20120900 Ver 2_Meeting to Discuss SMP Update_20170408

Strickland, Bev
From:
Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Saturday, April 08, 2017 1:30 PM
To:
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Mcmillan, Ian;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Peele, Linwood;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Strickland,
Athena; [e-mail]; Karen Baldwin; Higgins, Karen; Mark Gross;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Strong,
Brian; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Tingley, Carol;
[e-mail]; Goudreau, Chris J.; Fransen, Tom;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tarver, Fred; rlrowe40
@gmail.com; Heather Preston ([e-mail]); [e-mail];
Gerrit Jobsis; Darin Steen; Michael Nye; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc:
Jennifer Boursiquot [e-mail]); Chris Phelps; Eli Hopson;
[e-mail]; Ferris, Michael; Greene, Greg; Crystal Cockman; Richard
Schaefer ([e-mail]); Eddy Moore
Subject:
RE: Yadkin Project - Meeting to Discuss SMP Update
Attachments:
4-6-2017_SMP_Meeting_Notes.pdf, Lap_Tree_Procedures_2001.tif,
FERC_Approval_Lap_Trees.pdf
Much thanks to all of you who participated in last Thursday's meeting.
As promised, I have attached some brief meeting notes, as well as a copy of the meeting presentation.
Also, we identified a couple of immediate action items:
1. Review meeting summary for completeness and accuracy.
2. Review and comment on existing SMP goals (see presentation slide). Please let me know if you have any
comments on these existing goals.
3. Review the Lap Tree Procedures filed with and approved by FERC in 2001 (Procedures, and FERC's approval
attached). Provide comments to me on these Procedures.
We will be in touch again very soon.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email

-----Original Appointment -----
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:32 PM
To: Jody Smet; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
marshal [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Strickland, Athena; [e-mail]; Karen Baldwin;
[e-mail]; Mark Gross; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Strong, Brian; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Tingley, Carol; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Heather Preston ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; GerritJobsis; Darin Steen
Cc: Jennifer Boursiquot ([e-mail]); Chris Phelps; Eli Hopson; [e-mail]; Ferris,
Michael; chi [e-mail]; Greene, Greg; Crystal Cockman; Richard Schaefer
([e-mail])
Subject: Yadkin Project - Meeting to Discuss SMP Update
When: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:00 AM -12:00 PM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Alcoa Conference Center, Falls Road, Badin, NC 28009
All,
As the licensee of the Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197), Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC (Cube) would like to meet to
discuss the requirements of Article 407 (Shoreline Management Plan) of the new Project license (Article attached). We
will also discuss process and schedule. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2017, at the Alcoa Conference
Center at Falls Road in Badin, NC. The meeting will begin at 9 am and will conclude no later than 12 noon. Please let
me know if you plan to attend.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS

Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC (Cube)
Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197)
Yadkin Project Shoreline Management Plan Update
Meeting Notes
Meeting Participants:
Ann Brownlee, Trading Ford Historic District Preservation Association
Athena Strickland, Pee Dee River Coalition*
Brian Kurzel, Heron Bay HOA
Chip Conner, Uwharrie Point
Chris Goudreau, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Chris Phelps, Tourism -Recreation Investment Partnership for Davidson County
David Summerlin, Badin Historic Museum
Fred Tarver, NC Division of Water Resources*
Greg Green, Rowan County
Harry Saunders, Badin Lake Association
Jody Smet, Cube Hydro Carolinas
Karen Baldwin, Cube Hydro Carolinas
Larry Jones, High Rock Lake Association
Lee Snow, High Rock Lake Association
Mark Gross, Cube Hydro Carolinas
Mark Oden, High Rock Business Owners Group
Michael Ferris, City of Albemarle
Michael Nye, Land Trust for Central NC
Pete Petree, SaveHighRockLake.org
Rich Schaefer, Uwharrie Point
Roy Rowe, Piedmont Boat Club
Scott Leonard, Davidson County Planning
*participated by phone
Regarding the stated meeting goal: To understand what the Project license requires, and align
our collective expectations about what the SMP update looks like (process) and how long it will
take (schedule), Larry Jones clarified that his interest and priority is first and foremost having
FERC review and approve the SMP modifications agreed to and included in the Relicensing
Settlement Agreement (RSA, 2007). He suggested that this review and approval be independent
of and take place prior to SMP update required by Article 407 of the FERC license. Mark Gross,
Cube, suggested that FERC may not review and/or approve a partial update to the Project SMP,
but agreed to further consider the request with Cube management. The group collectively agreed
that Cube should at least try. It was agreed that the rest of the meeting would be focused on
reviewing the requirements of Article 407 and agreeing on a process and schedule for the
required plan updates.
Article 407 requires SMP goals and objectives. Jody shared the existing plan goals (see
presentation). Action item: The group agreed to review the existing plans goals and to provide
any suggested edits or updates to Jody.

Article 407 requires that a Project description and a discussion of Project operations be included
in the updated plan. This information will be updated in accordance with the new Project
license. Jody also discussed and clarified the two different datums in use at the Project (Yadkin
datum, USGS datum). The group agreed that the SMP would use the USGS datum, and
reference the Yadkin datum. The two datums will be discussed briefly in the plan's introduction.
Article 407 requires that the land use classifications of the reservoir shorelines be updated. Jody
proposed to use public and readily available information to update the shoreline land use
classifications. She discussed the necessary updates to the other SMP appendix maps. For the
Sensitive and Natural Areas maps Jody and Chris Goudreau agreed to work together to identify
information sources, such as Natural Heritage inventories, that could be used to update these
maps. Conservation zone mapping will be updated in accordance with any changes to the
Sensitive and Natural Areas maps. Jody acknowledged that Ann Brownlee with the Trading Ford
Historic District Preservation Association had long since requested that the Cultural Resource
Probability Zone maps be updated to include cultural landscapes identified by Phil Thomason in
his study of the Project area. The updates to these maps was discussed in more detail at a
separate meeting to discuss development of the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).
Lastly, the Cube Property maps will be updated to reflect Cube owned lands at the Project
(consistent with the Exhibit G maps filed with FERC).
Appendices E, F, and G define what uses and/or activities are permitted within the various land
use classifications, and other protected areas. The group agreed that modifications to these
appendices were agreed to during settlement negotiations, and included in Appendix D to the
RSA. These proposed modifications stand, and will not be reopened or reviewed again. The
changes to these appendices will be as stated in the RSA.
Article 407 requires the updated plan to include the Lap Tree Procedures approved by the
Commission in 2001. There was much discussion about what these procedures require, and why.
Action item: Review the Procedures and FERC's approval of the Procedures and submit
comments about the need to update or revise the Procedures as part of the SMP update to Jody.
There was some discussion about limiting lap trees to identified Sensitive and Natural Areas
and/or Conservation Areas; not areas directly in front of lake front homes.
Like the Lap Tree Procedures, there was discussion about whether to incorporate other
policies/procedures and/or guidance documents into the updated plan (e.g., Ski Jump Course
Procedures). There were arguments for (provides clarity/direction) and against (over regulates
development). Chris Goudreau shared how Duke addresses these types of other uses in its
Catawba Wateree SMP as an example (see attached excerpt from Section 6 of the Shoreline
Management Guidelines).
Jody briefly discussed the relationship of the SMP to other plans required by the Project license,
such as the HPMP, Recreation Plan, and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Management Plan (all due September 2017).

Jody reviewed a TENATIVE schedule for the overall plan update (see presentation slides). She
proposed providing updated sections for review and comment as they are available. In addition,
the group asked to meet again in the summer and fall to review and discuss plan updates.

Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC (Cube)
Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197)
Yadkin Project Shoreline Management Plan Update Meeting Agenda
April 6, 2017
1. Welcome, Introductions
2. Update on Overall Project License Implementation / Compliance
3. Review Meeting Objectives
4. Review Requirements of FERC License Article 407 / 401 WQC Condition 13.0
— Goals and Objectives
— Describe Developments and Project Operations (Yadkin v. USGS datum)
— Update Shoreline Land Use Classifications
• Appendix A Land Use Maps
• Appendix B Sensitive Natural Areas
• Appendix C Cultural Resource Probability Zones
• Appendix D Conservation Zones
• Appendix J Cube Property
— Update Appendices E, F, G (from RSA Appendix D):
• Specifications for Private Recreation Facilities (High Rock, Narrows)
• Subdivision Access Approval, Multi -Use Facility Permitting, and
Industrial Approval Procedures
• Shoreline Stewardship Policy
— Update to Include New Information since 2000 approval:
• Removal/Relocation of Lap Trees
• Water Willow
• Ski Jump Courses
• Guidance Documents (private pier lighting, pontoon docks, multi -use
facility insurance)
• Revised Fee Schedule
• Others (e.g., floating trampolines)?
5. Relationship of SMP to other Plans
6. Schedule
7. Summarize Action Items and Adjourn

Meeting Presentation

Culd
reiRn
n
Awl "i
" •"S �Y � '�y'ij,A.��14
9] :1•
CubeYadkin Generation LLC
Yadkin Project SMP Update Meeting
April 6, 2027

• FERC issued new Project license on September 22,
2o16, effective September 1
• FERC approved transfer of Project license from APGI
Yadkin to CubeYadkin Generation, LLC on December
13, 2016
• Cube Hydro Carolinas finalized purchase of theYadkin
Project on February 1, 2017
• License implementation underway

• GOAL: Understand what the Project license requires,
and align our collective expectations about what the
SMP update looks like (process) and how long it will
take (schedule).
• Review requirements of Article 407
• Discuss and agree on acceptable and efficient methods to
update outdated information (e.g., shoreline use
classifications)
Review previously agreed upon SMP modifications (RSA
Appendix D)
• Identify any new information that should be included in the
plan update
• Establish general milestones and overall schedule

Goal is To identify and understand the natural, environmental,
recreational, scenic, and cultural resources that are unique to the
Project and which may warrant protection, enhancement, or special
consideration.
• Goal 2: To establish reservoir management objectives that will best
balance shoreline development and -public recreation needs with
environmental considerations and hydroelectric generation needs.
• Goal 3: To establish a process for reviewing, approving, and
undertaking shoreline development activities that encourages good
stewardship of natural and cultural resources by avoiding, offsetting,
or mitigating impacts to natural and environmental resources.
• Goal 4: To encourage local residents, recreational users, local
government and State government to understand how their actions
may affect tie reservoirs and the quality of the resources the
reservoirs provide.

• Update SMP with new reservoir operating curves and
required stream flow information (from Project license)
SMP usesYadkin datum
High Rock 655.0 623.9
Tuckertown 596.o 564.7
Narrows (Badin) 541.1 509.8
Falls 364.0 332.8

AppendixA Land Use Maps
Appendix B Sensitive Natural Areas
• Appendix C Cultural Resource Probability Zones
• Appendix D Conservation Zones
• Appendix J Cube Property

• Updates to Recreation Resources (Section 4.0),
Environmental and Natural Resources (Section 5.0),
and Cultural Resources (Section 6.0)
• Update to include new policies/guidance documents
since 2000:
• Removal / relocation of lap trees
• Water willow agreements
Ski jump courses
• Floating trampolines
• Private pier lighting
• Pontoon docks
• Multi -use facility insurance
• Fee schedule
• Others?

