This section describes the methodology for the data collection efforts during the 1999 study period and the methods applied for the analysis of the data. Data collection efforts focused on obtaining information related to recreational use, existing recreation facilities, recreation user perceptions, and boat carrying capacity. This information was then analyzed to characterize existing recreational use and facilities, assess boat carrying capacity, and assess future recreational demand.

A combination of data collection instruments was used to collect recreational use data within the project area, including mail-out surveys, recreational user interviews, traffic and spot counts at recreation sites and tailraces, and watercraft counts from flyovers. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the data collection methods, targeted user groups, data collection mediums (survey, interview, etc.), when and where the mediums were used, estimated population numbers, number of surveys mailed, and number of survey responses for each survey type. A total of 1,820 surveys was received from the Survey A, B, D, and E mailings and the Survey C interviews. In addition, about 5,200 spot counts and tailrace counts were conducted during the study period to obtain further information about recreational use within the project area.

Surveys and interviews were conducted during January 1999 through December 1999 to assess the existing recreation use and perceived recreation needs within the project area. Appendix A includes the survey and interview instruments used during these data collection efforts. Surveys were mailed to different user types to obtain information and input from property owners adjacent to the project reservoirs, the general population in order to capture recreationists from the region, commercial marina operations located within the project reservoirs, and lake management and resource agencies. Two mailings of Surveys (A) and (B) were conducted due to low response rates from the first mailing, in an attempt to reach the targeted sample size of responses.

Survey (A) was mailed to property owners adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs selected from Duke Power's pier permit database. Survey (B) was mailed to a sampling of registered boaters, and households within the counties surrounding the reservoirs to obtain information from potential and existing recreation users. The registered boaters were selected from North Carolina's and South Carolina's boat permitting databases, and households were selected from the voter registration databases. All sample populations were selected through random sampling and stratified by the geographic region to obtain evenly distributed and representative survey information for the entire study area.

Interviews were conducted (Survey C) of recreators using the public access areas. The interviews were conducted both during the primary recreation season (April through October) and the non-peak season (January through March and November through December).

Click Here to View Full

Survey (D) was mailed to all public and private marina operators on the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs. Survey (E) was mailed to lake management support agencies, including law enforcement, emergency response, and safety training organizations; marine commissions; and resource agencies associated with the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs.

In January 1999, electronic traffic counters were placed at 17 Duke Power access areas within the Catawba-Wateree system. The sites were selected based on an assessment of the suitability of the site for traffic counters, with an emphasis on obtaining information from the sites with the anticipated highest level of use, and obtaining information from sites geographically distributed throughout the project area. Early in the study period, calibration of the traffic counters was conducted via manual spot counts of traffic entering the sites and comparing those estimates with the traffic counter data for that period; the results of this assessment verified the accuracy of the traffic counter data. From January to early April, a total of 10 traffic counters were stolen and several moved, resulting in lost and sporadic data. As a result of these ongoing problems, traffic counters were maintained at 11 representative sites, and spot counts were conducted at 26 other representative sites. Table 2.1-2 contains a list of all of the traffic counters used during the study. Table 2.1-3 contains a list of all spot count sites and the number of days that counts took place. The traffic counter issues were resolved before the primary recreation season began and traffic counters that were removed were replaced with spot counts. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any bias associated with the use estimates that are based on the results of the traffic counts as a whole. Over 1,000 spot counts were conducted periodically and randomly at selected times of the day and week during the study period to record the type of recreational activity at the access areas. The spot counts provided information at the sites where traffic counters were not installed. Over 4,200 tailrace counts of recreational users were conducted throughout the 1999 study period to obtain information about the recreational use occurring within the tailrace areas.

Flyovers were conducted of the 11 reservoirs beginning in April and extending through Labor Day weekend. During the flyovers, counts of the watercraft and type of use (such as water skiing, fishing, motor boating, canoeing) were recorded. The purpose of the flyovers was to capture peak boating use data to characterize the distribution of boating use and to assess existing water-based carrying capacity conditions. Attempts were made to adequately cover all the reservoirs within the Catawba-Wateree system; however, focus was placed on obtaining information from James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, and Wateree reservoirs, where there is the most use and public access to the project reservoirs. A total number of 21 flyovers were conducted, with 11 taken on weekends (Saturday or Sunday), 5 on holidays, and 5 during the week (see Table 2.1-4). During each flyover, the data assessors attempted to fly over and record all lakes within the Catawba-Wateree system. Due to inclement weather and mechanical problems on some of the flights, some of the lakes were not covered during several of the flyovers, or the distribution of boating activity was not properly recorded. Appendix B provides a summary for each date of the flyover coverage for each lake and the type of weather for that day.

