smith mountain project draft shoreline management plan ... 2010 review matrix 12 31 10.pdfdraft...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Smith Mountain Project
Draft Shoreline Management Plan Comments
December 31, 2010
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
11/16/10 Mark A.
Moorman
General
Copy of changes and copy of the final Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) approved document requested. Site visit
requested.
Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian or AEP) contacted Mr.
Moorman and agreed to send final SMP and provided contact information
for site visit.
12/9/10 Office of the
Governor
General The work of the Steering Committee is in all ways consistent with
Virginia law and regulation regarding the protection and
conservation of natural resources. Similarly, the comments of the
Tri-County Re-licensing (TCRC) committee represents an effort to
balance preservation of natural resources, the rights of property
owners, and the opportunity for badly needed economic growth in
the area, and conforming with all state requirements regarding
natural resource protection.
Appalachian agrees that the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)
regulations reflect state regulations regarding the protection and
conservation of natural resources.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
(LLA)
Glossary Active Erosion: Final sentence seems both restrictive and incorrect.
There IS erosion now, will be in the future, over and around solid
rock formations. We should not foreclose probability–the likely
need to combat any and all erosion where ever it occurs. Suggest-
Delete final sentence.
The final sentence was deleted. Appalachian will make a field
determination of whether active erosion is occurring or not.
12/6/10 Virginia
Department of
Health (VDH)
Glossary Boat Slip: Per VDH regulations, a boat slip is “a designated
watercraft docking area. One boat slip can accommodate only one
boat at a time.” Please be advised when evaluating the existence of
slips at a boating facility, any project that provides a mooring or
dockage, whether it is a three-sided slip or two cleats along a dock is
counted as a mooring and will directly affect the number of sanitary
fixtures required. When making an application to the Local Health
Department, the owner will be required to submit information on the
total vessel capacity of the docking facility. The total number of
vessels a docking facility is designed to carry will affect the owner’s
ability to apply for exemptions to The Commonwealth of Virginia
Sanitary Regulations For Marinas and Boat Moorings
Regulations (Regulations) and is used in determining the type of
onsite system and its design to support existing marina activities.
Appalachian believes its definition of a boat slip to be consistent with
VDH regulations. However, on applications for commercial facilities,
Appalachian will request the information so as to provide accurate
information to the Virginia Department of Health
2
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/6/10 Virginia
Department of
Health
Glossary The draft SMP also includes a definition for ‘marina” and
“community dock”. The SMP defines a marina as, “a facility
situated on a lakeshore that provides launching and secure
moorings for water-borne craft and other services such as sale of
supplies, fuel, and marine equipment sales and repair services.:
A “community dock” is defined as, a boat dock or pier containing
three or more slips directly related and adjunct to a subdivision,
cluster development, condominium, or planned development, owned
and controlled by the owners of the lots of such subdivision or
development, and which may be used adjunct to the use of the
individual lots or units within the subdivision or development and
which has a commonly owned or shared walkway. The Regulations
provide for two types of boat facilities; marinas and other places
where boats are moored (OPWBAM). The definition of a marina,
“is any installation operating, under public or private ownership
which provides dockage or moorage of boats (exclusive of paddle or
rowboats) and provides, through sale, rental or fee basis, any
equipment, supply or service (fuel, electricity or water) for the
convenience of the public or its leasee, renters or users of its
facilities.” The definition of OPWBAM , “is an installation
operating under public or private ownership, which provides
dockage, moorage or mooring for boats (exclusive of paddle or
rowboats) either on a free, rental or fee basis or for the convenience
of the public.: This definition usually covers a variety of scenarios
that are associated with or referred to as community docks. It is
important to note that VDH project evaluation is based on the total
number of slips and their defined use.
Appalachian believes its definition for marina is consistent with the
definition set forth in the VDH regulations.
Appalachian has amended its definition for a “community dock”
eliminating the minimum number of slips so as to be more consistent
with the VDH definition of Other Places Where Boats are Moored.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Boat Slip: Suggest instead- “A designated watercraft docking area
confined on at least two parallel sides.”
Two parallel sides are not required to moor a boat. A boat can be moored
utilizing one side or even a mooring buoy. However, in recognition of
reservoir fluctuations, Appalachian agrees that more than one side is
beneficial. As such a determination was made that that two sides,
whether perpendicular or parallel, constitute a boat slip, provided a
floating structure has been incorporated into one or either of the
aforementioned scenarios.
3
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
In addition, a mooring buoy constitutes a slip and as such requires a
permit from Appalachian. The definition was amended to include
mooring buoys.
12/6/10 Smith
Mountain Lake
Association
(SMLA)
Glossary We recommend that the definition of “slips” recognize that boats
must be moored by at least four points to be stable, therefore
requiring two parallel side lines. The existence of cleats on the side
of a dock does not create a “slip” as they are used for temporary tie-
ups in many areas and locations.
See note above regarding definition of a boat slip. Regarding cleats,
Appalachian concurs that cleats do not constitute a slip but provide
temporary mooring for visitors or visits home to replenish supplies when
spending the day on the lake. However, on applications for commercial
facilities, Appalachian will request the information so as to provide
accurate information to the Virginia Department of Health
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
Smith
Mountain
Chamber of
Commerce
(SMCC),
respectively
Glossary P vi
Reword – Boatslip – A designated watercraft docking area, confined
by two parallel sides. One boat slip can accommodate only one boat
at a time. See Figure 1
Two parallel sides allows for four mooring points, which is the best
method for securing a watercraft in a permanent berth.
See notes above regarding definition of a boat slip.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P vi
Delete – Carrying Capacity
There has been no issue, in fact Appendix C, Boating Density
clearly shows no issues.
Although carrying capacity is not currently an issue; it should be
continued to be monitored to ensure sustainment of the resource.
Assessment of capacity guidelines is a common planning tool. The
Virginia Outdoors Plan includes guidelines for outdoor recreation
planning.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Dock Delineation Line: Suggest adding- “easement” in the
definition for sake of consistency and clarity; it’s in previous SMP
and also a word more common to laymen.
The word “easement” could be misinterpreted to imply the conveyance of
a property right that does not exist. It is Appalachian’s desire to
minimize any confusion regarding the term. An easement is an interest
which one person has in the land of another. The intent of the line at
issue is to delineate the dock construction limits between adjacent
properties, so “dock delineation line” is the more appropriate
terminology.
12/6/10 SMLA Glossary We think “boat covers” need to be specifically excluded from the
definition of “enclosures” in the glossary. These covers are no more
Automatic boat covers include frames which could extend beyond the
dock’s slip and as such, could impact 1/3 of the cove, proximity to travel
4
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
damaging to the aesthetics of the lake than large boats in slips and
quite frankly are more pleasing to many people than a large old boat
that may be in disrepair and that blocks the view of adjacent slips.
Docks are not “living rooms” in a house and should not be treated as
such.
lanes, navigation lanes and the line of sight between lateral marks. As
such, boat covers should be considered part of the structure.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P viii
Reword – Enclosure –An area of a dock that is bound by four walls
constructed of any materials. A boat cover is not an enclosure.
Appalachian modified its definition to state that a boat cover is not
an enclosure.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary l Fairway: Delete second “an”; revert to earlier used “the.” The
“an” is a pandora’s box; it’s nonspecific with respect to what is THE
open end of a boat slip in cases of multiple slips and/or the main
direction of boat travel. Only “the” can be rationally applied to the
primary opening on a dock and the primary boat direction of travel.
The original definition assumed that docks are constructed perpendicular
to the shoreline and slips are directly opposite one another across the
fairway and such is not always the case. Insertion of “an” will allow a
more accurate interpretation of the slip depending on the specific site and
orientation of existing slips.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P viii
Add – Footprint – The outer dimension of the dock or pier measured
at the water’s surface. Used to calculate the total area of the
structure.
Footprint should not include roof overhangs less than three feet,
access structures (walkways) under allowable limits and access
structures for ADA requirements. Counting roof overhangs in a
dock’s total square footage calculation is inconsistent with standard
building codes and thus adds to confusion with county inspections
and dock building contractors.
The term “footprint” was used in the 2003 SMP with regards to
replacement of destroyed structures. It was never utilized to determine
the total area of the structure. The term has been replaced with “location”
so as to minimize any confusion.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P viii
Reword – Habitable structure – A structure suitable for living and
containing bathroom facilities
Bathrooms are the standard for defining a habitable structure
Docks are intended to be water dependent structures. Bathrooms,
kitchens and sleeping quarters can and should occur outside of the project
boundary. Therefore, the definition utilized in the shoreline management
plan includes all three uses.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Lift / Tram: Suggest delete “individual.” Needlessly restrictive.
Limits capacity to carry boat-related items, kayak, canoe, and a
The intent of allowing an individual tram to be located within the project
boundary is to aid in accessibility of handicapped or disabled individuals;
5
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
wheel chair-borne person who is likely to need assistance of another
person. May also impose an ADA non-compliant condition on
commercial and public entities. Suggest- “…to access to a private
dock or pier by no more than four people at one time and to a
commercial or public dock or pier by no more than eight people at
one ti”e."no more that eight perople (sic) at one ti”e." Add wo“d
"T”am" is as Steering Committee voted/approved.
not the transportation of equipment or a quantity of persons e.g. those
who could be carried in a gondola.
Tram was defined in the November 1, 2010 draft.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Marina: Suggest revising to re“d "..craft and/or other services,
including but not limited to, the sale of ”."“ "”nd" alone is
restrictive. Other additions are as the Steering Committee
voted/approved.
Insertion of “or” would allow slips to be constructed without any
amenities outside of the project boundary for the public to enjoy. It is
Appalachian’s recommendation that the general public who would be
renting slips also have access to other services e.g. the sale of food, the
provision of gas, supplies, access to a boat ramp, etc.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P ix
Rewo– -- Mari– -- A facility situated on a lakeshore which provides
launching and secure moorings for water-borne craft and may also
provide supplies, fuel and marine repair services.
This definition better reflects the variety of marinas in the project
and is consistent with the Virginia Department of Health Definition
See note above regarding the definition of a marina.
12/6/10 SMLA Glossary The definition of “Project Boundary” in the glossary implies that
this is a fixed geographical line. In fact, the 800’ contour constantly
moves into the residents property due to erosion if the shoreline is
not protected, resulting in an uncompensated taking. SMLA
recommends that the definition be changed to indicate that the
boundary is fixed at the 800’ contour line as determined by the
original lake survey.
The definition is accurate. Property owners are encouraged to maintain
their properties to avoid avulsion or accretion. In some cases, the project
boundary may be defined by a meets and bounds survey.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Scrub /Shrub: Suggest this be defined and added to Glossary. A definition for scrub/shrub was added.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P x
Rewo– -- Structu– -- A physical building which includes but is not
limited to boat docks and piers.
Adding parts to the definition makes it more complicated to inspect
and adds to confusion.
Appalachian desires to clarify the elements that require permits to occupy
and use project lands and waters.
Illegible Anonymous Glossary Trampolines are not permanent structures subject to AEP’s
regulatory authority. They are generally only on the water from
Under its license, Appalachian may grant permission for certain types of
use and occupancy of project lands and waters, but it must supervise and
6
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Memorial Day to Labor Day and so should not be included in the
allowable dock square footage.
If concerns are being raised as to being visual eyesores, why not
require them to be taken down after the summer season (they’re up
then for only one fourth of the year). Size can be regulated
according to shore frontage. Only a few companies seem to make
them. Overton’s carries 15, 20, and 25ft. trampolines in diameter.
