Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5053

The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—

Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. High Rock Lake in Davidson County, North Carolina, June 25, 2002. Photograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, 

Raleigh, N.C. Used with permission.

Title page. Pontoon boats along the shoreline of High Rock Lake in Davidson County, North Carolina, June 25, 2002. Photograph 

by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C. Used with permission.
The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina —

Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions

By J. Curtis Weaver

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5053

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Weaver, J.C., The drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and hydrologic conditions: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5053, 88 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract.......... 1

Introduction ... 2

Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................... 6

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 6

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought ............................................................................ 10

Assessment of Precipitation During the 1998–2003 Water Years ............................. 13

Comparison of Precipitation Deficits with Deficits During Historical Droughts ..... 25

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought ........................................................... 28

Surface Water ................................................................................................................... 28

Streamflow Conditions During the 1998–2003 Water Years .......................... 31

Comparison of Streamflow During 1998–2002 with Historical Droughts ..... 40

Ground Water .................................................................................................................... 45

Ground-Water Level Conditions During the 1998–2003 Water Years ........... 47

Comparison of Ground-Water Levels During 1998–2002 with 

Historical Droughts ................................................................................ 51

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Time Lags ............................................................. 55

Assessment of 1998–2002 Drought Recovery Rate ..................................................... 61

Summary ........ 68

Selected References .................................................................................................................... 71

Sidebars

Different Types of Droughts ........................................................................................................ 4

USGS WaterWatch: Providing Real-Time Streamflow Characterization 

on the Internet ............................................................................................................... 7

Climatic Causes of Droughts in North Carolina ....................................................................... 11

Use of Drought Indices to Assess Droughts ............................................................................ 20

Characterizing Low-Flow Frequency: Can Droughts Change the 7Q10 Discharge? ......... 41

Societal Effects of the 1998–2002 Drought in North Carolina ................................................ 63

Figures

 1. Locations of selected features and the physiographic provinces

 in North Carolina ........................................................................................................ 2

 2. The hydrologic cycle depicts the movement of water through the 

hydrologic system ...................................................................................................... 10

 3. Selected National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation 

stations in North Carolina, 1998–2003 ....................................................................... 10

 4. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at selected National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration precipitation stations in North Carolina 

by physiographic province, May 1998 through September 2003 ........................ 14

 5. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Greenville, N.C., 

precipitation station, October 1997 through September 2003 ............................. 16

 6. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Hickory Regional Airport 

precipitation station in North Carolina, October 1997 through 

September 2003 .......................................................................................................... 17

 7. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Mocksville, N.C., 

precipitation station, October 1997 through September 2003 ............................. 17
iv

 8. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Charlotte Douglas Airport 

precipitation station in North Carolina, October 1997 through 

September 2003 .......................................................................................................... 18

 9. Percentage of normal moving 12-month precipitation totals for selected 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation 

stations in North Carolina, October 1997 through September 2003 ................... 19

 10. (A) Cumulative monthly precipitation departures and (B) precipitation deficits 

for selected historical droughts at the Hickory Regional Airport precipitation 

station in North Carolina, January 1949 through September 2003 ..................... 25

 11. (A) Cumulative monthly precipitation departures and (B) precipitation deficits 

for selected historical droughts at the Mount Airy precipitation station in 

North Carolina, January 1900 through September 2003 ...................................... 27

 12. Precipitation deficits for selected historical droughts at the Fayetteville 

Public Works Commission precipitation station in North Carolina .................... 28

 13. Continuous-record U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations in North 

Carolina having greater than 10 years of record, and locations where recordlow daily mean discharges were set during the 1998–2002 water years ......... 29

 14. U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations (68 sites) used in the assessment 

of “daily” 7-day average discharges and historical streamflow percentiles 

for each calendar date during the 1998–2002 water years ................................. 31

 15. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during 

which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 7-day, 10-year low-flow 

discharge ..................................................................................................................... 32

 16. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during 

which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 7-day, 50-year low-flow 

discharge ..................................................................................................................... 34

 17. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during 

which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 7-day, 100-year low-flow 

discharge ..................................................................................................................... 36

 18. Observed 7-day average discharge at South Yadkin River near Mocksville 

during the 1985–87 and 2001–03 water years ........................................................ 45

 19. Selected U.S. Geological Survey climate-response observation wells in 

North Carolina ............................................................................................................. 47

 20. Ground-water hydrographs at five selected wells in North Carolina, 

1998–2003 water years .............................................................................................. 50

 21. Ground-water hydrograph at NC-146 (site 157, Hornets Nest Park, 

Mecklenburg County) in North Carolina, 2002 ....................................................... 51

 22. Water levels at NC-40 (site 153, Blue Ridge Paper Products well, Haywood 

County) during the 1985–90 and 1998–2003 water years ..................................... 51

 23. Water levels at NC-160 (site 168, Simpson well, Pitt County) during the 

1977–82 and 1998–2003 water years ....................................................................... 52

 24. Water levels at NC-144 (site 155, Blantyre well, Transylvania County) during 

the 1982–87 and 1998–2003 water years ................................................................. 52

 25. Water levels at NC-142 (site 159, Mocksville well, Davie County) during the 

1982–87 and 1998–2003 water years ....................................................................... 53

 26. Water levels at NC-173 (site 164, Comfort well, Jones County) during the 

1990–95 and 1998–2003 water years ....................................................................... 53

 27. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation 

for sites at Blantyre, Transylvania County, during (A) 1998–2003 water years 

and (B) 2002–03 water years .................................................................................... 56
v

 28. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation 

for sites near Paw Creek, Mecklenburg County, during (A) 1998–2003 water 

years and (B) 2002–03 water years ......................................................................... 57

 29. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation 

for sites near Mocksville, Davie County, during (A) 1998–2003 water years 

and (B) 2002–03 water years .................................................................................... 58

 30. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation 

for sites near Hoffman, Richmond County, during (A) 1998–2003 water years 

and (B) 2002–03 water years .................................................................................... 59

 31. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation 

for sites near Trenton, Jones County, during (A) 1998–2003 water years and 

(B) 2002–03 water years ............................................................................................ 60

 32. Drought recovery rates at South Yadkin River near Mocksville (site 85) using 

cumulative monthly streamflow departures from October 1938 through 

September 2003 .......................................................................................................... 62

 33. Drought recovery rates at French Broad River at Asheville (site 131) using 

cumulative monthly streamflow departures from January 1900 through 

September 2003 .......................................................................................................... 62

Tables

 1. Summary of precipitation departures at selected National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration precipitation stations in North Carolina, 

1998–2003 water years .............................................................................................. 15

 2. Precipitation deficits for selected historical droughts in North Carolina .............. 26

 3. Number of U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations in North Carolina 

where record-low discharges were set during the 1998–2002 water years .... 31

 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at 

U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years 

of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in 

North Carolina ............................................................................................................. 74

 5. Summary of minimum 7-day average discharges at selected U.S. Geological 

Survey streamgaging stations during the 1998–2002 drought and other 

historical droughts in North Carolina ...................................................................... 44

 6. Summary of U.S. Geological Survey observation wells operated during the 

2002 water year in North Carolina ........................................................................... 46

 7. Summary of site attributes and record-low ground-water levels at selected 

U.S. Geological Survey climate-response observation wells having 

greater than 5 years of systematic water-level records in North Carolina 

as of the 2002 water year .......................................................................................... 48

 8. Summary of time lags in cumulative monthly departures at selected 

surface-water and ground-water sites in response to changes in 

precipitation departures ............................................................................................ 55
vi

Conversion Factors, Temperature, Datum, 

and Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square 

 mile [(ft3/s)/mi2] 0.01093 cubic meter per second per  square kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

Volume per time

inches per year (in/yr) 2.54 centimeters per year (cm/yr)

Temperature: In this report, temperature is given in degrees Fahrenheit (°F), which can be 

converted to degrees Celsius (°C) by using the following equation:

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinates: Vertical coordinates in this report are referenced to the North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinates: Unless otherwise specified, horizontal (latitude and longitude) 

coordinates in this report are referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Acronyms and abbreviations:

CMI Crop Moisture Index

DM Drought Monitor

ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GIS geographic information system

NAD 27 North American Datum of 1927

NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983

NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

NCDMAC North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council

NCDMC North Carolina Drought Monitoring Council

NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources

NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSW Office of Surface Water

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index

PHDI Palmer Hydrological Drought Index

SPI Standardized Precipitation Index

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

> greater than or equal to

< less than
Abstract

Drought conditions prevailed across much of North 

Carolina during 1998–2002, resulting in 

widespread record-low streamflow and 

ground-water levels in many areas. During this 4-year period, the drought was 

continuous in areas of western North 

Carolina, although eastern areas of the 

State had some periods of relief from 

tropical storms in 1998 and 1999. The 

occurrence of dry winters in 2001 and 

2002 along with a dry spring in 2002, 

exacerbated drought conditions across 

the State and resulted in substantial 

declines in streamflow and ground-water 

levels during the summer of 2002.

The drought caused widespread 

hardship and economic losses across 

North Carolina. During the latter months 

of 2002, more than 200 municipalities 

that included most major cities operated 

under some form of voluntary, mandatory, or emergency water conservation. 

Reservoirs across North Carolina were 

at record or near record-low levels, 

including some of the largest ones 

used for multiple purposes (flood 

control, low-flow augmentation, and(or) 

recreation), and required continuous 

and careful operation to balance the 

upstream and downstream needs of 

users.

Precipitation deficits during the 

1998–2002 drought for some locations 

in North Carolina were among the 

largest documented since the beginning 

of systematic collection of weather data. 

The largest deficits occurred primarily in 

the western Piedmont and were as much 

as 60 to 70 inches in some locations 

during the 4-year period. Cumulative 

monthly precipitation departures for the 

period May 1998 through September 

2002 at 13 selected precipitation sites 

across the State ranged from 5.3 inches 

below normal in Greenville (eastern 

North Carolina) to 66.7 inches below 

normal in Hickory (western North 

Carolina). During the 12-month period 

October 2002 through September 

2003, precipitation departures at 7 of 

the 13 sites were more than 20 inches 

above normal, primarily in the western 

Piedmont. Precipitation data for the 

period of record were examined for 8 

of the 13 sites to compare precipitation 

deficits during the 1998–2002 drought 

with those that occurred during selected 

historical droughts. At three of the 

eight sites (Hickory, Charlotte, and 

Mocksville), the average monthly deficit 

for the 1998–2002 drought exceeded the 

values computed for the other drought 

periods. Precipitation records for three 

other sites (Greensboro, Raleigh, and 

Fayetteville) were adjusted to remove 

monthly rainfall values associated with 

several large tropical storms in 1999. 

The average monthly deficits for the 

1998–2002 drought based on adjusted 

records for these three sites were then 

determined to be the highest among the 

drought periods identified during the 

available periods of precipitation record.

Daily mean discharges before and 

after the drought were compiled for 211 

continuous-record gaging stations operated in North Carolina in 2002. Of these 

211, 150 stations had periods of record 

that exceeded 10 years. Among these 

150 sites, records of lowest daily mean 

discharge were set at 65 sites during the 

4-year drought (55 sites during the 2002 

water year alone). A smaller group of 

68 sites having 30 years of uninterrupted 

record through the 2002 water year and 

not known to be significantly affected 

by regulation and(or) diversions was 

selected for further analyses to quantify 

the “daily” percentile and recurrence 

intervals of 7-day average discharges.

Comparisons of minimum 7-day 

average discharges at six selected gaging 

stations with long-term records (two 

from each physiographic province in 

the State) provided insight into how 

the 1998–2002 drought compares with 

previous droughts. At three of the six 

sites, all located in the Blue Ridge and 

Piedmont Provinces, the minimum 7-day 

average discharges during the 1998–

2002 drought became the minimum 

flows of record. One of these three sites, 

the French Broad River at Asheville, has 

the longest period of discharge records 

in North Carolina. These comparisons 

confirmed that the deepest effects of the 

1998–2002 drought occurred in streams 

in the Blue Ridge and western Piedmont 

Physiographic Provinces of North 

Carolina.

Ground-water levels were recorded 

in 137 observation wells in North 

Carolina in 2002. The water-level data 

from 96 of these wells were used to 

monitor the effects of human-induced 

stresses (namely, ground-water 

withdrawals) and in 41 wells to monitor 

changes in ground-water storage in 

response to climate changes. Examination of the ground-water data at sites 

having at least 5 years of record through 

the 2002 water year indicates that new 

record-low water levels for the periods 

of record were set at 45 of these wells 

during the 2002 water year alone.

The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina — 

Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions

By J. Curtis Weaver

Abstract 1
Examination of ground-water 

records collected by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and the North Carolina Division 

of Water Resources resulted in the 

selection of 21 climate-response wells 

that were spatially distributed across 

the State. Record-low water levels were 

recorded in 13 of these wells during 

the 1998–2002 water years; record-low 

levels were set at 11 of the 13 wells 

during the 2002 water year alone. For 

the 13 wells in which new record-low 

water levels were recorded, the difference between the pre-drought water 

levels and new record-low water levels 

ranged from 0.05 to 2.85 feet.

Cumulative monthly departures 

in precipitation, streamflow, and 

ground-water data were plotted for 

five pairs of selected surface-water and 

ground-water monitoring sites in close 

proximity to each other to compare the 

time lags associated with the onset of 

drought conditions in mid-1998 and 

the drought recovery that began in late 

2002. In particular, comparisons of these 

plots provided some insight into the 

rapid reversal in hydrologic conditions 

following above-normal rainfalls that 

began in August and September 2002. 

Comparisons of cumulative monthly 

departures in discharge at two surfacewater sites (South Yadkin River and 

French Broad River) in western North 

Carolina also indicated that drought 

recovery was rapid compared with the 

recovery periods following historical 

droughts.

Introduction

Drought conditions prevailed across much of North 

Carolina during 1998–2002, resulting 

in widespread record-low streamflow 

and ground-water levels in many 

areas of the State. Drought conditions 

initially occurred in the western part 

of the State, affecting streams in the 

Blue Ridge and western Piedmont 

Physiographic Provinces (fig. 1). In the 

eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain, 

drought conditions generally were less 

widespread through about mid 2000. 

Late-summer tropical storms prevented 

the continuous, widespread drought 

conditions in eastern North Carolina 

that were observed in the western part 

of the State. Beginning in late 2000, 

however, widespread drought conditions 

began to spread across much of the State 

and continued until late summer 2002 

when above-normal rainfall occurred 

in many areas of the State. In terms of 

streamflow and ground-water levels, 

the lowest conditions occurred during 

summer 2002. Dry winters in 2001 

and 2002 along with a very dry spring 

in 2002 contributed to the extremely 

low hydrologic conditions that were 

observed during the summer. While 

numerous record-low streamflow and 

ground-water levels for periods of record 

were established at gaging stations and 

observation wells across the State during 

the 1998–2002 water years1, most were 

set during the 2002 water year.

1

Water year is the period from October 1 through 

September 30 and is identified by the year in 

which the period ends. The 2002 water year began 

on October 1, 2001, and ended on September 30, 

2002.

Figure 1. Locations of selected features and the physiographic provinces in North Carolina.

��������

�������

�����

�������

��������

��������

������

�������

��� ���� ��������

�����

�������

����

�����

������

��������

����������

�����

���������

��������

�������

�����

������

������

���������

������

�����

���������

����

����� �����

������

�����������

��������

��������

�����

�����

�������

������� ��������

��������

��������

����������

�������

�����

��������

���

����

�����

����

�������

����������

��������

���������

������

������

�������

�������

��������

����

����������

������

�����

�����������

������

������

���������

������

������

��������

�������

���������

����

������

������

������

������

�����

���������� ������

������

�����������

�������

������ �����

���� �������

������

����������

����������

������

���������

�����

��������

��������

�������

�������� ����

������

�������

�������

������R. �����

��������

Falls 

Lake

�������� J.H. Kerr

Res.

B. Everett

Jordan

Lake

Lake

Norman

W. Kerr

Scott Res.

Lake

Dan T. 

Howell

���������������� �������

��������� ����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

����

FirstBroad

�����������

�������

�����������������

�����������������

������

Atlantic

Ocean

����������

2 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
While previous droughts of 

longer duration have occurred in 

North Carolina, the effects of the 

1998–2002 drought are regarded 

as the most intense to date, causing 

severe stresses on public watersupply systems across the State. At the 

height of the drought, nearly 250 municipalities were operating under some 

form of water conservation. In general, 

the water-supply systems most affected 

were those that relied on river intakes 

and(or) those having small water-supply 

storage volumes. Water supplies in some 

systems decreased to levels representing 

only weeks of remaining supply. The 

drought also had adverse effects on 

agricultural production and recreational 

use of lakes and reservoirs. In the latter 

stages of the drought, many municipalities had decreased revenues resulting 

from lower sales of water to residential 

and business customers in compliance 

with water-conservation requirements. 

In some areas, industries incurred 

significant costs associated with declines 

in production and(or) efforts to adapt 

manufacturing operations to reduced 

water usage.

In concept, a drought is defined as 

a naturally occurring precipitation deficit 

during an extended period of time that 

adversely affects hydrologic conditions 

(Langbein and Iseri, 1960). However, 

the recognition of a drought generally 

is not based solely on measurement of 

precipitation deficits or below-normal 

hydrologic conditions. Droughts can 

occur over a period of a few months or 

even years and often are characterized 

by their effects on activities or operations that are regarded by the general 

public as important in maintaining 

quality of life and sustaining economic 

viability. Because droughts are subtle in 

the initial stages and may have multiple 

stages and evolving levels of severity, 

operational definitions of drought have 

been established to better characterize the start, severity, and end of a 

drought (National Drought Mitigation 

Center, 2003c; see “Different Types 

of Droughts”). In general, much of the 

public typically does not recognize the 

presence of a drought until it is well 

established and begins to affect them 

in some way, primarily through waterconservation requirements.

Because droughts affect hydrologic conditions in varying degrees 

across regional areas, it is helpful 

to have access to data that describe 

current streamflow and ground-water 

levels. Historical percentiles and other 

statistical analyses can be developed 

to characterize and compare observed 

conditions. Data collected at U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) streamgaging stations having long-term periods 

of record with little or no known regulation or diversions and at USGS groundwater observation wells unaffected by 

pumping provide a means of monitoring 

changes in hydrologic conditions in 

response to climatic changes. Unlike 

floods, which typically pass in a matter 

of days or weeks, droughts can persist 

much longer and must be reassessed on 

a regular basis to provide information 

for use by State and local water-resource 

managers to continuously monitor 

and maintain adequate water supplies. 

Therefore, hydrologic information 

from the USGS must be available in a 

format and context that allow timely, 

effective, “on-demand” assessment of 

streamflow and ground-water conditions 

(see “USGS WaterWatch: Providing 

Real-Time Streamflow Characterization 

on the Internet”).

Following the experiences of a 

drought across North Carolina in the 

mid- and late 1980s, tracking droughts 

and their effects became a concern for 

several State and Federal agencies. 

Beginning in the early 1990s, the 

agencies met as needed on an informal 

basis to assess drought conditions, 

particularly those occurring in 1993 

in parts of the State. In April 1994, an 

emergency operations plan for droughts 

was developed by the North Carolina 

Division of Emergency Management, 

and the North Carolina Drought Monitoring Council (NCDMC) was formally 

recognized as the primary working 

group charged with guiding assessment 

and response processes during droughts. 

The NCDMC is a consortium of State 

and Federal agencies, including the 

USGS. The North Carolina Division of 

Water Resources (NCDWR) is the lead 

agency for the council and provides the 

chairperson. During the mid-1990s, the 

NCDMC generally met once or twice a 

year, primarily during early summer, to 

assess conditions and discuss climatic 

outlooks for the upcoming period.

With the onset of drought 

conditions in western North Carolina in 

mid-1998, the NCDMC began holding 

monthly meetings to monitor and assess 

the drought. The monthly meetings 

continued until early 2003 when abovenormal rainfalls improved hydrologic 

conditions to the point where drought 

A drought is defined as a prolonged 

deficiency in precipitation that 

adversely affects hydrologic conditions.

A farmer surveys the remains of a dried out watering pond on his farm in Manning, S.C., 

July 26, 2002.

Photograph by Patrick Schneider, The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N.C. Used with permission.

Introduction 3
Different Types of DroughtsPhotograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, 

Raleigh, N.C., May 14, 2001. Used with permission.

Preparing soil for planting sweet potatoes at the North Carolina State University 

Agricultural Research Service property on the Wake-Johnston County line. Lack of rain 

delayed the planting of soy beans.

A drought is defined as a prolonged 

deficiency in precipitation that causes 

adverse effects to the environment or 

economy. Because droughts have differing 

effects, four operational definitions of 

drought are used to assess the beginning, 

end, and general severity of a drought 

(National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). 

These four definitions of droughts are 

meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, 

and socioeconomic. These definitions do not 

imply that only one kind of drought can occur 

at any given time; it generally is common 

during the progression of drought conditions 

that more than one type of drought occurs 

simultaneously.

A meterorological drought is considered 

the simplest type of drought and typically is 

regarded as the first stage of a long-term 

drought. This type of drought typically is 

noticed by meteorologists or farmers within 

a few weeks when little or no precipitation 

has occurred, generally resulting in no 

significant effects. Because such a drought 

is characterized solely by measures of 

precipitation, a meteorological drought 

can begin and end very quickly with a 

change in weather patterns (Heim, 2002). A 

meteorological drought is measured by some 

degree of deviation from normal precipitation 

(for example, the number of days during 

which only a certain percentage of 

precipitation has occurred). Such measures 

are very specific from region to region and 

are, therefore, limited in usefulness across 

large areas of a state or country (National 

Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). For 

example, below-normal rainfall amounts 

along the eastern seaboard would likely be 

considered above normal in arid regions of 

the southwestern United States.

An agricultural drought is characterized 

by the various needs for water by plants and 

crops, which typically are the first effects 

noted in a prolonged drought. An agricultural 

drought reflects a lack of water in the top soil 

layers where roots extend into the ground 

and is not characterized by the presence or 

absence of water in the deeper layers (Heim, 

2002). Thus, agriculture is the first economic 

sector to be affected by the occurrence of a 

drought. Not only do water needs vary among 

crops, but also among stages of growth. 

Thus, the presence of sufficient water during 

the germination stage may overcome the 

effects of drought during the latter stages of 

growth. Beyond a measure of precipitation 

deficits, an agricultural drought also reflects 

the differences between precipitation 

amounts and evaporation (National Drought 

Mitigation Center, 2003c). An agricultural 

drought is, therefore, the result of several 

factors that combine to affect water 

availability for plant and crop growth, leading 

to the recognition that droughts do not occur 

simply as a result of below-normal rainfall 

patterns.

When below-normal precipitation 

continues for an extended period of time, 

streamflow and ground-water levels decline 

because of declining water in the subsurface 

layers (Heim, 2002). Such conditions 

are defined as a hydrological drought

because the water table declines to levels 

that affect well yields and limit sustained 

base flows to streams. A hydrological 

drought also is characterized by smaller 

water volumes in reservoirs and lakes. 

The effects of hydrological droughts are 

water-supply related and generally affect 

larger populations of people because of 

water-conservation mandates by governing 

bodies responsible for ensuring adequate 

water supplies. Lower streamflows 

during hydrological droughts also affect 

recreational and navigational uses of 

water. Changes in streamflow and groundwater levels often lag behind changes in 

precipitation by several months, both in the 

beginning and ending stages of a drought 

(National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). 

Because hydrologic systems extend across 

various climatic regions, it is possible for 

a meteorological drought in one region to 

cause a hydrological drought in a nearby 

region where precipitation has not been 

deficient.

The fourth type of drought is a 

socioeconomic drought, resulting in 

conditions that adversely affect the demand 

and supply of economic goods and services 

(National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). 

A socioeconomic drought can affect the 

abilities of manufacturing and(or) industrial 

sectors to deliver products because of watersupply shortages. The 1998–2002 drought in 

North Carolina was primarily a hydrological 

drought across most areas. However, some 

of the drought’s effects were characteristic 

of a socioeconomic drought, resulting in 

mandatory water-conservation requirements 

in some areas of western North Carolina that 

stressed the productive capabilities of some 

industries. Increased costs were incurred 

in efforts to adapt operations to smaller 

water-use volumes or to accommodate 

4 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
A water conservation technician inspects an out-of-compliance sprinkler system in Cary, N.C., 

June 28, 2002.

Photograph by Mel Nathanson, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C. Used with permission.

more types of droughts to 

occur simultaneously and 

sometimes in unexpected 

combinations. In 2001, a 

hydrological drought was 

entrenched across most 

areas of North Carolina, but 

the agricultural drought that 

year was minimal because 

of timely rainfalls that 

occurred during the summer 

at various stages of crop 

development. Thus, while 

rainfall was not sufficient 

to raise streamflow and 

ground-water levels, it 

was sufficient to provide 

moisture to the top soil 

layers, thereby minimizing 

crop losses during the 

growing season. Because 

of the time lags between 

precipitation and improved 

hydrologic conditions, 

it is common for a 

meteorological drought to 

end, while a hydrological drought continues. 

Above-normal rainfalls began to occur in 

August and September 2002 across most of 

North Carolina. However, the streamflows 

and ground-water levels did not begin 

to increase for several months. In spring 

2003, hydrologic conditions in most areas 

had reached sustained normal conditions, 

thereby ending the hydrological drought.

employee needs. In Statesville (Iredell 

County, fig. 1), a 40-percent mandatory 

reduction in water use was placed on large 

industries, and some industrial operators 

sought to switch to deeper well systems 

to keep operations in place (News and 

Observer Publishing Company, 2002a, 

2002d). Water-use conservation measures 

in one Piedmont community went as far as 

requesting businesses to use portable toilets 

(News and Observer Publishing Company, 

2002b). In some of the most stressed regions, 

disposable paper products were used in 

restaurants for serving food instead of china 

and utensils, thereby reducing water use 

for cleaning and sanitation tasks (News and 

Observer Publishing Company, 2001, 2002b).

Despite various levels of stress brought 

upon the general public in North Carolina 

as a result of the 1998–2002 drought, the 

greatest stress for most of the population 

seemed to be compliance with the 

water-reduction measures necessary to 

help conserve public water supplies. In 

North Carolina, and throughout most of the 

United States, a combination of a strong 

infrastructure and engineering resources 

(for example, interconnected water-supply 

systems) usually helps to minimize the 

effects of a severe socioeconomic drought. 

In contrast, the effects of a socioeconomic 

drought are more severe in less-developed 

countries. For example, a socioeconomic 

drought in a less-developed country can 

disrupt the food supply causing widespread 

migration of the population and severe 

malnutrition and disease.

Although the four different types of 

drought generally occur in the sequence 

described above, it is possible for one or 

“I’ve seen worse, but this is the worst it’s been in years and years,” said Raymond Andrews of Bahama, N.C., shown here 

with his friend Earle Earnest tending their dry garden. Andrews has more than 50 years of farming experience.

Photograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C., May 7, 2002.Used with permission.

Introduction 5
conditions were considered nonexistent. 

In addition to monthly meetings, the 

NCDMC sponsored or participated 

in workshops and special meetings 

throughout the State to increase 

awareness of drought conditions among 

water-supply managers, public officials, 

and the media (September 1998 in 

Asheville, November 2000 in Mooresville, July 2002 in Raleigh, August 

2002 in Greensboro, and September 

2002 in Concord). In 2003, the General 

Assembly of North Carolina gave 

statutory recognition to the council and 

changed its name to the North Carolina 

Drought Management Advisory 

Council (NCDMAC, used hereafter 

in this report). While the purpose and 

function of the NCDMAC remain 

generally unchanged, recognition by the 

General Assembly is a reflection of the 

significance of the 1998–2002 drought 

and a strong awareness of the need for a 

central organization to issue coordinated 

advisories and to assist with response 

processes during future droughts.

The effects of droughts and the 

ability of governments and businesses 

to prepare and respond to droughts also 

has been the recent focus of a nationally 

appointed group representing various 

interests and agencies across the United 

States. In July 1998, Congress passed 

the National Drought Policy Act of 

1998, which established a commission 

of 16 members to investigate the role 

and coordination of Federal agencies 

in drought response. In May 2000, the 

commission released its findings and 

recommendations, which became the 

foundation of the National Drought 

Preparedness Act of 2002, later revised 

and renamed the National Drought 

Preparedness Act of 2003 (Western 

Governors’ Association, 2004). Key 

objectives of the act are to (1) create 

a national policy to promote drought 

response that is less costly and reactive 

in its approach and more proactive and 

prepared; (2) establish the National 

Drought Council to coordinate and 

integrate Federal drought programs; 

(3) assist states, local governments, 

tribes, and other entities in the development and implementation of drought 

preparedness plans; and (4) facilitate the 

development of the National Integrated 

Drought Information System to improve 

the characterization of current droughts, 

the forecasting of future droughts, 

and to provide the recognition needed 

for Federal drought assistance. The 

legislation for this act was still pending 

in spring 2005 (Mr. Shaun McGrath, 

Western Governors’ Association, written 

commun., March 14, 2005).

