SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

JUNE 19, 2001

NOTES

 

On June 19, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. (EDT), the individuals listed below met at the Bedford County Administrative Building located in Bedford, Virginia to discuss the development of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for the Smith Mountain Project.  The meeting represented the second meeting of the Steering Committee for developing the Shoreline Management Plan.

 

                        Name                                                               Representing

 

            Kirby Richardson                                                      Bedford County, Virginia

            Gina DeSantis                                                           Bedford County, Virginia

            Mike Davidson                                                         Campbell County, Virginia

            Patrick Lawrence                                                      Franklin County, Virginia

            Greg Sides                                                                Pittsylvania County, Virginia

Steve Campbell                                                         Association of Lake

         Area Communities (ALAC)

Dave Banta                                                               Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA)

            Ron Willard, II                                                          Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce/Partnership (SMLCC/P)

Richard Gibbons                                                       Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR)

Brian Heft                                                                 VDCR

Mike McLeod                                                          Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

Mike Scanlan                                                            VDEQ

Charlie Sledd                                                            Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)

Dan Wilson                                                               VDGIF

Bob Clark                                                                 Virginia Department of Health (VDH)

Mrs. Bob Clark                                                         VDH

Heather Campbell                                                     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

John Estep                                                                FERC

Shana High                                                               FERC

Mike Thacker                                                           American Electric Power (AEP)

Teresa Rogers                                                          AEP

Liz Parcell                                                                AEP

Frank Simms                                                            AEP

 

A representative from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) was asked to attend, however there was no representation at the meeting.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicated that they will not provide representation at the Steering Committee meetings.  AEP will continue to keep them informed with committee information. 

 

The meeting consisted of presentations by the representatives from AEP with questions and comments provided by the members of the Steering Committee and representatives for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Following is a synopsis of the presentations made and items discussed at the June 19 meeting.

 

Synopsis

 

• Mrs. Rogers welcomed all present and outlined the meeting agenda.  Agenda topics included introductions, an update on the permitting program and FERC filings, discussions on meeting objectives, and an update on activities to date. 
• Following the introductions, Mrs. Rogers informed the Steering Committee representatives that the FERC had issued final orders granting approval of the eleven (11) projects submitted collectively.  The representatives were further informed that filings regarding projects planned for Bridgewater Plaza and Mariner’s Landing require that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared by the FERC for each.  In order to allow time for the preparation of the EAs, the final orders should not be expected before the end of June, 2001.  

 

·        Mr. Simms outlined the meeting objectives which were identified to include: (1) addressing the comments received since the last meeting; (2) obtaining FERC comments; (3) finalizing the scope of work; (4) addressing any outstanding issues; and (5) discussing the schedule.

 

• The activities accomplished to date including the formation of the steering committee, its initial meeting, receipt of comments on the scope of work, distribution of a final draft of the scope of work, and development of the preliminary web site were reviewed.  In describing the preliminary web site, it was explained that in addition to information regarding the Shoreline Management Plan, the web site would include relicensing information.  Copies of printouts of various pages for the preliminary web site were distributed to the meeting attendees.  The attendees were informed that the web site could be available as early as July 4, 2001.  Mrs. Campbell questioned how the public would be informed of its availability.  Mr. Simms responded that the address would be made available through various methods including but not limited to word of mouth, town meetings, public meetings, press releases, and organizational newsletters.

 

• The attendees were informed that the revised Scope of Work document topics essentially remained unchanged with the exception of the addition of a section addressing the Consultants responsibilities relative to consultations and meetings.  Other changes highlighted included the clarification of the terms “Project Boundary” and  “Development,” provisions for the submittal of alternative proposals, clarification of what base documents will be utilized in the development of the plan, and the addition of specific guidelines.  Referencing Section 4.2 of the Scope of Work document, Mr. Simms noted that copies of Exhibit K license drawings would be included as part of the Scope of Work documents to be sent to the prospective consultants.  He further explained that the Steering Committee along with AEP would direct the consultant as to what is wanted in the management plan within the confines of the scope of work. 

