01_TRBM_Agri_Data_Report_M&N_01-31-2011

TAR RIVER BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION
DRAFT REPORT

Prepared for Hydrologics Inc.

January 31, 2011

By MOFFATT & NICHOL

This page intentionally left blank.

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT

January 2011 - i -
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ii
List of Referenced Tables ................................................................................................... ii
List of Referenced Figures .................................................................................................. ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1. Agriculture .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. National Agricultural Statistics Service ........................................................ 1
1.1.2. North Carolina Agriculture Statistics............................................................ 2
1.1.3. Consultation with Agriculture Extension Agents ......................................... 2
1.1.4. Consultation with Dr. Ronald Sneed ............................................................ 2
1.1.5. Golf Course Irrigation ................................................................................... 3
1.2. Methods............................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1. Determining Crop Acreage and Livestock Head .......................................... 3
1.2.2. Determining Agricultural Water Use ............................................................ 4
1.2.3. Rainfall .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2.4. Groundwater and Surface Water Uses .......................................................... 6
1.3. Data Distribution ................................................................................................. 7
2. Municipal and Industrial Withdrawals........................................................................ 7
2.1. Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7
3. Municipal and Industrial Discharges .......................................................................... 8
3.1. Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 8
3.2. Methods............................................................................................................... 8
4. References ................................................................................................................... 9

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - ii -

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Crop Water Requirements ................................................................................. 5
Table 1-2: Livestock Water Requirements ......................................................................... 5

List of Referenced Tables
Table 1. Summary of Tar River Basin - Distribution by County ..................................... 10
Table 2. Basis of County Rainfall Statistics ..................................................................... 11
Table 3. Summary Water Withdrawal Data ...................................................................... 12
Table 4. Summary of Wastewater Discharges ................................................................. 13

List of Referenced Figures
Figure 1. Tar River Basin.................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2. Rain Gages......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Agricultural Subbasin Distribution by County and Node ................................. 16
Figure 4. Water Withdrawal Locations ............................................................................. 17
Figure 5. Wastewater Discharge Locations ...................................................................... 18
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 1 -