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the 

1998–2002 drought in North Carolina 

in terms of precipitation patterns and 

hydrologic conditions. The report also 

documents some of the effects of the 

drought on the citizens and economy of 

North Carolina and presents additional 

information about droughts in general.

Precipitation amounts are presented 

in terms of departures from normal 

for the water years and total deficits 

for the drought period. Streamflows 

that occurred during the drought are 

described in the context of historical 

percentiles and frequency (recurrence 

intervals) of 7-day average flows 

computed for each calendar date at 

numerous gaging stations. Ground-water 

conditions are presented in comparison 

with historical percentiles and record 

maximum and minimum values. 

Historical precipitation and hydrologic 

(streamflow, ground water) data available through September 2003 were used 

to characterize the full drought period of 

May 1998 through September 2002 and 

the recovery, which began in September 

2002 and was considered complete by 

May 2003.

Acknowledgments

Precipitation data from National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stations across North 

Carolina and maps of precipitation 

distributions during the drought were 

provided by Ryan Boyles of the North 

Carolina State Climate Office at North 

Carolina State University. In addition, 

Mr. Boyles’ insight and understanding 

of droughts and other climate-related 

issues in North Carolina was valuable 

in the development of the sidebar 

articles included in this report to 

provide general drought information.

Information concerning the 

overall drought effects was provided 

by Woody Yonts and other members of 

the NCDMAC. Mr. Yonts, who chairs 

the Council and represents the North 

Carolina Division of Water Resources 

on the Council, provided valuable 

information about the effects of the 

drought.

The author also wishes to 

acknowledge the National Drought 

Mitigation Center (NDMC), 

established in 1995 at the University 

of Nebraska at Lincoln. The Center 

promotes improved understanding of 

droughts and the accompanying effects 

of such events. Online information 

developed by the NDMC staff proved 

to be extremely useful in the preparation of this report.

Individuals from the USGS who 

contributed to the development of this 

report include Harry Lins, Drought 

Coordinator in the USGS Office of 

Surface Water (OSW), which provided 

support for this report. Mr. Lins also 

was the motivating force behind the 

development of the USGS WaterWatch 

Internet pages that quickly became 

the means of assessing “real-time” 

streamflow conditions during the 

1998–2002 drought. Timothy Spruill, 

Melinda Chapman, and Douglas Smith 

of the USGS North Carolina Water 

Science Center provided technical 

guidance concerning the ground-water 

analyses for this report. Beth Wrege 

compiled much of the information 

used to document the societal effects 

of the 1998–2002 drought in North 

Carolina, and Jerad Bales and Jeanne 

Robbins provided both technical and 

nontechnical guidance in developing 

the report.

At the height of the 1998–2002 

drought, nearly 250 municipalities in 

the State were operating under some 

form of water conservation.

6 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure A-1. View of main USGS WaterWatch Internet page showing 

current (for indicated date) streamflow conditions throughout the 

United States in context with historical streamflow percentiles.

During the 1998–2002 drought, the USGS 

made significant strides in the delivery of 

streamflow information on the Internet. While 

real-time streamflow data for individual 

sites were available by the mid-1990s, no 

means was available for a quick and simple 

characterization of streamflow data in 

the context of historical statistics. That is, 

while one could easily determine current 

streamflow conditions for many sites in 

the United States, this information could 

not be compared with historical records 

without assessing streamflow data for each 

individual site, one at a time.

In mid-1999, a new tool to enable such 

flow characterizations was designed by 

constructing a geographic information 

system (GIS) map of streamflow index values 

at sites having long-term records (greater 

than 30 years). The map quickly became the 

centerpiece of the “WaterWatch” pages that 

USGS personnel and outside interests began 

using to monitor the extent and severity of 

drought conditions occurring across the 

eastern United States.

A streamflow index value, ranging from 

1 to 7, for each streamflow-gaging station is 

determined by first computing the percentile 

ranking of the site’s current streamflow, 

using historical daily streamflows either for 

a specific date or for the period of record 

(fig. A-1). The computed percentile will 

then fall into one of the seven categories 

of arbitrarily assigned percentile ranges 

known as streamflow index values and 

denoted by a specific color. Each site is 

then plotted as a color-coded circle on 

a map that is continuously updated as 

real-time information is received by satellite 

transmission from the streamflow-gaging 

stations. This presentation allows users to 

view the spatial distribution and variation 

in streamflow across the United States 

or across a specific state. In addition to 

comparing real-time streamflows, maps 

available on the USGS WaterWatch Internet 

pages also compare daily mean streamflow 

and 7-day average flow with ranges of 

historical data for a specific day or week of 

the year (fig. A-1).

The key to the success of the 

WaterWatch pages is the use of percentiles 

computed from historical data to make 

comparisons with current streamflow 

conditions. For many people, percentiles 

are relatively easy statistics to understand 

because of their widespread use in 

nonhydrologic settings (for example, 

academic scores, medical information). 

Seven categories of percentiles are used to 

convey the current streamflow conditions: 

(1) new minimum for calendar date; (2) less 

than 10th percentile, very dry conditions; 

(3) 10th–24th percentiles, dry conditions; 

(4) 25th–75th percentiles, normal range of 

flow; (5) 76th–90th percentiles, wet 

USGS WaterWatch: Providing Real-Time 

Streamflow Characterization on the Internet

Introduction 7
Figure A-2. Streamflow conditions in North Carolina, as depicted by USGS WaterWatch, for selected dates in August 2002 and May 2003.

���

������������������

���������������������������������

������������������

��������������������������������

�����������������

������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������

���������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

������ ���

conditions; (6) greater than 90th percentile, 

very wet conditions; and (7) new maximum 

for the calendar date. The occurrence 

of below-normal flows (less than 25th 

percentile) for a given site do not necessarily 

mean that drought conditions are in effect, 

because changes in flows also occur 

as a result of human-induced changes. 

Nevertheless, the occurrence of belownormal flow conditions for many sites in 

a given region on a daily basis suggests 

the presence of a hydrological drought. 

During the 1998–2002 drought, many sites 

in North Carolina were consistently in the 

below-normal ranges, as indicated by the 

abundance of colors ranging from orange 

(10th–24th) to bright red (new minimum; 

fig. A-2). These colors dominate the 

early August 2002 map when hydrologic 

conditions in North Carolina were at the 

lowest levels observed during the drought. 

However, in May 2003 when the last effects 

of the 1998–2002 drought were declared 

nonexistent, streamflow conditions were 

consistently in the 75th or higher percentile 

(fig. A-2).

Another advantage of the use of 

percentiles is the ability to compare current 

streamflow conditions to the full range of 

possible conditions. Even though the USGS 

WaterWatch maps were designed to help in 

assessing drought conditions, the maps also 

depict areas having high-flow conditions 

(greater than 75th percentile, shown in 

blue and black colors), as shown in the 

September 16, 1999, map where the general 

track of Hurricane Floyd (making landfall 

on September 16) is easily visible along 

the eastern seaboard (fig. A-3). The image 

depicts two extremes of flow conditions 

in North Carolina on that date—the 

record-setting high flows in the eastern 

half of the State and the drought conditions 

that remained in effect throughout much of 

the western half. Among the WaterWatch 

pages, a series of consecutive map images 

for each date are pieced together to create 

animations of streamflow conditions for each 

month, revealing the movement of storm 

systems across the United States. 

8 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
��� ������ ���

Heading 1 9

Figure A-3. Streamflow conditions across the United States, as depicted by USGS WaterWatch, on September 16, 1999. 

(Note the evidence of the landfall and movement of Hurricane Floyd along the eastern seaboard.)

The lake level at B. Everett Jordan Lake at 

the dam in Chatham County on August 15, 

2002, was 210.2 feet, about 6 feet below the 

normal operating level. Lake levels further 

declined to about 209.9 feet in late August 

prior to the arrival of rainfall that eventually 

raised the lake level to spillway elevation 

in fall 2002.

Photograph by J. Curtis Weaver, USGS, August 15, 2002
Precipitation During the 

1998–2002 Drought

The hydrologic cycle is the movement of water between 

the atmosphere and the earth, with 

precipitation being the primary source 

of streamflow and ground water (fig. 2). 

The cycle is completed when water that 

evaporates from surficial water bodies 

into the atmosphere returns as precipitation. For all of North Carolina, rainfall is 

the primary form of precipitation.

When below-normal precipitation 

occurs for an extended period of time, 

the hydrologic cycle becomes disconnected in areas where less water is available to move through the hydrologic 

system (for example, low streamflows 

and ground-water levels). Continued 

precipitation deficits perpetuate the 

disconnected cycle because less soil 

moisture is available for evaporation; 

with less evaporation, fewer thunderstorms occur (Bosilovich and Schubert, 

2001; Pal and Eltahir, 2001). Precipitation deficits that occurred during the 

1998–2002 drought are discussed in 

this section. (For additional information 

on the climatic aspects of droughts, see 

“Climatic Causes of Droughts in North 

Carolina” and “Use of Drought Indices 

to Assess Droughts.”)

Climate data in North Carolina are 

collected primarily by NOAA at more 

than 200 stations (State Climate Office 

of North Carolina, 2003). Precipitation 

data collected during the 1998–2003 

water years at 13 selected stations across 

North Carolina (fig. 3) were used to 

analyze precipitation patterns during the 

drought. Using the 30-year (1971–2000) 

period of record as a reference, monthly 

rainfall departures, in inches, were the 

Figure 3. Selected National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation stations in North Carolina, 1998–2003.

����������

�������� �������������

��������������

����������������������

�����������������������

����������

�������

��������������������������

�����������������������

�����������������

�������

����������������

�������

���������

����������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

��������������

������������

������������

����������

��������������������������

�����������������������

���������������

Figure 2. The hydrologic cycle depicts the movement of water through the 

hydrologic system (adapted from Heath, 1983).

��������������

������������� �����������

���������������

������������

��������������������

�����

10 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
������������������������

�����������

�

���

���

����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

������

�������

�������

�������

�����

While it is easy to understand that 

droughts occur because of prolonged 

deficiencies in precipitation, it is helpful to 

understand the underlying climatic causes 

of droughts. A drought usually is regarded 

as an abnormal, random event, but droughts 

are naturally recurring climatic phenomena 

(National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c).

The humid subtropical climate of North 

Carolina consists of long, hot, humid 

summers and short, mild winters. The spring 

and autumn seasons provide the most 

pleasant weather and are the periods most 

favored by many of the State’s residents. 

On average, annual precipitation across 

North Carolina ranges from about 38 inches 

to more than 80 inches (Daly and others, 

1994, 1997; Spatial Climate Analysis Service, 

2004), with the greatest variability occurring 

in the Blue Ridge Province (fig. B-1). Most 

of the State receives between 40 and 50 

inches of precipitation annually. Eastern 

areas of the Coastal Plain receive between 

50 and 55 inches, primarily because of 

sea-breeze effects and tropical storms that 

occur primarily in the late summer and early 

autumn. Areas of the State that receive the 

highest and lowest amounts of precipitation 

are, coincidentally, only about 50 miles apart. 

The highest precipitation amounts occur 

in the mountains of southwestern North 

Carolina where orographic effects result in 

enhanced precipitation amounts as storm 

systems traverse over the higher elevations. 

The lowest amounts of precipitation occur in 

the central mountains (near Asheville) where 

“rain shadow” effects from the surrounding 

mountains, particularly the large ridges to the 

southwest, apparently reduce the amount of 

precipitation reaching the area. Precipitation 

during the winter tends to be widely 

distributed, and many areas of the State can 

receive substantial amounts from a single 

storm system. Summer rainfall tends to be 

spotty, resulting from the convective patterns 

of daily heating and subsequent evaporation 

that aid in developing thunderstorms.

Under typical weather patterns, much 

of the moisture delivered to North Carolina 

comes from the Gulf of Mexico. With a 

Bermuda high-pressure system that typically 

resides in the central North Atlantic Ocean, 

prevailing winds generally come from the 

south or southwest, thereby enabling the 

transport of moisture (Zembrzuski and 

others, 1991). Additionally, some storms 

move across the southern tier of the United 

States and turn northeastward along the 

eastern seaboard, delivering precipitation in 

a “wrap-around” effect. More common in the 

winter, these storms are sometimes referred 

to as “nor’easters” because of the cool and 

breezy conditions that accompany them. 

Some of the heaviest recorded snowfalls in 

Climatic Causes of Droughts in North Carolina

Figure B-1. Average annual precipitation in the United States (adapted from Daly and others, 1994, 1997; Spatial 

Climate Analysis Service, 2004).

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 11
eastern North Carolina resulted from these 

coastal storms.

Droughts across the southeastern 

United States occur when Bermuda highpressure systems shift westward over the 

southeastern States and stall for an extended 

period of time. Because the western side 

of a high-pressure system brings prevailing 

south winds, a westward shift of the system 

transports moisture to the west toward the 

central United States. In addition, because 

a Bermuda high-pressure system extends 

vertically through the lower troposphere, 

the system’s center results in a large-scale 

sinking flow of air that aids in warming the air 

mass (Zembrzuski and others, 1991). A mixed 

layer near the Earth’s surface is capped by 

a warm, stable air mass that precludes the 

development of thunderstorms. During the 

summer, a lack of soil moisture can enhance 

overall drought conditions because little 

or no water is available for evaporation to 

aid in the development of thunderstorms 

(Bosilovich and Schubert, 2001; Pal and 

Eltahir, 2001).

Although the position of a Bermuda highpressure system typically is an important 

factor in the occurrence of droughts, other 

factors may influence a drought. During the 

summer of 2002 when hydrologic conditions 

reached record-low levels, a high-pressure 

system was present over the Gulf of Mexico, 

which is very rare during the summer (Mr. 

Ryan Boyles, North Carolina State Climate 

Office, written commun., February 23, 2004). 

The presence of this system reduced the 

availability of potential moisture in the 

southeastern States and exacerbated 

drought conditions in North Carolina.

Recent advances in meteorological 

research have expanded the recognition 

and understanding of global climate patterns 

that have important effects on weather in 

North Carolina. One such pattern is the El 

Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a climatic 

event characterized by alternating swings 

in sea-level pressures between the eastern 

and western Pacific Ocean near the equator 

and accompanied by changes in ocean 

water temperatures (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2002). ENSO 

occurrences have been linked to climatic 

anomalies around the world. Under typical 

ENSO conditions, ocean temperatures 

generally range from warmer levels in 

the western Pacific to cooler levels in the 

eastern Pacific (fig. B-2A). During a warm 

ENSO event (referred to as El Niño), warmerthan-normal water temperatures occur in a 

Figure B-2. Circulation patterns and surface-water temperatures from 

December through February during a (A) normal ENSO event, (B) warm 

ENSO (El Niño) event, and (C) cool ENSO (La Niña) event (adapted from 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002).

Note:

1. General atmospheric circulation (wind) 

patterns are denoted by arrows.

2. Surface-water temperatures are denoted by 

shaded colors ranging from blue (cooler) 

to red (warmer).

��� �����������������������������������

��� ������������������������������������

��� �������������������������������������

���������� �����������

���������� �����������

����������

�����������

12 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
��� ��������������������������������������������������

����� �����������������

��� ��������������������������������������������������

����� �����������������

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

����

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� �� �� �� ����� ��� � � �

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���

����

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� �� �� �� ����� ��� � � �

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���

������������������������������

�����������������������������

������������������������������

�����������������������������

large area of the eastern and central Pacific 

concurrent with existing warm temperatures 

in the western Pacific (fig. B-2B). In contrast, 

water temperatures in the eastern and 

central regions of the equatorial Pacific are 

cooler than normal during a cool ENSO event 

(La Niña), and warm temperatures are limited 

to the far western Pacific (fig. B-2C).

The effects of ENSO events on climate in 

the United States appear to be more evident 

during the winter months. In particular, 

winters during El Niño periods tend to be mild 

in the northeast and central United States 

and wet along the Gulf of Mexico (fig. B-3B). 

Prior to the 1998–2002 drought, above-normal 

precipitation occurred during late winter and 

early spring of the 1998 water year. Likewise, 

in the 2003 water year following the drought, 

above-normal precipitation occurred across 

much of North Carolina. In the southeastern 

United States and Mexico, precipitation 

recorded from October through March was 

above normal during 18 of 22 (81 percent) 

ENSO periods studied by Ropelewski and 

Halpert (1986).

By contrast, winter and spring 

precipitation in the southeastern United 

States tends to be below normal during 

La Niña periods (fig. B-3A). The occurrence 

of dry winters during the 1998–2002 

drought was a critical factor in the severe 

drought conditions that developed in the 

western areas of the State. During the 

January–March quarters of 1999–2002, 

precipitation patterns were below normal 

over most of North Carolina.

Figure B-3. Precipitation and associated departures from normal during January 

through March quarter over the tropical Pacific during a (A) cool ENSO (La Niña) 

event in 1989 and (B) warm ENSO (El Niño) event in 1998 (adapted from National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002; shown in system international units).

summed for each water year and the 

drought period—May 1998 through 

September 2002 (fig. 4; table 1). The 

months prior to the drought and the 2003 

water year following the drought also 

were examined to document the extent 

of changes in precipitation that occurred.

Assessment of Precipitation 

During the 1998–2003 Water 

Years

Precipitation patterns during the 

1998 water year were marked by two 

contrasting patterns. During the winter 

and early spring, strong El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean resulted in 

precipitation totals more than 5 inches 

above normal at 6 of the 13 NOAA 

precipitation stations, located primarily 

in the eastern Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain Provinces.

Beginning in May 1998, rainfall 

patterns began to change from abovenormal to below-normal trends, 

particularly in the western half of the 

State. Cumulative monthly rainfall from 

May through September 1998 ranged 

from nearly 3.1 inches above normal at 

Wilmington to about 7.8 inches below 

normal at Fayetteville (table 1). Cumulative monthly rainfall during this 5-month 

period for Hickory, Mocksville, and 

Asheville was between 7 and 8 inches 

below normal, indicating that 

above-normal precipitation throughout 

much of North Carolina. During the 

6-month period from October 1997 

through March 1998, cumulative 

monthly precipitation across the State 

generally ranged from about 2 inches 

above normal at some locations in the 

Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces 

to nearly 11 inches above normal 

in Fayetteville in the Coastal Plain 

Province. Only 2 (Cullowhee and Mount 

Airy) of the 13 NOAA stations used 

for this report had precipitation totals 

less than 1 inch above normal for the 

6-month period. Much of the abovenormal precipitation occurred during the 

second quarter (January through March) 

of the 1998 water year, as evidenced by 

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 13
Figure 4. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at selected National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

precipitation stations in North Carolina by physiographic province, May 1998 through September 2003. ������������������������������������������������������

���������

�����

���������

����������

���������

�������

����������

�������

����������

������������

����������

�������

����������

����������

��������

�������������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

���������� ����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

��

�

���

���

���

��

�

���

���

���

��

�

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

14 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 1. Summary of precipitation departures at selected National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation stations in North Carolina, 1998–2003 water years. 

[NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; water year is the period from October 1 through September 30 and is identified by the year in which the period ends. For each station, cumulative departures are shown for the water year (first line) and since May 1998 (second line, shaded). Average annual precipitation and departures are based on monthly normal rainfall computed by using the 1971–2000 period of record as a reference. Stations are listed generally in west-to-east direction]

NOAA station name

Beginning of 

precipitation 

record

Average 

annual 

precipitation, 

inches

Cumulative precipitation departure, inches

1998

water year

1999

water year

2000

water year

2001

water year

2002

water year

2003

water year

Cullowhee January 1949 51.6 -4.08 -5.76 -7.57 1.62 -9.72 8.62

-6.93 -12.69 -20.26 -18.64 -28.36 -19.74

Asheville January 1947 37.3 -1.82 -7.34 -4.04 -7.08 -6.58 12.97

-7.81 -15.15 -19.19 -26.27 -32.85 -19.88

Boone 1 SE January 1949 53.3 11.14 -9.12 -3.09 -6.47 -11.87 11.13

-1.82 -10.94 -14.03 -20.50 -32.37 -21.24

Hickory Regional Airport January 1949 48.1 -0.15a -14.48 -13.03 -15.07 -16.96 20.21

-7.15 -21.63 -34.66 -49.73 -66.69 -46.48

Charlotte Douglas Airport September 1948 43.5 2.31 -10.38 -3.90 -17.04 -14.34 29.21

-3.08 -13.46 -17.36 -34.40 -48.74 -19.53

Mount Airy 2 W January 1893 47.0 -0.22 -6.40 -7.91 -7.82 -12.11 25.05

-2.44 -8.84 -16.75 -24.57 -36.68 -11.63

Mocksville 5 SE August 1948 44.3 -3.13 -8.42 -14.33 -18.77 -15.11 30.38

-7.70 -16.12 -30.45 -49.22 -64.33 -33.95

Greensboro Weather Service Office [at the] Airport January 1933 43.1 4.90 0.49 -2.02 -13.18 -12.99 27.62

0.48 0.97 -1.05 -14.23 -27.22 0.40

Raleigh-Durham Weather Service Field Office [at the] 

Airport

August 1948 43.0 11.07 10.27 -1.79 -8.56 -9.28 16.96

0.76 11.03 9.24 0.68 -8.60 8.36

Fayetteville Public Works Commission January 1933 46.6 6.16 3.31 1.33 -10.35 -13.52 20.57

-7.84 -4.53 -3.20 -13.55 -27.07 -6.50

Wilmington Weather Service Office [at the] Airport January 1933 57.1 12.25 12.93 -1.14 -15.11 -12.97 -1.97

3.07 16.00 14.86 -0.25 -13.22 -15.19

Greenville January 1933 48.9 13.80 13.45 1.62 -12.60 -11.00 23.33

3.29 16.74 18.36 5.76 -5.24 18.09

Edenton January 1933 48.2 1.09 5.45 2.58 -14.81 -10.00 12.83

-1.49 3.96 6.54 -8.27 -18.27 -5.44

aMissing rainfall data for October through December 1997.

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 15
the initial effects of the drought were 

more pronounced in the Blue Ridge and 

western Piedmont Provinces.

Precipitation during the 1999 water 

year continued to be below normal for 

all of North Carolina until late August 

and September 1999 when record rainfalls occurred in much of the eastern part 

of the State as a result of several tropical 

storms. Most notable among these 

was Hurricane Floyd, which brought 

widespread catastrophic flooding in the 

lower Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and lower 

Cape Fear River basins (Bales and 

others, 2000). The absence of significant 

precipitation in western North Carolina, 

however, intensified drought conditions 

in that part of the State. Precipitation at 

the Hickory Regional Airport during the 

1999 water year was nearly 14.5 inches 

below normal, resulting in a deficit of 

about 21.6 inches since the beginning 

of the drought (about 18 months in 

duration by September 1999; table 1). 

Similarly, precipitation totals at Asheville, Charlotte, and Mocksville ranged 

from 7.3 to 10.4 inches below normal 

during the 1999 water year, bringing the 

total deficits at these locations to about 

13 to 16 inches since the beginning of 

the drought. Some Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain streams in eastern North Carolina, 

where the tropical storms occurred, had 

an immediate but temporary reprieve 

from the drought conditions. Rainfall 

totals for the month of September alone 

ranged from about 10 to 21 inches 

above normal in Raleigh, Fayetteville, 

Wilmington, Greenville (fig. 5), and 

Edenton.

Below-normal precipitation 

patterns continued for most of North 

Carolina throughout much of the 2000 

water year, although deficits were not 

as large as those observed at some 

locations during the 1999 water year. 

For example, precipitation at Asheville 

for the 12-month period was 4.0 inches 

below normal compared to about 

7.3 inches below normal during the 1999 

water year (table 1). Similarly, precipitation at Charlotte totaled 10.4 and 3.9 

inches below normal for the 1999 and 

2000 water years, respectively. Further 

similarities in this pattern also were 

noted for the NOAA sites in the eastern 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain, especially 

during the summer of 2000 when 

varying amounts of above-normal 

rainfalls were recorded. Despite a year 

during which precipitation trends indicated some improvement, precipitation 

totals at Mocksville and Hickory were 

14.3 and 13.0 inches below normal, 

respectively, during the 2000 water year. 

Thus, the total deficits for the drought 

at these locations increased to 30.5 and 

34.7 inches, respectively.

During the 2001 water year, 

below-normal precipitation continued, 

further intensifying the drought across 

North Carolina. At Asheville and 

Charlotte, precipitation totals were 7.1 

and 17.0 inches below normal, respectively, for the 12-month period, raising 

the total deficits at these locations 

to 26.3 and 34.4 inches, respectively 

(table 1). At Mocksville and Hickory, 

precipitation during the 2001 water year 

was 18.8 inches and 15.1 inches below 

normal, bringing the total deficits to 

49.2 and 49.7 inches, respectively. These 

deficits exceeded respective average 

annual precipitation for these locations, 

meaning that the equivalent of more 

than one year’s rainfall did not occur 

during the 3.5-year period since the 

beginning of the drought. In the eastern 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain, precipitation deficits during the 2001 water year 

were somewhat smaller, ranging from 

8.6 inches in Raleigh to 14.8 inches in 

Edenton. The 12-month precipitation 

totals varied widely at the eastern 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain locations, resulting in departures since 

the beginning of the drought that 

ranged from about 5.8 inches above 

normal (surplus) at Greenville to 

about 13.6 inches below normal 

(deficit) at Fayetteville. The smaller 

departures for the eastern locations 

relative to those in western North 

Carolina were a lingering result 

of the above-normal rainfall that 

occurred in fall 1999 (Hurricanes 

Dennis, Floyd, and Irene).

During the 2002 water year, 

precipitation totals across the State 

generally were deficient, ranging 

from nearly 6.6 inches below 

normal at Asheville to almost 17 

inches below normal at Hickory 

(table 1). In most areas of North 

Carolina, however, the last month 

of below-normal rainfall occurred 

in July or August 2002 with the 

arrival of significant rainfalls in 

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

���������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������

�������

������������������������������������ ����������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������

Figure 5. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Greenville, N.C., precipitation 

station, October 1997 through September 2003.

16 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
��

�

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������

����������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������

late August and September. 

Cumulative deficits beginning 

in May 1998 at Hickory and 

Mocksville reached 68.3 and 

64.6 inches, respectively, during 

July and August 2002 (figs. 6, 

7). Considering that the average 

annual precipitation for these 

locations is 48.1 and 44.3 inches, 

respectively, the deficit totals 

were equivalent to almost 18 

months of no precipitation during 

the drought. The deficit for 

Charlotte reached 49.0 inches 

between May 1998 and July 2002 

(fig. 8), a deficit that was nearly 

5.5 inches greater than the average annual precipitation (table 1). 

At six other precipitation stations 

analyzed for this report, primarily in the western Piedmont and 

Blue Ridge Provinces, deficits 

did not exceed the respective 

average annual precipitation, but did 

exceed 25 inches during the drought.

Above-normal rainfall began in 

late August 2002 and continued into 

the 2003 water year because of El Niño 

conditions that began in early fall 2002. 

The increased rainfall helped reduce the 

deficits that had accumulated during the 

drought. Most of the significant reductions in the deficits occurred during the 

late winter and spring. The only month 

in which below-normal precipitation 

occurred across much of North Carolina 

was January, raising concerns on the part 

of local and State officials that drought 

conditions could be returning. During 

the 2003 water year, precipitation totals 

ranged from almost 2 inches below 

normal at Wilmington to 30.4 inches 

above normal at Mocksville (table 1). Of 

the 13 precipitation stations examined 

for this report, 11 had precipitation totals 

greater than 10 inches above normal 

during the 2003 water year. Further, 

precipitation totals at 7 of the 11 stations 

exceeded 20 inches above normal for the 

same period, primarily in the western 

Piedmont where the highest deficits had 

been recorded during the drought.

While below-normal precipitation 

totals occurred during most 

months of the 1998–2002 

drought, of particular note are 

the totals during the first quarters 

(January through March) of 

1999–2002 at many of the 13 

locations. Assessment of historical hydrologic data indicates that 

winter periods are crucial to the 

recharging process and overall 

maintenance of water in the 

hydrologic system, as evidenced 

by increased streamflow rates and 

higher ground-water levels during 

the winter. The combination of 

lower evaporative losses and 

decreased demands during the 

winter results in increased water 

storage, particularly in reservoirs 

and ground-water systems. Thus, 

Figure 6. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Hickory Regional Airport precipitation station in North Carolina, October 1997 through September 2003.

��

�

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������

Figure 7. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Mocksville, N.C., precipitation 

station, October 1997 through September 2003.

