Appalachian Power Company

Smith Mountain Project No. 2210

Shoreline Management Plan

Steering Committee Meeting

Rocky Mount, Virginia

February 26, 2010

The meeting of the Steering Committee involved in the review of the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (SMP) was held on February 26, 2010 at 10 AM at the Rocky Mount Service Center in Rocky Mount, Virginia. The following individuals were in attendance:

Representatives or Alternates / Agency or Organization

Lois Spencer

/ ALAC

Gordon Bratz

/ Association of Lake Area Communities (ALAC)
Frank Rogers / Bedford County
Brian Stokes / Campbell County
Sandy Shackelford / Campbell County
Tom Buck / Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce (SMLRCC)
Ron Willard II / SMLRCC
Dickie Dill / Pittsylvania County
Jason Turner / Smith Mountain Marine Business Association (SMMBA)
Sherwood Zimmerman / Leesville Lake Association (LLA)
Stan Smith / Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA)
Larry Iceman / SMLA
Bill Brush / Franklin County
Russ Johnson / Franklin County
Todd Everett / SMMBA
Greg Sides / Pittsylvania County
Bud LaRoche / Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Frank Simms / American Electric Power (Appalachian)
Teresa Rogers / Appalachian
Liz Parcell / Appalachian
Lisa Hammock / Appalachian

Participating via conference call were Brenda Winn of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and Lynn Crump of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR).

Liz Parcell welcomed the participants and all participants introduced themselves. She encouraged committee members to continue briefing their organizations regarding the meeting information to keep them informed.

Liz reviewed Stan Smith’s comments on the last meeting’s minutes:

1)The date and heading will be changed.

2)It had been asked how other utilities across the nation address permits for docks. It was noted that the revocable language is not a function of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) but of the land rights. When a licensee gets their license, they have to retain their rights within the project boundary and enforce them, as necessary, in order to be in compliance with its license. Some companies own the project boundary in fee. It was asked if it goes with the land, why can’t the revocable language be handled the same way? This will be taken back to Appalachian’s real estate attorney for clarification. It was asked if we could spell out in the SMP the rights in terms of revocable license.

3)Appalachian is still open to local resolution board (LRB) and the Technical Advisory Board but not an administrative law judge. Frank Simms indicated that ultimately FERC is the final judge of the administration of the SMP. Russ Johnson indicated that the Tri County Relicensing Committee (TCRC) is prepared to pick the LRB back up. According to Russ, the LRB is about citizens helping citizens; don’t want to get “law” or “judge” into it. Tom Buck indicated that the SMMBA has serious concerns about an LRB.

4)Upon receipt of an application, complete or not, Appalachian staff enters the date into the database. Applicants are informed that it takes 3 weeks to issue a permit once it is complete, although it is typically less. Appalachian staff analyzed permits from a two month period and it took 7.25 days to issue a permit upon receipt of a complete application. Bill Brush indicated that based on his review it takes 3-4 weeks.

Russ Johnson questioned how are we going to move from what we talk about in the meetings to what is going to be in the license? Liz responded that each month minutes should clarify what is to be included in the SMP, and what needs additional discussion. At each meeting, we will discuss the various issues identified by the various stakeholders. The goal is to get sections of a revised document to start reviewing as we go through them. In the end, everyone will have the opportunity to comment on the draft document. Appalachian will provide to FERC a list of all comments received and how they were addressed and if not, then why.

Tom Buck expressed concerns with a draft document going out to the public before the steering committee had the opportunity to comment. Liz indicated that there will be an opportunity in August to meet if this is needed. Frank Rogers commented that he was under the impression that we would be able to go back to the administrative portion at some time. Liz indicated that we would. At the end of the minutes, she will attempt to summarize where we stand on the issues.

Liz Parcell began reviewing the issues regarding the Purpose, Authority, Goals and Objectives, Project Area Description, Consultation, Methods and Planning Process including Data Collection, Mapping, Shoreline Classifications and Parameters. With regards to the previously distributed list of issues, she indicated that she would discuss the highlighted issues but if anyone wanted to discuss any of the other issues, they could certainly do so.

