CPF Chapter A-2

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 8
Chapter 2 -
Basin Overview
2.1 General Overview
The Cape Fear River basin is the state’s largest river basin. The river basin is located entirely
within the state’s boundaries and flows southeast from the north central piedmont region near
Greensboro to the Atlantic Ocean near Wilmington (Figure A-4).
The Cape Fear River is formed at the confluence of
the Haw and Deep Rivers on the border of Chatham
and Lee counties, just below the B. Everett Jordan
Reservoir dam. From there, the river flows across the
coastal plain past Fayetteville through three locks and
dams to Wilmington before entering the ocean. The
Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers are blackwater
rivers that meet the Cape Fear River in Brunswick
County.
The basin includes four coastal Outstanding Resource
Waters (Stump, Middle, Topsail and Masonboro
Sounds) and one inland ORW (a portion of the Black
River).
The most populated regions of the basin are in and near the Triad area (Greensboro-Burlington-
High Point), the Durham-Chapel Hill area and Fayetteville. The overall population density is
160 persons per square mile compared to a statewide average of 139 persons per square mile.
The percent population growth over the 7-year period from 1990 to 1997 was 13.2% compared to
a statewide increase of 12.0%. Estimated water usage in the basin is expected to increase nearly
95% (193 MGD in 1992 to 376 MGD by 2020).
Over one-half of the land in the river basin is forested. Statistics provided by the US Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), indicate that during the 10-year
period from 1982 to 1992, there was a significant increase in the amount of developed land
(43%). The basin contains 54% of the state’s swine operations, and swine populations in the
basin have increased 90% between 1994 and 1998.
There are many different aquatic ecosystems in the Cape Fear River basin that support a wide
variety of commercial and recreational fisheries. Wetlands, estuaries, blackwater rivers and
rocky streams support 30 endangered species in the basin.
Cape Fear Basin Statistics
Total Area: 9,322 sq. miles
Stream Miles: 6,049
Saltwater Acres: 39,200
No. of Counties: 26
No. of Municipalities: 116
No. of Subbasins: 24
Population (1990): 1,465,451 *
Estimated Pop. (2010): 1,992,128 *
% Increase (1997-2010): 17.8
Pop. Density (1990): 160 persons/sq. mi.
* Based on % of county land area estimated
to be within the basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 10
2.2 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin
The basin encompasses all or part of the following 26 counties and 116 municipalities (Table A-
3). Lenoir, Jones and Robeson counties have less than 1% of their land areas and no
municipalities in the Cape Fear basin. Also included in the table are abbreviations for the Lead
Regional Organizations (Councils of Government).
Table A-3 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Cape Fear River Basin
County
% of
County
in Basin *
Council of
Government
Region
Municipalities
Alamance 100% G Alamance, Burlington, Elon College, Gibsonville**, Graham, Green Level,
Haw River, Mebane**, Swepsonville
Bladen 69% N Dublin, East Arcadia, Elizabethtown, Tar Heel, White Lake
Brunswick 45% O Bald Head Island, Belville, Boiling Spring Lakes, Caswell Beach, Leland,
Long Beach, Navassa, Northwest, Sandy Creek, Southport, Yaupon Beach
Caswell 10% G None
Chatham 100% J Goldston, Pittsboro, Siler City
Columbus 11% O Bolton, Sandyfield
Cumberland 98% M Falcon**, Fayetteville, Godwin, Hope Mills, Linden, Spring Lake, Stedman, Wade
Duplin 100% P Beulaville, Calypso, Faison, Greenevers, Harrells**, Kenansville, Magnolia,
Mount Olive**, Rose Hill, Teachey, Wallace, Warsaw
Durham 27% J Chapel Hill**, Durham
Forsyth 2% I Kernersville**
Guilford 97% G Archdale**, Gibsonville**, Greensboro, High Point**, Jamestown, Kernersville**,
Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, Summerfield, Whitsett
Harnett 100% M Angier, Broadway**, Coats, Dunn, Erwin, Lillington
Hoke 57% N Raeford
Johnston 2% J Benson
Lee 100% J Broadway**, Sanford
Montgomery 6% H Biscoe, Candor, Star
Moore 79% H Cameron, Carthage, Pinehurst, Robbins, Southern Pines, Taylortown, Vass,
Whispering Pines
New Hanover 100% O Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, Wilmington, Wrightsville Beach
Onslow 22% P Holly Ridge, North Topsail Beach, Surf City**
Orange 49% J Carrboro, Chapel Hill**, Mebane**
Pender 100% O Atkinson, Burgaw, Saint Helena, Surf City**, Topsail Beach, Watha
Randolph 56% G Archdale**, Asheboro, Franklinville, High Point**, Liberty, Ramseur, Randleman,
Seagrove, Staley
Rockingham 19% G Reidsville
Sampson 99% M Autreyville, Clinton, Falcon**, Garland, Harrells**, Newton Grove, Roseboro,
Salemburg, Turkey
Wake 15% J Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs, Morrisville
Wayne 9% P Mount Olive**
* Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
** Located in more than one county
Key:
Region Name Location
G Piedmont Triad Council of Government Greensboro
H Pee Dee Council of Government Rockingham
I Northwest Piedmont Council of Government Winston-Salem
J Triangle J Council of Government Research Triangle Park
M Region M Council of Government Fayetteville
N Lumber River Council of Government Lumberton
O Cape Fear Council of Government Wilmington
P Neuse River Council of Government New Bern
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 11
2.3 Surface Water Hydrology
2.3.1 Major Hydrologic Divisions
The Cape Fear River basin is the largest river basin in North Carolina, and its watershed is
contained entirely within the state. The mainstem of the river is formed by the confluence of the
Deep and Haw Rivers just downstream of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir dam. The Deep River
originates near High Point and the Haw River near Greensboro. The mainstem of the river flows
in a southeasterly direction until it empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Cape Fear, south of
Wilmington.
The watershed is divided into 6 major hydrologic areas (8-digit hydrologic units) by the US
Geologic Survey (USGS). These include the Haw River/Jordan Reservoir watershed, the Deep
River, the upper Cape Fear, the Black River, the Northeast Cape Fear and the lower Cape Fear,
and coastal waters. These major hydrologic areas are further subdivided by DWQ for
management purposes into 24 subbasins (Figures A-5 to A-7) denoted by 6-digit numbers (03-
06-01 to 03-06-24). Table A-4 shows the breakdown of USGS hydrologic units and DWQ’s
corresponding subbasins. Maps of DWQ’s subbasins are included in Section B of the basinwide
plan.
The Cape Fear River basin, which has a total land area of 9,322 square miles and 6,049 stream
miles, has an average drainage area of 1.5 square miles per stream mile. A variety of aquatic
systems are represented in the basin as the terrain changes from the piedmont to the coastal plain,
including large freshwater rivers, blackwater swamps and estuaries.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 15
Table A-4 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Cape Fear River Basin
Watershed Name
and Major Tributaries
USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic
Units
DWQ 6-digit
Subbasin Codes
Haw River and Jordan Reservoir
Upper Haw River
Reedy Fork, Stony Creek and Haw River
(middle)
Big and Little Alamance Creeks
Haw River (lower)
New Hope Creek and Jordan Reservoir
Morgan Creek and University Lake
03030002
"
"
"
"
"
"
030601, 030602, 030603, 030604, 030605, 030606
01
02
03
04
05
06
Deep River
Deep River (upper) and Muddy Creek
Deep River (middle) and Richland Creek
Deep River (middle), Cabin Creek and
McLendons Creek
Deep River (lower)
Rocky River
03030003
"
"
"
"
"
030608, 030609, 030610, 030611, 030612
08
09
10
11
12
Upper Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River (upper)
Upper Little River
Little River
Rockfish Creek and Cape Fear River
03030004
"
"
"
"
030607, 030613, 030614, 030615
07
13
14
15
Lower Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Town Creek, Brunswick River and
Cape Fear River (extreme lower)
Topsail, Middle, Masonboro and
Stump Sounds
03030005
"
"
"
030616, 030617, 030624
16
17
24
Black River
South River
Great Coharie Creek, Six Runs Creek
and upper Black River
Black River
03030006
"
"
"
030618, 030619, 030620
18
19
20
Northeast Cape Fear River
Upper Northeast Cape Fear River
Middle Northeast Cape Fear River,
Goshen Swamp, Rockfish Creek
Lower Northeast Cape Fear River
03030007
"
"
"
030621, 030622, 030623
21
22
23
2.3.2 Physiography and Geology of the Cape Fear River Basin
The headwaters of the Cape Fear River are at nearly 1000 feet above sea level in Forsyth County
and drain to sea level in Brunswick County before entering the Atlantic Ocean. The upper Cape
Fear River basin is mostly in the piedmont, and the lower Cape Fear River basin lies in the
coastal plain.