Introduction

On behalf of North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Hydrologics, Inc.
is developing a basin-wide water use model, using OASIS, for the Tar River Basin
upstream of Washington, North Carolina (Figure 1). Table 1 summarizes the portion of
area contained within the limits of the model domain by county.
In support of the model development, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) was tasked with
gathering and processing water use and discharge data by agriculture, industrial, and
municipal sources. The objective of the data collection effort was to develop a time series
for water withdrawal and discharge for the past 79 years (1930-2009). Data was gathered
from private industry as well as the following governmental agencies:
NC Division of Water Resources (DWR)
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
National Climactic Data Center (NCDC)
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA)
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES)
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Municipal and Local Government Bodies
Methods used and sources of data acquired to develop the water use time series in
support of model development are discussed below.
1. Agriculture
1.1. Data Sources
1.1.1. National Agricultural Statistics Service
Approximately every five years, the NASS requests agriculture data from farmers and
land owners. Responses to the survey yield extensive data regarding land acreage, crop
type grown, livestock counts, and other information. M&N contacted the NASS to obtain
all records for counties within the Tar River basin back to 1930. Data included irrigated
and non-irrigated acreage on tobacco, cotton, soybeans, corn, peanuts, tree farms, and
head counts for livestock. Agriculture Census data was obtained for the following years:
1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1950, 1954, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1992,
1997, 2002, and 2007.
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 2 -
1.1.2. North Carolina Agriculture Statistics
Incomplete statistics data was collected from the NC Department of Agriculture back to
1930. The NCDA began collecting information for some crops prior to 1930, and others
around 1975. Prior to 1975, only crop acreage for corn, cotton, tobacco and peanuts was
available. After 1975, wheat, corn, oats, barley, sorghum, cotton, tobacco, peanuts,
potatoes, and hay acreage was available. Also beginning in 1975, information regarding
cattle, hogs and pigs, chickens, and turkeys is available.
The NCDA Plant Division maintains a database with up-to-date information regarding
container and field nurseries in the State. Included in the database is nursery type and
acreage. All nurseries less than 2 acres were considered to be container nurseries.
1.1.3. Consultation with Agriculture Extension Agents
After compiling all data, during October 2010, M&N contacted agriculture extension
agents of counties within the Tar Basin with a questionnaire requesting verification of the
most up-to-date agricultural production statistics for their county. Input from the
extension agents was also used to generate estimates of the geographic distribution of the
various crops and irrigation patterns within the county as a whole, as well as within each
modeling subbasins located in each county.
Based on the input from the county extension agents, the livestock and agricultural
products were appropriately distributed throughout the county. Extension agents were
also requested to estimate the percentage of livestock and crops that are irrigated/watered
with surface water. Where no data was available, the distribution of agriculture was
considered to be uniform across the county. Halifax and Pitt counties were the only areas
where such data was unavailable.
Numerous agricultural surface water withdrawals have been documented by aerial
reconnaissance efforts undertaken in recent years by the City of Rocky Mount (Wayne
Hollowell, Personal Communication, December 2010); few of these withdrawals were
found to be registered with the Division of Water Resources. In light of the paucity of
hard data on these withdrawals and the fact that Nash County has the second highest level
of agricultural production of any county in the Tar basin, a personal meeting was held
with Charlie Tyson, Director of Cooperative Extension for Nash County (Charlie Tyson,
Personal Communication, December 2010). Much of the geographic distribution of
agricultural production and the distinction between surface water and ground water
sources used in the development of agricultural water use time series for Nash County
was derived from that meeting.
1.1.4. Consultation with Dr. Ronald Sneed
Dr. Ronald Sneed, retired professor from North Carolina State University and former
State extension irrigation specialist, was consulted to review the compiled agricultural
data. Dr. Sneed provided insight on typical irrigation practices in use in the areas as well
as to further delineate the distribution of the agriculture within each county. (Dr. Ronald
