5002_ROSCANS_2002

ALIAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOLOGY
78t/2 PATrON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] eAc.828.281.3351
June 17, 2002 ww .altannomenvironmentalxotn
Mr. James Coffey
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Subject: Closure of Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Area
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permit Number 50-02
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Coffey:
On behalf of Jackson County, Altamont Environmental, Inc. (Altamont), is requesting an extension to the
June 19, 2002 deadline for closure of the Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris disposal area at the
closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill near Dillsboro.
As you know, the C&D closure was delayed to allow time for implementation of landfill gas pilot studies
at the northern and southeastern boundaries of the landfill. Those studies were completed on April 2,
2002 and the Landfill Gas Extraction Pilot Study Report was submitted to your office on May 10, 2002.
On Febraury 11, 2002, Altamont retained the services of Caliber Engineering to perform civil design and
prepare bid documents for the C&D closure. On May 2, 2002, specifications and drawings were
submitted to Tim Jewett in the Solid Waste Section for approval. We are awaiting written approval of
the plans from the Solid Waste Section before proceeding with the construction contractor bid
solicitation process. We anticipate a period of approximately four months from the time we receive
written approval until construction is completed. To accommodate this timeframe and any unanticipated
delays, we are requesting that the deadline for closure be extended for an additional 180-day period until
December 19, 2002.
If you have any questions or would like more information please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
John Mueller, P.E.
CC: Tim Jewett, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Winston-Salem
James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
pAjackson county solid waste\2040.13 - dillsboro closure\ltr-coR'ey 6-17-02.doc//MSOfficel06-02

ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOLOGY
78t/2 PATTON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] EAc.828.281.3351
w v.altamontenvironmental.cotn
October 25, 2002
Mr. Tim Jewett
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27197
Subject: Closure of Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Area
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permit Number 50-02
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Jewett:
Jackson County has requested that Altamont Environmental, Inc. (Altamont) investigate the potential
benefits of applying polyacrylamide as a topsoil amendment to reduce soil erosion and enhance
vegetative growth. The product is being considered for use on the cap over the Construction and
Demolition (C&D) debris disposal area at the closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill near
Dillsboro. I am enclosing two articles which suggest that the material is indeed beneficial in terms of
erosion control and increased soil moisture retention. According to one of the articles, there is no
indication of any adverse impact on soil, plant, or aquatic systems when polyacrylamide is used to
control erosion. In fact, use of the product can prevent nonpoint source pollutants from leaving the area
of application. The product is commonly used in agriculture to reduce soil loss on slopes and furrows.
Jackson County would like to perform a trial application of the product to a portion of the area being
capped as a topsoil amendment. The treated area will be compared against the untreated area to evaluate
effects on soil erosion and establishment of vegetation. More widespread use of the product will be
considered if the trial is successful. We are entering the final stage of cap construction, with topsoil
placement likely to occur next week. We would greatly appreciate your prompt approval of this soil
amendment so that we can make the necessary arrangements for this application.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or would like more
information please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
John Mueller. P. E. ,
Enclosures: Pages from internet websites
CC: James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
P:\Jackson County Solid Waste\Dilllsboro Closure\Cortespondence\Ltr-Jewettl0-25-02.doc

