|
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 |
|
Lake Hickory is located downstream of Lake Rhodhiss and
northeast of Hickory in Caldwell, Burke, Catawba, and Alexander counties,
North Carolina. Lake Hickory has a surface area of about 4,223 acres and
106.4 shoreline miles at full pond elevation of 935 feet msl. Table 4.3-1
summarizes the shoreline classification for Lake Hickory, based on the
SMP maps.
| Table 4.3-1. |
Shoreline Classification for Lake Hickory
|
|
Shoreline Classification
|
Shoreline Miles
|
Percent of Total
|
|
Commercial /Non-Residential
|
1.4
|
1.0%
|
|
Commercial /Residential
|
2.2
|
2.0%
|
|
Residential
|
49.5
|
47.0%
|
|
Business Industrial
|
0.6
|
1.0%
|
|
Public Recreation
|
0.9
|
1.0%
|
|
Public Infrastructure
|
1.8
|
2.0%
|
|
Project Operations
|
1.3
|
1.0%
|
|
Future Commercial/Non-Residential
|
6.1
|
6.0%
|
|
Future Commercial/Residential
|
13.0
|
12.0%
|
|
Future Residential
|
6.8
|
6.0%
|
|
Future Public Recreation
|
2.9
|
3.0%
|
|
Impact Minimization Zones
|
2.2
|
2.0%
|
|
Environmental Area
|
17.4
|
16.0%
|
|
Natural Area
|
0.3
|
0.0%
|
|
Total
|
106.4
|
100.0%
|
| 4.3.1 |
Lake Hickory Existing
Recreation Areas |
There are 5 developed and 1 undeveloped Duke Power-owned
public recreation access locations on Lake Hickory. There are 2 city parks
operated by the City of Hickory, John Geitner Park and Glen C. Hilton
Park, and one county park, River Bend Park, located about 800 feet downstream
of the Oxford dam and operated by Catawba County. Figure 4.3-1 shows the
public recreation access locations. In addition, there are 7 commercial
non-residential marinas that provide additional public access on Lake
Hickory. The following sections describe the Duke-owned public access
areas, summarize the facilities at the county parks, and provide estimates
of the number and type of commercial recreational access facilities at
Lake Hickory.
Existing Duke-Owned Public Access Areas
The developed Duke-owned public access areas provide about
222 acres of land and about 20,108 feet of shoreline frontage of public
access at Lake Hickory. Combined, the developed access areas have 16 public
boat ramps, 9 loading piers, 3 fishing piers, and about 445 parking spaces
for car/trailers and 34 spaces for cars. Table 4.3-2 summarizes the facilities
at the public access areas. The undeveloped access area provides about
20 acres and 551 feet of shoreline frontage for future public recreational
development.
|
Click Here
to View Full
Figure 4.3-1
Lake Hickory Public Recreation Access Areas
|
 |
In the 1994 SMP, Duke Power proposed to improve the Gunpowder
access area (replace 1 ramp with 2 new boat ramps and replace the pier),
the Lovelady access area (replace 1 ramp with 2 new boat ramps), the Whittenburg
access area (replace 3 ramps with 6 new boat ramps, replace the piers
with 3 new piers, light the site and provide 165 paved parking spaces),
and the Dusty Ridge access area (replace the 2 boat ramps, replace the
pier and pave the site). In addition, Duke Power said it would add 5 acres
to the Gunpowder site (8 acres added) and add 35 acres to the Lovelady
site (42 added). All of the commitments from the 1994 SMP will be completed
by the end of 2001. Additional projects that have been completed are the
provision of handicapped fishing opportunities at the Whittenburg access
area in cooperation with the NCWRC and the relocation of the Long Shoals
access area on 53 acres of land (4 new boat ramps, 2 new loading piers,
120 paved parking spaces and lighting of the site).
| Table 4.3-2. |
Lake Hickory 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)
|
|
Gunpowder
|
13.3
|
2,590
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
60
|
|
Lovelady
|
44.1
|
1,965
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
60
|
|
Wittenburg
|
13.1
|
3,358
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
34
|
165
|
|
Dusty
Ridge
|
78.9
|
5,027
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
40
|
|
Oxford
|
52.9
|
6,617
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
120
|
|
Long
Shoals **
|
20.1
|
551
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
0
|
NA
|
|
Total
|
222.4
|
20,108
|
16
|
9
|
3
|
34
|
445
|
* Vehicle/Trailer parking area.