The result of this rule will be, once again, to make the lake a less
attractive place to young kids. Trampolines are generally their
favorite activity on the whole lake, and the are much safer than their
land-based counterparts.
control the occupancies for which it grants permission. Trampolines
occupy and use project lands and waters and like floating docks, can
impact 1/3 of the cove, navigation, and others’ ability to utilize their
shoreline and the public’s ability to access the shoreline. As such,
trampolines fall under Appalachian's licensing responsibilities.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Wetlands: Suggest using only Army Corps of Engineers definition. The following definition provided by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality will be utilized: “Wetlands (Wetland areas)“
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Areas meeting the criteria are
wetlands regardless of being formally field-delineated in accordance with
federal or state law and regulations. Activities in wetlands may require
federal and/or state permits in addition to any permits that may be
required by Appalachian Power Company.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Glossary P xi
Reword -- Wetland -- Those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Except in certain situations defined in US Army COE
delineation manual, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland
indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation)
must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination.
• Both the CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal
Register 1980) jointly use this definition
See note above regarding definition of a wetland.
7
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
• A wetland must to be delineated in accordance with the ACOE
Wetland Delineation Manual, as this is Federal and State code.
Consider including the Wetland Cross Section and photograph at the
end of this matrix in the SMP.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
Glossary Woody Debris: Strongly suggest reverting to definition in previous
SMP; e.g., delete "or over" here. We should limit removal of trees
and woody material to that which is in the water, and do all we can
to preclude disruptions of shoreline/banks. Overhanging
trees/woody material provide shade for fish and prevent/mitigate the
ill effects of erosion/sediment
Appalachian concurs that vegetation should not be removed
unnecessarily. However, if, for example, vegetation must be removed for
the installation of riprap, then those portions which extend over and into
the water should be utilized as fish structure.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
1.3 Goals and
Objectives #1- I fully support "protecting" and I favor "improving." But I have
reservations about the meaning and implications of "enhancing,"
particularly as it is associated with streambed and riparian areas,
wetlands, habitat and spawning areas. This SMP allows for broad-
brush classifications/designations of areas which would be "off
limits" to human activity. That would prohibit the range of
enjoyment people experience on and around the lakes. Consider
both the number and the expanse of interpretations of riparian area
(below). Suggest: If "enhancing" remains, include it and your
definition of it in the Glossary, perhaps citing 3-4 examples of what
is meant & not meant--see #2) .
www.coastal.ca.gov/wetrev/wetglos.html;
www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/kids/gloss.html;
www.pskf.ca/publications/glossary.html;
www.jcw.org/edglossary.htm; www.mondaycreek.org/glossary.html
The referenced goal is “Protecting and enhancing environmental
attributes such as streambed and riparian areas, wetlands, habitat and
spawning areas.” The Conservation/Environmental shoreline
classification is utilized where important resources have been identified.
Development must be carefully considered to ensure protection of the
resources.
The planting of vegetation, installation of fish habitat and installation or
retroactive best management practices are examples of enhancing
environmental attributes.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
1.3 Goals and
Objectives
# 2 - "Enhancing" should neither prohibit nor significantly restrict
trimming/removing vegetation, building docks/piers, emplacing
riprap/seawalls, or activities that reduce water safety, water quality
or enjoyment on and near the lakes. Some natural
environments/scenic qualities are not as desirable as many that have
been man-engineered. Suggest- Avoid foreclosing options that can
lead to better/more quality, safety, enjoyment.
“Enhancing” need not be interpreted negatively. It can also mean
allowance of vegetation to be removed to improve scenic views from
land to the water.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and TCRC, Bedford 1.4 Project P 6 Such statement is inaccurate and as such, need not be included.
8
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/7/10 County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Area
Description
2nd
para
Add – Shoreline erosion in certain areas of the project has eroded
beyond the original project boundary. In these cases the project
boundary is determined by the original survey.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.1.3
Ecological
Resources
P 10
2nd
bullet
Add -- Wetland areas which usually show evidence of a minimum
of one positive wetland indicator from of the following parameters
in order to make a positive wetland determination.
(1) Vegetation. The prevalent vegetation consists of
macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic
and soil conditions described in a above. Hydrophytic species, due
to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s),
have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and/or
persist in anaerobic soil conditions.
(2) Soil. Soils are present and have been classified as hydric,
or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing
soil conditions.
(3) Hydrology. The area is inundated either permanently or
periodically at mean water depths < 6.6 ft, or the soil is saturated to
the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent
vegetation.
This change is consistent with Federal and State Code
The referenced data was collected between February 2001 and August
2003 utilizing a visual shoreline reconnaissance. To change the
definition would make the data no longer applicable. If actual wetland
plants, soil conditions, or inundation standards were not met, the
shoreline still had sufficient vegetation or scrub/shrub habitat to meet the
parameter to classify the shoreline as Conservation/Environmental or
Impact Minimization Zone.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.1.3
Ecological
Resources
P 10
3rd
bullet
Reword -- Scrub-shrub habitat adjacent to a wetland
Consistency with the accepted definition of a wetland
See note above regarding addition of scrub/shrub definition.
12/6/10 SMLA 2.1.7
Recreation Use
Density
It is SMLA’s position that boat density and “carrying capacity”
determinations are not valid parameters in the determination of
shoreline classification. This is a concept that has no validity at
present in the Smith Mountain Project.
Appalachian disagrees. Although carrying capacity is not currently an
issue; it should be continued to be monitored to ensure sustainment of the
resource and social conditions. Recreational values could be diminished
if the lakes become over-crowded .
9
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.1.7
Recreation Use
Density
P 12
Eliminate density mapping as a parameter in determining Shoreline
Classification (based upon the Appendix C map, it should have
negligible impact). Recreation Use Density Calculations should be
used for informational purposes only. It should not be used as a
determinate for shoreline classification as density varies diurnally
and by season and constantly changing patterns of use.
• Using boat density mapping as a parameter to classify shoreline
uses limits private access while it ignores public access and usage
patterns.
• The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
does not define acceptable densities for boating.
It’s somewhat surprising that the Appendix C map doesn’t reflect
the high usage pattern around Halesford Bridge, the commercial
center of the lake.
Boating density data helps determine where additional development
should and should not be planned Assessment of capacity guidelines is a
common planning tool. The Virginia Outdoors Plan includes guidelines
for outdoor recreation planning.
Section 2.1.7 was corrected to reflect the appropriate source.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.2.1 Mapping
Revision
Process
P 13
The resolution of the maps in Appendix D is not sufficient to
determine the impact of proposed mapping changes.
Perhaps the maps could be overlaid with the County GIS systems.
Such a system would also enhance the protection of sensitive
shoreline.
Additional maps at a reduced scale have been produced and included
in Appendix D
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.2.1 Mapping
Revision
Process
P 13
Add – 5. Wetlands must be designated in accordance with the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE or COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual.
If there is a discrepancy between the shoreline classification and this
manual, the manual prevails and Appalachian will change the
shoreline classification, update affected maps and notify the FERC
staff.
See note above regarding wetland definition.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications
P 14
Campgrounds and marinas should be consistently classified as high
density commercial, because they are operated for profit and are
expected to generate heavy amounts of boat traffic.
Parts of existing marinas are classified low density. Mitchell’s Point
and Lakeside Marinas are 2 examples.
It is our understanding that campgrounds were classified based
Shorelines were classified as High Density Commercial in 2003 if the
structures within the project boundary were: 1) considered to be
commercial marinas, 2) located between Hales Ford Bridge and a point ½
mile from the bridge either upstream or downstream; or 3) zoned for
commercial use. Shorelines were classified as High Density Multi-Use if
cove or channel width and boating density met a certain parameter, or the
structures within the project boundary were existing multi-use residential
10
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
upon their existing docks when the initial shoreline surveys were
completed. Some were classified HD Multi-use because they had
larger multiple docks and others that had many single docks were
classified as low density even though they may serve as many or
more campers than some HD campgrounds.
Campgrounds provide affordable public access for families,
including tourists that prefer camping over rental homes and hotels.
To restrict campgrounds to a lower density of docks threatens their
continued existence.
type facilities. Shorelines were classified as Low Density if areas were
not otherwise classified or if the shoreline had existing single family
docks and piers. Campgrounds were classified based on any of the
aforementioned parameters. To classify otherwise, would beg for a
definition of campground
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications
P 14
High Density Multi-Use 2nd
bullet
Delete last sentence
• Unclear as to intent
• Vacation of property lines is a local government function
• Likely to be unenforceable if lines already vacated and docks
exist
May be a consideration for future development
Appalachian acquired its property rights via tracts of land. Docks serving
homes must be located within the same original tract and may not be on
different tracts. Appalachian agrees that vacation of property lines is a
function of local governments. However, vacation of property lines may
not occur to circumvent having docks and homes on the same parcel.
Appalachian recognizes that vacation of property lines can occur but
Appalachian will not issue permits for docks that serve homes that are
located on a different tract.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications High Density Multi-Use:
Second bullet - Vacation is a prerogative of counties as the Steering
Committee (SC) has emphasized. Also, with respect to access,
strongly suggest - Retaining wording of previous SMP; e.g., “Such
access could be in the form of multi slip common dock areas and/or
an access ramp with a courtesy dock…”. If the setbacks are met,
there's no legitimate reason to preclude both a boat launch and a
community dock with slips.
See note above regarding docks and the homes that they serve being on
the same original parcel.
Previous wording was inconsistent. Elimination of “or” will make the
statement consistent with other areas and accomplish Appalachian’s
original intent.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications Conservation/Environmental:
This appears to me to combine and expand the meanings of Impact
Minimization Zone and Conservation/Environmental. I'm
uncomfortable with the implications. Does it not severely limit
development of all types along shorelines (perhaps not by denying
permits but by forcing applications for variance, a typically long and
frustrating process; and one that could injure Appalachian's
reputation). Does it not deem nearly one quarter of Leesville Lake's
shoreline unusable? Some of my discomfort (and potential blackeye
for Appalachian) would be set aside if the SMP uses only the Army
The combination of Conservation/Environmental and Impact
Minimization Zone shoreline classifications does not change the current
process for obtaining a structure adjacent to such shoreline.
11
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Corps of Engineers definition of wetlands and also defines
scrub/shrub in the most applicable/narrowest of terms.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications
P 15
Conservation/Environmental, 3rd
Sentence
Reword -- The specific resources that need protection are
recreational opportunities, scenic beauty, water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, wetlands and associated scrub-shrub habitat, and
cultural sites.
Virginia has no stream buffer requirement, however, streams are
protected if streambeds within the project boundary are delineated
as wetlands.
“Cultural sites” has been added. Such recommendation excludes
streams as a resource and Appalachian disagrees with such
recommendation. Streams and rivers that function well, with healthy
aquatic ecosystems, bring benefits to the entire lake and the counties who
use the lake as a public water source. Well-functioning streams and
rivers provide better flood control, reintroduction of wildlife species,
better protection of wetland areas, improved aesthetics for clean and
well-functioning waterways, stabilized stream banks, improved habitat
for fish, amphibians, insects, and other aquatic organisms that compose a
balanced ecosystem food chain, cooler waters, which make it easier for
fish to survive.
Additional permits may be required for work conducted within streams
and classifying streams as Conservation/Environmental. The
classification ensures any proposed structures undergo additional review
by state agencies that may require those additional permits.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.3 Shoreline
Classifications
P-15
Add a new Island classification that would address the erosion threat
while preserving scenic shoreline attributes and access, and allow
stabilization with a permit issued by Appalachian.
Islands are considered scenic treasures, but their existence is
threatened by shoreline erosion.
A new Island Protection Classification has been created.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
2.4 Parameters High Density Commercial
The three bullets seem to connote a kind of reverse grandfather
clause. The addition of the dates seems to prohibit property zoning
by county's.
The parameters express conditions for defining the High Density
Commercial shoreline classification. The addition of the dates clarified
the application of the parameters. Any future commercial development
would have to occur at Hales Ford Bridge as originally requested by the
counties or fall under the Low Density Use Commercial shoreline
classification.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
2.4 Parameters P 17
3rd
bullet
5th
bullet
6th
bullet
The parameter, “undeveloped islands,” has been deleted as a
parameter as a new island shoreline classification has been created.