Sneed, Personal Communication, November 2010)
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 3 -
1.1.5. Golf Course Irrigation
The extent of golf courses was determined based on a combination of available
geographic information, aerial photography, and knowledge from the county extension
agents.
1.2. Methods
1.2.1. Determining Crop Acreage and Livestock Head
Raw data was obtained from the sources listed above. Data gaps were filled using the
following methods.
1.2.1.1. Tobacco
No significant irrigation of tobacco existed prior to 1950 and was therefore assumed to be
0. A ratio between irrigated and total acres of tobacco was computed for years where both
values were known. A linear interpolation between the closest years with values using the
percent irrigated was done for all data gaps.
1.2.1.2. Turf
No significant irrigated turf producers existed prior to 1970. 1969 irrigated turf acreage
was assumed to be 0. Linear interpolation was done for all missing turf acreage between
1970 and 2007.
1.2.1.3. Golf Courses
An estimate of water use for golf courses was made based on the total acreage of each
course. The total rate of water irrigation was assumed to be on average 1.5 in/week
during (1 Apr-31 Oct); it is assumed that rate is applied over tees, greens and fairways
which comprise 40% of the total golf course area; i.e. the estimate irrigation is 0.57
in/week x (total acreage). For the remainder of the year (Nov 1 – Mar 31) is assumed
that only tees and greens are irrigated; tees and greens are assumed to comprise 2.9% of
total acres at 1.5in/week. Data from 2006 and 2007 provided by City of Raleigh and
Johnston County was used to validate the assumptions on golf course irrigation use.
Golf course acreage in 1969 was assumed to be 35% of the total acreage in 1998. In
1930, the total acreage was assumed to be 10% of the total acreage of 2008. Linear
interpolation was performed for all years in between. The water demand curve for golf
courses was also adjusted for the years 1930 up to 1968.
1.2.1.4. Nurseries
Both field and container nursery acreage in 1969 was assumed to be 30% of the total
acreage of 2002 when no historical data was available. Field nursery acreage was
assumed to be 0 in 1930. Linear interpolation was done for years in between. Container
nurseries began in 1960. Therefore, container nursery acreage was assumed to be 0 in
1959. NCDA database values were used for the years 2006-2008. Linear interpolation
was done for all unknown values.
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 4 -
1.2.1.5. Secondary Crops (Soybeans, Cotton, Corn, Peanuts,
Irrigated Pasture and Hay)
Irrigation for secondary crops was assumed to be 0 before 1976 unless otherwise noted in
the Agriculture Census. Linear interpolation was performed for any unknown values. Soy
acreage was split evenly into early and late soy.
1.2.1.6. Vegetables
Irrigated acreage in 1975 was assumed to be 20% of the total acreage of 2002. It was
assumed to be 0 in 1950. Linear interpolation was performed for irrigated vegetable
acreage in all other years where data was not available. Unirrigated vegetable acreages
were linearly interpolated where data was unavailable.
1.2.1.7. Blueberries and Strawberries.
Irrigated blueberry and strawberry acreage was assumed to be constant between 1975 and
2001 and from 2002 to 2008. Prior to 1975, it was assumed there was no irrigation on
either crop. Large blueberry and strawberry farms are rare in this portion of the State.
1.2.1.8. Other Fruits - Orchards
Irrigated fruit acreage was assumed to be 50% of the total acreage in 2002. It was
assumed to be 0 in 1950. Linear interpolation was performed for years in between.
1.2.1.9. Livestock
Linear interpolations were performed for years where no Census or Agricultural Statistics
data exists.
1.2.2. Determining Agricultural Water Use
The methodology for determining water use by agriculture in the basin mirrored that of
the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basin Models. Evapotranspiration (ET) demand for
tobacco, soybeans, peanuts, cotton, and corn was estimated based on the moisture curves
provided by Dr. Sneed. The plant dates (start dates) were staggered based on
geographical location of the county in which they are planted. The corresponding
counties fell into the following classifications: upper – Person, Granville, Vance, Warren,
Franklin, Halifax; middle – Nash, Edgecombe; and lower – Pitt and Martin. Crop
requirements for turfgrass, golf courses, nursery crops, vegetables, blueberries,
strawberries, and other fruit were estimated seasonally. The general breakdown for these
crops incorporated a warm and cool season with special consideration for frost/freeze
protection where applicable. USGS water use daily requirements from the 1995 Water
Use Report were used for livestock water use requirements, per the Cape Fear Model
Report (Moffatt & Nichol, 1999).
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 5 -
To summarize,
Table 1-1. Crop Water Requirements
Crop Start Date Evapotranspiration
High Mid Low
Tobacco 20 May 10 May 30 April By Curve
Early Soybeans 20 May 28 May 1 May By Curve
