4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS 6

GLOSSARY 6

INTRODUCTION 8

CHAPTER 1: THE HISTORY AND REGULATORY BASIS FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT 

The Federal Power Act 11

Public Recreation 	 	 12

 License Article 5 12

Standard Land Use Article 12

Evolving Management and Planning at Project Shorelines 15

CHAPTER 2: PRE-PLANNING ACTIVITIES 

Goals and Objectives 17

Gathering Information 18

Lands 20

Natural Resources 20

Water Quality 22

Recreational Use 22

Socioeconomics 23

Aesthetic Resources 24

Cultural Resources 25

Identifying Preliminary Stakeholder Concerns, Goals, and Issues 25
5

CHAPTER 3: PREPARING A SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Stakeholder Involvement in the Planning and Development Process 27

Types of Stakeholders 27

Opportunities for Stakeholder Involvement 29

Items Typically Included in Shoreline Management Plans 30

Shoreline Use Classification Strategies 31

Shoreline Management Policies, Permits, and Guidelines 33

CHAPTER 4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF A SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 37

CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTING THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Using the Shoreline Management Plan to Guide Future Development 40

Using the Shoreline Management Plan to Carry Out the Intent of the 

Standard Land Use Article and Other License Requirements 41

Enforcement of the Shoreline Management Plan 41

Shoreline Monitoring and Updating the Shoreline Management Plan 42

CONCLUSION 44

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Key License Conditions

Section 10 (a) (1) and 4(e) of the Federal Power Act 45

Standard Article 5 46

Standard Article 18 46

Standard Land Use Article 46

18 CFR Section 2.7 49

Appendix B. Example List of Commission Approved Shoreline Management Plans 51

Appendix C. Links to Other Useful Commission Guidance Documents 52

Appendix D. Example List of Commission and Delegated Orders on Shoreline Management Topics 53
6

LIST OF ACRONYMNS

Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EA: environmental assessment

FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)

FPA: Federal Power Act

GIS: geographic information system

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NGOs non-governmental organizations

SCORP: state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer

SMP: shoreline management plan

THPO: Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

GLOSSARY TERMS

Cultural Resources: Culturally valued aspects of the environment that generally include historic properties, other culturally 

valued pieces of real property, cultural use of the biophysical 

environment, and such “intangible” sociocultural attributes as 

social cohesion, social institutions, lifeways, religious practices, 

and other cultural institutions. 

Encroachment: Unauthorized use and occupancy of project 

lands and waters (structures existing either fully or partially 

within the project boundary) by a third party where the licensee 

has the necessary rights or ownership of such lands for project 

purposes, and authority to control uses and occupancies of 

such lands. A non-project use and occupancy of project property is not an encroachment if it has been appropriately and 

previously authorized by the licensee or if an entity has the 

legal right to build on or occupy project property.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: An independent 

federal agency with a mission to regulate and oversee energy 

industries in the economic, environmental, and safety interests 

of the American public.

Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Licensee: Any person, State, or municipality licensed under Part 

1 of the Federal Power Act to construct, operate, and maintain a 

non-federal hydroelectric project. 
7

License article 5: A standard article found in most project 

licenses that requires a project licensee to acquire and retain fee 

title or the right to use in perpetuity all property necessary or 

appropriate to construct, maintain, and operate the project. 

Non-project Use: A specific use and occupancy of the project 

lands and waters that is not related to hydroelectric power 

production or other project purposes that the licensee may 

authorize, as long as the use is consistent with the project’s purposes and scenic, recreational, and environmental values. Such 

non-project uses may include, but are not limited to, shoreline 

facilities such as residential boat docks, retaining walls, and 

commercial marinas, and may be authorized by the licensee 

either with or without prior Commission approval depending 

upon the proposed use and occupancy.

 

Project Boundary: The project boundary is an administrative 

marker to clearly delineate those lands necessary for operation 

and maintenance of the project and for other project purposes, 

such as recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources. The boundary does not affect existing 

property rights. 

Shoreline Management Plan (SMP): A comprehensive plan to 

manage the multiple resources and uses of the project’s shorelines in a manner that is consistent with license requirements 

and project purposes, and addresses the needs of the public.

Stakeholders: Members of the public, agencies, tribes, and 

organizations with an interest in the Commission’s decision.

Standard land use article: Most licenses contain this article, 

which gives licensees broader authority to authorize relatively 

routine non-project uses and occupancies (e.g., riprap, small 

boat docks, etc.) without Commission approval. This authority 

may only be exercised if the proposed use and occupancy is 

consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the 

scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): Under Section 101(b) 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, the SHPO is appointed 

by the Governor to administer the State Historic Preservation 

Program and to reflect the interests of the State and its citizens 

in the preservation of their cultural heritage. SHPOs have expertise in archaeology, history, architectural history, and historic 

preservation. 

Traditional Cultural Property: A property that is significant 

because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a 

living community that are rooted in that community’s history, 

and are important in maintaining the cultural identity of the 

community. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO): Under Section 

101(d) of the National Historic Preservation Act, each tribal 

government can designate a THPO and establish a tribal historic 

preservation program. Like State programs, the National Park 

Service must approve tribal preservation programs established 

under Section 101(d). If a tribe has a THPO as defined under 

Section 101(d), federal projects that take place on that tribe’s 

reservation lands are reviewed only by the THPO, with no SHPO 

involvement.

Universal Access/Design: Refers to an encompassing design 

approach that strives to ensure environments are usable by the 

broadest possible spectrum of people. 
8

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is responsible for regulating the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydropower projects. Since each project 

is unique, the Commission issues a license for each project which 

identifies all project purposes (such as operation and maintenance, flowage, public recreation, public access, protection of 

environmental resources, and shoreline control) and specifies any 

requirements associated with that project. Licensees are responsible for operating and maintaining these projects in accordance 

with these requirements and for ensuring that project lands and 

waters are protected and maintained for their designated project 

purposes. The geographic extent of project lands and waters are 

generally defined by the project boundary, which includes all 

lands, waters, and project works and facilities that the Commission identifies in the license as comprising the licensed project. 

License article 5 is a standard article found in most project licenses that requires licensees acquire and retain sufficient property 

and rights to construct, maintain, and operate their projects, as 

identified in their specific license, including any property or rights 

needed to accomplish all designated project purposes. Typically 

a licensee will own or have the necessary rights to all submerged 

lands and any lands that fall within the operating levels of the 

reservoir, as well as a shoreline buffer (the exact boundary will be 

specified in the license).

Introduction
9

Consistent with these license responsibilities, a licensee may 

authorize specific uses and occupancies of the project shoreline that are not related to hydroelectric power production or 

other project purposes (non-project uses). Non-project uses 

may include, but are not limited to, shoreline facilities such as 

residential boat docks, retaining walls, and commercial marinas, 

and may be authorized by the licensee either with or without 

prior Commission approval depending upon the proposed use 

and occupancy. Licensees have an ongoing responsibility to supervise and control such shoreline developments to ensure that 

they are not inconsistent with project purposes, including protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, 

and environmental values. As a general policy, the Commission 

does not allow non-project uses (i.e., the interest of adjacent 

property owners) to override the general public’s recreation use 

and enjoyment of project lands and waters. 

In recent years, the Commission has received an increasing 

number of applications for shoreline development activities 

at licensed projects. Many of these applications have been for 

residential and commercial dock construction. This increase in 

development pressure on shorelines for non-project uses and 

occupancies is fueled largely by increasing demand for wateroriented recreation and waterfront property. As demands for 

residential development near projects increase, there is a corresponding increase in demand for additional recreational development of project lands and waters. Such development takes 

advantage of access to or views of project waters and exists because of its proximity to the water. Private recreational facilities 

include resorts, marinas, dry docks, boat services and sales, golf 

courses, and campgrounds. Public recreational facilities include 

parks, forests, campgrounds, picnic areas, trails, hunting areas, 

fishing areas, and nature preserves.

As development pressure on lands adjacent to or near project 

lands increases, a wider range of stakeholders are becoming 

involved in the Commission’s review processes. In recent years, 

the Commission has noticed an increase in the number of 

stakeholder comments and inquiries regarding shoreline issues. 
10

Stakeholders such as federal, state, and local agencies, along 

with homeowners’ associations, environmental groups, hunting 

and fishing clubs, water-based recreation groups, real estate 

interests, and the general public, are now frequently participating in the review of shoreline development applications. Many 

of these stakeholders have different and sometimes conflicting concerns. Local governments often support development 

activities adjacent to projects because these activities can 

potentially increase tax bases, provide jobs, and boost local 

economies. The real estate and construction industries also often support waterfront development. Groups whose concerns 

center on the effects of waterfront development on natural 

resources include federal, state, and local government resource 

agencies, environmental groups, and a variety of recreation and 

sporting interests. Other groups may be concerned about public safety, watercraft traffic, noise levels, crowding, incremental 

development, and commercial navigation.

Licensees have a responsibility to ensure that shoreline development activities that occur within a project boundary are 

consistent with project license requirements, purposes, and 

operations. As development and multiple uses of the shoreline 

continue to grow, licensees will face more and more challenges 

related to the effects of such development on project lands and 

waters, including public recreational use and environmental 

resources.

A comprehensive plan, such as a shoreline management plan 

(SMP), can assist a licensee in meeting its responsibilities 

throughout the term of its license. An SMP is a comprehensive plan to manage the multiple resources and uses of the 

project’s shorelines in a manner that is consistent with license 

requirements and project purposes, and addresses the needs 

of the public. The Commission expects all licensees developing 

comprehensive plans to involve the public and allow for agency 

consultation, review, and comment.