Scenic areas have been identified.
12
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
respectively 7th
bullet
Conservation / Environmental
Delete undeveloped islands
Either delete or define/list these specific scenic areas
Delete – as USFWS found the project no longer impacts Roanoke
logperch
Delete – as Virginia has no stream buffer requirement and
delineated wetlands would protect sensitive streams
Scenic classification was a one-time event and cannot be repeated
for every scenic view
The parameter regarding Roanoke Logperch Habitat has been
modified to state: “Areas identified as Roanoke Logperch Habitat by
either the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.”
12/3/10 Bedford
County
2.4 Parameters Shoreline designated Conservation/Environmental should only be so
designated after a formal delineation of wetlands and confirmation
of their existence by either the Corps of Engineers or a certified
wetland delineator
See note above regarding wetland definition. Appalachian will consult
with local and federal authorities prior to any filing for a variance from
the FERC to determine the exact location and extent of any wetlands.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.4 Parameters P 17
Add a new Island parameter that would address the erosion threat
while preserving scenic shoreline attributes and access, and allow
stabilization with a permit issued by Appalachian.
Islands are considered scenic treasures, but their existence is
threatened by shoreline erosion.
See note above regarding new Island Shoreline Classification.
12/6/10 SMLA 2.5 Regulations We object to the rather casual language in the first paragraph of 2.5,
Regulations. Certainly APCO must adapt to the varying problems it
encounters in managing the SMP. It must be free to interpret the
language of the SMP but it cannot make new rules without approval
of the FERC. Our recommendation is that when complex issues
arise they should be explored first with the TRC and, if new rules
are required, they be taken to FERC for approval.
Appalachian develops policies based upon its license requirements,
existing goals and available information. It agrees to consult with the
Technical Advisory Committee on appropriate issues.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
2.5 Regulations SMP regulations need to be consistent with Federal, State, and
Local regulations. For example,
• Dredging regulations should match Army COE regulations and
applicable State code;
•Wetland delineation should match US Army COE regulations
Licensees must ensure that proposed uses and occupancies are consistent
with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environmental values
of the project, while safely operating and maintaining the project. In
general, SMP rules and regulations are consistent with the intent of
Federal, State and Local regulations. However, on occasion SMP rules
and regulations may be more restrictive in order to protect identified
resources and in other cases, local regulations may be more restrictive.
13
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
(USACE) “Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1,
January 1987, Final Report” (Federal Manual_ and applicable state
code;
•Land disturbance measures should match Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Program
http://www.dcr.virginia/gov/soil_and_water/e_and_s.shtml and
applicable codes;
•Stormwater controls should match the Virginia Stormwater
Management Program
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/stormwat.shtml and
applicable local codes
•Building regulations should match local codes and industry
standard definitions
•Shoreline classifications should generally reflect upland uses and
be consistent among those uses
Regarding wetlands, Appalachian agrees to consult with federal and state
agencies regarding the type and extent of any wetlands prior to filing any
variance requests with the FERC.
Land disturbance measures and stormwater controls are largely the
function of the local governments and those local governments are
encouraged to comply with, enforce and even adopt more stringent
regulations to protect the resources within their jurisdictions.
An example of local governments being more restrictive would be the
height requirement on docks. Appalachian’s maximum height
requirement for structures within the Low Density Use classification is 26
feet. Depending on the zoning, Franklin County’s height restriction may
be 18 feet. Should the localities desire to adopt more stringent
regulations, they may do so. However, Virginia Code Ann. § 15.2 -1226
provides that counties may by ordinance regulate the land below the 800
foot elevation contour concerning the location, size and length of docks,
provided those ordinances do not conflict with the rights and
responsibilities of Appalachian under its federal license for the Project.
The SMP does not set forth building regulations; such is the requirement
of the local governments.
Requiring shoreline classifications to reflect upland uses would eliminate
much of the High Density Commercial classification around Hales Ford
Bridge. The existing shoreline classifications are based on a hierarchy
and upland uses; they were designed to be flexible depending upon how
the counties regulate the upland property. The shoreline classifications
allow for different uses but at different densities.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
2.5 Regulations P 18
Add -- … Members of the SMP Technical Review Committee will
be consulted, and if necessary, local, state, and federal agencies,
during such decision making processes.
This ensures a comprehensive deliberative process would be
Appalachian agrees to consult with a Technical Advisory Committee on
appropriate issues.
14
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
respectively followed.
12/7/10 Tri County
Lake
Administrative
Commission
2.5 Regulations Throughout the document there is a requirement that docks "shall
not encroach closer than thirty (30) feet to a lateral mark or other
navigation aid". We would like to emphasize that the majority of the
positions for the 200+ navigation aids currently on Smith Mountain
Lake were determined by agencies such as APCO, TLAC and
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Thus it would
seem unwarranted for a resident to be penalized in some manner in
the future because of a marker placed by an agency years ago. It is
possible that some markers were placed less than 30' from docks and
as long as the dock is not blocking the site of a navigation aid
inappropriately (e.g. a shoal marker may be placed in a location in
which the site is blocked by a dock from certain angles) there should
be no reason for any action to be taken. Recommended language to
protect residents from such unwarranted consequences is included
on the matrix of comments that was provided by TCRC.
The language was adapted from the Bedford County Dock Ordinance that
existed at the time the 2003 SMP was implemented. Appalachian
recognizes that there are existing docks located within thirty (30) feet of a
lateral mark and those docks may continue to exist and may even be
expanded despite their nonconforming nature. However, the expansion
must occur at least 30 feet from the aid to navigation. Appalachian’s
regulation represents a fair balance between existing structures and the
protection of public safety structures.
Since, 2003, there has been very few applications for modifications
within 30 feet of an aid to navigation and Appalachian worked with the
applicants to expand the structures in different locations.
SMLA 2.5 Regulations A theme running through our thoughts about the document is that all
the proposed SMP regulations must be in conformance with local,
state and federal regulations and laws and general practice.
Conversely, when there are such regulations/laws existing at the
local, state and/or federal level, they should be referenced as such
and not repeated, paraphrased or their language otherwise included
in the SMP. An example would be the determination of wetlands.
The Corp of Engineers has a manual that clearly spells out the
parameters that determine wetlands.
See note above regarding license compliance. Appropriate rules are
repeated for the convenience of the property owner trying to develop his
or her shoreline without having to go to multiple sections within the
document.
11/30/10 Reg Anderson 2.5 Regulations SeaDoo 'attachments' to floating or stationary docks - these
standard ready-made and installed items are appendages that should
not be included in the square footage of the Dock itself, unless, it
protrudes into the space of other docks or boating traffic. There are
many existing cases that an appendage inside the dock space
between the dock and the shoreline that should require NO special
visit or permit from AEP or the County. THIS MUST BE
ADDRESSED and put to rest.
All floating structures can impact others’ ability to utilize the shoreline or
to navigate open waters and as such, must be included in the square
footage calculations, the 1/3 of the cove regulations, setbacks, etc.
Otherwise the expansion could be limitless and the amount of personal
watercraft, considered to be watercraft, could be unlimited.
15
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
11/30/10 Reg Anderson 2.5 Regulations Dock enclosures: why is there a limit on size, as long as there are
no kitchen or bathroom facilities? The dock square footage is
limiting in itself.
According to its license, Appalachian is allowed to issue permits for
docks, piers and similar structures. Uses on docks should be limited to
those uses that are required because the structure is over the water i.e.
“water-dependent” uses. Uses that can occur outside of the project
boundary should occur outside of the project boundary. A 72 square foot
enclosure is allowed for storage only. The allowance of enclosures and
the size were intended to be a convenience for property owners so that
they do not have to carry life jackets, skis, wake boards and other boating
accessories to the home but the size was small enough not to be habitable.
12/5/10 Robert Gilmore i am probably like many people who realized too late that i needed
to submit documentation for my dock because it is "non-
conforming" - we had recently built our house and were in the
process of doing a lot of the finishing work that we could not afford
to pay someone else to do - and i guess we plain missed the
newspaper and other print notifications.
my dock was permitted and inspected by franklin county and was
built in the summer of 2000 - no modifications have been made to it
since.
my idea is - you have date stamped aerial photographs why cant you
use those photographs to document what my dock, shoreline and
vegitation (sic) looked like as your "cut-off" date and compare that
to what exists today - you will find that there have been no changes
being made since the original construction.
i am not sure of exactly how many people, especially those that are
not full time lake residents have been caught in this mess, much less
full timers like myself who i guess just didnt pay close enough
attention.
Appalachian filed the SMP with the FERC in August of 2003. According
to that SMP, existing nonconforming structures did not have to be
modified to meet the new regulations set forth in the SMP and at the
request of the counties, Appalachian included within the SMP the
opportunity for property owners to file documentation regarding existing
nonconforming structures in case the structure was destroyed by
accident,, natural event, or the intentional or wrongful act of another
party so that the structure could be replaced. Two years was given to
provide the documentation. Appalachian notified property owners of the
opportunity and throughout the process itself, steering committee
members were encouraged to keep their members or the people whom
they represented, informed of the process and the decisions made. Filing
the documentation was not mandatory.
Some of the documentation that has been filed has been for structures that
are not considered to be nonconforming while other documentation has
been filed indicating that even if the structure is destroyed, a structure
meeting the 2003 SMP could be built.
Appalachian encourages Mr. Gilmore to compare his structure to the
SMP regulations to determine what could be rebuilt if the structure is
destroyed.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
2.5 Regulations We believe there should be no limit set as the level of maintenance
that may be performed on an existing dock/structure so long as such
repair does not alter the footprint, number of slips, size of the
As previously stated, in the development of the 2003 SMP, it was
determined that existing nonconforming structures did not have to be
modified to meet the new regulations set forth in the SMP.
16
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
enclosures nor rookline (sic) on said dock/structure. Simultaneously, the counties asked for docks to be able to be
reconstructed in their original location should they be destroyed by some
act of nature. Appalachian agreed provided documentation was provided
indicating the exact location. The 50% maintenance rule was the result
of this exception. Property owners are encouraged to maintain their
docks. However, complete replacement requires compliance with the
SMP. In addition, many maintenance activities require county building
permits and as such a permit is required from Appalachian. The
allowance to replace structures, if destroyed, was intended to be the
exception, not the rule.
11/19/10 Leesville Lake
Association
2.5 Regulations 2.5.1 - High Density Commercial
#14 - I've heard that the water level on Leesville Lake cannot rise
over the 620 foot contour NGVD without spilling over the dam (that
a number of years ago it reached 615 and caused the dam to shift).
Irrespectively, the wide range of water levels at Leesville Lake
impacts the shoreline, the water quality, the safety and the
construction of docks/piers--especially their height--on the lake in
vastly different ways than do the water levels at SML. Suggest: The
SMP recognize the salient differences between the two lakes.
#16 & #20 - The measurement should not be based on "base
elevation" but rather on a contour line. Requiring measurements
from a base elevation is expensive (accuracy requires a survey),
onerous (can only be done at low water at Leesville Lake) and
unnecessary. Suggest: All measurements be based on contour lines.
It is Appalachian’s opinion that the SMP addresses the differences
between the two reservoirs. However, the LLA may wish to provide
specific examples for Appalachian to review.
#16 & #20 Base elevation is a contour line and the only way to determine
if a dock will have water under all water levels is to document the
location of the lower elevations.
As for the dam shifting, such did not occur.