Polyacrylamide —A Method to educe Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A `- Page 1 of 8
G98-1356-A
tv Neb,ide
L-AGM
Polyacrylamide —
A Method to Reduce Soil Erosion
This NebGuide describes polyacrylamide, what it is, how it can be used to reduce soil erosion due
to, irrigation and what water management changes must be considered.
C Dean Yonts, Extension Irrigation Engineer
Brian Benham, Extension Water Management Engineer
[Previous Category] [Catalog] [Order Info]
• Where Does Soil Loss Occur?
• Methods to Control Soil Erosion
• What is Polyacrylamide?
• What are the Benefits of PAM?
• Applications of Polyacrylamide
• Research Results
• Environmental Considerations
• Conclusions
Soil erosion due to irrigation can range from none, on many center pivot irrigated fields, to over 30 tons
per acre per year on intensely farmed furrow irrigated fields. High soil erosion rates occur either from
furrow irrigated fields with slopes greater than 3 percent or on soil prone to erosion. Although the rate of
soil loss is greatest on fields with slopes greater than 3 percent, cumulative annual soil loss is greater on
furrow irrigated fields having 1-3 percent slopes, due to total acres involved. Approximately 10 percent
of the furrow irrigated acres in Nebraska are on slopes greater than 3 percent, while 40 percent, or nearly
1.4 million acres, are on fields with slopes of 1-3 percent. Fields with slopes of 1 percent, or less,
makeup the balance of the total furrow irrigated acres. To reduce the total amount of soil lost due to
furrow irrigation, sediment loss on any potentially erodible field must also be reduced.
Topsoil loss can mean a long-term reduction in soil productivity, crop yield and the life expectancy of
downstream storage reservoirs. In the short term, producers are faced with reuse pits to clean or a
buildup of soil at the lower ends of fields which must be redistributed. Measures must be taken to reduce
or eliminate soil erosion and sustain Nebraska's soil resource.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/25/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to $educe Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 2 of 8
Where Does Soil Loss Occur?
Center pivot irrigation accounts for a small portion of the total soil eroded. The majority of soil lost
under pivots is due to runoff from precipitation that comes faster than the soil can take in. Runoff, and
associated soil loss, is minimal for most center pivots, as properly designed center pivots apply water at
or below the soil's infiltration rate. Little water should move from the point of application if center
pivots are properly designed. If you're experiencing runoff and subsequent soil erosion during center
pivot irrigation, address the question of correct system design first.
Furrow irrigation, however, is a major contributor to soil loss. With nearly half of the irrigated acres in
Nebraska under furrow irrigation, reducing soil erosion on these acres could help maintain topsoil for
future generations. Furrow irrigation results in greater loss because unlike a center pivot that uses a pipe
to transport the water prior to distribution, furrow irrigation uses the soil as the transmission line and
distributes the water along the irrigation furrow. Runoff is necessary with furrow irrigation to provide
reasonably uniform irrigation. Unfortunately, with runoff water comes soil; in some areas, lots of soil.
The furrow erosion process is slow. Just looking at some of the concrete irrigation ditches installed 30-
40 years ago, however, shows how much sediment is being lost from furrow irrigated fields. Some of
these ditches are now far above field level. Another way to gauge soil loss is to consider the number of
times soil has been removed from the downstream end of the field so water can flow to the end of the
furrow. Even though the process is slow, the top soil is gradually removed and fields become less
productive. For example, a field that has lost 1 foot of top soil in the last 40 years, lost only about 1/3
inch each year. Such losses would go unnoticed without a permanent structure, like a concrete ditch, to
compare to.
On steep slopes, soil erosion can occur in furrows even when small streams are used. As the season
progresses, the furrows can become narrow, deep -cut channels. In some cases, these channels can be 12-
18 inches deep, which means water is being applied 12-18 inches below the most active portion of the
root zone. It is difficult to move water up in the soil profile without a constant water source. The result
can be plant water stress for any crop, especially for shallow -rooted crops like dry beans, soybeans and
potatoes.
Methods to Control Soil Erosion
Center pivots should not cause runoff and soil erosion unless there are design problems. For low
pressure systems, it may be necessary to either use a different sprinkler type or increase pressure. These
changes will allow water to be applied over a larger area, reducing the application rate. For more
information on controlling irrigation runoff from center pivots and water loss associated with different
sprinkler packages, see: Water Loss from Above -Canopy and In -Canopy S rinklers NebGuide G97-
1328; Application Uniformity oIn-Canopy Sprinklers NebGuide G97-1337; and Water Runoff Control
Practices or Sprinkler Irrigation S sty ems,; NebGuide G91-1043.
If system design is found to be acceptable and intake rate is concerning, some type of tillage may be
necessary to increase the water infiltration rate. If infiltration cannot be increased, tillage can be used to
create surface storage, as water that is stored or puddled on the soil surface can infiltrate later.
Another practice, conservation tillage, leaves residue on the soil surface. During irrigation or rainfall the
residue acts as a shock absorber, neutralizing energy that otherwise would break down soil structure and
reduce infiltration. Soil infiltration also increases by having residue mixed in the surface soil, as the
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/g1356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to(P-duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 3 of 8
residue helps maintain open pores for water to infiltrate. Residue, as tillage, can increase surface storage
capacity by stopping the flow of water.
Vegetative filter strips on the edge of a pivot do nothing to control soil erosion on the field. Although
filter strips prevent soil from moving off a field, erosion may continue within the main portion of the
field. The results would be similar to furrow irrigation where soil is deposited at the end of a field. See
NebFact NF97-352 Vegetative Filter Strips for Agriculture, for more information on using filter strips.
Furrow irrigation systems have been tried to help reduce the amount of sediment lost. Research has
involved putting straw or growing grass in the furrows to slow the water and keep sediment on the field.
Conservation tillage, as with center pivots, slows the water in the furrow and can reduce soil loss.
Although for many irrigators, slowing water advance, especially during the first irrigation, is not
advantageous. While these procedures can help reduce sediment loss, they also impact the irrigation's
efficiency and uniformity.
What is Polyacrylamide?
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a long -chain synthetic polymer that acts as a strengthening agent, binding soil
particles together. It is harder for water to move these larger, heavier particles of soil. USDA researchers
in Kimberley, Idaho began working with PAM in the early 1990's as a method to reduce erosion in
furrow irrigation. Their tests indicated PAM applied in the irrigation water reduced soil erosion in
furrows by over 95 percent, when compared to irrigation without the polymer.
What are the Benefits of PAM?
Benefits of using polyacrylamide may go beyond erosion control. For example, getting water to the end
of the field can be difficult. The ability to put more water in the furrow without causing erosion can
reduce furrow advance time and improve irrigation performance. If the soil in the furrow can be held in
place, more water can be put down each furrow without causing erosion.
Soil erosion, with furrow irrigation, is generally greater at the top of the field where stream size is the
greatest. As water advances down the field, water infiltrates the soil, resulting in a progressively smaller
stream size. With a smaller stream size, the ability of water to move sediment is reduced and soil begins
being deposited in the furrows. In another example, a field may have a steeper top slope than bottom.
The faster moving water at the top of the field erodes the soil and as the water reaches the flatter portion
of the field, sediment settles out. In these cases the furrow shallows as sediment is deposited. This can
sometimes occur within one irrigation; in other cases it may take several irrigations. Either way, the
result is a furrow full of soil and water flooding adjacent rows. This flooding adversely impacts
irrigation performance and yield. The use of PAM can reduce this problem by keeping soil in place.
In addition, polyacrylamide has increased the intake rate of some soils. Without polyacrylamide, soil
particles come into suspension or bounce along the bottom of the furrow. Shortly after irrigation begins,
the bottom of the furrow appears smooth. The small particles eventually find their way into the larger
pore spaces on the bottom of the furrow. The larger pore spaces are filled with finely packed smaller soil
particles. This process reduces the infiltration rate of the soil. Binding particles with polyacrylamide
lessens this effect by maintaining soil structure.
Normally, soil intake rate is high during the first irrigation. If PAM application increases the intake rate
of the soil, changes in water management must be made. For example, a producer could increase furrow
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to�-duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A (- Page 4 of 8
stream size to account for the intake increase so water advance remains acceptable. For more
information on advance time and stream size selection for furrow irrigation, see Manaei Furrow
Irriration Systems, NebGuide G97-1338.
Application of Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylamide can be purchased as a dry granular, as a liquid or a solid. The dry formulation is easy to
handle, but must be kept dry. The dry material is primarily used for open ditch application due to the
difficulty of getting the material into a pipeline. For best results, place the applicators used to dispense
the bulk material upstream of the irrigation set and away from any splashing water droplets. Creating
some type of turbulence, if possible, will help to dissolve the PAM.
With a closed pipe system, the liquid formulation is normally recommended. Using an injector pump,
the liquid can be pumped directly into the irrigation pipeline. Turbulence in the pipeline, such as an
elbow, helps mix the PAM with the water. The natural turbulence in a pipeline 100 feet long or greater
is likely sufficient for mixing. The liquid material is, however, difficult to handle outside of the
container. To clean up anything that has come in contact with liquid PAM, "wash" the PAM off with
soil. The PAM will adhere to the soil particles making cleanup with water possible.
The liquid formulation also can be used for open ditch applications; however, if you are not using a
pump, and simply letting the liquid dribble into the water, watch for changes in air temperature. The
viscosity of the liquid can change with temperature changing the calibrated delivery rate. Keeping the
containers out of direct sunlight will reduce, but not eliminate, this problem.
The solid formulation of PAM is placed in an area where turbulence is occurring. The action of the
water slowly dissolves the polyacrylamide into the flowing water. The only way to control the amount
added into the water is to control where the solid PAM is placed and how long it is left in the water.
Calibration for dispersion rate has not yet been determined, so trial and error is the current method used.
In 1998, cost of polyacrylamide was expected to run approximately $3/pound for dry, $25/gallon for
liquid and $6/pound for the solid. While the recommended application rate is 10 parts per million (ppm),
actual application rate will vary depending on irrigation system, soil type and water source. Application
rate should be calculated for each location and periodically checked due to the unreliable nature of many
of the application devices.
Adding polyacrylamide to water is much different than adding most other materials. For example, if a
cup of salt is added to a gallon of water and stirred, the salt will, in a short period of time, dissolve.
However, when polyacrylamide is added to water, turbulence is necessary to ensure adequate mixing.
Without adequate mixing, the polyacrylamide will not immediately dissolve and PAM globules will
form. In time, these globules will find their way to the field and can be seen floating down the furrow.
Although not as likely, globules do still occur with injector system use. If PAM is being applied with a
center pivot, sprinkler nozzle plugging may occur if the PAM solution is not well -mixed.
Application method depends on the material selected. Granular PAM requires some form of augured
metering system. Solid blocks should be placed in a wire basket and secured to the side of the ditch to
avoid washing the block downstream. Liquid PAM can be metered directly from the container into an
open ditch or through an injector pump into a pipe line.
If adding either liquid or dry PAM to an open ditch, try to keep the discharge point at least 2 feet away
from the flowing water. Small droplets of water can cause the PAM to clog at the outlet and stop flow. If
http://www.ianr.unl.cdu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method for duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A r Page 5 of 8
turbulence in the water is causing splashing, move the applicator away so that water does not contact the
container or try to move the turbulent flow downstream.
Another concern: the type of water used for irrigation. Because polyacrylamide attaches to the soil
particles and binds them together, water containing a lot of sediment may result in sediment settling out
before water is diverted into the furrows. In general, this does not affect PAM's effectiveness, but with
extremely sediment -laden ditch water, sediment may buildup and restrict flow in the supply ditch. This
is also a concern for underground transport pipes. If the water velocity in the pipe is insufficient to lift
the accumulated sediment, pipe flow may be restricted. Though the flow rate is reduced, the pipe is not
likely to plug completely, since as the sediment decreases the pipe's inside diameter, water velocity
increases.
Meter polyacrylamide into irrigation water to achieve to a concentration of 10 ppm, the recommended
starting application rate for furrow and sprinkler systems. The product label should give, however,
application rates based on water flow rate. Be aware: different soil textures and field slopes can give
different results when receiving equal quantities of PAM. Therefore, it may be possible to get good
erosion control using a lower application rate. In other cases: higher rates may be needed. Start with the
10 ppm rate and increase or decrease the concentration based on the clarity of the runoff leaving your
field.
For maximum effectiveness, thoroughly mix PAM with the irrigation water before application. In an
open ditch, let the water pass over at least one drop structure or some ditch obstruction to cause
turbulence before water is diverted into the furrows. In an earthen ditch, a drop dam will suffice; in a
concrete ditch, boards can be used to create the turbulence. In some cases you may have to create a drop
in order to adequately mix the material in the water. In gated pipe, the pipes swirling action will
generally cause enough mixing within the first 2-3 pipe joints. If pressure in gated pipe is relatively low,
3 feet or less, a Krause Box' can be used to create a drop structure in the pipeline.
The furrow is considered treated once the water reaches the end of the field, and additional polymer is
normally not required for that irrigation. In many cases, producers are finding that, rather than applying
PAM until water advances to the end of the field, protection is adequate by applying PAM only until
water advances 50 percent or less of the field length. The advantages are erosion control in the top
portion of a field, reduction of sediment deposits in the bottom portion of the field and reduced
application costs.
Because polyacrylamide attaches itself to the soil near the surface, cultivation or ditching after PAM
application results in loss of effectiveness. PAM should be reapplied after cultivation or ditching
disturbs the soil surface. Once applied, PAM is not effective all season long. However, after the initial
application, PAM does continue to offer some erosion control during subsequent irrigations. Factors,
such as soil type, field slope and irrigation furrow stream size, will determine the long-term
effectiveness of a single PAM application.
'Mention of trade name is for information only and does not imply endorsement.
Research Results
Research was conducted at the Panhandle Research and Extension Center in Scottsbluff, Nebraska in
1996 and 1997. Furrow stream size was approximately 12 g.p.m. Field slope was 0.2 percent and field
length was 1,000 feet. The soil was a Tripp, very fine sandy loam. The crop grown was dry beans in 30-
inch rows with every other row irrigated. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet and sediment loss
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method toP -duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A i Page 6.of 8
11 1
(tons/acre) were measured and given in Figures 1-4.
In 1996, the three treatments were: 1) PAM; 2) no PAM; and 3) patch PAM. Figures 1 and 2 show the
results for three irrigations during the growing season. The patch PAM treatment was done by sprinkling
PAM in the dry furrow before water was started. Advance time was similar for all treatments. The
amount of soil loss was greatest for the no PAM treatment and the least for the PAM treatment. The
patch PAM treatment, although providing some reduction in erosion, was not as effective as having the
PAM mixed with the water prior to application.
Irrigation
1st
2nd
01
PAM Applied
10 ppm
7J20796
Cultivation and Redilch - 7130/06
PAM Applied
- 10ppm
615ro6
No Additional PAM Applied
. _.. 6114196
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Advance Time to 1,000 feet (minutes)
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment Patch PAPA Treatment
irrigation
annldl PAM Applied
let 0 10ppm
smo mr 7120106
Cultivation and Reditch - W3M6
ammulemmmialila PAM Applied
2nd 10 loppm
goommmmooloom 6/5f96t96
3rd M No Additional PAM Applied
s..... 6t14MtW
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Sediment Loss (tons/acre)
■
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment Patch PAM Treatment
Figure 1. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet for each Figure 2. Sediment loss (tons/acre) for each
irrigation, treatment of no PAM, PAM and patch irrigation and total sediment loss (tons/acre) for
PAM (1996). treatments of no PAM, PAM and patch PAM
(1996).
In 1997, four treatments were compared: 1) PAM; 2) no PAM; 3) surge irrigation with PAM; and 4)
surge irrigation with no PAM. These results are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The advance time to 1,000
feet was similar for all four treatments during the three irrigations. However, the advance times for the
treatments using surge irrigation were slightly below the advance times for the conventional irrigation
treatments. Soil erosion was consistently less when PAM was mixed with the irrigation water.
http://www.ianr.uni.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide - A Method to r-duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A
Page 7 of 8
Irrigation
aAt� PAM Applied
• 10 m
tst aaasrr 7/2OM6
cultivation and Reditch - 713MS
PAM Applied
2nd Im� 10 ppm
SIW96M
3rd No Additional PAM Applied
&14M[95
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Sediment Loss (tons/acre)
■ ■ ■
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment Patch PAM Treatment
Figure 3. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet for each
irrigation, treatments of no PAM — continuous
irrigation, PAM — continuous irrigation, no PAM —
surge irrigation and PAM — surge irrigation (1997).
Irrigation
1st
2nd
3rd
Total
PAM Applied Crop: Dry Flaws
712r97 Furrow Flow Rate: 12 gpm
Field Slope: 02%
Mgiiiiiillir No Additional PAM Applied
7/1M7
Reditched - 7/11191
M Applied
VIV97 Total Sediment Lose
over 3 lttieatione
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sediment Runoff (tons/acre)
■ Continuous - No PAM Continuous - PAM
■ Surge - No PAM ■ Surge -PAM
Figure 4. Sediment loss (tons/acre) for each
irrigation and total sediment loss (tons/acre) for
treatments of no PAM — continuous irrigation, PAM
— continuous irrigation, no PAM — surge irrigation
and PAM — surge irrigation (1997).
If a producer is using surge and wants to try using PAM, particular attention should be paid to furrow
advance time. Surge irrigation, through its wetting and drying process, tends to seal the surface of the
soil and reduce intake rate. This, in turn, advances water down the field faster. On many soils, PAM
tends to increase soil intake rate by maintaining open pores on the soil surface. The result may be slower
water advance times. Using polyacrylamide in irrigation water probably means water management
strategies must change. For more information on making management changes to furrow irrigation
systems, see NebGuide G97-1338, Mani in Furrow Irrigation Systems.
Environmental Considerations
Polyacrylamide used for erosion control should have a negative (anionic) molecular charge. Historically,
similar compounds have been used in other industries like potable water treatment, food processing,
paper manufacturing and wastewater treatment. Research conducted in Idaho showed that less than 5
percent of PAM applied during an irrigation left fields in the runoff water. This research also showed
that after leaving the field, the PAM concentration in the runoff quickly fell below detectable limits
(>1,500 yards). There is no indication of any adverse impact on soil, plant or aquatic systems when
anionic PAM is used to control soil erosion. Because PAM limits soil erosion, using it can prevent
nonpoint source pollutants from leaving the field. Nonpoint source pollutants include the soil and
contaminants that can be attached to the soil - nutrients, herbicides and pesticides.
Conclusions
Polyacrylamide can control soil erosion that occurs with irrigation; however, like many farming
practices, its use, effectiveness and economic return varies from field to field. The use of PAM is
relatively new and will require individuals to try different things until recommendations can be
developed for specific soil textures and field slopes found in Nebraska.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to("duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 8 of 8
File G1356 under: WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
A-23, Water Quality, 3,000 printed
Issued June 1998
Electronic version issued August 1998
pubs unl.edu
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kenneth R. Bolen, Director of Cooperative Extension,
University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination
policies of the University of Nebraska -Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/1.1/2002

