Surfing the environmental impact matrix — a massive table summarizing the pros and cons of each option — a serious conundrum jumps out on the last line.

It reads: “Complies with the general management plan, legislative and executive mandates and NPS policies?” Chalk up a “yes” for the cash settlement, but a “no” under build the road.

If the park service gives a thumbs up for the road, it violates its own federal mandate and mission. That line could provide the environmental groups all the fodder they need for a lawsuit.

But the next to last line provides equally solid footing for pro-road contingency.

It reads: “Complies with the original intent of the 1943 agreement?” You guessed it. A “no” appears in the cash settlement column, but a “yes” under build.

While practically footnotes, the two lines summarize the crux of the raging debate.