|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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.
| Table 4.8-1. |
Shoreline Classification for Fishing Creek Lake
|
|
Shoreline Classification
|
Shoreline Miles
|
Percent of Total
|
|
Commercial /Non-Residential
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
|
Commercial /Residential
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
|
Residential
|
3.3
|
5.0%
|
|
Business Industrial
|
0.1
|
0.0%
|
|
Public Recreation
|
0.2
|
0.0%
|
|
Public Infrastructure
|
1.2
|
2.0%
|
|
Project Operations
|
0.8
|
1.0%
|
|
Future Commercial/Non-Residential
|
23.2
|
37.0%
|
|
Future Commercial/Residential
|
0.3
|
0.5%
|
|
Future Residential
|
10.9
|
17.0%
|
|
Future Public Recreation
|
3.7
|
6.0%
|
|
Impact Minimization Zones
|
0.6
|
1.0%
|
|
Environmental Area
|
17.1
|
27.0%
|
|
Natural Area
|
2.1
|
3.0%
|
Total
|
63.5
|
100.0%
|
| 4.8.1 |
Fishing Creek Lake Existing
Recreation Areas |
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
|
 |
| Table 4.8-2. |
Fishing Creek Lake 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)
|
|
Cane
Creek
|
4.1
|
1,129
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
35
|
|
Fishing
Creek
|
20.4
|
3,266
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
58
|
|
Total
|
24.5
|
4,395
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
93
|
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
| Table 4.8-3. |
Summary of Landsford Canal State Park Public
Recreation Facilities
|
|
Site Description/Facility
|
Number
|
|
Picnic shelter
|
1
|
|
Community building
|
1
|
|
Picnic tables
|
20
|
|
Nature trail
|
1 mile
|
|
Canoe trail
|
2.5 miles
|
|
Museum
|
1 (by appointment)
|
|
Playground
|
1
|
|
River fishing
|
1
|
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.
| Table 4.8-4. |
Summary of Fishing Creek Lake Private Recreational
Access Facilities
|
|
Type of Facility
|
No. Private Facilities
|
|
Piers
|
110
|
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

| Figure 4.8-2. |
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
| Table 4.8-5. |
Summary of Cane Creek Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Cane Creek
|
|
Location
|
Road 296, Lancaster County, SC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
4.1 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
1 boat ramp
|
|
Parking
|
35 paved 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
|
1,129 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/SCDNR
|
Fishing Creek Access Area

| Figure 4.8-3. |
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
| Table 4.8-6. |
Summary of Fishing Creek Access Area Site Characteristics
|
|
Site Name
|
Fishing Creek
|
|
Location
|
Highway 21, Chester County, SC
|
|
Site Acreage
|
20.4 acres
|
|
Site Facilities
|
1 boat ramp, lighting
|
|
Parking
|
58 paved vehicle/trailer parking
spaces
|
|
ADA Facilities
|
None
|
|
Key Recreation Activities
|
Boating, fishing
|
|
Recreation Access Fees
|
None
|
|
Key Views
|
Main lake and Fishing Creek dam
|
|
Topography
|
Moderate slope
|
|
Vegetation
|
Mixed conifers and hardwoods
|
|
Shoreline Footage
|
3,266 feet
|
|
Ownership/Lease
|
Duke Power/SCDNR
|
| 4.8.2 |
Fishing Creek Lake Recreation
Use Assessment |
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

| Figure 4.8-4. |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimate of Recreation Visitation at the
Duke-Owned Access Areas
|
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
| Table 4.8-7 |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimated Recreation Visitation at Duke-Owned
Access Areas
|
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
| Table 4.8-8 |
Spot Count Data Collection by Month
|
|
Site
|
Month
|
| |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
Cane Creek
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
|
Fishing Creek
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
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.
| Table 4.8-9 |
Total Responses by Survey
|
|
Survey
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
E
|
Total
|
|
N=
|
3
|
4
|
13
|
6
|
26
|

| Figure 4.8-5. |
Fishing Creek Lake Distribution of Recreation Activity Type
from
Survey Data Sources
|
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

| Figure 4.8-6. |
Fishing Creek Lake Distribution of Recreation Activity Type
from
all Data Sources
|
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.
| Table 4.8-10. |
Fishing Creek Lake Perceived Crowding Ratings
|
| |
Weekday
|
Weekend
|
|
Survey
|
Avg.
of Rating
|
N=
|
Avg.
of Rating
|
N=
|
|
A
|
1.0
|
2
|
1.0
|
2
|
|
B
|
2.3
|
4
|
3.3
|
4
|
|
C
|
3.0
|
4
|
1.6
|
8
|
|
Combined
A,B,C*
|
2.3
|
10
|
2.0
|
14
|
|
D
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
E
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
*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.