** Undeveloped site
County and City Public Recreation Facilities
There are one county park and two city park facilities
located along the Lake Hickory shoreline. The two city parks, Glen C.
Hilton Park and John Geitner Park, are located along the upper portion
of Lake Hickory along the southern shoreline and are owned and operated
by the City of Hickory. The City of Hickory also has 2 undeveloped park
sites on the lake. The River Bend Park is located approximately 800 feet
downstream of the Oxford Hydroelectric Station and is operated by Catawba
County. Table 4.3-3 summarizes the key characteristics of these facilities.
| Table 4.3-3. |
Summary of County and City Public Recreation Facilities
|
|
Glen C. Hilton
|
John
Geitner
|
River
Bend Park
|
|
5 picnic shelters
|
1 fishing access
|
1 fishing pier
|
|
2 playgrounds
|
1 picnic shelter
|
6 miles of hiking trails
|
|
2 miles walking trails
|
1 boat ramp
|
Canoe access
|
|
3 fishing access areas
|
1 boat dock
|
Restrooms
|
|
1 canoe launch
|
|
3.3 miles of horse/bike trails
|
Existing Commercial and Private Recreation Access
In addition to the Duke-owned public access areas and
the state and county parks, the public can gain access to Lake Hickory
through commercial non-residential and commercial residential marinas.
Private access to Lake Hickory is through private marinas and private
piers along the Lake Hickory shoreline. Table 4.3-4 shows the number and
type of public and private commercial non-residential and commercial residential
marina facilities. Table 4.3-5 shows the estimated number of private piers.
| Table 4.3-4. |
Summary of Lake Hickory Commercial Recreational Access
Facilities
|
|
Type of Facility
|
Commercial
Non-Residential
|
Commercial
Residential
|
|
Public Marinas
|
7
|
0
|
|
Private Marinas
|
1
|
6
|
|
Wet Slips
|
349
|
95
|
|
Dry Slips
|
735
|
0
|
| Table 4.3-5. |
Summary of Lake Hickory Private Recreational Access Facilities
|
|
Type of Facility
|
No. Private Facilities
|
|
Piers
|
2,200
|
Site-Specific Descriptions of Duke-owned Public Access Areas at Lake
Hickory
The following section provides a description of each Duke-owned
public access area at Lake Hickory, including a photograph, site characterisitics,
site recreation facilities, and key recreation activities.
Gunpowder Access Area

| Figure 4.3-2. |
Gunpowder Access Area
|
The Gunpowder access area is located in the upper portion
of Lake Hickory along the northern shoreline north of Hickory, North Carolina.
Table 4.3-6 summarizes key site characteristics for the Gunpowder access
area.
| Table 4.3-6. |
Summary of Gunpowder Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Gunpowder
|
|
Location
|
Road 1757, Caldwell County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
13.3 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
2 boat ramps, 1 loading pier, lighting
|
|
Parking
|
60 gravel vehicle/trailer parking
spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
Loading pier
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Cove of the lake
|
|
Topography
|
Flat slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Conifers and open grassed areas
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
2,590 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/NCWRC
|
Lovelady Access Area

| Figure 4.3-3. |
Lovelady Access Area
|
The Lovelady access area is located in the upper middle
portion of Lake Hickory along the northern shoreline in Caldwell County,
North Carolina. Table 4.3-7 summarizes key site characteristics for the
Lovelady access area.
