Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

United States of America
Factors affecting the property in 2006*
  • Air pollution
  • Ground transport infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Air pollution.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2006
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2006**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2006

In January 2006, IUCN was informed of the ongoing planning process for the North Shore Road project, which could have adverse impact on Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The information was subsequently shared with the World Heritage Centre and the State Party. On 27 February 2006, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN received a State Party response indicating that the potential North Shore Road project is still very preliminary and quite far from the final decision stage.

According to the State Party response, the park is engaged in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to resolve a long standing issue with Swain County, North Carolina, arising from a 1943 Agreement that calls for building a new road through the park along the north shore of Fontana Lake. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released on 4 January 2006. Five public hearings on the five alternatives included in the DEIS were scheduled to begin in February 2006. The five alternatives range from no action or monetary settlement to partial or full road construction. The DEIS did not specify a Preferred Alternative but stated that the Environmentally Preferred Alternative is to resolve the 1943 Agreement through a monetary settlement instead of any road construction. The DEIS further states that, although some of the alternatives involving road construction would be likely to have major adverse impacts on the natural and cultural resources of the park, none have been shown to cause impairment to the park based upon information obtained to date. Up-to-date information on the status of the EIS is available from the park’s project website (www.northshoreroad.info).

IUCN noted that the agencies involved see the planning process as an opportunity to resolve a long standing issue and enhance working relationships between Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the park's gateway neighbours in Bryson City and Swain County, North Carolina. At the same time, IUCN hopes that the planning process results in a decision that avoids major adverse impacts on the natural and cultural resources of the World Heritage property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2006
30 COM 7B.27
State of Conservation (Great Smoky Mountains National Park)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7B,

2. Commends the State Party for its prompt clarification of the status of the North Shore Road project;

3. Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre and IUCN informed of the process to resolve the 1943 Agreement that calls for building a new road through the park as well as any important changes in the state of conservation of the property.

Draft Decision: 30 COM 7B.27

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7B,

2. Commends the State Party for its prompt clarification of the status of the North Shore Road project;

3. Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre and IUCN informed of the process to resolve the 1943 Agreement that calls for building a new road through the park as well as any important changes in the state of conservation of the property.

Report year: 2006
United States of America
Date of Inscription: 1983
Category: Natural
Criteria: (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 30COM (2006)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top