the opportuniry to discuss the project individually
with study team members, view copies of the DEIS, and provide their comments to court reporters. Over
200 speakers provided their comments during the public hearings. Please refer to Table 6-3 for
information regarding the number of attendees and spealcers at each hearing location.
6.5 Public Comments
6.5.1 Master Comment Summary Database (MCSD)
The MCSD is a Microsoft Access database used to sort, organize, and retain a record of all comments
received. The MCSD was developed to capture all comment summaries from various formats, including
comment sheets, court reporter transcripts, note cards, e-mails, postcards, mass mailings, letters, and
videotapes.
Each comment was individually entered into the MCSD to document how it was received, project concerns,
action item requests, and personal contact information for the administrative record. Designated data fields
provided a method far sorting and arganizing the comments. The content and concern of the comment was of
primary consideration. Comments that included action item requests and items necessitating a response were
recorded and incorporated into subsequent phases of the planning process.
6.5.2 Public Comment Summaries
Public Involvenzent Summary Reports were developed after each phase of the planning process to document
the public involvement techniques, the level of participation, materials provided to the public, and a summary
of public comments. Public comment summaries from all phases of the EIS planning process are included in
Appendix J and were provided on the project website.
Public Involvement — 6-8
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

During the Public Scoping Phase, over 2,600 people submitted comments regarding various subjects
including: the 1943 Agreement; aesthetics and viewsheds; air quality; a cash settlement; cemeteries; cultural
resources; ecology; economics; geology and soils; a heritage center; NC 28; recreational facilities; road
criteria; serenity and solitude; threatened and endangered species; traffic and noise; tribal concerns and
traditional cultural properties; visitor use; water qualiry; and wetlands and floodplains.
Over 1,300 people commented during the Existing Conditions Phase, increasing the total number of those
commenting to over 3,900. While some respondents directed feedback specifically toward the existing
conditions information, others provided comments on more general aspects of the study. This included the
planning process, the timeframe, technical study and research, and the study outcome.
More than 7,150 people commented during the Alternatives Development Phase, increasing the total number
of people commenting during the project to over 10,000. As with the Existing Conditions Phase, some
respondents directed feedback specifically toward the current phase of the project, while others provided
comments on other aspects of the EIS, including the planning process, impact analysis, technical studies and
research, and the project timeframe.
During the Impact Analysis Phase, more than 4,220 comments were received. Comment content included
various viewpoints regarding the final study alternatives, alternative costs, potential impacts to the human and
natural environments, NPS policies and overall management, and technical studies and research.
At the start of the project, comments were tabulated based on the number of individuals that commented, not
the number of comments received, as shown in Table 6-4. The numbers presented in Table 6-4 for the first
three phases, and prior to Public Scoping, do not reflect the total number of comments received since people
may have commented more than one time.
Table 6-4. Comment Numbers per EIS Planning Phase
Phase
Prior to Public Scoping
1. Public Scoping
2. Existing Conditions
3. Alternatives
4. Impact Analysis
5. DEIS
Number of Number of Individuals
Comments Received Commented
- 818
- 3,442
- 4,574
- 10,896
4,897 -
75,775 -
Estimated Total Number of Comments Received for the Project: 100,000+
Following the Impact Analysis Phase, as more detailed information was provided by the public, the study
team began sorting and analyzing comments using a more detailed coding system. During the last two phases
of the project, comments were organized by comment, not by individual. Therefore, the total number of
comments received during these two phases may include people that commented more than once.
Public Involvement — 6-9
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Information regarding comments received on the DEIS is included in Section 6.5.4 and in the Errata and
Addenda to Appendices, Appendix J.
6.5.3 Thank You Response
A"Thank You Response" was developed to acknowledge the receipt of comments from those commenting
for the first time. It also encouraged additional public involvement by requesting comment submission to the
website or project mailing address.
6.5.4 Public Comments on the DEIS
The DEIS was released to the public on January 4, 2006. The NOA was published by NPS on January 4,
2006, in the Federal Register and established an initial comment deadline of March 20, 2006. The NOA
provided official notice of the DEIS publication, solicited comments on the DEIS, and announced the
public hearings. As required, a NOA for the DEIS was also filed by the EPA on January 6, 2006,
informing the public that the DEIS was available for review. EPA noted their standard 45-day comment
period in the January 6, 2006, publication of the Federal Register and provided an update in the February
3, 2006, Federal Register, which extended the comment deadline to match that originally identified by
NPS. An additional update was made in the March 17, 2006, Federal Register noting the comment period
extension to April 7, 2006, for a total 93-day comment period.
A total of 75,775 comment letters were received. Of the 75,775 comments received, 73,611 (97.14 percent)
were form letters originating from various organizations and interest groups and 2,164 (2.86 percent) were
unique comments.
The study team received 2,080 unique public comments, which included public testimony given by
individuals at public hearings. The analysis of these comments generated approximately 400 comments
requiring a response, which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning process (refer
to Section 6.5.4.1). Comments were also received from 65 interest groups and organizations, 13 govemment
agencies, 5 elected officials, and 1 tribe.
Per Section 4.6 of DO-12, the EIS includes a reprint in full of any federal, state, or local agency or tribal
letters received during the planning process (Section 5.15.1, Appendix D, and Appendix P). "All public
substantive letters must also be reprinted in a final EIS; however, if you have received an exceptionally
voluminous number, these comments may be summarized" (NPS 2001 a). Due to the vast nu�nber of public
comments received, substantive letters received by the public have been summarized in the form of
concern statements with responses (Section 6.5.4.3).
Comments were also received from state and federal government representatives who were not signatories
of the 1943 Agreement. Comments from Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee (February 6, 2006), U.S.
Senator William H. Frist (February 9, 2006), and U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (December 20, 2006, and
February 10, 2006) indicated support for the Monetary Settlement Alternative. In addition, a bipartisan,
bicameral letter including 17 government official signatures supporting the Monetary Settlement
Alternative was provided to the Department of the Interior (March 28, 2007).
All comments received during the DEIS comment period are part of the administrative record for the project.
Public Involvement — 6-10
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.5.4.1 DEIS Comment Analysis
Public comments received during the public comment period were reviewed and analyzed by the study team
using an extensive comment analysis process. This involved using the MCSD described in Section 6.S.1 and
developing a detailed coding, review, and response system. Public comments were analyzed in multiple
review sessions with input from NPS staff and members of the Management Team.
Table 6-5. Number of Comments Received on the DEIS
Group
Public — Unique Comments
Public — Form Letters
Interest Groups and Organizations
Government Agencies
Elected Officials
Tribes
Comments Provided on Behalf of
Deceased Individuals (not included in total)
Total
E-mail
Number of Comments Received
2,080
73,611
65
13
5
1
269
75,775
Table 6-6. Comments Received on the DEIS by Type
Type
Hardcopy
Public Hearing Transcripts
Petitions
Number of Comments Received
70,544
4,979
249
3 (135 Signatures Total)
The first step in the comment analysis process was to develop a coding system to sort comments by main
topic.
■ The coding structure was derived from the range of topics covered in the DEIS, and also included general
topics, such as the planning process, political issues, agency consultation and coordination, public
involvement, and regulations under NEPA.
■ The coding structure was designed to capture complex comments with multiple concems spanning a
variety of topics. This was achieved by identifying the main points the author was expressing and coding
each accordingly.
Public Involvement — 6-11
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Multiple codes could be assigned to the same piece of correspondence to record several points within a
single submission.
■ "Substantive" comments were also identified among the statements coded. TheNPS DO-12 handbook
defines substantive comments "as those that do one or more of the following: (a) question, with
reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS. (b) question, with reasonable basis, the
adequacy of environmental analysis. (c) present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the
EIS. (d) cause changes or revisions in the proposaL In other words, they raise, debate, or question a point
of fact or policy. Comments in favor or against alternatives or camments that only agree or disagree with
policy, while valuable, are not considered substantive," (NPS 2001 a) and therefore do not require a
response in the FEIS.
The next step in the comment analysis process was to develop concern statements for substantive comments.
Substantive comments with similar codes were grouped together to determine common themes and
develop concern statements.
■ Concern statements captured the ideas expressed by several similar comments.
■ Each concern statement was supported by one or more direct quotes.
After a thorough review of each concern statement and its supporting documentation, responses were
developed to document how the concern would be addressed, either by modifying text in the EIS or by
providing a mare detailed explanation of the ariginal text.
6.5.4.2 How to Use This Document
The DEIS Review Comments and Responses section is divided into the topics listed in Table 6-7. Each topic
includes one or more statements of public concern. Each public concern statement is followed by supporting
quotes from public comments referenced to original correspondence documents.
Supporting quotes are followed by an attribute which identifies the following:
whether the comment was made by an individual or an organization, with the name of the organization;
■ the city and state from which the comment ariginated; and
■ the number assigned to the original piece of correspondence.
This information appears as a parenthetical clause in the following format arganization or individual, city
and state of letter origin, and letter number. For example, "(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)" is
a letter from an individual in Bryson Ciry, North Carolina. The letter was assigned the correspondence
number 3315.
Each public concern statement and its supporting quote(s) are followed by an NPS response.
Public Involvement — 6-12
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6-7. DEIS Review Comment Topics
Main Topic
1943 Agreement
Purpose and Need
Management Policies
Alternatives
Cost
Human Environment - Traffic, Mobility, and Access
Human Environment - Economics
Human Environment - Land Use
Human Environment - Visitor Use and Experience
Human Environment - Utilities
Human Environment - Cultural Resources
Human Environment - General
Physical Environment - Geology
Physical Environment - Floodplains
Physical Environment - Air Quality
Soundscapes
Natural Environment - W etlands and Lakes, Rivers and Streams
(or W aters of United States)
Natural Environment - W ater Quality
Natural Environment - Aquatic Ecology
Natural Environment - Vegetation Communities
Natural Environment - Terrestrial W ildlife
Natural Environment - Black Bears
Natural Environment - Migratory Birds
Natural Environment - Invasive Exotics
Natural Environment - Protected Species
Natural Environment - General
Aesthetics
Construction Impacts
Mitigation
Impairment Analysis and Determinations
Environmental Consequences — General
Agency Coordination
Public Involvement
Miscellaneous
6.5.4.3 DEIS Review Comments and Responses
Page
6-14
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-22
6-24
6-26
6-32
6-32
6-36
6-37
6-43
6-45
6-55
6-56
6-59
6-60
6-62
6-65
6-67
6-68
6-71
6-71
6-72
6-72
6-77
6-78
6-81
6-84
6-87
6-90
6-95
6-96
6-97
The following comment responses provide (1) concern statements summarizing public concerns expressed in
the public comments received, and (2) a specific response to each identified concern. The concern statements
with public quotes are grouped by topic and numbered in order across all topics. As mentioned in Section
Public Involvement — 6-13
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.5.2, comments received following the release of the DEIS that did not require responses are summarized in
Appendix J.
1943 Apreement
1. The DEIS fails to analyze the sole obligation under the 1943 Agreement to Swain County
and fails to reflect the wishes of Swain County.
"The DEIS fails to look at the reality of the current political situation; Swain County, acting through its
elected representatives, wants the settlement and is the only party to whom an obligation is owed.
Shouldn't their wishes be the foreinost consideration?"
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1690)
"The DEIS does not analyze the monetary settlement alternative in terms of whether it is reasonable and
prudent. Such an analysis should consider the fact that Swain County is the only party to the 1943
Agreement to whom the United States owes any obligation. It should also consider the fact that
modification of a contract to substitute a new performance for a performance that has become impossible
or unlikely is an accepted legal principle. The DEIS fails to acknowledge that laws enacted since 1943
make performance of the 1943 Agreement impossible or extremely unlikely. The DEIS neglects to address
the fact that the Swain County Commission has stated clearly and unambiguously its support for the
Monetary Settlement and that they `reject all other alternatives. "'
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment ] 723)
"The purpose of the action being reviewed in the DEIS cannot be fulfilled until the National Park Service
has the nerve and the wisdom to determine that it is Swain County, and Swain County alone that the United
States owes any obligation under the 1943 Agreement. ...[TJhe DEIS is faulty in failing to do so. ... The
elected leadership of Swain County is cleaNly and unambiguously on record as supporting the cash
settlement option. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As noted in Section ].4.1, "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
Counry, North Carolina.' Because the road would be constructed on federal land with federal money, the
Federal Higbway Adminisiration - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFLHD) and the
NPS are preparing an EIS in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA." As noted in Section 2.1.1,
"The regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for the implementation of
NEPA require an objective evaluation of `all reasonable alternatives'."
As stated in Section 5.12 (previously Section S.l 1), "Implementation of a full-build alternative, such as the
Northern Shore Corridor, would require no modification to the 1943 Agreement and could be undertaken
without approval of all the signatories of the 1943 Agreement." However, under contract law principles,
this conditional agreement has the potential to be settled with other alternatives contingent on the consent
of the appropriate signataries.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative has been included as a detailed study alternative and has been given
full consideration in the planning process. As noted in Section 2.2.2, the Monetary Settlement Alternative
Public Involvement — 6-14
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

reflects the resolution passed by Swain County on February 11, 2003, stating that the county would accept
a monetary settlement of $52 million to settle the 1943 Agreement.
2. Those conducting the DEIS have not assembled the parties to the 1943 Agreement to
discuss the feasibility of a monetary settlement.
"The feasibility of a monetary settlement has not been investigated. The four parties have not been
assembled to discuss it. The responsibility to do this rests with those conducting the EIS. "
(Form Letter 14)
Response: As discussed in Concern No.l, GSMNP, on behalf of the DOI and NPS, and FHWA -
EFLHD have prepared an EIS in accordance with NEPA. The feasibility of any study alternative is
dependent upon compliance with NEPA (as well as other state and federal laws and regulations) as well as
its potential to resolve the 1943 Agreement. It is beyond the scope of this NEPA analysis to conduct
negotiations related to the 1943 Agreement.
The Monetary Settlement Alternative has been included as a detailed study alternative in response to a
resolution passed by Swain Counry, a signatory to the 1943 Agreement, stating that the County would
accept a monetary settlement of $52 million to settle the 1943 Agreement.
3. The Northern Shore Corridor will not settle the 1943 Agreement; damages that would
still be due to Swain County should be addressed in the DEIS.
"The DEIS fails to even mention that the damages due to Swain County will have to be addressed even if
the road is constructed in its entirety. Building the road will not end the dispute. "
(Form Letter 14)
Response: As noted in Section 5.12 (previously Section 5.11), "Implementation of a full-build
alternative, such as the Northern Shore Coreidor, would require no modification to the 1943 Agreement and
could be undertaken without approval of all the signatories of the 1943 Agreeinent." Selection of a full-
build road alternative would not require modification to the agreement and damages are not included as
reasonably foreseeable impacts requiring NEPA documentation ar analysis.
4. Cemetery access is not mentioned in the 1943 Agreement and cemetery issues should
not factor in the decision.
"�CJemetery access is nowhere mentioned in the '43 Agreement and should therefore not even factor into
the argument of decision. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 2152)
"The relevance of the 1983 court case is ignored by the DEIS. ... The DEIS fails to recognize or
acknowledge the following facts that this lawsuit settled: These groups have no legal standing in regards
to the 1943 Agreement. They are not Swain County. They do not represent Swaivc County. They are not
third party benefzciaries. They have not �sicJ specific rights in regards to the 1943 Agreement. They were
n�ot promised that the North Shore Road would provzde access to cemeteries. The flaws in the DEIS in this
regard are that they are recognized as third parry beneficiaries as if they have rights to specific
Public Involvement — 6-15
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

performance. The cemetery issue is at the forefront. Their claims of specific promises receive
consideration. All this is going on under the banner of resolving the 1943 Agreement. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: The Purpose and Need for the project as presented in Section 1.1 relates to the need ". .. 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)." Cemetery access is not referenced in the
Purpose and Need or the Project Goals and Objectives (Section 1.2).
The Decoration Day practices associated with cemeteries along the norkhern shore of Fontana Lake within the
study area are evaluated as a cultural resource (Traditional Cultural Property). The ethnographic studies
evaluating these practices and reported in Appendix G were undertaken in compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act and in accordance with NPS policies regarding traditionally associated groups.
Purpose and Need
5. The purpose and need is unreasonably broad, vague, and inconsistent with current
policy and regulation and precludes a reasonable consideration of alternatives.
"The purpose and need developed for the DEIS was unreasonably broad, vague, and inconsistent with
current policy and regulation, both within the GSMNP and the NPS as a whole. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"If the project's two purposes and needs are interpreted to be unavoidably interdependent, the purpose
and need is so narrowly defined that it foreclosed a reasonable consideration of alternatives. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As presented in Section 1.1, "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 (l 943 Agreement). ... 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 need for the project therefore ". .. is to determine whether or not it is feasible to complete the road and to
evaluate other alternatives that would satisfy the obligation." As noted in the response to Concern No. l,
under contract law principles, the 1943 Agreement is a conditional agreement and has the potential to be
settled with other alternatives contingent on the consent of the appropriate signatories; therefore, the Purpose
and Need reflects both the obligation to settle the 1943 Agreement and the potential for there to be a range of
alternatives that could satisfy the 1943 Agreement. The selection of the six alternatives (including the No-
Action Alternative) recommended for detailed study in the EIS was an iterative process that began with
project scoping. Combining previously suggested ideas with input from the public, as well as state and
federal agencies, the project study team screened approximately 100 initial concepts. The screening of
concepts and development of the alternatives recommended for detailed study in the EIS are documented in
the Preliniinary Alternatives Report (ARCADIS 2005b).
Public Involvement — 6-16
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Manaqement Policies
Reference to NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001b) is made in this section and in other sections of the
public comments and responses. Current NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006b) are cited in the
responses. However, updates to the management policies did not affect the relevance or content of the
coinment or the content of the response for the specific issues raised by the commenters.
6. The DEIS cannot serve as an amendment to the GSMNP General Management Plan for
the Northern Shore Corridor and Bushnell alternatives.
"The current GMP contains no mention of the possibility of amending the GMP in the future. If the NPS
intends to so amend the GMP, it rv�ust pNOVide su�cient reasons to do so, and point to sorvae legal authority
which allows that amendment. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"While NPS management directives provide the supervisor with authority to make periodic amendments
and updates to the general �nanagement plan to reflect changed circumstances, NPS policy does not allow
the use of arnendment where, as here, the amendment is not to accommodate changed circumstances or a
comprehensive Neevaluation of management direction, but merely to facilitate a single project. ... NPS has
offered no analysis, review or policy justification as part of the DEIS suggesting that the management
direction of the general management plan should be changed. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The 1943 Agreement pre-dates the current GSMNP GMP and references construction of a road
along the north shore of Fontana Lake (see response to Concern No. 5). The 44,170-ac (17,875 ha) tract
transferred to GSMNP by TVA is recognized on the GMP Proposed Management Zoning Map as a
"Reserved Rights" subzone. As noted in Section 3.2.2.2. l and as stated in the GMP, "National Park Service
management of this area is restricted by interests of others in rights-of-way, water rights, burial rights, and
other reserved rights. ... Third-party rights inconsistent with natural classifications will be acquired as the
opportuniry presents itselfl' (NPS 1982b). The need to resolve outstanding obligations, including those
associated with the 1943 Agreement, is thus noted in the GMP and continues to be acknowledged by NPS in
management statements and policy memos.
7. The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impacts of increased visitation and
development for the Northern Shore Corridor and Bushnell alternatives.
"More importantly, a decision to encourage increased visitorship and implement intensive development in
the wild core of the Park has profound iinplications for the balance between the NPS's ove�riding mandate
to conserve Park resources for future generations and its secondary objective of providing recreation and
interpretive opportunities for Park vzsitors. Such a decision requires a comprehensive Park-wide approach
and careful analysis. The DEIS is entirely deficient in this respect and provides an inadequate basis for
reevaluating Park management policies, as required by NPS management directives, and offers inadequate
analysis of Park trends and nzanagement to satisfy the Park's obligations under NEPA. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Furthermore, the NPS has failed entirely to consider whether the develop�nents proposed for the North
Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives and the increased visitorship they would attract is within the
Public Involvement — 6-17
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

carrying capacity in the park. ... NPS guidelines prohibit construction of a new facility that will cause `the
areas it serves to exceed the areas ' visitor carrying capacity. ' NPS MP at 9.1. ...�BJy failing to analyze
and disclose carrying capacity of the affected resources, NPS has failed to take the `hard look' at
significant impacts that is �equired by NEPA. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: NPS policy states that if a formal carrying capacity planning process is not applied to a program
or project, "superintendents must make decisions based on tbe best available science, public input, and other
information. In either case, such planning must be accompanied by appropriate environmental impact
analysis" (NPS 2006b). Impacts to this area of the Park associated with visitation have been assessed in this
EIS in terms of impacts to the visitor experience in Section 4.2.5, as well as impacts to Park operations and
maintenance costs (Section 2.10.2 and Section 3.4.1.2 of Appendix F) and staffing needs to address public
health and safery (Section 4.2.9). While carrying capacity was not formally analyzed, the information in the
sections referenced above provides for an evaluation of visitation-related impacts for each alternative and a
comparison of those impacts across alternatives. Projected visitation far the partial-build and build
alternatives includes visitors attracted from other areas of the Park (anywhere from approximately 20 percent
to 30 percent of the total visitation projected for each alternative), including those areas that are currently
more congested.
The evaluation of impacts to the visitor experience in Section 4.2.5 looks at impacts to the quality of that
experience and the quality of each visitor resource, not solely the impacts to the number or amount of each
resource. Analysis is presented for numerous visitor experiences including fishing, hiking, camping, horse
use, solitude, and various other visitor experiences and is broken down for each topic by three types of
visitors. Section 4.2.5 documents the potential for substantial impacts to visitor resources and the visitor
experience for the Northern Shore Corridor and the Partial-Build Altemative to Bushnell due to increased
visitation and associated noise increases, visual intrusions, and increased interactions with other visitors.
Impacts to Park management to visitor iise and visitor resources are presented in terms of impacts to
operations and maintenance costs in Section 2.10.2 and Section 3.4.12 of AppendiR F, respectively, and in
terms of impacts to GSMNP staffing needs to address public bealth and safery in Section 4.2.9. Current
constraints on the Park's operational capacity are noted in Section 2.10.2, which states "The GSMNP
Business Plan (NPS 2002a) identifies funding shortfalls to existing GSMNP maintenance and operation of
facilities of $5.2 million out of an overall $11.5 million Park operating shortfall."
While this EIS documenis visitation-related impacts and current Park operational capacity constraints, the
need to resolve the 1943 Agreement which references the construction of a road continues to be
acknowledged by NPS in management statements, policy memos, and other documents and is integral to the
Purpose and Need for this project.
Alternatives
8. The DEIS has not given full consideration to the Monetary Settlement Alternative.
"I am writing to express my shock and dismay that the North Shore Road DEIS has not given anything
approaching full consideration to a�nonetary settlement to satisfy the government's obligations under the
1943 agreement. "
(Individual, Rock Hill, SC, Comment 1699)
Public Involvement — 6-18
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"The feasibility of a monetary settlement for Swain County has been ignored in this `study, ' just thrown out
as another remote possible alternative to the road. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment ] 692)
Response: The Monetary Settlement Alternative is addressed as a detailed study alternative, and the
potential for impacts to resources have been discussed for each impact topic. Currently it is assumed that use
of the Monetary Settlement Alternative proceeds would be at the discretion of Swain County and a range of
potential uses could exist. The economic analysis adopted an approach emphasizing public sector capita]
infrastructure investment to develop economic projections that could be compared with the proposed partial-
build and build alternatives. Without a defined list of projects (including details regarding ti�ning, 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 Counry would need to conduct the appropriate
environmental documentation and permitting for these projects as required.
9. The DEIS has retained alternatives that are inconsistent with the 1943 Agreement.
"The DEIS specifzcally proposed and has retained alternatives that are totally inconsister�t with the 1943
Agreement and also clearly, repeatedly and consistently cornmunicated as unsatisfactory and unacceptable
as under any substitute performance concept. These alternatives are proposed without the convening of
the fouN signatory parties to determine legal or practical implications. The DEIS has maintained the
Bushnell option throughout the process despite its questionable origin and essentially non-existent support.
Similarly, the Laurel Branch option has been retained for study throughout the process. Neither of these
offer any hope to resolve the 1943 Agreement. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
`Public comment, even favorable comment from Swain County citizens, cannot salvage the feasibility of
the �BushnellJ partial build alte�native when the governing body of Swair� County will not accept that
alternative as substitute performance under the 1943 Agreeinent. The Swain County Commissioners have
been clear that the Bushnell alternative is not acceptable. ... Thus, because the partial build alternatives
will not discharge the United States obligations under the 1943 agreement through performance and
because Swain Counry will not agree to settle the 1943 agreement on those terms, the partial build
alternatives are not viable or reasonable alternatives and must be rejected. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"History shows that a partial build will not settle the conflict. Portions of the road have been built and the
controversy continues. Further, any `partial build' alternative will be clearly violative of the stated
purpose and need for this project. A`partial build' will do nothing to `discharge and satisfy any
obligations on the part of the United States' relating to the 1943 agreement. Therefore, any partial build
alternative does nothing to fulfill the purpose and need of the project, and its selection would be improper
under NEPA and the goals set out in this NEPA process. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As stated in Section S.12 (previously Section 5.11), "Implementation of a full-build
alternative, such as the Northern Shore Corridor, would require no modification to the 1943 Agreement and
could be undertaken without approval of all the signatories of the 1943 Agreement." However, under
contract law principles, this conditional agreement has the potential to be settled with other alternatives
Public Involvement — 6-19
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

contingent on the consent of the appropriate signatories. If the signatories come to consensus on how to
resolve the 1943 Agreement, that alternative can resolve the agreement.
The Preliminary Study Alternatives were presented as suggestions that could be modified or combined, based
on public input and agency coordination. Similarly, the signatories could discuss the detailed study
alternatives in combination or determine necessary modifications to an alternative. The development of the
alternatives recommended for detailed study and associated public input and agency coordination are
documented in the Preliminary Alternatives Report (ARCADIS 2005b).
10. The Monetary Settlement Alternative should not be selected as the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative.
"As defined by the CEQ: `The environmentallypreferable alternative is the alternative that willpromote
the national environ�nental 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) '�DEIS Section S-7J After consideration of Section 101 with regards to the detailed study
alternatives, the Monetary Settlement Alternative was selected as the Environmentally Preferred
Alternative. ... In analyzing this paragraph, while the Monetary Settlerrzent may cause the least damage to
the biological and physical environment, it does NOT best provide the stated benefits to the historic and
cultural resources. There is a large difference between protecting and preserving these resources and
allowing thenz to deteriorate, which is what will continue to happen under this Alternate. On the other
hand, a Partial-Build or Build Alternate, with appropriate visitor centers and interpretive exhibits, would
better meet the protect and pNeserve goals. This should be corrected. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: The Monetary Settlement Alternative is not expected to impact natural or cultural resources
within GSMNP or the AT. Comparison of all adverse and beneficial natural and cultural impacts for the
study alternatives illustrates that the Monetary Settlement Alternative would result in substantially less
negative impacts. Therefore, the Monetary Settlement Alternative was selected as being the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative.
Existing policies related to natural and cultural resources would continue with the Monetary Settlement
Alternative just as they would for the No-Action Alternative. GSMNP has funding to conduct condition
assessments of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. All identified archaeological resources are
scheduled for status updates by 2008. All of the historic structures and cemeteries within the park inventory
for preservation are assessed annually, and wark on those assets is prioritized and accomplished when
funding is provided. The Park staff actively works with the North Sbore Cemetery Association as well as
descendants of former residents to maintain cemeteries.
11. The Monetary Settlement Alternative is not a practicable alternative.
"The premise that the Monetary Settlement is even a`practicable alternate' is wrong, because it appears
to meet NONE of the original objectives of the 1943 agreement. This alternate does not replace any of the
.functions of the flooded NC 288: local access to cemetery sites, tourist access to any areas at all, an
alternate east-west through route in the region, or access to the Little Tennessee River. It is explicitly
Public Involvement — 6-20
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

recognized in section 2.3.3.3 that the Laurel Branch Picnic Area does NOT comply with the original intent
of the 1943 Agreement, and it should also be stated that the Monetary Settlement does not. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: The 1943 Agreement is a conditional agreement and under contract law principles, this
conditional agreement has the potential to be settled with other alternatives contingent on the consent of the
appropriate signatories. If the signatories come to consensus on bow to resolve the 1943 Agreement, that
alternative can resolve the agreement. The Monetary Settlement Alternative has been included as a
detailed study alternative in response to a resolution passed by Swain County, a signatory to the 1943
Agreement, stating that the County would accept a monetary settlement of $52 million to settle the 1943
Agreement. The statement describing the Laurel Branch Picnic Area in Section 2.3.3.3 is not intended to
imply that other alternatives, including the Monetary Settlement Alternative, comply with the original
intent of the 1943 Agreement.
12. The DEIS should consider additional alternatives; the DEIS should consider modification
to the detailed study alternatives.
`7f you want to open up the beauty of the area to more people, let me suggest an alternative — a paved
multi-use path. "
(Individual, Athens, GA, Comment 2357)
`7t is possible that the Federal Highway and the Park Service have gone overboard on the plan for the road
along the north side of Fontana Lake. Would it bepossible to build a more simple mountain road that would
not take away fi^oni the character of the area?"
(Individual, Unknown Location, Comment 3270)
`PRT, or Personal Rapid Transit, is the resolution for the Swain County's `road to nowhere' debate. ... This
new technology is cheap, clean and q�uiet, and it will not disturb wildlife and eco-systeins. ..."
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment 2196)
"Siinply build an A TV Trail where the community could benefit, from the A TV tourist. The RTP funds could be
used and local people would have access to family sites. Looks like a big win for everyone for a`road to
nowhere. "'
(Individual, DeXter, GA, Comment 2367)
Add an alternative to the EIS that would allow for.• clearing small `helispots' or helicopter landing areas
(like those used in forest firefighting) near the cemeteries. ... The families interested in visiting family
cemeteries would be accommodated by arranging a once or twice a year helicopter trip to the sites. "
(Individual, Lenoir City, TN, Comment 2355)
"Can we h�onor the people and their families by building a monument within the Park where all their names
can be engraved? No road and honor to those people who made it possible is a true legacy to be proud of. "
(Individual, Fairview, NC, Comment 1499)
`7 would like to see more boats go on a mo�e frequent schedule, and that would also increase the economic
prosperity for Graham and Swain County. ... And as far as the handicapped people not being able to get
Public Involvement — 6-21
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