12/7/10 Smith
Mountain
Chamber of
Commerce
2.5 Regulations We believe that too many of the SMP regulations seek to prevent
some imagined harm that no one has yet documented. We would
request that APCO go back and ask these questions of each
regulation: 1) What is the real and measurable harm that is currently
being done to the environment that demands some immediate
controls? And 2) Exactly how does this regulation reduce or correct
that harm? If APCO can honestly answer those questions with solid
facts backed by impartial research, then the regulation should stand.
Otherwise, it may be unnecessary and over-reaching and should not
Regulations were developed to implement goals identified to enhance and
protect the scenic, recreational and environmental values of the project.
The Environmental Assessment for the new license issued on December
15, 2009 identifies the benefits of the SMP.
17
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
be imposed without further study and documented
evidence of real harm to the environment. We envision a world
where AEP and FERC work hand in hand with community groups,
businesses, and lake residents to continue the kind of stewardship of
the lake that we have been doing for the last 50 years.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 18
Item 7
Add – The 30’ rule is not applicable to existing docks,
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• There may be cases where markers are closer than 30’.
See note above regarding 30’ distance requirement from aids to
navigation.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 19
Reword – 9. In all cases there shall be a minimum watercraft passage
lane of 30 feet.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• Article 415 – does not assign Appalachian safety responsibilities
State code establishes a 50’ no wake from docks
The minimum watercraft passage lane was developed for narrow coves.
For example, a 90 foot cove would allow 30 foot structures on either side,
leaving 1/3 or 30 feet for navigation. Such distance may be sufficient if
only docks are at the back of the cove and boats are not parked at the
ends of the docks but if there is a ramp in the back of the cove allowing
an unlimited amount of traffic, additional area is necessary to
accommodate the additional traffic. 50’ is Appalachian’s
recommendation for such scenario.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 19
Item 10
Delete last sentence
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• Article 415 – does not assign Appalachian safety responsibilities
State code establishes a 50’ no wake from docks
Such recommendation would eliminate any fairway distance between
structures without slips and the potential for access to the shoreline.
18
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 19
Reword -- 13. Permittees are allowed one (1) enclosure per service
dock that may not exceed maximum of 200 square feet (inside
dimensions). No food preparation would be allowed.
Increased enclosure size on a service dock will allow the marina to
better serve the point of sale needs of its customers and enhance
their economic viability. Uses could include petroleum dispensing,
pump-out of boat holding tanks, boat rental, moorings, and retail
operations including sale of boat supplies, ice, and food and drink
items in sealed containers for off premise consumption.
According to its license, Appalachian is allowed to issue permits for
docks, piers and similar structures. Uses on docks should be limited to
those uses that are required because the structure is over the water i.e.
“water-dependent” uses. Uses that can occur outside of the project
boundary should occur outside of the project boundary. A 48 square foot
enclosure is allowed on service docks for cash registers, etc.
Convenience stores can be built outside of the project boundary.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 20
Item 15.
Eliminate paragraphs d) and e)
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
Unenforceable variables
d) has been eliminated and e) has been relocated to the introduction
of the regulation.
ALAC 2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
heightened interest in the following areas:
Section 2.5.1, Item 16—Minimum water depth requirements.
Docks are water dependent structures and as such require water. On
average, boats on SML have a 2-3 foot draft while personal watercraft
and pontoon boats have a 1 foot draft.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 20
Item 16.
Eliminate minimum water depth requirements
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
This is an unnecessary restriction as commercial entities and
individuals have little economic incentive to build unusable docks
See note above regarding minimum water depth requirements.
19
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
and piers.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 21
Item 25
Delete -- “and with VDGIF boat ramp standards.”
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
Compliance with all local, state and federal regulations is sufficient
The VDGIF boat ramp construction standards include several methods,
are well thought out and reasonable given that the ramp would serve the
public. Appalachian sees no reason why someone who was putting in a
ramp would not want to comply with the recommended standards.
The regulation has been modified to provide the website.
(www.dgif.virginia.gov/boating/building-boat-rmps.asp).”
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 22
Item 33
Reword -- 33. Under any and all circumstances, permanent
sanitation facilities including restrooms, drainfields and other
sanitation facilities that existed prior to the implementation of the
Shoreline Management Plan (August 31, 2003) may not be
expanded nor shall habitable structures be allowed to be expanded.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
To bring it into conformance with:
State Code § 15.2-2307. Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming
uses.
The entire article can be found at
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-2307.HTM
The proposed change deletes two words at the end of the sentence, “or
rebuilt”. Appalachian does not believe that such referenced uses are
consistent with project uses and purposes. They may continue to exist.
However, if destroyed they may not be rebuilt. Appalachian believes to
be a fair and balanced solution.
There is no requirement to make revisions to the nonconforming structure
provisions of the SMP to address a vested right issue under Va. Code
Section 15.2-2307. This does not involve the administration of a zoning
ordinance by a locality under Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia
Code, and thus is not a question of vested rights under Virginia law.
Appalachian has acquired and retained all interests in lands necessary or
appropriate to carry out project purposes. It has acquired those property
interests either by fee simple ownership of project property, or by
purchasing flowage easements. The flowage easements provide that any
use of the shoreline in question shall be deemed to be made under a
revocable license from Appalachian and not adverse to any right, title,
interest or privilege of Appalachian.
By order dated July 5, 2005, the FERC approved the SMP dated August
31, 2003. Under that SMP, to be considered part of the nonconforming
structures provisions, property owners were required to provide to
Appalachian by August 31, 2005 documentation of any structures already
20
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
built below the 795 foot contour NGVD on Smith Mountain Lake and the
613 foot contour NGVD on Leesville Lake. The revisions currently
proposed for the revised SMP reflect that August 31, 2005 deadline, and
incorporate it into the nonconforming structure provisions of the SMP.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 23
Item 34
Reword -- 34. Trees and woody material that extend from the
shoreline into the lake and that have to be removed for the
installation of docks, piers, ramps, riprap or other structures may
voluntarily be collected, bundled and sunk along the shoreline in
water no greater than 20 feet deep so as to replace fish habitat.
Bundling techniques are available in the Habitat Management Plan
that is part of the License for the Smith Mountain Project issued
December 15, 2009.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
There is concern unless this woody debris is properly bound and
inspected before it is sunk, it could present a safety issue. As there
are no known Federal, State or local regulations either permitting or
preventing disposal of woody debris in this manner, perhaps a
compromise would be to make this a voluntary provision.
“May voluntarily” in lieu of “shall” would make replacement of the
woody debris optional and Appalachian’s compliance with the FERC
approved Habitat Management Plan questionable.
The purpose of the Habitat Management Plan is to identify measures for
protecting, enhancing and creating habitat within Project lands and waters
and to outline how this will be accomplished over the the term of the new
license. The goal of the plan is to maintain the abilty to allow for the
construction of private access to the Project waters while protecting and
enhancing the habitat along the shoreline.
Woody debris can be bundled and sunk below stationary portions of
docks. The regulation has been rewritten so as to allow property
owners to propose manmade alternatives, such as those identified in
Appendix H of the SMP.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 23
Item 35 (Any vegetation that needs to be removed for the
installation of the dock shall be replaced in accordance with Section
2.5.11)
Reword – 35. Projects involving land-disturbing activities equal to
or greater than 10,000 square feet must comply with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Law and all applicable regulations
adopted in accordance with that law. Projects involving land-
disturbing activities equal to or greater than one acre, must comply
with the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Virginia
The Erosion and Sediment Control Program and the Stormwater
Management Programs are based on the principles of 1) conserving trees
and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation,
clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native plants and 2)
clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should be
limited to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and
provide fire protection. A fixed portion of any community open space
should be managed as protected green space in a consolidated manner.
However, the amount of vegetation typically contained within the project
boundary that would have to be removed for a viewshed, access to the
21
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations
adopted in accordance with the Act. Project specific questions can
be directed to the respective County government or in certain cases
to Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Christiansburg Regional Office.
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program:
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/e_and_s.shtml
Virginia Stormwater Management Program
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/stormwat.shtml
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• To conform with State and Local Codes
• Thresholds are a better approach as most construction activity has
associated with it some amount of land disturbance.
• Dock construction over the past 40 years has had little if any
negative environmental impact
• Docks due provide cover and are attractors for certain species like
bass, perch and bluegills
Docks Avg Coverage sq ft Total Coverage
sq ft Total Coverage Acres Total Project Coverage
SML 7,524 1,500 11,286,000 259
1.1%
LVL 146 1,500 219,000 5
0.0%
Docks Avg Width ft Total Width ft
Total Shoreline Covered mi Total Shoreline
Coverage
SML 7,524 40 300,960 57
11.4%
LVL 146 40 5,840 1
1.1%
shoreline, or installation of dock would be exempt under the
recommended programs.
Docks provide coverage for larger species. Since all of the fish species
are dependent upon each other, a balance of fisheries and habitat must be
promoted.
22
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
P 23
Item 37 (structures adjacent to shoreline classified as
Conservation/Environmental shall maintain a setback of 30 feet
from the Conservation/Environmental classification).
Reword -- 37. Any proposed construction (including shoreline
stabilization) adjacent to shoreline classified as Conservation /
Environmental shall take appropriate measures to ensure there is no
impact to sensitive habitat or cultural resources.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• There is no scientific basis for a fixed setback, nor is there a
Federal or State code dealing with fixed setbacks.
• Every situation is different and each permit near these sensitive
areas should detail necessary protective measures, based upon a
site visit from responsible Agencies.
The Conservation/Environmental shoreline classification protects
resources such as streams, wetlands, scrub/shrub habitat, recreational
opportunities, scenic beauty, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.
As these resources are diverse, Appalachian chose a fixed distance for a
setback with the intention of monitoring that setback to determine if it is
adequate or in need of expansion or reduction.
The regulation has been revised to state “Any proposed construction
(including shoreline stabilization) adjacent to shoreline classified as
Conservation/Environmental shall maintain an appropriate setback
of at least 30 feet from the edge of the Conservation/Environmental
shoreline in order to ensure there is no impact to sensitive areas.”
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.1 High
Density
Commercial
Regulations
Add – 38. Permits for commercial boat docks, piers and ramps shall
be granted for a three year period, and may be extended if progress
is being made.
• The surrounding Counties encourage and in some zoning districts
require submittal and subsequent approval of a Conceptual Plan
of Development
• These Concept Plans are approved for the life of the project, so
long a progress is being made
To allow for a longer period for major construction projects
The time allowed for construction is covered in the terms and conditions
of the permit issued to occupy and use project lands and waters.
ALAC 2.5.2 High
Density Multi-
Use
heightened interest in the following areas:
Section 2.5.2, Item 27—Treatment of docks built prior to August
31, 2003.
Appalachian believes this comment to be too vague for Appalachian to
respond.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and TCRC, Bedford 2.5.2 High P 27 To include pilings would allow the structure(s) to be replaced in
23
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/7/10 County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Density Multi
Use
Regulations
Item 28
Reword -- 28. Docks, piers and similar structures constructed
within the 795 foot contour NGVD of Smith Mountain Lake and the
613 foot contour NGVD on Leesville Lake prior to the
implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan (August 31,
2003) do not need to be modified to meet the new requirements.
These structures may continue to exist despite their nonconforming
nature and may be expanded with a permit from Appalachian,
provided the nonconforming aspect of the structure is not increased.
Maintenance of all structures, including pilings, is encouraged.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
• Modifications required to meet License Article 415. Use and
Occupancy. … The licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction
of the Commission's authorized representative, the use and
occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in
good repair and comply with applicable state and local health
and safety requirements.
• And to bring it into conformance with State Code § 15.2-2307.
Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming uses. The entire
article can be found at http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-
2307.HTM Prior SMP regulations required owners of non-
conforming structures to document them and file that
documentation with Appalachian prior to 31 August 2005.
Appalachian was supposed to notify these property owners that
this documentation was acceptable.