This guidebook has been written to assist both licensees and 

stakeholders. It is intended to provide general guidance regarding the development of an SMP, including identifying potential 

pitfalls and how to avoid them, knowing what to expect from 

the Commission and consulting agencies, understanding ways 

to involve the public in the SMP development process, and 

learning how to implement, monitor, and enforce the SMP once 

it is in place. This document is not intended to provide detailed, 

step-by-step instructions on how to develop and implement 

an SMP, but instead is a basic framework to guide licensees 

and stakeholders. The SMP planning process allows for project stakeholders to participate in the development of an SMP. 

Licensees will need to determine how the information in this 

guidebook applies to each individual project. 
11

Chapter 1 The History And Regulatory Basis For Shoreline Management

The Federal Power Act

The Federal Water Power Act of 1920, as subsequently amended 

by the Federal Power Act of 1935 (FPA), authorized the Commission to regulate non-federal hydroelectric projects. Included in 

the Commission’s regulatory mandate are specific requirements 

for protecting non-power resources, including fish and wildlife 

habitat, irrigation, water supply, recreation, flood control, and 

water quality. The FPA, and subsequent amendments, sets the 

stage for shoreline management planning for licensed hydroelectric developments. Section 10(a)(1) of the FPA charges the 

Commission with ensuring that all licensed projects: 

“be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate 

or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of 

waterpower development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, 

and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning 

grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e); and, if necessary, in order to 

secure such a plan, the Commission shall have authority to require 

the modification of any project and of the plans and specifications 

of the project works before approval.”

In addition, section 4(e) of the FPA, as amended by the Electric 

Consumers Protection Act of 1986, requires that the Commission, when issuing a license, give “equal consideration to the 

purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of, 

damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including 

related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of 

environmental quality.” 
12

Public Recreation 

Public recreational opportunities are an important project purpose under the FPA and have a direct connection with public 

access and shoreline development around project reservoirs. 

Over the years the Commission’s policies on public recreation 

have evolved. In response to the growing demand for outdoor 

recreation in the United States after World War II and specific 

actions to address this increased demand by Congress and 

President Kennedy in the 1960s, the Federal Power Commission 

(later becoming the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) 

issued Order No. 313 in 1965. Order 313 outlines the Commission’s policy on recreation to seek within its authority the 

ultimate development of recreation resources consistent with 

area needs. This mandate is implemented through license conditions and Commission regulations (Chapter 18 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations) that require recreation plans, public access 

and other recreation measures at licensed projects. 

Order 313 added Section 2.7 to the Commission’s regulations, 

which provides specific regulations to ensure the ultimate development of recreation resources at licensed projects consistent with area recreation needs. These requirements, among 

other things, outline a licensee’s general responsibilities to 

provide suitable recreation development and public access at 

its project. Under Section 2.7, licensees are to acquire sufficient 

land within the project boundary to assure optimum development of recreation resources, consistent with the primary 

purpose of the project and area recreation needs. Licensees 

are also to develop suitable recreational facilities and to make 

provisions for adequate public access, including consideration 

of the needs of persons with disabilities.

License Article 5 and the Standard Land Use 

Article

There are two standard license articles found in most Commission project licenses that relate directly to shoreline management planning: license article 5 and the standard land use 

article.

License Article 5

License article 5 requires a project licensee to acquire and retain 

fee title or the right to use in perpetuity all property necessary 

or appropriate to construct, maintain, and operate the project. 

Project boundaries are used to designate the geographic extent 

of the hydropower project that the Commission determines a 

licensee must own or have the necessary rights to on behalf of 

licensed project purposes. In general, the licensee must hold 

sufficient property or rights to the lands and waters within 

the project boundary to carry out project purposes, including 

but not limited to, operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, 
13

and shoreline control. Section 21 of the FPA provides that if a 

licensee is not able to obtain the property rights necessary to 

operate and maintain a licensed project by negotiation, it may 

use the power of eminent domain in federal or state court to 

acquire those rights. 

Licensees are expected to have sufficient property and/or rights 

necessary to accomplish all project purposes required under 

their project licenses and to supervise and control lands and 

waters within the project boundary to protect and maintain 

such project purposes. In this regard, a licensee must identify 

and resolve any encroachments (i.e., unauthorized structure 

or use and occupancy of project property or interest necessary to accomplish project purposes) found on such property. 

A non-project use and occupancy of project property is not 

an encroachment if it has been appropriately and previously 

authorized by the licensee or if an entity has the legal right to 

build on or occupy project property. 

License article 5 also states that licensees cannot dispose of (i.e., 

convey) project interests without Commission approval, unless 

permitted under specific requirements of the license. Thus, a 

licensee must retain all project property and interests needed 

to accomplish project purposes and may not dispose of any 

project interests that are necessary for it to properly implement 

the requirements of its license, including project purposes. 

Standard Land Use Article

In an order issued in 1980 involving the Brazos River Authority 

(Project No. 1490), in Texas (11 FERC ¶61,162)(see Appendix D), 

the Commission began including a standard land use article 

in licenses. This standard land use article, subject to specific 

license conditions, gives licensees much broader authority to 

act on relatively routine shoreline matters without Commission 

approval and allows the licensee to grant permission to applicants for specific non-project related uses. This authority may 

only be exercised if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, 

recreational, and environmental values of the project. 

Paragraph (a) of the standard land use article authorizes the 

licensee to grant certain types of use and occupancy of project 

lands and waters without Commission approval. Licensees 

must ensure that the proposed uses are consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environmental values 

of the project, monitor the authorized uses, and take any lawful 

actions necessary to correct instances of non-compliance.

Paragraph (b) identifies certain types of use and occupancy of 

project lands and waters that may be granted without prior 

Commission approval, including: landscape plantings, noncommercial boat docks that accommodate no more than 10 

watercraft (encouraging multiple use facilities when feasible), 
14

retaining walls and similar erosion control structures (after 

inspecting the site and determining that such measures are 

necessary and no alternatives exist), and wildlife enhancements. 

The licensee may, among other things, establish a program for 

issuing permits for approved uses and occupancy of project 

lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a 

reasonable fee to cover the licensee’s costs of administering the 

permit program. 

Paragraph (c) allows the licensee to convey easements, rightsof-way, or leases of project lands for uses such as roads, bridges, 

under-and-above ground utility structures, or pumping structures allowing up to one million gallons per day withdrawals 

from a project reservoir. The licensee is required to file a report 

with the Commission by January 31 each year briefly describing 

all conveyances it granted under paragraph (c) during the prior 

calendar year. 

Paragraph (d) allows the licensee to convey land rights for 

certain specific uses as long as the licensee notifies the Commission of its intent at least 60 days prior to the conveyance. These 

uses, while generally serving municipal and state infrastructure 
15

needs, may also include private or public marinas accommodating 10 watercraft or fewer, certain recreational development, 

and other uses that meet specific criteria. 

Paragraph (e) contains additional conditions which apply to any 

intended conveyance under paragraphs (c) or (d) of the article, including consultation with appropriate state and federal 

natural resource agencies, determination that the conveyance 

does not include lands needed for public recreation at the 

project, and required covenants in the instrument of conveyance. The paragraph also identifies the Commission’s right to 

require licensee actions to correct violations of article terms and 

conditions for the protection and enhancement of the project’s 

scenic, recreational and other environmental values.

Paragraph (f) states that conveyance of project lands under the 

article does not in itself change the project boundary; rather, 

project boundaries may only be changed upon Commission approval of revised project boundary maps (Exhibit G drawings), 

and only if the lands are determined to not be necessary for 

project purposes.

Paragraph (g) confirms that the licensee does not have the 

authority to apply the article to any public lands and reservations owned by the United States that may be included within a 

project boundary.

Evolving Management and Planning at 

Project Shorelines

Shoreline management is not a new Commission initiative. The 

need to protect the shoreline land around project reservoirs has 

long been recognized by the Commission. The Commission’s 

early attempts to encourage licensees to manage shorelines 

came in the form of buffer zone management plans, resource 

plans, and even the exhibit R (which was a recreation and public 

use plan). In most cases, buffers incorporated into resource 

plans during the licensing process were established to protect 

specific resources, such as water quality, wildlife, aesthetics, 

recreation, or cultural resources. Typically, these earlier resource 

plans did not consider multiple resources along the shoreline in 

a comprehensive manner, even though the management of individual resources often influenced how project shorelines were 

managed. Interest in multiple non-developmental resources 

such as recreation, cultural resources, aesthetics, and fish and 

wildlife habitat, has increased over the years to the point where 

these resources are now given considerable attention by licensees and the Commission.

As stakeholder interest in non-developmental resources increased, so did applications to the Commission for shoreline 

development at the project. Through the issuance of the 1980 

order involving the Brazos River Authority, the Commission 

responded to the increasing number of shoreline development 
16

applications by including in the license the standard land use 

article, which gives licensees broader authority to act on relatively routine shoreline matters. However, the purpose for the 

permitting systems mentioned in the standard land use article 

was not to manage shorelines comprehensively, but instead to 

allow the licensee to have basic oversight of the use of project 

shorelines. Many licensees used their permitting databases to 

track shoreline developments.

