NORTH CAROLINA

IRRIGATION GUIDE

April, 2010
 Acknowledgements 

This North Carolina Irrigation Guide was originally prepared in 1976 by NRCS (authors 
undocumented). This version was prepared by Sherman Biggerstaff under the guidance 
of Thomas Cutts, State Conservation Engineer. Kim Kroeger provided interpretations of 
Mountain irrigation soil management groups.  Sherman Biggerstaff provided 
interpretations of Piedmont/Coastal Plain irrigation soil management groups with 
reviews from John Gagnon. Terri Ruch provided document reviews. Special thanks to Dr. 
Ronald Snead who provided document reviews and his irrigation insightfulness. 

Front Cover photograph: A North Carolina application of the University of

Georgia UGA EASY (Evaporation-based Accumulator for Sprinkler-
enhanced Yield) Pan Irrigation Scheduler can provide in-field monitoring of
crop water needs in humid areas for a fraction of the management time
and cost associated with other irrigation scheduling methods (Cooperative
Extension Service/The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences, “UGA EASY Pan Irrigation Scheduler”, D.L.
Thomas, K.A. Harrison, J.E. Hook, and T.W. Whitley, Bulletin 1201,
January, 2002). See page 48 (Irrigation Scheduling) for further information
on this device. Photograph by Andy Smith.

2 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

 North Carolina IRRIGATION GUIDE

Contents:
Page
Chapter 1 (NEH 652.0106) Introduction …………………………….………..………5
1a - General Information for North Carolina
1b - Rainfall and Drought in North Carolina
1c - Irrigation in North Carolina
1d - Water Supply for Irrigation in North Carolina
Chapter 2 (NEH 652.0204) Soils ……………………………………….……..………13
2a - Soil Surveys
2b - Available Water Capacity
2c - Permeability
2d - Intake Rate
2e - Irrigation Water Application Rates
2f - Slope
2g - Wetness
2h - Surface Texture, Drainage, and Restrictive Feature
Chapter 3 (NEH 652.0308) Crops (in North Carolina) …….…………………..…..24
3a - Critical Crop Growth Periods
3b - Crop Rooting Depth and Moisture Extraction
3c - Plant Moisture Stress and Limited Irrigation
3d - Salinity Tolerance
Chapter 4 (NEH 652.0408) Water Requirements (for North Carolina) ………...36
4a - Direct Measurement of Crop Evapotranspiration
4b - Methods for Estimating Crop Evapotranspiration
4c - Estimating Crop Evapotranspiration (Etc) in North Carolina
4d - Net Irrigation Water Requirements
4e - Management Allowable Soil-Water Depletion
4f - Auxiliary Water Requirements
4g - Water Table Contribution, Drainage, and Irrigation Scheduling
4h - Soil-Water Budget/Balance Analysis
Chapter 5 (NEH 652.0505) Selecting an Irrigation Method …………..………....52
5a - General
5b - Methods and Systems to Apply Irrigation Water
5c - Site Conditions
5d - Selection of Irrigation Method and System
5e - Adaptability and Limitations of Irrigation Methods and Systems
Chapter 6 (NEH 652.0605) Irrigation System Design ………………..………..…61
6a - General
6b - Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
6b1 - Fixed - Solid Set Sprinkler Systems
6b2 - Periodic Move Sprinkler Systems
6b3 - Continuous (Self) Move Sprinkler System
6c - Sprinkler Irrigation System Capacity
6d - Sprinkler Irrigation System Design

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 3

 Page
Appendix A Fact Sheet for North Carolina Agriculture ……………………....97
Appendix B Wastewater Irrigation Design Parameters Worksheet ………..104

Comments Welcome and Updates: Contact the North Carolina Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) at any one of the field offices located throughout the state, or
the state office in Raleigh, with suggestions or comments in regards to this document. It may
be updated periodically, and all comments and suggestions are welcome.

4 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

_____________________________________________________
Chapter 1 (NEH 652.0106) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement - Introduction
1a - General Information for North Carolina

The North Carolina supplement to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
National Engineering Handbook (NEH) Part 652, Irrigation Guide, has been adapted from the
original 1976 NRCS North Carolina Irrigation Guide. The material was developed to assist
North Carolina NRCS field personnel and others working with North Carolina irrigators to
provide general planning, design, and management guidance on various methods of irrigation
commonly used in the State.
The NRCS in North Carolina has a long history of assisting the agriculture community with
resource issues, which include the planning, design and operation of irrigation systems. North
Carolina is a state with abundant resources that should be maintained and enhanced to ensure
they will be available for future generations to come. This document will attempt to provide a
holistic approach which considers all benefits as well as the associated impacts, while
maximizing the utilization of resources without causing any degradation. “Leave it better than
you found it”.
Conservation of water and nutrient resources is a prominent issue in the forefront of today’s
irrigation designer. Conservation makes dollars and sense for the long-term operation and
maintenance of an irrigation system. The irrigation system should allow for efficient application
quantities and quality of water, with a minimum of waste, and have a good cost/benefit ratio.
An additional benefit from an irrigation system should be a more consistent crop output of
higher quality. Land resources, soil fertility, and water quality should not be negatively
impacted by a properly designed irrigation system.
North Carolina has six unique physiographic regions, as shown in Figure NC1-1. Each of the
regions will have their own specific challenges to the design and operation of an irrigation
system. Those regions are the Mountains (Blue Ridge), Piedmont, Sandhills, Inner Coastal
Plains, Outer Coastal Plains and Coastal (Barrier) Islands. Each of these regions have
resource issues that should be considered in the design of an irrigation system. Groundwater
quality and quantity, surficial aquifers, nutrient sensitive watersheds, coastal sound areas, and
impacts to fisheries or shellfish beds must all be considered, as well as any other resource
issues not specifically discussed here.
State and local laws/guidelines must be addressed by any irrigation system designer, and are
not generally covered in this document. Check with state and local government representatives
to insure compliance with any associated regulations/requirements. This NRCS North Carolina
supplement is not intended to stand completely on its own, and is intended to be used as a
supplement to the NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide. Some important points from the
NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, will be reiterated in this supplement, but the irrigation
designer should use both in an irrigation system design.
The North Carolina Irrigation Guide Supplement contains information and experience about
soils, climate, water supplies, crops, cultural practices, and farming conditions in North
Carolina. These factors can be used to improve the planning and design of an irrigation system

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 5

located in this state. Adjoining states were consulted during this revision process to allow for
as much consistency with these states as possible.

Figure NC1-1: Physiographic Regions of North Carolina.

In general, the climate of North Carolina is affected by latitude, variations in elevation,

proximity to the ocean, and location with respect to principle path of storms. The ocean
generally provides a moderating effect for the land adjacent to it, but the influences do not
extend very far inland due to the predominantly west-to-east wind currents. North Carolina lies
between 33.5 and 37 degrees north latitude, with an average annual temperature variation of
about 2o F from south to north. The state varies in elevation from sea level at the coast to 6684
feet at Mount Mitchell, the highest peak in the eastern United States. The average annual
temperature decreases by about 3.5o F for each 1000 feet increase in elevation, for a range of
about 20 degrees from the coast to the higher mountains. (“Climate of North Carolina
Research Stations”, Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State Univ. at Raleigh,
Bulletin #433, July 1967)

6 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

The locations
of daily pan
evaporation
weather
stations are
shown in
Figure NC1-2
for North
Carolina and
surrounding
states.
Expected first
and last frost
dates are
shown in
Figure NC1-3
for North
Carolina. The
frost-free
period
between the
last spring
frost and the
first fall frost is
considered the
length of the
growing
season for the
regions of
North Carolina.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 7

Figure NC1-3: Average spring and fall freeze dates (”North Carolina Climate. A Summary of
Climate Normals and Averages at 18 Agricultural Research Stations”, North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service, Tech. Bull. No. 322, 2004). In the above figure, SCO refers to
the State Climate Office which is located at the North Carolina State University campus.

8 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

1b - Rainfall and Drought in
North Carolina

North Carolina has abundant yearly

rainfall that is well distributed
throughout the year. However,
drought is not an uncommon
occurrence during the North
Carolina growing season. Extended
periods of no rain (< 0.1”/day) that
exceed 30 days have been noted in
most North Carolina rain gage
stations that have at least 50 years
of data. It is recognized that
estimates of drought conditions rely
on not only rainfall (or lack thereof),
but other factors such as
temperature, solar radiation, wind,
crop type, rooting depth, drainage,
and soil moisture storage capacity
that is available to the crop.
An agricultural drought condition is
usually defined as a period when the
moisture needs of the crop are not
met by the available soil moisture
and is often manifest by reduced
crop growth and/or wilting. One
study estimated that 1 in 5 years will
have from 55 to more than 80 days
that meet drought conditions within
North Carolina (“Agricultural Drought
in North Carolina”, North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station,
Tech. Bul. No. 122, June 1956).
The grower will probably be aware of
how often and to what extent his
crop production has been affected
by drought conditions. An estimate
of direct monetary losses to drought
conditions can probably be
estimated from this data if there is
sufficient detail to determine drought
years. Crop quality and consistency
are generally improved by an
irrigation system and therefore must
also be considered a monetary
benefit. Lack of rain and/or drought
Figure NC1-4: Average Annual Rainfall
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 9
in North Carolina during critical crop growing stages is often one of the driving factors in the
acquisition of irrigation systems for a farmer/grower.
Following is a general description of North Carolina precipitation from the State Climate Office
(web address: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/ncclimate.html ). Some of the rainfall
amounts were updated with NRCS PRISM rainfall data which is shown in Figure NC1-4.
While there are no distinct wet and dry seasons in North Carolina, average rainfall does vary
around the year. Summer precipitation is normally the greatest, and July is the wettest month.
Summer rainfall is also the most variable, occurring mostly in connection with showers and
thunderstorms. Daily showers are not uncommon, nor are periods of one to two weeks without
rain. Autumn is the driest season, and November the driest month. Precipitation during winter
and spring occurs mostly in connection with migratory low pressure storms, which appear with
greater regularity and in a more even distribution than summer showers. In southwestern North
Carolina, where moist southerly winds are forced upward in passing over the mountain barrier,
the average annual precipitation can go as high as 119 inches. This region has the highest
annual precipitation in the eastern United States. Less than 50 miles to the north, in the valley
of the French Broad River, sheltered by mountain ranges on all sides, is the driest point south
of Virginia and east of the Mississippi River. Here the average annual precipitation is only 39
inches. East of the Mountains, average annual rainfall ranges mostly between 40 and 57
inches.
Winter-type precipitation usually occurs with southerly through easterly winds, and is seldom
associated with very cold weather. Snow and sleet occur on an average once or twice a year
near the coast, and not much more often over the southeastern half of the State. Such
occurrences are nearly always connected with northeasterly winds, generated when a high
pressure system over the interior, or northeastern United States, causes a southward flow of
cold dry air down the coastline, while offshore a low pressure system brings in warmer, moist
air from the North Atlantic. Farther inland, over the Mountains and western Piedmont, frozen
precipitation sometimes occurs in connection with low pressure storms, and in the extreme
west with cold front passages from the northwest. Average winter snowfall over the State
ranges from about (one) inch per year on the outer banks and along the lower coast to about
10 inches in the northern Piedmont and 16 inches in the southern Mountains. Some of the
higher mountain peaks and upper slopes receive an average of nearly 50 inches a year.

1c - Irrigation in North Carolina

North Carolina is a diverse state for irrigation system types and crops to be irrigated. Rainfall,
although abundant, often does not occur during critical stages of plant growth, and sometimes
does not occur for extended periods that can exceed 30 to 60 days. Some crops are very
susceptible to production losses or reduced quality related to drought. North Carolina is in a
humid region where irrigation applications should be adjusted by some method of irrigation
scheduling, for the prevailing rainfall conditions. Irrigation scheduling is the use of water
management strategies to prevent over-application of water while minimizing yield loss due to
drought stress. Irrigation scheduling computer programs are available both from NRCS and
others.
North Carolina has about 343 thousand acres of agricultural land under irrigation according to
the 1997 NRCS National Resource Inventory (NRI) data. Statewide, approximately 28 percent
of tobacco, 10.5 percent of peanuts, 2 percent of cotton, and 11 percent of corn is irrigated
(1994 memo from Dr. Robert Evans, NC State University-Department of Biological and

10 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Agricultural Engineering). More than 87 percent of the agriculture related irrigation water
comes from surface waters, such as streams, canals, and ponds (1997 NRCS NRI). However,
a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study (Open-File Report 97-599, Walters, 1997) indicated
that in 1995, 76 percent of irrigation water was derived from surface waters. This is probably
not a change in the amount of surface water used for irrigation, but indicative of the amount of
error in the estimates. The amount of irrigation acreage increased between 1982 and 1992 by
about 70.8 thousand acres (about 21%), but only increased by 3 thousand acres (about 1%)
between 1992 and 1997 (NRCS NRI).
Changes in commodity prices often drive the percent of a crop and the amount of land that is
irrigated. Corn and soybeans are seeing potential increased production in North Carolina
driven by a developing biofuels market and associated price increases. This may help to
increase the percentage of corn (current preferred input for ethanol based biofuel production)
that will be under irrigation in the future. Soybeans are the preferred crop for biodiesel fuels
and could also see an increased future demand as this market develops. Many other North
Carolina crops, such as sweet potatoes, also have the potential for use in the developing
biofuels market.

1d - Water Supply for Irrigation in North Carolina

Water rights have not been a large issue in the past for North Carolina. However, it is still an
issue that should be considered by the irrigation designer. Over-drafting of groundwater, salt
water intrusion, interbasin transfer, and aquifer water quality degradation can also be issues
that deserve consideration. The North Carolina Water Use Act of 1967 allows the
Environmental Management Commission to designate an area as a Capacity Use Area (CUA)
if it finds that the long-term sustainability of the water resource is threatened or that water use
in an area requires coordination to protect the public interest. Within a designated CUA, all
persons withdrawing more than 100,000 gallons of water per day (about 69 gpm, which many
irrigation systems will exceed) may need to obtain a permit from the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Division of Water Resources (DWR). In 1998, 15
counties in the central coastal plain region of North Carolina were declared a CUA due to
significant dewatering of the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers (Jennifer Adams and
Ronald Cummings, North Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center, Water Policy Working
Paper # 2004-002). Water use permits for irrigation withdrawal wells may be required in these
areas. The irrigation system designer is advised to check with local and state officials for any
local requirements or permits.
Concerns in North Carolina about withdrawals from subsurface aquifers are generally focused
on the coastal plains region. The USGS has found that ground-water levels throughout the
North Carolina coastal plains are declining (USGS Fact sheet FS-033-95), with an area near
Lumberton declining more than 12 feet from 1988 to 1992. Many North Carolina communities
rely on groundwater for public water supplies for large municipal systems. There are also many
smaller community well-water systems serving small subdivisions, mobile home parks,
schools, and churches. Irrigation systems often compete with these other uses when well
water is used as the irrigation water supply.
Wells supply the drinking water needs of more than 50 percent of the North Carolina
population and in some areas represents the only practical source of water for domestic use
(Dan Bius, draft North Carolina Groundwater Implementation Plan- A Comprehensive
Groundwater Decision Support System, 05/16/03). Some groundwater sources have naturally

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 11

high levels of phosphorus that are considered pollutants to nutrient sensitive waters in North
Carolina (Pixie A. Hamilton and Timothy L. Miller, “Managing the Water Above and Below”,
Geotimes, May 2002). Saltwater intrusion may also be a concern when a well site is in near
proximity to coastal waters. There are also indications that neighboring states (see proposed
South Carolina Bill H 3486, Apr 2007) of North Carolina are looking at ways to control and
monitor water use in this state. Interbasin water transfers have also been an issue in North
Carolina and the surrounding states, and should be avoided if possible. Water usage
requirements could change in the future as the population and competition for water resources
increase.
The first requirement for irrigation is an adequate supply of good quality water during those
periods when the need for irrigation is greatest. The number of acres that can be properly
irrigated at such times is dependent on the available water supply. The water supply should be
adequate to irrigate the intended area of crops during a prolonged dry period before serious
crop damage occurs. “Irrigating less land better will generally yield more benefits than
inadequate irrigation of a larger area.”
Wells, ponds, streamflow, and even cisterns may be found supplying water to irrigation
systems in North Carolina. Streams can become unreliable sources during extreme drought
conditions when the irrigation system most needs the water supply. Some systems use
tailwater recovery, and many use a sophisticated management and control system. Losses are
an inherent part of every irrigation system. Careful management, well designed systems, and
methods of water recovery, can help reduce the water needs and cost of an irrigation system.
Water control structures have been effectively used in flat coastal areas to maintain a higher
water table in the effective rooting depth of the plants and thus reducing the irrigation demand.
Issues associated with artificially elevated groundwater levels can stem from either an
increased rate of groundwater recharge (from surface irrigation water, for example), water
table management where drainage release is controlled, or a disruption in groundwater
discharge to surficial waters (recent construction for example). Irrigation impacts to
groundwater are generally localized to the field, as in the case of water table management,
and should not extend much beyond the intended area. Common effects of elevated
groundwater levels include mineralized soils, increased runoff from rainfall, slowness of soil to
dry out, new wet spots, basement flooding, and foundation saturation.
Recharge areas for aquifers may also be a concern in the future to the irrigator since there is
the potential for significant deep percolation to an underlying aquifer. However, aquifer
recharge areas are not well defined, and a properly designed/managed irrigation system
should not present an increase in adverse impacts when compared to non-irrigated farmland.
Deep soaking rainfalls occur in North Carolina and can translocate farming associated plant
nutrients, whether irrigated or not, down below the rooting zone.

12 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

____________________________________________________
Chapter 2 (NEH 652.0204) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement-Soils
North Carolina has six general regions as discussed in the Introduction (NEH 652.0106)
section. They are the Mountains, Piedmont, Sandhills, Inner Coastal Plains, Outer Coastal
Plains and Coastal (Barrier) Islands. Each region has its own irrigation resource challenges
associated with the soil-crop systems that are indigenous. For example, the Sandhills region of
North Carolina can be found to support a multitude of cactus not found in the other regions.
Cactus would not be irrigated of course, but it does illustrate how different this region is,
because of its hot almost desert-like climate and light colored sandy soils. North Carolina has a
wide variety of soil types and these cannot be irrigated alike. An accurate, detailed soil survey
of the area to be irrigated is necessary. On-site testing of soil properties may also be justified.
Instrumentation to measure soil moisture contents at multiple depths that represent the crop
rooting zone is essential to any good irrigation management system. Moisture measurements
should be taken at multiple locations in the irrigated area to accurately give an indication of the
field moisture condition for irrigation scheduling. Field soil moisture should be managed to
ensure most of the irrigated water is used by the crop and not lost from the rooting zone.

2a - Soil Surveys

Knowledge of soils is essential for the efficient use of water for crop production. Soil survey
maps and data for most of the state are now available online through the NRCS Web Soil
Survey (WSS), http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. See Exhibit NC2-1 for instructions on
how to use and access the NRCS WSS. The WSS is replacing the familiar, traditional paper
copies of soil survey reports that were previously available at the NRCS County office. As new
and updated soil surveys are completed, NRCS is distributing the results of these surveys by
means of the WSS instead of published reports. The WSS allows NRCS to update the
information more rapidly and ensures a single source for official data. Those without computer
access can still acquire soil survey information from an NRCS field office (look under
Government listing in local Phone Book) or local library via WSS.
Important physical and chemical characteristics of each kind of soil are recorded in soils
handbooks or soil survey publications. This soils information is available for download through
the NRCS Soil Data Mart, http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/, or online at the WSS. See Exhibit
NC2-2 for instructions on how to access and use the NRCS Soil Data Mart. Some physical
characteristics of these soils that are important to understanding soil-moisture plant
relationships are discussed in this guide. They include available water capacity, permeability,
intake rate, slope, wetness (drainage and depth to water table), and surface texture. Note that
in the Soil Survey, most of these physical soil characteristic terms are estimated and have a
wide range of values. In most cases the estimated Soil Survey physical soil characteristic data
should be verified with actual on-site testing.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 13

Exhibit NC2-1:
Instructions on
how to use
and access the
NRCS Web
Soil Survey
(WSS).
Go to a
computer that
has web
access and
start an
Internet
Explorer
application.
Type in the
following web
address
“http://websoils
urvey.nrcs.usd
a.gov“ on the
open line as
illustrated (see
red arrow).
There are 3
basic steps;
Define,
View/Explore,
and Checkout.
You must first
select the
button “Start
WSS” to begin
the process.
Follow the on-
line
instructions to
define and
view data
and/or maps
for your area
of interest.

14 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Exhibit NC2-2: Instructions on how to use and access the NRCS Soil Data Mart.
Go to a computer that has web access and start an Internet Explorer application. Type in the
following web address “http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov“ on the open line as illustrated below
(see red arrow). You must first select the button “Select State” to begin the process. Follow the
on-line instructions to download the data and/or maps for your area of interest.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 15

2b - Available Water Capacity

The available water capacity (AWC) of a soil is a measure of its ability to make water available
for plant growth within the rooting zone. The AWC of a soil is primarily related to the soil
texture, organic matter content, and bulk density. A simple analogy would be that of a sponge,
where it adsorbs water and then releases it when squeezed. For irrigation, the AWC is defined
as the amount of water held between field capacity (FC) and the permanent wilting point (WP)
as shown in Figure NC2-1. AWC is a simple and useful concept for irrigation, but it must be
stressed that soils vary spatially and with depth over most fields, as do the AWC, FC and WP.
It is recognized that plants can withdraw water from a soil that is above FC or is below WP.
Also, FC and WP are hard to measure and define for a field and generally involves some lab
work. For simplicity, AWC is commonly expressed as the water retained between 0.33 bar
(FC) and 15 bar tension (WP) for fine to medium textured soils and between 0.10 bar and 15
bar for moderately coarse to very coarse textured soils. A formula for the computation of
available water capacity is
(db * T * Pw )
Available water capacity in inches = AWC 
(dw * 100)
Where:
db = Bulk density = (Weight of ovendry soil sample in grams) / (Field volume of sample in cm 3 )
T = Thickness of soil horizon under consideration in inches
Pw = Moisture content between field capacity and wilting point in percentage by weight
dw = Density of water taken as 1 gm/ cm 3
There are two methods to consider in the determination of AWC and when to irrigate. One
method is based on the percentage of AWC within the root zone and the other is based on soil
moisture tension. This difference in concept is shown in Figure NC2-2 which shows moisture
release curves for three soils. In this figure moisture content is expressed as a percentage of
AWC rather than a percentage by weight. FC is 100 percent of AWC and the WP is 0 percent
of AWC (15 bars). Tension at any moisture level is different for the three soils. At the 50
percent level, for example, moisture tension for the clay is 4.3 bars; for the loam, 2 bars; and
for the sand, 0.60 bars. Often, soil moisture gauges report their reading in tension (bars) and
AWC must then be calculated from a moisture release curve.
Moisture is more readily available to plants at low soil moisture tension (near field capacity).
Since tension values are so different in the three soils shown in Figure NC2-2, it is possible
that crop response would be different if the soils were irrigated when available moisture
depletes to the 50 percent level. However, for most soils, irrigation should be started when the
soil moisture content is no lower than the 50 percent level.
The NRCS Soil Data Mart can be used to generate reports on physical soil properties for North
Carolina soils, including AWC. For example, water holding capacity for 24 inches of rooting
depth on an Norfolk (NrB) soil in Pitt County is:
0”-9”, 0.125 in./in. × 9 in. = 1.125 in.
9”-15”, 0.085 in./in. × 6 in. = 0.51 in.
15”-19”, 0.120 in./in. × 4 in. = 0.48 in.
19”-24”, 0.125 in./in. × 5 in. = 0.625 in.
Total AWC for 24 in. depth = 2.74 in.

16 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

The weighted AWC for the rooting depth is obtained by dividing the total AWC by the rooting
depth. For the above example, the weighted AWC is:
2.74 in./24 in. = 0.114 in./in.
Note that the median Soil Survey AWC was used for each soil layer in the above example. For
example, in the 0”-9” layer, the range for AWC was 0.10 in/in to 0.15 in/in. This is a difference
of about 50 percent and illustrates the need for on-site testing to determine the actual soil
characteristics.

Figure NC2-1 Representative Soil moisture release curves for two soil groups

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 17

Figure NC2-2 Representative Soil moisture release curves for three soil groups

2c - Permeability

Soils can be viewed as a permeable medium in which air and water can move within and
through the medium. Permeability is the quality of the soil that enables it to transmit gases and
liquids within and through the medium. Generally, there is a concern for the rate at which water
can move into or out of the soil. It should be noted that other liquids, such as oil or gasoline,
may also move through a permeable medium such as soil. Often, saturated hydraulic
conductivity will be confused with or used interchangeably with permeability. They are similar,
but different terms. Permeability is a characteristic of a permeable medium that is based on
mean grain diameter of the particle, grain shape, packing order, and other factors. Permeability
affects the rate of movement of all gasses and liquids in that porous medium and is generally
given as a length squared term, such as ft2 or cm2. (Warren Wessman Jr., John W. Knapp,
Gary L. Lewis, and Terence E. Harbaugh, Introduction to Hydrology, 1977, pg 300)
Hydraulic conductivity is generally used in reference to the movement of water in a porous
medium such as soil. It is the rate at which water will move through a soil under a driving head.
Hydraulic conductivity is related to soil permeability, but also considers the properties of the
liquid being transmitted through the soil or porous medium, and the state of saturation.

18 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Generally, the saturated hydraulic conductivity, of water in a soil at a specific depth, is the
property most often measured during the investigation of a specific field site or location. This
term, saturated hydraulic conductivity, is a specific state within the soil where it is saturated
and the hydraulic conductivity is determined for that state. Hydraulic conductivity is a term that
applies to both saturated and unsaturated water movements within the soil. For example, there
will be unsaturated movement of water from a subsurface water table upward into the drier soil
above. This movement upward can supply plant available water to a plant root system above
the water table and is therefore important in sub-irrigation systems.
The saturated hydraulic conductivity of a soil, shown in NRCS soils reports, is based on the
most restrictive layer in the soil. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils may be separated
into water movement rate classes as described by the terms listed in Table NC2-1.

Table NC2-1: Relative Water Movement Rate Class for Soils

Saturated Hydraulic Saturated Hydraulic
Rate Term
Conductivity (in/hr) Conductivity (μm/sec)
Very slow <0.06 <0.42
Slow 0.06 - 0.2 0.42 – 1.41
Moderately slow 0.2 - 0.6 1.41 – 4.23
Moderate 0.6 - 2.0 4.23 – 14.1
Moderately rapid 2.0 - 6.0 14.1 – 42.3
Rapid 6.0 - 20.0 42.3 – 141.1
Very rapid >20 >141.1

The saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ksat (μm/sec) for North Carolina soils are shown in the
Physical Soil Properties report at the NRCS Soil Data Mart. These values can be converted to
in./hr. if desired. The conversion equation would be 1 in/hr = 25400 μm/3600 sec = 7.0555
μm/sec.

