Talk:Fontana Lake

POV on North Shore Road Controversy/Split Section into Separate Article

Where to begin? We'll for starters, we'll take on the fact that this Controversy is much too large to not have it's own page. This section alone takes up half of the Fontana Lake article page, and is only partially related to the Fontana Lake (controversy started because Lake was built), but isn't related to Fontana Lake being a lake. In addition, this controversy has many more details that could be included if it had its own page.

Now, onto the POV dispute (I'll also tell you which parts of this could be expanded into its own page.)

"The construction of Fontana Dam led to the flooding of most of North Carolina Highway 288, which connected Deals Gap and Bryson City. The National Park Service, after gaining possession of Fontana's north shore tracts, reached an agreement with Swain County to replace the north shore road in the 1940s..." This is neutral, and it is fine for a summary, but could be expanded into like "agreements with Swain County and landowners..." <That brings me to another point--it says very little in this section about people actually living on the North Shore, it just references the fact that there are cemeteries in this area. This point alone could take a section of the proposed "North Shore Road" article.

"...By 1972, however, funding issues had continuously stalled construction, and just 7.2 miles (11.6 km) of the road had been completed (just outside of Bryson City)..." It wasn't funding that stalled construction (well it wasn't funding completely), it was environmentalists protesting over having the road built. Also worth noting, the majority of this part of the road was built by the NCDOT, who finished their job and built to the line of the Park. A tunnel was then built in Park boundaries, and the road was extended less than a half-mile past the tunnel. It was during this part of the construction that the construction was halted (the road was being built through the park).

"...In the 1970s, environmental concerns completely halted the road's progress, and locals nicknamed the unfinished 7.2-mile (11.6 km) road "the Road to Nowhere".(3)..." Well there is the first mention of environmental concerns. Details? It would be worth noting what concerns were being voiced about the road (for example, "The dodo would go extinct!" <FYI that was a fabricated example.)

"...After North Carolina's U.S. Senator Jesse Helms secured funding for the road in 2000, the park service conducted an environmental impact study (released in 2007) that determined that toxins released during the road's construction would pollute nearby streams, and would thus be in violation of the park's general management plan.(citation needed)..." This isn't true. At all. Lets break it down more....

"...After North Carolina's U.S. Senator Jesse Helms secured funding for the road in 2000, the park service conducted an environmental impact study (released in 2007)..."

Yes this part is true, and it would be worth noting Charles H. Taylor, the 11th district congressman at this time who also helped secure funding. Yes, the park service did conduct an EIN study, which was released in 2007 by the company Arcadis.

"...that determined that toxins released during the road's construction would pollute nearby streams, and would thus be in violation of the park's general management plan.(citation needed)..."

I would say a citation would REALLY be needed. The EIN did say that toxins MAY be released, but this section doesn't note that these toxins are common in road building (cutting through Anakeesta Rock) and is easily controlled. (Cheap, too.) The EIN study also found that there would be no long-term environmental impact if the road was built. So no, the park service did not reject the road because it violated their general management plan. They must have rejected it for other reasons (unknown), because any reasoning that claims it would have an environmental impact is simply unsubstantiated.

"...Opponents warned of runoff affecting water quality, especially if the road was not paved, and acid that would leach into the environment as a result of cutting Anakeesta rock, unless mitigation took place. The road might also divide wildlife habitats such as those of black bear, a problem that could be at least partly solved with bridges.(4)..." 1. Why does it only have an argument from opponents? If it were neutral it would say like "... Proponents claim, Opponents claim..." 2. If it were neutral, and arguments from both sides over the environmental impact were there, it really should be before what this section claims is truth (the ein violating gen. management plan) 3. There are several arguments from both sides that could be heard in a separate section of the proposed new article.

"...With the help of Congressman Heath Shuler, the park service negotiated a cash settlement with Swain County in 2007, ensuring the road will likely go unfinished.(3)..." This is true, but I have a problem with "ensuring the road will likely go unfinished" Ensuring that something will be likely to happen is not an assurance.

"...On February 2, 2010, a $52 million payment to Swain County was announced, effectively ending the matter.(5)..." Do you really have to mention the end of this twice? This sentence was pretty much the same as before. FYI- The $52 million was a number that was first tossed around during the EIN as a proposed settlement. In 2007 when Congressman Shuler got the cash settlement, it was obvious (and in fact, I think said) that the $52 million was the settlement. The Feb. 2010 dates are the dates in which a new contract was drawn up and signed, making everything legal and ending the old contract (which promised the road) which was called the '43 Agreement. Again, this could be expanded into a section.

"...Swain County commissioners voted to accept the deal on February 5..."

These last three sentences have been pretty redundant--Nailing in the fact that the road was over with.

"...The county will receive interest from a trust fund, with $2.5 million to $4 million expected each year. County voters would have to approve any use of the principal..."

Out of all the details you could have put in, is this really one of them to be in a summary? Sure, it would be nice in a separate article, but a summary?

"...The vote, however, did not change the minds of some supporters of the road, especially those whose family members had lost their land when the lake was built.(6)..."

What? There were people over there? I didn't know that HUGE fact until I'm almost finished reading this article. Think about it, if you had never heard of this issue before, and had started reading, at this point you would have agreed with taking the settlement instead of the road. Come on man, think of the black bears! <Sarcasm. Oh, and this would be expanded into (probably) the largest section and would have placement near the BEGINNING of the article. Chronological order, much?

"...The park service is still considering a gravel road which would go a different way from the original road, though this would not solve all the problems for those wanting to access one of the 131 cemeteries. On several Sundays each year, the park service provides free boat rides for those visiting the cemeteries, but for some locations, a boat ride would still be needed even with a road. Visitors would still have to take a long, strenuous walk to reach some areas. The park service does maintain and provide access to some roads leading to cemeteries.(7)..." Could be expanded into like an "Aftermath/Current" section. It talks nothing of the fact that the visitors are mostly senior citizens or disabled people, and cannot do the walk as it goes up steep hills and cliffs. Oh, and it sounds like the park service is making a last ditch effort to make itself seem caring after the comment about the people wanting to visit the cemeteries earlier.

Well, thats about it, and yes, I replaced the brackets with parenthesis for the sake of quoting it.

As noted, not only is the section biased towards the opponents of the road, it leaves out huge details which are necessary in the North Shore Controversy. So, it is because of this, I propose that the section be temporarily rewritten, while a new article for this Controversy is created. Donatrip (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) , Swain County Resident

--Please put comments below this line.---------------------------------------------------

Sorry about the formatting--I'll try and fix it. Donatrip (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)