| Table 4.3-7. |
Summary of Lovelady Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Lovelady
|
|
Location
|
Road 1575, Caldwell County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
44.1 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
2 boat ramps, 2 loading piers,
lighting
|
|
Parking
|
60 gravel vehicle/trailer parking
spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
None
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake
|
|
Topography
|
Flat slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed conifers and hardwoods
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
1,965 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/NCWRC
|
Wittenburg Access Area

| Figure 4.3-4. |
Wittenburg Access Area
|
The Wittenburg access area is located in the middle portion
of Lake Hickory along the northern shoreline, in Alexander County, North
Carolina. Table 4.3-8 summarizes key site characteristics for the Wittenburg
access area.
| Table 4.3-8. |
Summary of Wittenburg Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Wittenburg
|
|
Location
|
Wildlife Access Road, Alexander
County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
13.1 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
6 boat ramps, 3 loading piers,
3 fishing piers, lighting
|
|
Parking
|
165 paved vehicle trailer parking
spaces, 34 car parking spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
Loading piers and fishing piers
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake
|
|
Topography
|
Flat slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed conifers and hardwoods
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
3,358 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/NCWRC
|
Dusty Ridge Access Area

| Figure 4.3-5. |
Dusty Ridge Access Area
|
The Dusty Ridge access area is located in the lower portion
of Lake Hickory along the northern shoreline in Alexander County, North
Carolina. Table 4.3-9 summarizes key site characteristics for the Dusty
Ridge access area.
| Table 4.3-9. |
Summary of Dusty Ridge Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Dusty Ridge
|
|
Location
|
Road 1185,Alexander County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
78.9 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
2 boat ramps, 1loading pier, lighting
|
|
Parking
|
40 gravel vehicle/trailer parking
spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
None
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, boat and bank fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake
|
|
Topography
|
Flat to moderate slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed conifers, hardwoods and open
grassed areas
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
5,027 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/Dusty Ridge Rec. Parks,
Inc./NCWRC
|
Oxford Access Area

| Figure 4.3-6. |
Oxford Access Area
|
The Oxford access area is located in the lower portion
of Lake Hickory along the southern shoreline, just upstream of the Oxford
Hydroelectric Station. Table 4.3-10 summarizes key site characteristics
for the Oxford access area.
| Table 4.3-10. |
Summary of Oxford Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Oxford
|
|
Location
|
Claude Road, Catawba County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
52.9 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
4 boat ramps, 2 loading piers,
lighting
|
|
Parking
|
120 paved vehicle/trailer parking
spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
Loading piers
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake and Oxford dam
|
|
Topography
|
Moderate slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed pines and hardwoods, open
grass areas
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
6,617 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/NCWRC
|
Long Shoals Undeveloped Area
The Long Shoals undeveloped area is located in the middle
portion of Lake Hickory along the southern shoreline off Road 1652 in
Catawba County, North Carolina. Table 4.3-11 summarizes key site characteristics
for the Long Shoals access area.
| Table 4.3-11. |
Summary of Long Shoals Undeveloped Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Long Shoals
|
|
Location
|
Road 1652, Catawba County, NC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
20.1 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
NA
|
|
Parking
|
NA
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
NA
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
NA
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
NA
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake
|
|
Topography
|
Moderate to steep slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed conifers and hardwoods
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
551 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power
|
| 4.3.2 |
Lake Hickory Recreation
Use Assessment |
Recreation Use
Visitation at the public access areas on Lake Hickory
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 Hickory at these sites was about 299,009 visits. Figure
4.3-7 shows the distribution of the visitation for each month at Lake
Hickory 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 4.3-7. |
Lake Hickory Estimate of Recreation Visitation at the Duke-Owned
Access Areas
|
Table 4.3-12 provides a summary of the estimated recreation
visitation based on the traffic counter data for the sampled sites during
the 1999 study period. Wittenburg and Oxford were estimated to have the
greatest amount of use at about 43 percent and 28 percent, respectively,
of the total estimated use at the Lake Hickory Duke-owned access areas.