2d - Intake Rate

Intake rate is a measure of soil's capacity to absorb irrigation water (or rainfall) from the
surface, and move it into and through the soil profile. It is an expression of several factors,
including infiltration and percolation. The term, “basic intake rate” is the rate at which water
moves into soil after infiltration has decreased to a low and nearly constant value.
Infiltration is the downward flow of water from the surface through the soil. Water enters the
soil through pores, cracks, worm and decayed root holes, and cavities introduced by tillage.
Surface sealing and crusting can restrict or reduce infiltration. This surface sealing effect can
be reduced by vegetative or mechanical (usually mulch) covers which protect the soil surface
from raindrop impact energy.
Percolation is the movement of water through the soil profile. In order for irrigation water to be
effective in replenishing the soils water supply, it must be able to move through the profile, or
percolate, to a predetermined irrigation depth. The crop rooting zone generally sets the
irrigation depth that is targeted for moisture replenishment. The percolation rate is governed by
the permeability of the soil or its hydraulic conductivity. Both terms (see previous section on
permeability) are used to indicate the ease with which water can move within a soil medium.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 19

The amount of moisture already in the soil greatly influences the rate at which water enters the
soil. The soil takes in and absorbs irrigation water or rainfall rapidly when water is first applied
to the field surface and the soil is at less than saturation. As the irrigation application or rainfall
continues, the rooting zone gradually becomes saturated and the intake rate decreases until it
reaches a nearly constant value.
The intake of any soil is limited by any restriction to the flow of water into or through the soil
profile. The soil layer with the lowest transmission rate, either at the surface or in the rooting
zone below it, usually determines intake rate. The most important general factors that influence
intake rate are the physical properties of the soil and, in sprinkler irrigation, the plant cover. But
for any given soil, other factors may affect the intake rate, such as surface sealing, hard pans,
frosting, very hot temperatures, salts, organic matter, dispersiveness, worm activity, and so on.
Since so many factors affect the water intake, it is not surprising that it varies so much among
soils. Furthermore, the intake characteristics of a given field vary from place to place within the
field, from irrigation to irrigation, and from season to season. The intake characteristics that
must be considered in sprinkler irrigation design differ from those for other surface irrigation
methods.
Actual measured intake rates are unavailable for North Carolina soils. Intake rates are
estimates based on the characteristics of the top two feet of the soil. If the soil has a water
table within two feet of the surface, the intake rate is assigned as if the soil is drained.
Typically, for a well-drained soil with good cover and no clayey or restrictive subsoil, the intake
rate is estimated at 2.0 in./hr (14 μm/sec). Note that this soil intake rate is not the same as the
irrigation application rate, which is discussed in the following section. For other soil types,
consult with a soil scientist to determine an intake rate value.

2e - Irrigation Water Application Rates

The Irrigation Water Application Rate (IAR) is the rate at which water is applied to a field by an
irrigation system in inches per hour (in/hr) or micro meters per second (μm/sec). The IAR will
be less than the soil intake rate and should not cause runoff to occur at any time during the
irrigation cycle. Generally a dry soil will begin the irrigation cycle with a high surface infiltration
rate and can easily adsorb irrigation water, but later when a soil is at or near field capacity,
surface infiltration rates will decline and runoff may occur. The IAR is an average rate with
areas that are above it and a portion of the field below this average. Slope also increases the
likelihood of runoff from a field for a given soil intake rate under irrigation.
The rate at which irrigation water can be applied to a field soil depends on many factors,
including, but not limited to the following:
a. The time required for the soil to absorb the calculated depth of application without runoff for
the given conditions of soil, slope, and cover. The depth of application divided by this required
time is the maximum application rate. The depth of application varies with crop type and
associated soil rooting zone with consideration given to the soil and any restrictions therein.
b. The minimum application rate that will result in reasonably uniform distribution and
satisfactory efficiency under prevalent climatic conditions.
c. The desirable time for applying the required depth of water considering efficient use of
available labor and the other operations on the farm.
d. The application rate adjusted to the number of operating sprinklers using the most practical
layout of lateral and main lines.

20 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

In general, the selected irrigation water application rate should fall somewhere between a
minimum value of 0.2 in./hr (1.4 μm/sec) and a maximum of 1.0 in./hr (7 μm/sec). Irrigation
application rates less than 0.2 in./hr (1.4 μm/sec) may have distribution uniformity issues.
Irrigation application rates greater than 1.0 in./hr (7 μm/sec) may have excessive runoff issues.
Maximum irrigation water application rates are given for most North Carolina soil/crop
combinations in Tables NC6-1 through NC6-4 and additional discussion can be found
accompanying these tables in Chapter 6.

2f - Slope

Slope refers to the incline of the surface of the soil area. A simple, or single slope is defined by
its gradient, shape, and length. Slopes may also be defined as single or complex depending on
the nature of the area. Soil slope is expressed in terms of a percentage. It is the difference in
elevation in feet for each 100-feet horizontal. A soil inclined at 45 degrees has a slope of 100
percent since the difference in elevation of two points 100 feet apart horizontally is 100 feet.
Soil slope and intake rate are important factors in determining runoff rates. However, runoff
should not be allowed during an irrigation event. Adjustments should be made to the irrigation
equipment or management strategy so that there is little to no runoff. Extreme slopes should
not be irrigated since there is such a high potential for substantial runoff losses. If a tractor
cannot safely maneuver on a slope, it probably should not be irrigated. Any slope greater than
3% (3 feet of drop in 100 feet of run) may require special measures to address the increased
runoff potential, sprinkler pressure drops, and any other negative effects. If irrigation is
necessary on steeper slopes (>5%), great care should be exercised by the designer to control
runoff and other negative impacts to the irrigation system.

2g - Wetness

Wetness problems are generally found to cause equipment passage issues for a farmer and/or
poor crop growth. Wetness is expressed as a function of soil drainage and depth to water
table. Internal soil drainage is a natural condition of the soil that refers to the frequency and
duration of periods when the soil is free of saturation. For example, in well drained soils the
water is removed readily but not rapidly; in poorly drained soils the root zone is waterlogged for
long periods unless artificially drained. In excessively drained soils, water is removed so
completely that most plants suffer from lack of water.

Table NC2-2. Drainage Classes of Soils Except for very young soils, the
natural soil drainage conditions are
Drainage Class Abbreviation reflected in soil morphology. The
Very poorly drained VP drainage class shown for the various
soils is the drainage that existed
Poorly drained P during the development of the soil as
Somewhat poorly drained SP opposed to altered drainage as the
result of artificial drainage. Table
Moderately well drained MW
NC2-2 lists classes (with their
Well drained W abbreviations) to define natural soil
Somewhat excessively drained SE drainage in broad terms.
Excessively drained E

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 21

High water table is defined as the top of the zone of saturation at the highest average depth
elevation during the wettest season. It persists in the soil for more than a few days. The depth
to water table is given for each soil in the Water Features report in the NRCS Soil Data Mart.
Refer to a soil scientist or engineer, who can usually determine the seasonal high water table
for a given farm field or location.
The presence of a saturated zone (water table) is a prime factor in determining soils
adaptability for irrigation. If a saturated zone is at a shallow depth, a hazard always exists that
heavy rains can raise the saturated zone to depths shallow enough to slow or inhibit plant
growth. Thus, soils with wetness limitations are given different considerations than other
similar soils that do not have a wetness limitation.

2h - Surface Texture, Drainage, and Restrictive Feature

Table NC2-3: Soil Texture Abbreviations Surface Texture

Soil Texture Abbreviation Surface texture is displayed in the Engineering
Sand S Properties report in the NRCS Soil Data Mart,
Coarse sand COS for all soil series. The abbreviations in Table
NC2-3 are used to describe soil texture.
Fine sand FS
Loamy coarse sand LCOS
Loamy sand LS Drainage
Loamy fine sand LFS Land to be irrigated should be well drained. If
Coarse sandy loam COSL the land is not naturally well drained, adequate
Sandy loam SL surface and subsurface drainage should be
provided. Otherwise, a large rainfall event
Fine sandy loam FSL following an irrigation cycle may cause crop
Very fine sandy loam VFSL damage.
Loam L
Silt loam SIL
Restrictive Features
Clay loam CL
Sandy clay loam SCL Certain soil features affect design, layout,
construction, management or performance of
Silty clay loam SICL an irrigation system. Those features important
Silty clay SIC in design and management of most irrigation
Sandy clay SC systems are wetness or ponding and the need
Clay C for drainage, flooding, available water capacity,
intake rate, permeability, susceptibility to wind
Muck or peat MK or PT
or water erosion, and slope. Soil features that
Additional Textural Modifiers influence construction are large stones and
Channery CN depth to bedrock or cemented pan. The
Gravelly GR features that affect performance of the system
Shaley SH are rooting depth, amount of salts or sodium,
and soil acidity. These properties, limits, and
restrictive features are shown in Table NC2-4. Particular soils with restrictive features are
displayed in the Engineering Properties, Physical Properties, and Irrigation reports in the
NRCS Soil Data Mart or the NRCS Web Soil Survey (both are discussed in a previous section
on internet access to Soil Surveys).

22 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC2-4. Irrigation Restrictive Features
Restrictive
Property Limits
Factors
1/
Fraction >3 in. (wt. %) >25 Large Stones
Depth to High Water Table (ft) <3 Wetness Ponding
1/
Available Water Capacity (in./in.) <0.10 Droughty
USDA Texture (Surface Layer) S, FS, VFS, LS, LFS, VFSL Fast Intake
USDA Texture (Surface Layer) SIC, C, SC Slow Intake
Wind Erodibility Group 1, 2, 3 Soil Blowing
Permeability (in./hr.) - (0-60") <0.2 Percs Slowly
Depth to Bedrock (in.) <40 Depth to Rock
Depth to Cemented Pan (in.) <40 Cemented Pan
Fragipan (Great Group) All Fragi Rooting Depth
Bulk Density (g/cc) - (0-40") >1.7 Rooting Depth
Slope (%) >3 Slope
Erosion Factor (K) - (Surface Layer) >0.35 Erodes Easily
Flooding Occasional or Frequent Floods
Sodium Absorption Ratio (Great Group) >12 (Natric, Halic) Excess Sodium
Salinity (mmho/cm) >8 Excess Salt
Soil Reaction (pH) <5 Too Acidic
------------- None of Above Favorable
1/ Weighted average to 40 inches (101.6 cm).

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 23

_____________________________________________________
Chapter 3 (NEH 652.0308) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement - Crops (in North Carolina)
The primary crops irrigated in North Carolina are horticulture crops, corn, cotton, pastures,
peanuts, small grains, sorghum, soybeans, strawberries, tobacco, turfgrasses, and vegetables.
Low fertility, low or high pH, and/or an imbalance of nutrients are often the limiting production
factors on irrigated land. A well-fed plant uses water more efficiently than a plant deprived of
nutrients. The irrigator should monitor soil moisture, control weeds and pests, plant high quality
seed of adapted varieties, and use timely operations. Weeds, insects, and diseases can be a
greater problem for irrigated land than for non-irrigated farm land.
Small grains are best suited to medium texture soils. Peanuts and most pasture plants are best
suited to moderately coarse texture soils. Most vegetables do well on coarse textured soils.
Alfalfa, tobacco, corn, cotton and soybeans will perform well on most deep, well drained,
medium, and coarse textured soils when irrigated and fertilized properly.
Computer modeling with irrigation management software has shown that a winter cover crop
should be used with a waste water irrigation system in order to increase crop utilization of fall,
winter, and spring irrigation applications. Irrigated waste water is often applied in the
fall/winter/spring periods which generally last four to five months in North Carolina, and
sometimes longer in the mountain regions. This fall/winter/spring period is outside of the
normal growing season of most harvested crops. A cover or winter crop can grow later into the
fall and starts growing earlier in the spring. Irrigation applied waste water must be consumed
by growing plants and is not allowed to be lost in runoff or deep percolation below the rooting
zone. Soils are often at maximum plant available water in the spring, which limits the irrigation
potential. Use of Irrigation Scheduling accounting methods (computer models or spreadsheets)
is needed to properly schedule waste water irrigation applications during the spring time.
Crop residue or vegetative cover should be maintained on the surface to keep soil loss within
the allowable limits for irrigated soils. At the outer portions of some center pivot irrigation
systems, the application rate may exceed the soil water intake rate. Leaving crop residue on
the surface can minimize this condition. Also minimum tillage will improve or maintain soil
water intake rates. Cover crops (usually small grains) are essential to control wind and water
erosion on many soils, especially in the southeastern Coastal Plains and Sandhills regions of
North Carolina.

3a - Critical Crop Growth Periods

For optimum production and the most efficient use of water, plants must have ample moisture
throughout the growing season. For most crops there are critical periods in the growing season
when a high moisture level must be maintained for high yields. The critical period can best be
defined as that time when soil moisture stress can most reduce yield in an otherwise healthy
crop. This is not to say that it is the only time in the life of the crop that moisture stress reduces
yield. It is the time when moisture stress has the greatest effect. If there is enough moisture for
germination and for the development of an adequate stand, the critical moisture period is
almost always in the latter part of the growing season during the reproductive growth stage.
Although plants indicate moisture stress by various symptoms, yields will usually be reduced
by the time the plant shows stress. Time and duration of irrigation should be determined by an

24 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

accurate estimation of the soil moisture content and the remaining plant available water in the
rooting zone. Critical moisture periods for North Carolina crops are shown in Table NC3-1.

3b - Crop Rooting Depth and Moisture Extraction

The effective root zone depth is the depth of soil used by the main body of the plant roots to
obtain most of the stored moisture and plant food under proper irrigation. It is not the same as
the maximum root zone depth. Application of irrigation water should be limited to an amount
that will penetrate only the effective root zone depth. Applications in excess of this amount will
result in waste of water and added pumping cost. Also, in the lighter textured soils, heavy
applications may cause leaching of plant food beyond reach of the plant feeder roots.
It should be noted that some irrigators in North Carolina define the effective root zone as being
the surface 12 to 18 inches of a soil for most crops. The NRCS uses a more national approach
in the determination of the effective root zone, and thus may have larger values for crops as
shown in Table NC3-1. It is recognized that managing the surface 12 to 18 inches will be very
effective at scheduling and applying the proper amounts of irrigation water. However, using
less effective root depth may cause a reduction in the irrigation application amount and an
increase in the irrigation frequency. Therefore it is left to the irrigation designer and
grower/user to determine the effective root zone that will be managed with a specific field and
crop that are to be irrigated.
In uniform soils with ample available moisture, plants use water rapidly from the upper part of
the root zone and slowly from the lower part. Most plants have similar moisture extraction
patterns. The usual crop moisture extraction pattern for soils with a uniform texture is as
follows: about 40% from the upper quarter of the root zone, 30% from the second quarter of
the root zone, 20% from the third quarter, and 10% from the bottom quarter. Therefore, it
follows that most crops will meet 70 percent of their moisture needs from the upper half of the
effective root zone. Because of this pattern of water extraction, if 50% of the available water
capacity (AWC) has been used, the upper portion of the root zone is most affected by the lack
of moisture. This will make the upper 12 to 18 inches the most critical zone for a given crop
and soil combination from an irrigation management view point.
The effective rooting depth of the crop determines the volume of the soil moisture reservoir to
be managed by the irrigator. The effective rooting depth depends on the crop being grown and
soil conditions. Table NC3-1 gives the normal effective rooting depth of common crops grown
in deep soils. Shallow soils can limit the rooting depth of crops. This rooting depth restriction
can be due to shallow depths to bedrock, gravel, acidity, soil with a hardpan, high water table,
or any other restriction to root development. A minimum effective rooting depth as shown in
Table NC3-1 should be available to support the crop. There may be occasions where field
conditions indicate that effective root zone depth other than those listed may be more
appropriate. The proper effective root zone depth can be determined in the field by observation
and measurement. If moisture conditions and growth period have been sufficient to develop
normal rooting characteristics, the effective root zone depth may be determined by digging a
hole alongside the plant and carefully tunneling back underneath the plant to expose the hair
like moisture feeder roots. The depth to which two or more rootlets are noted per six square
inches of exposure indicates effective moisture utilization. Determination of the moisture
content of each layer encountered can also indicate the moisture extraction pattern.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 25

3c - Plant Moisture Stress and Limited Irrigation

Many factors contribute to the need to limit irrigation. These factors include declining ground
water supplies, salt-water intrusion, increases in pumping cost and disease control. For any
crop, there is a point where further application of irrigation water cannot be justified
economically. Profit may be maximized by limiting irrigations to the particular crop's critical
moisture characteristics in lieu of trying for maximum yields by maintaining a high soil-moisture
level throughout the growing season.
Plant growth is a very complex process that can be impacted by many external factors such as
pests, disease, soil alkalinity or acidity, plant available water, plant nutrient availability, and soil
toxicity levels (salts, heavy metals, etc.). However, some generalities can be made in regards
to plant response to water related stresses. It should be noted that this does not hold true for
every year due to the complex interactions that govern plant growth. Plant moisture stress is
any period during the plant’s growing season when its water needs are not met. Plants are
generally most sensitive to soil plant-available moisture deficits during the flowering and
fruiting or grain filling stages of its growth cycle. Critical plant moisture stress periods for some
of the major crops of North Carolina are discussed in the following list and are shown in Table
NC3-1.

Alfalfa
Alfalfa needs adequate soil moisture for high production. The most critical need for moisture is
at the start of flowering and after cutting. Irrigations should be scheduled 3 to 5 days after each
cutting, if possible. The soil should be brought to field capacity 2 to 3 feet deep depending
upon soil type. The spring, before cutting, and in the fall are the most critical periods of growth
in the maintenance of a highly productive stand. Fall growth should be sufficient to permit the
production and storage of large quantities of reserve food in the crown and roots to reduce
winter kill of plants. Irrigation scheduling computer programs or spreadsheet scheduling type
methods is recommended for irrigated alfalfa crops since water stress results in reduced ET
and usually reduced yields. Irrigation scheduling should also reduce over-application of water,
which increase costs and will not increase yields or make up for a previous stress period.
Blueberries
Irrigation water should be applied according to the water needs of the blueberry. The root
system on a blueberry plant will begin to grow before the top. Therefore, if the winter has been
dry, it is important to irrigate thoroughly 3 to 4 weeks before the top starts to grow. From bloom
until harvest is a critical moisture period for blueberries. After harvest the blueberry continues
to make new growth to support the next season's crop. Water and adequate fertility are critical
during this stage of growth.
Corn
The use of irrigation for growing corn in North Carolina has increased steadily over the past 30
years. The major advantages of irrigation in corn production come from an increase in yield
potential and more consistent yields over time. Comparisons of commercial fields over a seven
year period found that irrigated corn fields yielded over 215 bushels per acre on average; while
non-irrigated fields on the same farm over the same period averaged only 140 bushels per
acre. Furthermore, the irrigated yields during the seven years ranged from 194 to 245 bushels
per acre; while non-irrigated yields ranged from 13 to 204 bushels per acre. (R. W. Heiniger,
NC Corn Production Guide-Ch 4-Irrigation and Drought Management, NC State Crop Science
Department, 7/26/00)
26 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
Corn is a shallow rooted plant until it nears tasseling. Water requirements for corn, whether
from rain or irrigation are as follows:
(1) about 1 inch of water every 12 days for the first 40 days of growth,
(2) about 1 inch every 5 to 7 days between 40 days and tasseling, and
(3) 1 inch every 3 to 4 days from tasseling to maturity.
Total irrigation and/or rainfall requirement for corn during the first 60 days is about 7.7 inches.
Demand for water from 60 days to maturity is high, totaling about 13.0 inches, and is especially
high and important during the tasseling and grain filling period. The grain filling period is the 3
weeks following tasseling.
Corn should never be allowed to wilt since yield losses will probably have already occurred
once the wilting is evident. A drought period of a few days can significantly reduce yields,
especially if occurring during critical growth stages. Under limited irrigation the critical period
for irrigation is from the tassel stage through grain filling.
Cotton
Cotton is a drought tolerant plant. However, timely irrigation increases yields considerably.
Quite often, preplant irrigation will supply adequate moisture up to the blooming period. The
next irrigation should be at the early bloom stage. The first bloom through boll maturing stage
is the most critical period for cotton. Adequate moisture is needed at this time to maintain high
yields. An additional irrigation may be needed during the boll forming stage. High moisture
levels after the boll forming stage will delay the crop and increase the amount of immature
fibers.
Grapes
Adequate soil moisture is critical for grapes during the first year after planting. Many first-year
plants die from moisture stress when there is no irrigation system. The most critical moisture
period is during the sizing of the fruit. Applications of 1 inch of water every week during late
April, May and early June should be sufficient for both old and young vines when rains do not
occur. Extended periods of drought are common in North Carolina during the summer and will
also benefit from irrigation. Competition with weeds may also stress grapes and must be
controlled.
Pasture Grasses
Irrigation of pastures in eastern North Carolina is often associated with the disposal of animal
wastes. Animal waste irrigation is not addressed specifically in this guide. There are nutrient
concerns, state permits, and other waste-specific issues that must be addressed with a waste
irrigation system design in North Carolina.
In droughty locations and during dry years inadequate soil moisture may limit production of
warm season grasses during the late spring and early summer. Where economically feasible
apply 0.6 to 1 inch of irrigation water per week during this period to improve forage production.
Cool season grass in the coastal plains may fail to establish in some years due to poor soil
moisture conditions in November and December. Where economically feasible, apply 0.6
inches of water per week, when rains do not occur. Cool season forages are generally not
recommended in eastern North Carolina, especially without supplemental irrigation during the
establishment period.
To reduce opportunity of soil compaction on irrigated pastures, livestock should be excluded
during and after irrigation until adequate soil surface dry-out occurs.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 27

Peaches
The fruit growth pattern of peaches is referred to as a double sigmoid growth curve that brings
fruit to maturity in 70 to 120 days. Depending upon the variety, there is an initial period of
rather rapid fruit enlargement followed by a pit hardening period during which fruit enlargement
is slight. Finally the flesh of the fruit thickens and total enlargement is very rapid immediately
prior to maturity. It is during this final swell that moisture stress can reduce yield the most.
During the last 30 days before harvest, about two-thirds of the final volume is attained.
Researchers have not agreed on the proper Management Allowable soil-water Depletion
(MAD) to maintain for peaches, but data on cling peaches show that the growth rate is reduced
when the MAD in the upper two feet root depth was less than 50%, especially during final
swell. See chapter 4 for a discussion of MAD and its use in irrigation system management.
Several agricultural water-related precautions should be considered. Practically all peach
production locations require irrigation. Water may be applied through micro-sprinklers under
the tree, or by overhead systems. Drip irrigation is generally not used with peaches. Compared
to any other form of irrigation, overhead irrigation is more likely to spread pathogens into the
tree canopy. Water used as a means of frost protection must be potable (safe for drinking).
The quality of source water is a key concern. Surface waters, such as lakes, ponds, streams,
etc., should be tested. The presence of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) is an indicator
of fecal contamination. Do not irrigate from a pond or lake if animals were grazing nearby or
had access to the water.
Underground (well) water is less likely to have fecal contamination, although such situations
have been documented. Pesticide residues and heavy metals are generally of more concern in
underground sources of water.
Peanuts
Only a small percentage (less than 20 percent) of North Carolina peanuts is grown under
irrigation. The majority of the peanuts grown in North Carolina is the Virginia-type and is
targeted primarily for the in-shell market. (Rick L. Brandenburg, David L. Jordan, Barbara B.
Shew, John W. Wilcut, and Stephen J. Toth, Jr. (ed.), Crop Profile for Peanuts in North
Carolina, North Carolina State Univ., 2005)
Peanuts respond well to irrigation with the greatest increases in yields on light textured sandy
soils. During the growing season, peanuts will require from four to eight inches of supplemental
irrigation. Usually, irrigation commenced at no more than 50 percent MAD during the peak
growing season will result in maximum yields. This will require an application every 4 to 5 days
on light sandy soils and every 6 to 8 days on heavier soils. Do not exceed 1 inch per
application for light sandy soils whereas 1.5 inches may be necessary for heavy soils.
If water supplies are limited or restricted, probably the most important irrigation is preplant if
moisture is not adequate at planting time. One-half to three-fourths inch of water applied just
before planting has proven to be very effective in producing good plant population. Growers
should also irrigate during the main fruiting period.
Pecans
Irrigation is strongly encouraged to maximize pecan production in North Carolina. Low-volume
irrigation systems, such as drip or micro-sprinkler systems have been very effective at
maintaining tree growth and productivity. (Micael L. Parker and Kenneth A. Sorensen, Growing
Pecans in North Carolina, AG-81, NC Cooperative Extension Service)

28 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Irrigation is very important on newly planted pecan trees. A water ring should be maintained
around the tree for at least a year and water applied every 7-10 days during the growing
season in the absence of suitable rainfall. Microsprinklers work well for this application. Under
no circumstance, should the young trees be allowed to wilt. Critical moisture periods for older
trees are during nut forming and nut filling.
Small Grains
Moderate to high small grain yields can be obtained with limited quantities of irrigation water.
One method of achieving this goal is to delete the preplant irrigation when a good stand can be
obtained without it. Spring irrigation can be delayed until the boot stage unless the small grains
begin to show moderate soil moisture stress. Usually the most economical irrigations are at
preplant and boot stage.
Sorghum
Grain sorghum is a drought tolerant plant that responds well to limited irrigation. Probably the
most important irrigation is preplant if soil moisture is not adequate. In addition to preplant
irrigation, be sure to irrigate at boot to early heading stage of growth.
Soybeans
Inadequate moisture during germination and early seedling growth can prevent establishment
of a uniform stand. If there is not sufficient moisture in the surface layer to stimulate the
germination of the seeds, it is desirable to apply a preplant or pre-emergence irrigation. Once a
good stand is established soybeans can tolerate short droughts up until bloom with minimum
adverse effects. The soybean uses water most in the reproductive phase. Particularly during
pod growth and seed fill, lack of water will significantly reduce final soybean yields. Water
stress in the early reproductive stage (flowering) may result in higher than normal levels of
flower abortion, leading to reduced numbers of pods per plant. Moisture deficiencies during the
seed filling stage will result in smaller than normal seeds, tending to lower overall yields. If
irrigation is limited, then supplemental water at mid to late flowering will help produce the
greatest increase in yield per unit of water applied.
Strawberries
The strawberry plant is shallow-rooted with 80 to 90 percent of its roots in the top 12 inches of
soil. In the plastic mulch cultural system, adequate moisture is necessary in the surface soil to
permit transplants to set and make maximum growth. Irrigation is needed at transplanting,
during fruit bud formation and fruit enlargement. Usually, irrigation commenced at no more
than 50 percent MAD or less appears to be adequate.
Tobacco
Irrigation of tobacco at transplanting will improve plant survival and early growth and enable
weaker plants to initiate growth similar to the stronger plants. An analysis of moisture uptake
by tobacco during the first three weeks after transplanting has shown the main moisture supply
to be in the top 6 inches of soil and during the next two weeks it is in the top 12 inches. The top
18 inches of soil supplies most of the water for the plants for the remainder of the growing
period. This being so, it is suggested that the soil be irrigated to a depth of 6 inches during the
first three weeks, 12 inches during the next two weeks, and 18 inches during the remaining
period of growth. Under limited irrigation, the critical time other than at transplanting is when
the tobacco is from the knee-high stage until the top leaves are filled out.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 29

Turfgrass
Many turfgrass species can be grown in North Carolina. Determining which one is best for a
particular situation is based on several factors. Many soils in eastern North Carolina are sandy
in nature which makes a deep-rooted grass desirable. If properly maintained, bahia grass and
St. Augustine grass provide deep rooting and therefore increased drought resistance. Bahia
grass can survive on natural rainfall whereas St. Augustine requires supplemental irrigation
even during the winter months.
If the purchaser is willing to allot more time, energy and economic resources to turf
maintenance, a finer-texture species is suggested such as one of the Bermuda grass or zoysia
grass cultivars. In addition, centipede grass is available for those regions with heavier, acidic
soils, such as the piedmont area of North Carolina, and for those with less resources and time
available for upkeep.
Supplemental irrigation is necessary to maintain a desirable turfgrass. For North Carolina’s
sandy soils, in the absence of rain, irrigation will be necessary a minimum of one to two times
weekly during summer to prevent stress on the turf. In most North Carolina areas, 0.75 inch of
water should be applied per irrigation. Irrigation with 0.75 inch will wet the entire root zone
without leaching nutrients from the soil profile. Do not irrigate frequently (i.e. daily) with light
rates of water as this encourages shallow turf rooting as well as increased pest activity.
Irrigation with 0.75 inch should be applied when the turf shows signs of drought stress (i.e.
wilting or bluish-grey color). Once applied, wait until drought symptoms reappear before
watering again.
Irrigate in early spring when day temperatures are warm but night temperatures are still cool.
Turfgrass crowns coming out of winter dormancy are especially susceptible to dehydration at
time of ‘green-up’. Higher mowing heights and adequate soil potassium will increase the
drought tolerance of turfgrasses.
Irrigation is required for turfgrass to produce quality sod for resell. Ample water of good quality
should be a priority during the planting stage.
Vegetables
Vegetables are 80-95 percent water. Since they contain so much water, their yield and quality
suffer very quickly from drought. Thus for good yields and high quality, irrigation is essential to
the production of most vegetables. If water shortages occur early in the crop's development,
maturity may be delayed and yields are often reduced. If a moisture shortage occurs later in
the growing season, quality is often reduced even though total yield is not affected. Most
vegetables are rather shallow rooted and even short periods of two to three days of stress can
hurt marketable yield.
Most vegetables have small seeds which are planted 0.75 inches deep or less. When seeds
are planted shallow, the upper layer of soil can dry rapidly leaving the seed without sufficient
moisture to complete germination. When this happens, no stand or at best a poor stand will
result. An irrigation of 0.5 inch immediately after planting should be applied to settle the soil
and to start germinating seeds. For larger seeded crops, irrigation a few days prior to seeding
is desired. If seed is slow to emerge, then irrigations of 0.50 inch should be applied as needed.
This should keep the area around the seed moist until seedlings emerge. Irrigation is a
valuable tool in getting good, uniform stands which ensure high yields. Good uniform stands
also mean uniform harvest dates and more efficient production.

