Cover ImageDuke Power
Final Shoreline Management
Plan Update for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project

(FERC No. 2232)

Appendix B


Submitted by:

Duke Power, A Division of
Duke Energy Corporation

Group Environment
Health & Safety
Lake Management

July 30, 2001

Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Needham, MA

Table of Contents
Introduction
Project Area Description
Purpose and Content of the Study
Methodology
Data Collection
Mail Surveys and Interviews
Traffic Counts, Spot Counts, and Tailrace Counts
Flyovers
Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities
Data Analysis
Recreation Use Assessment
Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Recreation Demand Assessment
Limitations
Consultation
Summary of Recreation Resources
Summary of Regional Recreation Resources
Catawba-Wateree Key Characteristics
Catawba-Wateree Project Area Recreation Areas
Catawba-Wateree Project Area Recreation Use Assessment
General Recreation User Characteristics
Recreation Use
Boating Use
Project Area Recreation Resources
Lake James
Lake James Existing Recreation Areas
Lake James Recreation Use Assessment
Lake James Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake James Survey Respondent Comments
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss Existing Recreation Areas
Lake Rhodhiss Recreation Use Assessment
Lake Rhodhiss Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Rhodhiss Survey Respondent Comments
Lake Hickory
Lake Hickory Existing Recreation Areas
Lake Hickory Recreation Use Assessment
Lake Hickory Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Hickory Survey Respondent Comments
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lookout Shoals Lake Existing Recreation Areas
Lookout Shoals Lake Recreation Use Assessment
Lookout Shoals Lake Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lookout Shoals Lake Survey Respondent Comments
Lake Norman
Lake Norman Existing Recreation Areas
Lake Norman Recreation Use Assessment
Lake Norman Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Norman Survey Respondent Comments
Mountain Island Lake
Mountain Island Lake Existing Recreation Areas
Mountain Island Lake Recreation Use Assessment
Mountain Island Lake Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Mountain Island Lake Survey Respondent Comments
Lake Wylie
Lake Wylie Existing Recreation Areas
Lake Wylie Recreation Use Assessment
Lake Wylie Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Wylie Survey Respondent Comments
Fishing Creek Lake
Fishing Creek Lake Existing Recreation Areas
Fishing Creek Lake Recreation Use Assessment
Fishing Creek Lake Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Fishing Creek Lake Survey Respondent Comments
Great Falls and Rocky Creek Lakes
Great Falls and Rocky Creek Lakes Existing Recreation Areas
Great Falls and Rocky Creek Lakes Recreation Use
Assessment
Great Falls and Rocky Creek Lakes Boat Carrying
Capacity Assessment
Great Falls and Rocky Creek Lakes Survey Respondent Commentsss
Lake Wateree
Lake Wateree Existing Recreation Areas
Lake Wateree Recreation Use Assessment
Lake Wateree Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Wateree Survey Respondent Comments
4.2 Lake Rhodhiss

Lake Rhodhiss is a relatively small lake within the Catawba-Wateree system, located northeast of Morganton in Burke and Caldwell counties, North Carolina. Lake Rhodhiss has a surface area of about 3,060 acres and 97.5 shoreline miles at full pond elevation of 995.1 feet msl. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the shoreline classification for Lake Rhodhiss, based on the SMP maps.

Table 4.2-1.

Shoreline Classification for Lake Rhodhiss


Shoreline Classification

Shoreline Miles

Percent of Total

Commercial /Non-Residential

0.4

0.0%

Commercial /Residential

0.2

0.0%

Residential

0.3

0.0%

Business Industrial

0.2

0.0%

Public Recreation

0.3

0.0%

Public Infrastructure

1.4

1.0%

Project Operations

1.2

1.0%

Future Commercial/Non-Residential

25.3

26.0%

Future Commercial/Residential

2.2

2.0%

Future Residential

4.4

5.0%

Future Public Recreation

2.1

2.0%

Impact Minimization Zones

1.5

2.0%

Environmental Area

20.6

21.0%

Natural Area

37.3

38.0%

Total

97.5

100.0%


4.2.1 Lake Rhodhiss Existing Recreation Areas

There are five developed Duke Power-owned public recreation access locations on Lake Rhodhiss and the Marsh Project area, leased by Duck's Unlimited and the State of North Carolina. Figure 4.2.1 shows the public recreation access locations. In addition, there is one commercial non-residential and one commercial residential marina that provide additional public access on Lake Rhodhiss. The following sections describe the Duke-owned public access areas and provide estimates of the number and type of commercial recreational access facilities at Lake Rhodhiss.