As waterfront development at licensed projects increased, the 

Commission and many licensees realized that more comprehensive approaches to shoreline management were needed. Although permitting systems began to address and direct development, these systems, like the single-resource management 

plans, were not designed for comprehensive management. The 

Commission, licensees, and stakeholders alike have found that a 

comprehensive, resource-based planning approach is appropriate for most SMPs. Most, if not all, projects will experience conflicting demands regarding how to manage project shorelines. 

By developing and using an SMP at the earliest possible time, a 

licensee will have a tool to guide comprehensive management 

of the project’s shoreline.

It is important to note that state or local zoning ordinances 

should not be used as a substitute for the project’s SMP, including the project’s shoreline classifications. Shoreline classifications are specific to project land, independent of any adjacent 

state or county land use designations or zoning. Licensees are 

ultimately responsible for managing project shoreline resources 

consistent with project purposes and its license obligations. Because shoreline use classifications are resource driven, it is possible that the shoreline use classifications are not always consistent with adjacent zoning classifications. The Commission 

encourages licensees to work closely with local jurisdictions in 

designating shoreline classifications; however, as the license 

holder, the licensee ultimately decides the shoreline classification designations it proposes to include in the project’s SMP. 
17

Prior to preparing an SMP, the licensee should undertake a 

number of pre-planning activities. These activities will help the 

licensee guide, define, and establish the parameters of the plan. 

These pre-planning activities can be extremely valuable for the 

licensee for a number of reasons:

•	 To define what it hopes to accomplish with an SMP by clarifying and developing goals (broad and long term) and objectives (measurable) 

•	 To identify the issues and conflicts that will need to be addressed in the SMP 

•	 To assess the extent of existing information relating to the SMP 

and the extent of new information to be gathered 

•	 To gather and organize enough background information to 

allow the licensee to meet with relevant agencies and stakeholders to determine the likely scope and complexity of the 

SMP. 

One of the primary purposes of this guidebook is to educate 

both licensees and stakeholders about how to participate in the 

SMP planning process. When stakeholders with different views 

work together during the development of an SMP, they often 

are able to create plans that are acceptable to most, if not all, 

of the participants. This balanced approach helps the licensee 

meet its license obligations and project purposes, protects environmental resources, allows the public to enjoy those resources, 

helps to support local economic interests, and is vital for the 

long-term success of an SMP. 

The following sections describe the components of the preplanning phase of the development of an SMP. 

Goals and Objectives

Goals are statements that help define what the licensee wants 

to accomplish with an SMP. Goals can be fairly general policy 

statements or intentions to pursue. Objectives are measurable 

action items that, when completed, help to achieve the goal. 

Examining the project license will help the licensee establish 

goals and objectives for the SMP. In general, a licensee’s overall goal for an SMP is to develop a tool that will help it fulfill its 

license responsibilities and obligations for the project, including 

protecting and enhancing the project’s environmental, scenic, 

and recreation values. In addition to an overall goal of achieving license compliance, a licensee should establish other goals, 

as appropriate, related to the protection of project specific 

purposes and resources. 

Developing goals and objectives during the pre-planning 

Chapter 2 Pre-Planning Activities
18

phase will help determine the form and level of complexity that 

will be required for the SMP. For example, at a project where 

the primary goal of the planning effort would be to develop a 

permitting system for shoreline structures, the SMP would be 

relatively straightforward, whereas, for a project with multiple 

goals dealing with a variety of issues and resources, the SMP 

could be quite complex. Examples of goals that might be developed for a complex project might include: (1) determining what 

the shoreline should look like in 25 years, (2) improving public 

access to the upper part of the project, (3) protecting shoreline 

wildlife habitat, and (4) creating a public education program to 

encourage SMP compliance. Below is an example of an SMP 

goal and matching objectives:

Goal 1: Create a public education program to encourage plan 

compliance.

Objective 1: Write and distribute a semiannual newsletter.

Objective 2: Establish a “model” shoreline area with 

plantings from a suggested plant list.

Objective 3: Meet annually with community groups to 

update them on progress and changes and to 

get feedback.

Objective 4: Develop a website and email listserve as tools to 

communicate with interested parties. 

Objective 5: Hold a minimum of four community meetings 

per year to educate the public regarding the 

location of the project boundary.

The goals and objectives that are developed during the preplanning phase may evolve or change during the development 

of the SMP as various stakeholders become involved. However, 

it is important for the licensee to have a clear set of goals and 

objectives early in the development process prior to stakeholder involvement. A clear set of goals and objectives will help 

ensure that the SMP meets the needs and capabilities of the 

licensee (i.e., license compliance), while allowing the interests 

of stakeholders to be taken into consideration during the SMP 

development process. 

Gathering Information

Because it is likely that multiple resource concerns and interests 

will have to be taken into account when developing an SMP, it 

is critical for the licensee to have a thorough understanding of 

existing shoreline conditions. Gathering shoreline information 

will help identify issues early and allow the licensee to have 

meaningful discussions with stakeholders about the project. 

These discussions will help determine the issues to be addressed in the SMP and give an early indication of the necessary 

level of complexity for the SMP. 

If the licensee is preparing or has recently prepared a relicense 

application, data needed to inform the development of an SMP 

may already be available, such as studies prepared for relicensing proceeding. Existing project records, such as permit inventories or FERC Form 80s (Licensed Hydropower Development 
19

Recreation Report, 18 CFR §8.11), may also be excellent sources 

of information. Federal, state, and local resource agencies can 

also provide data such as state comprehensive outdoor recreation plans (SCORPs), or maps and aerial photography showing 

the locations of wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and 

endangered species habitat, zoning classifications, and real estate plats. Other data sources could include non-governmental 

organizations such as environmental groups, recreation user 

groups, chambers of commerce, and homeowners’ associations.

The Commission does not necessarily expect licensees to perform extensive surveys to identify existing conditions for the 

development of an SMP. The Commission encourages the use 

of existing relevant data as a means to minimize costs. However, as circumstances dictate, issues that must be addressed in 

the SMP may require the licensee to perform surveys of existing 

conditions.

The following is a brief discussion regarding the types of information that may be useful to obtain in the pre-planning phase 

of the SMP development. Collecting this information prior to 

meeting with agencies and other stakeholders may promote 

informed discussions between all interested entities at the beginning of the process. 
20

Lands

Consistent with its license responsibilities, including those 

contained in standard article 5, and because the SMP will guide 

management of the project shoreline for multiple resource 

objectives, it is critical that the licensee know the exact location 

of and the existing use and characteristics of lands and waters 

within the project boundary. The licensee should have a clear 

understanding of the following details regarding project lands: 

(1) the type of uses and facilities located along project shorelines, (2) the project purposes served by all project lands, and 

(3) the ownership and interests in project lands and waters. A 

licensee should document the specific location of the project 

boundary, and the type, condition, and location of all existing 

uses and occupancies (including structures) that occupy project 

lands and waters. The types of facilities commonly found on 

project shorelines include private and public piers, boat docks, 

boat ramps, marinas, erosion control structures, and public 

recreation areas. The licensee must then differentiate between 

authorized and unauthorized uses and occupancies within the 

project boundary. 

The licensee must also have an understanding of lands adjacent to the project boundary because development activities 

on these lands can affect lands within the project boundary. 

Therefore, it is important to be familiar with ownership patterns 

and land uses on adjacent lands. Information regarding land 

ownership and use should be available from local or regional 

entities such as planning, zoning, and building departments 

and agencies. Land ownership can be an indication of potential future uses. All public land (and the agencies managing 

these lands) should be identified. It is not necessary to identify 

individual, small private land owners, but private owners owning significant amounts of land adjacent to the project should 

be identified. As with land ownership, the licensee should have 

an understanding of current land uses on adjacent properties. 

Typical adjacent land uses include residential (primary and 

second home/vacation), forestry, recreation, conservation, agriculture, and industrial. Development density on adjacent lands 

is useful to understand development patterns, distribution, and 

trends near the project. Adjacent lands at many projects will 

likely have been assigned land use designations and/or zoning 

designations by city, county, or state entities. These designations influence the type and intensity of development that has, 

and could, occur on adjacent lands. 

Natural Resources 

Agencies, including the Commission, and other interested 

entities are frequently concerned about the potential effect of 

shoreline development on natural resources such as vegetation, 

wildlife, and aquatic species. Natural resource issues related to 
21

project shorelines will almost certainly play a major role in the 

development of land use classifications for an SMP. It is therefore important that the licensee have background information 

regarding shoreline natural resources prior to any discussions 

with agencies or stakeholder groups. In accordance with 

project purposes (i.e. environmental protection), and projectspecific fish and wildlife license requirements, a licensee should 

identify project lands and waters that provide for the protection 

and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, such as wildlife 

management areas, shoreline buffer zones, or designated fish or 

wildlife habitats.

The vegetation found along project shorelines and adjacent 

uplands serves as habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

species. Removal of native shoreline and aquatic vegetation 

can result in a loss of valuable habitat used by fish and wildlife 

for cover, food, nesting areas, and rearing areas for young. Even 

seemingly minor activities, such as clearing underbrush or 

building piers can affect some species.

Because different types of habitat have different values for 

wildlife and aquatic species, it is important to understand the 

relative value of the habitat found along project shorelines. 