30 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Vegetable transplants also require irrigation and adequate water cannot be applied to dry soil
with a transplanter. A light irrigation of 0.5 to 0.75 inch will help transplants get firmly set in the
soil and will provide a ready supply of water to young broken roots in the small root system of
the transplants.
Irrigation at planting time can hasten seedling emergence. If 0.5 inch of irrigation is slowly
applied, either with low rates or by turning the irrigation system off long enough to allow the
water to soak in, crusting can be reduced and the stand improved.
Most vegetables that are fruits, such as tomatoes and peppers, are injured by wide fluctuations
in soil moisture. These contain large amounts of water and depend on this water for expansion
and growth. When soil moisture is allowed to drop below the proper level, the fruit does not
expand to produce maximum size before it ripens, thus reducing yield. If moisture is allowed to
fluctuate too much, blossom end rot can occur and fruit is no longer useable.
If moisture fluctuation occurs during the fruit expansion stage, fruit cracking will occur. Fruit
cracking usually occurs when inadequate water has been applied and then heavy rains bring
too much water. The best way to prevent fruit cracking is a steady moisture supply. Second
growth or knobs in potatoes are also caused by soil moisture fluctuations.
Additional information for crops, including some specialty crops, may be found on the internet
at the website for North Carolina Cooperative Extension “http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/”.

Table NC3-1: Critical crop moisture periods and effective rooting depths
Normal Effective Min Effective
Crop Critical Cropping Period Rooting Depth Rooting Depth
Unrestricted-Inches restricted-Inches
Apples During final swell prior to harvest Tree - variable
Alfalfa Early spring and immediately after cuttings 36 24
Blueberries Transplanting and from bloom until harvest 24 18
Corn, grain 15 days prior to and 15 days after silking 36 24
Corn, silage 15 days prior to and 15 days after silking 36 24
Corn, sweet From silking through ear formation 30 18
Cotton During and immediately after bloom stage 36 24
Flowers, annual Throughout growing season 6 6
Grain, small Planting and 2 weeks before pollination through head formation 24 18
Grapes Transplanting, and during fruit enlargement 60 36
Hay Planting and just prior to harvest and for perennials, immediately after harvest
Lespedeza Seed Planting and during seed formation
Pasture Grass At planting and throughout summer 36 30
Peaches During final swell prior to harvest 60 36
Peanuts Nut enlargement stage 24 18
Pears During final swell prior to harvest tree
Pecans During nut set (Apr-May) and nut fill (Aug-Sept) 60 48
Sorghum, grain From boot to flowering stage 36 24
Soybeans Pod filling stage 30 24
Strawberries Transplanting, prior to and during harvest and during fruit bud formation 12 10
Tobacco Transplanting, knee high to bloom, during harvest 18 18
Turfgrass Planting and throughout growing season 6 6

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 31

Table NC3-1: Critical crop moisture periods and effective rooting depths
(continued)
Vegetables
Asparagus Crown set and transplanting 24 18
Beans, Dry-Snap During and Immediately following bloom 24 18
Beans, Lima During and Immediately following bloom 30 24
Beans, Pole-Green During and Immediately following bloom 24 18
Beans, Soy During and Immediately following bloom 24 18
Beets During rapid root expansion 24 18
Beets, Sugar During early growth and Root expansion 36 24
Brussels Sprout Sprout formation 18 12
Cabbage Last 3-4 weeks prior to harvest 18 12
Cabbage, Chinese Throughout growing season 18 12
Carrot Seed germination, root expansion 18 12
Cantaloupe Flowering & fruit development 18 12
Cauliflower Throughout growing season 18 12
Celery Throughout growing season 18 12
Collards Throughout growing season 18 12
Cucumber, Pickling-Slicing Flowering & fruiting 18 12
Eggplant Flowering & fruiting 18 12
Endive Throughout growing season 6 6
Greens From just prior to maturation and during harvest 18 12
Leeks Throughout growing season 18 12
Lettuce Throughout growing season 24 18
Melons, Water-others At pollination and 2-3 weeks afterwards 36 24
Nursery Stock Throughout growing season varies
Okra From bloom through harvest 24 18
Onion Throughout growing season to just prior to harvest 18 12
Parsnip Root Expansion 24 18
Peas, Green-Southern From bloom through harvest season 18 12
Peppers 1-2 weeks prior to bloom to 2-3 weeks prior to end of harvest 18 12
Potato, Irish 4 weeks prior to harvest 18 12
Potato, Sweet During rapid root expansion 24 18
Pumpkin During Fruiting 24 18
Radish Continuous 12 6
Rhubarb Leaf emergence 24 18
Rutabagas Root expansion 18 12
Spinach From just prior to maturation through harvest 24 18
Squash, Summer From bloom through harvest season 24 18
Squash, Winter From bloom through harvest season 24 18
Tomatoes 1-2 weeks prior to bloom to 2-3 weeks prior to end of harvest 24 18

32 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

3d - Salinity Tolerance

Salts originate from mineral weathering, inorganic fertilizers, soil amendments (e.g., gypsum,
composts and manures), and irrigation waters. An additional source of salts in many landscape
soils comes from ice melters used on roads and sidewalks. It is only when salts are present in
relatively high amounts that plant growth is adversely affected.
North Carolina has a humid climate with coastal yearly rainfalls of 40 to 60 inches. The rainfall
is somewhat evenly distributed with October through December receiving the smallest
amounts. The fall to early winter is the period where limited rainfall availability may be an
issue. Spring and summer often have drenching rains which can offset or reduce the impacts
of salinity in irrigation water. Salinity is generally not an issue for North Carolina irrigators, but
should be a consideration in some situations.
High levels of salt accumulation in the root zone of the soil may affect plant growth in several
ways.
First, it decreases the availability of nutrients and water for easy and rapid uptake by plant
roots. This could lead to the need for more frequent irrigation on "salty" soils even though less
than 50 percent of the normally available water has been used in the root zone. Such plants
are usually stunted and have a bluish-green color.
Second, plants may be affected by a direct toxicity of one or more of the constituents of the
salt in the irrigation water. This is more likely to affect tree fruit than field or vegetable crops.
Third, after a certain amount of sodium has been absorbed on the clay particles, the soil tends
to puddle very easily, becomes less permeable to air and water, and forms into hard lumps
and crusts when dry. When and if this happens, the grower should consult Rutgers
Cooperative Extension for powdered gypsum application rates, to counteract the excess
sodium in the soil.
In Table NC3-2, vegetable, fruit, and field crops are grouped according to their salt tolerances.
Table NC3-3 shows the number of permissible irrigations with salt (brackish) water between
leaching rains for crops of different salt tolerances. The number of irrigations permitted should
be decreased on heavier soils (silt and clay loams). If there is any evidence of severe leaf
burning after one or two irrigations owing to excessive salt accumulation on the plant leaves,
no more irrigations should be applied unless the failure to irrigate would result in greater loss
than that due to burning of the crop.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 33

 TABLE NC3-2 SALT TOLERANCE OF PLANTS 1/

Plants that can tolerate 2/

Up to 8-16 Millimhos 3/, Only up to 4-8 millimhos 3/, No more than 1-4 millimhos
5120 to 10,240 ppm 2560 to 5120 ppm 3/, 640 to 2560 ppm
(Good Resistance) (Moderate Resistance) (Poor Resistance)

FIELD CROPS
Rye, wheat, oats, sorghum,
Barley and rape corn, soybeans, and sorghum Field beans
(grain)
FORAGE CROPS
Sweet clover, sorghum,
sudangrass, alfalfa, tall fescue,
wheat and oat hays,
White clover, Ladino
Bermudagrass and barley hay orchardgrass perennial
clover, and red clover
ryegrass, vetch, smooth
brome, soybeans, Proso millet,
pearl millet, and Alsike clover
VEGETABLE CROPS
Tomatoes, broccoli,
cabbage, peppers,
Garden beets, kale,
cauliflower, lettuce, sweet corn, Radishes, celery,
asparagus, and
potatoes, carrots, onions, peas, and green beans
spinach
squash, cucumbers, collards,
radishes, and rhubarb
FRUIT CROPS
Grapes, cantaloupe Pears, apples, plums, peaches
OTHER CROPS
Bermudagrass, Zoysia,
Red fescue, Ky.
creeping bentgrass
bluegrass, colonial
American beachgrass
bentgrass
(production of)
1/ The information in this table were obtained from USDA Agricultural Research Service
Publication ARS41-29, "Brackish Water for Irrigation in Humid Regions" 1960.
2/ Crops, plants, or trees are listed in order of increasing sensitivity.
3/ These figures represent the electrical conductivity (ECe) of the soil saturation extract,
where 1 millimho equals approx. 640 ppm of salts.

34 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

TABLE NC3-3 PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF IRRIGATIONS WITH
BRACKISH WATER BETWEEN LEACHING RAINS FOR CROPS OF
DIFFERENT SALT TOLERANCES 1/
Irrigations allowed between Leaching
Irrigation Water
(heavy) Rainfalls

Total Moderate
Electrical Conductivity Good Salt Poor Salt
Salts Salt
(millimhos per cm at 25° C) Tolerance Tolerance
(ppm) Tolerance

640 1 15 7

1280 2 11 7 4

1920 3 7 5 2

2560 4 5 3 2

3200 5 4 2-3 1

3840 6 3 2 1

4480 7 2-3 1-2

5120 8 2 1

1/ The information in this table was obtained from USDA Agriculture Information Bulletins
Nos. 213 and 283.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 35

_____________________________________________________
Chapter 4 (NEH 652.0408) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement - Water Requirements (for North Carolina)
General Issues for Water Supply Requirements

The first requirement for irrigation is an adequate supply of good quality water during those
periods when the need for irrigation water is greatest. The number of acres which can be
properly irrigated at such times is dependent on the available water supply. The water supply
should be adequate to irrigate the intended area of crops during a prolonged dry period before
serious crop damage occurs. When water supply capacity is limited, it is often better to irrigate
fewer acres well than to irrigate more acres poorly.
In North Carolina the following recommendations (shown in Table NC4-1) are made with
respect to the minimum water supply that should be available for each acre to be irrigated.

Table NC4-1: Recommended minimum irrigation water supply

Crop to be Irrigated Wells or Streams Ponds

Improved Pasture and Mixed Hay 5 – 7 GPM / ac 1.0 ac-ft / ac
Most Vegetable Crops and Tobacco 6 – 10 GPM / ac 1.0 ac-ft / ac
Most Field Crops and Clean Tilled Orchards 7 – 13 GPM / ac 1.3 ac-ft / ac
Orchards with Cover 9 – 16 GPM / ac 1.6 ac-ft / ac
Note: GPM is gallons-per-minute flow rate, and ac-ft is the storage volume in acre-feet of water

In Table NC4-1 above, for the “Wells or Streams” column, the value of GPM has a range that
is related to the number of hours per day that the irrigation system is operated. The lower GPM
flow rate is for a system that is operated daily for 18 hours. Whereas, the larger GPM flow rate
is for an irrigation system that is operated daily for 10 hours. Container grown nursery plants
are not covered in the Table NC4-1 above. They require the greatest amount of water, up to
0.5 inches per day, and therefore would require a larger water supply.
The capacity, Q, of a system may be computed by the formula:
(453 * A * d) Where: Q = discharge capacity in GPM
Q
FH A = size of the irrigated area in acres
d = gross depth of application in inches
F = the days allowed for completion of one irrigation cycle
H = the actual hours of operation per day
Note that gross application depth, d, must take irrigation efficiencies into account by the
following formula:
dn
d
Ea Where: dn = net application in inches
Ea = application efficiency of the system in decimal form

36 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

In some areas of North Carolina deep wells are the most dependable source of irrigation
water. Information concerning such wells can be obtained from local well drillers or the state
geologist.
Ponds and reservoirs, used as sources of irrigation water, can have losses as high as 50
percent of the total capacity. Losses are generally in the form of seepage and evaporation. The
pond or reservoir must be large enough to meet the irrigation demands and overcome the
storage losses. It can be helpful to run a reservoir water balance model for a period of about
10 years of recent weather data to evaluate the storage capacity. Computer models such as
the NRCS Technical Release 19 (TR19), Reservoir Operation (RESOP) computer program are
suited for this type of analysis. A water supply should be able to meet maximum crop irrigation
demands for at least 8 out of 10 years.
Upward flow of water from a water table can be used to meet part of or the entire seasonal
crop water requirement. Reasonable estimates need to be made of the water supplied by a
water table. Methods to predict upward soil-water flow rates (upflux) from a water table are
given in the water table management software program DRAINMOD. Soil parameters required
for this procedure may require field data to evaluate specific sites.
Determination of irrigation water needs requires a measurement or estimate for the rate of crop
water use. Daily and weekly crop water use estimates are needed to schedule irrigation
applications and determine minimum system capacities. Seasonal or annual water use
estimates can be used to size irrigation reservoirs and to determine consumptive use permits.
Therefore, a procedure to determine both short- and long-term rates of water use may be
necessary. NRCS NEH, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water Requirements, describes the processes
needed to determine crop evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements for a crop, field,
farm, and project.
Crops grown in North Carolina generally need about 6 to 10 inches of irrigation per year to
supplement the natural rainfall during a growing season (NC Cooperative Extension Service,
Pub. No. AG 452-4, Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water- and Energy-Use Efficiencies, June
1996; NC State University, Tobacco Irrigation Costs for the Piedmont and Coastal Plains of
NC, updated 2007; NC Cooperative Extension Service, Animal Waste Management Systems,
Chapter 5: Proper Application of Liquid Animal Waste-Type A, Draft Copy, 1997). The amount
of irrigation needed will vary with the crop, management goals, weather conditions, soil and
location within the state. There will be wet years when little to no irrigation is needed. There will
also be drought years when lower than normal rainfalls occur and more irrigation is needed.
Crop evapotranspiration (ETc), sometimes called crop consumptive use, is the amount of water
that plants use in transpiration and building cell tissue plus water evaporated from the adjacent
soil surface. Crop evapotranspiration is influenced by several major factors: plant temperature,
ambient air temperature, solar radiation (sunshine duration/intensity), wind speed/movement,
relative humidity/vapor pressure, plant growth stage, canopy coverage, and soil-water
availability. Daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal local crop water use requirements may need
to be determined. These data can be used for planning, designing, and operating irrigation
systems and for making irrigation management decisions, such as determining when and how
much to irrigate. Irrigation operating expenses can be very large and are generally associated
with the amount of irrigation water that is applied. Irrigation scheduling will generally reduce the
amount of over-applications and insure soil moisture is available when and where it is needed.
The irrigator can easily recoup the small amount of time/cost needed to input data into an

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 37

irrigation scheduling program or method by the increased water-use efficiencies and
associated cost savings.
Seasonal water requirements, in addition to crop water needs, may also include water used for
preplant irrigation, agricultural waste application, leaching for salt control, temperature control
(for frost protection, bud delay, and cooling for product quality), chemigation, facilitation of crop
harvest, seed germination, and dust control.
The NC Agriculture Cost Share Program and the federal USDA Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) offer financial assistance for water conservation and for water
saving technology. These programs offer over forty approved best management practices for
producers that contribute to water use reduction and efficiency. Improved water management
often results in improved water quality as well as water savings. State and federal agricultural
cost share and technical assistance programs recognize this connection and are giving more
attention to water use efficiency and conservation.

4a - Direct Measurement of Crop Evapotranspiration

Direct measurement of crop evapotranspiration is generally used by research or regional

weather stations, and is not often used by a single farm entity. Direct measurement methods
generally use a lot of costly equipment to directly measure or determine crop
evapotranspiration (ETc). Direct measurement methods for ETc include:
Aerodynamic method
Detailed soil moisture monitoring
Lysimetry
Plant porometers
Regional inflow-outflow measurements
All these methods require localized and detailed measurements of plant water use. Detailed
soil moisture monitoring in controlled and self contained devices (lysimeters) is probably the
most commonly used. Little long term historical data outside of a few ARS and university
research stations are available. Use of lysimetry is discussed in more detail in NRCS NEH,
Chapter 2, Irrigation Water Requirements. The use of soil moisture monitoring devices to
monitor ETc is described in NRCS NEH Section 15, Chapter 1, Plant-Soil-Water Relationships.

4b - Methods for Estimating Crop Evapotranspiration

More than 20 methods have been developed to estimate the rate of ETc based on local climate
factors. The simplest methods are equations that generally use only mean air temperature.
The more complex methods are described as energy equations. They require real time
measurements of solar radiation, ambient air temperature, wind speed/movement, relative
humidity/vapor pressure, and crop parameters. The concept of a reference crop/surface was
introduced to obviate the need to define unique evaporation parameters for each crop and
stage of growth. These ET equations have been adjusted for reference crop ET with lysimeter
data. Selection of the method used for determining local ETc depends on:
Location, type, reliability, timeliness, and duration of climatic data;
Natural pattern of evapotranspiration during the year; and
Intended use of crop evapotranspiration estimates.

38 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

In the past, an open water surface has been proposed as a reference surface. However, the
differences in aerodynamic, vegetation control and radiation characteristics present a strong
challenge in relating ETc to measurements of free water evaporation. Relating reference
evapotranspiration (ET0) to a specific crop has the advantage of incorporating the biological
and physical processes involved in the evapotranspiration (ET) from a cropped surface.
Grass, together with alfalfa, is a well-studied crop regarding its aerodynamic and surface
characteristics and is accepted worldwide as a reference surface. Because the resistance to
diffusion of vapor strongly depends on crop height, ground cover, leaf area index (LAI) and soil
moisture conditions, the characteristics of the reference crop should be well defined and fixed.
To avoid problems of local calibration which would require demanding and expensive studies,
a hypothetical grass reference can be selected. Difficulties with a living grass reference result
from the fact that the grass variety and morphology can significantly affect the
evapotranspiration rate, especially during peak water use. Large differences may exist
between warm-season and cool-season grass types. Cool-season grasses have a lower
degree of stomatal control and hence higher rates of evapotranspiration. It also may be difficult
to grow cool-season grasses in some arid, hot, or tropical climates.
The NC State Climate Office (a source of climate data in North Carolina) and others have
accepted the following definition for the reference crop surface: "A hypothetical reference crop
with an assumed crop height of 0.12 m (4.7”), a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an
albedo of 0.23 (from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], Irrigation
and Drainage Paper No. 56, Crop Evapotranspiration, by Richard G Allen, Luis S Pereira, Dirk
Raes, Martin Smith)”. This reference surface closely resembles an extensive surface of green
grass of uniform height, actively growing, completely shading the ground and with adequate
water. The requirements that the grass surface should be extensive and uniform result from
the assumption that all fluxes are one-dimensional upwards.
With grass reference crop ET0 known, ET estimates for any crop at any stage of growth can be
calculated by multiplying ET0 by the appropriate crop growth stage coefficient (Kc), usually
displayed as a curve or table. The resulting value is called crop evapotranspiration (ETc). The
following methods and equations can be used to estimate reference crop evapotranspiration,
ET0. The methods are described in detail in NRCS NEH, Section 15, Chapter 2, Irrigation
Water Requirements (1990). The crop coefficients should be based on local or regional growth
characteristics. The following methods are recommended by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS).
(1) Temperature method:
 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Modified Blaney-
Criddle (FAO Paper 24)
 Modified Blaney-Criddle (SCS TR 21). See NRCS NEH, Section 15, Chapter 2,
“Irrigation Water Requirements”, for more information on this method.
(2) Energy method:
 Penman-Monteith method (used by the NC State Climate Office)
(3) Radiation method:
 FAO Radiation method (FAO Paper 24)
(4) Evaporation pan method

The FAO Modified Blaney-Criddle, Penman-Monteith, and FAO Radiation equations represent
the most accurate equations for these specific methods. They are the most accurately
transferable over a wide range of climate conditions. These methods and equations are also

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 39

widely accepted in the irrigation profession today (American Society of Civil Engineers,
“Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements”, Manuals & Reports on Engineering
Practice, No. 70, 1990).
The intended use, reliability, and availability of local climatic data may be the deciding factor as
to which equation or method is used. For irrigation scheduling on a daily basis, an energy
method, such as the Penman-Monteith equation, is probably the most accurate method
available today, but complete and reliable local real time climatic data must be available.
Normal year (historical) monthly averages of ET0 for four cities in NC are shown in Table
NC4-2.
For irrigation scheduling information on a 10+ day average basis, use of a radiation method,
such as FAO Radiation, or use of a local evaporation pan, may be quite satisfactory. For
estimation of monthly and seasonal crop water needs, a temperature based method generally
proves to be quite satisfactory. The FAO Modified Blaney-Criddle equation uses long term
mean temperature data with input of estimates of relative humidity, wind movement, and
sunlight duration. This method also includes an adjustment for elevation. The FAO Radiation
method uses locally measured solar radiation and air temperature.

Table NC4-2: Normal Evapotranspiration Data For North Carolina (Inches)

MONTH Asheville Charlotte Raleigh Wilmington
January 0.50 1.95 2.01 2.10
February 0.63 2.44 2.44 2.64
March 1.35 4.07 4.00 4.21
April 2.65 6.04 5.81 6.35
May 4.33 7.16 6.38 7.31
June 5.83 7.63 6.87 7.24
July 6.36 7.64 6.89 7.53
August 5.76 7.06 6.25 6.40
September 4.11 5.45 4.88 5.34
October 2.40 3.87 3.56 4.00
November 1.03 2.70 2.71 2.86
December 0.56 2.07 2.15 2.39
Data from: website “http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/short/2003_short_course/irrigation-needs.html”

40 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

4c - Estimating Crop Evapotranspiration (ETc) in North Carolina

Daily reference crop ET0 data for North Carolina using the Penman-Monteith method in near
real-time (one day lag) is available from the the NC State Climate Office. This ET0 data can be
obtained from the following website: “http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/ “.
With grass reference crop ET0 known, ET estimates for any crop at any stage of growth can be
calculated by multiplying ET0 by the appropriate crop growth stage coefficient (Kc). Kc is usually
displayed as a curve or table. Table NC4-3 (source: New Jersey Irrigation Guide, June 2005,
Table NJ 4.3) or any other reliable source should be used to determine the appropriate crop
coefficient (Kc) for a given crop growth stage. The resulting value is called crop
evapotranspiration (ETc) and is estimated on a daily basis by the equation:
ETc = ET0 x Kc
Crop growth coefficients will need to be defined if you are using a hand-entry type worksheet
or a spreadsheet computer program to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ETc). A spreadsheet
type program or worksheets can usually be obtained from your local extension agent or NRCS
office. There are also computer programs available that often include the crop growth stage
coefficients (Kc) for your selected crop. One of the Irrigation Scheduling computer programs
that show promise for ease of use, work with available weather data, and requiring low time
inputs would be KanSched2 (http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/mil/).
There are other more complex, and thus harder to use, Irrigation Scheduling computer
programs such as SPAW and CropFlex that have more capabilities. One of the above methods
should be used for irrigation scheduling to reduce losses and insure adequate moisture is
available when the crop needs it.

