APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210108

1
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANYSMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT
NO. 2210-108

• INITIAL STUDY PLAN MEETING
• MAY 12 13, 2005

2
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGAGENDA

• Thursday, May 12th
• 1000 1015 Introductions
• 1015 1045 Description of Study Plan Process
  within the ILP
• 1045 1100 Description of Meeting Process
• 1100 1230 Discussion of Study Plans filed by
  Appalachian
• 1230 130 Lunch
• 130 445 Continue Discussion of Study Plans
• 445 500 Summary of Meeting by Appalachian
• 500 Adjourn

3
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGAGENDA (Contd)

• Friday, May 13th
• 1000 1030 Summary of Previous Day
• 1030 1230 Continue Discussion of Study Plans
• 1230 130 Lunch
• 130 400 Continue Discussion of Study Plans
• 400 500 Summary of meeting by Appalachian and
  discussion of
• future related activities
• 500 Adjourn

4
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGPURPOSE

• To discuss the study plans submitted by
  Appalachian to the FERC by letter dated April 11,
  2005.
• To potentially resolve disagreements or disputes
  with the proposed study plans, where they exist,
  relative to the need for a particular study, the
  geographic scope of a study, or study details.
• To provide a forum for informal resolution of
  study disputes.
• To possibly form work groups assigned to the
  various studies and determine the agencies, local
  governments, and non-governmental organizations
  desiring to be participants in those groups.

5
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGORDER OF STUDY PLANS FOR DISCUSSION

• Archaeological and Historic Resources
• Sedimentation
• Erosion
• Aquatic Vegetation and Aquatic Species
• Minimum Instream Flow
• Flood and Drought Management
• Water Quality

• Drinking Water Withdrawals
• Entrainment/Impingement of Fish
• Angler Use Survey
• Roanoke logperch
• Debris
• Recreation Assessment
• Navigational Systems
• Studies not proposed or otherwise accommodated by
  Appalachian

6
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGMEETING PROCESS

• The meeting is being recorded. A transcription
  of the meeting will be made available to the
  attendees and placed for public viewing on the
  Smith Mountain Relicensing web site maintained by
  Appalachian Power Company (www.smithmtn.com). A
  transcription of the meeting will also be filed
  by Appalachian Power Company with the FERC.
• A brief description of each study plan filed by
  Appalachian Power Company will be presented.
  Following that description, discussions regarding
  each plan will take place. Comments will be
  summarized as the discussions take place.
• Copies of this presentation as well as the
  summarizations of the comments will be made
  available to the attendees and placed for public
  viewing on the Smith Mountain Relicensing web
  site maintained by Appalachian Power Company.

7
Integrated Licensing Process
Studies/ Application Dev.
Scoping/ Process Plan
Study Plan Dev.
NOI/PAD
1 year
1-2 years
Application filed
REA Notice
Order
EA/EIS
1.5 years
8
STUDY PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Sorting thorough the details to develop studies
to address issues
9
Study Plan DevelopmentProcess
Study Requests Proposed Study Plan Study Plan
Meetings Revised Study Plan Commission issues
Study Plan Determination
10
Study Requests

• Due within 60 days of commencement of proceeding
  notice
• Seven criteria to address (5.9b)
• Group exercise after break

11
Proposed Study Plan

• Detailed methodology
• Schedule
• Progress reports/study reports
• Rationale for not adopting requested study

12
Study Plan Meetings Study definition and issue
resolution
Informal resolution of study issues

• Seek clarity of study goals, objectives, and
  methods
• Understand the criteria and explore issues and
  study with criteria in mind

13
Revised Study Plan

• Due within 30 days of the end of the comment
  period on the proposed study plan
• Same components as proposed study plan
• Detailed methodology
• Address all comments and requests

14
Study Plan Determination

• Director of OEP will approve revised study plan,
  with any modifications, within 30 days
• Determinations based on established record

15
STUDY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
16
Formal Dispute Resolution Process
Study Plan Determination
Third Panel Member Selected
Agency Notice of Study Dispute
20
0
Panel Convenes
Technical Conference
Applicants Comments on Dispute Filed
25
20
Panel Recommendation
Study Plan Determination
Panel Deliberations
50
70
17
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108INITIAL STUDY
PLAN MEETINGSTUDY PLANS GENERAL INFORMATION

• Communications and document distribution will
  follow the Communications Protocol and the
  Information Distribution Protocol contained
  within the Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the
  Smith Mountain Project relicensing.
• Appalachian Power Company will hold a studies
  progress meeting approximately six months after
  approval of the study plans by the FERC. A
  similar meeting will be held approximately one
  year after approval of the study plans by the
  FERC in accordance with the appropriate
  regulations.
• Meetings to discuss progress on individual
  studies will be held as needed.

18
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORICRESOURCES STUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) develop a relational
  database of previously recorded cultural
  resources in the SHPO files within the project
  boundary (b) identify cultural resources within
  high probability areas on Leesville Lake (c)
  develop a plan for evaluating previously
  identified cultural resources identified under
  (a) and (b) and (d) develop a Historic
  Properties Management Plan (HPMP) specifying how
  historic properties within the project boundaries
  should be managed.

19
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORICRESOURCES STUDY PLAN (contd)

• Methods (a) determine previously recorded
  cultural resources (b) identify cultural
  resources within high probability areas on
  Leesville Lake (c) evaluate previously recorded
  cultural resources (d) consult with SHPO and
  Virginia Council on Indians (VCI) to develop
  HPMP.
• Geographic Scope Project boundaries for the
  Smith Mountain Project including the Smith
  Mountain and Leesville Developments.
• Schedule Consultations regarding Programmatic
  Agreement with SHPO and VCI ongoing. Field work
  for development of HPMP to take place in 2006.

