SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210

APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE MEETING

NOVEMBER 13, 2002

NOTES

 

 

Location, Date, Time and Attendees:

 

On November 13, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. (EST), the individuals listed below met at the Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center’s Taubman Conference Center located in Wirtz, Virginia to discuss the various processes available for preparing the Application for New License for the Smith Mountain Project and to identify key issues to be addressed in that application. 

 

                       

Name                                                   Representing

 

Terry Brown                                         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Allan Creamer                                      Federal Energy Regulatory Commission                       

Roger White                                         U.S. Geological Service

David Sutherland                                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dan Wilson                                          VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries

William Rolfe                                        Bedford County, Virginia

Bonnie Johnson                                    Franklin County, Virginia                                 

Mike Davidson                                     Campbell County, Virginia

Paul Harvey                                          Campbell County, Virginia

Greg Sides                                           Pittsylvania County, Virginia

Jerry Lovelace                                      Halifax County, Virginia

Bryan Foster                                        Town of Altavista, Virginia

Bob Lindsay                                         Roanoke River Basin Association

Dick Murphy                                        Smith Mountain Lake Association

Stan Smith                                            Tri-County Lake Advisory Commission

Cole Poindexter                                    Staunton River Watch

Shelton Miles                                        Citizens for the Preservation of the River

Steve Campbell                                    Association of Lake Area Communities

Chuck Poss                                          Smith Mountain Lake Boating Association

                                                            and The Water Conservation Alliance

Rob Lyon                                             Smith Mountain Eagle

Frank Simms                                        American Electric Power (AEP)

Teresa Rogers                                      AEP

John Van Hassel                                   AEP

David Shirley                                        AEP

Todd Burns                                          AEP

Liz Parcell                                            AEP

 

 

Following is a summary of the items discussed:

 

 

 

Summary:

 

The meeting was structured to follow a power point presentation of which copies were provided to each of the attendees.  The attendees were notified that the power point presentation as well as the meeting notes would be incorporated into the web site established for the relicensing of the Smith Mountain Project, www.smithmtn.com.

 

The meeting began with Frank Simms welcoming all present and introducing AEP staff.  Following group introductions, Teresa Rogers reviewed the operations of the Smith Mountain Project, the existing license articles, the status of the ongoing development of the Shoreline Management Plan for the Smith Mountain Project, and ongoing variances to the conditions of license Article 29 that impact flow discharges from the Leesville Development for the project. 

 

The key dates for applying for a new license for the Smith Mountain Project were identified.  Those dates include: (1) the existing license expiring on April 1, 2010; (2) the application for new license needing be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by March 31, 2008; and (3) filing the Notice of Intent to file for a new license between October 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005, as required by FERC regulations.  A question was raised regarding other possible applicants for the license.  Mr. Simms indicated that he did not know of any other applicants at this time.  He did explain that any other applicant would need to follow the same regulations as Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) for applying for a new license and that should another applicant receive the license in lieu of Appalachian, there would be compensation to Appalachian for embedded costs amongst other considerations.

 

The processes available for use in developing the Application for New License were described.  Those include: (1) the Traditional Approach; (2) the Alternative Approach; and (3) the Modified Traditional Approach.  The differences between the approaches were explained with the main difference being that under the Traditional approaches, the licensee prepares an application, files it with the FERC, and the FERC prepares the Environmental Assessment.  Under the Traditional approaches, it was further explained that participation by the agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public can be less than through the Alternative Approach.  However, that depends on how the Applicant utilizes the process.  One other major difference explained was that under the Alternative Approach, there is usually more participation by the FERC through the term of the process.

 

The Alternative Approach was described as being more structured than the Traditional Approach and/or the Modified Traditional Approach.  Under the Alternative Approach, it was explained that decisions regarding how settlement agreements can be established and communication protocols must be established upfront.  In addition, participation is mandatory thus commitments need to be made to assure that the process works.  Some of the observed advantages of the Alternative Approach were listed including: (1) reduced review time required by the FERC of the license application; (2) faster implementation of environmental measures; and (3) removal of any questions regarding the FERC’s expectations since they are involved throughout the process.  Meeting participants shared their experiences with the various approaches and discussed the attributes and problems with each. 

 

Allan Creamer, representing the FERC, indicated that he had seen several examples where applicants changed from the Alternative Approach to the Traditional or Modified Traditional Approach during the license application process.  He also described a new method which has been drafted by the FERC and which is currently receiving public comment.  It is anticipated that this method will be finalized in the summer of 2003.  It is likely that the new method could still be implemented even if one of the other available processes were to be implemented before the new approach was made available for use.

 

The question was raised about cost comparisons for each type of approach.  The response was that the Alternative Approach has more upfront costs and requires a greater time investment from those participating than either the Traditional or Modified Traditional approaches.

 

There was an inquiry as to if there had been any indications from any organizations that the project dams should be removed.  The response was that there had not been any indication of such support for removal of the dams from any group as of the date of the meeting.  

 

The suggestion was made that AEP provide a listing of acronyms prior to the next meeting.  The acronyms were defined to the participants.  The AEP representatives agreed to also provide a list of acronyms prior to the next meeting.