Irrigation Climatic Zones

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get" - Robert A. Heinlein. There are several
climatic factors (rainfall, sunshine, wind, and temperature, for example) that affect the
consumptive water requirements of crops and the evaporative losses from the soil beneath.
The effects and variation of climate within North Carolina generally coincide with the six
physiographic regions discussed previously in Figure NC1-1. This can be considered as a
residual effect of some of the physiographic features of each region such as proximity to the
coast, elevation (mountains, piedmont, and coastal plains), reflectivity of sands (desert effect in
the sandhills region), and aspect (especially to prevailing winds and approaching rainfall
systems). Generally, climatic data from the closest weather station within the same
physiographic region (Figure NC1-1) can be used for irrigation scheduling inputs at a specific
farm site. However, aspect in the mountain region should also be considered, since it can have
a dramatic impact on the local weather. The westerly facing slopes of the Blue Ridge
mountains in North Carolina generally have dramatically different weather conditions than the
easterly facing slopes of the same mountain system. Weather data and estimated reference
evapotranspiration (ET0) is available for most locations within North Carolina from the following
website: “http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/ “.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 41

 TABLE NC4-3: CROP GROWING SEASON AND CROP COEFFICIENT VALUES (Kc)
GROWING SEASON % GROWING SEASON Kc FACTORS
CROP
NAME Begin End
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Growth Growth
VEGETABLES
Asparagus 1-Apr 10-Jun 0.25 0.43 0.69 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.25
Azalea 15-May 1-Oct 0.25 0.43 0.69 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.25
Beets 1-Apr 30-Jun 0.25 0.25 0.36 0.57 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90
Broccoli 20-Jun 30-Sep 0.25 0.28 0.44 0.59 0.75 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.80
Bunch Onion 1-Apr 20-Jun 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.43 0.58 0.74 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cabbage 1-Apr 30-Aug 0.25 0.28 0.44 0.59 0.75 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.80
Carrots 1-May 15-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70
Cauliflower 20-Jun 30-Sep 0.25 0.28 0.44 0.59 0.75 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.80
Celery 1-May 30-Oct 0.25 0.40 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.90
Collards 1-May 30-Aug 0.25 0.25 0.48 0.72 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Cucumbers 30-Apr 5-Sep 0.25 0.27 0.51 0.74 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.70
Dandelion 1-Mar 15-Jun 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Dry Onion 25-Mar 15-Sep 0.25 0.69 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.83 0.75
Egg Plant 15-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.64 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.80
Endive 15-May 15-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Escarole 15-May 15-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Fennel 15-May 15-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Lettuce 1-May 5-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Lima Beans 10-Apr 10-Jul 0.25 0.25 0.41 0.62 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.85
Muskmelons 1-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.53 0.82 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.95 0.65
Peas 10-Apr 10-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.55 0.84 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.02 0.95
Peppers 1-May 30-Aug 0.25 0.25 0.48 0.72 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.80
Potatoes 30-Mar 1-Oct 0.25 0.25 0.57 0.89 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.88 0.70
Pumpkins 20-Jun 20-Oct 0.25 0.25 0.47 0.68 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.70
Radish 1-Apr 15-May 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.75
Snap Beans 10-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.41 0.62 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.85
Spinach 30-Mar 30-May 0.25 0.25 0.48 0.72 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90
Squash 15-May 1-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.47 0.68 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.70
Sweet Corn 1-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.66 0.89 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.95
Sweet Potatoes 15-May 1-Nov 0.25 0.25 0.57 0.89 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.88 0.70
Tomatoes 1-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.52 0.78 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.85
Watermelons 15-May 30-Sep 0.25 0.25 0.53 0.82 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.93 0.60
SMALL FRUIT and ORCHARDS
Apples 10-Apr 30-Oct 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.85 0.85
Blueberries 15-Apr 15-Oct 0.46 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.87 0.82 0.75 0.67
Cranberries 1-Apr 1-Nov 0.40 0.40 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.85 0.50 0.40 0.40
Grapes 1-May 30-Oct 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.65 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.65 0.65
Peaches 1-Apr 30-Oct 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.75
Pears 1-Apr 30-Oct 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.75
Raspberries 15-Apr 15-Oct 0.40 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 .85 0.75 0.50 0.50
Strawberries 30-Aug 20-Feb 0.25 0.40 0.55 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
FIELD CROPS or HAY LAND
Alfalfa 30-Mar 15-Oct 0.25 0.44 0.72 0.99 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.98 0.25
Barley 1-Mar 1-Jul 0.25 0.53 0.93 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.89 0.57 0.25
Corn 10-May 15-Oct 0.25 0.35 0.69 1.03 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.15 0.87 0.60
Oats 1-Apr 31-Jul 0.25 0.53 0.93 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.89 0.57 0.25
Sorghum 30-May 10-Nov 0.25 0.37 0.65 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50
Soybeans 30-May 10-Nov 0.25 0.42 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.45
Wheat 1-Mar 15-Jul 0.25 0.53 0.93 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.89 0.57 0.25

42 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Daily Crop ET Rate for System Design
Irrigation system designs generally use a maximum peak moisture use rate (often a 10 to 14
day period average) of transpiration by the crop plus evaporation from the soil surface, which
combined equal ETc. For most plants, the maximum rate of transpiration occurs when the
daylight hours are longest, air temperature is greatest, wind movement is high, humidity is
lowest, and the plant has developed a good rooting system and is in the rapid growth stage.
Estimates of daily or weekly crop ETc rates are necessary to adequately size distribution
systems. They are used to determine the minimum capacity requirements of canals, pipelines,
water control structures, and irrigation application systems. Daily ET rates also influence the
administration of wells, streams, and reservoirs from which irrigation water is diverted or
pumped. A daily (or several day average) peak crop ETc rate can be used in order to insure
the crop’s consumptive needs are met during the highest use periods.
Estimated daily crop ETc is not the average daily use for longer time periods (monthly crop ETc
use estimates are common). Daily crop ETc is best estimated using real time day-specific
information and the appropriate ET method or equation. Daily crop ETc can then be
determined using the computed daily ET0 times the appropriate crop coefficient (Kc) from Table
NC4-3 or any other reliable source, using the equation previously given (ETc = ET0 x Kc). Crop
coefficients (Kc) are highest during the peak crop growth period. Local knowledge about crop
consumptive use may also be used to determine the maximum rate for crop evapotranspiration
for an irrigation design. The maximum use rate for ETc should be equal to or greater than the
values given in Tables NC6-3 and NC6-4 for the crop and soil conditions.

4d - Net Irrigation Water Requirements

The net irrigation water requirement is defined as the water required by irrigation to satisfy crop
evapotransipiration and auxiliary water needs that are not provided by water stored in the soil
profile or precipitation. The net irrigation water requirement is defined as (all values are depths,
in inches):
Fn = ETc + Aw - Re - GW - ΔSW
where:
Fn = net irrigation requirement for period considered
ETc = crop evapotranspiration for period considered
Aw = auxiliary water-leaching, temperature modification, crop quality
Re = effective precipitation during period considered
GW = ground water contribution
ΔSW = change in soil-water content for period considered
Along with meeting the seasonal irrigation water requirement, irrigation systems must be able
to supply enough water during shorter periods. The water supply rate generally is expressed in
acre inches per hour or acre inches per day and can be easily converted to cubic feet per
3
second or gallons per minute (1 ft /s = 1 ac-in/hr = 449 gpm, approximate). The simplified
equation can be used:

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 43

 QT = DA
where:
Q = flow rate, acre-inch per hour
T = time, hours
D = depth, inches (water applied or crop ET)
A = area, acres
The irrigation system must be able to supply net water requirements plus expected losses of
deep percolation, runoff, wind drift, and evaporation. It must account for the efficiency of the
irrigation decision-maker to schedule the right amount of water at the right time and the ability
of an irrigation system to uniformly apply that water across a field. Net and gross water
application and system capacity are related by an estimated or measured application
efficiency:
Fn Cn
Fg  and Cg 
Ea Ea
where:
Fg = gross application, inches
Fn = net application, inches
Ea = application efficiency, expressed as decimal
Cg = gross system capacity, gallons per minute
Cn = net system capacity, gallons per minute

4e - Management Allowable Soil-Water Depletion

Management Allowable Soil-Water Depletion (MAD) is generally defined for each local crop. It
is a grower’s management decision whether or not to fine tune generalized MAD values based
on yield and product quality objectives. MAD is the greatest amount of water to be removed by
plants from the soil rooting zone when scheduling an irrigation cycle, so that undesirable crop
water stress does not occur. Historically, an allowable depletion of between 30 and 60 percent
of the soil’s Available Water Capacity (AWC) has been used for management purposes. Most
crops should be irrigated before more than half of the available moisture in the crop root zone
has been used. Some crops, however, are thought to do better at higher moisture levels (less
moisture deficiency at time of irrigation), while some require higher depletion levels at different
growth stages (deficit irrigation in wine grapes). Refer to Table NC4-4 for a summary of some
recommended MAD levels for various crops in a loamy soil. Irrigation must begin so that the
entire area to be covered can be irrigated before the available moisture level in the last portion
of the field reaches a point to cause unfavorable moisture stress to the crop. This aspect of
management is crucial for systems that may need several days to irrigate the entire field area,
such as traveling guns and hand move laterals.
Estimated irrigation frequency, in days, is based on the MAD level for the AWC in the total crop
root zone and the estimated crop ET.
Irrigation frequency, in days, can be determined by:

44 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

 MAD x (Total AWC for crop root zone in inches)
Irrigation Frequency (days) 
Daily ETc rate in inches/day

Table NC4-4: Recommended Management Allowable Depletion (MAD) for crop growth
stages (% of AWC) growing in loamy soils 1/,2/
- - - - - - - - --Crop growth stage - - - - - - - - - -
Crop Flowering yield Ripening
Establishment Vegetative
formation maturity
Alfalfa hay 50 50 50 50
Alfalfa seed 50 60 50 80
Beans, green 40 40 40 40
Beans, dry 40 40 40 40
Citrus 50 50 50 50
Corn, grain 50 50 50 50
Corn, seed 50 50 50 50
Corn, sweet 50 40 40 40
Cotton 50 50 50 50
Cranberries 40 50 40 40
Garlic 30 30 30 30
Grains, small 50 50 40 3/ 60
Grapes 40 40 40 50
Grass pasture/hay 40 50 50 50
Grass seed 50 50 50 50
Lettuce 40 50 40 20
Milo 50 50 50 50
Mint 40 40 40 50
Nursery stock 50 50 50 50
Onions 40 30 30 30
Orchard, fruit 50 50 50 50
Peas 50 50 50 50
Peanuts 40 50 50 50
Potatoes 35 35 35 50 4/
Safflower 50 50 50 50
Sorghum, grain 50 50 50 50
Spinach 25 25 25 25
Sugar beets 50 50 50 50
Sunflower 50 50 50 50
Tobacco 40 40 40 50
Vegetables
1 to 2 ft root depth 35 30 30 35
3 to 4 ft root depth 35 40 40 40
For medium to fine textured soils:
1/ (Most restrictive MAD) Some crops are typically not grown on these soils.
2/ Check soil moisture for crop stress point approximately one third of the depth of the crop root zone.
3/ From boot stage through flowering.
4/ At vine kill.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 45

4f - Auxiliary Water Requirements (special needs and other uses)

In addition to crop evapotranspiration water requirements, irrigation systems can also meet
special needs of crops and soils. These other uses need to be considered when determining
the seasonal water requirements and minimum system capacities. Auxiliary uses include the
following and are described in more detail in NRCS NEH Part 652, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water
Requirements:
 Leaching requirement for salinity and sodicity management
 Frost protection (fruits, citrus, berries, vegetables)
 Bud delay
 Crop and soil cooling
 Wind erosion and dust control
 Chemigation
 Plant disease control
 Seed germination

Frost Control
For frost control, the irrigation system must have enough capacity to cover the entire area with
a fine mist of water, (application rates 0.17 in/hr or less). Experience has shown that
strawberries need 0.11-0.13 in/hr, berries need 0.13-0.15 in/hr, and tree fruit needed 0.15-0.17
in/hr. Irrigation for frost control utilizes the latent heat of fusion released when water changes
from the liquid form to ice. The water is applied as a fine spray and the latent heat of fusion is
released when the water freezes on the plant surface. The heat thus released maintains ice
temperature around 32o F. The ice acts as a buffer against cooling of plant surfaces by
radiation or contact with cold air. The principle is valid and the process is effective only so long
as the water application and subsequent ice formation continues. Not all of the heat is retained
by the ice. Some is lost to cold air in contact with the ice, and some is lost to evaporation and
sublimation at the water-ice surface. Each gallon of water at 32o F., changing into ice at 32o F
gives off 1,200 BTU's of heat. Properly designed and operated systems can provide protection
for certain crops to temperatures as low as 22o F. See NRCS NEH , Section 15, Chapter 2,
Irrigation Water Requirements, for a complete discussion of this issue and recommendations.

Fertilizer and Chemical Application

Using irrigation water as the carrier for fertilizers, herbicides, and other chemicals used in crop
production is a practice that is increasing in popularity and acceptance. Savings in labor and
time, and in many instances a more efficient fertilization program can be achieved through
fertigation. Fertilizers can be applied with irrigation water, regardless of the methods used for
water distribution. Equipment designed to inject fertilizer solutions into the water system is
considered an integral part of practically all microirrigation designs offered on today's market.
Likewise, injector pumps and metering devices are frequently considered as a standard
component of any newly installed microirrigation and sprinkler system. Field tests and research
projects have established that nitrogen mechanically applied before planting is often lost to the
plant through leaching by rains or early irrigations that carry the nutrient to depths below the
root feeder zone. This possibility shores up the arguments for the concept of "spoon feeding" a
growing crop by applying smaller amounts of fertilizer at regular irrigation intervals throughout
the season than with one or two applications. These same tests have further established that

46 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

applying nitrogen with irrigation water is more effective on sandy soils and just as beneficial on
fine-textured soils as when using mechanical applicators.
There is a danger of agricultural fertilizers polluting underground aquifers or surface streams
with leached or runoff water laden with nitrates, phosphorus, or other plant nutrients. Offsite
losses can be minimized when fertilizer is applied in amounts that can be readily absorbed by
the growing crop while the fertilizer is still in the upper part of the root zone. This danger is
more likely in coarse textured, sandy soils than in soils having fine textures, but can be of
significant concern on any farm. See NRCS NEH , Section 15, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water
Requirements, for a complete discussion of this issue and recommendations.

4g - Water Table Contribution, Drainage, and Irrigation Scheduling

Upward flow of water from a water table can be used to meet part or all of the seasonal crop
water requirement. Reasonable estimates need to be made of the water supplied by a water
table. See Figure 2-6 in NRCS NEH Part 652, Chapter 2, Irrigation Guide. Methods to predict
upward soil-water flow rates (upflux) from a water table are discussed in both NRCS NEH ,
Section 15, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water Requirements, and in DRAINMOD (water table
management computer software program developed by Wayne Skaggs at North Carolina
State University). Soil parameters required for these procedures are quite variable and may
require field data to evaluate specific sites.
Drainage System for Optimized Irrigation
North Carolina is located in the humid east climate environment where it is often too wet in the
winter/spring and too dry in the summer/fall periods. During the wetter winter/spring period,
rainfall generally exceeds the soil losses to evapotranspiration and drainage, and the ground is
often too wet to work. During the dryer summer/fall period, rainfall is generally less than the
soil losses to evapotranspiration and drainage, and the ground is generally very dry. A
complete water management system would include both irrigation and drainage components.
Drainage can improve plant growth by increasing soil temperatures in early spring permitting
more rapid germination and establishment of a crop, and by increasing the rate at which
organic matter is mineralized to nitrate nitrogen. Drainage also indirectly affects plant growth
and crop production by permitting more timely field operations. Typically, the earlier most crops
can be planted, the greater the yield. Drainage may enable planting a crop one to two weeks
earlier. However, excessive drainage can increase the risk of water deficiencies during times
of drought. A water-level controlled drainage system can limit the amount of water lost in a
drainage system by blocking the outlet. Therefore, controlled drainage can be helpful to reduce
the risk of over-drainage during the summer period or times of drought. In all, a drainage
system should be seriously considered during the irrigation system design if it is not already
installed. (Some exerpts in the above paragraph were from “Design and Operation of Farm
Irrigation Systems”, M.E. Jenson, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, p27, 1981.)
Water-Flow Measurement
Water-flow measurement devices, for both on- and off-farm conveyance, include weirs, flumes,
and in-canal flow meters for open ditches, internal/external meters for pipe delivery systems,
and flow meters in wells to monitor groundwater pumping. Of the 380,000 wells in the US that
were used in 2003 to pump ground water for agriculture, only 61,000 (16 percent) used flow
meters. While this is a 32-percent increase since 1994, flow meters on wells account for just 1
in 5 acres irrigated with ground water. (The above paragraph contains excerpts from

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 47

“Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Ch 4-6, 2006 Edition, EIB-16, Economic
Research Service, USDA”.)
Increases or decreases in irrigation system flow rates can be indicative of distribution systems
problems that will need correction. Worn or clogged sprinkler nozzles, pump wear, and pipe
flow restrictions can affect efficiency, distribution uniformity, pressure, wind drift, evaporation,
and application rates. Water-flow measurement devices can be used to identify problems such
as these, especially if they are kept for many years.
Irrigation Scheduling
Proper irrigation scheduling and precise measurement of water flow help producers match
water applied to crop needs. Most irrigated farms continue to use a combination of less
sophisticated methods to schedule irrigations (USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service,
Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey {2003}, Vol. 3, Special Studies Part 1, AC-02-SS-1, Nov.
2004). Nearly 80 percent of irrigated farms use visual observation to evaluate the “condition of
the crop”, while some farms (ranging from 6 to 35 percent) simply feel-the-soil, irrigate “when
their neighbor irrigates”, use a “personal calendar schedule”, use “media daily weather/crop
evapotranspiration (ET) reports”, or irrigate consistent with “scheduled water deliveries”. Most
irrigated farms do not use the more advanced, information-intensive methods to schedule
irrigation; less than 8 percent of irrigated farms use soil and/or plant moisture sensing devices,
commercial or government-sponsored irrigation scheduling services, or computer simulation
models. These current national statistics suggest a significant potential for greater agricultural
water conservation through public policy that promotes broader understanding and more
extensive application of such scheduling techniques.
Irrigation scheduling based on soil-water balance is a simple procedure that can be operated
either manually or using computer programs. Adoption of the procedure is still low due to lack
of soil water parameters and availability of climatic information. Furthermore, potential users
are often deterred by both the time and paper work required to carry out the calculations.
Many different techniques have been suggested to allow farmers to better manage water in
soil. Some techniques are complicated, others are simple. The evaporation from a pan has
been shown to correlate reasonably well with the crop water removal from soil, especially in
humid climates. A simple irrigation scheduling method was developed based on the direct
relationship between pan evaporation and soil water removal.
The University of Georgia UGA EASY (Evaporation-based Accumulator for Sprinkler-enhanced
Yield) Pan Irrigation Scheduler can provide in-field monitoring of crop water needs in humid
areas for a fraction of the management time and cost associated with other irrigation
scheduling methods (Cooperative Extension Service/The University of Georgia College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, “UGA EASY Pan Irrigation Scheduler”, D.L. Thomas,
K.A. Harrison, J.E. Hook, and T.W. Whitley, Bulletin 1201, January, 2002). If a farmer is not
currently using a more sophisticated irrigation scheduling method, this unit is a simplified, low
cost alternative. This system can be homemade and has a visible indicator attached to a float
that monitors the water level in a wash tub pan. When a predetermined amount of water
evaporates from the tub, then it is time to irrigate. The UGA EASY Pan Irrigation Scheduler is
designed to help keep track of when the next application is needed, so as to avoid applying too
much or too little water. The overall goal is to be more efficient in the use of irrigation water. A
North Carolina application of this device is shown on the front cover photograph for this guide.
The system operates under the basic principal of Potential Evapotranspiration (PET). Potential
evapotranspiration is the maximum potential rate of water removal from a full canopy with no
48 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
limitations on water availability in the soil. A properly irrigated field will generally approach
PET. Placing screen materials over the tub allows this device to more accurately reflect the
PET of a full canopy crop. The EASY Pan Irrigation Scheduler responds to both water removal
(evaporation) and water addition (rainfall and sprinkler type irrigation).

4h - Soil-Water Budget/Balance Analysis

The components of a soil-water budget/balance analysis must include all water going in and all
water going out of an area for the period of consideration. The basic purpose for such an
analysis is to determine the location of all water applied. Generally a soil-water budget analysis
is determined for a period involving a month, an irrigation season, a year, or maybe even for
an average over several years. Availability of climatic data may also dictate the time period for
the analysis. For example, if long-term mean temperature is the only reliable data available,
determining monthly and seasonal water requirements may be the most accurate analysis that
can be done. This would dictate a reasonably accurate analysis period of a month or longer.
If complete and reliable daily climatic data (temperature, solar radiation, wind movement, and
relative humidity) are available nearby, then a daily soil-water accounting or balance can be
developed because accurate daily water requirements can be estimated. The soil-water
budget/balance analysis process is a tool that can be used for determining gross water applied
and contributions of irrigation water and precipitation to downstream surface water and ground
water.
The soil-water budget/balance can be displayed in equation form as follows:
Fg = ETc + Aw + DP + RO + SDL – P – GW - DSW
where:
Fg = Gross irrigation water applied during the period considered
ETc = Crop evapotranspiration during the period considered
Aw = Water applied for auxiliary purposes during the period considered
DP = Deep percolation below the root zone from irrigation and precipitation
RO = Surface runoff that leaves the site from irrigation and precipitation
SDL = Spray, drift losses, and canopy intercept evaporation from sprinkler irrigation
system during the period considered
P = Total precipitation during the period considered
GW = Ground water contribution to the crop root zone during the period
DSW = Change in soil-water content within the crop root zone during the period
Note: Only those factors that apply to the site under consideration need to be used. Typically
all factors would not be used for an analysis of one site.
Generally the soil-water budget analysis can be thought of as supporting a planning process
where the soil-water balance analysis can be thought of as supporting an operational process.
With appropriate soil-water content monitoring, accurate estimated daily crop ET and
measurement of system inflow and surface outflow, a reliable daily soil-water balance can be
developed. These daily values can be summarized for any desirable longer period that data
are available.
The period of reliable climatic data is key to the soil-water budget/balance analysis. For
development of a soil-water balance, only immediate past events are evaluated. It is not an

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 49

irrigation scheduling tool. For example, a soil-water balance is an analysis process of what
water went where for the last year, last month, last week, last event, or from some specific
date up to the present time. Each rainfall and irrigation event versus daily crop ET and soil-
water content change can be evaluated. It requires appropriate and current monitoring of soil-
water content, irrigation water applied, onsite rainfall measurement, runoff, and full climatic
data for daily crop ET determination.
For development of a soil-water budget, historic climate data along with estimated or
measured soil water content, irrigation flows, and losses would be used. The time period for an
analysis for an average condition is whatever is necessary to provide reliable data. As an
example, a site with fairly consistent climate from year to year, but with a rather short number
of years record, might provide satisfactory results. A site with wide ranging climate from year to
year might require a much longer period of record. An analysis showing the average for the
last 5 years, or for a specific year of importance, could use climate data for that specific period
only.
Table NC4–5 displays a simple and basic soil-water budget using assumed and estimated
values. The input data can be refined to whatever degree is necessary with field observations
or measurements, or both. In this table, a water surplus of 1.7 inches for the season is
indicated, and the water will go into deep percolation below the root zone.
A soil-water budget can be developed for planning purposes or as an evaluation tool. As the
example shows, the consultant can use any level of accuracy desired or necessary. Also refer
to NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 4 for more discussion of the soil-water
budget.

Example soil-water budget

A simplified soil-water budget (example from the Midwest) would be displayed using the
following assumptions:
 Crop is grain corn.
 Mature rooting depth = 48 inches. (Note: 24” may be more appropriate for NC)
 Total AWC = 8.0 inches. (Note: 3” to 4” may be more appropriate for NC)
 MAD = 50%.
 Soil profile is at field capacity at start of season.
 Sprinkler irrigation system with gross application for each irrigation = 6.0 inches.
 Application efficiency of 67% providing a net application = 4.0 inches.
 DU = (Distribution Uniformity) 100% with no surface runoff. Note: DU is always less than
100%, but for simplicity, is assumed to be 100 for this example.
 Precipitation infiltration for all season = 70% of total.
 No contribution from a shallow water table.
All crop ET, irrigation, and precipitation units are in inches. Note that a some of the values in
this example would be changed for the North Carolina climate, soils, and irrigation system. But
the concept and techniques that are illustrated in Table NC4–5 can be easily adapted to a
specific irrigation field.

50 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC4–5: Example soil-water budget in inches
Precipitation Irrigation Water
Soil
Crop Number Net
Month water Total Effective Deficit Surplus
ET of water
used (in) (in) 1/ (-) (+) 2/
Cycles applied
May 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.1 0 0 0.2
June 4.8 5.0 2.0 1.4 1 4.0 0.4
July 8.1 8.1 0 0 2 8.0 0.1
Aug 6.6 6.7 0 0 2 8.0 1.3
Sept 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0 0 1.0
Total 23.8 24.1 4.5 5 20 1.7
1/ Assuming all effective precipitation infiltrated into the soil.
2/ Typically lost to deep percolation. The total is in inches.

Additional and more detailed examples of a soil-water budget and a soil-water balance are in
NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 8, Project and Farm Irrigation Water
Requirements.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 51

_____________________________________________________
Chapter 5 (NEH 652.0505) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement - Selecting an Irrigation Method
5a - General

The purpose of this chapter is to provide necessary planning considerations for selecting an
irrigation method and system. This chapter describes the most widely used irrigation methods
and systems in North Carolina along with their adaptability and limitations. The grower should
consider what yield increases (per acre) can be expected over several years. This should be
compared to the projected annual cost (per acre irrigated) of the proposed irrigation system to
insure this is a good business decision. Additionally, the grower will need to have the financial
ability, cash flow, time, resources, and management to install and operate an irrigation system
effectively so as to realize the potential production gains both in quantity and quality.
The NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), section V, displays the conservation effects
of irrigation methods and systems and their related components. These should be referenced
during the planning and design process. They will provide insight as to the effects of surface
irrigation on ground and surface water quantity and quality, and on wildlife.
The recommended irrigation method and system should consider available water supply, field
size/shape/slope, the adaptability to what crops are grown, cost effectiveness of the system,
level of management, labor requirements, environmental impacts/concerns, grower
preferences/concerns, and local regulations.
Refer to NRCS NEH Part 652, National Irrigation Guide, Chapter 5, and NRCS NEH, Section
15, chapters 3-9, and 11 for additional information. Also, see NRCS NEH Part 652 Chapter 11
for additional information on developing and comparing typical capital and operating costs for
selected irrigation systems.

