DEIS P-xiv -- "The Staff Alternative includes Appalachian Power’s proposals for implementing: … (h) the existing shoreline management plan ... ."

 

TCRC concurs with including a revised Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) in the new license.  TCRC recognizes that the SMP is a separate plan, scheduled for review and update later this year, but prior to the award of a new license.  Subsequently, additional comments will be offered when the SMP review process reopens.

 

The DEIS is not specific regarding stakeholder and public participation in the SMP review process, and leaves this update process to the discretion of the licensee.  Indications from APCO are that the SMP update process will include a working group, but its membership will be by invitation and the number of attendees will be limited for efficiency.   This approach may be suitable for initial discussion and scoping, but it adds risk in that selective and limited participation may not result in the best possible plan.  TCRC recommends that the review and comment process be expanded and mechanisms be included to seek input from the general public, commercial interests, local governments, State Resource Agencies and relevant technical experts (e.g. arborists, limnologists, erosion specialists, etc.). Additionally, a public hearing should be held on the revised plan prior to implementation.

TCRC fundamentally believes the SMP is a good plan, however, we as does SMLA, are concerned with its implementation.  Today there is a divide between structures built prior to enforcement and those built post enforcement, and this divide at times is quite blurry.   The initial SMP implementation was a struggle for all parties, as APCO grew and trained staff and formulated detailed procedures.  Gradually acceptance by local governments, shoreline property owners and commercial interests reluctantly happened, in large part because the project had been virtually absent shoreline regulation during its first 40 years.  In short there are many "lessons learned" that should be considered for inclusion in the revised plan.

 

A survey form was provided to attendees at the Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) Town Hall meeting held on 31 March 2009. The total number of residents attending exceeded 160 with 92 responding to the survey questions.  A brief summary of the results follows:

 

1.  The majority (63%) of the respondents had high to very high concern with the SMP.  The issue of greatest concern was:

 

·         The paperwork and approval process required to modify or rebuild a dock or stabilize shoreline.

 

2.  Additional areas of high concern are:

 

·         Limits of a dock enclosure to a maximum of  72 sq.ft., including a boat storage shed and or a dock entertainment refreshment center. Additionally, that screened-in enclosures are not allowed.

·         Current limits on the number of slips and dock sq. footage allowed.

·         Implementation of shoreline riprap requirements.

 

At times inconsistent requirements have been placed upon lake front property owners by the SMP and the responsible County. This created confusion, extra cost and delays.  Communication and coordination has improved, however, the design of riparian buffers, tree removal and shoreline stabilization needs more improvement.  For example, shoreline management should be consistent with County E&S requirements and Virginia's storm water pollution and protection ordinances.  At times SMP implementation requirements have proven inconsistent with low impact development best management practices (BMPs) regarding tree replacement with improved protection measures, imposed by local governments upon new planned developments.

 

We know from affected Smith Mountain Lake residents that they are frustrated and in some instances angry with the implementation of the SMP.  Some residents believe implementation to be inflexible when a measurement is within inches of a guideline and overly punitive with excessive and overly expensive required mitigation.  Perhaps provisions can be included into the revised plan to better ensure consistency and reasonableness of enforcement.