POLYACRYLAMIDE SOIL F' `ENDMENT EFFECTS ON RUNOFFt ND SEDIMEN... Pagel of 2
onAgricultural TEKTRAN
Research
Service
POLYACRYLAMIDE SOIL AMENDMENT EFFECTS ON
RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT YIELD ON STEEP SLOPES I:
SIMULATED RAINFALL CONDITIONS
Author(s):
FLANAGAN DENNIS C
CHAUDHARIK
NORTON LLOYD D
Interpretive Summary:
Soil erosion on steep slopes can cause large erosion problems that are expensive to repair. On
many types of construction projects such as highway embankments, design procedures dictate that
slopes as steep as 50% (2:1) be used due to the need to fit the project into a relatively small area.
Soil can easily be lost on these embankments because the land is usually disturbed and loose,
there is little natural protective cover, and erosive rainfall and runoff can detach and rill the soil.
The experiment described in this paper used a chemical called polyacrylamide or PAM sprayed on
the soil surface to try and reduce the runoff and soil loss on a steep 32% slope. Another chemical
called gypsum, which is sometimes used as a fertilizer, was also applied in combination with the
PAM. A machine called a rainfall simulator was used to apply a range of rainfall rates to a
constructed embankment, then the runoff and soil loss that occurred was collected from plots
beneath the rainfall simulator. The study found that PAM and PAM with the gypsum were very
effective at reducing runoff (up to 89%) and soil loss (up to 99%) under the extreme storm
conditions used. The use of these types of chemicals on steep slopes could help to greatly reduce
soil loss during critical periods at construction sites when soils are bare. This research impacts
control of soil erosion and sediment loss from steep slopes, providing an alternative approach for
control that is cheaper than other conventional methods.
Keywords:
runoff soil loss soil erosion modeling
Contact:
NATIONAL SOIL EROSION RES
1196 SOIL BLDG., PURDUE U
WEST LAFAYETTE
IN 47907
FAX:[phone]
Email: flanaean ecn. _urdue.edu
Approved Date: 2001-06-25
TEKTRAN
United States Department ofAgricultrme
Agricultural Research Service
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000012/38/0000123816.html . 10/11/2002- .

Applied Polymer Systems, Incy APS 600 Series Silt Stop Printable - )� Zta, GA
Page I of 1
Back
APS 600 Series Silt Stop
Polyacrylamide Erosion Control Emulsion
APS 600 Series Silt Stop is a soil specific tailored polyacrylamide co -polymer
emulsion for erosion control. It reduces and prevents erosion of fine particles
and colloidal clays from water.
Primary Applications:
• Mine Tailings and Waste Piles
• Newly Cleared Construction or Building Sites
• Road and Highway Construction
• Hydroseeding and Water Truck Application
Features and Benefits:
• Removes Solubilized Soils and Clay from Water
• Prevents Colloidal Solutions in Water When Applied to the Soil Surface
• Will Reduce Soil Movement During Rain Event on Moderate Slopes
• Binds Cationic Metals within the Soil Matrix, Reducing Solubilization
• Reduces Pesticide and Fertilizer Loss During Rain Events
• Reduces Wind Borne Dust Conditions
• Increases Soil Permeability and Water Penetration to Shallow Plants
• Reduces Operational and Cleanup Costs
• Reduces Environmental Risk and Compliance
Specifications / Compliances:
• ANSI/NSF Standard 60 Drinking water treatment chemicals
Packaging:
APS 600 Series Silt Stop is packaged in 5 gallon pails
Technical Information:
Appearance / Milky white liquid Bulk Density / 8.4 Ibs /gallon pH 0.5%
solution /
Ei-8 Shelf Life / 1 Year
Coverage:
0.75 / gallons / Acre on gentle slopes 1.5 / gallons / Acre on steeper slopes
Applied Polymer Systems, Inc.
519 Industrial Drive • Woodstock, GA 30189
678.494.5998
http://www.siltstop.com/page8a.html 1 ... 1 10/25/2002 .

t
t
S&ME PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Job Name: JACKSON COUNTY LANDFILL ASTM: D 422
Job Number: 1413-02-168 Date: 10/10/2002
WE 01629.41 .1110 •
I11■■■�11111■���YUI■■ n is INS!
., Illn■■■�11111■■■�Illi.�■■�■111■■■IIIII■■■�
In11■■■ 11111■■■m11111■\■�11111■■■n■11111■■■�
IIII■■■m11111■■■IIII■■■mIIIII■■■�
11111■■■nn11111■■■lll■■■=IIIII■■■
Ill■■■n■IIIII■■■IIIII■■■ IIIII■■■m11111■■■m
IIIII■■■mIIIII■■■11111■■■II III■■■imIllll■■■m
1111■■■m11111■■■■■IIIII■■■91■■■m11111■■■m
NINE EMI[III■■■=IIIII■■ ■■M
IIIII■■■m11111■■■�11111■■■�IIIII�■■�11111■■■�
IIIII■■■M11111■■■m11111■■■mIIIII■ VII■■■m
IIIII■■■m11111■■■11111■■`mlllll■■■n■
IIIII■■■mIIIII■■■n■11111■■ 11111■■■n►1111■■■
IIIII■■■MIIIII■■■=IIIII■■■IIIII■■■n■IliiCiiMEM
Ilia■■■=IIIII■■■11III ■■■n■11111■■■m11111■■■m
NINE ■■M11111■■■IIIII■■■I1111■■■IIIII■■■=
IIIII■■■ Milli ■■■m11111■■■IIIII■■■mIIIII■■■m
IIIII■■■n■IIIII■■�IIIII■■■11111■■■m11111■■■m
IIII■■■m11111■■■m11111■■■11111■■■mlllll■■■m
IIIII■■■=IUI■■■mIIUI■■■�11111■■■IIIII■■■�
Sample No.:
Soil Description: RED BROWN
Gravel
< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm
Coarse Sand
< 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm
Medium Sand
< 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm
ATTERBERG LIMIT (440 MATERIAL)
LIQUID LIMIT
50
PLASTIC LIMIT
39
PLASTICITY INDEX
11
USC
MH
Depth (ft): NA Log No.: 0
Fine Sand
< 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm
Silt
< 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Clay
<0.005 mm
GRAIN SIZE DATA
% GRAVEL
0.4
%SAND
38.4
%SILT
28.4
% CLAY
32.8

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Job Number: 1413.02-168
Job Name: Jackson Co.C&D Landfill Cap
Sample ID: NA
Depth: NA
Log No.: 147
ASTM D:
4318
Operator:
MT/MP
Date:
10/10/02
LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Tare No.
Soil & Tare Wet Wt.
Soil & Tare Dry Wt.
Tare Wt.
Number of Blows
Moisture Content; %
3
6
7
30.45
33.50
28.83
25.25
27.59
24.41
15.37
15.59
15.37
16
24
30
52.7
49.3
48.9
55.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
m 51.0
0 50.0
U 49.0
2 48.0
3 47.0
46.0
45.0
10 25 100
Number of Blows, N
PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION
Tare No.
Soil & Tare Wet Wt.
Soil & Tare Dry Wt,
Tare Wt.
Moisture Content; %
11
4
12
22.00
22.48
24.65
20.22
20.47
22.09
15.59
15.28
15.48
38.4
38.8
38.7
LL= 5o
PL = 39
USC= MH
SOIL COLOR: RED BROWN
PI = 11