20
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORIC RESOURCES STUDY PLAN - COMMENTS

• Restricted list for people interested in work
  group
• Would want to know if anything would have impact
  on other studies
• Information is confidential

21
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORIC RESOURCES STUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• TCRC - Dan Sleeper - primary, Carl Boggess
  backup
• Leesville Lake Association Will provide name
  later.

22
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108SEDIMENTATION
STUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) update the storage
  volume curves for Smith Mountain and Leesville
  Developments (b) determine areas where sediment
  accumulation is most prevalent (c) identify
  extent of problems associated with sediment
  accumulation within the project reservoirs (d)
  determine the rate of sediment accumulation over
  the project life and (e) identify sources of
  sediments discharging into the reservoirs.
• Methods (a) prepare bathymetric maps of the
  bottom contours of Smith Mountain and Leesville
  lakes (b) compare storage volume and reservoir
  surface area curves developed from mapping with
  existing curves (c) compare bathymetric maps
  generated with available mapping of pre-reservoir
  conditions and (d) estimate sediment deposition
  rates at areas where changes are most notable.

23
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108SEDIMENTATION
STUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Within the project boundaries
  for the Smith Mountain and Leesville
  Developments.
• Schedule Field work related to mapping to be
  accomplished in 2005 and 2006. Final report and
  mapping available in 2007.

24
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108SEDIMENTATION
STUDY PLANCOMMENTS

• Survey will encompass total project boundary.
• Above the water to project boundary will be
  included in study.
• TLAC and SMLA would want to know the rate of
  sedimentation and a computer model of future
  sedimentation.
• AEP- best model is to look at what has happened
  in the past 40 year history which includes all
  modes of operations.
• Expansions to consider core sampling of
  sediment, determine if areas of high sediment
  also contribute to invasive weeds, affects on
  water quality heavy metals, PCBs, bacteria.
• TCRC also supports core sampling for future
  dredging of sediments. Sedimentation is very
  important to community should address
  mitigation and prevention.
• Wetlands should be delineated including agency
  input.

25
SEDIMENTATION STUDY PLANCOMMENTS Cont.

• Study should have components of vegetation
• Study should be expanded outside project
  boundary, address sediment inside project
  boundary, and stabilization of eroded shoreline
• Bathymetric information is needed before an
  accurate flow model can be developed (new volume
  curves).
• Location of sediment areas should be part of
  final report.
• Need to know causes for future control measures.
• DEQ- Has some data related to sediment, COE is
  doing real time turbidity modeling. USGS has
  sediment modeling
• Scope Look at sources of sediment as well.

26
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108SEDIMENTATION
STUDY PLANWORK GROUP

• DEQ Steve Dietrich
• TCRC - Charles Poindexter - Primary, Greg Sides,
  Brent Wills, David Johnson
• VDGIF - Bud LaRoche
• SMLA Stan Smith
• ALAC / Leesville Lake Association Joe
  Weatherspoon
• VDCR Tim Ott
• Chamber of Commerce - Ron Willard II

27
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108EROSIONSTUDY
PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) identify effects of
  project operations on shorelines along both Smith
  Mountain and Leesville reservoirs as well as the
  Roanoke River downstream (b) update existing
  information regarding shoreline protection along
  the project reservoirs (c) identify degrees of
  susceptibility of areas along the project
  reservoirs and the Roanoke River downstream of
  Leesville dam for bank erosion and (d) identify
  areas undergoing accelerated bank erosion.
• Methods (a) field surveys of shorelines (b)
  updating of erosion survey performed in 2002 (c)
  determination of erosion potential utilizing
  soils index maps and (d) comparison of existing
  project boundaries versus those shown on
  Exhibit-K drawings.

28
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108EROSIONSTUDY
PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Within the project boundaries
  for the Smith Mountain and Leesville developments
  and from Leesville dam downstream to the Town of
  Brookneal, Virginia.
• Schedule Field surveys accomplished in 2006.
  Final report in 2007.

29
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108EROSION STUDY
PLANCOMMENTS

• Water Conservation Alliance erosion of islands
  and shoals should be included
• It would be appropriate to combine erosion and
  sediment studies. (erosion study will also
  include downstream of Leesville all information
  should be shared among groups.)
• Should also include outside project boundary to
  identify sources.
• Particular attention should be paid to elevation
  changes on Leesville and how it contributes to
  erosion.
• Objectives should be expanded to mitigation and
  prevention types of stabilization.
• Does a problem exist, where does it exist to
  identify
• Slope, orientation and wave fetch indicators of
  potential for erosion

30
EROSION STUDY PLANCOMMENTS

• Downstream of Leesville Look at downstream
  conditions pre-project, 1988, and now to verify
  results of changes in 1988 to erosion.
• Identify action steps to be taken and who will
  address them.
• Proposed language change 3D. Add and identify
  control options.
• Identify ongoing, follow-up study requirements.
• Geographic Scope Recommend to go to headwaters
  of Kerr reservoir instead of stopping at
  Brookneal.
• Add - Identify where natural bank repair has
  occurred downstream of Leesville.
• Minimum releases will have a bearing on
  downstream of Brookneal. Bank erosion downstream
  of Brookneal from pre-1988 operations needs to be
  examined.

31
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108EROSION STUDY
PLANWORK GROUP

• TCRC - Greg Sides Primary, Charles Poindexter,
  Brent Wills
• SMLA - Dr. Russell Basket, Stan Smith backup
• Leesville Lake Association J.W. Burton
• VDGIF Scott Smith and Dan Wilson
• DEQ Steve Dietrich
• ALAC Joe Weatherspoon
• VDCR Tim Ott

32
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108AQUATIC
VEGETATION AQUATIC SPECIES STUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) determine any changes
  in the composition and distribution of invasive
  aquatic weeds identified for Smith Mountain Lake
  in 2004 (b) determine the composition and
  distribution of invasive aquatic weeds for
  Leesville Lake and (c) determine the need for a
  program to control invasive aquatic weeds
  including but not limited to follow-up surveys,
  public education, and/or an application/permitting
  program.
• Methods Perform a survey by boat of the lakes,
  using visual sightings and throw rakes to locate
  weed populations. Global positioning systems in
  combination with a depth meter will be utilized
  to determine the horizontal and depth
  distributions of weed populations. Weed samples
  will be collected to confirm identities.