Areas of undisturbed vegetation, wetlands, riparian areas, and 

certain types of aquatic vegetation typically have high value 

as habitat. Existing information may be adequate, but in many 

cases, an inventory may be required. The level of effort for the 

inventory will depend upon available information, input from 

agencies, the complexity of the project’s shoreline vegetation 

and plant communities, and the potential level of impact on 

such resources, and cost. In addition to having an understanding of the project’s existing habitat, the licensee should be 

aware of the presence, or potential presence, of plant, animal, 

and fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered 

species by federal or state agencies. The presence, or potential 

presence, of these species could have shoreline management 

implications.
22

Water Quality

Maintaining good water quality in the waters of a hydroelectric 

project is essential for meeting certain project purposes, such 

as environmental protection and public recreation (e.g., fishing, 

swimming, and wildlife viewing). Water quality maintenance 

also protects and enhances a project’s natural resources, such as 

wetlands and aquatic habitat, and some non-project uses, such 

as drinking water supply and adjacent property values. Given 

the importance of maintaining good water quality, a licensee 

should be aware of the potential effects of both shoreline protection activities and shoreline development activities. 

For example, maintenance of shoreline buffer vegetation allows 

natural filtration of sediment and other pollutants from runoff 

that enters project waterways, and should therefore be encouraged. Some non-project uses, such as habitable structures and 

septic systems, can harm water quality by releasing untreated 

waste into project waters if not properly constructed or maintained. Similarly, poorly-managed gasoline docks at marinas 

can harm water quality through spillage of fuels and lubricants. 

These and similar issues should be considered during the development of a project SMP so that the SMP can be used to clearly 

determine if and under what circumstances specific non-project 

uses should be allowed on project waters and adjacent lands.

Recreational Use

In addition to having an understanding of the type and location of existing public recreation facilities, access areas, and 

areas specifically reserved for future public recreation use and 

development within the project boundary, the licensee should 

have an understanding of other recreation issues that might be 

relevant. In particular, the licensee should keep in mind that, as 
23

a general policy, the Commission does not allow private recreation interests and development, such as residential or commercial boat docks or marinas, to override the general public’s 

recreation use and enjoyment of project lands and waters (see 

Appendix D). Other recreation issues that might be relevant 

include recreational use patterns, overcrowding , navigational 

safety issues, conflicts and competition among user groups, 

user attitudes and preferences, and the need for facilities which 

provide universal access. Such issues should be taken into 

consideration during the development of an SMP. The licensee 

should also be aware of plans for potential future recreation 

developments or changes to existing facilities that may need to 

be addressed in an SMP. 

Socioeconomics

A general understanding of the social and economic conditions of the area around a project is important for licensees. 

Changing demographic and economic conditions can influence demands on projects and on adjacent lands. For example, 

projects that are located in areas that may not be otherwise 

economically robust are sometimes seen as important income 

generators for the local economy. Projects with recreation 

opportunities may bring tourist dollars into the local economy 

and attract real estate development, both of which can provide jobs and increase tax bases. Many areas near projects are 

experiencing second-home development and primary-home 

development for retirees. An understanding of these social and 

economic trends and factors can give the licensee an indication 

of how local jurisdictions and interest groups may view shoreline management planning and what issues may be important 

to these groups. While an understanding of the economic 

and social interests of these stakeholders can be helpful in the 

development of an SMP, it is important to recognize that the primary goal of the SMP is to assist the licensee in its management 

of project lands and waters to comply with its license conditions 

and meet designated project purposes, such as public recreation use and the protection of environmental resources. While 

the presence of a project reservoir and its shoreline resources 

may attract real estate development around the reservoir and 
24

indirectly benefit the local economy, such economic benefits 

do not represent a licensed project purpose, and should not be 

allowed to override designated project purposes. 

Aesthetic Resources 

The licensee should understand the project’s aesthetic resources, including areas of the project that are considered to 

have high aesthetic value, the distinguishing characteristics 

which underlie those values, and the populations that value the 

aesthetic resources. During a recreation experience, individuals consciously or subconsciously evaluate aesthetic resources 

by assessing sights, smells, and sounds. Vegetated shorelines, 

clean water, the presence of wildlife, scenic views of water, and 

the smell of evergreen trees can positively influence a recreational experience, whereas eroded shorelines, high density development, the smell of motorboat exhaust, and light pollution 

can have a negative impact. The sounds of people recreating 

or from shoreline development can be interpreted positively or 

negatively by participants. Aesthetic resources are complicated 

because the perceptions of impacts are influenced by personal 

experience, but the licensee needs to have an understanding 

of how the development and operation of a project, as well as 

shoreline development, impacts those resources. 

While a project license allows a licensee to authorize certain 

third-party uses and occupancies of project lands and waters, 

such non-project uses may only be authorized in accordance 

with the applicable license requirements, and only if the use 

does not adversely affect the protection and enhancement of 
25

the project’s scenic, recreational, and environmental values. In 

this regard, any vegetation removal or cutting on project lands 

associated with such non-project uses ( i.e., a view corridor for a 

private residence), may not override the preservation of aesthetic resources along a reservoir shoreline in that area needed 

to protect and enhance the project’s scenic values. 

Cultural Resources

The presence of cultural resources, including historic properties 

and traditional cultural properties at a project can significantly 

influence shoreline management decisions. Typically, a project 

license has specific requirements (e.g., a specific license article, 

Programmatic Agreement, or historic properties management 

plan) related to the identification and protection of cultural 

resources. Such requirements may include a list of acceptable 

ground-disturbing activities, provisions for handling unanticipated cultural resource discoveries, or other helpful guidance 

regarding cultural resources along the shoreline. The licensee 

should have an understanding of whether or not there may be 

cultural resources present near project shorelines. The above 

license requirements, as well as the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and 

local preservation groups, are good sources of information on 

the presence or likely presence of cultural resources near or 

along the shoreline.

Identifying Preliminary Stakeholder Concerns, 

Goals, and Issues

While the licensee will be the primary entity responsible for 

formulating, developing, implementing, and monitoring the 

plan, successful SMPs are created with input from various 

stakeholders. While it is possible that there will be issues that 

cannot be resolved in the way that all stakeholders would like, a 

variety of interested stakeholders will influence the form of the 

plan, possibly have a part in implementing the plan, and may 

be involved in plan monitoring and modification. It is important to identify potential stakeholders and their concerns, goals, 

and issues as early as possible so that the licensee has a better 

idea of where there may be agreement or disagreement among 

stakeholders and with the licensee. This early identification or 

scoping process should not be confused with the more formal 

public involvement process that occurs during the development of the SMP. Preliminary scoping efforts of stakeholders 

will allow the licensee to formulate ways to address stakeholder 

concerns, goals, and issues during the more formal planning 

process, while ensuring that the SMP meets its primary purpose 

of helping the licensee fulfill its license responsibilities and designated project purposes. 
26

Examples of Potential Stakeholder Issues:

•	 Increasing public access to project waters on the north shore 

of the project. 

•	 Preventing construction of new docks in water willow beds or 

fish spawning areas.

•	 Limiting the maximum allowable size, spacing, etc., of boat 

docks.

•	 Encouraging shoreline development to increase the local 

county tax base.

•	 Requesting dock permits to be re-assigned when associated 

real estate is transferred to a new owner. 

•	 Reducing private development restrictions on project lands 

and waters for adjacent property owners. 

Identifying stakeholders and issues during the pre-planning 

phase can be done in a number of ways. Informal telephone 

conversations or meetings with federal, state, and local agencies can help identify agency concerns and identify other 

potential stakeholders. Likewise, informal conversations and 

meetings with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as 

homeowners’ associations, environmental groups, chambers of 

commerce, and marine contractors can also help identify stakeholders and their issues.

Potential Resource Agency Issues or Preferences

•	 Maintaining shorelines in as natural a state as possible to preserve fish and wildlife habitat.

•	 Establishing a shoreline buffer zone of limited or no development to protect habitat.

•	 Restricting vegetation clearing within the buffers or along the 

shoreline.

•	 Preferring “soft” erosion control techniques (e.g., vegetative 

plantings) to “hard” erosion control techniques (e.g., retaining 

walls).

•	 Developing “fish friendly” design standards for docks.

•	 Requesting inventories of existing amounts of shoreline vegetation.

•	 Identifing shallow-water fish spawning and nursery habitat 

locations. 
27

Chapter 3 Preparing a Shoreline Management Plan

In most cases, there will not be a clean break between the 

pre-planning phase and the actual preparation of the SMP. The 

pre-planning work will help identify conditions, situations, and 

trends that will determine the level of complexity required for 

an SMP. Before starting the preparation phase in earnest, the 

licensee should have: (1) defined goals and objectives, (2) an 

understanding of the sufficiency of existing data and data that 

need to be obtained, and (3) an understanding of the issues 

that will likely have to be addressed in preparing the SMP. The 

following sections discuss the components of preparing an SMP. 

Stakeholder Involvement in the Planning 

and Development Process

As mentioned in Chapter 2, stakeholder involvement in the 

development of comprehensive plans is needed to ensure that 

all relevant issues are raised and addressed. The level of stakeholder involvement will vary from project to project. However, 

it is in the licensee’s interest to include stakeholders early in the 

SMP preparation process for a number of reasons. If stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment or offer input on the 

SMP late in the process, they may not have an understanding or 

appreciation of the issues that were involved and considered in 

the development of the SMP. By including stakeholders early in 

the process, they will be better informed and be able to participate in a more meaningful way in the process. This can have 

many positive benefits, including reducing potential resistance 

to the SMP and having stakeholders serve as information liaisons and project advocates with the general public. In addition, 

stakeholders (particularly agencies) will likely have information 

that is useful in the SMP development process.