Existing Duke-Owned Public Access Areas

The developed Duke-owned public access areas provide about 247 acres and about 15,756 feet of shoreline frontage of public access at Lake Rhodhiss. Combined, the developed access areas have 11 public boat ramps, 6 loading piers, and about 350 car/trailer and 20 vehicle parking spaces. Table 4.2-2 summarizes the facilities at the public access areas. The NCWRC, under an agreement with Duke Power, maintains all of the access areas on Lake Rhodhiss.

Click Here to View Full
Figure 4.2-1

Lake Rhodhiss Public Recreation Access Areas

Figure 4.2-1

In the 1994 SMP, Duke Power proposed improving the Castle Bridge access area (replace 1 ramp with 6 new ramps, replace 2 piers with 3 new piers and add 150 paved parking spaces), relocate the Tator Hole site (add 4 new ramps, two loading piers and add 100 paved parking spaces). In addition, Duke Power said it would add 5 acres of land at Castle Bridge (45 acres added), add 20 acres to the Conley Creek site (64 added) and provide 100 acres at the relocated Tator Hole site (now called the Rhodhiss site where 127 acres were provided). All of the commitments were met except for the provision of 4 boat ramps at the Rhodhiss site where, after consultation with the NCWRC and FERC, only 2 ramps and 1 pier were provided initially.

Table 4.2-2. 

Lake Rhodhiss Duke-Owned Public Access Areas


Access Area Name

Acreage

Shoreline Frontage (ft)

Boat Ramps

Loading Piers

Fishing Piers

Car
Parking
(Spaces)

V/T*
Parking
(Spaces)

Johns River

1.8

172

1

1

0

0

30

Huffman Bridge

2.3

610

0

0

0

20

0

Castle Bridge

47.7

1,290

6

3

0

0

150

Conley Creek

67.9

4,842

2

1

0

0

70

Rhodhiss

126.9

8,842

2

1

0

0

100

Total

246.6

15,756

11

6

0

20

350

* Vehicle/Trailer parking areas

State and County Public Recreation Facilities

The Marsh Project area is located in the upper portion of Lake Rhodhiss, upstream of the Huffman Bridge access area. The Marsh Project area is leased by Duck's Unlmited and the State of North Carolina and has about 27 acres and 4,000 feet of shoreline. The area provides opportunities for viewing wildlife and scenery.

Existing Commercial and Private Recreation Access

In addition to the Duke-owned public access areas, the public can gain access to Lake Rhodhiss through commercial non-residential and commercial residential marinas. Private access to Lake Rhodhiss is through a private marina and private piers along the Lake Rhodhiss shoreline. Table 4.2-3 summarizes the number and type of public and private commercial non-residential and commercial residential marina facilities. Table 4.2-4 summarizes the estimated number of private piers.

Table 4.2-3.

Summary of Lake Rhodhiss Commercial Recreational
Access Facilities


Type of Facility

Commercial
Non-Residential

Commercial Residential

Public Marinas

1

0

Private Marinas

0

1

Wet Slips

62

2

Dry Slips

0

0


Table 4.2-4.

Summary of Lake Rhodhiss Private Recreational Access Facilities


Type of Facility

No. Private Facilities

Piers

5

Site-Specific Descriptions of Existing Duke-owned Public Access Areas at Lake Rhodhiss

The following section provides a description of each Duke-owned public access area at Lake Rhodhiss, including a photograph, site characterisitics, site recreation facilities, and key recreation activities.

Johns River Access Area

Figure 4.2-2

Figure 4.2-2.