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 17
��

�

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������

Figure 8. Cumulative monthly precipitation departures at the Charlotte Douglas Airport 

precipitation station in North Carolina, October 1997 through September 2003.

during the summer and fall, the stored 

water helps to maintain streamflow 

and ground-water levels during periods 

of normal seasonal declines. With 

the exception of Fayetteville in 1999, 

and Greenville and Edenton in 2002, 

precipitation totals during the first 

quarter of each year from 1999 

through 2002 were below normal. 

The occurrences of consecutive “dry 

winters” exacerbated the overall 

drought, resulting in the extreme 

low hydrologic conditions observed 

during the summer of 2002.

Another perspective of the 

below-normal precipitation patterns 

during the drought is evident in the 

“monthly” percentages of annual 

totals for 8 of the 13 precipitation 

stations. At each of the stations, 

moving 12-month totals through each 

month from October 1997 through 

September 2003 were expressed 

as a percentage of normal (average 

annual) precipitation. The patterns 

show the cumulative effect of 

precipitation deficits and, thus, are 

good indicators of the severe drought 

conditions that were observed 

across the State, particularly 

in areas of the Piedmont. At 

Mocksville and Hickory, 12-month 

totals were almost consistently below 80 

percent for nearly 3.5 years (February 

1999 through mid-2002) and below 70 

percent for more than 18 consecutive 

months (November 2000 through 

mid-2002) just prior to the onset 

of above-normal precipitation that 

eventually relieved the drought 

conditions by mid-2003 (fig. 9). 

The lowest percentages were at 

Mocksville where 12-month totals 

were at or below 60 percent for 14 

of 19 months from January 2001 

through August 2002 (fig. 9). 

The 12-month percentages in 

figure 9 also depict the variation 

in precipitation patterns in eastern 

North Carolina (Raleigh, Fayetteville, Greenville) beginning in fall 

1999 as a result of tropical storms.

At all stations, the reversal 

in precipitation patterns from late 

summer 2002 through September 

2003 can be noted in the rapid and 

simultaneous percentage increases 

during this period. As previously 

discussed, areas in the Piedmont 

having the highest deficits during 

the drought also had some of 

the highest 12-month percentages by 

September 2003. The 12-month precipitation totals at Charlotte, Mocksville, 

and Greensboro were between 160 and 

170 percent of annual average precipitation near the end of this period (fig. 9).

A farmer in York, S.C., kneels in his dried-up watering pond, which normally would be a primary 

watering source for his 80-head of beef cattle.

Photograph by Patrick Schneider, The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N.C., July 26, 2002. Used with permission.

18 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
����������

��������

�������������

���������

�����

���������

����������

���������

�������

����������

�������

����������

������������

����������

�������

����������

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������������������������������������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

Figure 9. Percentage of normal moving 12-month precipitation totals for selected National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration precipitation stations in North Carolina, October 1997 through September 2003.

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 19
The monitoring and assessment of a 

drought are often a challenge to officials 

because of the differing effects and varying 

conditions that usually occur across a 

large region. Drought indices are used 

to categorize the extent and severity of a 

drought by combining various pieces of 

information about a drought into a numerical 

index for a defined time scale or region. 

Drought indices provide objective criteria 

for planning and initiating conservation and 

other response measures to help alleviate 

the effects of a drought.

Nearly a dozen drought indices have 

been developed since the early 1900s (Heim, 

2002). The fact that numerous indices have 

been devised indicates the challenges 

associated with developing a simple measure 

of droughts that can be used for different 

purposes in different regions or to compare 

an existing drought with historical droughts. 

Many of the indices developed prior to 

1950 were based solely on meteorological 

parameters of precipitation and temperature. 

Beginning in the mid-1950s, drought indices 

began to include measures of soil moisture 

and eventually surface-water or groundwater levels to provide more comprehensive 

drought characterization (Heim, 2002). Some 

of the most well known or recently developed 

drought indices are described in this section.

• Percent of normal precipitation — For 

the general public, the percent of normal 

precipitation is the most easily understood 

drought index and is one that can be based 

on various time periods (month, season, or 

year). However, this index is only meaningful 

for a single period or region (National 

Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). For 

instance, precipitation amounts considered 

below normal in many parts of the eastern 

United States usually are above normal for 

some areas in the southwestern States. 

The percent of normal precipitation can 

change quickly in a matter of a few weeks 

or months while the deeper effects of a 

drought may still be present. An example of 

this was observed beginning in August and 

September 2002 when above-normal rainfalls 

began to occur across much of North 

Carolina after about 4 years of below-normal 

precipitation. During the initial months 

when the meteorological drought recovery 

began, the hydrological drought was still in 

effect because of continued below-normal 

hydrologic conditions, particularly in the 

western Piedmont. It was not until the late 

winter and spring of 2003 that hydrologic 

conditions reached normal ranges and were 

sustained thereafter. Thus, the percent of 

normal precipitation can be misleading 

because it does not fully describe the 

broader effects of a long-term drought.

• Palmer Drought Severity Index — One 

of the first comprehensive indices that 

is still widely used is the Palmer Drought 

Severity Index (PDSI), developed by W.C. 

Palmer in 1965 and subsequently modified 

into other similar measures called the 

Palmer Z Index, Crop Moisture Index, and 

Palmer Hydrological Drought Severity Index 

(Heim, 2002; National Drought Mitigation 

Center, 2003c). Known operationally as the 

Palmer Drought Index or Palmer Index, the 

PDSI is a meteorological index based on 

precipitation, temperature, and soil-moisture 

data used in a water balance equation to 

account for evaporation, soil recharge, 

runoff, and moisture loss from the Earth’s 

surface (National Drought Mitigation Center, 

2003c). The Palmer classification scale 

ranges from – 4.0 to + 4.0 or more, defining 

extreme drought to extremely wet conditions, 

respectively. A PDSI value of zero indicates 

normal weather conditions. The purpose 

of the PDSI is to provide measurements 

of standardized moisture conditions so 

that comparisons can be made between 

soil-moisture conditions in different areas 

and months. However, some limitations of 

the PDSI have been identified. The PDSI 

values may lag emerging droughts by several 

months, making the PDSI unsuitable for 

areas with climatic extremes and typically 

overstating the frequency of drought 

Use of Drought Indices to Assess Droughts

A man uses a bucket and rope to try and save fish that are suffocating in a dried-up pond in Hillsborough, 

N.C., June 30, 2002.

Photograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C. Used with permission.

20 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
occurrence. For instance, the PDSI suggests 

that much of North Carolina could experience 

extreme drought conditions during July 

about once every 20 years, a fairly frequent 

occurrence of what is considered an extreme 

event (Willeke and others, 1994; Bales and 

others, 2003).

Recent research in the field of 

paleoclimatology has resulted in the 

quantification of historical annual PDSI 

values based on a network of tree-ring 

chronologies across the United States 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2003b). Using data from 

more than 350 trees, a grid (across the 

conterminous United States) of PDSI values 

for the summer (June–August) period was 

developed for each year between 1700 and 

1979 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2003b). Likewise, weather 

records dating from 1895 also have been 

used to compute similar PDSI values for 

comparison with those quantified using 

the tree-ring data. A general overlay of 

concurrent years indicates that values 

based on the tree rings correlated fairly 

well with those computed from the weather 

records. However, the PDSI values based 

on tree-ring data do not indicate the degree 

of severity and variability in PDSI values 

based on weather records. Nevertheless, 

the availability of PDSI values based on 

tree-ring chronologies can provide insight 

into significant drought periods that occurred 

prior to the start of weather records (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2003b).

The tree-ring-based PDSI values for 

one of the grid points (near Charlotte) are 

available for the period 1677 through 1979 

(figs. C-1, C-2). Prior to the start of weather 

records, moderate droughts (reaching values 

of –2.0 or more on the Palmer index) appear 

to have occurred in North Carolina during 

several periods: 1705–10, 1745–60, and 

1805–20. The PDSI values based on weather 

records also identify periods of moderate 

droughts in the early 1910s, much of the 

1920s and early 1930s, most of the 1950s, and 

the mid-1980s.

Figure C-1. Reconstructed historical Palmer Drought Severity Index values for the 

period 1677 through 1979 (based on tree rings) and 1995 (based on weather records) 

(adapted from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003b).

Figure C-2. Reconstructed historical Palmer Drought Severity Index values for the 

period 1890 through 1979 (based on tree rings) and 1995 (based on weather records) 

(adapted from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003b).

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

������������������������������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

������������������������������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 21
Could severe drought conditions 

have been a factor in the fate 

of the Lost Colony?

Similar to the PDSI values computed using 

tree-ring data, PHDI values reconstructed 

from tree rings for July suggest that severe 

drought conditions occurred in southeastern 

Virginia and northeastern North Carolina 

during the earliest settlement periods in 

• Palmer Z Index and Crop Moisture 

Index — While the PDSI has been used 

widely to assess long-term drought, a 

variation known as the Palmer Z Index 

is used to assess short-term drought on 

a monthly basis (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2004a). Another 

variation of the PDSI is the Crop Moisture 

Index (CMI), which is used to assess shortterm drought on the basis of weekly changes 

in moisture conditions (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2004a). The 

CMI was designed specifically for use in 

assessing agricultural droughts.

• Palmer Hydrological Drought 

Index — The Palmer Hydrological Drought 

Index (PHDI) was designed to avoid the 

quick changes that occur in PDSI values 

in response to brief changes in weather 

patterns. For example, as measured by the 

PDSI, the drought ends when conditions 

change from dry to normal or wet, without 

regard to the long-term effects on hydrologic 

conditions (streamflow, ground water, lakes, 

and reservoir levels; Karl and Knight, 1985; 

National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). 

The PHDI was designed to calculate the 

amount of precipitation needed to end a 

drought and is a measure of the long-term 

hydrological conditions; therefore, the index 

values respond more slowly to changing 

meteorological conditions than the PDSI 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2001, 2004a). Historical PHDI 

values computed for North Carolina from 

1900 through 2003 provide some insight into 

the significant drought periods of the 20th 

century (fig. C-3).

United States history (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2003b; 

(fig. C-4). In Manteo, North Carolina, a group 

of colonists arrived on Roanoke Island in 

1587 and mysteriously disappeared prior to 

the subsequent arrival of more colonists and 

supplies in 1591. Historians have not been 

able to fully explain their disappearance, 

and some speculate that severe drought 

conditions may have been a factor in the 

tragic fate of the Lost Colony. Similarly, 

many colonists who settled in Jamestown, 

Figure C-3. Palmer Hydrological Drought 

Index values for North Carolina from 1900 

through 2003 (adapted from National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2004b).

Figure C-4. Reconstructed historical Palmer Hydrological Drought Index values for July 

during the late 16th and early 17th centuries in southeastern Virginia and northeastern 

North Carolina (adapted from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003b).

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���������������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���������

���������

�������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

���������

������

�����������

����������������

��������

��������������

���

���

���

���

���������

���������

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

������������������������

�������������

�

�

��

������������������������

�������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�����������

��������

���������

������������������

���������

22 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Virginia, during 1607–24 died, reportedly from 

malnutrition. Reconstructed PHDI values 

for July during these periods point to the 

occurrence of severe drought conditions, a 

possible additional hardship for these early 

settlers (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2003b).

• Standardized Precipitation Index — 

Developed in the early 1990’s, the 

Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) was 

designed to quantify precipitation departures 

for various time scales (Heim, 2002). The use 

of various time scales in the SPI reflects 

the different effects that droughts have on 

hydrologic conditions during the course of 

an event (National Drought Mitigation Center, 

2003c). The SPI classification scale ranges 

from less than –2.0 to +2.0 or more, reflecting 

extremely dry to extremely wet conditions, 

respectively. A SPI value between –0.99 and 

+0.99 indicates near-normal conditions. The 

SPI maps are generated for periods ranging 

from 1 to 24 months. The SPI maps for the 

12-month period through August 2002 at the 

height of the drought followed by the 9-month 

period through May 2003 highlight the distinct 

patterns in precipitation that occurred across 

the eastern United States, but particularly in 

the western half of North Carolina (fig. C-5).

As previously discussed, the Palmer 

indices indicate the overall moisture 

conditions in a water-balance approach 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2004a). However, the SPI 

is based on precipitation only and, thus, is 

considered a simpler and better index for 

providing early warning of drought conditions 

Figure C-5. Standardized precipitation index for the United States for the (A) 12-month period through 

August 2002 (at height of 1998–2002 drought in North Carolina) and (B) 9-month period from September 2002 

through May 2003 (following drought recovery) (adapted from Mr. Richard Heim, National Climatic Data 

Center, written commun., March 3, 2004).

����������������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������

�����������������������������������

������������������������

�����������

��������������������������������

������������������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������������

���������������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������

������������������������������

������������������������������������

��

��

������������������������

�����������

��������������������������������������������

����������������������������

�������������������������������������������

�������������������������

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 23
and assessing drought severity (National 

Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). Long-term 

precipitation data for a given location is 

fitted to a probability distribution, then 

transformed to a normal distribution so that 

the mean SPI for a given time scale is zero 

(Edwards and McKee, 1997). Because the 

SPI is normalized, both wet and dry climates 

can be represented in the same manner 

(National Drought Mitigation Center, 2003c). 

The SPI also is regarded as a better indicator 

of drought frequency and magnitude than 

the Palmer indices, which suggest a higher 

frequency of occurrence of extreme droughts 

for some areas of the country.

• Drought Monitor — The Drought 

Monitor (DM) is the most recent tool for 

monitoring and characterizing droughts 

(Heim, 2002; National Drought Mitigation 

Center, 2003c). Prepared on a weekly basis, 

the DM is released as a map image that 

depicts drought conditions based on a 

5-scale system that ranges from abnormally 

dry to exceptional drought conditions. Its 

strength and usefulness as a monitoring 

tool is perhaps grounded in the recognition 

that the DM is not a separate index 

comparable to the indices that 

already exist. Rather, it represents 

the simultaneous assessment of 

multiple key indicators plus a number 

of supplementary measures (National 

Drought Mitigation Center, 2003a). The 

DM was designed to provide a general 

assessment of drought conditions 

across the United States and was not 

intended to override any specific local 

or state drought assessments (Heim, 

2002). In fact, one of its strengths is the 

inclusion of local input from different 

regions across the country after the 

key and supplementary indicators 

have been computed. Such input 

allows a reality check to be factored 

into the final assessment of existing 

drought conditions. Still, the DM is 

limited in its ability to show drought 

at different time scales (short-term 

versus long-term) on one map (Heim, 

2002). Key indicators include the PDSI, 

the Climate Prediction Center’s soils 

moisture model (in percentiles), USGS 

weekly streamflow information (in 

percentiles), the SPI, and the Satellite 

Vegetation Health Index (National 

Drought Mitigation Center, 2003a). 

Other supplementary indices are those 

applicable during the growing season 

(such as the Crop Moisture Index) and 

during the winter months for western 

states when snow pack becomes an 

important component of available 

moisture in the hydrologic system. 

According to the DM, extreme and 

exceptional drought conditions were in 

effect across much of North Carolina 

during the latter part of August 2002 

when the hydrologic conditions 

reached the lowest levels (fig. C-6). By 

May 2003, the DM indicated that no 

drought conditions were in effect for 

any part of North Carolina following 

the above-normal rainfalls in late 

August and September 2002.

Figure C-6. Extent of drought conditions depicted by the U.S. Drought Monitor for 

(A) August 2002 (at the height of the 1998–2002 drought in North Carolina) and 

(B) May 2003 following drought recovery (adapted from National Drought Mitigation 

Center, 2003a).

���������������

������������������

����������������

�����������������

���������������������

�

�

�

��������������������

�����������

�����������������������

��������������������

���������������������������

���������������������

�����������

��� �

���

�

���

���������������

������������������

����������������

�����������������

���������������������

�

�

�

��������������������

�����������

��������������������

�����������������������

���������������������������

���������������������

�����������

��������

���

����������

�����

���������

��

��

24 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Comparison of Precipitation 

Deficits with Deficits During 

Historical Droughts

Assessments of drought conditions 

generally include 

comparisons with 

conditions observed 

during historical 

droughts to aide 

in characterizing 

drought severity. 

By the early 1990s, 

seven major droughts 

of varying extent 

and severity had 

been documented 

in North Carolina: 

1925–29, 1930–34, 

1940–43, 1950–57, 

1966–71, 1980–82, 

and 1985–88 (Zembrzuski and others, 

1991). Comparison 

of precipitation 

deficits during the 

1998–2002 drought 

with deficits for 

some of the historical 

droughts provides 

insight into how the 

recent drought ranks 

among the historical 

droughts. Data from 

8 of the 13 NOAA 

precipitation stations 

selected for this report 

were used in comparing precipitation 

deficits during the 

historical and recent 

droughts— 

7 stations have 

records dating back 

to the 1930s and 

1940s, and 1 station 

(Mount Airy) has 

records prior to 1900 

(table 2).

At Hickory, 

precipitation records 

began in January 

1949, and four 

periods of prolonged 

drought conditions can 

be identified using the available period 

of record for this location:

September 1949–June 1956, September 

1965–July 1970, June 1984–April 1989, 

and May 1998−July 2002 (fig. 10; 

table 2). Comparison of the precipitation 

deficits that occurred at Hickory during 

these four drought periods indicates 

that deficits during the 1998–2002 

drought (68.3 inches, 51 months) were 

greater than those that occurred during 

the other droughts (fig. 10; table 2). In 

Figure 10. (A) Cumulative monthly precipitation departures and (B) precipitation deficits for selected historical droughts at the Hickory Regional Airport precipitation station in North Carolina, January 1949 through 

September 2003. ������������������������������������������������������

������������������������

������������������������

��������������������

������������������

������������������������

������������������������

��������������������

������������������

���������������������������������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

��

�

���

���

���

���

� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ����

�����������

����������������

���� ���� ���� ����

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 25
Table 2. Precipitation deficits for selected historical droughts in North Carolina. 

[NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Blue shading identifies droughts having the longest durations (in terms of elapsed time); brown 

shading identifies droughts with the highest rainfall deficits. Average annual precipitation and departures are based on monthly normal rainfall computed by 

using the 1971–2000 period of record as a reference. Stations are listed generally in west-to-east direction]

NOAA station name 

(fig. 3) Time period

Drought duration Precipitation 

deficit, 

inches

Average monthly 

deficit, 

Months inches Years

Asheville

(Record began January 1947, average 

annual rainfall is 37.3 inches)

Nov. 1949 – June 1956 80 6.7 21.8 0.27

Jan. 1968 – Apr. 1972 52 4.3 13.5 0.26

Sept. 1984 – Jan. 1989 53 4.4 44.5 0.84

May 1998 – Aug. 2002 52 4.3 35.6 0.68

Hickory Regional Airport

(Record began January 1949, average 

annual rainfall is 48.1 inches)

Sept. 1949 – June 1956 82 6.8 60.0 0.73

Sept. 1965 – July 1970 59 4.9 28.5 0.48

June 1984 – Apr. 1989 59 4.9 35.0 0.59

May 1998 – July 2002 51 4.3 68.3 1.34

Charlotte Douglas Airport

(Record began September 1948, average 

annual rainfall is 43.5 inches)

Sept. 1949 – Mar. 1957 91 7.6 42.3 0.46

Sept. 1965 – Jan. 1971 65 5.4 32.0 0.49

Dec. 1985 – Jan. 1989 38 3.2 34.7 0.91

May 1998 – July 2002 51 4.3 49.0 0.96

Mount Airy 2 W

(Record began January 1893, average 

annual rainfall is 47.0 inches)

May 1903 – Mar. 1905(?)a 23 1.9 35.4 1.54

Aug. 1922(?)a – Mar. 1928 68 5.7 39.0 0.57

Oct. 1929 – Feb. 1934 65 5.4 43.5 0.67

Sept. 1949 – June 1956 82 6.8 44.2 0.54

May 1965 – Apr. 1971 72 6.0 34.4 0.48

Aug. 1984 – Apr. 1989 57 4.8 33.1 0.58

May 1998 – June 2002 50 4.2 37.2 0.74

Mocksville 5 SE

(Record began August 1948, average 

annual rainfall is 44.3 inches)

Nov. 1949 – July 1956 81 6.8 40.0 0.49

Apr. 1965 – May 1969 50 4.2 32.7 0.65

Aug. 1984 – July 1988 55 4.6 28.7 0.52

May 1998 – Aug. 2002 52 4.3 64.6 1.24

Greensboro Weather Service Office 

[at the] Airport

(Record began January 1933, average 

annual rainfall is 43.1 inches)

Nov. 1949 – June 1959 116 9.7 29.1 0.25

Nov. 1965 – Oct. 1972 84 7.0 37.1 0.44

Sept. 1984 – Jan. 1989 53 4.4 32.8 0.62

Aug. 1998 – July 2002 47 3.9 29.8 0.63b

Raleigh-Durham Weather Service Field 

Office [at the] Airport

(Record began August 1948, average 

annual rainfall is 43.0 inches)

Oct. 1949 – Apr. 1957 91 7.6 27.9 0.31

Aug. 1962 – Apr. 1972 117 9.8 40.1 0.34

Aug. 1984 – Jan. 1989 54 4.5 29.1 0.54

June 1990 – Apr. 1995 59 4.9 29.0 0.49

Sept. 1998 – June 2002 46 3.8 10.7 0.23c

Fayetteville Public Works Commission

(Record began January 1933, average 

annual rainfall is 46.6 inches)

Sept. 1949 – Apr. 1955 68 5.7 37.6 0.55

Aug. 1965 – Sept. 1968 38 3.2 22.9 0.60

Oct. 1984 – Apr. 1988 43 3.6 26.7 0.62

Jan. 1990 – May 1994 53 4.4 27.0 0.51

May 1998 – Oct. 2002 54 4.5 27.4 0.51d

a ginning and ending of 

drought, rainfall deficit, and the average monthly deficit.

b

Precipitation deficit at Greensboro could have been about 35 inches (equivalent to about 0.74 inch per month) during the 1998–2002 drought if rain associated with tropical storms in fall 1999 had not occurred. During September and October 1999, rainfall was 5.6 inches above normal.

c

Precipitation deficit at Raleigh could have exceeded 25 inches (equivalent to more than 0.54 inch per month) during the 1998–2002 drought if rain associated with tropical storms in fall 1999 had not occurred. During September and October 1999, rainfall was about 17 inches above normal.

d

Precipitation deficit at Fayetteville could have exceeded 40 inches (equivalent to more than 0.74 inch per month) during the 1988–2002 drought if rain 

associated with tropical storms in fall 1999 had not occurred. During September and October 1999, rainfall was about 14 inches above normal.

26 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
terms of precipitation, this comparison 

identifies the 1998–2002 drought as the 

most intense drought since the period of 

record began at Hickory. Precipitation 

deficits at Charlotte and Mocksville 

during the 1998–2002 drought also were 

greater than during previous drought 

periods identified for these locations 

(table 2). In addition, some of the 

previous drought periods at these three 

locations, particularly the 1950s and 

1960s droughts, were longer in duration 

than the 1998–2002 drought. The 

occurrence of relatively 

smaller deficits spread 

over longer periods of 

time during previous 

droughts suggests less 

severe conditions than 

those observed during the 

1998–2002 drought.

At the Mount Airy 

station where records date 

from at least 1900, seven 

drought periods were 

noted (table 2), including 

three periods between 

1900 and 1935 (fig. 11). 

The 1930s drought 

affected much of the 

United States, particularly 

the western states, and 

has been considered a 

benchmark drought for 

comparison with more 

recent drought conditions 

across the country. While 

comparisons for Hickory, 

Charlotte, and Mocksville 

identified the 1998–2002 

drought as the most 

intense in terms of precipitation deficits, similar 

comparisons for Mount 

Airy provide a slightly 

different perspective. 

The precipitation deficit 

during the 1998–2002 

drought was 37.2 inches 

over 50 months, which 

is not the most intense 

deficit documented at 

this precipitation station 

(fig. 11; table 2). During 

a 2-year period (1903–05) 

near the beginning of 

precipitation record, the deficit was 

about 35 inches. Although the deficit 

for the 1903–05 drought did not exceed 

that observed for 1998–2002, the shorter 

duration in which the deficit occurred 

suggests that conditions were apparently 

more intense at this location.

Because of variations in precipitation deficits and drought durations, an 

average monthly deficit was computed 

for each drought to serve as a quick and 

simple value for assessing the intensity 

of notable North Carolina droughts during the last 50 years (table 2). At three 

(Hickory, Charlotte, and Mocksville) of 

the eight stations, the average monthly 

deficit for the 1998–2002 drought 

exceeded the values computed for the 

other drought periods.

The 1998–2002 average monthly 

deficit at Greensboro barely exceeded 

the value for the 1984–89 drought 

(table 2). However, the 1998–2002 

average monthly deficit at Raleigh and 

Fayetteville did not exceed values for 

previous droughts. The average monthly 

Figure 11. (A) Cumulative monthly precipitation departures and (B) precipitation deficits for selected historical 

droughts at the Mount Airy precipitation station in North Carolina, January 1900 through September 2003. ���������������������������������

������������

��������� ������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

��������������������������

���������������������

������������������������

��������������������

������������������������

���������������������������

����������������������������

��

���

���

���

� �� �� �� ��

����������������

�����������

�� �� �� �� ��

��

��

������������������������������������������������������

����������������������

�������������������������

��������������������������

������������������������

�������������������

����������������������

������������������

��

��

���

���

���

���

����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Precipitation During the 1998–2002 Drought 27
Figure 12. Precipitation deficits for selected historical droughts at the Fayetteville Public Works 

Commission precipitation station in North Carolina.

deficits for the 1998–2002 drought 

at these three locations (Greensboro, 

Raleigh, Fayetteville) are skewed by 

rainfall from tropical storms (Hurricanes 

Dennis, Floyd, and Irene) in fall 1999. 

The occurrence of rainfall during 

these months had a moderate effect 

(5.6 inches above normal for September 

and October) on the deficit at Greensboro and larger effects on the deficits 

at Raleigh and Fayetteville. During 

September alone, rainfall amounts 

at Raleigh were 17.5 inches above 

normal. Similarly, during September 

and October, combined rainfall amounts 

were 14.0 inches above normal at 

Fayetteville (table 2; fig. 12).

Precipitation totals were adjusted to 

exclude the rainfall that occurred during 

August, September, and(or) October at 

Greensboro, Raleigh, and Fayetteville 

(table 2, see table footnotes). Adjusted 

average monthly deficits at these locations then became the highest among the 

drought periods identified. This confirms the fairly rapid return of drought 

conditions to the eastern Piedmont and 

Coastal Plain in the months immediately 

following the tropical storms. Exclusion 

of rainfall during these months suggests 

that the overall drought severity in the 

eastern half of the State was similar to 

that observed in the western half.

Hydrologic Conditions 

During the 1998–2002 

Drought

Streamflow and ground-water levels across North Carolina 

reached record lows at many locations 

during the 1998–2002 drought. In 

this section, hydrologic conditions 

observed at USGS data-collection sites 

during the 1998–2003 water years are 

described and compared to conditions at 

selected sites during periods of previous 

minimum records.

Surface Water

Of the 211 continuous-record 

streamgaging stations operated by 

the USGS during the 2002 water year 

(Ragland, Barker, and Robinson, 2003; 

Ragland, Walters, and others, 2003), 

record-low daily mean discharges were 

set at 121 sites during the 1998–2002 

water years. Among these 121 gaging stations, record-low daily mean 

���������������������������������

�������������������������

��������������������������

�����������������������

���������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������

�������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

������������������������������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

������������

���������

��

���

���

��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

����������������

discharges were set at 94 sites during the 

2002 water year alone, the year in which 

streamflow reached the lowest levels 

during the drought (fig. 13). In a similar 

manner, lowest annual mean discharge 

of record was set at 150 of the 211 gaging stations during the 1998–2002 water 

years, and records were set at 131 sites 

during the 2002 water year.

Not all of the 211 gaging stations, 

however, had long-term periods of 

record. By reassessing the periods of 

record among the 211 gaging stations, 

150 sites were identified with systematic 

periods (total, including multiple subperiods) of record greater than 10 years 

through the 2002 water year. Among 

these 150 sites, record-low daily mean 

discharges were set at 65 sites during 

the 1998–2002 water years, and records 

were set at 55 of the 65 sites during the 

2002 water year alone (fig. 13; tables 3, 

4; p. 74).

Of the 150 sites having greater 

than 10 years of systematic record, 92 

sites having greater than 30 years of 

uninterrupted record through the 2002 

water year were identified for further 

analysis. These 92 sites were reassessed 

to identify streams not known to be 

affected by significant regulation and(or) 

diversions, which resulted in the selection of 68 sites for 

use in characterizing 

streamflow conditions 

(fig. 14). Percentiles of 

historical streamflows 

and frequency of 7-

day average discharge 

for each calendar day 

were then computed 

for these 68 sites. 

