Smith Mountain Lake Association Issues with the

Current AEP Shoreline Management Plan

Which is Dated August 29, 2003

Dredging Limits

            In a survey of our membership covering concerns about the SMP, the issue that raised the greatest concern was the ability to get boats out of the slip in low water conditions. This is more than a limitation on recreation but is also a safety issue if a fire/rescue boat needs to reach the dock. Our membership has two points to make here. First, don’t let the water get so low that this becomes a problem. Water level management through releases at the dams has been addressed in the relicensing studies and has been ruled upon by FERC so further debate here would serve no purpose. We can, however, address the impact the pump back scheduling has on water levels in SML. The second point would be that if we are going to have periodic low water events, the SMP should have more liberal regulations for dredging under docks and from the docks to the deep water channel. SMLA position – dredging should be allowed to the original project contour or to the 787’ contour (the current limitation is 789’), whichever is less. SMLA would also like to see if it would be possible to increase the threshold amount of sediment removal requiring an ACOE application to more than 25 cubic yards.

Process for modifying grandfathered docks and building new docks

            There are a number of specific issues to be addressed here:

1.      All docks in place at the time the SMP went into effect should be grandfathered regardless of whether they were registered with AEP as long as adequate documentation of their size and configuration from precision aerial photographs, drawing, or permits can be provided.

2.      Modifications to grandfathered docks should be allowed without respect to the limitations imposed in the SMP as long as the size is not increased. Modification of the configuration should be allowed as long as the overall size, or the size of any enclosure, is not increased and the encroachment limitations in the SMP are not breached. This would mean that the footprint could be changed.

3.      The definition of “footprint” in the SMP is not the definition being used in the management of the SMP. The definition in the current plan would not include roof overhang.

4.      The size limitations for new docks should be re-examined. This would include the overall size, enclosure size, ramp width, slip limitations, and personal water craft lifts. SMLA suggests that screened area should not be treated as enclosures. The objective here should be to avoid creation of environmental problems and avoid aesthetic judgments.

5.      The paperwork required for both new docks and dock modifications is excessive.

Shoreline Protection

            Again, the paperwork associated with applications to rip rap a shoreline seems excessive.

            Early applications to rip rap shoreline were often met with excessive demands for documentation of why other alternative forms of protection would not adequately prevent erosion. This seems to have diminished but if AEP wishes to promote other erosion prevention measures, this should be accomplished by education with the applicant rather than placing the burden of proof on them.

            The other issue here is the regulations with respect to vegetation affected by the rip rap placement, i.e., between the base elevation and the project boundary. SMLA believes that the homeowner should be allowed to remove invasive vegetation. SMLA also believes that when removal of native plants cannot be avoided, replacement requirements should not exceed those called for in the Vegetation Replacement Rates, Table 2.5-2. The list of native plants contained in Appendix E needs to be completely reviewed to insure that it contains an adequate number of plants that are available in the SML area.      

The entire issue of control of stormwater runoff needs to be re-examined. The VA DCR regulations on Low Impact Development and associated BMPs should be taken into consideration along with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook cited in Paragraph 2.5.8.

The handling of dying trees and other vegetation between the project boundary and the base elevation also needs to be looked at again. Homeowners need to be able to remove trees that have fallen into the lake in front of their house.

Sale of property with non-compliant docks

            This is a major issue with our members, both from the standpoint of actual cases that have occurred and from fear of what could happen to them as individuals in the future. SMLA understands that AEP must declare flagrant cases non-compliant but it appears to us that not all of these decisions have been justified. SMLA suggests that there needs to be an impartial appeal process outside of the current process such as the Local Dispute Resolution Board discussed during the Relicensing Study.

Enforcement/Mitigation

            There is a strong feeling among lake residents that enforcement has been uneven, nit picking and, at times, punitive. SMLA accepts that enforcement is both necessary and vital to the future of the SMP. But we do not feel that construction variations from the plans submitted that amount only to inches deserve excessive reactions.

            SMLA suggests that AEP model enforcement efforts on county government enforcement of building construction. Perhaps incremental inspections (pre-construction, pile placement, framing, and completion) of work authorized by permits would help avoid non-compliance issues? Enforcement needs to be flexible and recognize that changes from the original drawings submitted in the permit process are normal.

            Mitigation has been required in some of these cases of construction variances. SMLA has difficulty understanding the nexus between these variances and requirements of extensive additions to buffer planting.

Reports to FERC on SMP Administration/Metrics/Standing Advisory Committee

            AEP must submit three annual reports on the SMP to FERC. These reports are not available to the public and SMLA believes they should be. SMLA suggests that these reports be made readily available in an analysis friendly format, like excel.

            SMLA also suggests that AEP create a standing Technical Advisory Committee to review the metrics and provide ongoing consultation on the management of the SMP.

Standards for measuring shoreline distances

            The current SMP specifies that homeowners measure distance along the shoreline along the base elevation - 795’. It also specifics distance from the shoreline be measured from this 795 contour line. It is our understanding that AEP is considering changing this protocol to measuring along, and from, the project boundary - 800’. Given our current understanding of the logic for the change, SMLA would not be in favor of such a change.

Wetlands

            Should the location of wetlands shown on the charts associated with the SMP be defined more precisely and registered with the Army Corp of Engineers which has the ultimate authority for the management of wetlands?

Shoreline Classification

            Have changes to the development of the shoreline since 2005 reached the point that the shoreline classifications need to be reviewed?

            SMLA suggests that the standards for the classification of Impact Minimization Zone be reviewed. SMLA specifically recommends that undeveloped islands not be automatically classified as IMZ.

Food Service below the Project Boundary Contour line

            The recent action AEP has taken concerning food service at the Virginia Dare Marina Portside Grill will create a great deal of controversy. SMLA agrees that food service below the 800’ contour is clearly prohibited in the current SMP. However this service is worthwhile amenity for recreational boaters and promotes the economy of the region. SMLA would like to see if some compromise on this issue can be reached in the course of the SMP review.