Johns River Access Area

The Johns River access area is located in the upper portion of Lake Rhodhiss off Highway 18/64 near Chesterfield, North Carolina. Table 4.2-5 summarizes key site characteristics for the Johns River access area.

Table 4.2-5. 

Summary of Johns River Access Area Site Characteristics


Site Name

Johns River

Location

Highway 18/64, Burke County, NC

Site Acreage

1.8

Site Facilities

1 boat ramp, 1 loading pier

Parking

30 gravel vehicle/trailer parking spaces

ADA Facilities

None

Key Recreation Activities

Boating, fishing

Recreation Access Fees

None

Key Views

Johns River arm of the lake

Topography

Flat slope

Vegetation

Mixed conifers and hardwoods

Shoreline Footage

172 feet

Ownership/Lease

Duke Power/NCWRC

Huffman Bridge Access Area

Figure 4.2-3

Figure 4.2-3.

Huffman Bridge Access Area

The Huffman Bridge access area is located in the upper portion of Lake Rhodhiss along the northern shoreline in Burke County, North Carolina. Table 4.2-6 summarizes key site characteristics for the Huffman Bridge access area.

Table 4.2-6.

Summary of Huffman Bridge Access Area Site Characteristics


Site Name

Huffman Bridge

Location

Huffman Bridge Road, Burke County, NC

Site Acreage

2.3 acres

Site Facilities

None

Parking

20 gravel car parking spaces

ADA Facilities

None

Key Recreation Activities

Bank fishing

Recreation Access Fees

None

Key Views

Main lake

Topography

Moderate slope

Vegetation

Mixed conifers and hardwoods

Shoreline Footage

610 feet

Ownership/Lease

Duke Power/NCWRC

Castle Bridge Access Area

Figure 4.2-4

Figure 4.2-4.

Castle Bridge Access Area

The Castle Bridge access area is located in the middle portion of Lake Rhodhiss along the northern shoreline in Caldwell County, North Carolina. Table 4.2-7 summarizes key site characteristics for the Castle Bridge access area.

Table 4.2-7. 

Summary of Castle Bridge Area Site Characteristics


Site Name

Castle Bridge

Location

Malcolm Boulevard, Caldwell County, NC

Site Acreage

47.7 acres

Site Facilities

6 boat ramps, 3 loading piers, lighting

Parking

150 paved vehicle/trailer parking spaces

ADA Facilities

Loading piers

Key Recreation Activities

Boating, boat fishing

Recreation Access Fees

None

Key Views

Main lake

Topography

Moderate slope

Vegetation

Mixed conifers and hardwoods

Shoreline Footage

1,290 feet

Ownership/Lease

Duke Power/NCWRC

Conley Creek Access Area

Figure 4.2-5

Figure 4.2-5.

Conley Creek Access Area

The Conley Creek access area is located in the lower portion of Lake Rhodhiss along the northern shoreline in Caldwell County, North Carolina. Table 4.2-8 summarizes key site characteristics for the Conley Creek access area.

Table 4.2-8.

Summary of Conley Creek Access Area Site Characteristics


Site Name

Conley Creek

Location

Water Works Road, Caldwell County, NC

Site Acreage

67.9 acres

Site Facilities

2 boat ramps, 1 loading pier, lighting

Parking

70 paved vehicle/trailer parking spaces

ADA Facilities

Loading pier

Key Recreation Activities

Boating, fishing

Recreation Access Fees

None

Key Views

Main lake

Topography

Moderate slope

Vegetation

Mostly conifers and some open grassed areas

Shoreline Footage

4,842 feet

Ownership/Lease

Duke Power/NCWRC

Rhodhiss Access Area

Figure 4.2-6

Figure 4.2-6.

Rhodhiss Access Area

The Rhodhiss access area is located in the lower portion of Lake Rhodhiss near the Rhodhiss dam and hydroelectric station in Burke County, North Carolina. Table 4.2-9 summarizes key site characteristics for the Rhodhiss access area.

Table 4.2-9.

