Fishing Creek Lake is located downstream of Lake Wylie southeast of Rock Hill in Lancaster and Chester counties, South Carolina. Fishing Creek Lake has a surface area of about 3,112 acres and 63.5 shoreline miles at full pond elevation of 417.2 feet msl. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the shoreline classification for Fishing Creek Lake.

There are two developed Duke Power-owned public recreation access locations on Fishing Creek Lake. There is one state park facility and one SCDNR boating access area located along Fishing Creek Lake. Figure 4.8-1 shows the public recreation access locations. There are no public commercial non-residential or commercial residential marinas located on Fishing Creek Lake. The following sections describe the Duke-owned public access area facilities at Fishing Creek Lake.

Existing Duke-Owned Public Access Areas

The developed Duke-owned public access areas provide 25 acres and about 4,395 feet of shoreline frontage of public access at Fishing Creek Lake. Combined, the developed access areas have 2 public boat ramps and about 93 vehicle/trailer parking spaces. Table 4.8-2 summarizes the facilities at the public access areas.

Back to Top

Click Here to View Full Figure 4.8-1 Fishing Creek Lake Public Recreation Access Areas

State and County Public Recreation Facilities

There is one state park, Landsford Canal State Park, in the northern portion of Fishing Creek Lake and one SCDNR boat access area in the middle portion of Fishing Creek Lake. Table 4.8-3 summarizes the recreational facilities provided at the Landsford Canal State Park. The SCDNR boat access provides a parking area and boat launch.

Back to Top

Existing Commercial and Private Recreation Access

There are no public commercial non-residential or commercial residential marinas located on Fishing Creek Lake. Private access to Fishing Creek Lake is through private marinas and private piers along the Fishing Creek Lake shoreline. Table 4.8-3 shows the estimated number of private piers.

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

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

Back to Top

Cane Creek Access Area

The Cane Creek access area is located in the middle portion of Fishing Creek Lake along the eastern shoreline in Lancaster County, South Carolina. Table 4.8-5 summarizes key site characteristics for the Cane Creek access area.

Back to Top

Fishing Creek Access Area

The Fishing Creek access area is located in the lower portion of Fishing Creek Lake along the western shoreline, upstream from the Fishing Creek dam. Table 4.8-6 summarizes key site characteristics for the Fishing Creek access area.

Back to Top

Recreation Use

Visitation at the public access areas on Fishing Creek Lake was derived based on estimates of the traffic entering the Duke-owned public access areas. Total estimated visitation during the 1999 study period for Fishing Creek Lake at these sites was about 58,802 visits. Figure 4.8-4 shows the distribution of the visitation for each month at Fishing Creek Lake 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.

Back to Top

Table 4.8-7 summarizes the estimated recreation visitation based on traffic counter data for the sampled sites during the 1999 study period. Of the recreation visitation on Fishing Creek Lake, about 64 percent of the recreation visitation occurred at the Fishing Creek access area. 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 1.1 to 1. The estimated overall recreational visitation for Fishing Creek Lake for the 1999 study period totaled 64,067 visits.

Click Here to View Full

Spot counts were conducted at two sites for Fishing Creek Lake, Cane Creek and Fishing Creek Access areas. Table 4.8-8 lists the number of sample days per month for the spot count data collection.

Back to Top

The total number of surveys received for each survey is listed in Table 4.8-9. Survey D was conducted of marina operators, therefore numbers of surveys sent and received were low. Figure 4.8-5 shows the distribution of recreation activity type for Survey A, Survey B, and Survey C categories. Figure 4.8-6 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 activity for Fishing Creek Lake during the 1999 study period was bank/pier fishing. For Fishing Creek Lake, no respondents indicated that they recreated on the islands.

For Fishing Creek Lake, the average party size (average number of recreators in each party) for respondents to Survey A was 2.3 people, for Survey B was 2.8 people, and for Survey C was 2.0. The average party size for all three groups (A, B, and C) was 2.2. The average number of visits per year for Survey B was 51.5 (n=4), for Survey C was 20.8 (n=13), and for combined Survey B and C respondents was 28.1. The average length of stay for Survey B respondents was 16.5 hours (n=4, range from 4 to 48 hours), for Survey C respondents was 4.8 hours, and for combined Survey B and C respondents was 7.6 hours. For Survey A and for Survey B less than 1 percent of the respondents indicated they had land abutting Fishing Creek Lake.

Back to Top

Table 4.8-10 summarizes the perceived crowding ratings for Fishing Creek Lake for each survey type, including a combined rating for Survey A, B, and C responses. Recreators on Fishing Creek Lake (Surveys A, B, and C) indicated weekday crowding was about low-range (on a scale of 1 to 5) and weekend crowding was mid-range. There were no Survey D responses to the crowding ratings on Fishing Creek Lake. 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.

*Weighted Average.

Back to Top

Boating Use

Figure 4.8-7 shows the distribution of boating activity type for Fishing Creek Lake 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 2.0 for Survey A, 3.2 for Survey B, 2.1 for Survey C, and 2.4 for the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C. The average number of hours boating was 6.5 hours for Survey A; 6.0 hours for Survey B; 4.5 hours for Survey C; and 5.1 hours for the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C.