33
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108AQUATIC
VEGETATION AQUATIC SPECIES STUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Smith Mountain Lake as formed
  at elevation 795 ft. NGVD and Leesville Lake as
  formed at elevation 613 ft. NGVD.
• Schedule Surveys to be conducted in late summer
  or early fall of 2006 when weeds are most visible
  but well before the onset of senescence.

34
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108AQUATIC
VEGETATION AQUATIC SPECIES STUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• Full lake survey was conducted in the past,
  invasive species can spread during heavy rainfall
  events so invasive vegetation may be in other
  areas.
• Expand objective to include native vegetation in
  study.
• AEP - Intent is to look at the entire lake
  follow-up on locations identified earlier (as
  baseline) to see if there are any changes, then
  look for areas of new vegetation that are not on
  the 2004 survey.
• 2004 survey was only areas that were previously
  identified they did not look any further. It
  is recommended that every five years look at
  entire lake (2006 would be the time to study
  entire lake.)
• 2002 study should be baseline. 2004 was
  basically looking at areas previously identified.
  

35
AQUATIC VEGETATION AQUATIC SPECIES STUDY PLAN
COMMENTS

• 3.3 - include another example of boat washing
  stations.
• Study how water level fluctuations impact
  vegetation.
• Study how areas of new siltation impact
  vegetation.
• AEP - A full lake survey will be conducted during
  the study.
• VDGIF - Look at native species as well during
  study.
• TCRC make sure right amount of vegetation is
  available for fish, water quality, etc.

36
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108AQUATIC
VEGETATION AQUATIC SPECIES STUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• TCRC - Pam Dinkle Primary, Stan Smith, Willie
  Jones, Brian Keys, Brent Wills
• VDGIF Bud LaRoche, Dan Wilson

37
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108MINIMUM
INSTREAM FLOWSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To determine optimal minimum
  instream flow releases from the Leesville
  Development to benefit upstream and downstream
  water uses including (a) power generation (b)
  private and public water withdrawals from Smith
  Mountain and Leesville lakes (c) recreation on
  Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes (d) spawning,
  rearing, and dwelling habitat for resident
  species in the Roanoke River downstream of
  Leesville dam (e) private and public water
  withdrawals from the Roanoke River between
  Leesville dam and Kerr Reservoir (f) recreation
  on the Roanoke River downstream of Leesville dam
  and (g) operating levels for Kerr Reservoir and
  river level at Buggs Island.

38
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108MINIMUM
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY PLAN(contd)

• Methods (a) Riverine Habitat Simulation
  (RHABSIM) study to determine the incremental
  relationship between river flow and weighted
  usable area for specific life stages of selected
  resident and migratory species (b) Roanoke River
  Basin Reservoir Operations Model (RRBROM)
  utilized to both link to RHABSIM and evaluate
  various management strategies to balance
  identified water uses and (c) Indicator or
  Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) Method developed by
  the Nature Conservancy to evaluate the effect of
  alternative release scenarios on downstream
  hydrologic variation.

39
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108MINIMUM
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY PLAN(contd)

• Geographic Scope For RHABSIM study and IHA
  method, the Roanoke River between Leesville dam
  and the Town of Brookneal, Virginia. For RRBOM,
  Smith Mountain and Leesville reservoirs and the
  Roanoke River from Leesville dam to Kerr
  Reservoir.
• Schedule The studies will be initiated in 2005
  with field observations completed in 2005 through
  2007.

40
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108MINIMUM FLOW
STUDY PLANCOMMENTS

• What happens if you go through the two year
  period and cant complete study? Move forward
  recognizing there is still an outstanding study,
  leave open to later modify license if necessary.
• Short term variance in order to achieve study
  objectives? Yes, it can be considered.
• Study should go to headwaters of Kerr. Randolph
  gage is impacted by Leesville discharges.
  Channel topography changes below Brookneal. Would
  involve a relatively small number of transects.
• Temp. and Oxygen components are needed for low
  flows during warm seasons.
• Downstream stakeholder withdrawals during drought
  should be looked at.
• Historic flows of river before project was
  constructed should be considered.

41
MINIMUM FLOW STUDY PLANCOMMENTS Cont.

• Seasonal and historic flows need to be studied
  downstream.
• Look at not reducing level to 600 elevation for
  Leesville.
• Current Autocycle Operation Will this be
  addressed in new license?
• Combine minimum flow and drought management.
• What is the safe boating elevation for lake?
• 792 is minimum based on fire and safety
  personnels comments.
• Look at continuous flow from Leesville.
• Lowest limit of cfs yet to be determined
• Section 6 ranking of flow release strategies
  Any idea on how rankings will be developed? not
  analyzed yet

42
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108MINIMUM FLOW
STUDY PLANWORK GROUP

• TCRC - Bill Brush - Primary, Hank Davis, Brent
  Wills, Willie Jones, Greg Sides, Brian Keys
• DEQ Joe Hassell
• VDGIF Bud LaRoche, Scott Smith
• Dominion - Bob Graham
• Leesville Lake Association Stan Goldsmith

43
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FLOOD AND
DROUGHT MANAGEMENTSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) determine the optimum
  flow regime and operating procedures during low
  inflow periods to the Smith Mountain Project and
  (b) determine the optimum flow regime and
  operating procedures during high inflow periods
  to the Smith Mountain Project.
• Methods A desk-top study utilizing a
  simulation/optimization mass balance model of the
  Roanoke River Basin. Various flow protocols will
  be modeled with the effects on reservoir
  elevations for Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville
  Lake, and Kerr Reservoir being evaluated.
  Historic inflow events will be modeled utilizing
  the various flow protocols being considered with
  the results of that modeling being compared to
  known values during those historic events.