5b - Methods and Systems to Apply Irrigation Water

The four basic irrigation methods, along with the many systems to apply irrigation water,
include: sprinkler, surface, micro, and subirrigation.
Sprinkler - A majority of the irrigation in North Carolina consists of the sprinkler type. This
method applies water through a system of nozzles (impact and gear driven sprinkler, or spray
heads) with water distributed to the sprinkler under pressure through a system of surface or
buried pipelines. Sprinkler heads and nozzles are available in a wide variety of sizes, and can
apply water at rates near 0.1 inch per hour to more than 2 inches per hour. Sprinkler irrigation
systems include the following: Solid Set, Handmove Laterals, Sideroll (wheel) Laterals, Center
Pivot, Linear Move, and Traveling and Stationary Guns. Low Energy Precision Application
(LEPA) and Low Pressure in Canopy (LPIC) systems are included with sprinkler systems
because they use center pivot and linear move irrigation systems.
Surface - Water is applied by gravity across the soil surface by flooding or small channels (i.e.,
basins, borders, paddies, furrows, rills, corrugations)

52 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Micro – Water is applied through low pressure, low volume discharge devices (drip emitters,
line source emitters, micro spray and sprinkler heads, bubblers etc.). These are supplied by
small diameter surface or buried pipe, tubing, hose or tape. There is an emitter close to the
base of each plant. Water trickles or drips out the emitter and soaks into the ground. Several
emitters may be placed around the base of the tree for orchard use. It is a highly efficient
system, because water is applied directly to the root zone. Micro irrigation is adaptable to
many specialty fruits and vegetables grown in North Carolina and is increasing in acreage
each year, replacing many lower efficiency sprinkler systems such as the hand move laterals
and traveling gun systems. This is resulting in a water and energy savings along with improved
yield quality and quantity.
Subirrigation - Water is made available to the crop root system by upward capillary flow
through the soil profile from a controlled water table. In North Carolina this is done through a
system of ditches or tile drains. To be successful, the topography must be nearly level and
smooth. The upper soil layers must be permeable to permit free and rapid water movement
laterally and vertically. The permeable soil must be underlain by relatively impervious soil on
which an artificial water table can be built up or it must have a natural high water table.
Controlled drainage of organic soils has been the most common use of subsurface irrigation. A
series of ditches and water control structures are used to maintain the water table level. If
necessary, well water is also pumped into the ditches to fill and maintain the water table during
the growing season. This method can also be supplemented with sprinkler or micro irrigation.
Each irrigation method and system has specific site applicability, capability, and limitations.
Broad factors that should be considered are:
 crops to be grown
 topography or physical site conditions
 water supply
 climate
 energy available
 chemigation
 operation and management skills
 local support for repairs and parts
 environmental concerns
 soils
 farming equipment
 costs

5c - Site Conditions

Refer to Table NC5-1, Site Conditions to Consider in Selecting an Irrigation Method and
System. Additional factors to consider are environmental impacts, Local and State Laws,
Water-Use permits, energy for pumping plant, skill level of operators, availability of
parts/supplies, and local use or knowledge of the irrigation system.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 53

Table NC5-1: Site conditions to consider in selecting an irrigation method and system
Crop Soil Water Climate
Crops grown & rotation AWC Quality Wind
Water requirement Infiltration rate salts, toxic elements Rainfall
Height Depth sediment Frost conditions
Cultural practices to water table organic materials Humidity
Pests to impervious layer fish, aquatic creatures Temperature extremes
Tolerance to spray Drainage Quantity Rainfall frequency
Toxicity limitations surface Reliability Evaporation from:
Allowable MAD level subsurface Source plant leaves and stems
Climate Control Condition stream soil surface
frost protection Uniformity reservoir Solar radiation
cooling Stoniness well
Diseases & Control Slope (s) delivery point
Crop quality Surface texture Delivery schedule
Planned yield Profile textures frequency
Structure duration
Fertility rate
Temporal properties

5d - Selection of Irrigation Method and System

The grower will often have in mind a system which has particular interest for their location. This
would be a starting point, but the designer must keep an open mind and inform the grower of
other suitable irrigation systems. It is the responsibility of the designer to advise the grower of
the associated pros and cons of systems which could be adapted to the grower’s specific site.
The final decision is usually made by the grower in consultation with the designer. There are
various factors that must be considered when selecting an irrigation method and system.
Primary concerns in North Carolina include available water supply, field size/shape/slope,
adaptability to the crops grown, cost effectiveness of the system, level of management, and
labor requirements.
Local water-use restrictions, regulatory standards and criteria for irrigation efficiency, or
maximum water losses may strongly influence the selection of one or two specific irrigation
systems so that water is applied without excessive negative impacts on local water quantity
and quality. The fact that the best planned, designed, and installed system can still be grossly
mismanaged must also be recognized. Availability of irrigation equipment replacement parts,
repair service, skilled labor for system operation, and irrigation water availability and timing
must be considered. A system commonly used by neighboring farms can have an advantage
due to the local store of knowledge in the use, setup, and maintenance of an irrigation system.
Minimizing total annual operating energy requirements should be a basic part of the decision-
making process. Any over-applications of irrigation water will have an associated pumping cost
as well as the lost nutrients that can be leached from the soil. Irrigation scheduling methods
54 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
and soil moisture monitoring are crucial to keeping irrigation water losses to a minimum with
most irrigation systems.
Table NC5-2 displays the estimated typical life and annual maintenance for irrigation system
components. See NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 11, Economic Evaluations,
for additional information on developing and comparing typical capital and operating costs for
selected irrigation systems.
In some circumstances, it could be advantageous and cost effective to have two different
irrigation systems for the same fields. Where ample water is available during the early part of
the growing season, but becomes deficient during the peak water use period, either a surface
flood (i.e. borders) or subirrigation system could be used in the spring and a sprinkler system
used during peak water use. Several benefits can be realized with both irrigation methods:
 Reduced energy use compared to pumping the full flow for the full season
 Maximized water use efficiency during the peak water use period
 Reduced drainage losses for the sprinkler irrigation system when combined with
controlled drainage in porous sandy type soils
Sprinkler irrigation systems are adaptable for use on most crops and on nearly all irrigable
soils. Particular care is needed in the design and operation of a sprinkler system with low
application rates (0.15 to 0.25 in/hr) and on soils (generally fine textured) with low infiltration
rates. Principal concerns with low application rates are time of set, increased system cost,
acceptable distribution uniformity, wind drift, evaporation, and system operational
requirements.
For example, with an application rate of 0.15 inch per hour, time of set would have to be nearly
10 hours to apply a net irrigation application of 1 inch. It is recommended that sprinkler
systems apply water at a rate greater than 0.15 inch per hour for improved wind resistance. In
areas of high temperature, wind, or both, minimum application rate and volume should be
higher because of potential losses from evaporation and wind drift. For frost control, where
evaporation and wind drift potential are low, an application rate of 0.10 to 0.15 inch per hour is
common. See NRCS NEH, Section 15, Chapter 11, Sprinkle Irrigation for more information.
Most irrigation application methods and systems can be automated to some degree. The
amount of automation may be an important factor to some growers. More easily automated are
micro systems, center pivot sprinkler systems, solid set sprinkler systems, level furrow and
basin systems, graded border systems, subsurface systems, and graded furrow systems using
automated ditch turnouts, cutback, cablegation, and surge techniques.
Table NC5-3 shows recommended slope limitations for surface and sprinkler irrigation
systems. Note that these slope recommendations are guidelines, but no irrigation system
should have any surface runoff. Surface runoff can become an issue on long slopes and/or
tight soils even on shallow grades of less than five percent. The irrigation system designer will
insure that no or very minimal surface runoff occurs.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 55

Table NC5-2: Typical life and annual maintenance cost percentage for irrigation system
components
System and Life Annual Life Annual
maint. System and components maint.
components (yr) (% of cost)
(yr) (% of cost)

Sprinkler systems 10 - 15 2-6 Surface & subsurface 15 5

systems
Handmove 15 + 2
Side or wheel roll 15 + 2 Related components
End tow 10 + 3 Pipelines
Side move w/drag lines 15 + 4 buried thermoplastic 25 + 1
Stationary gun type 15 + 2 buried steel 25 1
Center pivot—standard 15 + 5 surface aluminum 20 + 2
Linear move 15 + 6 surface thermoplastic 5+ 4
buried nonreinforced
Cable tow 10 + 6 25 + 1
concrete
Hose pull 15 + 6 buried galv. steel 25 + 1
Traveling gun type 10 + 6 buried corrugated metal 25 + 1
Fixed or solid set buried reinforced PMP 25 + 1
permanent 20 + 1 gated pipe, rigid, surface 10 + 2
portable 15 + 2 surge valves 10 + 6
Sprinkler gear driven, 5 - 10 6
impact & spray heads Pumps
Valves 10 - 25 3 pump only 15 + 3
w/electric motors 10 + 3
w/internal combustion
Micro systems 1/ 1 - 20 2 - 10 10 + 6
engine
Drip 5 - 10 3
Spray 5 - 10 3 Wells 25 + 1
Bubbler 15 + 2 Linings
Semi-rigid, buried 10 - 20 2 nonreinforced concrete 15 + 5
Semi-rigid, surface 10 2 flexible membrane 10 5
Flexible, thin wall, buried 10 2 reinforced concrete 20 + 1
Flexible, thin wall,
1-5 10
surface
Drip Tape, surface 1-2
Emitters & heads 5 - 10 6 Land grading, leveling 2/
Filters, injectors, valves 10 + 7 Reservoirs 3/
1/ With no disturbance from tillage and harvest equipment.
2/ Indefinite with adequate maintenance.
3/ Indefinite with adequate maintenance of structures, watershed.

56 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC5-3: Slope limitations for sprinkler irrigation systems
Max Slope
Type Comments
(%) 1/
Periodic move/set
portable handmove 20+/- Laterals should be laid cross slope to
minimize and control pressure variation.
sideroll - wheel mounted 10 Consider using pressure or flow control
gun type 20+/- regulators in the mainline, lateral, or
end tow 5-10 individual sprinkler spray heads, when
pressure differential causes an increase of >
Fixed (solid) set 20 % of design operating pressure.
permanent laterals no limit
portable laterals no limit
gun type no-limit

Continuous move
center pivot 15
linear move 15
gun type 20+/-

LEPA
center pivot 1.0
linear 1.0

LPIC
center pivot 2.5
linear 2.5
1/ Regardless of type of sprinkler irrigation system used, runoff and resulting soil erosion
becomes more hazardous on steeper slopes. Proper conservation measures should be
used; i.e., conservation tillage, crop residue use, filter strips, pitting, damming-diking,
terraces, or permanent vegetation.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 57

5e - Adaptability and Limitations of Irrigation Methods and Systems
A properly designed irrigation system will be well adapted to the specific field/farm for the
planned crops, cropping system, local weather, and the on-farm resources that are available to
the grower. Each irrigation system has its strengths and weaknesses. When the right system is
selected, it performs as the grower would expect and satisfies the intended irrigation duties
with a minimum of repairs and low maintenance. A very important aspect to most growers is
that it also have a positive cost versus benefits ratio, as it will probably be viewed as a
business investment. Also refer to NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 5, Selecting
an Irrigation Method, for more information on the adaptability and limitations of irrigation
systems. Following is a listing of generalized characteristics for some of the irrigation systems
that may be encountered in North Carolina.
Sprinkler Systems
Solid Set, Permanent
 Adaptable to irregular fields and rolling terrain
 Low labor requirement
 Allows for light applications at frequent intervals
 Adaptable to irrigating blueberries, brambles, container nursery, orchards, and trees
 Entire system can be operated at one time for frost control and crop cooling at low
application rates < 0.15 in/hr
 Easily automated
 High initial cost versus hand move laterals systems
 Wind drift and evaporation problems with low application rates < 0.15 in/hr
Solid Set, Portable
 Somewhat low labor requirement when the pipe is not moved while in the field
 Adaptable to irregular fields and rolling terrain
 Allows for light applications at frequent intervals
 Adaptable for high value crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, vegetables, and nursery
stock
 Can be used to germinate crops that will later be drip irrigated
 Entire system can be operated at one time for frost control and crop cooling at low
application rates < 0.15 in/hr
 High initial cost of needing sufficient lateral pipe and sprinklers to cover the entire field
 Wind drift and evaporation problems with low application rates < 0.15 in/hr
 Not easily automated
 Efficiency is lower than permanently installed solid set due to leaky pipe connections
and runoff
 Caution must be taken during tillage and harvest operations to prevent damage to
pipeline, risers and sprinkler heads
Hand Move Lateral
 Adaptable to irrigating vegetable, orchard, berries, and potatoes
 Lowest initial cost
 Adaptable to irregular fields and rolling terrain
 Lower efficiency than solid set.
 Highest labor requirement

58 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Side or Wheel Roll
 Adaptable to irrigating cotton, peanuts, soybeans, potatoes, vegetables, field crops, and
alfalfa hay
 Low labor requirement
 Higher initial costs and maintenance costs then hand move laterals
 Field must be rectangular
 Not adapted to tall crops
 Topography must be flat or gently rolling
Center Pivot
 High uniformity and high efficiency with low volume and low pressure nozzles on drops
 Adaptable for irrigating corn, cotton, peanuts, soybeans, potatoes, vegetables, field
crops, and alfalfa hay
 Easily automated
 Low labor requirement
 High initial cost
 Irrigates circular area and corners with end guns or corner arms
 High application rates at the outer end may cause runoff and erosion problems
 Drive wheels may cause ruts in some soils
 Requires uniform topography with slopes <10%
Linear Move
 Adaptable for irrigating corn, cotton, peanuts, soybeans, potatoes, vegetables, field
crops, and alfalfa hay
 Easily automated
 Can irrigate an entire field
 Uniform water application
 Requires rectangular fields
 Higher labor then a center pivot but less then a hand move system
 Requires uniform topography with slopes <10%.
Traveling Gun
 Adaptable for irrigating corn, cotton, peanuts, soybeans, potatoes, vegetables, alfalfa
and field crops
 Adaptable to irregular shaped fields
 Moderate costs
 Less labor than hand move laterals
 Require high operating pressures and high power pumping units
 Towpaths are required in the crop
 Wind seriously affects the distribution pattern, causing non-cropped areas to be wetted
 Low efficiency due to high evaporation and runoff potential
Microirrigation
 Highest potential application efficiency-low runoff and evaporation losses
 Highest design distribution uniformity
 Spoon feeding directly to root zone
 High yields and excellent quality
 Low water use enables small water supplies to be utilized. However, higher production
capacity of Microirrigation may reduce or negate any water supply reductions.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 59

  Requires 50% of the water needed for an overhead system
 Low pumping costs due to low pressure and flow requirements
 Pipe network can be smaller than high pressure/flow systems and therefore less costly
 Disease control is high since leaves are not wetted
 Ability to fertigate through system resulting in less fertilizer applied
 Extensive automation is possible
 Field operations can continue while irrigating
 Adaptable to irregular shaped fields
 Entire system can be operated at one time
 High degree of filtration and pressure regulation required
 High maintenance requirement
 High management input
 Requires good quality water supply and properly designed filtration system to prevent
emitter clogging
 May require water treatment through chlorination to kill algae, bacteria, or precipitate
iron out of water supply
 Rodent and insect damage to plastic tape/hose can be a problem
 Not adaptable to frost protection
 Initial investment and annual costs are higher than some other methods
Point Source Drip Emitter
 Adaptable for irrigating orchards, berries, and vineyards
 With pressure compensation, can be operated on undulating topography and odd
shaped fields
 Application uniformity not affected by wind
Line Source Tape
 Best adaptable to irrigating fresh vegetables and row crops
 Application uniformity not affected by wind
 Not suitable on steep or undulating topography
 Tape life is usually 1-2 years
Micro Spray/Sprinkler
 Adaptable for irrigating orchards, nursery trees and container stock
 Provides frost control in orchards with new applications in vineyard and small fruit
 Application uniformity can be affected by wind
 Higher evaporation losses
Subsurface Irrigation
Open Ditches and/or Drainlines with Water-Level Control Structures
 Topography must be level or slopes very gentle and uniform
 Adaptable to soils with low available water holding capacity and high intake rates
 Soil must have either a natural high water table or impermeable layer in the substratum
 Low installation and operating costs, especially if a drainage system is already present
 Easily integrated with other irrigation systems
 Low labor and management inputs
 Sudden heavy rains during the irrigation mode may flood the crop root zone
 Problems with creating and maintaining a level water table throughout the field

60 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

_____________________________________________________
Chapter 6 (NEH 652.0605) North Carolina NRCS Irrigation Guide
Supplement - Irrigation System Design

6a - General

A properly designed irrigation system should have uniform irrigation application in a timely
manner while minimizing losses and damage to soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources.
The design of a conservation irrigation system matches soil and water characteristics with
water application rates to assure that water is applied in the amount needed at the right time
and at a rate at which the soil can absorb the water without runoff. Physical characteristics of
the area to be irrigated must be considered in locating the lines and spacing the sprinklers or
emitters, and in selecting the type of irrigation system. The location of the water supply,
capacity, and the source of water will affect the size of the pipelines, irrigation system flow
rates, and the size and type of pumping plant to be used. The power unit selected will be
determined by the overall pumping requirements and the energy source available.
Key points in designing an irrigation system include:
 The irrigation system must be able to deliver and apply the amount of water needed to
meet the crop-water requirement.
 Application rates must not exceed the maximum allowable infiltration rate for the soil
type. Excess application rates will result in water loss, soil erosion, and possible
surface sealing. As a result, there may be inadequate moisture in the root zone after
irrigation, and the crop could be damaged. Application rates for many traveler, center
pivot, and linear move irrigation systems exceed soil intake rates and is an ongoing
concern for North Carolina irrigators. This should be addressed in the irrigation system
design so as to reduce or eliminate impacts from using one of these irrigation systems
 Flow rates must be known for proper design and management.
 Soil textures, available soil water holding capacity, and crop rooting depth must be
known for planning and designing system application rates, irrigation water
management, and scheduling irrigations so that water applied is beneficially used by the
crop.
 The water supply, capacity, and quality need to be determined and recorded.
 Climatic data addressed - precipitation, wind velocity, temperature, and humidity.
 Applied irrigation water should always be considered supplemental to rainfall events.
 Topography and field layout must be recorded.
 Farmer’s preferences in irrigation methods, available operation time, farm labor, cultural
practices, and management skills must be noted for selecting and planning the type and
method of irrigation.
 Irrigate at night if possible, to reduce evaporative losses with sprinkler type systems.
 The irrigation applications should be managed so as to reduce conditions that are
favorable to crop disease.
The most opportune time to discuss and review problems and revise management plans that
affect design and operation of the irrigation system is during the planning and design phase.
Minimum requirements for the design, installation, and performance of irrigation systems
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 61
should be in accordance with the standards of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and the
Irrigation Association. Design standards for irrigation practices are contained in the NRCS
National Handbook of Conservation Practices, and Section IV of the Field Office Technical
Guide.
Material and equipment used should conform to the standards of the American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) and the Irrigation Association.
There are many types of irrigation systems used in North Carolina which were not covered in
this supplement. The reader is referred to the NRCS NEH Part 652, National Irrigation Guide,
Chapter 6, Irrigation System Design, and NRCS NEH, Section 15, chapters 3-9, and 11 for
additional information on many types of irrigation systems, including sprinkler.

6b - Sprinkler Irrigation Systems

The preceding Chapter (5) should be used along with this chapter to help the irrigation
designer select the sprinkler irrigation system. The three main types of sprinkler systems are
classified as fixed, periodic move, and continuous/self move systems.
Fixed Systems include solid set (portable or permanent pipeline). There are enough laterals
and sprinklers that none have to be moved to complete an irrigation.
Periodic Move Systems include handmove laterals, side roll laterals, end tow laterals, hose fed
(pull) laterals, gun type sprinklers, boom sprinklers, and perforated pipe. Continuous Move/Self
Move Systems include center pivots, linear move laterals, and traveling gun sprinklers.
Pressure for sprinkler systems is generally provided by pumping powered mainly by diesel or
electric and some gasoline engines. If the system is properly designed and operated,
application efficiencies of 50 to 95 percent can be obtained. Application efficiency (Ea) is the
percentage of applied irrigation water that is actually stored in the soil rooting zone and is
available for transpiration and evaporation. See the NRCS National Engineering Handbook
(NEH), Section 15 Irrigation, Chapter 11 Sprinkle Irrigation, for a more complete discussion of
Application efficiency (Ea) or the Coefficient of Uniformity (CU). Ea depends on the type of
system, cultural practices, and management. Poor management (i.e. irrigating too soon or
applying too much water) is the greatest cause of reduced water application efficiency. Refer
to Chart NC6-1 (from NEH, Irrigation Guide, Part 652, Table 6-4) for single event Ea values
(shown in blue) for various types of sprinkler systems. Season long irrigation application
efficiencies typically are lower because of early season plant water requirements and soil
intake rate changes. Also shown in Chart NC6-1 (in red) are some observed Christiansen CU
(Coefficient of Uniformity) from North Carolina State University irrigation research studies
(2009, communication with Dr. Ronald Snead). CU is a parameter that is easily measured in
the field and used to evaluate sprinkle irrigation application uniformity
System losses are caused by the following:
 Direct evaporation in the air from the spray, from the soil surface, and from plant leaves
that intercept spray water
 Wind drift (normally 5-10 percent losses, depending on temperature, wind speed, and
droplet size)
 Leaks and system drainage
 Surface runoff and deep percolation resulting from nonuniform or over application within
the sprinkler pattern
62 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
 If the system is designed to apply water at less than the maximum soil infiltration rate, no
runoff losses should occur. With some systems where water is applied below or within the crop
canopy, wind drift and most evaporation losses are reduced.

Chart NC6-1: Single Event Application efficiencies for various sprinkler systems
100 100
95

Coefficient of Uniformity (CU, %) from recent NCSU

studies shown in red (2009, communication w/ Dr. Ron Snead)
90 90 90
Ea (Blue Hi-Lo data with median) in %

85 87
80 80 80
75 75 75 75
70 70 70 70 70
65
60 60 60 60 60 60
55 55 55 55
50 50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
Periodic move Periodic move Fixed laterals Traveling Center pivot - Linear (lateral) LEPA - center
lateral gun type or (solid set) sprinklers (gun standard move pivot and linear
boom sprinklers type or boom) move

On sloping sites where soils have a low to medium intake rate, runoff often occurs under
center pivot systems, especially at the outer end of the sprinkler lateral.
Planning and design considerations and guidelines should be referenced to NRCS NEH,
Section 15, Chapter 11, Sprinkle Irrigation. Operating pressures for these guidelines are
grouped as follows:
• Low Pressure 2-35 psi
• Moderate Pressure 35-50 psi
• Medium Pressure 50-75 psi
• High Pressure 75+ psi
Some design generalizations and considerations for the three main types of sprinkler systems
(1-fixed, 2-periodic move, and 3-continuous/self move) are as follows:

6b1 - Fixed - Solid Set Sprinkler Systems

Solid set sprinkler systems consist of either an above ground portable pipe system (aluminum
pipe) or a permanently buried system (plastic pipe). Solid set systems are placed in the field at
the start of the irrigation season and left in place throughout the entire crop season. A portable
solid set system can be moved to a different field at the end of a particular crop season. A
permanent solid set system consists of mainlines and laterals (mostly plastic pipe) buried
below the depth of normal field operations. Only the sprinklers and a portion of the risers are
above the ground surface.
To irrigate the field, one or more zones of sprinklers are cycled on or off with a control valve at

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 63

the mainline. Opening and closing of valves can be manual, programmed electronically, or
timer clock controlled. Solid set systems can be easily automated. Application efficiencies can
be 60 - 85 percent (60 -75% is typical, Chart NC6-1), depending on design and management.
In addition to applying irrigation water, these systems are used to apply water for
environmental control, such as frost protection, crop cooling, humidity control, bud delay, crop
quality improvement, dust control, and chemical application.
A diamond or triangular pattern for sprinkler head layout is recommended for solid set
systems, thereby improving application uniformity.

6b2 - Periodic Move Sprinkler Systems

A periodic move sprinkler system is set in a fixed location for a specified length of time to apply
a required depth of water. This is known as the irrigation set time. After an irrigation set, the
lateral or sprinkler is moved to the next set position. Application efficiencies can range from
50 - 75 percent.
Hand Move Lateral Systems
Hand move portable aluminum lateral systems are common for vegetable, orchard, and field
crops. Aluminum laterals are moved by hand between irrigation sets. Lateral sections are
typically 20, 30, or 40 feet long. The mains may be portable above ground or permanent buried
mains. Riser height must be based on the maximum height of the crop to be grown. Minimum
height is generally 6 inches, and risers over 4 feet in height must be anchored or stabilized.
Lateral size is generally either 3 inch or 4 inch. Due to the ease of carrying from one set to the
next, 3 inch is often preferred. However for long lateral lines, 4 inch aluminum should be used
to keep velocity under 5 feet per second and maintain pressure losses below 20 percent of the
design pressure. Hand move lateral systems have the lowest initial cost, have the highest
labor requirement, and are easily adapted to irregular fields. Application efficiencies are
generally 60 - 75 percent with proper management.
Side Roll System
A side roll system is similar to a hand move system except that the wheels are mounted on the
lateral. The lateral pipe serves as an axle to assist in moving the system sideways by rotation
to the next set. Each pipe section is supported by a large diameter wheel (at least 3 ft)
generally located at the center, but can be at the end. Wheel diameters should be selected so
that the lateral clears the crop. A flexible hose or telescoping section of pipe is required at the
beginning of each lateral to connect on to the mainline outlet valves. Rigid couplers permit the
entire lateral, up to 1/4 mile long, to be rolled forward by applying power at the center or the
end while the lateral pipe remains in a nearly straight line. Normally, the drive unit contains a
gasoline engine and a transmission with a reverse gear. Self righting or vertical self aligning
sprinkler heads are used because the sprinkler head is always upright. Without the self
aligning heads, extra care must be taken so that the pipe rotation is fully complete for the full
length of the lateral, and all sprinkler heads are upright. Poor distribution uniformity results if
the sprinkler heads are not upright. Lateral diameters of 4 or 5 inches are most common and
sprinkler head spacing 30 or 40 feet. Laterals can be up to 1600 feet long with one power unit.
Quick drain valves are installed at several locations on each lateral to assist line drainage
before it is moved since the lateral moves much easier when it is empty. Minimum operating
pressure must not drop below 24 psi for drains to properly close and seal. Empty laterals must
be anchored to prevent movement by wind. Side roll systems have a low labor requirement,
but they have higher initial and maintenance costs than hand move lateral systems. They

64 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

irrigate a rectangular area. They are not adapted to tall crops. Topography must be flat or
gently rolling. With proper management, application efficiencies can be 60 - 75 percent.

Gun Type Sprinkler (Stationary)

Large, periodic move, gun type sprinklers are operated as a large single impact type sprinkler
head. The sprinkler is moved from one set to the next either by hand or a small tractor
depending on the size or whether they are towable. Generally only one sprinkler is operated
per lateral. Lateral lines are usually aluminum pipe with quick-coupled joints. Nozzle sizes are
large and generally 0.5 to 1.75 inches. Operating pressures can range from 50 to 120 psi with
flow rates at 50 to 500 gallons per minute or more. When irrigating, the sprinkler is allowed to
remain at one location (set) until the desired amount of water is applied. Application rates can
be very high and uniformity of application can be adversely affected with wind speed greater
then 4 mph. Droplet size will be large beyond 50 feet of the sprinkler, resulting in soil puddling
and damage to sensitive crops. With proper management application efficiency can be 50 - 60
percent.