�thereJ, can we not use a golf cart or some kind of ATV, four-wheeler with a little wagon behind it, or
something? "
(Individual, Location Unknown, Comment 2910-3 [at the Asheville Public Hearing])
"I suggest that for any, families that wish to access family settlements in the area, that they be furnished with
fi°ee portage by the Park Service or a concessionaire for the next 25 years. The cost would be minimal
coinpared to the expense of a road and the pristine environment would be preserved for future generations. "
(Individual, Hillsborough, NC, Comment 25)
"My proposal now is to settle the `43 agreement by awardz�ng Swain County $52 million and specify it be
put in escrow with only the interest to be available to the Swain County Commissioners for yearly budgets
and special projects. I would also propose that 5% of the interest be added to the escrow principal each
year. Another provision should be that the principal be used only with an a�rinative vote of two-thirds of
the registered voters in Swain County. "
(Individual, Unknown Location, Comment 2697-2 [at the Bryson City Public Hearing])
`Perhaps we could allocate soine of the settlement money for job training and education so that residents
would have skills to offer an employer interested in starting a business in Swain County. "
(Individual, Waynesville, NC, Comment 2359)
Approximately 50 comments were submitted suggesting a range of alternatives or speczfics on
implementing the detailed study alternatives. Additional descriptions and quotes related to alternatives are
provided in the public comment summaries in Appendix J.
Response: The selection of the alternatives recommended for detailed study in the DEIS was an iterative
process that began with project scoping. Combining previously suggested ideas with additional input from the
public, as well as state and federal agencies, the project study team screened approximately ] 00 initial
concepts. These concepts included partial-build and build road alternatives, a monetary settlement, transit and
rail systems, new pedestrian facilities or improvements, greenways, visitor/interpretive facilities, boating
facilities or improvements, road improvements outside of GSMNP, and many other ideas. The screening of
concepts and the development of the alternatives recommended for detailed study in the DEIS are
documented in the Preliminary Alternatives Report (ARCADIS 2005b).
Regarding specific suggestions on the use of settlement proceeds, currently it is assumed that the Monetary
Settlement Alternative would provide direct compensation to Swain County and that the use of those
proceeds would be at the discretion of Swain County. Therefore, a range of potential uses could be
implemented.
Cost
13. The capital cost estimates for the construction alternatives are too high.
"The number being used today looks to be inflated and doesn't make clear that this is constructzon dollars
but lends more to idea of cost for all aspects concerning the ?Vorth Shore Road' which will come about
Public Involvement — 6-22
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

during such construction, this would include Administr^ative, Inspection and Testing, as well as Design
costs. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment 1712)
I have attached �aJ study cost on all sections of the North Shore Road. " An estimate prepared by a
Graham County const�uction contractor was attached with a total construction cost of,$230,621,809.50.
(Individual, Bryson Ciry, NC, Comment 3089)
Response: The capital cost estimates are intended to reflect the program costs for all aspects of
construction of the partial-build or build alternatives. A description of the development of construction costs
is provided in Appendix E, Capital Cost Estimates Assumptions. Detailed cost estimates have been
developed and made available via the project website (ARCADIS 2005a). The estimates include
administrative and design costs as noted in the comment above. The cost estimates also include currently
anticipated mitigation, encapsulation and treatment of embanked pyritic soil, and requirements for
construction in National Parks. The cost estimates reflect the unique characteristics of the project site,
including remote access and steep terrain.
Due to the magnitude of the alternatives and 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, foN 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 summarized along with project cost estimates in Section 2.10.1 Review
estimates for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northem Shore Corridor range from
approximately 17 to 27 percent higher than project cost estimates and reflect substantial inflation in the costs
of construction materials in recent years as noted in Section 2.10.1.
14. The cost estimates for the road construction alternatives should reflect impacts to
infrastructure during construction.
"The cost estimates for the road construction are grossly erroneous. Bryson City's streets and
infi°ast�^ucture will be severely damaged by the ti^aff c occasioned by constr°uction. "
(Individual, Bryson Ciry, NC, Comment 1692)
"The DEIS does not suggest the location of any alternate hauling routes, or estimate their costs. A dump site
south of Bryson City would require the use of bridges in the center of Bryson City, or construction of a new
bridge over the Tuckasegee River a large, but unesti�nated expense. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
Response: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2.5, construction traffic is anticipated to adversely affect streets in
Bryson Ciry and surrounding areas. To reduce these impacts, work will be undertaken to reduce the amount
of excavation and balance earthwork during future design, to identify and secure an encapsulation site north
of Bryson Ciry (and on the western end of the project for the Northern Shore Corridor), and to develop
alternate hauling routes that avoid congested roadways. If a partial-build or build alternative were
implemented, the contractor would be required to adhere to the load and other restrictions on area roadways.
Public Involvement — 6-23
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Maintenance costs for local streets during construction and the costs of potential alternate hauling routes
cannot be meaningfully quantified at this stage of design and are not separately identified in the capital ar
operations and maintenance cost estimates for the project. Engineering and contingencies have been included
in the capita] cost estimates far the partial-build and build alternatives. According to FHWA guidance on
estimating costs for major projects, "The purpose of design contingencies is to account for items not included
in the current estimate," such as additional mitigation, unusual or unanticipated design changes,
"improvements to the local area network," and other items (FHWA 2004b).
15. Long-term maintenance costs are not included in the DEIS.
"[LJong-term maintenance both physical (resurfacing, dealing with landslides, etc.) and policing ... costs
�areJ not included in the DEIS. "
(Individual, Oak Ridge, TN, Comment 1718)
"The DEIS also neglects adequately to consider the increased necessity for policing both the natural and
cultural resources located in the project area. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
"Nor does the DEIS account for the lifecycle cost of addressing periodic rockfalls and landslides along the
project corridor. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Long-term GSMNP operations and maintenance costs are presented in Section 2.l 0.2 of the
EIS and include maintenance of Park roads (including resurfacing), demand far rangers and law enforcement
("policing"), interpretation, and other day-to-day GSMNP operating requirements. These costs do not
include allowances for extraordinary costs for emergency road repairs associated with landslides or other
such events. The lack of allowances for such costs in routine operations and maintenance budgets reflects the
inherent unpredictability of the frequency, severity, or extent of such events. Such events often require
reallocation of existing Park staff ar budgets, or can even require supplemental budget requests. Operations
and maintenance costs were developed and reviewed in consultation with GSMNP operations and
maintenance staff responsible far the South District, which encompasses the study area, and are based on
current practices. The operations and maintenance cost assumptions are described in more detail in Section
3.4.1.2 of the Regional Economic Impacts Technical Report (Appendix F).
Human Environment — Traffic, Mobilitv, and Access
16. Projected traffic volumes for the partial-build and build alternatives are underestimated.
"I was quite surprised about the projected tNa�c volumes in year 2025 such as 64 AADT for Laurel
Branch Picnic Area, at most 226 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traff c) for Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell, and 475 AADT for Northern Shore Corridor. If this were converted into Average Daily Tra�c,
then these alternatives would generate 1 to 2 vehicles per day. ... I think the future traffic volume is
somehow underestimated. "
(Individual, Champaign, IL, Comment 2685)
Public Involvement — 6-24
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: The projected traffic volumes for the partial-build and build alternatives are presented in
Section 4.2.1 as AADT. These AADT figures represent the annual average number of vehicles per day
generated by each alternative. The actual number of vehicles per day would fluctuate (above and below the
average) on a seasonal and even weekly basis. The AADT figures do not represent tota] annual traffic figures
as used in the cominent to derive the commenter's figures of one to two vehicles per day.
17. Projected traffic volumes for the partial-build and build alternatives are overestimated.
"[TJhe economic impact of the North Shore Road is derived from tra�c projections that are significantly
overestimated. The AADT for the North Shore Road after construction was projected to fall between AADT
at Deep Creek and Cades Cove, two of the most popular areas in the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
". .. it is not clear why he �the authorJ. finally chose the level of average annual daily tr�affic of 475. ... The
Impact analysis does not include a conservative estimate of recreation visitors providing a lower bound
perspective on the potential long-term impacts frorv� the road. "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 3320)
Response: As noted in Section 4.2.1.2.1, "traffic volumes were reviewed for scenic roadways within the
region that were thought to be somewhat similar to the Nortbern Shore Corridor" (Cherohala Parkway,
portions of NC 28, Blue Ridge Parkway, Skyline Drive, etc.). Traffic and visitation levels were also
reviewed in comparison to several locations in GSMNP including Deep Creek and Cades Cove. Projected
traffic and visitation levels for the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) are much lower than
volumes on nearby sections of the Blue Ridge Parkway and major roads within GSMNP, and are more
comparable to travel on the Cherohala Skyway. The projected traffic and visitation levels for the Northern
Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) are substantially less and do not approach traffic and visitation levels
for Cades Cove. Traffic and visitation levels for the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road) are
projected to exceed levels for Deep Creek due to differences in recreation and visitation opportunities.
Visitation to Deep Creek is highly seasonal and associated with specific activities, with a considerable
amount of use by locals and youth attending several nearby camps. While the Northern Share Corridor also
attracts local visitation, the range of activities would not be as narrow and the season over which the faciliry
would attract visitation would be longer. In addition, Deep Creek is a destination at the end of an access road,
whereas the Northern Shore Corridor would be a through route. NPS maintains that the projected visitation
levels for the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park Road), which exceed current visitation levels at Deep
Creek, are reasonable.
18. The traffic forecasting method for the No-Action Alternative should be revised.
"I believe the tra�c forecasting method should be more than multiplying �aJ growth factor; 1.9 when
considering this is [aJ t�^ansportation project. "
(Individual, Champaign, IL, Comment 2685)
Response: The growth factar of 1.9 used to determine background traffic volumes on area roadways for
the No-Action Alternative was developed by reviewing historic growth rates and NCDOT practice in the
study area. As noted in Section 2.23 of the ECR (ARCADIS 2004a), `Based on NCDOT ADT maps for the
Public Involvement — 6-25
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

years of 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001, an annual traffic growth rate of 1.9 percent was calculated for the major
routes in the study area. This growth rate is also consistent with the annual increase used by NCDOT in the
STIP Project A-9 [US 74 relocation in Swain County] traffic forecast."
19. Future traffic volumes should be presented as peak-hour volumes throughout the DEIS.
"I recommend using the same measuring units for traffic volumes in order to help ...�theJ general public.
... I recommend using Peak-Hour Volume fo� the entire report. "
(Individual, Champaign, IL, Comment 2685)
Response: Peak-hour volumes are presented in Table 4-1 and have been used in assessing impacts to local
traffic in Section 4.2.1. The AADT figures are also presented in the evaluation and assist in understanding
the relative differences in traffic and visitation for each alternative, as well as supporting the economic
projections associated with visitation.
Human Environment - Economics
20. Estimates of the number of local jobs are misleading.
"The economic benefits of the build alternatives have gross errors. A picture is painted of numerous
constr^uction jobs implying that Swain County people will have these jobs. Construction conzpanies have
standing crews. Statistics should have been presented, based on research, as to the percentage and types
of these jobs that one would expect to be filled by local people as well as the same for i�nmigrant labor. "
(Form Letter 14)
"Most of the construction jobs that are proinised for the benefzt of Swain County citizens is unlikely to
happen. Large consti-uction companies will bring in many of their current full ti�ne employees who do not
live in Swain County. Information should have been presented on the percentage and types of the jobs that
would be filled by local citizens. A�cadis surely has or could have obtained this information but did not
present it in the DEIS. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1722)
"The estimated number of jobs to be created by building the road is so misleading as to be a farce. Local
residents who think big bucks jobs will be offered to them are due for disappointment. No reliable
economic benefits are being presented in this `study'. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment 1692)
"Indeed, many of the services and goods required for construction of the North Shore Road or Bushnell
alternatives are not available in Graham o� Swain Counties. As the economic report catalogues, there are
no major highway construction.firms in Swain or Graham Counties. ... Although the economic report
recognizes that companies, workers and materials from out of the two-county analysis area will be
required to construct the North Shore Road or Bushnell alternatives and that either build alternative would
have economic impacts throughout the region, the reportpresents the,full economic impacts of the build
alternatives as if they will be, felt in the two-counry analysis area. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Public Involvement — 6-26
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: The job estimates have been developed using a widely accepted economic model, calibrated
using economic data compiled from the construction, retail, and service industries at the national level, and
adjusted to be consistent with the size and composition of the industries within the local and regional
economies surrounding the project. Details on the development of economic projections, including job
estimates, are presented in the Regional Econoinic Impacts Technical Report (Appendix F).
The economic analysis does not assign the projected economic benefits to individual counties. However, the
assessruent of the economic benefits recognizes the established economic structures, linkages, and
interactions between Swain, Graham, and other surrounding counties in western North Carolina. Sufficient
data has been reviewed in the economic analysis to assess the local and regional economic impacts of the
project alternatives and the differences in those impacts across alternatives.
Construction contracts for the project would be awarded on a competitive bid basis. Qualified local
contractars would be eligible to compete far those contracts, or to act as subcontractors to non-local prime
contractars. Non-local contractors retain certain skilled employees on a long-term basis, but also generally
seek to hire qualified warkers fram the local labor farce. In addition, the short-term jobs during construction
include a number of indirect and induced jobs in construction services, retail trade, lodging and other personal
services, and transportation among others. Many of those jobs would be supported by spending within the
local economy. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area, Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, and the eastern end of
the Northern Shore Corridor would be accessed by existing Lake View Drive leading north from Bryson City.
For the reasons stated above and as further detailed in Section 4.2.3 and the Regional Economic I�npacts
Technical Report (Appendix F), it is reasonable to expect that many of the short-term jobs would be available
to and filled by Swain County residents or would be located in Swain County. It is noted in Section 3.4.2 of
the Regional Economic Impacts Technical Report (Appendix F) that workers would also be attracted to
commute from other communities ar relocate to the area during the period of construction (particularly for the
Northern Shore Corridor).
21. The economic analysis fails to adequately analyze impacts to Swain County or
recognize the obligations to Swain County.
"The DEIS groups the Graham County and Swain County impact areas together for purposes of the
analysis and all rnetrics collected. ... Although the economic impact throughout the region is a signifzcant
issue that must be addressed by the Park Service, the approach taken by this study does not provide an
adequate basis.for the Park Service or the public to make an informed decision among the alternatives
presented in this project.
The purpose of this project is to discharge any obligations of the United States to Swain County, North
Carolina. ... While economic ramification of the project in the Graham Counry area are certainly relevant
to this project and should be considered, failure to distinguish between economic impacts to Graham and
Swain Counties.fails to recognize that the decision before the Park Service is directly tied to the welfare of
Swain Counry and its citizens. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"While iinpacts to personal income and job creation are relevant metrics for assessing the economic
impacts on the citizens of Swain County, the economics report fails to consider the economic ramifications
Public Involvement — 6-27
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

to Swain County government, the only entity that is a party to the 1943 agreement and to which an
obligation is owed under the 1943 agreement. ... Failure to analyze fiscal impact to Swain County is a
nzajor oversight and one that could easily have been remedied by the study. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
Response: Impacts for various resource topics in the EIS are evaluated for the project study area and the
surrounding area (e.g., economic impacts, community impacts, and cumulative impacts). Tbe study area
includes portions of Swain and Graham counties. As noted in Section 4.2.3, "Construction of one of the
partial-build or build alternatives or selection of the Monetary Settlement Alternative would provide a new
stimulus to the regional economy, generating economic benefits for residents, businesses, and local
governments in the area." The economic analysis does not separate projected economic benefits for
individual counties nor limit its scope to a single counry (Swain County). However, the assessment of the
economic benefits recognizes the established econoinic structures, linkages, and interactions between Swain,
Graham, and other surrounding counties in western North Carolina.
As stated in Section 3.2.3 of Appendix F, "Changes in local income, the number of tourists and visitors to the
area, and resident and visitar spending have fiscal implications for local government in terms of additional tax
revenues and, potentially, higher demands on services and expenditures. A comprehensive fiscal analysis is
beyond the scope of this analysis. Instead, estimates of net additional retail sales, which are indicative of the
relative differences between the alternatives, are presented." The data reviewed and presented in the
economic analysis provides sufficient information to assess the local and regional economic impacts of the
project alternatives and the differences in those impacts across alternatives.
22. The economic benefits calculated for the Monetary Settlement Alternative are
misleading.
"The economic analysis in the DEIS regarding benefits to Swain County is inadequate and misleading.
Considering how much Swain County would receive fi°orr� interest on the $52, 000, 000.00 vs. the limited
return fi^om the road would be �nuch more fair. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1690)
"The paragraph above �describing short-term and long-term economic benefits for the Monetary
SettlementJ sounds like a Chamber of Commerce promotion, and oversells the Monetary Settlement. The
long-term tourist benefits of the Monetary Settlement are actually unknowable (indeterminate), because
any tourist facilities constructed can fail in the long term, or the money can be squandered and never
produce any facilities or benefzts. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
"The economic analysis of the benefits of a$52 million settlement with Swain County is flawed. The only
analysis is o�e ofjobs vs. jobs. As far as the monetary settlement is concerned, that is not a like-to-like
comparison. A. fair comparison would be o�e of relative returns. Swain County would derive $2.6 million a
year fi°om $52 million invested at five (5%) percent. The proper comparison to that would be a determination
of the revenue that would flow to the County treasury from tourist spending by users of one of the build
alternatives. ... This would primarily be in the form of sales tax receipts. Failure of the DEIS to make an
analysis of these factors leaves a false impression of the value of a monetary settlement. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
Public Involvement — 6-28
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Among other deficiencies, Appendix F(1) failed to construct a reasonable investinent and spending
scenario based on conservation of the settlement principal, as the County has pledged to do; (2) applied an
unlikely low rate of interest to the settlement principal; (3) failed to recognize likely and needed investments
in Swain County based on publicly-available materials. ..."
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 3320)
"[TJhe draft EIS assumes an interest rate return on the monetary settlenzent of 4.5% which, while
consistent with standard investment practice for localities under North Carolina law, is not a realistic
assessment of management practices for a large one-time payment like the monetary settlement. North
Carolina law limits the investments available to local governments with the purpose of ensuring that
operating budgets do not hinge on the performance of the equiry markets. When local governments have
received a large one time payment, however the North Carolina legislature has issued special local
legislation allowing rr�ore responsible investment of long ternz funds. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"The economics study also relies on an improper application of the IMPLANsoftware. IMPLAN allows the
development of local level input-output models based on the existing economic structure of the county. The
DEIS uses IMPLAN to analyze impacts to 2050 without acknowledging the signifzcant changes in the
structure of the local econonzy that can occur over that time period. For this reason, IMPLAN is rarely
used to develop estimates foN a�nJ economic impacts �analysisJ over such a long time. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
An economic analysis of the Monetary Settlementpresenting various scenarios of assumptions (reflected
in the comments excerpted above) was provided by Warren Wilson College Department of Business and
Economics Chai, Susan B. Kask, Ph.D, and was also attached to coinments provided by the Southern
Environmental Law Center. In addition to the differences in assurvaptions highlighted by the above
co�nments, that economic analysis assumes a settlement of ".. 92.9 million — an amount that is justified
by applying standard interest assumptions to the cost of the road that was flooded by Fontana Lake. ..."
(Kask et. al. 2006).
Response: Use of the Monetary Settlement proceeds is currently assumed to be at the discretion of Swain
County and a range of potential uses could exist. For all of the alternatives just as with any public facilities
project, results may exceed or fall short of projections. The economic analysis detailed in Appendix F
adopted an approach emphasizing public sector capital infrastructure investment. This approach provides a
basis for developing a combination of short and long-term employment projections that are relatively
comparable to the employment projections developed for the other alternatives. This approach also avoids
injecting the EIS process into the local dialogue on how settlement proceeds might be applied. Public
comments during the EIS process have revealed divergent public sentiment regarding how the funds should
be used and potential benefits of such uses. Details on how the settlement would be structured would be
developed if the Monetary Settlement Alternative is implemented.
As discussed in the response to Concern No. 21, changes in local income, tourism, and spending have fiscal
implications to local governments; however, a comprehensive fiscal analysis is beyond the scope of this
analysis. Such an analysis would involve a more detailed set of assumptions and would provide additional
Public Involvement — 6-29
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

detail on local revenues, as well as the need for additional services. Swain County could, at that time, conduct
a full fiscal analysis to evaluate specific use of funds.
While the economic analysis detailed in Appendix F has not assumed conservation of the entire principal of
the Monetary Settlement, the analysis does assume conservation of a portion of the principal ($18 million).
The amount of the Monetary Settlement is assumed to be $52 million based on the February 2003 Swain
County resolution discussed in Section 2.2.2. The interest rate assumed in the economic analysis for the
Monetary Settlement Alternative is consistent witb standard investment practice for localities under North
Carolina law. Achieving a higher interest rate would require special approval from the North Carolina
legislature.
Constant economic relationships over the long-term were assumed for the economic analysis as noted in the
comments. However, any changes in the local economic structure would likely be independent of the detailed
study alternatives (i.e., more significant changes would be expected to sectors other than retail and tourism)
and would likely affect all of the alternatives more or less proportionately to the changes in net retail sales and
not affect the relative scale of effects between alternatives.
The approach adopted in the economic analysis avoids speculation as to the timing and scale of any results
associated with less well-defined economic development programs, which commonly establish goals, but
generally cannot correlate the direct expenditures of funds to specific, quantifiable results. The conservative
nature of the projections for the Monetary Settlement Alternative and the potential for application of the
proceeds to community and economic development programs are acknowledged in various locations
including in Table 4-10 on page 4-41 and in Section 4.2.3.22 on page 4-42, as well as in the Regional
Economz�c Impacts Technical Report. The economic projections for the Monetary Settlement Alternative are
reasonable and balanced in terms of complying with the requirements of NEPA.
23. The estimate for net retail sales may include double counting.
"The estimate for net retail sales nzay include double counting. If the secondary effects are calculated by the
model, then this is not a problem. If, however, these estimates are fed into the model, there may be double
counting. The author should clarify this. "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 3320)
Response: The secondary effects are calculated by the model based on input of the direct visitor spending.
Therefore, there is no double counting.
24. Will a"boomtown" effect occur during construction of the partial-build or build
alternatives?
`Both the construction phases are expected to have predominately temporary, part time and full ti�ne jobs. In
the full build case it totals to over 7000 job years. Given the size of the county's workforce and support
services, is there an expected `boomtown ' effect that may occur? "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 3320)
Response: The term "boomtown" generally references situations that arise when construction of a larg�
scale operation results in significant migration of a large, temporary workforce for an extended period of
Public Involvement — 6-30
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

time, creating increases in demands on local temporary and permanent housing, public facilities, and services.
This concern would arise in conjunction with construction of the Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive and
Principal Park Roads) and the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road). The potential
"boomtown" effects would be somewhat mitigated by the fact that transportation netwarks allow for
relatively easy commuting across the region, construction timetables, and the fact that construction of the
Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive and Principal Park Roads) is assumed to occur from both ends.
Furthermore, there is an established tourism and hospitality industry in the region used to accommodating
seasonally fluctuating demands of a much larger temporary population. The demands associated with
construction would help bolster these businesses during the shoulder and off-seasons. However, there are
potential short-term conflicts between the tourism demands and those associated with construction of the
aforementioned alternatives and road rypes during peak months. The impacts to local housing and community
infrastructure during construction for the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore
Corridor are discussed in Sections 4.2.2.2.4 and 4.2.2.2.5, respectively.
25. Negative impacts on local tourism during construction should be quantified.
"[TJhe negative impact on local touris�n due to construction activities ha�sJ not been quantified. A
decision should not be reached oblivious to these considerations. "
(Form Letter 14)
"There is not quantification of damages to tourism. "
(Individual, Rock Hill, SC, Comment 1699)
"The effects of such heavy and destr�uctive truck traffic, continuously, over a period of at least fifteen years,
have not been addressed. Yet, such traffic through or near Bryson City would have a serious detrimental
effect on the local economy. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
Response: Short-term economic benefits during construction would derive primarily from the inflow of
construction funds into the region and related retail, hospitality, and other spending. There is a potential for
adverse effects on local tourism during construction; however, effects from the direct construction activities
would be minimal due to the fact that the construction occurs at some distance from the most commonly
visited recreation sites and established travel routes throughout the region. Section 4.2.1.2.5 notes that, "The
addition of vehicles associated with construction is expected to adversely affect the existing roadway
networks in Bryson City and surrounding areas." Strategies noted in Section 4.2.1.2.5 to reduce these traffic
impacts include working to reduce excavation volumes and balance earthwork to minimize surplus volumes,
pursuing or creating altemate hauling routes that do not follow tbe main roadways, and locating an
encapsulation site north of Bryson City. When considered in the context of overall tourism in the region as
well as in relation to the magnitude of economic benefits associated with construction, the effects noted above
would be negligible and would not affect the comparison of economic impacts for the alternatives.
Public Involvement — 6-31
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Human Environment - Land
26. The conclusions that land use impacts for the partial-build and build alternatives would
be adverse are incorrect and contradict the methodology.
"7n regards to land use effects, few standards exist as to what constitutes beneficial or positive changes
and which are considered adverse or negative. ... Therefore, the land use impacts of the project
alternatives are described without any attempt to deterrnine whether the impact would be beneficial or
adverse. ' As the paragraph above appears in this section [4.2.4J, the conclusions reached in sections
4.2.4.2.4 and 4.2.4.2.5 are incorrect. Both of those sections state an adverse impact. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: As presented in Section 4.2.4.2, impacts to land use outside of GSMNP are not classified as
adverse or beneficial. Impacts to land use in GSMNP were determined to be adverse if they would require
reclassification of existing land uses in the Park. Text has been added to Section 4.2.4.1 to clarify the
difference in determination of impact type for potential land use impacts within and outside of GSMNP.
Human Environment - Visitor Use and Experience
27. Visitors to this area of the Park should have been surveyed for the DEIS.
"No effort was made in the DEIS to determine the extent of recreational use in the impacted area, but I am
sure that a check of backcountry registrations in GSMNP would show that each year more people hike or
ride horses on the iinpacted trails, or fish in Hazel and Eagle Creeks, than visit the cemeteries. "
(Organization [Carolina Mountain Club], Asheville, NC, Comment 1697)
"Appendix G of the DEIS details efforts made by ethnographers to survey the people attending cemetery
decoration days. There was no similar effort to survey the hikers, backpackers, fisherynen, and horse
riders who also use this portion of the Park. We believe this omission unfairly biases the DEIS by
presenting the views of only one set of Park users. "
(Organization [Carolina Mountain Club], Asheville, NC, Comment 1697)
Response: As discussed in Section 4.2.5, the evaluation of visitor use and experience focuses on the rypes
of visitor uses in the study area, the impacts to the quality of these visitor experiences, and the perspectives of
the three types of visitors that were identified. While some quantitative elements were reviewed, the
evaluation focuses on impacts to the qualiry of the experience. Input was obtained from GSMNP
backcountry specialists, AT staff, and Appalachian Trail Conservancy members to assist in assessing the
extent and nature of recreational use in the study area, in developing visitor use types and activities, and in
evaluating visitor use impacts. Figures on the numbers of visitars requesting backcountry permits and
purpose (camping, horse use) were reviewed as a part of this process. Input obtained through the public
involvement process provided further feedback to the methodology and analysis for visitor use and
experience impacts. As noted in Section 3.2.5.1.1, GSMNP has done park-wide visitor studies that also
provided some infonnation on location of visitors surveyed and identified importance of the visitor use
resources (NPS 1997).
Public Involvement — 6-32
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Decoration Day practices associated with cemeteries along the northern shore of Fontana Lake within the
study area required evaluation as a cultural resource (Traditional Cultural Property, ar TCP) under the NHPA
and in accordance with NPS policies (DO-28) regarding traditionally associated groups. Although many other
populations use the North Shore, there are no indications that there are any TCPs associated with their use, or
that those groups constitute traditionally associated groups under NPS policy.
28. The EIS should provide additional research on visitor use types and visitor use
management policies.
"The conclusions regarding overall visitor experience are.flawed because the basic questions of.• what are
the percentages of Active, Casual, and Passive Visitors, who should the park be managed for, and to what
degree, have NOT been researched and answeNed. The conclusion sentence [fi^om Section 4.2.5.2.14 that
states `Overall, visitor expe�ience would be adversely impacted as a result of the Partial-Build Alternative
to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor. J is wrong, because the vario�us uses conflict to some
degree."
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: As noted in Section 3.2.5.1.1, the GSMNP General Management Plan (NPS, 1982) identifies
areas of the Park and, along with other policy documents including the GSMNP Strategic Plan, addresses
questions related to management of the Park. This information was reviewed and considered in the
identification of existing and potential visitar activities in the study area and the development of visitor
classes for this project. The GMP does not provide a defined set of visitor classes and the passive, casual, and
active visitor types and types of visitar activities studied far detailed impacts were developed through
consultation with GSMNP backcountry specialists and AT staff.
NPS manages GSMNP for the enjoyment of all user groups and visitors, rather than for the largest group of
Park users, and manages areas within GSMNP for the resources within each area. As noted in Section 4.2.5,
"The portion of GSMNP within the study area is considered backcountry." Active visitars are the
predominant current users of this area of the Park. Casual visitors to GSMNP and the AT make use of
portions of tbe study area in the vicinity of Fontana Dam and in the area of the tunnel at the end of Lake View
Road, as well as boating in for fishing opportunities. Passive visitars primarily make use of the study area at
Fontana Dam.
The determination that the overall visitor use experience would be adversely impacted by the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor reflects the existing management of the area as
backcountry, the level and nature of backcountry use, existing opportunities for casual visitors in portions of
the study area, and the introduction of recreational opportunities far passive visitors.
29. The definition of casual visitor type is misused and casual visitor impacts are incorrect.
"In this section �S-S. SJ and throughout the report, the definition of `Casual Visitor' is misused. The
defznition of Casual Visitor states: 7n addition to experiencing the parkfi^om their vehicles, the visitor
goes on day hikes and camps at developed campgrounds or backcountry campsites that are easily
accessi�ble (car camping). Visitor's preferences are for socializing and niai�ntaining a coinfort and safety
level that put them within easy access of modern conveniences. Lengths of stays can be, fi°om a few hours to
a. few days. '
Public Involvement — 6-33
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