For the purposes 

of characterizing 

streamflow conditions 

in smaller areas, the 

68 sites were subdivided into 6 groups 

representing smaller 

areas of each physiographic province: 

13 sites in the southern 

Blue Ridge, 11 sites 

in the northern Blue 

Ridge, 14 sites in the 

western Piedmont, 

28 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 13. Continuous-record U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations in North Carolina having greater than 10 years of record, and locations where 

record-low daily mean discharges were set during the 1998–2002 water years.

�������� �������������

�� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���

����������

������

�� �� �� ��

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������

��

��

�� ��

��

�� �� ��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

�� ��

�

��

�

��

��

���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

��� ���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

���

�� ��

�� ��

��

���

���

���

��

��

� �

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

�

� � � �

��

��

���

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 29
USGS streamgaging station at Big Bear Creek 

near Richfield (site 90, table 4), showing 

outside staff plate in dry streambed, June 19, 

2002.

Streamflow measurement being made near USGS streamgaging station at Big Bear 

Creek near Richfield (site 90, table 4), June 19, 2002.

Photographs on this page were taken by Jerald “Boo” Robinson, USGS

30 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
19 sites in the eastern Piedmont, 7 sites 

in the southern Coastal Plain, and 4 sites 

in the northern Coastal Plain (fig. 14).

Streamflow Conditions During 

the 1998–2003 Water Years

Similar to the two contrasting 

precipitation patterns that occurred 

across much of North Carolina during 

the 1998 water year, streamflow 

conditions during the 1998 water year 

also were marked by two contrasting 

patterns. From October through 

December 1997, streamflows generally 

were in the high end of the normal 

range (defined as the 25th through 74th 

percentiles). Additional increases in 

streamflow were noted from January 

through April 1998, and above-normal 

conditions (75th to greater than or equal 

to (≥) 90th percentiles) were reported in 

all regions of the State. During this same 

period, about one-third of the index 

surface-water sites used for assessing 

Figure 14. U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations (68 sites) used in the assessment of “daily” 7-day average 

discharges and historical streamflow percentiles for each calendar date during the 1988–2002 water years.

��� ��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

�� ��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

�

�

�������������������

�����������������

����������������������

������

����������������������

������������������������� ���

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

��������

����������

����������

��������

����������

����������

����������������

����������

�����������

����������������

����������

����������������������

���������

��������������������������������

Atlantic

Ocean

Table 3. Number of U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations in 

North Carolina where record-low discharges were set during the 1998–

2002 water years. 

[Based on assessment of 150 sites having greater than 10 years of systematic (or total) 

record through the 2002 water year] 

Discharge statistic 1998–2002 

water years

2002 

water year 

only

Annual mean discharge 94 86

Seven-day average discharge 74 61

Daily mean discharge 65a 55

Instantaneous discharge 59 46

a

Figure 13 has two categories in which the occurrence of record-low daily mean discharge is shown: 1988–2001 water years (25 sites) and 2002 water year alone (55 sites). 

Fifteen of the 25 sites where records were set during 1998–2001 water years also were 

sites where records were set in the 2002 water year alone. Conversely, records were set 

at 10 sites during the 1998–2001 water years, but records were not set in the 2002 water 

year. Thus, when combined for the 4-year period, there were 65 unique sites having one 

or more record-low daily mean discharge.

monthly conditions were in the abovenormal range (Ragland and others, 

1998). In February 1998, the highest 

monthly mean discharge for February 

was recorded at 13 sites, each of which 

has more than 35 years of record.

During May 1998, the first month 

in which rainfall amounts were below 

normal, streamflows began a gradual 

decline to levels in September that were 

in the low-normal range for Piedmont 

streams, with steeper declines (in 

the 10th−24th and less than (<) 10th 

percentiles) for streams in the Blue 

Ridge Province. By September, streams 

in the southern Blue Ridge were at 

the lowest levels (<10th percentile 

range) relative to other regions in 

the State. In terms of 7-day average 

discharges, streams in the Coastal Plain 

and Piedmont Provinces generally 

were in the 5- to 10-year recurrence 

intervals by September, and northern 

Blue Ridge streams were in the 10- to 

20-year range. The largest declines 

occurred in streams in the southern Blue 

Ridge Province where 7-day average 

discharges decreased to levels having 

20- to 50-year recurrence intervals. 

During the 1998 water year, streams in 

the southern Blue Ridge generally had 

the highest number of days during which 

the 7-day average discharges exceeded 

the 10-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence 

intervals (figs. 15–17), and some sites 

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 31
Figure 15. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 

7-day, 10-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

�� �� ��

��

��

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

��

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

�� ��

� � ��

�

�

��

��

��

�� ��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

�� � ��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

�

�

��

�� ��

�

�����������

����

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

�� �� ��

��

��

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� ��

��

��

��

�

��

�� ��

��

��

�� ���

��

��

��� ��

��

��

��

��

���

��

���

���

��

��

��

���

��� ���

��

��

�� ��

��

�� �� ��

�� ��

��

���

��� ���

��

���

��

��

���

��

��

��

���

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

�

�����������

����

��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

���������������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

��

���

���

���

��

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

��

���

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

�

�� ��

���

��� ���

��

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

�� ���

��

��

�� ��

��

�� � �

�� ��

� � �

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�����������

����

���

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

32 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 15. (Continued) Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge 

exceeded the 7-day, 10-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

���������������

����������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

��� ���

���

���

��

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

�� �� ���

���

�� ��

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

��

�� ���

���

�� �� ��

��� ���

��

��

�� �

��

���

��

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�����������

����

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

�� ���

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

���������������

����������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

�� ��

��

���

��

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

��� ���

��

��

�� ���

���

��� ��� ���

��� ���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�����������

����

��

���

��

��

���

���

���

��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

���������������������������

�����������������������������

�������������

�

��

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

�� ��

�

�� ��

�� ��

�

�

��

��

�� �

��

��

��

�����������

��

��

�

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

�������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

����

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 33
Figure 16. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 

7-day, 50-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

�� �� �

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

� �

�

�

� �

�

��

�� ��

�

�����������

��

� ��

�� �

�

����

�������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

�� ��

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � �

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�� ��

�

�

�����������

�

�� ��

� �

��

����

�������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

�

��

�

��

�

� �

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

����������� �

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

34 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 16. (Continued) Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge 

exceeded the 7-day, 50-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

�� �� ��

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

���

���

��

��

���

�� �

��

��

��

� �

�����������

���

��� ���

���

� ��

��

��

�� ��

���� ��

��

�

����

�������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

���������������

�

�

�

��

�

���

��

�� ���

��

���

��

��

�� ��� ��� ���

��

��

���

� ��

��

���

�� ���

��

�� ��

���

���

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

���

���

���

��� �

�� ��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�� ���

���

���

���

��

����

�������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������

�

��

� �

��

��

� � �

��

�����������

����

�������

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

���������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 35
Figure 17. Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge exceeded the 

7-day, 100-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

��������������������������������

�������������

�� ��

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�����������

�

�

�

� �

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������

�� �

�

�

�

��

�� ��

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

��

� � �

� �

� �

�

��

��

��

�

��

�

�����������

�

��

�

�

� ��

�

��

�

�

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

���������������������������

������������������������������

�������������

�

�

�

� �

�

��

�

�

��

�����������

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

36 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 17. (Continued) Generalized areas showing number of days in 1998–2003 water years during which 7-day average discharge 

exceeded the 7-day, 100-year low-flow discharge.

���������

����������������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

���������������

�

���

���

���

���

��

���

�����������

���

��

���

���

���

���

� �

��

�

�

�

�

�

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

���

�� ��

�� ���

�� ��

���

���

� �� ��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

� �

��

�

��

�

��

��� ��

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

����������������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

�����������

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

���������

���������������������������

������������������������������

�������������

��������������

���������������

� ��

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ���

�� ����

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

�����������

��

��

��

� ��

�

��

�

��

����

����������

�������� �������������

�������

����������

����������

����������

���������

��������� �������

��

��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

� �� �� �� �� ���������

� �� �� �� �� ��������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 37
exceeded 10-year intervals for more than 

50 days. Below-normal rainfall in some 

areas of the southern Blue Ridge from 

October 1997 through March 1998 also 

contributed to the low streamflow levels 

during the latter half of the 1998 water 

year. Although streams declined in other 

regions of the State during May through 

September 1998, declines generally 

were less because of above-normal 

rainfall that occurred during the first half 

of the water year.

New record-low daily mean 

discharges were set at six gaging 

stations during the 1998 water year. 

Four of these sites (128, 135, 137, and 

141) were in the Blue Ridge Province, 

and two sites (8, 105) were in the 

Piedmont Province (fig. 13). With the 

exception of site 8, records were set 

during September 1998. The record-low 

daily mean discharge set at Hyco River 

below Afterbay Dam near McGehees 

Mill (site 8) occurred in November 1997 

prior to the start of the 

drought (table 4) and 

was a result of changes 

in flow releases from 

the upstream dam. The 

second Piedmont site 

(105) in southeastern 

Lincoln County only 

has records dating from 

October 1990. Similar 

to site 105, two of the 

Blue Ridge sites (128, 

135) have relatively short 

periods of record dating 

from the late 1980s. 

The periods of record at 

sites 137 and 141 date 

from the mid-1950s, but 

new record-low daily 

mean discharges slightly 

eclipsed the previous 

records in effect before 

the 1998 water year.

Examination of overall streamflow 

trends for the 1999 water year revealed 

that while no significant declines 

were noted in the flows, no significant 

improvements occurred. It was a period 

in which the drought was punctuated 

by brief periods of improvements in the 

hydrologic conditions. Also, streams 

in the eastern Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain increased significantly as a result 

of flooding from tropical storms in late 

August and September. Overall streamflow conditions during much of the 1999 

water year were in the lower ranges of 

normal and the 10th–24th percentiles. 

Some improvements in streamflows 

occurred during the winter months, 

which appeared to have kept overall conditions in the spring and summer from 

serious declines. However, streamflows 

in the Blue Ridge and western Piedmont 

declined to levels in the 10th–24th and 

<10th percentiles by September 1999, 

while streams in the eastern Piedmont 

and Coastal Plain were in the high 

percentile ranges (>90th percentile) in 

response to the tropical storms. In terms 

of 7-day average discharges, streams 

across the State were typically in the 

5- to 20-year recurrence interval range 

for much of the year. However, some 

streams in the Blue Ridge Province 

decreased to levels having 50-year-plus 

recurrence intervals. Among the 68 sites 

analyzed, about 15 sites across the State 

had more than 100 days in which 7-day 

average discharges were in the >10-year 

recurrence interval range (fig. 15). 

Likewise, the number of days in which 

7-day average discharges exceeded the 

50- and 100-year recurrence intervals 

increased significantly during the 1999 

water year (figs. 16, 17).

Record-low daily mean discharges 

were set at 16 gaging stations, mostly 

during August and September 1999. 

About two-thirds of these sites were in 

the western Piedmont and Blue Ridge 

Provinces. Six of the sites (33, 63, 66, 

67, 95, and 96) were in the eastern 

Piedmont and Sand Hills region of the 

southern Coastal Plain (fig. 13), and 

the record-low daily mean discharges 

occurred at these sites in mid-August 

just prior to the tropical storms that 

brought a reprieve from the drought 

conditions in the eastern half of the 

State. The increased number and spatial 

distribution of record-setting sites 

indicated the drought’s widening effects 

on the hydrologic conditions in most 

areas of the State. Two sites (105, 141; 

fig. 13) also had record-low daily mean 

discharges in the 1998 water year.

Overall streamflow conditions 

during the 2000 water year again 

revealed differences in conditions 

between the western 

and eastern halves 

of the State. During 

the first half of the 

2000 water year, the 

Coastal Plain and 

eastern Piedmont 

streams gradually 

declined from the 

above-normal range 

(75th percentiles 

and higher) to 

the low-normal 

range following 

the flooding that 

occurred from 

Hurricane Floyd. 

In the western 

Piedmont and Blue 

Ridge Provinces, 

streams generally 

were between 

the low-normal 

range and the 10th–24th percentiles 

throughout most of the 2000 water 

year. Seven-day average discharges in 

the eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain 

were at levels having 5- to 10-year 

recurrence intervals throughout most 

of the 2000 water year. By comparison, 

7-day average discharges in western 

North Carolina varied between 10- and 

USGS hydrologist makes streamflow measurement as a media photographer captures the activity. Photograph by Bobby Ragland, USGS, July 24, 2002

38 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
20-year recurrence intervals, declining 

further to 50-year-plus recurrence 

intervals during the early spring and 

mid-summer months. In the western 

Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces, 

10 gaging stations recorded more 

than 100 days in which 7-day average 

discharges were at >10-year recurrence 

intervals (fig. 15). Compared to about 

15 sites in the 1999 water year that had 

recurrence intervals for more than 100 

days, one might suspect that drought 

conditions had improved between the 

two periods. While the tropical storms 

late in the 1999 water year reduced the 

number of days in which 7-day streamflow conditions exceeded the various 

recurrence intervals in eastern North 

Carolina, the drought strengthened 

its hold in western North Carolina, as 

indicated by two gaging stations with 

7-day average discharges exceeding the 

10-year recurrence interval on more than 

200 days (fig. 15). Further, the 7-day 

average discharges exceeded the 50-year 

intervals on more than 50 days during 

the 2000 water year at one site in the 

southern Blue Ridge (fig. 16). These 

patterns confirm that the continuing 

declines in streamflow conditions during 

the 1999 and 2000 water years were 

tempered briefly in eastern areas of the 

State but not in the western areas.

New record-low daily mean 

discharges were set during the 2000 

water year in the latter part of August at 

three gaging stations—sites 87 and 104 

in the western Piedmont and site 143 in 

the Blue Ridge Province (fig. 13). The 

new record at site 143 eclipsed the previous record that was set in the 1999 water 

year. The decreased number of sites 

where records were set in the 2000 water 

year, compared to the previous year, 

apparently was a result of temporary 

improvements in precipitation patterns. 

Although improved precipitation 

patterns were not sufficient to alleviate 

the drought, streamflow conditions were 

just above previously set record levels in 

many areas of North Carolina.

Throughout much of the 2001 

water year, overall streamflows were 

more consistently below normal (<10th 

and 10th–24th percentiles) in all three 

provinces of the State. However, the 

7-day average discharges at streams 

in the three provinces were at varied 

recurrence intervals during the year. 

The number of days in which 7-day 

average discharges exceeded the 10-, 

50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals 

continued to increase significantly in the 

Blue Ridge and western Piedmont. In 

particular, the 7-day average discharges 

exceeded the 10-year recurrence interval 

at about 15 sites in this area for more 

than 200 days and at 1 site for more 

than 300 days (fig. 15). An increased 

number of days also occurred in the 

eastern areas of the State where the 

effects of previous years’ tropical 

storms had diminished (fig. 15). Of 

important note are the 50- to 100-year 

recurrence intervals that occurred at 

streams in the western Piedmont and 

northern Blue Ridge Provinces during 

the winter (figs. 16, 17). The winter and 

early spring months (December through 

March) typically are a time of recharge 

for hydrologic systems, allowing water 

levels in streams and ground water to 

be replenished following the growing 

season. The very low flows that occurred 

during the winter resulted in further 

declines in the hydrologic system during 

the 2001 growing season, particularly in 

the western Piedmont and Blue Ridge 

Provinces.

New record-low daily mean 

discharges were set at six gaging stations 

in the western Piedmont during the 2001 

water year. Discharge records at three 

of the sites (87, 104, and 105) surpassed 

the previous records set during the 

1998–2000 water years. The occurrence 

of consecutive records being set was an 

indication of the drought’s intensifying 

effects and the relatively short periods of 

record (less than 25 years) at these sites. 

Including the sites where record-low 

flows were established consecutively 

(during the 1998–2000 water years), 

record-low daily mean discharges had 

been set at 19 gaging stations by end of 

the 2001 water year.

Streamflow conditions continued to 

decline during the 2002 water year and 

by August and September reached the 

lowest levels since the beginning of the 

drought. Across most of North Carolina, 

flows consistently were in the <10th 

percentile range and new record-low 

flows (for the calendar days) were being 

set on an almost daily basis. Recurrence 

intervals for 7-day average discharges 

were varied across the State, and many 

streams were in the 50- to 100-year 

recurrence interval ranges during the 

Downstream from the USGS streamgaging station at Long Creek near Bessemer City, N.C., 

(site 110, table 4), daily mean discharge was 0.33 ft3/s on July 24, 2002. Median streamflow for 

July 24 at the site is 11 ft3/s.

Photograph by Jerald “Boo” Robinson, USGS, July 24, 2002

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 39
summer until abundant rainfalls in September began to reverse the low-flow 

trends. During the 2002 water year, the 

areal extent of sites where 7-day average discharges exceeded the 10-year 

recurrence interval for more than 200 

and 300 days covered much of central 

North Carolina (fig. 15). In the western 

Piedmont, 7-day average discharges 

exceeded the 50-year and 100-year 

intervals on more than 200 days at six 

and three gaging stations, respectively 

(figs. 16, 17). At most of the sites where 

lowest daily mean discharges were set 

during the drought, record-low flows 

were observed repeatedly during the 

2002 water year. For example, observed 

daily mean discharges at Reedy Fork 

near Oak Ridge (site 46, fig. 13; table 4) 

in Guilford County were at or below 

the previous record-low daily mean 

discharge (1.7 cubic feet per second 

(ft3/s), set on August 7, 1977) 16 times 

from mid-June through mid-August 

2002. The new record-low daily mean 

discharge for this site is 0.61 ft3/s, set on 

August 14, 2002. Similar patterns 

of multiple record-low daily mean 

discharges were observed at numerous 

other gaging stations. At 17 gaging 

stations, more than 10 record-low daily 

mean discharges occurred during the 

2002 water year. The maximum number 

of multiple records was at Jacob Fork 

at Ramsey (site 108, fig. 13; table 4) in 

Burke County, where observed daily 

mean discharges were at or below 

the previous record-low daily mean 

discharge (3.7 ft3/s, set on August 19, 

1999) 20 times from mid-June through 

mid-August 2002. The new record-low 

daily mean discharge for this site is 

0.87 ft3/s, set on August 13, 2002. Prior 

to the 1998 water year, the record-low 

daily mean discharge for Jacob Fork 

was 4.7 ft3/s, set on August 27, 1988 

(table 4), which is an example of 

repeatedly new record-low discharges 

being set at some gaging stations during 

the 2002 water year and throughout the 

drought.

The 4-year drought, including two 

consecutive winters of below-normal 

precipitation in 2001 and 2002, resulted 

in record-low daily mean discharges 

being set at many sites during the 2002 

water year alone. New record-low daily 

mean discharges were set at 55 gaging 

stations, primarily during a 6-week 

period between early August and midSeptember 2002. New records were set 

at gaging stations across North Carolina 

except in the northeastern Coastal Plain; 

however, most of the new records were 

set at sites in the western Piedmont and 

Blue Ridge Provinces. Of the 55 sites 

where record-low daily mean discharges 

were set during the 2002 water year, 

new records at 25 sites also were set 

previously during the 1998–2001 water 

years (fig. 13).

In fall 2002, streamflows began 

to continuously increase at many 

sites across North Carolina for the 

first time in nearly 4 years. During 

October 2002 through June 2003, many 

streams returned to above-normal levels 

(75th–89th percentiles). Following a 

brief decline during January, streamflow 

conditions continued to improve to 

higher levels between February and 

June, and levels consistently were in the 

75th–89th percentile range and >90th 

percentile. Seven-day average discharge 

increased significantly to levels 

consistently having 2- to 5-year recurrence intervals during October through 

December 2002. In fact, none of the 

68 sites used in this analysis had more 

than 50 days in which the 7-day average 

discharges exceeded the 10-, 50-, or 

100-year recurrence intervals during the 

2003 water year (figs. 15–17), a complete reversal of the patterns observed 

during the 2001 and 2002 water years. 

In terms of streamflow, drought conditions were considered nonexistent by the 

end of April 2003.

As an example of the rapid 

reversal in streamflow conditions 

between the 2002 and 2003 water years, 

the highest annual mean discharge for 

the periods of record was set at 130 of 

214 continuous-record gaging stations 

across North Carolina (Ragland, 

Barker, and Robinson, 2004; Ragland, 

Walters, and others, 2004). Further, 87 

sites where the new record highs were 

set also had record low annual mean 

discharges during the 2002 water year, 

including 19 of the 68 gaging stations 

analyzed for this report.

Comparison of Streamflow 

During 1998–2002 with 

Historical Droughts

Comparisons of minimum 7-day 

average discharges for six selected 

gaging stations (two from each 

physiographic province) with long-term 

records provided insight into how the 

1998–2002 drought compares with 

historical droughts in North Carolina 

(table 5; fig. 18). The minimum 7-day 

average discharge was determined for 

each drought period (table 5).

At three of the sites (131, 85, and 

27), which are in the Blue Ridge and 

Piedmont Provinces, the minimum 

7-day average discharges during the 

1998–2002 drought became the minimum flows for the periods of record, 

including site 131 (French Broad River 

at Asheville), which has the longest 

period of streamflow record in North 

Carolina. Measured continuously since 

October 1895, the flow conditions in 

the French Broad River reached the 

lowest level of record in September 

2002, surpassing the previous minimum 

established in August 1925 (table 5). 

The minimum 7-day average discharge 

set during the 1998–2002 drought at 

site 122 (South Fork New River near 

Jefferson), also in the Blue Ridge 

Province, did not surpass the period 

of record minimum (set in 1925) but 

was the second lowest flow in terms of 

minimums set during drought periods 

(table 5). At the two Coastal Plain 

Record minimum flow was measured 

in September 2002 at the French 

Broad River at Asheville where 

continuous measurements have been 

recorded since October 1895.

40 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
The characterization of low flow or flood 

flow is one of the primary objectives for 

monitoring streamflow in North Carolina and 

throughout the United States. Information 

derived from frequency analysis is used 

in the planning and management of water 

resources and affects decisions about issues 

ranging from water-quality management 

to the engineering design of bridges and 

drainage structures. When changes in 

surface-water conditions are extreme, as 

in long-term droughts or major flooding 

events, questions commonly are raised 

about how the observed conditions compare 

to frequency statistics and how sensitive 

existing statistics may be to extreme flow 

events.

Streamflow frequency statistics are 

discharge values that have an associated 

probability of occurrence, generally referred 

to as the recurrence interval and expressed 

in years (sometimes called the return period). 

The recurrence interval of a given high-flow 

or low-flow discharge represents the 

probability that the discharge will be equaled 

or exceeded in any given year (Bales and 

others, 2000). The concept of exceedance 

in frequency analysis does not imply that 

an observed streamflow value will always 

be numerically higher, but rather exceeded 

during an event in terms of frequency 

of occurrence of extreme historical 

observations (higher flows during high-flow 

events and lower flows during low-flow 

events).

For high-flow events, frequency analysis 

is conducted by using a record of peak 

discharges for a given period or season, most 

commonly an annual period. For example, if 

the annual peak streamflow having a 100-

year recurrence interval is 10,000 ft3/s, the 

annual peak streamflow would be equal to 

or higher than the 100-year peak streamflow, 

on average, one time in 100 years. Stated 

another way, the probability is 1 percent (the 

inverse of the recurrence interval) in any 

given year that the annual peak streamflow 

will be equal to or higher than the 100-year 

peak streamflow.

Low-flow frequency analysis, however, 

is conducted by using the lowest average 

flow for a specified number of days. The most 

common low-flow frequency statistic is the 

7-day, 10-year low-flow (7Q10) discharge. The 

annual minimum average streamflow for a 

7-consecutive-day period will be at or below 

the 7Q10 discharge, on average, one time 

in 10 years (Weaver and Fine, 2003). If the 

7Q10 discharge is 5 ft3/s, for example, then 

the annual minimum average streamflow for 

a 7-consecutive-day period would be 5 ft3/s 

or lower, on average, 1 time in 10 years, 5 

times in 50 years, or 10 times in 100 years. A 

recurrence interval of 10 years implies that 

the annual minimum average streamflow for 

a 7-consecutive-day period will be greater 

than the 7Q10 discharge in 9 of 10 years, on 

average. In any given year, the probability 

that the minimum average streamflow for a 

7-consecutive-day period will be less than 

the 7Q10 is 10 percent (the inverse of the 

recurrence interval).

Other variations of low-flow statistics are 

the 7Q50 and 7Q100 discharges, which are 

the annual minimum average streamflows 

for a 7-consecutive-day period that would be 

expected, on average, one time in 50 years 

and 100 years, respectively. While most 

low-flow statistics are based on analyses of 

annual minimum values, low-flow frequency 

analyses can be conducted for minimum 

values for a month, season, or calendar 

date (for example, the lowest 7-day average 

discharge on June 30). Analyses of 7-day 

average discharge ending on each calendar 

date were conducted for this report to 

determine the “daily” 7Q10, 7Q50, and 7Q100 

discharges at gaging stations across the 

State (see “Streamflow Conditions During 

the 1998–2003 Water Years;” figs. 15–17).

An understanding of frequency concepts 

includes the awareness that such statistics 

can be exceeded in consecutive years or 

even within a given year, not just one time 

during the stated return period. For example, 

it is possible that measured flow conditions 

can exceed the 100-year peak discharge in 

consecutive years, or even within the same 

year. Likewise during low-flow events, it is 

possible that observed streamflows can be 

lower than the 7Q10 discharge in consecutive 

years. During the 1998–2002 drought across 

North Carolina, 7-day average discharges 

were repeatedly lower than the 7Q10 

discharge, particularly at gaging stations in 

the Piedmont Province.

During the 1998–2002 drought, streamflow 

conditions reached record-low levels, 

particularly during the 2002 water year. 

Record minimum values for 7-day average 

discharges were set at 74 of 150 continuousrecord streamflow-gaging stations having 

greater than 10 years of record through 

Characterizing Low-Flow Frequency: Can 

Droughts Change the 7Q10 Discharge?

The drought forced a farmer in Statesville, N.C., to use almost half of his supply of winter feed for his 

cattle in July 2002.

Photograph by Patrick Schneider, The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N.C., July 26, 2002. Used with permission.

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 41
the 2002 water year (see table 3). Of these 

74 sites, record minimum values for 7-day 

average discharges were set at 61 sites 

during the 2002 water year alone. However, 

aside from setting new record-low minimum 

streamflows, comparisons of the 7Q10 

discharges provide some insight into the 

changes in low-flow frequency statistics at 

10 selected gaging stations across North 

Carolina.

Changes in the 7Q10 discharge prior to 

and following the 1998–2002 drought varied 

among the 10 selected gaging stations, 

ranging from 0 to –27.1 percent (sites 140 

and 121, respectively). Percentage changes 

in the 7Q10 discharges were less than 

10 percent for 7 of the 10 sites. The three 

sites having the largest differences in preand post-drought 7Q10 discharges (greater 

than 15 percent) are located in the western 

Piedmont, consistent with observations that 

drought conditions were more severe in this 

area of the State.

