LEESVILLE LAKE ASSOCIATION
March 10, 2004
MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
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, Bill Morgan, Butch Shaffer and Fred Tannehill. Absent were Dennis Boley, Gerry Caprario and Joe Weatherspoon. Mike Lobue was present as a guest and member of the Lake Beautification Day Committee.
Stan asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes of our last meeting. It was moved and seconded that the minutes be approved. Passed.
Bill W reported that through 3/10 we had collected $13,658.80 with expenses of $8,007.01, leaving uncommitted funds of $5,651.79. We have 262 member households with a membership renewal rate of 80%.
Butch Shaffer asked if we had called any of the people who had not renewed. Julie will send a list of prior members who have not renewed to each board member and arrangements will be made to call them.
Stan asked Sam to bring everybody up to date on the clean up. Sam reported that last years Beautification Day cost about $1,900. We raised $2,800. Teresa Rogers with AEP has again committed $500. Sam asked for approval to increase expenses to $2,500 this year. Richard moved, Fred seconded and it was passed unanimously.
We will use the same three sites we used last year for off-loading trash.
Richard will work with promotions. He will begin trying to get articles in the papers now and will try to arrange photographer/s for the actual clean up day.
Butch agreed to handle sponsorships and t-shirts again this year.
Bill M agreed that he and Linda would handle the picnic.
Richard mentioned putting sponsors on the web site. There was discussion about how to do this and it was decided that Richard would develop a plan.
Bill W mentioned soliciting all lake HOAs. We already have one donation that he asked if we could classify as a clean up sponsor. All agreed we should do that.
Additionally, regarding the web site it was decided that Gold sponsors would have a business card-like add and a link to their web site; Silver sponsors would get their name address, phone number and a link to their web site; Patrons would have their names listed.
Butch will add the above to the sponsorship form and e-mail the forms to us that we may all disperse to any possible sponsorship candidates.
Stan reported on our efforts to have the local counties form a TLAC-like organization. The feedback that he’s gotten is that the counties don’t won’t to form another organization. We may be able to appoint a committee to SML TLAC.
Stan wanted to thank Bill W and Mike Lobue for their efforts with the Tri-County Relicensing Commission. Due to their efforts TCRC included all our issues in their letter to FERC.
David Laurell, Campbell County Administrator, sent Stan a letter encouraging us to have representation on TLAC.
Bill W thanked Mike Lobue for the information he gathered on the scoping meetings.
Russ Johnson of TCRC asked why Campbell County not on TCRC. Bill W thinks that we will get their representation on TCRC.
Bill W reported that we had very poor results with the letter writing campaign we tried to initiate. He thinks we need to continue to push the counties to clarify TCRC interfaces with FERC and AEP on relicensing issues. TLAC looks after welfare and administration for SML.
To clarify TCRC interfaces with FERC and AEP on relicensing issues. TLAC looks after welfare and administration for SML.
Senator Allen let us know he was successful in getting the scoping meetings reopened. We will need to encourage our membership to attend.
We still need to develop our priorities and go back to Campbell County. They have committed to go over our list and present it to the other local counties for monetary decisions and input. Campbell says they will then approach AEP to see what they would contribute.
Bill W reports our priorities are the same as at our formation: 1. Debris removal; 2. Safety and navigational aids; and 3. Water quality and quantity.
He estimates for the first year removal of debris would be $136,800 and transportation and disposal would be $19,300 for a total of $156,300. This would cover 5 days a month of work.
Richard reported that the map vendor can probably make our April general meeting.
Bill W mentioned that Runaway Bay had bought a digital projector. They have offered us a 1/3 share. Sam moved and Bill M seconded that we do this for $210. Stan and Bill W will negotiate a letter of agreement.
An agenda for our April general meeting was discussed. Agenda topics will include committee reports, all clean up information, and nominating committee.
Sam reported regarding a 501(c)3 designation that the attorney’s fee would be $1,000 and the IRS fee would be $350. Julie will look into the possibility of doing this ourselves.
The final business for the meeting was deciding of meeting dates for the balance of 2005. They are as follows:
April 14 General membership meeting
May 12 Board meeting
May 14 Beautification Day information meeting 1:30 pm Tri County Marina
May 21 Beautification Day
May 22 Beautification Day Thank You picnic
June 9 Board meeting
July 16 Annual general membership meeting and picnic
August 11 Board meeting
September 8 Board meeting
October 13 General membership meeting
November 10 Board meeting
December 8 Board meeting
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be April 14, 7:00 pm, at the Altavista Train Station. The April meeting will be a general membership meeting.