However, this section and the remainder of the document often discuss Casual Visitors having backcountry
experiences or using the AT. There is nothing in the definition that would ever place the Casual Visitor in
the true backcountry, and all access to the AT fi°om a park roadway within the study area is more than a
day-hike away. Therefore, a Casual Visitor can NEVER be or� the AT within the study area. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
"4.2.5.3.3 Mitigation Technigues `The baseline Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would have
moderate, adverse, and long-term impacts to hiking for casual and active visitors. ' The statement above is
incorrect, as this alternate would actually open up additional trails for day hikes, and thus be a beneficial
impact for Casual Visitors. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: As noted in Section 4.2.5.1, casual visitors may take day hikes and/or camp at easily accessible
backcountry campsites (this was not intended to equate to car camping). While the predominant type of
visitor visiting GSMNP and the AT in the study area would be active visitors, casual visitors park at Fontana
Dam to take day-hikes into the Park following the AT across the dam into the Park where they follow the AT
to Shuckstack, a popular hiking route, or they hike along Lake Shore Trail at the western end of the project.
The AT crosses Fontana Dam and enters the Park approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) south of Shuckstack. There is
a large parking area on the south side of the dam at the visitar center at Fontana and a smaller parking area on
the north side of the dam. These casual visitors may access one of just a few backcountry campsites in this
viciniry or stay at Fontana Village or another nearby location. Casual visitors also park at the tunnel at the
end of Lake View Road in the eastern portion of the study area. From here these casual visitors hike
Goldmine Loop Trail or hike in and out following Lakeshore Trail (via the tunnel or Tunnel Bypass Trail)
and can access several backcountry campsites in this vicinity.
As further detailed in Section 4.2.5, based on the elimination of trails and campsites and the introduction of
traffic into the portions of the study area currently used by casual visitors, the Partial-Build Alternative to
Bushnell was determined to have moderate adverse impacts to camping and hiking and minor to moderate
adverse impacts to harse use; wildlife viewing, photography, and nature study; nostalgialrefuge; and solitude.
With the exception of short trails in the vicinity of Bushnell (totaling approxitnately 2 mi [3.2 km]) and
Laurel Branch (totaling approximately 1 mi [ 1.61cm]), none of the proposed partial-build or build alternatives
provide additional trails (or camping facilities). Due to elevation differences, access is not provided to all
trails crossed by the road alternatives. If mitigation were developed to replace eliminated trails and
backcountry campsites or to provide access and connections to additional trails, then impacts to the casual
visitor would be re-evaluated. The analysis recognizes beneficial impacts from newly introduced experiences
for passive visitars in this area of the Park.
30. The DEIS does not adequately analyze impacts to the backcountry experience and is
deficient in its analysis of wilderness character and value.
"The DEIS inadequately analyzes the impacts that this project would have on the backcountry experience.
There would be significant impacts to citizens involved in recreational uses including, fishing, hiking,
camping, nature study, horseback riding, photography and art. The Park is coinprised of the largest
unbroken mountain tract of land in the Eastern U.S., providing recreation experiences and opportunities
not otherwise available in this part of the nation. All of the constr�uction alternatives would effectively
remove the possibility of such an experience from the Park and from the eastern U.S.
Public Involvement — 6-34
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The DEIS is seriously deficient in its analysis of Great Smoky Mountains wilderness character and value.
There will be serious impacts on the wilderness character of the Park. Most of the lakeshore area is
currently managed as wilderness due to the high guality and remoteness of thatpart of the Park. Both the
road corridoN and the stv�ip between the road and the lake will be permanently removed from wilderness
consideration as a legally defined designation. Construction of the road would completely shatter the
wilderness value and experience for which the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is famous. "
(Organization [Western North Carolina Alliance], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 6)
Response: Numerous visitor use impact subtopics representing wilderness experience and values were
evaluated including fishing, hiking, camping, horse use, solitude, and other visitor experiences (including
wildlife viewing, photography, nature study and nostalgiaJrefuge) and are presented in Section 4.2.5. Impacts
to the active or backcountry visitor are evaluated separately for each of these impact subtopics.
Wildemess values are further recognized in Section 4.2.2., Cammunity Impacts, where impacts are identified
for individuals focused on "lea�ing an undisturbed environment and potential wilderness designation," and
"the solitude of this region of the Park."
Impacts to backcountry use of this area of the Park are also discussed in Section 4.2.4, Land Use. Tl�is
section documents the areas affected by the construction footprint, as well as the acreages south of the Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell and Northern Shore Corridor that might be excluded from potential wilderness
designation. The acreages that would be excluded range from 1,658 ac (671 ha) for Bushnell (Principal) to
5,314 ac (2,151 ha) for the Northern Shore Corridor (Primitive). The total GSMNP area proposed for
wilderness designation has varied in recent proposals as discussed in Section 3.2.5.1.1, but would be
approximately 400,000 ac (161,900 ha). As noted in Section 4.2.4.2, the reductions in acreage would not
affect the potential for the future wildemess designation of the remaining acreage of the proposed wilderness
area in GSMNP.
31. The DEIS should address impacts to solitude, other visitor experiences, and visual
resources for passive visitors and revise impacts to casual visitors.
"4.2.5.2.8 Other Visitor Experiences ... The following sentences �discussing impacts of the PaNtial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore CorridorJ are correct ONLYfor Active Visitors.
Additional roadways, parking areas, exhibits and other facilities, always improve the park experience for
Passive Visitors. Roadways that provide access to new areas.for day hikes and their corresponding
opportunities for solitude and wildlife viewz�ng always improve the park experience for Casual Visitors. All
of this analysis �of impacts to wildlife viewing, photography, nature study, nostalgia/refuge, and solitudeJ
should be rewritten with a clearer and inore correct view of the differing experiences among the different
types of visitors. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Additionally, you do not discuss the NEW views that would be created by any new roadways, which would
create benefits to both Casual Visitors and Passive Visitors. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Public Involvement — 6-35
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: As presented in Section 4.2.5 and discussed in Concern No. 29, impacts to casual visitors
would be minar to moderate and adverse related to solitude, other visitar experiences (includes wildlife
viewing, photography, nature study, and nostalgia/refuge), and visual resources/scenic views.
New opporiunities far passive visitors related to other visitor experiences and solitude would be introduced
by the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal and Primitive Park Roads) and the Northern Shore
Corridor (Principal and Primitive Park Roads). Text documenting beneficial impacts to other visitor
experiences and solitude for the passive visitor has been added to Sections 4.2.5.2.8, 4.2.5.2.9, and 4.2.5.2.14.
This does not alter the conclusion stated in Section 4.2.5.2. ] 4, that the majoriry of visitor use impacts would
be adverse and would be felt by casual and active visitors.
As discussed in Section 4.5.3, Views Created by Alternatives, the Partial-Build Altemative to Bushnell and
Northern Shore Corridor would open up new areas for scenic views in certain locations. These ]ocations are
identified and simulations are presented in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources Technical Report, Appendix
O. These scenic view opportunities are discussed in the Visitor Use and Experience Conclusions, Section
4.2.5.2.14. Additional text documenting these beneficial impacts to passive visitors related to Visual
Resources/General Scenic Views has been added to Section 4.2.5.2.10 and the Summary.
32. The DEIS does not adequately address solitude, viewscape, and vandalism impacts to
the AT.
"The DEIS does not adequately address the damage to the Appalachian Trail, including loss of solitude,
viewscapes, and increased risk of vandalism at trail heads. "
(Form Letter 25)
Response: Impacts to the AT have been separately identified within all applicable impact topics and
sections. Visitor use impacts to the AT are summarized in Section 4.2.5.2.4.
Impacts to solitude and views along the AT are discussed in several sections. Mare detailed information on
impacts to particular viewpoints and general views along the AT are presented in Sections 4.5 and 4.2.5.2.10.
Impacts to solitude along the AT are identified in Section 4.2.5.2.9, and a discussion of noise impacts to the
AT is presented in Section 43.5.
The potential for vandalism at trailhead access areas is discussed in Sections 4.2.5.2.13 and 4.2.9. Although
the Northern Shore Corridor would cross the AT (baseline) or parallel a short section of the AT (Southern
Option Crossing Fontana Dam) as described in Section 4.2.5.2.4, no new trail head access ar parking areas
are proposed for the AT with the partial-build or build alternatives.
Human Environment - Utilities
33. Alternate methods of providing utilities to Bushnell should be investigated.
"It is stated that Phone service to Bushnell would require an underground extension fi°oin Bryson City.
There are other methods of providing phone service, such as cell phones and satellite phones. An
Public Involvement — 6-36
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

underground line may not be required. Alternately, has the possibility of extension fi^om NC 28 from the
south been investigated?"
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: Assumptions regarding the method for providing phone service to Bushnell are based on
other facilities in GSMNP and have been incorporated for planning and analysis purposes. If a partial-build
or build alternative were selected for implementation, final review and analysis of the method for providing
utilities to recreation or restroom facilities would be determined during final design. NC 28 is south of
Fontana Lake in the vicinity of Bushnell; therefore, a line from NC 28 would need to extend from the area
of Fontana Dam to Bushnell. This line would travel a much greater distance and would require additional
construction in GSMNP west of Bushnell than would a line from Bryson City.
Human Environment - Cultural Resources
34. The DEIS improperly weighs the importance of the North Shore graves.
"There are only 807 graves inside the 44, 000 acre t�^act purchased by TVA. ... The National Park Service
should have weighed the relative importance of such a small number of graves. Clearly, there are no visits
by descendants to most of the graves. This is an issue of proportionality. The DEIS does not mention it, and
that is a serious defect. "
(Individual, Walhalla, S.C, Comment 1723)
Response: Information on North Shore cemeteries and Decoration Day practices is provided in Appendix
G, which also documents the extent of visitation to these cemeteries. The TCP status of the Decaration Day
practices and associated cemeteries must be considered while evaluating project alternatives under NEPA, but
is only one of numerous factors under consideration in the EIS. The number of graves within the North Shore
cemeteries is not relevant to the TCP status of the Decoration Day practices.
35. The DEIS inadequately analyzes the potential for vandalism of archaeological sites.
"The DEIS inadequately analyzes the potential for archeological resources being taken fi°om the project
area. With the increased access to these cultural resources illegal removal will increase and that ilnpact
must be addressed. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
Response: Previous studies elsewhere in the Southeastern U.S. have identified the potential for vandalism
to archaeologica] sites to occur either due to remoteness and isolation of those resources (the existing
conditions) or increased access to those resources (which could result from implementation of a partial-build
or build alternative) (DesJean and Wilson 1990; Snedeker and Harmon 1990). As there is no consistent
general relationship between increased access and increased site vandalism, it is not possible to infer that
increased access to the North Shore sites would result in increased vandalism.
36. The EIS focuses too much on local groups that trace their heritage to the area.
"The DEIS is preoccupied with the heritage of those who trace their roots to the No�th Shore area, while
.failing to address the larger cultural and heritage concerns of the larger population of the area. ... The
Public Involvement — 6-37
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

North Shore group are clearly the minority but the DEIS tr^eats them and their heritage claims as if they
are the only people whose cultural and heritage values count. "
(Organization [Citizens for ihe Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
"Those who have ancestors buried within what is now the Great Smoky Mountains National Park are not
entitled to greater standing in tht�s process than any other member of the public. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: At no time during the EIS process has priariry or greater standing been provided to any
particular group ar member of the public. Input has been requested from all interested parties at all stages of
the project as part of the public participation process and that input has been incorporated into the EIS. The
ethnographic studies reported in Appendix G were undertaken in compliance with the NHPA and in
accordance with NPS policies (DO-28) regarding traditionally associated groups. Although many other
populations use the North Shore, there are no indications that those groups constitute traditionally associated
groups under NPS policy, ar that there are any TCPs associated with their use. However, those populations,
along with the public in general, have been able to participate in the project and comment through the
project's public participation process.
37. The DEIS does not assure the public that unrecorded sites will be identified.
"The DEIS essentially adnzits it has NOT identified everything it could, and given that they [six sitesJ
weren 't assigned site numbers, it does not assure the public that NPS will go back to assess and identify
these items. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The six archaeological sites referenced in the comment (discussed as unrecorded sites in
Section 3.2.4. ]. and Table 3.1) were observed during a cursory walkover of the area in June 2003 and are
outside the areas that were chosen for intensive survey. Consequently, insufficient information currently
exists to complete the normal site registration process for those sites following NC SHPO or NPS procedures.
However, regardless of the outcome of the EIS process, the Park plans to complete recordation of these
resources in the near future as part of ongoing archaeological site condition assessments. At that time they
will be formally recorded with the state and in the NPS Archeological Sites Management Information System
(ASMIS). In the interim, the inclusion of these sites in the EIS and Section 106 processes ensures that they
would be identified and assessed should they potentially be impacted by a selected project alternative.
38. The archaeological survey is not "reasonable" due to lack of structured involvement of
the tribes.
"�AJdditional ite�ns might have been identified with assistance,fi°om tr^ibes in locating areas and identifying
items. NPS's reliance on its 2004 archaeological survey is not `reasonable' without the structured
involvement of the ti^ibes. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The field and analysis methods used in the archaeological survey are standard for the region.
NPS consulted with the tribes (as well as the NC SHPO) regarding the design of the archaeological fieldwork
Public Involvement — 6-38
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

and other aspects of the cultural resource investigations. Representatives of the EBCI-THPO were included
in the list of state/federal resource and regulatory agencies invited to participate in the project's interagency
meetings. Representatives of the EBCI, EBCI-THPO, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and of the United
Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) were invited to participate in the project's Section 106
Consulting Parties meetings. The EBCI and the UKB have signed the PA for the project (Appendix H).
EBCI-THPO staff also have accompanied NPS personnel in examinations of parts of the study corridors, and
participated in other discussions regarding the potential presence of cultural resources in the study area.
39. Information on consultation with Native American Indian Tribes should be detailed
publicly.
"To assure the public that the NPS has done as much as it can to identify tr°aditional cultural properties and
other historic properties, the NPS should detail publicly the extent of the consultation with the tribal
organizations. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: 36 CFR Part 800 (the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA) requires that the
agency official with jurisdiction over an undertaking provide Indian tribe(s) "a reasonable opportunity to
identify its concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of historic
properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate its views on the
undertaking's effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse effects" (36 CFR Part
800.2[c][2][ii][A]).
NPS has consulted with tribes throughout the EIS process. Updated information on that consultation is
provided in Section 5(Interagency and Section 106 Consulting Parties meetings) and an additional letter from
EBCI-THPO has been provided in Appendix P. As a result of that consultation, the NPS and other consulting
parties (which include the EBCI and the UKB, among others) have developed a PA for cultural resource
investigations that has been signed by the EBCI as a consulting party and UKB as a concurring party
(Appendix H).
40. Inconsistent information on cultural landscapes indicates a lack of good faith.
"The draft programmatic agreement states that there are `no' cultural resources [landscapesJ in the area. ...
However, the DEIS has a signifzcantly d�erent analysis. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS has acknowledged a type of cultural resource — ethnographic landscapes — that has not been identified
or assessed for eligibility. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS appears to have been less than forthcoming with the consultative parties ... as to the extent of and
status of its research on cultural properties. This is problematic, since many aspects of Section 106
compliance unde� NPS's approach hinge on the existence of a valid programmatic agreement (such as the
phased approach to identification). This also suggests that the NPS has not acted in good faith' to identify
properties, and therefore has failed to me�eJt the regulatory reguirement to do so in good faith'. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement — 6-39
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: The apparent inconsistency between the text in Section 3.2.4.3 and the text of the PA regarding
cultural landscapes is an issue of terminology that does not involve any known historic properties (NRHP-
eligible resources), and does not represent a lack of "good faith" in the consultation process. The PA's use of
the phrase "no cultural landscapes" refers to the lack of cultural landscapes that are eligible for the NRHP
(and therefore merit consideration as historic properties), and thus is not contradicted by the presence of the
two non-NRHP-eligible cultural landscapes mentioned in Section 3.2.4.3.
Any potential ethnographic landscapes that may be present within the North Shore will be considered as
ethnographic resources in accordance with NPS policy, which places "landscapes primarily significant far
their ethnographic value under the purview of the ethnographic program" (NPS DO-28, Chapter 7, page 2).
In recognition of this distinction, the discussion of ethnographic landscapes has been moved from Section
3.2.4.3, Cultural Landscapes, to Section 3.2.4.5, Other Cultural Resources.
All Section 106 consulting and concurring parties that ha�e been invited to sign the PA have been provided
copies of the DEIS, as well as the FEIS. As discussed in the PA, "if the alternative selected in the Record of
Decision is a partial-build or build alternative, the parties will consult to determine what additional
identification and evaluation efforts are necessary." Such consultation will include consideration of
ethnographic landscapes and other types of ethnographic resources, along with other types of cultural
resources.
41. The extent of the survey for cultural resources is inadequate.
"The DEIS itself suggests that NPS has not made a`reasonable and good faith effort' to identify sites. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS nowhe�e explains the basis for its 70 percent' commitment that NPS makes to surveying the area. "
(et seq.)
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS does not state the basis for it concluding that the surveys [for historic structuresJ are adequate. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"The EIS must exanzine the full study corridor including the Appalachian Trail and accurately describe the
full extent of the negative impacts of road construction on the cultural resources. "
(Organization [National Parks Conservation Association], Knoxville, TN, Comment 3311)
Response: Both NEPA and NHPA provide for phased approaches in identifying and evaluating resources,
effects, and impacts prior to implementation of an alternative. In particular, the NHPA regulations (36 CFR
Part 800.4[b][2] and 800.5[a][3]) provide for phased identification and evaluation of historic properties, and
allow final identification and evaluation of historic properties, as well as assessments of adverse effects, to be
deferred if provided for in a programmatic agreement.
A 10 percent archaeological sample survey of the first 5 mi (8 km) of the study corridors was chosen after
initial inspection of the corridor and in consultation with NC SHPO and EBCI-THPO (see Section 5,
Appendix H, the PA, and Appendix P) and included representative samples of all major environmental zones
Public Involvement — 6-40
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

and historic settlement areas traversed by the study corridors. The use of sample surveys to generate
predictions on the nature, amount, and distribution of archaeological sites for use in evaluating project
feasibility and alternatives and to support NEPA documents is widely accepted procedure. The intensive field
survey eventually covered approximately 7.8 percent (800 of 10,260 ac [324 of 4,152 ha]) of the study
corridors, including almost 50 percent (800 of 1,610 ac [324 of 652 ha]) of the area contained in the first 5 mi
(8 km) of study corridor and representing about 6.2 percent (104 of 1,694 ac [42 of 686 ha]) of the portion of
the total study corridors with less than 15 percent slopes.
NPS believes that the results of this sample survey, when considered along with two measures of the
likelihood of site occurrence (the amount of high probability area for site occurrence, plus the number of
potential historic period sites), provide sufficient data to assess the potential impacts of the project
alternatives upon archaeological sites, as well as the differences in those impacts across alternatives.
Due to the visible nature of historic structural resources and the extent of investigations in the study corridors,
the NPS believes that sufficient work has been done to identify these resources. Notwithstanding, however,
additional field survey would be conducted of any potential impact area that has not been intensively
surveyed prior to implementation of any build alternative.
Potential project impacts to the AT as a cultural resource are considered in Section 4.2.8.3. Additional
assessment of the AT as a cultural resource will be completed if it is to be potentially impacted by a selected
alternative.
42. NPS must assess the eligibility of cultural resources made prior to selection of a
preferred alternative.
`BEFORE any. funds may be spent on the road the agency MLIST complete the process of deciding whether
properties are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. ...�TJhere is ample evidence in the DEIS
that NPS does not intend to ensure that all identified properties are assessed before a decision is made. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS needs to assess the eligibility of these resources [historic structuresJ before moving to a preferred
alternative. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"NPS does not say when, or if, it will decide to study the Dam as a potentially-eligible historic resource. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: Both NEPA and NHPA provide for phased approaches in identifying and evaluating resources,
effects, and impacts prior to implementation of an alternative. In particular, the NHPA regulations (36 CFR
Part 800.4[b][2] and 800.5[a][3]) provide for phased identification and evaluation ofhistoric properties, and
allow final identification and evaluation of historic properties, as well as assessments of adverse effects, to be
deferred if provided for in a programmatic agreement.
The 202 former structure locations in the study corridors have been considered in the Section l06 process and
in the identification of potential project impacts to cultural resources, as described in Section 4.2.8.3.
Potential project impacts to the AT and Fontana Dam as cultural resources are considered in the EIS, and
additional assessment of those resources as cultural resources will be completed if they were to be potentially
Public Involvement — 6-41
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

impacted by an alternative selected for implementation. Fontana Dam, along with its associated powerhouse,
was determined eligible for the NRHP in 1992 and has recently been recommended for study as a potential
National Historic Landmark. Text has been updated in Sections 3.2.4 and 4.2.8 clarifying the stahis of the
Dam. TVA, as the properiy owner, would make any determinations on pursuing listing on the NRHP or as an
NHL.
43. The EIS erroneously employs Section 106 terminology and indicates that "adverse
effect" and "beneficial impact" are mutually exclusive.
"[TJhe NPS indicates that `adverse effect' and `beneficial impact' are mutually exclusive categories.
However, there does not appear to be any statutory or regulatory support. for the proposition that if a
beneficial impact is identified, this necessarily means there is `no adverse effect'. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"The DEIS makes no separate Section 106 assessment for historic properties. Instead, it performs a NEPA
assessment— i.e. of the `impacts'— while throwing in Section 106 terrrzs such as `adverse' or `indirect' to
make it appear that the NEPA and Section 106 analyses are essentially on the same tract. That is not enough
to satisfy the NHPA 's requirements. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The assessment of impacts follows the methodology given in Sections 4.2.8.1, 4.2.8.3 and
Table 4.12; more detailed data on cultural resources, effects, and impacts has been developed under the
Section 106 process. Terms such as "adverse" and "indirect" have meanings under both NEPA and NHPA,
as outlined throughout Section 4.2.8.
Assessments of project effects and impacts to cultural resources have been made on a resourc�by-resource
and impact-by-impact basis, with consideration of all potential direct and indirect effects and impacts that
could result from implementation of any given project alternative. There is no assumption in Section 4.2.8
that a resource could not be both adversely affected under Section 106 and also beneficially impacted by the
project, although this combination of effect and impact was not identified for any resource. Both adverse and
beneficial impacts have been identified for some resources (e.g., the individual cemeteries considered as part
of the Decoration Day TCP); however, these adverse impacts under NEPA do not constitute adverse effects
under Section 106.
44. NPS must conclude the Section 106 process including assessment and resolution of
effects prior to selection of a project alternative.
"The NPS apparently plans to proceed with the NEPA process — leading to a selection of a project
alternative — without Section 106 data in hand. Yet Section 106 regulations require that the federal agency
consider alternatives to minimize adverse effects, which would require that adverse effects be identified
while there are still viable project alternatives on the table. To comply with the NHPA, NPS must conclude
its Section 106 process — including the identification of historic properties, the assessment of Register
eligibility, the assessment of adverse effects, and the resolution of all adverse effects —prio� to selection of
a project alternative. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement — 6-42
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"�TJhe DEIS offers only insu�cient conclusory assertions (at best) on its adverse effect analysis for the
historic properties so far identzfied. It contains no summary whatsoever of the 800. S criteria for adverse
effects, and no explanation can be found anywhere in the DEIS as to how the NPS concluded that the
identifted properties would be subject to an `adverse impact'. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The NHPA regulations provide for phased identification and evaluation of resources, and
determinations of effect, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 36 CFR 8005(a)(3), provided that a PA
outlining the approach be developed by the consulting parties. Such a PA has been developed and signed by
the NPS, FHWA, NC SHPO, and EBCI as consulting parties and by the UKB, Graham County, TVA, and
Swain County as concurring parties.
Project alternatives must be differentiated from "alternatives to minimize adverse effects," as discussed in the
Section ] 06 regulations (36 CFR Part 800 800.6(a)). The development and consideration of alternatives to
minimize effects to particular resources can, and does, frequently occur separate from and subsequent to
consideration ofproject altematives.
45. The cost-benefit analysis does not adequately calculate the tragic loss of archaeological
resources.
"Archeological Resources: Cost-benefit analysis does not adequately calculate the tragic loss of our
national archaeological treasures. "
(Individual, Bellevue, WA, Comment 1705)
Response: The EIS does not contain a cost-benefit analysis for impacts to natural, cultural, or visitor
resources. The analysis of impacts to study area resources presented in the EIS, including archaeology,
employs resource-by-resource methods of analysis determined to be appropriate for each topic. The
economic benefit projections summarized in Section 4.2.3, Economics, do not represent a cost-benefit
analysis of impacts to Park resources.
Human Environment - General
46. The DEIS should not give consideration to the 44,100 acres of the North Shore as a
potential wilderness designation area.
`7n the DEIS I object to consideration being given to a potential wilderness designation area. All the
federal wilderness designation has failed in the Congress in the past, and such language and cor�sideration
should have no part in the process. 44,100 acres of the North Shore is not part of the original part and is a
historical heritage area, not a wilderness area. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC Comment 2850-1 [at the Knoxville Public Hearing])
Response: Section 3.2.5.1.1 discusses the history of proposed wilderness designations for GSMNP. As
discussed in this section, the total GSMNP area proposed for wilderness designation has varied in the most
recent proposals, but would be approximately 400,000 ac (161,900 ha). The referenced 44,100-ac (17,875-
ha) tract is identified in the GSMNP GMP Proposed Management Zoning Map as a potential wilderness
addition included with the wilderness recommendation boundary. NPS policy directs that recommended and
Public Involvement — 6-43
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

