Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197)

Shoreline Management Plan Comparison


Final Study Plan

October 2003




Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) is the licensee for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project.  The Yadkin Project is currently licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as Project No. 2197.  This license expires in 2008 and APGI must file a new license application with FERC on or before April 30, 2006 to continue operation of the Project.


The Yadkin Project consists of four reservoirs, dams, and powerhouses (High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows , and Falls) located on a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River in central North Carolina .  The Project generates electricity to support the power needs of Alcoa’s Badin Works, to support its other aluminum operations, or is sold on the open market.


As part of the relicensing process, APGI prepared and distributed, in September 2002, an Initial Consultation Document (ICD), which provides a general overview of the Project.  Agencies, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and members of the public were given an opportunity to review the ICD and identify information and studies that are needed to address relicensing issues.   To further assist in the identification of issues and data/study needs, APGI has formed several Issue Advisory Groups (IAGs) to advise APGI on resource issues throughout the relicensing process.  IAGs will also have the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Study Plans.  This Final Study Plan has been developed in response to comments on the ICD and through discussions with the Recreation, Aesthetics, and Shoreline Management IAG, to provide additional necessary information for consideration in the relicensing process.


1.0 Study Purpose


At the request of the Recreation, Aesthetics, and Shoreline Management IAG, the purpose of this study is to compare the Yadkin Project Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) to the plans for other area hydropower reservoirs.


This Final Study Plan describes the technical approach for collecting and evaluating information to respond to this information need/issue, the study’s final products, and a proposed study schedule. 


2.0 Technical Approach


2.1  Comparison of SMP Requirements


Long View Associates (LVA) will review several area plans (see the list below) and compare the elements of those plans to the elements of the Yadkin Project SMP. The primary objectives of the study will be to provide a common base of knowledge and to understand the differences between the Yadkin Project SMP and other area SMPs.


List of Area Shoreline Management Plans and/or Guidelines:


§         Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), Yadkin Division’s Yadkin Hydroelectric Project Specifications for Private Recreation Facilities, Shoreline Stewardship Policy (Effective July 1, 1999; revised July 1, 2002)

§         Appalachian Power’s Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project Final Shoreline Management Plan ( August 29, 2003 )

§         Duke Power Nantahala Area’s Revised Draft Shoreline Management Guidelines (effective July 1, 2003 )

§         Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Shoreline Management Plan (Final updated SMP filed with FERC July 31, 2001; guidelines last revised June 1, 1996)

§         Dominion’s Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydroelectric Project Shoreline Management Plan (December 2000)

§         Georgia Power Shoreline Management Guidelines Georgia Power Lakes (not dated)

§         Progress Energy’s Yadkin Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project Lake Tillery Shoreline Management Plan (filed with FERC December 31, 2001 )

§         Santee Cooper Power’s Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project Permitting Policies and Procedures for Lots within Santee Cooper Subdivisions (Revised June 2000)

§         South Carolina Electric and Gas Lake Murray Shoreline Management Plan (August 1995)


Additionally, the SMPs for the following federal hydroelectric projects (not licensed by FERC) will be reviewed:


§         Tennessee Valley Authority Shoreline Management Policy (1999)

§         US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District Lake Lanier Shoreline Management Plan (October 2002)

§         US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District Hartwell Shoreline Management Plan (June 1998)


Based on comments provided by the IAG, LVA will focus on the shoreline management elements of each plan in the following areas:


§         Environmental (e.g. fish habitat) and aesthetic considerations

§         Excavation and dredging

§         Multi-use facilities specifications

§         Permits and fees

-Permit requirements

-Determination of fees and fees charged

§         Public access areas

§         Private pier minimum requirements

-Required minimum lot width

-Required minimum water depth

-Setback requirements

§         Private pier dimensions

-Total square footage

-Length and width

§         Private pier configuration

-Stationary and floating ramp sections

-Structures on private piers (boat lifts, boat shelters, gazebos, etc.)

§         Private pier construction materials

§         Private shoreline boathouses

-Regulations and/or restrictions and/or specifications

-Types allowed

-Jurisdiction beyond Project boundary

§         Private boat ramps

-Regulations and/or restrictions and/or specifications

-Length and width

-Jurisdiction beyond Project boundary

§         Shoreline erosion control

-Methods of control

-Regulations and/or restrictions and/or specifications

-Environmental impacts of various methods

§         Shoreline cleanup


-Lap trees/woody debris

§         Shoreline vegetation management

-Riparian buffers

§         Vegetation removal

-Vegetation replanting

-Vegetation spraying


In addition to the elements listed above, LVA will also give consideration to each project’s physical boundary (as defined by FERC or other hydro owner) and the application of the SMP beyond this boundary.  The comparison study will also identify other issues addressed in the various SMPs of interest to the IAG including an estimate of the percentage of undeveloped reservoir shoreline, classification of shoreline areas for environmental protection or restrictions on development (e.g. the classification of shoreline areas as Environmental Areas, Conservation Zones, etc.), any cultural resource issues being addressed by the plan and any associated restrictions on shoreline development, and, where applicable, the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designation.


3.0       Study Reports and IAG Meetings


3.1       Draft Study Report and IAG Meetings


LVA will prepare a Draft Study Report and attend IAG meetings to discuss study results and review comments on the Draft Study Report.  The Draft Study Report will be provided to APGI, the IAG, and other interested stakeholders for review and comment.




3.2       Final Study Report


LVA will address APGI, the IAG, and other reviewer’s comments on the Draft Study Report and prepare a Final Study Report.  The Final Study Report will be provided to APGI, the IAG, and other interested stakeholders.


4.0  Proposed Project Schedule


This study should take approximately 6 months to complete a draft study report.