 

There was a discussion regarding who would be involved in the application process.  The participants were informed that invitations to the November 13, 2002 meeting had been extended to organizations and agencies with a direct interest in the operation of the project and with whom AEP has worked over the years regarding project related environmental and operational issues.  Additional groups will be involved as focus groups are developed.  The importance of identifying stakeholders and those who should participate in the application process early in the process to prevent new issues from surfacing late in the process was also emphasized. 

 

Frank Simms indicated that he would be the primary contact for AEP during the license application process and that public information is available at www.smithmtn.com and will continue to be updated and made available during the entire licensing period.  The attendees were also informed that additional relevant information can be obtained through the FERC website at www.ferc.fed.us.  General and specific searches are available on that site through the “Ferris” search tool.  In order to access the information, the docket number to utilize for the Smith Mountain Project is P-2210.

 

The next steps to take place as part of the application process were described.  They include obtaining a consensus regarding the recommended license application approach, identifying key issues, developing and circulating the Initial Stage Consultation Document (ISCD) and developing consultation groups by issues.

 

There was an extensive discussion regarding the license application processes available and which of those to utilize.  The consensus appeared to be to utilize the process that best allowed for local involvement even if it meant more meetings.  Following discussion, the participants suggested that AEP should utilize the Alternative Approach.  It was agreed to proceed along that path with the caveat that if a protocol could not be established, then there would be a switch to the Modified Traditional Approach. 

 

Various issues of concern were identified by the attendees.  For clarification, they have been categorized by their relationship to a key issue.  

 

Shoreline Management

 

·        Shoreline stabilization

·        Establishment of buffer zones

·        Dock density / sizes

·        Future uses of AEP-owned lands

·        Habitat enhancements

·        Wetlands

·        Erosion

·        Cumulative Impact analysis of amount of docks on the lake

·        Cultural / Historical Issues

 

Lake Issues

 

·        Aquatic vegetation, exotic species

·        Dredging

·        Island maintenance

·        Debris removal

·        Navigational systems

·        Noise regulations

·        Sediment

·        Carrying capacity

 

 

Water Quality / Quantity

 

·        Dissolved Oxygen – below both dams

·        Industrial and municipal needs – below dams

·        Safe yields

·        Water allocation

 

Fisheries

 

·        Entrainment / Impingement

·        Angler use surveys

·        Migrational issues for striped bass and walleye

·        Water level fluctuations – Leesville

·        Fish Passage – Upstream and downstream

·        Roanoke Log Perch (an endangered species)

 

 

Recreation

 

·        Angler access to shoreline

·        Shoal markers/ buoy system

·        Boating access

·        Public access to the reservoirs

 

Minimum Instream Flow

 

·        Drought Management

·        Survival habitat

·        Optimal habitat

·        Recreation

·        Impacts on lower Roanoke River water users (i.e. Dominion Power)

·        Impacts to Kerr Reservoir and Buggs Island during drought events

 

·        Cumulative impact analysis

 

Flood Operations

 

·        Downstream issues resulting from flood events

·        Flood durations and modeling

·        Warning systems

·        Flood operations under the Corps of Engineers agreements

·        Impacts to Kerr Reservoir and Buggs Island during and after flood events

           

 

Leesville Operations

 

·        Downstream Erosion Control

·        Continuous releases vs. autocycle

 

Other Issues

 

·        Public Safety / Security Issues - Integration of Plans

·        Funding of local / special needs

·        Economics

 

AEP’s Issues

 

·        Generation

·        Costs

·        Economic Viability

·        Ability to maximize use of water

·        Continued compliance with license articles

 

The meeting participants were encouraged to share with AEP knowledge of ongoing and/or upcoming studies related to the above referenced issues.  Studies cited during the meeting include: (1) a 216 study for Buggs Island; (2) a low flow study currently being conducted by Dominion Power downstream of the Leesville Development; and (3) the Smith Mountain Lake Association’s Water Quality Monitoring Assessment for Smith Mountain Lake.  Available information on these and other studies should be e-mailed to Frank Simms at fmsimms@aep.com.

 

The group identified the following organizations that may be interested in participating directly in the license application process and/or any associated focus groups:

 
  • The Roanoke River Basin Commission
  • The Sierra Club
  • Audubon Society
  • The Smith Mountain Lake Striper’s Club
  • Regional Partnerships of Local Governments
  • Ferrum College
  • Norfolk District Corps of Engineers
  • Smith Mountain Lake Water-ski Club
  • County Soil and Water Conservation Districts
  • Smith Mountain Lake Water Safety Council

 

The participants were informed that notes of the meeting would be prepared and issued by AEP.  In addition, there will be separate correspondence to document the preferences regarding the license application process to utilize.

 

Regarding future meetings, Mr. Simms stated that an attempt will be made to balance the locations between sites upstream and downstream of the Smith Mountain Project. Consideration will also be given to teleconferencing opportunities.

 

Information regarding the web site established for the relicensing of the Smith Mountain Project (www.smithmtn.com) was presented to the attendees.

 

The meeting concluded at 2:30 p.m. (EST).