potential wilderness areas be managed as wilderness. Furthermore, "The National Park Service will take no
action that would diminish the wilderness eligibiliry of an area possessing wilderness characteristics until the
legislative process of wilderness designation has been completed. Until that time, management decisions will
be made in expectation of eventual wilderness designation. This policy also applies to potential wilderness,
requiring it to be managed as wilderness to tbe extent that existing nonconforming conditions allow" (NPS
2006b). It is beyond the scope of this NEPA analysis to address the status of wilderness designations in
Congress.
47. The DEIS does not address requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"[TJhe last time I visited the graveyard, some of the group had tr^ouble walking the quarter of a mile from
the boat landing or fi°om the bank ... up to the cemetery. One couple had to stop and go back. ... I'm
advised by the Americans with Disabilities Act that this isn't proper. "
(Individual, Isle of Palms, SC, Comment 2730-2 [at the Bryson City Public Hearing]).
"And unless I am misreading the proposed route(s) for the road, it will not provide handicapped accessible
access to every cemetery on the North Shore of Fontana as some have suggested it must in order to be in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This argument is most certainly a red-herring. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment ] 700)
"While the document notes `. .. given the wide-ranging and subjective nature of these goals, consistency
may be interpreted d�erently by various individuals or groups, depending on their values. '�Section 2.6J it
does not explicitly include consideration of these values for persons who cannot or will not walk long
distances. Not providing a discussion and analysis of facilities for those who cannot walk may also violate
the Americans with Disabilities ' statutes. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: Accessibility issues for federal agencies are addressed in Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended in 1992 and 1998. If a partial-build or build alternative is selected for implementation, the
NPS would follow the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for accessibility to
places of public accommodation, for construction of facilities, and alteration of existing facilities as
appropriate. In 1999, a regulatory negotiation committee published proposed guidelines for Outdoor
Developed Areas which would be included in the ADAAG (Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board 1999). These proposed guidelines include accessibiliry requirements for many aspects of
outdoor recreation including trails, camping facilities, and access routes. While these guidelines have not yet
been approved for inclusion in the ADAAG, NPS tries to follow them where appropriate. NPS would adhere
to the applicable accessibility regulations and guidelines if a partial-build or build alternative were selected
for implementation.
Cemetery access impacts are analyzed in the evaluation of impacts to TCPs in Section 4.2.83. As noted in
the above comments, the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and Northern Shore Corridor would not
provide access to all routes to cemeteries crossed by the new roads and would impact current access to
several cemeteries as described in Sections 4.2.8.3.4 and 4.2.8.3.5. However, mitigation to a�oid or minimize
these impacts is described in Section 4.2.8.4, and this mitigation would be in accordance with ADAAG
standards far new construction and alternation of existing facilities. Furthermore, as stated in the Summary
Public Involvement — 6-44
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"[a]nnual 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." As described in Sections 22 and 4.2.8.3, for any alternative, access would be
maintained to the 20 cemeteries currently serviced by annual ferry trips to the northern shore of Fontana
Lake. NPS is committed to providing cemetery access, as outlined in Appendix D of the GSMNP General
Management Plan. While NPS is committed to maintaining the current level of access, cemetery access is
not referenced in the Purpose and Need for the project as discussed in response to Concern No. 4.
Physical Environment - Geoloqv
48. The DEIS does not adequately assess impacts related to unstable rock and soil.
"The DEIS does not adequately assess the damage that will be caused by a 38 mile road crossing multiple
finger ridges in unstable rock and soil. "
(Individual, Kemersville, NC, Coinment 1724)
"The DEIS analysis fails to consider the experience obtained in the early 1960's in building the existing
portion of Lakeshore Drive. The washouts, landslides, and slumps that occurred then, predictably will be
repeated in any renewed construction. The DEIS shows no evidence of learning from experience. "
(Organization, [Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project], Asheville, NC, Comment 3313)
"Road construction through the Pigeon River Gorge along Interstate 40 (in rocks similar to the GSMNP)
has not beer� as successful as proposed. Landslides still continue after decades of engineering mitigation
nzethods to eliminate them. Should we expect the same along the North Shore Road?"
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment 1839)
"I have also had experience in designing rock cut slopes for roads in the very mountainous areas of East
Tennessee. The st�^ucture of the rock along with the heavy precip[iJtation received in the region make rock
slope engineering very di�cult, requiring extensive excavations and mechanical means for slope stability
just about a inust in most cases. ... I understand that proper design will reduce the incidences of the
slides, but ... will have a hard tirne preventing them all, fi^om occurring. "
(Individual, Blaine, TN, Comment 2�418)
"Recent experience in the Pa�k confirms that rock slides from roadcuts are a common problem in the Park.
On March 2, 2006, Park officials closed the Foothills Parkway in Blount County because offallen debris
fi°om a landslide. ... In May 2003, another slide on the Foothills Parkway in Blount County left a vertical
drop 200 feet down and almost 140 feet across the face of the road. ... Also in May, 2003, a landslide 30
feet wide and 3 feet deep cause the closure of the Gatlinburg Bypass. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"Even without the disturbance created by excavation for a construction project, the Park is prone to
natural debris flows, rock slides, rockfalls and landslides which can expose acid producing rock and
create acidic drainage. Hammarstr�oin documented acid drainage from rocks exposed by several laNge
post-1970 debris flows in the Park, in the Mount Le Conte area ... and a 1996 debris.flow that impacted
Road Prong. Numerous studies have analyzed factors that contribute to slides in the Park. Bogucki (1970)
Public Involvement — 6-45
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

examined debris slides on the Mt. LeConte-Sugarlands area and concluded the debris avalanches have
been associated with heavy rainfall on steep slopes. ... All these conditions are met in the project
corridors for the North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives. "
(Organization [Southem Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"The project corridors for the North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives are characterized by sulfidic-
graphitic rock, meaning that they are especially prone to rock slides and landslides. ...[TJhe DEIS fails
entirely to evaluate the risk for slides and rockfalls during and after construction of the North Shore Road
or Bushnell alternatives. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Furtherrnore, the encapsulation str�ategy proposed by the Cherohala strategy cannot serve as a long-term
solution in the Park, because naturally unstable geology in the Park eventually will expose encapsulated
rock. ... The DEIS offers no analysis of the risks of acid producing rock being exposed in the. future by
rockslides resulting,fi�om unstable rock."
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"`The precipitation of efflorescent minerals can exacerbate the physical weathering. "'
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: There is a possibiliry that unstable slope conditions will be encountered if a partial-build or
build alternative is selected for implementation. In the event that slope stabiliry problems arise during
excavation or embankment construction, special non-intrusive engineering methods for slope stabilization
may be required. This includes, but is not limited to the use of inechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls.
MSE walls can also be used when shifting an alignment to avoid excavating AP rock. A June 1962
memorandum from the Director of the Bureau of Public Roads from the Region One office noted that
changes in engineering would be required if construction proceeded on the North Shore Road project (Bureau
of Public Roads 1962). Suggestions in that memo included modifying the cross-section to reduce bench
width, increasing the use of walls and slop�bracing techniques, reducing the length of spirals, and
introducing more rolls and curvatures. In addition, and as evidenced by the construction of projects such as
the Cherohala Skyway and the Blue Ridge Parkway, engineering in rugged terrain has advanced since the
construction of existing Lake View Road.
Although there are slope stability concems, the occurrence of landslides along the partial-build or build
alternatives would not be expected to be an issue similar to I-40 through the Pigeon River Gorge. Interstate
Highway 40 through the Pigeon River gorge is four lanes with wide shoulders and fallout zones necessary to
maintain a moderate grade; all within a corridor constrained by the Pigeon River and the steep walls of the
gorge. These circumstances necessitated high and steep cut slopes. The specifications for the partial-build
and build alternatives (Principal or Primitive Park Roads) are substantially different than those for an
interstate. The major rock units along I-40 in the Pigeon River gorge are of the Snowbird Group and have
different characteristics from those in the Great Smoky Group and thus do not correlate with the rocks
excavated on the Cherohala Skyway or those in the North Shore Road study area. The recent landslides on
the Gatlinburg Bypass and the Foothills Parkway in Blount County also occur in a different geology and do
not correlate directly with study area conditions. The slope failures along Anakeesta Ridge and Mt. LeConte
do involve rocks similar to those in the study area; however, they are primarily related to high summit
Public Involvement — 6-46
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

elevations with very steep slopes and do not afford a true comparison with the partial-build or build
alternatives.
Occurrences of sulfidic-graphitic zones within the Copperhill Formation or Wehutty Formation should not be
interpreted to mean that a slope failure is imminent. Otber criteria besides rock lithology must be met before
a slope can be judged likely to fail. Other parameters may include steepness of slope and abnonnal
atmospheric precipitation events as mentioned in the comments, geometrical orientation of rock
discontinuities relative to the orientation of tbe cut slope, and lack of vegetative cover.
Efflorescent minerals formed by pyrite weathering do exhibit changes in volume, as well as composition.
The volume of these minerals fluctuates (expands and contracts) with the amount of hydration or dehydration.
Expansion due to this phenomenon may generate some flaking of rock from a cut slope, but would not
present a serious rock stability problem (Byerly 2006).
While construction is difficult in mountainous terrains, the topographic relief in study area is comparable to
that of the Cherohala Skyway; whose construction was successfully completed. The Cherohala Skyway is an
example of a 40-mi (64.4-km) mountainous highway where according to Middleton, quoted in the 2004
Cherohala Skyway Report, p. 1, "the design and construction of the project was considered `context
sensitive,' which is interpreted to mean that the environmental footprint of the project was reduced as much
as practical." This was accomplished by designing road alignments to fit existing topography in a manner in
which land disturbances, pollution, and visual impacts were minimized. The partial-build and build
alternatives are designed to achieve similar results. In addition, the partial-build and build alternatives
employ a more minimal design than Cherohala Skyway, as they are designed as either a principal park road
ar a primitive park road.
49. The DEIS needs to clarify whether the underlying geology is known or unknown and
determine the locations of acid rock/sulfide concentrations.
"For example, in most places it �the DEISJ states that the underlying geology is known. In other places
(e.g., 4-174) it states `Since detailed geology is unknown. ...' So which is it?"
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment 1839)
Although the DEIS discusses the acidic question at length it provides no data related to the
concentrations of sulfides along the corridor, or the AP �acid production potentialJ, NP [neutralization
potentialJ, or NNP �net neuti^alization potentialJ of the sulfidic rocks along the corridor, nor makes any
estimates related to the volume of rock that has AD [acid drainageJ potential. "
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment 1839)
Response: The level of the most recent geologic mapping (1:24,000) bas defined the boundaries of the
different rock units occurring along the proposed partial-build and build alternatives by examining and
correlating widely spaced rock exposures. Data derived at this level provide information about the expected
nature of bedrock even though the bedrock is not continuously exposed throughout the corridor in outcrops.
This level does not provide absolute values for the presence or absence of sulfide minerals. Outcrops in the
study area can be sampled in advance without impacting the environment and some already have been
(Hammarstro�n 2003), but they are scattered through the corridor. The qualiry of the bedrock for the area is
based upon review of the geologic mapping, samples gathered from scattered outcrops, water quality
Public Involvement — 6-47
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

investigations, mine studies, and correlation with similar rocks elsewhere in the Blue Ridge, especially the
Cherohala Skyway. These data provide information on what is known about the underlying geology for the
purpose of evaluating and comparing impacts across alternatives, without impacting the environment to drill
exploratory holes.
Detailed information, including the rock qualiry parameters, acid production potential, neutralization
potential, and net neutralization potential, cannot be determined until samples are acquired from the rocks to
be actually excavated. Such drilling would take place during the final design phase, should a partial-build ar
build alternative be implemented.
On the basis of the known geologic information, including correlation with the Cherohala Skyway and other
localities, the scenario has been adopted that all rocks to be disturbed by the partial-build and build
alternatives will have the propensity to generate acid drainage and will require special handling (net
neutralization potential values necessitating encapsulation).
50. The DEIS inadequately analyzes the long-term effectiveness of the treatment of acid rock
with limestone encapsulation methods.
"The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impacts of the exposuNe of acid bearing rock. It assumes the
acid leaching can be mitigated by limestone filters, but the assumption is based on a process that has only
been tested in the short term. There has been no analysis of the long term effectiveness of this tr^eat�nent,
including the likelihood of failure when saturation ends the useful life of the chemical process. "
(Form Letter 25)
"Given the relatively short lifespan of the encapsulated fills used for comparison in the Cherohala study, the
results of that study cannot be cited as evidence of long-term results because there is no evidence fi^om which
to project whether, in the long term metal precipitates will coat lin2estone particles, restf^icting efficacy of the
flow. Nor is there any data sufficient to provide assurances that the gradual build up of inetal precipitates
within the fzll over time will not lead to heightened concentrations in future effluent fi°om the fzll. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"The study blithely rejects that any damage will be caused by the pyritic rock that will be encountered
throughout the construction. However, they rely on a technology that was only recently developed, and for
which only 10 year studies are available. They cannot assure us that the proposed means of dealing with
pyritic rock will be effective for any longer than 10 years. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
"The DEIS overstates the effectiveness of the NPS mitigation strategy, for acid producing rock and ignores
the significant challenges specific to the Northshore Road and Bushnell alternatives. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
`7t is clear fv�om the FHWA guidelines upon which this mitigation appNOach is based that the prevalent
conditions in the GSMNP are the most d�cult possible for successful encapsulation of acid producing
rock. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Public Involvement — 6-48
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Finally the DEIS.fails to analyze the risk that thiobacillus ferrooxidans, an iron bacteria common in
environments rich in sulfidic rock, oxygen, and acidic conditions will develop in the encapsulated fills as
effectiveness of those, fills deplete over time. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
"The DEIS offers no analysis of the size and scale of the roadcuts of the Cherohala Skyway segment area
or to compare theni with road cuts projected for the North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives. As a
result, there the DEIS offers no reason to believe that the �nitigation strategy employed at the Cherohala
Skyway seginent analyzed by the Cherohala study can accommodate construction along the North Shore
Road and Bushnell corridors."
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The encapsulation method proposed for the partial-build and build alternatives is based on
FHWA guidelines and was effectively used in the Cherohala Skyway project. The focus of encapsulation is to
control exposure of AP rock to the environment in order to prevent acid drainage. This encapsulation method
is not intended to totally offset the acidity of the encapsulated rock by adding a base, but is designed to
control water flow around the encapsulated rock, control the influx of oxygen, control acidophyllic bacteria,
and enhance alkalinity. The limestone aggregate layered between filter fabrics at the base of the encapsulation
(limestone filters, referenced above as limestone buffers) is designed primarily to divert runoff below the
encapsulated material rather than through it, and also serve as an extra layer of limestone for neutralization in
the event that water does percolate through the encapsulated embankment. Timing and potential saturation of
the limestone buffer is not an issue. The agricultural lime added in layers within the encapsulation serves to
raise the pH in the system which reduces the solubility of heavy metals, allowing them to remain within the
encapsulation. These metals then act to coat sulfide minerals such as pyrite, shielding against further
oxidation and reducing permeability of the pyrite thus retarding tbe influx of water and oxygen. The elevated
pH also reduces the catalytic action of bacteria (such as Thiobacillus ferrooxidans). Time is not a factor in the
design of the encapsulation; it is primarily a volumetric calculation.
The Cherohala Skyway is similar to the partial-build and build alternatives for several reasons, including: (1)
proximity of the Cherohala project to the project study area, (2) nearly identical rock units occur in both
areas, and (3) as stated in FHWA guidelines, "steep and rugged topography probably presents the worst of the
possible situations" and both Cherohala Skyway and the project study area exhibit these conditions. Segments
of the Cherohala Skyway have been completed for longer periods of time than others, but evaluations of the
conditions for a number of sections can be made after at least ] 0 years and some after nearly l 8 years.
Review of tbe Cherohala Skyway allows consideration of what happens when the recommended procedures
for mitigation are used and what happens when a mitigation plan is not employed (as illustrated by Hemlock
and McNabb Creeks). The chemical integrity of an encapsulating embankment can be judged by the water
qualiry of potential receiving streams. The Cherohala Skyway study, Appendix L, reports water quality data
that includes pre-construction, during-construction, and post-construction values. At the time of that study
(September 2004) water qualiry in receiving streams was satisfactory.
The Cherohala Skyway study, Appendix L, reports water quality data that include pre-construction, during-
construction, and post-construction values. Between 60 and ] 00 samples were collected over a 5-year period
(1989-1993) when three major road sections were constructed. There was a significant positive effect on
water qualiry with higher pH, higher alkalinity, and lower acidity measured in Santeetlah Creek. During
Public Involvement — 6-49
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction, concentrations for aluminum and iron increased slightly, but all other heavy metal
concentrations (copper, manganese, magnesium, and sulfate) decreased from pre-construction levels. There
was no significant difference in water quality values collected in 2004. Streams not protected by the
construction guidelines for handling acid-producing materials showed very little amelioration of water
quality; whereas the streams protected by the construction guidelines had no change from 1993 conditions.
51. Previous construction projects that have exposed AP rock have devastated water
quality.
"Construction of IIS 441 near Clingman 's Dome in 1963 exposed acid producing rock and caused low pH
and heavy metal contamination in the headwaters of Beech Flats Prong, a headwater of the Oconaluftee
River. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"A dramatic example of the devastation that can be caused by exposure of acid producing rock is offered by
consti^uction of the Tellico-Robbinsville Road near the western boundary of the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"Similarly, a 2003 road constr^uction project for a section of Interstate Highway 99 at Skytop along Bald
Eagle Mountain in central Pennsylvania exposed pyrite-rich rocks. ... The acid drainage devastated water
quality in Buffalo Run Creek. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
Response: The cited examples are among many cases where complete planning was not undertaken for
treatment and mitigation to address the potential presence of AP rocks. In the case of the North Shore Road
partial-build and build alternatives, potential problems related to AP rocks are known and being evaluated as
part of the EIS process.
Tellico-Robbinsville Road, located on the last section of the Cherohala Skyway, was constructed prior to
incorporation of mitigating procedures in FHWA's construction guidelines and still shows poor water qualiry
values. Data in the Cherohala Skyway study indicate that the environmental impacts over the last 2 mi (3.2
krn) in Tennessee and the remainder of the project to Santeetlah Gap where construction guidelines were
implemented were minimal.
Beech Flats Prong water quality has moderated somewhat since 1963, but based on the bench-scale
experiments of untreated rocks referred to in the FHWA guidelines document, Beech Flats Prong water
quality will remain a problem long into the future. In construction of the relocated Newfound Gap Road (US
441), a significant volume of newly excavated and untreated AP rock fill was placed on top of an existing fill
over a metal culvert where the former Newfound Gap Road crossed Beech Flats Prong. The purpose of the
new fill was to waste excess excavated rock, maintain a required road grade, and develop a parking area for a
vista of the Oconaluftee Valley. These untreated rocks within the most recent fill continue to exhibit
significant amounts of pyrite. In contrast, the Cherohala Slcyway crosses Wright Creek (a "blue ribbon" trout
stream or high qualiry resource) twice without adverse water quality issues.
Public Involvement — 6-50
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The I-99 Skytop situation is significantly different fro�n the proposed partial-build and build alternatives and
the Cherohala Skyway in a number of ways. In addition to lack of planning for encapsulation or treatment of
AP rocks, other differences include: (1) magnitude - the road is interstate, much like I-40 along the Pigeon
River, requiring major cuts into the mountainside; (2) occurrence of the sulfide minerals - whereas pyrite is
mostly disseminated randomly in the rocks of the North Shore Road study area, at Skytop, the pyrite occurs
along with a number of other sulfides, including sphalerite, galena, barite, and marcasite, in veins significant
enough in size that they have been prospected and mined for their economical value; (3) presence of lead-zinc
mines in the Skytop area (another indicator of the potential problem); and 4) the host rocks for the sulfides at
Slcytop contain very little or no alkalinity (alkaline minerals have the potential to buffer acids), whereas some
of the rocks in the Copper Hill Formation in the North Share Road study area contain minerals affording
moderate amounts of alkaliniry.
52. During construction, AP rock will be exposed to weathering prior to completion of the
encapsulation embankment system.
"Since the bulk of the excavated rock is likely to contain AP rocks how will these rocks be buffe�ed during
construction? The nearest limestone source is 85 miles away!"
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment l 839)
"Construction of the North Shore Road alternative would result in 1 S continuous years of exposed rock.
The Bushnell alternative would result in S years of exposed acid producing rock. ... Even under the best
of circuinstances, howeveN acid producing rock will be exposed to weatheNing without the proper
encapsulation cover and completed water diversion system until construction of the encapsulation fill is
co�npleted. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
Response: Agricultural lime and limestone aggregate will be stockpiled at various construction staging
areas for use in the encapsulating embankments and far temporary treatment of exca�ated sulfidic rock prior
to encapsulation, should it be warranted. NPS practice is to bury sulfidic rocks as quickly as possible; long-
tenn stockpiling should never occur. Short-term stockpiling (no more than 24 hours) would be treated with
agricultural lime and covered with plastic or other impen�neable material, especially during wet weather
conditions.
In the construction of an embankment, the outside (slope) soil cover and the limestone aggregate underdrain
system are emplaced continuously as the AP rock is placed in 2-foot lifts with the agricultural lime
sandwiched between the lifts. In order to guard against effects of atmospheric precipitation events, partially
completed encapsulating embankments (embankments in progress) should always end with a topping of an
agricultural lime layer.
Data in the Cherohala Skyway study found no significant effect on water quality during construction when
the construction guidelines were followed (Appendix L).
Public Involvement — 6-51
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

53. Encapsulation will generate effluent with highly variable water quality that will degrade
water quality during the first 5 to 15 years.
"Even after exposed acid producing rock is encapsulated in a closed fill, the first S to I S years after
encapsulation are likely to generate effluent with highly variable water quality that can degrade water quality
in receiving streams. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9).
"The Cherohala study examined long-term trends in streams neighboring acid producing rock,fills
encapsulatedpursuant to FHWA guidelines, but offered no data on water qualiry in the years immediately
following encapsulation. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
"The study of acid producing encapsulation methodology conducted by Dr. Byerly as part of the FHWA
guidelines for acid producing materials noted that effluents 'had high initial values of chemical parameters
which decreased until stabilization occu�^�^ed ...[afterJ 1 to 5 cycles.' A similar study concluded that one
cycle in laboratory conditions was equivalent [toJ three years of natural weathering. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The Cherohala study, Appendix L, includes pr�construction, during construction (short-term),
and post-construction water quality data that were generated for the construction of the North Carolina
portion of the Cherohala Skyway, from 1989 to 1993. Over that period, the construction of numerous cuts and
embankments were completed, and water qualiry data collected during that interval should reflect effects to
water qualiry immediately following construction. Additional water qualiry data for some of the same sites
were acquired by ARCADIS in 2004 and at the time of that study (September 2004), water qualiry in
receiving streams was satisfactory. Ancillary water quality data similar to the Cherohala study are available in
Tingle (1995), as cited in Appendix L.
The excerpted quote regarding "high initial values of chemical parameters which decreased �with tinzeJ, "
refers to experiments with laboratory leach columns charged only with pyritic rock with no added alkalinity
(effectively "untreated" leach columns). The purpose of the experiments was to observe the length of time
over which acidity, metals, and other pollutants would leach from the untreated rock. The bottom line of this
example is that untreated rock can produce acidiry over a very long period of time. The encapsulation is
designed to control exposure of AP rock to the environment in order to prevent acid drainage. There is no
time delay. See further discussion of the encapsulation method in the response to Concern No. 50 and in
Appendix L.
54. The DEIS fails to compare the concentration of heavy metals in the North Shore Road
project area with conditions on the Cherohala Skyway.
"Higher levels ofpotential metal contaminants in the North Shore road area, as compared to the Cherohala
Skyway, may overwhelm the mitigation capacity of the encapsulation design. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Public Involvement — 6-52
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: There is no evidence that the rocks of the North Shore Road area have higher levels of potential
metal contamination than the rocks encapsulated in the Cherohala project. The bedrock and related
geochemistry is virivally the same in both areas (FHWA Guidelines [1990]; Hadley, J.B. and R. Goldsmith,
[ 1963] Geology of the eastern Great Smoky Mountains; Hammarstrom, J.M., et al, [2003] Weathering of
su fidic shale and copper �nine waste: Secondary minerals and metal cycling in Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina; Slack, J.F., et al, [ 1984] Mineral resources of the Citico Creek
Wilderness Study Area; and Lesure, F.G., et al, [ 1977] Mineral resources of the .Ioyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness, North Carolina-Tennessee).
55. The DEIS needs to provide further comparisons to the Cherohala Skyway.
"Rocks along the Cheroh[aJla Skyway and within the GSMNP indeed appear to be similar. What we do not
know and these are important.• How does the concentration of sulfide �ninerals compare between the two
sites? ... What volume of su�de rich rocks were excavated, moved and encapsulated at Cheroh�aJla and
how will that co�npare to the GSMIVP corridor? ... What is the topographical relationship between the two
sites[?J ... What effects does slope aspect have on the decoinposition of the sulfzdes? ... How similar or
d�erent are surface and g�^ound water volu�nes and movement in the two areas? ... No mention of �these
questionsJ occurs within the DEIS. "
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment l 839)
Response: Sufficient comparative information has been reviewed regarding the known characteristics and
impacts of the Cherohala Skyway to determine the potential for major, adverse, long-term impacts related to
geology, topography, and soils for the partial-build and build alternatives and to compare these impacts across
alternatives. If a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, geotechnical drilling
would take place during the final design phase to evaluate detailed geologic and related engineering
information. Detailed information, including the precise sulfide concentrations of rocks in a given location,
cannot be determined until samples are acquired from the rocks to be actually excavated.
56. The DEIS fails to adequately study acid drainage created by exposed (cut) rock faces
and associated impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats.
"The DEIS disregards the seriousness of the acid p�oduced fi°om exposed rock faces and failed to ineasure
. for their episodic impact. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Thus, the only evidence in the record is that exposed rock faces, even when applying the FHWA guidelines
described by Byerly, generate significant acid drainage. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"By suggesting that mitigation measures targeted towards addressing encapsulated acid producing rock will
address water quality issues associated with excavating acid producing rock, the DEIS sweeps under the rug
the important issue of acid drainage fi°om exposed rock faces that are not addressed by that mitigation
strategy and which are not comparable to the Cherohala Skyway segment upon which the DEIS bases its
conclusion. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
Public Involvement — 6-53
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Failure to study acidity generated by salt blooms on the face of exposed acid rock or to discuss the impact
of such bloonzs on water quality in outstanding resource waters of theproject area is a significant omission
that sweeps this important issue under the rug. This omission is significant because acid production fi°om
exposed road cuts may be signifzcantly higher along the North Shore Road and Bushnell project corridors
than. from any site along the Cherohala Skyway study area because of the unstable geology and sharp
topographical relief in the project area. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Pyrite, found throughout the GSMIVP, nzay contain concentrations of heavy metals such as Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn,
As, etc. which also may be liberated during their chemical breakdown. ... Stream sediments collected by
Hammarstrom et.al, 2003 near Fontana Copper Mine and Hazel Creek Copper Mine show the highest levels
of base metals (Cu+Pb+Zn+Co+Cd+Ni) within the park- up to 1%. ... Hammarstrom et.al, 2003 also
recorded smaller concentrations of the metals mentioned above on salts found on rock exposures on the Road
to Nowhere. ... Dissolution of these salts during later sto�in events can drastically alter surface water
chemistry. Therefore, one can assume acid drainage will occur for many years after the material is
deposited. "
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment l 839)
Response: While excavated material can be encapsulated to abate acid drainage, the eXposed rock face
from which AP materials has been removed is subject to chemical weathering that yields acid drainage and a
variery of efflorescent minerals. No treatment has yet been discovered for effectively abating the oxidation
process on the rock cut slopes bearing significant amounts of sulfide minerals. Many of the secondary
minerals that form so-called "blooms" upon exposed sulfidic rocks are innocuous. These include ferribydrite,
goethite, limonite, jarosite, and hematite, the minerals that form the yellowish-brown-orange stains on rocks
and in soils. Accarding to Hammarstrom (2003), these minerals can actually be important in self-mitigation
of inetal-laden acidic streams because of their high surface areas and ability to absorb or adsorb dissolved
contaminants. Nonetheless, there remains a potential for "blooms" of certain efflorescent minerals that
adversely impact water quality when leached by atmospheric precipitation.
Any strategy that can enhance the alkalinity of the water in the bedrock of the cut slope or divert water from
the material can reduce the risk of generating acid drainage. At present the BMP for dealing with the rock
exposed on cut slopes involves diverting the runoff above the cut around the excavation and constructing a
slope as near vertical as the rock structure will allow. The diversion of drainage will reduce the amount of
percolation into and through the rock, thus reducing the transport of acidity and potentially toxic metals.
Steepening of slope angles reduces the surface area exposed to precipitation. Further measures include using
a source of alkalinity in the drainage system.
Strategies used on the Cherohala Skyway to minimize acid drainage from cut slopes and additional measures
that could be applied to cut slopes to minimize acid production further include: excavating slopes as steep as
the structural conditions would allow to reduce the exposed area and the amount of runoff; diverting runoff
around the cut face using limestone rip rap or concrete-lined ditches to retard acid production within the rock;
and seeding flatter slopes with native grasses as soon after exposure as possible.
An additional measure for consideration in mitigating acid drainage from cut slopes in AP rocks is diversion
of runoff from the cut face area into open limestone channels. This strategy has been used successfully in the
Public Involvement — 6-54
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

