The SMP Update presents the results of the shoreline classification and mapping, shallow water fish habitat survey, terrestrial species habitat assessment, recreation use and needs assessment, and cultural resources assessment. The following subsections describe the methodology for the various studies and assessments conducted for the SMP Update.

For the SMP Update, Duke Power reclassified the reservoir shorelines within the Catawba-Wateree system to more accurately reflect current development of the shoreline and to include the results of the shoreline habitat survey and lake use restrictions associated with the protection of critical and sensitive habitats. The following section describes the shoreline reclassifications and associated lake use restrictions, the SWFHS, the Woody Debris Study, the Riparian Zone Management Informational brochure, and the SSTSP.

The Report Regarding Strategy and Schedule for Implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan submitted on February 3, 1997, stated that Duke Power and the state wildlife agencies would develop a classification system of significant shallow water fisheries habitats. Duke Power would also conduct a survey of all undeveloped shorelines to identify areas of key importance for fish spawning and rearing and would establish appropriate lake use restrictions for those areas.

Duke Power enlisted the services of an environmental consultant familiar with this type of mapping project to conduct the field identification of the undeveloped shoreline based on the cooperatively developed classification system. The consultant completed the survey in 1997 as scheduled, utilizing a boat on lakes James and Fishing Creek, and a helicopter on the remaining Catawba-Wateree lakes. The field data collection was completed by the consultant in accordance with the schedule set forth in the report. The data was ground-truthed by Duke Power fisheries scientists, and the accuracy was found to be deficient, possibly attributed to the use of the helicopter. Duke Power notified the Commission and requested an extension of time (to September 30, 1998) to complete the project, and the Commission approved the time extension on July 17, 1998. Duke Power enlisted the services of its own fisheries scientists and lake management personnel to resurvey the shoreline by boat and complete the Shallow Water Fisheries Habitat field data collection.

Back to Top

To comply with the 1996 Order approving/modifying the SMP, Duke Power is required to file any proposed shoreline reclassifications for Commission approval. The fish habitat survey results, the need to obtain Commission approval, and the opportunity to more accurately define the various developed portions of the shoreline, were considerations that led Duke Power to file revised SMP maps in conjunction with the habitat mapping. The SWFHS habitat maps and the lake use restrictions associated with protecting the environmentally valuable aquatic habitats were the primary basis for the SMP map revisions.

Duke Power and the state and federal wildlife agencies cooperatively developed the habitat classifications (see Section 2.2.1): Vegetated Areas/Coves With Stream Confluence, Stable Sand/Gravel/Cobble, Woody Debris, etc. Due to the problems associated with the initial data collection, final discussions with the state and federal wildlife agencies concerning the lake use restrictions were delayed until accurate maps could be produced. Final negotiations were not completed until August 31 and September 5 with the North Carolina and South Carolina wildlife resource agencies, respectively. A total of six meetings were held with these agencies to finalize the lake use restrictions. Considerable discussion took place in those consultation meetings concerning the value of woody debris as fish habitat. Duke Power, as a result, chose to not require mandatory protection or mitigation for woody debris because:

Duke Power did, however, agree with the wildlife resource agencies in both North Carolina and South Carolina to cooperatively sponsor a two-year study, to be completed in 2000, to determine the importance of woody debris as fish habitat.

Back to Top

The SWFHS maps focused on the undeveloped portions of the shoreline. Development of the SWFHS maps, therefore required a departure from the methodology utilized in the 1994 SMP to determine the existing and future uses of the shoreline. The shoreline was classified as Developed only if there was some type of lakeward construction or structure (e.g., stabilization, pier). During development of the 1994 SMP maps, lakeward construction was not a prerequisite to identifying a portion of the shoreline as having an existing use. Often, designation was based on activities outside the project boundary (e.g., proposed residential subdivision development) and the lakeward construction activities were anticipated. Duke Power, to ensure full compliance with the 1996 Order, was compelled to evaluate all the shoreline under the SWFHS classification criteria that did not have some type of lakeward construction or structure.

The SWFHS maps depict the various habitat and management classifications- Vegetated areas/coves with stream confluence, Natural, Stable Sand, Gravel/Cobble and Woody Debris. All other areas are shown as Developed without any specific differentiation between development types or as Undeveloped-No Critical habitat. Therefore, Duke Power had to determine the classification of the developed portions of the shoreline for the revision of the SMP maps by utilizing aerial photographs, transmission line data, state and county road maps, FERC Exhibit K maps, Lake Management permitting databases and on-site surveillance. Prior to making alterations to the original 1994 SMP maps, Duke Power revised its Existing Use and Future Use classifications to better define the various types of development along the shoreline. The need to have accurate GIS-based SWFHS base maps before revising the SMP maps and the approaching September 30th filing deadline, resulted in only having draft black and white copies of the revised SMP maps that could be submitted to the various resource agencies for comments.

The classification system designations for the SWFHS were revised slightly to more appropriately mimic the designations used in the 1994 SMP (e.g., the Vegetated with Stream Confluence designation was assigned the Environmental designation). Although these designation changes were deemed necessary to provide a degree of consistency for those accustomed to using the 1994 SMP, the actual habitats identified and the criteria utilized to determine these habitats remained the same in the revised SMP as in the SWFHS. The revised SMP maps included not only the important habitat area data from the SWFHS (e.g., Vegetated area/cove with stream confluence, Stable Sand, and Gravel/cobble) but the other lake management classifications (Natural and Downstream Clear Zones [DCZ]) and the various revised Existing Uses (Commercial/Non-Residential, Commercial/Residential, Residential, Business/Industrial, Project Operations, Public Recreation, and Public Infrastructure) and Future Use (Future Comm./Non-Res., Future Comm./Res., Future Residential, Future Public Recreation) classifications.

Back to Top

The entire Catawba-Wateree project shoreline is included on 42 individual maps at a scale of 1 inch equal to 1000 feet as compared to the original 1994 SMP maps, which consisted of only 15 maps at a smaller scale. The greater accuracy of the revised maps, the revised classification system, and the revised lake use restrictions helped to ensure the valuable aquatic environmental habitats are protected while providing the means to improve permitting consistency. A tabular comparison/justification of the SWFHS and SMP shoreline classification mileage was included in the September 29, 1998, submittal to the Commission. In addition to improved map accuracy, each revised SMP map included a classification key which shows a tabular summary of each classification based on shoreline miles and as a percentage of the shoreline for that particular reservoir. Each reservoir's maps were numbered and a location key of map numbers and their coverage was provided to assist in map orientation on a specific reservoir.

Duke Power communicated its intent to begin utilizing the revised SMP maps and Lake Use Restrictions on October 1, 1998, in its September 29, 1998, submittal to the Commission. Complete lake use permit applications that were mailed to Duke Power and post-marked before October 1, 1998, were processed under the SMP maps and Lake Use Restrictions approved by the Commission on February 2, 1996. This action was necessary to ensure that the existing environmentally valuable aquatic habitats were and remain protected by the agreed upon Lake Use Restrictions.

The Commission issued a Notice of Amendment of License on November 17, 1998, requesting comments, protests and motions to intervene by December 26, 1998, regarding the revision of the SMP Maps, the SWFHS Mapping Project, and the Proposed Methodology and Survey Instruments for the Recreation Use and Needs Survey.

