NCD980602163_19810513_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Administrative Action - Final Environmental Impact Statement-OCR

ACTION NOTE AND P'ILE NOTE AND RltTURN TO ME RETURN WITH MORE Df;TAIL.S NOTE AND SEE ME A■OUT THIS "LEASE ANSWER ,-RE,-ARE RE,-LY FOR MY SIGNATURE TAKE A,-,-RO,-IUATlt ACTION RU". NO. OR ROOM, ■LDG. ,,_i) ' D "ER OUR CONVERSATION D ,.ER YOUR REQUEST D ,GR YOUR AP,.ROVAL ~ _?rR OUR INFORMATION l!:r'" FO" YOUR COMMENTS D SIGNATURE D INVESTIGATE AND Rlt,.ORT
Date
Removal and Disposal of Soils
Contaminated With PCBs
Along Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Secretary
Department of Crime Control
And Public Safety
Addendum to
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Removal and Disposal of Soils
Contaminated With PCBs
Along Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was
distributed on November 13, 1980. This addendum addresses
comments submitted by Warren County on January 29, 1980 on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Comments
submitted by Warren County were inadvertently not responsed
to in the Final EIS. Their comments which have been briefly
paraphrased and our responses follow. The Warren County
comments in entirety are attached.
Warren County
Comment:
1. Site Selection
Response:
a. Laboratory Procedures and Results
"The laboratory test results presented in the
Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, fail to
satisfy the requirements stated in paragraph
· 716.4l(b). The test results were too few in number
for the critical soil characteristics of
permeability, liquid limit and plasticity index.
Specifically, there were inadequate sample numbers
and replications of samples to determine the mean
and standard deviations for these key soil
parameters both with depth and across the site in
general ... "
The engineering characteristics of the soil to
be utilized in the construction of the proposed
site meet the standards stated in 40 CFR Section
761. 41 (b). See N. C. DOT test results 9-22-78
project 4. 5401101 Appendix B. See also the EPA
technical review of chem:i,cal waste landfill for
disposal of PCB contaminated soil submitted by the
State of North Carolina, June 4, 1979 Appendix C.
EPA's review states that the site will meet all the
technical requirements for a chemical waste
landfill as required in 40 CFR Section 761.4l(b)
(June 4, 1979 letter from EPA Region IV
Administrator to Governor Hunt, Appendix C).
Comment:
Response:
The sampling and testing procedures to
identify soil engineering properties are
considered adequate and reasonable to determine
permeability, liquid limit, and plasticity index.
The specific tests for permeability were conducted
under ASTM Standards by independent, qualified pro-
fessional engineers. The proposed landfill
construction project is an engineering project to
manipulate or engineer existing natural soil
conditions to conform to 40 CFR 761.4l(b)
standards. The true, natural or inherent soil
characteristics have been tested to indicate that
the site can be engineered to conform to 40 CFR
761.4(l)(b) standards.
b. Soils Map of Site
" ... In addition to the l ack of definitive test
results regarding permeability, no detail ed
subsurface map of the various soil layers found at
· the site has been prepared. This would have
involved a systematic physical identification .and
characterization of the various subsurface
horizons to determine which layers meet or exceed
the stated requirements by the EPA for liner
construction. Since the soil liner will be
constructed from materials existing at the site,
the present impact statements fail to identify the
exact soil layers which do meet the requirements.
The impact statement suggests that the construction
engineer will "stockpile" layers of soils which
visually appear to meet the necessary requirements
and that th~e materials will be blended in a
manner to a ure the requirements are met . No
feasible me hod is available for determining the
adequacy of the blending operation ... "
The soils on the proposed site have been
sufficiently identified and tested to demonstrate
the engineering capability for both soil
characteristics and volume to meet 40 CFR 76l.4l(b)
standards (pp. 17 -18C Appendix B-C). The soil
liner will be constructed of materials which were
identified and tested to meet 40 CFR 761.4l(b) ,
standards under the direction of a soils engineer.
1
_/ ~{
The location of these soils are in the 5Hl:J?eL ficiai ~1J'C.l ·
or upper 5 feet. Bulk sampling, rather than
sampling at 6" intervals, are standard ASTM and
engineering procedures. A qualified soils engineer
will select and supervise excavation of suitable
2
Comment:
Response:
soils for liner construction (p. 12. 3). Any soil
procedures including blending will be under the
direction of a qualified soils engineer.
c. Clay Content and Definitions
"The critical features for retaining
chemicals in place would be the clay content in the
soils used in the soil liner. Clays are defined by
both the International Society of Soil Science and
U.S.D.A. classifications as solid particles of soil
less than or equal to 0.002 mm in size (Soil Survey
Manual, U.S.D.A. Handbook, No. 18, August 1951, p.
208). The impact statement does not identify the
quantities of solids below 0.005 mm in size, which
are fine silts. Since 761.4l(b) states that 'the
landfill site shall be located in thick, relatively
impermeable formations such as large-area clay pans
[and] [w] here this is not possible, the soil shall
have high clay and silt content_i ... ' , it is
paramount that these zones of clay enrichment be
identified prior to construction.
The clay content is the controlling factor in
several critical soil parameters including liquid
limit, plasticity index, chemical exchange
capacity (CEC) and surface area ... "
"It is vital that the soil liner be
constructed of soils 'high in clay' to reduce the
risk of chemical migration from the site. The very
thin layer of clay enriched soil at the Warren
County site would appear inadequate in quantity to
safely construct the soil liner. The reference of
'mixing of soils' within the initial 0' -5'5 in
the March 15, 1979, letter from Soil & Material
Engineering, Inc., to Mr. Jerry Perkins appears an
oversimplification in their estimate of the volume
of 'high clay' soil available for soil liner
construction."
The soil characteristics were evaluated under
ASTM standards for engineering purposes not USDA
standards. The clay content of the evaluated
materials were sufficient to meet 40 CFR . 71 (b)
standards for permeability, liquid limit, and
plasticity index. There is no standard for
percentage of clay, type of clay and mineralogical
content in the 40 CFR . 71 (b) regulations. The
letter to Mr. Jerry Perkins from Soil and Material
Engineering is an estimate of professional soil
engineers of the volume of clayey materials.
The surface area and chemical exchange
capacity (CEC) of the clayey liner material is not n---a:cce ted standard for judging the acceptability
o · soils for establishment of PCB waste chemical
landfills. The standards are based on soil
engineering properties affected by surface area and
these properties meet the 40 CFR .7l(b) standards.
CEC is not involved in the sorption of PCB and will 'l~
not result in the retention of PCB waste. CEC . ,r
associated with differential sorption of cations~ n
a liquid medium. PCB's are non-ionic, non-peleit:e p vL>'t12-
and only very slightly soluble in water (hydro-
phobic); therefore, cannot be associate.d-w.ith-GEC
sorption. ) f\ i it) ~.f·, , -_ · ,1-}-u, i l:h'.\ L' i ~,-c.-r"'· \.,."" '. ,
r Comparison of laboratory permeability results
, ,, !indicate that there is no significant difference in
-,.,ui '1<,=-1 ermeability, with r~pect to exceeding the EPA
.,! Cl J--.: standard of 1. O x 10-at 95% standard proctor, in
~·-1....:,9;..-, the 0-2' , 0-4' ( 2/5&6/79) and 5-611 to 30 11 ·
(12/13/78) surficial soils. All available data in-
dicates a uniform, vertically and horizontally, 0-
4' clayey layer that will exceed the required
permeability. No special blending of clayey
materials, other than mixing from excavation
procedures will be require. It is realized that
these materials were composited or blended for
laboratory testing; however, the extensive field
classification and laboratory testing identified
these materials as significantly equivalent with
respect to engineering characteristics and
permeability. Therefore, it is reiterated that no
b~ending will be required.
Comment:
· \ There is approximately 12,000 yd. 3 of suitable
liner materials (compacted permeability less than
1.0 x 10 CM/SEC) in the surface 0-4' layer ove3 the
2.0 acres to be utilized. There is 6,990 yd. in
the surface · 0-2' layer. Therefore the 611 to 30"
soil layer (after stripping of vegetation) will
provide the most clayey materials and are of
sufficient volume to construct thE:3 clayey liner.
There is approximately 25,000 yd. of available
suitable liner materials in the area tested.
d. Clay Type vs. Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit
"One of the most disturbing and troubling
apsects of the site selection process was the lack
-Response:
of interest and regard by both the State of North
Carolina and EPA administrators in information
concerning the lack of chemical activity and sur-
face area of the type of clay found at the Warren
County site. The limited quantities of clay found
at the Warren County site appear to be
predominately kaolinite clay. As shown in Figure
10, p. 28, Earth Manual (attached), soils with
sandy clay, small amounts of clay, and kaolin clay
have very low plasticity index and liquid limits,
both key parameters a~ noted by EPA regulations
761. 41 (b) ( 1). Kaolin clay is 1: 1 type crystal
lattice material with very low chemical exchange
capacity (CEC) and low surface areas for chemical
adsorption of toxic substances ... "
The 40 CFR regulations for soil
characteristics do not include types of clays nor
soil types based on clay mineralogyl theref'.or-e.,
oan:n?u: l 1e Ul!!M as a s-t:-a-aEla~si't-e·-seleeti><&n.