| Figure 4.8-7. |
Fishing Creek Lake Distribution of Boating Use
|
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
| Table 4.8-11. |
Fishing Creek Lake Boat Ownership Type
|
|
Survey
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
Combined
|
|
N=
|
3
|
4
|
13
|
20
|
|
Motor Boat SM
|
50%
|
67%
|
36%
|
46%
|
|
Motor Boat MD
|
0%
|
17%
|
14%
|
13%
|
|
Motor Boat LG
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
Canoe
|
25%
|
0%
|
36%
|
25%
|
|
Kayak
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
Sailboat
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
Jet Ski
|
0%
|
17%
|
14%
|
13%
|
|
Other Boats
|
25%
|
0%
|
0%
|
4%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
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.

| Figure 4.8-8. |
Fishing Creek Lake Boating Period Distribution
|
| 4.8.3 |
Fishing Creek Lake 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 4.8-12) by the following
factors (Warren and Rea, 1989):
Back to Top
| 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 |
0
|
| 6. |
Crowding rating |
0
|
| |
Total
|
-3
|
| Table 4.8-12. |
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 4.8-13 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.
| Table 4.8-13. |
Fishing Creek Lake Boat Carrying Capacity Assessmentv
|
|
Boat Activity
|
Usable Acreage
|
Use Factor
|
Max. No. Boats
|
% Usage
|
Boat
Activity Mix
|
Persons/ Boat
|
Total Users
|
|
Fishing
|
3,112
|
8.0
|
389
|
52%
|
202
|
3.14
|
634
|
|
Canoe/Kayak
|
3,112
|
2.0
|
1,556
|
14%
|
218
|
3.26
|
711
|
|
Motor
Boating
|
2,282
|
15.0
|
152
|
19%
|
29
|
3.90
|
113
|
|
Sailing
|
2,282
|
8.0
|
285
|
0%
|
-
|
3.36
|
-
|
|
Jet
Skiing
|
2,282
|
8.0
|
285
|
0%
|
-
|
3.85
|
-
|
|
Water
Skiing
|
2,282
|
17.0
|
134
|
14%
|
19
|
4.39
|
84
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
100%
|
468
|
|
1,542
|
Back to Top
| Table4.8-14. |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity
|
|
Peak Use
|
Weekday
|
% Capacity
|
Weekend
|
% Capacity
|
Holiday
|
% Capacity
|
|
No.
Boats
|
4
|
1%
|
21
|
4%
|
23
|
5%
|
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 4.8-15. |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimated Population Projections for
the Impact Zone
|
|
County
|
1999
|
2000
|
2010
|
2020
|
2030
|
2040
|
2050
|
|
Lancaster
|
51,750
|
57,500
|
58,500
|
64,250
|
69,694
|
75,598
|
82,003
|
|
Chester
|
30,690
|
34,100
|
36,100
|
39,150
|
41,354
|
43,682
|
46,142
|
|
York
|
144,990
|
161,100
|
198,600
|
214,710
|
258,662
|
311,612
|
375,401
|
|
Kershaw
|
44,820
|
49,800
|
55,300
|
60,280
|
67,317
|
75,176
|
83,951
|
|
Lee
|
18,270
|
20,300
|
20,400
|
22,430
|
23,384
|
24,378
|
25,414
|
|
Fairfield
|
21,150
|
23,500
|
25,000
|
27,350
|
29,122
|
31,009
|
33,018
|
|
Total
|
311,670
|
346,300
|
393,900
|
428,170
|
489,533
|
561,445
|
645,929
|
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.
| Table 4.8-16. |
Fishing Creek Lake 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*
|
11,125
|
12,765
|
14,131
|
16,401
|
19,335
|
22,927
|
|
Boat
Fishing*
|
34,467
|
42,246
|
48,966
|
58,273
|
67,308
|
76,142
|
|
Bank/Pier
Fish
|
18,475
|
22,645
|
26,247
|
31,236
|
36,079
|
40,814
|
|
Lake
Swimming
|
9,833
|
11,800
|
13,520
|
16,171
|
19,559
|
23,861
|
|
Canoeing*
|
9,833
|
11,658
|
13,100
|
15,747
|
19,635
|
25,412
|
|
Jet
Skiing*
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Kayaking*
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Tailrace
Fishing
|
2,483
|
3,044
|
3,528
|
4,198
|
4,849