Shoreline Management Plan
• Recreation Plan (due g/22/2017)
- Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Management Plan (due g/22/2017)
• Historic Properties Management Plan (due g/22/2017)

TENTATIVE
Goals, Objectives, and Revised April 21, 2017
Appendices E, F, G
Revised Yadkin Project Description May 5, 2017
(Section 2.0
Updated Appendix A, B, C, D, and J maps June 30, 2017
Revised Recreation Resources (Section
4.0) and Cultural Resources (Section 6.0)
Revised Environmental and Natural
Resources (Section 5.0)
Entire revised draft SMP
3o -Day Review/Comment Period
File SMP for FERC Approval
August 30, 2017
September 2g, 2017
November 15, 2017
November 16 — December 15, 2017
January 12, 2018

Excerpt from Duke's Catawba Wateree SMP Shoreline Management Guidelines
Section 6 — Miscellaneous Reservoir Uses Program
A. General
The following section addresses less frequent types of requests received by DE -LS for uses within
the Project Boundaries or on Duke Energy property. Applicants for many of these activities and
other activities that may affect Duke Energy property must first contact DE -LS and obtain written
authorizationrp for to beginning any activity/construction inside the FERC Project Boundaries or
on Duke Energy property. Application forms and supporting information from the other Lake Use
Permitting Programs will be used where applicable for these requests. There may be instances
where no application form or other documentation exists that can be used to process a request and
in such cases, an applicant may be required to submit a letter of application for the proposal. DE -
LS may require the applicant to enter into a lease or other form of conveyance and/or sign a user's
agreement to ensure that long-term operation of the facility or use of Project lands and waters does
not conflict with DE -LS objectives. Since every possible scenario cannot be anticipated, DE -LS
reserves the right to make special rulings in cases not specifically covered by these guidelines.
(NOTE FOR ALL NON -PROJECT USE APPLICANTS: Duke Energy is neither the advocate
nor the adversary for non -Project use applications, such as those for Miscellaneous Reservoir
Uses. The applicant, not DE -LS, is responsible for negotiating the application process with other
permitting and regulatory authorities.)
B. Uses Controlled by Duke Energy
Advertising Signs-- Advertising signs within the Project Boundaries will not be
authorized, except for inconspicuous manufacturer's labels on permitted structures or
temporary "For Sale" signs on boats docked at Duke Energy -approved structures.
2. Inflatable Recreation Equipment — Duke Energy will not authorize the use and placement
of any large water-based recreational equipment (see Glossary to differentiate between
Water-based Recreational Equipment and Water Toys) within the Project Boundaries.
Existing items considered to fall within the definition of water-based recreational
equipment are not authorized and must be removed from within the Project Boundaries
and Duke Energyproperty.
Fish Attractors — Duke Energy does not object to the placing of fish attractors made of
natural woody material (e.g., brush, Christmas trees) or PVC that are securely tied
together and properly anchored so as not to become a hazard to navigation and to remain:
1) at a depth greater than the Critical Reservoir Elevation (CRE) (see Glossary) on the
specific lake; 2) covered by an approved boat docking facility; or 3) in close
association with an approved pier. Nylon rope should be used to tie the materials
together and for connecting materials to the anchor. Anchors should consist of
concrete blocks or other suitable weight. No materials that are environmentally
unacceptable (e.g., car batteries, tires) should be used for anchors or as cover
materials.

Shallow water fish attractors may be placed by wildlife resource agency personnel or
individual property owners adjoining the Project Boundaries subject to the following
conditions. Attractors may be placed either (i) underneath the structure or (ii) in
shallow water areas associated with a pier, but not directly underneath the structure,
provided the attractor: 1) is within 20 ft of the structure; 2) does not extend lakeward
any further than the farthest portion of the structure; 3) does not cross the lot lines of
the adjoining property, projected lakeward perpendicular to the shoreline; and 4) does
not block navigation. (Note: These requirements are not intended to conflict with
trees that fall into the Project Boundaries and provide fish and wildlife habitat and
are not a hazard to navigation.) Applications are made by letter from the applicant.
4. Special Events on Duke Energy Project Recreation Sites — Permission to use a
Duke Energy Project Recreation Site for a special event (event) (e.g., fishing
tournaments, public festivals, boat race headquarters) will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis, and may be approved, provided that:
a. The applicant applies by letter to DE -LS.
b. Applications must include a complete narrative description of the event and a
graphic site plan for the proposed use of the Project Recreation Site.
c. With the exception of fishing tournaments, the footprint of the proposed event
occupies no more than 50% of the functional surface area of the Project
Recreation Site.
d. The Project Recreation Site remains open for use by the general public for
boat launching during the full extent of the event.
e. The event is not exclusive to any user group.
f. All trash and debris is removed from the Project Recreation Site as needed during
the event and, at a minimum, on a daily basis, and at the end of the event.
g. Public restrooms (e.g., Port-a-Jons) are provided by the applicant if required by
Duke Energy or other regulatory agencies.
h. Vendors of food, concessions, souvenirs, etc. maybe permitted on a case-by-
case basis as determined by Duke Energy in its sole discretion. The applicant
must specifically identify proposed vendors/vendor areas by type in the
narrative description and on the site plan for the proposedevent.
i. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the proposed use of the
Project Recreation Site complies with all local, state, and federal
guidelines/ordinances.
j. All required permits are the responsibility of the applicant and copies must be
provided to Duke Energy to initiate Duke Energy's review of the application.

Specifically, written approval by the applicable state wildlife resource agency must
be provided to Duke Energy to initiate Duke Energy's review of the application.
Wildlife resource agency and DE -LS review will include consideration of potential
conflicts with previously scheduled events, potential impact of the proposed use on
the primary function of the Project Recreation Site, potential site impacts, and
other factors. Additional resource agency consultation may also be required as
determined by Duke Energy.
k. The applicant executes a lease agreement with Duke Energy with terms, including
liability indemnification and insurance requirements, and pays any applicable
fees, as specified by Duke Energy.
Heat Exchange Coils for Heat Pumps (Geo -thermal S.. s�i— DE -LS may authorize
these structures, provided they do not cause a safety, navigational or environmental
hazard. The coils must be anchored to the lakebed and located at or below the Critical
Reservoir Elevation (CRE) (see Glossary) on the specific lake unless attached
underneath an existing permitted facility in such a manner that the coils and
return/supply line will not become a safety, navigational or environmental hazard. All
supply/return piping not attached underneath an existing permitted facility must be
buried in accordance with the guidelines for submarine utility lines included in the
Conveyance Program and located adjacent to the confines of the applicant's project -
front property. Applications are made by letter from the applicant.
6. Minor Water Withdrawals — DE -LS may authorize a single irrigation pump for private
home use, provided the pump has a rated horsepower of 2 hp or less and is used
exclusively for the adjoining project -front lot. Applications are made by letter from the
applicant. DE -LS may also authorize small water intakes that do not exceed a
maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate of 1 million gallons per day (MGD) within
the Conveyance Program (filing with the FERC typically not required). All minor
water withdrawals should, to the maximum practicable extent: (a) use passive screens;
(b) provide screen openings not to exceed one centimeter; and (c) provide a maximum
intake velocity of 0.5 fps or less. For waters with anadromous fish, the applicant must
consult with appropriate federal and state resource agencies and determine the
appropriate intake and screen design specifications. Additionally, all minor water
withdrawals must meet the requirements for submarine utility lines included in the
Conveyance Program unless the intake line and intake head are attached underneath an
approved facility (e.g., private pier, marina slip). (NOTE: Major water withdrawals
include both singleand cumulative water withdrawals exceeding a I MGD maximum
instantaneous withdrawal capacity. These larger withdrawals must be approved under
the Conveyance Program and require
FERC approval. Additionally, in North Carolina, withdrawals greater than or equal
to 100 thousand gallons per day require registration with the NCDEQ-Division of
Water Resources.)
7. Satellite Dishes — DE -LS will not authorize these facilities to be located within
the Project Boundaries of a reservoir.

Ski Ramps/Slalom Courses — DE -LS may authorize ski ramps, slalom courses, and
other similar structures, provided: 1) the state wildlife resources agency approves of
the activity; 2) the facility and its use will not impact areas identified as
Environmental on the SMP; 3) SCDHEC approval is obtained in South Carolina; 4)
there are no objections from adjacent property owners; and 5) the applicant complies
with the terms and conditions of the "User's Agreement". Applications are made by
letter from the applicant.
9. Private SwimmingAreas — DE -LS will not authorize private individuals to "rope off'
or exclude the public from a portion of the Project area for the purpose of creating a
private swimming area.
10. Concession Sales at Project Recreation Sites — DE -LS will not allow any sales on the
Project Recreation Sites except for areas under lease to an entity or concession sales
that are in association with an approved special event, identified and managed by the
event sponsor.
11. Special Use Facilities — These are facilities which are similar in nature to those
permitted under the Private Facilities Program, but are not associated with a single-
family type private residence and are used as part of the operation of an organization
or business. The types of facilities that may be included are piers, boat slips, boat
shelters, and covered boat slips, etc. Some examples of organizations that use this
type of facility are hunting clubs, ski clubs, churches, industries or businesses for
employee recreation areas, and agencies for monitoring piers, etc. These types of
facilities will be permitted using
the Private Facilities Program and Conveyance Program guidelines (including
application forms) to the maximum extent practicable. Applicants may be required to
lease the underlying Project property and may be assessed annual user fees.
12. Business Staging Areas — These are facilities or areas along the shoreline that are used
to support a business directly associated with one of the lake use permitting activities
(e.g., loading ramp for shoreline stabilization, pier to moor construction/excavation
equipment, barge mooring area, pier assembly area), temporary staging areas for
public infrastructure construction and maintenance, and temporary sales piers for large
developments. These types of facilities will be permitted using the Private Facilities
Program and Conveyance Program guidelines (including application forms) to the
maximum extent practicable. Applicants will be required to enter into a conveyance
agreement (for operations that exceed two years in duration); sign user's agreement
letter(s); obtain individual permits for activities outside the scope of the General
Permits; obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits; and pay annual user's
fees. Areas used for a period greater than two years will be required to complete a
Conveyance Application including filing a notification with the FERC.
13. Wildlife Enhancement Activities — DE -LS may authorize wildlife enhancement
activities such as wood duck boxes and other similar structures, regardless of the
shoreline classification, provided the activity does not pose a hazard to public safety

or navigation, the state wildlife agency approves of the activity, and there are no
objections from adjacent property owners. In South Carolina, approval is obtained
from SCDHEC. Applications to Duke Energy are made by letter from the applicant.
14. Project Operation and Public Service Facilities — This category includes new and
existing facilities needed to directly support comprehensive management of the lakes
used by Duke Energy or public agencies (e.g., rescue squads; Power Squadron and US
Coast Guard Auxiliary emergency support facilities; state wildlife agency
management facilities; police department non -recreational facilities; Duke Energy
mosquito control facilities; Duke Energy hydro, fossil, and nuclear power non -
recreational facilities) to carry out their official responsibilities The construction of
new facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities may have more flexible
permitting requirements, provided the applicant can provide justification based on a
legitimate need and not just a preference. Applications are reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and consultation of the Sr. Lake Services Representative(s) is required.
15. Explosives — The limited use of explosives may be allowed to facilitate the removal
of man-made structures (i.e., bridge pilings, intake structures), provided their use can
be substantiated based on need rather than preference and the use adheres to all local,
state, and federal regulations. The use of explosives within the Project Boundaries
supporting excavation activities will be allowed for public need projects where the
applicant is usually a public entity (e.g., municipality, state transportation
department, utility line owner supporting a regional public need) and there is no
other practicable alternative. DE -LS must be provided the appropriate
documentation to ensure compliance with all regulations prior to the use of any
explosives. Any other uses of explosives to excavate within the Project Boundaries
will not be authorized.
16. DryHydrants — Fire hydrants that draw water from the reservoir for fire protection
may be reviewed by letter from the applicant. The applicant must be an official
representing a municipal, state, federal or volunteer fire fighting organization. The
applicant must indicate the location, pipe diameter, and fire department/district being
served and responsible for maintenance of the structure. The intake line must meet the
requirements for submarine utility lines under the Conveyance Program to the
maximum practicable extent. Unless attached to an existing facility in such a manner
that the intake will not become a safety or navigational hazard, the intake should be
located at/below the CRE required for any existing Large Water Intakes used for
Public Water Supply, industrial or regional non -hydroelectric power plant operation
on the specific lake. This depth requirement is necessary to provide for the reliability
of the hydrant even during drawdown conditions and to ensure the intake does not
pose a hazard to navigation and public safety. In cases where lake topography makes
meeting the requirements for submarine utility lines impracticable, the intake and/or
intake line may be considered at a lesser depth, provided the applicant can provide a
Lake Facility Safety Plan that clearly marks along the shoreline and with a buoy(s)
the location of the intake and/or intake line. Standardized signs 2 ft by 3 ft in
dimension with the wording "Danger Stay Clear, Underwater Fire Intake", will be
provided by DE -LS and must be installed conspicuously and maintained along the