treatment of acid mine drainage in coal strip mine reclamation (Ziemkiewicz et al. 1997). The alkalinity of
the limestone reduces acidity causing precipitation of inetals, but the turbulence of the flow prevents the
reactive surface of the limestone rip rap from being coated with secondary iron minerals. Another treatment
that could be effective, but costly, is the formation of a grout curtain above the cut slope to prevent
groundwater from percolating through the bedrock and flushing acid and metals into the slope drainage.
Text has been added to Section 4.3.1 regarding impacts associated with cut face exposures and potential
mitigation strategies. While additional information has been provided, no changes have been made to the
conclusions that the partial-build and build alternatives would have major, adverse, and long-term impacts to
topography, geology, and soils. The impacts to water quality presented in Section 4.4.3.2 assume untreated
cut and fill slopes resulting in chronic acidic runoff; therefore, no changes to the water quality impact
intensiry determinations have been made.
57. The DEIS does not provide a geologic map of sufficiently detailed scale.
"Indeed, the DEIS did not event�sicJ collect the basic tools needed to evaluate these issues including a
geologic map of su�ciently detailed scale (at least 1:12000 or larger scale) that depicts all the structural
elenzents within the rocks. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
`7t is d�cult to address the stability issue because the DEIS does not include ...[aJ geologic map of
detailed enough scale (a�tJ least 1:12000 or larger scale not the 1: 24000 scale that the text says is adequate)
that depicts all the str�uctural elements within the rocks. "
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment 1837)
Response: The USGS and various state geological surveys (e.g., Kentucky) have found that geologic
mapping at a scale of 1:24,000 is adequate for producing derivative maps (including using GIS) for use in
engineering/environmental and other land use evaluations. Due to logistical matters, it is doubtful that the
geology of the Park will ever be mapped at a scale of 1:12,000 except for very small areas where detail is
required (i.e., bridge locations, road interchanges, tunnels, etc.). The scale of the most recent mapping in the
area, the prelitninary geologic map of the Great Smolcy Mountains National Park within the Fontana Dam and
Tuskeegee Quadrangles, Swain County, NC, is l:24,000 (Southworth 1995).
Due to the large extent of covered areas (areas between outcrops with regolith and/or vegetative cover)
mapping the geology at a 1:12,000 scale would have a high probability of not producing any more data about
the bedrock in the Northern Shore Corridor and Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell corridors ihan that
which is already known from presently available maps.
Phvsical Environment - Floodplains
58. The 25-year storm standard used for design is too low.
"[RoJad construction design was based on a 25 year storm standard. This is clearly too low a standard and
needs to be fully reconsidered. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
Public Involvement — 6-55
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: The context in which the 25-year design storm is discussed in Section 4.3.2.1 relates to the
assessment of the 100-year floodplain impacts, which include potential over-topping of the proposed
roadway. This approach has been utilized to evaluate potential roadway flood hazards. Detailed hydraulic
designs would consider additional design requirements (including the design storm) as applicable to the
variery of hydraulic pipes and structures necessary for a particular alternative.
Physical Environment - Air Qualitv
59. NPS neglected to assess impacts as they relate to secondary NAAQS.
"First, NPS neglected to assess air quality iinpacts as they relate to secondary NAAQS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: Air qualiry impacts with respect to secondary NAAQS have been assessed concurrently with
the primary NAAQS. Except for SOz, the secondary NAAQS are set at the same concentrations and time-
averaging periods as the primary NAAQS. A presentation of SOz impacts (3-hr avg ranging from 60 to
70 • g/m3 during construction for the partial-build and build alternatives) relative to the secondary standard
(3-hr avg of 1,300 • g/m3) are included in Appendix K.
60. Impacts to global warming/climate change associated with the emission of carbon
dioxide are ignored.
"Likewise, NPS ignores global warming/climate change impacts associated with the emission of carbon
dioxide during and following construction. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The air qualiry analysis discusses impacts to the local and regional environment in and
around GSMNP. Impacts of global warming and climate change are national and international concerns
that stem from the accumulation of macro-scale energy demands and the combustion of fossil fuels over
decades to meet these demands. Per CEQ guidance for cumulative effects analysis, "It is not practical to
analyze how the cumulative effects of an action interact with the universe; the analysis must focus on the
aggregate effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly meaningful. Thus,
analysts must narrow the focus of cumulative effects analysis to effects of significance to the proposal for
agency action and its alternatives" (CEQ 2005d). Potential impacts of COz emissions from this project to
global warming and climate change trends are beyond the scope of this NEPA analysis.
61. The DEIS fails to examine the impacts of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air
pollutants associated with the placement of asphalt.
"Similarly, other than dust, NPS failed to examine the human health and environ�nental impacts of other
airborne pollutants emitted fi°om gravel or asphalt while it is being placed in the roadbed. Such analysis is
critically important because asphalt contains a variety of volatile organic compounds and haza�^dous air
pollutants; the impacts of which may be mitigated through a number of control techniques. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement — 6-56
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: As noted in Section 4.3.4.1, air qualiry impact thresholds assess impacts to both human
health and Park resources and reflect regulatory guidance from EPA and NPS guidance. The impact
thresholds and analysis methods were developed and reviewed in coordination with air quality specialists
from GSMNP and the NPS Denver Service Center, EPA staff, NCDAQ staff, and air quality specialists
from NCDOT.
There are no NAAQS or PSD increment concentrations for VOC or HAP. Impacts for VOC have been
quantified and assessed based on the total (tons/yr) from all VOC emission sources (including placement of
asphalt) for each alternative during construction as presented in Section 4.3.4.2. The HAP benzene was
analyzed from combustion during construction and not from asphalt placement. Control techniques to
minimize impacts for VOC or HAP associated with the placement of asphalt during construction could
include using slow-curing asphalt.
The EIS provides sufficient data to assess the air quality impacts of the project alternatives and the
differences in those impacts across alternatives, including potential impacts to human health and the
environment.
62. NPS should assess air quality impacts for asphalt processing facilities associated with
construction.
Additionally, NPS should consider whether, and to what extent, additional asphalt processing facilities or
capacity may be necessary in building the road, and assess the air quality iinpacts accordingly. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: It is NPS practice to prohibit the location of asphalt plants within the Park. Asphalt mixing
plants are commercial operations subject to various federal, state, and local regulations and permitting
requirements. Impacts from these operations are accounted for, and mitigated for as needed, under these
instruments.
63. Analysis of air quality impacts associated with the exposure of heavy metals and acid-
producing materials appears to be absent from the DEIS.
"As has been noted in the DEIS, heavy metals and acid producing materials are likely to be exposed and
handled extensively. Analysis of these potential impacts to air quality appear to be absent from the DEIS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As discussed in the response to Concern No. 61, the air quality impact thresholds presented in
Section 4.3.4.1 reflect regulatory guidance from EPA, as well as NPS guidance related to resource protection.
Using the thresholds established by EPA is considered protective of human health. The impact analysis
summarized in Section 4.3.42 was done for particulate matter (PM�o and PM2.5), which can include metal
compounds. The EIS provides sufficient data to assess the air quality impacts of the project alternatives and
the differences in those impacts across alternatives.
Public Involvement — 6-57
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

64. NPS must make an air quality conformity determination in the DEIS.
"Moreover, because those parts of the GSMIVP lying within Swazn County, NC have been designated `non-
attainment'.for ozone, NPS must make a conformity determination (42 U.S.C. �' 176 and 40 C.F.R. �
51.853) in the DEIS—including a determination as to whether this is a regionally significant action.
FHWA must also make a separate confor�nity determination 42 U.S.C. � 176. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As described in Section 33.4.2, transportation conformity applies to federally funded or
federally approved projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas and is intended to ensure that a project's
implementation conforms to the State Implementation Plan (ar other designated administrative authority) for
improving air quality to meet the NAAQS. A transportation conformity determination must be prepared for
any selected road construction alternative and must be completed prior to signing a ROD. Since the partial-
build and build alternatives for this project are located in an ozone nonattainment area, a transportation
conformity determination would be necessary before implementing a partial-build or build alternative.
An interagency consultation meeting for the conformity analysis was held on July 17, 2006. The North Shore
Road Project was identified as a regionally significant project. Representatives from NCDOT, NCDAQ,
FHWA, USEPA, and NPS each provided input on key aspects for completing the conformity determination.
NCDOT issued a draft report titled Transportation Conforinity Analysis for the North Shore Road in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Haywood and Swain Counties) in December 2006 (NCDOT 2006).
NPS, in cooperation with FHWA and NCDOT, provided the report for public review and comment through
February 16, 2007.
The report addresses the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal
Park Roads) as potential worst-case alternatives. The procedures required a comparison of future projected
regional traffic emissions (2030) with a level estimated for a base year of 2002. (The method of comparing
future traffic emissions against levels for a base year was done for this conformity determination in the
absence of a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for ihe area.) The draft report indicates that the projected
future vehicle emissions are expected to be lower than 20021evels and, therefare, the partial-build and build
alternatives conform to the regiona] plan to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. If a partial-build or build
alternative were selected for implementation, a final conformiry determination would be completed and a
USDOT conformity determination would be signed prior to completion of the ROD.
Text has been updated in Sections 3.3.4 and 5.10 to reflect the status of interagency consultation and
conformity coordination.
65. The air quality analysis is incomplete as it does not evaluate impacts associated with
consuming air quality increments.
"[TJhe PSD analysis is incomplete insofar as NPS did not evaluate potential economic and other impacts
associated with `consuming' entire increments. Specifically, the DEIS fails to analyze the degree to which
these increinent exceedances may impede or prevent.• (1) new sources from locating in the region; and (2)
existing sources fi^om undertaking major modifications. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement – 6-58
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: As stated in Section 4.3.4.1, the PSD increment thresholds have been used as indicators to
reflect potential levels of concern for the evaluation of impacts rather than permitting requirements. PSD
analysis typically pertains to permanent and fixed/point sources. As explained in Section 4.3.4, construction
that would be associated with the partial-build and build alternatives would move along the length of each
project as portions were completed and therefore would likely be considered to be temporary and mobile.
PSD increment impacts are anticipated to be negligible after construction.
66. The DEIS should have discussed acquiring emissions offsets in its analysis of
mitigation measures.
"Finally, the DEIS omitted a signifzcant alternative in its analysis of mitigation ineasures. To wit: the
potential of acquiring emissions offsets for each anticipated pollutant--especially those expected to exceed
the PSD increinent. This information should have been discussed in the DEIS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: Exceedances of PSD increment concentrations are found to occur within the area
immediately surrounding the active construction zone and/or roadway segment. They are local impacts
and emission offsets from reductions that occur elsewhere in the region do not mitigate the local impacts.
While emission offsets can be a viable alternative for some stationary sources with local or regional-scale
air qualiry impacts, they are not applicable to mitigate local impacts from mobile temparary construction
activities.
Soundscapes
67. The DEIS conclusion that soundscape impacts would be moderate to the AT for the
Northern Shore Corridor should be revised.
"The DEIS also notes that sound-level increases.fi^om the Northern Shore Corridor (Principal Park
Road) 'would be major and long-term ... with the highest percentage [coming fi°omJ motorcycle tra�c. '
Additionally, during the I S year construction period, noise is expected to increase to greater than 80 dBA,
cha�acterized as `moderately loud' to `loud, ' and during blasting would increase to `uncomfortably loud'
with likely readings up to at least 120 dBA. Notwithstanding these assessments, the DEIS inexplicably
concludes that the change in sound levels along the A.T. associated with the Northern Shore corridor
would be `moderate. "'
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, WV, Comment 3318)
Response: The existing context for the AT in the vicinity of Fontana Dam near where it would be crossed
or paralleled by the Northern Shore Corridor is discussed in Section 4.3.5.2.8. As noted on p. 4-146, "Hikers
on the AT in the vicinity of Fontana Dam currently experience higher sound levels than at more secluded
areas. This existing soundscape is associated with cutrent traffic on Fontana Dam Road, water passing
through the dam's spillway, and human activities surrounding the dam, lake, and visitor center." The long-
term soundscape impacts to the AT from the Northern Shore Corridor, when the road would be open to
traffic, have been determined to be moderate given this current context.
Public Involvement — 6-59
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

The potential for major, adverse soundscape impacts due to construction activities is discussed in Section
4.3.5.2. Text discussing that these major, adverse impacts would affect soundscapes of the AT during
construction of the Northern Shore Corridor has been added to Section 4.3.52.8.
68. The DEIS claims that vehicular noise will only be audible within 200 feet of the road.
A�nong a number of other items to which I take exception in the DEIS is the false claim that vehicular
noise will only be audible, in the most exti^eme cases, at a�naxi�num distance of 200 feet. from the road!
Anyone without signifzcantly damaged hearing can recognize the rumble and whine of motorcycles miles
away on the Cherohala Skyway fi°om the Citico Creek/.Ioyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness areas just
southwest of GSMNP. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 2152)
Response: It is noted in several locations in Section 4.3.5 that vehicular noise may be heard at distances
greater than 200 ft(61 m) from the road. Noise impacts and associated calculations for impact distances are
based on the FHWA NAC and Procedures and utilization of the Traffic Noise Model. The maximum
distance calculated for noise impacts eXpressed in terms of sound equivalents (Leq = 1 dBA) is 202 ft(61.6
m) for the Northern Shore Corridar. However, as noted in Section 4.3.5.1, sound equivalents represent, "the
steady sound level that over a defined period of time would produce the same total sound energy that the
actual fluctuating sounds produce over that period of time." It is recognized in both the methodology and
documentation of impacts to soundscapes in Section 4.3.5 that there is the potential for noise from individual
vehicles, such as motorcycles, to travel greater distances than those represented by the sound equivalents. In
addition, Section 4.3.5.1 states, "The noise contours do not reflect the potential for landforms to block noise
nor for a drop-off or valley near the edge of the road to permit noise to travel farther. In addition to
topographic conditions, the right air conditions and absence of leaves from the trees may pennit noise to
travel further distances." The discussion of cumulative impacts to soundscapes, Section 4.3.5.2.6, notes that
"wildlife and Park visitors are exposed to some noise from boat traffic on Fontana Lake, as well as loud
vehicles, such as certain motorcycles or trucks, on area roadways south of Fontana Lake."
The soundscape impact threshold definitions in Section 4.3.5.2 bave been developed at stringent levels in
coordination with NPS backcountry specialists and AT staff in recognition of the issues summarized above
and the sensitivity to soundscape impacts in the study area. The percentage of motorcycles for each build
alternative are presented in Section 4.3.5.2.5 on page 4-145 as a part of reviewing potential noise impacts for
each build alternative.
Natural Environment — Wetlands and Lakes, Rivers and Streams (or Waters of the United States)
69. The DEIS does not address how to obtain permits for impacts to "Waters of the United
States."
"Clean water issues are inadequately studied. The proposed full build' alternative crosses 141 streams and
water courses. ... The DEIS does not reveal any well thought out plan to avoid damages to these waters, nor
address how permits to cross them can be obtained. "
(Farm Letter 25)
Public Involvement — 6-60
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"The State of North Carolina has not been suffzciently consulted in the development of the DEIS. It is not
reasonable, nor prudent to select an Agency Preferred Alternative without some assessment of the feasibility
of acguiring permits fi°om the Army Corp�sJ of Engineers and the State of North Carolina. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: Section 3.4.1.2 lisis the regulatory requirements, including pennitting, which control actions
that impact "Waters of the United States." This section notes that permits under Sections 401 and 404 of the
CWA will be required for unavoidable impacts to these waters, after applicable avoidance and minimization
measures have been utilized. Section 3.4.2.3 lists additional regulatory requirements and permits, outside of
the CWA, that may be required for actions involving waters in the project study area. Applications for the
appropriate permits would be completed and submitted for approval, if a partial-build ar build alternative
were selected for construction and upon completion of the final design. NPS would comply with the
conditions and requirements associated with any permits.
Detailed directions on how to apply for the various permits are not rypically included in an EIS. Information
regarding Section 404 permitting requirements and the application process in North Carolina is available
through the USACE, Wilmington District (USACE 2006a). The combined Section 404/40] permit
application far use in North Carolina is also available through the Wilmington District (USACE 2006b).
Section 5 documents the ongoing coordination efforts with multiple regulatory agencies regarding this
project, including USACE, TVA, and NCDWQ. Additionally, as noted in Section ].3, USACE is a
cooperating agency for the EIS.
70. NPS has failed to issue a Statement of Findings for wetland impacts.
"NPS policy further requires the Service to issue a`Statement of Findings' documenting complia�ce with
Director's Order 77-1 and Procedural Manual #77-1 if the preferred alternative for the project will result
in adverse impacts to wetlands. By refusing to disclose its p�eferred alternative to the public, NPS has
delayed in preparing this statement of fzndings and has denied the public an opportunity to comment on the
Service's compliance with its policy of sequencing avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to
wetlands. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, 3319)
Response: As noted in Section 4.4.1, "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 was selected for implementation." NPS elected to obtain additional input on the
various alternatives under consideration through the public hearing process prior to selecting a preferred
alternative. The preferred alternative is presented in Section 2.9. If an alternative requiring a Statement of
Findings (SOF) for wetlands were selected for implementation, the SOF would be prepared prior to
completion of the ROD. The SOF would be made available for public comment, as prescribed in DO 77-1.
Public Involvement — 6-61
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Natural Environment — Water Qualitv
71. The DEIS does not analyze the Outstanding Resource Waters status of the waters along
the northern shore of Fontana Lake.
"The DEIS does not analyze the ORW status of these waterways. This designation has critical implications
. for the analysis of resource impacts, the permitting of the road, and the cost of construction. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment ] 723)
"The DEIS misstates applicable water quality standards by ignoring the recent redesignation of the
affected waters as Outstanding Resource Waters. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"Significantly, the DEIS inisstates applicable water quality standards and understates the impacts the
North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives on water quality. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
Response: In Section 3.4.3.1 it was noted that "On June 21, 2005, the Nortb Carolina Legislature ratified a
bill to initiate rul�making to adopt rules to reclassify all the streams that drain to the north shore of Fontana
Lake between and including Eagle and Forney creeks as ORWs." This bill was a temporary measure that
applied the minimum ORW management strategies unti] specific rules can be promulgated through the
standard rule making process and adopted. Public hearings on the draft rules were held by NCDWQ on
June 5, 2006. Effective January 1, 2007, NCDWQ, under order of the North Carolina Legislature and with
concurrence from the Environmental Management Commission, amended 15A NCAC 02B.0225 to establish
the Fontana Lake North Shore ORW Area. The Fontana Lake North Shore ORW Area consists of the entire
watersheds of all creeks that drain to the north shore of Fontana Lake between Eagle and Forney creeks
(inclusive). All of these streams are located within the project study corridors (Figure 3-5). Text has been
updated in Section 3.4.3.1 to discuss the final ORW designation. If a partial-build or build alternative were
selected for implementation, NPS, through the permitting processes, would comply with the requirements of
l SA NCAC 02B.0225, depending on applicabiliry at the time of permit submittal.
Attachment M-5 in Appendix M identifying the best use classifications for the streams in the project study
area has been updated for the updated NCDWQ ORW Classification (NCAC 2007). Text has been updated
in Appendix M regarding this issue. The applicable numeric water quality standards have not changed
(NCDWQ 2007b). Therefore, the analysis regarding potential impacts to water quality is appropriate as
written. It should be noted tbat NPS would comply with all requirements, as applicable, to protect the
outstanding resource values of the designated ORW.
72. Impacts to water quality from the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and Northern
Shore Corridor would violate water quality laws.
"Construction of either the North Shore Road or Bushnell alternatives will signifzcantly degrade water
quality in the project area in violation of NPS policy and North Carolina law ... from the face of the
DEIS, they are anticipated to violate water quality laws. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Public Involvement — 6-62
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Construction of the North Sho�e Road alternative would result in I S continuous years of exposed rock.
The Bushnell alternative would result in S years of exposed acid producing rock. ... There is no evidence
that acid producing rock exposed during construction will not cause receiving streams to violate water
quality standards for outstanding resource watev�s during construction. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The assessment of applicable intensity threshold for water quality was made assuming no
mitigation, including encapsulation of AP rock. Text has been added to Section 4.4.3 clarifying this
assumption. This worst-case assumption was used since details regarding the final design of the partial-build
and build alternatives and the exact associated scope of needed encapsulation were unknown. However,
encapsulation of AP rock will be employed if a partial-build or build alternative is constructed. Please refer
to Concern and Response No. 52 regarding the staging during construction of an encapsulation embankment.
NPS is committed to maintaining the water qualiry in the Park and meeting water quality standards if a
partial-build or build alternative is implemented. Section 4.1 notes that "Detailed mitigation plans would be
developed before implementation of an altemative." This would include encapsulation in all appropriate
locations. Sections 4.4.1.3, 4.4.2.3, 4.4.3.3, and 4.4.4.3 list various techniques that can be employed to
minimize impacts to waters and/or water quality. Additional detail on these techniques is included in
Appendix M.
Prior to construction, if a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, a Section
404/401 (of the CWA) permit would need to be obtained from the USACE and NCDWQ, respectively. The
Section 40] Water Qualiry Certification process by the state is the mechanism by which the state assures that
a project will not violate the applicable water quality standards and that appropriate measures are in place to
avoid violations. Applications for the appropriate permits would be completed and submitted far approval, if
a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, upon completion of the final design.
NPS would comply with the conditions and requiremenis associated with these permits.
73. The DEIS should address the impacts of heavy metals released by acidic rock.
"The analysis should have included a discussion of. .. the impacts of heavy inetal discharges on the
environment. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 3314)
"The treatment of heavy metals, which are released frorv� the same acidic rock, is not add�essed. "
(Form Letter 25)
Response: Sections 3.4.1 and 4.43 discuss existing water qualiry, parameters that influence water qualiry,
and potential impacts to water qualiry from the project altematives. The water quality standards analyzed for
in these discussions included pH, dissolved oxygen, heavy metals, turbidity, and other water quality factors
such as oil and grease, pesticides and herbicides, snow removal practices, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Additional details regarding water quality and the water quality standards analyzed are included in Appendix
M.
Public Involvement — 6-63
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 4.4.3.2, states that "low pH [acidity] would mobilize hea�y metals in the watershed." Therefore,
mitigation techniques that increase the pH of drainage from the watershed, where necessary, would also act to
prevent the mobilization of heavy metals. Section 4.4.3.3 notes that, "The encapsulation of AP rock would
minimize impacts from pH and heavy metals." A detailed description of this technique, which includes the
use of limestone to raise the pH, is included in Appendix L.
74. The DEIS does not analyze the cumulative impacts to water quality from road
construction elsewhere in the region.
"The DEIS failed to adequately address and discuss the cumulative effect of, among many other effects, the
addition of acid drainage fi^om the road when added to these existing stressors on the watershed must be
explicitly considered. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"The Park Service must also consider road construction elsewhere in the watersheds included in the
project area. ... The Cherohala Skyway was only recently completed, and NC 28 is currently being
widened. In the larger region, Interstate 26 was recently completed — a feat that has been called the largest
earth-moving project on Earth. Further, the proposed construction of I-3 fi°om Georgia into this region of
North Carolina was not adequately discussed. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"Accordingly the DEIS is defzcient in its poor atteinpts to evaluate the true impacts fi°om this project in
association with the other large earth-moving and road projects in the area. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: Section 4.1.2 discusses past, present, and future actions that have been considered as part of the
cumulative impacts analysis. These actions include Cherohala Skyway; NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) projects; the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), which
includes the A-9 project; tharoughfare plans; other GSMNP projects; multiple regiona] and private
development projects and regional growth trends. Section 4.43 specifically notes actions that may contribute
to cumulative impacts on water quality. Text has been added to this section to clarify which projects are
potentially providing cumulative impacts to the water quality within the Fontana and Cheoah lakes'
watersheds. The Interstate 3(I-3) concept has been proposed by Congress for feasibility study. However, I-3
is not included in the transportation programs for NCDOT or TDOT or in the long-range plan for the
Knoxville Metropolitan Planning Organization. As such, this concept is not included as part of the
cumulative impacts analysis.
75. The cumulative effects analysis must consider national impacts on streams and
aquatic habitats.
` A cumulative effects analysis must consider the national impact of stream degradation and aquatic
habitat loss. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement — 6-64
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: Section 4.1.2 discusses, in general, actions past, present, and in the future that were considered
as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. Section 4.4.3 specifically notes actions that are now contributing
or may contribute to cumlilative impacts on water quality within the Fontana and Cheoab lakes' watersheds.
As presented in response to Concern No. 60, per CEQ guidance for cumulative effects analysis, "It is not
practical to analyze how the cumulative effects of an action interact with the universe. ...[A]nalysts must
narrow the focus of cumulative effects analysis to effects of significance to the proposal for agency action and
its alternatives" (CEQ 2005d). National impacts of stream degradation and aquatic habitat loss were thus not
included in the analysis of cumulative impacts for the detailed study alternatives.
76. The DEIS does not adequately address the requirements of Executive Order 11990.
"The DEIS fails to adequately address how construction of any additional �oad north of Fontana Lake
will satisfy the requirements of EO 11990. EO 11990 requires the protection of wetlands by federal
agencies in order to `avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the destruction or modifzcation of wetlands and to avoid the direct or indirect support of new constf^uction
in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. "'
(Organization [National Parks Conservation Association], KnoRVille, TN., Comment 3311)
Response: NPS is committed to avoiding and/or mitigating impacts to human and natural resources, to the
extent practicable. This is generally is a thre�step process: avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation. Avoidance of impacts will have the bighest priority. Sections 4.4.1.3 and 4.4.2.3 deal with
mitigation options to address potential impacts to wetlands, and lakes, rivers and streams, respectively. These
sections initially describe steps that could be implemented to avoid impacts to waters if a partial-build or
build alternative were implemented. Section 4.1 notes that "Detailed mitigation plans would be developed
before implementation of an alternative." The requirements of Executive Order (EO) 11990 are satisfied by
this three-step process.
77. The DEIS does not address local development ordinances.
"There are two Swain County Ordinances of interest: a Watershed Protection Ordinance and an Erosion
and Sedinzent Contl^ol Ordinance. Neither appear to have been suff ciently addressed in the DEIS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: If a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, NPS would comply with
the Swain County Watershed Protection Ordinance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, as
applicable. Text has been added to Section 3.4.2.3 regarding these local ordinances.
Natural Environment — Aquatic Ecolopv
78. The DEIS fails to address impacts to fishing resources.
"Both the full build andpartial build alternatives `would have rnajor adverse, and long-term irripacts to
,fishing (for casual and active visitors) related to boat and trail access changes. ' The DEIS fails to assess
or even discuss impacts to the fishing resource fro�n sharply increased fishing pressu�es brought on by
increased access. "
(Individual, Bellevue, WA, Comment 1705)
Public Involvement — 6-65
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Similarly the DEIS fails to address the profound effect that the road will have on the,fisheries in the
project area. The increased ease of access to the resource and the certainty of depletion of the, fzshery
nzust be analyzed. "
(Organization [Southem Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 3314)
Response: Hazel, Eagle, Forney, and Bear creeks (a tributary of Forney Creek) were assessed for fishing
impacts relative to visitor use. Impacis to the casual and active visitor based on changes in access to these
popular fishing creeks were discussed in Section 4.2.5.2.5. Fish as a natural resource are discussed in Section
3.4.4 and 4.4.4, Aquatic Ecology.
The Park notes on its webpage that "Fisheries staff have been monitoring fish populations in both high
elevation (>3,000 feet) brook trout streams and low elevation (<2,500 feet) large stream systems through the
park since 1986. Long term monitoring surveys indicate that fishermen play little to no role in the population
dynamics observed in park streams. Major spring floods and summer droughts are the driving forces behind
fish population fluctuations seen both in the park and outside the parl�' (NPS 2006c). Text has been added to
Section 4.4.4 to discuss the impacts of fishing and the above described factors relative to fish population
dynamics.
Additionally, fishing in the Park is controlled by both Park regulations and by the state of North Carolina
through regulations and licensing. Fishing licenses are obtained through the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC). The Commission notes on its webpage notes that regulation and
licensing help ensure that "wildlife populations remain healthy and diverse" (NCWRC 2006). These
regulations and licensing serve as a control on the resource to prevent over-utilization.
79. The EIS does not supply supporting information related to conclusions associated with
the proposed removal of Dillsboro Dam.
"Removing this dam �Dillsboro DamJ would release the sediment into the Tuckasegee River and could
ultimately impact the aquatic wildlife within Fontana Lake. ... I did not see any supporting documentation or
calculation for the conclusion of not signifzcant, nor a discussion of what would constitute `signifzcant'
impact. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: Information regarding the proposed removal of Dillsboro Dam was gathered from the
Application for the Surrender of the Dillsboro Hydroelect�ic Project License (Duke Energy Corporation
2004), which is cited in Section 4.4.4.2.6 in regards to potential cumulative impacts to water quality. This
cited document includes a combined Final Environmental Assessment/Biological Assessment (EA/BA)
regarding the proposed removal of Dillsboro Dam. This EABA concludes that a complete, but staged
removal of the dam (their preferred alternative), will result in "impacts to aquatic life ... due to the
mobilization and transport of sediment downstream of the fully removed dam." But, "it is anticipated that,
based on similar situations, rapid recovery will occur in the area below the dam site." In Section 4.4.4.2.6, the
word "significant" had been used in the general (rather than NEPA) sense and text has been revised in this
section to eliminate potential confusion.
Public Involvement — 6-66
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Natural Environment — Veqetation Communities
80. Acid mitigation efforts will change soil pH and plant communities over large areas.
Acid initigation efforts will change the pH of soils over hundreds, perhaps thousands, of acres, resulting in
changes to plant communities, and perhaps selecting for the establishment of non-native, invasive species. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 3314)
Response: Acid mitigation efforts far the project, if a partial-build or build alternative is selected for
implementation, would primarily focus on encapsulation, as necessary. Detailed description regarding the
construction of an encapsulated embankment is included in Appendix L. Acid mitigation efforts, including
the use of a pH modifier such as limestone, would be applied in a controlled manner. Substances to
neutralize acid, such as limestone, would not be applied "wholesale" across the project area. The application
and functioning of lime and limestone aggregate within an encapsulation is discussed in the response to
Concern No. 50. Controlled application, as suggested for the partial-build or build alternatives as part of
encapsulation, is not expected to change the surrounding ambient soil pH and would not alter the surrounding
native plant communities. Additionally, soil utilized to cap the embankment would be similar to the
surrounding native soils and would support a corresponding similar communiry of plants. NPS is committed
to avoiding the establishment of non-native species within the Park It is noted in Section 4.4.9, that
"according to NPS Management Policies, exotic species will not be allowed to displace native species if
displacement can be prevented." Techniques to avoid and minimize impacts from exotic species are noted in
Section 4.4.9.3.
81. The effects of fragmentation to plant habitats were not properly studied.
"The disasterous �disastrousJ effects of fi°ag�nentation of habitat are not properly studied. Fragmentation
will disr�upt the plant regime, and many plants will no longer be able to compete across a paved road. "
(Farm Letter 25)
"Fragmentation of plant habitat will result in an `orphan ' strip between the road and Fontana Lake. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment ] 723)
"Fragmentation will disrupt the plant regi�ne, and many plants will no longer �beJ able to compete across a
paved road. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: Potential impacts on plant communities are discussed in Section 4.4.5.1. Included in this
discussion are the factors associated with habitat fragmentation, such as changes in microclimate/
microhabitat and increased potential for invasion by exotic species; all were considered during the
determination of impacts for the project.
Plants have many mechanisms that provide for the movement of genetic material among the population(s).
These mechanisms include, but are not limited to, dispersal of pollen by flying insects and birds, dispersal of
pollen and seeds via wind, attachment of seeds to fur or feathers and their subsequent deposition, and
deposition of seeds in animal or bird scat. Thus, the continued interaction of plant populations located on
opposite sides of a road is likely.
Public Involvement — 6-67
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