Types of Stakeholders

The stakeholders who are likely to be involved in the development of an SMP are generally government agencies, Indian 

Tribes, NGOs, and individuals. All of these stakeholders will 

have a desire to influence the management direction of the 

SMP, and frequently stakeholders have differing interests. 

Because the level of stakeholder participation in the SMP 

process can often vary, it is important that both the licensee 

and the stakeholders have an understanding of roles and 

responsibilities.

Federal Agencies – Federal agencies often represent the general 

public. Their involvement in the development of an SMP varies 

depending upon the project and the potential effect of the SMP 
28

on agency interests or lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

which is responsible for protecting endangered fish and wildlife 

species, is often a participant in the development of SMPs. The 

National Park Service has a broad interest in the provision of 

outdoor recreation opportunities nationwide. The U.S. Forest 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be involved, but 

generally only if the lands they manage might be affected by 

the provisions of the SMP. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) may also need to be consulted if the project is subject 

to Corps’ jurisdiction; or if current or future activities on project 

lands and waters fall under the Corps’ oversight responsibilities. 

Indian Tribes – Federally-recognized Indian Tribes may also 

need to be consulted if the SMP could affect their lands, treaty 

rights, or traditional cultural properties.

State Agencies – Each state is unique in regard to the statutory 

roles and responsibilities of its agencies. In general, state agencies responsible for parks and recreation, fish and wildlife, water 
29

quality, and cultural resources are most likely to be involved in 

the SMP planning process. For some projects, the participation 

of state agencies that are responsible for forestry, transportation, and economic development is also warranted.

Local Jurisdictions and Agencies – Local jurisdictions and 

agencies may have an interest in working with licensees on 

SMP-related issues. These entities may include regional councils, county agencies, and/or municipal departments that are 

responsible for planning, zoning, building inspection, parks and 

recreation, environmental and water quality, economic development, and law enforcement.

NGOs and Interest Groups – There are a wide variety of NGOs 

and other interest groups that could become involved in the 

development and/or review of an SMP. NGOs could be local, 

state, or national interest groups, and their perspectives could 

vary greatly. Local interest groups (e.g., lake conservation 

groups) can add valuable local expertise and interest, and can 

represent local perspectives.

Individuals – Individuals may be interested in becoming involved in the development of an SMP for a number of reasons. 

Adjacent landowners (of undeveloped land, primary homes, 

and second homes) would be among the individuals potentially 

most affected by an SMP. Licensees should attempt to inform 

these individuals of opportunities to become involved in the 

SMP planning process and of any changes being considered 

that could affect them. In addition, the licensee’s public outreach program should make information available to interested 

members of the general public. Other individuals that live in 

the vicinity of the project and use it for recreation, commerce, or 

simply enjoy the project’s aesthetic qualities may also become 

involved in the development of an SMP. 

Opportunities for Stakeholder Involvement

There are various ways in which stakeholders, including the 

public, can become involved in the planning and development 

of an SMP, and the licensee can receive stakeholder input. 

Stakeholder involvement can happen at numerous planning 

stages and through a variety of formal and informal interactions 

and relationships. Several stakeholder involvement techniques 

are discussed below.

During the development of an SMP, the licensee may choose to 

hold a series of informal public meetings. Such informal meetings promote interaction among the various stakeholders and 

can range in size from a few individuals to hundreds of people.

In addition to regular public meetings, it may be appropriate 

to develop focus groups or create working groups consisting 

of interested participants that concentrate on specific issues. 
30

The use of regularly scheduled focus group or working group 

meetings can be extremely useful. Participants who represent a 

variety of interests can provide valuable information and assistance in the development of the SMP. However, it is important 

that the role of these stakeholders is clear from the beginning. 

Meetings allow stakeholders with opposing viewpoints to get 

to know each other and understand differing opinions, as well 

as gain a better understanding of the licensee’s license responsibilities and obligations. Other stakeholder input measures 

may also include surveys, interviews, the use of professional 

facilitators, etc.

It is important to note that stakeholders may have further opportunities to comment on an SMP after it is filed with the Commission for approval.

Items Typically Included in Shoreline 

Management Plans

If required by the project license, an SMP should, at a minimum, 

address the specific requirements described in that article. 

Although there is no set format for an SMP, certain items should 

be considered for inclusion in the document. 

An executive summary generally consists of several paragraphs 

summarizing the purpose of the SMP, goals and objectives 

of the SMP, some of the main issues involved in developing 

and implementing the SMP, how issues were resolved, a brief 

description of shoreline use classifications, where the classifications generally occur (including reference to the project land 

use classification map that is included later in the SMP), and 

a brief description of all types of permitted uses. A summary 

of other relevant project-related information, such as project 

purpose, history, and operations may also be appropriate to 

include.

A description of the stakeholders that were involved in developing the SMP can illustrate the means and process involved 

in developing the SMP and may give many of the stakeholders 

that participated in the process an acknowledgment for their 

effort.

An SMP should include descriptions of the planned land use 

classifications, maps identifying the locations of the land use 

classifications, how these use classifications were defined and 

delineated, and descriptions of activities and uses that would 

be allowed in those classifications. In addition to land use classifications, an SMP should contain sections on management 

policies, permits, and guidelines. Samples of permit applications and required drawings are often included to give the 

reader an idea of the level of detail that is necessary for permit 

approval. 
31

Descriptions of monitoring programs, schedules, and enforcement provisions allow property owners adjacent to project 

lands and waters to understand ways in which they can participate in monitoring and enforcement activities, and the scope 

of those activities. Descriptions of enforcement provisions can 

also educate these adjoining property owners about the ramifications of not following provisions established in the SMP. 

While a licensee may develop general shoreline management 

guidelines for all hydropower projects in their portfolio, an SMP 

should be developed for each project which addresses features 

and provisions unique to that project. Each SMP should be 

reviewed every five to ten years and may need to be updated to 

address new or changing conditions at the project.

Shoreline Use Classification Strategies 

Shoreline use classifications are areas within the project boundary designated for certain existing and future uses consistent 

with the goals and objectives of the SMP. These classifications 

are not assigned to lands outside the project boundary, but 

instead refer to the use of project shoreline property. They 

are specific to project land, independent of any adjacent state 

or county land use designations or zoning. It is important to 

note that state or local zoning ordinances should not be used 

as a substitute for the project’s SMP. Licensees are ultimately 

responsible for managing project shoreline resources consistent 

with project purposes and its license obligations.

The assignment of use classifications to project shorelines is 

often the cornerstone of an SMP. In many cases, the process of 

developing shoreline use classifications will be the most scrutinized aspect of the SMP. By using sound information to help 

make resource-based decisions, and by including stakeholders 

in the SMP process, the eventual designation of shoreline use 

classifications should satisfy a licensee’s obligations under its 

project license, as well as consider the interests of stakeholders involved in the development of the SMP. Because shoreline 
32

use classifications are resource driven, it may be possible that 

the shoreline use classifications are not always consistent with 

adjacent zoning classifications. However, shoreline classifications are ultimately a tool to aid the licensee in fulfilling its 

license responsibilities and may not be consistent with every 

stakeholder’s interests. 

Because of the amount of development that has occurred 

along the shores of many projects, natural resource agencies 

and stakeholders with environmental protection interests often 

want to restrict or control shoreline development. At the same 

time, parties interested in business and economic development 

may desire the ability to continue to develop project shorelines. 

Developing and assigning shoreline use classifications often requires balancing demands for preserving shoreline habitat with 

pressures to allow shoreline development. At most projects, 

balancing conflicting desires will be a challenge. Developing a 

shared vision for the appropriate degree of shoreline develop-
33

ment and density of recreation use on the reservoir, reflected in 

a clear set of well-defined shoreline classifications, will greatly 

increase the acceptance and effectiveness of the SMP.

Currently, there are no standard descriptions for shoreline use 

classification systems used by licensees at Commission-regulated projects. These systems can be called shoreline management zones, shoreline use designations, or another appropriate 

descriptor. However, the following are commonly employed 

shoreline use classifications and associated allowable uses 

which are offered here as examples:

•	 Residential – community and individual docks associated with 

residential development

•	 Commercial – private boating and recreation facilities and 

commercial services (e.g., fuel, supplies, and food)

•	 Environmental or Natural – natural resource protection and 

limited to no shoreline development

•	 Recreation – public recreation facilities and access areas

•	 Project Operations or Infrastructure – areas needed for power 

production (including tailrace) or rights of way used for 

transmission lines, cell towers, roads/bridges, wind turbines, 

pipelines, and utilities

•	 Other – project specific classifications as needed

The number of classifications can depend upon factors such as 

shoreline complexity, extent of existing development, future 

development pressures, the licensee’s goals and objectives for 

the project shoreline, and the presence of sensitive fish and 

wildlife species or habitats. The allowable and prohibited uses 

for each classification should be clearly specified in the SMP. 

The appropriateness of various combinations of shoreline classifications should also be addressed, such as a commercial marina 

adjacent to an environmental area or the density of commercial 

marinas. 