IC: II C'l
After the vegetation and topsoil cover has
been removed and stockpiled the exposed clayey
material will be field classified and laboratory
test (ASTM D-422 grain size analysis, ASTM D-425
liquid limit, ASTM D-424 plastic limit, ASTM D-. -~6 moi$Lure) will be performed.
Prior to excavation of liner materials an area
( approximately 150' x 150' ) immediately adjacent
to the · site will be stripped to the upper most
clayey layer. The liner materials will be
excavated and stockpiled in this area. In order to
prevent the inclusion of unsuitable soils in the
liner materials the stockpile area will be
subjected to the same tests as the liner materials.
This procedure will also supply additional volume
of liner material if needed. Larger areas will be
stripped and tested if required.
Due to the relatively shallow location of the
clayey materials a self-elevating scraper will
probably be used for excavation. Excavation will
be in 4 to 6 11 increments (established by equipment
limits) in successive layers until the required
volume . is obtained. The materials will be
sufficiently blended by the beating action of the
elevator paddles. Al terati ve excavation can be
accomplished by stripping of 4 to 6 11 layers into
windrows by motor graders or crawler tractors with
pick up . and · transport to the stockpile area by
elevating scrapers or front end loaders. The
14 S
Comment:
stockpiled materials will be compacted or covered
with 4 mil plastic for moisture control.
/ The stockpiled mater ials will be tested in
accordance with ASTM D-698, moisture density,
ASTM D-2216 moisture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Manual ME 1110-2-1906 Fallinghead permeability,
ASTM D-422 and ASTM D-1140 gram size, ASTM D-423
liquid limit, ASTM D-424 pl a tic limit and ASTM
standard D-2487-69 classification. These fests
will be performed on a maximum of 2,000 ft . grid
· tervals.
2. Groundwater
Response:
Comment:
3.
"The impact statement indicates that the base
of the leachate collection system will be a minimum
of 7' above the water table for the site. The EPA
regulations state that there must be a 50'
separation; however , this regulat ion was waived for
the Warren County site. Based on the previous
discussions regarding the soils at the site, the
EPA should not have been allowed to waive this very
important regulation. This is especially true
since there appears to be a great deal of
uncertainty just where the 'mean high water table'
for the area shoul d be placed ... 11
The groundwat er analysis for mean high water
table is a valid analysi s based on available
published hydr ological data and sub-surface
evaluation.
PCB Landfill Des ign
"The conceptual plan, Figure 5, for the
landfill has several severe limitations. Perhaps
· the most critical faults i n the design are the
absence of a clay liner a l ong the upper side walls
and the outsloping of the sidewalls at an angle
ratio of 3:1. This design is founded under the
assumption that 'water movement through a landfill
is always downward,thus the construction of a liner
beneath the system to remove the water before a
hydraulic head is allowed to develop would produce
a site which would retain waste chemicals'. This
assumption is demonstrably false with respect to
the unlined, outsloped upper sidewalls, since at
Response:
these locations the downward movement of water
would leach PCB' s directly out of the landfill.
The other problems with this assumption are that
chemicals may escape from the s i te through the
lateral flow of moisture and by diffusion both
laterally and downward. A clay liner along the
sidewalls of the landfill would reduce the rate of
lateral flow of moisture and waste chemical, but
this will not stop the escape of chemicals from the
landfill site by diffusion processes, especially if
the clay is kaolinite ... 11
The clay liner has been re-designed to extend
up the landfill side wall.
Due to the sorption of PCB on activated carbon
and soil debris , the vapor presser and solubility
of PCB (see page 6) is reduced below a rate that
volitization or water migration would present a
--,-problem from diffusive movement in a gas or liquid
, phase, (Moisture content of PCB soil mixture would
I not be-sufficient to cause decomposition of simple · l organic matter within the mixture. The combination
~of clayey liners, artificial liner s, and venting
·systems are sufficient to prevent migration by any
medium from the site.~/\1tcJ,Q,v AQ,•<>'' ,)Jt...u-,-
Comment: A--ifJ S¼s~~\. v,.i
4. Moisture Control During Construction
Response:
"The Environmental Impact Statement is very
non-specific on how the construction engineers plan
to control rainfall and excess moisture within the
site at the time the soil liner is being
constructed ... "
"With an open pit of some five acres in size,
rainfall on the soil liner may lead to inadequate
compaction that will cause the liner not to meet
the regulat ions. In other words, how do you 'dry
out' several feet of clay enriched soil following
several days of rainfall, especially in such a
large area? It would appear that such problems as
moisture control should be addressed more
specifically in the impact statement."
Moisture control will be maintained
diversion of surface runoff and covering
exposed area with 4'5!ffri.l plastic sheets.
1'. 7
by
the
Soil
Comment:
\
r'" • • '\ I ; , ..• /,· ,\. ·1 • ~ ~ ,._..-_ . ' ' ... ~
engineers will supervise the excavation,
stockpiling and placement of liner material.
Engineering specifications will be written for
performing these procedure and incorporated in the
final design.
5. Alternative of Transportat ion to Existing Chemical
Landfill
Response:
''The Draft Environmen t al Impact Statement
only mentions in passing the alternative of
transportation to an existing chemical waste
landfill. This alternative is dismissed on the
basis of 'excess ive cost' with the estimate that
the cost would be $12,000,000. (pp. 25-26).
Unfortunately, the State does not disclose its
basis for esti mating the h igh cost of disposal at
an existing l andfill ... "
\ '.• l ' • 1Uj1"
A ~ estimateJ was ~erformed to
determine the cost of remo~al and hauling the PCB
contaminated soil to an existing landfill in
Alabama. A cost breakdown is as follows:
PCB Haul to Alabama
(1,400 miles roundtrip)
Removal from Roadway Shoulder
Roadway Shoulder Repair
Tota l
$6,400,000
200,000
250,000
$6,850,000
~ .
(
. V' \ The total cost of $6,850,000 does not include r the disposal fee which would be charged by the
operator of the Alabama site. The State has been
'---unable to secure an esti mate of the fee which would
be charged by the opeif~tor of the site . t !~\,. ,,:, ,-,iq..~ 1-9 ~ '-'(.) ~~ I'\,_ ~A.'Ll\1-'"'" ""'\ij-.)li';.~~ vv'<-.k ff\ AL->' ,'f"'-...,,/,) v,.)~ '-l J:.'· ,c,... ·-: _·. + 1,'V/1..) t-,_ ----·r· ', ,,l.t_. ,o.. \;)\\.l\,t.,-~-vv'"'''"'""~ V ~',.\~3'~~:1;JS't4--'-C),/"'1£'11\.1\\\t'i'VII.M,,; f"')~ " -~ '·"· We di sagree with PA figure of two cents per
pound. We are not aware of a l l of the factors upon
which EPA relied to arrive at the two cents per
pound figures contained in their support documents.
Factors which would explain the hi her figure
calculated by the State include. fv~" \1«..<.: ,,✓tc".t' y.L\1.,,1 '-'().,·,,...., 'S' h>
l (,".> I!.'--,,.(\<. (~-~ (l. ~V'-"-t('\ ( I• ,c;-,\,1.)J\ e;. T,)
yd.)
(1) Increased fuel costs since EPA estimates
were made
(2)
dump
North Carolina will have to use small (4
trucks due to the pick-up method.
Comment:
Transportation by such trucks is not as cost
efficient per pound as larger trucks. In addition,
EPA estimates were based on transformers and
capacitors which have a higher density and
consequently can be transported at a lower cost per
pound by taking advantage of maximum weight limits.
( 3) EPA estimate is based on a 400 miles
average trip. The average round trip from the
contaminated roads in North Carolina to the Alabama
site would be approximately 1400 miles.
6. Social and Economic Matters
Response:
FV/dc
"Sections IV through VI I of the impact
statement fail to address the major impact this
landfill will have on the community in which it
will be located, the value of the property adjacent
to the landfill, and the extent of the injury from
groundwater contamination, if and when it occurs.11
Sections IV through VII of the EIS indicated
that the net economic impact of the pick up and
disposal will be positive for Warren County due to
the ability to utilize the presently contaminated
shoulders. The landfill will have di J li!Jdly no
impact on land use outside of the State-owned
property and therefore the economy of. Warren County
will not be affected. This conclusion is supported
by the fact that a major poultry processing plant
has recently decided to locate in Warren County
with full knowledge of the PCB disposal plan.
The PCB landfill will be designed by a
qualified consul ting firm . The consultant will
monitor the construction process and perform
necessary quality control testing to assure that
the landfill is built according to plans and
specifications. Every reasonable precaution is
being taken in the design of the PCB landfill to
prevent discharge to ground or surface water.
These precautions consists of maximum separation
between waste material and ground water levels and
monitoring of leachate collection system.