6b3 - Continuous (Self) Move Sprinkler System

Center-Pivot Systems
Center pivot systems consist of a single lateral supported by towers with one end anchored to
a fixed pivot structure and the other end continuously moving around the pivot point while
applying water. This system irrigates a circular field unless end guns and swing lines are
cycled on in corner areas to irrigate more of a square field. The water is supplied from the
source to the lateral through the pivot. The lateral pipe with sprinklers is supported on drive
units. The drive units are normally powered by hydraulic water drives or electric motors.
Various operating pressures and configurations of sprinkler heads or nozzles (types and
spacing) are located along the lateral. Sprinkler heads with nozzles may be high or low
pressure impact, gear driven, or one of many low pressure spray heads. A higher discharge,
part circle gun is generally used at the extreme end (end gun), of the lateral to irrigate the outer
fringe of the lateral. Each tower, which is generally mounted on rubber tires, has a power
device designed to propel the system around the pivot point. The most common power units
include electric motor and hydraulic oil drive. Towers are spaced from 80 to 250 feet apart,
with lateral lengths up to one half mile. Long spans require a substantial truss or cable to
support the lateral pipe in place.
When feasible, agricultural operators are converting from portable sprinkler systems and
travelers to install center pivot systems. Many improvements have been made over the years.
This includes the corner arm system. Some models contain an added swing lateral unit that
expands to reach the corners of a field and retracts to a trailing position when the system is
along the field edge. When the corner unit starts, discharge flow in all other heads is reduced.
Overall field distribution uniformity is affected with the corner arm. Typically 85% of
maintenance is spent maintaining the corner arm unit itself. Due to less than adequate
maintenance in corner systems operating all the time, total field application uniformity is
reduced even further. Many techniques have been developed to reduce energy used, lower
system flow capacities, and maximize water use efficiency. These include using Low Energy
Precision Application (LEPA) and Low Pressure In-Canopy (LPIC) systems. LEPA systems
(precision application) require adequate (implemented) soil, water and plant management.
LPIC systems are used on lower value crops where localized water translocation is

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 65

acceptable, (30 feet ahead of or behind the lateral position). Water is applied within the crop
canopy through drop tubes fitted with low pressure 5 - 10 psi application devices near the
ground surface. Good soil and water management are required to obtain application
efficiencies in the high 80’s. LPIC systems are not suitable for use on low intake soils. With
proper management, application efficiencies for center pivot systems can be 75 - 95 percent
depending on wind speed/direction, sprinkler type, operating pressure, and tillage practices.
Linear Move Sprinkler System
A linear move sprinkle system is a continuous, self moving, straight lateral that irrigates a
rectangular field. It is similar to the center pivot in that the lateral is supported by trusses,
cables, and towers mounted on wheels. Most linear move systems are driven by electric
motors located in each tower, but some use hydraulic drive. A self aligning system is used to
maintain near straight line uniform travel. One tower is the master control tower for the lateral
where the speed is set, and all other towers operate in start-stop mode to maintain alignment.
A small cable mounted 12 to 18 inches above the ground surface along one edge or the center
of the field guides the master control tower across the field. Other methods of guidance are
below ground buried cable or furrow.
Linear move systems can be equipped with a variety of sprinkle or spray heads. Drop tubes
and low pressure spray heads located a few inches above the ground surface or crop canopy
can be used instead of sprinkler heads attached directly to the lateral. The low pressure
sprinkle heads on drop tubes conserve water and energy. Linear move systems are similar to
center pivot as they are also used as LEPA and LPIC. With these methods surface storage
(residue or small basins) must be available throughout the irrigation season to prevent runoff
due to the high application rates.
With proper management, application efficiencies are similar to the center pivot system. Linear
move systems are high cost and are generally used on medium to high value crops and
multiple crop production areas.
Traveling Gun Sprinkler
The traveling gun sprinkler system uses a gun-type high capacity, single-nozzle sprinkler that
is fed with water from a flexible hose which is either dragged on the soil surface or wound on a
reel. The gun is mounted on wheels and travels along a straight line while operating. The
flexible hose is usually 2.5 to 5 inches in diameter and up to 1320 feet long. Smaller traveling
guns with 1 to 1.25 inch hoses that are up to 200 feet long are being used for small areas such
as sporting fields or landscaping. The self-propelled traveling gun is most popular in the
eastern US where fields tend to be smaller and growers need labor saving, mechanical-move
portable irrigation systems
There are two general types of self-propelled traveling gun sprinklers. These are: 1) cable-tow
traveler and 2) the hose-drag traveler sometimes referred to as the hose-pull or drum traveler.
The cable-tow traveler was very popular for a few years, but it has been largely replaced by
the hose-drag traveler. (excerpts in the above two paragraphs from: Robert Evans and R. E.
Snead, 1996, NC Coop Ext Pub #:EBAE-91-150, “Selection and Management of Efficient Self-
Propelled Gun Traveler Irrigation Systems”, Note: see this publication for more information).
With a traveling gun system, the gun is mounted on a 2 to 4-wheel chassis and is pulled along
selected travel lanes by a cable or the hose wrapping on a rotating reel. The reel or winch can
be powered by a water turbine, water piston, or engine drive and reels in the anchored cable or
hose through the field in a straight line.

66 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Application depth is regulated by the speed at which the hose or cable reel is operated or by
the speed of the self-contained power unit. As the traveler moves along its path, the sprinkler
wets a strip of land that is generally 200 to 400 feet wide. After the unit reaches the end of the
travel path, it is moved and set to water an adjacent strip of land. The overlap of adjacent strips
depends on the distance between the travel paths, wetted diameter of sprinkler, average wind
speed, and application pattern of the sprinkler. After one travel path (towpath) is completed,
the sprinkler is reset by towing it to the edge of the field. Refer to Figure NC6-1 for typical
traveling gun system layout.
Sprinkler discharge flows can range from 50 to more then 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for
the USA. However, it would be rare to find a system in North Carolina that is near the 1,000
gpm discharge rate given the smaller cropping field sizes found in North Carolina (as
compared to field sizes found in the Midwest). The nozzles generally range from 0.5 to 1.75
inches in diameter with operating pressure from 60 to 120 psi.

Extent of planted area

Towpaths

Pumping
unit
Travel direction

Buried main Hose

Connections Connection
to main to main

Figure NC6-1 Traveling gun type sprinkler system layout

Traveling Boom Sprinkler Systems

A traveling boom system is similar to a traveling gun except several nozzles are used. These
systems have higher distribution uniformity than traveling guns for the same diameter of
coverage. They do provide options when a grower prefers a lower volume and pressure
systems to reduce the high energy costs associated with a traveling gun system. The boom
can be designed with low pressure and low flow nozzles that operate at higher efficiency and
uniformity.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 67

The traveling boom usually is rotated by back pressure from fixed nozzles, or may be fixed. It
is typically moved by a self-contained continuously moving power unit by dragging or coiling
the water feed hose on a reel. A boom can be nearly 100 feet long with uniformly spaced
nozzles that overlap (similar to a linear move lateral).

6c - Sprinkler Irrigation System Capacity

The sprinkler irrigation system capacity is generally defined as the peak or maximum flow rates
that will be sustained in the main supply line to the irrigation system that will meet the
maximum crop demand period. A pump of some sort is usually driving the water into the main
supply line at a given flow rate which will meet sprinkler design pressure and flow needs. The
sprinkler irrigation system capacity shall be sufficient to supply the peak flows and volume of
water required to meet the peak-period consumptive use of the crop or crops to be irrigated.
There should be adequate well flow capacity, stream flow, or pond storage to supply both the
peak flow and total volume needs of the growing crop to be irrigated in a timely manor.
The required capacity of a sprinkle irrigation system depends on the size of the area irrigated,
gross depth of water to be applied at each irrigation, and the operating time allowed to apply
the water. See NRCS NEH, Section 15, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water Requirements, for further
details regarding crop water needs. The required capacity of a sprinkle system can be
computed by:
453 A d 453 A d'
Q or Q
fT T

where:
Q = system capacity (gpm)
A = area irrigated (acres)
d = gross depth of application (inches)
f = time allowed for completion of one irrigation (days)
T = actual operating time per day (hours per day) to cover entire area
d’ = gross daily water use rate (inches per day) - may be peak or average, depending on
need and risks to be taken.

Note: This equation represents the basic irrigation equation QT = DA with conversion factors
for sprinkler irrigation design. Typically, tables readily available by NRCS and manufacturers
pertaining to sprinkler heads, pipe friction losses, and pump curves are in units of gallons per
minute (gpm) rather than cubic feet per second, cubic meters per second, or liters per minute.

6d - Sprinkler Irrigation System Design

The irrigation system designer is urged to contact NRCS Field Office personnel, and consult
the reference NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, for information and guidance on the desired
irrigation system. Chapter 4, Water Requirements, and Table NC4-1, should be reviewed to
insure an adequate irrigation water supply is available. Uniformity coefficients should be used
in selecting sprinkler spacing, nozzle sizes, and operating pressures. Lateral lines should be
designed so that variation in sprinkler head pressures does not exceed 20 percent of the
design operating pressure or 10 percent of the design flow of the sprinklers, respectively.

68 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

There are wastewater irrigation design parameter worksheets which were distributed (1995) for
North Carolina that may be helpful to communicate specific irrigation information between
NRCS Field Office personnel and the irrigation system designer/supplier. These worksheets
are given in Appendix B and can also be used with non-wastewater irrigation systems.
Irrigation designs are very field specific, but generalities can be made by region to help in
simplifying the design process. For example, soils and landscape position can be used to form
Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG). Each ISMG can then be represented by one
general soil profile which can then be used to make good approximations for soil moisture
storage in the irrigation system planning process. Additionally, it was noted that the mountains
region is very different in soils and weather from that of the other regions in North Carolina.
The state was divided into two sprinkler irrigation management areas for general design
purposes as follows:
1. Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions (includes Sandhills and Barrier Islands)
2. Mountain region
The recommended peak moisture use rate was adjusted to 0.02 inches per day less for all
crops in the Mountain region as compared to the same crop in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont
regions. The two sprinkler irrigation management regions will each have a set of ISMG’s and
design tables that are specific to that region. Table NC6-1 contains Mountain ISMG’s and
Table NC6-2 contains Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soil ISMG’s. Tables NC6-1 and NC6-2 also
contain the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) and the Sprinkler Irrigation use limitations for each
Soil Series. Determination of the Soil Series name for the irrigated field is discussed earlier in
Chapter 2 of this document. Hydrologic Soil Groups are based on the most restrictive soil layer
in the rooting zone with regards to infiltration water transmission in a downward direction.
HSG’s range from A to D, with A having a high infiltration capacity (ex. sand or gravel soil
texture), and D having a low infiltration capacity (ex. clay soil texture, hardpans or swamp).
Please refer to other NRCS documents (NRCS NEH Part 630, Chapter 7, Hydrology) if a more
complete definition of HSG’s are needed. Soil Series limitations for use with a Sprinkler
Irrigation System is also given. Soil Series limitations noted here are general in nature and not
site specific. They are taken from the NRCS soil series descriptions and are an indicator of
possible issues for a specific site. The limitations shown are generally the most restrictive, but
are not considered to be complete, due to table space limitations. See Table NC2-4 for a listing
of Irrigation Restrictive Feature limits that are used in assigning Soil Series limitations. An on-
site visit must be made to assess these, and any other site-specific limitations, which should
be addressed in the Irrigation System design process. Additionally, the most current NRCS
county soil survey data should be reviewed for a complete listing of soil properties and
limitations. Note that the NRCS Soil Survey should not be used in lieu of on-site soil testing for
soil properties. The irrigation system designer is responsible for the determination of all soil
limitations through on-site evaluations and testing. The information provided here and
elsewhere (Web Soil Survey, etc.) is to be viewed only as supplemental to actual on-site or in-
field data.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 69

 Table NC6-1: Mountain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Alarka D Mostly Forested, organic surface mat 3
Anakeesta B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Arkaqua C Moderate permeability in subsoil 3
Ashe B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Balsam A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Bandana B Moderately Rapid Permeability in A and B horizons 3
Biltmore A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 1
Braddock B Slope, Erosion, slow permeability in subsoil 8
Bradson B Slope, Erosion 8
Brasstown B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Breakneck B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Brevard B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 8
Brownwood B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Buladean B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Burton B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Calvin C Slope, erosion on steeper land 2
Cashiers B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Cataloochee B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Cataska D Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Chandler A Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Cheoah B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Chester B Medium runoff, high saturated hydraulic conductivity 2
Chestnut B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Chestoa B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Chiltoskie B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Chute D Rapid Permeability 5
Cleveland C Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Cliffield B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 8
Clifton B Slope, Erosion, slow permeability in subsoil 7
Clingman D Organic deposits, Forested, Saturated short periods NR
Colvard A Occasional flooding, moderately rapid permeability 1
Cowee B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Craggey D Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Crossnore B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Cruso A Mostly Forested, Rapid Ksat 12
Cullasaja A Slope, Erosion, Forested NR
Cullowhee B/D Moderately Rapid Permeability in A and B horizons 3
Dellwood A Flooding, Moderately Rapid Permeability in A 1
Dillard C Slope, erosion, high water table in Winter & Spring 8
Dillsboro B Slope, Erosion, Seeps 8
Ditney C Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Edneytown B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Edneyville A Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 2
Ela B/D Occasional flooding, ponding, water table 12
Ellijay B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 8
Elsinboro B Moderate permeability 5
Eutrochrepts B 1
Evard B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7

70 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC6-1: Mountain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Fannin B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Fletcher B Medium runoff, Moderate Permeability 7
Fluvaquents D 1
Fontaflora A Flooding 1
French C High water table, flooding 3
Greenlee A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Guyot B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Harmiller B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Hayesville B Slope, Erosion 8
Heintooga A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 8
Hemphill D Rare Flooding, high WT, slow permeability 9
Horsetrough - Narrow units next to drainageways, Forested 12
Huntdale B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Iotla B Flooding, Moderately rapid permeability 3
Jeffrey B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Junaluska B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Kanuga B Moderately slow permeability 8
Keener B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Kinkora D Drainage, high water table, low saturated hydraulic cond. 9
Lauada B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Leatherwood B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Longhope D Organic Soil, Drainage, High Water table, 11
Lonon B Slope, Erosion >60% Wooded(Pasture, Christmas Trees) 8
Lostcove B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 8
Luftee B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Mars Hill B Slope, Erosion, Most acreage in pasture 2
Maymead A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Micaville B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Nantahala B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 7
Nikwasi B/D Ponding, Wetness, Flooding, Need drainage 12
Northcove A Slope, Erosion, Cobbles, Low AWC 2
Nowhere B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 12
Oconaluftee A Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Ostin A Flooding 6
Oteen C Slope, Erosion, Mostly pasture, Depth to Bedrock, Low AWC 7
Peregrine Not rated
Pigeonroost B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 2
Pilot Mountain B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested, Cobbly 8
Pineola Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Pits Not rated NR
Plott A Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Porters B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 10
Potomac Mod to rapid permeability, Boulders, Low AWC, Freq Flooding 1
Pullback D Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 2
Rabun Slope, erosion, rapid runoff 8
Reddies B Flooding, moderately rapid permeability in A and B horizons 1
Rock outcrop D

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 71

 Table NC6-1: Mountain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Rosman A Flooding, moderately rapid permeability 10
Rubble land A
Saluda C Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 7
Santeetlah A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 5
Saunook B Slope, High saturated conductivity, seeps and springs 8
Sauratown B Slope, Erosion, Runoff, Mostly Forested 2
Shinbone B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Smokemont A Flooding, moderately to rapid permeability 1
Snowbird B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Soco B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Spivey A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested NR
Statler B Slow to medium runoff 8
Stecoah B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Suches B Moderate permeability 6
Swannanoa C Drainage, SHWT spring, surface runoff 9
Sylco C Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Sylva A/D Drainage, moderately rapid permeability 9
Tanasee A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 5
Tate B Slope, erosion, moderate permeability in subsoil 10
Thunder B Slope, erosion, some areas in pasture 8
Thurmont B Slope, erosion, Runoff, moderate permeability in subsoil 5
Toecane A Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 5
Toxaway B/D Drainage, Frequent Flooding 11
Transylvania B Common flooding 10
Trimont B Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested NR
Tsali C Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Tuckasegee A Slope, Erosion 8
Tusquitee B Slope, Erosion 10
Udifluvents A 1
Udorthents B 1
Unaka B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Unicoi C Slope, Erosion, Soil Creep, Mostly Forested 7
Unison B Slope, Erosion, Rapid Runoff 5
Walnut B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Pasture 2
Watauga B Slope, Erosion 7
Wayah B Slope, Erosion, Mostly Forested 2
Wesser B/D Drainage, High water table 11
Whiteoak B Slope, Moderate permeability 8
Whiteside B Slope, Moderate permeability 4
Zillicoa C Runoff, Erosion, Primarily Hay Production 8
NR – this soil was not rated and may not be suitable for irrigation

72 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Acredale C/D Depth to Sat zone, Drained, Seepage, Slow water Mvmt 19
Ailey B Low AWC, Slow water Mvmt 7
Alaga A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Alamance B Depth to soft bedrock, Depth to Sat zone, Slope NR
Alpin A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Altavista C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 6
Appling B Slope, Too acid 4
Arapahoe B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 22
Argent D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Armenia D Freq flooded, Slow water mvmt, Depth to Sat zone NR
Ashlar B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Augusta C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 10
Autryville A Seepage, Low AWC 7
Aycock B Slope 13
Ayersville B Slope, Depth to restrictive layer, Low AWC NR
Backbay D Tidal Marshes, Freq flooded NR
Badin B Slope, Depth to restrictive layer, Low AWC NR
Ballahack B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Flooding 22
Banister C Slope, Slow water mvmt, Too acid 11
Bannertown B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Barclay C Depth to Sat zone, Drainage 10
Bayboro D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 24
Baymeade A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 7
Beaches D Low AWC, Freq flooded, Excess Sodium NR
Belhaven D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Bertie C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage, Too acid 10
Bethera D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Bethlehem B Slope, Low AWC, Depth to restrictive layer NR
Bibb D Depth to Sat zone, Freq flooded, Seepage 19
Bladen D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Blaney B Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 7
Blanton A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Bohicket D Excess Sodium, Freq flooded, Low AWC NR
Bojac A Low AWC, Seepage 6
Bolling C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 6
Bonneau A Seepage, Slope 7
Bragg C Modified soil, Cut and Fill NR
Brickhaven C Slope, Low AWC, Depth to restrictive layer NR
Brookman D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 24
Buncombe A Freq flooded, Low AWC, Slope 16
Butters B Low AWC, Seepage 16
Byars D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 24
Cainhoy A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Callison C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Depth to restrictive layer 11
Candor A Slope, Low AWC, Seepage 7

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 73

 Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Cape Fear C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 24
Cape Lookout C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt, Too acid 24
Carbonton C Slope, Low AWC, Depth to restrictive layer NR
Caroline C Seepage, Too acid, Slope 8
Carteret D Depth to Sat zone, Excess Sodium, Low AWC & Freq flooding NR
Cecil B Slope 3
Centenary A Low AWC, Seepage 16
Chapanoke C/D Drained 10
Charleston B Low AWC, Seepage 7
Chastain D Depth to Sat zone, Ponding & Freq flooding, Seepage 21
Chenneby C Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 21
Chesapeake B Too Acid, Seepage, Low AWC 6
Chewacla C Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 21
Chipley B Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Seepage 16
Chowan D Depth to Sat zone, Freq flooding, Seepage NR
Cid C Depth to Sat zone, Depth to restrictive layer, Low AWC NR
Claycreek C Slow Water Mvmt, Depth to Sat zone, Slope 11
Clifford B Slope, Too acid 3
Cliffside B Slope NR
Codorus C Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone 21
Colfax C Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Slope 21
Conaby B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Conetoe A Too Acid, Seepage 7
Congaree C Freq flooded, Too acid 1
Corolla A/D Low AWC, Excess salt and sodium, Depth to Sat zone NR
Coronaca B Slope, Water Erosion 2
Cowarts C Seepage, Slope 5
Coxville D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 23
Craven C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid & Slow water mvmt 14
Creedmoor C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Slow Water Mvmt 11
Croatan C/D Depth to Sat zone, Too acid, Drained 25
Cullen C Slope, Slow Water Mvmt 3
Currituck D Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid NR
Dare D Drained, Too acid 25
Davidson B Slope, Water Erosion 2
Deloss B/D Depth to Sat zone, Drainage 20
Delway D Freq Flooding, Depth to Sat zone, Excess salt and sodium NR
Devotion C Slope, Depth to restrictive layer, Low AWC 5
Dogue C Slow Water Mvmt, Too acid, Depth to Sat zone 14
Dorovan D Drained, Too acid, Depth to Sat zone NR
Dothan B Seepage, Slope 6
Dragston C Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 17
Duckston A/D Low AWC, Excess salt and sodium, Depth to Sat zone NR
Dumps Not rated Variable site conditions, Generally unsuitable for crops and Irr. NR
Dunbar C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 9

74 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)

Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group

Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Dune land A Low AWC, Seepage NR
Duplin C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 8
Durham B Seepage, Slope 5
Echaw A Low AWC, Seepage, Too acid 16
Emporia C Low AWC, Too acid 6
Engelhard B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded 19
Enon C Slope, Water Erosion 12
Exum C Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 13
Exway B Slope, Low AWC 12
Faceville B Slope, Seepage 8
Fairview B Slope 3
Foreston B Seepage, Low AWC 17
Fork C Occasional Flooding, Depth to Sat zone 10
Fortescue C/D Depth to Sat zone, Too acid, Drained 20
Fripp A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope NR
Fuquay B Low AWC, Seepage, Slow water Mvmt 7
Gaston B Slope 3
Georgeville B Slope, Water Erosion 2
Gertie D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Gilead C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 14
Goldsboro B Depth to Sat zone, Seepage, Too acid 6
Goldston C Depth to bedrock, Low AWC, Slope 15
Grantham D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 19
Granville B Slope, Seepage 5
Green Level D Slope, Slow water Mvmt 11
Grifton D Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded 19
Gritney C Slope, Slow water Mvmt 14
Grover B Slope NR
Gullied land D Slope, Eroded topsoil, Water Erosion issue must be addressed NR
Gullrock C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Gwinnett B Slope 3
Hallison C Slope 11
Hatboro B/D Drained, Frequently Flooded, Depth to Sat Zone 21
Helena C Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt, Slope 11
Herndon B Slope, Slow water Mvmt, Too acid 2
Hibriten B Slope, Cobbles NR
Hiwassee B Slope, Water Erosion 2
Hobonny D Frequently Flooded, Depth to Sat Zone, Too acid NR
Hobucken D Frequently Flooded, Depth to Sat Zone, Excess salt and sodium NR
Hornsboro D Drainage, Excess salt and sodium, Depth to Sat zone 14
Hulett B Slope 4
Hyde C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 20
Hydeland C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 20
Icaria B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 20
Invershiel C Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 6

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 75

 Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)
Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group
Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Iredell C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 12
Johns C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 9
Johnston D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded 21
Kalmia B Low AWC, Seepage, Too acid 6
Kenansville A Low AWC, Seepage 7
Kinston B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone 21
Kirksey C Slope, Too acid, Depth to bedrock 11
Kureb A Slope, Low AWC, Seepage 16
Lakeland A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Leaf D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Leaksville D Depth to Sat zone, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 21
Lenoir D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 14
Leon B/D Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Drainage, Seepage 18
Liddell B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 19
Lignum C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 12
Lillington B Slope, Low AWC 7
Lloyd B Slope, Too acid, Depth to bedrock 3
Longshoal D Frequently Flooded, Depth to Sat Zone, Excess salt and sodium NR
Louisa B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC NR
Louisburg B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Lucy A Seepage, Slope, Low AWC 7
Lumbee B/D Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Drained 19
Lynchburg C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 10
Lynn Haven B/D Depth to Sat zone, Too acid, Drained 18
Madison B Slope, Too acid 3
Mandarin B Low AWC, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 18
Mantachie B/D Frequently Flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Drained 19
Marlboro B Seepage, Slope, Too acid 8
Marvyn B Slope, Seepage 6
Masada C Slope, Too acid 4
Masontown D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Flooding 22
Mattaponi C Slope, Too acid 11
Maxton B Seepage, Low AWC 6
Mayodan B Slope, Water Erosion, Seepage 4
McColl D Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Drained 23
McQueen C Slope, Slow water Mvmt 3
Meadowfield B Slope, Gravelly, Depth to bedrock NR
Mecklenburg C Slope, Slow water Mvmt 2
Meggett D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 23
Merry Oaks D Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 21
Misenheimer C Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Mocksville B Slope 5
Monacan C Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone 21
Moncure D Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 21
Montonia B Slope, Depth to bedrock NR

76 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)

Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group

Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Mooshaunee C Slope, Too acid 11
Muckalee D Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded, Low AWC NR
Munden B Slope, Too acid, Seepage 6
Murville A/D Depth to Sat zone, Drained, Seepage, Freq ponded 18
Myatt B/D Depth to Sat zone, Too acid, Drained 19
Nahunta C Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 10
Nakina B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 20
Nanford B Slope, Too acid 3
Nankin C Slope, Too acid, Slow water Mvmt 8
Nason B Slope, Water Erosion, Depth to bedrock 3
Nawney D Freq flooded, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 21
Neeses C Slope, Too acid NR
Newhan A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope NR
Newholland B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 22
Nimmo B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 19
Nixonton C Seepage, Too acid 13
Noboco B Seepage, Too acid, Low AWC 6
Norfolk B Seepage, Too acid 6
Oakboro C Depth to bedrock, Frequently Flooded 21
Ocilla C Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Seepage 17
Onslow B Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 6
Orange D Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Depth to bedrock 11
Orangeburg B Slope, Low AWC, Seepage 6
Osier A/D Drained, Frequently Flooded, Low AWC 16
Ousley B Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC, Too acid 16
Pacolet B Slope, Seepage, Water Erosion 3
Pactolus B Low AWC, Depth to Sat zone, Seepage 16
Pamlico D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Pantego B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone 20
Pasquotank B/D Drained 19
Paxville B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 20
Peakin B Slope, Too acid 4
Peawick D Slope, Slow water Mvmt, Too acid 11
Pelion B/D Slope, Drained, Slow water Mvmt, Too acid 8
Pender C Low AWC, Seepage, Too acid 17
Perquimans C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Reduced Application rate 19
Pettigrew D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Root zone restriction 25
Picture D Ponding, Slow water Mvmt, Depth to bedrock 21
Pinkston B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Pinoka B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Pittsboro D Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Depth to bedrock 11
Plummer A/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC 18
Pocalla A Seepage, Too acid, Low AWC 7
Poindexter B Slope, Depth to bedrock 5
Polawana A/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Ponding 20

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 77

 Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)

Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group

Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Polkton D Slope, Slow water Mvmt, Depth to bedrock 11
Ponzer D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Portsmouth B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Root zone restriction 20
Pungo D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Rains B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone 19
Redbrush C Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 12
Rhodhiss B Slope 5
Rimini A Low AWC, Too acid NR
Rion B Slope, Too acid 5
Riverview B Frequently Flooded 1
Roanoke C/D Depth to Sat zone, Occasional flooding, Too acid, Drained 23
Roper C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Rumford B Low AWC, Too acid, Slope 6
Ruston B Slope, Low AWC, Seepage 6
Rutlege B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC 18
Saw B Slope, Slow water Mvmt 3
Scuppernong D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Seabrook B Seepage, Low AWC, Depth to Sat zone 16
Seagate B Seepage, Low AWC, Depth to Sat zone 18
Secrest C Slope, Slow water Mvmt 11
Sedgefield C Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt, Slope 11
Seewee B Seepage, Low AWC, Depth to Sat zone 18
Shellbluff B Occasional flooding 1
Siloam D Slope, Depth to bedrock 12
Skyuka B Slope 2
Spray B Too Acid, Depth to bedrock 2
Stallings C Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 17
Starr B Slope, Water Erosion, Seepage 1
State B Too Acid, Seepage 6
Stockade B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded 20
Stoneville B Slope, Slow water Mvmt, Too acid 2
Stott Knob B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Too acid 5
Suffolk B Slope, Seepage 6
Tallapoosa C Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Tarboro A Low AWC, Seepage, Slope 16
Tarrus B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Too acid 2
Tatum B Slope, Low AWC, Depth to bedrock 3
Tetotum C Depth to Sat zone, Too acid, Seepage 13
Thursa B Seepage, Slope, Low AWC 6
Toast B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Too acid 3
Toccoa B Occasional flooding 1
Toisnot D Occasional flooding, Depth to Sat zone, Fragipan 18
Tomahawk B Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC 7
Tomotley B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 19
Torhunta C Depth to Sat zone, Low AWC 20