Spot counts were conducted at five sites for Lake Hickory,
Dusty Ridge, Gunpowder, Lovelady, Oxford, and Wittenburg Access areas.
Table 4.3-13 lists the number of sample days per month for the spot count
data collection.
Click Here
to View Full
| Table 4.3-12 |
Lake Hickory Estimated Recreation Visitation at Duke-Owned
Access Areas
|
| Table 4.3-13. |
Spot Count Data Collection Sites by Month
|
|
|
Month
|
| |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
Dusty Ridge
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
|
Gunpowder
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
7
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
Lovelady
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
|
Oxford
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
|
Wittenburg
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
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 1.41 to
1. The estimated overall recreational visitation for Lake Hickory for
the 1999 study period totaled 423,317 visits.
The total number of surveys received for each survey is
listed in Table 4.3-14. Survey D was conducted of marina operators, therefore
numbers of surveys sent and received were low. Figure 4.3-8 shows the
distribution of recreation activity type for Survey A, Survey B, and Survey
C categories. Figure 4.3-9 shows the distribution of recreation activity
type combining data from Surveys A, B, and C, spot counts and tailrace
counts. Based on the combined data sources, the primary recreation activities
for Lake Hickory during the 1999 study period were bank/pier fishing and
boat fishing. For Lake Hickory, respondents indicated that for Survey
A, about 4 percent recreated on the islands; for Survey B about 4 percent;
and for Survey C, no respondents indicated they recreated on the islands.
The combined responses to Surveys A, B, and C indicated that about 2 percent
overall recreated on the islands.
| Table 4.3-14. |
Total Responses by Survey
|
|
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
E
|
Total
|
|
N=
|
27
|
56
|
76
|
14
|
173
|

| Figure 4.3-8. |
Lake Hickory Distribution of Recreation Activity Type from
Survey Data Sources
|
For Lake Hickory, the average party size (average number
of recreators in each party) for respondents to Survey A was 3.6 people,
for Survey B was 3.2 people, and for Survey C was 2.5. The average party
size for all three groups (A, B, and C) was 2.9. The average number of
visits per year for Survey B was 64.3, for Survey C was 31.4, and for
combined Survey B and C was 45.3. The average length of stay for Survey
B respondents was 7.1 hours, for Survey C respondents was 4.5 hours, and
for combined Survey B and C was 5.6 hours. About 9 percent of the respondents
to Surveys A and B indicated that Lake Hickory was the lake they primarily
recreated on within the Catawba-Wateree system. For Survey A about 8 percent
and for Survey B about 5 percent of the respondents indicated they had
land abutting Lake Hickory.

| Figure 4.3-9. |
Lake Hickory Distribution of Recreation Activity Type from
all Data Sources
|
Table 4.3-15 summarizes the perceived crowding ratings
for Lake Hickory for each survey type, including responses to Surveys
D and E and a combined rating for Survey A, B, and C responses. Recreators
on Lake Hickory (Surveys A and B indicated that weekday crowding was about
mid-range (on a scale of 1 to 5), and weekend crowding was rated as high
for survey respondents to Surveys A and B. For respondents at the public
access areas (Survey C), weekday crowding and weekend crowding was rated
as low for both time periods. Only one marina owner responded for Lake
Hickory and indicated low crowding levels during the week and high on
the weekends. The lake rescue and management groups indicated mid-range
crowding ratings for weekdays and high crowding ratings for weekends.
| Table 4.3-15. |
Lake Hickory Perceived Crowding Ratings
|
| |
Weekday
|
Weekend
|
|
Survey
|
Avg.
of Rating
|
N=
|
Avg.
of Rating
|
N=
|
|
A
|
2.6
|
21
|
4.4
|
21
|
|
B
|
2.5
|
54
|
4.4
|
54
|
|
C
|
1.8
|
28
|
2.0
|
21
|
|
Combined
A,B,C*
|
2.3
|
103
|
3.9
|
96
|
|
D
|
3.0
|
1
|
5.0
|
1
|
|
E
|
2.8
|
21
|
4.1
|
21
|
*Weighted Average.