Of the individuals surveyed who primarily recreated on Fishing Creek Lake, 67 percent of Survey A respondents (n=3) and 100 percent of Survey B respondents (n=4) owned boats. About 69 percent of Survey C respondents (n=13) owned boats, and for the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C, about 75 (n=20) percent of the respondents owned boats.

Table 4.8-11 shows the distribution of boat ownership by type of boat for Fishing Creek Lake. Motor boats comprised about 58 percent of the boat ownership, compared to other boat categories, followed by canoes at about 25 percent. The ownership of motor boat types was predominantly small motor boats (ranging 20 feet or less in size) and some medium motor boats (ranging between 21 to 40 feet in size).

Back to Top

Figure 4.8-8 shows the period of the day the respondents indicated they primarily boated for Surveys A, B, C. For Survey A about 0.7 percent indicated they primarily launched boats at Fishing Creek Lake. For Survey B about 1 percent; for Survey C about 2 percent; and for the combined responses for Surveys A, B, and C about 1.4 percent of the respondents launched boats at Fishing Creek Lake compared to the other lakes within the Catawba-Wateree system.

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 4.8-12) by the following factors (Warren and Rea, 1989):

Back to Top

Table 4.8-13 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 4.8-14 provides the assessment of the percent capacity of the boat use for Fishing Creek Lake on the peak day during the 1999 study period. Fishing Creek Lake during the weekday was estimated at 1 percent capacity, during the weekend at 4 percent capacity, and during the peak holiday period at 5 percent capacity for overall boating use.

Back to Top

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 4.8-9 shows the location of boats during the peak use day for Fishing Creek Lake. Figure 4.8-10 shows the boating density on Fishing Creek Lake for the peak use day and areas with the greatest clustering of boating activity. Figure 4.8-11 shows the boat density map based on the composite of the five highest boating use days. This figure illustrates the areas with the most boating use 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 4.8-9 Fishing Creek Lake Peak Use Day Boat Counts

Click Here to View Full Figure 4.8-10 Fishing Creek Lake Peak Use Day Boat Density Map

Click Here to View Full Figure 4.8-11 Fishing Creek Lake Composite Peak Use Boat Density Map

Fishing Creek Lake Estimated Future Recreational Demand

Table 4.8-15 provides the population projections for the counties within 50-60 miles of Fishing Creek Lake 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.

Back to Top

Table 4.8-16 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 4.8-17 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 4.8-16. 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 4.8-18 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 Fishing Creek Lake. The acreage needs are then based on the Fishing Creek Lake facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities. Current use of Fishing Creek Lake does not include picnicking or camping. It is anticipated that Fishing Creek Lake could provide opportunities that would meet a small amount of the regional demand for these activities. For Fishing Creek Lake, it is estimated that 6 acres is required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes 0 acres of beaches, 0 acres of picnic areas, 0 acres of campsites, and 6 acres of boat ramps.

Back to Top

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.

Because of Fishing Creek Lake's small size there were not a large number of survey respondents for Fishing Creek Lake, the most frequently identified recreational facility needs mentioned were for more boat ramps and toilets. In the next five-year improvement plan, Duke Power plans to replace the one ramp at the Fishing Creek access area with two new boat ramps and to install a loading pier. Duke Power does not plan to install restrooms at either of the access areas due to the vandalism the sites receive.

*Boating activities

Back to Top

Recreators were asked in the surveys if the existing recreational facilities within the Catawba-Wateree system met their recreational needs. For Fishing Creek Lake, 100 percent of Survey A (n=3); 100 percent for Survey B (n=4); 100 percent for Survey C (n=13); and 100 percent for combined Surveys A, B, and C (n=20), of the respondents stated the existing facilities met their needs. Respondents primarily indicated that additional boat ramps were needed. About 33 percent for Survey A (n=3); 75 percent for Survey B (n=4); 85 percent for Survey C (n=13); and 75 percent for combined Surveys A, B, and C (n=20) of respondents indicated the existing boating facilities were adequate. Only one respondent indicated that gas facilities were needed; no other respondents provided input on what boating facilities were needed.

About 67 percent for Survey A (n=3); 25 percent for Survey B (n=4); 0 percent for Survey C; and 15 percent for the combined Surveys A, B, and C (n=20) 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. In response to whether they ever felt jeopardized while recreating, about 33 percent for Survey A (n=3); 25 percent for Survey B (n=4); 0 percent for Survey C; and 10 percent for the combined Surveys A, B, and C (n=20) indicated they had felt jeopardized. The only response provided that commented on the cause of feeling jeopardized was a result of another boat going too fast. No specific comments on Fishing Creek Lake safety issues or lake policies were provided by Survey D and E respondents.

In responses to whether they had any additional comments, respondents to Survey A stated concerns about the water quality of the area. No Survey B or C respondents provided answers to this question. When asked if they could change one thing, one respondent to Survey A indicated they would like to see NC and SC honor each other's fishing licenses. One respondent indicated concerns about the water quality in the area and the effects on fish. Respondents to Survey C stated they would like to see better picnic areas, toilets, and camping areas along the shoreline.