on
d
N
LO
N
O
r
rC
r✓
Q
F
w
(n
R
O
Q
U
CL
O
R
❑
i
0
z
n
0
E
ar
z
m
0
-3
u
d
d
ca
N
N
0 0
O. 2
E
E
Q
fl.
O O
O
O
N
O 11to
M
0
LOO
O
to to LQ
V
0)
to
.-- m c„
O
O
7 7
N N
Q
Q
c
CIA E c
C
d d
d
d
d
d d d
d a
d
d
w
C C
C
+
d
++
d
0 w
3
7
U ❑
C
W
Q Q
N iA
C 0 C 0 C U 0 O)o
co 00 N (n to N to co (r
LO V N CO 'DCAco OW- mV IN
N r (D O L V V co
a+ 1+ L is R R N 4i W
L t d d y d E L C
4 m E E Q Q
x x m m d d 03' o
d d p Q O. G > y U
E E ix CL ° ° (Ea ca fx
RR QQrnrnEE..
N N E E y U p
Q Q Q Q C l+
Z,
>
r
N
O
O
O
y
w
w
w
C CE
co
N
O
O
r
W
U
2
'ii w E
O
W
V
C ❑ U
co
It
U)
LLU7
t%
S w
N
C.
N
C ❑ 0
m
00
0)
O
o
0
d
a E w
O
O
O
CDO
O
R :
n
V
N
W
to
r`
R E
O to
m r
O ORt
O
r to
cD 0)r
r-
c
0)J
E
O to
N r
0 r-
0
r CD
t0 O
r
w
R
3
c
ococor
-�or-
E
�(0(DN
co
.a
0 0
0 0
0 0
n.
000000
vvvvvv
V
to
to to
.--N
y (ii
thrrIcoto
c
rnmoor-
rnr
r+
C
N N
N N
co T
J 0
N r
t` V
N to
R
304
m>
E
N co
co'�
N O
S
y
O O
O O
O O
a Q
vvvvvv

r
t
N
d
o
W
O
N
Q
N
❑
N
T
T
L
O
Q
F
E
Q o.
U
O
10
co
N
N
O
Cl)
T
'7
T
O
a
a
❑
v
u
U U
Vl v1
E
E
U
U U U
a D.
U
U
0.
m 0_
mm
OOONOtOM
It
NOO
0
0
T
N N
C
C C C
a.
[A
Q
Q
W
d
tp
0.
(L
y
C
C
r
O od
7
U =
'
w
❑
c
W
a>
Q
N 0
C E C E C E U O)o
l0 O O W r- O CoOJ
ODM n co(0 N Lo 0)(O 00 N It r- CO, M N
7 CS N r.:(O Itt`
V It co
V V
L
L
i; y/ w
(]J
E
EQQ?'mc
L
L £ ate+
2 2
R
m
d
d 03: 0
d am
p
o
c.
0.> d U
°°
m
m a Q
£ E
m to
a
Q
(n
rn E E.
� y
m
m
U)
0)tmN
y
U)
ion
aaaa12
Z2
>_
co
m
co
0
U N
O
O
O
O
O Y
w
w
w
w
•O U
r
O
!�
N
c
O
V
M
M
M
U
S
E
LQ
c p u
m
�
to
LL
S
N
1n
N
T
C ❑ U
0)
co
m
y
o
0
o
O
OA d
0.£ N
O
O
O
co
O
CDW
O
O
A �+
N
N
O
w
r
N
ti
y £
N
N 0
t v
T Q1
Oi T
w
C
N
N m
0 m
0)m
U
N
N a}
m
W T
W
A
3
oc?°gt�ovv�
�
•p•
O O
O O
O O
O O
Q
00000000
vvvvvvvIt
a E
�rl-a)
00co
m
m co
Iq f-
,c .U•.
co
W II-
w
i�
C
cq
d'
N
J U
N
W
N M
7
c
cT-
10
C J
O O
O T
O V
7 r
10
> E
NNNO
s
•y
O O
O O
O O
O O
a Q
vvv-I
tvvvv

00
O
c
m
o
v)
LL
�+
�
N
a
F
to
o
Q
d
U
a
O
d
�
d
E
R
W
N
LL
0
u
d
a
N
U
K
4:
R
0
N
N
U U
'w
E
E
U
U U
as
U
U
o.
rnarn
00
o
O
rn
rn
LO
LO
N
rn N
�
00
0
d d
R
R T
T w
7 7
Q
Q
N
C
a c r
C
y y
L L
d
«
d
y«n
d
d d d
0
as
d
d
a
«
d
N
c,100-'a�3�o
S
w N
L
C
d
C
d
O wd.
7
3
U-
W
Im
> O)
Qa>
N (//
C E C E C (E) U E o
N Cl) It V' M h O t0
Od' (0 t` V' to NO W
t• O) Cq N d: V7 (O O N
d' N h (O 0) (O
7 It 0)
r.
>
(0
(n
co
CD
y
O
O
O
O
j Y
W
LU
W
W
O u
r
CO
0
N
M
U
x
w
m
0)
o
R
C O
co
4.
to
V
V
co
x E
r
(o
m
rn
m
C d
m
LO
•R
V
y
O
O
aa,
E a
00
6
t
O
0
00
cc""
p
N
00
O
W
(NO
(CO
d U
0It'7
V
-It OMM
ONN
V
V' NON
m
N CO
M M
M M
M V'
c
y
0 7
d V
V (0
M M
N N
N
V (0
10 N
N Cl)
M m
co Cl)
co It
W
R
3
G J
M
E
N M
M
M M
M 7
H
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
LL. a
o 6
0 t 7
0 0
0 0
vvvvvvvv
y
V
N ON
C'i
cM N
6 6
t
0) a0
00 co
co 00
00 1-
co 0).
0) 000000
N It
V cM
M
Oi V'
C
R
O J
N r
r
V N
'30
� E
N N
0 m
N
coN
O�j
R
2
•N
O O
O O
O O
O O
°' Q-
vvvvvvvv

Nov-27-02 04:01pm From-SUE-asheville
18286878003 ( T-905 P.001/003 F-602
Fax Transmittal *S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Date: 11/27/o2 www.smeine.com
Time:
3:00 PM
TO:
John Mueller
Phone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Re:
Jackson Co. C&D Landfill Cap
Comments:
From: Jim Andrew
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
# Pages: 3 including cover sheet
Here are the results of the final two permeability tests. Please call if you have any questions regarding
this information.
44 Buck Shoals 11o4 Unit 0 This cover Sheet and the docments atxomponying this fax transmission Contain infonmdon from S@ME, Tne., which is
Arden. NC 28704 confidential and legally privileged The infomtadon is intended only fur use of the individual or entity teamed on this
[phone] transltdssion Sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hcmby notified that any disclosure, copying,
(828)687.R003 diwbudoa or theRaking of any action in reliance on these documtrts is spicily prohibited.
S&.ME SFG-001
(Rcv. 7M9)

Nov-27-02 04:01pm From-S& E-ashaviJJa 18280870003 (- T-905 P102/003 F-602
�
N
f0
�
Np
O
v
�
u
N'v,,E
E
b r,
an
n
0
-�
a rnacr
00
0
o
0o0)M
O
O
E �
d 0 a a C C c c
m m y d d d d
a inc c
CL CL 2
C y CL R. �r � G ❑
C C
r-
c m di _
V o = w
a>>
a
N N
V
V
C
C
G
C U CD
M
O
0]
M r• 0) M W
m M
c,
co
co N LO 0) 1
�- c0
M
N
Vn
' C,5 (O N
<Y C
CV
r-
CO
v m
m
d
N iC Gi '
E i E cc
,=07m
sx
E
E
Om
m m o
0
o°
0. i m U
d d
Es
CL
E a4&
E
E E
m
MG
E
0
o
h N E E u
(Q Vl
E
y O
m 0)
N
N
In
'>
cp
co
co
fO
10
: Y E
lL
W
w
W
1 ;
O)
1 ;
N
=V
C
V
M
CM
co
V
0
0
r
L6
c L) d
co
co
n
N
w
_ ^
N
to
N
r
v
o
0
0
0
m
V
N
Lo
N
p
o
0
IL
ti
N
n
t.,,
N
NO1
OOO`"
V
{
OO)r
.CC
«iq
N
N �
cr)C
r
ua
w
�}
J
OOO
r-
O�at�
E
�r�
n�ocN
j
00000000
a s
o 0
0 o
c o
c c
ve
vv�r�rvv
oom
h
in
W h
m V
0 CO
W
Go
c
J t f
N
m
N M
e
`d
c0
_
O E
' E
N N
N 6
N
r R
z
O O
O O
O O
G O
c•-IT
vv
'IT vIqv

Nov-27-02 04:01pm From-S&ME-ashaviJ-' 18286878003 (' T-905 P.003/003 F-602
V
a
V
V
75
L
••it
e
0
z
O
E
z
a
0
rw
N
N
U U
O O
0
0
O "t cn
O
O
y y
y
m m m m
aoaa
aCL
s
3�oc
cy
a'a
H
C r-
e!
m
o:
7
c
v
0
V
W
t0
> C7
O
Q Q
W
N
N
_a
>
co
co
m
m
=
o
0
0
0
Y E
n
n
W
M
U
2
.E
r^ In U
C14
4Y
co
'ct
co
-t
m
M
U.
=
w
m
rn
m
C Li U
m
IN
C6
V'
m
o
N R
O
N
W
O
O
� E
oad�a
eMM
t o
NmmCQc`rmm�
�
ovv
V:ccoMM
J u
N M
c m
m m
l v
iU
W
m
O j
M Y
r N
N V7
M lU
H
� E
covvmcotiai
N MMM
crjM
a?
c��
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
a¢
ooccc000
c0 NNMM
NN
W ON
w
W ti
,= V
OOD OMO
w
C
E
Mrnrnooaoo0i
7
J U
N�d't+S
cj r:
F
m
m_
J
IU h
f` h
n
'3U
O
E
ri ici
ui ri
riNo
mR
x
N
0 0
0 0
0 00
0
uEL

ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOLOGY
78'fz PATTON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAC.828.281.3351
www.al tamontenvironmentaLcom
November 14, 2002
Mr. James Coffey
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Subject: Closure of Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Area
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permit Number 50-02
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Coffey:
I am writing to provide a schedule update on the closure of the Construction and Demolition (C&D)
debris disposal area at the closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill near Dillsboro. As I mentioned
in my letter dated September 19, 2002, Jackson County issued a notice to proceed to the selected
contractor, Parker Excavating, Inc. on September 17, 2002. Since that time construction of the cap has
been underway, albeit hampered by an unusually rainy fall. During the course of construction, work has
been suspended on 23 days due to rain and additional days were lost due to excessively wet conditions.
This represents 17 more rain days than was allowed for in the schedule. Therefore, construction will not
be completed by November 17, 2002, as planned. Barring any excessive rain days going forward,
construction should be fully completed by December 5, 2002.
At this time, all of the clay has been placed and compacted. Laboratory test results indicate that the clay
permeability exceeds the requirements. The contractor has started placing topsoil and installing drainage
features.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or would like more
information please call me at [phone].
Since ly, i
John Mueller, P.E.
CC: Tim Jewett, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Winston-Salem
James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
pAjackson county solid waste\dilllsboro closure\coaespondenceVlr-coffey 11-14-02.doc//MSOffice/11-02