Methods used by the USGS to complete 

low-flow frequency analyses at continuousTable D-1. Summary of 7-day, 10-year low-flow discharges at selected streamflow-gaging stations prior to and following the 

1998–2002 drought in North Carolina.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; 7Q10, 7-day, 10-year low-flow discharge. Available full period of record 

is listed for each station; the number of years of systematic record are based on the full period of record through the 2002 water year. Climatic year is the 

12-month period beginning in April and ending in March, designated by the year in which the period begins. It is the standard period used in low-flow 

frequency analyses for continuous-record gaging stations] Site index no. (fig. 14)

USGS 

downstream 

order 

number

Station name

Drainage

area

(mi2)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record 

through 

2002 

water year

7-day, 10-year lowflow discharge, ft3

/s

Change 

in 7Q10 

discharge 

(percent)

Period 

of record 

through 

1998 

climatic 

year

Period 

of record 

through 

2002 

climatic 

year

1 02053200 Potecasi Creek near 

Union

 225 Hertford Mar. 1958 – Sept. 2002 44.6 1.14 1.09 -4.4

27 02085500 Flat River at Bahama 149 Durham July 1925 – Sept. 2002 77.3 0.98 0.90 -8.2

44 02092500 Trent River near 

Trenton

 168 Jones Jan. 1951 – Sept. 2002 51.8 1.42 1.38 -2.8

46 02093800 Reedy Fork near Oak 

Ridge

20.6 Guilford Oct. 1955 – Sept. 2002 47.0 3.36 2.78 -17.3

70 02106500 Black River near 

Tomahawk

 676 Sampson Oct. 1951 – Sept. 2002 51.0 27.5 26.3 -4.4

85 02118000 South Yadkin River 

near Mocksville

 306 Rowan Oct. 1938 – Sept. 2002 64.0 61.5 45.2 -26.5

121 02152100 First Broad River near 

Casar

60.5 Cleveland Mar. 1959 – Sept. 2002 43.6 21.4 15.6 -27.1

122 03161000 South Fork New River 

at Jefferson

 205 Ashe Oct. 1924 – Sept. 2002 78.0 108 103 -4.6

131 03451500 French Broad River at 

Asheville

 945 Buncombe Oct. 1895 – Sept. 2002 107.1 448 425 -5.1

140 03460000 Cataloochee Creek 

near Cataloochee

49.2 Haywood Oct. 1933 – Sept. 1952,

Oct. 1962 – Sept. 2002

 59.0 21.8 21.8 0

record gaging stations require a minimum 

of 10 years of record (Riggs, 1972). As the 

period of record increases, values of 7Q10 

discharge tend to become “locked” into a 

narrow range. In other words, the addition 

of several years of record does not result 

in a significantly revised value unless the 

annual minimum 7-day average streamflows 

reach very low levels (fig. D-1). At two gaging 

stations in the Piedmont Province (sites 85, 

121), relatively significant decreases in the 

7Q10 discharges occurred after several 

consecutive years of low 7-day average 

discharges. At site 85, several consecutive 

years of low 7-day average discharge 

occurred during the mid-1950s and 1998–2002 

droughts (fig. D-1). Correspondingly, the 7Q10 

discharge declined significantly following 

these droughts. Between the 1952 and 

1956 climatic years2, the 7Q10 discharge 

decreased from 82 ft3/s to 50.3 ft3/s. From 

the 1998 to 2002 climatic years, the 7Q10 

discharge at site 85 decreased from 61.5 ft3/s 

to 45.2 ft3/s (fig. D-1; table D-1). By contrast, 

the occurrence of a low 7-day average 

discharge in the 1986 climatic year alone did 

not result in the significant reduction in the 

7Q10 discharge (fig. D-1). The 7Q10 discharge 

decreased from 63.7 ft3/s to 58.3 ft3/s during 

the 1985–86 climatic years. At the gaging 

station on the First Broad River (site 121), 

significant decreases in the 7Q10 discharge 

occurred following droughts in the mid-1980s 

and 1998–2002 (fig. D-1).

A statewide or other comprehensive 

assessment of changes in the 7Q10 discharge 

and other low-flow characteristics is beyond 

the scope of this report. Nevertheless, 

information obtained from the assessment of 

the 10 selected gaging stations (table D-1) 

reaffirms the recognition that significant 

changes in the 7Q10 discharges do occur 

following several consecutive years of very 

low streamflows.

2

The climatic year is the 12-month period beginning in April and ending in March, designated 

by the year in which the period begins. It is the 

standard period used in low-flow frequency 

analyses for continuous-record gaging stations.

42 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure D-1. Observed annual minimum 7-day average streamflows and estimated 7-day, 10-year low-flow discharge at two 

selected Piedmont streamgaging stations. Note: The climatic year is the 12-month period from April 1 through March 31 and 

is designated by the year in which the period begins. The climatic year is the standard period used in low-flow analyses for 

gaging stations.

���

���

���

���

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

���� ���� ���� ����

�������������

���� ���� ����

���� ����

�������������

���� ���� ����

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

����������������������������������� �����������������������������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 43
44 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions Table 5. Summary of minimum 7-day average discharges at selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations during the 1998–2002 drought and other historical droughts in North Carolina. [mi2, square mile; POR, period of record; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/a, not available (prior to start of record). Blue shading indicates the minimums for periods of record that were in effect prior to the 1998 water year; brown shading indicates minimum 7-day average discharges during 1998–2002 drought that became the new minimums for periods of record. Sites are listed in general west-to- east direction] Drought period Blue Ridge Province Piedmont Province Coastal Plain Province French Broad River at Asheville (site 131) Drainage area, 945 mi2 POR began Oct. 1895 South Fork New River near Jefferson (site 122) Drainage area, 205 mi2 POR began Oct. 1924 South Yadkin River near Mocksville (site 85) Drainage area, 306 mi2 POR began Oct. 1938 Flat River at Bahama (site 27) Drainage area, 149 mi2 POR began July 1925 Northeast Cape Fear River near Chinquapin (site 71) Drainage area, 599 mi2 POR began July 1940 Contentnea Creek at Hookerton (site 43) Drainage area, 733 mi2 POR began Nov 1928 Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date Lowest 7-day average discharge, ft3/s Date 1925–29 258 Aug. 24, 1925 72 Aug. 21, 1925 n/a n/a 0.67 Sept. 30, 1925 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1930–34 394 Oct. 28, 1931 85.9 Aug. 10, 1930 n/a n/a 0.43 Sept. 28, 1932 n/a n/a 19.3 Oct. 30, 1933 1950–57 277 Oct. 14, 1954 86.7 Sept. 30, 1954 36.1 Aug. 18, 1956 0.54 Oct. 12, 1954 5.5 Oct. 8, 1954 16 Oct. 8, 1954 1966–71 628 Sept. 19, 1970 142.6 Oct. 6, 1968 74.1 Oct. 2, 1968 0.28 Sept. 24, 1968 13.7 Oct. 6, 1968 38.6 Oct. 6, 1968 1985–88 442 July 24, 1986 102.6 July 10, 1988 28 July 19, 1986 0.92 Aug. 21, 1988 9.7 July 3, 1985 23.6 June 29, 1986 1991–93 407 Oct. 11, 1993 134.6 Oct. 29, 1993 104 Oct. 11, 1993 0.85 Oct. 2, 1990 10.9 July 22, 1992,

Sept. 4, 1993

 26.1 Sept. 4, 1993

1998–2002 246 Sept. 7, 2002 83 Aug. 9, 2002 3.3 Aug. 9, 2002 0.24 June 19, 2002 20.3 Aug. 26, 2002 22.4 Aug. 15, 2002
sites (71, 43), minimum 7-day average 

discharges set during the 1998–2002 

drought did not surpass the period of 

record minimum 7-day discharges 

set at each site during the 1950–57 

drought (table 5). These observations 

further confirm that the greatest effects 

of the 1998–2002 drought occurred 

at streams in the Piedmont and Blue 

Ridge Provinces. In terms of streamflow, 

the 1998–2002 drought generally was 

more severe than previous droughts for 

streams in these two provinces.

Concerns have been raised about 

the degree of meaningful comparisons 

that can be made in view of the 

increased demands being placed on 

surface-water bodies. With the increased 

population in North Carolina during 

the last 50 years, one could argue that 

the higher demands on streams were as 

much a factor in the low streamflows 

during the drought as the climate 

patterns. As previously discussed, no 

in-depth analyses were completed to 

distinguish the declining flows directly 

attributed to increased water use. 

Such an assessment, even for selected 

streams, requires additional investigation and is beyond the scope of this 

report. Nevertheless, the occurrence of 

record-high precipitation deficits in the 

Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces 

supports the conclusion that drought 

conditions during 1998–2002 were more 

severe than those during many historical 

droughts in North Carolina, particularly 

those documented since the systematic 

collection of weather records began in 

the late 1800s.

Ground Water

Ground-water-level data were 

collected from 137 observation wells 

across North Carolina in the 2002 water 

year and published in the USGS annual 

data report for North Carolina (Howe 

and others, 2003; table 6). Of the 137 

wells, 96 wells were operated to monitor 

the effects of human-induced stresses 

(namely, ground-water withdrawals) 

on the ground-water system, and 41 

Figure 18. Observed 7-day average discharge at South Yadkin River near Mocksville (site 85, fig. 15) during the 1985–87 and 

2001–03 water years.

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������

����

����������������������������������

����������������������������

���������������������������������

��

�����������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

������

�����

���

��

�

�������������������

�������������������

������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 45
46 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions

wells were operated to monitor changes 

in ground-water storage in response 

to climate changes. New record-low 

ground-water levels for the periods 

of record were observed at 100 of the 

137 wells during the 2002 water year. 

Further examination of the ground-water 

data at sites having at least 5 years of 

record through the 2002 water year 

indicates that new record-low water 

levels for the periods of record were set 

at 45 of these wells (Howe and others, 

2003; table 6).

The spatial distribution and periods 

of record for USGS observation wells 

having long-term continuous records in 

North Carolina are smaller relative to 

those in the network of surface-water 

sites. Much of the historical groundwater data collection has been in the 

Coastal Plain; a relatively smaller 

amount of ground-water data has been 

collected in the Piedmont and Blue 

Ridge Provinces. Several wells in North 

Carolina have long-term systematic 

(total) records consisting of periodic 

measurements and continuous records, 

but 5 of the 41 climate-response wells 

had greater than 20 years of continuous 

record in the 2002 water year.

The NCDWR monitors water 

levels at 42 wells designated as droughtindicator wells across the State (North 

Carolina Division of Water Resources, 

2004), 26 of which currently (2004) are 

operated by the USGS in cooperation 

with NCDWR. Record-low water levels 

were set at about half of the 42 wells 

during the 1998–2002 drought, and most 

of the records were set during the 2002 

water year when hydrologic conditions 

were at the lowest levels. This is 

consistent with the temporal distribution 

of record-low streamflows that were 

set at gaging stations 

during the drought in 

that the vast majority of 

records were set during 

the 2002 water year.

Examination of 

ground-water records 

collected by the USGS 

and NCDWR resulted 

in the selection of 21 

climate-response wells 

that were spatially 

distributed across the 

State and would provide 

some indication of the 

lowest water levels 

that existed prior to the 

1998 water year and 

during the 1998–2002 

water years (fig. 19; 

table 7). Most of the 21 

selected wells are part 

of the Ground Water 

Climate Response 

Network of wells 

identified by the USGS 

during the 1998–2002 

drought to provide a 

quick means of assessing ground-waterlevel conditions across the United States 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2004).

Included in the 21 selected wells 

are 5 wells (sites 153, 155, 159, 163, 

and 168; table 7) that have periods of 

continuous record greater than 20 years. 

Of the remaining 16 wells, 9 wells had 

Extreme drought conditions in the summer of 2002 caused a spring 

on a farm south of Monroe, N.C., to dry up for the first time in nearly 

100 years.

Photograph by Mel Nathanson, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C., August 21, 2002. Used with permission.

Table 6. Summary of U.S. Geological Survey observation wells operated during the 2002 water year in North Carolina.

[Numbers of wells were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey 2002 annual data report for North Carolina (Howe and others, 2003)]

Wells affected by 

withdrawals

Climate-response 

wells Total

Wells operated during the 2002 water year 96 41 137a

Wells at which new record-low water levels for the periods 

of record were set during the 2002 water year

73 27 100

Wells with greater than 5 years of record 61 21 82

Wells with greater than 5 years of record at which new 

record-low water levels were set during the 2002 water 

year

35 10 45

a

Ground-water-level data were actually collected from a total of 143 observation wells in the 2002 water year (Howe and others, 2003). 

However, the total number includes 7 observation wells in Craven County where a small number of miscellaneous measurements were made 

during the period from March through August 2002. 
10–20 years of continuous record, 4 

wells had 5–10 years of continuous 

record, and 3 wells had less than 5 years 

of continuous record as of the 2002 

water year (table 7). At the three wells 

with less than 5 years of continuous 

records (sites 152, 156, and 160) and 

one well (site 161) with 5–10 years 

record, periodic measurements made 

during earlier periods ranging from 28 to 

42 years provided long-term data.

Ground-Water-Level Conditions 

During the 1998–2003 Water 

Years

Record-low water levels were set 

at 13 of the 21 selected wells during 

the 1998–2002 water years (table 7; 

fig. 19). Records were set at 11 of the 13 

sites during the 2002 water year alone 

(fig. 19). The well having the longest 

period of continuous record (site 153, 

table 7; fig. 19), dating from December 

1955, is among these 11 wells. The 

records at the other two wells were set 

during the 1999 and 2001 water years 

(sites 154 and 155, respectively). Where 

new record-low water levels were set 

during the 1998–2002 drought, the 

difference between the pre-drought 

and new records ranged from 0.05 to 

2.85 feet (ft; sites 164 and 158, respectively; table 7) among the 13 wells.

With the exception of three 

wells in the Blue Ridge and western 

Piedmont, the water-level data from the 

selected wells indicate fluctuations in 

the surficial aquifer (water table). The 

three deep wells (sites 152, 156, and 

160; table 7) range from 300 to 500 ft 

deep and are used to measure water 

levels in the underlying bedrock. These 

wells were included in this assessment 

to demonstrate that deeper wells can be 

affected by drought conditions. While 

water levels in deep wells respond to 

climate changes, the fluctuations (when 

expressed as percentage of the well 

depth) are typically smaller than those 

observed in shallow surficial aquifers. 

The pre-drought record-low water level 

at one of the deep wells (site 160) was 

exceeded by about 1 ft (table 7). At 

the other two deep wells, water levels 

during the drought were higher than 

pre-drought records by about 1.2 and 

0.6 ft (sites 152 and 156, respectively). 

No deep wells in the Coastal Plain were 

included in this assessment because 

many of these wells are affected by 

pumping in addition to climate changes.

For this report, water-level records 

for 5 of the 21 selected wells were 

chosen to illustrate the effects of the 

1998–2002 drought. These wells were 

selected because each has at least 15 

years of continuous record and is in 

close proximity to a nearby long-term 

streamflow-gaging station. Data from 

the resulting five pairs of surface-water 

and ground-water sites were examined 

to assess the decline and recovery that 

occurred during the drought. The five 

selected wells are NC-144 at Blantyre in 

Transylvania County (site 155), NC-146 

at Hornets Nest Park in Mecklenburg 

County (site 157), NC-142 at Mocksville in Davie County (site 159), NC-194 

at Marston in Scotland County (site 

162), and NC-173 at Comfort in Jones 

County (site 164, table 7; fig. 19).

Effects of the 1998–2002 drought 

on ground water in North Carolina 

varied during the course of the event. 

Overall water-level declines throughout 

the drought were continuous for 

the wells at Blantyre (NC-144) and 

Mocksville (NC-142, fig. 20), although 

declines at Hornets Nest (NC-146), 

Marston (NC-194), and Comfort 

(NC-173) were more pronounced during 

the 2000–2002 water years. Excluding 

the Hornets Nest well, the patterns 

indicate that drought effects were more 

pronounced in the western half of the 

State. In the Coastal Plain, water-level 

declines did not begin to occur until 

early to mid-2001 when water levels 

declined to below-normal ranges (25th 

Figure 19. Selected U.S. Geological Survey climate-response observation wells in North Carolina.

������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

��� ���

���

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 47
48 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions Table 7. Summary of site attributes and record-low ground-water levels at selected U.S. Geological Survey climate-response observation wells having greater than 5 years of systematic water-level records in North Carolina as of the 2002 water year. [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft, feet; NA, not available; DENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Wells are listed generally from west to east by physiographic province and are numbered sequentially with respect to the surface-water sites (see table 4). Brown shading denotes periods of record-low water levels set during the 1998–2002 drought. Blue shading denotes five wells used for cumulative monthly departures to assess variations in conditions during the drought] Site index no. (fig. 19) USGS site number Well name and(or) location State (NC) well number designation County well number designation County Well depth (ft) Full period of recorda Record-low water level, below land surface Prior to 1998 water yearb During 1998–2002 water yearc Water level (ft) Date Water level (ft) Date Blue Ridge Province 151 351121083545002 Marble NC-192 CE-029 Cherokee 24 Oct. 1989 – Sept. 2002 14.44 Nov. 5–6, 1993 12.97 Nov. 10, 1998 152 360455081530101 Bryson City NC-219 SW-036 Swain 555 Feb. 1965 – Mar.1999d

,

Aug. 2000 – 

Sept. 2002

8.50

Oct. 27, 1979 7.31 Nov. 4–7, 2000

153 352315082484401 Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., at Camp 

Hope near Crusoe

 NC-40 HW-047 Haywood 18.5 Dec. 1955 – 

Sept. 2002 6.90

Oct. 7–9, 1986 6.99 Sept. 12,13, 

2002

154 351709082434101 Pisgah National Forest NC-147 TR-066 Transylvania 25 June 1985 – 

Sept. 2002 17.66

Oct. 8–9, 1986 17.75 Sept. 26–28, 

1999

155 351808082374302 Blantyre NC-144 TR-065 Transylvania 70 Oct. 1981 – 

Sept. 2002 37.95

Dec. 23,24, 

1981

 39.63 Dec. 12, 2000

156 360455081530101 DENR Linville Research 

Station well H78d8

 NC-220 AV-074 Avery 300 Mar. 1972 – 

Mar. 2000d

,

June 2000 – 

Sept. 2002

3.37

Dec. 1, 1987 2.74 Sept. 13, 2002

Piedmont Province

157 351730080524203 Hornets Nest Park, near 

Huntersville

 NC-146 ME-301 Mecklenburg 17.1 Nov. 1984 – 

Sept. 2002 7.93

Oct. 10,11, 1993 8.57 Aug. 14,15, 

2002

158 354057080362601 DENR Piedmont Research Station well 

L63t1, near Barber

 NC-193 RO-149 Rowan 24 Nov. 1989 – 

Sept. 2002 8.30

Oct. 28–30, 

1993

 11.15 Sept. 14–16, 

2002

159 355359080331701 Mocksville NC-142 DV-025 Davie 30.8 Oct. 1981 – 

Sept. 2002 20.98

Oct. 24–26, 

1981

 23.22 Aug. 23–26, 

2002

160 361307080293101 DENR East Bend 

Research Station well F61f3

 NC-221 YD-200 Yadkin 400 June 1972 – 

May 2000d

,

June 2000 – 

Sept. 2002

15.90

Jan. 12, 1987 16.97 Aug. 25, 2002

161 355522079043001 Chapel Hill NC-126 OR-069 Orange 48 Jan. 1943 – 

Mar. 1948

Mar. 1948 – 

Dec. 1999f

Dec. 1999 – 

Sept. 2002

 Dryg See footnoteg 46.31 Sept. 30, 2002
aUnless otherwise noted, period of record consists of continuous records of water levels.

bBased on USGS 1997 annual data report for North Carolina (Howe and Breton, 1998).cBased on USGS 2002 annual data report for North Carolina (Howe and others, 2003).dPeriod of record consists of periodic water-level measurements collected by the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources prior to continuous record collected more recently by the USGS.

eWell name previously published as Champion International Corporation well.fPeriod of record from March 1948 through December 1999 consists of periodic water-level 

measurements. Continuous record is available from January 1943 through March 1948, and December 1999 through September 2002.

gLowest water level occurred during periods when well was dry: October 11 to December 31, 1941, 

and October 13, 1988, to January 24, 1989 (Howe and Breton, 1998). Examination of well records indicated that well also was dry during February and March 1934. However, well depth was increased by about 1 foot in February 1939, which limits direct comparisons of more current records with those obtained during the 1930s.

hLowest water level also occurred on October 8, 1996 (Howe and Breton, 1998).iAlthough the record-low water level for this site occurred during the 1998–2002 water years, its 

occurrence was not in response to the drought conditions documented in this report. Information provided in the USGS 1998 annual data report for North Carolina (Howe and Breton, 1999) indicates that water levels in Coastal Plain wells began the water year below normal.

Table 7. Summary of site attributes and record-low ground-water levels at selected U.S. Geological Survey climate-response observation wells having greater than 5 years of systematic water-level records in North Carolina as of the 2002 water year.—Continued[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft, feet; NA, not available, DENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Wells are listed generally from west to east by physiographic provinces and are numbered sequentially with respect to the surface-water sites (see table 4). Brown shading denotes periods of record-low water levels set during the 1998–2002 drought. Blue shading denotes five wells used cumulative monthly departures to assess variations in conditions during the drought]

Site 

index 

no. 

(fig. 19)

USGS

site

number

Well name and(or) location

State (NC) 

well number 

designation

County well 

number 

designation

County

Well 

depth

(ft)

Full period of 

recorda

Record-low water level, below land surface

Prior to 1998 water yearb During 1998–2002 water yearc

Water 

level (ft) Date Water level (ft) Date

Coastal Plain Province

162 345812079313401 Marston NC-194 SC-080 Scotland 35.6 Sept. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

 33.08 Mar. 24, 1992

Feb. 27, 1994

 34.45 Feb. 27, 2002

163 351849078163901 Grantham NC-148 WA-154 Wayne 10.4 Feb. 1980 – 

Sept. 2002

 8.65 Sept. 24–25, 

1997h

 8.58 Aug. 24–26, 2002

164 345809077301408 DENR Comfort Research 

Station well U26j8

 NC-173 JO-035 Jones 15 Jan. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

 9.97 Sept. 19–21, 

1994

 10.02 Sept. 23,24, 2002

165 343641077290106 DENR Dixon Tower Research Station Y25q6 NA ON-230 Onslow 22.0 Oct. 1994 – Sept. 2002 10.44 Sept. 10,13, 1997 12.44 Aug. 25,26, 2002166 343842077241501 Town Creek Well 1 NA ON-294 Onslow 23 Oct. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

 9.64 Aug. 26, 1995 11.29 Dec. 10–13, 2002

167 344139077211207 DENR Hadnot Point 

Research Station well X24s7

 NA ON-267 Onslow 40 Oct. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

 19.63 Oct. 11, 1994 19.86 July 7–10,12, 

2002

168 353219077153801 Simpson NC-160 PI-532 Pitt 12 Dec. 1976 – 

Sept. 2002

 8.84 Nov. 6–8, 1978 8.71 Aug. 25, 2002

169 361420077111407 DENR Roxobel Research 

Station well F22b7

 NC-154 BE-080 Bertie 12 Nov. 1986 – 

Sept. 2002

 9.31 Sept. 5, 1987 8.71 Aug. 27, 2002

170 354418076463601 Van Swamp NC-158 WS-100 Washington 15 Dec. 1986 – 

Sept. 2002

 6.41 Sept. 24–25, 

1997

 6.51 Oct. 17, 1997i

171 361829076163201 Elizabeth City NC-195 PK-141 Pasquotank 13.0 Oct. 1991 – 

Sept. 2002

 5.90 Sept. 21,22, 1997 6.08 Dec. 30, 2001,

Jan. 1–2, 2002

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 49
Figure 20. Ground-water hydrographs at five selected wells in North Carolina, 1998–2003 water years.

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

������

����

���������������������������������

�����������

��������������������������

��������������������

��������������������������

������������

���������������������������

�����������������

����������������������

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

���������������������������

������������������������������������

��

��

��

��

�����������������������������

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��������������������������

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��������������������������

50 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
to 75th percentiles). By early and 

mid-2002, water levels were consistently 

below the 10th percentiles at all wells, 

and new record-low water levels (for 

the calendar day) were being set almost 

daily (fig. 20).

Recovery of daily water levels at 

most observation wells began in October 

2002 following above-normal rainfalls 

during the previous 2 months. As abovenormal precipitation continued through 

the winter and spring, water levels at 

most wells returned to normal ranges by 

February and March 2003 and continued 

to be above normal for the remainder of 

the 2003 water year. The Hornets Nest 

well in Mecklenburg County 

(site 157, fig. 21) is a good example 

of the varying water-level changes in 

a shallow well. In mid-October 2002, 

water levels increased sharply by almost 

2 ft from the <10 percentile (October 

10) to median levels (October 17) in 

response to nearly 2.25 inches of rainfall 

on October 11 (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2003a). 

Given that the Hornets Nest well is 17 ft 

deep (table 7), the water level was very 

responsive to precipitation, as indicated 

by the jagged appearance of the hydrograph at this site (fig. 21).

Comparison of Ground-Water 

Levels During 1998–2002 with 

Historical Droughts

The relatively short periods 

of record at observation wells 

across North Carolina precludes the 

comparison of water-level declines 

during 1998–2002 with those 

that occurred during many of the 

historical droughts documented in 

the State. For many of the 21 wells 

selected for the purpose of this study 

(table 7), water levels during the 

1984–89 drought provide the only 

historical reference for comparing 

the most recent drought with earlier 

occurrences. Therefore, comparisons 

were made using the periods of 

pre-drought minimums of record for 

the wells as opposed to using periods 

associated with documented historical 

droughts. Water levels at two wells 

having the longest periods of continuous 

record (sites 153, 168) and three of the 

five wells previously discussed (sites 

155, 159, and 164, table 7) were used in 

these comparisons (figs. 22–26).

At the Blue Ridge Paper Products 

well (site 153, fig. 22) and the Simpson 

Figure 21. Ground-water hydrograph at NC-146 (site 157, Hornets Nest Park, 

Mecklenburg County) in North Carolina, 2002.

Figure 22. Water levels at NC-40 (site 153, Blue Ridge Paper Products well, Haywood 

County) during the 1985–90 and 1998–2003 water years. ���������������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������

��������������������������

������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ����

����

���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

���������������������������

�����������������

����������������������

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

���������������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

�

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 51
���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

���������������������������������������

Figure 23. Water levels at NC-160 (site 168, Simpson well, Pitt County) during the 1977–82 and 

1998–2003 water years.

Figure 24. Water levels at NC-144 (site 155, Blantyre well, Transylvania County) during the 

1982–87 and 1998–2003 water years.

52 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���������������������������������������

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

���� ���� ����

�����������

���� ���� ����

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������������

��������������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

���������������������������������������

Figure 25. Water levels at NC-142 (site 159, Mocksville well, Davie County) during the 1982–87 

and 1998–2003 water years.

Figure 26. Water levels at NC-173 (site 164, Comfort well, Jones County) during the 1990–95 

and 1998–2003 water years.

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 53
Extreme low-flow conditions at Briar Creek above Colony Road at Charlotte.

Photograph by Jeffrey Moss, USGS, June 21, 2002

Photograph by Patrick Schneider, The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N.C. Used with permission.

High Rock Lake in Davidson County was 15 feet below full pond on July 5, 2002.

Dry streambed at Coddle Creek above Lake Don T. Howell in Cabarrus 

County. The lake, which is owned and operated by the Water and Sewer 

Authority of Cabarrus County, is the water supply for the county and 

nearby Concord, N.C.

Photograph by Eric Rudisill, USGS, August 2002

54 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
well (site 168, fig. 23), overall water 

levels during the 1998–2003 water years 

were comparable to those that occurred 

during previous periods (1985–90 and 

1977–82 water years, respectively) in 

which pre-drought minimums were 

established. In fact, the differences in 

pre-drought and new record minimums 

at both these sites were less than 0.15 ft 

(table 7). At the other three wells, water 

levels in the 1998–2003 water years 

were noticeably lower during the recent 

drought than levels that occurred during 

periods when pre-drought minimums 

were established. Particularly during the 

2000–2002 water years, water levels at 

the Blantyre (site 155) and Mocksville 

(site 159) wells were at or below levels 

during the corresponding months in the 

1984–86 water years (figs. 24, 

25). At the Comfort well (site 

164), overall water levels in 

1998–2003 water years were 

very comparable to those in 

the 1990–95 water years, and 

the difference in minimum 

records was 0.05 ft, the 

smallest among the 21 wells 

(fig. 26; table 7).

Surface-Water 

and Ground-Water 

Time Lags (Drought 

Recovery Rate)

In considering the effects 

of drought on the hydrologic 

system, the distinctions 

between the surface water 

and ground water quickly 

become less discernible. 

Droughts serve as a reminder 

that the issue is not so much 

surface water or ground 

water but water itself. During 

droughts when streamflows 

are reduced to base flows, the 

base flows are sustained by 

ground water discharged from 

the aquifers to the streams. 

Streamflows respond more 

quickly to changing climate 

conditions than ground water, 

and the time lag between the 

beginning of a drought and the 

start of declining ground-water levels is 

longer than that for streamflows. This 

time-lag pattern continues following the 

end of a drought when streamflows are 

returning to normal and ground-water 

levels may still be declining. Perhaps an 

appreciation of the hydrologic responses 

to droughts can be obtained by comparing the time lags between monthly 

cumulative precipitation departures and 

monthly surface-water and ground-water 

departures during the 1998–2003 water 

years at sites located in close proximity 

to each other. Declining trends in the 

monthly departures represent periods 

in which a parameter (precipitation, 

streamflow, or ground water) is below 

normal while increasing trends represent 

periods of above-normal conditions.

Five pairs of surface-water and 

ground-water sites were selected, and 

plots of cumulative monthly departures 

at these sites and a nearby NOAA 

precipitation station were developed 

to assess the decline and recovery that 

occurred during the 1998–2002 drought 

(table 8; figs. 27–31). The pairing 

of these sites does not necessarily 

imply that a given stream site and its 

companion ground-water well are 

hydrologically connected. However, the 

close proximity of the two sites presents 

an opportunity to better understand the 

hydrologic responses at each site to 

changing precipitation patterns recorded 

at the nearby precipitation station.

