North Shore Road (3)

{ r
(tY

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