JANUARY 8, 2004


Interim President Stan Goldsmith called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Board members present were Stan Goldsmith, President, Sam Skillman, Vice President, Bill Wallace, Treasurer, Julia Moore, Secretary, Richard Beaton, Gerry Caprario, Bill Morgan, Butch Shaffer, Fred Tannehill, and Junior Tuck. Absent was Dennis Boley.

Stan asked our newly elected board members to each introduce themselves. Stan then thanked each newly elected board member for being willing to serve.

Interim Secretary Julia Moore reviewed the highlights of the previous meeting. Those present were reminded that the full minutes could be viewed at www.leesvillelake.org .

Interim Treasurer Bill Wallace reported that we had collected $2,950.00 from 114 member households and that the balance in our account is $1,846.12 Bill then suggested, as a response to a question that came up at the last meeting, that dues be due 1 year from when a household first joined and paid their dues. After some discussion of other possibilities and that we may do the actual billing in quarters (still due 12 months from when joined), Bill’s suggestion was accepted.

Stan’s next order of business was to ask for a motion and second to elect permanent officers. After some discussion as to whether the board or the membership should be electing officers it was acknowledged that it can be done either way it was agreed that our duly elected board would elect officers.

Fred Tannehill made a motion that we keep the current interim officers as permanent officers. Bill Morgan seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Stan then presented a letter and recommendations to be presented to FERC. The letter had been prepared by our Shoreline Management Plan Committee. The board then discussed each item noted as a concern in the letter and suggested only minor rewording to clarify some of our positions. The letter with its minor changes, as well as a letter written by Dale Woods regarding vegetation around the lake, are included as an addendum to these minutes. Stan then requested that the letters be submitted to FERC following FERCs e-filing submission requirements by the next day.

Stan wished to thank the Shoreline Management Plan Committee for their time and efforts.

The next agenda item was for the Board to begin making decisions about Association By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation. Stan passed out copies of Smith Mountain Lake Association By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation that we might use as a guideline. We began a discussion of each paragraph and how we thought our documents should be the same or different. Many of the topics needed lengthy discussions. Bill Wallace suggested that a better approach might be for each person to read the documents independently and write down their comments. Bill Morgan offered to receive and summarize our comments and forward the summary to all board members before the next meeting. Bill M said he could have the comments summarized if he received them by 1/26/04. Based on the input into Bill’s summary we should be able to finalize the documents at our next meeting. The suggestion by Bill W and the offer by Bill M were voted on and passed unanimously.

Stan then asked about what we all thought our work priorities for the coming year should be. Sam Skillman suggested we establish a committee for lake-wide clean up. It was agreed that Sam would head this committee and that Butch Shaffer and Fred Tannehill would work with him. In addition to clean up, it was agreed we would have mile markers cleaned up or replaced. Bill Wallace will head this effort. Richard Beaton said that he had been asked for a map of the lake showing mile markers and docks Richard will begin work on this. Based on the above discussion the board’s first stated objectives for 2004 are:

As an aside to this discussion Stan asked Bill Wallace to order USGS maps of the lake for each Board member.

The next agenda topic was for the Board to consider what committees we may need and how we wanted the committees to operate. We’re going to begin by using Smith Mountain Lake as our model. It was agreed we would start with:

Sam then suggested we probably needed a Membership and Media/Publicity Committees. The Board agreed.

After some discussion it was agreed that the Board members would not serve as chair people for these committees but would serve as the board liaison/representative to the committee. Board members will begin to think about members to serve on these committees and who would make good chairmen.

Gerry then reminded us that all we’d talked about for the coming year was work. He thought we should plan some fun. Specifically he discussed refreshments for general meetings and that perhaps either the clean up day or the Annual Meeting should entail a BBQ or picnic for members. Gerry also mentioned that as committees got more active they should be presenting summaries of their activities and accomplishments.

We had a brief discussion regarding maintaining our previously discussed 2nd Thursday each month for Board meetings. As to where, Stan mentioned that the train station would begin to charge us $25 per evening as was their custom. We all agreed that was acceptable. Some ideas were tossed about as to where the quarterly general membership and Annual membership meetings would be.

Stan asked Butch to give some thoughts and present some possible ideas at our next meeting regarding where the general meetings might be held and what format they might take.

The next Board of Directors Meeting will be February 12, 7:00 pm at the Altavista Train Station.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.


  1. Julia is to submit FERC and Dale Woods letters per the e-filing requirements.
  2. Julia will send out billing letter to names who have not paid their dues after the billing letter is approved.
  3. Each Board member will read SML By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation and submit LVL requirements to Bill Morgan by 1/26
  4. Bill Morgan will summarize our comments and send Board members the summary before the next meeting. Final decisions to be made at the next meeting.
  5. Sam will begin planning a lake wide clean up day
  6. Bill Wallace will begin process to get mile markers replaced
  7. Richard will begin process to get a well marked map
  8. Bill Morgan will continue his project to prepare a map which identifies where people live on the lake
  9. Board representatives to committees should prepare/suggest names to serve
  10. Butch will prepare suggestions as to where general and Annual meetings may be held and the format the meetings may take.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________________ Julia B. Moore, Secretary

January 9, 2004




Leesville Lake Association
1248 Runaway Bay Road
Lynch Station, VA 24571

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
RE: P-2210


The Board of Directors of the recently formed Leesville Lake Association consists of members of the three counties bordering Leesville Lake, i.e. Bedford, Campbell and Pittsylvania.