44
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FLOOD AND
DROUGHT MANAGEMENTSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Smith Mountain, Leesville and
  Kerr reservoirs with consideration to river
  levels at Altavista, Virginia.
• Schedule The models will be run in conjunction
  with the Minimum Instream Flow Study.

45
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FLOOD AND
DROUGHT MANAGEMENTSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• Optimal flow is not the best term to use
• Will instream flow study need to be complete
  prior to flood and drought study? No
• Important for model to not only be simulation
  model it is important to have a model that can
  be used as a tool. Given a certain time of year,
  lake level, etc. what is the probability of
  future conditions occurring, forecasting.
• Rainfall is big unknown in the modeling.
• Inconsistency on where to start study? Inflow
  record includes Roanoke River upstream of dam.
• There will still be a time when variances are
  needed

46
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FLOOD AND
DROUGHT MANAGEMENT STUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• Citizen - Bill Reidenbach
• VDEQ - Joe Hassell
• TCRC - Bill Brush - Primary, Hank Davis, Russ
  Basket, Brent Wills
• VDGIF - Bud LaRoche
• Leesville Lake Association will provide a name
  later
• Dominion Jim Thornton

47
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108WATER
QUALITYSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) develop
  oxygen/temperature profiles from surface to
  bottom along transects located upstream and
  downstream of Smith Mountain and Leesville dams
  during summer high temperature/low inflow
  conditions (b) develop dissolved
  oxygen/temperature profiles from surface to
  bottom along a transect located on the Pigg River
  upstream of Smith Mountain Reservoir and (c)
  measure pH and conductivity at the surface and
  bottom at each transect sampling point.
• Methods Two transects perpendicular to the
  shoreline will be established above and below
  Smith Mountain and Leesville dams within
  approximately 500 to 1,000 meters of the dams for
  a total of eight transects. One additional
  transect will also be located across the Pigg
  River just upstream of its confluence with Smith
  Mountain Lake. Along each transect, depth
  profiles of temperature and dissolved oxygen will
  be measured at four equally spaced points.

48
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108WATER
QUALITYSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Methods (contd) - Measurements will be recorded
  at the surface, bottom, and at depth intervals of
  two meters. Sampling will take place on two
  separate occasions during summer high
  temperature/low flow conditions. On each
  sampling occasion, two complete sets of
  measurements will be collected at the four
  transects near Smith Mountain dam and the Pigg
  River transects, one representing generating and
  the other pump-back conditions. One set of
  measurements will be collected at the four
  transects near Leesville dam, representative of
  the auto-cycling mode of operation.

49
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108WATER QUALITY
STUDY PLANCOMMENTS

• Correction Pigg River flows into Leesville Lake
• Need a separate sampling plan for Leesville Lake
  with more sampling points than are being
  proposed.
• Look at protocols of existing sampling to see if
  it is providing the information necessary for
  determining health of the lake and expand as
  necessary. Look at correlation of water quality
  to rain events.
• Mirror same measurement standards as Chesapeake
  Bay, State of Virginia, etc. Incorporate all
  existing data from all sources to see what it is
  telling us.
• Pigg River sampling consider looking at several
  conditions when sampling (pumping, idle time,
  generation)
• Consider partnership with lake organization to
  produce website for water quality data.

50
WATER QUALITY STUDY PLANCOMMENTS Cont.

• License application should include environmental
  baseline information and existing conditions.
  Temp. and DO main indicators. Will want to see
  other information on water quality included.

51
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108WATER QUALITY
STUDY PLANWORK GROUP

• TCRC - Stan Smith - Primary, Russ Basket, Kate
  Berger, Brent Wills, Dr. David Johnson
• ALAC Karen Klepek
• DEQ Larry Willis
• Bedford Co. PSA - Brian Key, Willie Jones

52
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DRINKING
WATER WITHDRAWALSSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To determine the maximum limit
  of water withdrawals for domestic use from Smith
  Mountain and Leesville lakes over the term of the
  next license.
• Methods In conjunction with other studies
  addressing downstream instream flows, flood
  operations, and drought operations, the effects
  on project operations and environment will be
  determined for various domestic water withdrawal
  rates.
• Geographic Scope Smith Mountain and Leesville
  lakes.
• Schedule Coinciding with other related studies.

53
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DRINKING
WATER WITHDRAWALSSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• TCRC objectives limited, this is a major issue
  for the counties, drinking water may have to take
  precedent over generation. Identify needs of the
  counties, impact of withdrawals, socioeconomic
  impacts, modify withdrawal limit for counties,
  identify future interbasin transfers, impact on
  riparian, look at upstream needs. Look at
  historic flows, information state agencies have,
  population growth, etc.
• Is there a prohibition on returning wastewater to
  lake? Discharge back to lake falls under State
  requirements.
• FERC looks at what is reasonably foreseeable for
  the future.
• DEQ is requiring Counties to determine what their
  future needs will be.
• If withdrawals fall under this limit, will they
  be approved?

54
DRINKING WATER WITHDRAWALSSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS
Cont.

• Up the limit from 1 mgd to 5 mgd is it possible
  to change this limit? Still have to provide the
  same information if 1 mgd or 5 mgd.
• How does water withdrawal impact Leesville Lake
  elevation?
• Maximum may not be the best choice of words to
  describe limit. Can still request above that
  limit but there will be additional information
  needed.
• Irrigation systems for golf courses and other
  withdrawals included? It should be consistent.
• How do you factor in upstream withdrawals?