. '
COMMENTS OF WARREN COUNTY ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF SOILS
CONTAMINATED WITH PCB'S
ALONG HIGHWAY SHOULDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 1/29/80
Warren County offers the following comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the State of North
Carolina in compliance with the 'North Carolina F.nvironmental
.Policy Act . on removal and disposal of soils contaminated 1,,,;ith
PCB' s along highway shoulders in !-Jorth Carolina :
1. SITE SFLFCTION
The technical requirements for a chemical waste landfill
to be used for the storage of PCR's according to EPA r e0ul a tions
stated in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 761.4l(b) are as follows: (1) Soils .
The landfill site shall be located in thick, relatively i~pez·-
meable formations such as large-area clay pans. Where this is
not possible, the soil shall have a high clay and silt content
and the following parameters:
(i) In-place soil thickness, 4 feet or co~pactea soil
liner thickness, 3 feet;
-7
(ii) Permeability (cm/sec), < 01 X 10 ;
(iii) Percent soil passing no. 200 sieve ,) 30;
(iv) Liquid limit,') 30;
(v) Plasticity index, ) 15;
(vi) Artificial liner thickness,') 30 ~il.
a. Laboratory Procedures a nd Results.
The laboratory test .results presented in t he Environmenta l
Impact Statement, Appendix n, fail to satisfy the requirements
stated in paragraph 716.4l(b). ~he test results were too few
in number for the critical soil characteristics of permeability,
liquid limit and plasticity index. Specifically, thete were
-

1

-
' .
inadequate sample numbers and replications of samples to deter-
mine the mean and standard deviations for these key soil para-
meters both with depth and across the site in general. Anyone
familiar with the field of soil science is fully aware that
soils are highly variable in their chemical and physical pro-
perties and there is likewise variation associated with the
procedures selected to estimate the ma~nitude of the various soil
parameters, even among "standard methods". ':'here are two pro-
cedures listed to measure soil permeability in the 1974 edition
of .Earth Manual -A Water Resources Technical Publication , 2nd
Edition, U. S. Department of Interior. One procedure outlines a
"constant head" approach to measure p~rrneability in a compacted
soil; another procedure outlines a ''falling head" approach to
estimate the permeability of a compacted soil. ~he "constant
head" approach is by far the more accurate of the two. The ''fall-
ing head" approach requires one to "interpolate" values from a
graph in order to complete the calculations. It has been common
experience that such "interpolations" often lead to larger e r ror
components. The State unfortunately has chosen to use the
"falling head" method for this project. 1'.nother major factor
concerning the test methods used to determine the permeability
results was the fact that "remolded" samples were used in the
"falling head" method. Such "remolding" assured a breakdown in
native soil structure, and insured uniformity of moisture through-
out the sample and the general creation of artificial conditions
within the sample prior to measurement of the permeability.
- 2 -
Had the sample been compacted as removed from the field, i.e.,
just as will be the case during actual soil liner construction,
there is no doubt but what a different and probably far less
acceptable set of values for permeability would have been
obtained. There was no ieport of permeability values for undis-
turbed samples. It is important to recognize and appreciate t he
wide variability that is found in soils for these import ant
parameters and to likewise understand that one can often bias
the results by the creation of artific ial c onditions wit hin the
samples -even using "standard methods''. In conclusion, t h e per-
meability data presented in the impact statement gives no evidence
of the "true" permeability of the soil under actual field com-
pacted conditions or the variation which most likely exist s with
depth or across the site in this critical parameter.
b. Soils Map of Site.
With th~ limit~d soils information prov ided in the impact
report, it would be a physical impossibility to construct a PCD
waste themical landfill at the Warren County site and be 100%
certain that the soil liner meets the require ments stated in
paragraph 761.4l(b). In addition to the lack of definitive
test results regarding permeability, no detailed subsurface map
.of the various soil layers found at the site has been prepared.
This would have involved a systematic physical identif ication
and characterization of the various subsurface horizons to deter-
mine which layers meet or exceed the stated requirements by the
EPA for liner construction. The limited number of test bor ings
at the site were "bulk sampled" with depth rather than at 6-inch
-3 -
intervals. Mechanic~l analysis of the samples with depth i~to
sand, silt and clay fractions would allow the construc tion of
a detailed subsurface map indentifying tho se lay ers meetin g
the minimum requirements. Since the soil liner will be c o n-
structed from materials existing at the site, t he present iMpact
statements fail to identify the exact soil layers which do
meet the requirements. The impact statement suggests t l:.at
the ·construction engineer will "stockpile" layers of soils
which visually appear to meet the necessary requirements a nd that
these materials will be blended in a manner t o a ssure t he re-
quirements are met. No feasible method is available for det e r-
mining the adequacy of the blending operation. It cannot be
accepted that the blended product will be of such a q uality as
to satisfy the minimum liquid limit and plasticity index speci-
fied by the EPA regulations, when the best soils at the s ite
are only marginally within these limits. This procedure may be
adequate for building a road or darn, but is much too uns afe or
risky for the building of a chemical waste landfill on marginal
soils.
c. Clay Content and Definitions.
The critical features for retaining chem icals in place would
be the clay coritent in the soils used in the soil liner. Clays
are defined by both the International Society of Soil Science
and U.S.D.A. classifications as solid particles of soil less
than or equal to 0.002 mm in size (Soil Survey Manual, G.S.D.A.
Handbook, No. 18,·August 1951, p. 208). The impact statement
-

4

-
does not identify the quantities of solids below 0.005 mm in
size, which are fine silts. Since 761.4l(b) states that "the
landfill site shall be located in thick, relatively impermeable
formations such as large-area clay pans [and] [w]here this is
not possible, the soil shall have high clay and silt con-
tents . II . . , it is paramount that these zones of clay enrich-
ment be identified prior to construction.
The clay content is the controlling factor in sever al
critical soil parameters including liquid limit, plasti city
index, chemical exchange capactiy (CEC) and surface area.
According to Baver (Soil Physics, Third Edition, John
Wiley and Son), "The Atterberg constants are wiaely used in
highway construction. The plasticity number or index in E\ngineer-
ing terms, is employed as an "empirical measure" of the suita-
bility of the clay binder material in stabilized soil mixture ".
The P.N. (plasticity number)= 0.6C (clay content) -12 for
0.005 mm particles and P.N. = 0.66C -10 for 0.001 mm particles.
Thus, with these relationships, this illustrates that thci soil
liner has to be constructed with soil which always exceeds 45~
content of 0.005 mm material or 38% of 0.001 mm material. From
material supplied by the Soil & Material Engineers, Inc., March
5, 1979, report, the soils in the O' -2' Marginally meet the
0.001 and 0.005 mm soil requirements for plasticity index, but
a sizable portion of the O' -4' and O' -6' would not meet
the requirements. However, soils, such as that at the Warren
- 5 -
County site, which contain appreciahle quantities of mica
may cause the plasticity index values to be higher than would
be expected from the clay contents. These differences are
attributed to a greater surface and increased contact in the
case of plate-shaped particles. Therefore, the presence of
mica in the Warren County soils may have resulted in the higher
plasticity index values than should actually have been measured
based on the clays content at the site. Again, the limited
number of samples from the various soil horizons prevent any
intelligent assessment of the mean plasticity index values
or the variation in plasticity index values at the site. These
results would strongly suggest that the amount of soil which
would likely meet the requirements for a soil liner would be
limited to the upper two feet of the soil. Therefore, the calcu-
lations in the amount of soils at the site which would be suitable
for liner constiuction may be grossly overestimated. Without
more detailed subsurface mapping and roechanical analysis charac-
terization, it is difficult to estimate the volume of soil
It is of paramount importance that the 0.002 mm size for
clays be the accepted standard for judging the acceptability
of soils for establishment of PCB waste chemical landfills.
3
Soil 0.005 mm in size would have a surface area for 1 cm of
2
soil equal to 6,283.2 cm
2
whereas a sqil 0.002 mm in size would
3
have 15,708 cm surface area within a 1 cm sample or over twice
the surface area for retaining the PCB chemical. Likewise, the
chemical exchange capacity (CEC) for 0.005 mm soil would be
- 6 -
about 11 milliequivalents (M.E.) per 100 gm of soil. The chemi-
cal exchange capacity (CEC) for 0.002 mm soil would be about
19 M.E. per 100 gr. or over 1.5 X higher than the 0.005 mm
soil (Baver, Soil Physics, cited above). These two important
parameters, related to clay content, affect the retention of
chemical substances in soils. It is vital that the soil liner
be constructed of soils "high in clay" to reduce the risk of
chemical migration from the site. The very thin layer of
clay enriched soil at the Warren County site would appear in-
adequate in quantity to safely construct the soil liner. The
reference of "mixing of soils" within the initial O' -5'5 in
the March 15, 1979, letter from Soil & Material Engineering,
Inc., to Mr. Jerry Perkins appears an oversimplification in
their estimate of the volume of "high clay" soil availahle for
soil liner construction.
d. Clay Type vs. Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit.
