Recreational Use & Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment

Lake James Existing Recreational Areas

There are 5 developed Duke Power-owned public recreational access locations (with 2 leased to the NCDPR) on Lake James and 1 state park, Lake James State Park. Figure 3.1-1 shows the public recreational access locations. In addition, there are 4 commercial non-residential marinas that provide additional public access to the lake. The following sections describe the Duke Power-owned public access areas, summarize the facilities at the state park, and provide estimates of the number and types of commercial recreational access facilities at Lake James.

Existing Duke Power-owned Public Access Areas

The developed Duke Power-owned public access areas provide about 404 acres and 32,139 feet of shoreline frontage of public access at Lake James. Combined, the developed access areas have 13 public boat ramps, 6 loading piers, and about 23 car and 345 vehicle/trailer parking spaces. Table 3.1-3 summarizes the facilities at the public access areas.

In the 1994 SMP, Duke Power proposed to improve the Canal Bridge access area (replace the 2 boat ramps with 3 new boat ramps and install a loading pier), relocate the North Fork access area (install 6 new boat ramps, 3 loading piers, 165 paved parking spaces, light the area and provide bank fishing), and construct a canoe portage. In addition, Duke Power said it would provide 180 acres at the relocated North Fork site (164 acres provided), add 109 acres to the Linville site (174 acres added) and add 25 acres to the Bridgewater Fishing Area (35 added). All of the recreation commitments from the 1994 SMP have been met.

The NCWRC has entered into a creative partnership with Duke Power for the maintenance and operation of the non-leased access areas. Under this agreement Duke Power pays the NCWRC to maintain the access areas and the NCWRC makes at least the same capital dollar amount available to Duke Power, and agency lessees for the non boat launching portion of the access areas, for improvements that will help the boating public. This agreement is a continuation of a long established partnership with the NCWRC with the added benefit of designated cost sharing capital dollars for access area improvements.

Table 3.1-3
Lake James Duke Power-owned Public Access Areas

Access Area Name	Acreage	Shoreline Frontage (ft)	Boat Ramps	Loading Piers	Fishing Piers	Car Parking (Spaces)	V/T* Parking (Spaces)
Black Bear	163.8	12,871	6	3	0	0	165
Hidden Cove	8.3	1,659	2	1	0	0	30
Canal Bridge	11.4	2,251	3	1	0	0	90
Linville	180.3	13,846	2	1	0	0	60
Bridge water Fishing area¹	39.8	1,512	0	0	1	23	0
Total	403.6	32,139	13	6	1	23	345

* Vehicle/Trailer parking areas
¹ Located in the tailrace

State and County Public Recreational Facilities

There is one state park, Lake James State Park, which is located in the central portion of Lake James and is owned and operated by the NCDPR. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the site acreage, shoreline footage, and recreational facilities provided at the Lake James State Park (not including Hidden Cove and Canal Bridge access areas). The state has leased the Hidden Cove and Canal Bridge access areas, which are run in conjunction with Lake James State Park.

Table 3.1-4
Summary of Lake James State Park Public Recreational Facilities

Site Description/Facility	Number
Site Acreage	605
Shoreline Footage	21,246
Concrete Boat Ramps	0
ADA Fishing Pier	1
Paved Parking Spaces	78
Swimming Beach	1
Concession Building	1
Restroom/Shower	1
Picnic Tables	20
Ranger Residences	1
Park Office	1
Miles of Trail	4.5
Backpack Tent Campsites	20
Picnic Shelter (12 tables)	1
Maintenance Building	1
Residence (purchased)	1

Existing Commercial and Private Recreational Access

In addition to the Duke Power-owned public access areas and the state park, the lake users can gain access to Lake James through both commercial non-residential and commercial residential marinas. Private access to Lake James is through private marinas and private piers along the Lake James shoreline. Table 3.1-5 summarizes the number and types of public and private commercial non-residential and commercial residential marina facilities. Table 3.1-6 shows the estimated number of private piers.

Table 3.1-5
Summary of Lake James Commercial Recreational Access Facilities

Type of Facility	Commercial Non-Residential	Commercial Residential
Public Marinas	4	0
Private Marinas	0	10
Wet Slips	386	323
Dry Slips	0	0

Table 3.1-6
Summary of Lake James Private Recreational Access Facilities

Type of Facility	No. Private Facilities
Piers	285

Lake James Recreational Use Assessment

Visitation figures at the public access areas on Lake James were derived based on estimates of the traffic entering the Duke Power-owned public access areas. For the 1999 study period, there were an estimated total of 220,143 visits for Lake James at these sites. Figure 3.1-2 shows the distribution of the visitation for each month at Lake James for the Duke Power-owned public access areas. A visit is considered a vehicle or vehicle/trailer entering the site for any part of a day.