Summary of Rhodhiss Access Area Site Characteristics


Site Name

Rhodhiss

Location

Weaver Lane, Burke County, NC

Site Acreage

126.9 acres

Site Facilities

2 boat ramps, 1 loading pier, lighting

Parking

120 paved vehicle/trailer parking spaces

ADA Facilities

Loading pier

Key Recreation Activities

Boating, fishing

Recreation Access Fees

None

Key Views

Main lake and Rhodhiss dam

Topography

Moderate to steep slope

Vegetation

Mixed conifers and hardwoods

Shoreline Footage

8,842 feet

Ownership/Lease

Duke Power/NCWRC


4.2.2 Lake Rhodhiss Recreation Use Assessment

Recreation Use

Visitation at the public access areas on Lake Rhodhiss was derived based on estimates of the traffic entering the Duke-owned public access areas. Total estimated visitation during the 1999 study period for Lake Rhodhiss at these sites was about 228,010 visits. Figure 4.2-7 shows the distribution of the visitation for each month at Lake Rhodhiss for the Duke-owned public access areas during the 1999 study period. A visit is considered a vehicle or vehicle/trailer entering the site for any part of a day.

Figure 4.2-7

Figure 4.2-7.

Lake Rhodhiss Estimate of Recreation Visitation at the Duke-Owned Access Areas


Table 4.2-10 shows the estimated recreation visitation based on the traffic counter data for the sampled sites during the 1999 study period. Of the Lake Rhodhiss Duke-owned access areas, Castle Bridge, Rhodhiss, and Conley Creek were estimated to have the greatest amount of use at about 51 percent, 22 percent, and 15 percent, respectively, of the total estimated use at the Lake Rhodhiss Duke-owned access areas.

Spot counts were conducted at 3 locations on Lake Rhodiss, Conley Creek, Johns River and Rhodiss Access Areas. Table 4.2-11 lists all of the spot count sites with the number of days per month of data collection.

Click Here to View Full

Table 4.2-10

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Recreation Visitation at Duke-Owned Access Areas


Table 4.2-11

Spot Count Data Collection by Month


Site

Month

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Conley Creek

2

2

3

1

5

4

4

4

5

3

1

2

Johns River

2

2

2

1

5

6

5

3

4

2

1

2

Rhodiss

2

2

2

2

2

5

5

4

5

3

1

2

Based on survey data input, the estimated ratio for annual visits to the project area for Survey B respondents (respondents that use both public and private access areas) compared to Survey C respondents (respondents at the public access areas) was about a ratio of 1.27 to 1. The estimated overall recreational visitation for Lake Rhodhiss for the 1999 study period totaled 288,655 visits.

The total number of surveys received for each survey is listed in Table 4.2-12. Survey D was conducted of marina operators, therefore numbers of surveys sent and received were low. Figure 4.2-8 shows the distribution of recreation activity type for Survey B and Survey C categories. (There were no respondents for Lake Rhodhiss for Survey A since there are only three private piers on the lake). Figure 4.2-9 shows the distribution of recreation activity type combining data from Surveys B and C, spot counts, and tailrace counts. Based on the combined data sources, the primary recreation activities for Lake Rhodhiss during the 1999 study period were motor boating, boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and swimming. For Lake Rhodhiss, about 17 percent of Survey B and 0 percent of Survey C respondents indicated they recreated on the islands. The combined responses to Surveys B and C indicated that about 3 percent overall recreated on the islands.

Table 4.2-12

Total Responses by Survey


Survey

A

B

C

E

Total

N=

0

12

65

7

84

Figure 4.2-8

Figure 4.2-8.

Lake Rhodhiss Distribution of Recreation Activity Type from Survey Data Sources

For Lake Rhodhiss, the average party size (average number of recreators in each party) for respondents to Survey B was 4.5 people and for Survey C was 2.6. The average party size for both B and C was 2.9. The average number of visits per year for Survey B was 31.5, for Survey C was 23.2, and for combined Survey B and C respondents was 24.5. The average length of stay for Survey B respondents was 6.8 hours, for Survey C respondents was 4.6 hours, and for combined Survey B and C respondents was 4.9 hours. About 2.4 percent of the respondents to Survey B indicated that Lake Rhodhiss was the lake they primarily recreated on within the Catawba-Wateree system.