One of the most disturbing and troubling aspects of the
site selection process was the lack of interest and regard by
both the State of North Carolina and EPA administrators in
information concerning the lack of chemical activity and sur-
face area of the type of clay found at the Warren County site.
The limited quantities of clay found at the Warren County site
appear to be predominately kaolinite clay. As shown in Figure
10, p. 28, Earth Manual (attached), soils with sandy clay, small
amounts of clay, and kaolin clay have very low plasticity index
and liquid limits, both key pararoeters as noted by EPA
- 7 -
regulations 761.4l(b) (1). Kaolin clay is 1:1 type crystal
lattice material with very low chemical exchange capacity
(CEC} and low surface areas for chemical adsorption of
toxic substances. On the other hand, clays with 2:1 type
crystal lattice have much larger surface areas, higher
chemical exchange capacities, and much higher plasticity index
and liquid limits. These clays are commonly referred to as
"Montmorillonite" clay or "Bentonite" clay. From Figure 10,
"Montmorillonite" clay, identified by nul'1ber 10, had plasti-•
city indexes which varied from 55 to 140 and liquid limits
which varied from 80 to 165. The "Bentonite", identified by
number 13, had plasticity indexes which varied from 250 to 560
and liquid limits which varied from about 300 to 600. On page
35, the impact statement lists the average plasticity index
as 9-21 and the liquid limit as 36-71 for the Warren County
site, which is identical to line number 4 on Figure 10 listed
for "kaolin clay formed from decomposed granite."
From Figure 10, it is very evident that the EPA minimum re-
quirements of plasticity index) 15 or liquid limits) 30, and
the position of the Warren County soil --i.e., similar to
number 4 --should be considered as much too weak for the pro-
tection of health from PCB. This is especially true for the
soils at the Warren County site since there are a number of
soils in other areas of the state where 2:1 type clays are
predominant. From the publication "The Soils of North Carolina'',
- 8 -
Tech. Bul. No. 155, by W. D. Lee (attached), the key soils
which contain 2:1 type clays are Iredell (II.C.l}, White Store
(V.C.l), and Creedmoor (V.C.3}. These soils are located across
the Piedmont region of North Carolina and can be found in the
areas identified by IM and WC on the attached map obtaine(~
from the above listed publication. Lee estimated these two
soil associations --i.e., IM and WC --covered some 790,000
acres. It would seem logical that the State of North Carolina
could have located the 10-15 acres needed for a PCB landfill
somewhere in this 790,000 acres. From the limited information
published regarding th~ sites examined by the State prior to
selecting the Warren County site, it is difficult to deter-
mine how many, if any, of the alternative sites were located
within the areas shown on the attached soils map for North
Carolina. Due to the high plasticity indexes and high liquid
. limits for the 2:1 type clays, the areas designated on the
map are where the State should have concentrated its initial
efforts for locating a landfill site. The site chosen by
the State would qualify as one of the least desirable sites
from the type and quantity of clay present at that location.
From a transportation perspective, spill sites nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 are near regions designated by the IM and WC soils.
From a health safety perspective, it would be far more desirable
to locate one or more landfills for PCB on the IM or WC soils
than to select the Warren County site with soils which have
clays with marginal plasticity index and liquid limit values.
- 9 -
2. GROUNDWl'.TER
The impact statement indicates that the base of the
leachate collection system will be a minimum of 7' above
the water table for the site. The EPA regulations state
that there must be a 50' separation; however, this regulation
was waived for the Warren County site. Based on the previous
discussions regarding the soils at the site, the EPA should
not have been allowed to waive this very i~portant regulation.
This is especially true since there appears to be a great
deal of uncertainty just where the "mean high water table"
for the area should be placed. As stated in the impact state-
ment, the U. S. Geology and Groundwater Resources show this
table to be 47' below the surface, whereas the Soil & Material
Engineers, Inc., suggest the static water table is 32' to 37'
below the surface, but is estimated to vary 5' to 11'. The
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc., assumed their February, 1979,
samples were at the top of the range because there had been
a 5 percent above normal rainfall for some time preceding the
sampling. The initial samples for the site taken in September,
1978, normally the lowest period in the hydrology cycle for
North Carolina, show moist soils at some 20' and wet soils at
25'. Thus, the report fails to identify the actual high
groundwater limit therefore, and this determination would b t '.
made after construction begins. Since the plasticity index
and liquid limit of the soil is marginal at best, it is
totally unsound to have such great uncertainty as to the
location of the water table. Also, the EPA regulations direct
-10 -
that there must not be a hydrological connection between
the landfill and the groundwater. This report fails to "prove"
that no such connection exists at the site. Therefore, to
allow the landfill to be constructed 7' more or less above
a water table, about which there is great uncertainty as t0
its actual location, is greatly to exacerbate an already
risky operation.
3. PCB LANDFILL DESIGN
The conceptual plan, Figure 5, for the landfill has several
severe limitations. Perhaps the most critical faults in the
design are the absence of a clay liner along the upper side
walls and the outsloping of the sidewalls at an angle ratio
of 3:1. This design is founded under the assumption that
"water movement through a landfill is always downward, thus
the construction of a liner beneath the system to remove the
water before a hydraulic head is allowed to develop would produce
a site which would retain waste chemicals". This assumption
is demonstrably false with respect to the unlined, outsloped
upper sidewalls, since at these locations the downward movr:-
ment of water would leach PCB's directly out of the landfill.
The other problems with this assumption are that chemicals
may escape from the site through the lateral flow of moisture
and by diffusion both laterally and downward. A clay liner
along the sidewalls of the landfill would reduce the rate of
lateral flow of moisture and waste chemical, but this will not
stop the escape ot chemicals from the landfill site by diffusion
processes, especially if the clay is kaol~nite.
-11 -
The diffusion process is governed by the laws of thermo-
dynamics; chemicals will move from a zone of high chemical
potential to a zone of low chemical potential. The high con-
centration of PCB chemicals inside the landfill would be a
major factor associated with a high chemical potential zone
inside the landfill. The absence of PCB outside the landfill
likewise would cause a zone of low chemical potential. ~he
chemicals will move from the inside to the outside of the _ r ,~.,(,~
L(._ ~ ~ 1 n-c.... "• f' c ,_,_;{ 1 II ....,. 'I; _, I)( 0' I ~ landfill walls even with zero moisture flow. Once outside , -11,0 1~~, -fl>
/,.//''¢'..,,
the rate of PCB rnovement 1 will greatly increase due to rapid ~,;,.ii
moisture flow through the sandy subsoil. jother major routes -by which the PCB's can be expected to migrate out of the
11'ndf ill include volatilization/ G ptake by soil microorganis!!(s 't ,uo..,~ ;\i-n 1,,,..., ~-t' I~ c 1. ,_.,.u .. 51.-\ 1,., A,,w/L, v /U DJ r-e ~
transport with-water, and possibly plant uptake. cod tamination
of the groundwater will soon follow if the landfill is only
7' above the water table (Marshall, The Physical Chemistry and
Mineralogy of Soils, John Wiley and Son, 1964).
\
The primary method for reducing the rate of che~ical diffu-
sion will be to provide a thick barrier of clay enriched soil.
The type of clay is also of critical importance since the
surface areas and chemical exchange capacity (CEC) of the clay
determines the adsorptive capacity of the clay. PCB molecules
adsorbed on the clay particles will tend to diffuse at a much
slower rate, and 2:1 type clay would be far superior to 1:1
type clay in retaining the PCB molecules.
-12 -
The conceptual plan, noted in Figure 5 of the impact report,
shows no means for moisture to flow from the sand to the lower
leachate collection system. As shown in Appe ndix B of the
report, the native soils at the bottom of the landfill are
extremely sandy with less than 20 % clay s. Baver (Soil
Physics, p. 111) states that soils that contain less than 20 %
0.005 mm sized particles 00 not exhibit plasticity. Thus,
these soils below the landfill would be h ighly permeable and
PCB which enters the lower collection system would tend t o
move downward rather than laterally in the sand layer. There
should be a clay soil liner below the lower collection system
to assure collection of the leachate. In fact, a double c lay
liner with a sand layer between the layers for the walls would
substantially improve the safety of the land fill design.
4. MOISTURE CONTROL DURIN(; CONSTRUCTION.
The Environmental Impact Statement is very non-specific on
how the construction engineers plan to control rainfall and
excess moisture within the site at the time the soil liner i s
being constructed. The Soil and Material Engineers, I nc.,
were very specific that the samples of soil they tested for
permeability had to exhibit about 29.6 to 3 0.7% moisture
(optimum moisture contents) in order to compact to 95% of
maximum dry density of 90.2 to 92.0 pounds per cubic foot to
-7 meet the (1.0 X 10 cm/sec permeability regulation. These
consultants made the further point that even 95% compaction
will not meet the regulatory requirement; the suggestion is
-13 -
made that 100% compaction will have to be achieved in order
to assure that the permeability standard will be attained.