* Includes Memorial Day weekend, Fourth of July weekend, and Labor Day weekend

The boat count data were obtained during the flyovers using aerial GPS surveying techniques with a Trimble Pro XRS GPS unit in the airplane. The unit produces sub-meter level accuracy; however, due to velocity and the angle of line of sight, most boat count locations are probably only accurate to within 20 meters. All collected data were differentially post processed with the use of Duke Power's base station. Post processing differential correction allows for the removal of error produced by the ionosphere, and error associated with the Department of Defense's Selective Availability distortion. Once the final data were corrected, they were combined into a single coverage or "theme" depicting the total number of boats and the boat type. For instance, some areas had clusters of boats; therefore, a single point may represent many boats that were very close together. For each lake, boat count maps were created and are included in Section 4 of this report. Figure 2.1-1 shows an example of the boat count maps. The boat types are differentiated by color and symbol type. The count groups (i.e., 1 - 5, 6 - 10) are maintained for all boat types. Public access and marina features are added for display purposes.

Click Here to View Full Figure 2.1-1 Example of Boat Count Maps

Duke Power compiled information about existing recreation facilities at Duke-owned public access areas. State and county agencies were contacted to obtain information about recreation facilities at the state- and county-owned recreation areas. In addition, information was obtained from state and county agencies on planned recreation facilities within the
project region. Information on facilities at the commercial marinas was obtained from information provided through Survey (D) responses and from Duke Power Lake Management Staff.

Data obtained during the 1999 study period were compiled and analyzed to characterize the recreation facilities and recreational use within the project region by reservoir. The following sections summarize the approach for data assessment for recreational use and boat carrying capacity.

Recreation use and needs data collected from the traffic counters, site observations, interviews, and surveys were analyzed to compile information for each of the reservoirs within the Catawba-Wateree system (see Section 4.0). This information includes for each reservoir: descriptions of the total use, type of recreation activity, length of stay at the project, boating use and characteristics, perception of crowding, any conflicts people had with other people during their recreational activity, and peoples' perceptions about the adequacy of the facilities and need for additional facilities. We also include an estimate of the shoreline classification of land use types for each lake, including the estimated shoreline miles for existing and future public recreation access from the updated SMP maps that are being filed with FERC concurrently as a part of this filing.

Overall Boat Carrying Capacity Estimate by Reservoir

The overall boat carrying capacity for each reservoir was assessed based on standards and procedures identified in "Guidelines for Understanding and Determining Optimum Recreation Carrying Capacity" (BOR, 1977) and "Management of Aquatic Recreational Resources" (Warren and Rea, 1989). Several data items were identified for each lake including:

	peak boating use estimate for weekday, weekends, and holidays;
	average person per boat type and overall average person per boat;
	total usable boating surface acres for each lake;
	optimum boating acres per boat for each boat activity type; and
	distribution of the type of boating per category, i.e., what percent of the total boating use is fishing, cruising, jet skiing, etc.

The peak boating use estimates were obtained from the flyovers conducted during April through Labor Day 1999. The average person per boat type and distribution of the boating use were obtained from the interviews and surveys conducted during the 1999 study period.

The optimum boating acreage per boat activity type was derived from acknowledged standards and procedures (BOR, 1977; Warren and Rea, 1989). The optimum boating acreage per boat activity was adjusted by assessing various factors and determining if these factors would influence the overall capacity for each lake by:

	a negative (-) rating. The factor would influence the overall capacity in a manner that recreators would not be as likely to tolerate higher use densities;
	a neutral (0) rating. The factor would have a mixed or neutral influence on how the recreators would tolerate higher use densities; and
	a positive (+) rating. The factor would influence the overall capacity in a manner that recreators would tolerate higher use densities.

The following factors were assessed for each lake (modified from Warren and Rea, 1989):

Each factor was assessed for each lake and given a value as shown in the following example:

This factor was then applied to consider the appropriate standard as summarized in Table 2.2-1. In the case of this example, the total factor assessment added up to -2, and therefore the -2 boat acreage adjustments were used in the overall boat carrying capacity assessment.