0
o
� H N
❑ ' N
0
r
g � a
F- ° E
Q d U
0. y
O
❑
I
.a
co
w
N
0
M
a
0
z
a
0
N
E
ro
z
0
.
c
3
0
m
t
N
V
V
N
N
E
0
rl
Cl
W
14
47
NE
'y
E
U
U U
a a
U
U
n
rn a o
O 0
0
0
(0
(D co co
0,
CS 10
0,
0
0
M
N N
C U C U rvC U U E o
(D (D W O O co r-co N
O W c co co (LC!
M I'- N n (D (DM N
V co (D
Z.;
L
N
d
ro
ro E t C
°' °'
m
"
a
a w
d
A
0
m c
2 S
d m
p
a
N
a
N O O
a> d U
d°
A
E E
ro ro
v>
(Ea a°
N E E.
m w
A
m
U) oi
U o
as
a
a
C
w
>_
r
r
N
O
O
O
O
Y E
w
w
w
w
v u
0
LO
(n
(O
c
0
6
L6
In
6
U
A w £
co
c p u
00
00
r-
co
ii
N
(D
.-
N
C ❑ U
0)
LO
00
co
0)
y
0
0
4
0
a N E
N
6
(o
O
(o
ro r+
Cl)
00
r
00
W
10
O M
co O
O co
0 0
a)C D
t} (D
(D M
.- M
c
J
O M
M0000
00
W
m
R
3
O J
O 4)
In co
M M
O N
'(a
> E
v
v (o
(o of
F
.Q
O O
O O
O O
O O
IL
o0000oOo
v v
v v
v v
v v
�
U
D)
01
M
CA
am
M W
m 00
00 o
M O
mwwmmwmm
4)
E
mcD(o0o0oow(o
.J
O
N Oi
01 t�
r LL'i
�
N N
C
w
ro
3
�
ocom
�roo
ro>
0 E
vooao0ouiv
.
N N
N IF
—
N N
S
•N
O O
o 0
0 0
0 0
a a
V V
V V
V V
V' V

a
r
0
z
m
0
d
E
A
z
m
0
a
.i
Q
E
V
ti
W
M
ti
N
N
U 0
N.)
E
E
o
U U�
L1 CL0
0
❑.
0) C 0)
O O
M
0 0
C r
O
N
O
U)
N
O
O r0 (O
Cn
O
N r
0
O
d
d
N N
a
a
C
C C C
d d
d
m
Y
d
o
d d d
000
MCL
O) —
a
a
d
o0
c_;°
n.
C C
C y
«
>
«
>
U a
=
W
01
FBI
N fA
C 0 C 0 C U V 0)0
V N V M (D 1- (OD 1 C6
O O OR N M O r C) N
M O N 1- CO N
It It co
«
d
«
d C
E
O 0)
d d
R
N
D
d
O.
d 0 0
CL U
dmma0�
y
E£°
R R
°°
N
to E E«
yymm
V)Uo
0)0)
N
N
N�
>_
y
O
O
O
O
Y
w
W
w
w
a 0
Co
N
Cl)
O
CO
n
r
n
ti
U
w
O
V
N
O
Ix6
C 0
O
O
N
O
LL
x
O
O
t
O
,'�'• £
�
ti
N
to
C O d
O
O
y
o
o
O
o
N d
6 £ U)
O
D
0 N
O
co
O
(o
(a
O
o
coo
W
w E
O W
M O
O O
O N
C)
C
�
O CO
OOOOOO
U)
J
C7
W
.d+
R
3
J
O O
O V'
V' N
O t
.a
OOO00000
0_
000CD
00
v v
v v
v v
7 v
a
v,
'IT cvrn
d
N r
0
O
0 0
.O-
w
d
CO77.-r
M0
CO
J
U
V
M
7 V
C
V
V
coM
R
J
O
O O
O N
> E
M V
VM'
x
•y
O O
O O
O O
O O
a a
v v
v v
v v
v v

r
N
M O
N N
O
e-
L' Q.
O
I- E
N O
Q o U O
m
0
M
O
N
O
M
a
E
m
Z
m
0
R
u
3
N
N
U U
as
0
L))
0.
rno.0)
0
0
M co
Cl)
00
0 0
V
to
In
N
O o M
0)0)
N
O
O
N N a a
m mmm
aLILL (D wpppp
rnR 2. 2- m m Z Z
ct,a'a 3 Epp
c c
C y >
Up w
> o)
Q Q
N �/)
C U C U C U U mo
N t- co V 0) M N O
LO
NIt
M co N co N N
M CO N 1— ID 0)
It M (D
L L 0 R m E t N C
0/ O) d 0 2 O N
d'dEEaa'
2 i R R N 4D 0 0
4) CL CL
E E ° °) b A a
m R 0- CL (A fn E E
41 N E m
orn d) fA N ro �
w
y
O
O
O
O
Y
w
w
w
w
O U
?
(n
M
M
O
U
x
—E
O
M
r p u
o0
C>
U)
�
LL
S
0
0)
c-
O
c 0 u
^
o
o
q
o
o
yd d
O. E 0
O
O
O
O
N
O
V
iD
W
N
M
U
n
4m
m E
(O g
m M
M O)
M N
U
L
N
N N
N N
N N
N
w
C
a)
(O 0)
a) M
M 0)
O N
7
J U
N
N M
M m(D
N N
N N
N N
N N
w
m
min
co
co (D
.a
O O
O O
O O
o O
�.
o0000
CD,
00
vvvvvvvv
y
MM
V
V M0)
(0
V
(N MM
M
m'D00
t ....
m 0)
mW
M O)
O) W
w
7
M 0
U)
(D
(D N
J
O
V M
M M
M 0
0 0
C
N N
N N
N N
N N
m
O J
co'
h co
M
co
'30
E
(Dvvvv
N N
N N
N N
N N
2
1
•N
O O
O O
O O
O O
a a
vvvvvvvv

November 1, 2002
Parker Excavating
62 Parker Farm Road
Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Attention: Mr. Doug Parker
Reference: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Jackson County C & D Landfill Cap
Sylva, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1413-02-168
Dear Mr. Parker:
S&ME, Inc. has completed the authorized laboratory testing of soil used to cap a portion of
the Jackson County C & D Landfill. S&ME has conducted a standard moisture/density
(Proctor) test, an Atterberg limits test, a grain -size analysis, and a hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) test of the soil. Additionally, S&ME personnel collected undisturbed field
samples during placement of the cap to be tested in the laboratory for hydraulic conductivity.
These services were provided as described in S&ME Proposal No. CS-182-02 dated
September 30, 2002.
Two undisturbed field samples have been collected during the placement of each 6-inch lift of
compacted clay layer. These samples were returned to our laboratory for hydraulic
conductivity measurements. Test results indicate the in -place material meets or exceeds the
required hydraulic conductivity for this project. At this time, the third and final layer has not
been constructed. Two more field samples will be collected during construction of the final
layer and returned to the laboratory for hydraulic conductivity testing. Please find attached
the results of the laboratory testing completed at this time.
SWE, Inc. 1 (8281 687-9080
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite Cr9 )628) 687-8003 fax
Arden, North Carolina 28704 www.smeinc.com

Laboratory Test Results
Jackson County C & D Landfill Cap
S&ME Project No. 1413-02-168
November 1, 2002
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide services on this project. Should you have any
questions regarding the information presented in this report, or if we may be of any further
assistance, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
James Andrew, E.I.
Construction Services Manager
Attachments: Laboratory Test Results
2

0
O
(D
❑
H
N
O
N
O
F
r
a
C
U
.N
O
°�
V
C
U
d
N
O
E
ro
o
N
is
'O
o
LL
2
d
N
a
�
R
u
3
v
u
U
N
E
E
U
UU U
da aU
U
0-
0)aO
O O
O
O
N
(+J M �-
M
0
0
CO
0
rn
rn
O
o
aQ
C U C E C E U E
MNMD Lo Mm (m 0) O
CD00 00 N CO00 O O N
N O N 1� (O O 1� M
7 N ( n
m
Lmtc
E
m
xx
mdoo
m
m
ao.>y0
o� o
CL 0.
m°
A a
E E
R ro
a
s
(Ea
v�
a a)
m E E ..
Uy
R
ro
a'a
a
a
=w
C
++ y
O
O
O
O
Y
w
w
w
w
O U
N
N
O
U
m w Eco
ry
m
o
O O
co
(D
LOi
�
LL
_ w
N
N
N
C U
N
W
co
co
co
fD
N
m
O
O
O
O
O
d
a E
0
v
o
CD
O
co
ro
_
LO
rn
W
to
('Op
O M
M M
OD a)
00
m u
.= ui
ui co
rim
,_ co
L
w
C
N
E
O M
M coO
O
w
In
In M
M (O
�._. W
w
V
ro
3
o J
o 0
0 (?
Ll �O
F>
E
ri
ri v
v r
v
r o
0 0
0 0
0 0
00
a p,
o0000000
vvvvvvvv
V E
m
0
0 0)
c- O
u
MWWOCDWM
ri
t ....
0) W
00 00
00 1—
O co
E
CO
� (o
w (n
J
U
N
O O)
O) O
N (P
C
R
O J
O r
N
N 0
0 M
R>
E
N m
m 0
O (p
V (O
N
=
•N
O O
O O
O O
O O
a Q•
v v
v v
v v
v v

ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING, HYDROGEOLOGY, RISK MANAGEMENT
78%2 PATTON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAC.828.281.3351
February 5, 2002 www.altamontenvironmencal.com
Mr. James Coffey
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Subject: Landfill Gas Update
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Coffey
Altamont Environmental, Inc. met with James Patterson of the NCDENR Asheville Regional Office on
January 31, 2002 to provide him with an update on the status of landfill gas (LFG) compliance efforts at
the former Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in Dillsboro, North Carolina. I am writing to
provide you with a summary of that meeting for the record.
We completed the first phase of a Landfill Gas Mitigation Pilot Study in December 2001. As generally
described in correspondence to DENR dated September 28, 2001, Phase 1 of the Pilot Study utilized
existing trenches and vents along the northern property boundary in an effort to reduce methane
concentrations to less than five percent. Three vents and associated underground trenches were
connected in series to a blower with aboveground piping to draw a vacuum on the vents. The blower was
operated for three weeks and gas concentrations were monitored daily throughout the system and at four
nearby boundary landfill gas probes. Two of the four probes were within compliance limits before the
study began and decreased further during the study. One probe came into compliance during the study,
decreasing from 18 percent methane prior to startup to 1.8 percent average during the study. The fourth
probe showed some reduction during the study, decreasing from over 40 percent to less than 10 percent
methane. However, the LFG concentration in this probe increased to over 30 percent toward the end of
the study. Soil moisture content, due to rainfall, is suspected to be a contributing factor in the fluctuating
methane concentrations. Based on these results, we have concluded that the existing vents are not
constructed in a manner that will provide a reliable mechanism for reducing methane concentrations at all
boundary compliance locations.
Phase 2 of the Landfill Gas Mitigation Pilot Study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of vertical
landfill gas extraction wells at the southeastern property boundary. The plan called for two weeks of
active gas extraction on the wells using a blower. Methane monitoring would be conducted at three
existing and four newly installed gas probes spaced at various radii from each well. On January 22, 2002
two 24-inch diameter borings were installed to the bottom of waste (30 and 36 feet deep) in an area of
historic non-compliance along the southeastern property boundary. A six-inch perforated casing was
installed in each boring and the borings were backfilled with gravel to one foot about the perforated
section (about ten feet below grade). Solid casing was installed from the perforated section to four feet
above grade and the boring was sealed with alternating layers of bentonite and backfill. After installation
of the wells, landfill gas monitoring results indicated that methane concentrations at all three

Mr. James Coffey
February 5, 2002
Page 2 of 2
southeastern boundary probes were within compliance limits. Therefore, the blower installation was
delayed pending reevaluation of methane concentrations in the nearby LFG probes.
In order to obtain meaningful results from the Phase 2 Study, Altamont proposes to suspend installation
of the blower and continue to evaluate methane concentrations in boundary probes on a monthly basis. If
methane concentrations in the southeastern boundary probes exceed compliance levels during at least two
consecutive months, then the Phase 2 Study will be resumed. If the Phase 2 Study is resumed, active
extraction of LFG will be conducted for two weeks with regular monitoring of probe pressures, flows,
and LFG concentrations.
Regarding closure of the construction and demolition (C&D) cell at Dillsboro; Altamont has evaluated
bids and recommended an engineering firm for closure design of the C&D portion of the landfill. A
contract will be issued to the design firm this week. We plan to immediately start preliminary design
activities with construction following in late spring.
If you have any questions or would like further information please call Jim McElduff or me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
John P. Mueller, P.E.
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
cc: James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager

m
Jackson County Landfill
Dillsboro, North Carolina
Landfill Gas Readings Summary
January 4,2002
Landfill Gas Equipment:
Calibration:
Gas Monitoring Point
Percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL)
GP -IA
6
MW-1
Lock Frozen
GP-2
> 100
GP-3
I 1
GP-4
0
GP-12s
0
GP-12d
0
GP-11 s
14
GP -Ili
0
GP-lld
Lock Frozen
GP-10
Lock Frozen
GP-19
Not Measured
GP-13s
0
GP-13d
0
GP-5
23
MW-5
>100
GP-6
4
GP-15s
0
GP-15d
0
GP-14s
Lock Frozen
GP-14d
0
MW-3
0
GP-7
Lock Frozen
GP-8
0
GP-9
0
MW-4
14

Percent Methane
0.3
NA
>5
0.55
0
0
0
0.7
0
NA
NA
NA Newly Constructed
0
0
1.15
>5
0.2
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
0
0.7

ALIAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING & IIYDROGEOLOGY
78t/2 PATrON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAc.828.281.3351
June 17, 2002 w .altannontenvirontnenratcorn
Mr. James Coffey
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Subject: Closure of Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Area
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permit Number 50-02
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Coffey:
On behalf of Jackson County, Altamont Environmental, hic. (Altamont), is requesting an extension to the
June 19, 2002 deadline for closure of the Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris disposal area at the
closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill near Dillsboro.
As you know, the C&D closure was delayed to allow time for implementation of landfill gas pilot studies
at the northern and southeastern boundaries of the landfill. Those studies were completed on April 2,
2002 and the Landfill Gas Extraction Pilot Study Report was submitted to your office on May 10, 2002.
On Febraury 11, 2002, Altamont retained the services of Caliber Engineering to perform civil design and
prepare bid documents for the C&D closure. On May 2, 2002, specifications and drawings were
submitted to Tim Jewett in the Solid Waste Section for approval. We are awaiting written approval of
the plans from the Solid Waste Section before proceeding with the construction contractor bid
solicitation process. We anticipate a period of approximately four months from the time we receive
written approval until construction is completed. To accommodate this timeframe and any unanticipated
delays, we are requesting that the deadline for closure be extended for an additional 180-day period until
December 19, 2002.
If you have any questions or would like more information please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
John Mueller, P.E.
CC: Tim Jewett, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Winston-Salem
James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
pAjackson county solid wastet2040.13 - dillsboro closure\ltr-coffey 6-17-02.docHMSOffice/06-02

ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOLOGY
78t/2 PATTON AVE., ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAC.828.281.3351
w v.altamontenvironmental.com
October 25, 2002
Mr. Tim Jewett
NCDENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27197
Subject: Closure of Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Area
Jackson County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permit Number 50-02
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Jewett:
Jackson County has requested that Altamont Environmental, Inc. (Altamont) investigate the potential
benefits of applying polyacrylamide as a topsoil amendment to reduce soil erosion and enhance
vegetative growth. The product is being considered for use on the cap over the Construction and
Demolition (C&D) debris disposal area at the closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill near
Dillsboro. I am enclosing two articles which suggest that the material is indeed beneficial in terms of
erosion control and increased soil moisture retention. According to one of the articles, there is no
indication of any adverse impact on soil, plant, or aquatic systems when polyacrylamide is used to
control erosion. In fact, use of the product can prevent nonpoint source pollutants from leaving the area
of application. The product is commonly used in agriculture to reduce soil loss on slopes and furrows.
Jackson County would like to perform a trial application of the product to a portion of the area being
capped as a topsoil amendment. The treated area will be compared against the untreated area to evaluate
effects on soil erosion and establishment of vegetation. More widespread use of the product will be
considered if the trial is successful. We are entering the final stage of cap construction, with topsoil
placement likely to occur next week. We would greatly appreciate your prompt approval of this soil
amendment so that we can make the necessary arrangements for this application.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or would like more
information please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
1�qll
John Mueller, P.E.
��— ,
Enclosures: Pages from internet websites
CC: James Patterson, NCDENR Solid Waste Section, Asheville
Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
P:Vackson County Solid Waste\Dilllsboro Closure\Coae pondence\Ltr-JewetlI0-25-02.doc