The geology underlying the Cape Fear River basin has an affect on both stream water quality and
water quantity. Ten low flow hydrologic areas (HA1-HA10) were defined for North Carolina by
USGS (Figure A-8). Areas were defined by relating topography, geology, mean annual

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 17
runoff, and other features to low flow frequency characteristics including 7Q10 (annual
minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average, will be exceeded 9 out of 10 years) and
30Q2 (annual minimum 30-day consecutive low flow, which on average, will be exceeded in 1
out of 2 years). The ten HAs typically form a southwest-northeast band across the state and lie
within three physiographic areas – the coastal plain, piedmont and mountains (Giese and Mason,
1993).
In general, the lowest potential for sustaining base flow to streams is in the clay and sandy soils
area of the coastal plain (HA1 And HA2) and the eastern and central piedmont (HA4, HA6, HA7
and HA8). The following discussion explains the characteristics that reduce the potential for
base flow in these regions.
Coastal Plain Physiographic Area
The geology of this area consists of alternating layers of sand, silt, clay and limestone. This area
was divided into three HAs based on soil types and topography. These are clay soils (HA1),
sandy soils (HA2) and the Sand Hills (HA3). With the exception of the Sand Hills area (HA3),
topographic relief is relatively flat, with the land surface dipping coastward at a rate of only a
few feet per mile. Topographic relief and hydraulic gradient in the Sand Hills (HA3) is much
higher.
The clay soils have the lowest low flow values of the three HAs (median 7Q10 is 0[ft3/s]/mi2);
sandy soils (HA2) have intermediate values (median 7Q10 is 0.006[ft3/s]/mi2); and the Sand Hills
(HA3) have the highest values in the state (median 7Q10 is 0.318[ft3/s]/mi2).
The low topographic relief of HA1 and HA2 (1 to 2 feet per mile) reflects the low hydraulic
gradient and reduced potential to move water to streams than in areas with greater topographic
relief (i.e., HA3). The lower low flow values for clay soils versus sandy soils result from the
lower permeability of clay soils and that a higher percentage of precipitation that falls on clay
soils is not absorbed and runs off directly into streams. Clay soils also have lower hydraulic
conductivity than sandy soils, and thus, contribute less to base flow of streams than sandy soils.
Eastern and Central Piedmont Physiographic Area
Topography in this area is characterized by rolling hills and geologic formations consisting of
crystalline or sedimentary rocks. This area was divided into six HAs based on soil types,
topography and underlying bedrock type: the Eastern Slate Belt (HA4), the Raleigh Belt (HA5),
the Triassic Basin (HA6), the Carolina Slate Belt (HA7 and HA8), and the Charlotte Belt and
Milton Belt (HA9).
Of particular interest within this area is the fact that the sedimentary rocks underlying the
Triassic Basin have the lowest average yield of water to wells of all rock types in the state. This
low yield implies the rocks have low permeability, and thus, result in low base flows of streams
in the region.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 18
The 7Q10 values for HA6 are zero for all but the largest drainages. In addition, the Carolina
Slate Belt region is associated with low to zero flow streams. DWQ limits discharges of oxygen-
consuming wastewater to these low base flow streams.
In addition, the overall low permeability of residual soils derived from the Triassic sedimentary
rocks results in low percolation rates for septic systems. This low permeability promotes surface
runoff and shallow discharge during storm flow events.
The goal of DWQ for streams determined to be zero flow streams is to remove all discharges, or
if removal is not possible, advanced treatment will be required. DWQ management strategies for
wastewater discharges into zero flow streams are presented in Section A, Part 4.12.
2.4 Land Cover
Land cover information in this section is derived from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) of
1992 and 1982, as developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, 1994).
The NRI is a multi-resource national inventory based on soils and other resource data collected at
scientifically selected random sample sites. It is considered accurate to the 8-digit hydrologic
unit scale established by the US Geological Survey (USDA, 1994).
Table A-5 summarizes acreages and percentage of land cover from the 1992 NRI for the entire
basin and for the major watershed areas within the basin (USGS hydrologic unit 03030001 is not
included in the table because only a small portion of the area is within the Cape Fear River
basin). Land cover types identified by the NRI as occurring in the Cape Fear River basin are
presented in Table A-6.
Land cover in the basin, as presented in Table A-5, is dominated by forestland that covers
approximately 56% of the land area. Agriculture (including cultivated and uncultivated cropland
and pastureland) covers approximately 24% of the area. The urban category comprises roughly
9% of the area and exhibited the most dramatic change since 1982, with a 43% increase of land
area in this category. Other categories that showed substantial changes since 1982 were
uncultivated cropland and "other" with increases of 18% and 17%, respectively. These land
cover changes are summarized in Figure A-9.
The most recent land cover information for the Cape Fear River basin is based on satellite
imagery collected from the North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database. The state’s Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) developed statewide land cover information
based on this 1993-1995 satellite imagery. This land cover data is divided into 24 categories.
For the purposes of this report, those categories have been condensed into five broader categories
as described in Table A-7. Figure A-10 provides an illustration of the relative amount of land
area that falls into each major cover type for the Cape Fear River basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 19
Table A-5 Land Cover in the Cape Fear River Basin by Major Watersheds
(8-Digit USGS Hydrologic Units)
(Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1992 NRI)
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
Haw River and Upper Cape Lower Cape Northeast Cape %
Jordan Lake Deep River Fear River Fear River Black River Fear River 1992 TOTALS 1982 TOTAL change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 140.8 13.0 87.8 9.5 167.9 16.4 73.4 10.7 367.9 36.8 230.5 20.1 1068 18.2 1163 19.8 -8
Uncult. Crop 15.8 1.5 18.3 2.0 13.7 1.3 2.6 0.4 5.4 0.5 10.0 0.8 65.8 1.1 55.7 0.9 +18
Pasture 133.6 12.3 85.8 9.3 31.7 3.1 5.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 24.6 2.2 280.8 4.8 288.3 5.0 -3
Forest 464.5 42.9 577.5 62.7 462.4 45.0 492.0 71.9 550.3 55.0 741.7 64.8 3288 56.1 3444 59.0 -5
Urban & Built-up 186.8 17.3 93.4 10.2 120.3 11.7 35.5 5.2 29.6 2.9 46.4 4.1 512.0 8.8 358.7 6.0 +43
Other 140.5 13.0 57.7 6.3 230.8 22.5 76.0 11.1 47.9 4.8 91.9 8.0 644.8 11.0 550.8 9.3 +17
Totals 1082.0 100.0 920.5 100.0 1027 100.0 684.6 100.0 1001 100.0 1145.1 100.0 5860 100.0 5860 100.0
% of Total Basin 18.5 15.7 17.5 11.7 17.1 19.5 100.0
SUBBASINS 01 to 06 and 07* 08 to 12 07*, 13 to 15* 15*, 16 and 17 18, 19 and 20 21, 22 and 23
8- Digit 03030002 03030003 03030004 03030005 03030006 03030007
Hydraulic Units
* These subbasins are found within more than one 8-Digit Hydraulic Unit.
Table A-6 Description of Land Cover Types (1992 NRI - USDA SCS)
Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard
crops, and other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Forage plants for livestock grazing including land that has a vegetative cover of grasses,
legumes and /or forbs, regardless of whether or not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or
greater) by single-stemmed trees of any size, which will be at least 4 meters at maturity,
and land bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for
classification of forestland is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and Built-up
Land
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public
administration sites, commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf
courses, sanitary landfills, industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites,
water control structure spillways and parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and
other transportation facilities if surrounded by other urban and built-up areas. Tracts of
less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-
of-way outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and
other private roads (but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres in size and streams less than one-
half mile wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40 acres
and rivers greater than one-half mile in width.
Minor Land: Lands not in one of the other categories.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 20
Figure A-9 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1992 for the Cape Fear River Basin
(Source: USDA-NCRS 1992 NRI)
Table A-7 Description of Land Cover Categories
Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50% coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area) and municipal
areas.
Cultivated Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern (such as
rows).
Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous
Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other managed areas
such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland herbaceous areas not
characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all kinds of
forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, conifers, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt adjacent to
tidal waters and lakes.
Figure A-10 Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Cape Fear Basin
-8 %
-2 %
-4 .5%
+17%
+43%
18%
-200
-150
-100
-5 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Cult. Crop Uncult.
Crop
Pasture Forest Urban &
Built-u p
Other
Land Use Type
Ac
r
e
s

(10
0
0
)
urban
cultivated
pasture/m anaged
herbaceous
forest/wetland
water
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 21
2.5 Population and Growth Trends
Population
The Cape Fear River basin has an estimated population of 1,465,451 people based on 1990
census data. Table A-8 presents census data for 1970, 1980 and 1990 for each of the subbasins.
It also includes land areas and population densities (persons/square mile) by subbasin based on
the land area (excludes open water) for each subbasin. Densely populated areas are scattered
across the basin and include the Burlington-Greensboro-High Point area in the upper part of the
basin (Figure A-11), the Fayetteville area in the middle part of the basin, and the Wilmington
area in the lower portion of the basin (Figure A-12). The subbasin that encircles the Chapel Hill
area is the most densely populated with 783 persons/square mile compared to a basinwide
average of 160 persons/square mile. This density compares to a statewide average of 139
persons/square mile.