Figure 4.2-9

Figure 4.2-9.

Lake Rhodhiss Distribution of Recreation Activity Type from all Data Sources

Table 4.2-13 summarizes the perceived crowding ratings for Lake Rhodhiss for each survey type, including responses to Surveys D and E and a combined rating for Survey B and C responses. Recreators on Lake Rhodhiss (Surveys B and C) indicated that weekday crowding was about mid-range (on a scale of 1 to 5) and weekend crowding was rated as relatively high for survey respondents to Survey B, and low for respondents at the public access areas (Survey C). There was only one Survey D response rating the crowding on Lake Rhodhiss, and the lake rescue and management groups were asked for crowding ratings only for the higher use lakes within the Catawba-Wateree system, including James, Hickory, Norman , Wylie and Wateree.

Table 4.2-13.

Lake Rhodhiss Perceived Crowding Ratings


 

Weekday

Weekend

Survey

Avg. of Rating

N=

Avg. of Rating

N=

A

0.0

0

0.0

0

B

2.7

12

4.2

12

C

1.7

22

1.7

23

Combined A,B,C *

2.0

34

2.5

35

D

3.0

1

4.0

1

E

NA

NA

NA

NA

* Weighted Average

Boating Use

Figure 4.2-10 shows the distribution of boating activity type for Lake Rhodhiss based on Surveys B and C individually comparing the percentage of each boating activity type to the overall boating use. The average boating party size was 4.9 for Survey B, 2.5 for Survey C, and 2.9 for the combined responses for Surveys B and C. The average number of hours boating was indicated as 6.4 hours for Survey B, 4.7 hours for Survey C, and 5.0 hours for the combined responses for Surveys B and C.

Figure 4.2-10

Figure 4.2-10.

Lake Rhodhiss Distribution of Boating Use

Of the individuals surveyed who primarily recreated on Lake Rhodhiss, 100 percent of the Survey B respondents and about 78 percent of the Survey C respondents owned boats. For the combined responses for Surveys B and C, about 82 percent of the respondents owned boats.

Table 4.2-14 summarizes the distribution of boat ownership by type of boat for Lake Rhodhiss. Motor boats comprised over 57 percent of the boat ownership compared to the other boat categories, followed by jet skis at about 17 percent. The ownership of motor boat types was about 38 percent for small motor boats (ranging 20 feet or less in size) and about 19 percent for medium motor boats (ranging between 21 to 40 feet in size).

Table 4.2-14.

Lake Rhodhiss Boat Ownership Type


Survey

A

B

C

Combined

N=

NA

12

65

77

Motor Boat SM

NA

65%

32%

38%

Motor Boat MD

NA

18%

19%

19%

Motor Boat LG

NA

0%

0%

0%

Canoe

NA

0%

15%

13%

Kayak

NA

0%

8%

6%

Sailboat

NA

0%

8%

6%

Jet Ski

NA

12%

18%

17%

Other Boats

NA

6%

0%

1%

Total

NA

100%

100%

100%

Figure 4.2-11 shows the period of the day the respondents indicated they primarily boated, for Surveys B and C (no responses for Survey A were received). For Survey B about 2.6 percent and for Survey C about 9 percent indicated they primarily launched boats at Lake Rhodhiss. For the combined responses for Surveys B and C about 5 percent of the respondents primarily launched boats at Lake Rhodhiss compared to other lakes within the Catawba-Wateree system.

Figure 4.2-11

Figure 4.2-11.

Lake Rhodhiss Boating Period Distribution


4.2.3 Lake Rhodhiss Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment

The overall boat carrying capacity is assessed based on the peak boating use estimates obtained during the aerial flyovers in the 1999 study period. The available boating acreage was adjusted from the base boats per acreage estimate (see Table 4.2-15) by the following factors (Warren and Rea, 1989):

Factor
Adjustment
1. Location of the lake in relation to population served
0
2. Multiple use of water area
-

3.

Shoreline configuration
-
4. Amount of open water
-
5. Amount of facility and shoreline development
-
6. Crowding rating
0
 
Total
-3

Table 4.2-15.

