SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO

SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

MAY 8, 2001

NOTES

On May 8, 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 for the Smith Mountain Project. The meeting represented the initial meeting of the Steering Committee for developing the Shoreline Management Plan.

Name Representing

Kirby Richardson Bedford County, Virginia

Bill Rolfe Bedford County, Virginia

Gina DeSantis Bedford County, Virginia

Mike Davidson Campbell County, Virginia

Bonnie Johnson 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)

Jim Guyton Virginia Dept. of Conservation And Recreation (VDCR)

David Miles Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

Tom Wilcox Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland

Fisheries (VDGIF)

Mike Thacker American Electric Power (AEP)

Teresa Rogers AEP

Liz Parcell AEP

John Van Hassel AEP

Frank Simms AEP

Representatives from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were asked to attend. However, there was no representation from those agencies at the meeting. The office of Congressman Virgil Goode was invited to send a representative to observe the meeting activities. Although there was no representation from Congressman Goode’s office at this meeting, according to his office staff there may be representation at future meetings.

The meeting consisted of presentations by the representatives from AEP with questions and comments provided by the members of the Steering Committee. Following is a synopsis of the presentations made and items discussed at the May 8 meeting.

Synopsis

· The participants were welcomed and the activities that have taken place to date relative to developing the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Project described. It was emphasized that the purpose of the plan was to provide a guideline for future development along both Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes that would strike a balance amongst the interests of the local governments, State and Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and those living along the lakes while protecting the scenic, recreational and environmental values of the Smith Mountain Project.

· The Steering Committee was updated on activities along both Smith Mountain Lake and Leesville Lake including progress made on the applications for development approval filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Those applications include: (1) the construction of 124 boat slips at Bridgewater Pointe filed February 20 and public noticed March 21; (2) the installation of 182 boat slips at Mariner’s Landing filed February 23 and public noticed March 15; and (3) retroactive approval of eleven commercial installations constructed between February 17, 1998 and April 20, 2000. It was stated that based upon conversations between AEP and FERC staff, that final action on the applications should be forthcoming within several weeks. When asked about status of requests by the VDGIF for mitigation at some of the projects, the response was that the affected applicants have offered to provide public fishing access at the sites and to also provide indigenous plants within the project boundary as part of the landscaping plans to attract wildlife.

· The schedule for developing the Shoreline Management Plan was discussed. To date, the work is on schedule. The target deadline of June 2003 for completing and filing the plan with the FERC has not changed. However, it was emphasized that the schedule is flexible and subject to change. The point was also made that the number of meetings would be kept to a minimum.

· The Steering Committee was informed as to the FERC’s interest in participating directly in the development of the Shoreline Management Plan by attending a number of the upcoming meetings. It was agreed that the FERC should be contacted prior to the next meeting and asked to provide a representative.

· The direction the plan should take was discussed. The consensus was that the plan should be structured so as to allow development within the project boundaries to occur with minimum oversight by the FERC. The plan should establish limits approved by the FERC for development to occur. Under those situations where developments are proposed that are not within the limits established by the plan, then the FERC would need to review and approve the proposed work. In addition, the plan should not result in major modifications to the roles the local governments play in reviewing and approving proposed developments. The plan should also be structured to be flexible.

· The general responsibilities of the Steering Committee were described as providing direction in the development of the Shoreline Management Plan and assisting in the implementation of the final plan. The need for public input during the development of the plan was also emphasized.

· The meeting participants were informed that AEP is developing a web site for the Shoreline Management Plan. Once the site is available, the address will be made available to the members of the Steering Committee and the public.

· The Shoreline Management Plan is to be developed by a Consultant hired by AEP and directed by the Steering Committee. The intent is to develop a plan that once approved by the FERC will be in effect for the term of the existing license for the Smith Mountain Project. The existing license will expire in 2010. Emphasis was placed on the fact that there would be no changes to current operations of the Smith Mountain Project related to the development of the Shoreline Management Plan.

· The question was raised as to whether or not water withdrawals for domestic purposes would be addressed by the plan. The response was that the potential for requests for water withdrawals should be identified in the plan and that the process for obtaining approval for such withdrawals should be contained as a part of the plan. However, specifics regarding withdrawals such as limitations or locations should be dealt with outside of the plan. In that regard, the possibility that water for domestic use could be more profitable than for generation was raised. The response was that using water for domestic use in lieu of power generation would be a business decision that would need to be addressed outside of the plan.

· The key elements of the Shoreline Management Plan Work Scope were discussed. Following are short summaries of the discussions had regarding each.