55
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DRINKING
WATER WITHDRAWALSSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• TCRC - Rick Huff - primary, Bonnie Johnson, Kate
  Berger, Willie Jones
• Bedford Co. PSA - Brian Key
• VDEQ Joe Hassell

56
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FISH
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENTSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) perform a literature
  review of swimming speeds and intake avoidance
  behavior for juvenile and adult striped bass,
  gizzard shad, smallmouth bass, walleye, and
  alewife (b) review evidence of any impingement
  problems associated with the current operating
  regime for both Smith Mountain and Leesville
  developments (c) perform a comparative analysis
  of impingement and entrainment problems at other
  projects of similar design and (d) evaluate the
  relative likelihood of impingement, entrainment,
  and turbine mortality for juvenile and adult
  striped bass, gizzard shad, smallmouth bass,
  walleye, and alewife at the Smith Mountain and
  Leesville developments.

57
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FISH
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENTSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Methods (a) utilize existing data regarding the
  fishery (b) assess the potential for impingement
  and/or entrainment of selected representative
  species and life stages using the characteristics
  of the turbine units and screens for both
  developments, as well as estimates of intake
  velocities near the face of and through the
  screens (c) utilize estimates for blade strike
  potential and cavitation potential made from
  studies and data available for similar units and
  projects and (d) utilize data from analysis
  performed in 1996 as part of FERC license
  amendment for replacement of Units 2 and 4 at
  Smith Mountain.
• Geographic Scope Intakes and units for Smith
  Mountain and Leesville developments.
• Schedule Assessment completed in summer 2006.

58
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FISH
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENTSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• VDGIF Target couple of specific species on
  Leesville for tabletop if we dont do a full
  blown study. (Striped bass and walleye)
• VDGIF include estimate of annual mortality.

59
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108FISH
ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENTSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• VDGIF Bud LaRoche , Dan Wilson
• TCRC - Scott Martin,

60
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ANGLER USE
SURVEYSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To perform an angler use
  survey of Smith Mountain Reservoir, Leesville
  Reservoir, and the Roanoke River between
  Leesville dam and the Town of Brookneal,
  Virginia.
• Methods A roving survey design following the
  methods of the 2003 Smith Mountain Reservoir
  creel survey by VDGIF. For the Roanoke River, an
  access point survey will be undertaken of all
  public and popular private ramps. The surveys,
  at a minimum, will include (a) angler effort,
  catch, and harvest (b) species preference (c)
  angler demographics (d) trip expenditures and
  within 20 miles (e) consumer surplus and (f)
  awareness of VDH fish consumption advisories and
  resulting changes in fishing habits.

61
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ANGLER USE
SURVEYSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Within the project boundaries
  for the Smith Mountain and Leesville
  developments, and along the Roanoke River from
  Leesville dam to the Town of Brookneal.
• Schedule The surveys will be conducted over a
  one-year period beginning in 2006 using a
  statistically designed approach to provide
  representative weekday, weekend, and holiday
  survey data.

62
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ANGLER USE
SURVEYSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• VDGIF stopping at Brookneal leaves out three
  downstream sites recommend going down to
  headwaters of Kerr. Consider additional
  consecutive years in case of bad conditions.
• VDGIF consider using same methodology as
  previous studies.
• Public Access availability if the study only
  covers available access ramps, does it leave out
  larger group. Survey can ask the access problem
  question.

63
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ANGLER USE
SURVEYSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• VDGIF Vic DiCenzo, Dan Wilson
• TCRC Scott Martin

64
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ROANOKE
LOGPERCHSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) perform a survey for
  the presence, distribution, and abundance of the
  Roanoke logperch in the mainstem Roanoke River
  and associated major tributaries between
  Leesville dam and the Town of Brookneal (b)
  identify areas of suitable habitat for possible
  future introduction of the Roanoke logperch to
  the mainstem Roanoke River or its major
  tributaries between Leesville dam and the Town of
  Brookneal and (c) perform a genetics study of
  the upper Roanoke River, Smith River, and any
  additional significant populations of Roanoke
  logperch.

65
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ROANOKE
LOGPERCHSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Methods A float reconnaissance of the Roanoke
  River as well as floatable portions of the the
  Pigg River, Goose Creek, Big Otter River, Seneca
  Creek, Straightstone Creek, Falling River,
  Roanoke Creek, Cub Creek, and Difficult Creek
  will be performed to identify areas of suitable
  habitat for the Roanoke logperch. Sampling of
  areas will be performed under appropriate river
  conditions utilizing sampling methods suited to a
  particular habitat. Any collected Roanoke
  logperch will be measured for total length,
  photographed, and returned to the river. The
  date, time, location (GPS), and habitat (depth,
  current velocity, substrate type, water clarity,
  etc) of the catch will be recorded. Genetic
  profiles using standard techniques will be
  determined on specimens of Roanoke logperch from
  the upper Roanoke River, Smith River, and
  additional significant populations identified by
  this study or others.

66
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ROANOKE
LOGPERCHSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope The Roanoke River from
  Leesville dam to the Town of Brookneal and
  floatable sections of the following tributaries
  to the Roanoke River Pigg River, Goose Creek,
  Big Otter River, Seneca Creek, Straightstone
  Creek, Falling River, Roanoke Creek, Cub Creek,
  and Difficult Creek.
• Schedule The Roanoke logperch survey will be
  completed during appropriate sampling conditions
  in 2005 or 2006.

67
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ROANOKE
LOGPERCHSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• VDGIF Recommend study go to headwaters of Kerr
  reservoir. Habitat could be located downstream
  of Brookneal suitable for log perch. Tributaries
  listed are located downstream so mainstem should
  be looked at. Float survey may not be best way
  for smaller tributaries. Locations not
  pinpointed exactly in public records.