Boat Type Acreage Adjustment
(Source: Modified from Warren and Rea, 1989)


Boat Activity Type

Low

-4

-3

-2

-1

Base

1

2

3

4

High

Fishing

10.0

9.0

8.0

6.0

5.0

4.3

4.0

3.3

3.0

2.3

2.0

Canoe/Kayak

2.5

2.3

2.0

1.8

1.5

1.3

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.5

Motor Boating

18.0

17.0

15.0

13.0

11.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

3.0

Sailing

10.0

9.0

8.0

6.0

5.0

4.3

4.0

3.3

3.0

2.3

2.0

Jet Skiing

10.0

9.0

8.0

6.0

5.0

4.3

4.0

3.3

3.0

2.3

2.0

Water Skiing

20.0

18.0

17.0

15.0

14.0

12.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

Table 4.2-16 summarizes the assessment of the allowable overall boat capacity based on the usable boating water surface acreage and the boating activity mix identified from the surveys. Table 4.2-17 provides the assessment of the percent capacity of the boat use for Lake Rhodhiss on the peak day during the 1999 study period. Lake Rhodhiss during the weekday was estimated at 9 percent capacity, during the weekend at 7 percent capacity, and during the peak holiday period at 16 percent capacity for overall boating use.

Table 4.2-16.

Lake Rhodhiss Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment


Boat Activity

Usable Acreage

Use Factor

Max. No. Boats

% Usage

Boat
Activity Mix

Persons/ Boat

Total Users

Fishing

3,060

8.0

383

60%

230

3.14

722

Canoe/Kayak

3,060

2.0

1,530

12%

184

3.26

600

Motor Boating

1,743

15.0

116

13%

15

3.90

59

Sailing

1,743

8.0

218

0%

 -  

3.36

-  

Jet Skiing

1,743

8.0

218

13%

28

3.85

108

Water Skiing

1,743

17.0

103

2%

2

4.39

9

Total

     

100%

459

 

1,498


Table 4.2-17.

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity


Peak Use

Weekday

% Capacity

Weekend

% Capacity

Holiday

% Capacity

No. Boats

49

11%

41

9%

89

19%

The overall boat carrying capacity assessment provides an assessment of the total surface area of boating use. To assess the areas of the lakes with higher boating density, the general location of boating activity was recorded during the aerial flyovers for each day of aerial coverage. Figure 4.2-12 shows the location of boats during the peak use day for Lake Rhodhiss. Figure 4.2-13 shows the boating density on Lake Rhodhiss for the peak use day and areas with the greatest clustering of boating activity. Figure 4.2-14 shows the boat density map based on the composite of the five highest boating use days. This figure illustrates the areas with boating use most often occurred during the peak use days during the study period and provides an assessment of areas with high density boating during the study period.

Click Here to View Full
Figure 4.2-12

Lake Rhodhiss Peak Use Day Boat Counts

Figure 4.2-12

Click Here to View Full
Figure 4.2-13

Lake Rhodhiss Peak Use Day Boat Density Map

Figure 4.2-13

Click Here to View Full
Figure 4.2-14

Lake Rhodhiss Composite Peak Use Boat Density Map

Figure 4.2-14

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Future Recreational Demand

Table 4.2-18 provides the population projections for the counties within 50-60 miles of Lake Rhodhiss reservoir. 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.

Table 4.2-18. 

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Population Projections for the
Impact Zone


County

1999

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Burke

77,086

85,651

92,340

98,366

108,595

119,888

132,355

McDowell

37,166

41,296

44,196

46,347

50,404

54,816

59,614

Wilkes

57,966

64,407

66,789

68,158

72,777

77,710

82,976

Alexander

29,121

32,357

36,056

39,314

45,333

52,273

60,275

Watauga

37,759

41,954

45,542

48,552

56,388

65,488

76,056

Avery

14,149

15,721

16,002

16,054

16,853

17,692

18,573

Caldwell

68,560

76,178

78,758

80,411

86,374

92,779

99,659

Rutherford

54,126

60,140

62,576

64,776

69,009

73,519

78,323

Cleveland

83,358

92,620

96,803

100,034

106,779

113,979

121,664

Lincoln

54,839

60,932

70,132

79,229

94,689

113,166

135,248

Catawba

120,581

133979

146,217

157,650

176,071

196,645

219,623

Total

634,711

705,235

755,411

798,891

883,272

977,955

1,084,366

Table 4.2-19 provides the estimated recreational use for the impact zone through the year 2050. Current use estimates are based on spot counts and responses to surveys. The recreational use projections 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.