It should be noted that some of the population figures are estimates because the census block
group boundaries do not generally coincide with subbasin boundaries. The census data are
collected within boundaries such as counties and municipalities. By contrast, the subbasin lines
are drawn along natural drainage divides separating watersheds. Therefore, where a census block
group straddles a subbasin line, an estimate has to be made on the percentage of the population
that is located in the subbasin. This is done by simply determining the percentage of the census
block group area located in the subbasin and then taking that same percentage of the total census
block group population and assigning it the subbasin. Use of this method necessitates assuming
that population density is evenly distributed throughout a census block group, which is not
always the case. However, the level of error associated with this method is not expected to be
significant for the purposes of this document. It is also important to note that the census block
groups change every ten years, so comparisons between years must be considered approximate.
Growth Trends
The percentage increase in population for the entire basin was 29.3% from 1970-1990 and 11.5%
from 1980-1990. This latter percentage is almost equal to a statewide increase of 12.7% over the
same ten-year period. Population increases by subbasin are presented in Figure A-13 and Table
8.
Table A-9 shows the estimated percent changes in growth between 1990 and 1997 and projected
percent change in growth between 1997 and 2010 for counties in the basin (Office of State
Planning, 1999). Since river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these
numbers are not directly applicable to the Cape Fear River basin. They are instead presented as
an estimate of possible countywide population changes.
Population growth trends for the basin between 1990 and 1997 indicate growth rates for six of
the 26 counties of 20 to 30 percent and a basinwide population increase of nearly 13.2%.
Projections for population growth from 1997 to 2010 indicate five counties with growth rates in
excess of 30 percent and seven counties with growth rates of 20 to 30 percent with a total
population increase in the basin of 17.8%.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 22
Table A-8 Cape Fear Subbasin Population (1970, 1980 and 1990) and Land Area Summaries
POPULATION POPULATION DENSITY LAND AND WATER AREAS
(Number of Persons) (Persons/Square Mile) Total Land and Water Area Water Area Land Area
SUBBASIN 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 (Acres) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles)
03-06-01 20,250 21,894 25,897 108 117 138 120,794 189 2 187
03-06-02 222,954 254,617 279,034 402 459 503 359,634 562 7 555
03-06-03 61,354 59,377 66,593 235 227 255 167,494 262 1 261
03-06-04 13,600 18,949 20,213 42 58 62 211,750 331 4 327
03-06-05 69,772 77,357 102,058 278 308 407 171,940 269 18 251
03-06-06 37,469 47,017 57,917 506 635 783 47,695 75 1 74
03-06-07 35,520 37,704 39,713 88 94 99 266,019 415 12 403
03-06-08 87,537 91,778 101,430 495 519 573 114,385 179 2 177
03-06-09 40,171 51,405 55,755 90 116 125 285,450 446 1 445
03-06-10 19,222 21,691 21,107 43 49 47 287,088 448 2 446
03-06-11 14,599 21,083 22,221 111 160 168 84,842 133 1 132
03-06-12 14,622 14,326 16,015 60 59 66 155,909 244 1 243
03-06-13 15,743 16,443 23,913 72 75 109 141,134 221 2 219
03-06-14 51,713 60,635 67,587 108 127 141 309,699 484 6 478
03-06-15 186,209 222,582 247,765 313 374 416 384,138 600 5 595
03-06-16 12,424 15,992 14,811 29 37 34 280,559 438 8 430
03-06-17 38,646 48,954 56,467 78 98 113 349,828 547 49 498
03-06-18 32,256 38,068 39,895 65 77 81 316,587 495 2 493
03-06-19 39,703 43,577 40,575 54 59 55 473,136 739 2 737
03-06-20 4,556 5,229 5,231 13 15 15 219,740 343 5 338
03-06-21 7,076 9,271 7,582 59 78 64 76,297 119 0 119
03-06-22 35,696 39,552 39,144 43 48 47 530,335 829 1 828
03-06-23 41,623 60,632 64,540 53 77 82 508,688 795 6 789
03-06-24 33,295 36,748 49,988 234 259 352 103,962 162 20 142
TOTALS 1,136,010 1,314,881 1,465,451 124 143 160 5,967,103 9,325 158 9,167

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 26
Table A-9 Estimated Population Statistics for the Years 1990, 1997 and 2010 for Counties in
the Cape Fear River Basin
Population Population Estimated % Estimated Estimated %
County in 1990 in 1997 Growth Population in growth
1990-1997 2010 1997-2010
Alamance 108,213 119,820 10.7 135,794 13.3
Bladen 19,777 20,917 5.8 21,698 3.7
Brunswick 22,943 29,340 27.9 39,317 34.0
Caswell 2,069 2,206 6.6 2,336 5.9
Chatham 38,759 45,130 16.4 54,433 20.6
Columbus 5,455 5,714 4.7 5,874 2.8
Cumberland 269,219 289,350 7.5 321,450 11.1
Duplin 39,995 44,080 10.2 48,786 10.7
Durham 49,101 53,382 8.7 61,512 15.2
Forsyth 5,318 5,743 8.0 6,387 11.2
Guilford 336,997 371,690 10.3 420,591 13.2
Harnett 67,833 81,358 19.9 102,301 25.7
Hoke 13,028 16,463 26.4 21,621 31.3
Johnston 1,626 2,064 26.9 2,747 33.1
Lee 41,370 48,369 16.9 58,645 21.2
Montgomery 1,401 1,468 4.8 1,554 5.8
Moore 46,610 54,907 17.8 66,068 20.3
New Hanover 120,284 146,601 21.9 183,112 24.9
Onslow 32,964 32,417 -1.7 38,629 19.2
Orange 45,987 52,554 14.3 63,882 21.6
Pender 28,855 37,208 28.9 49,954 34.3
Randolph 59,666 68,068 14.1 81,927 20.4
Rockingham 16,352 16,940 3.6 17,489 3.2
Sampson 46,824 52,124 11.3 58,317 11.9
Wake 63,945 83,528 30.6 116,602 39.6
Wayne 9,420 10,186 8.1 11,102 9.0
Totals 1,494,011 1,691,627 13.2 1,992,128 17.8
2.6 Natural Resources
2.6.1 Lakes
There are 32 reservoirs in the Cape Fear River basin monitored by DWQ. Over half the total
lakes are located in the upper portion of the basin (subbasins 03-06-01 through 03-06-08). These
impoundments serve as water supplies for communities such as Greensboro, Burlington, Durham
and Chapel Hill.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 27
B. Everett Jordon Reservoir, located mostly in Chatham County south of Durham and west of
Raleigh, is the largest lake in the basin and is used for water supply, flood control and recreation
area in one of the fastest growing regions of the state.
There are five natural lakes, (the Carolina Bays), in the lower portion of the basin. Carolina Bays
are of unknown origin located along the East Coast. The lakes are between 30,000 and 100,000
years old and, because of the unique chemistry and productivity, are home to many endemic
species. The lakes are shallow, fed by surface and shallow groundwater, and function as
wetlands. Agricultural and forestry practices, prior to 1970, have left undisturbed only about 10
percent of these lakes (Krajick, 1997).
2.6.2 Fish and Shellfish
Over 95 fish species have been found in the Cape Fear River basin including a variety with
recreational and commercial importance. Popular sportfish species found in the freshwater
portion of the river and reservoirs include largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie, catfish and pickerel.
Recreationally and commercially important anadromous species, including striped bass,
American and hickory shad and herring, migrate into freshwater portions of the Cape Fear River
and tributaries to spawn during the spring. The Cape Fear River below Wilmington supports
valuable recreational and commercial fisheries for striped bass, speckled sea trout, croaker,
flounder and spot. Commercial finfish landings within the Cape Fear River basin have declined
since 1996 from 108,764 pounds valued at $117,990 to 74,514 pounds valued at $64,191 (Figure
A-14). Non-finfish commercial landings within the Cape Fear River basin include shrimp, blue
crabs, squid, scallops and oysters. This fishery has had similar declines in recent years (Figure
A-15). Figure A-16 shows shellfish growing areas in the Cape Fear River basin.
A total of 30 endangered, threatened or special concern species, including fish, amphibians,
mammals, crustaceans and mollusks, are listed by federal and state agencies for the Cape Fear
River basin. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were once plentiful in the Cape Fear River, but the
population levels for both species are currently at low levels, with the few remaining individuals
located primarily in the lower Cape Fear and Brunswick Rivers. The last shortnose sturgeon to
be captured in the Cape Fear River was collected in 1993 (Fisheries Management Plan for the
Cape Fear River, March 1998).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 28
Figure A-14 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Finfish in the Cape Fear River
Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year (1994-1998)
Source: NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Figure A-15 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Non-Finfish in the Cape Fear
River Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year (1994-
1998) Source: NC Division of Marine Fisheries
2.6.3 Wetlands
Wetlands are transitional areas between land and water, such as swamps and marshes. Some are
connected to streams; and others, such as low lying pine plantations and pocosins, are not. Over
the years, however, approximately half of North Carolina’s wetlands have been lost to
development, farming and forestry practices. Wetlands now only cover about 25 percent of the
state’s land area.