Shoreline Management Policies, Permits, 

and Guidelines 

License article 5 requires licensees to acquire, and retain 

through the term of the license, all property rights necessary for 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

Because most or all shoreline is typically owned by the licensee 

and is usually open for public recreational access, developing 

shoreline management policies, permitting systems, and development guidelines is an important part of the SMP development process. A strong set of shoreline policies facilitates 

successful shoreline management through the establishment 

of a strong foundation for the SMP. The policy development 

process requires that the licensee clarify its positions regarding 

management of the project’s shorelines. The policies will serve 

as the basis upon which permits and guidelines are developed, 
34

and will help interested parties understand why the permits 

and guidelines are written as they are. The policies should be 

consistent with, and help reinforce, the licensee’s goals and 

objectives for the SMP, and must be consistent with protecting 

the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the 

project. 

After the licensee’s policies have been established, creating 

permit systems and development guidelines are the next step. 

These are the primary tools used to control the type, location, 

design, and material of shoreline development projects. Permits and guidelines may vary considerably, depending on the 

specific characteristics and requirements of a project, but must 

be consistent with Commission policies regarding shoreline 

protection. Projects that are experiencing less development 

pressure may only require a permitting program with a simple 

set of guidelines to address a relatively small number of common issues, such as the development of docks and/or erosion 

control. Projects that are more complex, and/or have a number 

of different shoreline use classifications, may require the development of both permits and guidelines.

Licensee-issued permits are typically revocable privileges for 

which adjacent property owners must apply to the licensee if 

they wish to develop a facility or use (e.g., private boat dock, 

retaining wall, access path, etc.) on adjoining project lands or 

waters either owned by the licensee in fee or for which the 

licensee has other project-related rights (e.g., flowage) that 

would give it the authority to control the use of such lands and 

waters. The permit application typically requires information 

that the licensee uses to determine the potential effect of the 

proposed facility on the environment and its consistency with 

the SMP. Permits often include specifications that regulate the 

size and location of the proposed shoreline facility along with 

the type of materials that can be used for its construction. Each 

permit should include appropriate conditions, such as requirements for construction methods and deadlines for completion 

of authorized facilities, to protect the scenic, recreational, and 

environmental values of the project. Imposing deadlines on 

completing facilities ensures that they are constructed within a 

timely manner to ensure that they do not result in new or different impacts than anticipated, due to changes in the surrounding environment over time. The SMP’s permit requirements and 

standards for construction may be the same as or more stringent than those of local governments. 

SMP guidelines typically prescribe construction methodologies, 

protection measures, and maintenance practices that would 

be consistent with the goals of the SMP and individual permits. 

Guidelines can also identify the various types of permits needed 

and the application process. Sometimes these guidelines can 

be generic enough that they can be used by adjacent property 
35

owners to manage their own properties in ways that will help 

meet the intent of the SMP. One type of guideline that is often 

developed by licensees describes the kind of development 

activities that are allowed and not allowed at the project consistent with the classification. By describing the types of allowed 

and prohibited facilities and activities, adjacent property owners and other stakeholders will know the kinds of shoreline uses 

that can be developed at the project.

Occasionally, either knowingly or by accident, structures are 

built by neighboring property owners within the project 

boundary on licensee owned lands and waters without proper 

authorization. Such structures are known as encroachments, 

and they can negatively affect project purposes. In some cases 

the impact of an encroachment can be mitigated through the 

replacement of project lands with in-kind lands that can meet 

the project purpose that has been negatively affected. In other 

cases the encroachment may have to be removed. It is critical 

that SMP guidelines include a section which specifies a process 

and timeframe for addressing encroachments, including how 

the licensee will monitor lands inside the project boundary for 

encroachments (see Appendix D). 

It is common for licensees to require reasonable fees for administering a permit program, subject to the requirements in the 

standard land use article. The licensee may also wish to consider requiring a construction deposit from the adjacent property 

owner or its contractor before work is allowed to proceed. Typically, licensees will inspect the site prior to allowing construction to begin, and again at the end of the construction period 

before final approval of the project. If a new development does 

not meet the requirements set forth in the permit, the licensee 

has several options to ensure compliance. The length of time 

that an issued permit is valid varies. Some licensees require annual renewal fees and some do not. In some cases, permits can 

be transferred to new property owners (usually requiring some 

type of application, notification, and/or fee on behalf of the 
36

permittee) and in other cases (especially with encroachments) a 

transfer may not be made. 

Some projects have experienced shoreline development over 

time that, for a variety of reasons, may not conform to the current SMP. In such cases, the SMP should include policies and 

procedures for managing pre-existing, non-conforming structures (i.e., structures not consistent with the SMP, but built with 

the licensee’s consent) or encroachments (i.e., structures built 

on licensee-owned lands without the licensee’s consent) on 

project lands. These policies and procedures should be consistent with current Commission policy.

The SMP should include guidelines for reviewing and updating 

the document every five to ten years to address new or changing conditions at the project.
37

chapter 4 commission review of a shoreline management plan

An SMP can be considered during a licensing proceeding or 

required as a post-licensing requirement. In any case, the SMP 

document and any associated shoreline use regulations, permits, or guidelines must be consistent with the overall requirements of the project’s license, project purposes, and current 

Commission policies, and should address issues raised by 

interested entities. 

A proposed SMP that is considered during licensing would be 

reviewed, modified, and/or approved as part of the licensing 

process. Any necessary information requests, environmental 

analysis, and public input would typically be included in the 

broader NEPA document completed for the licensing proceeding. 

For a proposed SMP filed with the Commission during the 

license term, whether pursuant to a licensing requirement 

or voluntarily by the licensee, the following process applies. 

Initially, staff reviews the plan to determine if the SMP contains 

adequate information from which the Commission can base 

its decisions on the plan. If the Commission determines that 

there is missing information or unresolved questions or issues, 

the Commission may request additional information from the 

licensee that may be necessary to properly analyze the effects 

of implementing the SMP.

After the SMP is filed with the Commission and found to be 

complete for consideration, and if Commission staff determines 

that additional opportunities are needed for the public to 

comment on the SMP, a public notice would be issued. Such 

notice would be published in the federal register and local 

newspapers. During the review and public comment period, as 

appropriate, interested parties are given the opportunity to file 
38

comments and other information regarding the proposed SMP 

for the Commission to review and consider.

If Commission staff determines that the SMP has the potential 

to adversely affect environmental resources at the project, 

Commission staff will likely prepare a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) document, under the Commission’s NEPA 

regulations (18 CFR Part 380). In most cases, the NEPA document will be an environmental assessment (EA) that addresses 

the potential environmental effects of implementing the SMP 

on environmental resources within the project area. Resources 

that are generally examined include water use and quality, 

fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, land use and aesthetics, recreation, cultural resources, and 

socioeconomics.

In deciding whether, or under what conditions, to approve the 

SMP, the Commission will consider the entire record of the proceeding, including the proposed SMP, any comments filed, and 

the EA (if prepared). The Commission will approve the SMP if it 

determines that the SMP is consistent with the requirements of 

the project license and other relevant plans (e.g., Commission 

approved plans for buffer zones, wildlife habitat, dredging, etc.) 

and adequately addresses issues raised during the proceeding. 

The Commission may make modifications to the SMP as appropriate.

The following is an example of language included in a license 

article requiring an SMP, but such requirements may vary depending on project-specific circumstances:

The Shoreline Management Plan shall be filed for Commission 

approval and be prepared in consultation with appropriate federal 

and state resource agencies and entities (specific parties are identi-
39

fied). The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following 

items: (1) a list of land use management objectives and goals; (2) 

a list and description of the types of land use classifications, to 

include at a minimum: (a) residential; (b) public recreation access; 

(c) environmentally sensitive areas; (d) commercial; and (e) project 

operations; (3) a map or maps that clearly identifies the project 

boundary and the above land use classifications; (4) a description of the basis for the various land use classifications, including 

supporting documentation; (5) a description of allowable and 

prohibited uses for each of the above land use classifications; (6) 

a description of how the proposed plan is consistent with other 

Commission-approved resource management plans (historic 

properties management plan, recreation plan, wildlife resource 

management plan, etc. ) (7) a permitting program for allowable 

facilities and/or uses of the shoreline, including permit application 

procedures, monitoring and enforcement provisions; (8) a provision for informing the public of the licensee’s procedures for issuance of a permit and/or lease, including the application process; 

and (9) a provision to review, every 5 years, the adequacy of the 

Shoreline Management Plan to meet its stated goals and the need 

for any modifications to the plan. 

The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it 

has been prepared and provided to any consulting agencies, and 

specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 

days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations 

before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does 

not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s 

reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. 

Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the licensee is 

notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission.
40

Chapter 5 Implementing the Shoreline Management Plan

An SMP is a valuable tool for carrying out many aspects of the 

license in a comprehensive manner which otherwise may have 

been handled separately. The following sections describe 

how a carefully crafted SMP can be implemented in a way that 

streamlines various license responsibilities. 

Using the Shoreline Management Plan to Guide 

Future Development

SMPs can be used in a number of ways, including helping to 

guide appropriate future development of project lands. Measures such as assigning shoreline use classifications and establishing development standards guide future development 

and set development parameters. With a strong SMP, licensees 

alone or with other interested stakeholders can develop comprehensive strategies for project shorelines. Potential future 

uses can be assigned to project areas where those uses would 

be encouraged. An example might be a cove at a project where 

the shoreline had been assigned a classification that recognizes its current undisturbed, natural state. If the licensee and 

stakeholders agree and existing data supports that the cove is 

not a good location for future development, such as a marina, 

it could be so indicated in the SMP. Such an indication would 

alert the development community that the licensee and interested stakeholders would not support future development at 

that location.