On November 18, 1998, Duke Power filed with the Commission a Supplement to the SWFHS Mapping Project and revision of the SMP Maps. The supplement provided information that was either inadvertently omitted from the original filing or that was received from the agencies subsequent to the filing on September 29, 1998, including:

Back to Top

Transmittal letters, and the supporting information regarding the SMP map revisions, were not submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Public Water Supply Section and the North Carolina Clearinghouse for the 30-day review and comment period, even though these agencies were consulted as part of the 1994 SMP. In addition, transmittal letters and supporting information regarding the SMP map revisions were provided to the cities of Davidson, Mooresville, Cornelius, Cramerton, Belmont and Mt. Holly. Although these municipalities were not consulted during development of the 1994 SMP, Duke Power believed it was appropriate to include them in the revised SMP consultation because their city or town limits or extra-territorial jurisdictions coincided with the project boundary.

Duke Power continued, as a result of other SMP reviewing agency comments, to meet with the wildlife resource agencies to evaluate the lake use restrictions. On December 16, 1998, a meeting between Duke Power and representatives from the state and federal wildlife agencies including; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS (NC), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and SCDNR, was held to further discuss the Lake Use Restrictions associated with the IMZ (Stable Sand and Gravel/Cobble) classification, particularly shoreline stabilization allowances. The wildlife resource agencies agreed to consider further Duke Power's proposal to allow certain stabilization techniques in IMZ's based upon continued efforts to: (1) develop a set of engineering criteria- later simplified to include a selection process (i.e., SSTSP) that could be more easily interpreted and applied in the field- that could be used in evaluating stabilization projects; (2) allow the wildlife resource agencies the flexibility to review and provide comments/recommendations regarding stabilization applications within IMZ's; (3) develop a reference pamphlet or guide (see Appendix E) as an educational component that would be distributed to lake use permit applicants, real estate agencies, developers, etc.; (4) utilize existing publications (e.g., Catawba Currents, Catawba Magazine, Lake Use Permit application materials) to promote the use of less hardening stabilization techniques; (5) continue to offer incentives for utilization of bio-engineering and rip-rap in the form of reduced application filing fees; and (6) implement the Riparian Zone Management Initiative activities over the period 1999-2000.

Back to Top

In addition to the discussion of stabilization in IMZ's, Duke Power proposed to clarify the activities associated with Public Recreation, namely, the modification of the Lake Use Restrictions to clearly indicate that boat ramps required for Public Recreation are allowable in IMZ's. At the agencies request, Duke Power also proposed to delete the reference to public recreational values as part of the IMZ definition since allowance for Public Recreation was covered as a separate classification type with its own Lake Use Restrictions.

Duke Power requested in its submittal letter of December 22, 1998, that the Commission allow an additional 90 days after the expiration of the comment date for the public notice period before it rendered an order relative to this filing. During that extra time, Duke Power agreed to continue to develop, in consultation with the wildlife resource agencies, more specific criteria, processes, and implementation timeframes for the recommendations listed above. Additionally, Duke Power notified the Commission that it would make a second supplemental filing to address specific agreements that may be reached that allow stabilization within IMZ's.

On March 18, 1999, staff with Duke Power's Lake Management Office contacted Commission staff to request an extension of time for filing the modifications to the SMP maps for the Catawba-Wateree Project and for submitting the selection criteria for stabilization. Commission staff approved the extension until April 17, 1999. On April 7, 1999, Lake Management staff again contacted Commission staff to request an additional extension of time until June 1, 1999, to ensure there was adequate time to: (1) have the SMP map modifications incorporated by Duke Power's GIS contractor and have maps plotted for filing; (2) notify the SMP reviewing agencies regarding the map modifications; and (3) allow the resource agencies adequate time to comment on the proposed selection criteria.

Back to Top

The final SSTSP included the following important changes:

	Proposals for stabilization where the bank height is less than 1 foot may utilize bioengineering techniques and rip-rap, only.
	Stabilization in areas classified as IMZ's may not occur during the months of March-June to limit impacts to fish spawning areas.
	State wildlife agency review is required for all shoreline stabilization in areas classified as an IMZ.
	Reasonable mitigation requirements are determined through consultation with the state wildlife agency.
	Seawalls are not allowed in shallow-water areas classified as Natural.

On May 27, 1999, Duke Power submitted to the Commission the SSTSP and an updated version of the Classification and Lake Use Restrictions for the 1998 Catawba-Wateree SMP Map Revisions, which referenced the SSTSP. In addition to the selection process, and revised classification and Lake Use Restrictions, the filing included information regarding modifications to the revised SMP maps. The map modifications were included in a table that identified each modification by item number, lake, SMP map sheet number, current shoreline classification and corresponding modification, and justification for change. These changes primarily included: (1) adjustments to county boundaries; (2) consistent identification of public and private causeways crossing the project boundary; (3) clarification of shoreline classifications in future recreation areas; (4) consistent identification of existing commercial facilities; and (5) minor classification and shoreline changes that correspond with existing conditions.

Duke Power made additional SMP map modifications not listed in the information enclosed in the May 1999 filing. The purpose of those modifications was to ensure the public recreational area property boundaries were delineated accurately. These property modifications primarily affected property outside the project boundary; but in the few instances, where the modifications impacted the shoreline classifications, they were listed in the table enclosed with the May filing.

Back to Top

The Commission issued a Notice of Amendment to License regarding the revised SMP on July 23, 1999, with a deadline for filing motions to intervene, protest and comments by September 7, 1999. On June 19, 2000, the Commission issued a draft Environmental Assessment regarding the SWFHS and revision to the SMP maps. On December 1, 2000, the Commission issued the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and the Order Modifying and Approving Revised Shoreline Classification Maps Project No. 2232-393.

1998-1999 Classification of Shoreline

The first step in the 1998-1999 SMP map revision was to utilize the SWFHS shoreline data to identify the environmentally valuable shallow water fish habitat.

The set of symbols and colors for identifying the Existing Use classifications in the 1994 SMP maps was modified and expanded to include the 10 Existing Use classifications developed for the 1998-1999 SMP. The SWFHS classification definitions were incorporated into the nomenclature previously utilized in the 1994 SMP to ensure a consistent classification system for those familiar with utilizing the SMP maps for permitting activity review. The same numbering system from the 1994 SMP was also used for the 4 Future Use classifications in the 1998-1999 SMP.

Back to Top

The following criteria outlines the thought process Duke Power used to complete the draft classification of each lake's shoreline in the 1998-1999 SMP revision:

	The SWFHS maps were used as the base maps for developing the revision for the 1998-1999 SMP maps. All shoreline, including all island shoreline, was surveyed to delineate the environmentally valuable shallow water fish habitats, areas with significant characteristics that limit the ability to allow access, undeveloped shoreline with no critical habitat and shoreline with existing development. The environmentally valuable shallow water fish habitat areas were designated as Environmental or IMZ and the areas with characteristics that make most types of development inside the project boundary undesirable from an overall lake management standpoint were classified as Natural Areas in the 1998-1999 SMP map revision.
	Existing uses (identified previously as Developed-No Critical Habitat in the SWFHS) were labeled after the habitat data had been included. These areas of the shoreline were only considered for the Existing Use classification in the 1998-1999 SMP mapping revision if there was some type of lakeward construction or structure (e.g., shoreline stabilization, pier). The only exception was areas with significant land-based manufacturing development adjacent to the project boundary where there was little to no impact on boating uses. These areas were designated as Business/Industrial in the 1998-1999 SMP maps.
	All Duke Power-owned islands falling within the project envelope were then classified for Future Recreation, except for those shoreline areas designated in one of the shallow water fish habitat classifications, that house a project structure (e.g., dam, powerhouse), or that had other unique features worthy of protection. Those islands with a project structure were classified as Project Operations and/or Natural.

