Appendix I

Appendix I

Population and Growth Trends
in the
Cape Fear River Basin

Appendices

Population and Growth Trends

Below are three different ways of presenting population data for the Cape Fear River basin.
Population data presented by county allow for analysis of projected growth trends in the basin
based on Office of State Planning information (April and May 2001). Data presented by
municipality summarizes information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. The data
presented by subbasin allow for 2000 population data to be presented by subbasin. While the
three different sets of information cannot be directly compared, general conclusions are apparent
by looking at the information. Counties with the highest expected growth are associated with the
largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins in the basin.

County Population and Growth Trends

The following table and map show the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth
between 1990 and 2020 for counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin. Since
river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these numbers are not directly
applicable to the Cape Fear River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate of
expected population growth in counties that have some land area in the Cape Fear River basin.
For more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of
State Planning at [phone] or visit their website at http://demog.state.nc.us/.

County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦ 1990 2000
Estimated %
Growth
1990-2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated %
Growth
2000-2020
Alamance 100 108,213 130,800 17.3 175,620 25.5
Bladen 69 28,663 32,278 11.2 38,274 15.7
Brunswick 45 50,985 73,143 30.3 112,885 35.2
Caswell 10 20,662 23,501 12.1 27,918 15.8
Chatham 100 38,979 49,329 21.0 69,137 28.7
Columbus 11 49,587 54,749 9.4 63,283 13.5
Cumberland 98 274,713 302,963 9.3 365,182 17.0
Duplin 100 39,995 49,063 18.5 67,447 27.3
Durham 27 181,844 223,314 18.6 312,144 28.5
Forsyth 2 265,855 306,067 13.1 385,079 20.5
Guilford 97 347,431 421,048 17.5 568,580 25.9
Harnett 100 67,833 91,025 25.5 140,902 35.4
Hoke 57 22,856 33,646 32.1 57,891 41.9
Johnston 2 81,306 121,965 33.3 210,178 42.0
Lee 100 41,370 49,040 15.6 64,038 23.4
Montgomery 6 23,359 26,822 12.9 33,247 19.3
Moore 79 59,000 74,769 21.1 102,828 27.3
New Hanover 100 120,284 160,307 25.0 233,681 31.4
Onslow 22 149,838 150,355 0.3 175,762 14.5
A-I-1

Orange 49 93,662 118,227 20.8 166,971 29.2
Pender 100 28,855 41,082 29.8 64,106 35.9
Randolph 56 106,546 130,454 18.3 178,852 27.1
Rockingham 19 86,064 91,928 6.4 100,414 8.5
Sampson 99 47,297 60,161 21.4 86,472 30.4
Wake 15 426,311 627,846 32.1 1,071,768 41.4
Wayne 9 104,666 113,329 7.6 127,945 11.4
Subtotals 2,866,174 3,557,211 19.4 5,000,604 28.9
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.

A-I-2

Municipal Population and Growth Trends

The table below presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities with
populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. These data
represent 53 of the 115 municipalities in the basin.