Polyacrylamide - A Method to rduce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A r Pagel of 8
G98-1356-A
NebGuide
&VZ1?
Polyacrylamide —
A Method to Reduce Soil Erosion
This NebGuide describes polyacrylamide, what it is, how it can be used to reduce soil erosion due
to, irrigation and what water management changes must be considered.
C Dean Yonts, Extension Irrigation Engineer
Brian Benham, Extension Water Management Engineer
[Previous Category] [Cataloe] [Order Info]
• Where Does Soil Loss Occur?
• Methods to Control Soil Erosion
• What is Polyacrylamide?
• What are the Benefits of PAM?
• Applications of Polyacrylamide
• Research Results
• Environmental Considerations
• Conclusions
Soil erosion due to irrigation can range from none, on many center pivot irrigated fields, to over 30 tons
per acre per year on intensely farmed furrow irrigated fields. High soil erosion rates occur either from
furrow irrigated fields with slopes greater than 3 percent or on soil prone to erosion. Although the rate of
soil loss is greatest on fields with slopes greater than 3 percent, cumulative annual soil loss is greater on
furrow irrigated fields having 1-3 percent slopes, due to total acres involved. Approximately 10 percent
of the furrow irrigated acres in Nebraska are on slopes greater than 3 percent, while 40 percent, or nearly
1.4 million acres, are on fields with slopes of 1-3 percent. Fields with slopes of 1 percent, or less,
makeup the balance of the total furrow irrigated acres. To reduce the total amount of soil lost due to
furrow irrigation, sediment loss on any potentially erodible field must also be reduced.
Topsoil loss can mean a long-term reduction in soil productivity, crop yield and the life expectancy of
downstream storage reservoirs. In the short term, producers are faced with reuse pits to clean or a
buildup of soil at the lower ends of fields which must be redistributed. Measures must be taken to reduce
or eliminate soil erosion and sustain Nebraska's soil resource.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/25/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method toPduce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A ( Page 2 of 8
Where Does Soil Loss Occur?
Center pivot irrigation accounts for a small portion of the total soil eroded. The majority of soil lost
under pivots is due to runoff from precipitation that comes faster than the soil can take in. Runoff, and
associated soil loss, is minimal for most center pivots, as properly designed center pivots apply water at
or below the soil's infiltration rate. Little water should move from the point of application if center
pivots are properly designed. If you're experiencing runoff and subsequent soil erosion during center
pivot irrigation, address the question of correct system design first.
Furrow irrigation, however, is a major contributor to soil loss. With nearly half of the irrigated acres in
Nebraska under furrow irrigation, reducing soil erosion on these acres could help maintain topsoil for
future generations. Furrow irrigation results in greater loss because unlike a center pivot that uses a pipe
to transport the water prior to distribution, furrow irrigation uses the soil as the transmission line and
distributes the water along the irrigation furrow. Runoff is necessary with furrow irrigation to provide
reasonably uniform irrigation. Unfortunately, with runoff water comes soil; in some areas, lots of soil.
The furrow erosion process is slow. Just looking at some of the concrete irrigation ditches installed 30-
40 years ago, however, shows how much sediment is being lost from furrow irrigated fields. Some of
these ditches are now far above field level. Another way to gauge soil loss is to consider the number of
times soil has been removed from the downstream end of the field so water can flow to the end of the
furrow. Even though the process is slow, the top soil is gradually removed and fields become less
productive. For example, a field that has lost 1 foot of top soil in the last 40 years, lost only about 1/3
inch each year. Such losses would go unnoticed without a permanent structure, like a concrete ditch, to
compare to.
On steep slopes, soil erosion can occur in furrows even when small streams are used. As the season
progresses, the furrows can become narrow, deep -cut channels. In some cases, these channels can be 12-
18 inches deep, which means water is being applied 12-18 inches below the most active portion of the
root zone. It is difficult to move water up in the soil profile without a constant water source. The result
can be plant water stress for any crop, especially for shallow -rooted crops like dry beans, soybeans and
potatoes.
Methods to Control Soil Erosion
Center pivots should not cause runoff and soil erosion unless there are design problems. For low
pressure systems, it may be necessary to either use a different sprinkler type or increase pressure. These
changes will allow water to be applied over a larger area, reducing the application rate. For more
information on controlling irrigation runoff from center pivots and water loss associated with different
sprinkler packages, see: Water Loss from Above -Canopy and In -Canopy Sprinklers, NebGuide G97-
1328; Application Uniformi o In-Canony Sprinklers, NebGuide G97-1337; and Water Runoff Control
Practices or Sprinkler Irrigation Systems NebGuide G91-1043.
If system design is found to be acceptable and intake rate is concerning, some type of tillage may be
necessary to increase the water infiltration rate. If infiltration cannot be increased, tillage can be used to
create surface storage, as water that is stored or puddled on the soil surface can infiltrate later.
Another practice, conservation tillage, leaves residue on the soil surface. During irrigation or rainfall the
residue acts as a shock absorber, neutralizing energy that otherwise would break down soil structure and
reduce infiltration. Soil infiltration also increases by having residue mixed in the surface soil, as the
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to j--duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A ( Page 3 of 8
residue helps maintain open pores for water to infiltrate. Residue, as tillage, can increase surface storage
capacity by stopping the flow of water.
Vegetative filter strips on the edge of a pivot do nothing to control soil erosion on the field. Although
filter strips prevent soil from moving off a field, erosion may continue within the main portion of the
field. The results would be similar to furrow irrigation where soil is deposited at the end of a field. See
NebFact NF97-352 Vegetative Filter Strips for Agriculture riculture, for more information on using filter strips.
Furrow irrigation systems have been tried to help reduce the amount of sediment lost. Research has
involved putting straw or growing grass in the furrows to slow the water and keep sediment on the field.
Conservation tillage, as with center pivots, slows the water in the furrow and can reduce soil loss.
Although for many irrigators, slowing water advance, especially during the first irrigation, is not
advantageous. While these procedures can help reduce sediment loss, they also impact the irrigation's
efficiency and uniformity.
What is Polyacrylamide?
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a long -chain synthetic polymer that acts as a strengthening agent, binding soil
particles together. It is harder for water to move these larger, heavier particles of soil. USDA researchers
in Kimberley, Idaho began working with PAM in the early 1990's as a method to reduce erosion in
furrow irrigation. Their tests indicated PAM applied in the irrigation water reduced soil erosion in
furrows by over 95 percent, when compared to irrigation without the polymer.
What are the Benefits of PAM?
Benefits of using polyacrylamide may go beyond erosion control. For example, getting water to the end
of the field can be difficult. The ability to put more water in the furrow without causing erosion can
reduce furrow advance time and improve irrigation performance. If the soil in the furrow can be held in
place, more water can be put down each furrow without causing erosion.
Soil erosion, with furrow irrigation, is generally greater at the top of the field where stream size is the
greatest. As water advances down the field, water infiltrates the soil, resulting in a progressively smaller
stream size. With a smaller stream size, the ability of water to move sediment is reduced and soil begins
being deposited in the furrows. In another example, a field may have a steeper top slope than bottom.
The faster moving water at the top of the field erodes the soil and as the water reaches the flatter portion
of the field, sediment settles out. In these cases the furrow shallows as sediment is deposited. This can
sometimes occur within one irrigation; in other cases it may take several irrigations. Either way, the
result is a furrow full of soil and water flooding adjacent rows. This flooding adversely impacts
irrigation performance and yield. The use of PAM can reduce this problem by keeping soil in place.
In addition, polyacrylamide has increased the intake rate of some soils. Without polyacrylamide, soil
particles come into suspension or bounce along the bottom of the furrow. Shortly after irrigation begins,
the bottom of the furrow appears smooth. The small particles eventually find their way into the larger
pore spaces on the bottom of the furrow. The larger pore spaces are filled with finely packed smaller soil
particles. This process reduces the infiltration rate of the soil. Binding particles with polyacrylamide
lessens this effect by maintaining soil structure.
Normally, soil intake rate is high during the first irrigation. If PAM application increases the intake rate
of the soil, changes in water management must be made. For example, a producer could increase furrow
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method top Pduce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 4 of 8
stream size to account for the intake increase so water advance remains acceptable. For more
information on advance time and stream size selection for furrow irrigation, see ManaQiqg Furrow
Irrigation Systems, NebGuide G97-1338.
Application of Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylamide can be purchased as a dry granular, as a liquid or a solid. The dry formulation is easy to
handle, but must be kept dry. The dry material is primarily used for open ditch application due to the
difficulty of getting the material into a pipeline. For best results, place the applicators used to dispense
the bulk material upstream of the irrigation set and away from any splashing water droplets. Creating
some type of turbulence, if possible, will help to dissolve the PAM.
With a closed pipe system, the liquid formulation is normally recommended. Using an injector pump,
the liquid can be pumped directly into the irrigation pipeline. Turbulence in the pipeline, such as an
elbow, helps mix the PAM with the water. The natural turbulence in a pipeline 100 feet long or greater
is likely sufficient for mixing. The liquid material is, however, difficult to handle outside of the
container. To clean up anything that has come in contact with liquid PAM, "wash" the PAM off with
soil. The PAM will adhere to the soil particles making cleanup with water possible.
The liquid formulation also can be used for open ditch applications; however, if you are not using a
pump, and simply letting the liquid dribble into the water, watch for changes in air temperature. The
viscosity of the liquid can change with temperature changing the calibrated delivery rate. Keeping the
containers out of direct sunlight will reduce, but not eliminate, this problem.
The solid formulation of PAM is placed in an area where turbulence is occurring. The action of the
water slowly dissolves the polyacrylamide into the flowing water. The only way to control the amount
added into the water is to control where the solid PAM is placed and how long it is left in the water.
Calibration for dispersion rate has not yet been determined, so trial and error is the current method used.
In 1998, cost of polyacrylamide was expected to run approximately $3/pound for dry, $25/gallon for
liquid and $6/pound for the solid. While the recommended application rate is 10 parts per million (ppm),
actual application rate will vary depending on irrigation system, soil type and water source. Application
rate should be calculated for each location and periodically checked due to the unreliable nature of many
of the application devices.
Adding polyacrylamide to water is much different than adding most other materials. For example, if a
cup of salt is added to a gallon of water and stirred, the salt will, in a short period of time, dissolve.
However, when polyacrylamide is added to water, turbulence is necessary to ensure adequate mixing.
Without adequate mixing, the polyacrylamide will not immediately dissolve and PAM globules will
form. In time, these globules will find their way to the field and can be seen floating down the furrow.
Although not as likely, globules do still occur with injector system use. If PAM is being applied with a
center pivot, sprinkler nozzle plugging may occur if the PAM solution is not well -mixed.
Application method depends on the material selected. Granular PAM requires some form of augured
metering system. Solid blocks should be placed in a wire basket and secured to the side of the ditch to
avoid washing the block downstream. Liquid PAM can be metered directly from the container into an
open ditch or through an injector pump into a pipe line.
If adding either liquid or dry PAM to an open ditch, try to keep the discharge point at least 2 feet away
from the flowing water. Small droplets of water can cause the PAM to clog at the outlet and stop flow. If
http://www.ianr.unl.cdu/pubs/water/gl356.htm _ 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method for duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A ( Page 5 of 8
turbulence in the water is causing splashing, move the applicator away so that water does not contact the
container or try to move the turbulent flow downstream.
Another concern: the type of water used for irrigation. Because polyacrylamide attaches to the soil
particles and binds them together, water containing a lot of sediment may result in sediment settling out
before water is diverted into the furrows. In general, this does not affect PAM's effectiveness, but with
extremely sediment -laden ditch water, sediment may buildup and restrict flow in the supply ditch. This
is also a concern for underground transport pipes. If the water velocity in the pipe is insufficient to lift
the accumulated sediment, pipe flow may be restricted. Though the flow rate is reduced, the pipe is not
likely to plug completely, since as the sediment decreases the pipe's inside diameter, water velocity
increases.
Meter polyacrylamide into irrigation water to achieve to a concentration of 10 ppm, the recommended
starting application rate for furrow and sprinkler systems. The product label should give, however,
application rates based on water flow rate. Be aware: different soil textures and field slopes can give
different results when receiving equal quantities of PAM. Therefore, it may be possible to get good
erosion control using a lower application rate. In other cases: higher rates may be needed. Start with the
10 ppm rate and increase or decrease the concentration based on the clarity of the runoff leaving your
field.
For maximum effectiveness, thoroughly mix PAM with the irrigation water before application. In an
open ditch, let the water pass over at least one drop structure or some ditch obstruction to cause
turbulence before water is diverted into the furrows. In an earthen ditch, a drop dam will suffice; in a
concrete ditch, boards can be used to create the turbulence. In some cases you may have to create a drop
in order to adequately mix the material in the water. In gated pipe, the pipes swirling action will
generally cause enough mixing within the first 2-3 pipe joints. If pressure in gated pipe is relatively low,
3 feet or less, a Krause Box' can be used to create a drop structure in the pipeline.
The furrow is considered treated once the water reaches the end of the field, and additional polymer is
normally not required for that irrigation. In many cases, producers are finding that, rather than applying
PAM until water advances to the end of the field, protection is adequate by applying PAM only until
water advances 50 percent or less of the field length. The advantages are erosion control in the top
portion of a field, reduction of sediment deposits in the bottom portion of the field and reduced
application costs.
Because polyacrylamide attaches itself to the soil near the surface, cultivation or ditching after PAM
application results in loss of effectiveness. PAM should be reapplied after cultivation or ditching
disturbs the soil surface. Once applied, PAM is not effective all season long. However, after the initial
application, PAM does continue to offer some erosion control during subsequent irrigations. Factors,
such as soil type, field slope and irrigation furrow stream size, will determine the long-term
effectiveness of a single PAM application.
'Mention of trade name is for information only and does not imply endorsement.
Research Results
Research was conducted at the Panhandle Research and Extension Center in Scottsbluff, Nebraska in
1996 and 1997. Furrow stream size was approximately 12 g.p.m. Field slope was 0.2 percent and field
length was 1,000 feet. The soil was a Tripp, very fine sandy loam. The crop grown was dry beans in 30-
inch rows with every other row irrigated. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet and sediment loss
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to� educe Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 6.of 8
(tons/acre) were measured and given in Figures 1-4.
In 1996, the three treatments were: 1) PAM; 2) no PAM; and 3) patch PAM. Figures 1 and 2 show the
results for three irrigations during the growing season. The patch PAM treatment was done by sprinkling
PAM in the dry furrow before water was started. Advance time was similar for all treatments. The
amount of soil loss was greatest for the no PAM treatment and the least for the PAM treatment. The
patch PAM treatment, although providing some reduction in erosion, was not as effective as having the
PAM mixed with the water prior to application.
Irrigation
1 st
2nd
3rd
PAM Applied
10 ppm
720196
Ul ivadon and Reditch - 7130/95
PAM Applied
io ppm
818F98
No Additional PAM Applied
8114196
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Advance Time to 1,000 feet (minutes)
■ ■
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment patch PAM Treatment
Irrigation
allow PAM Applied
1st isoww • 10 ppm
712at98
Cultivation and Rin itch - 7130/96
PAM Applied
2nd V�E
la ppm
3td No Additional PAM Applied
W14/98/98
0.6 1.0 1.6 2.0
Sediment Loss (tons/acre)
E
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment Patch PAM Trealment
Figure 1. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet for each Figure 2. Sediment loss (tons/acre) for each
irrigation, treatment of no PAM, PAM and patch irrigation and total sediment loss (tons/acre) for
PAM (1996). treatments of no PAM, PAM and patch PAM
(1996).
In 1997, four treatments were compared: 1) PAM; 2) no PAM; 3) surge irrigation with PAM; and 4)
surge irrigation with no PAM. These results are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The advance time to 1,000
feet was similar for all four treatments during the three irrigations. However, the advance times for the
treatments using surge irrigation were slightly below the advance times for the conventional irrigation
treatments. Soil erosion was consistently less when PAM was mixed with the irrigation water.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/I 1/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to' --duce Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A
Page 7 of 8
Irrigation
ono PAM Applied
1st a to Ppm
queer MOM
Cultivation and Reditch - 7130196
PAM Applied
2nd eat 10 Ppm
_.. fiJ5196r98
Id No Additional PAM Applied
Oft 6ti4196196
0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0
Sediment Loss (tons/acre)
Irrigation
1st
2nd
3rd
Total
nmoioutotntrr
Tailmmmm PAM Applied Crop: Dry Sears
71"1 Furrow Flow Rate: 12 ripm
Field Slope: 0.2%
ommwoomm
woommislia No Additional PAM Applied
amm"M 7/10197
Reditched - 7/11197
PAM Applied
7114197 Total Sediment Lose
over 3 tiigations
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sediment Runoff (tons/acre)
■ ■ ® ■ Continuous - No PAM Continuous - PAM
No PAM Treatment PAM Treatment Patch PAM Treatment ■ Surge - No PAM ■ Surge -PAM
Figure 3. Furrow advance time to 1,000 feet for each
irrigation, treatments of no PAM — continuous
irrigation, PAM — continuous irrigation, no PAM —
surge irrigation and PAM — surge irrigation (1997).
Figure 4. Sediment loss (tons/acre) for each
irrigation and total sediment loss (tons/acre) for
treatments of no PAM — continuous irrigation, PAM
— continuous irrigation, no PAM — surge irrigation
and PAM — surge irrigation (1997).
If a producer is using surge and wants to try using PAM, particular attention should be paid to furrow
advance time. Surge irrigation, through its wetting and drying process, tends to seal the surface of the
soil and reduce intake rate. This, in turn, advances water down the field faster. On many soils, PAM
tends to increase soil intake rate by maintaining open pores on the soil surface. The result may be slower
water advance times. Using polyacrylamide in irrigation water probably means water management
strategies must change. For more information on making management changes to furrow irrigation
systems, see NebGuide G97-1338, Managing Furrow Irrigation Systems.
Environmental Considerations
Polyacrylamide used for erosion control should have a negative (anionic) molecular charge. Historically,
similar compounds have been used in other industries like potable water treatment, food processing,
paper manufacturing and wastewater treatment. Research conducted in Idaho showed that less than 5
percent of PAM applied during an irrigation left fields in the runoff water. This research also showed
that after leaving the field, the PAM concentration in the runoff quickly fell below detectable limits
(>1,500 yards). There is no indication of any adverse impact on soil, plant or aquatic systems when
anionic PAM is used to control soil erosion. Because PAM limits soil erosion, using it can prevent
nonpoint source pollutants from leaving the field. Nonpoint source pollutants include the soil and
contaminants that can be attached to the soil — nutrients, herbicides and pesticides.
Conclusions
Polyacrylamide can control soil erosion that occurs with irrigation; however, like many farming
practices, its use, effectiveness and economic return varies from field to field. The use of PAM is
relatively new and will require individuals to try different things until recommendations can be
developed for specific soil textures and field slopes found in Nebraska.
http://www.ianr.unt.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/I 1/2002

