Recreational Use & Carrying Capacity Assessment
Lake Rhodhiss Existing Recreational Areas
There are 5 developed Duke Power-owned public recreational access locations on Lake Rhodhiss and the Marsh Project area, leased by Duck's Unlimited and the State of North Carolina. Figure 3.2-1 shows the public recreational access locations. In addition, there is 1 commercial non-residential and 1 commercial residential marina that provide additional access on Lake Rhodhiss. The following sections describe the Duke Power-owned public access areas and provide estimates of the number and types of commercial recreational access facilities at Lake Rhodhiss.
Existing Duke Power-owned Public Access Areas
The developed Duke Power-owned public access areas provide about 247 acres and about 15,756 feet of shoreline frontage of public access at Lake Rhodhiss. Combined, the developed access areas have 11 public boat ramps, 6 loading piers, and about 350 car/trailer and 20 vehicle parking spaces. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the facilities at the public access areas. The NCWRC, under an agreement with Duke Power, maintains all of the access areas on Lake Rhodhiss.
In the 1994 SMP, Duke Power proposed improving the Castle Bridge access area (replace 1 ramp with 6 new ramps, replace 2 piers with 3 new piers, and add 150 paved parking spaces), relocate the Tator Hole site (add 4 new ramps, 2 loading piers, and 100 paved parking spaces). In addition, Duke Power said it would add 5 acres of land at Castle Bridge (45 acres added), add 20 acres to the Conley Creek site (64 added) and provide 100 acres at the relocated Tator Hole site (now called the Rhodhiss site where 127 acres were provided). All of the commitments were met except for the provision of 4 boat ramps at the Rhodhiss site where, after consultation with the NCWRC and FERC, only 2 ramps and 1 pier were provided initially.
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 3.2-3
Lake Rhodhiss 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johns River | 1.8 | 172 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| Huffman Bridge | 2.3 | 610 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| Castle Bridge | 47.7 | 1,290 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 150 |
| Conley Creek | 67.9 | 4,842 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 70 |
| Rhodhiss | 126.9 | 8,842 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Total | 246.6 | 15,756 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 20 | 350 |
* Vehicle/Trailer parking areas
Existing Commercial and Private Recreational Access
In addition to the Duke Power-owned public access areas, the public and lake neighbors can gain access to Lake Rhodhiss through a commercial non-residential marina. Private access to Lake Rhodhiss is through a private marina and private piers along the Lake Rhodhiss shoreline. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the number and types of public and private commercial non-residential and commercial residential marina facilities. Table 3.2-5 summarizes the estimated number of private piers.
Table 3.2-4
Summary of Lake Rhodhiss Commercial Recreational Access Facilities
| Type of Facility | Commercial Non-Residential |
Commercial Residential |
|---|---|---|
| Public Marinas | 1 | 0 |
| Private Marinas | 0 | 1 |
| Wet Slips | 62 | 2 |
| Dry Slips | 0 | 0 |
Table 3.2-5
Summary of Lake Rhodhiss Private Recreational Access Facilities
| Type of Facility | No. Private Facilities |
|---|---|
| Piers | 5 |
Lake Rhodhiss Recreational Use Assessment
Visitation figures at the public access areas on Lake Rhodhiss were derived based on estimates of the traffic entering the Duke Power-owned public access areas. For the 1999 study period, there was an estimated total of 228,010 visits for Lake Rhodhiss at these sites. Figure 3.2-2 shows the distribution of the visitation for each month at Lake Rhodhiss for the Duke Power-owned public access areas during the 1999 study period. A visit is considered a vehicle or vehicle/trailer entering the site for any part of a day.
Table 3.2-6 shows 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 Rhodhiss access areas, those experiencing the greatest usage were Castle Bridge, Rhodhiss, and Conley Creek with estimates of 51 percent, 22 percent, and 15 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) compared to Survey C respondents (respondents at the public access areas) was 1.27 to 1. The estimated overall recreational visitation for Lake Rhodhiss for the 1999 study period totaled 288,655 visits.
Lake Rhodhiss 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 3.2-7) 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 | - |
| 5. | Amount of facility and shoreline development | - |
| 6. | Crowding rating | 0 |
| Total | -3 | |
Table 3.2-7
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 3.2-8 summarizes the assessment of the optimum overall boat capacity based on the usable boating water surface acreage and the boating activity mix identified from the surveys. Table 3.2-9 provides the assessment of the percent capacity of the boat use for Lake Rhodhiss on the peak day during the 1999 study period. During the weekday, Lake Rhodhiss was estimated at 11 percent capacity; during the weekend, at 9 percent capacity; and during the peak holiday period, at 19 percent capacity for overall boating use.