Adequate Duke Power-owned and non-Duke Power-owned, non-project land acreage to provide for future public recreational opportunities throughout the planning horizon was then classified as Future Recreation. In siting and sizing these areas, emphasis was placed on:

	Expanding existing access areas
	Long range usability of boat launching facilities
	Distribution of opportunities around the lake
	Physical characteristics (e.g., topography, vehicle access, shoreline)
	Proposed public access to privately-owned and publicly-owned land

Back to Top

Note: At the completion of this step, the property boundaries for the privately and publicly owned non-project recreational land were delineated from a variety of sources including park boundary surveys, site plan maps, access area boundary surveys, etc. The non-project land was identified based on land ownership and was delineated on the 1998-1999 SMP maps by various color shading. The remaining unclassified shoreline was not needed to ensure that future public recreational needs were satisfied and was therefore considered for other future uses.

Shoreline Management policies and specific lake constraints were then applied to the remaining unclassified shoreline to ensure that future development could occur without destruction of the natural resources or infringement on the aesthetic or recreational values of the project or power production operational flexibility. Specific considerations included:

	No new Commercial/Non-residential marinas allowed within a ½-mile radius of existing Commercial/Non-residential marinas nor shoreline areas where more than 50% of the shoreline within a ½-mile radius was residentially developed.
	Shoreline cove areas that widened from the head toward the mouth, but then reduced down to a width of less than 200' had the shoreline from the head of the cove through the point of constriction classified to preclude future Commercial/Non-Residential and Commercial/Residential development.
	Areas subject to quickly changing and significant flow rates below operating hydro stations were classified as Project Operations and more specifically designated as Downstream Clear Zones limiting development to maintenance and rebuilds of existing structures.
	Shoreline areas that were cut off from direct boating access to the majority of the Project were delineated as Natural or Environmental unless there was significant shoreline and surface acreage to support development (e.g., piers) and recreational boating within the cutoff area (e.g., Cornelius Lake, Lake Davidson, and Davidson Pond).

Back to Top

Table 2.1-1            Cutoff Areas for Project Lakes

Back to Top

*  17.3 acres (upper part); 7.5 acres (lower part)
**  11.5 acres if taken from Windy Gap Rd.

Back to Top

Back to Top

Note: The following should be considered when reviewing the 1998-1999 SMP maps:

Back to Top

Classification Matrix

*Impact minimization zone (IMZ) is a combination of the SWFHS Classifications: Stable Sand and Gravel/Cobble. The IMZ classification provides the means to track development that occurs in areas that should be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative.

	For areas identified in the SWFHS as having stable sand, gravel or cobble substrates on Lake James: LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS - No boat ramps except those required for Public Recreation, no excavation and no Commercial/Non-Res. or Commercial/Res. Facilities. Construction within these areas may have specific mitigation requirements imposed by the federal, state or local resource agencies. Shoreline stabilization within the project boundary adheres to the SSTSP. For areas identified in the SWFHS as having stable sand, gravel or cobble substrates on all other Catawba-Wateree lakes: LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS - No boat ramps except those required for Public Recreation and no excavation. Construction within these areas may have specific mitigation requirements imposed by the federal, state or local resource agencies. Shoreline stabilization within the project boundary adheres to the SSTSP.
4.	The figures presented in the 1998-1999 SMP were an accurate representation of Duke Power's SMP. However, these figures, and associated data, were subject to some deviation due to inherent tolerance and process factors.
5.	Roads, hydrography, political boundaries, transmission line corridors, etc. were incorporated into the GIS from several sources for general information. Also, the precise limits of classifications and reserved areas were determined by visual observation and many did change slightly if and when surveyed.
6.	Minor data fluctuations are to be expected in any revision of the SMP maps as a result of technological advancements such as the use of digital aerial photography, satellite imagery, GPS and GIS. These maps are valuable planning tools. They do not, however, have the accuracy of a physical metes and bounds-type land survey and should not be treated as such.

Back to Top

2000-2001 Classification of Shoreline

In preparation for filing the revised SMP in 2001, Duke Power fisheries scientists and lake management personnel re-inventoried the shoreline in the Spring of 2000 to correct any shoreline habitat discrepancies and to account for the development of the shoreline that had taken place since the SMP maps were initially revised in 1998. A tabular comparison of the shoreline classification data from the 1998-1999 SMP and the revised 2000 SMP data is included (Table 2.1-2).

In the Spring of 2000, Duke Power contracted to have a qualified vendor collect digital aerial photography for the entire Catawba-Wateree Project. The aerial photography data was incorporated into the GIS system as a backdrop to allow the SMP shoreline classification data to be edited to match the photography and the project boundary. Other base level data was edited as necessary to establish the proper geographical relationships. The process for modifying the shoreline classification data to match the digital aerial photography involved realigning the existing shoreline data to match the approximate project boundary (full pond contour) for easily discernable shoreline areas. The project boundary in areas not inundated by water during normal pool elevations (i.e. approximately 2 to 3 feet below the full pond contour elevation), was determined based on the land cover vegetation and the existing project boundary data.

Click Here to View Full

Click Here to View Full

Back to Top

The digital aerial photography of the Catawba -Wateree Project utilized a series of individual photographs taken from multiple flight lines of each lake to produce a wide area orthomosaic that appears as a seamless image. A wide area orthomosaic comprises imagery from multiple image frames that have been othorectified to a digital elevation model (DEM), georegistered, combined to eliminate overlap, and radiometrically corrected. The imagery is collected in sets of multiple, parallel flight lines running either north-south or east-west. The final mosaic is a finely gridded (3-foot) 24-bit color image map constructed directly from digital aerial imagery. The color image and brightness of each mosaic pixel is determined by geometrically mapping that pixel to an image frame from the digital camera, with geometric corrections and radiometric corrections applied.

The specifications for the photography are as follows:

	Digitally Orthorectified wide area mosaic; True color.
	Exceeds National Map Accuracy Standards at a 1:10,000 scale.
	3ft. ground sample distance (GSD), finely gridded with 24-bit color.
	Registered to North Carolina State Plane coordinate system, NAD83.

Software Used:

	Windows NT Arc/Info 8 to perform all GIS editing of data.
	MrSid (Multi-Resolution Seamless Image Database) to compress images for viewing through ArcView.
	ArcView 3.2 for viewing of images.
	ArcPress to plot the images.

General Procedure for Realignment of the Project Boundary:

Compare the existing SMP database (lake boundary, project areas, access areas, parks) to the current conditions as exemplified by the digital aerial photography. Using the digital aerial photography as a backdrop and with the assistance of Duke Energy Survey Plats, and topographic maps, the SMP data will be recreated by manually onscreen digitizing new boundaries. Areas that are difficult to photo-interpret, such as drainages, will be redrawn to match the existing SMP data, but will be subject to interpretation by Duke Power field personnel. TIGER data (i.e. roads, utilities, county boundaries, streams, and railroads) will be changed. TIGER data is included in the GIS only as a reference for features such as roads, county boundaries, streams, railroads, etc. The location will be aligned to match the digital image where these features coincide with the project boundary. Hard copy SMP maps and SMP digital data will be used as a backdrop to determine placement and transfer of shoreline classifications from the old to the new SMP data. Duke Power will review hard copy maps of the new data and determine necessary changes to be made to the classification types and the boundary areas.