shoreline by the applicant. Additionally, at least one, 10 -inch diameter cylindrical
buoy, provided and maintained by the applicant, that extends a minimum of 36 inches
above the surface of the water with the word "Danger" and the open diamond shape,
must remain stationed at all times lakeward and no further than 10 ft of the dry
hydrant line intake structure.
C. Uses Under the Control of Other Agencies
Boat Race Courses — Under the control of the U.S. Coast Guard.
2. Kites, Parasails, Ultra -light Aircraft, and Hana Gliders — If regulated, under the
control of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while airborne and state
wildlife agency and/or local planning and zoning office while on water.
Navigational Aids — Under the control of the state wildlife agency and/or
applicable marine commission.
4. No -Wake Buos— Under the control of applicable marine commission and state
wildlife agency.
Seaplanes — Under the control of the FAA while airborne and state wildlife agency
and/or local planning and zoning office while on water, if regulated.
6. Vending Operations on Water — Under the control of the county Health Department.
7. Net Pens and Aquaculture Operations — These uses are not authorized.
D. Caution
Authorization Required from Licensee — Adjoining property owners should be
aware that conducting activities within the Project Boundaries of a federally -
licensed hydroelectric project (e.g., Catawba-Wateree Project) is a privilege that
can only be granted with authorization from the Licensee. Duke Energy supports
use of the Project lands and waters for a variety of activities, provided the use
meets the regulatory requirements of the license and protects and enhances the
Project's scenic, recreational, cultural, and environmental values.
2. Protected Areas — There are some areas of the lake where facilities may not be
permitted because of environmental considerations, development patterns, physical
lake characteristics, impacts to cultural resources, or other reasons. These areas may
be identified in the SMP (where applicable).
Minimization of Impacts — The permittee must make every reasonable effort to
minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.

4. Non -Authorized Uses — There are some types of lake uses that cannot be authorized.
Refer to Section 7B for a listing of commonly requested uses that Duke Energy will
not authorize.
Non -Conforming Structures — There are existing structures and improvements
permitted by DE -LS, prior to initiating these revised guidelines, which are not
compatible with the requirements as contained herein. These structures may be
maintained although their use does not conform to the enclosed guidelines. When it
becomes necessary to rebuild (see Glossary definition of Facility Rebuild) a
previously approved, non -conforming structure, the rebuilt structure must comply with
the guidelines in effect at the time of replacement to the maximum practicable extent.
Flood Easements — In general, Duke Energy has reserved, on a tract -by -tract basis, a
deeded flood easement extending 10 ft or more vertically above the full pond
elevation contour on all lakes it owns or operates, to accommodate high water and
allow for operational flexibility in severe weather events. Although these deeded
flood easements typically do not prevent construction of dwellings and other
permanent structures, Duke Energy strongly recommends that adjoining property
owners avoid building such permanent structures within flood easement areas. Buffer
regulations must also be considered for any construction or alteration of vegetation
above the full pond contour elevation.
E. Consequences for Violations
Penalties — DE -LS representatives will issue Stop -Work Directives for any violations
that are detected within the Project Boundaries of a reservoir. Consequences for
violations will include one or more of the following:
• Unwanted delays;
• Loss of security deposits;
• Suspension or cancellation of approved applications;
• Increases in fees;
• Modification or removal of non -complying structures and restoration of
disturbed areas at the owner's expense; and
• Loss of any consideration for future reservoir use applications.
2. Violation Examples — Examples of specific violations and their applicable
penalties include the following:
• Unauthorized major cutting of the vegetated area (see Section 8) within the
Project Boundaries (no existing pier/dock): Restoration with approved native
vegetation. Loss of consideration for lake use permitting activities for up to
five years depending on severity and subject to successful plant restoration.

• Unauthorized major cutting of the vegetated area (see Section 8) within the
Project Boundaries (existing pier/dock): Removal of the pier/dock from
Project property and restoration with approved native vegetation. Loss of
consideration for lake use permitting activities for up to five years depending
on severity and subject to successful plant restoration.
• Unauthorized minor cutting of trees within the vegetated area (see
Section 8) within the Project Boundaries: Restoration as required in the
Vegetation Management Requirements for approved tree removal.
• Refusal to remove an unapproved, dilapidated, or unsafe structure: Removal
of the structure from the Project property by DE -LS. Loss of consideration
for lake use permitting activities until cost of removal, which includes all
removal costs including DE -LS or contractor expenses, landfill fees, and a set
management fee of $1,000, is paid.
• Unauthorized structure built within the Project Boundaries: After -the -fact
application may be accepted if structure conforms to the specific
requirements. Fee will be twice the current permit fee to cover additional
management costs. Non -complying structures will be subject to
modification or removal and restoration of disturbed areas at the owner's
expense.

95 FERC ¶ 62, 105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Project Nos. 2197-046
ORDER APPROVING LAP TREE SUPPLEMENT OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Issued May 9, 2001)
On March 9, 2001, Alcoa Power Generating Incorporated (licensee) filed a Lap
Tree Plan, pursuant to paragraph (D) of the Order Amending License, issued
November 9, 2000 for the Yadkin Project'. The Yadkin Project is located on the
Yadkin/Pee Dee River in Montgomery, Stanley, Davidson, Rowan, and Davie Counties,
North Carolina.
Paragraph (D) requires the licensee to file a supplement which describes in further
detail how it would implement those portions of the Shoreline Management Plan which
require mitigation for the removal of lap trees2. The supplement should describe the
licensee's procedures for selecting mitigation sites (where replacement lap trees would be
located), the procedures for deciding when replacement trees should be cabled in place
and how that cabling is performed, and any alternatives that do not require using cabling.
The supplement should also describe alternative means of mitigation such as replacing
trees only along areas of shoreline designated as conservation zones or anchoring woody
debris in areas of deeper water which are not typically exposed during winter
drawdowns. The licensee shall consult with the North Carolina Department of Wildlife
Resources (NCDWR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the High Rock Lake
Association (HRLA), and Lake Baldwin Associates (LBA).
Procedures for Removal or Relocation of Lan Trees
The relocation or removal of dead trees, lap trees, stumps, or other woody or
natural debris from the reservoirs or the Yadkin -Managed Buffer is prohibited without
10rder Amending License, 93 FERC¶ 61,152.
2Lap trees are defined as trees, living or dead, overhanging or hanging into the
water.

Project No. 2197-046 -2-
specific written permission from the licensee. The licensee allows the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), with written permission, to create lap trees
from trees on the Yadkin -Managed Buffer, to install living plant material, and create
underwater structures intended to improve fish and wildlife habitat in and around the
reservoirs.
The primary reason for removing or relocating lap trees from or within the Project
is typically for accommodating construction of a new private pier. The licensee attempts
to locate the pier and associated access path where there are natural openings along the
shoreline in order to avoid or, if not possible, to minimize, the removal of any vegetation,
including lap trees.
Procedures for evaluating lap tree removal or relocation
In those instances where the licensee allows the removal or relocation of lap trees,
they will follow these procedures:
• Can the lap tree be relocated within the applicant's lot (considering the complexity
of existing lap tree branching structure, density of shoreline clover, proximity of
adjoining lots, and location and size of proposed or existing recreational facilities
and other structures). If lap trees are relocated, no mitigation is required.
• If lap trees are removed, mitigation is required to compensate for the loss of
habitat. Lap trees can be replaced with other, preferably similar in species, size,
and branching structure, lap trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio. If
replacement trees come from an area inland more than 100 feet from full pool, no
additional mitigation is necessary. If replacement trees are not available from an
inland area of the lot, the land owner may be allowed to cut dead, dying, or
diseased trees within 100 feet from the normal full pool. For replacement trees
originating between 100 feet from the normal full pool and the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer, the land owner will be encouraged to mitigating the cutting of replacement
lap trees by the on -land planting of replacement trees, within the same area. For
trees removed within the Yadkin -Managed Buffer, the property owner must
mitigate the cutting of replacement lap trees by planting replacement trees at a 2:1
replacement -to -removal ratio. Replacement trees for planting must be native to
the project area.
• In determining where to position relocated or replacement lap trees, consideration
will be given to the complexity of the tree's branching structure, density of
shoreline cover in close proximity to the site, proximity of adjoining lots, and
location and size of existing recreational facilities and other structures. The lap

Project No. 2197-046 -3-
trees should also provide a good amount of cover for fish; therefore, the top of the
lap tree should be in a minimum of four to six feet of water at normal full pool.
Securing lap trees
The relocated or replacement trees must be cabled in order to prevent the lap tree
from drifting and/or causing a navigational or safety issue. Once the cut tree has been
placed, a hole is drilled through the trunk and a second hole is drilled through the stump
or an anchor is driven into the shoreline and a piece of plastic -coated steel cable is passed
though the hole and secured to the stump or anchor. The cable is secured with a clamp.
If the lap tree is cut with a hinge cut and allowed to fall into the reservoir additional
cabling may not be necessary.
Alternative miti ag tion
As an alternative to lap tree replacements, on -land planting of native species trees,
preferably within 100 feet of the shoreline, may be considered at 2:1 replacement -to -
removal ratio for each lap tree permitted to be removed.
Comments and Licensee Responses
The licensee received comments on the lap tree supplement from FWS and
NCWRC, dated February 14, 2001, and from LBA dated February 15, 2001. A phone
log was included in the filing of a telephone conversation with the HRLA, dated
February 15, 2001. All agency comments were incorporated into the plan except for
those discussed below.
LBA objected to the 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio. The licensee stated that
they believe that the 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio provides adjoining property
owners with a disincentive to remove existing lap trees and that the presence of such a
disincentive is an important component of the licensee's efforts to preserve a natural
shoreline.
The NCWRC states that trees that are relocated to other areas such as the Yadkin -
Managed Buffer or sunk in deep water should still require mitigation. The licensee
reiterated that relocated lap trees are not removed from the project boundary and
therefore, do not require additional mitigation. The sinking of lap trees is not considered
mitigation for lap tree removal.