Since soils are typically 50% solids and 50% air and water,
and water does not compact, a very low Moisture con t en ~ would
be necessary to maintain the 100% compaction. As a practical
matter, it will be nearly impossible to achieve 100% compaction
under the field conditions that will be present during c on-
struction. With an open pit of some five acres in size, rain-
fall on the soil liner may lead to inadequate compaction that
will cause the liner not to meet the regulations. In other
words, how do you "dry out" several feet of clay enriched soil
following several days of rainfall, especially in such a
large area? It would appear that such problems as rooisture
control should be addressed more specifically in the impact
statement.
5. ALTERNATIVE OF TRANSPORTATION TO EXISTING
CHEMICAL LANDFILL.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement only me n tions
in passing the alternative of transportation to an existing
chemical waste landfill. This alternative is dismissed on t \e
basis of "excessive cost" with the estimate that the cost
would be $12,000,000. (pp. 25-26).
Unfortunately, the State does not disclose its basis for
estimating the high cost of disposal at an existing landfill.
-14 -
From materials prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
and filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, it appears that the cost for trans-
porting PCB contaminated materials to a chemical waste landfill
site (400 mile average trip) would amount to two cents per pound.
(Support Document for Proposed Regulations, p. 20). Because
40,000 cubic yards or approximately 86,400,000 pounds of con-
taminated material are involved here, the estimated transporta-
tion cost would be $1,728,000. The closest adequate exist-
ing chemical landfill site is near Emeile, Alabama. This land-
fill has been in operation for some time, so no unique site
expenditures wou1d be involved with disposal of the PCB material
from North tarolina. According to information obtained from
the landfill operator, charges for disposing of the 40,000 cubic
yards of PCB materials from North Carolina would be about
$5,184,000. Hence, the total cost of transporting the material
to and disposing of it at an existing landfill, apparently would
amount to $6,912,000, substantially less than the $12,000,000
estimated by the State.
Considering the extremely serious safety problems involved
in use of the proposed Warren County site for PCB disposal,
as discussed in this comment, the significant, but not extra-
ordinarily, greater expense for transporting the PCB materials
to an existing landfill site outside North Carolina, is easily
justified by the additional protection afforded to the public
-15 -
health of our citizens. The State has estimated that disposal
at the Warren County site would cost $1,580,000. Of this
amount, $615,000 represents costs incurred in removal of
the material from road shoulders, and would be incurred re-
gardless of the disposal method chosen. The remaining
$965,000 is specifically related to use of the Warren County
landfill site. (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p. 9).
Thus, additional costs of $5,947,000 would be incurred i f
the material were transported to the disposal site in Alabama.
6. SOCIAL. AND ECONOMIC MATTERS.
Sections IV through VII of the impact statement fail to
address the major impact this landfill will have on the
community in which it will be located, the value of the property
adjacent to the landfill, and the extent of the injury from
groundwater contamination, if and when it occurs.
-16 -
2<3 [NffH M,\NUAL n-0 S,\NCY CLAY, N0i11ri(A5Hll, Nf.W IJ(Xl(O. l I I I I I I 1oorlCi) s,uv Lccss. ~1.N$AS·NCORASK11. - , • • - -I · ! \6) CLAY(Y LO(SS, UIISAS. µ(,;) 1.AOLIN Ci.AY, O(COMPOS(O CRANIT[,SINCAPORC.-(-;;) uo._111 CLAY. ncs1ou1.L s01L,CAL1ro'Rt11A..· I I I I . ''0 ,(i) ~;LTY ~Lu. SALT L~0KE 01.s111 s~_on.1tNts,1JTAH.: I'' 11 1n:(i) PORT(RVILL( CLAY [XPANSIV( !CALC•UM . _ _ • -1----1 f--1 8CtO(LLITE I, CAllfO~NIA. 140r7(d) HALLOY~tTE CLAY, SANOY, TRACE Of @ !UL[ LAKE HOIU(NTS lOIIITOUAC[OUS ANO R 11.Qr;Tl!'OAII.LONITE, (;UIIM,Mllrtl/lNAS ISLANDS. llO PUIJICE I, NORTH(Alf CIILIFORlitA. tt-+~-hh.,,.(--r-~-+-i!l---11 x @) MONTMORILLONtTE CLAY, 5LtGltTLY ORGAN. IC, .• .., H cu11~,. MARIANAS ISLANDS. __ • _ • _ ~ \ (0) CLAY,CLACIAL LAKE OEPOSIT,NORTH DAKOTA. . ► IOOn(!_l)_ CLAY, 0EX PA~Stvt" tSOOtUIJ \lONTMO~ILLONtTEI ': 1 GILA Rtvtn VALLt:Y, ARIZONA. ~ n@ O(NTONil(,WYOIJING ANO SOUTH :;, COi I OAKOH. ~ I ~ 60H-. -► : : \ (7\.!-._Y-~' ·) 'it': ~4001 I 1 c I "'1 40 ' \.'./~_,L.l,y ~• ~ V 7 · I • .,..-: / -" :;; t:k'" V • " I -:y,,.-r-,r,.-~_.j ;. ?Q,-...;...-...:~::.J.:=:::rt'l--',i ,. I . t.J,L-+-~--2001 < , 1 < 200 4UO 600 r . I , I.IOVIO LIMIT I !0,., o: ; \:..., : , ,r ; o tv qa ,c 80 !00 120 110 160 lbO 200 -1.IOUIO I.HAIT Figure 10.-Typlcal relntlonsh!ps between the liquid llmlt (LL) and tho plasticity Index (Pl) for various soils. 101-D-170. ,·. 1n addition to the coarse-gr:iined groups, the engineering use chart, figure S, indicates the engineering properties of fine-grnined soil groups. The c!cgrce of consistency of a fine-grained cohesive soil can be deter-mined by its relative cons:stcncy, C., which defines the_ water content of the s:..,:! in relation to t!1e liquid limit :md the plnstic limit o( the snme mnteria'.. The equation for relative consistency is: C == LL-w_=L1...-w ' LL -PL Pl . ( 4) !t is usunl!y expressed as n. percent:ige. A soil with relative consistency o! 0 i~ :\t its liquid limit, nnd n soil at t-00 percent rclntivc consistency is at its pbstic limit. · 11. Porosity nncl Vol<J Ibtio,-In_ the evaluation of a soil, one mny exnminc :t either from the st1rndpoint of the amount c;,f solids contnine<l ,---~·. CHAPTER 1-PflOP[!HIES or-SOILS in a iiven volume or from the standpoint of the rcmnining ~ of the comptnations in soil mech:mics are simplified by consill1:t\ voids rather than the solids. Two expressions, porosity and void~ arc used to define the void space. The porosity, 11, is dciincd ns 1hc ~. expressed as a pcrccnt-ilgc, of space i,, the soil m:1ss not occupied by th; solids (volume of voids) with respect to the total volume of the mas, The void ratio, e. is defined as the ratio of the sp:lce not occupied by th solid particles (volume of voids) to the volume of the solid p:1rticlc~ i a given soil mass. The following equations express these rcfotionships: Vw e n=-=--V\ 1 + e V. II e=-=--V, l -11 where: Vl = total volume, V.= volume or voids, nnd V,= volume of solids. (5 (6 Porosity and void rntio are measures of the st.1tc or condition or soil structure. As porosity ;ind void r:,tio dccn:;1se, the cnginccrin properties of a given soil become more depcndabh! with dccrc:1sc:. i permeability and cornpressibili!y and :in incrc.1se in strength. As porosit decreases, and consequently the voic! ratio decreases, it becomes mor difficult to excnvntc the material. At a given water conten_t it is nec:css:ir to increase comp:ictivc effort to obtain a c.!ccrcase i11 porosity. J·lowcvc1 simil:ir propcrtic~ m:ty be obtnineu in different soils :,t widely diITcren conditions of porosity. Engineering properties of :1 soil do not v:\r directly with its porosity; the relationship is generally compli:x. . 12, Specific Grnvjty,-In the investigntion or n soil, the most ensi! visualized co_ndition involves the voh,mc occupied by soil solids, V ., th volume occupied by soil moisture, V ,.,, and the volume occupii.:d by :ti in the soil mass, V •. However, most measurements arc more rcadi! obtained by weight. To com:l:1tc w.:i!•.!tl ~nd volume, :t factur ca!lc, specific gr:wity is required. Spccilic gravity is t'.e!ined :1s thc ratio bctwcc• the unit weight of n subst:1ncc nnd the unit weight o{ wr.tcr :It •\° C There arc scv,::rnl ditfercnt types o( spcc:fk gravity in common use. Thos t?scd by the Dureau of Reclamation :ire: absolute spcdlk g_r:\Vity, ar-parent specific gravity, and several types of bulk specific gravitii:s. Tlws values nrc obrnincd by the methods outlined in dcsignution E-tO. .· The absolute specific gravity is determined by nnalyzing the nmour. . and kind of mineral constituents present in the soil, For this test, :1 the coarse grnins nre pulvcriied to nt lenst liner th:-in the No, 200 siev