Table 2.2-2 provides an example of how the boat carrying capacity assessment was conducted for each reservoir. The usable surface area (column B) was divided by the use factor for each type of identified boating activity type. For each reservoir, the usable boating surface area was determined by using the total surface area at full pond and subtracting: (1) all island areas; (2) all isolated lake areas that are segmented from the larger reservoir and not accessible by boat from the main lake; and (3) all areas within 120 feet (allowable length of private piers) of the shorelines. These restrictions were applied to establish a conservative estimate of the usable boating surface area available at each reservoir. Items 1 and 2 are applied to all boating types, while item 3 is applied to all boating types except canoe/kayak and fishing activities. The boating activity types (column A) were classified as fishing, canoeing/kayaking, cruising, sailing, jet skiing, and water skiing. The use factor for each boat activity type (column C) was derived from adjusted standards for optimum boating surface area (acreage) as described previously. The estimated maximum number of boats for each boat activity type (column D) was derived by multiplying the total usable acreage (column B) by the use factor (column C) for each boat activity type. This estimate provides the total estimated maximum use for each category if the only activity occurring were just that boating type category. To assess the mix of boat activity type that occurs on the reservoirs, the percent usage for each category (column E) was identified based on survey and interview data. The total boat activity mix (column F) was derived by multiplying the maximum number of boats (column D) by the percent usage (column E). The estimated persons per boat (column G) was based on the survey data, and was used to determine the potential number of total users (column H) by multiplying this number (column G) by the boat activity mix (column F).

The optimum estimated capacity was then compared to the peak boating use observed during the 1999 data study period (see Table 2.2-3). The peak boating use estimate was determined for weekday, weekend, and holiday boating use (i.e., 175 weekday, 219 weekend, and 377 holiday) by applying the highest number of boats observed at the reservoir during one day during the flights conducted in the 1999 study period. These numbers were then divided by the capacity/activity mix (number of boats) (i.e., 898) to derive the estimate of the percent of boat carrying capacity for the weekday (19 percent), weekend (24 percent), and holiday (42 percent). This estimate represents the percent of the maximum boat carrying capacity occurring at the reservoir in the peak use period during the 1999 study period.

Boat Density Assessment

Boat density grids were created in order to indicate the locations where the highest levels of boating use were occurring in the study area during peak use days. Boat density grids were calculated for both the highest use day and the average high use days for each lake in the study area. The average high-use day grids are the average of output grids for high use days. The number of high use days varied between the 3 and 5 highest use days using the natural break method. The method for calculating the boat density in acres per boat for a specific lake on a specific day is as follows:

Boat density was calculated using the ESRI Arc View Spatial Analyst density function with the following parameters:

	The grid output extent parameter was selected to be the same as the specific lake extent since we are calculating density for that specific lake.
	A 50 x 50 foot grid cell size was selected because this cell size is small enough that the resulting density maps don't look grainy but is large enough that data processing was practical.
	1.5 miles were selected for the radius parameter to smooth the GPS data to show general boat use density patterns that are easily interpreted. It is useful to smooth the specific GPS data for the following 3 reasons: 1) The GPS data was collected at a large scale accuracy, from a plane travelling up to 80 miles per hour. 2) Boats are not static but are often moving while the data is being collected. 3) Many GPS points had multiple boats associated with them. Some locations had over 100 boats. Multiple boats don't occur at one point location.
	The kernel density parameter was selected to create a smoother and more easily interpreted density grid.

The resulting grid is density in boats per square mile. This grid was revised to take into account that some of the 1.5 mile radii around many of the grid cells included land areas. The original grid in boats per total area were divided by the proportion of available water surface area to total surface area, so that the resulting grid would be in boats per square mile of surface water. Finally, the grid was converted to acres per boat to obtain the final boat density maps. Figure 2.2-1 is an example of a boat density map.