The association has been formed to address a number of issues that impact the property owners and general users of Leesville Lake. While it is clearly understood how and why this lake and Smith Mountain Lake were created, the Board’s concerns are all directly related to the original permit and the issues identified in the currently proposed AEP Shoreline Management Plan. Many of the issues are also directly related to the issues the SML Association has been experiencing since its creation.

Specifically, the Shoreline Management Plan currently being proposed addresses issues that impact the use of Leesville Lake in the areas of safety, health, environmental protection, erosion and property values.

With regard to these issues, the Board respectfully requests that AEP and FERC conduct further reviews before final approval and adoption of the Shoreline Management Plan occurs.

The Board and Leesville Lake Association members request that the following issues be re-evaluated:

1. The lack of either appropriate enforceable regulations, or the enforcement of same with regard to docks, ramps and other structures not being maintained and/or removed to prevent debris hazards.

2. Lack of a workable plan by AEP-as the responsible licensee-to minimize, reduce, and remove debris accumulating in the lake to maintain the safe use and aesthetic enjoyment of the lake.

3. The lack of any plan to control the extent of erosion taking place on Leesville Lake due to the frequency and extent of the rise and fall of water levels. The erosion taking place at the current rate without changes in the operation will, over time, erode privately owned property above the 620 level. No plan currently exists to protect and stabilize existing banks and shoreline property from future erosion.

NOTE: The extent of erosion and debris on Leesville Lake compared to SML clearly indicates that Leesville Lake should be under separate regulations from SML with regard to these two issues. While SML does fluctuate, 2-3 feet, the 10-13 feet fluctuation on Leesville Lake exacerbates the extent and rate of erosion and debris creation far in excess of that on Smith Mountain Lake.

4. Review the Vegetative Cover Regulations as indicated in the attached letter from Mr. Dale R. Woods dated 12/30/03 and make appropriate changes as recommended.

5. Lack of verbiage that addresses petroleum spills and the prevention thereof.

6. Lack of an overall plan to organize, assist and support a volunteer assisted annual or semi-annual shore line debris clean up plan.

7. The portion of the SMP that allows 28% of Leesville Lake to be zoned for high density use whereas Smith Mountain Lake with 5 times more shoreline has only 7.5% allowed for similar use.

The Board also wishes to express its willingness to assist AEP with clean up and maintenance of Leesville Lake to insure their continued efforts at keeping the lake free of debris to protect the safety for all users and to maintain its attractiveness as one of the most scenic lakes on the east coast.

In conclusion, while the Board clearly understands the need to operate Leesville Lake as a part of the SML pump-storage project, it is also the Boards position that improvements in these areas can reduce the cost of operation to AEP by insuring the safety and overall improved environmental impact on this lake, and looks forward to working together for the common good of all, i.e. property owners, fishermen, environmentalists and power customers.

Thank you for your consideration.


Stanley I. Goldsmith President, Board of Directors Leesville Lake Association (434) 369-5181


December 30, 2003

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
100 Halsted Street
East Orange, NJ 07018

Dear Sir:

I am writing in response to the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 2210 - Shoreline Management Plan. Being a lake resident and educated ecologist with 20 plus years of job experience, I am disappointed in the “Vegetative Cover Regulations” proposed in the Plan. These regulations encourage shoreline erosion and poor forest management practices. Other than for development purposes, trees can only be removed once they are “dead, diseased or dying” and then must be replaced. Once this level of disease or infestation has occurred, the adjacent 1-acre, 5-acres, 10-acres, etc. of trees has been infected. A prime example of this is the recent Southern Pine Bark Beetle infestation on Smith Mountain, which killed all of the pine trees on the mountain, leaving a dreadful viewshed. Additionally, allowing trees to reach and exceed their natural longevity encourages diseases and infestations, and promotes shoreline erosion When these trees die and fall into the lake, they take large amounts of soil with them in the root ball. This coupled with wind-driven and boat induced wave-action, subsequently promotes shoreline erosion. Landowners with two or more acres should have the option to practice sound forest management practices as established under a forest management plan. The regulations provided in the Shoreline Management Plan are too limited and applicable only to the owner of a residential lot.

Under the given regulations, if I own 50 acres of forest in which a bark beetle infestation occurs in the trees along the lake, I cannot prevent the infestation in my forest. If I was to remove the infested trees, I would be required to replace such trees. My property adjoins approximately ½ mile of AEP shoreline. Given an average width of such property to be 50 feet, a bark beetle infestation would easily require the removal of 1,000 12-inch trees to prevent or reduce the spread of such infestation. Under the given regulations and examples, I would be required to plant 6,000 2-inch trees to replace trees removed to protect my property and investment. As you can see, these regulations are absurd and unrealistic for anyone other than the owner of a lot in a subdivision.

Forest management practices should be allowed to promote healthy forests, reduce shoreline erosion and encourage lasting aesthetics and quality wildlife habitat. Beetle infested pines, Gypsy Moth infested hardwoods, ice damaged forests, windblown pines and poplars, and root-ball lined shoreline provide horrible viewsheds, aesthetics, a desert for wildlife species and overall poor environmental health.

The goal stated in the opening sentence of this section states “shoreline vegetation is important to the aesthetic qualities, environmental health, and water quality of Smith Mountain Lake and Leesville Lake.” For the landowner with two or more acres, the regulations stated in the Shoreline Management Plan prohibit the accomplishment of the stated goal. The “hands-off” philosophy of letting nature take its course is a management decision, and generally not an appropriate one or one that will accomplish the desired goals. These are clearly “regulations” and not sound management practices. I suggest these regulations be revised to include sound environmental and natural resource management practices.


Dale R. Woods

cc: Leesville Lake Association
Smith Mountain Lake Association