Realignment of the shoreline/project boundary based on the digital aerial photography data resulted in alteration of the shoreline numerical data (i.e. shoreline mileage and percentages) throughout the Catawba-Wateree Project and the individual reservoirs. This modification was necessary to ensure the maps were updated with the most accurate and up-to-date data available.

Back to Top

A tabular comparison of the shoreline classification data from the realigned 2001 SMP data and the unaligned 1999 SMP shoreline classification data is included in table 2.1-2. A tabular comparison of the shoreline classification data from the realigned 2001 data and the unaligned 2000 Draft SMP shoreline classification data is included in Table 2.1-3.

The Spring 2000 data was provided in the draft of the 2001 SMP as an interim measure until the realignment of the data could be completed as part of the final SMP update filing.

In the 1996 Order that approved and modified the SMP, Duke Power was required to consider cultural resources by entering into an agreement with the Commission, the ACHP and the North and South Carolina SHPO's. Duke Power, as a result of the requirements of the draft of that agreement, contracted with the Louis Berger Group to inventory the two state's cultural resource databases to identify all the known archaeological and historic/architectural sites within the project boundary and extending up to one-quarter mile beyond the project boundary. Because of the sensitive nature of the data and the necessity to prevent unauthorized disturbance of these sites, this particular data-layer is only included in the version of the SMP provided to the agencies signing the PA and Duke Power. This consideration is included as Note (4) in the Classifications and Lake Use Restrictions for the 2001 Catawba-Wateree SMP Map Revisions (see Appendix G).

The shoreline classification definitions and lake use restrictions have been determined in consultation with the appropriate resource management agencies. Both the Existing and Future Use classifications of the shoreline included in the SMP maps are taken from data at a specific point in time and therefore, can not be expected to represent nor anticipate all uses within the project as those uses actually occur.

The 2001 revision to the SMP maps used the 1998-1999 SMP classifications with three modifications to: (1) accommodate the required cultural resource component for the 2001 SMP revision; (2) identify development activity within areas classified as IMZs; and (3) accommodate expansion of True Public Marinas (TPM) that are truly public service providers for the project. The cultural resource component was addressed as an additional note (Note (4) to the Classifications and Lake Use Restrictions for the 1998 Catawba-Wateree SMP Map Revisions (Appendix G) stating:

Back to Top

4. Cultural resource data is included in a data layer that is not visible in the final 2001 SMP maps provided to entities outside the parties to the Cultural Resources PA. This is necessary because of the sensitive nature of the data and the need to protect the integrity of these sites as required by the PA between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the ACHP and the North Carolina and South Carolina SHPOs. Lake use permitting activities not specifically exempted in the PA that may potentially impact these sites require consultation with the appropriate SHPO. Lake use permitting activities may have additional mitigation requirements or the activity may not be allowed.

The new shoreline classification (IMZ-Developed) was added to the 2000 data and remains in the 2001 SMP shoreline classification data to identify development activity in areas classified as IMZ. The 2001 SMP maps only delineate that development has occurred in these areas. The GIS must be queried to differentiate the specific type of development that has occurred.

The Commercial/Non-residential classification was modified in the 2001 SMP to allow exceptions to specific permitting criteria to accommodate possible expansions of facilities considered to be TPMs (Appendix G).

Other specific mapping changes are included in the 2001 SMP Update maps dated July 2001. These include: 1) designation of only FERC Hydro Plant properties identified as part of the project boundary (based on Exhibit K drawings); 2) designation of other power production facilities and property by annotation only; 3) revision of the project boundary of Rocky Creek Lake to match the actual contour elevation 284.4'msl as indicated in a previous FERC filing Docket #P-2232-421 on March 9, 2001; and 4) reclassification of shoreline originally identified as power production properties delineated as Project Operations or Public Infrastructure on previous maps.

FERC Hydro Plant properties were modified on the 2001 maps to accurately depict those areas specifically identified on the exhibit drawings as being within the project boundary. This change ensures the project boundary is more accurately identified.

Power production facilities have been identified by annotation at the site of the primary plant structure. Shading of power production properties (except those hydro properties within the project boundary discussed above) were eliminated to more consistently align with other manufacturing properties that were not delineated on the maps but were designated by the appropriate shoreline classification (e.g. Business/Industrial).

Back to Top

The project boundary of each reservoir on the C-W Project is identified in the license based on a specific contour elevation. Duke Power submitted a filing Docket #P-2232-421on March 9, 2001 requesting that the exhibit drawing for the Cedar Creek/Rocky Creek Development (Rocky Creek Lake) be modified to accurately depict the actual contour elevation by eliminating the small de-watered section on the eastern side of Mountain Island on Rocky Creek Lake. This modification resulted in a significant reduction in the total island acreage for Rocky Creek Lake and the project overall. Duke maintains that the islands, including Mountain Island and Big Island, will continue to be managed consistent with other islands throughout the C-W Project. This fact is indicated by the Non-Project Recreation Lands designation (i.e. gray shading) of the island acreage's and Future Public Recreation classification of the shoreline along the project boundary. Classification designations have been removed on the 2001 maps in the areas outside the project boundary.

Shoreline areas in the vicinity of power production facilities that are no longer needed for power production purposes have been reclassified to the most appropriate shoreline classification based on the consistent application of the Future Use classification methodology and definitions. These minimal shoreline lengths were initially identified as either being in a Project Operations or Public Infrastructure classification. Shoreline classified as Environmental, Natural Areas or IMZ's in these areas have not changed as a result of this reclassification. The classifications that were eligible for modification have changed to either Future Commercial/Non-Residential, Future Commercial/Residential or Future Residential based upon consistent application of the classification definitions.

The SSTSP is a review process based on general conditions regarding shoreline stabilization. Duke Power developed the SSTSP as an alternative to a set of engineering criteria, to provide an easier process for an applicant to understand, and to enable more consistent field implementation. The selection process and conditions apply to any stabilization project, regardless of the classification of the shoreline. Figure 2.1-1 illustrates the SSTSP.

The SSTSP includes the following items:

Back to Top

Figure 2.1-1. Shoreline Stabilization Technique Selection Process

The general conditions for the SSTSP are as follows:

The SWFHS was conducted during 1997 and 1998 to identify areas of key importance for fish spawning and rearing. The wildlife resource agencies and Duke Power cooperatively developed the shallow water habitat classifications that included:

Back to Top

Vegetated areas/coves with stream confluence - These types of shorelines exist where stable, emergent vegetation (any portion of which is at least 5 horizontal ft. wide) composes greater than 50% of the area between full pond elevation and a minimum lakeward width of 5 horizontal ft for a minimum linear distance of 100 feet or where intermittent or permanent streams enter the upper ends of shallow coves (with or lacking vegetation). Common types of emergent vegetation in these areas are: black willow (Salix nigra), alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), cattail (Typha latifolia), and rushes (Juncus effusus). While many wildlife species use these types of habitat, the primary importance of these areas is to provide spawning, rearing, and nursery habitat for fish. The cover provided by the vegetation, the nutrient inputs associated with inflow from the streams, and the abundance of invertebrates combine to make these areas critical spawning, nursery, and rearing habitat for fish.