82. There is no analysis of the rarity of vegetation communities within the Park.
"NPS surveys for vegetative conzmunities were insufficient. ... NPS inust also analyze the rarity of an
ecosystem within the Park. The DEIS and supporting appendix on terrestrial species make no effort to
analyze the extent to which individual communities are rare in the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: NPS is committed to protecting the biological resources within the Park, including vegetation
communities. Analysis far vegetation communities included the use of an established ranking system to
identify "at-risk" communities potentially located within the project study area, in order to meet the
commitment to preserve the biological resources, including vegetation communities. The ranking system was
developed by TNC based on a number of relative endangerment factors, including estimated number of
occurrences, degree of decline from historic extent, and degree of alteration of the supporting natural
processes. Conservation ranks are customarily assigned by the various members of the network of Natural
Heritage Programs and by national, regional, and state offices of TNC (Grossman et al. l 998). Impacts to
those vegetation communities deemed "rare," ranked Gl or G2 on a 5-point scale, were evaluated under a
stricter intensity threshold than those communities deemed "secure," ranked G3, G4 or GS on a 5-point scale.
(Additional detail on the ranking system is provided in Section 3.4.5 and Appendix I�. The EIS provides
sufficient data to assess the impacts to vegetation communities of the project alternatives and the differences
in those impacts across alternatives.
83. There is no analysis of impacts to rock outcrop plant communities.
"NPS has grouped the rock outcrop community into that category �OtherJ and provides little or no
analysis of impacts to rock outcrop plant communities. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Information regarding the plant communities in the project study was first presented in the ECR
(ARCADIS 2004a). At that time, a draft vegetation map and database were utilized; subsequently, the map
and database were completed and the final version was utilized far the DEIS. The draft version of the
terrestrial communities map did not provide information regarding the plant communities that could
potentially be located within a map unit identified as "rock outcrop." The final version of the vegetation map
and database does provide a list of potential communities that could be located in the map unit identified as
"rock outcrop." The information regarding potential plant communities included in the "rock outcrop" map
unit has been included in Section 3.4.5.23 and an analysis of impacts has been included in Section 4.4.5.2.5.
However, it should be noted that a review of vegetation community mapping and aerial photography shows
that the only rock outcrop community mapped in the project study corridors is associated with the dirt road
under the powerline right-of-way west of Fontana Dam.
Natural Environment — Terrestrial Wildlife
84. The analysis for wildlife failed to enumerate the direct loss of wildlife, especially for
salamanders.
An issue that was not addressed under envi�oninental impacts is the out�^ight loss of salamanders related to
road construction " and ". .. the majority of animals that reside within the proposed roadbed and
Public Involvement — 6-68
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction site will be killed as road excavation occurs. "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 1708)
Response: Direct loss of wildlife during construction was taken into consideration during the evaluations
far intensity of impacts to local wildlife. Due to the variety of wildlife likely to be found in the project study
corridors and their corresponding variety of hom�range sizes, the quantiry of wildlife habitat lost under the
project footprint was used as a surrogate for estimations of direct loss of wildlife for the assessment of
impacts. This follows the DO-12 guideline that "If you can meaningfully and accurately quantify the
magnitude of this impact, this is the best way to present the information. If you have little confidence in an
absolute number, you may want to use a range of reasonable impacts; rather than conveying false confidence,
documents should give the decision-maker and the public a true picture of how well you can predict an
impact." The intensiry discussions and summary of impacts to aquatic ecology and terrestrial wildlife (both
of which include discussions of salamanders), in Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.6 respectively, have been clarified
regarding the use of quantity of habitat. Since direct loss of wildlife was already considered and incorporated
into the impact analysis, no changes to the intensiry determination for each alternative are necessary.
85. Fragmentation to animal habitats and individual species was not properly studied.
"The disasterous �disasti^ousJ effects of fi°agmentation of habitat are not properly studied. ... Fragmentation
will disrupt the animal universe, especially that of reptiles and salamanders, which cannot cross roads. "
(Form Letter 25)
"Fragmentation of animal habitat is likewise given inadequate treatment. In particular small animals and
reptiles do not have an easy time crossing roads. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 4)
"Fragmentation will disrupt the animal universe, especially that of reptiles and salamanders, which cannot
cross roads. "
(Organization [Citizens for ihe Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: Section 4.4.6.1 discusses a wide variety of factors that could influence terrestrial wildlife in the
project area including the potential for habitat fragmentation. These factors, including habitat fragmentation,
were considered during the determination of impacts for the project. One of the mitigation techniques to
minimize impacts to animal populations is the potential use of bridges, eco-pipes, and wildlife under- and
over-passes to provide connectiviry across the road for terrestrial wildlife. These techniques are discussed in
Section 4.4.6.3. It is likely that one or more of these techniques will be applied to provide for movement of
animals between populations if a partial-build ar build alternative is selected.
86. The DEIS does not appear to discuss mortality due to vehicular strikes.
`Paved roads are a great haza�d to wildlife, has there been an EIS that included roadkill? "
(Individual, Jackson, WY, Comment ] 704)
Public Involvement — 6-69
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Roads are generally dangerous to wildlife. According to Defenders of Wildlife a million vertebrates a day
are killed on roads. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
Response: Mortaliry of black bears and other terrestrial wildlife was considered as a factor in determining
the intensity of potential impacts from each study alternative. Sections 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 note that mortaliry due
to vehicular strikes is a concern to ter►-estrial wildlife and black bears, respectively. Additional discussion is
included in Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 of Appendix N.
87. The DEIS fails to adequately address poaching of wildlife.
"Only passing reference is made to poaching in the DEIS. ... The DEIS fails to consider that present levels
of poaching, and the likelihood that poaching will increase. At present poachers seek bear deer and
European wild boar. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 4)
"The in2pact of poaching is very poorly dealt with. Discussions with local N. C. Wildlzfe Enforcement O�cers
in regards to recent investigations, operations and prosecutions on illegal bear harvesting should be
conducted. The prevalence of poaching in the study area, even with successful prosecution is n�ot
satisfactorily dealt with. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson Ciry, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: Poaching and other illegal activities are discussed and analyzed in Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.9 and
4.4.7, Visitor Use and Experience; Public Health and Safety; and Blacic Bears, respectively. Text has been
added to Section 4.4.6, Terrestrial Wildlife, and Section 4.4.7, Black Bears, to further discuss the impact of
poaching. It should be noted that the likelihood of additional access increasing poaching was considered for
each of the respective impact topics. Therefore, while additional information has been added for clarity, no
changes have been made to impact intensity for the respective resources.
Natural Environment — Black Bears
88. The DEIS does not address the variability of the yearly mast crop and its effects on black
bear populations in regards to the build alternatives.
"The mast crop for the Smoky Mountains varies significantly fi°om year to year. For example, 2005 was
characterized with the mast crop `hitting low, ' meaning near the lake. This road would be near the lake,
making the negative impact on bear populations much more severe than the DEIS details. "
(Organization [Citizens for the Economic Future of Swain County], Bryson City, NC, Comment 3315)
Response: In Section 3.4.7, it is noted that "Oalc-Hickory Forest, and Early Successional Hardwood
Farest, cover approximately 70 percent of the project study corridors. ... These community types dominate
more interior areas of the southern portion of GSMNP and provide highly valuable bear habitat (Van Manen,
pers. comm. 2005). The high qualiry bear habitat is due to tbe hard and soft mast producing plants found
here." The qualiry of the bear habitat in the project area was one of the factors taken into consideration
during the determination of impact intensity for each altemative. Other factors included ".breadth of home
Public Involvement — 6-70
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

range size, avoidance and attraction behaviors, direct loss of habitat and indirect modifications to the
remaining bisected habitat, and the potential for habitat fragmentation."
Measures of variabiliry of the local mast crop are often driven by a determination of the quantiry of the white
oak family's (Que�cus sp.) acorn production. White oaks have a natural2-year acorn cycle that, along with
other environmental factors, causes year-to-year peaks or valleys in the volume of acorns produced.
Variation of the mast crop and the black bear population's response to it are considered natural events and
thus part of the inherent natural variability of the ecosystem.
Natural Environment — Miaratorv Birds
89. The DEIS does not adequately analyze impacts to neotropical migratory birds.
"The DEIS does not analyze the critical importance of neotropical migratory bird habitat and the critical
necessity of protecting it unchanged. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment ] 723)
"Road construction inside the park will seriously degrade the habitat for neotropical migratory birds ...
reduce critical habitat for these birds ...�andJ open a corridor through neotropical migratory bird habitat
that is attractive to predators and parasites. ... This damage has been noted, but neither adequately studied
nor quantified. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
Response: Section 4.4.8 and, in greater detail, Appendix N, discusses tbe issues related to Neotropical
Migratory Birds (NTMBs) and their habitat, in general, and the potential impacts of the detailed study
alternatives. The primary issues related to NTMBs include habitat fragmentation and modification,
predation, and noise levels. The relative importance of the project study area to NTMBs was considered
during the analysis of impacts. In Section 4.�.8.2.6 it is noted that, "the Great Smoky Mountains harbor
`source' populations of many migratory species." Additionally it is stated that, "these populations may be
seen as creating a surplus of migratory birds that then may disperse outside the project study area and even
beyond the Great Smolcy Mountains." It is also noted in Section 4.4.8.1 that, "There is no scientific literature
available that provides a scale to define or rank the severiry of impacts from a project. Therefare, the ...
intensity definitions [in Section 4.4.8.1 ] are based on best professional judgment of what is reasonable
considering the complex interactions of the factors noted." This follows the DO-12 guideline that "If you can
meaningfully and accurately quantify the inagnitude of this impact, this is the best way to present the
infonnation. If you have little confidence in an absolute number, you may want to use a range of reasonable
impacts; rather than conveying false confidence, documents should give the decision-maker and the public a
true picture of how well you can predict an impact."
90. The number of bird species detected during survey work was too low.
"�OnJly 49 were detected during survey work. ... This low number is probably due to several factors
including low elevational d�erences among points, limited season foN counts ... and s�nall area. "
(Organization [Audubon North Carolina], Boone, NC, Comment 33 ] 7)
Public Involvement — 6-71
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: Section 3.4.8 explains the rationale for the breeding bird survey conducted for the project in
2004 and its location and scope. It is noted that, "From 1996 through 1999, an in-depth study of the breeding
bird communities of GSMNP was conducted by Shriner (2001). This study assessed breeding bird
populations throughout the Park using trails as access for conducting variable circular plot (VCP) censuses.
However, Shriner collected no data within the western portion of the project study corridors on either side of
Eagle Creek and Hazel Creek including Welch Ridge. In 2004, ARCADIS collected additional migratory
bird data within this portion of the project study corridors. Surveys were conducted near the approximate
center of the project study corridars with the center of each plot at least 820 ft(250 m) apart. These data were
intended to supplement data from Shriner (200] ), such that a complete picture of migratory bird comtnunities
within the project study corridors could be estimated."
Attachment 2 of Appendix N lists all the bird species observed in the project corridors including those
observed in 2003 and 2004 during general field surveys, those observed as part of the 2004 VCP survey, and
the subset of those observed during the Shriner survey occurring in the project study corridors. Sixty (60)
bird species are noted in Attachment 2 of Appendix N. It should be noted that, as stated in Section 3.4.8.2,
"the VCP study conducted by Shriner (2001) detected ]] 3 migratory birds occurring throughout GSMNP"
and "in general, results of VCP censuses in the 2004 study and the Shriner study are similar."
Natural Environment — Invasive Exotics
91. The dangers posed by invasive exotic species have not been adequately studied.
Any road will result in increased spread of exotic species and will increase the danger fi°om introduction of
new exotic species. These dangers have not been adequately studied. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 33 ] 2)
"Furthermore, NPS has conducted an inadequate analysis of potential exotic species. NPS considered
only exotics that occur within the project study corridors, ignoring aggressive exotics in the region that
will be able to penetrate into the Park once a new avenue is opened. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Sections 3.4.9 and 4.4.9 discuss exotic species, list the mechanisms that may facilitate their
movement, and analyze the potential exotic species impacts from each of the alternatives. Section 4.4.92,
specifically, includes the topic Introduction/Spread of Invasive Exotic Species which discusses potential
species that are not already in the area and may be introduced as a result of project implementation.
Additional detail is included in Appendix N.
Natural Environment — Protected Species
92. The DEIS does not adequately consider species that may become endangered due to the
partial-build or build alternatives.
"The DEIS does not adequately ('f at all) give appropnate consideration to ... species that may become
endangered or become rare due to road constl^uction on the north shore. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723-37)
Public Involvement — 6-72
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"�TJhe issue is whether bisecting their habitats permanently will endanger some that are now thriving. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Farest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 3314)
Response: NPS is committed to maintaining the populations of naturally-occurring species found within
its parks boundaries. This document analyses the impacts to not only federally-listed threatened and
endangered species, but also to Federal Species of Concern and state listed species. These additional species
were included for consideration since they are tbe subset of species in the project vicinity most likely to
require protective listing in the future (those most likely to become rare). Including these species in the
analysis serves as a precaution against the potential for impacts related to the project creating a listed
endangered species. Seventy-six individual species were included in this analysis.
Sections 3.4.10 and 4.4.10 contain information regarding possible impacts to federally and state protected
species potentially occurring in Swain and Graham counties, North Carolina as listed by the USFWS and the
NCNHP. Additional species of concern to NPS were evaluated. More detailed information on these species
is contained in Section 7 of Appendix N. The reports documenting the results of surveys commissioned for
this project for selected target species ar groups of target species with a likelihood of existing in the project
study corridors, pulled from the lists noted above, are included as Attachments 2, 5 to 12, and 14 of Appendix
N. The methodology for determining likelihood of existing in the project study corridors is discussed in
Section 7 of Appendix N.
93. The surveys for rare and endangered species were flawed, because they do not cover a
full calendar year.
"The investigation for rare and endangered species is, flawed because it did not cover a full calendar year. A
growing season is necessary to enable one to study plants. A. full year is needed to study migratory birds,
other migratory species, and to study hibernating species. This has not been done. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
Response: Whereas the project-specific surveys for protected species did not cover one full calendar year,
they did cover one full growing season. As noted in Section 3.4.10, "general field surveys and detailed
surveys ... were conducted between May and October 2004 within the project study corridors." Additional
information was gathered regarding the potential presence of protected species and their habitats in the
project study corridors. Other information sources, as noted in the EIS and Appendix N, include, but are not
limited to, NCNHP both the Raleigh NCNHP's and GSMNP NCNHP's data; raw data records from surveys
conducted as part of the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI); other NPS records; and personal
conversations with local species experts. Conclusions regarding potential impacts to rare and protected
species have been made from this body of information.
94. There is no analysis of impacts to newly discovered species, species rediscovered in
the Park, or species never before recorded in the Park.
"Surveys conducted by NPS for this project discovered 21 duff invertebrate species new to science and 1
snail species new to science. ...�TheJ selection of a build alternative without any understanding of the
nature and status of these species would risk perinanent extinction of a species or extiNpation of a species
,fro�n the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Public Involvement — 6-73
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"�SJurveys conducted for this DEIS identified new records of species thought to be extirpated from the
Park and records of species never before recorded in the Park. Again, the DEIS offers no analysis of the
range and distribution of those species within the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: NPS is committed to maintaining the populations of naturally-occurring species found within
its parks' boundaries. Limited information is available about the range or distribution of newly discovered
species, species rediscovered in the Park, or species never before recorded in the Park. Due to the limited
information available regarding these species, no clear determination of potentia] impacts to them can be
made at this time. Descriptions of potential worst-case impacts to species new to science, species new to the
Park, and rediscovered species have been added to Section 4.4.6.2 and Appendix N. If a partial-build or build
alternative were selected for implementation, additional surveys for these species would be conducted.
95. The DEIS is inconsistent in noting the location of populations of Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis), a federally endangered species.
"The DEIS states in Table 3-I1 that no Indiana Bats were identified in or near the project corridors. The
DEIS then goes on to point to two studies, Eco-Tech, Inc. 2000, and Harvey and Britzke 2002 that found
Indiana Bats within miles of the project study corridor. The EIS must correct the inconsistency. "
(Organization [National Parks Conservation Association], Knoxville, TN, Comment 3311)
"Because the project area and project is very close to (and nzay be within) a 2. S to four mile radius of two
caves (see above), and sites where TESLR �Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally RareJ bats
(including Indiana Bats) have been observed roosting in trees in the Park, the FS �Forest ServiceJ should
have determined and disclosed the distance of the project from the cave and other roost sites. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The EIS is intentionally vague about the specific locations of known populations of protected
species in order to protect them from harm. Nonetheless, as noted for the Indiana bat, column 6 of Table 3-11
denotes "No" regarding populations identified in or near the project study corridors. The superscript notation
to column 6 defines "in or near" as "Populations of these species have been identified in the project study
corridors or within a 2-mi (3.2-km) radius of the project study corridors, based on information from USFWS,
GSMNP, NCNHP and other data sources as applicable within the last 20 years." The text in Section 3.4.10.1
associated with the Indiana bat does discuss several populations identiiied in the surrounding vicinity;
however, these populations are outside of a 2-mi (3.2-km) radius of the project study corridors. The text
notes this as "There are no documented populations of this species [Indiana bat] within a 2-mi (3.2-km)
radius of the project study area." There is no inconsistency between Table 3-11 and the text associated with
this species.
96. Analysis of the project area for Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is insufficient and
coordination with the USFWS is not adequate to ensure the bats continued survival.
"The DEIS must address the impact of removing a roost tree when the �IndianaJ bats are not there. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Public Involvement — 6-74
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"Implementation of this proposal may result in foregoing opportunities to protect areas critical to the
�IndianaJ bats recovery. This factor is totally ignored in the DEIS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"The required consultation with the LISFWS on this project appears to be insufficient to insure co�tinued
survival of the Indiana bat. ... Further, the amount of surveying performed for the DEIS appears to be
minimal and insu�cient. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: NPS is committed to preserving the protected species within the Park, including the Indiana
bat (Myotis sodalis). Section 3.4.10 and Appendix N note that no Indiana bat populations were identified in
or near the project corridors, but that it is likely in the future that they will expand their current known range
into the southern portion of GSMNP. Surveys for bats were conducted in the project study corridors and the
results are documented in attachment N-5. As no population of Indiana bats are known to occupy the project
study corridors, the analysis of impacts did not attempt to evaluate the future unknown needs of the species.
Notwithstanding, Section 4.4.10.1.4 notes that "If a partial-build or build alternative is implemented, NPS
would develop a comprehensive survey plan for the Indiana bat to determine this species' status in the
vicinity of the alternative. The objectives of the survey would be to evaluate potential habitat, especially the
summer maternity roosting potential, and determine the actual utilization of the area. The survey would assist
in identifying materniry colony sites and establishing appropriate tree-cutting moratoria. Surveys would begin
prior to initiation of construction. The surveys would follow the mist-netting guidelines as specified in the
Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS ] 999). Yearly population monitoring (as required by USFWS)
would be conducted by NPS during and following any construction time frame. Coordination with USFWS
would be ongoing to determine the need for additional recommendations to protect or mitigate for impacts to
the Indiana bat." This coordination is documented in Sections 4.4.10 and 5. Future coordination and
consultation with the USFWS would depend on tbe alternative ultimately selected. Formal consultation as
specified under Section 7 of the ESA, including a BA, will be required if the effects of the action are
determined to be adverse.
97. The DEIS does not discuss the bat plan amendment for the Pisgah/Nantahala National
Forests and may violate the National Forest Management Act.
"The DEIS appears to fail to mention the relatively recently completed Bat Plan Amendment for the
Pisgah/Nantahala National Forests. "
(Organization [Wi]dLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
"By failing to properly consider, provide. for, or protect the Indiana bat and other TESLR [Threatened,
Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally RareJ bats, this proposal may violate the NFMA (National Forest
Management ActJ {36 CFR 219.19(a)(7)} in addition to the ESA �Endangered Species ActJ. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The project study corridors are entirely located within the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, part of the National Park system. The bat plan amendment for the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forests
and the National Forest Management Act are not applicable to this project.
Public Involvement — 6-75
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Coordination with the USFWS regarding this project, as specified under Section 7 of the ESA, is ongoing and
is documented in Sections 4.4.10 and 5.
98. Impacts to the olive darter (Percina squamata) do not take into account sediment
impacts for potential rockfalls or landslides.
`7lnpacts to the olive darter are likely to exceed even those identified by the DEIS because the DEIS fails to
entirely consider sediment iinpacts fi°om rockfalls and landslides caused by road construction in this
unstable part of the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The evaluation of intensity threshold for impacts to the olive darter (Percina squamata)
included the effects of sedimentation that could be attributed to project construction, if a partial-build ar build
alternative were implemented, as noted in Appendix N. BMPs related to sedimentation and erosion control
and protection of water quality are included in Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.3 and 4.4.4, with additional details provided
in Appendix M.
As noted in the response to Concern No. 48, there is a possibility that unstable slope conditions would be
encountered if a partial-build or build alternative is selected for implementation. These conditions would
continue to be considered as part of project design. In the event that slope stabiliry problems arise during
excavation or embankment construction, special non-intrusive (relative to NPS Standards) engineering
methods for slope stabilization may be required.
99. The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impacts of acid drainage on the Hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), a federal species of concern.
A full understanding of the threat that acid drainage poses to Hellbender populations would result in an
evaluation of `major' impacts to this federal species of concern. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: According to a recent survey of GSMNP for salamanders (Dodd 2004), populations of
hellbender are known from at least three Park locations outside of the project study corridors. Tbere are
additional historically reported populations. These populations are dish-ibuted throughout the Park in both
Tennessee and North Carolina.
The analysis of factars potentially impacting the hellbender, as discussed in Appendix N, included an
evaluation of changes in water quality, especially from sedimentation and decreased pH value.
The definition of "major" as related to federal species of concern from Section 4.4.10.2 and Appendix N is
"Potential impacts on listed species inay occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action and are
expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival of the species of concern in the Park by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." The suggested use of "major" to describe impacts to
this species would imply that effects from a project related alternative, if implemented, would likely extirpate
the hellbender from the Park. Due to the known populations of hellbenders in the Park, but well outside of
the project area, it is unlikely that extirpation would result from implementation of a build alternative.
Therefare, minor or moderate are the appropriate intensity threshold to describe the potential impacts to this
species from the partial-build and build alternatives.
Public Involvement — 6-76
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Natural Environment - Genera
100. The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impacts of acid drainage on aquatic
species/ecosystems.
Although the DEIS concedes that `it will not be possible to mitigate for all water quality impacts, ' it fails
to analyze the impact that unmitigated acid drainage will have on aguatic ecosystems. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"The DEIS also fails to study the sensitivity offish populations to acid drainage. "
Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
`Despite the importance of the native southern strain brook trout to the ecological integrity of the Park
and the documented sensitivity of the species to the affects of acid drainage, the DEIS fails to analyze
potential impacts to brook trout. "
Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"The DEIS acknowledges that aquatic insects are sensitive to acid d�^ainage, but asserts that benthic
macroinveNtebrates co�nmunities have evolved to quickly recover after catastrophic events. �ThJere is
str^ong evidence that it does not hold true.for impacts from acid drainage. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Nor has NPS completed an adequate study of the impacts of anticipated acid drainage to salamander
species. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Camment 3319)
Response: Impacts related to acid drainage was one of the factors taken into consideration for evaluation
of direct impacts to aquatic wildlife/ecosystems. A discussion of the effects of acid drainage on aquatic
ecosystems/aquatic species was included in Appendix M. Text has been added to Section 4.4.4 and
Appendix M to further discuss the effects of acid drainage on aquatic species/ecosystems. Acid drainage and
its impacts on water qualiry are discussed in Section 4.4.3 and Appendix M. This section also includes a
discussion of inethods to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality.
101. The DEIS fails to analyze the impacts to salamanders' exposure to acid producing
materials on wet cut faces.
"In addition, the DEIS fails to analyze the threat to salamander com�nunities from the wet cliff-faces of
acid producing �nate�ial that will be exposed by construction. "
Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Corr�ment 3319)
Response: Salamanders are known to colonize wet rock-faces created by road construction. Text bas been
added to Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.6, Aquatic Ecology and Terrestrial Wildlife, discussing the potential for
indirect impacts from acid-drainage to salamanders on newly exposed rock faces. Changes in microhabitat
were considered as part of the existing impact analysis. Therefore, while additional information has been
added for clariry, no changes have been made to impact intensiry for this resource. Concern No. 56 discusses
the issue of exposed rock faces and potential measures that could be utilized to minimize acid drainage from
the rock face.
Public Involvement — 6-77
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