Project No. 2197-046 -4-
The NCWRC and the FWS recommended that the relocation of lap trees should
be mitigated with the use of Fish Friendly Piers if repalcement lap trees are not available
from either outside or inside the 100 -foot buffer. The licensee states that the imposition
of additional requirements is outside the scope of the Order Amending License, which
approved the Shoreline Management Plan. Specifically, Fish Friendly Piers were
recently introduced by the NCWRC as part of a subdivision Environmental Assessment
of one of Yadkin's reservoirs. Fish Friendly Piers were not considered during the
development of the Shoreline Management Plan. The licensee agrees to consider
discussing this concept with the agencies, developers, or adjoining property owners for
new subdivisions, new or modified multi -use facilities, or industrial facilities.
The NCWRC states that use of dead and diseased trees should not be singled out
for use as replacement lap trees because they are uncommon and used as habitat by
certain wildlife. The licensee's Stewardship Policy states that any tree posing an
imminent threat to life or property may be removed without prior approval from the
licensee. On the Yadkin -Managed Buffer, written permission is required to remove
dead, dying, or diseased trees that potentially create a safety or recreational access issue
or pose an imminent threat to life or property. The licensee has found instances where
dead, dying, or diseased trees are appropriate for use as replacement lap trees.
LBA states that the requirement that mitigation trees be taken from above the 100 -
foot zone appears contrary to other policies of the Shoreline Management Plan and will
eventually result in the clear cutting of the lot area above the 100 -foot zone. The licensee
reminded LBA that replacement trees are only required when a land owner is seeking to
remove a lap tree. The licensee does not believe that this policy would result in clear -
cutting of the lot above the 100 -foot zone.
The NCWRC requests if replacement of lap trees is determined to be unfeasible,
off-site mitigation should be required. The licensee states that in the rare instances where
lap tree removal is allowed and a replacement lap tree is not required, then the land
owner will be required to plant trees native to the project area at a ratio of 2:1
replacement -to -removal.
FWS recommends that in addition to requiring mitigation for replacement of lap
trees, the licensee should require adjoining property owners to begin managing the 100 -
foot buffer zone in a manner consistent with the Shoreline Management Plan. The
licensee states that the Shoreline Management Plan requires all lots in new subdivisions
platted and recorded on or after July 1, 1999, to satisfy certain requirements for a 100 -
foot forested setback as a condition of eligibility for private individual piers, shared piers,

Project No. 2197-046 -5-
or use of, or private access to the Project lands and waters. These provisions of the
Shoreline Management Plan do not apply to lots in older subdivisions whose owners may
be requesting permission to remove lap trees. The licensee currently encourages all
adjoining property owners to implement the recommendations in the Stewardship
Policy's Voluntary Shoreline Stewardship Measures.
Discussion and Conclusions
Commission staff agrees with the licensees responses to the comments made by
the consulting agencies. The licensee's responses were consistent with the approved
Shoreline Management Plan. We agree that considering different forms of mitigation,
that was not previously considered during the development of the Shoreline Management
Plan is outside the scope of this proceeding. The filed lap tree supplement should
adequately protect lap trees and discourage their removal without proper mitigation. The
filed supplement satisfies the requirements of paragraph (D) of the Order Amending
License, issued November 9, 2000, and should be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) The Lap Tree Supplement of the Shoreline Management filed on March 9,
2001, pursuant to paragraph (D) of the Order Amending License, issued November 9,
2000, is approved.
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the
Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to
18 CFR §385.713.
George H. Taylor
Group Leader
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance

ALCOA
Alcoa Primary Metals
-9 1. 04 Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Yadkin Division
PO Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009-0576
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 9, 2001
Mr. David P. Boergers, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington DC 20426
G
Ke: YaQKm n uruc,o-ui- _ ��, —
Of Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or
Relocation Of Lan Trees
Secretary Boergers:
On November 9, 2000 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its
Order Amending License for the Yadkin Project (Order). In that Order, FERC approved
with modifications the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), which was filed by Yadkin,
Inc. on July 1, 1999. On January 1, 2000, Yadkin, Inc. was merged into Tapoco, Inc. and
the name of the corporation was changed to Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) in a
reorganization approved by the Commission.' The Yadkin Division (Yadkin) of APGI
operates and manages the Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197.
FERC provided in its Order that:
"The licensee shall, within 120 days from the date of this order, file a supplement
which describes in further detail how it would implement those portions of the
Shoreline Plan which require mitigation for the removal of lap trees. The
supplement should describe the licensee's procedures for selecting mitigation
sites (where replacement lap trees would be located), the procedures for deciding
when replacement trees should be cabled in place and how that cabling is
performed, and any alternatives that do not require using cabling. The
supplement should also describe alternative means of mitigation such as replacing
trees only along areas of shoreline designated as conservation zones or anchoring
woody debris in areas of deeper water which are not typically exposed during
1 Alcoa Inc., et al., 88 FERC 162.173 (1999). The Commission approved the request to transfer the Project
license from Yadkin, Inc. to Alma Power Generating* Inc. in Docket No. 2197-039. Yadkin, Inc.. 92 FERC
162,029 (July 17, 2000).
FERC DOCKETED
MAR 9 2001
��031�1.0�3a�3

winter drawdowns. The licensee shall consult with the North Carolina
Department of Wildlife Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the High
Rock Lake Association, and Lake Badin Associates, giving each of these entities
at least 30 days to review and comment on a draft copy of the supplement before
filing the supplement with the Commission. The supplement shall contain copies
of any comments provided by the above entities, together with the licensee's
response."
On January 17, 2001, in accordance with the Commission's Order, APGI sent a draft of
its Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management
Plan Relating To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees (draft Procedures) to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), High Rock Lake Association (HRLA), and Lake Badin Associates
(LBA), requesting their review and comment within 30 days.
NCWRC, USFWS, and LBA provided written comments on the draft Procedures by
letters dated February 14 and 15, 2001 respectively. HRLA provided comments by
telephone call with APGI on February 15, 2001. Based on these comments, APGI
revised the draft Procedures and, in compliance with FERC's Order, is submitting the
revised Procedures herewith.
APGI's March 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of The Shoreline
Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees include some
changes from the practices APGI has followed since implementation of the SMP on July
1, 1999. As a result, APGI will begin implementation of the March 2001 Procedures
effective April 8, 2001, thirty (30) days from the date of this filing, March 9, 2001.
Attached are the following:
• Attachment A — APGI's revised Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions
Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap
Trees, March 2001
• Attachment B — Summary Of Agency And Non -Governmental Organization
Comments On Draft — January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of Those
Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or
Relocation Of Lap Trees, Together With APGI's Responses
• Attachment C — Agency And Non -Governmental Organization Comments On Draft —
January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of The Shoreline
Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees, and
• Attachment D — Draft — January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of Those
Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To The Removal Or
Relocation Of Lap Trees

Please call me at 704-422-5606 if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Gene Ellis
Environmental and Natural Resources Manager
Attachments
cc:
Mr. Henry Booke, President
High Rock Lake Association
P.O. Box 159
Southmont, NC 27351
Mr. Dan Slone
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP
Washington Square
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5317
Ms. Cynthia Dohner
US Fish & Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30345
Mr. Chris Goudreau
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Rt. 6, Box 685
Marion, NC 28752-9229
Mr. Chip Conner, Project Director
Uwharrie Point
1520 Uwharrie Point Parkway
Badin Lake, NC 28127
Mr. John Ellis
US Fish & Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Mr. Frank McBride
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188

Attachment A
Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of
The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To
The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees
March 2001

Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of
The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To
The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees
March 2001
The following procedures are used by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) in
implementing those portions of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on July 1, 1999, and approved with
modifications on November 9, 2000, relating to removal or relocation of lap trees.
1. Background
As a FERC licensee, APGI, through its Yadkin Division, operates and manages the
Yadkin Project reservoirs in accordance with the terms of its license and the applicable
rules and regulations of FERC. Among other things, this responsibility includes the
protection of important natural, environmental, cultural, and scenic resources. APGI
takes this stewardship responsibility very seriously and is committed to the protection and
enhancement of these resources within the Project boundary and on lands adjacent to the
Project reservoirs.
To assist in the stewardship of its reservoirs, APGI has developed a Shoreline
Stewardship Policy, attached as an appendix to the SMP (Stewardship Policy). In brief,
the Stewardship Policy summarizes APGI's policies, procedures, and requirements
regarding use of the Project lands and waters by adjoining property owners and others.
APGI's highest priority, as stated in the Stewardship Policy, is to preserve the natural
character of the shoreline as it exists today.
In certain circumstances, as stated in the SMP and the Stewardship Policy, APGI will
permit modifications to the shoreline and the Yadkin -Managed Buffer. t Even where
permitted by APGI, APGI expects alterations to the shoreline and the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer to be minimized, and if such alteration will result in adverse impacts to reservoir
or shoreline resources or Project operations, these impacts must be adequately mitigated.
Consistent with APGI's above -stated priority, the SMP and its supporting appendices
including the Stewardship Policy contain specific provisions regarding lap trees.' The
Along many areas of the reservoir shorelines the Yadkin Division of APGI manages property that is
owned by APGI or its parent company, Alcoa Inc. (Alcoa). Often ownership of these shoreline parcels is to
a specific elevation contour and, therefore, the width of these parcels can vary considerably depending on
the shoreline topography. On Narrows Reservoir, APGI/Alcoa owns a narrow strip of shoreline property
around nearly the entire reservoir, generally to an elevation of 545.0 feet (Yadkin datum), approximately 4
vertical feet above the normal full -pool elevation. APGI/Alcoa also owns some strips of shoreline property
around portions of High Rock Reservoir. Collectively, these strips of shoreline property, to the extent they
extend no more than 100 feet from the Project Boundary are considered "Yadkin -Managed Buffer".
z Tree laps or lap trees are defined as trees, living or dead, overhanging or hanging into the water. SMP,
Section 11.0, Glossary of Terms, p. 11-3.

SMP expressly recognizes that downed trees, lap trees, logs, stumps, and brush all create
excellent cover for juvenile and adult fish and are the places most likely to be inhabited
by important game species. These habitats, especially those partially exposed to the air,
are also important to birds, turtles, and other wildlife.
Additionally, in order to help maintain valuable fish and wildlife habitat in and around
the reservoirs, APGI has adopted certain general protective measures. First, the
relocation or removal of dead trees, lap trees, stumps, or other woody or natural debris
from the reservoirs or the Yadkin -Managed Buffer is prohibited without specific written
permission from APGI. Such material provides cover for fish, and its presence enhances
fish and wildlife habitat in and around the reservoirs. APGI may grant a permit for
woody debris removal or relocation on a case-by-case basis for purposes of safety or
recreational access. However, floating debris, litter and trash (bottles, cans, tires, plastic
containers, Styrofoam, logs, etc.) can be removed from the reservoir and shoreline at any
time, and removal does not require APGI's approval as long as the method of removal
complies with other requirements of the Stewardship Policy.
In addition to the above-mentioned protective measures and in order to support North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (NCWRC) efforts to enhance fish cover and
habitat, as well as other wildlife habitat, in and around the reservoirs, APGI allows
NCWRC, upon APGI's written permission, to create lap trees from trees on the Yadkin -
Managed Buffer even if APGI, in its SMP, has not classified the specific area of the
Yadkin -Managed Buffer as a conservation zone. APGI also allows NCWRC, upon
APGI's written permission, to install living plant material and create underwater structure
intended to improve fish and wildlife habitat in and around the reservoirs. Consequently,
NCWRC has the opportunity to create fish and wildlife habitat in areas along the
shoreline on the Yadkin -Managed Buffer and within the Project where it believes that
additional habitat would benefit fish and other wildlife.
Most often, the desire to remove or relocate lap trees from or within the Project arises in
the context of determining the location for a new private pier.3 From time to time, an
adjoining property owner (usually with an existing pier or other recreational facility)
comes to APGI with a request to remove a lap treed
In the context of a new private pier, Yadkin's Specifications for Private Recreation Facilities at High
Rock and Narrows Reservoirs (Specifications) (Section III.A.7) state that for individual piers, "a pier will
be located as near as possible to the middle of the applicant's lolls), and the pier should not encroach across
the extended adjoining property owner's side lot lines." For new shared piers, the Specifications (Section
III.B. l) note: "Shared piers must be located on or close to the adjoining property line." These criteria are
designed to maximize the separation between piers thereby lessening potential navigation and congestion
issues.
Issues regarding relocation or removal of lap trees also arise in the context of evaluating a developer's
proposal for new or modified multi -use facilities. The presence of lap trees is one of the many
considerations in determining the type and location of any facilities that are ultimately considered for
permitting by APGI.