Polyacrylamide — A Method to(' educe Soil Erosion, G98-1356-A Page 8 of 8
File G1356 under: WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
A-23, Water Quality; 3,000 printed
Issued June 1998
Electronic version issued August 1998
pubs unl.edu
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kenneth R. Bolen, Director of Cooperative Extension,
University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination
policies of the University ofNebraska-Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/water/gl356.htm 10/11/2002

POLYACRYLAMIDE SOIL �- `ENDMENT EFFECTS ON RUNOFk ND SEDIMEN... Page 1 of 2
016 Agricultural
Research
Service
TEKTRAN
POLYACRYLAMIDE SOIL AMENDMENT EFFECTS ON
RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT YIELD ON STEEP SLOPES I:
SIMULATED RAINFALL CONDITIONS
Author(s):
FLANAGAN DENNIS C
CHAUDHARIK
NORTON LLOYD D
Interpretive Summary:
Soil erosion on steep slopes can cause large erosion problems that are expensive to repair. On
many types of construction projects such as highway embankments, design procedures dictate that
slopes as steep as 50% (2:1) be used due to the need to fit the project into a relatively small area.
Soil can easily be lost on these embankments because the land is usually disturbed and loose,
there is little natural protective cover, and erosive rainfall and runoff can detach and rill the soil.
The experiment described in this paper used a chemical called polyacrylamide or PAM sprayed on
the soil surface to try and reduce the runoff and soil loss on a steep 32% slope. Another chemical
called gypsum, which is sometimes used as a fertilizer, was also applied in combination with the
PAM. A machine called a rainfall simulator was used to apply a range of rainfall rates to a
constructed embankment, then the runoff and soil loss that occurred was collected from plots
beneath the rainfall simulator. The study found that PAM and PAM with the gypsum were very
effective at reducing runoff (up to 89%) and soil loss (up to 99%) under the extreme storm
conditions used. The use of these types of chemicals on steep slopes could help to greatly reduce
soil loss during critical periods at construction sites when soils are bare. This research impacts
control of soil erosion and sediment loss from steep slopes, providing an alternative approach for
control that is cheaper than other conventional methods.
Keywords:
runoff soil loss soil erosion modeling
Contact.
NATIONAL SOIL EROSION RES
1196 SOIL BLDG., PURDUE U
WEST LAFAYETTE
IN 47907
FAX:[phone]
Email: flanacan ecn. urdue.edu
Approved Date: 2001-06-25
TEKTRAN
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000012/38/0000123816.html . 10/11/2002 -

Applied Polymer Systems, Inc APS 600 Series Silt Stop Printable - ,�' nta, GA
Page 1 of 1
Back
APS 600 Series Silt Stop
Polyacrylamide Erosion Control Emulsion
APS 600 Series Silt Stop is a soil specific tailored polyacrylamide co -polymer
emulsion for erosion control. It reduces and prevents erosion of fine particles
and colloidal clays from water.
Primary Applications:
• Mine Tailings and Waste Piles
• Newly Cleared Construction or Building Sites
• Road and Highway Construction
• Hydroseeding and Water Truck Application
Features and Benefits:
• Removes Solubilized Soils and Clay from Water
• Prevents Colloidal Solutions in Water When Applied to the Soil Surface
• Will Reduce Soil Movement During Rain Event on Moderate Slopes
• Binds Cationic Metals within the Soil Matrix, Reducing Solubilization
• Reduces Pesticide and Fertilizer Loss During Rain Events
• Reduces Wind Borne Dust Conditions
• Increases Soil Permeability and Water Penetration to Shallow Plants
• Reduces Operational and Cleanup Costs
• Reduces Environmental Risk and Compliance
Specifications / Compliances:
• ANSI/NSF Standard 60 Drinking water treatment chemicals
Packaging:
APS 600 Series Silt Stop is packaged in 5 gallon pails
Technical Information:
Appearance / Milky white liquid Bulk Density / 8.4 Ibs / gallon pH 0.5%
solution /
Ei-8 Shelf Life / 1 Year
Coverage:
0.75 / gallons / Acre on gentle slopes 1.5 / gallons / Acre on steeper slopes
Applied Polymer Systems, Inc.
519 Industrial Drive • Woodstock, GA 30189
678.494.5998
http://www.siltstop.com/page8a.html 10/25/2002 ,