Late Soybeans 20 June 20 June 20 June By Curve
Peanuts N/A 7 May 7 May By Curve
Cotton N/A 7 May 7 May By Curve
Corn 23 April 14 April 7 April By Curve
Pasture and Hay: 1 May – 30 September, 1”/week; Rest of year = none
Turfgrass: 15 April – 15 October, 1.25”/ week; Rest of year = none
Golf Courses: 1 April – 31 October, 0.57”/week; Rest of year = Tees and greens 2.9% of
total acres, 2”/week
Nursery (container): 1 June – 31 August, 0.75”/day; 1 April -31 May and 1 September –
31 October, 0.5”/day; Rest of year = 0.2”/day
Nursery (field): 1 May – 31 October, 1.25”/week; Rest of year = none
Vegetables: 1 April – 15 August, 1.25”/week; 16 August – 31 October, 1”/week; Rest of
year = none
Blueberries: 15 April -15 June, 1.25”/week (production); 16 June – 30 September,
1.25”/week (protection); 28 February – 14 April, 1”/day for frost/freeze protection,
highly variable
Strawberries: 1 April – 1 June, 1.25”/week (production); 15 September – 31 October,
1.25”/week (establishment); 1 October – 15 November, 1”/day (establishment); 28
February – 1 April, 1”/day for frost/freeze protection, highly variable
Other fruit: (Peaches, pecans, Apples, etc.): 15 April – 31 August, 1.25”/week
(production); 1 March – 14 April, 0.16”/hr = 3.84”/day for frost/freeze protection
Table 1-2: Livestock Water Requirements
Livestock Water Requirement Duration
Beef Cattle 12 gal/day/head All Year
Dairy Cattle 40 gal/day/head All Year
Horses 12 gal/day/head All Year
Pigs 4 gal/day/head All Year
Chickens 9 gal/day/100 head All Year
Turkeys 9 gal/day/100 head All Year
Other animals (mainly goats, sheep) 2 gal/day/head All Year
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 6 -
With the data above, a total agricultural water use demand curve consisting of daily
values was computed for the time period between 1930 and 2009. For tobacco, soybeans,
peanuts, cotton, and corn, irrigation is directly related to crop stress and rainfall.
Therefore, each crops’ weekly ET demand was compared to weekly rainfall totals. Where
shortfalls of rainfall occurred, irrigation was assumed to make up the balance of the
demand. The shortfall amount was then evenly distributed over the next week. All other
crops and livestock had fairly constant irrigation and water usage and were therefore not
related to rainfall. Completing these calculations for the each year gives a daily total
agricultural water use for the model.
When reviewing this information, it is important to be aware of the overall history of
irrigation in North Carolina. Prior to the 1950’s, little irrigation was done in North
Carolina. Up until that time, only steel pipe was used for irrigation, and the war effort
was consuming most available steel supplies. However, during the 1950’s, three catalysts
spurred the initial growth of irrigation in NC: the ending of WWII, the advent of
aluminum pipe, and the drought of the 1950’s. Aluminum pipe was especially important
because its weight allowed fixed systems to be moved with relative ease. The next
important advance in irrigation came in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s with the birth of
automated irrigation and hard hose reel systems. These systems allowed irrigation of
secondary crops like corn and soybeans to become economically feasible. Of course,
other factors such as changes in leisure time and affluence have also had effects on
irrigation since commercial turf and golf courses rely heavily on irrigation.
The system used for determining total water use used for irrigation and watering of
livestock is described in Section 2.2.1.
1.2.3. Rainfall
Rainfall data was used in determining frequency of irrigation. As described above, a
weekly irrigation amount was assigned to each crop. If the rainfall total in that week did
not reach the minimum value, irrigation was used to supplement. Rainfall for 1930-2009
was gathered from the National Climactic Data Center. The location of gages is
illustrated in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 2.
1.2.4. Groundwater and Surface Water Uses
Due to the low gradients in the topography of the Tar River basin, and the increasingly
porous soils as one moves east in basin, there is a strong potential for a highly interactive
relationship between ground water and surface water hydrology. As a result, large
groundwater withdrawals located in the immediate vicinity of surface waters within the
basin have the potential to affect stream flows nearly as much as direct surface water
withdrawals.
Anecdotal accounts from agricultural resources professionals (Charlie Tyson, Personal
Communication, December 2010) indicate that some irrigation systems in the basin are
fed by ponds that are recharged with groundwater wells in the immediate vicinity of large
perennial streams and/or the Tar River. While such ponds may not be directly connected
to flowing streams, there is connectivity to the surrounding groundwater table. During
high use periods withdrawal from these ponds will influence the surface water flow.
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 7 -
For purpose of this study “surface” water withdrawals are defined to include all direct