After detennining the generally desirable area for locating the new pier within Yadkin's
Specifications and in keeping with APGI's goal of preservation of the natural shoreline as
it exists today and barring any navigational or recreational issues potentially posed by
leaving lap trees in place, APGI attempts to locate the pier and associated access path
where there are natural openings along the shoreline in order to avoid or, if not possible,
to minimize, the removal of any vegetation, including lap trees.
2. Procedures for Evaluating Lap Tree Removal or Relocation
In connection with the siting of a new individual or shared pier or in response to a request
by an adjoining property owner, APGI's goal is to avoid the removal or relocation of any
vegetation and therefore, to leave lap trees in place. However, in those instances where
APGI does allow the removal or relocation of lap trees, APGI uses the following process
(in sequential order) to determine whether to allow removal rather than relocation, the
type of mitigation required for removal, and where any mitigation measures should be
installed.
a. Relocation or Removal Determination
As the first step in the process, APGI will assess whether, in lieu of removal, the
lap trees at issue (particularly lap trees with a complex branching structure)
should be relocated to another area along the shoreline within the reservoir area
defined by extending the adjoining property owner's side lot lines into the
reservoir. Relocation of lap trees is preferable to removal. In making the
determination of relocation or removal, APGI assesses the surrounding natural
and environmental resources, as well as navigational and recreational safety.
Specific considerations in this assessment include the complexity of existing lap
tree branching structure, density of shoreline cover in close proximity to the site,
proximity of adjoining lots, and location and size of proposed or existing
recreational facilities and other structures.
b. Mitigation Required
Where lap trees are relocated rather than removed, no mitigation is required
because there is no net loss of habitat resulting from the relocation.
Where lap trees are removed rather than relocated, mitigation is required to
compensate for the loss of habitat. Typically, APGI will allow the adjoining
property owner to remove the lap trees and replace them with other, preferably
similar in species, size, and branching structure, lap trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -
removal ratio.
o APGI generally requires that the replacement lap trees come from an area
inland more than 100 feet from non -nal full pool. For replacement lap
trees originating from such an inland area, no other mitigation is required.

o If replacement lap trees are not available from an inland area of the lot,
APGI may consider allowing the adjoining property owner to cut dead,
dying, or diseased trees within the area 100 feet from the normal full pool
for use as replacement lap trees.
For replacement lap trees originating in the area between 100 feet
from normal full pool and the Yadkin -Managed Buffer (where
applicable) or normal full pool, APGI will encourage the adjoining
property owner to mitigate the cutting of replacement lap trees by
the on -land planting of replacement trees preferably within the
same area.
■ For replacement lap trees originating from the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer, APGI will require the adjoining property owner to mitigate
the cutting of replacement lap trees by planting replacement trees
at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio preferably within the
Yadkin -Manager Buffer.
Replacement trees for planting on the adjoining lot or the Yadkin -
Managed Buffer must be species native to the Project area as
defined in the Stewardship Policy and suitable for site-specific
growing conditions.
In infrequent instances, APGI may allow the removal of existing lap trees without
requiring the installation of replacement lap trees. In making this determination,
APGI assesses the surrounding natural and environmental resources, as well as
navigational and recreational safety. Specific considerations in this assessment
include the density of shoreline cover in close proximity to the site, proximity of
adjoining lots, and location and size of proposed or existing recreational facilities
and other structures. In these instances, APGI will instead require the adjoining
property owner to mitigate the removal of the lap trees by planting replacement
trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio in an inland area preferably within 100
feet of normal full pool. Replacement trees for on -land planting must be species
native to the Project area as defined in the Stewardship Policy and suitable for
site-specific growing conditions.
c. Criteria for Site Selection
In detennining where to position relocated or replacement lap trees, APGI
assesses the surrounding natural and environmental resources, as well as
navigational and recreational safety. Specific considerations in this assessment
include the complexity of relocated/replacement lap tree branching structure,
density of shoreline cover in close proximity to the site, proximity of adjoining
lots, and location and size of proposed or existing recreational facilities and other
structures. Thus, relocated or replacement lap trees generally must be positioned
at or near the corner(s) of the adjoining lot(s), and away from the area of heaviest

navigational or recreational use of that section of shoreline. In addition, APGI
considers whether the location of the relocated or replacement lap trees will
provide a good amount of cover for fish adjacent to each adjoining lot. To that
end, APGI strives to position the lap tree such that the top of the lap tree is in a
minimum of four to six feet of water at normal full pool.
3. Techniques For Adding Trees As Cover
Generally, APGI requires that relocated or replacement lap trees be cabled in order to
prevent the lap tree from drifting and/or causing a navigational or safety issue. Once a
replacement lap tree has been cut free from the root ball or stump and relocated to an
appropriate location along the shoreline (if necessary), a hole is drilled through the trunk
of the tree 12" to 14" from the butt of the tree. Another hole is drilled in the stump or an
anchor is driven into the shoreline and a piece of plastic -coated steel cable, at least '/4" in
diameter, is passed through the hole drilled in the butt of the tree and secured to the
stump or anchor driven into
the ground. The cable is
then secured with a clamp.
In instances where drilling a
hole is not possible,
wrapping the cable around
the tree in a manner so as to
prevent the cable from
coming loose, then securing
the cable to the stump or
anchor driven into the
ground, is acceptable.
Anchors will be of suitable
size and material to provide
long-term secure attachment
of the tree.
If lap trees have been cut with a hinge cut (another
method of securing a lap tree) and allowed to fall into
the reservoir, or if there are existing lap trees naturally
attached to the shoreline, these lap trees need not be
cabled as long as they remain secure because drifting is
unlikely to occur.
4. Alternative Means of Mitigation
In accordance with Section 2.b., Mitigation Required, as
an alternative to lap tree replacements, on -land planting
of native species trees, preferably within 100 feet of the
shoreline, may be considered at 2:1 replacement -to -
removal ratio for each lap tree permitted to be removed.

APGI's highest priority under the Shoreline Stewardship Policy is to preserve the natural
character of the shoreline as it exists today. In keeping with this priority, after a site
assessment in which APGI determines that existing lap trees can be removed without
requiring the installation of replacement lap trees, the on -land planting of native species
within 100 feet of the shoreline at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio is the most effective
alternative to lap tree replacement in achieving this priority. APGI believes that the 2:1
replacement -to -removal ratio provides adjoining property owners with a disincentive to
removing existing lap trees and that the presence of such a disincentive is an important
component of APGI's efforts to preserve a natural shoreline.

Attachment B
Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Summary Of Agency And
Non -Governmental Organization Comments On
Draft — January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of
Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating
To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees,
Together With APGI's Responses

Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Summary Of Agency And
Non -Governmental Organization Comments On
Draft—January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of
Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating
To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees,
Together With APGI's Responses
General
• Comment. High Rock Lake Association (HRLA) indicates its concern with lap trees
is primarily boater safety.
Response. Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) is also concerned about boater
safety. As noted in the Procedures, navigational and recreational safety are primary
considerations in relocation, removal, and replacement of lap trees.
Section 1. Background
• Comment. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) comment that the Procedures should reflect that
lap trees are important not only to fish as habitat but also to other wildlife as habitat.
Response. APGI has revised Section 1., Background, of the Procedures to reflect that
lap trees are important not only to fish as habitat but also to other wildlife as habitat.
Section 2.a. Relocation or Removal Determination
• Comment. USFWS and NCWRC request more detail in explaining how APGI will
determine whether a lap tree should be removed versus relocated.
Response. AGPI has revised Section 2.a., Relocation or Removal Determination, of
the Procedures by providing the considerations for determining whether a lap tree
should be removed or relocated. These include an assessment of the surrounding
natural and environmental resources, as well as navigational and recreational safety.
Specific considerations include the complexity of existing lap tree branching
structure, density of shoreline cover in close proximity to the site, proximity of
adjoining lots, and location and size of proposed or existing recreational facilities and
other structures.
• Comment. NCWRC states that the definition of removal should be made clear.
Response. NCWRC is correct in its assumption that removal of a lap tree means
removing the lap tree from the Project. By removing the lap tree from the Project, the
tree no longer meets the definition of a lap tree in the SMP which is - trees, living or

dead, overhanging or hanging into the water. As provided in Section 2.a. of the
Procedures, Relocation or Removal Determination of the Procedures, relocation is
moving the lap tree to another area along the shoreline within the reservoir area
defined by extending the adjoining property owner's side lot lines into the reservoir.
Relocated lap trees continue to meet the definition a lap tree.
Section 2.b. Mitigation Required
Comment. Lake Badin Associates (LBA) reiterates its objection to the requirement in
the SMP that lap trees be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 replacement -to -removal. LBA
states that its comments on these Procedures should not be construed as acceptance of
the 2:1 replacement -to -removal mitigation requirement or a waiver of LBA's right to
challenge the requirement in court at a subsequent date.
Response. APGI is aware of LBA's objection to the 2:1 replacement -to -removal
mitigation requirement. In accordance with FERC's approval of the SMP, APGI will
continue to require the replacement of lap trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio
as specified in the Procedures. APGI believes that the 2:1 replacement -to -removal
ratio provides adjoining property owners with a disincentive to remove existing lap
trees and that the presence of such a disincentive is an important component of
APGI's efforts to preserve a natural shoreline.
Comment. NCWRC comments that trees that are relocated to other areas (such as the
Yadkin -Managed Buffer) or within the Project (such as being sunk in deep water)
should still require mitigation because there is a net loss of habitat along the
shoreline.
Response. Relocated lap trees are not removed from the Project. As noted above,
relocated lap trees are moved to another area along the shoreline within the reservoir
area defined by extending the adjoining property owner's side lot lines into the
reservoir. APGI does not require mitigation in instances when lap trees are relocated
rather than removed because there is no net loss of habitat resulting from the
relocation. Yadkin's Stewardship Policy provides that in cases where lap tree
removal is necessary, APGI will require replacement of the lap trees along the same
stretch of shoreline at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio. A requirement to place the
removed tree above the Project boundary or sink it in deeper water would impose an
additional mitigation requirement that is not required in the FERC -approved SMP.
Also, as noted above, the removal of lap trees from the Project means the tree no
longer meets the definition of a lap tree - trees, living or dead, overhanging or
hanging into the water. The removal of lap trees must be mitigated at a 2:1
replacement -to -removal ratio, as specified in the Procedures.
In order to support NCWRC's efforts to enhance fish cover and habitat, as well as
other wildlife habitat, in and around the reservoirs, APGI allows NCWRC, upon
APGFs written permission, to create lap trees from the Yadkin -Managed Buffer even