1. Proper notifications (registered letters) were not sent to affected
property owners, so many were unaware of this requirement
2. It is unclear if Appalachian ever notified property owners of the
acceptability/suitability of this documentation
3. Appalachian is being inconsistent in eliminating the 31 August
2005 requirement in high density commercial but not in all
perpetuity and such is not consistent with the goals of the SMP. See
previous notes.
Appalachian did not require property owners to file the documentation.
Appalachian notified property owners of this determination.
Appalachian recognizes and appreciates the benefits that commercial
entities provide to the general public and as such extends greater
privileges.
24
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
other classifications
4. Property owners of docks constructed prior to the SMP (those
having no permit) should be able to rebuild the original
structure provided they can show the structure existed prior to
SMP implementation.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.2 High
Density Multi
Use
Regulations
P 28
Item 29
Reword – 29. Property owners of nonconforming dock structures
that existed prior to the implementation of the SMP (August 31,
2003) and that are located within the 795 foot contour NGVD of
Smith Mountain Lake and the 613 foot contour NGVD on Leesville
Lake that have been destroyed by accident, natural event, or the
intentional or wrongful act of another party may replace the
destroyed structure with another structure in its original location.
Any destroyed structure that has not been rebuilt within two (2)
years shall be rebuilt in conformance to the provisions of this Plan.
Only the location may be replaced; all other aspects must meet the
Shoreline Management Plan rules in effect at the time. A permit is
required from Appalachian Power.
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
Modifications required to bring it into conformance with State Code
§ 15.2-2307. Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming uses. The
entire article can be found at http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-
2307.HTM
The suggested language omits the documentation requirement and the
setback from the Conservation/Environmental shoreline classification.
Please see notes above regarding setback to ensure no impact to sensitive
areas as well as notes above regarding vested rights.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.2 High
Density Multi
Use
Regulations
P 28
Item 30
Delete
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
Appalachian believes its existing nonconforming structure language is
fair. Structures do not need to be modified to meet the new regulations,
nor are the structures vested. They may continue to exist despite their
nonconforming nature and may even be expanded provided the
nonconforming aspect is not expanded.
25
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
Covered in Item 29 above
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.2 High
Density Multi
Use
Regulations
P 29
Item 31
Delete
ALSO APPLY THIS CHANGE TO REGULATIONS FOR:
• High Density Multi-use
• Public Use
• Low Density Use
Violates State Code § 15.2-2307. Vested rights not impaired;
nonconforming uses. The entire article can be found at
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/15.2-2307.HTM
Item 31 clarifies Appalachian’s position regarding existing and proposed
sanitation facilities. Such uses are not vested.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.2 High
Density Multi
Use
Regulations
P 29
Add – 36. Permits for multi-slip boat docks, piers and ramps along
high density multi-use shoreline shall be granted for a three year
period, and may be extended if progress is being made.
To allow for a longer period for major construction projects
The construction period for structures is addressed in the terms and
conditions of the permit to occupy and use project lands and waters. The
terms and conditions can be modified where appropriate.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.3 Public
Use
Regulations
P 35
Item 14
Reword – 14. Only floating docks or uncovered piers shall be
considered for public use areas, with the exception of boathouses,
fishing piers, and covered docks for storage of government service
boats.
Covering of fishing piers increases public use and benefits ADA
users
Appalachian does not object to covered fishing piers and has
modified the section accordingly.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
2.5.3 Public
Use
Regulations
P 41
Add – 24. Permits for public use boat docks, piers and ramps shall
be granted for a three year period, and may be extended if progress
is being made.
To allow for a longer period for major construction projects and
The construction period for structures is addressed in the terms and
conditions of the permit to occupy and use project lands and waters. The
terms and conditions can be modified where appropriate.
26
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
respectively government funding restrictions.
ALAC 2.5.4 low
Density Use
Regulations
a heightened interest in the following areas:
Section 2.5.4, P67, Fig. 1—Calculation of dock total sq. ft. is very
unclear and seems to be arbitrary.
The purpose of Figure 1 is not to explain how a dock’s square footage is
calculated but to define what is considered to be a slip and what is not.
12/5/10 Jack Harrison 2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
Secondly, I understand the need for standards related to dock
placement, size and function but the regulations concerning the use
of the dock space within the footprint in my opinion goes too far and
results in overregulation. Why does it matter if my storage
enclosure is large or small as long as its within the footprint ? Why
is the environment harmed if I want to screen in a portion of the
dock space for the comfort of my family and our guests ? I think
this merits further discussion as well. If nothing else to explain the
reasoning behind the current regulations.
Docks, serving single family homes and that are located adjacent to the
Low Density Use shoreline classification are allowed to have enclosures
no greater than 72 square feet in the back 10 feet of the dock. The
purpose of the enclosure is to provide storage of boating accessories. The
location requirement was included so as to limit the viewshed impact
from the land to the water and from the water to the land.
Appalachian issues permits for docks, piers and similar structure, all of
which are considered to be water-dependent structures. Appalachian
does not issue permits for habitable structures. Uses that are not water-
dependent can occur outside of the project boundary.
9/30/10 and 10/25/10 Bart Wilner 2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
Please explain why the graduated schedule of dock size per length
of shoreline was not included in the SMP, despite endorsement by
the Steering Committee. Arguments regarding cumulative effects
and additional work are weak.
Appalachian conducted a review of the SMP in conjunction with a
Steering Committee, representing stakeholders from state agencies, local
governments and various non-governmental organizations. Although
Appalachian consulted with this Steering Committee through the review
process, it was not was required to abide by all of its recommendations.
Appalachian has developed the revised SMP taking into consideration all
requests and concerns and new data available to it through the relicensing
process. FERC will review the document and public comments to
determine if the regulations proposed are appropriate.
Currently, Appalachian allows for structures up to 1500 square feet on a
lot with 100-300 linear feet. Docks up to 2,250 square feet are allowed
on lots with 301-600 linear feet of shoreline. Additional shoreline allows
for larger structures. It is Appalachian’s opinion that to increase the size
of the docks would impact access to the shoreline, increase the number of
personal watercraft (as their ramps are not considered to be slips but
counted as square footage), and decrease the amount of project lands and
27
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
waters available to the public. Further, future subdivision of lands and
the creation of additional nonconforming structures could be a concern.
Or in other words, a property owner of a large parcel of land who has a
significant amount of shoreline could potentially obtain a large dock or
docks based upon that amount of shoreline and subsequently subdivide
the property and potentially obtain additional docks for the new lots, thus
circumventing the purpose of the SMP.
Property owners could purchase additional property or buy lots with
greater amounts of shoreline should they wish to have larger structures.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
P 42
Table 2.5-1 – Modify table to graduate dock size limits for every 50’
of shoreline. For each addition 50’ of shoreline allow the dock area
to increase by 125 sq ft to a maximum of 3,000 sq ft.
• Current guidelines fail to recognize the additional spacing
provided by larger lots with wider shoreline
• The cumulative impact of this change would be negligible
Docks Avg Coverage sq ft Total Coverage
sq ft Total Coverage Acres Total Project Coverage
SML 7,524 1,500 11,286,000 259
1.1%
LVL 146 1,500 219,000 5
0.0%
Docks Avg Width ft Total Width ft
Total Shoreline Covered mi Total Shoreline
Coverage
SML 7,524 40 300,960 57
11.4%
LVL 146 40 5,840 1
1.1%
See note above regarding larger docks based on smaller increments of
graduated shoreline.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
P 43
Item 13
3rd
Sentence
Trams may be located outside of the project boundary without
Appalachian approval. Should a property owner wish to have a tram
within the project boundary, medical documentation will be required in
28
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Reword -- Lift systems or trams designed for individual
transportation may be installed.
• There should be no medical needs test (doctor’s note) for a
property owner, some trams are a safety enhancement for steep
lots and may result in less disturbance on steep slopes.
The property owner may also have guests or relatives that require
the use of a tram.
order to obtain a permit.
Trams can be installed on an 80% incline. Localities are encouraged to
consider the scenic and environmental ramifications of the linear removal
of vegetation on steep slopes.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
P 43
Item 15
Reword 2nd
sentence -- Docks may also be placed in accordance
with dock locations that are shown or described on a recorded
document …
It does not have to be a developer’s plat as long as the easement is
properly described.
Appalachian’s language does not require the dock to be shown or
described on a recorded document. The verb “may” is used. The
localities’ proposed language eliminates the ability for property owners to
obtain waivers from their adjacent property owners. The intent of the
language is to have adequate spacing between structures. Adjacent
property owners may grant waivers to allow encroachments over the dock
delineation lines or to reduce the setback requirement.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
P 67
Figure 1
A permanent mooring structure requires two parallel sides so that 4
tie points can secure the watercraft. Modify the drawings
accordingly
Counting open water into the calculation of a docks square footage
makes no sense, in the case where the slip has only one parallel side.
See previous discussion on boat slips.
12/6/10 Donna Pittman 2.5.4 Low
Density Use
Regulations
After reviewing the Lake Weekly article and your information for
homeowners on SML, I found that I need clarification . Our son has
CP and uses a wheelchair. What are the guidelines for handicap
accessibility from our shore to the dock and water? We purchased a
pontoon that will accommodate a wheelchair and we have a life vest
for him. He loves the water! It is not possible to use a ladder for
him now. We will need to provide a separate water entrance for our
son.
If you do not have guidelines in place yet, this is the perfect time to
review (ADA) disability requirements. I am sure this is important to
many lake property owners and their guests. Thank you so much for
your time.
Appalachian currently allows for access to the shoreline. Applications
are on-line at www.smithmtn.com. Please contact the Shoreline
Management Office at 540-489-2556 should you have any questions.
12/6/10 SMLA 2.5.8 Shoreline With respect to erosion, sedimentation and shoreline stabilization, The SMP rules and regulations are based on federal, state and local codes
29
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Stabilization
and 2.5.9
Dredging
and/or
Excavation
let’s create an SMP that forces all parties, including APCO, to abide
by state and local codes and regulations. Insistence on this principle
alone would simplify the language proposed for the revision and not
create another set of regulations that may conflict with local/state
codes.
and identified resources in need of additional protection.
Appalachian does not require the stabilization of shoreline nor dictate
how such stabilization should be done. Options are provided within the
SMP and permits will be granted provided there is active erosion.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
General
Riprap is mitigation in itself, as it protects the lakes from upland
erosion, shoreline erosion and the nutrient enrichment resulting from
erosion. Armoring of the shoreline using riprap has positive
environmental and fishery benefits. Through the efforts of residents
over 1,500,000 feet of shoreline in SML has been successfully
stabilized, halting active erosion along that shoreline and preventing
sediment buildup in critical shallow water habitat, important for the
spawning of nesting species. Properly installed riprap also adds
structure, in which fry can seek cover and develop.
Installation of riprap should be encouraged and those policies in the
SMP that mandate replacement of dead and dying trees, if they are
removed need to be eliminated. If vegetation is removed for riprap
installation, the grounds above the riprap need to be stabilized to
prevent erosion following E&S regulations.
Mitigation is defined as the act of lessening or minimizing the severity of
losses, effects or damages. Appalachian has never required erosion
control as mitigation nor has anyone requested riprap as mitigation.
Riprap has its benefits including shoreline protection and if properly
placed, fish habitat. Riprap would not, however, replace the intricate
structure provided by woody debris in the water and does not absorb
nutrients, provide nutrients, habitat, etc.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 70
3rd
para
Delete discussions of coconut fiber rolls and hay bales
• This is risky advice in an active erosion area as these techniques
require maintenance, replacement of hay bales and fiber rolls.
• These techniques have high potential to degrade into scenic
blight.
If there is active erosion a more proven and lower maintenance
option in placement of riprap either at the shoreline or out from the
shoreline to absorb wave action.