102. The intangible values of plants and animals should be studied and quantified.
"The study does not take ir�to account or even discuss ... Plants and animals have their intangible values,
toa They value freedom to roam ... and the freedom to interact without interference from man-made
objects. The irnpact on these values has not been studied. ... They must be studied and quantified. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
Response: Sections 4.4.4.2, 4.4.5.1, 4.4.6.1, 4.4.7 and 4.4.8.1 discuss factors that influence habitat
utilization and how a partial-build or build alternative migbt alter the habitat for aquatic wildlife, vegetation
communities, terrestrial wildlife, black bears, and migratory birds, respectively. Tl�e EIS provides a
sufficiently comprehensive portrayal of the potential beneficial and adverse effects to plants and animals
associated with the project alternatives and the differences in those impacts across alternatives.
Aesthetics
103. Visual resources should have been analyzed using the USFS Scenery Management
System.
"While the North Shore Road DEIS does include a discussion of visual resource values and some attempt
was made to evaluate potential impacts to those values along the Appalachian Ti^ail during the analysis
phase, the methodology employed by the National Park Service falls far short of the more rigorous SMS
[Scenery Management SystemJ process employed by the Forest Service. Fo� example, the analysis was not
conducted by a landscape architect trained in visual resource managenzent. ... If the impacts to visual
resources had been analyzed using the Scenery Management system, numerous A. T. viewpoints would have
been evaluated because viewsheds often overlap. Along the approximately ten-mile A. T. section between
Black Gum Gap and the Shuckstack firetower, for example, there are almost continuous leaf-off views of
the project area, yet only four viewpoints were analyzed. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
"�AJs a result of its failure to follow the SMS methodology, NPS has significantly understated the total
impact of the North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives on viewsheds for the AT. Only four AT
viewpoints weNe analyzed as part of this study. SMS would have required more review points along the AT
to account for overlapping viewsheds. "
Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Various visual resource methodologies, including the Scenery Management System process,
and elements of those methodologies were reviewed for potential application to the North Shore Road
project. The North Shore Road Project is not a USFS project. The aesthetic and visual resources analysis for
the North Shore Road Project was developed and reviewed by a multidisciplinary project team that included
landscape architects, planners, engineers, GIS analysts, and environmental professionals. The assessment of
viewpoints was determined to be the appropriate approach to analyze visual resource impacts to the study
area, as opposed to using a linear model of viewshed assessment along all trails in the study area. The
viewpoints were chosen with agency, specialist, and public input.
The potential for major, adverse impacts to Shuckstack, the AT south of Shuckstack, and Fontana Dam
(crossed by the AT) are documented in the Impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources section and technical
Public Involvement — 6-78
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

report. In addition to the documentation of impacts to the selected viewpoints, Section 4.2.5.2.10 documents
impacts to other general scenic views as a part of the visitor experience and discusses the potential far
impacts to linear sections of the AT. The EIS provides sufficient data to assess the visual resource impacts of
the project alternatives and the differences in those impacts across alternatives. Employing a different
assessment method would also likely have resulted in the identification of potential major, adverse impacts to
aesthetics and visual resources, as well as to general scenic views, for GSMNP and the AT.
104. The visual resource analysis did not sufficiently analyze leaf-off conditions and
underestimates potential impacts to the Shuckstack and Fontana Dam viewpoints.
"A basic tenet of the SMS process is that visual analysis should be performed during leaf-off season and
furtheN that only topographic screening (not vegetative screening) should be used to evaluate potential
visual impacts. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
"The visual analysis significantly underestimated the potential impacts at both the Shuckstack and Fontana
Dam viewpoints, citing vegetation as `disrupting the view into the study area' and `limited view of
Segments 3 and 4 that would be visible through the vegetation. ' Those A. T. viewpoints should have been
analyzed during leaf-off. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
"By failing to follow the standards of the SMS system, the DEIS has signifzcantly understated visual
impacts to the AT. Recognizing that viewsheds change with the seasons in a forest landscape, the SMS
requires viewshed impact analysis to be conducted after leaves have fallen from the trees for the season.
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: The aesthetic and visual resources analysis took into account topographic screening in the GIS
portion of the analysis. The visualizations that were generated depicted no vegetation on the landscape and
were used in the impact assessment of each viewpoint. This would be a substantially worse scenario than
leaf-off visual conditions. Because the GIS software was able to illustrate the result of the proposed project
with this worst-case topographic screening, it was determined that leaf-off analysis for all viewpoints was not
necessary. Section 4.5.2.5 and Appendix O document the potential for major, adverse impacts to the
viewpoints at Shuckstack and Fontana Dam for tbe Northern Shore Corridar (Principal and Primitive Park
Roads).
A representative leaf-off analysis was undertaken for Black Gum Gap for two reasons: because there was no
view offered during leaf-on despite the location atop a ridge line; and to gain a qualitative understanding and
illustrate the seasonal variations in the aesthetic experience at all of the viewpoints.
105. The DEIS does not adequately assess the impact of the physical scar created by the
road alternatives.
"The DEIS does not adequately assess the damage that will be caused by a 38 mile road crossing multiple
finger ridges in unstable rock and soil. The resulting scar will be pernzanent, irreversible, unsightly and
will increase in size over time. "
(Form Letter 25)
Public Involvement — 6-79
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"The DEIS also drastically understates the degree of visual cont�^ast that would be created by construction
of a road across the currently unbroken natural forest canopy in the Northern Shore Corridor. The strong
contrasts fi^om the canopy breaks created by new road segments and by huge road cuts will draw the eyes
of viewers like a powerful magnet. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
Response: The partial-build and build alternatives road align�nents are designed to fit existing topography
to minimize aesthetic and visual resource impacts. Further options to address visual resource impacts are
described in Section 4.5.4. However, the visibility of the "scar" referred to above was accounted far and is
reflected in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources Analysis that was conducted for this project. The size of the
"scar" is not expected to increase over time rather, vegetation planted adjacent to the proposed roadway is
expected to provide some screening, depending on the slope of the cut. Furthermore, mature vegetation,
achieved over time, is expected to provide more benefit in terms of screening than younger vegetation.
Detailed mitigation for aesthetic and visual resource impacts would be addressed during final design.
106. The DEIS fails to discuss the effects of air quality impacts to views during
construction.
"A plume fi°om construction of the North Shore Road would be visible fi^om up to 8 miles away during
parts of the day. ... The DEIS fails entirely to discuss the impacts of this activity to views from the AT. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Visibility of a plume during construction of the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell and the
Northern Shore Corridor froin various distances at certain times of day is discussed in Section 4.3.4.2. The
distances assumed far the analysis were derived from key viewpoints within GSMNP and along the AT, such
as Clingmans Dome. As construction progressed for either of these alternatives, so too would the location of
these visibility impacts. Text noting these impacts to views during construction has been added to Section
4.5.2.
107. The perspectives of those who enjoy views of man-made landscapes should be
considered in the DEIS.
"7n regard to visual resources, any view of the proposed project from the selected viewpoints are
cor�sidered to be an adve�se impact. ' The sentence above is only an opinion, showing a personal bias.
Many people enjoy views of man-made landscapes, especially sweeping highways and long bridges. ...
These perspectives also need to be considered when evaluating visual impacts. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707)
Response: Impacts to visual and aesthetic resources were assessed as being beneficial, adverse, or
indeterminate. Within this area of the Park, the landscape is managed for scenic, natural views. The type of
impact was determined in this context, considering the current use or function of the area. Given the context
of this area of the Park, it was determined that further manmade intrusions, such as views of the proposed
road construction associated with the Partial-Build Altemative to Bushnell and Northern Shore Corridor,
would be characterized as "adverse" impacts.
Public Involvement — 6-80
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Construction Impacts
108. The assumed length of construction for the Northern Shore Corridor should be 30
years, rather than 15 years.
Arcadis has at its disposal sufficient information to project a 30 year timeline for construction and not
one speck of data to suggest a 1 S year timeline. That makes the economic comparisons of the alternatives
a complete disaster.
(Form Letter 14)
"The other shortcoming that I'd like to point out is that the model used for the fznancial and econo�nic
benefits on the alternatives needs to be more reality-based. It's inadequate to guantify the predictions by
sirr�ply stating the assumptions on which the predictions rely. For example, a 1 S year time line for building
the road. The assunzptio� is stated but that doesn 't make it reality-based. ... There has to be more than
one chance in a million that there is some reason to use the assumptions that are used. "
(Individual, Bryson City, NC, Comment 2872 [at the Asheville Public Hearing])
Response: The assumed project time lines for all of the alternatives have been developed to reflect
reasonably achievable scenarios and to provide a basis for comparing the alternatives. For the partial-build
and build alternatives, factars taken into consideration include the design and engineering, the terrain/
topography, the challenges of constructing within a limited width corridor to minimize environmental
impacts, and climate factors. For the Northern Shore Corridor, it is assumed that construction would proceed
from both ends; therefore, the construction of this alternative would average about 2.5 mi (4 krn) of
completed road per year, which was deemed reasonable given other roadway project construction experience
in the region. The actual schedule for any action alternative may vary as a result of "on the ground"
experience or funding.
If a partial-build or build alternative is selected for implementation, the availability of funding is the single
most significant factor ultimately determining how quickly construction could be completed. It has been
assumed for purposes of this analysis that corresponding funding would be available for all of the alternatives
(partial-build, build, and monetary settlement). An accelerated or delayed schedule for any altemative would
impact the timing of the onset of long-term tourism and economic benefits for that alternative; however, the
assumed schedules provide a reasonable basis for the comparison of economic impacts.
109. The construction footprint for the Northern Shore Corridor is underestimated and the
proposed retaining walls are not capable of being constructed.
"The road footprint will occupy far more than the 400 acres estimated by the study team. They have
optimistically calculated they can limit the footprint by constructing retaining walls where cuts and fills
extend more than 100 feet fi°om the roadway. The steep terrain will make such walls common, and we do
not believe �aJ wall high enough can be constructed using known construction techniques. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 33 ] 2)
Response: With regard to fill slopes, at the preliminary design stage numerous walls were included, some
of substantial height. As more advanced design is undertaken, it may be determined to be mare cost effective
and environmentally sound to bridge areas that would require unusually high walls. Bridging would not
Public Involvement — 6-81
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

increase the construction footprint. There are many mare deep fills than deep cuts throughout the length of
the corridor. In those places where high retaining walls were assumed, additional geologic investigations
would be undertaken and it is highly likely that many of the assumed retaining walls would not be required as
the cuts would be through rock. It is anticipated that in utilizing a combination of walls, bridging, and rock
cuts, the project construction would be contained within a 200-foot footprint.
110. The DEIS does not mention excess rock volumes or adequately evaluate impacts and
costs for potential encapsulation sites.
"The DEIS makes no mention of the rock volumes that may need to be moved nor where they rr�ight have to
be housed. Will such materials be put i�nJ storage on NPS lands o[rJ outside of the Park area? "
(Individual, Cullowhee, NC, Comment ] 839)
"[The DEISJ projects an encapsulation site north of Bryson City. The DEIS writers apparently have not
visited or looked at a map of the area north of B�yson City. The area is thickly settled, and it is doubtful that
any encapsulation sites could be obtained, except through the exercise of eminent domain. The DEIS casually
leaves it to the road building contractor to identify the dump site(s) and get the permits to use the�n. ... The
DEIS should identify proposed dump sites, estimate their necessary size, and estimate the cost of obtaining
them. There is no road network in place for use in hauling waste to a dump site north of Bryson City. The
cost of building or re-building a road access has not been calculated. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
`Moreover, no estimate has been made of the time necessary to obtain dump sites, obtain permits for them,
or to build or rebuild the necessary access roads. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
"The cost estimates prepared for the DEIS do not reflect the cost of acguiring that landfill capacity or the
premium that will be required for disposing of potentially hazardous material in a commercial or
municipal landfzll. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: Embankment fills and excavation volumes are based on calculations using the proposed road
design and assuming that all of the excavated material is AP. The present design assumes using as much of
the excavated material as possible within onsite encapsulating embankments. However, present calculations
indicate a surplus of excavated material over that which can be used in embankments for the Partial-Build
Alternative to Bushnell and the Northern Shore Corridor, necessitating location of other sites for wasting ar
burial (depending on the quality of the material). The Laurel Branch Picnic Area alternative is not projected
to generate a surplus volume. Surplus volumes are projected to range from 282,300 yd3 (215,900 m3) for the
Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell (Principal Park Road) to 414,800 yd3 (317,100 m3) for the Northern
Share Corridor (Primitive Park Road). Text discussing the use of excavated soil in encapsulated embankment
fills and noting the excess volumes that would be handled offsite for the partial-build and build alternatives
has been added to Section 4.3.1.2.
During the final design phase, road alignments and slope configurations may be modified to lessen the
impacts associated with the AP rocks as well as to balance the volumes of cut and fill material. While the
Public Involvement — 6-82
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

surplus volumes may be minimized, as discussed in Section 4.2.1.2.5, it is likely that encapsulation sites
would be needed north of Bryson Ciry and possibly an additional site on the western end of the project for the
Northern Shore Corridor to reduce construction traffic impacts and costs based on the anticipated amount of
excess rock to be hauled of£ Should the material designated for offsite disposal be identified as AP, the
material will be placed using a design similar to tbe encapsulating embankment on the roadway. Such sites
would be located outside of GSMNP.
Project-specific off-site locations, such as borrow and waste sites, can not be further evaluated until they are
specifically identified. Such sites are usually located by the construction contractor. Once such a site has
been identified by the contractor, it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that the site meets all
environmental requirements and obtain permits. Costs for the off-site encapsulation, including any required
access drives, cannot be meaningfully quantified at this stage of design and are not separately identified in the
capital or operations and maintenance cost estimates for the project. Engineering and contingencies have
been included in the capital cost estimates far the partial-build and build alternatives. According to FHWA
guidance on estimating costs for major projects, "The purpose of design contingencies is to account far items
not included in the current estimate" (FHWA 2004b).
111. The DEIS fails to take into account off-site impacts for construction materials
associated with the Northern Shore Corridor.
` All environmental inipact statements are useless unless they take into account off site impacts from the
sources of materials for the project. Dumptrucks use fuel oil from Iraq which causes depleted uranium,
asphalt toa Lime comes fi°om a lime quany. Steel for bridges come from steel mills, asphalt from asphalt
plants. All these things have adverse environmental iinpacts not accounted for in this, or any EIS. "
(Individual, Ciry Unknown, NC, Comment 1)
Response: NPS is concerned about protecting resources, both natural and human. All efforts will be made
to utilize resources in an efficient and prudent manner. The manufacturing of materials utilized by NPS, but
generated by commercial entities, is not subject to NEPA compliance requirements for this project. Thus,
manufacturing impacts are not discussed as part of this document. Commercial manufacturing operations
that provide products for many projects are subject to various federal, state, and local regulations and
permitting. Impacts from these commercial operations are accounted for and mitigated for as needed in
accordance with these regulations under associated permitting instruments.
112. The DEIS inadequately analyzes impacts during the construction of the Northern
Shore Corridor.
"The analysis of damage to local populations and to their roads by the hauling of extraordinary amounts
of acid bearing rock over a period of 1 S years, alongside the County High School and through downtown
Bryson City is woefully inadequate. "
(Form Letter 25)
"A look at the ZISGS topographic map shows the most likely available dump sites, for acid producing rock are
south of Bryson City. Hauling it would involve use of city streets. There would be two impacts, which have
not been studied.• (a) increased tr°aff c past the Swain County High School, and (b) increased tr°a�c and
tra�c congestion in Bryson City. Nor is there any mention of what entity would be responsible for keeping
Public Involvement — 6-83
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

the roads and streets in repair to withstand this heavy traffic. The effects of such heavy and destructive truck
traffzc, continuously, over a period of at least fzfteen years, have not been addressed. Yet, such traff c through
or near Bryson City would have a serious detrimental effect on the local economy. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Comment 1723)
"The DEIS fails to adequately address the fact that dump trucks hauling this material would subject
downtown Bryson City to major tra�c jarns and regular toxic dust storm[sJ during the many years of
construction. "
(Individual, Bellevue, WA, Comment 1705)
Response: As discussed in Sections 4.2.1.2.5 and 4.2.1.2.7, construction traffic is anticipated to adversely
affect streets in Bryson City and surrounding areas. Section 4.2.1.2.7.5 identifies the potential for moderate,
adverse impacis during construction of the Northern Shore Corridor, specifically noting that, "The additional
traffic generated by the Northern Sbare Corridor and during its construction would increase traffic in
downtown Bryson City, which currently experiences some congestion during peak periods and will
experience natural growth ... as well as added traffic once the GSMR relocates its headquarters to Bryson
City. ... Access to Swain Counry High School along Fontana Road would be impacted, primarily during
morning and afternoon peak periods while school is in session, by the additional traffic traveling on tbe
Northern Shore Corridor, as well as traffic during construction."
To reduce impacts during construction for the partial-build and build alternatives, wark will be undertaken to
reduce the amount of excavation and balance earthwork during future design, to identify and secure an
encapsulation site north of Bryson City (and on the western end of the project for the Northern Shore
Corridor), and to develop alternate hauling routes that avoid congested roadways. In addition, engineering
and contingencies ha�e been included in the capital cost estimates for the partial-build and build alternatives.
According to FHWA guidance, construction contingences on major projects may provide for various items
including protection of the traveling public through various measures which may include "incident
management, public information and communication efforts, transit demand management and improvements
to the local area network, which help improve safety and traffic flow through the project during construction"
(FHWA 2004b). If a partial-build or build alternative were implemented, the contractor would be required to
adhere to the load and other restrictions on area roadways.
AP rock and soil in transit should not pose a hazard to health and human safety if properly secured in trucks
to prevent spillage and dispersal of dust.
Mitiqation
113. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the mitigation plans or evaluate the potential
success of mitigation measures.
"The �DEISJ docunzent is nearly Orwellian in that the content explains significant negative iinpacts that
would occur if the road were built and yet it concludes that significant negative impacts will not occur
because they will be taken care of in the design phase. This is a ridiculous over-statenzent of our ability to
mitigate effects. "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Cominent 1695)
Public Involvement — 6-84
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"The DEIS is inadequate because NPS has not considered foreseeable impacts or the effectiveness of
proposed avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures. ... Throughout the DEIS, NPS suggests that
avoidance, miniinization or mitigation might be employed and that it might be effective, without confirming
what mitigation measures will be used or analyzing their effectiveness. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"The theoretical pNOVision of culverts with natural floors, and animal culverts and overpasses is not
adequate, and does little to mitigate the effects of severance of this habitat. There has been no design of
these mitigation measures into the plans. "
(Organization [Harvey Broome Group - Tennessee Chapter - Sierra Club], New Market, TN, Comment 3312)
"The DEIS does not reveal any well thought out plan to avoid damage to these waters. "
(Form Letter 25)
"Throughout the DEIS, NPS suggests that avoidance, mini�nization or mitigation might be employed and
that it might be effective, without confirming what mitigation measures will be used or analyzing their
effectiveness. ... The mere listing of possible mitigation measures is generally an insu�cient basis for
drawing policy conclusions based on the promise of reduced impacts. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
Response: NPS is committed to limiting impacts to human and natural resources. In general, the
mechanism for limiting impacts is a three-step process: avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation (such as wetland restoration). Avoidance of impacts will have the highest priority. Techniques to
avoid, minimize and mitigate for impacts are provided by resource topic in their respective sections in
Chapter 4. These techniques would be applied as appropriate during final design if a partial-build or build
alternative were selected for implementation. Section 4.1 states "Detailed mitigation plans would be
developed before implementation of an alternative." Analysis of the effectiveness of an appropriate
mitigation technique cannot be completed until additional design has identified the specifics of the mitigation
required. For example, the potential effectiveness/functionaliry of restoring an open water wetland, like a
beaver marsh primarily consisting of herbaceous vegetation, is different than restoring a forested wetland,
which to be fully functioning requires mature trees.
If a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, final design and detailed mitigation
could reveal sit�specific impacts that are not currently known. Additional NEPA analysis would be required
if impacts were found to be greater than identiiied in this EIS far any of the partial-build or build alternatives.
114. Various specific mitigation costs have not been incorporated into the cost estimate.
"NPS has underestimated the cost of constv�ucting the North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives by
excluding substantial mitigation costs. ...�TJhe NPS must calculate and include the cost of reasonably
. foreseeable mitigation measures in its cost estimate for construction of the North Shore Corridor and
Bushnell alte�natives. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
Public Involvement — 6-85
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"The DEIS also notes that wildlife impacts could be avoided through the use of retaining walls or a
viaduct, but that such costs have not been included in the cost estimate Because these sti^uctural mitigation
elements are clearly anticipated throughout the corridor NPS has a reasonable basis for creating an
estimate of the additional cost attributable to these measures. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"The DEIS also recognizes that mitigation ar�d avoidance �neasures will be �equired to address rare
vegetation co�nmunities. ... Nonetheless, the costs of `such additional structures, especially viaducts, has
not been calculated, but could be significant. "'
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Similarly, NPS policy requires the Park Service to avoid and minimize impacts to floodplains. ...
�TJhose costs, which can add substantially to the cost of the project, have been excluded from the cost
estimate. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"Nor does the DEIS accountfor the additional construction and mitigation costs associated with unstable
geological conditions in the project area. ... Relocation of the corridor to avoid unstable geology,
structural measures to protect against rock falls and slides, and delays and damage caused by slides
during the I S year constructzon process are all foreseeable costs. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"The cost estimates prepared for the DEIS do not reflect the cost of acquiring that landfill capacity or the
premium that will be required for disposing of potentially hazardous material in a commercial or
municipal landfzll. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
Response: The capital cost estimates are intended to reflect the program costs for all aspects of
construction of the partial-build or build alternatives. A description of the development of construction costs
is provided in Appendix E, Capital Cost Estimates Assumptions. The cost estimates include anticipated
mitigation, encapsulation and treatment of embanked pyritic soil, and requirements for construction in
National Parks. The cost estimates reflect the unique characteristics of the project site, including remote
access and steep terrain. Those design elements/mitigation measures that can be meaningfully quantified at
this time have been explicitly calculated for the capital cost estimates. Several viaducts have been included in
the design. Text in Section 4.4.5.3 has been corrected to reflect that the current design includes several
viaducts. According to FHWA guidance on estimating costs for major projects, "Costs to mitigate impacts to
natural resources, cultural resources, neighborhoods, etc., must either be individually estimated or included in
a contingency amount." The capital cost estimates for the partial-build and build alternatives include an
allowance for engineering and contingencies that has been established at a level that reflects the unique
requirements of the study area, as well as project unknowns or uncertainties.
Public Involvement — 6-86
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Impairment Analysis and Determinations
115. The environmental impacts disclosed in the DEIS for the alternatives that propose
road construction would impair GSMNP and AT resources.
"None of the alternatives that propose construction of roads cornply with the Organic Act. for Parks. The
mandate of that law, that park resources be kept `unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations ' is
not met by this DEIS. "
(Form Letter 25)
"With the National Park Service's current regulations, you are obligated to conserve the Park's natural
resources and leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Cutting a road through th�e
largest undeveloped portion of the Park and indeed the largest roadless tract in the Appalachian
Mountains, is simply inconsistent with those guidelines. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1690)
`Page 4-10 [of the DEISJ defines `impairment' as an action that `would harm the integrity of the park
resources or values. ' This defznition is.followed by page after page describing serious negative impacts,
each harmful to the integrity of the park, of all alternatives except for No Action and Monetary Settlernent.
Finally on page 4-82 it is stated that there would be no i�npairment!!"
(Individual, Oberlin, OH, Comment 58)
"The DEIS contains page after page of findings that the proposed road would have rnajor, long ternz
environmental impacts on the park. Yet, it concludes `The Northern Shore Corridor is not anticipated to
cause impairment to either GSMNP or the Appalachian Trail based on the information obtained to date.
... What possible �sicJ could lead you to such a conclusion? The `not' in that statement should be
rernoved from the DEIS. "
(Individual, Bristol, TN, Comment 1710)
"Your own analysis details major and abiding impairment of every single park resource and value you
exainined, as well as visitors' enjoyment of them. Inexplicably, your suminary contradicts the very evidence
of your analysis. "
(Form Letter 1 ] )
"�IJt is impo�tant to object to the serious and onerous contradictions by the NPS statec� in the DEIS
conclusion below. There simply is no articulation by NPS of its logic or rationale for this conclusion. `The
Northern Shore Corridor is not anticipated to cause impairment to either GSMIVP or the AT based on the
information obtained to date. "'
(Individual, Bellevue, WA, Comment 1705)
"The EIS must ... explain how road constr�uction will not impair the park through negatively inzpacting
this endangered species of bat. "
(Organization [National Parks Conservation Association], Knoxville, TN, Comment 3311)
"Carolina Mountain Club members are users of backcountry campsites, tNails, and visual resources that
would be adversely affected by the partial or full build options. The DEIS fully documents the extent of
these impacts and the. fact that the integrity of the area north of Fontana Lake would be severely harmed.
If you look at a large enough area, the impacts to a small area can be trivialized. We believe that this is
Public Involvement — 6-87
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

the wrong approach. The integrity of each area of GSMNP must be protected. The Park is the sum of its
coinponent areas. "
(Organization [Carolina Mountain Club], Asheville, NC, Comment 1697)
Any reasonable person equipped with commonsense and a capacity to understand the basic definitions of
words like adverse, rnajor long-term and permanent would most likely conclude that the North Shore Road
at the very least would impair the Park. Yet despite this siinple exercise in logic, the DEIS, in a bold and
dis�nissive conclusion, declares, and I quote, ?Vone of the alternatives would harm the integrity of the park.
The Northern Shore Corridor is not anticipated to cause impairment. ' Well, those of us who value the
natural environment and resources of our parks have reached a very different conclusion. This project will
destr°oy the ecological integrity of a global treasure, considered by many as the crown jewel of the
Southern Appalachians. "
(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 2861)
"The determination of nonimpairment for the North Shore Road build alternatives does not serve the
interests of the people of the United States. The responsibility of the National Park Service is clearly
articulated in the Organic Act of 1916. It requires that the National Park Service promote and regulate the
use of the nationalparks by such means and measures as confor�n to the fundamentalpurpose of the parks.
The purpose of the national parks is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife
therein. The Department of Interior is directed to provide for the enjoyment of the resources in the parks in
such a manner and by such means as will leave therrz unirnpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. ...
Through the Organic Act, the National Park Service is prohibited. fi^om exercising its authority in derogation
of the values and purposes fo� which the national parks have been established. ... Building a road on the
North Shore area ftts all of the provisions of these guidelines constituting impairment, and none of the
provisions leading to the judgment that actions do not constitute impairment. It is clear that many of the paNk
resources would be impaired by building a road. The Draft EIS contains page after page documenting major
adverse, long-ter�n or permanent irnpairrnents to nuinerous park values. It's not a responsible, reasonable
position for the Park Service to claim that this does not constitute impairment. "
(Organization [Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 2911-2, [at the Asheville
Public Hearing])
"An impact to a park resource is more likely to constitute impairment if it affects a resource that is
necessary to fulfill specific purposes of the Park's establishing legislation, key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park, or identified as a goal in the Park's General Manageinent Plan. See NPS MP at
1.4.5. The North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives would constitute prohibited impairment under this
standard both because of their effects on key park resources and because of their adve�se i�npact on the
fundamental wilderness character of the Park. Construction of the North Shore Road and Bushnell
alternatives would significantly impair resources that are key to the natural and cultural integrity of the
Park as identified by establishing legislation and the General Management Plan. ... The curnulative effect
of ... impacts to individual resources constitutes a prohibited impairment of the core nature and
signifzcance of the Park. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 3319)
"In addition to a collective impact on individual park resources, the North Shore Road and Bushnell
alternatives would significantly impair the backcountry and wilderness resource values that are
fundamental to the Park's character and purpose, as recognized by the General Management Plan, the
NPS wdlderness recommendation for this area, and the Park's designation as a Biosphere Reserve. The
North Shore Road and Bushnell alternatives would degrade this core value of the Park by segmenting one
of the largest, unfi^agmented tracts of mountain terrain in the eastern United States. "
(Organization [Southern Environmenta] Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
Public Involvement — 6-88
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