Stable sand gravel, cobble, and woody debris - These types of shorelines exist where the shallow-water substrate is composed primarily (greater than 50%) of stable sand, gravel, or cobble for a minimum linear distance of 100 feet or where woody debris composes a significant part of the shoreline cover. "Significant woody debris" is defined as 4 or more felled trees (greater than 10 inches in diameter at chest height) extending from the shoreline into the water per 100 feet of shoreline. These habitat types provide some benefit for spawning, but are primarily nursery and rearing areas for a variety of fish. However, their value in this capacity is somewhat diminished without the cover and diversity of food provided by vegetation and inflows from the streams. The presence of woody debris enhances the quality of any substrate type as nursery and rearing habitat for fish.

The survey included all of the undeveloped portions of the shorelines of the Catawba-Wateree Lakes. The undeveloped shoreline was classified into one of six sub-categories: Vegetated/Stream Confluence, Natural, Stable Sand, Gravel/Cobble, Woody Debris, or Undeveloped/No Critical Habitat.

The initial survey was conducted by boat for Lake James and Fishing Creek Lake and by helicopter for the remaining lakes. A second survey was conducted in 1998 to evaluate all of the Catawba-Wateree Lakes to ensure the quality and accuracy of the maps produced from the 1997 survey. Duke Power Lake Management and Fisheries personnel conducted the 1998 survey by boat. The Critical Habitat Inventory Maps were produced for all of the shoreline included as part of the survey.

Back to Top

Table 2.2-1            Shallow Water Habitat Shoreline Classification(miles)

Back to Top

In 1999, Duke Power, in cooperation with the NCWRC and SCDNR, initiated a 2-year study to evaluate fish communities associated with: (1) woody debris, (2) developed shallow-water habitats, and (3) undeveloped shallow-water habitats.

To evaluate fish communities associated with these habitats, eight 100-meter shoreline transects in each habitat type were sampled in 1999 and 2000 by boat electrofishing. Samples were collected during March, April, July, and November in Lake James, Lake Hickory, and Fishing Creek Lake. Woody debris, developed habitats, and undeveloped habitats are defined as (respectively): shoreline composed of greater than 50 percent felled trees that are greater than 10 inches in diameter at chest height; shoreline composed of greater than 50 percent piers and rip-rap; and shoreline with no construction, rip-rap, or woody debris. All fish (except black bass) collected from each transect were identified to species, counted, and weighed in aggregate by species, and 30 fish (selected at random) of each species were measured for total length (TL). All black bass collected were identified to species, measured (TL), and weighed individually. Appropriate statistical analyses was used to determine significance (P less than or equal to 0.10) between mean numbers and biomass of fish among habitat types within seasons.

This Final SMP Update incorporates the data collected in 2000 with the previous year's data and is included in the final version of the Woody Debris Study (Appendix A). Further consultation is on-going with the wildlife resource management agencies to develop a satisfactory management strategy to enhance fish habitat. The results of this consultation will be provided to the Commission in a supplemental filing on or before October 31, 2001.

Duke Power currently has limited information pieces to provide to applicants on methods for protecting and enhancing the riparian zone. Accordingly, Duke Power has designed and will publish an informational piece that will provide property owners with a range of information about bioengineering techniques, material sources, information sources, nuisance aquatic plants, and the value of riparian zones. The Riparian Zone Management Information Brochure is included in Appendix E. In addition to the riparian brochure, Duke Power has designed an additional informational piece promoting the fish-friendly pier design as a fish habitat enhancement technique. The fish-friendly pier pamphlet (Appendix E) is currently included in all lake use permit application packages for private facility and shoreline stabilization applicants. The riparian brochure will be included in all lake use permit applications once the final brochure is printed after September 31, 2001.

Back to Top

Duke Power and personnel from state resource agencies including the NCWRC, North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDPR), North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North Carolina Division of Water Quality, SCDNR, and South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (SCDPRT) have formed Resource Teams to identify important natural resources associated with the Catawba River basin. These teams have been cooperatively and routinely conducting field studies and data reviews of the resources within the basin with input from environmental organizations, land trusts, councils of government, local experts, and contract consultants. These efforts by the Resource Teams include examination of the terrestrial resources (occurrence of listed species, unique habitats, etc.) within and near the Catawba-Wateree Project. This work has been ongoing since the mid-1990's and resulted in Draft Catawba River Resource Plans for each state. During the period of 1998 until the present, the Resource Teams advanced their processes through a series of joint meetings and field trips to examine and identify potentially important resource areas. This phase of these resource identification processes is nearing completion. In South Carolina, the Resource Team has produced a "final draft" report that is under review by resource agency management; a "final draft" in North Carolina is expected in early winter of 2001. These drafts will remain living documents and could potentially change as resource priorities change.

Federal and State Listed Species

In North Carolina one listed species, the nationally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) occurs within the project boundary. This colony occurs in a rocky area below one of the project spillways, in a bypass channel. These plants were discovered as a result of FERC-required work activities. A written Protection Plan was approved by the USFWS. Measures to protect this population are listed in the Species Protection Plans (Appendix H).

Back to Top

In South Carolina there are no listed species known to occur within the project boundary. The rocky shoals spider lily (Hymenocallis coronaria) is not a federally listed species, but is unofficially ranked as "Of Concern, National" and is state listed as "S2" (Imperiled state-wide because of rarity or factor(s) making it vulnerable). Two populations exist in or near the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary, both in the South Carolina portion of the project. One population borders the upstream extent of the project at Fishing Creek Reservoir. Here the major portion of the population, which is one of the largest in the United States, apparently lies just upstream of the project boundary at Landsford Canal State Park and most if not all of the population is outside the jurisdiction of the SMP. Immediately downstream of this population, the shoreline is classified as "Future Public Recreation" on the west side of the river and "Future Commercial/Non-residential on the east; the majority of the population, if not all, is bounded by the shoreline of Landsford Canal State Park. A small population of the lily also exists in the project in the headwaters of Rocky Creek Reservoir; the shoreline is classified as "Natural Areas". A protection plan for the rocky shoals spider lily is provided in the Species Protection Plans (Appendix H).

Unique Habitats

There is relatively little terrestrial habitat within the Catawba-Wateree project area (even though there are some major islands within some reservoirs, these are not project lands; project lands are generally recreational access areas and lands adjacent to plants and dam abutments). Therefore, it is not surprising that there are few listed terrestrial species on project lands, and few unique terrestrial habitats are known to occur on project lands.

A sizable population of the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in the area below the spillway of Mountain Island Dam. The substrate here is primarily composed of the rubble and cobble characteristics of the old streambed. The area is subject to periodic flooding when water overtops the spillway. The harsh environment and sparse canopy here apparently provides ideal habitat for the species. This area will be designated as "Natural Area" in the 2001 filing of the Catawba-Wateree SMP.

Another element of interest in South Carolina is a colony of the rocky shoals spider lily (Hymenocallis coronaria), that occurs within or just upstream of the project boundary at the headwaters of Fishing Creek and Rocky Creek Lakes. Although not a federally listed species at this time, this beautiful plant is quite restricted in its distribution. As is typical of this species, this colony is growing in shallow water among small boulders. Duke Power, in cooperation with resource agencies, has recently produced low level aerial photographs of this spider lily colony to provide baseline data for long term monitoring. Duke is also working cooperatively with Katawba Valley Land Trust in their efforts to document aspects of the spider lily's life history and to establish and implement further research methods to track changes in population size.