The referenced bioengineering technique is not a requirement but an
option. Property owners are encouraged to consider all options. The
bioengineering technique may be well suited in areas of limited wave
action i.e. streams or backs of coves which may not need structural
protection.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 70
4th
para
Delete
• Live plantings are more appropriate to stream banks that are
There are stream banks within the project boundary. The bioengineering
technique is optional.
30
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
SMCC,
respectively
occasionally flooded during high flow events.
• Lakeshore is a much different environment
• Let’s wait until the erosion study is complete and its results are
evaluated
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 71
Figure 5
Delete
• This is applicable stream beds and not to project shoreline
Ironically this diagram encourages riprap installation below the
stream forming flow, which would be akin to stabilizing actively
eroding project shoreline caused by wave action with riprap.
See note above regarding stream banks and bioengineering techniques.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 72
Figure 6
Modify the figure to eliminate reference to stream flow
• This diagram encourages riprap installation below the stream
forming flow, which would be akin to stabilizing actively eroding
project shoreline caused by wave action with riprap.
The figure illustrates a reasonable technique for stabilizing actively
eroding or unstable steep project shoreline
Appalachian does not see the need to alter the diagram provided by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Streams exist within
the project boundary.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 73
Figure 7
Modify the figure to eliminate reference to stream flow
• This diagram encourages riprap installation below the stream
forming flow, which would be akin to stabilizing actively eroding
project shoreline caused by wave action with riprap.
The figure illustrates a reasonable technique for stabilizing actively
eroding or unstable steep project shoreline
See note above regarding modifications to USDA diagrams.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 73
3rd
para
Replace with -- Projects involving land-disturbing activities equal to
or greater than 10,000 square feet must comply with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Law and all applicable regulations
adopted in accordance with that law. Projects involving land-
disturbing activities equal to or greater than one acre, must comply
The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law would not prohibit
riprap in a Conservation/Environmental shoreline classification which
was designated as such because of cultural resources, significant fish
habitat, etc.
Bulkheads are not prohibited by local governments
31
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
with the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations
adopted in accordance with the Act. Project specific questions can
be directed to the respective County government or in certain cases
to Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Christiansburg Regional Office.
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program:
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/e_and_s.shtml
Virginia Stormwater Management Program
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/stormwat.shtml
• To conform with State and Local Codes
• Thresholds are a better approach as most construction activity has
associated with it some amount of land disturbance.
• Shoreline stabilization over the past 40 years has had positive
environmental impacts
o Improved water quality
o Properly installed riprap provides structure in shallow water
habitat for fry
o Shallow water habitat adjacent to stabilized shoreline has
less sediment and a better nesting/spawning environment
• Stabilization of actively eroding shoreline should be encouraged
Local ordinances differ.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 73
Item 1
Add -- Stabilization at the back coves to trap sediment and
encourage the formation of a wetland can be considered.
Trapping sediment from naturally eroding streams within the project
actually will benefit the project by encouraging a wetland to form
when the sediment is trapped.
Adding riprap along shoreline of properties located in the backs of cove
where there is no active erosion would be considered as unnecessary fill.
Adding riprap in a linear fashion across the back of cove to catch
sediment would also be considered fill and could impact someone’s
ability to access the project.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Regulations
P 73
Item 3
Reword -- 3. Shoreline stabilization less than 500 linear feet would
qualify under the U.S. Army of Engineers (ACOE) nationwide
permit #13 (bank stabilization) provided the activity is part of a
single and complete project, does not impact a delineated wetland
The definition for wetland provided by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality has been incorporated into the SMP.
32
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
and is the minimum needed for erosion control.
11/30/10 Reg Anderson 2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
Beaches: What harm does sand cause to the waterway or bottom?
Fish habitat is no worse than rip rap and as a fisherman is better in
that the sunfish and bass can nest in the sand but cannot in rip rap.
Wave action causing sand to migrate into the lake is not a hazard or
deterent to the fishery. Many of my clients do not understand the
reasoning to not allow this water feature..and I have no valid reason
except it is not allowed.
Sand is considered to be fill and as such can reduce water depths,
especially in the backs of coves. Appalachian encourages shorelines to
be vegetated to the greatest extent possible for aesthetics, water quality
and habitat.
11/08/10 Anonymous 2.5.8 Shoreline
Stabilization
The SMP should be amended to allow single family homes to have a
sand play area, similar to a golf course sand trap, for kids. Locating
this sand area behind the rip rap within a minimum width area for
grass between the rip rap and the trap should alleviate erosion
concerns.
There are numerous sand beaches around the lake dumping
considerable sand into the lake and reducing shore water depths.
New home owners have no ability to create a sand play area for
children. Allowing sand “traps” along the shoreline behind the
ripap with minimum erosion protection might encourage
grandfathered sand beaches immediately adjacent to the water to
adopt the more environmentally friendly version. New home
owners would also not feel so penalized in their options for play
areas for their children.
See note above regarding beaches. Sand traps, as described, can be
located outside of the project boundary.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.9 Dredging P 75
Items 1 thru 12
This entire section should be eliminated and replaced with the
following:
1. Nationwide Permit (19) Minor Dredging (3/18/2002)
Dredging of no more than 25 cubic yards below the plane of the
ordinary high water mark or the mean high water mark from
navigable waters of the United States (i.e. ,Section 10 waters) as
part of a single and complete project. This nationwide permit does
not authorize the dredging or degradation through siltation of coral
reefs, sites that support submerged aquatic vegetation (including
The proposed language ignores the protection of identified resources and
would not allow Appalachian and the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries to monitor the total amount dredged under Nationwide
Permit (19). Specifically, the proposed language would allow for the
dredging of the original bottom under certain conditions, dredging
between the 793 and 795 foot contour elevations which has been
identified as important fish habitat, dredging during fish spawning
(February 15 to June 15), and dredging/excavation of vegetated area
below the 613 foot contour elevation at Leesville Lake.
33
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
sites where submerged aquatic vegetation is documented to exist,
anadromous fish spawning areas, or wetlands or, the connection of
canals or other artificial waterways to navigable waters of the
United States (see 33 CFR 322.5(g)). (Section 10 and 404)
2. Nationwide Permit (35) Maintenance Dredging of Existing
Basins (3/18/2002) Excavation and removal of accumulated
sediment for maintenance of existing marina basins, access channels
to marina basins or boat slips, and boat slips to previously
authorized depths or controlling depths for ingress/egress whichever
is less provided the dredged material is disposed of at an upland site
and proper siltation controls are used. (Section 10)
3. Dredging and or excavation requiring ACOE and/or VDEQ
approval must also be approved by Appalachian. Applications for an
Appalachian permit must also include any additional required
permits.
These modifications eliminate duplication of permit language and
confusion
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
There needs to be greater recognition of, and utilization of, the study
of the Vegetative Cover Regulations by the SMLA Buffer
Landscape Committee that was submitted to the Steering
Committee. These recommendations are based on governmental
agency recommendations rather than generalities pieced together
that have no “expert” backing. SMLA strongly encourages effective
buffering of the lakes. We need to more effectively adopt the
principles of low impact development. Perhaps it is time to consider
incentives rather than punitive measures. We recommend offering
an increase in dock size of 10 to 20% in exchange for a buffer
and/or shoreline that meets the requirements of being “low Impact
Development” and the recommendations submitted to you by the
SMLA Buffer Landscape Committee. We also recommend that the
references in the Appendix stating that only native plants be used be
changed to say that “native plants or cultivars” be used.
The SMLA plant list has been incorporated into Appendix F. Further, the SMLA’s recommended restoration buffer is being utilized in
Appalachian’s mitigation policy.
Low impact development techniques such as green roofs, permeable
pavers, rain barrels, rain gardens, etc, are largely activities that would
occur outside of the project boundary and as such, Appalachian
encourages the counties surrounding the Smith Mountain Project to
consider incorporating the techniques into their ordinances or at a
minimum, lake organizations could promote them.
Appalachian believes the current dock sizes are adequate without
incentives to become larger.
Appalachian does not see the need to alter the documents provided by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of
Conservation but has noted the allowance of cultivars in the SMP
34
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
text.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
Need to properly define the “function of the buffer” The “function of the buffer” is site specific. One lot may have all canopy
trees while another has canopy and understory trees, ground cover and
woody debris hanging over the water. The depth of the buffer is also site
specific. Each function is assessed and efforts are made to work with the
property owner to accomplish his or her goal(s) and replace or even
enhance that function.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
The language related to dead and dying trees should be amended to
better reflect FERC’s guidance in Article 20. We believe AEP has
too narrowly defined their responsibility for maintenance of the
required buffer as instructed in Article 20.
Article 20 states, “The Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an adequate
width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary
structures, unused timber, brush, the clearing of lands or from the
maintenance or alteration of the project works. In addition, all trees
along the periphery of the project reservoirs which may die during
operations of the project shall be removed, All clearing of the lands and
disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due diligence and
to the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the Commission and
in accordance with appropriate Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations.”
Appalachian believes Article 20 is associated with the original
construction of the project and project operations. Article 406, Habitat
Management Plan supplements the original license language so as to
protect, enhance and create habitat within Project lands and waters.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
We endorse the vegetative buffer plan and lists of plants as proposed
by the Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) during Steering
Committee deliberations for any mitigation that might be required.
See note above regarding inclusion of the SMLA plant list.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
P 77
2nd
para
Delete and Replace with – Projects involving land-disturbing
activities equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet must comply
with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and all
applicable regulations adopted in accordance with that law.
Projects involving land-disturbing activities equal to or greater than
one acre, must comply with the Virginia Stormwater Management
Act and the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP)
Such referenced regulations would require reseeding an area but not
necessarily, replacing the vegetation or its function that has been
removed.
Property owners make application to remove and replace the function of
the buffer and Appalachian assesses the proposal, compares the proposal
to the Shoreline Management Plan, and approves the proposal, requests
modifications or denies the request.
35
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Permit Regulations adopted in accordance with the Act. Project
specific questions can be directed to the respective County
government or in certain cases to Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation Christiansburg Regional Office.
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program:
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/e_and_s.shtml
Virginia Stormwater Management Program
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/stormwat.shtml
• Who determines and or measures the function or effectiveness of
the buffer?
• Buffer widths of less than 35 feet are not effective
• Buffer widths need to be 100’ or greater to affect water quality
• Depending upon slope and soil characteristics an effective buffer
could require up to 300’
This rewording offers sufficient protections for buffer function and
the Stormwater Management Program offers a variety of Best
Management Practices to ensure effective control of stormwater.
At a minimum, buffer widths less than 35’ benefit streambank
stabilization, the aquatic food web, aquatic habitat, and water
temperature.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
P 78
Item 1
Delete and replace with …
1. Provide for reasonable view of the water
• A landscape plan is required before a vegetative removal
permit will be issued
• Trees and shrubs may be pruned or removed to provide a view
of the water. Pruning (not topping) rather than removal of
trees should be encouraged. Pruning up (limbing) of trees for
a view of the water is allowed up to 25% of leaf bearing
limbs.
• The trees or shrubs that are removed should be replaced with
native plants. A list of native plants can be found in Appendix
F.
• When trees are removed, restoration / establishment standards
are found in the Chesapeake Alliance Riparian Buffers
The text has been revised to allow trees to be limbed not more than
20% up to 14 feet.
The text has been revised to indicate that trees and shrubs may be
pruned but not topped.
The referenced replacement chart requires more vegetation to be
replanted than what Appalachian has proposed.
The statement, “Vegetation removal, especially on steep slopes,
should be avoided in order not to destabilize the bank and prevent
erosion. Removal of trees on a steep slope can increase the
probability of a slope failure, and could result in the costly
installation of E&S measures and replanting” will be incorporated
into the introduction.