An issue identified was that there is no focus on tourism or economic development. Liz indicated that tourism and economic development are results of the goals, “preserving the natural scenic quality of the shoreline for both boaters and shore viewers and preserving specific scenic attributes,” and “enhancing recreational opportunities by considering boating densities and navigation and maximizing available use of the project waters by the public,” and “striving for a balance that supports local economic interests yet protects environmental and recreational resources and that allows the public to enjoy these interests and resources.” Lynn Crump indicated that it seems that recreation seems to get lost in the mapping and parameters and it is difficult to determine how goals are being met. Bud LaRoche commented that the SMP is only one part of the license; there are other aspects of the license that support recreation such as the Recreation Management Plan. Bill Brush indicated that it is hard to measure how the goals are being met and that we take a leap that when we implement plan that the overall goals are met.

Russ Johnson expressed concern that the word “preserving” means as is of a certain date. He is concerned that the vegetation planted as part of mitigation may eventually grow to block people’s view. Liz indicated that Appalachian doesn’t dictate where the trees are planted or what types of trees (other than native) so they can be planted out of the way of view. She indicated that “enhancing” should be included in that goal.

Another issue identified, was the need to capture the desire/intent that the lake remain recreational and an economic resource and to protect its use relative to the pumped storage project. Liz asked if Goal 8 needs to be revised to better reflect the desire /intent that lake remain recreation and economic resource and protect its use? No one indicated goal should be revised.

It was suggested that the words, “that surround the project” be deleted from Goal 5 since item 6 refers back to item number 5. After discussion, it was suggested that the goals be modified as follows, “Cooperating with multiple governmental entities that surround the lake to coordinate adjacent land uses and proposed infrastructure with shoreline uses and to coordinate with the state and federal agencies to protect resources.” No changes will be made to Goal 6.

Another issue was the need to emphasize protection of stream bed and riparian areas as well as open waters, shoreline and wetlands. In response, Appalachian has proposed to modify Goal 1 to state, “protecting environmental attributes such as streambed and riparian areas, wetlands, habitat and spawning areas.” Bill Brush indicated that Article 19 specifically address protection of wetlands but questioned how do you protect wetlands if they are not designated as wetlands? He suggested that the plan needs to define how wetlands are being protected because floods and debris can damage wetlands. Bill indicated that Appalachian could work with local agencies to get grants to stabilize wetlands. It was noted that the SMP is to address man’s activities along the shoreline. It is up to the Army Corps of Engineers to designate wetlands. The focus of the SMP is to require a higher level of review of activities that could potentially impact wetlands. The SMP regulates construction activity within the project boundary.

It was suggested that Section 2.1.6 be revised so that it is entitled Local, State, and Federal Regulations. Appalachian agrees and the section will be revised to include the statements, “Likewise, the Commonwealth of Virginia’s responsibilities with regards to various related areas including but not limited to wetlands, streams, surface waters, sanitary facilities, cultural resources, erosion control and rare and endangered species were reviewed. Federal responsibilities reviewed included wetlands, fill, dredging and excavation. The purpose of the review was to promote coordination of activities of the mutual parties involved in regulating the Project’s resource values and to promote coordination of the public being served by the parties.”

The consultation section will be revised to add the new stakeholders and list the new meeting dates.

Another suggestion was to update resource studies or data collectorion efforts to current conditions; the baseline condition should be retained in the plan but then expanded where applicable to include the conditions at each 5 year review of the SMP. Or update every 10 years.

Teresa Rogers provided an overview of information obtained through relicensing that the committee may want to take into consideration in reviewing the parameters.

1)Bathymetric data has been collected up to the 624 foot contour at Leesville Lake and the 824 foot contour at Smith Mountain Lake.

2)Aerial photography

3)Aquatic vegetation – the Aquatic Vegetation Study included the mapping of beds and the Tri County Lake Administrative Commission’s 2007 Study has been incorporated into the GIS

4)Littoral habitat – the Littoral Habitat Study included the mapping of the littoral zone, some information on substrate, submerged aquatic vegetation and woody debris areas.

5)Sedimentation – the Sedimentation Study included mapping of areas subject to shoaling areas.

6)Scarp heights – the Erosion Study includes mapping on scarp heights which may be helpful with shoreline stabilization efforts

7)Water quality data collected for the Water Quality Study. Discussion ensued on whether or not Appalachian should be monitoring how the project is being enhanced as a result of SMP efforts. It was noted that any such monitoring would fall under the Water Management Plan.

8)Cultural resources – additional sites on Leesville were identified as being eligible for the National Register and will be included in the SMP as Impact Minimization Zone areas; such areas require consultation with SHPO prior to any disturbance.

9)Recreation – the new recreation sites will be included in the SMP as Public Use areas.