FOLLOW UP/ACTION ITEMS
Julie will send a list of non-renewals to board members in an effort to have board members call these prior members
Richard will begin promotional work for Beautification Day
Butch will begin sponsorship work and t-shirt processes for Beautification Day
Richard will add sponsorship information to web site
Butch will add web information to sponsorship form and e-mail it to all board
Richard will try to make arrangements with the map producer for him to be at our April meeting
Stan and Bill W will negotiate a letter of agreement regarding the digital projector
Stan will get in touch with the Audit Committee
Julie will look at possibility of us doing our own filing for 501(c)3 designation
Julia B. Moore, Secretary
March 18, 2005
Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project Re-Licensing: Call for Public Comment
On January 26-27, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held meetings in Gretna, VA to hear comments and suggestions on a preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be address in an Environmental Assessment, to be done in conjunction with Appalachian Power’s application for re-licensing of its operation at both Smith Mountain and Leesville Lakes. Both the Runaway Bay Homeowners Association and the Leesville Lake Association were represented at the meeting, and have submitted comments for the record.
The comment period is open until March 1, 2005, and all interested parties including property owners in Runaway Bay are invited to participate. This is a process where numbers count. In other words, with the more comments that are received we have greater assurance that our concerns will be addressed.
We encourage you to submit comments. For your convenience, we have prepared a talking points paper in a letter format that will suffice for the submission when you add the current date, and your name, address, and phone number at the signature block. When you download the document, rename it with less than 30 characters and save it where you can browse to attach it in the filing process.
For those who want to file their comments electronically at the FERC web site, please follow these instructions step by step:
An e-mail will be sent acknowledging the filing and a second e-mail will be sent stating that it has been accepted.
February xx, 2005
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Smith Mountain Hydroelectric Project No. 2210-108
Dear Ms. Salas:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Scoping Document 1 (SD1) and the Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) Pre-Application Document for the Smith Mountain Hydroelectric Project. I am a Leesville Lake property owner and have a significant interest in this project and its impact on Leesville Lake. I endorse and incorporate by reference the comments submitted to the Commission on this project by the Leesville Lake Association and the Runaway Bay Homeowners Association. Below are my comments and recommendations.
Debris (trees, logs, man-made material) is a major problem on Leesville Lake. Appalachian should be required to (1) study the debris problem on Leesville Lake and (2) implement a more effective and comprehensive program to continuously remove debris from the lake.
Lake debris is both a boating hazard and an aesthetic problem. The numerous trees and logs on the lake, some of which float just below the surface, present a potentially serious safety problem for boaters, water skiers and personal watercraft.
Shoreline erosion is a significant problem on Leesville Lake. Shoreline erosion on Leesville Lake is aggravated by a 13 foot weekly water level fluctuation, which is unique to Leesville Lake and other lakes that form lower ponds in pumped storage projects. The frequency and extent of water level fluctuation causes the shoreline debris to “scour” and erode the shoreline. While Appalachian controls lands on the shoreline to the 620 elevation, there are strong visible indications that erosion is starting to eat closer and closer to that elevation. In fact, erosion could eventually cause property owners to lose land and/or structures they own. Further, the eroded soils may be forming sedimentary deposits on or near the face of the dam which could significantly impact the service-life of the project.
The Commission should require Appalachian to study the erosion issue and ways to reduce it. The Commission should also require Appalachian to study operating protocols for the Smith Mountain pumped storage project that will minimize water level fluctuation and, therefore, erosion on Leesville Lake. The results of these studies should be vetted with Leesville Lake property owners before implementation.
Public Safety Programs/Navigation Aids
The Commission should require Appalachian to study the effectiveness of the existing public safety programs (e.g., shoal markers, buoy and navigation system, etc.) in maintaining a safe recreational environment in the project area. In spite of what Appalachian says, the Commission should make navigational systems a license issue. It should require Appalachian to repair or replace the existing system of day mileage markers and also establish and maintain a complete system of both day and night navigation aids on Leesville Lake.
Operation of the pumped storage project has a very definite potential impact on public safety. Leesville Lake currently has no floating or fixed navigational hazard warnings in place. Boundaries of the main channel (the old Roanoke River channel) are unmarked. At low water, the upper reaches of the lake are treacherous with water depths ranging from 25 feet to less than 2 feet in a mere 10-20 feet of distance traveled. Without channel marking, groundings are frequent. At high water, low-lying islands in the upper reaches of the lake are nearly submerged. While barely visible in the daylight, without markings they would be almost impossible to detect at night. Similarly, there are rocks and shoals that are barely covered at high water making them treacherous to boaters in both day and night conditions. The Toler’s Ferry Bridge across the lake at VA Route 608 has no support lighting.
Leesville Lake was cited as “impaired” in a Virginia DEQ 2004 water quality study where fecal coliform bacteria were found in a major tributary. Yet, water quality monitoring points on the lake are minimal in number. Development on Leesville Lake is significantly increasing. Additional water quality monitoring is needed on Leesville Lake.
Water quantity is also an important issue for Leesville Lake, not only as it relates to aggravating erosion on the lake, but also with respect to insuring valid water demands in the Roanoke River Basin are satisfied. Ensuring adequate water quantity in both lakes while maintaining power generation capabilities during drought conditions, as well as flood control measures should be studied.