Likewise, the following statement has been incorporated into the
36
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Guidance Manual, Appendix D, Table A. (see Replacement
Density--Table 2.5-2
• Vegetation removal, especially on steep slopes, should be
avoided in order not to destabilize the bank and prevent
erosion. Removal of trees on a steep slope can increase the
probability of a slope failure, and could result in the costly
installation of E&S measures and replanting.
• If land disturbance exceeds more than 10,000 sq feet, County
E&S permits are required.
• Erosion resulting from land disturbance into the project waters
is prohibited, regardless if less than 10,000 sq ft is disturbed.
• Land disturbance equal to or greater than one acre requires a
Stormwater Management Plan
• The end result is to achieve a framed vegetative view of the
water that is both functional and attractive, from both the
property and water.
This rewording offers sufficient protections for buffer function
introduction, “Land disturbance permits and approved Stormwater
Management Plans may be required by the county in which the property
is located.”
The localities’ amounts of disturbance are different and subject to change
and as such, Appalachian will not reference an exact amount. For
example, Sec. 7-11 of the Franklin County Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance states: Permit required for land-disturbing activities.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no land-disturbing
activity shall commence prior to the issuance of a land-disturbing permit
by the program authority.
2. A land-disturbing permit is required if:
(a) The area of land disturbance is 10,000 square feet or greater; or
(b) The area of land disturbance is 3,000 square feet or greater, and the
area of land disturbance is located within 200 feet of any surface water.
3. A land-disturbing permit is not required if:
(a) The area of land disturbance is less than 10,000 square feet, and such
area is located more than 200 feet from any surface water; or
(b) The area of land disturbance is less than 3,000 square feet, and such
area is located within 200 feet of any surface water.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
P 79
Replace Table 2.5-2 with the following:
2.5-2 Replacement Density
For every 400 square foot unit (i.e. 20’ x 20’) plant
1. One canopy tree @ 1.5”- 2” caliper or large evergreen @ 6’
2. Two understory trees @ .75” – 1.5” caliper or evergreen @ 4’
Or one understory tree and two large shrubs @ 3’ – 4’
3. Three small shrubs or woody groundcover @ 15’ – 18”
The referenced chart was taken from the Riparian Buffers modification
and Mitigation Guidance Manual which states that replacement occurs
when part of the buffer vegetation has been removed, such as to create a
vista, and woody vegetation has to be put back into the buffer.
Restoration occurs when a large amount of vegetation has been removed,
such as to eliminate an invasive species or when a violation has occurred
and the buffer must be restored by the planting of woody vegetation.
The referenced table is the restoration chart not the replacement chart.
Appalachian is interested in replacing the function of the buffer or
enhancing the function of that buffer, not developing a uniform density of
plantings around the lakes.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
P 79
Item 2
Delete and Replace with …
The proposed language neglects the importance of replacing vegetation
and does not require vegetation to be replaced.
37
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
Regulations 2. Construct Access Paths to the Shoreline and/or Dock or Pier
• Access paths should be sited to fit into the character of the
land; the path should avoid existing vegetation and wind
around existing large trees and shrubs, where possible.
• Where possible permeable materials are favored over hard
pavement
Erosion into the project waters is prohibited, regardless if less than
10,000 sq ft is disturbed.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
P 80
Item 3
Delete and Replace with …
3. Construct erosion control measures along the shoreline
Modifications are allowed to the vegetation within the project
boundary in order to construct erosion control measures along the
shoreline.
The proposed language neglects the importance of replacing vegetation
and does not require vegetation to be replaced.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
P 80
Item 4
Delete and Replace with …
4. General maintenance to the vegetated area
• Maintenance of the landscape buffer is encouraged
• Removal of invasive vegetation is allowed
• On project lands that have not been developed or otherwise
disturbed, Appalachian has maintenance responsibilities to
enter and to cut, burn and/or remove dead or dying trees,
bushes, driftwood and other objects and debris which may be
located below the 800’ contour.
• Once a landowner disturbs / modifies vegetation on project
lands, the property owner assumes maintenance responsibility.
• Dead and diseased plants that are removed should be replaced
with native plants. A list of native plants can be found in
Appendix F and to a replacement density IAW Table 2.5-2.
• Appalachian has the responsibility IAW Standard License
Article 20 – to remove all trees along the periphery of project
reservoirs that die during operations of the project.
Appalachian does not have maintenance responsibilities to enter and to
cut, burn and/or remove dead or dying trees, bushes, driftwood and other
objects and debris which may be located below the 800 foot contour.
See previous note regarding Article 20.
38
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Changed to be consistent with flowage easement language and
Standard License Article 20 requirements
12/6/10 Department of
Conservation
and Recreation
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
'Scientists consider the multi-tiered buffer (with mature canopy
trees, understory trees and shrubs and groundcover) to constitute the
ideal buffer that will accomplish the maximum buffer functions. '
A 100-foot buffer is generally considered the minimum depth to
provide adequate removal of nutrients, silt and pollution.
Natural vegetative buffers naturally enhance habitat foe native
wildlife'
'..buffer strips .. are extremely important to the protection of water
quality. [They] filter sediment and nutrients, maintain desirable
water temperatures, and provide many of the essential requirements
of forest stream ecosystems.. It is recommended that all [buffers] be
a minimum of 50 feet in width, measured from the top of the stream
bank. This 50-foot SMZ is a managed forest; within this managed
area up to 50 percent of the basal area or up to 50 percent of the
forest canopy can be harvested.
Tidal streams are unique in that they often encompass wide areas of
adjacent grasslands. For the purposes of establishing SMZ width,
measure from the edge of the grassland/woodland area. The goal I s
to have at least 50 feet of undisturbed vegetation between the edge
of the grassland area and the timber harvest area. Land immediately
adjacent to the tidal marsh should not be disturbed by equipment.'
This comes from Dept. of Forestry, who do work all over the state.
All this could be adapted in your plan. I know you do not have any
tidal areas, but there areas where there is an artificial fluctuation in
water levels, this could apply.
Appalachian believes its Vegetative Cover Regulations and the Variance
process required for development within the Conservation/Environmental
shoreline classification accomplish the intent of maintaining the function
of the existing buffer. The Commonwealth is encouraged to implement a
100 foot buffer on its lands and localities are encouraged to require
additional buffers through its ordinances. Property owners are also
encouraged to implement buffer strips without being regulated to do so,
so as to improve water quality.
39
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/7/10 Department of
Conservation
and Recreation
2.5.11
Vegetative
Cover
Regulations
The definition of a Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) for Forest
Harvesting Operations from page 125 in our BMP Manual is:
"Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) – An area of reduced
management activity on both sides
of the banks of perennial and intermittent streams and bodies of
open water where extra precaution
is used in carrying out forest practices in order to protect bank edges
and water quality."
Now the width of that buffer varies depending on the type of
waterbody that is being protected (warm water fishery, cold water
fishery, or municipal water supply). generally speaking though the
SMZ requirement on a forest harvesting operation is 50 feet from
the edge of the stream channel or edge of the water body. This is a
managed area that timber removal can occur from.
For purposes of Riparian Forest Buffer establishment on open areas
adjacent to streams (afforestation of treeless sites) the standards are
slightly different with a minimum buffer width of 35 feet up to 300
feet on either side of the stream. These are the requirements for
establishment of a Riparian Forest Buffer under most of the cost-
share programs available to landowners.
Depending upon the slope, Appalachian’s project boundary may or may
not be 35 feet in width. However, Appalachian believes its Vegetative
Cover Regulations and the Variance process required for development
within the Conservation/Environmental shoreline classification
accomplish the intent of maintaining the function of the existing buffer.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
2.5.12 Woody
Debris
P 81
Delete the last two sentences
Installation of docks and riprap offer positive environmental
benefits and replacement dead and dying trees attached to the
shoreline in residential areas is aesthetically necessary.
Docks provide coverage for fish but not the smaller intricate habitat
needed by smaller species to be protected from larger predators.
Tidy/clean lawns contribute to poor water quality and diminished fish and
wildlife habitat. Lawns devoid of vegetation also invite nuisance wildlife
e.g. geese.
Wildlife depends on both dead and live habitat. Dead trees provide
habitat for turtles and birds. Dead and living trees help protect the
shoreline from erosion. Recognizing that property owners may not have
the same appreciation for dead trees, Appalachian will issue a permit for
40
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
its removal provided the vegetation is replaced but any woody debris that
is removed must be replaced. Appalachian has amended the language to
allow property owners to propose manmade alternatives.
12/5/10 Jack Harrison 2.5.15
Limitations
My 1st comment is related to one line in the SMP that concerns
geothermal loops. The SMP simply prohibits these installations and
I feel that is somewhat shortsighted given today's cost of energy, the
drive towards energy indepandance (sic) and the prospect of higher
prices to come. While I can understand that geothermal use of the
lake should be regulated with standard designs and practices, to
simply prohibit it is not the way to go. I would favor additional
discussion on this issue.
Geothermal loops can be installed outside of the project boundary.
12/16/10 SMLA 3.1 Permitting
Responsibilities
As we have consistently stated in the Steering Committee meetings,
we feel that we must find a solution to the problem of transferring
the permit when a property is sold. We understand legal issues exist
but they need to be explored in greater depth instead of simply
dismissing this serious issue.
Appalachian may issue permits to occupy and use project lands and
waters under certain conditions and is required to supervise and control
the uses for which it grants permission. Permits are personal rights and
thus are not transferable. Upon transfer of property, Appalachian may
issue a permit to the buyer. Buyers need to be aware of the terms and
conditions of utilizing a structure which is located within a federally
licensed project. Appalachian believes the current administrative process
is the best process for monitoring and enforcing compliance.
12/16/10 SMLA 3.1 Permitting
Responsibilities
We also feel strongly that vesting of structures built prior to the
August 31, 2005, deadline must be honored. It should not be the
objective of the SMP to force all older structures into compliance
with today’s, or tomorrow’s, SMP.
See previous notes regarding non-conforming structures language of the
SMP.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
3.1 Permitting
Responsibilities
Real Estate Closings: Appalachian should record permits with the
deed and allow them to transfer with the property rather than having
to expire when a sale takes place. Virginia allows only two methods
to transfer title, either by will or by deed. This approach is
consistent with practices in Virginia and ensures that the dock
structure is always assigned to a responsible property owner. The
delays to real estate closings have caused many sales to be cancelled
altogether. The impact on property values, tax revenues, and
personal hardships is enormous.
Structures should be built according to the permits issued and there
would be no problems at the time of closing. Property owners are
encouraged to do their own inspections before contacting Appalachian.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
3.1 Permitting
Responsibilities
P 82
Suggest a rewrite of this section to be more consistent with standard
It leaves too much open for interpretation for Appalachian to issue a
permit to a property owner granting permission to construct a dock that
41
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
construction and building practices
• The criteria for inspection should be substantial compliance with
SMP regulations.
• Appalachian should issue permits for dock construction,
bounded by SMP regulations. Preliminary diagrams of docks
and dimensions might be helpful to understand what the
applicant is requesting, however, the end result (as-built
structure) should be inspected to SMP requirements (e.g.
number of slips, setbacks, square footage, length, 1/3 cove rules,
etc.) As-built drawing should be provided to Appalachian
following the final inspection.
• Currently docks are inspected against preliminary drawings,
which has often resulted in unnecessary and expensive
modifications to the structure, even requiring punitive mitigation,
regardless if the structure met SMP requirements.
• This revised process is compliant with intent of Article 415 to
regulate uses, is consistent with the buildable area concept
elsewhere in this plan, and will result in less effort for both the
licensee and the applicant.
• Key to the success of this approach is a continuous and ongoing
education and awareness plan for property owners, local
Governments, dock builders, general contractors, dredgers,
excavators, landscape architects and surveyors. An effective
education and awareness plan will reduce violations and
encourage voluntary compliance.