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Po
u
n
d
s
/
D
o
l
l
a
r

V
a
l
u
e
Shellfish Pounds Shellfish Value
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Po
u
n
d
s
/
D
o
l
l
a
r

V
a
l
u
e
Finfish Pounds Finfish Value

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 30
Wetlands provide a variety of benefits to society and are very important in watershed planning
because of the functions they perform. Wetlands provide important protection for flood
prevention to protect property values; streambank stabilization to prevent erosion and
downstream sedimentation; water purification and pollutant removal (especially for nitrogen and
phosphorus); habitat for aquatic life and wildlife and endangered species protection. These
values vary greatly with wetland type. Wetlands adjacent to intermittent and permanent streams
are most important to protecting water quality in those streams, as well as downstream lakes and
estuaries. However, wetlands located landward or away from streams also have important water
storage capacity and pollutant removal potential.
Wetland Fill Activities
In 1989, the Environmental Management Commission passed a rule directing DWQ to review
wetland fill using a review sequence of avoidance, minimization and mitigation of wetland fill.
After extensive public review, the EMC passed rules, effective October 1, 1996, to restructure
the 401 Water Quality Certification Program. These rules are not a new regulatory program
since DWQ has issued approvals for wetland fill since the mid-1980s. The rules consider
wetland values - whether or not the wetland is providing significant uses or whether the activity
would remove or degrade uses. The rules also specify mitigation ratios, locations and types to
make the mitigation process more predictable and certain for the regulated community. DWQ’s
emphasis continues to be on water quality and the essential role that wetlands play in maintaining
water quality. Table A-10 shows wetland fill activities by subbasin.
Wetland Draining and Ditching Activities
Ditching and draining of wetlands in North Carolina have been a restricted activity under
oversight from both state and federal environmental regulations since the early 1990s.
Generally, approvals have been required from DWQ and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) for draining activities that impact one third of an acre or more of wetlands.
A federal court ruling in June 1998 overturned the authority of the ACOE to require permitting
for wetlands draining. This decision effectively removed regulatory review of draining unless
dirt spoil from a ditch is dumped into jurisdictional wetlands.
The State of North Carolina has since determined that wetland ditching and draining still fall
under its authority and are an illegal activity if proper approval is not acquired. That authority
applies when the hydrology or biology of the wetland is altered or the draining violates
downstream water quality standards such as turbidity, salinity and dissolved oxygen. DWQ
developed and began implementing the wetland draining policy on March 1, 1999.
Wetland draining activities include both ditching and installation of ground pumping systems.
Other activities also covered under this policy include pond construction in wetlands, filling of
isolated wetlands, and off-site sediment erosion into wetlands.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 31
Table A-10 Wetland Fill Activities (in Acres) Permitted in the Cape Fear River Basin by
Subbasin and Year
Subbasin
Number 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
03-06-01 5.27 0.68 4.69 0 10.64
03-06-02 1.42 9.08 10.85 3.74 25.09
03-06-03 3.3 0.25 0.33 0.83 4.71
03-06-04 0 0.56 3.28 0 3.84
03-06-05 20.23 7.44 5.99 8.57 42.23
03-06-06 0.89 0.5 5.91 0 7.3
03-06-07 1.88 5.08 1.59 1.24 9.79
03-06-08 9.68 8.94 4.72 0.18 23.52
03-06-09 1.97 1.53 0 1.15 4.65
03-06-10 0 8.95 0 3.19 12.14
03-06-11 0 0.29 0 0 0.29
03-06-12 0 0 0.54 0.35 0.89
03-06-13 0.09 4.03 1.15 2.58 7.85
03-06-14 13.55 30.26 20.54 2.93 67.28
03-06-15 20.18 48.1 13.17 12.02 93.47
03-06-16 27.48 3.8 3.76 0.7 35.74
03-06-17 31.67 53.68 57.83 30.37 173.55
03-06-18 1.83 1.69 0.4 1.46 5.38
03-06-19 7.26 17.28 7.38 2.54 34.46
03-06-20 7 0.01 0.66 0.91 8.58
03-06-21 2.6 4.57 1.3 0 8.47
03-06-22 62.68 22.58 4.67 7.05 96.98
03-06-23 31.21 6.43 7.85 18.14 63.63
03-06-24 6.05 28.76 94.9 13.06 142.77
Total Acres 256.24 264.49 251.51 111.01 883.25
When DWQ discovers any such draining activities, it will notify the landowner in writing that
the activity has or is likely to violate the state’s wetland standards. The landowner will be given
an opportunity to refute the finding. If DWQ determines that a violation has occurred, it can
seek enforcement action and require that the natural hydrology or biology be restored. In some
instances, the filling of ditches may require a federal 404 wetland fill permit.
Ditch maintenance is allowed as long as written documentation can be provided on the ditch’s
original height and width dimensions. Both DWQ and the Division of Land Resources will
review such activities. Ditches created for forestry purposes are allowed if they are designed,
constructed and maintained properly to retain the natural wetland hydrology. Refer to Best
Management Practices for Forestry in the Wetlands of North Carolina.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 32
DWQ has the authority to review specific wetland draining projects that began prior to March 1,
1999 to determine whether the draining activities impaired downstream water quality. The
Division of Land Resources will check various projects to make sure they have complied with
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is using a multiagency approach to
implement the draining policy, to seek compliance and to pursue enforcement. Involved DENR
agencies include DWQ, Division of Land Resources, Forest Resources, Soil and Water
Conservation, and Coastal Management. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service will
also participate.
When violations are found, regulators can seek injunction relief to cease the draining activity and
to restore the wetland on-site, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, and possible prosecution.
The Division of Forest Resources is flying reconnaissance missions, with various regulatory
personnel, to identify and assess draining sites. Satellite imagery is also used to target problem
areas. To further assist in wetland protection, the public is encouraged to report possible sites
where illegal draining has occurred.
To report possible wetlands draining violations in the Cape Fear River basin, the public can
contact the appropriate DWQ regional office: Fayetteville [phone], Wilmington (910)
395-3900, Raleigh [phone] and Winston-Salem [phone].
Wetland draining project acres and types are summarized in Table A-11. Figure A-17 shows the
locations of project areas in the Cape Fear River basin.
Table A-11 Wetland Acreage Impacted by Wetland Ditching and Draining Activities in the
Cape Fear River Basin Separated by Wetland Type (September 1999)
Wetland Type Acres % of Total
Wet Flat 3,559 54%
Pocosin 2,769 42%
Bottomland Hardwood/Swamp Forest 254 4%
Human Impacted Wetland 22 minor
Freshwater Marsh 8 minor
Total Wetlands 6,612
Non-Wetland 2,419
Note: These boundaries and associated acreage values are approximate and are intended to give general
location information only. The wetland data used in this analysis were developed by the Division of
Coastal Management and are not intended to represent jurisdictional wetland boundaries.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 34
There are several uses and limitations that should be considered when reviewing the wetland
draining project data in the above tables. These include:
1. Project boundaries were compiled from NC Division of Land Resource’s permit file
information, aerial surveys conducted by regional office staff, low altitude color infrared
photography, and on-site investigations. These methods created inherent and varied
inaccuracies in the data.
2. Project boundaries represent approximate size and location only; more precise information
will require more extensive individual site visits.
3. Wetland data used in this analysis were obtained from NC Division of Coastal Management.
For more information on mapping procedures and data accuracy, contact Jim Stanfill of the
Division of Coastal Management at [phone].
4. The numbers provided in this analysis represent potential wetland impacts, not actual wetland
"loss".
Wetland Restoration Efforts
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is responsible for implementing
wetland and stream restoration projects on a basinwide scale throughout the state. The focus of
the program is to enhance water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities. The NCWRP is not a grant program. However, it can compliment
grant programs like the Section 319 program by taking on restoration projects identified through
Section 319 grant applications. Alternatively, studies funded by Section 319 to identify suitable
stream or wetland restoration sites can then be implemented by the NCWRP. The NCWRP can
also directly fund other stream or wetland restoration sites provided those sites are located within
a priority subbasin, as determined by the NCWRP. Finally, the NCWRP can perform restoration
projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or with environmental groups.
The NCWRP has identified priority subbasins for the Cape Fear River basin through the
Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin. For more
information on this document or the NCWRP, call [phone] or visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm.
2.7 Permitted Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Facilities
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as 'point sources'. Wastewater point source discharges include
municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater
treatment plants and small domestic wastewater
treatment systems serving schools, commercial
offices, residential subdivisions and individual homes.
