Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197)
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
The Yadkin Project consists of four reservoirs, dams, and
powerhouses (High Rock, Tuckertown,
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 (
§
Duke Power Nantahala Area’s Revised Draft Shoreline Management
Guidelines (effective
§ 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)
§
§
Progress Energy’s Yadkin Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project Lake
Tillery Shoreline Management Plan (filed with FERC
§ Santee Cooper Power’s Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project Permitting Policies and Procedures for Lots within Santee Cooper Subdivisions (Revised June 2000)
§
Additionally, the SMPs for the following federal hydroelectric projects (not licensed by FERC) will be reviewed:
§
§
US Army Corps of Engineers,
§ 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
-Litter/debris
-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.