78 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Table NC6-2: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Soils with Irrigation Soil Management Groups (ISMG)

Soil Series Hydrologic Limitations / Notes for use with Group

Name Soil Group Sprinkler Irrigation System Index No.
Troup A Low AWC, Seepage 16
Turbeville C Slope, Seepage, Water Erosion 8
Uchee A Seepage, Slope, Low AWC 7
Uwharrie B Slope, Large boulders, Too acid 3
Valhalla A Seepage, Low AWC 7
Vance C Slow Water Mvmt, Seepage, Slope 11
Varina C Slow Water Mvmt, Seepage, Low AWC 8
Vaucluse C Seepage, Slope, Low AWC 7
Wadesboro B Slope, Depth to bedrock, Excess salt and sodium 3
Wagram A Low AWC, Slope, Seepage 7
Wahee C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 14
Wake D Slope, Depth to bedrock, Low AWC 15
Wakulla A Seepage, Low AWC, Slope 16
Wando A Seepage, Low AWC, Slope 16
Wasda B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 25
Wateree B Slope, Low AWC, Seepage 15
Wedowee B Slope, Seepage, Water Erosion 4
Weeksville B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone 20
Wehadkee D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded 21
Westfield B Slope, Gravel 3
White Store D Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt, Slope 12
Wickham B Seepage, Slope 6
Wilbanks D Depth to Sat zone, Frequently Flooded, Slow water Mvmt 24
Wilkes D Depth to bedrock, Slope, Low AWC 15
Winnsboro C Slope, Slow water Mvmt 2
Winton C Slope, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid NR
Woodington B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone 19
Woolwine B Slope, Gravel & Cobbles, Depth to bedrock 3
Worsham D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Slow water Mvmt 21
Wrightsboro C Depth to Sat zone, Seepage, Too Acid 6
Wynott C Depth to bedrock, Slope, Slow water Mvmt 12
Wysocking B/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 19
Yaupon D Slow Water Mvmt, Excess salt and sodium NR
Yeopim C Depth to Sat zone, Too acid 13
Yonges C/D Drained, Depth to Sat zone, Some Flooding 19
Zion C Depth to bedrock, Slope, Slow water Mvmt 12
NR – this soil was not rated and may not be suitable for irrigation

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 79

Tables NC6-3 and NC6-4 present irrigation system General Design Parameters, given the
Irrigation Soil Management Group (ISMG) and Crop, for the Mountain and Piedmont/Coastal
Plains regions of North Carolina. These tables use average expected conditions to estimate
the irrigation system needs for planning purposes. Assumptions are stated and should be
adjusted to actual system parameters and on-site data for a final design. For example, the
ISMG uses a representative soil profile to stand for the entire group with similar soils and
landscape position. The irrigation system designer should use an actual field soil profile to
determine the AWC in the final design. Note that there will be variations within a field of both
soil types and soil layer thicknesses. The challenge to the designer is to identify the most
restrictive features in each facet of the design so that crop needs are met without exceeding
inflow and storage capacities of the field soils under irrigation. The columns presented in tables
NC6-3 and NC6-4 are defined as follows:

Column 1 – Irrigation Soil Management Group (ISMG) Number: Soils having similar
physical characteristics for irrigation are grouped together to simplify design and management.
This grouping takes into account relevant soil irrigation properties such as depth, texture, water
holding capacity, intakes rate, surface condition, and general landscape position. These data
are of a general nature for this Soil Management Group. Therefore, data gathered during a site
visit should be used to revise and refine the irrigation design.

Column 2 – Soil Type and Description: A brief description of the general soil profile in this
group and some representative soil series names.

Column 3 – Average Soil Depth: The average soil depth through which plant roots can
penetrate readily in search of sustaining nutrients and moisture. In cases where this depth is
less than normal root zone depth for a crop, it becomes a limiting factor in determining the
amount of available moisture that can be stored in the soil profile.

Column 4 – Available Water Capacity (AWC): The capacity of the soil profile to hold and
store moisture for plant use in inches of water per depth of soil profile. The AWC is expressed
as the total amount available at multiple depths in the soil profile beginning at 12 inches and
then progressing in six inch increments (i.e. 12”, 18”, 24” …). Heavier clay soils may hold up to
three times the amount of soil moisture per equal depth as compared to a light textured sandy
soil. It is important to know the available moisture holding capacity within the rooting zone to
determine the correct irrigation application amount. Irrigation efficiency is directly related to
both over application and improper timing of irrigation applications. The AWC values used in
the table are for a representative soil and are not field specific. Field specific AWC should be
determined by soils testing for each irrigated field using a minimum of three sampling areas
within the field. More samples would be required for larger fields or fields with multiple soil
types and soil properties that vary by a large amount.

Columns 5 and 6 – Recommended Maximum Application Rate: Maximum recommended

irrigation application rates are set to insure no surface runoff occurs during irrigation. This
amount is based upon the soils group, field tests and observations. Runoff is usually a concern
during the last portion of the irrigation cycle when soils are nearing saturation and intake rates
are lowest, and thereby control maximum application rates.
Column 7 – Crop: Contains the crops that are most often associated with the soils group
which includes landscape position. These crops are not being recommended for irrigation,

80 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

since this decision should be based on many factors. These are crops that have been found to
be economically feasible to irrigate under certain favorable conditions.
Column 8 – Depth of Moisture Replacement: The depth of soil which contains the majority
of plant roots that will consume moisture for plant use. This is the soil zone that will be
recharged by irrigation and managed to insure the plant available water is adequate to meet
the cropping demands.
Column 9 – Moisture to be Replaced by Each Irrigation Cycle: The moisture, in inches of
water, which should be replaced into the crop root zone during each irrigation cycle. This
amount is used for general planning purposes and is one half of the Plant Available Water
(PAW). However, in practice, irrigation is often started at moisture levels different from one half
PAW. Therefore, the actual application amount should be adjusted for field soil moisture levels
to reduce under- and over-watering situations. Irrigation scheduling software can be used to
determine the most appropriate amount of soil moisture to be replaced for any given day.
Accuracy for PAW determinations can be improved by field specific soils testing data to
determine AWC, as noted above.
Column 10 – Design Moisture Use Rate: The average maximum peak moisture use rate (10
to 14 day period, in inches per day) of transpiration by the crop plus evaporation from the soil
surface. For most plants the maximum rate of transpiration occurs when the daylight hours are
the longest, air temperature is greatest, wind movement is high, humidity is lowest, and the
plant has developed a good root system and is in the rapid growth stage.
Column 11 – Irrigation Frequency for the Peak Use Period: The frequency, in days,
between planned irrigation cycles for a specific location. This frequency period is derived from
the Moisture to be Replaced by each Irrigation (column 9) divided by the Crop Design Moisture
Use Rate (column 10). This would be the number of days the designer can allow for
completion of one irrigation cycle over the entire design area.
Column 12 – Application Amount: The actual amount of water, in inches, applied by the
irrigation system during each irrigation cycle. Sprinkler irrigation systems involve some
unavoidable losses due to evaporation from the spray, unequal distribution, and deep
percolation. Therefore, more water must be applied than actually becomes available for plant
use. The efficiency of a sprinkler irrigation system can vary considerably depending on local
conditions, but is considered to be 75 percent for planning purposes in this table. This
application amount is derived from the Moisture to be Replaced by each Irrigation (column 9)
divided by the irrigation efficiency of 0.75. This amount should be adjusted by the designer if
the actual irrigation efficiency is significantly different from this 75 percent value.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 81

Table NC6-3: Mountain Region of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
SOILS CROPS IRRIGATION PARAMETERS
Irr. Average Available Recommended Depth of Moisture Design Irrigation Applica-
Soil Soil Water maximum moisture to be peak frequency tion
Mgmt
Soil Type and Crop 2 replace- replaced moisture for peak amount
Depth Capacity application rate
Group Description ment by each use rate use period
Bare Cover Irrigation for crop 3
# (ft) (in) 1 (in/hr) (in/hr) (ft) (in) (in/day) (days) (in)
Col 1 Column 2 Col 3 Column 4 Col 5 Col 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Col 10 Column 11 Column 12
0.8 0.75 0.75 Corn 2.5 1.05 0.20 5 1.40
Well drained, first
1.3 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 0.85 0.16 5 1.13
bottom soils with sandy 3.0+
1 1.7
surface layers and
2.1
loose sandy subsoils.
2.8
1.0 0.40 0.60 Corn 2.5 1.35 0.20 6 1.80
Well drained upland
2.5 1.5 Improved pasture or mixed hay 1.5 0.75 0.22 3 1.00
soils with loamy
2.2 Nursery Crops, 1st year 1.0 0.50 0.14 3 0.67
surface layers and
2.7 Nursery Crops, 2nd year 2.0 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
friable loamy subsoils
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Orchards, bare 2.5 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
2 Orchards, cover 2.5 1.35 0.22 6 1.80
Tobacco 1.5 0.75 0.16 4 1.00
Vineyards, cultivated 2.5 1.35 0.16 8 1.80
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.50 0.12 4 0.67
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.75 0.12 6 1.00
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.75 0.16 4 1.00
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Somewhat poorly 1.3 0.35 0.45 Corn 2.5 1.65 0.20 8 2.20
drained first bottom 2.0 Gladioli 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
soils with loamy 3.0+ 2.7 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.00 0.22 4 1.33
surface layers and 3.3 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.35 0.16 8 1.80
3 friable loamy subsoils 4.0 Tobacco 1.5 1.00 0.16 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.00 0.12 8 1.33
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.00 0.16 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.35 0.16 8 1.80
Moderately well 1.3 0.30 0.35 Corn 2.5 2.20 0.20 11 2.93
drained terrace soils 2.4 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.20 0.22 5 1.60
with loamy surface 3.0+ 3.4 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
4 layers and firm loamy 4.4 Tobacco 1.5 1.20 0.16 7 1.60
subsoils. 5.2 Vegetables, Group, 1 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group, 2 1.5 1.20 0.12 10 1.60
Vegetables, Group, 3 1.5 1.20 0.16 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group, 4 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 82

Table NC6-3: Mountain Region of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Well drained terrace 1.3 0.30 0.35 Alfalfa 2.5 2.20 0.22 10 2.93
soils with loamy 2.4 Corn 2.5 2.20 0.20 11 2.93
surface layers and 3.0+ 3.4 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.20 0.22 5 1.60
friable loamy subsoils 4.4 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
5 5.2 Tobacco 1.5 1.20 0.16 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.20 0.12 10 1.60
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.20 0.16 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
Well drained first 1.3 0.35 0.45 Alfalfa 2.5 1.65 0.22 7 2.20
bottom soils with loamy 2.0 Corn 2.5 1.65 0.20 8 2.20
surface layers and 3.0+ 2.7 Gladioli 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
friable loamy subsoils 3.3 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.00 0.22 4 1.33
4.0 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.35 0.16 8 1.80
6
Tobacco 1.5 1.00 0.16 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group1 1.0 0.65 0.12 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.00 0.12 8 1.33
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.00 0.16 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.35 0.16 8 1.80
Well drained upland 1.5 0.40 0.60 Alfalfa 2.0 1.45 0.22 6 1.93
soils, with loamy 2.0 2.2 Corn 2.0 1.45 0.20 7 1.93
surface layers and 2.9 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.10 0.22 5 1.47
friable loamy subsoils. Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
nd
Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Orchards (bare) 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Orchards (cover) 2.0 1.45 0.22 6 1.93
7 Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Tobacco 1.5 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Vineyards, cultivated 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.12 6 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.10 0.12 9 1.47
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Well drained upland 1.5 0.40 0.60 Alfalfa 2.5 1.75 0.22 8 2.33
and terrace soils, with 2.2 Corn 2.5 1.75 0.20 9 2.33
2.5
loamy surface layers 2.9 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.10 0.22 5 1.47
st
and friable to firm 3.5 Nursery Crops, 1 yr. 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
clayey subsoils Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Orchards (bare) 2.5 1.75 0.18 10 2.33
Orchards (cover) 2.5 1.75 0.22 8 2.33
8 Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
Tobacco 1.5 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Vineyards, cultivated 2.5 1.75 0.16 11 2.33
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.12 6 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.10 0.12 9 1.47
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.10 0.16 7 1.47
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.45 0.16 9 1.93
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 83
Table NC6-3: Mountain Region of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Poorly drained terrace soils 1.6 0.30 0.35 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.25 0.22 6 1.67
with loamy surface layers 2.5 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.65 0.16 10 2.20
4
9 and firm plastic clayey 3.0+ 3.3
subsoils. 4.2
5.0
Well drained upland 1.8 0.50 0.60 Alfalfa 2.5 2.10 0.22 9 2.80
and terrace soils with 2.6 Corn 2.5 2.10 0.20 10 2.80
loamy surface layers 3.0+ 3.4 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.30 0.22 6 1.73
and friable subsoil. 4.2 Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.90 0.14 6 1.20
nd
5.0 Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
Orchards (bare) 3.0 2.50 0.18 14 3.33
Orchards (cover) 3.0 2.50 0.22 11 3.33
10
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.30 0.18 7 1.73
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
Tobacco 1.5 1.30 0.16 8 1.73
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.90 0.12 7 1.20
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.30 0.12 11 1.73
Vegetables. Group 3 1.5 1.30 0.16 8 1.73
Vegetables. Group 4 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
Very poorly drained 1.8 0.50 0.60 Corn 2.5 2.10 0.20 10 2.80
first bottom soils with 2.6 Gladioli 1.0 0.90 0.12 7 1.20
loamy surface layers 3.0+ 3.4 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.30 0.22 6 1.73
4 and friable loamy 4.2 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
11 subsoils 5.0 Vegetables, Group1 1.0 0.90 0.12 7 1.20
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.30 0.12 10 1.73
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.30 0.16 8 1.73
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.70 0.16 10 2.27
Poorly drained first 1.5 0.30 0.35 Improved Pasture or mixed hay 1.5 1.10 0.22 5 1.47
bottom soils with loamy 2.2
4 3.0+
12 surface layers and 2.9
friable loamy subsoils. 3.6
4.5

1
Top figure indicates the available moisture (in inches) for the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Each additional figure indicates the available moisture for the upper
18, 24, 30, and 36 inches of the soil profile.
2
Crops are as shown. Vegetable groups are as follows: Group 1 – kale, lettuce, mustard, onions, spinach, and strawberries; Group 2 – Beans (snap), beets, broccoli,
cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, collard, peas (garden), peppers, turnips, rutabagas; Group 3 – Beans (lima), cucumbers, tomatoes; Group 4 – asparagus, cantaloupes,
corn (sweet), eggplant, okra, watermelon.
3
Using a 75 percent irrigation efficiency
4
For these soils adequate surface and subsurface drainage should be provided. Otherwise a heavy rainfall following an irrigation may cause crop damage.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 84

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
SOILS CROPS IRRIGATION PARAMETERS
Irr. Available Recommended Depth of Moisture Design Irrigation Applica-
Average
Soil Water maximum moisture to be peak frequency tion
Soil Type and Soil
Mgmt Capacity application rate Crop 2 replace- replaced moisture for Peak amount
Description Depth
Group ment by each use rate use period
1 Bare Cover Irrigation for crop
# (ft) (in) (days) (in)
3
(in/hr) (in/hr) (ft) (in) (in/day)
Col 1 Column 2 Col 3 Column 4 Col 5 Col 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Col 10 Column 11 Col 12
Well drained, loamy, 1.5 0.30 0.35 Alfalfa 2.5 1.80 0.24 7 2.40
alluvial or colluvial 2.2 Cotton 2.5 1.80 0.20 9 2.40
soils on first bottoms 3.0+ 2.9 Corn, field 2.5 1.80 0.22 8 2.40
and upland 3.6 Gladioli 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
depressions. 4.5 Ladino clover and grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.10 0.24 4 1.47
Nursery Crops, 1st year 1.0 0.75 0.16 5 1.00
Nursery Crops, 2nd year 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
1
Peanuts 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Peas, field 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.10 0.20 5 1.47
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Tobacco 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.10 0.14 8 1.47
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Well drained soils of 1.7 0.25 0.30 Alfalfa 2.5 2.35 0.24 10 3.13
the Piedmont uplands 2.7 Cotton 2.5 2.35 0.20 12 3.13
that have loamy 3.0+ 3.7 Corn, field 2.5 2.35 0.22 11 3.13
surface layers and 4.7 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
clayey subsoils. 5.5 perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.35 0.24 6 1.80
st
2 Nursery Crops, 1 yr. 1.0 0.85 0.16 5 1.13
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.85 0.18 10 2.47
Orchards (bare) 3.0 2.75 0.20 14 3.67
Orchards (cover) 3.0 2.75 0.24 11 3.67
Peas, field 1.5 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.85 0.18 10 2.47
Tobacco 1.5 1.35 0.18 7 1.80

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 85

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Well drained soils of 1.4 0.30 0.40 Alfalfa 2.5 2.10 0.24 9 2.80
the Piedmont uplands 2.3 Cotton 2.5 2.10 0.20 10 2.80
with loamy surface 3.0 3.3 Corn, field 2.5 2.10 0.22 9 2.80
layers and firm clayey 4.2 Gladioli 1.0 0.70 0.14 5 0.93
subsoils. 5.0 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.15 0.24 5 1.53
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.70 0.16 4 0.93
3
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Orchards (bare) 3.0 2.50 0.20 12 3.33
Orchards (cover) 3.0 2.50 0.24 10 3.33
Peas, field 1.5 1.15 0.18 6 1.53
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.70 0.14 5 0.93
Tobacco 1.5 1.15 0.18 6 1.53
Well drained soils of 1.2 0.35 0.45 Alfalfa 2.5 2.00 0.24 8 2.67
the Piedmont uplands 2.1 Cotton 2.5 2.00 0.20 10 2.67
with sandy surface 3.0 3.1 Corn, field 2.5 2.00 0.22 9 2.67
layers and firm clayey 4.0 Gladioli 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
subsoils. 4.7 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.05 0.24 4 1.40
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.60 0.16 4 0.80
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.55 0.18 9 2.07
Orchards (bare) 3.0 2.35 0.20 12 3.13
4 Orchards (cover) 3.0 2.35 0.24 10 3.13
Peanuts 2.0 1.55 0.18 9 2.07
Peas, field 1.5 1.05 0.18 6 1.40
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 1.55 0.22 7 2.07
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.55 0.18 9 2.07
Tobacco 1.5 1.05 0.18 6 1.40
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.05 0.14 7 1.40
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.05 0.18 6 1.40
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.55 0.18 9 2.07
Well drained soils of 1.3 0.40 0.45 Alfalfa 2.5 1.85 0.24 8 2.47
the Piedmont uplands 2.1 Cotton 2.5 1.85 0.20 9 2.47
with sandy surface 3.0 2.9 Corn, field 2.5 1.85 0.22 8 2.47
layers and friable 3.7 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
loamy subsoils. 4.4 perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.05 0.24 4 1.40
st
Nursery Crops, 1 yr. 1.0 0.65 0.16 4 0.87
5 nd
Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Orchards (bare) 3.0 2.20 0.20 11 2.93
Orchards (cover) 3.0 2.20 0.24 9 2.93
Peas, field 1.5 1.05 0.18 6 1.40
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Tobacco 1.5 1.05 0.18 6 1.40

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 86

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Well to moderately 1.1 0.40 0.50 Alfalfa 2.5 1.55 0.24 6 2.07
well drained Coastal 1.7 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
Plain and terrace soils 3.0+ 2.4 Cotton 2.5 1.55 0.20 8 2.07
with sandy surface 3.1 Gladioli 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
layers and friable 3.8 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
loamy subsoils. perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 0.85 0.24 4 1.13
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.55 0.16 3 0.73
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Orchards (bare) 3.0 1.90 0.20 9 2.53
Orchards (cover) 3.0 1.90 0.24 8 2.53
6
Peanuts 2.0 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Peas, field 1.5 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 1.20 0.22 5 1.60
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Tobacco 1.5 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Vineyards, cultivated 3.0 1.90 0.18 10 2.53
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.85 0.14 6 1.13
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Well drained Coastal 0.9 0.50 0.60 Alfalfa 2.5 1.20 0.24 5 1.60
Plain and terrace soils, 1.3 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.45 0.14 3 0.60
with thick sandy 3.0+ 1.8 Cotton 2.5 1.20 0.20 6 1.60
surface layers and 2.4 Corn, field 2.5 1.20 0.22 5 1.60
friable loamy subsoils. 3.0 Gladioli 1.0 0.45 0.14 3 0.60
Summer Perennials 1.5 0.65 0.24 3 0.87
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.45 0.16 3 0.60
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 0.90 0.18 5 1.20
Orchards (bare) 3.0 1.50 0.20 7 2.00
Orchards (cover) 3.0 1.50 0.24 6 2.00
7
Peanuts 2.0 0.90 0.18 5 1.20
Peas, field 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 0.90 0.22 4 1.20
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 0.90 0.18 5 1.20
Tobacco 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Vineyards, cultivated 3.0 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.45 0.14 3 0.60
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 0.90 0.18 5 1.20

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009)

87
Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Well to moderately 1.2 0.35 0.40 Alfalfa 2.5 1.80 0.24 7 2.40
well drained Coastal 2.0 Cotton 2.5 1.80 0.20 9 2.40
Plain soils, with sandy 3.0+ 2.8 Corn, field 2.5 1.80 0.22 8 2.40
surface layers and firm 3.6 Gladioli 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
clayey subsoils. 4.3 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.00 0.24 4 1.33
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.60 0.16 4 0.80
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.40 0.18 8 1.87
Peanuts 2.0 1.40 0.18 8 1.87
8
Peas, field 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.00 0.20 5 1.33
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 1.40 0.22 6 1.87
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.40 0.18 8 1.87
Tobacco 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.00 0.14 7 1.33
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.40 0.18 8 1.87
Somewhat poorly 1.1 0.40 0.50 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
drained Coastal Plain 1.9 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
and terrace soils with 3.0+ 2.7 Cotton 2.5 1.75 0.20 9 2.33
sandy surface layers 3.5 Corn, field 2.5 1.75 0.22 8 2.33
and friable loamy or 4.3 Gladioli 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
firm clayey subsoils. Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 0.95 0.24 4 1.27
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.55 0.16 3 0.73
nd
Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
4
9 Peanuts 2.0 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
Peas, field 1.5 0.95 0.18 5 1.27
Irish Potatoes 1.5 0.95 0.20 5 1.27
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 1.35 0.22 6 1.80
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
Tobacco 1.5 0.95 0.18 5 1.27
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.55 0.14 4 0.73
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.95 0.14 7 1.27
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.95 0.18 5 1.27
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.35 0.18 7 1.80

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 88

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Somewhat poorly 1.5 0.35 0.40 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
drained Coastal Plain 2.4 Cotton 2.5 2.10 0.20 10 2.80
soils with loamy 3.0+ 3.3 Corn, field 2.5 2.10 0.22 10 2.80
surface layers and 4.2 Gladioli 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
friable loamy subsoils 4.9 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.20 0.24 5 1.60
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.75 0.16 5 1.00
4
10 Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Peas, field 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.20 0.20 6 1.60
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.20 0.14 8 1.60
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Well to moderately 1.3 0.30 0.35 Cotton 2.5 2.30 0.20 11 3.07
well drained soils of 2.4 Corn, field 2.5 2.30 0.22 10 3.07
the Piedmont uplands 3.0+ 3.6 Ladino Clover & Grass,
with loamy surface 4.6 Summer perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.20 0.24 5 1.60
layers and firm plastic 5.3 Peas, field 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
11 clayey subsoils. Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.80 0.18 10 2.40
Tobacco 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.20 0.14 8 1.60
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.80 0.18 10 2.40
Well to moderately 1.5 1.5 0.20 0.20 Cotton 1.5 1.25 0.20 6 1.67
well drained soils of 2.5 Corn, field 1.5 1.25 0.22 6 1.67
the Piedmont uplands Ladino Clover & Grass,
12 with loamy surface Summer perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.25 0.24 5 1.67
layers and plastic, Peas, field 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
sticky clayey subsoils. Small Grain or Soybeans 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
Tobacco 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
Well to moderately 1.5 0.30 0.35 Alfalfa 2.5 2.20 0.24 9 2.93
well drained Coastal 2.4 Cotton 2.5 2.20 0.20 11 2.93
Plain soils, with silty 3.0+ 3.4 Corn, field 2.5 2.20 0.22 10 2.93
surface layers and 4.4 Gladioli 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
friable loamy subsoils. 5.2 Ladino Clover & Grass,
Summer perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.20 0.24 5 1.60
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.75 0.16 5 1.00
Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.70 0.18 9 2.27
13
Peanuts 2.0 1.70 0.18 9 2.27
Peas, field 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.70 0.18 9 2.27
Tobacco 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.20 0.14 8 1.60
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.70 0.18 9 2.27