Table 3.2-8
Lake Rhodhiss Boat Carrying Capacity Assessment
| Boat Activity | Usable Acreage | Use Factor | Opt. No. Boats | % Usage | Boat Activity Mix |
Persons/ Boat | Total Users |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fishing | 3,060 | 8.0 | 383 | 60.0% | 230 | 3.14 | 722 |
| Canoe/Kayak | 3,060 | 2.0 | 1,530 | 12.0% | 184 | 3.26 | 600 |
| Motor Boating | 1,743 | 15.0 | 116 | 13.0% | 15 | 3.90 | 59 |
| Sailing | 1,743 | 8.0 | 218 | 0% | - | 3.36 | - |
| Jet Skiing | 1,743 | 8.0 | 218 | 13.0% | 28 | 3.85 | 108 |
| Water Skiing | 1,743 | 17.0 | 103 | 2.0% | 2 | 4.39 | 9 |
| Total | 100% | 459 | 1,498 |
Table 3.2-9
Lake Rhodhiss Estimated 1999 Study Period Boat Capacity
| Peak Use | Weekday | % Capacity | Weekend | % Capacity | Holiday | % Capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. Boats | 49 | 11% | 41 | 9% | 89 | 19% |
The overall boat carrying capacity assessment provides an assessment of the total surface area of boating use. To assess the areas of the lakes with higher boating density, the general location of boating activity was recorded during the flyovers for each day of aerial coverage. Figure 3.2-3 shows the location of boats during the peak use day for Lake Rhodhiss. Figure 3.2-4 shows the boating density on Lake Rhodhiss for the peak use day, and denotes areas with the greatest clustering of boating activity. Figure 3.2-5 shows the boat density map based on the composite of the five highest boating use days. This figure illustrates the areas with boating use most often occurred during the peak use days during the study period and provides an assessment of areas with high density boating during this same period.
Based on the boat capacity study in Table 3.2-9, there are no crowding problems on Lake Rhodhiss. The highest capacity reached was 19% on holiday weekends. The Peak Use Day Boat Density map, Figure 3.2-4 (for only one day), does show one area where the boat density is higher than the rest of the lake, but the acres available per boat for are adequate for all boating activities. When averaging the five highest boat count days, Figure 3.2-5, no crowding problems are identified. For all of the remaining times during the year the boat density levels are very low.
Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Future Recreational Demand
Table 3.2-10 provides the population projections for the counties within 50-60 miles of Lake Rhodhiss. 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 used to make projections for 2030, 2040, and 2050
Table 3.2-10
Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Population Projections for the Impact Zone
| County | 1999 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burke | 77,086 | 85,651 | 92,340 | 98,366 | 108,595 | 119,888 | 132,355 |
| McDowell | 37,166 | 41,296 | 44,196 | 46,347 | 50,404 | 54,816 | 59,614 |
| Wilkes | 57,966 | 64,407 | 66,789 | 68,158 | 72,777 | 77,710 | 82,976 |
| Alexander | 29,121 | 32,357 | 36,056 | 39,314 | 45,333 |
52,273 | 60,275 |
| Watauga | 37,759 | 41,954 | 45,542 | 48,552 | 56,388 | 65,488 | 76,056 |
| Avery | 14,149 | 15,721 | 16,002 | 16,054 | 16,853 | 17,692 | 18,573 |
| Caldwell | 68,560 | 76,178 | 78,758 | 80,411 | 86,374 | 92,779 | 99,659 |
| Rutherford | 54,126 | 60,140 | 62,576 | 64,776 | 69,009 | 73,519 | 78,323 |
| Cleveland | 83,358 | 92,620 | 96,803 | 100,034 | 106,779 | 113,979 | 121,664 |
| Lincoln | 54,839 | 60,932 | 70,132 | 79,229 | 94,689 | 113,166 | 135,248 |
| Catawba | 120,581 | 133,979 | 146,217 | 157,650 | 176,071 | 196,645 | 219,623 |
| Total | 634,711 | 705,235 | 755,411 | 798,891 | 883,272 | 977,955 | 1,084,366 |
Table 3.2-11 provides the estimated recreational use for the impact zone through the year 2050. Current use estimates are based on spot counts and responses to surveys. The recreational use projections were estimated by computing the projected population increase for the impact zone and incorporating indexed values for future recreational use for the various activities. The index values for each activity were obtained from "Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends" (Cordell, 1999). The indices are based on models that incorporate a number of variables, including age structure of the population, income, race, sex, and population density, as well as other explanatory variables. Full model parameters and estimates are available from the author.
Table 3.2-12 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 3.2-11. 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 3.2-13 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 Rhodhiss. The acreage needs are then based on the Lake Rhodhiss facility need multiplied by per unit acreage needs that are based on State SCORPS and FERC Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Facilities. For Lake Rhodhiss, it is estimated that 37 acres are required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes 1 acre of beaches, 3 acres of picnic areas, 11 acres of campsites, and 22 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. 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 Rhodhiss, the most frequently identified recreational facility needs mentioned boat ramps, restrooms and picnic areas. In the past 5 years, 6 new boat ramps have been added to the lake and they are currently underutilized, so no additional boat ramps are proposed at this time. A picnic area is proposed by the Town of Sawmills at the Conley Creek access area. Restrooms will not be provided at unsupervised access areas because of the potential vandalism problems that could occur at these remote sites.