Boating Use
Figure 4.3-10 shows the distribution of boating activity
type for Lake Hickory based on Surveys A, B, and C individually when comparing
the percentage of each boating activity type to the overall boating use.
The average boating party size was 3.6 for Survey A, 3.2 for Survey B,
2.5 for Survey C, and 2.9 for the combined responses for Surveys A, B,
and C. The average number of hours boating was indicated as 3.1 hours
for Survey A; 4.5 hours for Survey B; 4.6 hours for Survey C; and 4.3
hours for the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C.

| Figure 4.3-10. |
Lake Hickory Distribution of Boating Use
|
Of the individuals surveyed who primarily recreated on
Lake Hickory, about 96 percent of the Survey A respondents owned boats.
For Survey B respondents, about 91 percent owned boats; about 70 percent
of the Survey C respondents owned boats; and for the combined responses
for Surveys A, B, and C, about 82 percent of the respondents owned boats.
Table 4.3-16 summarizes the distribution of boat ownership
by type of boat for Lake Hickory. Motor boats comprised over 60 percent
of the boat ownership, as compared to the other boat categories, followed
by jet skis at about 17 percent. The ownership of motor boat types was
about 41 percent for small motor boats (ranging 20 feet or less in size)
and about 18 percent for medium motor boats (ranging between 21 to 40
feet in size).
| Table 4.3-16. |
Lake Hickory Boat Ownership Type
|
|
Survey
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
Combined
|
|
N=
|
27
|
56
|
76
|
159
|
|
Motor Boat SM
|
32%
|
49%
|
39%
|
41%
|
|
Motor Boat MD
|
16%
|
12%
|
25%
|
18%
|
|
Motor Boat LG
|
2%
|
0%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
Canoe
|
18%
|
7%
|
17%
|
14%
|
|
Kayak
|
2%
|
2%
|
0%
|
1%
|
|
Sailboat
|
4%
|
4%
|
6%
|
4%
|
|
Jet Ski
|
23%
|
20%
|
11%
|
17%
|
|
Other Boats
|
4%
|
5%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Figure 4.3-11 shows the period of the day the respondents
indicated they primarily boated, for Surveys A, B, and C. For Survey A
about 7 percent, for Survey B about 11 percent, and for Survey C about
13 percent indicated they primarily launched boats at Lake Hickory. For
the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C, about 11 percent of the
respondents launched boats at Lake Hickory, as compared to the other lakes
within the Catawba-Wateree system.

| Figure 4.3-11. |
Lake Hickory Boating Period Distribution
|
| 4.3.3 |
Lake Hickory 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 4.3-17) 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 |
-
|
| |
Total
|
-3
|
| Table 4.3-17. |
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 4.3-18 summarizes the assessment of the allowable
overall boat capacity based on the usable water surface acreage and the
boating activity mix identified from the surveys. Table 4.3-19 provides
the assessment of the percent capacity of the boat use for Lake Hickory
on the peak day during the 1999 study period. Lake Hickory during the
weekday was estimated at 38 percent capacity, during the weekend at 55
percent capacity, and during the peak holiday period at 71 percent capacity
for overall boating use.