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 89

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Moderately well to 1.5 0.30 0.35 Cotton 2.5 2.20 0.20 11 2.93
somewhat poorly 2.7 Corn, field 2.5 2.20 0.22 10 2.93
drained Coastal Plain 3.0 3.5 Gladioli 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
and terrace soils, with 4.4 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
loamy surface layers 5.3 perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 1.35 0.24 6 1.80
and firm clayey Peas, field 1.5 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
14
subsoils. Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.35 0.20 7 1.80
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.75 0.18 10 2.33
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.35 0.14 9 1.80
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.35 0.18 7 1.80
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.75 0.18 10 2.33
Well drained shallow 0.8 0.30 0.35 Ladino Clover & Grass, Summer
1.5
soils of the Piedmont 1.3 perennials or Mixed Hay 1.5 0.65 0.24 4 0.87
Uplands with thin Orchards (bare) 1.5 0.65 0.20 4 0.87
15 discontinuous Orchards (cover) 1.5 0.65 0.24 4 0.87
subsoils. Peas, field 1.5 0.65 0.18 5 0.87
Small Grain or Soybeans 1.5 0.65 0.18 5 0.87
Tobacco 1.5 0.65 0.18 5 0.87
Well drained to 0.7 0.75 0.75 Cotton 2.5 0.90 0.20 4 1.20
moderately well 1.0 Corn, field 2.5 0.90 0.22 4 1.20
drained Coastal Plain 3.0+ 1.4 Summer Perennials 1.5 0.50 0.24 2 0.67
and terrace soils with 1.8 Orchards (bare) 3.0 1.10 0.20 5 1.47
sandy surface layers 2.2 Orchards (cover) 3.0 1.10 0.24 5 1.47
16
and loose sandy Peanuts 2.0 0.70 0.18 4 0.93
subsoils. Peas, field 1.5 0.50 0.18 3 0.67
Small Grain 2.0 0.70 0.18 4 0.93
Tobacco 1.5 0.50 0.18 3 0.67
Vineyards, cultivated 3.0 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Moderately well 0.8 0.50 0.50 Alfalfa 2.5 1.05 0.24 4 1.40
drained to somewhat 1.3 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.40 0.14 3 0.53
poorly drained Coastal 3.0+ 1.7 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Plain and terrace soils 2.1 Cotton 2.5 1.05 0.20 5 1.40
with sandy surface 2.8 Corn, field 2.5 1.05 0.22 5 1.40
layers and friable Gladioli 1.0 0.40 0.14 3 0.53
loamy subsoils. Summer Perennials or 1.5 0.65 0.24 3 0.87
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.40 0.16 3 0.53
nd
Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Orchards (bare) 3.0 1.40 0.20 7 1.87
17 Orchards (cover) 3.0 1.40 0.24 6 1.87
Peanuts 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Peas, field 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Sweet Potatoes 2.0 0,85 0.22 4 1.13
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Tobacco 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Vineyards, cultivated 3.0 1.40 0.18 8 1.87
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.40 0.14 3 0.53
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.65 0.18 4 0.87
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 90
Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Poorly drained to very 0.7 0.60 0.65 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.35 0.14 3 0.47
poorly drained Coastal 2.0 1.2 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Plain and terrace soils 1.7 Corn, field 2.0 0.85 0.22 4 1.13
with organic hardpans, Gladioli 1.0 0.35 0.14 3 0.47
fragipans or loose Ladino clover & grass or mixed hay 1.5 0.60 0.24 2 0.80
sandy subsoils. Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0,35 0.16 2 0.47
4 nd
18 Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Irish Potatoes 1.5 0.60 0.20 3 0.80
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.35 0.14 2 0.47
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 0.60 0.18 3 0.80
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 0.85 0.18 5 1.13
Poorly drained Coastal 1.2 0.35 0.40 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
Plain and terrace soils 2.0 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
with loamy surface 3.0+ 2.9 Corn, field 2.5 1.75 0.22 8 2.33
layers and friable 3.5 Gladioli 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
loamy subsoils. 4.3 Ladino clover & grass or mixed hay 1.5 1.00 0.24 4 1.33
st
Nursery Crops, 1 yr. 1.0 0.60 0.16 4 0.80
nd
Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
4
19 Peanuts 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Peas, field 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.60 0.14 4 0.80
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.00 0.14 7 1.33
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.00 0.18 6 1.33
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Very poorly drained 1.5 0.40 0.45 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Coastal Plain and 2.4 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
terrace soils with 3.0+ 3.2 Cotton 2.5 2.00 0.20 10 2.67
loamy surface layers 4.0 Corn, field 2.5 2.00 0.22 9 2.67
and friable loamy 4.8 Gladioli 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
subsoils. Ladino clover & grass or mixed hay 1.5 1.20 0.24 5 1.60
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.75 0.16 5 1.00
4
20 Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
Peas, field 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.20 0.20 6 1.60
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.75 0.14 5 1.00
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.20 0.14 8 1.60
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.20 0.18 7 1.60
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.6 0.18 9 2.13
Somewhat poorly and 1.5 0.30 0.35 Corn, field 2.5 1.80 0.22 8 2.40
poorly drained loamy 2.2 Ladino clover & grass or mixed hay 1.5 1.10 0.24 5 1.47
4 3.0+
21 alluvial soils on first 2.9 Peas, field 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
bottoms and upland 3.6 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.45 0.18 8 1.93
Piedmont depressions 4.5

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 91

Table NC6-4: Piedmont and Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina – General Design Parameters
Very poorly drained 1.3 0.40 0.45 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
Coastal Plain soils 2.2 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
with loamy surface 3.0+ 3.0 Corn, field 2.5 1.85 0.22 8 2.47
layers and friable 3.7 Gladioli 1.0 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
loamy subsoils. 4.5 Ladino clover & grass or mixed hay 1.5 1.10 0.24 5 1.47
Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.65 0.16 4 0.87
nd
4 Nursery Crops, 2 yr. 2.0 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
22 Peas, field 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.10 0.20 5 1.47
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.65 0.14 5 0.87
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.10 0.14 8 1.47
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.10 0.18 6 1.47
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
Poorly drained Coastal 1.6 0.30 0.35 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.80 0.14 6 1.07
Plain and terrace soils 2.5 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
with loamy surface 3.0+ 3.3 Cotton 2.5 2.10 0.20 10 2.80
layers and firm plastic 4.2 Corn, field 2.5 2.10 0.22 10 2.80
clayey subsoils. 5.0 Gladioli 1.0 0.80 0.14 6 1.07
Ladino Clover & Grass 1.5 1.25 0.24 5 1.67
4 Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.80 0.16 5 1.07
23 Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Peas, field 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.80 0.14 6 1.07
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.25 0.14 9 1.67
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.65 0.18 9 2.20
Very poorly drained 1.6 0.35 0.40 Annual & Perennial Flowers 1.0 0.80 0.16 5 1.07
Coastal Plain and 2.5 Azaleas & Camellias 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
terrace soils with 3.0+ 3.2 Cotton 2.5 2.00 0.21 9 2.67
loamy surface layers 4.0 Corn, field 2.5 2.00 0.23 9 2.67
and firm plastic clay 5.0 Gladioli 1.0 0.80 0.15 5 1.07
subsoils. Ladino Clover & Grass 1.5 1.25 0.23 5 1.67
4 Nursery Crops, 1st yr. 1.0 0.80 0.17 5 1.07
24 Nursery Crops, 2nd yr. 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
Irish Potatoes 1.5 1.25 0.20 6 1.67
Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 0.80 0.15 5 1.07
Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.25 0.15 8 1.67
Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.25 0.18 7 1.67
Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.60 0.18 9 2.13
Poorly drained Coastal 2.3 0.30 0.35 Corn, field 2.5 2.20 0.23 9 2.93
Plain, flats, and 3.0 Small Grain or Soybeans 2.0 1.85 0.18 10 2.47
terrace soils with 3.0+ 3.7 Vegetables, Group 1 1.0 1.15 0.15 8 1.53
4
25 organic materials over 4.4 Vegetables, Group 2 1.5 1.50 0.15 10 2.00
clayey, loamy, or 5.1 Vegetables, Group 3 1.5 1.50 0.18 8 2.00
sandy marine Vegetables, Group 4 2.0 1.85 0.18 10 2.47
deposits.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept. 2009) 92

Following is an example of how Tables NC6-1 through NC6-4 can be used to obtain general
irrigation design data for each region.

Sample Irrigation System Planning Calculations for Mountain Area:

Soil: Rosman - The Table NC6-1 lists this soil in Group 10
Crop: Tobacco – See this crop listing in Table NC6-3, column 7
Column 8: Depth of Moisture Replacement is 1.5 feet
Column 9: Moisture Replacement by each Irrigation cycle is 1.3 inches
Column 10: Design Moisture Use Rate is 0.16 inches per day
Column 11: Irrigation Frequency for Peak Use Rate is 8 days
Column 12: Planned Irrigation Application Amount is 1.73 inches (75 % Irr. Efficiency)
Column 5: The maximum irrigation application rate that cannot be exceeded is 0.5 inches
per hour (bare soil condition)

Sample Irrigation System Planning Calculations for Piedmont and Coastal Area:
Soil: Appling – The Table NC6-2 lists this soil in Group 4
Crop: Tobacco – See this crop listing in Table NC6-4, column 7
Column 8: Depth of Moisture Replacement is 1.5 feet
Column 9: Moisture Replacement by each Irrigation cycle is 1.05 inches
Column 10: Design Moisture Use Rate is 0.18 inches per day
Column 11: Irrigation Frequency for Peak Use Rate is 6 days
Column 12: Planned Irrigation Application Amount is 1.4 inches (75 % Irr. Efficiency)
Column 5: The maximum irrigation application rate that cannot be exceeded is 0.35 inches
per hour (bare soil condition)

Note that the above data is very generalized and are for planning purposes. All assumptions,
such as irrigation efficiencies, soil AWC, and crop rooting depths, should be verified as correct
for this site design. The input data should be verified with site-specific data which may require
field measurements or lab testing. The irrigation designer is responsible to see that all
calculations are correct for the design, even those taken from tables and charts included here
or elsewhere. The irrigator and designer are encouraged to use Irrigation Scheduling computer
software to more accurately define when and how much to irrigate. More accurate
determinations of water use (evapotranspiration), deep percolation (deep losses from rooting
zone), and soil moisture recharge (from rainfall or irrigation) can be made using the Irrigation
Scheduling computer software or spreadsheets.
The soil and its irrigation limitations were discussed earlier in this section and are given in
Table NC6-1 and NC6-2. If a field contains more than one soil, the most restrictive soil must be
determined. Also, the crop, AWC, MAD, maximum allowable application rates, usable rooting
depth, net and gross application amount, and irrigation frequency were discussed and
determined in the above examples. Assumptions, such as crop rooting depth, should be
verified with the grower and any other knowledgeable sources for local irrigation systems. A
field investigation is strongly recommended to the designer/ planner to insure all design
assumptions are valid.
Identify potential alternative irrigation systems suitable to the site and determine the
recommended system. Discuss the recommended and alternative irrigation systems with the
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 93
grower/user. Once the irrigation system is determined, specifics to that system must then be
determined.
Irrigation efficiency for different types of irrigation systems vary, but generally run between 50
and 95 percent. Determine gross irrigation water requirements with the expected irrigation
efficiency of the selected irrigation system (Tables NC6-1 and NC6-2 assume 75%). Computer
programs such as the NRCS SPAW model can be used to assess historic weather data to
determine estimated daily/weekly/monthly/yearly irrigation water consumption that would have
been expected with this irrigation system and planned crop. Calculation of design sprinkler
irrigation system capacity (generally in gpm) can be computed using an equation presented
and discussed earlier in this chapter.
See Table NC4-1 for the minimum irrigation water supply capacity per acre that is
recommended. A water supply should be able to meet maximum crop irrigation demands for at
least 8 out of 10 years. Crops grown in North Carolina generally need about 6 to 10 inches of
irrigation per year to supplement the natural rainfall during a growing season (NC Cooperative
Extension Service, Pub. No. AG 452-4, Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water- and Energy-
Use Efficiencies, June 1996; NC State University, Tobacco Irrigation Costs for the Piedmont
and Coastal Plains of NC, updated 2007; NC Cooperative Extension Service, Animal Waste
Management Systems, Chapter 5: Proper Application of Liquid Animal Waste-Type A, Draft
Copy, 1997).
Determine sprinkler spacing, nozzle size(s), head type, discharge, operating pressure, wetted
diameter, average application rate, and performance characteristics. For some systems, the
manufacturer may be utilized for determining the best layouts for their irrigation system.
Determine number of sprinklers in an irrigation set (zone) required to meet system capacity
requirements; number of laterals needed for a selected time of set; set spacing; and moves per
day (if applicable). Center pivot systems are generally designed by the equipment dealer using
a computer program supplied by each center pivot system manufacturer. These designs
should be reviewed to assure the proposed application provides adequate water to satisfy the
needs of the crop(s), match the available water capacity of the soil, and that it does not have
negative impacts on field or farm resources such as soil erosion, offsite sedimentation, and
pollution of surface and ground water.
Evaluate design. Does it meet the objective and purpose(s) identified by the grower/user.
Make necessary adjustments to meet layout conditions so the system fits the field, soils, crops,
water supply, environmental concerns, and the desires of the irrigation decision-maker.
Consider a buffer between the irrigation system spray area and any flowing water such as
streams or grassed waterways. Direct access of cropping field runoff to any perennial stream
should be avoided and may violate state laws.
Finalize sprinkler irrigation system design and layout. Determine lateral size(s) based on
number of heads, flow rate, pipeline length, and allowable pressure loss differential between
the first and last sprinkler head. Determine if pressure or flow regulators are needed.
Determine minimum operating pressure required in mainline(s) at various critical locations on
the terrain.
Determine mainline sizes required to meet pressure and flow requirements according to the
number of operating laterals. This includes diameter, pipe material, mainline location, and type
of valves and fittings. It involves hydraulic calculations, basic cost-benefit relationships, and
potential pressure surge evaluations for pipe sizes and velocities selected. Thrust blocks
94 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
should be considered at any change in flow direction or pipe size. Mainline operating pressure
measured at the discharge side of each lateral outlet valve, should be within 10 percent of the
design lateral operating pressure. It is recommended that velocity be no greater than five feet
per second (1.52 m/s) in mainline and lateral pipes to help prevent pipe damage from water
hammer during flow changes such as valve operation or pump drive power failure. Check main
line pipe sizes for power economy. Compare pumping cost versus pipe size initial cost on
annual basis.
Total Dynamic Head (TDH) is the sum of all the heads (static, pressure, friction, etc.) that a
pump must operate against at a given flow rate. Determine maximum and minimum TDH
required for critical lateral location conditions. Determine total accumulated friction loss in
mainline, elevation rise from pump to extreme point in the fields, water surface to pump
impeller (lift), column loss with vertical turbine pumps, and miscellaneous losses (fittings,
valves, elbows) at the pump and throughout the system. Add 10% more to TDH and increase
flow rates somewhat for system wear.
Determine maximum and minimum pumping plant capacity using required flow rate and TDH.
Estimate brake horsepower for the motor or engine to be used. Insure irrigation system has a
method of filling and draining mainlines and laterals. Filling and draining should be done so
that a water hammer does not occur. A water hammer can be very damaging to the system.
Fill and drain velocities over one foot per second should be avoided. Long runs of pipe can
experience water hammers, especially when run on a slope, and may require flow restrictors to
slow flow.
Select pump and power unit for maximum operating efficiency within range of operating
conditions. Use pump performance curves prepared for each make and model of pump. Every
pump has a different set of performance (characteristic) curves relating to operating head
(pressure) output and discharge capacity. Select pumps and power units for maximum
operating efficiency within the full range of expected operating conditions. Only pump capacity
and TDH requirements are recommended to be provided to the user. Never select a pump
based on horsepower alone. Let a pump dealer select the appropriate motor or engine and
pump to fit the conditions. Availability of a pump dealer for providing maintenance and repair
should be considered by the operator. Buying a used pump without first checking pump
characteristic curves for that specific pump is seldom satisfactory. A pump needs to match the
required capacity and TDH for efficient and economic performance. An inefficient operating
pump increases operating costs by using needless excess energy.
Prepare final layout and operation, maintenance, and irrigation water management plans.
Include methods of determining when and how much to irrigate (irrigation scheduling) which
should reduce irrigation waste from over-application and better meet the crop water needs. A
method or plan to measure and track field moisture levels (useful with irrigation scheduling)
should be recommended to the grower/user. Provide recommendations and plans for at least
one water measuring device to be installed in the system for water management purposes.
Record keeping is recommended and should include date, rainfall, irrigation amount, flow
meter reading (start and finish), soil moisture level/deficit, and hours of operation for each
field/set, as a minimum.
Design procedures and examples are provided in more detail in NRCS NEH, Section 15,
Chapter 11, Sprinkle Irrigation. Manufacturer literature is readily available and most useful in
selection of sprinkler head models, nozzle sizes, and discharge at various pressures. North

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 95

Carolina Wastewater Irrigation Design Parameters Worksheets (see Appendix B) can be used
to identify and document site specific information for any irrigation system.
The following details of design and materials should accompany all irrigation designs:
1. A scale drawing of the proposed irrigation system which includes hydrant locations,
travel lanes, pipeline routes, thrust block locations and buffer areas where applicable.
2. Assumptions and computations for determining total dynamic head and horsepower
requirements.
3. Computations used to determine all mainline and lateral pipe sizes.
4. Sources and/or calculations for determining application rates.
5. Computations used to determine the size of thrust blocks and illustrations of all thrust
block configurations required in the irrigation system.
6. Manufacturer’s specifications for the irrigation pump, traveler, and sprinkler(s).
7. Manufacturer’s specifications for the irrigation pipe and/or USDA-NRCS standard for
Irrigation Water Conveyance, NC Field Office Technical Guide, Section IV, Practice
Code 430-DD.
8. Operation and Maintenance Plan, including procedures such as start-up, shutdown,
winterization, and regular maintenance of all equipment.
The final drawings, design details, and assumptions should be discussed with the grower/user
to insure they are familiar with the design features and limitations of the irrigation system. The
Operation and Maintenance Plan should be covered item by item with the grower/user,
especially if they have limited irrigation experience.
A post-installation field calibration should be discussed with the grower/user. The post-
installation field calibration is used to assess distribution uniformity and application rates to
verify they are consistent with the design and manufacturer’s specifications. See NRCS NEH
Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 9, Irrigation Water Management, for more information on
post-installation evaluations for water use and efficiency of the irrigation system. Also discuss
visual observations that are to be noted and system adjustments that may be required. This
can be situations such as ponding, runoff, or erosion occurring in the irrigated field during, and
often at the end of an irrigation cycle. Application rate and/or set time should probably be
adjusted since ponding and runoff are to be avoided. Pipe vibrations or movements, under- or
over-powered sprinklers, varying speeds of movement, excessive leaking, outflow in
subsurface drains, and any other unusual observations should be noted and discussed with
the manufacturer and/or the system designer.
The above gives a general approach for designing a sprinkler irrigation system. The reader
should also review the NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, Chapter 6, Irrigation System
Design, for additional information and Design Worksheets. Specific design steps for each
irrigation system type can be found in this reference, as well as design charts and tables which
may be useful. Other chapters from the NRCS NEH Part 652, Irrigation Guide, may also be
helpful for more information on specific tasks, such as Chapter 11, Economic Evaluations.

96 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

 APPENDIX A
Following are some excerpts from the 2007 Fact Sheet for North Carolina agriculture. You will
note some of the numbers vary from information given in this guide. This is not a discrepancy,
but an indicator of how variable numbers can be, depending on the data collection and
evaluation methods.
North Carolina State Fact Sheet
USDA Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/
Data updated July 3, 2007
Population, Income, Education, and Employment
Population
Rural * Urban * Total
Year
1980 2,083,621 3,796,474 5,880,095
1990 2,217,336 4,411,301 6,628,637
2000 2,563,889 5,485,424 8,049,313
2006 (latest estimates) 2,703,195 6,153,310 8,856,505
More information on North Carolina population
• County-level Population Data
• Rural Population and Migration Briefing Room
• Contact John Cromartie, 202-694-5421.

Income
Rural * Urban * Total
Per-capita income (2005 dollars)
2004 25,990 32,634 30,571
2005 26,447 33,088 31,041
Percent change 1.8 1.4 1.5

Earnings per job (2005 dollars)

2004 31,898 43,077 40,156
2005 32,147 43,233 40,360
Percent change 0.8 0.4 0.5

Poverty rate (percent)

1979 17.7 13.2 14.8
1989 16.0 11.4 13.0

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 97

 1999 14.9 11.1 12.3
2004 (latest model-based estimates) 15.6 13.1 13.8
More information on North Carolina poverty rates
• County-level Poverty Data
• Rural Income, Poverty, and Welfare Briefing Room
• See important notes about decennial and model-based intercensal poverty estimates
• Contact Robert Gibbs, 202-694-5423

Education (Persons 25 and older)

Rural * Urban * Total
Percent not completing high school
1980 52.4 41.1 45.2
1990 37.1 26.4 30.0
2000 27.3 19.2 21.9

Percent completing high school only

1980 27.0 28.4 27.8
1990 30.7 28.1 29.0
2000 32.2 26.7 28.4

Percent completing some college

1980 11.5 15.0 13.8
1990 20.8 25.0 23.6
2000 26.0 27.8 27.2

Percent completing college

1980 9.2 15.5 13.2
1990 11.4 20.4 17.4
2000 14.5 26.3 22.5
More information on North Carolina education
• County-level Education Data
• Rural Labor and Education Briefing Room
• Contact Robert Gibbs, 202-694-5423

Employment
Rural * Urban * Total
Total number of jobs
2004 1,304,697 3,688,351 4,993,048
2005 1,326,656 3,792,856 5,119,512

98 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

 Unemployment rate (percent)
2005 5.9 4.9 5.2
2006 5.5 4.5 4.8
More information on North Carolina unemployment rates
• County-level Unemployment and Median Household Income Data
• Rural Labor and Education Briefing Room
• Contact Lorin Kusmin, 202-694-5429

Percent employment change

2003-2004 2.5 1.7 1.9
2004-2005 1.2 2.5 2.1
2005-2006 2.0 3.9 3.4

Percent of 2002 employment in farm and farm-related jobs

Total 20.4 15.1 16.5
Production 3.6 1.1 1.8
Farm inputs 0.3 0.2 0.2
Processing & marketing 5.6 2.9 3.6
Wholesale & retail trade 9.8 10.0 9.9
More information on farm employment
• Farm and Farm-Related Employment data
• Contact Tim Parker, 202-694-5435
* Urban and rural (metro and nonmetro) defintions are based on the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) June 2003 classification. See Measuring Rurality: New Definitions in 2003 for
more information.
More information on socioeconomic conditions
• Rural Emphasis Page
• Contact Tim Parker, 202-694-5435.

Farm Characteristics
1992, 1997 and 2002 Census of Agriculture
1992 1997 2002
Total land area (million acres) 31.18 31.18 31.17
Total farmland (million acres) 8.94 9.44 9.08
Percent of total land area 28.7 30.3 29.1
Cropland (million acres) 5.58 5.70 5.47
Percent of total farmland 62.4 60.4 60.3
Percent in pasture 15.0 16.2 12.2
Percent irrigated 1.9 2.6 4.4

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 99

Harvested Cropland (million acres) 4.00 4.27 4.31

Woodland (million acres) 2.61 2.79 2.52

Percent of total farmland 29.3 29.5 27.8
Percent in pasture 19.4 18.3 18.8

Pastureland (million acres) 0.38 0.42 0.61

Percent of total farmland 4.2 4.5 6.7

Land in house lots, ponds,

roads, wasteland, etc. 0.37 0.53 0.48
(million acres)
Percent of total farmland 4.1 5.7 5.3

Conservation practices
Farmland in conservation or
wetlands reserve programs 0.09 0.15 0.18
(million acres)
Percent of total farmland 1.0 1.6 2.0

Average farm size (acres) 172 160 168

Farms by size (percent)

1 to 99 acres 61.2 66.3 67.1
100 to 499 acres 31.2 26.9 25.6
500 to 999 acres 4.9 4.1 4.0
1000 to 1,999 acres 2.0 1.9 2.2
2,000 or more acres 0.7 0.8 1.0

Farms by sales (percent)

Less than $9,999 51.7 59.7 63.7
$10,000 to $49,999 23.0 18.0 15.9
$50,000 to $99,999 7.0 4.9 4.1
$100,000 to $499,999 14.0 10.9 9.7
More than $500,000 4.0 6.5 6.6

Tenure of farmers
Full owner (farms) 29,242 35,904 34,489
Percent of total 56.4 60.7 64.0

100 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

 Part owner (farms) 17,572 18,231 16,030
Percent of total 33.9 30.8 29.7

Tenant owner (farms) 5,040 4,985 3,411

Percent of total 9.7 8.4 6.3

Farm organization
Individuals/family, sole
45,273 51,913 48,672
proprietorship (farms)
Percent of total 87.3 87.8 90.3

Family-held corporations (farms) 1,415 2,084 1,652

Percent of total 2.7 3.5 3.1

Partnerships (farms) 4,750 4,663 3,209

Percent of total 9.2 7.9 6.0

Non-family corporations (farms) 174 196 171

Percent of total 0.3 0.3 0.3

Others - cooperative, estate or

242 264 226
trust, institutional, etc. (farms)
Percent of total 0.5 0.4 0.4

Characteristics of principal farm operators

Average operator age (years) 54.7 54.8 56.1
Percent with farming as their
52.8 45.6 58.7
primary occupation
Men (persons) 47,914 53,874 48,574
Women (persons) 3,940 5,246 5,356
More information on farm characteristics
• Census of Agriculture
• Contact NASS Customer Service, 1-800-727-9540.

Data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture is not adjusted for coverage. See Coverage
Adjustment from NASS.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 101

Farm Financial Indicators
Farm income and value added data
2004 2005

Number of farms 52,000 52,000

Thousands $
Final crop output 3,043,352 2,561,592
+ Final animal output 5,341,791 5,589,570
+ Services and forestry 1,821,111 1,832,847
= Final agricultural sector output 10,206,253 9,984,009

- Intermediate consumption outlays 5,090,539 5,141,167

+ Net government transactions 77,299 1,030,025
= Gross value added 5,193,013 5,872,867

- Capital consumption 527,452 544,371

= Net value added 4,665,561 5,328,496

- Factor payments 1,679,356 1,712,062

Employee compensation (total hired labor) 549,859 576,825
Net rent received by nonoperator landlords 850,870 813,024
Real estate and nonreal estate interest 278,627 322,213

= Net farm income 2,986,205 3,616,434

More information on farm income

• Farm Income Data
• Farm Income and Costs Briefing Room
• Contact Roger Strickland, 202-694-5592.

Farm balance sheet

• Estimation of State-level Balance Sheets has been suspended. See the Farm Balance Sheet
data page for more information.

102 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

Top Commodities, Exports, and Counties
Top 5 agriculture commodities, 2005
Value of receipts Percent of state Percent of US
thousand $ total farm receipts value
1. Broilers 2,231,782 27.0 10.7
2. Hogs 2,099,170 25.4 14.0
3. Greenhouse/nursery 975,142 11.8 6.0
4. Turkeys 491,832 6.0 15.6
5. Tobacco 407,590 4.9 37.2

All commodities 8,264,020 3.5

More information on North Carolina's top agriculture commodities
• Leading commodities for cash receipts
• Contact Larry Traub, 202-694-5593.
Top 5 agriculture exports, estimates, FY 2006
Rank among states Value - million $
1. Tobacco unmfd. 1 407.2
2. Live animals and meat 6 350.0
3. Poultry and products 3 281.8
4. Cotton and linters 7 272.9
5. Other 10 246.6

Overall rank 9 2,045.1

More information on agricultural exports
• State Export Data
• Agricultural Trade Briefing Room
• Contact Nora Brooks, 202-694-5211.
Top 5 counties in agricultural sales 2002
Percent of state total receipts Million $
1. Duplin County 10.3 715.3
2. Sampson County 9.7 675.7
3. Wayne County 4.6 317.7
4. Union County 3.8 261.3
5. Bladen County 3.7 254.6

State total 6,961.7

More information on agricultural sales
• Census of Agriculture
• Contact NASS Customer Service, 1-800-727-9540.

Data Source: Prepared by Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 103

 APPENDIX B – Wastewater Irrigation Design Parameters Worksheet

104 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 105
106 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 107
108 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 109
110 (210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009)
End of Document…......................................intentionally blank

(210-vi-NEH 652, IG Amend. NC1, Sept, 2009) 111