Stormwater point source discharges include
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and
stormwater discharges associated with certain
industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:
* oxygen-consuming wastes,
*nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 35
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under
the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.7.1 Wastewater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin
There are 280 permitted wastewater
discharges in the Cape Fear River basin.
Table A-12 provides summary
information (numbers of facilities and
permitted flows) regarding the discharges
by type and subbasin. The various types
of dischargers characterized in the table
are described in the inset box. A
summary of all dischargers can be found
in Appendix I.
Figures A-18, A-19 and A-20 show the
location of major and minor permitted
wastewater discharges within the basin.
The number of triangles on the map
depicting major discharges do not
correspond exactly to the number of
major facilities listed in Table A-12,
since some major facilities have more
than one outfall point. Each outfall point
received its own triangle.
2.7.2 Stormwater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin
Amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1990 provided requirements for NPDES stormwater
permits for municipal, industrial and construction activities (Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program). Permit requirements were established for ten categories of industrial activity ranging
from vehicle maintenance facilities to textile manufacturers. Permit requirements were also
established for construction activities which disturb 5 or more acres of land area. Permit
application requirements were established for municipalities with a population of 100,000 or
more. The focus of the NPDES stormwater program is pollution prevention and source control.
The primary concern with runoff from industrial facilities is the contamination of stormwater
from contact with exposed materials. In addition, poor housekeeping can lead to significant
contributions of sediment and other water quality pollutants. To address these issues, each
NPDES stormwater permitted facility must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SPPP) that addresses the facility’s potential impacts on water quality. Facilities or activities
identified as having significant potential to impact water quality are also required to perform
analytical monitoring to characterize the pollutants in their stormwater discharges under
individual NPDES stormwater permits.
Types of Wastewater Discharges
Major Facilities: Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants with flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day);
and some industrial facilities (depending on flow and
potential impacts on public health and water quality).
Minor Facilities: Any facilities not meeting the
definition of Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (water from bathrooms, sinks,
washers).
Municipal Facilities: Facilities that serve a
municipality. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Industrial Facilities: Facilities with wastewater from
industrial processes such as textiles, mining, seafood
processing, glass-making and power generation.
Other Facilities: This category includes a variety of
facilities such as schools, nursing homes, groundwater
remediation projects, water treatment plants and non-
process industrial wastewater.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 36
Table A-12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Cape Fear River
Basin (as of April 1999)
Subbasin
Facility Categories 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL
Total Facilities 13358898152715674611685537231464 280
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.4 69.9 0.1 0.8 26.3 8.3 13.9 28.0 9.8 1.6 6.0 4.0 9.0 3.0 39.9 14.0 93.0 0.1 4.7 0.0 1.4 10.6 2.5 0.1 352.6
Major Discharges 2800225211213243130102310 58
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.2 67.3 0.0 0.0 26.0 8.0 11.6 17.7 9.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 6.7 1.5 39.9 7.5 88.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.4 8.0 1.1 0.0 313.7
Minor Discharges 1127887610251455339254236211154 222
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 10.3 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.5 0.0 6.5 4.1 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.4 0.1 38.8
100% Domestic Waste 914654381085242722211621441 131
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.2 9.2 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 3.0 14.0 0.8 9.9 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.1 54.4
Municipal Facilities 1 6 0221523211223260501411 53
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.0 66.0 0.0 0.8 26.0 8.0 2.9 17.7 9.5 1.6 5.0 4.0 4.2 1.6 39.0 1.5 28.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.1 226.3
Non-Municipal Facilities 12 29 867710251246349364932221053 227
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 11.0 10.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.8 1.5 0.9 12.5 64.9 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.4 8.6 2.0 0.0 126.3

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 40
EPA Stormwater Rules
Phase I – December 1990
Requires a NPDES permit for municipal storm
sewer systems serving populations of 100,000
or more.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
eleven categories of industry.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 5 acres or more.
Phase II – November 1999
Requires a NPDES permit for municipal storm
sewer systems serving populations under
100,000 that are located in urbanized areas.
Provides incentives to industrial facilities
covered under Phase I for protecting
operations from stormwater exposure.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 1-5 acres.
Permits are granted in the form of general
stormwater permits (covering a wide
variety of activities) or individual
stormwater permits. Excluding
construction general permits, there are 623
general stormwater permits and 48
individual stormwater permits issued
within the river basin. Individual permit
holders are presented in Table A-13.
The municipalities covered by the NPDES
stormwater regulations are called
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s). Phase I covers large and medium
MS4s (population of 100,000 or more).
There are six permitted Phase I MS4s in
North Carolina. The cities of Greensboro,
Durham and Fayetteville (which also
includes Cumberland County) are the only
Phase I MS4s in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
On October 29, 1999, a second phase of the NPDES stormwater program was signed into law.
Phase II lowers the construction activity threshold to 1 or more acres of land disturbance and
allows a permitting exemption for industrial facilities that do not have significant materials or
activities exposed to stormwater.
Phase II also pulls many small local governments into the NPDES stormwater program. The
federal regulations require that small MS4s with a population of 50,000 or more and a density of
1,000 people per square mile be covered under a NPDES stormwater permit. This includes small
municipalities that, when clustered together, are considered an urbanized area that collectively
meets the 50,000/1,000 criteria. In addition, DWQ is required to develop designation criteria that
pull in other small MS4s. The designation criteria must include, at a minimum, all MS4s with a
population of 10,000 or more and a density of 1,000 people per square mile. At a minimum, the
local governments listed in Table A-14 will be covered under Phase II of the NPDES stormwater
program. It is highly likely that additional local governments will be required to seek a permit
through designation. Phase II MS4 permit applications must be submitted to DWQ by March 1,
2003.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 41
Table A-13 Summary of Individual NPDES Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin
Permit # Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County
NCS000030 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. UT Little Troublesome Creek 03-06-01 Rockingham
NCS000085 Safety-Kleen (TS) UT Troublesome Creek 03-06-01 Rockingham
NCS000010 Stockhausen, Inc. Mile Run Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000048 Chemol Co., Inc. Mile Run Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000077 Dow Corning Corporation UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000107 Unitex Chemical Corporation South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000119 Unichem, Inc. Haw River 03-06-02 Alamance
NCS000155 GKN Automotive Components, Inc. Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Lee
NCS000206 Duke Power Fairfax Ops Center UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000253 Southern Foundries Corporation North Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000308 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. UT Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000353 H B Fuller Company - Guilford Co. UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000090 Burlington Chemical Company Gum Creek 03-06-03 Alamance
NCS000017 Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. - Durham Co. UT Northeast Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000046 National Specialty Gases UT Northeast Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000050 SCM Metal Products, Inc. UT Northeast Creek & Stirrup Iron Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000084 South Atlantic Services, Inc. Fishing Creek 03-06-05 New Hanover
NCS000201 Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill UT Bolin Creek 03-06-06 Orange
NCS000087 PAC-FAB, Inc. Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-07 Lee
NCS000100 Allied Signal, Inc. Shaddox Creek & Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000150 Neste Resins Corporation Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000151 Weyerhaeuser Company Shaddox Creek 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000078 Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. East Fork Long Branch Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000092 Marsh Furniture Company UT Richland Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000280 Lester Group, Inc. - Fortress Wood Prod. UT Bull Run Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000319 Marlowe-Van Loan Corporation Richland Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000242 Ultracraft Company UT Sandy Creek 03-06-09 Randolph
NCS000023 Pioneer Southern, Inc. Rita Branch 03-06-10 Montgomery
NCS000123 Perdue Farms, Inc. Bear Creek & Buck Creek 03-06-10 Moore
NCS000122 General Timber, Inc. George’s Creek 03-06-11 Chatham
NCS000056 ICI Americas, Inc. Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000088 Borden Packaging & Industrial Products Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000147 Fiber Industries UT Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000187 Black & Decker (US), Inc. UT Lake Lynn 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000076 Corning, Inc. Spring Branch 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000101 Federal Paper Board Co. - Riegelwood Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Columbus
NCS000156 Wright Corporation Mill Creek & Livingston Creek 03-06-17 Columbus
NCS000174 NC State Ports Authority - Wilmington Cape Fear River 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000208 Military Ocean Terminal - Sunny Point Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000244 American Distillation Co. Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000258 National Starch & Chemical Co .- Leland Alligator Branch 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000344 American Crane Corp - New Hanover UT Barnards Creek 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000309 Schindler Elevator Corporation Old Williams Mill Branch 03-06-19 Sampson
NCS0000003 Occidental Chemical Company Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000022 GE Wilmington Prince George Creek 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000118 Arteva Specialties, Sarl Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000214 Royster Clark, Inc. Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000222 General Wood Preserving Co., Inc. UT Sturgeon Creek 03-06-23 Brunswick
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 42
Table A-14 Cities and Counties Included in State Stormwater Program
Phase I Cities
Durham Fayetteville Greensboro
Phase II Cities
Apex Cary High Point Reidsville
Archdale Chapel Hill Hope Mills Sanford
Asheboro Elon College Jamestown Spring Lake
Belville Gibsonville Kernersville Wilmington
Burlington Graham Leland Wrightsville Beach
Carrboro Haw River Mebane
Phase II Counties
Alamance Forsyth New Hanover Randolph
Brunswick Guilford Onslow Wake
Durham Harnett Orange Wayne
2.8 Animal Operations
Table A-15 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total
animals and total steady state live weight as of September 1998. These numbers reflect only
operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent the total number of
animals in each subbasin. Figures A-21, A-22 and A-23 show the general location of the
registered operations in the basin.
Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is the result, in pounds, after a conversion factor has been
applied to the number (head count) of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. The conversion factors,
which come from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) guidelines, vary
depending on the type of animals on the farm and the type of operation (for example, there are
five types of hog farms). Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, SSLW is the
best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
The NC Department of Agriculture provided information on animal capacity by subbasin (Table
A-16).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 43
Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-1999)
1995 –Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified
operator. Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination
for certification. Senate Bill 1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and
land application areas for farms sited after October 1, 1995.
1996 – Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a
general permit, beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was
directed to conduct annual inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry
facilities with 30,000+ birds and a liquid waste management system were required to hire a
certified operator by January 1997 and facilities with dry litter animal waste management
systems were required to develop an animal waste management plan by January 1998. The
plan must address three specific items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2)
development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and maintenance of records on-site
for three years. Additionally, anyone wishing to construct a new, or expand an existing, swine
farm must notify all adjoining property owners.
1997 –House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows
counties to adopt zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds
(SSLW) or more. In addition, owners of potential new and expanding operations are required
to notify the county (manager or chair of commission) and local health department, as well as
adjoining landowners. DENR was required to develop and adopt economically feasible odor
control standards by March 1, 1999.
1998 –House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The
bill also requires owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship
with an integrator.
1999 –House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine
farms, required DENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons, and requires
owners/operators of an animal waste treatment system to notify the public in the event of a
discharge to surface waters of the state of 1,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 44
Table A-15 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of 9/98)
Swine Cattle
Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight
03-06-01 1 2,850 493,620 5 2,599 2,598,200
03-06-02 1 1,000 130,500 6 2,010 2,154,000
03-06-03 3 9,660 776,580 2 400 560,000
03-06-04 3 23,544 2,432,520 17 2,505 2,507,000
03-06-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-06 0 0 0 1 125 175,000
03-06-07 2 5,616 866,112 0 0 0
03-06-08 0 0 0 5 2,325 3,255,000
03-06-09 13 43,435 6,222,528 3 625 875,000
03-06-10 2 12,253 924,090 1 200 280,000
03-06-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-12 1 400 52,200 2 250 350,000
03-06-13 6 27,815 3,251,025 0 0 0
03-06-14 5 32,152 4,157,160 1 700 980,000
03-06-15 13 55,550 6,753,860 0 0 0
03-06-16 42 254,353 32,063,197 0 0 0
03-06-17 7 45,216 6,381,110 0 0 0
03-06-18 82 450,398 57,856,987 0 0 0
03-06-19 306 1,538,402 182,351,532 0 0 0
03-06-20 12 88,672 10,888,120 0 0 0
03-06-21 69 240,648 27,261,539 0 0 0
03-06-22 404 787,900 217,781,138 0 0 0
03-06-23 46 204,757 25,636,095 0 0 0
03-06-24 1 1,800 243,000 0 0 0
Totals 1,019 3,826,421 586,522,913 43 11,739 13,734,200

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 48
Table A-16 Estimated Populations of Swine (1998, 1994 and 1990), Dairy (1998 and 1994)
and Poultry (1998 and 1994) in the Cape Fear River Basin
(NCDA Veterinary Division)
Total Swine
Capacity
Swine
Change
Total Dairy
Capacity
Dairy
Change
Poultry
Capacity
Poultry
ChangeSubbasin
1998 1994 1990 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%)
03-06-01 2,884 1,798 1,052 60 1,223 1,629 -25 63,300 100 63,200
03-06-02 1,944 2,342 2,995 -17 2,181 3,656 -40 286,849 86,773 231
03-06-03 2,112 3,357 2,918 -37 1,058 1,353 -22 522,070 482,144 8
03-06-04 3,310 3,354 1,469 -1 5,698 6,153 -7 4,865,029 1,855,294 162
03-06-05 300 209 167 44 640 213 200 10,000 22,000 -55
03-06-06 300 120 167 150 640 641 0 10,000 50 19,900
03-06-07 4,202 4,109 3,256 2 255 1,020 -75 1,857,430 1,653,430 12
03-06-08 118 129 228 -9 2,604 2,677 -3 465,889 415,789 12
03-06-09 37,997 40,443 8,233 -6 2,933 3,113 -6 13,185,379 12,049,038 9
03-06-10 28,585 21,454 18,920 33 405 405 0 9,640,013 9,311,324 4
03-06-11 963 1,042 1,220 -8 0 127 -100 2,219,382 2,080,230 7
03-06-12 3,466 4,524 6,978 -23 1,117 1,483 -25 5,950,459 5,955,399 0
03-06-13 19,353 3,342 1,686 479 0 12 -100 967,800 753,600 28
03-06-14 20,809 8,192 4,437 154 585 589 -1 3,765,400 3,279,900 15
03-06-15 43,395 38,306 24,657 13 0 0 0 486,811 413,911 18
03-06-16 293,021 137,777 38,281 113 0 0 0 125,000 155,000 -19
03-06-17 39,343 20,614 9,231 91 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-18 474,316 192,309 98,466 147 0 0 0 1,820,288 1,440,488 26
03-06-19 1,647,410 954,060 353,427 73 1,875 1,875 0 8,582,910 6,092,850 41
03-06-20 95,950 29,170 9,404 229 0 0 0 77,300 47,030 64
03-06-21 275,767 145,138 50,280 90 155 155 0 1,526,230 1,415,500 8
03-06-22 1,804,152 920,839 277,130 96 0 0 0 7,944,900 8,416,850 -6
03-06-23 440,628 229,490 65,424 92 0 0 0 3,251,100 3,052,100 7
03-06-24 1,067 1,051 276 2 0 0 0 2,000 3,000 -33
TOTALS 5,241,392 2,763,169 980,302 90 21,369 25,101 -15 67,625,539 58,981,800 15
% of State Total 54% 51% 39% 22% 19% 32% 32%
Source : NC Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Division
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 49
2.9 Water Use and Minimum Streamflow
2.9.1 Local Water Supply Planning
The North Carolina General Assembly has mandated a local and state water supply planning
process under North Carolina General Statute §143-355(l) and (m) to assure that communities
have an adequate supply of water for future needs. Under this statute all units of local
government that provide or plan to provide public water supply service are required to prepare a
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) and to update that plan at least every five years. The
information presented in a LWSP is an assessment of a water system’s present and future water
needs and its ability to meet those needs. The current LWSPs are based on 1992 data. Updated
plans based on 1997 water supply and water use information were completed in 1999.
In 1992, 130 systems that use water from the Cape Fear River basin provided an average of
208.77 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.3 million people (Table A-17). Projections of future
need show that these systems expect their service populations to increase by 66% to 2.1 million
people by 2020. Average daily water use for these systems is expected to increase by 86 percent
to 388 MGD by the year 2020. These data only represent systems submitting a LWSP and do
not reflect the needs of the public water systems in this basin that are not required to prepare a
plan because they are not operated by a unit of local government. The information is self-
reported and has not been field verified. However, plans have been reviewed by staff engineers
for consistency and reasonableness. More information is available for these and other systems
across the state that submitted a Local Water Supply Plan from the Division of Water Resources’
website at: www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us/home.htm.