withdrawals from the mainstem of the Tar River or major tributaries. Additionally,
surface water ponds and groundwater withdrawals that are expected to have a major
influence on the Tar River flow during drought conditions are included.
Unfortunately, there is no available geographic distribution data of individual agricultural
users within the basin. Moffatt & Nichol had to rely on review of aerial photos and
communication with local agricultural resources professionals to generally characterize
the portion of agricultural withdrawal that is surface water. Those operations within
approximately 500 feet of the Tar River or a major tributary were accounted for in the
model as surface water withdrawals.
1.3. Data Distribution
The distribution of agricultural water use was developed based input from NC
Agriculture Extension Agents from each county. The agents were asked to verify the
values and note the distribution of those crops within the county based on the model
nodes. Figure 3 summarizes the distribution of agriculture with respect to the location of
the calibration gages used in the model.
The verified distributions were then applied to the water use for each county by assigning
an estimated portion of the crop/livestock to the drainage area of the node. These values
were then used to formulate an overall time series for historical water use.
2. Municipal and Industrial Withdrawals
2.1. Data Sources
Initial requests withdrawal data were made to NCDWR, respectively, and these bulk data
on withdrawal volumes (from Local Water Supply Plans) were supplemented with data
and information from individual private and municipal entities throughout the basin. A
significant collection effort was undertaken by Moffatt & Nichol. Only entities
withdrawing more than 100,000 gallons per day were considered. Table 3 summarizes the
withdrawal data compiled and the record of data available. Figure 4 illustrates the
distribution of water withdrawals.
Each water user was requested to provide water withdrawal data for as far back as
possible, with a preference for daily data where it was available. Anecdotal information
on events such as facility start-up and shut-down dates and expansions was also gathered
and taken into account.
Data was provided in several formats and time periods. The majority of the water
withdrawal information was provided up through December 2009.
2.2. Methodology
The water withdrawal data was organized into a monthly time series for input into the
model. The start dates provided by the withdrawal entities were used, if available. For the
public water users, back calculations were done based on the city or county population
data to determine the historical water withdrawals. The time series were extrapolated
back as far back as 1930, if documentation and accounts indicated that the withdrawal
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 8 -
existed to that year. Otherwise, if no withdrawal at that location prior to a certain year,
the time series was only extended back to the corresponding start month. No direct
industrial withdrawals (current or historical) greater than 100,000 gallons per day were
identified in the Tar River Basin.
3. Municipal and Industrial Discharges
3.1. Data Sources
The primary source for the total municipal and industrial discharges into the basin is from
the NPDES permitting and monitoring program at NCDWQ. All permitted discharges
were compiled as identified in Table 4 and the location is illustrated in Figure 5. A file
for each discharger in the basin was created. The NCDWQ discharge records typically
dated back to 1994. In addition each discharger was requested to provide water
withdrawal data for as far back as possible, with a preference for daily data where it was
available. Anecdotal information on events such as facility start-up and shut-down dates
and expansions was also gathered from individual facilities and taken into account.
Time series were developed for facilities that are currently in use, as well as historic (now
closed) facilities.
3.2. Methods
Records directly from individual facilities were given preference where available. In
order to generate historical time series prior to reported discharge data, linear
interpolations of per capita discharge volumes were developed on the basis of city and
county population data. To fill in any data gaps for industrial discharges, the earliest
recorded discharges were assumed to be constant back until the facility opened.
All entities that discharge greater than 100,000 gallons per day were considered. The time
series were extrapolated back as far back as 1930, if documentation and accounts
indicated that the discharge existed that long ago. Otherwise, if no discharge existed at
that location prior to a certain year, the time series was only extended back to the
corresponding start month.
Extensive interpolation was performed to fill in any data gaps prior to 1994. Although
there was little data to be had, the discharge data set represents a detailed and extensive
assessment of available information and historic accounts.