| Table 4.3-18. |
Lake Hickory Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
|
|
Boat Activity
|
Usable Acreage
|
Use Factor
|
Max. No. Boats
|
% Usage
|
Boat
Activity Mix
|
Persons/ Boat
|
Total Users
|
|
Fishing
|
4,208
|
8.0
|
526
|
33%
|
175
|
3.14
|
550
|
|
Canoe/Kayak
|
4,208
|
2.0
|
2,104
|
6%
|
126
|
3.26
|
411
|
|
Motor
Boating
|
2,827
|
15.0
|
188
|
29%
|
55
|
3.90
|
215
|
|
Sailing
|
2,827
|
8.0
|
353
|
4%
|
14
|
3.36
|
47
|
|
Jet
Skiing
|
2,827
|
8.0
|
353
|
15%
|
53
|
3.85
|
204
|
|
Water
Skiing
|
2,827
|
17.0
|
166
|
13%
|
22
|
4.39
|
97
|
Total
|
|
|
|
100%
|
445
|
|
1,524
|
| Table 4.3-19. |
Lake Hickory Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity
|
|
Peak Use
|
Weekday
|
% Capacity
|
Weekend
|
% Capacity
|
Holiday
|
% Capacity
|
|
No.
Boats
|
168
|
38%
|
243
|
55%
|
317
|
71%
|
The overall boat carrying capacity assessment provides
an assessment of the total surface area available for boating use. To
assess the areas of the lakes with higher density of boating use, the
general location of boating activity was recorded during the aerial flyovers
for each day of aerial coverage. Figure 4.3-12 shows the location of boats
during the peak use day for Lake Hickory. Figure 4.3-13 shows the boating
density on Lake Hickory for the peak use day and denotes areas where the
greatest clustering of boating activity occurred. Figure 4.3-14 shows
the boat density map based on the composite of the 5 highest boating use
days. This figure illustrates the areas where boating use most often occurred
during the peak use days during the study period and provides an assessment
of areas where high density boating occurred during the study period.
|
Click Here
to View Full
Figure 4.3-12
Lake Hickory Peak Use Day Boat Counts
|
 |
|
Click Here
to View Full
Figure 4.3-13
Lake Hickory Peak Use Day Boat Density Map
|
 |
|
Click Here
to View Full
Figure 4.3-14
Lake Hickory Composite Peak Use Boat Density Map
|
 |
Lake Hickory Estimated Future Recreational Demand
Table 4.3-20 provides the population projections for the
counties within 50-60 miles of Lake Hickory 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 4.3-20. |
Lake Hickory 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
|
|
Buncombe
|
176,416
|
196,018
|
213,232
|
229,759
|
251,935
|
276,251
|
302,914
|
|
Alexander
|
29121
|
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
|
133,979
|
146,217
|
157,650
|
176,071
|
196,645
|
219,623
|
|
Iredell
|
103,671
|
115,190
|
133,065
|
150,827
|
174,879
|
202,766
|
235,100
|
|
Total
|
819,666
|
910,740
|
990,723
|
1,064,972
|
1,186,905
|
1,324,446
|
1,479,790
|
Table 4.3-21 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 4.3-22 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 4.3-21. 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 4.3-23 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 Hickory. The acreage needs are then
based on the Lake Hickory facility need multiplied by per unit acreage
needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation
Facilities. For Lake Hickory, it is estimated that 45 acres are required
to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year
2050. This includes 2 acres of beaches, 3 acres of picnic areas, 5 acres
of campsites, and 35 acres of boat ramps.
The estimated acreage needs for the reservoir are total
usable acreage needs. Usable land acreage at existing developed public
recreation 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.