In addition, an SMP can be used to monitor cumulative or project-wide impacts that can result from the incremental impacts 

associated with individual shoreline facilities that occur over 

time. By closely monitoring shoreline conditions, a licensee can 

recognize potential cumulative effects and take appropriate 

management actions for future development at the project.
41

Using the Shoreline Management Plan to Carry Out 

the Intent of the Standard Land Use Article and 

Other License Requirements 

A well-prepared SMP complements the standard land use 

article. The standard land use article allows licensees to grant 

permission for certain types of non-project uses without prior 

Commission approval. The standard land use article allows the 

licensee to exercise the authority provided to it by this article 

only if the proposed use of project lands and waters is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, 

recreational, and other environmental values of the project. The 

licensee also has a continuing responsibility under the article 

to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it 

grants permission, and to ensure compliance with the permits 

and instruments of conveyance that it executed under the 

article.

While an SMP is typically more comprehensive than the standard land use article, the article can be considered a subpart 

or underlying component of the SMP. The SMP, in and of itself, 

does not supersede or change the standard land use article. 

Implementation of the SMP can help the licensee carry out the 

intent of the standard land use article and other license requirements in the following ways: 

•	 Help the licensee, Commission, and stakeholders view individual shoreline development proposals from a project-wide or 

even regional perspective, rather than as independent actions. 

•	 Provide data to track development trends. 

•	 Allow for consistent review and approval of development 

proposals. 

•	 Identify development proposals (requiring Commission approval) that are inconsistent with the SMP so that they can be 

modified or conditioned in their early stages to comply with 

the SMP or rejected before being sent to the Commission for 

approval. This results in the dismissal of inadequate proposals 

at the earliest stages.

Enforcement of the Shoreline Management Plan

The project license, particularly the standard land use article, 

directs licensees to oversee shoreline activities and take action 

to prevent unauthorized uses of project shorelines. Common 

infractions include the failure to maintain facilities, unauthorized additions to existing facilities, unauthorized development of new facilities, and unauthorized changes to project 

shorelines (such as removing vegetation). Examples of common enforcement tools used by licensees include revoking or 

suspending existing permits, denying future applications for 

permits, requiring construction deposits, requiring mitigation, 

removing problem contractors from the list of licensee-suggested contractors, issuing stop work orders (which can result in 
42

unwanted construction delays), and increasing application fees. 

If necessary, the licensee may require modification or removal 

of non-conforming structures and restoration of the disturbed 

shoreline at the owner’s expense. The licensee is ultimately 

responsible for ensuring that uses and activities of project lands 

and waters are consistent with the approved SMP and other applicable license conditions. 

Shoreline Monitoring and Updating the Shoreline 

Management Plan

Shoreline management is an ongoing responsibility of licensees, and requires an investment of time and money by the 

licensee. Monitoring activities, such as keeping track of unauthorized shoreline development, may require motor boats, 

all-terrain vehicles, fine-scale aerial photography, etc. It is in 

the licensee’s best interest to actively and diligently monitor 

the shoreline and all areas inside the project boundary for encroachments. Other shoreline management activities, such as 

tracking shoreline development trends, may require publicallyavailable aerial photography, a Geographic Information System 

(GIS) database, and/or building permit data from local building 

departments. Although the licensee is ultimately responsible 

for monitoring, the licensee may consider sharing monitoring 

duties with other stakeholders to defray expenses and to keep 

the stakeholders that are participating in the review process 

involved.

SMPs are evolving documents that need to be flexible. The SMP 

should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine how effective it is in accomplishing the licensee’s goals, and to respond to 

new or evolving situations or conditions. As conditions change, 

it may be necessary to make changes to the SMP. Stakeholders that are involved in helping to develop an SMP may very 

well want to stay involved in the review process. Stakeholder 

knowledge of the project and experience with the development of the SMP is often valuable. The licensee will likely want 

to include stakeholders in regular discussions involving the effectiveness of the SMP and possible changes to it. Establishing 

a formal review and advisory committee composed of stakeholders representing a variety of interests and resources may 

prove to be beneficial to licensees.

To determine if changes to the SMP are necessary over time, a 

monitoring and review process should be established. Some 

SMPs will be simple and will likely have little monitoring actions associated with them, whereas more complex SMPs may 

have significant monitoring requirements. What is monitored 

and how often it is monitored may depend in large part upon 

agreements that were made during the SMP development 

process between the licensee and stakeholders. The purpose 

of a monitoring program is to track specific shoreline management-related conditions and situations to determine the level 

of change that takes place over time. If a changing condition 
43

(e.g., the number of docks in an area) crosses a pre-established 

threshold, licensee action (e.g., no more docks may be permitted in the area) may be required. 

Examples of Data to Track in an SMP Monitoring Program

•	 Length of disturbed and undisturbed shoreline 

•	 Number of new docks constructed or new permits approved

•	 Number of boats launched at specific ramps 

•	 Number of permit violations or encroachments

•	 Changes in land uses adjacent to or near the project

•	 Unanticipated environmental effects or cumulative effects

•	 Perceptions of visitor and nearby landowner

An SMP, in whole or in part, should be reviewed periodically 

(typically every five or ten years). The frequency with which an 

SMP should be reviewed depends upon several factors, including the rate of change on project lands and adjacent lands as 

well as the level of stakeholder interest. An SMP for a project 

located in an area subject to heavy development pressure or 

high stakeholder interest will likely need to be reviewed and 

updated more often than an SMP for a project located in an 

area that is not experiencing rapid change or is not of particular 

concern to stakeholders.

In reviewing its SMP, the licensee should consult with appropriate agencies and other stakeholders regarding whether or not 

the SMP needs to be updated, and then file with the Commission a report discussing its findings. Should an updated SMP 

be determined to be necessary, the licensee should file with 

the Commission by the due date a description and explanation 

of the proposed changes to the SMP, including the reasons for 

making such changes (e.g., because of land use changes in the 

surrounding area or the inadequacy of an existing SMP requirement or standard). The licensee should also prepare a complete 

revised SMP document that includes the proposed changes 

to facilitate review by the Commission and stakeholders and 

preserve the continuity of the plan.
44

Conclusion

An SMP can assist a licensee in meeting its responsibilities and 

obligations under the project license. It can be extremely valuable and useful for managing project resources and in addressing multiple demands for various stakeholders. The process of 

developing the goals and objectives for the SMP should result 

in the licensee thinking comprehensively about how it wants to 

manage its project’s shorelines. Developing the SMP can bring 

to light many issues and concerns that stakeholders have and 

can result in new ways of addressing those concerns. It can 

also help licensees when conflicting demands are placed on 

the project’s resources. An effective SMP can help the licensee 

control and direct shoreline development in a way that meets 

project license obligations and purposes and generally addresses stakeholder interests.

Further information regarding shoreline management planning or other Commission-related matters may be found at the 

website (www.ferc.gov). Please see the http://www.ferc.gov/

industries/hydropower.asp portion of the website. The eLibrary 

portion of the website can be used to search for Commission 

documents and filings for specific licensed projects. 
45

Appendix A

Key License Conditions 

Section 10 (a) (1) and 4(e) of the Federal Power Act 

 

Section 10. (a) (1) That the project adopted, including the maps, plans, and specifications, shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission 

will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, 

water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e); and if necessary in order to secure such plan the Commission shall 

have authority to require the modification of any project and of the plans and specifications of the project works before approval. 

Section 4. (e) To issue licenses to citizens of the United States, or to any association of such citizens, or to any corporation organized under the 

laws of the United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, 

water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies 

of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or 

upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States (including the Territories), or for the purpose of utilizing the surplus 

water or water power from any Government dam, except as herein provided: Provided, that licenses shall be issued within any reservation only 

after a finding by the Commission that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created 

or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservations: Provided further, that no license affecting the 

navigable capacity of any navigable waters of the United States shall be issued until the plans of the dam or other structures affecting the 

navigation have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. Whenever the contemplated improvement is, in the 

judgment of the Commission, desirable and justified in the public interest for the purpose of improving or developing a waterway or waterways 

for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, a finding to that effect shall be made by the Commission and shall become a part of the 

records of the Commission: Provided further, That in case the Commission shall find that any Government dam may be advantageously used by 

the United States for public purposes in addition to navigation, no license therefore shall be issued until two years after it shall have reported to 

Congress the facts and conditions relating thereto, except that this provision shall not apply to any Government dam constructed prior to June 
46

10, 1920: And provided further, That upon the filing of any application for a license which has not been preceded by a preliminary permit under 

subsection (f) of this section, notice shall be given and published as required by the proviso of said subsection. In deciding whether to issue any 

license under this Part for any project, the Commission, in addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, shall 

give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife 

(including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. 

STANDARD ARTICLE 5

The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other 

than lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the project. The Licensee or its 

successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license, retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as 

later amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water rights, and rights or occupancy and use; and 

none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of 

the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project lands or property without specific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission. The provisions of this article are not intended to prevent 

the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project works in connection with replacements thereof 

when they become obsolete, inadequate, or inefficient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales 

made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed voluntary transfers within the meaning of this article. 

STANDARD ARTICLE 18 

So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utilization of such lands and waters for navigation and for 

outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided, that the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the 

project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property. 

STANDARD LAND USE ARTICLE 

Article (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the Licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and 
47

occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain other types of use and occupancy, 

without prior Commission approval. The Licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the 

purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the Licensee 

shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use 

of, ensure compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the Licensee for protection and enhancement 

of the project’s scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or, if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is 

violated, the Licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if 

necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures 

and facilities. 