 

• The overall objective of the SMP was explained.  One primary goal of the SMP was explained to be the ability to develop guidelines and procedures for approving certain developments without FERC review.  Mr. Estep indicated that such a document was not usual and would require detailed forecasts and more upfront work.  He added that it will be difficult to identify the limits for development upfront.  It was noted that any proposed development that did not meet the guidelines of the SMP would require FERC approval through the existing amendment process.  Mr. Willard questioned the amount of time required to get such a development approved by the FERC.  Mr. Estep responded that it takes between 6 months, if uncontested, and potentially up to a year or more if contested.    Mrs. Campbell indicated appreciation for the addition of language addressing the overall best comprehensive use of the project shorelines added to Section 5.0 of the Scope of Work. 

 

• Mr. Simms questioned where the division between what goes into the SMP and what is left up to the counties should be.  He suggested that construction permits, dock widths, and electrical requirements be left to the counties, explaining that if there is too much detail, any change proposed by a developer would require FERC approval.  Mr. Estep added that dock specifications can be contentious and that minor changes may not need a FERC amendment.  However, Mr. Estep expressed his appreciation for the “tiered approach” being considered.  Mr. Wilson noted that the DGIF has concerns with the dock regulations for Smith Mountain Lake. Mr. Wilson questioned if the committee would be allowed to review the County’s guidelines.  Mr. Simms explained that one of the first requirements of the consultant would be to look at the guidelines for each county.  Mr. Simms further explained that as the document is written now, the consultant would be available to the counties to work on dock specifications if they are so interested.  When questioned how the counties would react to a unified ordinance/single permit, Mr. Richardson responded that Bedford County would prefer such an approach.     Mr. Sides indicated that a change to the existing ordinance would be easier to sell if it is presented to Pittsylvania County as the same as being considered by the other counties involved.  Mr. Lawrence expressed concurrence for a single ordinance/permit.  Mr. Thacker explained that AEP would still be required to issue a permit but would appreciate a reciprocal relationship with the counties.  Mr. Davidson indicated that Campbell County recently spent a great deal of money creating a program for issuing permits and they would not be interested in making changes to the permit documents or procedures.  However, changes to the requirements would be acceptable.  Mr. Sides concurred.

 

• Referencing Section 5.1 - Land Use, Mr. Simms noted that the consultant would be required to review all available planning documents including Charting A Course for Smith Mountain Lake.  Properties adjacent to the project boundary and the affect of non-adjacent properties on the reservoir would also be identified.

 

• Referencing Section 5.2 - Recreational Resources, Mr. Simms noted that an inventory of special needs availability has been added.  In response to a request made at the initial Steering Committee meeting held May 8, Mrs. Rogers distributed copies of the 1996 Berger Recreational Study to the attendees.  Mr. Simms noted that the document includes projections of recreation activities in and around Smith Mountain Lake.  He also noted that the study was initiated for internal purposes in an effort to identify which properties should be retained by Appalachian Power Company.  

 

·        Referencing Section 5.3 - Shoreline Erosion, Mr. Simms explained that environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands would be identified.  If such wetlands are upstream in the back of a residential cove, it would be up to the committee to decide, giving due consideration to environmental concerns and permit requirements, whether or not dredging should be allowed.  Mr. Banta indicated that the SMLA is interested in developing rough estimates of sediment loads into the lake. Mr. Simms noted that such a project could be considered under relicensing but not as part of the SMP. 

 

·        There were no changes proposed to Section 5.4 - Environmental and Natural Resources.  Mr. McLeod questioned if the data would be available in digital format.  Mr. Simms responded that the consultant would make mapping recommendations and digital formats considered. 