Municipality County Apr-80 Apr-90 Apr-2000
Percent
Change
(1980-90)
Percent
Change
(1990-2000)
Angier Harnett 1,709 2,235 3,419 30.8 53.0
Apex • Wake 2,847 4,789 20,212 68.2 322.1
Archdale • Guilford, Randolph 5,326 6,975 9,014 31.0 29.2
Asheboro • Randolph 15,252 16,362 21,672 7.3 32.5
Benson • Johnston 2,792 3,044 2,923 9.0 -4.0
Boiling Spring Lakes • Brunswick 998 1,650 2,972 65.3 80.1
Burgaw Pender 1,738 2,099 3,337 20.8 59.0
Burlington Alamance 37,266 39,498 44,917 6.0 13.7
Carolina Beach New Hanover 2,000 3,630 4,701 81.5 29.5
Carrboro Orange 7,336 12,134 16,782 65.4 38.3
Cary • Chatham, Wake 21,763 44,397 94,536 104.0 112.9
Chapel Hill Durham, Orange 32,421 38,711 48,715 19.4 25.8
Clinton Sampson 7,552 8,385 8,600 11.0 2.6
Dunn Harnett 8,962 8,556 9,196 -4.5 7.5
Durham • Durham, Orange 101,149 136,612 187,035 35.1 36.9
Elizabethtown Bladen 3,551 3,704 3,698 4.3 -0.2
Elon Alamance 2,873 4,448 6,738 54.8 51.5
Erwin Harnett 2,828 4,109 4,537 45.3 10.4
Fayetteville Cumberland 59,507 75,850 121,015 27.5 59.5
Fuquay-Varina • Wake 3,110 4,447 7,898 43.0 77.6
Gibsonville Alamance, Guilford 2,865 3,445 4,372 20.2 26.9
Graham Alamance 8,674 10,368 12,833 19.5 23.8
Green Level Alamance 1,154 1,548 2,042 34.1 31.9
Greensboro Guilford 155,642 183,894 223,891 18.2 21.8
High Point • Davidson, Forsyth,
Guilford, Randolph 63,479 69,428 85,839 9.4 23.6
Holly Springs • Wake 688 1,024 9,192 48.8 797.7
Hope Mills Cumberland 5,412 8,272 11,237 52.8 35.8
Jamestown Guilford 2,148 2,662 3,088 23.9 16.0
Kernersville • Forsyth, Guilford 5,875 10,899 17,126 85.5 57.1
Liberty Randolph 1,997 2,047 2,661 2.5 30.0
A-I-4

Lillington Harnett 1,948 2,048 2,915 5.1 42.3
Mebane Alamance, Orange 2,782 4,754 7,284 70.9 53.2
Morrisville • Durham, Wake 251 1,489 5,208 493.2 249.8
Mount Olive • Duplin, Wayne 4,876 4,582 4,567 -6.0 -0.3
Oak Ridge Guilford ----- 2,322 3,988 ----- 71.7
Pinehurst • Moore 1,746 5,091 9,706 191.6 90.7
Pittsboro Chatham 1,332 1,621 2,226 21.7 37.3
Pleasant Garden Guilford ----- 3,921 4,714 ----- 20.2
Raeford • Hoke 3,630 3,469 3,386 -4.4 -2.4
Randleman • Randolph 2,156 2,612 3,557 21.2 36.2
Reidsville • Rockingham 12,492 12,183 14,485 -2.5 18.9
Sanford Lee 14,773 14,755 23,220 -0.1 57.4
Siler City Chatham 4,446 4,808 6,966 8.1 44.9
Southern Pines • Moore 8,620 9,213 10,918 6.9 18.5
Southport Brunswick 2,824 2,369 2,351 -16.1 -0.8
Spring Lake Cumberland 6,273 7,524 8,098 19.9 7.6
Stokesdale • Guilford 1,973 2,134 3,267 8.2 53.1
Summerfield Guilford ----- 1,687 7,018 ----- 316.0
Wallace Duplin, Pender 2,903 2,939 3,344 1.2 13.8
Warsaw Duplin 2,910 2,859 3,051 -1.8 6.7
Whispering Pines Moore 1,160 1,346 2,090 16.0 55.3
Wilmington New Hanover 44,000 55,530 75,838 26.2 36.6
Wrightsville Beach New Hanover 2,910 2,937 2,593 0.9 -11.7
• - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.

Basin Population and Population Density

Information on population density at a watershed scale is useful in determining what streams are
likely to have the most impacts as a result of population growth. This information is also useful
in identifying stream segments that have good opportunities for preservation or restoration. This
information is presented to estimate population and population density by each subbasin and for
the entire basin. It is assumed that county populations are distributed evenly throughout each
county; therefore, subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the
actual population in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the basin based on 2000
Census data is 1,834,545, with approximately 197 persons/square mile. Population density
estimated by subbasin is presented in the following map.
A-I-5