Table 3.1-7 provides a summary of the estimated recreational visitation based on the traffic counter data for the sampled sites during the 1999 study period. Of the Duke Power-owned Lake James access areas, those experiencing the greatest usage were Black Bear, Canal Bridge, and Linville (with estimates of 37 percent, 27 percent, and 21 percent, respectively, of the total estimated use).

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) as compared to Survey C respondents (respondents at the public access areas) was 1.41 to 1. Accordingly, the estimated overall recreational visitation for Lake James for the 1999 study period totaled 311,258 visits.

Lake James Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment

The overall boat carrying capacity is assessed based on the peak boating use estimates obtained during the flyovers in the 1999 study period. The available boating acreage was adjusted from the base boats per acreage estimate (see Table 3.1-8) by the following factors (Warren and Rea, 1989, as modified):

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	0
5.	Amount of facility and shoreline development	0
6.	Crowding rating	0
	Total	-2

Table 3.1-6
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 3.1-9 summarizes the assessment of the optimum overall boat capacity based on the usable water surface acreage and the boating activity mix identified from the surveys. Table 3.1-10 provides the assessment of the percent capacity of the boat use for Lake James on the peak day during the 1999 study period. During the weekday, Lake James was estimated at 19 percent capacity; during the weekend, at 24 percent capacity; and during the peak holiday period, at 42 percent capacity for overall boating use.

Table 3.1-9
Lake James Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment

Boat Activity	Usable Acreage	Use Factor	Opt. No. Boats	% Usage	Boat Activity Mix	Persons/ Boat	Total Users
Fishing	6,812	6.0	1,135	40.0%	454	3.14	1,427
Canoe/Kayak	6,812	1.8	3,784	4.5%	171	3.26	557
Motor Boating	5,059	13.0	389	26.5%	103	3.90	402
Sailing	5,059	6.0	843	2.6%	22	3.36	73
Jet Skiing	5,059	6.0	843	11.6%	98	3.85	377
Water Skiing	5,059	15.0	337	14.8%	50	4.39	220
Total				100%	898		3,055

Table 3.1-10
Lake James Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity

Peak Use	Weekday	% Capacity	Weekend	% Capacity	Holiday	% Capacity
No. Boats	175	19%	219	24%	377	42%

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 where higher density of boating use occurred, the general location of boating activity was recorded during the flyovers for each day of aerial coverage. Figure 3.1-3 shows the location of boats during the peak use day for Lake James. Figure 3.1-4 shows the boating density on Lake James for the peak use day, and denotes areas where the greatest clustering of boating activity occurred. Figure 3.1-5 shows the boat density map based on the composite of the five highest boating use days. This figure illustrates the areas where boating use most often occurred during the peak use days during the study period and provides an assessment of areas where high density boating occurred during this same period.

Based on the results of the boat capacity study in Table 3.1-10 there were no overall crowding problems on Lake James, even on holiday weekends. The Peak Use Day Boat Density map, Figure 3.1-4 (for only one day), does show three areas where the boat density is higher than the rest of the lake, but when averaging the five highest boat count days, Figure 3.1-5, no crowding problems are identified. For all of the remaining times during the year the boat density levels are low.

Lake James Estimated Future Recreational Demand

Table 3.1-11 provides the population projections for the counties within 50-60 miles of Lake James. Population projections were conducted for the impact zone using a combination of 1970 - 1990 population data and 2000 and 2010 population projections from U.S. Census Bureau data; these figures were to make projections for 2030, 2040, and 2050.

Table 3.1-11
Lake James Estimated Population Projections for the Impact Zone

County	1999	2000	2010	2020	2030	2040	2050
Burke	77,086	85,651	92,340	98,366	103,730	108,457	112,587
McDowell	37,166	41,296	44,196	46,347	47,910	49,030	49,825
Buncombe	176,416	196,018	213,232	229,759	245,476	260,296	274,167
Alexander	29,121	32,357	36,056	39,314	42,122	44,500	46,485
Watauga	37,759	41,954	45,542	48,552	51,032	53,046	54,665
Avery	14,149	15,721	16,002	16,054	16,063	16,065	16,066
Caldwell	68,560	76,178	78,758	80,411	81,457	82,113	82,524
Rutherford	54,126	60,140	62,576	64,776	66,753	68,521	70,096
Cleveland	83,358	92,620	96,803	100,034	102,502	104,370	105,776
Yancey	15,000	16,667	17,304	17,702	17,947	18,097	18,187
Mitchell	13,303	14,781	14,714	14,751	14,730	14,742	14,735
Total	606,044	673,383	717,523	756,066	789,722	819,238	845,112

Table 3.1-12 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 multiplying 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 3.1-13 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 3.1-12. 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 3.1-14 provides the estimate of the recreational facilities land acreage needed to meet the future recreational demand through the year 2050. The weighted population is the estimated impact zone population multiplied by the participation rate for each activity. The facility standards and estimated acreage needs for the facility class are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreational Facilities. The facility need is the total facility need for the impact zone based on the weighted population and the facility standards. The total facility need is then multiplied by the absorption percentage to determine the facility need for Lake James. The acreage needs are then based on the Lake James facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities. For Lake James, it is estimated that 36 acres are required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes 2 acres of beaches, 3 acres of picnic areas, 12 acres of campsites, and 19 acres of boat ramps.