"NPS purports to make its impairment evaluation based on unrnitigated i�npacts identifzed by the DEIS. If
that is true, then the finding of no impair�nent is r�ot only w�ong, it is outrageous. ...[TJhe unmitigated
impacts of acid drainage from acid producing rock in the park have sterilized all life, fi^om affected streains
for decades. The land scar and habitat fi^agmentation of a road constructed through the Park without
nzitigation, would present an impassable barrier to wildlife resources. ... If indeed, NPS has based its
finding of no impairment at least in part on the presumed reduction in impacts that might result from the
implementation of avoidance niitigation and lninimization strategies, then the DEIS is entirely inadequate
in that NPS repeatedly declines to analyze the potential effectiveness of such mitigation or the extent to
which such strategies could effectively reduce impacts anticipated from road construction. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33 ] 9)
"The current Meniorandum of Understanding. for the Appalachiar� National Scenic Ti^ail within the GSMNP
among GSMNP, the NPS A. T. Park O�ce, ATC, and the Smoky Mountains Hiking Club states that the
GSMNP agrees `to establish an Appalachian Trail Corridor' surrounding the A. T.. footpath, to assu�e the
rnaximum protection of a primitive-recreation experience, for both the A. T. and GRSM. ... Contrary to the
proposed North Shore Road Corridor project, it is ATC's interpretation that, under this MOU, no impact of
any significant magnitude would be permissible to the A. T. within the GSMNP ...�GivenJ the Park's
commitments to `assure maximum retention of the primitive-recreation experience' of the A. T. in the GSMNP,
we find it extraordinary that the Park Service could conclude, as it does in the DEIS, that `the Northern Shore
Corridor is not likely to impair the aesthetic and visual resources of GSMNP or the A. T. "'
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
"Simply put, the no-impairment conclusion cited in the DEIS is.flatly wrong and should be corrected.
Construction of a road within the Northern Shore Corridor would cause signifzcant, adverse impacts to the
Appalachian Trail viewshed along a ten-mile plus segment in the GSMNP and would seriously undermine
the aesthetic and recreational experience of thousands of annual visitors in the largest roadless area along
the entire 2,175-mile Appalachian National Scenic Trail. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
`Despite the weight of its own measurements and estimates as well as other relevant sound impact
analyses ... the DEIS concludes that the impacts of noise generated by the const�uction and use of the
North Shore Road project would `not likely impair the existing soundscape of GSMNP or the A. T. ' We
fundamentally disagree. Consti-uction of either of the proposed Northern Shore Corridor routes will have a
signifzcant adverse impact on the A. T. and its users — both during the protracted consti^uction phase and
for many years thereafter— and will i�npair the soundscape values that are.fundamental to the remote,
backcountNy experience along the affected segment of the Appalachian Trail through the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. "
(Organization [Appalachian Trail Conservancy], Harpers Ferry, VW, Comment 3318)
Approximately 53 individuals or form letters included impairment concerns covering a variety of resource
topics, including geology and soils, water resources (surface water water quality, and floodplains), natural
resources (wildlife resources, aguatic ecology, migratory birds, wetlands and special habitats, and
protected species), air quality, land use, visito� use and experience, aesthetic resou�ces, soundscapes, and
cultural resources (archaeological sites and historic structures).
Response: NPS Management Policies define "impairrnent" as "an impact that, in the professional
judgment of a responsible NPS manager, would harm the integriry of park resources or values, including the
opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values" (NPS 2006b).
NPS policies require an analysis of impairment to resources as part of the environmental impact analysis
Public Involvement — 6-89
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

process. Impairment determinations are treated as separate findings from impact thresholds. NPS policy
guidance does not define "impairment" as equivalent to a"major" adverse impact.
In determining whether an impact would be likely to cause impairment, the NPS manager must consider the
extent that the impact affects a resource or value whose conservation is: necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclaination of the park; key to the natural or cultural integrity of
the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or identified as significant in the park's general
management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. The impairment analysis is not a NEPA
requirement, but a DO-12 requirement. While iinpainnent is discussed in the EIS, it is a separate evaluation
based on the components previously listed and in consideration of the impacts noted in the EIS.
As noted in Section S-6 of the Summary, "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 opporiunities that
otherwise would be 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 altematives, there is a potential far impainnent 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 ihe 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 altematives and the potential for impairment to GSMNP or AT resources should best
efforts fail."
Environmental Consequences — General
116. The statement that the Monetary Settlement Alternative would not irreversibly or
irretrievably commit Park resources is incorrect.
"`The Monetary Settlement Alternative would not irreversibly or irretrievably commit Park resources. ' The
statement above is incorrect. The money spent on the Monetary Settlement could instead be spent on such
projects as park rraanagement, maintenance or improvement. Its expenditure on the Monetary Settle�nent IS
an irreversible commitment as this money will not be available for these other purposes. "
(Individual, Saginaw, MI, Comment 1707-31)
Response: Section 4.8.2, Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources states that "Federal
money would be committed to the county" for the Monetary Settlement. However, it is currently assumed
that the Monetary Settlement would be provided to Swain Counry and would not become available to
GSNINP for other purposes such as Park management, maintenance, or improvement if an altemative other
than the monetary settlement is implemented.
117. The DEIS understates the impacts to the Park.
"The physical darr�age to the environment of the Park is substantial and understated in the DEIS. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1690)
"[TJhe biological implications of building the road are devastating to the park. The EIS should reflect this. "
Public Involvement — 6-90
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

(Individual, Asheville, NC, Comment 1695)
Response: The EIS covers the full range of impact topics as suggested by NPS policy in DO-12 and as
outlined in CEQ's NEPA guidelines. The topics are listed in Section 1.7 and they include: "communiry,
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 sustainabiliry and long-term management."
The project study alternatives were analyzed for their potential to impact each of these resource topics, as
applicable. Section 4.l .1 states the general methodology for analyzing potential impacts. It states that "DO-
12 requires that an EIS must discuss the impacts of each reasonable altemative under consideration and must
quantify the impacts in terms of their type, context, duration, and intensity. This section defines the type,
context, duration, and intensity far impacts based Lipon NPS technical guidance and internal documents.
Methodologies, detailed guidance and regulations, and tailored definitions of impact intensiry are provided
for each resource, ar group of resources, in the corresponding section in this chapter."
Chapter 4 documents all identified impacts, including numerous moderate and major, adverse impacts to
resources. The Summary presents the impacts by topic by alternative, focusing on those that were determined
to have at least a moderate or major impact on the identified resource.
118. The DEIS does not adequately consider environmental amenities and values.
"The DEIS does not adequately (if at all) give appropriate consideration to these unquantifzed
environmental amenities and values: a. Solitude; b. Beauty; c. The.fact that the north shore is a part of the
largest unbroken tract of mountain land in the eastern United States in federal ownership; d. The ongoing
processes of evolution in this area of the GNeat Smoky Mountains National Park, e. The gene pools of the
unbroken north shore tract; f. Species that may become endangered or become rare due to road
constr^uction on the north shore; g. Destruction or diminution of Wilderness values. "
(Organization [Southem Appalachian Forest Coalition], Asheville, NC, Comment 3314)
Response: As described in the response to Concern No. 117, the EIS covers a full range of impact topics
following CEQ's NEPA guidelines. The selection of the final impact topics addressed in the EIS was an
iterative process that began with project scoping, where the study team presented the initial impact topics and
requested input on issues and concerns within the study area that the public wanted the EIS to evaluate and
analyze. As described below, the impact topics evaluated in the EIS address the above referenced
environmental amenities and values, many of them in specific detail.
Solitude impacts are addressed in Section 4.2.5.2.9 and are recognized in Section 4.2.2, which evaluates
social impacts to individuals focused on various issues, including "the solitude of this region of the Park."
Impacts to aesthetics and visual resources are presented in Section 4.5, detailed in Appendix O, and discussed
along with impacts to general scenic views in Section 4.2.5.10. The review of cumulative impacts in Section
4.1.2 includes discussion of the size of land within GSMNP without roads that have public vehicular access
and the urbanization trends in the eastern United States (Section 4.1.2.17). Impacts to natural resources are
presented in Section 4.4, which evaluates impacts to wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams, water qualiry,
Public Involvement — 6-91
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

aquatic ecology, vegetation communities, terrestrial wildlife, black bears, migratory birds, invasive exotics,
and protected species. Impacts to evolution and gene pools of the project study area are not explicitly
evaluated; however, the analysis recognizes that a road may impede movement of animals between habitats.
Sections 4.4.4.3 and �.4.6.3 suggest several methods that could be utilized the promote connectivity if a
partial-build or build alternative were implemented. The response to Concern No. 94 discusses how impacts
to species that may become endangered or rare due to construction are reflected in the protected species
evaluations presented in Section 4.4. ] 0 and Appendix N. More than a dozen visitor use impact subtopics
representing wilderness experience and values were evaluated, including fishing, hiking, camping, horse use,
solitude, and other visitor experiences (including wildlife viewing, photography, nature study and
nostalgia/refuge). In addition, wilderness values are recognized in Section 4.2.2 where community impacts
are identified for individuals focused on "leaving an undisturbed environment and potential wilderness
designation." Impacts to land available for potential wilderness designation are presented in Section 4.2.4,
Land Use.
119. The DEIS fails to address the impacts to the status of GSMNP as a World Heritage Site
and as an International Biosphere Reserve.
"The GSMNP is a World Heritage Site and the DEIS fails to address the failure to live up to the prior
representations regarding such designation. "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1690)
"In its nomination of the Park for World Heritage status, the Department of the Interior repNesented.•
`Many plant and animal species which are uncommon, enderv�ic, or exist outside the park only as
fragmentedpopulations, are preserved here in perpetuity, thus giving long-term research opportunities not
assured elsewhere. They are essentially fi^ee from major human interference, interi-uption by roads, and
impairment by such things as housing areas or industrial developments. The value of the gene pools thus
protected is beyond estimation. ' The Department added that the Park had `the most diverse salamander
fauna in the world. ' The DEIS does not mention this promise by the United States to the United Nations,
or explain how it can justify reneging on its proinise. "
(Individual, Kernersville, NC, Comment 1724)
"The DEIS fails entirely to consider the i�npact of the land use reclassifications required for
implementation of the North Shore Road and Bushnell alterr�ative on the Park's status and management as
the core area of a Biosphere Reserve or the implications of the proposed land use for the obligations of the
United States under international treaties. "
(Organization [Southern Environmental Law Center], Asheville, NC, Comment 33l 9)
Response: As detailed in the responses to Concern Nos. 118 and 119, the EIS covers a full range of impact
topics following CEQ's NEPA guidelines and these topics were developed in an iterative public process that
began with project scoping. While impacts to the status of GSMNP as a World Heritage Site and an
International Biosphere Reserve are not identified as separate topics, the impact topics evaluated in the EIS
address the resources and values represented in the World Heritage Site and International Biosphere Reserve
designations. Impacts of any of the detailed study alternatives on the project study area are not anticipated to
affect the status of the entire Park as a World Heritage Site and International Biosphere Reserve.
Public Involvement — 6-92
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

120. The DEIS provides inadequate detail on impacts and has not disclosed all information
or reports that were utilized in analyzing impacts.
"NEPA regulations require that the `environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the
environment of the area(s) to be affected. ' The regulations also reguire that `�tJhe information must be of
high quality. ' The infor�nation in the DEIS is limited, summarized fi°om otheN reports and ar�alyses not
disclosed in the DEIS or to requesting merrzbers of the public. ...Both the NPS and the FHWA have largely
refused to make those documents available to the public, despite numerous informal and formal requests (via
the FOIA). Failure to make the decision-making process `transparent' and making the underlying and/or
supporting information which purportedly helped the agencies form their decisions and conclusions in the
DEIS is iinproper, and renders the DEIS deficient and contrary to law. ...
Congress passed the so-called `Data Qualiry Act'. ... The main intent of the legislation appeared to require
that data used by Federal agencies was presented in a co�nplete, unbiased, accurate, and reliable way; in
other words, objective. Objective information is furthev� required to be tr°ansparent or capable of being
reproduced or able to be independently reanalyzed by a qualifzed member of the public. The DEIS fails to
meet these sin�ple requirements. Among other failures, the NPS and FHWA have refused to make available
the data they allegedly compiled to form the bases for the various technical reports. The reports that are part
of the DEIS and referenced throughout the document are merely interpretations, summaries, or other
distillations and conclusions drawn froin these reports. ...
The ARCADIS report, Cherohala Skyway and Evaluation of Construction Techniques, Water Quality and
Similarity with the North Shore Road, is not yet available to the public, but it apparently shows that
Cherohala did result in damage to some area streams. ...
This DEIS is replete with such conclusory statements, to wit.• Based on the information obtained to date,
which is presented in the impact analysis, none of the alternatives would harm the integrity of GSMNP or AT
resources or values, including the opportunities that othenvise would be present. for the enjoy�nent of those
resources or values. ' However as stated above, the `impact analysis' is defzcient in that it fails to adequately
disclose or fails to fully disclose to the public and to the other interested agencies and parties, the actual
reports and information which have apparently. formed the basis for the `impact analysis. "'
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: As detailed in the responses to Concern Nos. 117 and 118, the EIS covers a full range of impact
topics developed in an iterative public and agency scoping process following CEQ's NEPA guidelines. As
discussed in the response to Concern No. 117, the impact analysis methodologies are tailored for each
resource and follow appropriate guidelines and regulations including CEQ's NEPA guidelines and NPS
guidance.
Details on the analysis of impacts for each resource are presented in Chapter 4 or summarized in Chapter 4
from a corresponding appendix. Technical reference materials have been used by professional staff to assist
in impact evaluations and are cited throughout Chapter 4, as well as in various appendices. CEQ regulations
allow agencies to "identify any [scientific] methodologies used and ... make explicit reference by footnote to
the scientific and other sources relied upon for the conclusions" (] 502.24). The regulations state that material
incorporated by reference must be made "reasonably available for inspection" (1502.21). The appendices and
their technica] attachments were provided with the public distribution of the DEIS. Cited reference materials
including research papers, technical papers, published guidelines, newspaper articles, etc., are listed in
Chapter 7 or in the appropriate reference list within each appendix. The majority of these reference materials
are publicly available and the information required to locate the item has been provided along with the
Public Involvement — 6-93
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

reference, including internet, library, or other locations where appropriate. The report "Cherohala Skyway —
An Evaluation of Construction Techniques, Water Quality, and Similarities with the North Shore Road
Project" was provided as Appendix L and distributed with the DEIS. The data presented to the public in the
EIS and its appendices provide a comprehensive presentation of impacts of the project alternatives and allow
for public review of the basis far those impact determinations following NEPA guidelines and NPS guidance.
The conclusory statements as presented in the quote above are excerpted from the impairment analysis and
determinations. As stated in the response to Concern No. 115, the impairment analysis is not a NEPA
requirement, but is required by DO-12 as part of the environmental impact analysis process. Impairment
determinations are treated as separate findings from impact thresholds and a"major" adverse impact is not
equivalent to "impairment." While the impairment determinations are based on the information provided in
the EIS, detailed in the appendices, or supported by the technical references, NPS managers must consider
factors associated with various NPS policies and the individual Park unit. A discussion of these
considerations is presented in the response to Concern No. 115.
121. NPS may not defer consideration of environmental impacts to a later stage.
"A critical flaw in the DEIS is the stated intent to postpone full consideration of the iinpacts of the various
alternatives until later in the process. ... The current DEIS looks at the general impacts of various road-
building alternatives on a broad and largely abstract level. As discussed herein, the DEIS fails to include
detailed data and analysis regarding the impacts to fish and wildlife associated with the various alternatives,
or even details about what is actually involved in each alternative. The DEIS and other documents indicate
that a more detailed description of the chosen alternative, and closer and more detailed analysis of impacts,
will be provided at a late� date, most likely during project-level NEPA/SEPA evaluation. This is unacceptable
and inconsistent with NEPA. ... The DEIS's statement that its analysis essentially approves the project now
and asks the hard questions later is precisely the type of environnzentally blind decision-nzaking NEPA was
designed to avoid. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
`By the time such impacts have been disclosed, however; the opportunity to make such broad-scale decisions
will have long past. By deciding upon any build alternative outlined by the DEIS, the NPS will have
irretrievably committed itself to a course of action in violation of NEPA. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The EIS provides sufficient information to review the potential impacts of the detailed study
alternatives and support decision-making regarding those alternatives. As detailed in the responses to
Concern Nos. ]] 8 and ll 9, the EIS covers a full range of impact topics developed in an iterative public and
agency scoping process following CEQ's NEPA guidelines. As discussed in the response to Concern No.
117, the impact analysis ��nethodologies are tailored for each resource and follow appropriate CEQ and NPS
guidelines and regulations. Details on the analysis of impacts for each resource are presented in Chapter 4 or
summarized in Chapter 4 from a corresponding appendix. The impact threshold determinations presented in
Chapter 4 have been made on a warst-case/maximum impact basis (e.g., maximum acreages affected/
assumption that 100 percent of disturbed rock and soil would have the potential to produce acid).
Notwithstanding, if a partial-build or build alternative were selected for implementation, final design would
include further avoidance and minimization measures and could include shifts in alignment. While analysis
is not likely to reveal an increased level of magnitude of impacts, final design and detailed mitigation could
reveal sit�specific impacts that are not currently known. Additional NEPA analysis would be required if
Public Involvement — 6-94
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

impacts were found to be greater than impacts identified in this EIS for any of the partial-build or build
alternatives.
Agencv Coordination
122. The EIS must explain why North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) was not included as a Cooperating Agency; Swain County
should be invited to participate as a cooperating agency.
"Finally, why was the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) not
included in the list of cooperating agencies? Under the Clean water Act (CWA) Section 401 requires the
state to issue a Water Quality Certifzcation. ... The EIS must explain why NCDENR was not included as a
cooperating agency given the fact that any additional road construction north of Fontana Lake will require
action by the state of North Carolina. "
(Organization [National Parks Conservation Association], Knoxville, TN, Comment 3311)
"Finally, the Department of Interior should give great weight to the prerogative of Swain County and invite
the County to participate as a cooperating agency. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: Per 40 C.F.R. 1501.6, "Upon request of the lead agency, any other Federal agency which has
jurisdiction by law shall be a cooperating agency. In addition, any other Federal agency which has special
expertise with respect to any environmental issue, which should be addressed in the statement may be a
cooperating agency upon the request of the lead agency."
At the Interagency Kick-off Meeting on March 12, 2003, as documented in the meeting minutes, and as
reiterated in the cover letter (June 26, 2003) sent with the meeting minutes, an invitation was issued jointly by
FHWA and NPS that agencies interested in becoming cooperating agencies should write a letter to the lead
agencies and request cooperating agency status for the project. The representatives of NCDENR and of many
of its divisions either attended the Kicic-off Meeting and/ar received a copy of the cover letter and meeting
minutes. To date, NCDENR has not requested cooperating agency status for this project. Interagency
coordination is discussed in Section 5.
Coordination with other entities, such as Swain County, has been ongoing throughout the process of
developing the EIS. As noted in Section 5.12 (previously Section 5.1 l), "GSMNP has encouraged all
interested parties to review project update materials, provide comments, request meetings, and discuss the
project." In October 2004, GSMNP sent a letter to the Swain County Commissioners and it noted that "we
[GSMNP] would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Swain County Commissioners to openly discuss
your concerns regarding the project." To date, correspondence and resolutions have been received from the
Swain County Commissioners regarding the project; however, they have not requested a meeting. Also, as
noted in Section 5.12 (previously Section 5.11), "Neither FHWA nar GSMNP has been delegated the
authority from the DOI to meet with the signatories in an effort to resolve the 1943 Agreement."
Public Involvement — 6-95
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Public Involvement
123. The DEIS should include statistics regarding pro-road versus anti-road comments.
"Why is there no compilation of pro road vs. anti-road comments or meeting participation in the DEIS? "
(Individual, Knoxville, TN, Comment 1277)
Response: Section 6.5.2 includes a brief summary of comments co]]ected during the project and refers to
Appendix J(Public Involvement Comment Summary) and the Errata and Addenda to Appendices, Appendix
J. The Public Involvement Comment Summary (Appendix J) provided an overview of comments collected
during the Public Scoping Phase, Existing Conditions Phase, and the Altematives Development Phase. The
Errata and Addenda to Appendix J includes comment summaries for the Impact Analysis Phase and
summaries for comments submitted following the release of the DEIS. Information is provided in the
comment summaries regarding public sentiment for the alternatives development phase, preliminary study
alternatives, final study alternatives, as well as preferences for alternative combinations and/or suggested
alternatives. Table 6-3 in Section 6.4 shows public meeting attendance.
In describing the content analysis process, "It is important to recognize that the consideration of public
comment is not a vot�counting process in which the outcome is determined by the majoriry opinion.
Relative depth of feeling and interest among the public can serve to provide a general context for decision-
making. However, it is the appropriateness, specificity, and factual accuracy of comment content that serve
to provide the basis for modifications to planning documents and decisions. Further, because respondents are
self-selected, they do not constitute a random or representative public sample. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) encourages all interested parties to submit comments as often as they wish regardless of
age, citizenship, or eligibility to vote. Respondents may therefore include businesses, people from other
countries, children, and people who submit multiple responses. Therefore, caution should be used when
interpreting comparative terms in the summary document. Every substantive comment and suggestion has
value, whether expressed by one respondent or many. All input is read and evaluated and the analysis team
attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process" (CEQ 2002).
124. The DEIS does not contain a public comment summary for the impact analysis phase.
`Page 6-8 states that Public comment surninaries from the first four phases of the Draft EIS planning
process are included in this report as Appendix J. ' But in fact Appendix J contains public comment
summaries. from only the first three phases, and on page 36 says that there is no summary for the inipact
analysis phase but that one would be `included in the DEIS to be released to the public in.fall 2005. "'
(Individual, Oberlin, OH, Comment 58)
Response: The public comment summary far the Impact Analysis Phase has been added to Appendix J,
and appropriate text has been added to Chapter 6.
Public Involvement — 6-96
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

Miscellaneous
125. The DEIS does not analyze the appropriation of funds for the partial-build or build
alternatives.
Any analysis of whether the expenditure of any funds on any construction alternatives must consider the
following factors. ... The DEIS does not analyze the probabilities that Congress will or will not
appropriate funds. "
(Organization [Smoky Mountain Hiking Club], Knoxville, TN, Comment 3309)
Response: As stated in Section 1.4.3, "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 Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFLHD) and the
NPS are preparing an EIS in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA." Details on the availability or
phasing of funds are not rypically included in an EIS.
126. The DEIS does not evaluate the contingencies that could affect the partial-build or
build alternatives.
"The DEIS does not tabulate, much less analyze, the contingencies that could affect any of the build
alternatives. Some of these factors that have been ignored include: (1) Estimated tiine that could be
consumed in any legal contest of the final Environmental Impact Statement,� (2) Estimated time to obtain
all construction permits; (3) Estiinated time to obtain bids on construction and award contracts; (4)
Estimated number of times NPS will have to seek additional appropriations for any construction. It is
obvious that the length of time needed to corr�plete any build alternative is a factor in determining whether
it is reasonable and prudent. Failure to analyze factors that can delay the project is necessary to rational
decision-nzaking. "
(Individual, Walhalla, SC, Camment 1723)
Response: As detailed in the responses to Concern Nos. 118 and 1 l9, the EIS covers a full range of impact
topics developed in an iterative public and agency scoping process following CEQ's NEPA guidelines.
Issues associated with environmental requirements/permitting, construction bidding/award, and potential
schedule impacts are reflected in terms of costs in the cost estimates for the partial-build and build
alternatives, which include an allowance for engineering and contingencies that has been established at a level
that reflects the unique requirements of the study area, as well as project unknowns or uncertainties. Details
on the permitting process and construction bidding process are not typically included in an EIS. It is beyond
the scope of this NEPA analysis to evaluate the potential for litigation or the availability/appropriation of
funds for any of the alternatives. The assumed project timelines have been developed to reflect reasonably
achievable scenarios and provide a basis for comparing the alternatives. The response to Concern No. 108
discusses some of the schedule assumptions, including the assumption for purposes of this analysis that
corresponding funding would be available for all of the alternatives (partial-build, build, and monetary
settlement).
Public Involvement — 6-97
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement

127. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the impact to private boat enterprises in the
area.
`Building a road to (and then a marina at) Bushnell would involve the Park Service in running a boat dock
— a completely random insertion of complexity considering none of the original signatories contemplated
nor desired public pNOVision of this service. ... This service is already provided in the area by private
enterprises, the impact to which was not adeguately discussed in the DEIS. "
(Organization [WildLaw], Asheville, NC, Comment 3310)
Response: The Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell would include a day use area with various amenities,
including a boat launching ramp and a restricted boat dock. However, the boat ramp and dock associated
with this altemative do not provide boating services on the scale of a marina, nor would boating supplies
typically available at marinas be provided. As stated in Section 2.5.4, "The dock would be used to house
NPS or concession-operated boats that would provide transportation on cemetery decaration days from
Bushnell or Cable Cove, as appropriate. The boat dock would also be used far scenic boat tours and would
be available to the public for temporary docking to access concessions, restrooms, and other facilities." NPS
currently operates boats to provide transportation to cemetery decoration days on the northern side of the
lake. In addition, boats pull up along the shore of several creeks where there is trail access (including Hazel,
Eagle, and Fomey creeks) for fishing, as well as backcountry camping or hiking. The impact of the Partial-
Build Alternative to Bushnell on private enterprises in the area was considered in the economic analysis
presented in Appendix F. While the facility would have the potential to redirect some boats that may have
had destinations elsewhere on the lake inside and outside GSMNP, the boat ramp and dock would also
generate additional business for private enterprises from individuals who want to visit the Bushnell facilities
by boat.
As discussed in the response to Concern No. 9, the 1943 Agreement is a conditional agreement and there is
the potential far there to be a range of alternatives that could satisfy the agreement. The selection of the six
alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative), and their features, recommended for detailed study in the
EIS was an iterative process that began with project scoping. Combining previously suggested ideas with
input from the public, as well as state and federal agencies, the project study team screened approximately
100 initial concepts. The screening of concepts and development of the alternatives recommended for
detailed study in the EIS are documented in the Preli�ninary Alternatives Report (ARCADIS 2005b).
128. Appendix Q`GSMNP Enabling Legislation' contains text discussing geology.
"Appendix Q claims to contain `GSMNP Enabling Legislation. ' And it starts out that way. But on page 2
the Act of May 22, 1926 abruptly ends and is continued by a discussion of pyritic rock and the Cherohala
Skyway. "
(Individual, Oberlin, OH, Comment 58)
Response: Extraneous text was inserted in Appendix Q on pages Q-2 and Q-3. This text has been deleted.
See the Errata and Addenda to the Appendices, Appendix Q.
Public Involvement — 6-98
North Shore Road Final Environmental Impact Statement