2.9.2 Minimum Streamflow
One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Hydropower dams that are subject to FERC authority are exempt from Division of
Land Resources (DLR) authority. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying
mandatory minimum releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the
length of a stream affected by an impoundment. Table A-18 lists hydroelectric projects with
minimum releases. The Division of Water Resources (DWR), in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission, recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy minimum
instream flow requirements. The permits are issued by the Division of Land Resources. Table
A-19 lists minimum instream flow studies in this basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 50
Table A-17 Population and Water Use for Water Systems in the Cape Fear River Basin
Population Average Daily Water Use
County 1992 2000 2020 1992 2000 2020
MGD MGD MGD
Alamance 64,394 76,447 94,023 15.334 19.587 24.32
Bladen 11,593 13,935 18,395 1.291 2.352 2.77
Brunswick 83,658 119,138 159,007 11.353 19.005 26.006
Chatham 14,864 17,867 26,156 3.724 5.111 7.277
Columbus 320 350 425 0.474 0.109 0.133
Cumberland 151,684 179,675 249,315 23.191 27.012 43.377
Duplin 16,607 32,104 39,530 5 7 8
Durham 140,000 195,000 279,000 23 30 42
Forsyth 12,276 18,739 46,780 1 2 6
Guilford 271,057 288,565 317,715 43 52 75
Harnett 46,223 65,390 107,142 7 12 18
Hoke 5,755 15,735 18,567 2 3 5
Johnston 2,880 3,300 4,630 1 1 1
Lee 20,515 23,531 26,643 5 6 7
Montgomery 6,443 6,927 7,929 3 4 7
Moore 24,073 31,015 27,680 4 8 10
New Hanover 71,449 101,525 111,596 20 48 36
Orange 68,900 81,900 115,300 8 10 14
Onslow 99,329 111,705 153,475 8.567 9.962 14.175
Pender 11,203 14,051 15,362 1 1 1
Randolph 36,169 41,252 52,782 7 12 19
Rockingham 14,011 14,825 15,400 3 5 5
Sampson 14,205 17,818 19,878 2.344 3.078 3.745
Wake 58,487 92,353 166,178 7 9 20
Wayne 25,579 37,311 39,772 2 4 4
TOTALS 1,271,674 1,600,458 2,112,680 208.278 300.216 399.803
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 51
Table A-18 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin
HYDROELECTRIC DAMS
Hydropower
Dam
Regulatory
Authority
Bypass
Reach (ft)
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
Min. Release
(cu.ft/sec)
Deep River
Coltrane unlicensed 320 124
Worthville Federal Energy
Regulatory
Comm (FERC
None 223 None*
Cox Lake FERC 506 250 42
Cedar Falls FERC 2112 257 32
Franklin/ Randolph Mills FERC 480 278 None*
Ramseur FERC 1430 343 45
Coleridge FERC 500 391 35
High Falls FERC 2844 748 108
Carbonton FERC None 970 None*
Lockville FERC 700 1380 70
Haw River
Altamahaw unlicensed 800 226
Glencoe Mills FERC 1815 495 57
Swepsonville 700
Saxapahaw FERC 5200 1020 10
Bynum FERC 3000 1270 80
B.E. Jordan FERC 1690
Rockfish Creek
Raeford FERC None 179 None*
Rocky River
Rocky River FERC None 181 None*
Notes:
* Even though there is no minimum flow, the project must still operate in a run-of-river mode; i.e., instantaneous
inflow equals instantaneous outflow. A noncompliant project can alter noticeably the streamflow.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 52
Table A-19 Minimum Instream Flow Studies in the Cape Fear River Basin
WATER SUPPLY IMPOUNDMENTS/WITHDRAWALS
Dam Study
Cooperators
Purpose of Study
Big Alamance
Creek
DWR The Town of Burlington’s water supply, Lake Mackintosh, has a tiered release with a
maximum flow release of 9 cfs at full pool. The recommendation was based on a wetted
perimeter study done by DWR.
Back Creek DWR DWR requested, following the review of the environmental assessment for the expansion of
the Graham-Mebane water treatment plant from 6 to 12 MGD, a tiered release with a
maximum low flow release of 5 cfs at full pool from Graham-Mebane Lake. The flow
recommendation was based on a wetted perimeter study by DWR.
Bones Creek DWR and
NCWRC
Lake Rim is used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission as a fish hatchery storage pond.
DWR requested a minimum flow as a stipulation for dam repair. The Division assisted the
Commission in determining a tiered release of 18 cfs from the impoundment in all months
except July, when the release is 10.5 cfs. The releases are based on a hydrologic desktop
investigation. A calibrated gage is required to monitor releases.
Branson Creek NCWRC A stipulation for repairs to Forest Lake dam in Fayetteville was a minimum flow requirement
of 3.4 cfs. The recommendation is based on a NC Wildlife Resources Commission habitat
evaluation and a hydrologic desktop investigation.
Little Cross
Creek
DWR,
NCWRC
and DWQ
DWR participated in an aquatic habitat assessment of Little Cross Creek below Glenville
Lake (Fayetteville’s reserve water source) with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and
DWQ. A minimum flow of 3.6 cfs, based on a hydrologic desktop investigation, was
established.
Deep River DWR The proposed Randleman reservoir will serve the cities of Greensboro and High Point. The
reservoir will have a tiered minimum release ranging from a high of 30 cfs at full pool, 20 cfs
when below 60 percent full pool, and 10 cfs when below 30 percent full pool. The minimum
flow recommendations are based on a wetted perimeter study. The project will divert up to
30.5 MGD (47.1 cfs) which will reduce the average annual flow. The natural low flows in
the lower Deep River will be increased by the minimum release. There will be some
interbasin transfer (see Part 2.9.3). Randleman Reservoir will impact hydropower generation
in the Deep River. The Coltrane Mill project will be inundated by the impoundment. DWR
estimates that hydropower generation will be reduced by 5 to 15 percent depending on the
amount of withdrawal from the reservoir, proximity of the generation facility to Randleman,
and the minimum flow requirement at each project.
The City of High Point’s primary sources for water, High Point City Lake and Oak Hollow
Reservoir, do not have minimum release requirements. The Dam Safety Law restricts
minimum flow requirements for existing reservoirs to 10 percent of the safe yield. This
corresponds to 1.3 cfs and 1.9 cfs for High Point City Lake and Oak Hollow Reservoir,
respectively.
Mill Creek NCWRC Reservoir Park dam in Southern Pines has a minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cfs based
upon consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and a hydrologic desktop
investigation.
Nick’s Creek DWR and
Town of
Carthage
DWR will be cooperating with the Town of Carthage on an instream flow study of Nick’s
Creek to evaluate a proposal to expand their withdrawal from 0.5 to 1.0 MGD.
Reedy Fork DWR Lake Townsend in Greensboro has a minimum flow requirement of 7.1 cfs at full pool as a
stipulation for expansion of the water treatment plant from 20 to 30 MGD. The
recommended flow is based upon a wetted perimeter study done by DWR.
Rocky River DWR, Town
of Siler City
and other
agencies
The Town of Siler City has a tiered release at their water withdrawal structure based on an
instream flow study performed by DWR. The minimum release from December through
May is 3.5 cfs when the town’s reservoir is at 40 percent capacity or greater. The town has
installed gages to monitor the release. DWR and other resource agencies are now
participating in discussions with the town on a proposal to raise the evaluation of the
withdrawal pond by 12. 5 feet.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 53
2.9.3 Interbasin Transfer
Water users in North Carolina are required to register their water withdrawals and transfers with
the Division of Water Resources if the amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more, according to
NCGS §143-215.22H. In addition, transfers of one million gallons per day or more require
certification from the Environmental Management Commission, according to NCGS §143-
215.22I. Table A-20 lists the parties that have registered withdrawals in the Cape Fear River
basin as of January 1, 1999.
The river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled
Major River Basins and Subbasins in North Carolina that was filed in the Office of the Secretary
of State on April 16, 1991. Within the Cape Fear basin, six subbasins are delineated: the Haw
River, the Deep River, the Cape Fear River, the South River, Northeast Cape Fear River and the
New River (Figure A-24). (Note: The New River is not considered part of the Cape Fear River
basin under the basinwide management approach which utilizes basin definitions adopted by the
Department of Water and Air Resources in 1974. The New River will be addressed as part of the
White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan in 2001.)
Figure A-25 shows the approximate location of transfers of 1.0 MGD or greater. Table A-21
lists all potential transfers within the basin. Unless otherwise noted, the transfer amounts are
1992 average daily amounts in million gallons per day (MGD) based on Local Water Supply
Plans and registered withdrawal/transfer information. Many of the transfers cannot be quantified
due to undocumented consumptive losses (examples: septic, lawn irrigation). Note: Under a
provision of Senate Bill 1299 (ratified by the General Assembly on September 23, 1988), all
local water systems are now required to report existing and anticipated interbasin transfers as part
of the Local Water Supply Planning process. This information will be available for future
updates of this management plan and will allow an assessment of cumulative impacts.
Currently, there are two permitted transfers in the Cape Fear basin. The first permit is for
Cary/Apex’s 16 MGD transfer from the Haw River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin. Cary
and Apex are currently preparing environmental documentation to support an application for
increasing the transfer amount. The second permit is for Piedmont Triad Water Authority’s 30.5
MGD transfer from the Deep River subbasin to the Haw and Yadkin River subbasins. This
permit covers anticipated transfers resulting from the operation of the proposed Randleman dam.
Other large transfers in the Cape Fear basin include Durham (18.0 MGD), Asheboro (4.7 MGD),
and High Point (3.5 MGD).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 54
Table A-20 Water Withdrawal Registrations in the Cape Fear River Basin
Cape Fear River Basin
Water Withdrawal Registrations pursuant to NCGS 143-215.22H.
Data is self-reported and has not been field verified.