To assess the time lags at the 

beginning of the drought, cumulative 

Table 8. Summary of time lags in cumulative monthly departures at selected surface-water 

and ground-water sites in response to changes in precipitation departures.

[Precip., precipitation; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; n/d; not determined. 

Number of months is time elapsed from month during which precipitation departures began to decrease or 

increase, indicating the onset or end of drought conditions, respectively. Distance is the straight-line distance 

between the surface-water and ground-water sites]

Surface-water, ground-water, and precipitation sites Onset of drought End of drought

French Broad River at Blantyre (site 126)

NC-144 at Blantyre (site 155

Precip. site: Asheville NOAA precipitation station

Distance: 0.35 mile

1 month

5 months

2 to 8 months

8 months

Long Creek near Paw Creek (site 106)

NC-146 at Hornets Nest Park (site 157)

Precip. site: Charlotte Douglas Airport NOAA 

precipitation station

Distance: 2.0 miles

same montha

5 months

2 to 6 months

3 to 6 months

South Yadkin River near Mocksville (site 85)

NC-142 at Mocskville (site 159)

Precip. site: Mocksville 5 SE NOAA precipitation station

Distance: 7.0 miles

1 month

11 months

2 to 6 months

8 months

Drowning Creek near Hoffman (site 95)

NC-194 near Marston (site 162)

Precip. site: Fayetteville Public Works Commission NOAA 

precipitation station

Distance: 6.5 miles

n/db

n/db

3 to 7 months

10 months

Trent River near Trenton (site 44)

NC-173 near Comfort (site 164)

Precip. site: Greenville NOAA precipitation station

Distance: 7.0 miles

n/db

n/db

5 months

5 months

a

The first month of below-normal streamflow at this site was the same first month of below-normal rainfall 

(May 1998), which was attributed to the small, more urbanized basin upstream from this site.

b

Undetermined because rainfall departures did not show a distinct decrease at the onset of the overall 

drought in 1998.

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 55
Figure 27. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation for sites at Blantyre, Transylvania County, during 

(A) 1998–2003 water years and (B) 2002–03 water years.

���������������������������������������������������������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

������������������������������������������������������

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

��������������

�������������������

����������������������

���������������������������

������������������

����������������������

���������

������������������

�������

��������������

�������������������

������������������

����������������������

���������

�������������������

�������

������

������

������

�����

�

������

�������

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

������������������������������������������������������������������

�����

�����

�����

�

������

��

��

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

��������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

56 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 28. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation for sites near Paw Creek, Mecklenburg County, 

during (A) 1998–2003 water years and (B) 2002–03 water years.

����������������������

��������������������

���������������������������

���������������������������

���������������

��������������������

�����������������

��������������������������

�������

����������������������

��������������������

���������������

��������������������

�����������������

��������������������������

�������

������������������������������������������������������������������

���

���

���

���

���

�

����

������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

���

��

��

��

�

�

��

���

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

���

��

��

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

��������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 57
Figure 29. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation for sites near Mocksville, Davie County, during 

(A) 1998–2003 water years and (B) 2002–03 water years. ������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

���������������������

������������������

�������������������������

���������������

������������������

�������

��������������

���������������������

������������������

�������������������������

���������������

������������������

�������

����������������������

���������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

������

������

�����

�����

�����

�

������

������

������

�������

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

����

����

����

����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�

��

�� ��������������������������

��������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

58 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Figure 30. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation for sites near Hoffman, Richmond County, 

during (A) 1998–2003 water years and (B) 2002–03 water years.

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

������������������

��������������

����������������������

����������������

������������������

�������

��������������

������������������

��������������

����������������������

����������������

������������������

�������

�����������������������

���������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

���

�

����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

���

�

����

��

��

��

�

�

��

���

���

���

��

��

��

�

�

��

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

��

�� ��������������������������

��������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 59
Figure 31. Cumulative monthly departures of streamflow, ground water, and precipitation for sites near Trenton, Jones County, 

during (A) 1998–2003 water years and (B) 2002–03 water years.

����������������

������������������

�����������������

�����������������

����������

�������������������

�������

�����������������������

��������

���������������������

���������������������

����������������

������������������

�����������������

�����������������

����������

�������������������

�������

������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

�����

���

�

����

������

������

������

�����

�����

�����

���

�

����

������

���

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

��

�� ���������������������

���������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���������������������������������������������������������

60 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
monthly departures at the sites were 

examined to identify the time elapsed 

between the “peak” months for precipitation, streamflow, and ground-water 

departures (figs. 27–31). For instance, 

the last month of above-normal rainfall 

at the Asheville NOAA precipitation 

station was May 1998 (fig. 27), and the 

last month of above-normal streamflow 

(site 126) and ground-water levels (site 

155) at Blantyre was in June (1 month) 

and October 1998 (5 months), respectively (table 8). Similar examinations 

were completed for the remaining four 

pairs of sites (figs. 28–31). To assess 

the time lags associated with drought 

recovery, the “trough” months in the 

departure curves were used to determine 

the time lags following the drought 

(figs. 27–31).

The onset of declining streamflow 

and ground-water levels as measured 

by cumulative monthly departures was 

much quicker and more distinctive for 

three of the five site pairs, all of which 

are located in the Piedmont or Blue 

Ridge Provinces (table 8; figs. 13, 19). 

Surface-water conditions began to 

decrease after 1 month at the French 

Broad River (site 126, fig. 27) and 

South Yadkin River (site 85, fig. 29); 

however, the first month of decreased 

streamflows was also the first month of 

below-normal rainfall at Long Creek 

(site 106, fig. 28). The quicker response 

at Long Creek is attributed to the smaller 

and more urbanized basin at this site.

At sites 95 and 44 in the Coastal 

Plain (figs. 30, 31), decreased streamflow conditions are more difficult to 

determine with certainty because of 

the variations in precipitation patterns 

that occurred during the 1998–2002 

water years. Not until late 1999 and 

early 2000 did streamflow conditions 

begin to decrease consistently at these 

sites, and this pattern was not reversed 

until summer 2002 when above-normal 

rainfall patterns began to occur across 

North Carolina.

As drought recovery began in the 

latter half of 2002, time lags between the 

increase in precipitation and increases 

in streamflow varied from 2 to 8 months 

at sites 126, 106, and 85 (table 8; 

figs. 27–29) in the Piedmont and Blue 

Ridge Provinces. The wide variations 

are a result of below-normal precipitation that occurred during January 2003, 

resulting in a brief period of belownormal streamflow at these sites. At sites 

95 and 44 in the Coastal Plain (figs. 30, 

31), the time lags in streamflow departures ranged from 3 to 7 months.

As expected, the time lags at the 

ground-water sites were longer than 

the time lags of monthly departures 

at the surface-water sites (table 8). 

This is consistent with the recognition 

that ground-water levels are the last 

component of the hydrologic system to 

respond to the start and end of droughts. 

At the three wells in the Piedmont and 

Blue Ridge Provinces, below-normal 

conditions, as denoted by the decreases 

in cumulative monthly departures, began 

5 months (sites 155, 157) and 11 months 

(site 159) following the onset of belownormal precipitation (figs. 27–29). Just 

as downward trends in the two Coastal 

Plain surface-water sites were difficult 

to ascertain, time lags at the start of the 

drought also were difficult to discern for 

the two Coastal Plain wells (sites 162, 

164; figs. 30, 31). Continuous downward 

trends in the monthly departures for 

these two wells did not begin until early 

and mid-2001.

At the end of the drought, increases 

in the cumulative monthly departures 

at the Piedmont and Blue Ridge wells 

began from 3 to 8 months after the start 

of above-normal rainfalls (table 8). At 

the Coastal Plain wells, the time lags in 

ground-water departures were 10 months 

(site 162) and 5 months (site 164).

Assessment of 1998–2002 

Drought Recovery Rate

Drought recovery rates following 

the 1998–2002 drought and other 

historical droughts were compared 

for surface-water sites 85 and 131 to 

gain further insight into the degree of 

rapid recovery that appeared to occur 

during the 12-month period ending 

September 2003 (figs. 32, 33). Although 

individual monthly departures were 

positive for some months beginning 

in fall 2002, continuous above-normal 

conditions (as denoted by increases in 

the cumulative monthly departures) for 

these two streams did not begin until 

spring 2003. At each site, the number 

of months (through September 2003) 

during which cumulative monthly 

departures increased was determined, 

and the actual difference in cumulative 

streamflow departures was computed. 

Examination of the trend in monthly 

departures for South Yadkin River 

(site 85) indicates that the first month of 

increased streamflow was March 2003; 

by September 2003, streamflow had 

increased by about 2,690 ft3/s (figs. 29, 

32). The precipitation departure also was 

identified for the same 7-month period. 

Next, to facilitate a comparison, the 

numbers of months following selected 

historical droughts during which almost 

the same amount of increased streamflow occurred also were computed. At 

South Yadkin River, an increase of about 

2,700 ft3/s in the streamflow departures 

occurred during a 23-month period from 

February 1971 through December 1972 

following the 1960s drought (fig. 32). 

Similar determinations were made for 

the periods following the 1950s and 

1980s droughts. Among the four drought 

recovery periods, the rate of recovery in 

2003 on South Yadkin River was much 

quicker in response to a greater amount 

of precipitation.

Similar comparisons of the 

recovery rates following historical 

droughts on the French Broad River 

(site 131) also indicated a strong and 

quick recovery following the 1998–2002 

drought. During the 6 months from April 

through September 2003, the cumulative 

streamflow departures increased about 

6,750 ft3/s (fig. 33). However, recovery 

rates of similar magnitudes occurred 

during shorter periods (5 months) 

following the droughts of the 1920s and 

1980s. A similar drought recovery rate 

occurred following the 1950s drought 

but over a longer period (57 months).

The time lags observed during 

recovery of hydrologic conditions 

following the 1998–2002 drought 

cannot be considered typical of recovery 

periods following droughts because 

of the continuous above-normal 

precipitation that occurred during the 

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 61
12-month period 

ending September 

2003. Had precipitation during these 

12 months been 

consistently closer 

to normal values, 

the recovery period 

would have extended 

well beyond spring 

and summer 2003. 

Defining a typical 

recovery is difficult 

because of many 

factors that affect 

the period of time 

in which hydrologic 

conditions return to 

normal ranges. In 

addition to precipitation amounts, 

drought recovery is 

influenced by the 

season and by infiltration characteristics 

of soils. Soils vary across 

North Carolina’s physiographic provinces and 

allow water to infiltrate 

from the surface to the 

ground-water system 

at different rates. The 

seasons influence 

the evaporative and 

consumptive rates of 

water, which in turn, 

affects the amount of 

water available for 

replenishing the hydrologic system. Thus, the 

recovery following the 

1998–2002 drought can 

be regarded as the ideal 

recovery sought by a 

drought-weary region 

adversely affected by 

the drought’s effects. 

Much of the replenishing precipitation 

following the 1998–

2002 drought occurred 

from fall through spring 

when water demands 

typically are low and 

when lower evaporation 

rates occur.

Figure 33. Drought recovery rates at French Broad River at Asheville (site 131) using cumulative monthly 

streamflow departures from January 1900 through September 2003.

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

�

�������

�������

�������

�������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�����������������������

������������������������

������������������������������������

�����������������������

����������������������������������

��������������������

������������

�����������������������

���������������������������������

����������������������������

�����������������������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

������

�����

�����

�����

�

������

������

������

������� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

��������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

�����������������������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������

���������������������������������������

�����������������������

����������������������������������

�������������������������������

�����������������������

����������������������������������

�������������

���������������������������������

�����������������������

���������������������������������

Figure 32. Drought recovery rates at South Yadkin River near Mocksville (site 85) using cumulative monthly 

streamflow departures from October 1938 through September 2003.

62 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
A Shelby firefighter checks a setup whereby a fire truck is used as a 

pumping station to pump 870 gallons of water per minute from the Shelby 

municipal water supply through a fire hydrant connected to the Cleveland 

County water system to a Kings Mountain pumping station 8,000 feet 

away.

Figure E-1. North Carolina communities operated under mandatory, voluntary, or emergency water conservation from 

November 2001 through January 2003. (No data were available for February, May, and December 2002; adapted from data provided 

by Mr. Woody Yonts, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, written commun., April 1, 2004.)

Mel Nathanson, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C., August 11, 2002. Used with permission.

The effects of the 1998–2002 drought 

appear to be greater than those of previous 

documented droughts in North Carolina. Most 

of the effects, however, were not a source of 

great concern to the general population until 

early 2002 after two dry winters (2001 and 

2002) occurred in combination with a very 

dry spring across the State and exacerbated 

the drought conditions. The primary threats 

were to water supplies, as many watersystem customers were forced to conserve 

water, and well owners either lost supply 

as wells went dry or came extremely close 

to doing so. The effects documented on 

the accompanying time line, which spans 

from January 2002 through June 2003, are 

selected highlights of problems caused by 

the drought and actions taken and should 

not be considered a complete description of 

the effects on communities and populations 

across North Carolina.

Residents of North Carolina and much of 

the eastern United States historically have 

benefited from an abundance of water. Thus, 

one of the challenges facing the NCDMAC 

and water-supply systems was to educate 

the citizens about limited water supplies and 

the need to adopt conservation measures 

during a period of declining supplies. As 

one State official later recalled, when towns 

in the normally “wet and flush” Sand Hills 

region (including Moore County) began to 

experience water-supply shortages, the 

severity of the drought took on a greater 

degree of urgency (Mr. Woody Yonts, North 

Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, oral 

commun., April 1, 2004).

During the first 

half of 2002, about 

25 communities 

implemented varying 

levels of water 

conservation in 

response to decreasing 

water supplies. By 

late September 2002, 

following the height 

of the drought, almost 

250 municipalities and 

communities across the 

State had implemented 

voluntary, mandatory, 

or emergency 

conservation 

procedures (fig. E-1). 

Emergency conservation restrictions were 

imposed when insufficient or complete 

loss of supply posed immediate threats to 

communities, requiring drastic and unusual 

measures to maintain sufficient supplies. The 

most serious threats to water supplies were 

confined primarily to communities in the 

Piedmont region where drought conditions 

persisted continuously during the 4-year 

drought. The critical shortages of water 

in some towns fostered an atmosphere of 

quick thinking and ingenuity on the part of 

engineers and water-system managers and 

an increased level of political cooperation 

among neighboring communities to ensure 

the availability of water. However, the 

drought also reinvigorated concerns and 

disputes between some communities about 

how water is shared and used, particularly 

communities that are in close proximity and 

Societal Effects of the 1998–2002 Drought 

in North Carolina

���������

���������

��� ���������

���

���

���

��

�

����

��

����

��

���� ���� ����

����

��

���� ����

��

����

��

��� ����

��

����

��

����

��

����

��

����

��

����

��

�����

��

�����

��

����

��

����

��

����

��

����

��

���� ����

��

�������

���������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������

Hydrologic Conditions During the 1998–2002 Drought 63
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept 

Wate

ern W

244 f

pared 

of 25

heav

(see p

Time line from January 2002 through June 2003 showing s

drought and the subse

Downstream flows in the lower Cape 

Fear River (below B. Everett Jordan 

Lake) were insufficient to prevent 

the encroachment of a saltwater 

wedge upstream from the Cape Fear 

River estuary during tidal fluctuations. The presence of the saltwater 

wedge, particularly during summer 

2002, caused significant challenges 

in the operation at a paper manufacturer in Columbus County.

2002

During the first half of 

2002, about 25 communities were on some form of 

water conservation.

Shelby, in Cleveland County, implemented emergency 

conservation in August 2002. The First Broad River reached 

such low levels that the city obtained water from a neighboring water-supply system (owned by Kings Mountain) by 

improvising a transfer system using fire trucks and hoses to 

pump water from fire hydrants located where the two 

distribution systems were a short distance from each other 

(see photo on p. 63)

Northeast of Shelby, available water supply for Cherryville 

fell to levels equivalent to about 1 day’s supply in August 

2002, prompting the town to search for water in nearby 

farm ponds and set up an emergency connection to Lincoln 

County’s water supply to obtain enough water to meet basic 

demands.

The first substantial rainfalls 

since the beginning of the 

drought occurred in late 

August and early September in many areas of North 

Carolina.

On July 12, the Governor of North 

Carolina urged citizens in 65 counties in 

the Cape Fear River basin, the Yadkin 

River basin, and other Piedmont areas in 

“exceptional” or “extreme” drought areas, 

as defined by the U.S. Drought Monitor, 

to reduce average water use by 20 percent.

Also on July 12, the Governor sent a 

letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 

requesting that 54 counties in North 

Carolina be declared disaster areas in 

order to receive Federal assistance 

(approved on July 23 and expanded in 

November 2002 to include 31 additional 

counties).

In mid-August, the 

Governor directed 

all State agencies to 

discontinue all “nonessential” water use.

By September, 

more than 250 co

munities were on 

some form of wa

conservation.
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

By January 2003, 

less than 20 communities were on 

voluntary or mandatory conservation.

2003

In August 2002, the town of Vass, in Moore County, had to truck in thousands of gallons of emergency drinking water (see photos on p. 66, 67).

Nearby in Carthage, town officials set up an emergency connection to 

Pinehurst by using an abandaoned sewage pipe to create a “reverse flow” of 

water supply.

In Robbins, and throughout other areas of Moore County, water supply 

reached such low levels that restaurants used paper products to help reduce 

water use for cleaning and sanitation purposes.

Lake levels in B. Everett Jordan Lake 

at the dam in Chatham County declined 

to about 210 feet in late August prior 

to the arrival of rainfall that eventually 

raised the lake level to normal operating 

level in fall 2002 (see photo on p. 9).

er levels in Falls Lake in north

Wake County declined to about 

feet in early October (com

d to normal operating level 

51 feet) prior to the arrival of 

vy rainfall on October 11

photo on p. 67).

By November 2002, more than 

200 communities were still on 

water conservation, although many 

systems previously on mandatory 

conservation had switched to voluntary conservation.

In Cabarrus County, one of the 

most affected counties during 

the drought, water levels in the 

primary impoundment (Lake 

Don T. Howell) began declining in late March 1998 and 

remained below normal until 

March 2003, when abovenormal precipitation finally 

returned water level to full conditions. The lowest water level 

recorded during the drought was 

10.1 feet below full capacity on 

October 10, 2002.

In May 2003, after ground-water levels 

reached normal ranges for the first time in 

4–5 years in many areas, the North Carolina 

Drought Management Advisory Council 

considered drought conditions to be nonexistent across the State.

selected societal effects in the last months of the 1998–2002 

equent recovery period

References for information included on this time line include:

• Mr. Ray Furr, Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County, written commun., 

April 13, 2004.

• Mr. Terry Brown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written commun., April 8, 2004.

• Mr. Woody Yonts, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

written commun., April 1, 2004, and oral commun., September 2, 2004.

• The News and Observer Publishing Company, 2002a, 2002c, 2002d.

• State of North Carolina Office of the Governor, 2002a.

om

n 

ater 
rely on streams within the same basin for 

water supply (Knight Publishing Company, 

2002).

Even with the onset of wetter conditions 

in late August and September 2002, the 

number of communities practicing water 

conservation remained above 200 through 

November when many systems under 

mandatory conservation switched to 

voluntary conservation (fig. E-1). By January 

2003, above-normal precipitation provided 

enough improvement to water supplies 

that the total number of communities under 

some form of water conservation decreased 

more than 90 percent from peak levels in 

September 2002.

Even large reservoirs across North 

Carolina that serve multiple purposes 

had record or near record-low water 

levels, resulting in continuous and careful 

management to balance the upstream 

and downstream needs of users. Waterconservation efforts were in effect at Lake 

Norman, the largest of 11 impoundments 

located along the heavily regulated Catawba 

River in North and South Carolina. In the 

first months of the 1998–2002 drought, the 

regional power utility that owns the lake put 

conservation measures in place to save the 

surplus lake volume generated by abovenormal precipitation in winter and spring 

1998. Such water-saving measures included 

coordinating lower (40-percent reduction) 

reservoir releases with downstream 

industries and utilities. Monthly inflows to 

some large reservoirs operated by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers were among the 

lowest recorded since the impoundments 

were constructed. At B. Everett Jordan Lake 

in Chatham County, monthly inflows were 

less than 50 percent of monthly normals 

in 17 of 24 months (October 2000 through 

September 2002) and declined to less than 

15 percent from May through July 2002 

(fig. E-2). During the same period, monthly 

inflows to Falls Lake in Wake and Durham 

Counties were less than zero in 5 of 24 

months (including May through July 2002), 

which means the monthly volume of water 

that evaporated from the lake exceeded 

inflows from the basin. At J.H. Kerr Reservoir 

near the North Carolina-Virginia State line, 

inflows were below the lowest monthly 

records since 1950 in 8 of the 12 months 

between October 2001 and September 2002.

 One of the purposes of J.H. Kerr 

Reservoir, located on the North CarolinaVirginia State line, is for hydroelectric 

power production, which posed additional 

challenges in maintaining all uses of the 

impoundment. During the latter stages of the 

drought, normal power production could not 

be achieved, and replacement power had to 

be purchased to meet demands. During the 

1998–2002 drought, the cost of replacement 

power was about $1.3 million (Mr. Carter 

Edge, Southeastern Power Administration, 

written commun., April 9, 

2004), a cost ultimately borne 

by customers.

Estimates of the effects 

of droughts on the economy 

are often difficult to establish, 

and little has been done by 

businesses and government 

to track the costs associated 

with droughts. When 

major droughts occur, the 

large-scale efforts needed to 

assemble such information 

from a wide spectrum 

of affected sectors and 

geographic areas typically 

hinder the identification of 

costs, particularly when 

such data are not easily 

distinguished from the overall 

costs of operation and 

production. The economic 

effects of droughts vary 

widely from seemingly small 

increased for homeowners 

NET MONTHLY INFLOW, PERCENT OF NORMAL

J.H. Kerr Reservoir

Falls Lake

B. Everett Jordan Lake

W. Kerr Scott Reservoir

Net monthly inflows at B. Everett Jordan 

and Falls Lakes reached about 810 and 

1,150 percent of normal, respectively,

in response to excessive rainfalls associated 

with several tropical storms in August and 

September 1999.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

JUNE

98

DEC. JUNE

99

DEC. JUNE

00

DEC. JUNE

01

DEC. JUNE

02

DEC. JUNE MAR.

03

Figure E-2. Net monthly inflows from July 1998 through March 2003 at four reservoirs in North Carolina and 

Virginia (adapted from data provided by Mr. Terry Brown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written commun., 

April 8, 2004).

A volunteer firefighter unloads a pallet of bottled water in Vass, N.C. The Division of 

Emergency Management delivered 5,800 gallons of water to the town in August 2002.

Photograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C., August 11, 2002. Used with permission.

66 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Heading 1 67

costs to irrigate parched lawns and gardens 

to the much greater costs associated with 

agricultural losses. For example, the low 

water volumes in Lake Don T. Howell, the 

primary water supply for Cabarrus County, 

throughout most of the 1998–2002 drought 

resulted in the implementation of mandatory 

water conservation in Concord from February 

2000 through mid-November 2003. During 

this period, the city issued 341 citations for 

water violations, totaling $91,600 (Ms. Joyce 

Allman, City of Concord, written commun., 

April 13, 2004). In neighboring Mecklenburg 

County, the implementation of mandatory 

water conservation resulted in 1,985 citations 

being issued from mid-August through 

November 1, 2002, totaling about $50,000 in 

water-violation fees (Ms. Maeneen Klein, 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department, 

oral commun., April 12, 2004). Other economic 

effects included decreased municipal 

revenues from the sale of water supplies and 

from limited recreational opportunities at 

area lakes because of lower water levels.

While economic losses are associated 

with droughts, there are some economic 

gains associated with droughts. Companies 

that focus on water production or on 

providing alternative water use typically 

experience higher demands for services, 

such as well-drilling companies, irrigationsystem companies, and commercial 

car-wash businesses, especially in areas 

where personal car washing is prohibited 

or restricted because of mandatory waterconservation measures.

In 1995, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated that droughts 

in the United States cause an average annual 

loss of $6 to $8 billion, surpassing the annual 

average losses associated with floods 

and hurricanes ($2.41 billion and $1.2 to 

$4.8 billion, respectively; Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 1995). In general, the 

costs associated with specific droughts 

are not available. The drought across the 

United States in 1988–89, however, was 

estimated to cost nearly $40 billion, with a 

large part of the reported losses coming from 

the agricultural sector (National Drought 

Mitigation Center, 2003b). To encourage the 

estimation of economic effects of droughts, 

the NDMC compiled information for 2002 and 

determined an approximate cost of $11 billion 

(Hayes and others, 2004). However, data 

were not available from all states affected by 

the drought in 2002, nor were data available 

from all affected sectors within states for 

which cost information was compiled. 

Thus, the $11 billion cost is considered an 

underestimate.

In North Carolina alone, drought costs 

in 2002 were estimated to be $398 million 

for agriculture and $15 to $20 million for 

municipalities (Hayes and others, 2004). It 

should be noted that these costs are for 

only 1 year of the 4-year drought and do 

not include costs associated with business 

and industry losses. The North Carolina 

Rural Economic Development Center cited 

drought costs at $1 billion, although no 

specific information was given on which 

sectors were represented in this estimate 

(Hall, 2003). The lack of complete costs for 

all affected sectors has highlighted the need 

for additional emphasis on tracking costs 

associated with droughts (Hayes and others, 

2004).

Falls Lake, in northern Wake County, was 6 feet below its normal operating level 

in August 2002.

Thaggard’s Lake, in Moore County, was used as an emergency water supply for the 

town of Vass in August 2002.

Photograph by Chuck Liddy, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C., August 11, 2002. Used with permission.

Photograph by Tamara L. Ware, USGS, August 15, 2002
Summary

Drought conditions prevailed across much of North 

Carolina during 1998–2002, resulting 

in widespread record-low streamflow 

and ground-water levels in many areas, 

particularly in 2002. During this 4-year 

period, the drought was continuously 

present in areas of western North 

Carolina; eastern areas of the State had 

some periods of relief from the drought 

from tropical storms in 1998 and 1999. 

The occurrence of dry winters in 2001 

and 2002 followed by a dry spring 

exacerbated drought conditions across 

the State during the summer of 2002.

Precipitation deficits during the 

1998–2002 drought were among the 

highest recorded for some locations 

in North Carolina. The largest deficits 

occurred primarily in the western 

Piedmont and reached 60 to 70 inches at 

some locations during the 4-year period. 

Record rainfalls from several tropical 

storms in late August through October 

1999, most notably Hurricane Floyd, 

caused widespread catastrophic flooding 

that brought immediate but temporary 

relief from drought conditions in much 

of eastern North Carolina. Cumulative 

monthly precipitation at 13 selected 

NOAA precipitation stations across 

the State ranged from 5.3 inches below 

normal (Greenville) to 66.7 inches 

below normal (Hickory) from May 1998 

through September 2002. At 9 of the 13 

stations, precipitation deficits during the 

drought were more than 25 inches below 

normal. At three of these locations 

(Hickory, Charlotte, and Mocksville), 

precipitation deficits exceeded the 

average annual precipitation. Expressed 

another way, the equivalent of between 

12 and 18 months of precipitation did 

not occur at these locations during the 

4-year drought.

Available data for the period of 

record were examined for 8 of the 13 

NOAA precipitation stations to compare 

the deficits during the 1998–2002 

drought with those that occurred 

during selected historical droughts. For 

instance, the deficit of 68.3 inches at 

Hickory from May 1998 through July 

2002 (51 months) exceeded the deficit of 

60.0 inches over 82 months during the 

1950s drought, which lasted from late 

1949 through 1957 and was commonly 

regarded as the benchmark drought prior 

to the 1998–2002 drought. However, this 

was not the case at all locations; thus, an 

average monthly deficit was computed 

for the historical droughts at the eight 

selected sites to serve as a simple index 

for comparing rainfall deficits among 

the droughts.

At three (Hickory, Charlotte, and 

Mocksville) of the eight locations, 

the average monthly rainfall deficit 

exceeded the values computed for other 

drought periods. While the 1998–2002 

average monthly deficits were not the 

largest for the remaining five locations, 

the 1998–2002 values would have been 

the maximum values at three locations 

(Greensboro, Raleigh, and Fayetteville) 

where the actual deficits were skewed 

by rainfall from tropical storms (Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene) in 

fall 1999. After rainfall record was 

adjusted to exclude the rainfall during 

August, September, and(or) October at 

Greensboro, Raleigh, and Fayetteville, 

the adjusted average monthly deficits 

for these locations were then the largest 

values identified among the drought 

periods.