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the Licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape plantings; (2) noncommercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can accommodate no more 

than 10 watercraft at a time where said facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, 

or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancements. To the extent feasible 

and desirable to protect and enhance the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the Licensee shall require multiple use 

and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The Licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission’s authorized representative, that the uses and occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable 

state and local health and safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining walls, the Licensee shall: 

(1) inspect the site of the proposed construction; (2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to 

control erosion at the site; and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir 

shoreline. To implement this paragraph (b), the Licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing permits for the specified 

types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the Licensee’s costs 

of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, 

and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures. 

(c) The Licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or 

maintenance of bridges or roads where all necessary state and Federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains; (3) 

sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, 
48

or underground major telephone distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69 kV or less); and (8) water intake or pumping facilities 

that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the Licensee shall file 

three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c ) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest 

conveyed, the location of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed. 

(d) The Licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or 

roads for which all necessary state and Federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for 

which all necessary Federal and state water quality certificates or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or 

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary, for which all necessary Federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private 

or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit 

E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 

feet, measured horizontally, from the edge of the project reservoir at normal maximum surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of 

project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before conveying any 

interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the Licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Energy Projects, stating its intent to 

convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map may be used), 

the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any Federal or state agency official consulted, and any Federal or state approvals required for the 

proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the Licensee to file an application for prior approval, the Licensee 

may convey the intended interest at the end of that period. 

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under paragraphs (c ) or (d) of this article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall consult with Federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and 

the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

(2) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any 

approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report on recreational resources, that the 

lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. 
49

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not 

endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable 

precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) the grantee shall not unduly restrict public access to 

project waters. 

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental values. 

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may 

be changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting 

exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, 

and shoreline control, including shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this 

article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. 

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article, shall not apply to any part of the public land and reservation of the United States 

included within the project boundaries.

18 CFR Section 2.7 

The Commission will evaluate the recreational resources of all projects under Federal license or applications therefore and seek, within its authority, the ultimate development of these resources, consistent with the needs of the area to the extent that such development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project. Reasonable expenditures by a licensee for public recreational development pursuant to an 

approved plan, including the purchase of land, will be included as part of the project cost. The Commission will not object to licensees and operators of recreational facilities within the boundaries of a project charging reasonable fees to users of such facilities in order to help defray the 

cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining such facilities. The Commission expects the licensee to assume the following responsibilities:

(a) To acquire in fee and include within the project boundary enough land to assure optimum development of the recreational resources afforded by the project. To the extent consistent with the other objectives of the license, such lands to be acquired in fee for recreational purposes 
50

shall include the lands adjacent to the exterior margin of any project reservoir plus all other project lands specified in any approved recreational 

use plan for the project.

(b) To develop suitable public recreational facilities upon project lands and waters and to make provisions for adequate public access to such 

project facilities and waters and to include therein consideration of the needs of persons with disabilities in the design and construction of such 

project facilities and access.

(c) To encourage and cooperate with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies and other interested entities in the determination of public 

recreation needs and to cooperate in the preparation of plans to meet these needs, including those for sport fishing and hunting.

(d) To encourage governmental agencies and private interests, such as operators of user-fee facilities, to assist in carrying out plans for recreation, including operation and adequate maintenance of recreational areas and facilities.

(e) To cooperate with local, State, and Federal Government agencies in planning, providing, operating, and maintaining facilities for recreational 

use of public lands administered by those agencies adjacent to the project area.

(f)(1) To comply with Federal, State and local regulations for health, sanitation, and public safety, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in the development of additional necessary regulations for such purposes. (2) To provide either by itself or through arrangement with 

others for facilities to process adequately sewage, litter, and other wastes from recreation facilities including wastes from watercraft, at recreation facilities maintained and operated by the licensee or its concessionaires.

(g) To ensure public access and recreational use of project lands and waters without regard to race, color, sex, religious creed or national origin.

(h) To inform the public of the opportunities for recreation at licensed projects, as well as of rules governing the accessibility and use of recreational facilities.
51

Appendix B

Example List of Commission Approved Shoreline Management Plans*

Project 

Number Licensee Project Name State Megawatts Commission SMP Approval Date

459 Ameren Missouri Osage MO 176.2

7/26/2011,

11/10/2011 (rehearing)

619 Pacific Gas & Electric DeSabla-Centerville CA 84.8 1/9/2009

1893

Public Service Co. of 

New Hampshire Merrimack River NH 29.9 8/16/2010

2000 New York Power Authority St. Lawrence -FDR NY 912 2/9/2005 (land use plan)

2030 Portland General Electric Pelton Round Butte OR 46.9

1/27/2009, 2/12/2009 (errata), 

2/5/2011 (revision)

2042 Pend Oreille County PUD Box Canyon WA 72 7/3/2007

2197 Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Yadkin NC 216.4 11/9/2000

2206 Carolina Power and Light Yadkin Pee Dee NC 108.6 11/24/2004

2210 Appalachian Power Smith Mountain VA 636 7/5/2005

2232 Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree NC/ SC 732.6 10/15/2003

2452 Consumers Hardy MI 29.6 3/5/1997

2599 Consumers Hodenpyl MI 17 3/5/1997

* As of the publication date of this document, this is a partial list of Commission or delegated orders acting on proposed shoreline management 

plans for various licensed projects located throughout the United States. While every project is unique, these orders provide examples of a 

variety of approved shoreline management plans. Please view the Commission’s website for other project-specific orders on proposed shoreline 

management plans. 
52

Appendix C

Links to other Useful Commission guidance documents* 

- Shoreline Development Applications

- http://ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/guidelines/smpbrochure.pdf

- Managing Hydropower Project Exhibits - Drawings Guide

- http://ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/guidelines/drawings-guide.pdf

- Recreation Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects

- http://ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/guidelines/recreat-dev-hydro-licen.pdf

* Given that guidance documents are released or updated periodically, please view the Commission’s website for the latest guidance documents.
53

Appendix D

Example List of Commission and Delegated Orders on Shoreline Management Topics*

Project 

Number

Licensee Project Name State MegawattsCommission 

Order Date

Topic

1490 Brazos River 

Authority

Morris Sheppard TX 22.5 5/15/1980 Introduced the standard land use article which gives licensees 

broader authority to authorize routine non-project uses without 

prior Commission approval.

1490 Brazos River 

Authority

Morris Sheppard TX 22.5 6/25/2009 Denial of a licensee’s request to remove lands from the project 

boundary that are reserved as a buffer strip, and to add nearby 

park lands into the project boundary. 

1940 Wisconsin Public Service Co.Tomahawk WI 2.6 6/14/2011 Approval of a licensee’s request to remove lands not needed in the 

project boundary and add lands needed in the project boundary 

(i.e., wetlands and lands within the 100-year floodplain).

459 Union Electric 

Co.

Osage MO 242.6 11/10/2011 Order on rehearing of an SMP proceeding regarding the treatment of encroachments within the project boundary. Addresses 

issues such as property rights, lands to be included in the project 

boundary, definition of an encroachment, etc.

2210 Appalachian 

Power Co.

Smith Mountain VA 636 11/10/2010 Denial of a licensee’s request for a variance from the SMP to construct a dock in an area classified for environmental protection 

because the sensitive resources would not have been protected, 

the permittee illegally removed vegetation, and the dock would 

have been poorly sited.

2165 et. al Alabama Power 

Co.

Warrior River, etc AL n/a 7/6/2011 Approval of a licensee’s procedure for permitting small (i.e. <500 

cubic yards) dredging activities without prior Commission approval.

1984 Wisconsin River 

Power Co.

Petenwell and 

Castle Rock

WI 35 4/29/2009 Denial of a licensee’s request to convey fee title ownership to a 

private buyer for an existing marina because the subject lands 

were needed for project purposes (recreation, public access, and 

protection of shoreline resources)
54

Project 

Number

Licensee Project Name State MegawattsCommission 

Order Date

Topic

199 South Carolina 

Public Service 

Authority

Santee-Cooper SC 134.5 11/24/2010 Denial of a licensee’s request to change the land use classification 

of lands within to project boundary from forestry management 

area to residential leases. 

2525 et. al Wisconsin Public Service Co.Caldron Falls, etc WI n/a 9/15/2003 Order on rehearing which addresses a licensee’s request to sell 

land to a state natural resource agency. Discusses project purposes, project boundary, and whether the subject lands are needed 

for project purposes.

2004 City of Holyoke 

Gas and Electric

Holyoke MA 43 10/31/2008 Approval of a licensee’s request to remove from the project 

boundary lands owned in fee by a private party because the lands 

were not needed for project purposes.

2232 Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC. 

Catawba-Wateree NC 732 4/11/2011 Approval of a licensee’s request to authorize a non-project use of 

project lands and waters. This proceeding is representative of a 

typical process for authorizing a marina facility.

2459 West Penn 

Power Company

Lake Lynn PA & 

WV

51 12/22/1997 Denial of a request for rehearing related to Commission approval 

of a recreation plan. Addresses the importance of public access 

for recreation versus the rights of private landowners.

* This is a partial list of orders acting on proceedings before the Commission that address specific shoreline management or development topics. While the cases in question are project-specific, these orders help to inform the reader of Commission or Commission staff’s general view or 

policies regarding particular issues or topics. Every project is unique and thus the discussion/findings in these orders may not be applicable to 

every licensed project.