Back to Top

In some cases project lands just below the hydroelectric dams provide excellent locations for wildlife viewing. One such location, below the Wateree Dam, has been designated as a South Carolina Nature Viewing Area, and other South Carolina hydroelectric project related areas are under review for similar designation. Many of these areas are designated as "Public Recreation" or "Project Operations" in the SMP.

The confluences of tributaries to the reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree Project have wetland characteristics. These areas serve as feeding areas for waterfowl and shorebirds and habitat for amphibians. Most of these areas have been designated as "Environmental" or "Natural Area" in the SMP.

Unique Habitats adjacent to the Project Boundaries

In addition to the above unique terrestrial resources elements, within the project boundary, there are some unique terrestrial habitats near the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary that will likely be judged worthy of protection by resource agencies. These include bottomland forests, rugged forested slopes, and diverse riparian habitats. The Catawba River Resource Plans that are in final development by Duke Power and the agencies have been valuable tools for the agencies and land trusts, in not only identifying, but also prioritizing protection needs of these terrestrial resources outside the project boundaries. Unique habitats identified to date include:

Back to Top

Future Plan Activities

The cooperative inventory and planning processes involving Duke Power, resource agencies and other elements of the conservation community to identify and prioritize unique species and habitats associated with the Catawba-Wateree Project and its environs will remain ongoing. Participants will continue to meet on at least an annual basis and make joint field trips, as needed, to further inventory resources of the river area.

On April 5, 2001, FERC issued an Order Approving Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Catawba-Wateree Project. This PA specifies how cultural resources (i.e., archaeological and historic sites) will be considered in the implementation of the SMP. Signatory parties to the PA include FERC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the South Carolina SHPO. A copy of the final PA is included in Appendix C.

The PA requires Duke Power to implement the following broad categories of activities:

	Digitally Orthorectified wide area mosaic; True color.
	Develop a predictive model that identifies areas with No, Low, Medium, and High probabilities for containing archaeological and historic sites. As part of the model development, Duke Power will conduct field investigations to ensure that the model accurately predicts the presence or absence of cultural resource sites.
	Utilize the predictive model in the lake use permitting process.

Duke Power conducted a preliminary historic and archaeological resources inventory between April and June, 2000, to identify cultural resources, i.e., archaeological sites and architectural resources, located within the project boundary and up to 0.25 miles outside of that boundary.

Back to Top

First, all of the previously recorded cultural resources within the Study Area were mapped onto the appropriate USGS topographic maps. Second, a relational database was developed that contains all of the pertinent information of the mapped cultural resources. Third, the locational information collected was used to develop a GIS layer for historic properties for the SMP maps. Finally, prehistoric and historic contexts for the Catawba-Wateree basin were developed consistent with the existing statewide thematic contexts that were developed as part of the North Carolina SHPO and South Carolina SHPO planning process.

To compile the data, the Louis Berger Group along with Duke Power reviewed the archaeological site files and the architectural resource files, inventories, maps, reports, and publications at the offices of the North Carolina SHPO, the South Carolina Office of State Archaeology, and the South Carolina SHPO. Using site maps and information in the site files at the state offices, the location of each archaeological and architectural site was plotted on the appropriate USGS topographic map. Preliminary information on sites is included in Section 3. Information contained in Section 3 is based on SHPO files that have not undergone field verification. It is possible that some of the sites documented in the SHPO files have been compromised or no longer exist. In addition to the sites in the state files, there are additional historic sites of which Duke Power staff are aware that Duke Power considers to be potential cultural resources. These sites are listed in the individual lake assessments where appropriate.

Pertinent information on each recorded site was collected from the state records, e.g., state number, resource type, Universal Transverse Mercators (UTMs), cultural affiliation, site type, integrity, and National Register of Historic Places (National Register) status, and then entered into a template developed in Corel Paradox 8 commercial electronic database software. The locational information was used to create a layer for the GIS developed as part of the revised SMP. The relational database is linked with the GIS layer, to enable Duke Power to access the immediate location of, and information about, each recorded cultural resource. This will help Duke Power take into account historic properties when making management decisions about recreational and other activities in and around its reservoirs. A timeline has been included as Figures 2.4-1 and 2.4-2, in order to help in understanding the time periods associated with the sites that are described in the individual lake assessments.

Back to Top

Using guidance provided by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification and Evaluation, Duke Power developed prehistoric and historic contexts for the Catawba-Wateree basin (see Appendix C). Each context includes a statement of cultural themes and their geographical and chronological limits as well as definitions of property types associated with each context and/or theme (including locational patterns and current condition). The contexts also will provide a foundation for future decisions relative to goals and priorities in identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources. The contexts also will be used as the basis for the development of predictive models which Duke Power anticipates completing in accordance with the Cultural Resources PA.

The draft PA provides for the development, testing, and use of a predictive model that includes criteria for designating High, Medium, Low, and No probabilities areas for cultural resources. Duke Power will develop a predictive model to: (1) maximize the cost-effectiveness of archaeological surveys; (2) facilitate shoreline management and planning; and (3) maximize the preservation and protection of archaeological sites. The predictive model will allow Duke Power to better address the historic properties when permitting development and other land uses inside the project area. Because the Catawba-Wateree basin begins near the Blue Ridge Escarpment in North Carolina and terminates in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina, Duke Power will develop a predictive model that will include each of the physiographic regions within the project area. The model will define areas of No, Low, Medium, and High potential for cultural resources.

Back to Top

Development of the predictive model will include a program for subsequent field verification. Duke Power will develop a plan and schedule for conducting shoreline surveys to determine how well the predictive model works. The purpose of the verification is the necessary field-testing of the legitimacy of the model and refining the model as appropriate prior to incorporation of the model into the Lake Use permitting process. The finalized predictive model will be incorporated into the GIS. The identification of No, Low, Medium, and High probability areas will ensure that effects to historic properties resulting from lake use permitting are assessed.

Click Here to View Full Figure 2.4-1 Prehistoric Timeline

Click Here to View Full Figure 2.4-2 Historic Timeline

Pursuant to Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the applicable part of its implementing regulations, i.e., 36 CFR 800.11(c)(1), Duke Power may withhold site specific information. In addition, Stipulation I D.5 of the PA states that cultural resource site locations will not be released without the written consent of the FERC, Advisory Council, North Carolina SHPO, and South Carolina SHPO. Duke Power includes the Final PA as part of the SMP Update (Appendix C). The filings necessary as stipulations of the PA will include the cultural context report, the historic and archaeological databases, and a set of maps for each lake showing the locations of recorded properties in the databases. Because certain components include locational information, the disclosure of which could jeopardize the integrity of sites contemplated in the PA, Duke Power will provide the report only to FERC, the ACHP, and the North Carolina and South Carolina SHPO offices and will request FERC to restrict access to certain aspects of these subsequent filings.

Back to Top

In 1999, Duke Power initiated a Recreation Use and Needs Study for the Catawba-Wateree Project. A combination of data collection instruments were used to collect recreational use data within the project area, including mail-out surveys, recreational user interviews, traffic and spot counts at recreation sites, and watercraft counts from flyovers. Table 2.5-1 summarizes the data collection methods, targeted user groups, data collection media (survey, interview, etc.), when and where the media were used, estimated population numbers, number of surveys mailed, and number of survey responses for each survey type. A total of 1,820 surveys were received from the Survey A, B, D, and E mailings and the Survey C interviews. In addition, about 5,200 spot counts and tailrace counts were conducted during the study period to obtain further information about recreational use within the project area.