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

For Lake James, the most frequently identified recreational facility needs mentioned were for restrooms, campsites, picnic areas and bank fishing areas. The Lake James State Park is in the planning process for development of restroom facilities at the Canal Bridge access area. McDowell County has proposed to provide restrooms at the Black Bear Access Area once they lease the site and begin construction.

McDowell County's plans for the Black Bear access area also include 8 primitive campsites, trails and bank fishing facilities for the public. Duke Power will work with the agencies and non-agency operators of access areas to provide the additional 7 campsites for Lake James.

Table 3.1-12
Lake James 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*	73,115	78,639	84,436	90,636	98,221	106,483
Boat Fishing*	146,902	169,494	190,814	210,438	223,040	229,633
Bank/Pier Fish	51,118	58,979	66,398	73,227	77,612	79,906
Lake Swimming	82,686	93,274	103,771	115,065	128,221	143,386
Canoeing*	12,152	13,533	14,756	16,450	18,947	22,595
Jet Skiing*	35,369	38,041	40,845	43,844	47,514	51,510
Kayaking*	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tailrace Fishing	2,987	3,447	3,880	4,279	4,535	4,669
Sailing*	7,671	8,251	8,859	9,509	10,305	11,172
Water Ski/Tubing*	36,049	38,773	41,631	44,688	48,428	52,501
Backpacking	5,974	7,667	9,637	11,885	14,137	16,505
Hunting	7,468	7,714	7,868	7,849	7,557	7,184
Tent/Vehicle Camp	19,416	25,455	32,582	40,804	49,915	59,882
Windsurfing	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bicycling	5,974	7,085	8,344	9,754	10,635	11,419
Picnicking	39,240	46,212	53,743	62,216	71,656	82,075
Sightseeing	36,049	43,803	52,209	61,220	71,178	81,680
Hiking	19,416	24,319	29,646	35,358	40,793	45,864
Wildlife Viewing	20,910	26,693	33,587	40,557	46,624	51,171
Using Playgrounds	4,481	5,282	6,103	6,981	7,966	9,058
Sub-total *	311,258	346,731	381,341	415,565	446,455	473,894
Total	606,977	696,661	789,109	884,760	977,284	1,066,693

* Boating Activities

Table 3.1-13
Lake James Estimated Absorption Percentage for Reservoir

Activity	Estimated 1999 Participants	Estimated 1999 Demand	Absorption Percentage
Swimming	82,686	1,878,512	4.4%
Picnicking	39,240	1,156,622	3.4%
Camping	19,416	454,775	4.2%
Boating	311,258	1,499,958	20.8%

Table 3.1-14
Lake James Estimated Recreational Facility Land Acreage Needs

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
Activity	Year	Weighted Population	Facility Standard	Facility Need	Facility Class	Lake James Share	Acreage
Swimming	2010	267,636	1 per 50,000	5.35	beaches	0.24	1.30
	2020	282,013	1 per 50,000	5.64	beaches	0.25	1.36
	2030	294,566	1 per 50,000	5.89	beaches	0.26	1.43
	2040	305,576	1 per 50,000	6.11	beaches	0.27	1.48
	2050	315,227	1 per 50,000	6.30	beaches	0.28	1.53
Picnicking	2010	321,450	1 per 500	642.90	tables	21.86	2.19
	2020	338,718	1 per 500	677.44	tables	23.03	2.30
	2030	353,795	1 per 500	707.59	tables	24.06	2.41
	2040	367,019	1 per 500	734.04	tables	24.96	2.50
	2050	378,610	1 per 500	757.22	tables	25.75	2.57
Camping	2010	160,725	6 per 1,000	964.35	campsites	40.50	10.13
	2020	169,359	6 per 1,000	1016.15	campsites	42.68	10.67
	2030	176,898	6 per 1,000	1061.39	campsites	44.58	11.14
	2040	183,509	6 per 1,000	1101.06	campsites	46.24	11.56
	2050	189,305	6 per 1,000	1135.83	campsites	47.70	11.93
Boating	2010	322,885	1 per 4000	80.72	boat ramps	16.79	16.79
	2020	340,230	1 per 4000	85.06	boat ramps	17.69	17.69
	2030	355,375	1 per 4000	88.84	boat ramps	18.48	18.48
	2040	368,657	1 per 4000	92.16	boat ramps	19.17	19.17
	2050	380,300	1 per 4000	95.08	boat ramps	19.78	19.78
					Total Acreage for 2050		35.80