if APGI, in its SMP, has not classified the specific area of the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer as a conservation zone. APGI also allows NCWRC, upon APGI's written
permission, to install living plant material and create underwater structure intended to
improve fish and wildlife habitat, in and around the reservoirs. Consequently,
NCWRC has the opportunity to create fish and wildlife habitat in areas along the
shoreline on the Yadkin -Managed Buffer and within the Project where it believes that
additional habitat would benefit fish and other wildlife.
Comment. USFWS states that replacement lap trees should be of a similar size and
branching structure.
Response. APGI has revised Section 2.b., Mitigation Required, of the Procedures to
clarify that required replacement lap trees should be similar in species, size, and
branching structure.
Comment. NCWRC and USFWS recommend that relocation of lap trees should be
mitigated with the use of Fish Friendly Piers if replacement lap trees are not available
from either outside or inside the 100 -foot buffer.
Response. The Procedures have been developed in response to FERC's Order
Approving the SMP in which FERC required that procedures be developed in order to
implement those portions of the Shoreline Management Plan which require mitigation
for the removal of lap trees. FERC required APGI to develop an implementation plan
in light of "safety concerns with respect to areas where recreational boating may
occur in areas where downed trees have been cabled to the lake bed to prevent them
from drifting." (Order Approving SMP, at p. 12). The Order thus requires that APGI
discuss procedures for selecting mitigation sites (where replacement lap trees would
be relocated), the procedures for deciding when replacement trees should be cabled in
place and how that cabling is performed, and any alternatives that do not require
cabling. The Order also states that the procedures should discuss "alternative" means
of mitigation. (Order Approving SMP, at p. 16.) The Procedures are not intended
nor required to be a vehicle for the imposition of new or additional requirements for
the mitigation of relocation or removal of lap trees.
Fish friendly piers are a concept recently introduced by NCWRC as part of a
subdivision Environmental Assessment review on one of Yadkin's reservoirs.
Therefore, fish friendly piers were not considered during the development of the
SMP. APGI is willing, however, to consider discussing this concept with agencies,
developers or adjoining property owners, in the course of Environmental Assessment
or Agency Consultation review for new subdivisions, new or modified multi -use
facilities, or industrial facilities.
Comment. NCWRC comments that lap trees removed completely from the Project
should be replaced with a similar sized lap tree, a tree sunk in deep water, or a Fish
Friendly Pier. In addition, replacement lap trees taken from within 100 feet of normal
full pond should require other mitigation because there is a net loss to the aquatic/

terrestrial system. These replacement trees should be replanted with sapling trees.
NCWRC finally states that use of dead and diseased trees should not be singled out
for use as replacement lap trees because they are uncommon and are used as habitat
by certain wildlife.
Response. Please see response to previous comment by NCWRC and USFWS in
which APGI states that the objective of these Procedures is to implement certain
portions of the SMP. These Procedures are not required nor intended to impose new
or additional requirements for the removal of lap trees.
Additionally, as noted above, APGI has clarified that replacement lap trees should be
similar in species, size, and branching structure. Also as noted above, fish friendly
piers are a new concept recently introduced by NCWRC as part of a subdivision
Environmental Assessment review. Therefore, fish friendly piers were not considered
during the development of the SMP. APGI is willing to consider discussing this
concept with agencies, developers or adjoining property owners, in the course of
Environmental Assessment or Agency Consultation review for new subdivisions, new
or modified multi -use facilities, or industrial facilities.
Similarly, APGI has worked with NCWRC and developers in placement of
underwater structure (such as trees sunk in deep water) in the past, but creation of
additional underwater habitat was not considered within the development of the SMP.
APGI has concerns that creation of underwater habitat is beyond the means and
ability of most adjoining property owners. APGI is willing, however, to consider
discussing this concept with agencies, developers or adjoining property owners in the
course of Environmental Assessment or Agency Consultation review for new
subdivisions, new or significantly modified multi -use facilities, or industrial facilities.
APGI has revised Section 2.b., Mitigation Required, of the Procedures to reflect that
revegetation will be encouraged in the 100 -foot area and required on the Yadkin -
Managed Buffer. This is in keeping with the Voluntary Shoreline Stewardship
Measures of the Stewardship Policy in which APGI encourages adjoining property
owners to take several measures to preserve and create a natural forested shoreline. In
instances where replacement trees are being replanted on the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer, these replacement trees must be species native to the Project area as defined
in the Stewardship Policy and suitable for site-specific growing conditions.
Finally, the Stewardship Policy states that any tree posing an imminent threat to life
or property may be removed. On an adjoining property owner's lot, the owner of the
lot may remove such trees without prior consultation or permission from APGI. On
the Yadkin -Managed Buffer, written permission from APGI to remove dead, dying,
or diseased trees that potentially create a safety or recreational access issue or pose an
imminent threat to life or property would customarily be given even in instances
where the tree is not to be used as a replacement lap tree. In Yadkin's experience,
there have been instances where dead, dying, or diseased trees are appropriate for use
as replacement lap trees.

Comment. LBA states that the requirement that mitigation trees be taken from above
the 100 -foot zone appears contrary to other policies of the SMP and will eventually
result in the clear -cutting of the lot area above the 100 -foot zone. LBA states that
APGI should allow replacement lap trees to come from any location.
Response. It appears that LBA may have misunderstood when replacement of lap
trees will be required as mitigation. Mitigation is only required in those instances
when the adjoining property owner is seeking to remove a lap tree. As long as the lap
tree remains in place or is relocated, replacement lap trees are not required. Thus,
APGI does not believe that this requirement is contrary to other policies of the SMP
nor does it envision that clear -cutting of the lot above the 100 -foot zone will occur as
a result of implementation of the Procedures.
APGI has revised Section 2.b., Mitigation Required, of the Procedures and clarified
that replacement lap trees can come from any area inland more than 100 feet from
normal full pool to allow flexibility for adjoining property owners to find other
sources of replacement lap trees in addition to those on the adjoining lot. APGI has
additionally clarified that dead, dying, or diseased trees from within 100 feet of
normal full pool will be considered for use as replacement lap trees when replacement
lap trees are not available on the lot above 100 feet of normal full pool.
• Comment. High Rock Lake Association (HRLA) suggests that APGI clarify that
replacement lap trees should come from the area 100 feet inland of normal full pool,
as opposed to from within the reservoir.
Response. APGI has revised Section 2.b., Mitigation Required, of the Procedures and
made the requested clarification.
Comment. NCWRC comments that if replacement of lap trees is determined to be
unfeasible, off-site mitigation should be examined. Options include felling a lap tree
in another portion of the lake where aquatic cover is sparse or, planting trees within
the 100 -foot buffer where terrestrial cover is limited.
Response. In those infrequent instances where APGI allows removal of existing lap
trees, without requiring installation of replacement lap trees, APGI requires 2:1
replacement -to -removal on -land mitigation by requiring adjoining property owners to
plant trees, native to the Project area, within 100 feet of the full pool elevation. APGI
also grants NCWRC permission to create lap trees, enhance underwater structure, and
install living plant material on the Yadkin -Managed Buffer along shoreline areas or
within the Project where aquatic cover will enhance fish and other wildlife habitat.
APGI's highest priority under the Stewardship Policy is to preserve the natural
shoreline as it exists today. With regard to instances where replacement of lap trees is
unfeasible, APGI is not aware of any measure other than the replanting of trees that as
effectively achieves the priority of preservation of the natural shoreline as it exists
today. Options such as fish -friendly piers or sinking trees in the reservoir are limited

and may not as effectively preserve the natural shoreline. In fact, APGI is concerned
that the availability of these alternatives could in fact have the opposite effect of
diminishing the natural character of the shoreline by encouraging adjoining property
owners to remove lap trees.
Comment. LBA supports the concept of planting trees along the shore at a 2:1
replacement -to -removal ratio and recommends that the availability of this approach
be expanded. LBA also states that species (such as black willow) should include
trees that have a higher overall value than the pines currently growing along the
shore. LBA also requests that the location of the planting be determined in
cooperation with the adjoining property owner.
Response. APGI has maintained the concept of 2:1 replacement -to -removal on -land
planting mitigation in those infrequent instances where installation of replacement lap
trees does not take place. APGI's highest priority, as stated in the Stewardship
Policy, is to preserve the natural character of the shoreline as it exists today.
Additional removal of the existing trees along the shoreline would not be consistent
with that priority. The natural character of the shoreline is also maintained by
requiring replacement trees (such as black willow) to be native to the Project area as
defined in the Stewardship Policy and suitable for site-specific growing conditions.
Location of the replacement trees, while limited to the 100 -foot zone, is determined in
cooperation between APGI and the adjoining property owner.
Comment. NCWRC recommends changes to eliminate the suggestion that existing
significant cover precludes the need for mitigation. NCWRC makes similar
recommendations with regard to implications in Section 5., Alternative Means of
Mitigation, of the draft Procedures. USFWS requests that first sentence of the third
paragraph in the draft Procedures be changed in order to clarify when APGI will
allow the removal of lap trees without requiring the installation of mitigation
replacement lap trees. USFWS requests a similar wording change to Section 5 of the
draft Procedures.
Response. APGI has revised the third paragraph of Section 2.b., Mitigation Required,
to eliminate language with regard to significant cover and replaces it with what APGI
considers during this determination. APGI has similarly revised Section 4.,
Alternative Means of Mitigation (formerly Section 5) of the Procedures. APGI also
further clarifies that when it determines that removal of lap trees does not require
replacement lap trees, other mitigation is still required on the adjoining property
owner's lot within 100 feet of normal full pool.
• Comment. USFWS recommends that in addition to requiring mitigation for
replacement of lap trees at a 2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio, Yadkin require
adjoining property owners to begin managing the 100 -foot buffer zone in a manner
consistent with the SMP.

Response. In the SMP, Yadkin requires all lots in new subdivisions platted and
recorded on or after July 1, 1999 to satisfy certain requirements for a 100 -foot
forested setback as a condition of eligibility for private individual piers, shared piers,
or use of, or private access to the Project lands and waters. These provisions of the
SMP do not apply to lots in older subdivisions whose owners may be requesting
permission to remove lap trees.
APGI currently encourages all adjoining property owners to implement the
recommendations in the Stewardship Policy's Voluntary Shoreline Stewardship
Measures.
Section 2.c. Criteria for Site Selection
• Comment. NCWRC recommends changes to Section 2.c., Criteria for Site Selection,
including a discussion of how APGI selects replacement lap trees and how APGI
determines the location for positioning "sunk" trees.
Response. APGI has revised Section 2.c., Criteria for Site Selection, and included a
discussion on how it selects replacement lap trees as well as how it determines where
to position the replacement lap trees. These factors include the complexity of the
relocated/replacement lap tree branching structure, density of shoreline cover in close
proximity to the site, proximity of adjoining lots, and location and size of proposed or
existing recreational facilities and other structures.
Section 3. Procedures With Regard to Cabling and
Section 4. Alternatives That Do Not Require Cabling
Comment. NCWRC suggests that Sections 3 and 4 be combined in order to eliminate
redundancies and title the new Section 3. Techniques For Adding Trees As Cover
Response. APGI has revised the Procedures, adopting NCWRC's suggested
revisions.
Comment. USFWS comments that anchors used for cabling should be of suitable size
and material to provide long-term attachment of the lap tree.
Response. APGI has revised Section 3., Techniques For Adding Trees As Cover, of
the Procedures accordingly.
Comment. LBA questions how the cabling or hinge cut options are available if two
mitigation trees are being utilized from the lot interior to replace a lap tree. In other
words, LBA questions how such trees are to be secured. LBA also reiterates its
comments from earlier proceedings that it would like to use loop cabled trees
relocated to deeper water as mitigation for the removal of lap trees.