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 9 -
4. References

Moffatt & Nichol, 1999. Data Summary and Methodology for Estimation of Water Use
in Support of Development of the Cape Fear River Basin Model.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, January 2009.
“NCDA&CS Certified Nursery Database” <http://www.agr.state.nc.us/plantindustry/
NurseryBook/search.asp>
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Division. Water Use
Studies: 2007 Central Coastal Plain. <http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/release/
WU2007 Central.pdf>
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. Annual Water Use Reporting. Local Water Supply Planning and
Water Withdrawal Registration. <http://www.ncwater.org/whichsystem.php>
November 2008.
National Climactic Data Center. Rainfall Data. <http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html>
November 2008.
Sneed, Dr. Ronald, Professor Emeritus, NC State University. Personal Communication.
November 2010.
Tyson, Charlie, Director of Cooperative Extension, Nash County, NC. Personal
Communication, December 2010.
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. The
Census of Agriculture. 1930, 1950, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007. Washington: GPO,
publication date varies. <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/
index.asp>
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. The
Census of Agriculture. 1940, 1945, 1950, 1954, 1959, 1964, 199, 1974, 1978,
1982, 1987. Washington: GPO, publication date varies.
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Quick
Stats – State and County Data. North Carolina Livestock and Crop Statistics.
1975-2004.
United States Census Bureau. Population. <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs
/decennial/index.htm> January 2009.
USGS, 2005. <http://nc.water.usgs.gov/infodata/wateruse/data/Data_Tables_2005.html>.
Water use data tables.

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 10 -

Referenced Tables

Table 1. Summary of Tar River Basin - Distribution by County
County
Total County Area
(acreage)
Area within the
Tar River Basin
(acreage)
Percentage of the
County within the
Tar River Basin
Edgecombe 324,297 322,889 100%
Franklin 316,682 283,770 90%
Granville 343,233 147,514 43%
Halifax 468,000 282,591 60%
Martin 295,963 7,866 3%
Nash 347,331 277,560 80%
Person 258,581 20,181 8%
Pitt 419,058 77,030 18%
Vance 172,724 82,711 48%
Warren 283,766 174,686 62%
Wilson 239,485 44,522 19%

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 11 -

Table 2. Basis of County Rainfall Statistics
County Name Rain Gages Used
Edgecombe Wilson gage 1936-2009; Filled gaps with Louisburg gage 1930-1936.
Franklin Louisburg gage 1930-2009.
Granville Durham gage 1930-2009.
Halifax Enfield gage 1930-2009. Gaps filled with Warrenton and Rocky
Mount gages.
Martin Pitt/Greenville airport gage 1930-2009
Nash Louisburg gage1930-1973; Rocky Mount Airport 1973-2009.
Person Louisburg gage 1930-2004; Person county/Roxboro Airport 2004-
2009
Pitt Pitt/Greenville airport gage 1930-2009
Vance Louisburg 1930-1948; Warrenton 1948; Henderson 2004-2009. Gaps
filled with Louisburg gage
Warren Warrenton gage; gaps filled with Louisburg gage. Wilson 3 SW 1936-
2008; gaps filled with Greenville data
Wilson Wilson 3 SW 1936-2009; filled gaps with Rocky Mount/Wilson gage.

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA COLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 12 -