Table 4.2-20 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 4.2-19. 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 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 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 4.2-21 provides the estimate of the recreational facilities land acreage needed to meet the future recreational demand through the year 2050. The weighted population is the estimated impact zone population multiplied by the participation rate for each activity. The facility standards and estimated acreage needs for the facility class are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreational Facilities. The facility need 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 Lake Rhodhiss. The acreage needs are then based on the Lake Rhodhiss facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities. For Lake Rhodhiss, it is estimated that 37 acres are required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes 1 acre of beaches, 3 acres of picnic areas, 11 acres of campsites, and 22 acres of boat ramps.

The estimated acreage needs for the reservoir are total usable acreage needs. Usable land acreage at existing developed public recreational facilities can be counted toward meeting these needs. Duke Power sites, county and state parks, and other private and public agencies will meet these needs. There are a number of state and county parks that are located on lands leased from Duke Power. These areas are not included in the discussion, as Duke Power owned access areas. 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.

For Lake Rhodhiss, the most frequently identified recreational facility needs mentioned boat ramps, restrooms and picnic areas. In the past 5 years, 6 new boat ramps have been added to the lake and they are currently underutilized, so no additional boat ramps are proposed at this time. A picnic area is proposed by the Town of Sawmills at the Conley Creek access area. Restrooms will not be provided at unsupervised access areas because of the potential vandalism problems that could occur at these remote sites.

Table 4.2-19.

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Future Recreational Use


Activity

Est. 1999 Rec Use

Rec Use 2010

Rec Use 2020

Rec Use 2030

Rec Use 2040

Rec Use 2050

Motor Boating*

61,202

66,169

71,301

80,596

92,572

106,968

Boat Fishing*

146,546

169,902

191,927

222,594

250,368

275,646

Bank/Pier Fishing

51,564

59,782

67,532

78,323

88,095

96,990

Lake Swimming

51,862

58,794

65,636

76,517

90,231

107,345

Canoeing*

14,075

15,753

17,238

20,198

24,574

31,060

Jet Skiing*

31,561

34,122

36,769

41,562

47,738

55,162

Kayaking*

2,815

3,043

3,279

3,705

4,289

5,067

Tailrace Fishing

5,928

6,873

7,764

9,005

10,128

11,151

Sailing*

0

0

0

0

0

0

Water Ski/Tubing*

32,456

35,090

37,811

42,741

49,092

56,726

Backpacking

5,928

7,641

9,634

12,430

15,591

19,316

Hunting

23,713

24,627

25,214

26,587

27,326

27,928

Tent/Vehicle Camp

17,785

23,415

30,062

39,359

50,701

64,445

Windsurfing

0

0

0

0

0

0

Bicycling

0

0

0

0

0

0

Picnicking

32,158

38,052

44,399

53,928

65,609

79,834

Sightseeing

32,158

39,254

46,939

57,713

70,845

86,356

Hiking

5,928

7,458

9,121

11,397

13,889

16,607

Wildlife Viewing

2,815

3,609

4,555

5,760

6,995

8,177

Using Playgrounds

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sub-total*

288,655

324,079

358,325

411,396

468,633

530,629

Total

518,494

593,584

669,181

782,415

908,043

1,048,777

*Boating activities

Table 4.2-20.

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Absorption Percentage for Reservoir


Activity

Estimated 1999 Participants

Estimated 1999 Demand

Absorption Percentage

Swimming

51,862

1,967,369

2.6%

Picnicking

32,158

1,222,707

2.6%

Camping

17,785

476,287

3.1%

Boating

288,655

1,570,910

18.4%


Table 4.2-21. 

Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Recreational Facility Land
Acreage Needs


A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Activity

Year

Weighted Population

Facility Standard

Facility Need

Facility Class

Lake Rhodhiss Share

Acreage

Swimming

2010

281,768

1 per 50,000

5.64

beaches

0.15

0.81

 

2020

297,986

1 per 50,000

5.96

beaches

0.15

0.85

 

2030

329,460

1 per 50,000

6.59

beaches

0.17

0.94

 

2040

362,724

1 per 50,000

7.25

beaches

0.19

1.04

 

2050

399,346

1 per 50,000

7.99

beaches

0.21

1.16

Picnicking

2010

338,424

1 per 500

676.85

tables

17.60

1.76

 

2020

357,903

1 per 500

715.81

tables

18.61

1.86

 

2030

395,706

1 per 500

791.41

tables

20.58

2.06

 

2040

435,658

1 per 500

871.32

tables

22.67

2.27

 

2050

479,643

1 per 500

959.29

tables

25.26

2.53

Camping

2010

169,212

6 per 1,000

1,015.27

campsites

31.47

7.87

 

2020

178,952

6 per 1,000

1,073.71

campsites

33.28

8.32

 

2030

197,853

6 per 1,000

1,187.12

campsites

36.80

9.20

 

2040

217,829

6 per 1,000

1,306.97

campsites

40.54

10.13

 

2050

239,822

6 per 1,000

1,438.93

campsites

45.18

11.29

Boating

2010

339,935

1 per 4000

84.98

boat ramps

15.64

15.64

 

2020

359,501

1 per 4000

89.88

boat ramps

16.54

16.54

 

2030

397,472

1 per 4000

99.37

boat ramps

18.28

18.28

 

2040

437,603

1 per 4000

109.40

boat ramps

20.14

20.14

 

2050

481,784

1 per 4000

120.45

boat ramps

22.45

22.45

         

Total Acreage for 2050

37.42


4.2.4 Lake Rhodhiss Survey Respondent Comments

Recreators were asked in the surveys if the existing recreational facilities within the Catawba-Wateree system met their recreational needs. For Lake Rhodhiss respondents, about 50 percent for Survey B (n=12), 80 percent for Survey C (n=65), and 75 percent for combined Surveys B and C stated the existing facilities met their needs. As stated in the previous sections, no comments were received from Survey A for Lake Rhodhiss. The primary facilities that were indicated as needed at Lake Rhodhiss included more boat ramps, picnic areas, and restroom facilities. In response to whether additional boating facilities were needed, about 92 percent for Survey B (n=12), 89 percent for Survey C (n=65), and 90 percent for combined Surveys B and C felt the existing boating facilities were adequate. The primary boating facilities that were indicated as needed at Lake Rhodhiss included more boat ramps and gas pump facilities.

About 50 percent for Survey B (n=12); 8 percent for Survey C (n=65); and 14 percent for combined Surveys B, and C indicated they had a negative experience while recreating. About 33 percent for Survey B (n=12); 11 percent for Survey C (n=65); and 14 percent for combined Surveys B and C indicated they had felt jeopardized while recreating. The primary reasons listed for the negative experiences and incidences when recreators felt jeopardized were reckless or inconsiderate jet ski use and boat use by other recreators. In addition, a few respondents commented on litter and trash in the area.

In terms of responses to additional comments, many respondents to Surveys B and C stated concerns associated with boating use on Lake Rhodhiss. The primary concerns were related to safety factors associated with improper use of jet skis and boats and boat users not understanding and/or adhering to boat laws and common sense boating safety measures.

When asked if they could change one thing, respondents to Surveys B and C commented they would like to see more public access, controlled shoreline development, and clean-up of trash and litter. Respondents also commented they would like to see better law enforcement and require boaters and jet skiers to take safety courses. No comments were received from Survey D for Lake Rhodhiss. Respondents to Survey E commented overcrowding was occurring at public boat ramps and access areas, and indicated the need for speed limits on the lake.

Next