Teresa Rogers indicated that all studies are on the website ( In addition, she indicated that the new license contains the following minimum requirements for the SMP:

  1. the specific provisions in the Habitat Management Plan approved in the new license, including:

i. Replacement of habitat along the shoreline that is removed during shoreline construction activities (e.g., shallow-water habitat that is affected by the installation of riprap or docks, and

ii. Mitigation for habitat lost due to the removal of overhanging vegetation along the shoreline; and

  1. Setbacks (or buffers) between commercial/residential and resource protection areas.

Lynn indicated that there are new buffer requirements from USDA. Bill Brush asked if those are best management practices (BMP)? Lynn will send Appalachian the information and it will be sent to the steering committee. Bill opined that a riparian buffer is one bmp but not necessarily the best bmp. (Note: The design guidelines are called : 'Conservation Buffers: Design Guidelines for Buffers, Corridors, and Greenways' These are not regulations and are different from the state stormwater regulations. These are different proposals for different situations that allow for healthy buffers along water.)

The Order authorizing New License also requires that the revised SMP be filed by July 5, 2010. Appalachian will be filing a request for an extension until December 31, 2010 and will continue with the previously agreed upon schedule that has been reviewed and approved by the SMP steering committee.

It was questioned if stormwater should be included in 2.1.6? Surface waters would include state storm water regulations. Lynn indicated that she would follow-up on that but that she would be surprised if it needed to be specifically stated.

The question was asked regarding where new access at Leesville Picnic area is addressed. It is addressed in the Recreation Management Plan.

The boating density data that is presented now is not in the same format as the original. Louis Berger will be asked to provide this information. If there are certain areas that are now high density, they will have to be incorporated.

It was questioned if it makes sense to reference the other plans in the SMP. An alternate suggestion was to propose updating the SMP every six years to correspond to the Form 80 plan.

Franklin County indicated that Appalachian should use the original maps from the first SMP, thereby establishing consistency and expectation because the people around the lake have gotten used to these maps. Liz explained that we now have better aerial maps and the classifications will need to revised to reflect cultural resources and other parameters. She also asked the group to look at the maps to see if there are any corrections or areas that were incorrectly classified originally that need to be made.

There is a process for reclassifying shoreline that requires that the request go through agency review and to FERC for approval. However, Appalachian’s policy to date has been not to request reclassifications of the shoreline.

The question of how campgrounds were classified was discussed. It was noted that the campgrounds in existence at the time the SMP was developed were classified as low density use. It was asked if that has that stood the test of time. Liz indicated that it has. Campgrounds that were zoned as commercial were classified as commercial. Liz recalled campgrounds being discussed at length during the development of the initial SMP and she would review the meeting notes.

It was questioned how was all undeveloped land classified? Liz reviewed the parameters.

Bill Brush indicated that Appalachian should reconsider islands as IMZ. He asked if that makes it harder to get them stabilized? Liz indicated that it would have to go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for prior approval since it is IMZ but that the process isn’t difficult. Liz explained that when we did the questionnaire for the SMP, the majority of respondents indicated that the islands and Smith Mountain were scenic and should be preserved. This is why it is classified as IMZ. Appalachian does not own all the islands.

The new license has language about reviewing the islands. The FERC, by not giving Appalachian the authority to approve permits for occupancy and use, is saying that these areas are important and they have environmental aspects in need of protect and FERC wanted that review. By allowing the FERC oversight, it allows for protection of the islands. Continuing with IMZ is appropriate. Further, the license language will define what we should or should not do with islands that we own. It is not the goal of the SMP to protect the islands but that if any activity is going on that it is done under the appropriate review. It was noted that the cause of erosion is not the operation of the project. It is boating and wind action.

Russ Johnson indicated that a lot of citizens are looking for some stopping point for when some things are grandfathered, whether it be a date or a map. We can’t keep going back.

There was discussion regarding VDEQs comment on classifying the streams that are coming into the project as Conservation/Environmental. These areas also require a permit from VDEQ. They are the blue lines on USGS maps and within the project boundary.

Parameters:

Liz reviewed the current parameters for each classification and questioned if additional parameters should be added. It was noted that the revised plan will include the submission of new maps. An issue raised by a Park Place property owner was the potential reclassification of shoreline from High Density Multi-Use to Low Density Use. Discussion ensued. Redevelopment opportunities were discussed.

Dickie Dill asked for a review of the classification of his marina; it is half commercial / half residential. Liz noted that when the shoreline was originally classified, the consultant did not look at property lines. If there was a small single structure, then it was designated as low density use even if it was part of a commercial development.