Of the 211 continuous-record 

streamflow-gaging stations across 

North Carolina in the 2002 water year, 

record-low annual mean discharge and 

daily mean discharge were set at 150 

and 121 sites, respectively, during the 

1998–2002 water years. Of these sites, 

annual and daily records were set at 

131 and 94 sites, respectively, during 

the 2002 water year alone. Record daily 

mean discharges before and after the 

drought were compiled for 150 of the 

211 gaging stations where periods of 

record exceeded 10 years. Among these 

150 sites, records of low daily mean 

discharge were set at 65 sites during the 

4-year drought (55 sites during the 2002 

water year alone).

The 150 sites were re-examined 

to identify the sites having 30 years of 

uninterrupted record through the 2002 

water year and no significant effects 

from regulation and(or) diversions. The 

resulting subset of 68 sites were then 

analyzed to quantify the “daily” percentile and recurrence intervals of 7-day 

average discharges. For the purposes of 

characterizing streamflow conditions in 

smaller areas, the 68 sites were subdivided into 6 groups representing 

smaller areas of each physiographic 

province: 13 sites in the southern Blue 

Ridge, 11 sites in the northern Blue 

Ridge, 14 sites in the western Piedmont, 

19 sites in the eastern Piedmont, 7 sites 

in the southern Coastal Plain, and 4 sites 

in the northern Coastal Plain.

During May 1998, the first month 

in which rainfall amounts were below 

normal, streamflows began a gradual 

decline to levels that were in the lower 

ranges of normal (defined as 25th 

through 75th percentiles) by September 

for Piedmont streams. Streamflow 

conditions in the Blue Ridge Province 

declined further into the 10th–24th 

and <10th percentiles during the same 

period. Southern Blue Ridge streams 

generally had the highest number 

of days in which the 7-day average 

discharge exceeded the 10-, 50-, and 

100-year recurrence intervals, and some 

sites exceeded the 10-year recurrence 

interval for more than 50 days.

Overall streamflow conditions 

during much of the 1999 water year 

were in the lower ranges of normal and 

the 10th–24th percentiles, although 

streams in the eastern Piedmont and 

Coastal Plain were in the high-percentile 

ranges (>90th percentile) because of 

tropical storms. Among the 68 sites for 

which detailed analyses were completed, 

about 15 sites across the State had 

more than 100 days during which 7-day 

average discharges were in the >10-year 

recurrence interval range.

During the first half of the 2000 

water year, the Coastal Plain and eastern 

Piedmont streams gradually declined 

from above normal (75th percentiles 

and higher) to the low-normal range 

following the flooding that occurred 

from Hurricane Floyd. In the western 

Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces, 

streams generally were between the 

low-normal range and the 10th–24th 

percentiles throughout most of the 2000 

water year.

68 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Throughout much of the 2001 

water year, overall streamflows were 

more consistently in the below-normal 

range (<10th and 10th–24th percentiles) 

in all three provinces. The number of 

days in which 7-day average discharges 

exceeded the 10-, 50-, and 100-year 

recurrence intervals continued to 

increase significantly in the Blue Ridge 

and western Piedmont. In particular, the 

7-day average discharges exceeded the 

10-year recurrence interval at about 15 

sites in this area for more than 200 days 

and at one site for more than 300 days.

Streamflow conditions continued 

to decline during the 2002 water year 

and by August and September reached 

the lowest levels since the beginning 

of the drought. Across most of North 

Carolina, streamflows consistently were 

in the <10th percentile range, and new 

record-low flows (for the calendar day) 

were being set on an almost daily basis. 

Recurrence intervals for 7-day average 

discharges varied across the State, and 

many streamflows were in the 50- to 

100-year recurrence interval range 

during the summer months until abovenormal rainfalls arrived in late August 

and September to reverse the low-flow 

trends. During the 2002 water year, 

the areal extent of sites where 7-day 

average discharges exceeded the 10-year 

recurrence interval for more than 200 or 

300 days covered much of central North 

Carolina. In fall 2002, streamflows 

began to consistently increase at many 

sites across North Carolina for the first 

time in nearly 4 years. 

During October 2002 through 

June 2003, streams generally returned 

to normal and above-normal levels 

(75th–89th percentiles). Following a 

brief decline during January, streamflow 

conditions continued to improve to 

higher levels between February and 

June, and levels consistently were in the 

75th–89th and >90th percentile ranges. 

In fact, during the 2003 water year, none 

of the 68 sites used in this analysis had 

more than 50 days in which the 7-day 

average discharges exceeded the 10-, 

50-, or 100-year recurrence intervals. 

Another indication of the rapid reversal 

in streamflow conditions during the 

2003 water year is the occurrence of 

record-high annual mean discharges 

that were established at 130 of 214 

continuous-record gaging stations across 

North Carolina. Of the 130 gaging 

stations, 87 were sites where record-low 

annual mean discharges were set during 

the 2002 water year, including 19 of the 

68 selected gaging stations analyzed 

for this study. In terms of streamflow, 

drought conditions were considered 

nonexistent by the end of April 2003.

Comparisons of minimum 7-day 

average discharges for six selected 

gaging stations (two from each 

physiographic province) with long-term 

records provided insight into how the 

1998–2002 drought compares with 

historical droughts in North Carolina. 

The minimum 7-day average discharge 

was determined for each historical 

drought documented in North Carolina. 

At three sites, the minimum 7-day average discharges during the 1998–2002 

drought became the minimum flows for 

the periods of record, including the site 

on the French Broad River in western 

North Carolina having the longest period 

of record. Because the three sites are 

located in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge 

Provinces, these comparisons confirmed 

observations that the greatest effects 

of the 1998–2002 drought occurred at 

streams in these areas of North Carolina.

Ground-water levels were measured 

in 137 observation wells across North 

Carolina in the 2002 water year. Of 

these wells, 96 were operated to monitor 

the effects of human-induced stresses 

(namely, ground-water withdrawals) on 

the ground-water system, and 41 wells 

were operated to monitor changes in 

ground-water storage in response to 

climate changes. Examination of the 

ground-water data at sites having at least 

5 years of record through the 2002 water 

year indicates that new record-low water 

levels for the periods of record were set 

at 45 of these wells. The spatial distribution and periods of record for USGS 

observation wells having long-term 

continuous records in North Carolina are 

smaller relative to those in the network 

of surface-water sites. Only 5 of the 

41 climate-response wells had greater 

than 20 years of continuous record in 

the 2002 water year. Examination of 

ground-water records collected by the 

USGS and North Carolina Division 

of Water Resources resulted in the 

selection of 21 climate-response wells 

that were spatially distributed across the 

state. Three of these sites are deep wells 

in the Blue Ridge and western Piedmont 

and are used to measure water levels in 

the underlying bedrock; the remaining 

18 relatively shallow wells are used to 

measure water-level fluctuations in the 

surficial aquifer.

Record-low water levels were set 

at 13 of the 21 selected wells during 

the 1998–2002 water years; records 

were set at 11 of the 13 sites during 

the 2002 water year alone. Where new 

record-low water levels were set during 

the 1998–2002 drought, the difference 

between the pre-drought and new 

records ranged from 0.05 to 2.85 ft 

among the 13 wells.

Drought recovery rates following 

the 1998–2002 drought and other 

historical droughts were compared 

using cumulative monthly streamflow 

departures for two surface-water sites 

(South Yadkin River and French Broad 

River) to gain further insight into the 

type of recovery that occurred during 

the 12-month period ending September 

2003. For instance, examination of the 

trend in monthly streamflow departures 

for South Yadkin River indicates that 

overall increases began during March 

2003 and by September 2003 (a 7-month 

period) had increased by approximately 

2,690 ft3/s. In comparison, a drought 

recovery rate of similar magnitude at 

this site occurred during a 23-month 

period from February 1971 through 

December 1972 following the 1960s 

drought. Similar comparisons of the 

recovery periods following historical 

droughts on the French Broad River also 

indicated a strong and rapid recovery 

following the 1998–2002 drought. 

During the 6 months from April through 

September 2003, cumulative monthly 

streamflow departures increased by 

about 6,750 ft3/s. However, recovery 

rates of similar magnitudes occurred 

during shorter periods (5 months) 

following the droughts of the 1920s and 

1980s. A similar drought recovery rate 

Summary 69
occurred following the 1950s drought 

but over a longer period (57 months).

The time lags observed during 

recovery of hydrologic conditions 

following the 1998–2002 drought 

cannot be considered typical of recovery 

periods following droughts because of 

the above-normal rainfalls that occurred 

during the 12-month period ending 

September 2003. Had rainfall during 

these 12 months been consistently closer 

to normal values, the recovery period 

would have extended well beyond spring 

and summer 2003.

Record or near record-low water 

levels occurred at reservoirs across 

North Carolina, including some of the 

largest ones used for multiple purposes, 

and continuous and careful operation 

was necessary to balance upstream and 

downstream user needs. Lake Don T. 

Howell, the primary water supply 

for Cabarrus County, remained 

below full capacity for almost 5 years 

(March 1998 through March 2003), 

falling to 10.1 ft below full capacity on 

October 10, 2002. Monthly inflows to 

some large reservoirs operated by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were 

among the lowest recorded since the 

impoundments were constructed. At 

B. Everett Jordan Lake in Chatham 

County, monthly inflows were less than 

50 percent of monthly normals in 17 

of 24 months (October 2000 through 

September 2002) and declined to less 

than 15 percent from May through July 

2002. During the same period, monthly 

inflows to Falls Lake in Wake and 

Durham Counties were less than zero in 

5 of 24 months (including May through 

July 2002), which means the monthly 

volume of water that evaporated from 

the lake exceeded inflows from the 

basin. At J.H. Kerr Reservoir near the 

North Carolina-Virginia State line, 

inflows were below the lowest monthly 

records since 1950 in 8 of the 12 months 

between October 2001 and September 

2002.

The 1998–2002 drought caused 

widespread hardship and losses across 

North Carolina. During the latter months 

of 2002, nearly 250 municipalities, 

including most major cities, operated 

under some form of voluntary, mandatory, or emergency water-conservation 

restrictions. Emergency conservation 

was enforced in areas where insufficient 

or complete loss of water supply posed 

immediate threats to the community, 

resulting in drastic and unusual measures to maintain sufficient supplies. In 

general, the water-supply systems that 

were most affected were those that relied 

on river intakes and(or) had relatively 

small volumes of water-supply storage. 

Although above-normal rainfall returned 

starting in August and September 2002, 

more than 200 systems remained under 

some form of conservation through 

November 2002; however, many 

switched from mandatory to voluntary 

conservation while awaiting the longterm outcome from the rainfalls. By 

January 2003, hydrologic conditions 

had improved enough that most municipalities were no longer operating under 

water-conservation restrictions.

Economic losses from droughts are 

difficult to estimate. In 2002 alone, the 

costs for agriculture were estimated to 

be $398 million and $15 to 20 million 

for municipalities. These costs are for 

only 1 year of the drought and do not 

include costs associated with business or 

industry losses. The total estimated costs 

in North Carolina for the 1998–2002 

drought were $1 billion, although no 

specific information was available on 

which sectors were represented in this 

estimate. The lack of detailed costs for 

all affected sectors has emphasized the 

need for tracking costs associated with 

droughts. Nevertheless, costs associated 

with droughts are very high (average 

annual cost is $6 to 8 billion for the 

United States) when compared with the 

average annual costs associated with 

floods ($2.4 billion) and hurricanes 

($1.2 to 4.8 billion).

Editorial cartoon used with permission, by Gary Brookins, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 

August 29, 2002.

70 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Selected References

Bales, J.D., Oblinger, C.J., and Sallenger, A.H., Jr., 2000, Two months 

of flooding in eastern North Carolina, 

September–October 1999: Hydrologic, water-quality, and geologic 

effects of Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, 

and Irene: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00–4093, 47 p.

Bales, J.D., Weaver, J.C., and Robbins, 

J.C., 2003, The drought of 1998–

2002—North Carolina experiences 

[poster]: U.S. Geological Survey, 

1 sheet.

Barber, N.L., and Stamey, T.C., 2000, 

Droughts in Georgia: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 00–380, 2 p.

Bosilovich, M.G., and Schubert, S.D., 

2001, Precipitation recycling over the 

central United States diagnosed from 

the GEOS-1 data assimilation system: 

American Meteorological Society 

Journal of Hydrometeorology, v. 2, 

no. 1, p. 26–35.

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, R.P., and 

Phillips, D.L., 1994, A statisticaltopographical model for mapping 

climatological precipitation over 

mountainous terrain: Journal of 

Applied Meteorology, v. 33, 

p. 140–158.

Daly, Christopher, Taylor, G.H., and 

Gibson, W.P., 1997, The PRISM 

approach to mapping precipitation 

and temperature, in Proceedings 

of the 10th Conference on Applied 

Climatology, Reno, Nev., Oct. 20–24, 

1997: Boston, Mass., American 

Meteorological Society, p. 10–12.

Edwards, D.C., and McKee, T.B., 

1997, Characteristics of 20th century 

drought in the United States at 

multiple time scales: Fort Collins, 

Colorado State University Climatology Report 97–2.

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 1995, National mitigation 

strategy—Building partnerships for 

safer communities: Washington D.C., 

51 p.

Hale, T.W., Hopkins, E.H., and Carter, 

R.F., 1989, Effects of the 1986 

drought on streamflow in Alabama, 

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 89–4212, 56 p.

Hall, B.R., 2003, Poverty’s enduring tradition in rural North Carolina—How 

do we respond? in Popular Government, v. 68, no. 3, Spring/Summer 

2003: Institute of Government of The 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, p. 25–31.

Hayes, M.J., Svoboda, M.D., Knutson, 

C.L., and Wilhite, D.A., 2004, 

Estimating the economic impacts 

of drought [abs.]: Proceedings 

of the 84th annual meeting of the 

American Meteorological Society, 

January 10–16, 2004, Seattle, 

Wash., J 2.6, 3 p.; accessed March 31, 

2004, at http://ams.confex.com/ams/

84Annual/techprogram/paper_73004.

htm .

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water 

hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p.

Heim, R.R., Jr., 2002, A review of 

twentieth-century drought indices 

used in the United States: Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society, 

v. 83, no. 8 (August 2002), p. 1149–

1165.

Howe, S.S., and Breton, P.L., 1998, 

Water resources data, North Carolina, 

water year 1997, v. 2, ground-water 

records: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Report NC–97–2, 251 p.

Howe, S.S., and Breton, P.L., 1999, 

Water resources data, North Carolina, 

water year 1998, v. 2, ground-water 

records: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Report NC–98–2, 243 p.

Howe, S.S., Breton, P.L., and Chapman, 

M.J., 2003, Water resources data, 

North Carolina, water year 2002, v. 2, 

ground-water records: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

NC–02–2, 355 p.

Hoyt, J.C., 1936, Droughts of 1930–34: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 680, 106 p.

Karl, T.R., and Knight, R.W., 1985, 

Atlas of monthly Palmer Hydrological 

Drought Indices (1931–1983) for the 

contiguous United States: Asheville, 

N.C., National Climatic Data Center, 

Historical Climatology Series 3–7.

Knight Publishing Company, 2002, Who 

gets the water? The Carolinas face 

new limits as growth outpaces supply: 

news article by Bruce Henderson 

appearing in The Charlotte Observer, 

December 29, 2002; accessed February 4, 2004, from online archives at 

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/

charlotte/news/4833197.htm .

Langbein, W.B., and Iseri, K.T., 1960, 

General introduction and hydrologic 

definitions: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1541–A, 29 p.

Moreland, J.A., 1993, Drought: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 

93–642, 2 p.

National Drought Mitigation Center, 

2003a, Drought monitor—State-ofthe-art blend of science and subjectivity; accessed December 16, 2003, at 

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/classify.

htm .

National Drought Mitigation Center, 

2003b, Understanding your risk; 

accessed April 9, 2004, at http://

drought.unl.edu/risk/risk.htm .

National Drought Mitigation Center, 

2003c, What is drought? accessed 

December 1, 2003, at http://drought.

unl.edu/whatis/what.htm .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2001, Drought 

determination and amelioration 

background: National Climatic Data 

Center; accessed March 2, 2004, at 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/

research/drought/background.html .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002, The ENSO 

cycle—Climate Prediction Center; 

accessed February 24, 2004, at http://

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/

analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/

enso_cycle.html .

Selected References 71
72 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2003a, Climatological data, North Carolina, October 

2002: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, v. 107, no. 10, 

36 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2003b, North American drought—A paleo perspective, 

The last 500 years; accessed March 2, 

2004, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

paleo/drought/drght_500years.html .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2004a, Climate of 

2004–January U.S. Palmer Drought 

Indices: National Climatic Data Center; accessed December 2, 2004, at 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/

research/prelim/drought/palmer.html .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2004b, Climate 

of 2004–January North Carolina drought: National Climatic 

Data Center; accessed December 

2, 2004, at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.

gov/oa/climate/research/2004/jan/

st031dv00pcp200401.html .

News and Observer Publishing Company, 2001, Drought grips western 

half of state: news article by Bob 

Williams in The News and Observer, 

March 17, 2001; accessed February 

25, 2004, from online archives at 

http://www.newsbank.com/ .

News and Observer Publishing Company, 2002a, Some taps could run dry 

this week: news article by Dan Egbert 

in The News and Observer, August 

12, 2002; accessed August 26, 2004, 

from online archives at http://www.

newsbank.com/ .

News and Observer Publishing Company, 2002b, Stage 3 restrictions may 

be close: news article by Dave Hart 

in The Chapel Hill News, August 25, 

2002; accessed February 25, 2004, 

from online archives at http://www.

newsbank.com/ .

News and Observer Publishing Company, 2002c, Towns desperate for 

water: news article by Jay Price and 

Molly Hennessy-Fiske in The News 

and Observer, August 11, 2002; 

accessed August 26, 2004, from 

online archives at http://www.

newsbank.com/ .

News and Observer Publishing Company, 2002d, Water scramble: news 

article by Dan Egbert in The News 

and Observer, August 21, 2002; 

accessed February 25, 2004, from 

online archives at http://www.newsbank.com/ .

North Carolina Department of Agriculture, 2002, Letter from the North 

Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture to the President of the United 

States, dated November 14, 2002; 

accessed April 8, 2004, at http://www.

ncagr.com/georgebush11-15-02.doc .

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002, 

Environmental agency offers water 

conservation assistance to business 

and industry in drought-affected 

North Carolina counties: press release 

dated July 23, 2002; accessed August 

25, 2004, at http://www.enr.state.

nc.us/newsrels/20020723_Drought

Assist.html .

North Carolina Division of Water 

Resources, 2004, Drought indicator 

wells: North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council; accessed 

March 18, 2004, at http://www.ncwater.org/drought/wells.php .

North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, 2002, Rural Center 

awards $3.2 million to droughtstricken communities, joins with 

Gov. Easley and state agencies 

to address water shortages: press 

release dated December 12, 2002; 

accessed February 12, 2004, at 

http://www.ncruralcenter.org/news/

pr.asp?ReleaseID=66 .

Pal, J.S., and Eltahir, E.A.B., 2001, 

Pathways relating soil moisture conditions to future summer rainfall within 

a model of the land-atmosphere 

system: American Meteorological 

Society Journal of Climate, v. 14, 

no. 6, p. 1227–1242.

Paulachok, G.N., Krejmas, B.E., and 

Soden, H.L., 2000, Hydrologic 

aspects of the 1998–99 drought in the 

Delaware River basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4112, 29 p.

Ragland, B.C., Barker, R.G., and Robinson, J.B., 2003, Water resources 

data, North Carolina, water year 

2002, v. 1B, surface-water records: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report, NC–02–1B, 645 p.

Ragland, B.C., Barker, R.G., and Robinson, J.B., 2004, Water resources 

data, North Carolina, water year 

2003, v. 1B, surface-water records: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report, NC–03–1B, 773 p.

Ragland, B.C., Smith, D.G., Barker, 

R.G., and Robinson, J.B., 1998, Water 

resources data, North Carolina, water 

year 1997, v. 1, surface-water records: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report NC–97–1, 544 p.

Ragland, B.C., Walters, D.A., Cartano, 

G.D., and Taylor, J.E., 2003, Water 

resources data, North Carolina, water 

year 2002, v. 1A, surface-water 

records: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Report, NC–02–1A, 

534 p.

Ragland, B.C., Walters, D.A., Cartano, 

G.D., and Taylor, J.E., 2004, Water 

resources data, North Carolina, water 

year 2003, v. 1A, surface-water 

records: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Report, NC–03–1A, 

701 p.

Riggs, H.C., 1972, Low-flow investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. B1, 15 p.

Ropelewski, C.F., and Halpert, M.S., 

1986, North American precipitation 

and temperature patterns associated 

with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation 

(ENSO): American Meteorological 

Society Monthly Weather Review, 

v. 114, no. 12 (December 1986), 

p. 2352–2362.

Spatial Climate Analysis Service, 2004, 

Precipitation—Annual climatology 

(1971–2000): Oregon State University; accessed August 23, 2004, at 

http://www.ocs.orst.edu/prism/index.

phtml .

State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2003, Table of all cooperative 

observer stations in North Carolina: 

accessed October 14, 2003, at http://

www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/

all_stations.html .
State of North Carolina Office of the 

Governor, 2002a, Governor Easley announces over $20 million for 

water supply enhancement projects: 

press release dated September 30, 

2002; accessed August 25, 2004, 

at http://www.governor.state.nc.us/

News/PressReleases/PressRelease.

asp?YR=2002&MN=09-September&

FN=30%2Dgov%2E+easley+announ

ces+over+%2420m+for+water+supp

ly+enhancement+projects%2Exml .

State of North Carolina Office of the 

Governor, 2002b, State agencies 

continue actions to protect water 

supply: press release dated August 

23, 2002; accessed April 12, 2004, at 

http://www.ncgov.com/asp/subpages/

news_release_view.asp?nrid=286 .

Treece, M.W., Jr., and Bales, J.D., 1990, 

North Carolina water supply and 

use, in National Water Summary, 

1987—Hydrologic events and water 

supply and use: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350, 

p. 393–400.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Ranking 

tables for states—Population in 2000 

and population change from 1990 to 

2000 (PHC-T-2); accessed August 25, 

2004, at http://www.census.gov/

population/www/cen2000/

phc-t2.html .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, 

North Carolina man sentenced for 

theft of water from Mattamuskeet 

National Wildlife Refuge: press 

release dated January 22, 2004; 

accessed August 25, 2004, at http://

southeast.fws.gov/news/2004/r04-006.

html .

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Ground 

Water Climate Response Network; 

accessed March 10, 2004, at http://

groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/ .

Walters, D.A., 1997, Estimated water 

use, by county, in North Carolina, 

1995: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 97–599, 102 p.

Weaver, J.C., and Fine, J.M., 2003, 

Low-flow characteristics and profiles 

for the Rocky River in the YadkinPee Dee River basin, North Carolina, 

through 2002: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4147, 50 p.

Western Governors’ Association, 

2004, Drought initiatives—National 

Drought Preparedness Act of 2003; 

accessed April 9, 2004, at http://www.

westgov.org/wga/initiatives/drought2.

htm .

Willeke, G., Hosking, J.R.M., Wallis, 

J.R., and Guttman, N.B., 1994, The 

national drought atlas: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Institute for 

Water Resources Report 94–NDS–4, 

587 p.

Zembrzuski, T.J., Jr., Hill, C.L., Weaver, 

J.C., Coble, R.W., and Gunter, H.C., 

1991, North Carolina floods and 

droughts, in National Water Summary 

1988–89—Hydrologic events and 

floods and droughts: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, 

p. 425–434.

Selected References 73
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina. 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

Chowan-Pasquotank River basin

1 02053200 Potecasi Creek near 

Union

225 Hertford Mar. 1958 – 

Sept. 2002

44.6 5.1 0.30 June 30, 1959 0.49 Sept. 25, 2002

U

2 02053500 Ahoskie Creek at 

Ahoskie

63.3 Hertford Jan. 1950 – 

Sept. 2002

52.8 4.1 0.61 Oct. 8, 1988 1.8 May 31, 2002

U

Roanoke River basin

3 02068500 Dan River near Francisco 129 Stokes Aug. 1924 – 

Sept. 1987, 

Dec. 1991 – 

Sept. 2002

74.0 80 27 Aug. 24, 1981 21 Sept. 4, 1999

R

4 02070500 Mayo River near Price 242 Rockingham July 1929 – 

Sept. 1971,

Oct. 1993 – 

Sept. 2002

51.2 122 35 Oct. 8, 1954 33 Aug. 11, 2002

U

5 02071000 Dan River near Wentworth 1,053 Rockingham Oct. 1939 – Sept. 2002 63.0 393 107 Oct. 2, 1954 63 Aug. 12, 2002

R

6 02074000 Smith River near Eden 538 Rockingham Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 219 46 Aug. 14, 1967 73 July 21, 2002

R

7 02077200 Hyco Creek near Leasburg 45.9 Caswell July 1964 – Sept. 2002 38.3 0.7 0 July 9, 1966 0 Aug. 21, 1998c U8 02077303 Hyco River below 

Afterbay Dam near McGehees Mill

202 Person Oct. 1973 – 

Sept. 2002

29.0 8.8 0.31 Sept. 21, 1977 0.27d Nov. 2, 1997

R

9 02077670 Mayo Creek near Bethel 

Hill

53.5 Person Aug. 1977 – 

Sept. 2002

25.2 1 0 July 31, 1977 0.27 Aug. 21, 1999

R

10 02080500 Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids 8,384 Halifax Dec. 1911 – Sept. 2002 90.9 2,000 818 Nov. 15, 1970 1,000 Nov. 3, 1997

R

11 0208111310 Cashie River at Secondary Road 1257 near 

Windsor

108 Bertie Jan. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

15.8 0.04 0 July 30, 1987 0 Oct. 11, 1997c U

74 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

Tar-Pamlico River basin

12 02081500 Tar River near Tar River 167 Granville Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 3.3 0.02 Aug. 13, 1977 0.19 Aug. 12, 2002 U

13 02081747 Tar River at U.S. 401 at 

Louisburg

427 Franklin Oct. 1963 – 

Sept. 2002

39.0 37 8.1 Aug. 14, 1977 2.1 Aug. 14, 2002 U

14 02082506 Tar River below Tar 

River Reservoir near Rocky Mount

777 Nash Aug. 1972 – 

Sept. 2002

30.2 95 29 Oct. 28, 1993 39.6 July 28, 2002 R

15 02082585 Tar River at NC 97 at 

Rocky Mount

925 Edgecombe Aug. 1976 – 

Sept. 2002

26.2 96 6.6 Oct. 3, 1983 39.5 June 21, 2002 R

16 02082770 Swift Creek at Hilliardston 166 Nash July 1963 – Sept. 2002 39.3 24 0.6 Sept. 25, 1968 2.0 Aug. 25, 1999 U17 02082950 Little Fishing Creek near 

White Oak

177 Halifax Oct. 1959 – 

Sept. 2002

43.0 14 0.78 Sept. 4, 1980 0.51 Aug. 15, 2002 U

18 02083000 Fishing Creek near 

Enfield

526 Edgecombe Oct. 1923 – 

Sept. 2002

79.1 67 6.9 Oct. 5, 1968 7.5 Aug. 25, 1999 U

19 02083500 Tar River at Tarboro 2,183 Edgecombe July 1896 – 

Dec. 1900, 

Oct. 1931 – 

Sept. 2002

75.5 281 36 Oct. 17, 1933 73.0 Aug. 24, 2002 R

20 02083800 Conetoe Creek near 

Bethel

78.1 Pitt Dec. 1956 – 

Sept. 2002

45.9 5.4 0.74 Aug. 25, 1993 1.1 Aug. 24, 1999e U

21 02084160 Chicod Creek at Secondary Road 1760 near 

Simpson

45 Pitt Oct. 1975 – 

Mar. 1987, 

May 1992 – 

Sept. 2002

21.8 0.38 0 July 19, 1976 0 Oct. 8, 1997c U

22 02084557 Van Swamp near Hoke 23 Washington May 1977 – 

Sept. 2002

25.4 0.1 0 Aug. 21, 1983 0 Oct. 12, 1997c U

Selected References 75
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

Neuse River basin

23 02084909 Sevenmile Creek near 

Efland

14.1 Orange July 1981 – 

July 1982, 

June 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

16.3 0.2 0 Aug. 3, 1988 0 June 25, 2002c U

24 02085000 Eno River at Hillsborough 66 Orange Oct. 1927 – Aug. 1971, 

Oct. 1985 – 

Sept. 2002

60.9 4 0.02 July 10, 1986 0.03 Sept. 13, 2002

D

25 02085070 Eno River near Durham 141 Durham Aug. 1963 – 

Sept. 2002

39.2 6.8 0.08 Aug. 14, 1977 0.65 Sept. 13, 2002

R

26 0208521324 Little River at Secondary Road 1461 near 

Orange Factory

78.2 Durham Oct. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

15.0 1.7 0 Aug. 19, 1988 0 Aug. 8, 2002c U

27 02085500 Flat River at Bahama 149 Durham July 1925 – 

Sept. 2002

77.3 6.8 0.27 Sept. 24, 1968 0.17 June 25, 2002

U

28 02086500 Flat River at dam at 

Bahama

168 Durham Sept. 1927 – 

Sept. 1959, 

Aug. 1961 – 

Sept. 1966,

Oct. 1982 – 

Sept. 1990, 

Oct. 1992 – 

Sept. 1993, 

Oct. 2000 – 

Sept. 2002

47.9 0.35 0 Sept. 4, 1938 0 July 29, 200f R

29 0208650112 Flat River tributary near 

Willardville

1.14 Durham Mar. 1988 – 

Sept. 1990, 

Oct. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

10.5 0 0 June 22, 1988 0 Oct. 1, 1997c U

76 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

30 02087183 Neuse River near Falls 771 Wake July 1970 – 

Sept. 2002

32.3 81 55 Jan. 10, 1995 60 Nov. 26, 1998 R

31 0208726005 Crabtree Creek at Ebeneezer Church Road 

near Raleigh

76 Wake Dec. 1987 – 

Sept. 1992, 

May 1997 – 

Sept. 2002

10.2 8.4 2.1 Dec. 18, 1990 5.4 July 23, 2001 D

32 02087324 Crabtree Creek at U.S. 