At Lake Hickory the most frequently identified recreational
facility needs mentioned restrooms and a picnic area. A picnic area and
restrooms are proposed at the Dusty Ridge access area to help meet theses
needs.
| Table 4.3-21. |
Lake Hickory 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*
|
116,289
|
127,665
|
139,786
|
159,288
|
184,412
|
214,777
|
|
Boat
Fishing*
|
175,093
|
205,919
|
236,193
|
276,093
|
313,067
|
347,538
|
|
Bank/Pier
Fishing
|
100,643
|
118,362
|
135,763
|
158,698
|
179,950
|
199,764
|
|
Lake
Swimming
|
93,777
|
107,873
|
122,303
|
143,697
|
170,765
|
204,716
|
|
Canoeing*
|
19,198
|
21,807
|
24,242
|
28,628
|
35,092
|
44,674
|
|
Jet
Skiing*
|
57,961
|
63,631
|
69,673
|
79,393
|
91,916
|
107,050
|
|
Kayaking*
|
1,227
|
1,347
|
1,474
|
1,680
|
1,960
|
2,333
|
|
Tailrace
Fishing
|
2,454
|
2,886
|
3,310
|
3,869
|
4,387
|
4,870
|
|
Sailing*
|
13,064
|
14,342
|
15,704
|
17,895
|
20,718
|
24,129
|
|
Water
Ski/Tubing*
|
40,484
|
44,444
|
48,664
|
55,454
|
64,200
|
74,771
|
|
Backpacking
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Hunting
|
12,268
|
12,945
|
13,479
|
14,336
|
14,866
|
15,329
|
|
Tent/Vehicle
Camp
|
6,134
|
8,178
|
10,642
|
14,030
|
18,202
|
23,302
|
|
Windsurfing
|
1,227
|
1,347
|
1,475
|
1,680
|
1,945
|
2,266
|
|
Bicycling
|
4,907
|
5,929
|
7,108
|
8,779
|
10,222
|
11,799
|
|
Picnicking
|
36,309
|
43,570
|
51,595
|
63,140
|
77,394
|
94,882
|
|
Sightseeing
|
32,693
|
40,453
|
49,076
|
60,789
|
75,177
|
92,324
|
|
Hiking
|
18,338
|
23,376
|
28,993
|
36,495
|
44,807
|
53,986
|
|
Wildlife
Viewing
|
17,175
|
22,308
|
28,542
|
36,352
|
44,481
|
52,402
|
|
Using
Playgrounds
|
1,227
|
1,473
|
1,734
|
2,098
|
2,549
|
3,104
|
|
Sub-total*
|
423,316
|
479,155
|
535,736
|
618,431
|
711,365
|
815,272
|
|
Total
|
750,468
|
867,855
|
989,756
|
1,162,394
|
1,356,110
|
1,574,016
|
*Boating Activities
| Table 4.3-22. |
Lake Hickory Estimated Absorption Percentages for Reservoir
|
|
Activity
|
Estimated
1999 Participants
|
Estimated
1999 Demand
|
Absorption
Percentage
|
|
Swimming
|
93,777
|
2,540,661
|
3.7%
|
|
Picnicking
|
36,309
|
1,578,994
|
2.3%
|
|
Camping
|
6,143
|
734,439
|
1.0%
|
|
Boating
|
423,316
|
2,028,673
|
20.9%
|
| Table 4.3-23. |
Lake Hickory 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 Hickory Share
|
Acreage
|
|
Swimming
|
2010
|
369,540
|
1 per 50,000
|
7.39
|
beaches
|
0.27
|
1.50
|
| |
2020
|
397,235
|
1 per 50,000
|
7.94
|
beaches
|
0.29
|
1.62
|
| |
2030
|
442,716
|
1 per 50,000
|
8.85
|
beaches
|
0.33
|
1.80
|
| |
2040
|
491,462
|
1 per 50,000
|
9.83
|
beaches
|
0.37
|
2.01
|
| |
2050
|
545,576
|
1 per 50,000
|
10.91
|
beaches
|
0.41
|
2.25
|
|
Picnicking
|
2010
|
443,844
|
1 per 500
|
887.69
|
tables
|
20.42
|
2.04
|
| |
2020
|
477,107
|
1 per 500
|
954.21
|
tables
|
21.95
|
2.19
|
| |
2030
|
531,733
|
1 per 500
|
1,063.47
|
tables
|
24.46
|
2.45
|
| |
2040
|
590,281
|
1 per 500
|
1,180.56
|
tables
|
27.29
|
2.73
|
| |
2050
|
655,276
|
1 per 500
|
1,310.55
|
tables
|
30.50
|
3.05
|
|
Camping
|
2010
|
221,922
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,331.53
|
campsites
|
13.32
|
3.33
|
| |
2020
|
238,554
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,431.32
|
campsites
|
14.31
|
3.58
|
| |
2030
|
265,867
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,595.20
|
campsites
|
15.95
|
3.99
|
| |
2040
|
295,141
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,770.84