Definitions: Various terms within the Work Scope were clarified. These included “Project Development” and “shoreline”. The term “Project Development” was described as a portion of a project. For the Smith Mountain Project, it was explained that there are two developments; those being the Smith Mountain Development and the Leesville Development. The Smith Mountain Development includes the powerhouse, dam and reservoir identified as the Smith Mountain Dam and Powerhouse and the Smith Mountain Reservoir. Similarly, the Leesville Development includes the powerhouse, spillway and reservoir identified by the Leesville name. It was suggested that the development names should be used more often in the Work Scope to better define the work to be performed. The term “shoreline” was described as essentially meaning the project boundary. For the Smith Mountain Development, the project boundary is at contour elevation 800 while the project boundary for the Leesville Development is established as contour elevation 620.
Land Use: The scope of work contained under the Land Use item should include the review and consideration for changing land uses around the project boundaries. In addition, current restrictions on activities within the project boundaries (i.e. septic fields, heating coils, etc…) should be referenced and potential future uses identified. The expansion of the plan to incorporate consideration for facilities that serve properties not immediately adjacent to the project boundaries should also be considered.
Recreational Resources: The Recreational Assessment dated December 1996 and prepared by Louis Berger and Associates will be utilized as a base document for developing the Shoreline Management Plan. The information provided in the 1996 assessment will be updated for the plan. It was requested that the report be made available on the web site or its availability referenced. The representatives for VDCR and VDGIF stated that each agency has safety studies and boating accident information available that could be helpful in assessing recreational use at the Smith Mountain Project.
Shoreline Erosion: The selected consultant will be expected to delineate existing shoreline protection along the project reservoirs. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the ability of wetlands to provide some protection from sediment build up in the reservoirs and the need to protect wetlands within the project boundary. The participants agreed that some areas should be protected but in doing so the impacts on individuals living adjacent to those areas to be designated as needing protection should also be considered. The question was raised as to whether or not Franklin County, Virginia requires riprap protection as part of their permits for construction. This will be investigated. The suggestion was made that sources of sediment should be identified and possible ways to mitigate the effects of the sediment in the reservoirs included in the plan. In addition, current regulations regarding dredging should be investigated and given consideration in the development of dredging guidelines.
Environmental and Natural Resources: The inclusion of debris removal as part of the plan was discussed. The consensus appeared to be that the Consultant preparing the plan should investigate how other utilities approach the removal of debris at other projects and that based upon those results, the inclusion of debris removal in the plan would be determined. From the discussions, it is apparent that how water quality issues should be viewed relative to the Shoreline Management Plan is unclear. This item will be clarified in the next draft of the plan. In addition, how socio-economics will be considered in the development of the plan will be defined.
Cultural Resources: The committee deferred comments to VDHR.
Permitting: The opinion of the Steering Committee was that specifications or guidelines for construction of docks and other structures within the project boundary would be better served by the Counties permitting programs. The same was expressed relative to shoreline erosion standards. One item identified as possible for inclusion in the work scope is for the Consultant selected to identify differences in dock and other pertinent regulations for each county.
Mapping: As part of the Work Scope, the Consultant will be asked to recommend the type of mapping that should be utilized to implement the plan. The representatives for Bedford County, Virginia stated that a GIS system should be considered and that Bedford County is interested in partnering with AEP on a system. Pittsylvania County currently does not have GIS capability. The status for the other counties is unknown and will be investigated.

· Copies of the FERC’s “Guidance for Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower Projects” dated April 2001 were distributed to the attendees. Web site addresses for other Shoreline Management Plans will be provided by AEP to the members of the Steering Committee to review.

· The top ten issues as submitted by Franklin and Bedford counties were listed and discussed. It was agreed that the issues had been addressed in earlier discussions and that most would be incorporated into the Work Scope.

· The committee agreed that all public relations relative to press releases and other correspondence be handled by Mr. Thacker at AEP.

· The list of potential consultants was discussed. The Consultant will be retained by AEP. If two or more consultants submit comparable bids, they may be asked to make a presentation to the Steering Committee as part of the selection process.

· The date and time for the next meeting will be determined in the near future. The next meeting should represent the last opportunity for discussing the Work Scope before it is sent out to the prospective consultants.

· Remaining comments on the Work Scope should be addressed to Frank Simms at AEP within two weeks of the initial meeting. Minutes from the initial meeting will be sent electronically to each participant and committee member. A hard copy of the notes will follow.

The meeting concluded at 2:45 p.m. (EDT).

smtnsteermt1notes