Population projections, future recreational demand projections, and estimated acreage for facility needs were analyzed to assess future recreational demand and land acreage needs for future recreation facilities. Population projections of the counties within about 50-60 miles of each reservoir (impact zone) were conducted for each reservoir within the Catawba-Wateree system. Population projections were conducted for these impact zones using population data from the Office of State Planning for the counties in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the counties in South Carolina for 1970 through 1990 and population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, 2010, and 2020. An average percentage increase for each ten year period was calculated. The impact zone populations were then projected to the year 2050 using the average percentage growth for the entire time period. Current use estimates are based on spot counts and responses to surveys conducted during the summer of 1999. The recreational use projections (Table 2.2-4) were estimated by computing the projected population increase for the impact zone and incorporating indexed values for future recreational use for the various activities. The index values for each activity were obtained from "Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends" (Cordell, 1999). The indices are based on models that incorporate a number of variables, including age structure of the population, income, race, sex, and population density, as well as other explanatory variables. Full model parameters and estimates are available from the author. Sub-totals of boating activity use and projected demand are given.

* Boating Activitie

Table 2.2-5 shows the estimated absorption percentage for the four major recreation activities that require specific lands and facilities. Picnicking, swimming, camping, and boating are activities that require specific developed facilities. The other activities listed are dispersed activities that can take place at a variety of undeveloped areas. The estimated 1999 use levels are from Table 2.2-4. The estimated demand is based on the impact zone population (population of all counties within 50-60 miles of the lake). The impact zone population is multiplied by the participation rate for the activity, which was obtained from "Emerging Markets for Outdoor Recreation in the United States: Based on the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment" by H. Ken Cordell, et al. Participation rates are for the South and are similar to 1995 North Carolina and South Carolina SCORP data. Specific participation rates are as follows: swimming, 37.3%; picnicking, 44.8%; camping 22.4%; boating, 45.0%. The product of the impact zone population and participation rates are then multiplied by the estimated of number of days of participation for each activity, which were obtained from the 1995 North Carolina SCORP. The North Carolina SCORP data were used for all of the lakes, since specific data about days of participation are not available for South Carolina. The 1999 estimated number of participants for each activity was then divided by the 1999 estimated demand to obtain the estimated absorption percentage. Absorption percentage is defined as the percent of total demand for the impact zone that is met by the individual lake.

Table 2.2-6 provides the estimate of the recreational facilities land acreage needed to meet the future recreational demand through the year 2050. The recreation activities that were determined to have a specific need for recreational facilities were addressed. These are swimming, picnicking, camping and boating (Column A). The weighted population (Column C) is the estimated impact zone population multiplied by the participation rate for each activity. The facility standards (Column D) and estimated acreage needs for the facility class (Column F) are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreational Facilities. The facility need (Column E) is the total facility need for the impact zone based on the weighted population and the facility standards. The total facility need is then multiplied by the absorption percentage to determine the facility need for each lake (Column G). The acreage needs (Column H) are then based on the individual lake facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities.

The estimated acreage needs for the reservoir are total acreage needs. Duke Power sites, county and state parks, and other private and public agencies all help meet these needs. There are a number of state and county parks that are located on lands leased from Duke Power. These areas are listed as Duke Power owned access areas, but are discussed under the Summary of County or State Public Recreation Facilities. Duke Power is expected to meet a portion of the future recreational land needs. The entire estimated need will be met by a combination of opportunities from all sources.

There are some limitations to the utility of the data collected as a part of this study. First is the distribution of surveys that were collected. The overall number of surveys that was collected was quite high, however the number of responses received for some of the lakes was low. This could call into question the representativeness of the surveys that were analyzed. This issue arises for Lookout Shoals Lake, Rocky Creek Lake, and Fishing Creek Lake. Also, since the study takes place over the course of one year, effects due to anomalous weather patterns are unlikely but possible.

Consultation was conducted throughout the development of the Recreation Study. The draft study methodology for the Recreation Study was distributed to state agencies, non-governmental agencies, and lake management agencies (consulted parties) for review and comment on August 28, 1998. The study methodology was revised to incorporate or respond to these comments and submitted to FERC on October 29, 1998, for FERC review and approval, which was noticed on February 17, 1999. Data collection efforts began in January 1999 and continued through December 1999 (study period). During the study period, three interim reports, summarizing the status of the data collection efforts were distributed to FERC and the consulted parties for their review and information. The first interim report was distributed on April 29, 1999, the second report was distributed on July 30, 1999, and the third interim report was distributed on November 29, 1999. No comments were received on the interim reports. The draft Recreation Study was be submitted to FERC and the consulted parties on March 31, 2000, for review and comment. Only 1 comment letter was received in regard to the submittal of the final Study. The letter and responses to the comments contained within it are included in this filing.

Click Here to View Full Figure 2.2-1 Example of a Boat Density Map for