-,/ •: · I I • . , t~ . . ,. . "' .... . '·::~--, . ·x.. ... , r, 1.-. I I! .. I \. n .-l . I . I .·.·J· . l .. Oecomber, i955 Tech. Bui. No. · 1 15 ------The SoHs o-r ~Jorth CaroHna Their Formation, Identification and Use William D. lee Associate Professor of Soils In Charge of Soil Survey North Caro!:na A~r;i.:ul1uro! ExpC?ri:ncn~ Sla~ion t· I' t· .. !' . 1· . t··. ! ':·' .... ,· -. I. ' .. ~ ". t" ~-k' \1-·1 • l r \1 ,. 'I. l, ,,
', · 5. Cray or light gray (A,), grayish•yellow or grayish.brown (A,, ,) friable sandy loam, or grayish-brown to yellowish.red sandy clay loam (A., B,►) surface soils, occasion:illy gra,·clly; yellowish-reel upper (B,), and reddish•brown or reel lower (B,) cfoy subsoil which i~ streaked and splotched with yellow (and sometimes i;ray). The suhrnil is very lirm when moist, plastic when wet, and very hard when dry. It swells on wetting and shrink.s·an<l cracks on dryin~:. has ~tro11~ 111l'di11111 ani-;ubr hlocky structure; and may contain small amounts of 111ica a11d occ1sion;d .sand grains. 1\lodcratdy deep to <lec-p soil. Slopes :!•:!·l',1/, .. 111milr :t.l'..'.1_';, l't111ct: Rcd·Ycllow l'odwli,·, A111di11g (\/;,.J\la) (Th(' sandy d;,y !11;1111 ,,11ls proli;1lily an· en11inl ph;,sn. Series is e~sentially '"heavy Al'J'li11;;".) C. Soils wiL11 }'clluw suL,oils I. Gr:,r (/\,.). gr;1yi,h•hrnwn (A,). amt pale ydlow (A,) very friable sandy loam ~urL,n· ,oi b; p;: k p·l lo\\'. yet low, nr l,row11 i,h.y~·llow ,:1 mly clay, clay loam, or clay upper ,ub,oil (B,) which is moderately lirm to firm when moist, sliRhtly pl;,,tic when wet, and sli~htly hard when dry. The lower subsoil (B,) at depths of 21i•3·1 inches below the soil surrace is streaked yellow, lig-ht reel, am! ~omuirn,·s gray, sandy cl;,y loam which is friable to moderately firm ,vl11:n moi,t, sii);hll)' sti(k)' w:ien wet, and slightly ford when dry. The subsoil has n1t·dium moderate sub;111~11lar blockv structure, ;111d seldom cnntains an appreciable amount of mica. Deep to ,moderately deep soil. Slopes 1·8%, mostly under 5% ............................................................... Durham Rcd-Ycl.10\,· Podzolic, Durham (Va.Ga) 2. Gray (A,) to very lil,\ht gray (A,) sand, loamy sand, or loose sandy loam surface larer which is I to !l inches thick: li:;ht yellowish•brown to pale yellow sand, loamy sand, or loose sandy loam (Aa, ll,) which is moderately deep lo \'cry shallow over partly disintegrated rock. Rock outcrops and boulders are common in places. Slopes 2•!15%, mostly 4•12%, Soil is closely as,ociatccl with the Durham and Appling soil series ......... : ..... ·-···· l.ouisburg Cn·at Soil Group: Lithosol. Laudcrd:1k (Va.Ala) !l. (Soils with yellowish subsoils of clayey Piedmont materials which have an overlay of sandy Coasral Plain materials) Cray or pale brownish-gray sand, loamy s:rnd (A,) to pale y~llow or pale brown loose sandy loam (A,) rnrfoce soils, orten gra\'elly and frequently 12·2·1 inches thick; yellow, yellow and brciwn, or brown clay, clay loam, silty clay loam, or silty d.1y subsoil (B,). The subsoils may be Alamance, Durham, Granville, I Ickna, or I lerndon soil materiak :\locleratcly deep to deep soil. Slope range 2·10%, mostly 3•5% .................................. Chesler/ie/d Recl•Ycllow l'odwlic, Durham (Va.Ga) D. Soil with Yellow and Gray submil (Moderately well lo somewhat poorly drained) I. Dark gray (A,) to· gray (/\,) rriaLlc sa ll(ly loam to silt loam surface lioils, nalc yellow sandy clay loam upper suusoil (JI,,,) which is lirm when moist, plastic when wet, and hard when dry; an1l 1nottlcd light gray, yellow, and s,,metimes li~ht recldish•lm,wn sandy clay to clay lower mhsoil (B,) which ii, finn when rnoist, pb,tir when wet, and hard to very hanl when dry. MtX\cr;1tdy deep soil. Slopes (l.•J';; .. n1ostly under 2%, Occupies nearly lcvc:l ~hiQ1" as "llats"·or lvw saddln or gl·111le slopes around s•1iri11~ IH';1(h ;ind '· .... ' drainagcways -·················r···············································•·········-················. Col/nx Great Soil Group: Planosol (Argipan) Colbert (Va•Ala) · • The Colfax series is an intcrgrade with the Recl•Yellow l'oclwlic soil.,, the Low•Humic Clcy soils, ancl the l'lanosols. It is about 111idw:1y in dr;1i11;11.;c aml color Letwcen the well clrai11ccl Appling· ancl Cecil series ;111d the poorly drained \Vorsham series. Fre11uenl!y it recl'ives seepage w;1tl'r frorn su1101111d• ing soilJ. (The Colfax snil's also includes soils forrnl·d i11 ,in,ilar 1>ositio11, from the Carolina slates, 1he Triassic sa1ulstorw,, and mic;, h1"'i".) E . .'ioil with 11111ch c:,,,y in the ,11l1rnil Fonucd of (I) rcsicl11;1) material i11 pl;,cc, or ('.!) of local i:0ll11vial•all11vi;d 1natnials dl'rin·cl fr11111 re,icl1111n1 of ligl11•c<1lon·d ~nl'iss, schist, and gra11i1e; ucc:urs as ll;11s or dcp1-cs~ed areas in upland,, al lhe base of slo11es, around spring-heads, or along streams 1Jear th~ -source; and i~ s0111cwhat poorly to poorly drained, often receiving-seepage wat<T from ~urro11111lin~ soils. I. Gray (A,) to grayish•brown (A,) loo.,e sandy lo:1111 to frial,le .~ilt loam rnr• face soils: mottled gray, pale yellow, and ycll01,·ish•lirown da)' loarn upper (ll1, ,) subsoil which is firm when moist, plastic when wet, and hard ,vhcn· dry; and light gray to white clay lower (H,) suh~oil which i, faintly mottled with yellow, brown, and olive gray and also is pbstic wl1::n wet and hard when dry. Deep to shallow soil. .Slopes 0·9%, mostly 1•3% .............. l!'orsl1<11r.. Planoso! (t\rg-ipan), Guthrie (Pa•Ala, total :1crea.~c is small in each state.) (The Wor,ham series also incluues soils formed in simil;ir positions rrom the Carolina slates, the Triassic sandstones, and mica g-neiss.) II. Soils Derived from Da~iic Crystalline Hocks (mninly diorite, ~ubhro, dia-base, hornblende) A. Soils with Red subsoils (B Horizons) I. Dark brown (A,), reddi,h•brow11 (Ar or A,) friable cl.,y loam, or brownish. red firm clay (AP, H,p) surface soils; dark red (tlusky reel or m.,roon reel) clay subsoil (B,) which is firm when moist, plastic when ,.-ct, and hare! whc11 dry. The ~ubsoil has moderate li11e to <·oar,c rnba11g11lar blocky sln1uurl', and is practically free of mica flakes or sand graim. Deep soi!. Slopl's :!•·JO':{,. mostly 1•12% ·-···--·--··-·······-···-··-······-···················-···· . /Ja11irlso11 Red•Ycllow Podzolic, Davidson (Va.Ala) (The more clayey soils probably are croclecl pli:,scs) 2. (from a mixture of acid and basic rocks, hut mostly hornulcnde gneiss and hornulcnde schist): · Dark g-rayish•brown (A,), reclclish•brown (A,, ,) friable lo:1111, sandy loam, or reddish.brown clay loam surface (A,,, B,,) soils; red to reddish•hrown rlav loam or clay subsoil (B,) which is lirm when moist, plastic wl1e11 Wl't, and hard when dry. The subsoil has weak fine to medium s11li;111gul:ir lilocky structure, ·anu contains some mica particles and occasional sand gr;,ins. l\foderatcly deep or deep soil, but there arc many shallow ·areas. Slo11L'S '.!· ·lU'X,, mmtly 3·12% ........................................ ................. ........... . .. ... 1./nytl Red·Ycllow Potlzolic, Lloyd (\fa.J\la) (Thl' redder loams and a!! c;;,y !0;1111 soils prouably arc eroded ph;1\l'S. Lloyd soils arC" :,uout midway l,ctwce11 thl' !);1vid,011 ;111d C:n ii ,(., il', in :cxtt1rl', consistenc:l', structure, and color.) B. Soil with i'dluwi.<f,.Ucd or J.'crldi.1/t llrn11m ~ubsnil l. Da, k ~•.ray or i>n1w11 frial,lc ln;1n1 f:\), d:11 k, cddi,h-lJrow11 f1 i:i!i;.-c l.1,· !,,;,;11· I~