Highway 1 at Raleigh

121 Wake July 1990 – 

Sept. 2002

12.3 20 1.9 Oct. 8, 1994 9.0 Aug. 7, 1999 U

33 0208732885 Marsh Creek near New 

Hope

6.84 Wake Jan. 1984 – 

Sept. 2002

18.8 1.2 0.10 Sept. 3, 1993 0 Aug. 3, 1999 U

34 02087500 Neuse River near Clayton 1,150 Johnston July 1927 – Sept. 2002 75.3 253 105 Sept. 16, 1985 187 Dec. 10, 2001 R35 0208758850 Swift Creek near 

McCullar’s Crossroads

35.8 Wake Dec. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

14.8 0.34 0.01 June 28, 1993 0.02 June 30, 2002 R

36 02088000 Middle Creek near 

Clayton

83.5 Johnston Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 7.7 0 Oct. 11, 1954 4.2 Aug. 8, 1999 U

37 02088500 Little River near 

Princeton

232 Johnston Feb. 1930 – 

Sept. 2002

72.7 20 0.08 June 16, 1986 0 Aug. 12, 2002 U

38 02089000 Neuse River near Goldsboro 2,399 Wayne Feb. 1930 – Sept. 2002 72.7 401 162 Sept. 10, 1983 262 Aug. 14, 2002 R39 02089252 Bear Creek at Mays 

Store

57.7 Lenoir Oct. 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

15.0 17 8.4 Aug. 18, 1997 10 Aug. 6, 2002 U

40 02089500 Neuse River at Kinston 2,692 Lenoir Feb. 1930 – 

Sept. 2002

72.7 491 200 Sept. 20, 1985 260 Aug. 14, 2002 R

41 02090380 Contentnea Creek near 

Lucama

161 Wilson Sept. 1964 – 

Sept. 2002

38.1 11 0.04 Sept. 9, 1976 0.51 June 19, 1999 U

42 02091000 Nanunta Swamp near 

Shine

80.4 Greene Apr. 1954 – 

Sept. 2002

48.5 10 1 Oct. 7, 1954 1.0 Aug. 12, 2002 U

43 02091500 Contentnea Creek at 

Hookerton

733 Greene Nov. 1928 – 

Sept. 2002

74.0 85 15 Oct. 28, 1933 18.1 Aug. 14, 2002 U

Selected References 77
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

44 02092500 Trent River near Trenton 168 Jones Jan. 1951 – 

Sept. 2002

51.8 7.7 0.33 Oct. 7, 1993 0.84 Aug. 23, 2002

U

New River basin

45 02093000 New River near Gum 

Branch

94 Onslow Aug. 1949 – 

Sept. 1973, 

July 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

39.4 12 1.9 Oct. 6, 1954 1.3 Aug. 18, 2002

T

Cape Fear River basin

46 02093800 Reedy Fork near Oak 

Ridge

20.6 Guilford Oct. 1955 – 

Sept. 2002

47.0 6.8 1.7 Aug. 7, 1977 0.61 Aug. 14, 2002

U

47 02094500 Reedy Fork near Gibsonville 131 Guilford Sept. 1928 – Sept. 2002 74.1 5.6 1.2 Oct. 3, 1968 0.27 Aug. 17, 2002

R

48 02095000 South Buffalo Creek 

near Greensboro

34 Guilford Aug. 1928 – 

Sept. 1958,

Aug. 1998 – 

Sept. 2002

34.3 4.4 0.2 Oct. 2, 1930g 0.42 Aug. 4, 2002

D

49 02095500 North Buffalo Creek 

near Greensboro

37.1 Guilford Aug. 1928 – 

Oct. 1990,

Aug. 1998 – 

Sept. 2002

66.4 16 3.4 Aug. 28, 1932g 15.3 Aug. 24, 2002h R

50 02096500 Haw River at Haw River 606 Alamance Oct. 1928 – 

Sept. 2002

74.0 100 5 Sept. 6, 1930 44.3 Aug. 11, 2002

R

51 02096846 Cane Creek near Orange 

Grove

7.54 Orange Nov. 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

13.9 0.07 0 Sept. 17, 1990 0 Aug. 29, 1998c U

52 02096960 Haw River near Bynum 1,275 Chatham Oct. 1973 – 

Sept. 2002

29.0 157 0.18 Sept. 10, 1983 59.7 July 9, 2002

R

53 02097314 New Hope Creek near 

Blands

75.9 Durham Oct. 1982 – 

Sept. 2002

20.0 13 0.39 Dec. 30, 1988 3.0 Dec. 21, 2001

D

78 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

54 0209741955 Northeast Creek at 

Secondary Road 1100 near Genlee

21.1 Durham Oct. 1982 – 

Jan. 1994,

Aug. 1995 – 

Sept. 2002

18.4 3.9 0.74 July 16, 1991 2.2 June 21, 2001 D

55 02097464 Morgan Creek near 

White Cross

8.35 Orange Nov. 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

13.9 0.2 0.02 Sept. 27, 1990 0 June 16, 2002 U

56 02097517 Morgan Creek near 

Chapel Hill

41 Orange Nov. 1982 – 

Sept. 2002

19.9 12 0.6 Nov. 26, 1982 8.4 Aug. 14, 2002 R

57 02099000 East Fork Deep River 

near High Point

14.8 Guilford July 1928 – 

Mar. 1994,

Oct. 1997 – 

Sept. 2002

70.7 3.6 1.1 Aug. 8, 1977g 0.61 Aug. 8, 2002 U

58 02099500 Deep River near Randleman 125 Randolph Oct. 1928 – Sept. 2002 74.0 17 1.2 Nov. 12, 1933 14 July 8, 2002 R59 02100500 Deep River at Ramseur 349 Randolph Nov. 1922 – 

Sept. 2002

80.0 36 0.7 Nov. 29, 1941 11 Oct. 21, 1998 R

60 0210166029 Rocky River near 

Crutchfield Crossroads

7.42 Chatham May 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

14.4 0.3 0 Aug. 20, 1988 0 July 17, 2002c U

61 02101800 Tick Creek near Mount 

Vernon Springs

15.5 Chatham June 1958 – 

Sept. 1981,

Jan. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

32.0 0.1 0 Sept. 2, 1962 0 Aug. 7, 1999 U

62 02102000 Deep River at Moncure 1,434 Lee July 1930 – 

Sept. 2002

72.3 96 6 Oct. 9, 1954 22.3 Aug. 26, 2002 R

63 02102192 Buckhorn Creek near 

Corinth

76.3 Chatham June 1972 – 

Sept. 2002

30.4 0.69 0.11 July 23, 1981 0.06i June 22, 2002 R

64 02102500 Cape Fear River at Lillington 3,464 Harnett Dec. 1923 – Sept. 2002 78.9 593 210 Oct. 23, 1981 155 Aug. 6, 2002 R

Selected References 79
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

65 02102908 Flat Creek near Inverness 7.63 Hoke June 1968 – 

Sept. 2002

34.4 5.4 2.2 June 24, 1988 0.94 Aug. 13, 2002

U

66 02104220 Rockfish Creek at 

Raeford

93.1 Hoke July 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

14.3 56 39 Aug. 2, 1992 20 July 22, 2002

U

67 02105500 Cape Fear River at William O. Huske Lock 3 

near Tarheel

4,852 Bladen Oct. 1937 – 

Sept. 2002

65.0 969 414 Oct. 8, 1981 154j Aug. 13, 1999

R

68 02105769 Cape Fear River at Lock 

1 near Kelly

5,255 Bladen July 1969 – 

Sept. 2002

33.3 1,030 445 Oct. 9, 1981 179j Aug. 10, 2002

R

69 02105900 Hood Creek near Leland 21.6 Brunswick Oct. 1956 – 

Sept. 1973, 

Oct. 1993 – 

Sept. 2002

25.9 1.5 0 Sept. 10, 1997 0.03 June 13, 2002

U

70 02106500 Black River near Tomahawk 676 Sampson Oct. 1951 – Sept. 2002 51.0 104 8.9 Sept. 13, 1954 16 Aug. 24, 2002

U

71 02108000 Northeast Cape Fear 

River near Chinquapin

599 Duplin July 1940 – 

Sept. 2002

62.3 58 5.3 Oct. 10, 1954 16 July 12, 1998

U

Waccamaw River basin

72 02109500 Waccamaw River near 

Freeland

680 Brunswick July 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.3 26 0.1 Aug. 30, 1954 0.46 Nov. 21, 2001

U

Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin

73 02111000 Yadkin River at Patterson 28.8 Caldwell Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 16 5.3 Sept. 30, 1954 3.6 Sept. 12, 2002

U

74 02111180 Elk Creek at Elkville 48.1 Wilkes Oct. 1965 – 

Sept. 2002

37.0 27 12 July 18, 1988 7 Sept. 13, 2002

U

75 02111500 Reddies River at North 

Wilkesboro

89.2 Wilkes Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 57 23 Aug. 17, 1954 13 Aug. 14, 2002

U

80 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

76 02112000 Yadkin River at Wilkesboro 504 Wilkes Apr. 1903 – June 1909, 

Oct. 1920 – 

Sept. 2002

88.2 327 114 Dec. 8, 1970 137 Sept. 12, 2002 R

77 02112120 Roaring River near Roaring River 128 Wilkes Apr. 1964 – Sept. 2002 38.5 72 32 Aug. 27, 1988 14 Aug. 15, 2002 U78 02112250 Yadkin River at Elkin 869 Yadkin Apr. 1964 – 

Sept. 2002

38.5 560 246 Aug. 31, 1988 193 Sept. 13, 2002 R

79 02112360 Mitchell River near State 

Road

78.8 Surry Apr. 1964 – 

Sept. 2002

38.5 53 23 Aug. 27, 1988 15 Sept. 12, 2002 U

80 02113000 Fisher River at Copeland 128 Surry Oct. 1931 – 

Sept. 2002

71.0 65 13 Aug. 28, 1981 11 Sept. 12, 2002 U

81 02113850 Ararat River at Ararat 231 Surry Apr. 1964 – 

Sept. 2002

38.5 116 21 Aug. 29, 1981 13 Aug. 19, 1999 U

82 02114450 Little Yadkin River at 

Dalton

42.8 Stokes Aug. 1960 – 

Sept. 2002

42.2 12 1.6 Aug. 2, 1977 1.4 Aug. 21, 2002 U

83 02115360 Yadkin River at Enon 1,694 Forsyth July 1964 – 

Sept. 2002

38.3 970 368 Sept. 1, 1981 264 Sept. 14, 2002 R

84 02116500 Yadkin River at Yadkin 

College

2,280 Davie July 1928 – 

Sept. 2002

74.3 1,170 350 Aug. 28, 1988 236 Aug. 12, 2002 R

85 02118000 South Yadkin River near 

Mocksville

306 Rowan Oct. 1938 – 

Sept. 2002

64.0 112 22 July 22, 1986 3 Aug. 13, 2002 D

86 02118500 Hunting Creek near 

Harmony

155 Iredell Oct. 1950 – 

Sept. 2002

52.0 67 22 Sept. 16, 1956 5.4 Sept. 13, 2002 U

87 02120780 Second Creek near 

Barber

118 Rowan Apr. 1979 – 

Sept. 2002

23.5 17 5.0 Oct. 6, 1986 1.1 Sept. 12, 2002 U

88 02121500 Abbotts Creek at Lexington 174 Davidson Mar. 1940 – Dec. 1957,

Oct. 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

31.8 15 2.7 Sept. 4, 1990 4.0 Aug. 12, 2002 D

Selected References 81
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

89 02123567 Dutchmans Creek near 

Uwharrie

3.44 Montgomery Oct. 1981 – 

Sept. 1983, 

18.9 0.3 0.01 July 15, 1986 0 June 22, 2002

U

Oct. 1985 – 

Sept. 2002

90 02125000 Big Bear Creek near 

Richfield

55.6 Stanly May 1954 – 

Sept. 2002

48.4 0.4 0 Sept. 12, 1954 0 July 12, 1998c U

91 02126000 Rocky River near Norwood 1,372 Stanly Oct. 1929 – Sept. 2002 73.0 104 19 Oct. 28, 1931 45 July 15, 1998

U

92 02128000 Little River near Star 106 Montgomery Apr. 1954 – 

Sept. 2002

48.5 8.8 0.27 Oct. 4, 1968 0 Aug. 12, 2002

U

93 02129000 Pee Dee River near 

Rockingham

6,863 Richmond Aug. 1906 – 

Jan. 1912, 

Oct. 1927 – 

Sept. 2002

80.5 1,530 58 Dec. 2, 1951 200 Oct. 14, 2001

R

Lumber River basin

94 02132320 Big Shoe Heel Creek 

near Laurinburg

83.3 Scotland June 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

15.3 26 4.7 Aug. 1, 1990 1 Aug. 14, 2002

U

95 02133500 Drowning Creek near 

Hoffman

183 Richmond Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 75 20 July 9, 1988 0 Aug. 14, 2002

D

96 02133624 Lumber River near 

Maxton

365 Robeson June 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

15.3 151 86 Aug. 6, 1990 29 Aug. 13, 2002

U

97 02134480 Big Swamp near Tarheel 229 Robeson Oct. 1985 – 

Sept. 2002

17.0 10 0 Aug. 31, 1993 0 June 12, 2002

U

98 02134500 Lumber River at Boardman 1,228 Robeson Sept. 1929 – Sept. 2002 73.1 289 68 Oct. 1, 1968 42 Aug. 14, 2002

U

Santee (Catawba, Broad) River basin

99 02137727 Catawba River near 

Pleasant Gardens

126 McDowell Oct. 1980 – 

Sept. 2002

22.0 71 33 Aug. 19, 1988 14 Sept. 12, 2002

U

82 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

100 02138500 Linville River near Nebo 66.7 Burke May 1907 – 

Aug. 1908, 

81.6 37 8 Sept. 7, 1925 13 Oct. 16, 1997 U

June 1922 – 

Sept. 2002

101 0213903612 Catawba River at Calvin 508 Burke July 1991 – 

Sept. 2002

11.3 262 86 Oct. 12, 1993 36 Sept. 12, 2002 R

102 02140991 Johns River at Arneys 

Store

201 Burke May 1985 – 

Sept. 2002

17.4 99 35 Aug. 19, 1988 19 Sept. 13, 2002 U

103 02142000 Lower Little River at All 

Healing Springs

28.2 Alexander Jan. 1953 – 

Sept. 1995,

Oct. 1997 – 

Sept. 2002

47.7 11 3.1 Sept. 20, 1955g 1.5 Sept. 12, 2002 U

104 0214253830 Norwood Creek near 

Troutman

7.18 Iredell Dec. 1983 – 

Sept. 2002

18.8 2.2 0.82 Aug. 2, 1986 0.48 Aug. 10, 2002 U

105 0214269560 Killian Creek near 

Mariposa

36.4 Lincoln Oct. 1990 – 

June 1993,

Dec. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

10.5 5.8 8.0 Sept. 9, 1997 0 Aug. 13, 2002 D

106 02142900 Long Creek near Paw 

Creek

16.4 Mecklenburg June 1965 – 

Sept. 2002

37.4 1.8 0.43 Oct. 3, 1986 0.03 Aug. 14, 2002 D

107 02143000 Henry Fork near Henry 

River

83.2 Catawba July 1925 – 

Nov. 1931, 

Dec. 1941 – 

Sept. 2002

67.2 41 4 Nov. 15, 1942 5.5 Aug. 11, 2002 U

108 02143040 Jacob Fork at Ramsey 25.7 Burke Oct. 1961 – 

Sept. 2002

41.0 13 4.7 Aug. 27, 1988 0.87 Aug. 13, 2002 U

109 02143500 Indian Creek near Laboratory 69.2 Lincoln Aug. 1951 – Sept. 2002 51.2 22 2.1 July 20, 1986 0.32 Aug. 12, 2002 U110 02144000 Long Creek near Bessemer City 31.8 Gaston Oct. 1952 – Sept. 2002 50.0 6 0.55 July 14, 1986 0.05 Aug. 14, 2002 D

Selected References 83
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

111 02145000 South Fork Catawba 

River at Lowell

628 Gaston Jan. 1942 – 

Sept. 1971, 

Oct. 1983 – 

Sept. 2002

48.7 260 31 Oct. 8, 1954 25 Aug. 15, 2002

R

112 02146300 Irwin Creek near Charlotte 30.7 Mecklenburg May 1962 – Sept. 2002 40.4 8.5 3.1 Sept. 25, 1983 4.1 Sept. 13, 2002

U

113 02146470 Little Hope Creek at 

Seneca Place near Charlotte

2.63 Mecklenburg Dec. 1982 – 

Sept. 1990,

Oct. 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

15.8 0.23 0 July 14, 1986 0 Aug. 7, 2001c U

114 02146507 Little Sugar Creek at 

Archdale Drive at Charlotte

42.6 Mecklenburg Jan. 1978 – 

Sept. 2002

24.8 25 15 Sept. 20, 1981 19.6 July 7, 2002

D

115 02146600 McAlpine Creek at 

Sardis Road near Charlotte

39.6 Mecklenburg Apr. 1962 – 

Sept. 2002

40.5 3.7 0.26 July 19, 1986 0.01 Aug. 14, 2002

U

116 02146700 McMullen Creek at Sharon View Road near 

Charlotte

6.95 Mecklenburg Apr. 1962 – 

Sept. 2002

40.5 0.32 0 Aug. 31, 1962 0.25 Nov. 10, 2001

U

117 02146750 McAlpine Creek below 

McMullen Creek near Pineville

92.4 Mecklenburg Apr. 1974 – 

Sept. 2002

28.5 8.4 0.46 Sept. 30, 1983 2.5 Sept. 4, 1999

U

118 02146900 Twelve Mile Creek near 

Waxhaw

76.5 Union Oct. 1960 – 

Sept. 2002

42.0 2.2 0 Oct. 6, 1968 0 Aug. 26, 2001

U

119 02149000 Cove Creek near Lake 

Lure

79 Rutherford Oct. 1950 – 

Sept. 2002

52.0 48 21 Sept. 8, 1954 8.1 Aug. 14, 2002

U

120 02151500 Broad River near Boiling 

Springs

875 Cleveland June 1925 – 

Sept. 2002

77.4 551 105 Oct. 10, 1954 83 Sept. 13, 2002

R

121 02152100 First Broad River near 

Casar

60.5 Cleveland Mar. 1959 – 

Sept. 2002

43.6 31 11 Aug. 27, 1988 3.9 Aug. 15, 2002

U

84 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

Kanawha (New) River basin

122 03161000 South Fork New River at 

Jefferson

205 Ashe Oct. 1924 – 

Sept. 2002

78.0 166 65 Sept. 9, 1925 75 Aug. 24, 2002 U

Tennessee (French Broad, Little Tennessee, Hiwassee) River basin

123 03439000 French Broad River near 

Rosman

67.9 Transylvania May 1907 – 

June 1909, 

Oct. 1935 – 

Sept. 2002

69.1 87 37 Sept. 25, 1954 47.6 Sept. 12, 2002 U

124 03440000 Catheys Creek near 

Brevard

11.7 Transylvania Oct. 1944 – 

Sept. 1955, 

Nov. 1986 – 

Sept. 2002

26.8 13 6.6 Sept. 28, 1954 4.7 Sept. 11, 2002 D

125 03441000 Davidson River near 

Brevard

40.4 Transylvania Oct. 1920 – 

Sept. 1990,

Oct. 1993 – 

Sept. 2002

79.0 42 14 Sept. 28, 1954 16 Sept. 16, 1999 U

126 03443000 French Broad River at 

Blantyre

296 Transylvania Oct. 1920 – 

Sept. 2002

82.1 352 123 Oct. 10, 1954 153 Sept. 13, 2002 R

127 03446000 Mills River at Mills 

River

66.7 Henderson Sept. 1924 – 

Sept. 1926, 

Oct. 1933 – 

Sept. 2002

71.0 54 18 Sept. 30, 1954 20 Sept. 17, 1999 D

128 0344894205 North Fork Swannanoa 

River near Walkertown

14.5 Buncombe Feb. 1989 – 

Sept. 2002

13.7 6.2 2.2 Oct. 9, 1993 1.5 Sept. 14, 1998 U

Selected References 85
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina.—Continued 

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

129 03450000 Beetree Creek near 

Swannanoa

5.46 Buncombe Feb. 1926 – 

Sept. 1975, 

Oct. 1979 – 

Sept. 1981, 

Oct. 1985 – 

Sept. 1986, 

67.9 1.6 0.3 Sept. 30, 1954 0.37 Sept. 12, 2002

U

May 1987 – 

Sept. 2002

130 03451000 Swannanoa River at 

Biltmore

130 Buncombe Oct. 1920 – 

Sept. 1926, 

May 1934 – 

Sept. 2002

74.4 36 1.2 Oct. 14, 1941 4.9 Sept. 13, 2002

R

131 03451500 French Broad River at 

Asheville

945 Buncombe Oct. 1895 – 

Sept. 2002

107.1 762 239 Sept. 21, 1925 215 Sept. 13, 2002

D

132 03453000 Ivy River near Marshall 158 Madison Oct. 1933 – 

Sept. 1973,

July 1994 – 

Sept. 2002

48.2 34 8.5 Sept. 2, 1953 14 Sept. 17, 1999

R

133 03453500 French Broad River at 

Marshall

1,332 Madison Oct. 1942 – 

Sept. 2002

60.0 883 292 Sept. 27, 1954 356 Sept. 13, 2002

D

134 03455500 West Fork Pigeon River 

above Lake Logan near Hazelwood

27.6 Haywood Feb. 1954 – 

Sept. 2002

48.7 26 10 Sept. 28, 1954 10 Sept. 14, 1998

U

135 0345577330 West Fork Pigeon River 

near Retreat

33.5 Haywood Mar. 1988 – 

Sept. 2002

14.6 28 19 July 14, 1993 15 Sept. 27, 1998

R

136 03456100 West Fork Pigeon River 

at Bethel

58.4 Haywood Jan. 1981 – 

Sept. 2002

21.8 43 9.2 Sept. 2, 1986 25 Sept. 27, 1998

R

137 03456500 East Fork Pigeon River 

near Canton

51.5 Haywood Mar. 1954 – 

Sept. 2002

48.6 35 14 Sept. 16, 1954 13 Sept. 13, 1998

U

86 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina. —Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2) County Full period of record Number of systematic years of record through 2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

138 03456991 Pigeon River near 

Canton

130 Haywood May 1907 – 

June 1909, 

Oct. 1928 – 

Sept. 2002

76.1 85 27 Sept. 7, 1954 39 Sept. 19, 1998 R

139 03459500 Pigeon River near Hepco 350 Haywood July 1927 – 

Sept. 2002

75.3 205 95 Sept. 30, 1941 95 Sept. 11, 2002 R

140 03460000 Cataloochee Creek near 

Cataloochee

49.2 Haywood Oct. 1933 – 

Sept. 1952, 

Oct. 1962 – 

Sept. 2002

59.0 34 12 Jan. 2, 1940 17 Oct. 22, 1998 U

141 03463300 South Toe River near 

Celo

43.3 Yancey July 1957 – 

Sept. 2002

45.3 36 12 July 21, 1986 9.5 Sept. 12, 2002 U

142 03479000 Watauga River near 

Sugar Grove

92.1 Watauga Oct. 1939 – 

Sept. 2002

63.0 39 13 Sept. 19, 1954 8.1 Sept. 13, 2002 U

143 03500000 Little Tennessee River 

near Prentiss

140 Macon Oct. 1943 – 

Sept. 2002

59.0 127 56 Oct. 7, 1986 52 Aug. 30, 2000 U

144 03500240 Cartoogechaye Creek 

near Franklin

57.1 Macon June 1961 – 

Sept. 2002

41.4 46 18 Oct. 7, 1986 18 Sept. 16, 2000 U

145 03503000 Little Tennessee River at 

Needmore

436 Swain Oct. 1943 – 

Dec. 1981, 

Oct. 1983 – 

Sept. 2002

57.2 357 71 Nov. 7, 1954 140 Sept. 20, 2000 R

146 03504000 Nantahala River at Rainbow Springs 51.9 Macon Oct. 1940 – Sept. 2002 62.0 67 30 Oct. 6, 1986 29 Nov. 1, 1998 U147 03512000 Oconaluftee River at 

Birdtown

184 Swain July 1945 – 

Sept. 1946, 

July 1948 – 

Sept. 2002

55.5 166 80 Nov. 8, 1987 88 Sept. 13, 2002 U

Selected References 87
Table 4. Summary of selected site attributes and record-low daily mean discharges at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations having greater than 10 years of systematic discharge records through the 2002 water year in North Carolina. —Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; n/c, no change in record-low daily mean discharge for indicated site; U, unregulated; R, regulated; D, diversion(s); T, tidal. Period of record-low daily mean discharges set during the 1998–2002 drought are shaded in brown color for easier identification. Sites shaded in blue are the 68 sites used for developing percentiles of historical discharges and frequency of 7-day average discharges for each calendar date (see text for further discussion). Site locations are shown in figure 13]

Site index no. USGS downstream order number Station name Drainage area (mi2

)

County Full period of record

Number of 

systematic 

years of 

record through 

2002 water 

year

Annual 

90-percent 

exceedence 

flow 

(ft3/s)

Lowest daily mean discharge

Flow conditions Prior to 1988 water yeara During 1998–2002 water yearb Minimum, ft3/s Date Minimum, ft3/s Date

148 03513000 Tuckasegee River at 

Bryson City

655 Swain Dec. 1899 – 

Dec. 1981,

Oct. 1983 – 

Jan. 1995,

Apr. 1996 – 

Sept. 2002

102.0 602 31 Sept. 9, 1925 348 Sept. 18, 1999

R

149 03548500 Hiwassee River above 

Murphy

406 Cherokee Oct. 1897 – 

Sept. 2002

105.1 228 62 Oct. 19, 1952 160 Sept. 9, 2000

R

150 03550000 Valley River at Tomotla 104 Cherokee June 1904 – 

Dec. 1909, 

Jan. 1914 – 

Apr. 1917, 

Oct. 1918 – 

Sept. 2002

92.8 59 12 Aug. 27, 1925 30 Oct. 31, 2000

U

aBased on 1997 water year data in Ragland and others (1998).bBased on 2002 water year data in Ragland, Barker, and Robinson (2003); Ragland, Walters, and others (2003).cZero flow occurred repeatedly at this site during the 1998–2002 drought.dFlow regulated by Afterbay Reservoir. The lowest daily discharge during the period of record at this site occurred prior to the start of the drought and is apparently a reflection of flow releases that were 

modified at the dam on the indicated date.

eNo discharge records available for July through September 2002.fNo discharge records available for October 1997 through September 2000; zero flow occurred repeatedly at this site during the 2001–02 water years.gSite has multiple periods of record and was not operated during the 1997 water year; record low daily mean discharge is based on the period of operation prior to the 1998 water year.hNo discharge records available for October 1997 through August 1998.iFlow regulated since December 1980 by Harris Lake; the lowest daily mean discharges at this site are based on the period of record since the 1981 water year.jFlow regulated since September 1981 by B. Everett Jordan Lake; the lowest daily discharges listed for this site are based on the period of record since the 1982 water year.

88 The Drought of 1998–2002 in North Carolina—Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions
Photographs in this report are used with permission.

This report was prepared by the North Carolina Water Science Center, Raleigh, N.C. 

Edited by Rebecca J. Deckard and Kay E. Hedrick.

Graphics by Jeffrey L. Corbett.
Printed on recycled paper