68
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108ROANOKE
LOGPERCHSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• VDGIF Scott Smith, Bud LaRoche
• TCRC Scott Martin

69
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) determine the amounts
  and types of debris that accumulate on the
  surfaces of Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes
  (b) determine the need to continue the removal of
  debris on the surfaces of the lakes (c) identify
  the sources of debris and where the highest
  concentrations occur and (d) assess various
  methods and/or programs for reducing debris
  accumulation on the lakes.
• Methods Desk-top study using data from TLAC,
  the Leesville Lake Association, VDGIF, VDEQ,
  commercial contractors, and the skimmer crew for
  Appalachian. Appalachian will consult with other
  hydroelectric project operators, the U.S. Army
  Corps of Engineers, and others with experience
  regarding the control of debris into waterways.

70
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope The project boundaries for
  Smith Mountain and Leesville developments.
• Schedule The analysis will be prepared in 2006.

71
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN COMMENTS

• Geographic Scope expand to consider use of
  Niagara Dam (use may require amendment to its
  license)
• Expound upon objective need to continue removal
  (need to look at comprehensive view problems
  equal safety, recreational benefits equal
  habitat balance required)
• Geographic Scope involve entities within
  watershed
• Leesville Lake some improvement due to property
  owners, cleanup and skimmer operation (last year
  19 days) need more debris is more significant
  when water level is at 613. Suggestions for
  augmentation submitted e.g. barge on cove with
  arm to swing debris to shore.
• Expound upon desk top survey. (Collect data
  from SML organizations, other utilities, skimmer
  crew, etc. field work involved.)
• SD2 discusses Niagara dam EA will analyze. Not
  meant to prejudge study plan.

72
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN COMMENTS Cont.

• Vague objectives- other options e.g. catch
  basins, cranes on barges, etc.
• Methodology limited considering engineering
  studies for catch basins (engineers would look at
  particular option)
• TLAC has had 6 debris removal projects and VDGIF
  reviewed them
• Will you find off loading site? (part of
  methods)
• When reviewing other utilities methods, look at
  different types of debris (manmade v. wood, etc)
• Identify small coves on public lands where debris
  can be placed for fishery
• Upper Blackwater at Route 834 use abandoned
  VDGIF ramp
• Consider only unattached debris
• Cheapest and most efficient method would be to
  intervene before dispersing all over the lake.
• SML debris is not unique find studies that have
  been done (different operations e.g. pass through
  v. removal)

73
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN COMMENTS Cont.

• Sufficient information available e.g. booms,
• How old is existing skimmer? 15?
• Passing v. Removal VDGIF not opposed to passing
  debris (not trash) at Leesville
• Environmental impacts to booms? VDGIF
  centralization of debris impacts habitat. Need
  to determine what is good habitat and what is not.

74
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108DEBRISSTUDY
PLAN WORK GROUP

• TCRC - Bob Camicia - primary, Pam Dinkle, Dale
  Wheeler, Greg Sides, plus one or two other names
• Leesville Lake Association - Sam Skillman
• ALAC - Lee Merritt
• VDGIF - Dan Wilson

75
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108RECREATION
ASSESSMENTSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) update existing
  information on recreational use, facilities and
  activities (b) forecast recreational use numbers
  and activity trends over the term of the next
  license and (c) determine usage of existing
  facilities and the need for additional facilities
  and/or modifications to existing facilities.
• Methods (a) Verify existing information in the
  field (b) inventory public and private
  recreation facilities (c) utilize vehicle spot
  counts, exit interviews, mail questionnaires, and
  aerial photos to validate and update amount and
  types of recreation use and (d) project future
  uses utilizing use and population trend data.

76
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108RECREATION
ASSESSMENTSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Project boundaries for the
  Smith Mountain and Leesville developments.
• Schedule Field surveys will be accomplished
  during the prime recreation months of April
  through October, 2006.

77
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108RECREATION
ASSESSMENTSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• VDCR refer to Virginia Recreation Outdoors
  Plan, zone the lake for compatible uses, USFS
  process for determining right amount of boating,
  areas for non-motor boating, limit boat size
  speed and noise, conserve large sections of
  shoreline where there is to be no development,
• Landowners redress if their land is designated
  for nondevelopment
• SCORP look at Roanoke region and Thomas
  Jefferson region
• Improve access to lake
• Look at beyond 800 contour for facilities to
  support (AEP owned properties)
• Refer to Trails plan, greenway plan, float
  fishermans group below Leesville for access,
  Franklin Countys plan

78
RECREATION ASSESSMENTSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS Cont.

• How do you determine shoreline to not be
  disturbed?
• Plan state referred to in letter is a planning
  tool for mapping what is existing now and what a
  user could expect in the different areas.
• Commission concerned with public access public
  has right to access entire shoreline within
  project boundary for recreation. Licensee is
  allowed to charge fees for recreational use and
  access.
• Scope expand scope to look beyond boundary to
  address canoeing (portage), fishing
• Definition of recreation? Would this include
  people ferries? There are mechanisms for revising
  recreation plans.
• Wake board course identify location (Some
  licensees have had to identify certain areas for
  specific uses for safety reasons.)
• Safety there should be safe use and safe access
  to facilities (navigational issues, debris)
• Methodology contact the non user community who
  may not be using the lake due to the access, etc.
• Consider all the residents in surrounding
  counties

79
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108RECREATION
ASSESSMENTSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• ALAC Lee Merrick
• SMLA / CCCC - Lynn Barnes
• TCRC - Scott Martin - primary, Pam Dinkle, Bob
  Camicia
• Leesville Lake Association - Gerry Caprario
• VDGIF - Dan Wilson, Bud LaRoche
• VDH - Preston Smith
• Bedford County - Michael Stokes
• Chamber - Vickie Gardner

80
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108NAVIGATIONAL
SYSTEMSSTUDY PLAN

• Study Objectives To (a) inventory the existing
  navigational markers on Smith Mountain and
  Leesville lakes (b) investigate and determine
  the adequacy of the existing navigational markers
  for both lakes and (c) determine the need for
  changes to the locations and types of existing
  navigational markers and/or the need for
  additional navigational markers for both lakes.
• Methods (a) inventory and categorize existing
  markers on both lakes (b) utilize bathymetric
  mapping to be generated as part of another study
  to determine the appropriateness of marker
  locations and (c) consult with agencies and
  authorities regarding the appropriate locations
  and types of navigational markers that should be
  located on both lakes.