Response. Section 3., Techniques For Adding Trees As Cover, of the Procedures
describes when and how replacement or relocated lap trees will be cut, cabled, and
anchored.
As stated above, APGI is willing to discuss the sinking of trees with agencies,
developers or adjoining property owners in the course of Environmental Assessment
or Agency Consultation review for new subdivisions, new or modified multi -use
facilities, or industrial facilities.
Section 5. Alternative Means of Mitigation
Comment. NCWRC and USFWS briefly repeat their comments with regard to
Section 2.b. Mitigation Required
Response. See APGI's Responses to Comments on Section 2.b. Mitigation Required.

Attachment C
Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Agency And Non -Governmental Organization Comments On
Draft — January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of
Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating
To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees

United States Department of the Interior
1
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Poci Office Box 33726
Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27636-3726
February 14, 2001
Mr. Gene Ellis
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Yadkin Division
Post Office Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009-0576
Dcar Mr. Ellis:
Thank you for the Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197-- Procedures For Implementation of
'those Portions of the Shoreline Management Plan Relating to the Removal or Relocation
of Lap Trees (Procedures) transmitted with a January 17, 2001, letter, These comments arc
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Power Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 79la-825r), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The procedures are well written. However, they refer only to juvenile and adult fish.
Woody debris provides cover and perch sites for a multitude of wildlife ranging from birds,
to reptiles, to insects. Many of these values are not mitigated through placement of trees if
they are inundated for most of the year. The document should be worded to reflect this
important contribution of lap trees.
Section 2a
The criteria used to decide if a lap tree will be removed or relocated should be included in
the document.
Section 2b
Replacement lap trees should be of a similar size and branching structure.
Replace the first sentence in the third paragraph with, "In infrequent instances, APGI may
allow the removal of existing tree laps without requiring the installation of replacement lap
trees because there is already significant cover in the reservoir, in close proximity to the
site, such that the additional cover provided by replacement lap trees will not significantly
enhance fish and wildlife habitat or APGi has determined that no additional lap trees could
be added to the lot's shoreline without creating a potential safely or navigational issue."
Planting trees at a 2:1 ratio alone will provide only limited benefits to fish and wildlife.
Yadkin should also require Ore adjacent property owner to begin managing the 100- foot
buffer zone in a manner consistent with the Shoreline Management Plan and develop a
"fish friendly pier" by placing and maintaining brush under any pier on the properly.

Section 3
Anchors should be of suitable size and material to provide a long-term secure attachment of
the tree.
Section 5
As stated above, planting trees at a 2:1 ratio alone, will provide only limited benefits to fish
and wildlife. Yadkin should also require the adjacent property owner to begin managing
the 100 -foot buffer zone in a manner consistent with the Shoreline Management Plan and
develop a "fish friendly pier" by placing and maintaining brush under any pier on the
properly.
Replace the second sentence with, "This will only occur in cases, where there is already
significant cover in the reservoir, in close proximity to the site, such that the additional
cover provided by replacement trees will not significantly ... "
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments, and looks forward to
continuing to work with CP&L in the development of a shoreline management plan. ]f you
have any questions, please contact John Ellis at [phone], Ext. 26.
Sincerely,
ZX
r. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Cantrell, USFWS
McBride, NCWRC
Goudreau, NCWRC
FWS/R4:JE11is:JEE:2-14-01:919-856-4520, ext. 26-B:ydknwdbri

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, F,xecutive Director
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752-9229
February 14, 2001
Mr. Gene Ellis
Environmental and Natural Resources Manager
APGI - Yadkin Division
P.O. Box 576
Badin, NC 28009-0576
Subject: Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2197
Procedures for Removal or Relocation of Lap Trees
Dear Gene:
We have reviewed the referenced plan dated January 17, 2001. The plan is required as part of the
November 9, 2000 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order amending the license for the Yadkin
project. We provide the following comments according to provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
79 la et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.).
Section 1. BactgtonA
The fourth paragraph mentions the importance of lap trees to fish. A sentence should be added to reflect
that these habitats, especially those partially exposed to the air, also are important to birds, turtles and
other wildlife. The rest of the document should refledthis change (i.e., "fish habitat" should be "fish and
wildlife habitat").
Section 2a. Ripogation or Removal [e-mail]
It is not clear why the choice would be made to remove vs. relocate a lap tree. This section needs more
detail in explaining how the relocation vs. removal determination will be made. In other sections of the
document, it appears that things such as complexity of the lap tree, density of shoreline cover adjacent to
the landowner's lot, proximity of the lap tree to adjoining lots, safety and navigation issues are
considerations. These things need to be specifically fisted in this section. Also, the word "generally"
should be deleted from the last sentence.
The definition of removal should be made clear. I assume this means removing the lap tree completely
from the project. However, it could be dragged upland and placed on APGI property to provide terrestrial
hl ailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries •1721Mail ScrvkeCenter •Raleigh,NC27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext, 281 • Fax: [phone]

Yadkin Tree Lap Plan Page 2 February 14, 2001
habitat or taken to deeper water and sunk to provide aquatic habitat. In these cases, it is "removed" as a
lap tree, but "relocated' to provide a different ecological function.
Section 2b, Mitigation Required
We agree that lap trees relocated along the shore as a lap tree (in-kind relocation) requires no mitigation.
Trees relocated to other areas within the project to a different habitat type as described above (out -of -kind
relocation) should still require mitigation because there is a net loss of habitat along the shoreline. A
similar -sized lap tree should be installed along the shoreline. If a source for the replacement lap tree is not
available from outside or inside the 100 -foot buffer, the landowner should be required to install a "Fish
Friendly Pier' as mitigation. The Fish Friendly Pier consists of a plastic structure filled with branches and
is located directly beneath a pier or dock. Scientists from N.C. State University and Duke Power are
studying these structures. Contact me if you wish to discuss this in more detail.
Lap trees removed completely front the project should be replaced with a similar -sized lap tree, a tree sunk
in deep water, or a Fish Friendly Pier. Replacement trees taken from within 100 feet of the normal full
pool require other mitigation because there is a net loss to the aquaticherrestrial system. Replacement trees
should be replanted with sapling trees. Also, since most of our forests consist of relatively young trees,
dead and diseased trees are uncommon. Use of these trees as tree laps will be detrimental to wildlife that
require such habitat. Therefore, dead and diseased trees should not be singled out for use as replacement
lap trees.
If replacement of lap trees is determined to be unfeasible, off-site mitigation should be examined. This
could include felling a lap tree in another portion of the lake where aquatic cover is sparse, or planting trees
within the 100 -foot buffer where terrestrial cover is limited.
With these changes, the third paragraph should be changed to eliminate the suggestion that existing
"significant cover" precludes the need for mitigation. Although cover in a giving location may be adequate,
there is ample opportunity to reestablish cover in other parts of the reservoir. Otherwise, the document will
need to define "significant cover' in a quantitative, objective way.
Section 2c. Criteria for Site Selection
This section should be expanded to include a discussion on selecting a replacement lap tree. Replacing a
hardwood tree that has a large crown with a pine tree with few branches will not be acceptable.
Replacement trees should be similar to those removed it size and type (hardwood or softwood).
The location for "sunk trees" should be in deep water and out of the main navigation corridors. The depth
will depend on the height of the tree and the normal drawdown water elevation.
Sections 3 and 4
These sections can be combined into one titled "Techniques for Adding Trees as Cover". It should also bo
expanded to include a paragraph about sinking trees in deep water.

Yadkin Tree Lap Plan Page 3 February 14, 2001
Section 5. Alternative Moans of Mitigation
Both sentences should be deleted because the emphasis appears to be on "significant cover". This section
should be rewritten to reflect the changes recommended for Section 2b by focusing on methods such as
sinking trees in deep water, moving lap trees to upland areas, Fish Friendly Piers, and replanting.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 828-652-4360.
Sincerely,
aZ6,0
Christopher Goudroau
Hydropower Rellconsing Coordinator
c: Frank McBride, Scott Van Hom, Danielle Ponder. Lawrence Dorsey (NCWRC)
Henry Booke (High Rock Lake Assoc.)
Dan Sloane (McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe)
Chip Conner (Uwharrie Point)
John Ellis, Cynthia Dohner (USFWS)
c:\myi4tta\word\hydro\yadkin\tree lip phdm

M<CakeWooda lV
One lumei Ccnw
901 Ease Can 54reei
Rlchmmk. vn 2)219.40)0
Phown 604 775.1000
Fa.: 004 M.1061
www.mcguimwood+,cum
Daniel iL Slone
Direst 804.77S, 1041
WGUIREWOODS
February 15, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE — 704-422-5776
Mr. Gene Ellis
Environmental and Natural Resources Manager
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
P. O. Box 576
Badin, NO 26109-0576
d1 one smcgu imwoodi, Con,
Dicta Fax'. BC4.b58.2175
Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197 -Procedures for Implementation of Those Portions of the
Shoreline Management Plan Relating to the Removal or Relocation of Lap Trees
Dear Gene:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced Procedures. These
comments are submitted on behalf of my client, Lake Badin Associates ("LBA"), developer of
Old North State at Uwhame Point on Badin Lake.
LOA has the following comments:
1. Ratios. As you may recall, we have objected to the requirement that lap trees be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1. There is no rationale that supports the notion that it
takes two dead trees in the water to replace one. Because FERC has endorsed
this approach and rejected our comments, there is no need to go into detail on
our objection at this time. Because we believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled requirements such as this illegal, we reserve this objection on behalf of LOA
and future residents of Uwharrie Point. Neither the comments of LBA nor its
compliance should be construed as acceptance of this policy or a waiver of the
right to challenge it in court at a subsequent date.
2, Removal of trees from lots. The requirement that mitigation trees be taken
from the lot above the 100' zone appears contrary to other policies advanced in
the Shoreline Management Plan. You have expressed concern regarding
screening houses from the lake and concern regarding maintaining canopy cover
for water quality and habitat. Requiring canopy trees to be re--"' , .a lot at
a ratio of 2:1 each time a tree falls into the lake has the opposite effect.
Considering the fact that lap trees are not a one time event but a continuing

Mr- Gene Ellis
February 15, 2001
Page 2
phenomenon, this approach will eventually result in clear cutting the lots above
the 100' zone. LBA does not object to the option of mitigating with these trees,
but believes that Alcoa should leave more flexibility to accept trees from any
location. If the trees are not coming from the 100' zone, what is the rationale for
limiting their sources? The provisions allowing the possibility of utilizing dead or
diseased trees from within the 100' zone are useful but should be elevated to a
first right. First, because it would be more consistent with good forest
management practices to remove these trees rather than '..- ._s and
second, because the trees within the 1W zone also belong to the property
owners, not Alcoa. Requiring a property owner to remove a healthy tree from
their property and leave a dying, perhaps dangerous tree on their property, is
inappropriate, unfair, bad forest management and sure to elevate hostile feelings
toward Alcoa.
3. Plantina trees. Allowing trees to be planted along the shore as mitigation is an
excellent idea. In this instance the 2:1 ratio makes sense. LBA encourages
Alcoa to expand the availability of this approach. This approach will not only lead
to more lap trees in the future, but has other immediate environmental benefits
as well. In LBA's comments submitted in the past, we have encouraged Alcoa to
consider species that would have a higher overall value than the pines currently
growing in this zone. We have suggested that willow species (such as black
willow) that shade the lake and even hang down into the water would have
immediate fish habitat value. LBA hopes that you will carefully examine this
option for a more sustainable lake side.
LBA's only concern with regard to this planting process is that the location of the
planting be in cooperation with the affected property owner so that it does not
compound view or access issues.
4. Cabling. The two options for sewring lap trees that seam w L_..-,ibed in
your initial draft are cabling to a stump or utilizing a hinge cut. If two mitigation
trees are being utilized from the lot interior to replace a lap tree in the area of a
pier, it does not appear that either of these options would be available. How are
such trees to be secured? Additionally, we have discussed in the past and would
like to continue to discuss in the future the use of loop cabled to deeper water as
fish attractors. Unlike the lap trees, these would have the advantage of
continuing to provide habitat value even when significant draw downs occur.