Table 3. Summary Water Withdrawal Data
Plants SW Sources Historical Assumptions Data Available
Projected
Withdrawal
Period
1 Rocky Mount Tar River WTP
Sunset Ave WTP
Tar River/Tar
River Reservoir
Both facilities withdraw from Tar River
upstream form same model node.
Finished water production flipped back
and forth between two plants. Single
time series developed. City of Rocky
Mount poulation data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
NCDWR monthly data,
daily raw water intake
data from 2006-2010
1930-2009
2 Greenville Greenville WTP Tar River
Single facility continuously operated
since 1905. City of Greenville poulation
data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
NCDWR monthly data,
daily raw water intake
data from 1999-2010
1930-2009
3 Tarboro Tarboro WTP Tar River
Single facility continuously operated
since 1934. City of Tarboro poulation
data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
NCDWR monthly data 1934-2009
4 Louisburg Louisburg WTP Tar River
Single facility continuously operated
since 1932. City of Louisburg poulation
data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
monthly data, monthly
raw water intake data
from 1986-2010
1932-2009
5 Franklinton Franklinton WTP
New City
Pond/Old City
Pond
Single facility continuously operated.
Start date unknown. Town of Franklinton
poulation data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
NCDWR monthly data 1930-2009
6 Enfield Enfield WTP Fishing Creek
Current facility start date estimated at
1960. Replaced older plant on adjacent
site. Municipal records indicate bond
floated for water system in 1920. Town
of Enfield poulation data used.
1997/2002/2007-2009
NCDWR monthly data 1930-2009
7 Henderson Henderson WTP Fox's Pond
Facility abandoned when Henderson
connected to Kerr Lake Regional Water
Supply in 1975. Capacity estimated by
City Staff to be 2.5-3.0 MGD. Monthly
time series generated for 1975 and City
of Hendeson population data used to
extrapolate back.
No intake data available 1930-1975
8 Oxford Oxford WTP Tar River
Facility abandoned when Oxford
connected to Kerr Lake RWS in 1975.
Capacity and withdrawals unknown.
Ratio of monthly water purchases from
Kerr Lake RWS to recent reported
wastewater discharges calculated and
used to extrapolate withdawals based on
historical discharge volumes.
No intake data available 1930-1975
Background Data: Tar River Basin Water Withdrawal >100,000 gal/day
PWSS