81
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108NAVIGATIONAL
SYSTEMSSTUDY PLAN (contd)

• Geographic Scope Project boundaries for the
  Smith Mountain and Leesville developments.
• Schedule Begin inventory of existing
  navigational markers in 2005. Perform analysis
  in conjunction with development of bathymetric
  mapping.

82
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108NAVIAGATIONAL
MARKERSSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS

• TCRC Consider not doing a study and AEP agree
  to assume responsibility today?
• Funding to support needs identify other sources
  of income
• Fluctuation of lake generates sand bars, rocks
  become exposed, etc. should be responsibility
  of company.
• Water level management important to determine
  safe level of recreation
• TLAC In past has received money from state
• Need for discussion of other buoys and markers on
  lake placed by adjacent land owners (trend of
  buoys being placed orange balls, no-wake buoys,
  etc.) Need something to show what is allowed,
  what isnt allowed, ability to remove
  non-approved markers.
• There is a national standard for buoys on tidal
  waters - most states have their own standards of
  inland waters. It would be appropriate to refer
  to these standards.
• Is there the ability to change funding between
  studies? (Dollar amounts of studies are
  preliminary)

83
NAVIAGATIONAL MARKERSSTUDY PLAN COMMENTS Cont.

• This is a navigable waterway coast guard
  standards do apply. Adherence to standards using
  judgment. Strict adherence not needed.
• Official no-wake, shoal markers TLAC, VDGIF
  approval required. It is unclear if VDGIF can
  remove unofficial markers.
• Short term TCRC, TLAC, AEP, VDGIF should work
  together to address issue of unofficial markers.
  
• Licensee has responsibility for selecting
  standards, can delegate speed, etc. to state. If
  counties develop standards, licensee has to
  approve.
• If licensee owns the land, public has access. If
  easement, public does not have access on private
  land.

84
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108NAVIGATIONAL
MARKERSSTUDY PLAN WORK GROUP

• Leesville Lake Association - Bill Wallace, Gerry
  Caprario,
• VDGIF - Bud LaRoche
• TCRC - Stan Smith, Chuck Neudorfer, Pam Dinkle,
  Carl Boggess

85
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY APPALACHIAN

• Fish Entrainment/Impingement Netting
• Diadromous Fish Passage
• Determine Current and Historical Conditions of
  Roanoke River Flow Regime Channel Morphology
• Perform Roanoke logperch Restoration
• Conduct Laboratory Propagation of Roanoke logperch

• Microsatellite Tagging of Roanoke logperch
• Enforcement of Shoreline Management Plan
• Smith Mountain Lake Shoreline Habitat
• Shoreline Classification Inventory
• Dredging
• Effect of Pump-back Design on Water Quality and
  Fish Wildlife

86
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISE ACCOMODATED BY APPALACHIAN
(contd)

• Impact of Shoreline Classifications
• Impact of Operational Changes and Ancillary Power
• Socio-Economic Impact
• Performance Standards
• Fees and Charges
• Groundwater

87
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY APCO COMMENTS

• VDGIF Entrainment study due to the fish
  distribution on Leesville Lake and stocking, fish
  entrainment could be an issue at Leesville.
  Retention time is short and fish are distributed
  mostly at lower end of lake, there is a strong
  possibility that fish are passing through the
  dam. Study would give information on how many
  fish are remaining in lake. Actual field data
  study on Leesville is needed. Can look at
  existing information to see if it is applicable
  to Leesville. Explore other options if
  information is not there.
• Question to address in study plan - Once you have
  the information, identify what will be done with
  it. (Ex. Used to adjust stocking rate, where
  fish are stocked, measures to keep fish from
  going through the dam, etc.)

88
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY APCO COMMENTS

• SMP Enforcement Is there any proposal to
  enforce activities taking place now? (We are
  enforcing plan but it often takes time and
  involves legal action.) 500 miles of shoreline is
  a lot to enforce, questions keep coming up on how
  many people are needed, who pays, will there be
  offices/people available at the lake? Is there
  something to build into the license to help
  licensee with enforcement? Do you want the
  ability to fine to strengthen enforcement? List
  of options available for noncompliance of SMP.
  Not talking when something is in the legal
  process suggest posting of enforcement actions.
  Discussions on the SMP will need to take place.
  A study of enforcement of the SMP is needed.
  State performance measures. Provide evidence
  that actions are occurring. Work on outside of
  relicensing and address under Shoreline
  Management Plan.

89
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY APCO COMMENTS

• SMP Work Group to look at Enforcement, Dock ID,
  Etc. - Bill Brush, Joe Weatherspoon, Chuck
  Neudorfer, Dan Wilson, Preston Smith, Karen
  Klepek, Stan Smith
• Shoreline Habitat current conditions and future
  development can impact, interested in methods to
  improve habitat and fishery on the lake.
  Vegetation study will not address habitat.
  Aquatic vegetation may be removed in the future
  due to proximity in the area of residences.
  Primarily concerned about the aquatics. Restore
  and approve aquatic habitat under specific
  guidelines. Public involvement on restoring
  habitat. Next step after survey, where do we go
  from here? Interested in what is most beneficial
  how do you mitigate for loss of habitat.
  Outcome of vegetation study doesnt address
  problem of loss of habitat and what can be done
  to enhance habitat.
• Habitat study can be included in an expanded
  aquatic species study to include artificial
  habitat.
• Shoreline Classification Inventory be able to
  know what areas of the lake are under what
  classifications larger mapping or computer
  information GIS information.
• Interest in dock inventory and ID on structure so
  you can identify dock from water. (Can be done
  under shoreline management to be looked at with
  group.)