• According to the FERC’s Guidance for Shoreline Management
Planning at Hydropower Projects, April 2001, Shoreline
Management Policies, Permits and Guidelines:
A permit and guideline component of the SMP should be specific
enough to be easily understood and implemented, while being
flexible enough to allow for a variety of proposals.
meets the SMP. It is important and more economical for all involved to
agree upfront on the structure to be built than to make costly repairs or
removal of the structure after the dock is constructed.
Appalachian issues permits for structures that property owners prepare
and submit and according to the terms and conditions of the permit
issued. No modifications or design changes can occur without prior
Appalachian approval. Minor changes have not historically required
mitigation. Appalachian recently modified its mitigation policy allowing
floating modifications within 30 days and structural modifications within
60 without requiring mitigation.
Appalachian has agreed to conduct annual meetings with dock builders,
contractors, etc. regarding SMP rules and regulations.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
3.4 Variance
Process
P 85
2nd
para
Reword – Uses and activities within areas of the project boundary
Appalachian agrees to consult with the appropriate federal and state
agencies to determine if wetlands are present. Even if wetlands are not
present, there would be sufficient vegetation or other resource present to
42
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
that are designated Conservation/Environmental are prohibited
unless a variance can be obtained, or a wetland delineation
determines a wetland does not exist, or the shoreline classification is
in error.
classify the shoreline as Conservation/Environmental. Appalachian will
not request a reclassification of the shoreline because wetlands are not
present.
12/16/10 SMLA 3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
Mitigation should not be used as punishment. If a structure is not
built as called for in the permit, APCO’s obligation, specifically
under its license, is to force conformance by withholding the permit
or requiring changes in the structure. In other words, require that the
problem be fixed. We also feel that there should be no mitigation
required for the installation of rip-rap. The positive effects of
protection of the shoreline outweigh any temporary loss of
vegetation. We also need to acknowledge that docks provide fish
habitat. Watch the fishermen on the lakes. They primarily fish the
docks. A study of Duke Power lakes in North Carolina in the ‘90’s
concluded that the majority of the fish habitat consisted of the
docks.
As previously stated, Appalachian has recently modified its mitigation
policy to encourage the timely correction of violations.
There is no mitigation required for the installation of riprap. If vegetation
is removed for the installation of riprap, then it must be replaced.
Appalachian has proposed modifications to its shoreline stabilization
regulations to allow property owners to remove less vegetation should
they so desire. In addition, bioengineering techniques are suggested.
12/7/10 Tri County
Lake
Administrative
Commission
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
The draft SMP provides opportunities for mitigation in certain
instances. This approach seems inappropriate and could allow for
APCO staff to make decisions to "punish" or "not punish" based on
their feelings of a certain situation or homeowner. Based on the
License's requirement for conformance we do not believe that such
mitigation should be included in the SMP.
Several entities and individuals requested that the mitigation policy be
included in the SMP and as such, the policy has been included.
12/6/10 SMLA 3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
That then leads to a principle we have termed “substantial
conformance”. Construction over water carries with it difficulties
beyond those encountered in construction on land. It is our position
that if, on your final inspection, you find variances from the permit
sketch, you make a determination as to whether what has been
constructed generally carries out the intent of the original sketch and
meets all the requirements of the regulations pertaining to that
shoreline classification. If it does, the permit should be issued
without further demands. There is no need to create a major
approval problem as long as the finished structure meets the
building codes and the overall SMP regulations. This is standard
practice for local government in approving construction.
Appalachian concurs with and utilizes the “substantial conformance”
principal provided the variances between what has been approved and
what has been constructed do not violate the regulations set forth in the
SMP.
43
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
P 86
Table 3.4.1
Reword – Delineated wetlands
Reword -- Undeveloped Islands Develop a plan to protect the land
within the project boundary of these islands to conform with
applicable State and local regulations.
Appalachian has modified the parameter to state “Vegetation
including wetlands” and included the other parameters included in
the Conservation/Environmental shoreline classification. The
parameter, undeveloped islands, has been deleted.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
P 87
2nd Sentence
Delete from … In lieu of cancelling the permission to use and
occupy the project lands and waters through the beginning of
Section 3.6
• The license requires the offense to be corrected, as there is no
basis for mitigation in Article 415 … If a permitted use and
occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other
condition imposed by the licensee for protection and
enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, or other
environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made
under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee shall
take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a
permitted use or occupancy, such action includes, as necessary,
canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and
waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying
structures and facilities.
Mitigation is the act of lessening or minimizing the severity of losses,
effects or damages and Appalachian believes mitigation to be preferable
over canceling permission to use and occupy projects lands and waters
and removal of the structure. Mitigation is limited to uses which will
benefit project lands and waters.
Appalachian recently implemented its new policy allowing 30 days for
property owners to either remove unauthorized floating additions (and 60
days for unauthorized structural additions) or obtain a permit that meets
the SMP without having to mitigate with the hopes that property owners
will have an incentive to diligently pursue compliance. Further,
Appalachian has reduced the amount of vegetation that has to be planted.
In case of a violation, Appalachian does detail how the unauthorized
addition violates the SMP, which defines the project’s scenic,
recreational, and environmental values and outlines the process for
correction and compliance.
44
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
• Mitigation amounts to assessing a penalty or fine and neither the
FERC nor Appalachian have the authority to act as sheriff, judge
and jury.
• In the case of a violation, Appalachian should detail how the
violation harmed the project's scenic, recreational, or other
environmental values, and detail what the violator has to do to
correct the offense.
• For example, building a dock without a permit, would require the
violator to obtain a permit and if the non-permitted dock failed to
meet SMP requirements, modify the structure to comply with
SMP regulations.
Removing vegetation without a permit would require the violator to
prepare a landscape plan to replant to a specified density (Table 2.5-
2) and to use native vegetation.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
Mandatory mitigations for SMP violations even when such
violations are corrected. A spirit of achieving SMP compliance
should be the focus as opposed to enforced punishment.
See note above regarding new mitigation policy.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
We do not believe any mitigation should be required or enforced if
structures are brought into compliance with the SMP within sixty
(60) days of notice of violation.
See note above regarding new mitigation policy.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
3.5 Monitoring
and
Enforcement
Bedford County questions AEP’s authority to require and enforce
such mitigation requirements.
Appalachian manages the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project in
accordance with the terms of its license and the applicable FERC rules
and regulations. Under its License, Appalachian has the authority to
grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of Project lands
and waters and to convey certain interests in Project lands and waters.
However, permission is granted only if the proposed use and occupancy
is consistent with the purposes of protecting important natural,
environmental, recreational and scenic resources. Appalachian has the
continuing responsibility to supervise and control the uses of, and ensure
compliance with, the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for any
interests that it has conveyed under its FERC license.
Appalachian either owns the project boundary in fee or has the necessary
property rights to grant permission for certain uses and to require
compliance with those uses. Uses are by revocable permit and all
45
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
property rights are recorded with the appropriate clerks of the circuit
court. In addition, the SMP approved by FERC in 2005 provided that
individuals may be required to plant or pay for the planting of vegetative
materials within the project boundary in the event that vegetation is
removed without a permit. (Art. 2.5.11.)
12/6/10 SMLA 3.6 SMP
Review and
Update
The proposed SMP contains language requiring the creation of a
Technical Review Committee (TRC). We would like to see this
addressed more fully. We suggest that the Committee should
include all stakeholders as the current Steering Committee does.
Discussions created by the Steering Committee meetings have been
enriched by the different points of view. The rules for the TRC
should allow issues to be debated in ways other than having face-to-
face meeting. This could include electronic formats, conference
calls and voting by proxy.
Appalachian has proposed a smaller working committee composed of
those who can contribute technically and without political or personal
motives.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
3.6 SMP
Review and
Update
Technical Review Committee: Appalachian should establish a
standing advisory committee to assist in the development of new
regulations or modifications to existing regulations, composed of
SMP Steering Committee members.
Consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee is voluntary not
mandatory and Appalachian has proposed a smaller, more technical
committee with whom to work.
12/2/10. 12/3/10, 12/6/10 and
12/7/10
TCRC, Bedford
County,
Franklin
County and the
SMCC,
respectively
3.6 SMP
Review and
Update
P 88
1st Sentence
Reword – AEP will consult annually, and on an as needed basis,
with a Technical Advisory Committee composed of members from
the SMP Steering Committee.
• The Steering Committee provides the best representation of
stakeholders.
• The proposed Technical Advisory Committee fails to have
representation from NGO’s, TLAC and residents
See note above regarding the proposed Technical Advisory Committee.
12/2/10 Franklin
County
Appendix D
Shoreline
Classifications
Request to reclassify recently acquired Smith Property to Public Use
based on deed restrictions which limit developments to public
education, training and recreation
Appalachian has modified its Shoreline Classification maps so that
the shoreline classification of the Smith Property is Public Use
12/6/10 SMLA Implementation
or
Administration
And finally (for general comments) we feel strongly that APCO
must strive for a greater level of customer service. People should be
able to visit the office without appointments, phone calls must either
be answered directly or returned promptly and a receptionist should
be able to spell out, and provide help with, the procedures in
Appalachian’s office hours are from 8:30 to 5 PM, Monday through
Friday. Appointments may be requested any time during these hours.
Appointments allow for greater efficiency as Appalachian has time to
research pertinent issues. Establishing appointments also allows for
confidentiality and security.
46
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
applying for a permit as is done in all local county Building Permit
offices.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Implementation
and
Administration
Appalachian needs to enhance its customer service for lake residents
and contractors.
See note above regarding customer service.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Implementation
and
Administration
Customer Service: Appalachian should establish regular customer
service hours where individuals and contractors may get answers to
questions and assistance with permit applications. The lack of
customer service hours was a serious contributor to confusion,
misunderstanding, and hard feelings.
See note above regarding customer service.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Implementation Education: Appalachian should provide sufficient training and
guidance for contractors, realtors, developers, etc. whose business
involves work requiring conformance to SMP guidelines and
permits in order to prevent confusion and misunderstandings before
they become conflicts.
Appalachian has agreed to hold annual work shops with dock builders,
contractors, etc. to help them understand the importance of the permitting
process and constructing what has been authorized.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Administration Time Goals: Appalachian should set permit and inspection
processing time goals. This has been the number one complaint
from owners and contractors. Contractors are being delayed months
for payment on jobs completed that owners claim Appalachian is
holding the permit approval up for other violations that the
contractor had nothing to do with.
Appalachian has internal goals for issuing permits for low density single
family docks. The problem, as Appalachian sees it, is incomplete
applications are submitted, causing unnecessary delays. Property owners
are encouraged to work with surveyors and dock builders to obtain a
drawing that reflects a structure that will fit into the physical setting in
which the property owner plans to build and property owners are strongly
encouraged to construct the structure for which they get permission to
build.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Implementation Employee Training: Appalachian needs to improve training and
guidance for employees to avoid as much as possible differences in
interpretation of SMP regulations and inconsistencies in their
application.
Appalachian employees regularly consult with one another so as to have
consistent interpretations.
12/6/10 Franklin
County
Implementation Provide sufficient training and guidance for contractors, realtors,
developers, etc. whose business involves work requiring
conformance to SMP guidelines and permits.
See note above regarding proposed educational efforts.
12/3/10 Bedford
County
Implementation Bedford County indicated a concern as to the level of customer
service provided by AEP for citizens and businesses seeking to
comply with the SMP and hopes that the implementation of the new
SMP can be undertaken in a more “user friendly” environment that
Through implementation of its new mitigation policy, consultation with a
Technical Advisory Committee and implementation of work shops with
contractors and other interested parties, Appalachian is committed to
working with property owners and the business community to implement
47
Date
Received
Agency/Source Section Comment Appalachian’s Response
focuses on educating the community to the requirements of the SMP
and offers reasonable opportunity to comply before penalties are
enforced.
the goals necessary to protect and enhance the Project’s scenic,
recreational and environmental values.