 

·        Referencing Section 5.5 - Cultural Resources, Mrs. Campbell questioned if Native American groups were identified as having any project interests.  She indicated that new regulations require that the interests of Native American groups be considered and addressed.  Mr. Gibbons explained that there could be such interests below Leesville Lake.  The Scope of Work of work will be modified to include Native American interests. 

 

·        Referencing Section 5.8 Consultations and Public Meetings, Mr. Simms noted that there should be one more steering committee meeting prior to the first public meeting.  The purpose of that meeting would be to give the selected Consultant the opportunity to become familiar with the members of the Committee.  It was asked that members of the Steering Committee begin thinking about possible locations, publicity efforts, etc… for the initial public meeting.  Mr. Clark questioned if four public meetings would be adequate.  Mr. Simms responded that it may not be but additional meetings can be held if necessary.  It was further explained that four meetings are referenced in the Scope of Work document to establish a base number for the bidders to develop their proposals.  Mr. Gibbons questioned the purpose of the public meetings.  Mr. Simms responded that the meetings would be designed to inform the public of what is going on as well as to listen and obtain information from those who know the lake best.  The members of the Steering Committee estimated that there could be as many as 250 to 300 attendees at the public meetings.  Regarding public meetings, the Consultant will be responsible for scheduling and determining the locations for the public meetings including the first public meeting.

 

·        Mr. Gibbons asked about the bidding process and potential consultants.  Mr. Simms identified those on the list.  Mr. Gibbons suggested that the team include a good landscape architect.

 

·        Mr. Wilson questioned how conflict resolution would be handled.  Mr. Simms responded that it would be handled by the Steering Committee.  Mr. Simms further explained that when AEP submits the final SMP to the FERC, there should be signatures from each agency, local government, and non-governmental organization represented on the Steering Committee to acknowledge that they agree in principal with the SMP as filed with the FERC.  Therefore, whoever represents those agencies and groups as part of the Steering Committee must be in a position to keep their respective agency, etc… informed and be able to have the any associated agreement signed without modification at the appropriate time.  He added that should any of the agencies, counties or non-governmental organizations want additional presentations regarding development of the SMP, AEP would be glad to do so. 

 

·        Referencing Section 6.1 - Work Schedule, Mr. Lawrence asked if the 6/30/03 date shown on the schedule as the end of the work includes FERC review and approval.  Mr. Simms stated that the date represents the filing date with the FERC.  Mr. Simms noted that we are ahead of schedule by 30 days and the bid process is approximately a 45-day process.    When questioned about the amount of time required to obtain FERC approval of the SMP, Mr. Estep responded that 6 months would be ambitious especially considering the type of plan to be filed.

 

·        Mr. Simms highlighted future activities including the consultant bid and selection process, public meetings, data collection and field verification, preparation of the SMP, and FERC filings.  He asked if anyone from the Steering Committee would be interested in attending the pre-bid meeting.  Upon discussion, it was agreed that representation from the Steering Committee was not necessary.

 

·        Mr. Campbell specifically requested that an explanation of why the plan would not be addressing water levels be included in the minutes.  Mr. Simms responded that the SMP would be based upon existing license conditions.  Water levels and how the project is operated is beyond the scope of the SMP.  Addressing water levels would require that potential impacts on individuals and the environment downstream of the Smith Mountain Project would need to be assessed.  Any modifications would then require a license amendment.  The SMP is intended to address the management of the shoreline.  Water levels would be more appropriately addressed as part of the effort to relicense the Smith Mountain Project.

 

·        If the Consultants selected to submit proposals happen to submit proposals that are very close, an additional meeting of the Steering Committee could be called at which the Consultants would present their proposals.  The input of the Steering Committee would then be taken in consideration when selecting the successful bidder.

 

·        Mr. Simms requested that any specific comments on the revised Scope of Work document be emailed to him at fmsimms@aep.com within 10 days of the date of the meeting.  The next step is for AEP to finalize the document and begin the bidding process.

 

The meeting concluded at approximately 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

 

 

 

 

Smtnsteermt2notes