|
campsites
|
17.80
|
4.45
|
| |
2050
|
327,638
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,965.83
|
campsites
|
19.89
|
4.97
|
|
Boating
|
2010
|
445,825
|
1 per 4000
|
111.46
|
boat
ramps
|
23.29
|
23.29
|
| |
2020
|
479,237
|
1 per 4000
|
119.81
|
boat
ramps
|
25.04
|
25.04
|
| |
2030
|
534,107
|
1 per 4000
|
133.53
|
boat
ramps
|
27.91
|
27.91
|
| |
2040
|
592,916
|
1 per 4000
|
148.23
|
boat
ramps
|
31.14
|
31.14
|
| |
2050
|
658,201
|
1 per 4000
|
164.55
|
boat
ramps
|
34.79
|
34.79
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Total Acreage for 2050
|
45.06
|
| 4.3.4 |
Lake Hickory Survey
Respondent Comments |
Recreators were asked in the surveys if existing recreational
facilities within the Catawba-Wateree system met their recreational needs.
For Lake Hickory, about 82 percent of Survey A; 73 percent for Survey
B; 79 percent for Survey C; and 78 percent for combined Surveys A, B,
and C, of the respondents stated that the existing facilities met their
needs. The primary facilities that were indicated as needed at Lake Hickory
included more boat ramps, restroom facilities, picnic areas, and restaurant
facilities around the lake. In response to whether additional boating
facilities were needed, about 74 percent for Survey A; 84 percent for
Survey B; 86 percent for Survey C; and 83 percent for combined Surveys
A, B, and C, felt that the existing boating facilities were adequate.
The primary boating facilities that were indicated as needed at Lake Hickory
included more marinas, pump out stations, and gas pumps.
About 52 percent for Survey A (n=27); 25 percent for Survey
B (n=56); 9 percent for Survey C (n=76); and 21 percent for the combined
Surveys A, B, and C (n=107), indicated they had a negative experience
while recreating. Respondents to Surveys A and B commented on negative
encounters with inconsiderate boaters, and commented there was trash and
debris in the area. About 30 percent for Survey A (n=27); 36 percent for
Survey B (n=56); 11 percent for Survey C (n=76); and 23 percent for the
combined Surveys A, B, and C (n=159), indicated they had felt jeopardized
while recreating. The primary reasons listed for the negative experiences
and incidences when recreators felt jeopardized were the result of reckless
and inconsiderate boating and jet ski use by other recreators.
In terms of responses to additional comments, many respondents
to Surveys A, B, and C stated concerns associated with boating use and
safety on Lake Hickory. The primary concerns were related safety factors
associated with improper use of jet skis and boats, including effects
of irresponsible jet skiing and boating, boat wakes, and boat users not
understanding and/or adhering to boat laws and common sense boating safety
measures. Several respondents also indicated the need for more boating
patrol and enforcement on Lake Hickory. Survey E respondents indicated
there should be more regulation of jet skiers on Lake Hickory.
When asked if they could change one thing, respondents
to Surveys A, B, and C stated they would like to see less or no jet skiing
on Lake Hickory, and require more boat regulation in terms of additional
no wake zones and speed limits on the lake. In addition, several respondents
indicated that a boat driver's license and/or participation in a boat
safety course should be required for all boaters and jet skiers.
|