1 I I ( I ,. i ~ ~ ' .• (A, or A,), or day lo.1111 (A,, n,.) surracc soils; ycllowish•rcd to re<l silly clay or clay upper (H,) subsoil which is firm when moist; plastic when wet, ancl hard when dry; variable colored lower (H,) subsoil, but chie0y strong brown silty clay or clay finely mingled with red, yellow, olive, and gray. This layer is very pla~tic whc-n moist ancl very hard when clry. The upper· suhsoil has strong angular blocky structure; the lower subsoil is massive. ModeraLcly deep or deep soil. Slopes 2-20%, mostly 4-12% .... Mecltlenb11rg Red-Yellow J>odzolic, Mecklenuurg (Va-Ala, little in Ark) (The m0re clayey soils probably are eroded phases). C. Soils wiLh Yellowis/,.flrnwn or Olive Jlrown subsoils I. Gray (:\,) grayish•urown to brown (:\,) loose sandy loam or friaulc loam, to very dark gray (A,, ,) or yellowish•brown (A,,, ll,,) firm clay surface soils; brown, ycllowish•lirown, olive·brown, or pale olive clay subsoil (ll,) which is very !inn when mois1. n:ry plastic when wet, am! very hard when clry. U1>on wcttill); Lhc clay swells, and upon drying it shrinks and cracks illlo rou~h angular blocks. J\foder;1tcly deep soil. Slopes 1-12%, mostly under 5% ............................................. ·•······················-················ ... ········ ... · ........... Iredell Planosol (Argipan), Iredell (Va-Ala) (Excepting-a few ~c:1tten:d areas, probably all the sanely clay loam to clay soils arc erollcd phases.) 2. Grayi~h•brown (A,), IHown (A,) or clark 'brown (A,, A,) friable loam to bro\\'11 or yc.:ilowish-brow11 friable clay loam (/\,) surface soils; brown, yel· lowi\h•brow11, or oli\'e l1row11 friable loam to firm clay subsoil (B.). Shallow to moderately deep soil. Slopes 1·20%, mostly 3·8% ......... -................... Zion l'l:11wsol (Argipan), Or;111ge (Va, little in NC) (The clay loam soils probably are eroded phases. The soil is less firm ancl plastic than the Iredell whid\ it closely r'esembles.) D. Soil with much Gm)' in the subsoil For111l'd (I) or residual 111ateri;1\ in place, or (2) or lor;tl rolluvial•alluvial materials derived from rc.:~illuum or clark•colored rock,, as diorite, gabbro. Occurs as flat\ or depressed areas in uplands, at tlH: base ol ~lopes, around ,pring he;ids, or along streams near the source. It is somcwl1aL poorly to poorly d1·:1i111·d. C:r:,1· (,\,) fri:il,le loam. silt loam, or day loam surf:irc soil, wlrirh ;,re.: 111\>lllnl \\'it!, ydlowi,h•hrown in the ~ubsurfa<.:c (A,,,). The suhsoil is 111ottlc.:d gray, olin:, ;111d ydlowi~h•liro\1'n c:lay which is frnn ,vhe11 111oiH, plastic when wet, and h;ml wlll'n dry. Deep to shallow soil. Slopes Q.J 2%, mo~tly 1111clcr ·1 % .................... ................................................................. ...... .. . ... /~//,,:rt l'l;.nosol (Aq.;ip:111), Iredell (Va, SC, Ga, little in NC) Ill. Soils Derived from Mixed Acid 11nd B11sic Crystalline Rocks The rock forrnatiom arc principally granite and gneiss cut0by dikes or frequent intrusions o[ basic rocks as clioritc, gabbro, etc. The soils are much less uniform \han tho~c of Groups I and II. :\. Soils with }'r.//o;,,i.1/,./hou111, Yellow and Jlrow11, or ·s1to11g Jlrow11 subsoils l. Gray (A,), grayi~h•I.Jrown (A,), and pale yellow (A•) loarr.y sand to very fri• able ~ancly loam, or frial.Jlc sanely clay loam (A,, B,,) surface soils; streaked or mottkd light gray, yellow, brow11, and reddish•brown sanely clay (B,) to day (II,) ,ul"oil \\·hi,h is firm when moist, plastic wh.cn wet, and ha.rd when dr~·. Till· ,ul"oil Ii.,, ,tron~. medium subangular blocky stn1nurc. Suh,oil Li1lur is very 11on•u11irorm, Moderately deep to deep )oil. .'il<>Jles 1-1.:",~'., mostly under R% -·················-·····-····-················-·············--·--·--···· .. ·--...... / l,·lt!11r. l'lanornl (Argipan), Helena (Va-Ala) (The sandy clay loam soils probably an: eroded ph;1sn. Soil forr11nl) mapped "smooth phase \Vilkes".) · · . 2. Cray (A,), pale yellow (A,) loose sanely loam or yellowish•bro,rn s:-indy cla, loam to !inn clay loam (A~. B,,,) surface soils; yellowish•hrow11 to lirnwr clay subsoil (R,) which is lirm when m,oist, ,·cry plastic wlw11 wet, :111d li:1n' when dry. :\-[odcrately deep soil. Slope~ ~•l 5%, mo,tly m11ll'r_ 7'.'·~ ...... /:'1101. l'lanosol (Argipan), Helena (Va.Ga) (The sandy clay loam to clay lo;rm soils prol1ahly ;ire crodnl pkrsc, . .'inic originally called "ba,ic Helena". 3. Gray (A,), pale yellow (A,) loose sandy loam or l,rowni,lt•yclluw s;111d) day loam to clay loam (1\1,, II._) surface.: ,oil-;: 111ottkcl, ,tre;,kcd, or Y:1r iegated yellow, brown, and reddi~h·brown s.111cly l<J.1111, s;111dy cL1y l0:1111, 01 rlay thin and l'Xtrcmely variable suhsoil (II") \\'lrid1 is frial1le to firn1 wirer: moist, 11on-sticky to plastic when wet, and loo,c to l1.,rd wlii:n dry . .'ilr.dlb\\ to very shallow soil. Slopes •J.GO%, mostly J0.:.?5% ........ .... ....... 11·;//w, Lithosol, Wilkes (Va.Ala) (In many places all the surfoce soil app;1re11tly lt:r, l1n·11 n:111C>1Td 1,, accelerated erosion: outcrop~ o[ rock ;ire rom,11011. IV. Soils Derived from "Carolinu Slatc,i" The "Carolina Slates" ·are fine•grainccl rocks of grayish col(lr. They 11crnr in ; belt extencling'·acrnss the State (Fi0. I), and comist of a great ~c1 ie, l,: l'Olc111i, and sedimentary formations. Due to changes !,roug-ht about !iy prns11r,· a1:c folding or the Earth's crust, some o[ these lor111atio1h h;1Yc ,laty ~trucurrn :11ll arc c.tlled slates. All are practically free of mica, a11cl ;ire low in q11:1r1z. Tiu soils formed from the slates are characteristically silty thro11glto11t th,·ir profiln A. Soils with Red rnbsoils l. ., Cray (.'\,), grayish•yellow (A,) thin (2··1") friabk ,i!t lo:1111 or mld i\li•yello11 Lo rcc!dish-1.Jrown silt)' clay loam (Ar, B,.) surf.ice soils, occ;1,io11;dlv gra\'ell: or slaty, I.Jut rarely containin~ a 11oticcablc a1111J1111t of ,;111d; n:ddi,!J.!Jn,1,·1 10 n·d vcr·y smooth silty clay strb~oil (II,) whir!1 is !inn w!iel! 111ni,t. '\lie k' 111 stilky and slightly pb,tic wltc11 wc·1, ;11111 lt.1r.! wltl'11 d1y. Tlrl' ,1il1,11il :,:, we:,k 11wdi11m s11li;111g11l:1r hlorky s1r11nun·, ;11:d i, fnT of 1111,i«·:dd,· n,i,. par 1idt:, and ,and gr;1i1H . .\fodcr;1tcly dn·1• or dl'l'I' ,oil. s1 .. ,,,., :_:. 1 ·,•·;. mostly 1• 17% -···--·········· ................................... _ ................................ < ;rnrg,:;•1U. Red•\'cllow l'oclwlic, Cecil (Va•Ga) (The silty clay loam soils probably arc eroded phases) (From dark•colored m;1,,i\'\: 1·olr:1,1ic rncks a,,oc:iated witl1 C:1rulina .Slate·,) Brown (A,), re<lelish•brow11 (A, or,\,) friable silt loam, or rcddislt•brow11 t reel silty cby lo:im (Av, B,.) surface soils; rl'd to dark red s111onll1 silty cla subsoil (B,) which is firm when moist, pbstic when wet, and hard wlie11 dr) Tlre subsoil has wtak medit1m sul,.1ng-11l:1r blocky strnn11re, .111,! apJ•l·:rr~ ·t I.Jc free or mica p;1niclcs and sand grains. i\loder:1tely cll'eJ> t,, ,l,·l·p ,,,; Slopes 2•30%, mostly 4•!2% ·-·····--·•·•• .... --......... .............. ....... Fi,?11 Rcd•\'cllow l'oclzolic, Davidson (NC, SC, Ca) (The silty clay loam ~oils probably arc erolkd ph;1,cs) Ii. Soil with Ycllo1uish•flrort'11 or J?eddisl,.Jiro;,111 rn!,soil I. D:rrk hrow11 (:\,). Ul'0\\'11 (,\,or,\,) fri;1hle ~ilt lo:1111, u:-ycllowi,:1 !,101v11 ,i'.1