90
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDIES NOT
PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY APCO COMMENTS

• Permitting program for less than 25 cubic yards
  concern is that we dont know cumulative impact
  of less than 25 cubic yards start looking at
  this. Keep track of all this activity in
  database. If in 5 years after tracking activity,
  it is determined that there is a problem
  (excessive dredging), - license has standard
  reopener if problems come up. Also, SMP has
  periodic updates.
• Pumpback Study already incorporated into fish
  study and water quality study.
• Impact to Shoreline Classifications SMP under
  pending proceeding, what comes out of the plan
  will be incorporated in many areas of
  relicensing, and these things will be reviewed as
  part of the overall environmental assessment.
  The real issue for community is that the
  classifications control local real estate and
  will have impact to community over future years.

91
STUDIES NOT PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY
APCO COMMENTS

• Operational Changes and Ancillary Power concern
  is how often the two foot power pool is used.
  Impact on operating to the maximum license
  capabilities on the lake. We tell PJM what we
  are capable of and PJM dispatches the power.
  Max. pool fluctuations may be part of the study
  that needs to be done Need to look at all
  different aspects of the effects of our
  operations. Overall environmental analysis will
  look at the effects of the fluctuations and will
  be part of a number of issues. Power company
  will be required to address the operation of
  their projects erosion, fisheries, recreation,
  vegetation, SMP, etc. The studies being proposed
  will address impact on these resources. The
  Environmental Analysis will bring this all
  together. Suggestion going back to workgroups
  and be included in putting studies together.
  Studies should be done in a way to look at
  alternatives to operations. Alternatives - No
  action (current operation), Proposed operations,
  Proposed operation with staff recommendations.
  Cant evaluate something that is speculative,
  that you dont know will happen.

92
STUDIES NOT PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY
APCO COMMENTS

• PJM is not relevant to FERCs environmental
  analysis. PJM will have to work within
  constraints of the license.
• Need detailed information to evaluate impacts of
  fluctuations. Stakeholders should brainstorm
  different alternative operation scenarios for
  licensee to evaluate in their modeling.
• Process should include dialog back and forth.
• Model to look at overall effects elevation
  levels, generation, etc.
• Models have inputs, for them to work will include
  all constraints, generation, etc.
• Socio-Economic Study When application goes in,
  the FERC will do environmental assessment. It
  will look at existing conditions and proceed
  forward. For Socio-Economic study, we propose a
  study to provide baseline information. Need a
  work group. This will establish baseline data
  related to the nexus of the project. The results
  of the measures going into the application will
  have a cost associated with them. Work group
  Chuck Neudorfer, Kathleen Guzi, Russ Johnson,
• Look at the project benefits to the community,
  cost of the project to the community, cost of
  license requirements, does it continue to
  benefit?
• Baseline condition Commission policy, which has
  been upheld in court, is what we have today. Not
  pre-project conditions. Does not require
  mitigation for past impact. Look at what is
  happening today and is the project creating a
  problem.

93
STUDIES NOT PROPOSED OR OTHERWISEACCOMODATED BY
APCO COMMENTS

• Performance Standards move into SMP group
  previously discussed.
• Fees not charging fees at this time future
  plans are not to charge fees but if it becomes so
  burdensome on us, we have the ability to charge
  fees. Recover costs for direct lake and
  recreation management.
• Groundwater The nexus is that the relationship
  to groundwater to lake level is unknown.
• Working groups would participants have access
  to consultants? Yes.
• Additional information - Filling in eroded
  shoreline around the lake reason - landowner
  has lost land and silt out in front, TMDL tests
  have resulted in picking up on human waste in the
  lake, people have speculated that leaking septic
  tanks contribute to this. Older septic tanks are
  located within 50 of shoreline if shoreline
  has eroded, the depth of the drainfield required
  in engineering specifications is no longer
  enough. Referring to absorption area of
  drainfield if eroding shoreline, you are
  loosing that area. If filling in lake, even if
  you are reclaiming land, have to include FWS and
  COE.

94
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDY
PLANSNEXT STEPS

• Comments on Proposed Study Plan to be filed with
  the FERC by July 14, 2005 - CFR 5.12
• Appalachian files Revised Study Plan with the
  FERC by August 13, 2005 CFR 5.13(a)
• Comments on Revised Study Plan filed with the
  FERC by August 28, 2005 CFR 5.13(b)
• Study Plan Determination issued by the FERC by
  September 12, 2005 CFR 5.13(c)
• Filing of Study Dispute Notice filed by agencies
  with mandatory conditioning authority by October
  10, 2005 CFR 5.14(a)
• Dispute Resolution Panel convened by October 22,
  2005 CFR 5.14(d)

95
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108STUDY
PLANSNEXT STEPS (contd)

• Appalachian files comments and information
  regarding dispute by October 27, 2005 CFR
  5.14(i)
• Findings of panel filed by November 21, 2005
  CFR 5.14(k)
• Study dispute determination issued by the FERC by
  December 11, 2005 CFR 5.14(l)
• Conduct studies 2005, 2006 and 2007 CFR 5.15
• Initial Study Report by September 12, 2006 CFR
  5.15(c)(1)
• Initial Study Report Meeting by September 27,
  2006 CFR(c)(2)

96
SMITH MOUNTAIN PROJECT NO. 2210-108WEB SITE

• www.smithmtn.com