There are three major improvements in the methodology used in the 1999 boating study, developed in consultation with the agencies, compared to the 1994 methodology. The first improvement was the use of 21 flyovers (section 2.5.3) using GPS surveying techniques and a GPS unit to map the location of boats on each lake. This gave an accurate count and location of boats on the lakes. The 1994 boating study used a calculation to estimate the number of boats on the lake and it did not give the location of the boating activity.

The second major methodology improvement was the tailoring of the "boat activity type acreage" by considering six lake factors for each lake (section 2.5.4). Using a slightly modified version of the methodology developed by Warren and Rea (1989), the boat activity acreage is adjusted to compensate for each lake's specific characteristics that affect boating. By considering the six factors, most of the acreage needed for each boating activity increased, leading to a decrease in the lake's boat carrying capacity. The 1994 boating study did not address the lake difference.

The third major methodology improvement was the development of maps that show the distribution of boating use from data collected during the flyovers. The data is mapped for the peak use day and for the composite of the top 3 to 5 weekend days. The 1994 study did not provide any information pertaining to where boats were distributed.

Back to Top

Surveys and interviews were conducted during January 1999 through December 1999 to assess the existing recreational use and perceived recreational needs within the project area. Surveys were mailed to different user types to obtain information and input from property owners adjacent to the project reservoirs (Survey A), registered boaters and households in the counties adjacent to the reservoirs (Survey B), commercial marina operators located within the project reservoirs (Survey D), and lake management support and resource agencies (Survey E). Two mailings of Surveys (A) and (B) were conducted, due to low response rates from the first mailing, in an attempt to reach the targeted sample size. The targeted sample sizes were developed in order to keep sampling error for the surveys to between 3 and 5 percent, depending on the survey. Interviews of visitors to Duke Power's access areas (Survey C) were conducted as well.

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

Interviews were conducted (Survey C) of recreationists using the public access areas (tailrace fishing and boat ramps). The interviews were conducted during both the primary recreation season (April through October) and the non-peak season (January through March and November through December). Survey (D) was mailed to all public and private marina operators with facilities located within the project reservoirs. Survey (E) was mailed to lake management support agencies, including law enforcement, emergency response, and safety training organizations, marine commissions, and resource agencies associated with the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs.

Back to Top

Table 2.5-1.    Summary of Data Collection Methods and Targeted User Categories

Back to Top

In January 1999, electronic traffic counters were placed at 17 Duke Power access areas within the Catawba-Wateree system. The sites were selected based on an assessment of the suitability of the site for traffic counters, with an emphasis on obtaining information from the sites with the anticipated highest level of use, and obtaining information from sites geographically distributed throughout the project area. Early in the study period, calibration of the traffic counters was conducted via manual spot counts of traffic entering the sites and comparing those estimates with the traffic counter data for that period; the results of this assessment verified the accuracy of the traffic counter data. From January to early April, a total of ten traffic counters were stolen and several moved, resulting in lost and sporadic data. As a result of these ongoing problems, traffic counters were maintained at 11 representative sites, and spot counts were conducted at 26 other representative sites. More than 1,000 spot counts were conducted periodically and randomly at selected times of the day and week during the study period to record the type of recreational activity at the access areas. The spot counts provided information at the sites where traffic counters were not installed. More than 4,200 tailrace counts of recreational users were conducted throughout the 1999 study period to obtain information about the recreational use occurring within the tailrace areas

Flyovers of the 11 reservoirs were conducted beginning in April and extending through Labor Day weekend. During the flyovers, aerial counts of the watercraft and type of use (such as water skiing, fishing, motor boating and canoeing) were recorded. The purpose of the flyovers was to capture peak boating use data to characterize the distribution of boating use and to assess existing water-based carrying capacity conditions. Attempts were made to adequately cover all the reservoirs within the Catawba-Wateree system; however, focus was placed on obtaining information from James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, and Wateree reservoirs, where there is the most use and public access to the project reservoirs. A total of 21 flyovers was conducted, with 11 taken on weekends (Saturday or Sunday), five on holidays, and five during the week (see Table 2.5-2). During each flyover, the data assessors attempted to record all lakes within the Catawba-Wateree system. Due to inclement weather and mechanical problems on some of the flights, some of the lakes were not covered during several of the flyovers, or the distribution of boating activity was not properly recorded. Information about each of the flyovers; including counts, and weather conditions can be found in Appendix B of the Recreation Use and Needs Study, which is included as Appendix B to this report.

Back to Top

Table 2.5-2.            Flyovers Conducted during the 1999 Study Period

The boat count data were obtained during the flyovers using aerial GPS surveying techniques with a Trimble Pro XRS GPS unit in the airplane. The unit produces sub-meter level accuracy; however, due to velocity and the angle of line of sight, most boat count locations are probably only accurate to within 20 meters. All collected data were differentially post-processed with the use of Duke Power's base station. Post-processing differential correction allows for the removal of error produced by the ionosphere, and error associated with the Department of Defense's Selective Availability distortion. Once the final data were corrected, they were combined into a single coverage or "theme" depicting the total number of boats and the boat type. For instance, some areas had clusters of boats; therefore, a single point may represent many boats that were very close together. For each lake, boat count maps were created and are included in Section 3 of this report. The boat types are differentiated by color and symbol type. The count groups (i.e., 1 - 5, 6 - 10) are maintained for all boat types. Public access and marina features are added for display purposes.

Back to Top

Overall Boat Carrying Capacity Estimate by Reservoir

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

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

The peak boating use estimates were obtained from the flyovers conducted during April through Labor Day 1999. The average person per boat type and distribution of the boating use were obtained from the interviews and surveys conducted during the 1999-study period.
The optimum boating acreage per boat activity type was derived from acknowledged standards and procedures (BOR, 1977; Warren and Rea, 1989). The inclusion of a crowding factor acknowledges that calculating only a physical carrying capacity does not acknowledge the social factors that can influence carrying capacity. The crowding factor was used to ensure that conservative estimates of carrying capacity would be established. The optimum boating acreage per boat activity was adjusted by assessing various factors and determining if they would influence the overall capacity for each lake by:

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

Back to Top

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

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

Back to Top

This factor was then applied to the Boat Activity Type Acreage Adjustment to determine the appropriate acreage required for each boat type as summarized in Table 2.5-3. In the case of this example, the total factor assessment added up to -2, and therefore the -2 boat acreage adjustments were used in the overall boat carrying capacity assessment.

Table 2.5-3.     Boat Activity Type Acreage Adjustment
                        (Source:  Modified from Warren and Rea, 1989)

Table 2.5-4 provides an example of how the boat carrying capacity assessment was conducted for each reservoir. The usable surface area (column B) was divided by the use factor for each type of identified boating activity type. For each reservoir the usable boating surface area was determined by using the total surface area at full pond and subtracting: (1) all island areas; (2) all isolated lake areas that are segmented from the larger reservoir and not accessible by boat from the main lake; and (3) all areas within 120 feet (allowable length of private piers) of the shorelines. Items 1 and 2 are applied to all boating types, while item 3 is applied to all boating types except canoe/kayak and fishing activities. These restrictions were applied to establish a conservative estimate of the usable surface areas available at each reservoir.