County Facility #Capacity MGD Facility
ALAMANCE 01-003 3.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - GRANITE PLANT
ALAMANCE 01-006 229.000 GLENCOE MILLS
CHATHAM 19-002 180.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CHATHAM 19-007 0.860 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-001 5.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - WHITE OAK PLANT
GUILFORD 41-002 2.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - WHITE OAK PLANT
GUILFORD 41-003 0.000 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-004 0.000 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-008 1.555 JAMESTOWN PARK GOLF COURSE
LEE 53-001 1.440 WAKE STONE CORPORATION - KNIGHTDALE QUARRY
LEE 53-003 1.500 FLOYD BROWNE & ASSOCIATION WTP
LEE 53-004 1.009 GOLDEN POULTRY COMPANY, INC
MOORE 63-002 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-003 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-004 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-012 2.000 TRIPLE H FARMS (SANDHILL TURF)
MOORE 63-013 4.000 SANDHILL TURF, INC
RANDOLPH 76-006 0.000 PIEDMONT TRIAD WATER AUTHORITY
BLADEN 09-003 17.000 E. I. DUPONT DENEMOURS - FAYETTEVILLE
BLADEN 09-004 1.240 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
BLADEN 09-006 2.100 ALAMAC KNITS - WEST POINT STEVENS
BRUNSWICK 10-001 4.000 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
BRUNSWICK 10-003 1600.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
BRUNSWICK 10-004 2.000 BALD HEAD ISLAND GOLF CLUB
BRUNSWICK 10-006 0.000 COGENTRIX - BRUNSWICK COUNTY
BRUNSWICK 10-006 4.140 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK 10-007 18.000 E. I. DUPONT
COLUMBUS 24-001 50.000 FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC
CUMBERLAND 26-001 1.500 KIRBY PUGTT
CUMBERLAND 26-002 1.680 MONSANTO AGRICULTURE COMPANY
CUMBERLAND 26-003 11.000 HQ XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS & FORT BRAGG
CUMBERLAND 26-008 5.800 BROOKWOOD COMMUNITY WS
CUMBERLAND 26-009 3.000 BLAKE FARMS, INC
HARNETT 43-001 2.050 NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
HARNETT 43-003 8.000 ERWIN MILLS
MOORE 63-010 1.610 PINEHURST RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB
NEW HANOVER 65-001 0.000 CAPE INDUSTRIES
NEW HANOVER 65-002 49.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-007 3.100 HOECHST CELANESE-WILMINGTON PLANT
WAKE 92-005 28.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
WAKE 92-019 1.400 RONNIE BETTS
SAMPSON 82-017 1.000 DL & B ENTERPRISES, INC
DUPLIN 31-001 1.700 GUILFORD MILLS, INC - GUILFORD EAST SITE
DUPLIN 31-002 3.240 CAROLINA TURKEYS
DUPLIN 31-003 2.090 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
DUPLIN 31-004 2.520 STEVCOKNIT FABRICS COMPANY, INC
DUPLIN 31-005 2.000 BUTTERBALL TURKEY COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-003 5.760 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
NEW HANOVER 65-006 4.450 CAPE FEAR INDUSTRIES
NEW HANOVER 65-008 2.110 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-025 15.840 MARTIN MARIETTA
PENDER 71-002 17.760 MARTIN MARIETTA
NEW HANOVER 65-004 2.700 LANDFALL CLUB
NEW HANOVER 65-005 1.500 LANDFALL CLUB
ONSLOW 67-001 5.322 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
ONSLOW 67-002 8.464 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
ONSLOW 67-003 4.710 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
Total Capacity 2330.96 MGD
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 55
Figure A-24 River Basins Subject to Surface Water Transfers Act
14-1
3-2
8-1
7-1
13-1
6-1
7-2
3-1 18-1
18-4
5-2
1-1
5-1
5-3
18-2
16-1
11-1
10-1
9-3
2-3
9-19-2 2-6
9-4
2-52-4
17-1
15-1
18-3
2-2
2-1
10-2
10-3
12-1
15-3
15-2 4-1
4-2
NC-DENR
Division of W ater Resources
919-733-4064
Legend
Major River Basin Boundary
Sub-Basin Boundary
County Boundary
î¨
15-1 Tar River
15-2 Fishing Creek
15-3 Pamlico River & Sound
16-1 Watauga River
17-1 White Oak River
18-1 Yadkin River
18-2 South Yadkin River
18-3 Uwharrie River
18-4 Rocky River
BASIN NAME
1-1 Broad River
2-1 Haw River
2-2 Deep River
2-3 Cape Fear River
2-4 South River
2-5 Northeast Cape Fear River
2-6 New River
3-1 Catawba River
3-2 South Fork Catawba River
4-1 Chowan River
4-2 Meherrin River
5-1 Nolichucky River
5-2 French Broad River
5-3 Pigeon River
6-1 Hiwassee River
10-1 Neuse River
10-2 Contentnea Creek
10-3 Trent River
11-1 New River
12-1 Albemarle Sound
13-1 Ocoee River
14-1 Roanoke River
7-1 Little Tennessee River
7-2 Tuckasegee River
8-1 Savannah River
9-1 Lumber River
9-2 Big Shoe Heel Creek
9-3 Waccamaw River
9-4 Shallotte River
BASIN NAME BASIN NAME
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 56
Figure A-25 Interbasin Transfers (>1.0 MGD) in the Cape Fear River Basin
Durham (18 MGD)
Cary/Apex (16 MGD)
Benson (1.0 MGD)
Asheboro
(4.7 MGD)
Archer Daniel Midland
(1.9 MGD)
Piedmont Triad RWA
(Future: 30.5 MGD)
High Point
(5.0 MGD)
Montgomery Co.
(1.0 MGD)
L. Cape Fear W.A.
(1.6 MGD)
HAW R.
SUBBASIN
DEEP R.
SUBBASIN
CAPE FEAR R.
SUBBASIN
SOUTH R.
SUBBASIN
NE CAPE FEAR R.
SUBBASIN
NEW R.
SUBBASIN
CAPE FEAR BASIN
NEUSE BASIN
YADKIN
BASIN
LUMBER
BASIN
Legend
Major Basin Boundary
Sub-Basin Boundary
County Boundary
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 57
Table A-21 Interbasin Transfers in the Cape Fear River Basin
Source
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated Transfer
(MGD)1,2,3
Permitted Transfers
Cary/Apex Cary/Apex Haw Neuse 16.0
4
Piedmont Triad WA Piedmont Triad WA Deep Haw, Yadkin 30.5
5
Other Transfers
Graham Orange-Alamance Haw Neuse Emergency
Greensboro Jamestown Haw Deep 0.09
Greensboro Greensboro Haw Deep Unknown
OWASA Hillsborough Haw Neuse Emergency
Reidsville Reidsville Haw Roanoke Unknown
High Point Greensboro Deep Haw Unknown
High Point Thomasville Deep Yadkin Emergency
High Point High Point Deep Yadkin 3.5
Lower Cape Fear WSA Brunswick County Cape Fear Shallotte Unknown
Carthage Carthage Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Dunn Benson Cape Fear Neuse 1.0
Dunn Dunn Cape Fear South Unknown
Dunn Benson Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Fuquay-Varina Cape Fear Neuse Unknown
Harnett Angier Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Coats Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Dunn Cape Fear South Emergency
Sanford Chatham County East Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Sanford Sanford Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Sanford Lee County - Tramway Cape Fear Deep Emergency
Wilmington Wilmington Cape Fear New Unknown
General Electric General Electric NE Cape Fear Cape Fear 0.75
Southern Pines Southern Pines Lumber Cape Fear Unknown
Archer Daniel Midland Archer Daniel Midland Shallotte Cape Fear 1.89
Durham OWASA Neuse Haw Emergency
Durham Durham Neuse Haw 18.0
6
Goldsboro Wayne WD Neuse NE Cape Fear Emergency
Hillsborough Orange-Alamance WS Neuse Haw Emergency
Orange-Alamance WS Mebane Neuse Haw Emergency
Orange-Alamance WS Orange-Alamance WS Neuse Haw Unknown
Raleigh Holly Springs Neuse Cape Fear 0.8
Davidson Archdale Yadkin Deep Unknown
Davidson Davidson Yadkin Deep Unknown
Montgomery County Montgomery County Yadkin Deep 1.0
North Wilkesboro Broadway Yadkin Cape Fear Unknown
Winston Salem Kernersville Yadkin Haw Unknown
Winston Salem Winston Salem Yadkin Deep Unknown
Winston Salem Winston Salem Yadkin Haw Unknown
Asheboro Randleman Uwharrie Deep Emergency
Asheboro Asheboro Uwharrie Deep 4.7
1 Transfer amounts are based on average daily water use reported in 1992 Local Water Supply Plans, and the 1993 Water
Withdrawal and Transfer Registration Database.
2 "Unknown" refers to undocumented consumptive use.
3 "Emergency" refers to emergency connections.
4 Transfer amount for Cary/Apex are based on its permitted transfer.
5 Transfer amount for Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority is based on its permitted transfer, but will not become effective
until completion of Randleman dam.
6 The estimated transfer amount for Durham is based on information in their Jordan Lake allocation application.