Location, Date, Time and Attendees

A meeting of the Steering Committee for the development of the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project was held on Thursday, October 17, 2002 at the Bedford County Administration Building Ground Floor Training Center located in Bedford, Virginia. The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. (EDT) and was attended by the below listed individuals:

Name Representing

Gina Shaw Bedford County, Virginia

Bill Rolfe Bedford County, Virginia

Brent Wills Bedford County, Virginia

Kirby Richardson Bedford County, Virginia

Greg Sides Pittsylvania County, Virginia

Bonnie Johnson Franklin County, Virginia

Dan Wilson Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries

Heather Campbell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Shana High Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Ron Willard II Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of

Commerce/Partnership

Stan Smith Smith Mountain Lake Association

Dave Banta Smith Mountain Lake Association

Steve Campbell Association of Lake Area Communities

Gregory Theyel Louis Berger Group

Bill Perry Louis Berger Group

C. Michael Thacker American Electric Power

Teresa Rogers American Electric Power

Elizabeth Parcell American Electric Power

Frank Simms American Electric Power

Following is a synopsis of the meeting.

Synopsis

Gregory Theyel and Bill Perry representing Louis Berger Group presented an update as to the work completed to date relative to development of the Shoreline Management Plan. In short, the field-work has been completed and the data is being assembled. They anticipate that by the end of November the initial maps of the proposed shoreline classifications will be completed.

Messrs. Theyel and Perry presented the proposed shoreline classifications to be utilized for the Shoreline Management Plan. Those classifications include: (a) Commercial; (b) Multi-Family Type Residential; (c) Single-Family Type Residential; (d) Public Recreation; (e) Impact Minimization Zone; and (f) Conservation/Environmental. They further explained that the classifications as listed were tiered. As an example, any of the listed classifications would be allowed within an area designated as “Commercial” while no development identified under any of the above classifications would be considered within an area designated as “Conservation/Environmental”.

Mr. Theyel and Mr. Perry also described the parameters utilized for developing the shoreline classifications and asked for comments. Information regarding the proposed classifications and associated parameters were provided to the Steering Committee members, including those not in attendance, prior to the meeting.

The suggestion was made that the classification “Multi-Family” be changed to “Multi-Use”. The thought behind the change would be to have the title for the classification more compatible with the zoning classifications utilized by the counties. Under that classification, it was added that only those parcels having shoreline along the lakes should be permitted to have access. In addition, there should be a cut-off date by which the parcels need to be recorded in order to determine if they appropriately can have access.

A suggestion was made that within the management plan there should be language regarding allowing existing uses not in conformance with the Shoreline Management Plan to continue. As part of that language, a cut-off date should be established.

The recommendation was made that off-water single family homes would need to have an associated shoreline area designated as “Multi-Use” in order to have access to the lakes.

There was an extensive discussion regarding how changes to the plan would be made since the uses along and within the lakes may change over time. One suggestion was to have a review process incorporated into the plan. That review process could include a review cycle of possibly 5-years or less. In order to have a review process, the need to keep the Steering Committee or a part of it in effect should also be considered.

The meeting participants stated that some of the definitions were difficult to understand without an example figure. Therefore, it was suggested that figures showing examples of what was meant under the parameters and classifications be included in the final plan.

Under the definition of “Impact Minimization Zone”, it was suggested that possible allowable development should include all classifications. It was further suggested that in order to construct or disturb anything within an Impact Minimization Zone, an application would need to be prepared and submitted for review. As part of an application, details regarding mitigation measures would need to be provided. If the appropriate information was contained in the application, including necessary permits from the state agencies and local governments, approval could then be granted. In order to have the ability to grant that approval, the process for obtaining the approval including details regarding the information required will need to be included in the management plan. By doing so, the additional step of having to submit the application to the FERC for review and approval could possibly be eliminated.

The representatives from Bedford County indicated that as a requirement of their permits the construction of the permitted facility has to be started and completed within a stipulated time period. It was suggested that similar constraints be incorporated into the management plan.

The recommendation was made that the classification “Public Recreation” should be changed to “Public Use”. This would allow for a broader range of public facilities to be identified in the management plan, i.e. water intakes.

There was extensive discussion regarding how to determine the distance from shoreline to shoreline. Based upon that discussion, it was recommended that the distances for Smith Mountain Lake be based upon a full pond elevation of 795 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). For Leesville Lake, the low operating level of 600 feet NGVD was proposed. The distances should represent a transect across any portion of the lakes. It was also determined that if the shoreline to shoreline distance for a classification was less than allowable as described for that classification at any point, the classification could not be continued further upstream even if the upstream portion of the lake met the requirements for that classification. Similarly, development identified by a higher classification would not be permitted farther upstream.

The area around the Hales Ford Bridge was discussed in detail. Based upon the parameters described by the representatives for the Louis Berger Group, additional shoreline would not be available for commercial development. The initial suggestion was to consider the area as a special case since there already was a significant amount of commercial development at that location. One argument against such a designation was that by simply allowing more development, the area could only become more crowded and boat traffic levels too high. Upon further discussion, a suggestion was made that the Commercial classification be divided into two classifications, those being “Low Density’ and “High Density”. Such classifications could possibly allow for more controlled commercial development within the project boundary for Smith Mountain Lake in areas such as Hales Ford Bridge as long as appropriate mitigation measures were provided.

The representative for Franklin County stated that they have no control at the present time over the construction of boat ramps and that such control would need to be stipulated within the management plan.

The question was raised regarding how to control seaplanes. This will need to considered further as the development of the management plan proceeds.

It was agreed that the description for the “Single Family” classification was too restrictive with the parameter that there be more than ½ mile from existing Commercial or Multi-Family-Type facilities. This would not allow for a single-family classification immediately adjacent to those areas although this situation currently exists at numerous locations along the lakes.

The suggestion was made that the “Public Use” classification should be at a higher tier than the “Single-Family” classification based upon the adjacent boat density parameters described for each of those classifications.

It was clarified that all cultural sites would be protected under the plan and not just those identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Historic Places registry.

The Steering Committee members agreed that under the “Impact Minimization Zone” classification, the parameter should be changed so that wetlands from “0 to 100 feet” in length along the shoreline are included.

The representatives for the Louis Berger Group briefly described how there would be threshold regulations incorporated into the management plan. Those could include dock spacing, dock density, dock lengths amongst others. A listing of threshold regulations will be sent out to the Steering Committee members prior to the next meeting for consideration. Input from the members relative to possible threshold regulations was also requested and that the input should be sent to Mr. Theyel and/or Mr. Perry at the Louis Berger Group.

The next meeting will be held December 18, 2002 and will be an all-day meeting. Prior to that meeting, draft regulations along with the initial classification maps should be made available to the Steering Committee members.

The meeting ended at approximately 12:30 p.m. (EDT).

smithmtnshoreplannotes5