The usable surface area figures contained in this SMP differ slightly from the Draft Recreation Use and Needs Study for the Canoe/kayak and Fishing categories. Items 1 and 2 above were not removed from the usable acreage in making calculations for the Study. The adjustments made for the SMP more accurately reflect the actual usable area. The resultant changes that have occurred in each of the Lake Assessments due to this adjustment are minor. The boating activity types (column A) were classified as fishing, canoeing/kayaking, cruising, sailing, jet skiing, and water skiing. The use factor for each boat activity type (column C) was derived from adjusted standards for optimum boating surface area (acreage) as described previously. The estimated optimum number of boats for each boat activity type (column D) was derived by dividing the total usable acreage (column B) by the use factor (column C) for each boat activity type. This estimate provides the total estimated optimum use for each category if the only activity occurring were just that boating type category. To assess the mix of boat activity type that occurs on the reservoirs, the percent usage for each category (column E) was identified based on survey and interview data. The total boat activity mix (column F) was derived by multiplying the Optimum number of boats (column D) by the percent usage (column E). The estimated persons per boat (column G) was based on the survey data, and was used to determine the potential number of total users (column H) by multiplying this number (column G) by the boat activity mix (column F).

Back to Top

Table 2.5-4.            Example of Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment

The optimum estimated capacity was then compared to the peak boating use observed during the 1999 data study period (see Table 2.5-5). The peak boating use estimate was determined for weekday, weekend, and holiday boating use (i.e., 175 weekday, 219 weekend, and 377 holiday) by applying the highest number of boats observed at the reservoir during one day during the flights conducted in the 1999 study period. These numbers were then divided by the capacity/activity mix (number of boats - i.e., 898) to derive the estimate of the percent of boat carrying capacity for the weekday (19 percent), weekend (24 percent), and holiday (42 percent). This estimate represents the percent of the optimum boat carrying capacity occurring at the reservoir in the peak use period during the 1999 study period.

Back to Top

The comparisons we expect to draw from the capacity assessment are:

	How often the lakes approach their carrying capacity.
	Areas of the lake where the carrying capacity may be of concern.Areas of the lake where the carrying capacity may be of concern.
	A picture of the general distribution of the boats on the lake.

Table 2.5-5.            Example of Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity

Boat Density Assessment

Boat density grids were created in order to indicate the locations where the highest levels of boating use were occurring in the study area during peak use days. Boat density grids were calculated for both the highest use day and the average high use days for each lake in the study area. The average high-use day grids are the average of output grids for high use days. The number of high use days varied between the 3 and 5 highest use days using the natural break method (the grouping of a list of numbers by looking at points where numbers are closely grouped followed by areas where the numbers are more widely spaced followed by another close group of numbers). The method for calculating the boat density in acres per boat for a specific lake on a specific day is as follows:

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

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

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

Back to Top

Population projections, future recreational demand projections, and estimated acreage for facility needs were analyzed to assess future recreational demand and land acreage needs for future recreation facilities. Population projections of the counties within about 50-60 miles of each reservoir (impact zone) were conducted for each reservoir within the Catawba-Wateree system. Population projections were conducted for these impact zones using population data from the Office of State Planning for the counties in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the counties in South Carolina for 1970 through 1990 and population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, 2010, and 2020. An average percentage increase for each ten year period was calculated. The impact zone populations were then projected to the year 2050 using the average percentage growth for the entire time period. Current use estimates are based on spot counts and responses to surveys conducted during the summer of 1999. The recreational use projections (Table 2.5-6) were estimated by computing the projected population increase for the impact zone and incorporating indexed values for future recreational use for the various activities. The index values for each activity were obtained from "Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends" (Cordell, 1999). The indices are based on models that incorporate a number of variables, including age structure of the population, income, race, sex, and population density, as well as other explanatory variables. Full model parameters and estimates are available from the author. Sub-totals of boating activity use and projected demand are given.

Table 2.5-6.            Lake Estimated Future Recreational Use

*Boating Activities

Back to Top

Table 2.5-7 shows the estimated absorption percentage for the four major recreation activities that require specific lands and facilities. Picnicking, swimming, camping, and boating are activities that require specific developed facilities. The other activities listed are dispersed activities that can take place at a variety of undeveloped areas. The estimated 1999 use levels are from Table 2.5-6. 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" (Cordell et al., 1996). Participation rates are for the South and are similar to 1995 North Carolina and South Carolina SCORP data. Specific participation rates are as follows: swimming, 37.3%; picnicking, 44.8%; camping, 22.4%; and 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 2.5-7            Estimated Absorption Percentages for Reservoir 

Back to Top

Table 2.5-8 provides the estimate of the recreational facilities land acreage needed to meet the future recreational demand through the year 2050. The recreation activities that were determined to have a specific need for recreational facilities were addressed. These are swimming, picnicking, camping and boating (Column A). The weighted population (Column C) is the estimated impact zone population multiplied by the participation rate for each activity. The facility standards (Column D) and estimated acreage needs for the facility class (Column F) are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreational Facilities. The facility need (Column E) is the total facility need for the impact zone based on the weighted population and the facility standards. The total facility need is then multiplied by the absorption percentage to determine the facility need for each lake (Column G). The acreage needs (Column H) are then based on the individual lake facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities.

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

Back to Top

Table 2.5-8            Estimated Recreation Facility Land Acreage Needs

In order to determine which access area improvements to make during the next five years, each access area that was not improved in the first SMP five year list of proposed access area changes was reviewed for potential improvements. Factors such as physical condition of facilities, partnering opportunities, responding to public comments, utilizing cost share opportunities and several other factors were used in assigning points for a general prioritization ranking for possible site upgrades. Other items considered for determining the project schedule were the cost of the improvements, FERC required projects, the time of year when improvements could be made, the length of time a site would need to be closed, other projects that would be taking place on the same lake and projects that will be taking place on non Catawba-Wateree lakes.

Back to Top

As recreation enhancements are proposed for the access areas and islands, several recreation planning and management objectives will need to be met. The planning and management objectives are divided between boating and land based recreation uses and economic considerations. For boating uses we will: (1) arrange for boating access facility development as necessary to ensure public boating needs are adequately met; (2) manage boating access levels with consideration for boating capacity and crowding issues; and (3) ensure the lakes remain public boating resources and meet FERC licensing objectives.

For the land based recreational uses we will: (1) arrange for the land-based recreational facility development and management as necessary to ensure public recreational needs are adequately met; and (2) ensure the lakes remain public boating resources and meet FERC licensing objectives.

Planning and management objectives for the economic considerations are to: (1) ensure Duke Power's public recreation facility development plans maximize use of existing Duke Power properties that have already been reserved for future public recreation development; (2) ensure due credit is given to Duke Power's investment and that of its partners in future recreation planning activities; and (3) beginning in 2001, focus Duke Power's future investments on recreation sites and facilities that will be cooperatively developed and managed through partnerships with state agencies, local governmental agencies or non-governmental operators.

In addition to the enhancements proposed by Duke Power, a listing of the proposed recreational facilities to be installed by state and local agencies is included in Section 3 for each access area and island potentially being leased as part of the AAII. The preliminary facilities list and development schedule are included as information, but may change in the future as funding and needs arise. Future changes may also occur if non-agency groups obtain approval for the development of public recreation facilities on the access areas and islands.

Back to Top