|
5,486
|
|
Sailing*
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Water
Ski/Tubing*
|
8,642
|
9,916
|
10,977
|
12,740
|
15,019
|
17,810
|
|
Backpacking
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Hunting
|
2,483
|
2,744
|
2,890
|
3,135
|
3,317
|
3,490
|
|
Tent/Vehicle
Camp
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Windsurfing
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Bicycling
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Picnicking
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Sightseeing
|
2,483
|
3,196
|
3,916
|
4,933
|
6,205
|
7,751
|
|
Hiking
|
3,675
|
4,867
|
6,095
|
7,802
|
9,743
|
11,945
|
|
Wildlife
Viewing
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Using
Playgrounds
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Sub-total*
|
64,067
|
76,585
|
87,174
|
103,161
|
121,297
|
142,291
|
|
Total
|
103,500
|
124,881
|
143,370
|
170,636
|
201,049
|
235,638
|
| Table 4.8-17. |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimated Absorption Percentage for
Reservoir
|
|
Activity
|
Estimated
1999 Participants
|
Estimated
1999 Demand
|
Absorption
Percentage
|
|
Swimming
|
9,833
|
966,061
|
1.0%
|
|
Picnicking
|
0
|
600,401
|
0%
|
|
Camping
|
0
|
233,877
|
0%
|
|
Boating
|
64,067
|
771,383
|
8.3%
|
Back to Top
| Table 4.8-18. |
Fishing Creek Lake Estimated Recreational Facility Land
Acreage Needs
|
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
|
Activity
|
Year
|
Weighted Population
|
Facility Standard
|
Facility Need
|
Facility Class
|
Fishing Creek Lake Share
|
Acreage
|
|
Swimming
|
2010
|
295,425
|
1 per 50,000
|
6
|
beaches
|
0.03
|
0.16
|
| |
2020
|
321,128
|
1 per 50,000
|
6
|
beaches
|
0.03
|
0.18
|
| |
2030
|
367,150
|
1 per 50,000
|
7
|
beaches
|
0.04
|
0.20
|
| |
2040
|
415,337
|
1 per 50,000
|
8
|
beaches
|
0.04
|
0.23
|
| |
2050
|
469,849
|
1 per 50,000
|
9
|
beaches
|
0.05
|
0.27
|
|
Picnicking
|
2010
|
295,425
|
1 per 500
|
591
|
tables
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2020
|
321,128
|
1 per 500
|
642
|
tables
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2030
|
367,150
|
1 per 500
|
734
|
tables
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2040
|
415,337
|
1 per 500
|
831
|
tables
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2050
|
469,849
|
1 per 500
|
940
|
tables
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
|
Camping
|
2010
|
295,425
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,773
|
campsites
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2020
|
321,128
|
6 per 1,000
|
1,927
|
campsites
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2030
|
367,150
|
6 per 1,000
|
2,203
|
campsites
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2040
|
415,337
|
6 per 1,000
|
2,492
|
campsites
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
2050
|
469,849
|
6 per 1,000
|
2,819
|
campsites
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
|
Boating
|
2010
|
295,425
|
1 per 4000
|
74
|
boat
ramps
|
3.81
|
3.81
|
| |
2020
|
321,128
|
1 per 4000
|
80
|
boat
ramps
|
4.14
|
4.14
|
| |
2030
|
367,150
|
1 per 4000
|
92
|
boat
ramps
|
4.74
|
4.74
|
| |
2040
|
415,337
|
1 per 4000
|
104
|
boat
ramps
|
5.43
|
5.43
|
| |
2050
|
469,849
|
1 per 4000
|
117
|
boat
ramps
|
6.25
|
6.25
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Total Acreage for 2050
|
6.51
|
| 4.8.4 |
Fishing Creek Lake Survey
Respondent Comments |
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.
|