Mr. Gene Ellis
February 15, 2001
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact myself
or Chip Conner.
incerely, c�n
a4X L wr
Daniel K. Slone
/vej
a Cynthia Dohner — U.S. Fish & VYlldlife Service
Frank McBride — NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Chip Conner— Uwharrie Point
Chris Gaudreau — NC Wildlife Resources
Henry Booke — High Rock Lake Association
John Ellis — U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

O
14 A
Telephone Conversation Record
Alcoa Primary Metals
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Yadkin Division
PO Box 576
Badin, North Carolina 28009-0576
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Participants:
Mr. Henry Booke, High Rock Lake Association President
Gene Ellis, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Environmental & Natural
Resources Manager
I spoke to Mr. Booke on Feb. 15, 2001, about 1:30 p.m. The High Rock
Lake Association will not be providing written comments about APGI's
Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of The Shoreline
Management Plan That Require Mitigation For The Removal Of Lap Trees,
Draft — January 2001. Mr. Booke offered the following oral comments on
behalf of the Association though.
Page 4 - Section 2.b. - Last paragraph, next to last sentence. "In these
instances, APGI will instead require that the adjoining property owner
mitigate the removal of the lap trees by planting replacement trees at 2:1
replacement -to -removal ration in the area that is within 100' of normal full
pool." Mr. Booke suggests we clarify this by indicating that the area
described is inland, and not within the lake.
Page 5 - Section 2.c. - Last sentence. "In particular, APGI strives to
position the lap tree such that the top of the lap tree is in a minimum of four
to six feet of water at normal full pool." Mr. Booke says his concern all
along has been safety. Lap trees present a danger of boats running into
them.

Attachment D
Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Draft — January 2001 Procedures For Implementation Of
Those Portions Of The Shoreline Management Plan Relating
To The Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees

Yadkin Project, FERC No. 2197
Procedures For Implementation Of Those Portions Of
The Shoreline Management Plan Relating To The
Removal Or Relocation Of Lap Trees
Draft January 2001
The following procedures are used by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) in
implementing the portions of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), as filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on July 1, 1999, relating to removal or
relocation of lap trees.
I. Background
As a FERC licensee, APGI operates and manages the Yadkin Project reservoirs in
accordance with the terms of its license and the applicable rules and regulations of FERC.
Among other things, this responsibility includes the protection of important natural,
environmental, cultural, and scenic resources. APGI takes this stewardship responsibility
very seriously and is committed to the protection and enhancement of these resources
within the Project boundary and on lands adjacent to the Project reservoirs.
To assist in the stewardship of its reservoirs, APGI has developed a Shoreline
Stewardship Policy, attached as an appendix to the SMP (Stewardship Policy). In brief,
the Stewardship Policy summarizes APGI's policies, procedures, and requirements
regarding use of the Project lands and waters by adjoining property owners and others.
APGI's highest priority, as stated in the Stewardship Policy, is to preserve the natural
character of the shoreline as it exists today.
In certain circumstances, as stated in the SMP and the Stewardship Policy, APGI will
permit modifications to the shoreline and the Yadkin -Managed Buffer. Even where
permitted by APGI, APGI expects alterations to the shoreline and the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer to be minimized, and if such alteration will result in adverse impacts to reservoir
or shoreline resources or Project operations, these impacts must be adequately mitigated.
Consistent with APGI's above -stated priority, the SMP and its supporting appendices
including the Stewardship Policy contain specific provisions regarding lap trees., The
SMP expressly recognizes that downed trees, lap trees, logs, stumps, and brush all create
excellent cover for juvenile and adult fish and are the places most likely to be inhabited
by important game species.
Additionally, in order to help maintain valuable fish habitat in the reservoirs, APGI has
adopted certain general protective measures. First, the relocation or removal of dead
trees, lap trees, stumps, or other woody or natural debris from the reservoirs or the
' Tree laps or lap trees are defined as trees, living or dead, overhanging or hanging into the water. SMP,
Section 1 1.0, Glossary of Terms, p. 11-3,

Yadkin -Managed Buffer is prohibited without specific written permission from APGI.
Such material provides cover for fish, and its presence enhances fish habitat in the
reservoirs. APGI may grant a pen -nit for woody debris removal or relocation on a case-
by-case basis for purposes of safety or recreational access. However, floating debris,
litter and trash (bottles, cans, tires, plastic containers, Styrofoam, logs, etc.) can be
removed from the reservoir and shoreline at any time, and removal does not require
APGI's approval as long as the method of removal complies with other requirements of
the Stewardship Policy.
In addition to the above-mentioned protective measures and in order to support North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (NCWRC) efforts to enhance fish cover and
habitat on the reservoirs, APGI allows NCWRC, upon APGI's written permission, to
create lap trees on the Yadkin -Managed Buffer even if APGI, in its SMP, has not
classified the specific area of the Yadkin -Managed Buffer as a conservation zone.
Most often, the desire to remove or relocate lap trees arises in the context of determining
the location for a new private pier. From time to time, an adjoining property owner
(frequently with an existing pier) comes to APGI with a request to remove a lap tree .2
In the context of a new private pier, Yadkin's Specifications for Private Recreation
Facilities at High Rock and Narrows Reservoirs (Specifications) (Section III.A.7) state
that for individual piers, "a pier will be located as near as possible to the middle of the
applicant's lot(s), and the pier should not encroach across the extended adjoining
property owner's side lot lines." For new shared piers, the Specifications (Section
III.B.1) note: "Shared piers must be located on or close to the adjoining property line."
These criteria are designed to maximize the separation between piers thereby lessening
potential navigation and congestion issues.
After determining the generally desirable area for locating the new pier within the above
criteria and in keeping with APGI's goal of preservation of the natural shoreline as it
exists today and barring any navigational or recreational issues potentially posed by
leaving lap trees in place, APGI attempts to locate the pier and associated access path
where there are natural openings along the shoreline in order to avoid the removal of any
vegetation, including lap trees. If such natural openings are not sufficient to avoid the
removal of vegetation and again barring any navigational or recreational issues
potentially posed by leaving lap trees in place, APGI attempts to locate the pier and
associated access paths where there are natural openings in order to minimize the
removal of any vegetation.
z Issues regarding relocation or removal of lap trees also arise in the context of evaluating a developer's
proposal for new or expanded multi -use facilities. The presence of lap trees is one of the many
considerations in determining the type and location of any facilities that are ultimately considered for
permitting by APGI.

2. Procedures for Evaluating Lap Tree Removal or Relocation
In connection with the siting of a new individual or shared pier or in response to a request
by an adjoining property owner, APGI's goal is to avoid the removal or relocation of any
vegetation and therefore to leave lap trees in place. However, in those instances where
APGI does allow the removal or relocation of lap trees, APGI uses the following process
(in sequential order) to determine whether to allow removal rather than relocation, the
type of mitigation required for removal and where the mitigation measures should be
installed.
a. Relocation or Removal Determination
As the first step in the process, APGI will assess whether, in lieu of removal, the
lap trees at issue (particularly lap trees with a complex branching structure)
should be relocated to another area along the shoreline within the reservoir area
defined by extending the adjoining property owner's side lot lines into the
reservoir. Relocation of lap trees is generally preferable to removal.
b. Mitigation Required
Where lap trees are relocated rather than removed, no mitigation is required
because there is no net loss of habitat resulting from the relocation.
Where lap trees are removed, rather than relocated, mitigation is required to
compensate for the loss of habitat. Typically, APGI will allow the adjoining
property owner to remove the lap trees and replace them with other lap trees at a
2:1 replacement -to -removal ratio. APGI generally requires that the replacement
lap trees come from the interior of the adjoining property owner's lot (in an area
inland more than 100 feet of the normal full pool). If replacement lap trees are not
available from the interior of the lot, APGI may consider allowing the adjoining
property owner to cut a dead, dying, diseased, or low wildlife value (non -mast
producing) tree within the area 100 feet from the normal full pool for use as a
replacement lap tree.
In infrequent instances, APGI may allow the removal of existing lap trees without
requiring the installation of replacement lap trees because there is already
significant cover in the reservoir such that the additional cover provided by
replacement lap trees will not significantly enhance fish and wildlife habitat or
APGI has determined that no additional lap trees could be added to the lot's
shoreline without creating a potential safety or navigational issue. In these
instances, APGI will instead require that the adjoining property owner mitigate
the removal of the lap trees by planting replacement trees at 2:1 replacement -to -
removal ratio in the area that is within 100 feet of normal full pool. The
replacement trees must be species native to the Project area as defined in the
Stewardship Policy and suitable for site-specific growing conditions.

c. Criteria for Site Selection
In determining where to position relocated or replacement lap trees, APGI
considers several factors. In order to reduce the risk of damage to boats and injury
to swimmers, APGI requires that lap trees be positioned away from any existing
or proposed pier site. Thus, the lap tree must be positioned at or near the
corner(s) of the lot(s), and away from the area of heaviest recreational use of that
shoreline. At the same time, APGI also considers whether the location of the
relocated or replacement lap trees will provide a good amount of cover for fish
adjacent to each lot. In particular, APGI strives to position the lap tree such that
the top of the lap tree is in a minimum of four to six feet of water at normal full
pool.
3. Procedures With Regard To Cabling
Generally, APGI requires that relocated or replacement lap trees that have been moved to
a new location be cabled in order to prevent the lap tree from drifting and/or causing a
navigation or safety issue. Procedures for cabling are to make a plunge cut with a saw all
the way through the base of the trunk and the stump or to drill a hole into the lap tree
approximately 12" to 14" from the butt of the tree. A piece of plastic coated steel cable,
at least 1/4" inch thick, is then run through both cuts or inserted into the drilled hole. The
cable is then attached to a fencing stake or other anchor driven into the ground or cabled
to the cut tree stump on the adjoining property owner's lot or the Yadkin -Managed
Buffer.
If lap trees have been cut with a hinge cut (another method of securing a lap tree) and
allowed to fall into the shoreline, or if there are other lap trees already attached to the
shoreline, these lap trees will not be cabled as long as they remain secure.

PHOTO OF LAP TREE THAT HAS BEEN HINGE CUT.
4. Alternatives That Do Not Require Cabling
As noted above, replacement lap trees that have been cut with a hinge cut or are
otherwise securely and naturally attached to the shoreline will not be cabled. In these
instances, cabling is not necessary because the replacement lap trees are naturally secured
to the shoreline such that it is unlikely that drifting of the lap trees will occur.
5. Alternative Means of Mitigation
As noted above, on -land planting of native trees within 100 feet of the shoreline at 2:1
replacement -to -removal ratio for each lap tree permitted to be removed may be
considered as an alternative to lap tree replacement in areas where existing shoreline
cover is abundant and additional lap trees cannot be sited without creating a navigational
or recreational issue. In these cases, there is already significant cover in the reservoir such
that the additional cover provided by replacement lap trees will not significantly enhance
fish and wildlife habitat or APGI has determined that no additional lap trees could be
added to the lot's shoreline without creating a potential safety or navigational issue.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused a copy of the foregoing PROCEDURES
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PLAN RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF LAP
TREES to be served on each party designated on the official service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Project No. 2197.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 9th day of March, 2001.
Paul C. Freeman
DC 185953.1 02401 00307
3/9/01 11:31 AM