Table 3.2-11
Lake Rhodhiss 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* | 61,202 | 66,169 | 71,301 | 80,596 | 92,572 | 106,968 |
| Boat Fishing* | 146,546 | 169,902 | 191,927 | 222,594 | 250,368 | 275,646 |
| Bank/Pier Fish | 51,564 | 59,782 | 67,532 | 78,323 | 88,095 | 96,990 |
| Lake Swimming | 51,862 | 58,794 | 65,636 | 76,517 | 90,231 | 107,345 |
| Canoeing* | 14,075 | 15,753 | 17,238 | 20,198 | 24,574 | 31,060 |
| Jet Skiing* | 31,561 | 34,122 | 36,769 | 41,562 | 47,738 | 55,162 |
| Kayaking* | 2,815 | 3,043 | 3,279 | 3,705 | 4,289 | 5,067 |
| Tailrace Fishing | 5,928 | 6,873 | 7,764 | 9,005 | 10,128 | 11,151 |
| Sailing* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Water Ski/Tubing* | 32,456 | 35,090 | 37,811 | 42,741 | 49,092 | 56,726 |
| Backpacking | 5,928 | 7,641 | 9,634 | 12,430 | 15,591 | 19,316 |
| Hunting | 23,713 | 24,627 | 25,214 | 26,587 | 27,326 | 27,928 |
| Tent/Vehicle Camp | 17,785 | 23,415 | 30,062 | 39,359 | 50,701 | 64,445 |
| Windsurfing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bicycling | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Picnicking | 32,158 | 38,052 | 44,399 | 53,928 | 65,609 | 79,834 |
| Sightseeing | 32,158 | 39,254 | 46,939 | 57,713 | 70,845 | 86,356 |
| Hiking | 5,928 | 7,458 | 9,121 | 11,397 | 13,889 | 16,607 |
| Wildlife Viewing | 2,815 | 3,609 | 4,555 | 5,760 | 6,995 | 8,177 |
| Using Playgrounds | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sub-total * | 288,655 | 324,079 | 358,325 | 411,396 | 468,633 | 530,629 |
| Total | 518,494 | 593,584 | 669,181 | 782,415 | 908,043 | 1,048,777 |
Table 3.2-12
Lake Rhodhiss Estimated Absorption Percentage for Reservoir
| Activity | Estimated 1999 Participants | Estimated 1999 Demand | Absorption Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Swimming | 51,862 | 1,967,369 | 2.6% |
| Picnicking | 32,158 | 1,222,707 | 2.6% |
| Camping | 17,785 | 476,287 | 3.1% |
| Boating | 288,655 | 1,570,910 | 18.4% |
Table 3.2-13
Lake Rhodhiss 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 Rhodhiss Share | Acreage |
| Swimming | 2010 | 281,768 | 1 per 50,000 | 5.64 | beaches | 0.15 | 0.81 |
| 2020 | 297,986 | 1 per 50,000 | 5.96 | beaches | 0.15 | 0.85 | |
| 2030 | 329,460 | 1 per 50,000 | 6.59 | beaches | 0.17 | 0.94 | |
| 2040 | 362,724 | 1 per 50,000 | 7.25 | beaches | 0.19 | 1.04 | |
| 2050 | 399,346 | 1 per 50,000 | 7.99 | beaches | 0.21 | 1.16 | |
| Picnicking | 2010 | 338,424 | 1 per 500 | 676.85 | tables | 17.60 | 1.76 |
| 2020 | 357,903 | 1 per 500 | 715.81 | tables | 18.61 | 1.86 | |
| 2030 | 395,706 | 1 per 500 | 791.41 | tables | 20.58 | 2.06 | |
| 2040 | 435,658 | 1 per 500 | 871.32 | tables | 22.67 | 2.27 | |
| 2050 | 479,643 | 1 per 500 | 959.29 | tables | 25.26 | 2.53 | |
| Camping | 2010 | 169,212 | 6 per 1,000 | 1,015.27 | campsites | 31.47 | 7.87 |
| 2020 | 178,952 | 6 per 1,000 | 1,073.71 | campsites | 33.28 | 8.32 | |
| 2030 | 197,853 | 6 per 1,000 | 1,187.12 | campsites | 36.80 | 9.20 | |
| 2040 | 217,829 | 6 per 1,000 | 1,306.97 | campsites | 40.54 | 10.13 | |
| 2050 | 239,822 | 6 per 1,000 | 1,438.93 | campsites | 45.18 | 11.29 | |
| Boating | 2010 | 339,935 | 1 per 4000 | 84.98 | boat ramps | 15.64 | 15.64 |
| 2020 | 359,501 | 1 per 4000 | 89.88 | boat ramps | 16.54 | 16.54 | |
| 2030 | 397,472 | 1 per 4000 | 99.37 | boat ramps | 18.28 | 18.28 | |
| 2040 | 437,603 | 1 per 4000 | 109.40 | boat ramps | 20.14 | 20.14 | |
| 2050 | 481,784 | 1 per 4000 | 120.45 | boat ramps | 22.45 | 22.45 | |
| Total Acreage for 2050 | 37.42 | ||||||