NEUSE BASIN MODELING -
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT

January 2011 - 13 -
Table 4. Summary of Wastewater Discharges
Permit Owner Facility County Type Class
Permitted
Flow (MGD) Subbasin
Receiving
Stream Longitude Latitude
Projected
Discharge
Period Historical Assumptions
NC0001058 DSM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DSM Pharmaceuticals Pitt
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 03-03-05 Parker Creek -77.356670 35.656670 1970-2009 Plant began operation in 1970.
NC0001589 Hospira, Inc. Hospira, Inc. -RM1 Nash
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 03-03-02 Beech Branch -77.760280 36.036670 1963-2009
Plant began operation in early 1960s . Exact year
unknown. Assume 1963.
NC0020061 Town of Spring Hope Spring Hope WWTP Nash Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.400 03-03-02 TAR RIVER -78.112780 35.905280 1947-2009 1947 best Town Officials could estimate.
NC0020231 Town of Louisburg Louisburg WWTP Franklin Municipal, Large MAJOR 1.37 03-03-01 TAR RIVER -78.292220 36.086670 1952-2009 1952 best Town Officials could estimate.
NC0020435 Town of Pinetops Pinetops WWTP Edgecombe Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.300 03-03-03 Town Creek -77.617780 35.806670 1967-2009 Current plant started in 1967. No record of prior facilities.
NC0020605 Town of Tarboro Tarboro WWTP Edgecombe Municipal, Large MAJOR 5.00 03-03-03 TAR RIVER -77.538610 35.883060 1959-2009 Current plant started in 1959. No record of prior facilities.
NC0020834 Town of Warrenton Warrenton WWTP Warren Municipal, Large MAJOR 2.00 03-03-04 Fishing Creek -78.168610 36.379720 1962-2009
Trickling filter plant existed at site as early as 1962. No
record of prior facilities.
NC0023337 Town of Scotland Neck Scotland Neck WWTP Halifax Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.675 03-03-04 Canal Creek -77.433890 36.119440 1963-2009
Original plant built at site in 1963. No record of prior
facilities.
NC0023931 Greenville Utilities Comm. GUC WWTP Pitt Municipal, Large MAJOR 1.75 03-03-05 TAR RIVER -77.301670 35.598890 1930-2009 Plant operating at site since 1907
NC0025054 City of Oxford Oxford WWTP Granville Municipal, Large MAJOR 3.50 03-03-01 Fishing Creek -78.591110 36.277220 1930-2009 *See note below
NC0025402 Town of Enfield Enfield WWTP Halifax Municipal, Large MAJOR 1.00 03-03-04 Fishing Creek -77.693060 36.151110 1935-2009 1935 best Town Officials could estimate.
NC0025691 Town of Littleton Littleton WWTP Halifax Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.280 03-03-04 Butterwood Creek -77.906110 36.415000 1973-2009 Current plant started in 1973. No record of prior facilities.
NC0026042 Town of Robersonville Robersonville WWTP Martin Municipal, Large MAJOR 1.80 03-03-06 Flat Swamp -77.258330 35.811110 1940-2009 1940 best Town Officials could estimate.
NC0030317 City of Rocky Mount Tar River Regional WWTP Edgecombe Municipal, Large MAJOR 21.0 03-03-02 TAR RIVER -77.724170 35.976940 1930-2009 City has operated a WWTP at or near the site since 1911.
NC0042269 Town of Bunn Bunn WWTP Franklin Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.150 03-03-01 Crooked Creek -78.261390 35.944720 1977-2009 Current plant started in 1977. No record of prior facilities.
NC0050661 Town of Macclesfield Macclesfield WWTP Edgecombe Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.175 03-03-03 Bynums Mill Creek -77.666390 35.745000 1985-2009 Current plant started in 1985. No record of prior facilities.
NC0069311 Franklin County Franklin County WWTP Franklin Municipal, Large MAJOR 3.00 03-03-01 Cedar Creek -78.416940 36.070000 1989-2009
Current plant started in 1989. No prior facility operated
by Franklin County.
NC0072125 City of Rocky Mount Tar River WTP Nash Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-03-02 TAR RIVER -77.883330 35.900560 1971-2009 Facility completed in 1971
NC0072133 City of Rocky Mount Sunset Avenue WTP Nash Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-03-02 TAR RIVER -77.818890 35.952780 1935-2009 Plant operating at site since 1935
NC0077437 Edgecombe Genco LLC Battleboro plant Edgecombe
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 0.904 03-03-02 TAR RIVER -77.758060 35.977780 1970-2009 Cogeneration plant began operation in 1970
NC0082139 Greenville Utilities Comm. Greenville WTP Pitt Water Treatment Plant Minor 1.20 03-03-05 TAR RIVER -77.398610 35.634440
01/1994-
05/2010 WTP operating at site since 1905
*Note on Oxford: The current wastewater treatment plant at Oxford was purchased from Burlington industries, rehabilitated, and upgraded for municipal use beginning in 1969. It replaced two prior and aging wastewater treatment plants located north and south of
town, the Northside WWTP and Southside WWTP, respectively. City staff were unable to locate and records discharge volumes from these facilities or even the proportion of the City’s sewer flow that went to each of them, but they were both completely phased out
and all flows were routed to the current plant by 1987. Both of these facilities discharged to tributaries that ultimately fed to the Tar River upstream of the gage at Louisburg, so all of Oxford’s facilities over the years have flowed to the same node in the Tar River basin
model. Further, no information was available to document when the old plants originally started up. In light of these facts, a single time series of wastewater discharges from the City of Oxford, was generated and extrapolated based on population and the reported flows
from the existing plant, all the way back to 1930.
TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 14 -
Referenced Figures
Figure 1. Tar River Basin

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 15 -
Figure 2. Rain Gages

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 16 -
Figure 3. Agricultural Subbasin Distribution by County and Node

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 17 -
Figure 4. Water Withdrawal Locations

TAR BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL
DATA C OLLECTION DRAFT REPORT
January 2011 - 18 -
Figure 5. Wastewater Discharge Locations