,, clay loam (A,, B.,) surrace soils; yellowish-brown, red,foh•brown, or brown-. ish-rcd silty clay upper (Ua) subsoil which is firrn when moist, plastic when wet, amt hard when dry. The lower (B,) subsoil is strcak.cd yellow, brown, and reddish-yellow silly clay loam. The subsoil generally has strong medium .subangular blocky structure, although in some soils the material is nearly massive. There arc few or no mica particles and san<l grains. l\loderately deep soil. Slopes 1-10%, mostly 2-7% ············-····-···········-····················· F.fland Re<l•Ycllow Podzolic, :\fcck.lc11burg (NC, SC, Ga) (The silty clay loam soils probably arc eroded phases) C. Soil with Yello111ish•Rccl or Red ,mcl Yellow subsoil I. Gr,1y (A,). grayish•brown or ~rayish-yellow (1\,) friable silt loam or yellowish• brown silty clay !0;1111 (A., H,.) surf.ace soils, sometimes gravelly or sbty, hut rarely co111;1i11in~ a noticeahlc quantity o( ~ancl; recldisli•ydlow (H,), yellow and red, or rcdcfoh.ydlow (ll,) very smooth s_ilty clay loam or silt)' clay suhsoil whic!t is firm when' moist, "slick" to sticky and sli~lnly plastic when wet, and hard when dry. The subsoil has moderate medium sub· angular blocky structure, :inil is practically Cree of mica particles ancl sand i;rains. Moderately deep to deep soil. Slopes 3•&0%, but mostly :'1•18% ·--·······-····. ···--······· -·······-···-··--·····------····-·--···-·---···-···-··-·-···· I-I ernd on Red•Yellow l'oclzolic, Appling (Va-Ga) (The _silty clay loam soils probably_ arc eroded phases) D. Soil with Yd/orl' subsoil I. Gray (A,),.palc .yellow (A,) friable and smooth silt loam surface soils, often ~ravelly or ~l:1ty, aml occasionally containing a small amount of fine sand; pale yellow (B,); yellow or brownish• yellow (H,) silt loam to silty clay loam subsoil which is friable and very smooth when moist, "slick" to sticky when wet, and slightly hard when c.lry. The subsoil has weak platc•like to fine angular blocky structure. Frequently there are fragments o( slate throughout the profile. :\foderatcly deep to shallow soil. Slopes 1 •15%, mostly under 5% ·····-·······-·-··-···-·--··--·-•-·-··-··--··-······-····························-Alamance Red•Yellow Podzolic, Durham (Va.Ga) E. Soil with Yellow, nro11m, and Gray in the subsoil I. Gray (A,), pale yellow (A,) smooth silt loam surface -soils; pale yellow to yellow smooth silty clay loam upper (ll,) subsoil; yellowish•brown, pale yellow ancl bro\vn, or brown streaked with gray silty clay lower (ll,) sub• soil, which is very firm when moist, very plastic when wet, and very hard when dry. The lower subsoil swells on welling and shrinks on drying, crack· ing into irregular blocks. Moderately deep to shallow ~oil. Slopl:'s 1·8%, mostly under 1°/4, ·····················-·············-··········--···············••···········--·· Ora11ge l'lanosol (Ar!;ipan), Orange (Va.Ga) (Appears to be very erodible on slopes above 5%) F. Shallow soil with llruw11, Yellowish•flro11m, or Reddislr•Yellow subsoil I. Brownish•gray (A,), pale yellow (A,), or brown (A,, B,,) friable silt loam surf.tee soils, usually containing fragments o[ slate; brown, yellowish-brown, rcddish•ycllow, or pale yellow friable silt loam to ~lightly plastic silty i:by ~ thin subsoil (B,) which contains some to many slate fragments. Shallow iu 0; ., ·very shallow wil. Slopes ·1··10%, mostly G•l!i% ···········-·············" ......... Cu/r/11.011 '\"-. Lithosol, Louisa (V,t•Ga) , ~~-l:ioil with yellow am! gray in sul,~"il, sec p,1gc G8 ·,i\ with murh (;n,y i11 1hc s11l1'if1il. ~cc p:1gc <i!I '··,'-..... Colfax .... IVonlrn111 Y. Soils Derived from Sandstone■ and Shale11 or the Tri1111!lic r~ormntiun A. Soils with Red subsoils I. Gray (A,), pale yellow (A,) friable s.1ndy loam or silt loam, or rcdcli\h•brown friable lo firm clay loam (A,, B,,) surface: soih; red or .reclclish•hrown \lllooth clay or silty clay subsoil (B,) which is firm when moist, plastic whl'n wet, and hard when dry. The subsoil has moderate 111edi11m suhan;;ular blnck.y ·.Hructure, and may contain small amounts of ~a11d grains a11d mica !lakl',. i\fodcratcly deep to deep soil. Slopes 2•!H%, mo~tly ~.JO% .. ·-·. lf'otlnlw10 RccJ.Yellow Poclzolic, Cecil (Va.NC) (The clay loam soils probably ar.: eroded phase~) 2. llrownish•~ay (A,), brown (A,) friable fine s:,ndy loam or silt loam, or d:1rk hrowni~h•red friable to firm silty' c!:1y loam (,\,, B,,.j surface soils; d:1rk rl'll (du~ky reel or purplish•rc:d) silty clay or clay .,1ih,ni! (11,) whirh is !inn whc11 moist, plastic when wet, and hard wl,c11 clry.·Tl1t· dcq, ,ul1mil has m"tlcr.,tl· fine subang-ular blocky structure, and u,ualll' i~ fn't' of ,:111tl gr:,i11·, and mica flakes. Slopes 2·18%, mostly !\•!i~-0 .................... .'.. ........ •. /111,l:s Recl•Yellow l'odmlic, Bucks (Pa, NJ. ~lcl, Va; n:rv little in ~C) (TIil' ,ilry day loam soils probably are eroclccl pl1:1'c,) 3. Hrownish•gray (A,), brown (A,) friable silt lo:1111, or clark hrownish•rcd fri-able to firm silty clay loam (A,., H,,) surface ,oil~; dark rc:d (purplish.red) silty clay or clay subsoil (B,) which i~ usually sh;,llow or ,·crv ~hallow. Slopl's 3·30%, mostly fi.J 8% ··-·-········· ... ········· .. ·-··-·· ...... _._ .................. ·-..... _ ......... /',-1111 Lithosol, Penn (Pa, NJ, :Md, Va; liulc i.n :'-:C) (The silty clay lo:1111 soils probably arc eroded p_:1:rsl's) B. Soil with Ye/lowish-Ued or Jlrow11ish•lled ~uh,oil I. Gray, light ~ray (A;), grayish•yellow, or gr:1yi,h.1Jrow11 (,\,) friabk ~:111dy loam, or brownish•yellow sanely clay loam (,\,,, JI,,.) smfan: soih; iJrnw11i,h. yellow (R,). yellowish•recl, recldish•brown, or ,treakl'd yellow a11d lirow11ish• red (B,) clay loam or clay subsoil which is firm when moist, p!a,tic 1.-ltl'II wet, and hard when dry. The subsoil has moderate fine to mcclium rnli• angular bloi:ky structure, and may contain s111,tll amou11ls of s:111d a11d 111ira flakes. Moderately deep soil. Slopes !!•:.?0%, rnostly ;1•8% ............. ,Hny(l(/1111 Recl•Yellow Podzolic, Appling (Va.NC) (The s:.ndy clay loam soils probably arc crmlt-cl pha~cs) C. Soils with Ued to Reddish•Gray a11d Yellow (often l'an·colored) subsoils I. Gray (A,), brownish•gray or pale yellow (,\,) rr;:il,lc silt loam to s;111dy loam surf:,cc ,,,ils, nr rccldish-l,row11 to n·dcli,h•,.;r:1v I inn cl;,y lo:1111 10 pl:t~· tic: day (,\,,, B,,) surface ~oils; v;1ricolorcd ,1ili~oil (11,) which is domi11;11nly rcddish•g-ray or weak red intermingled witl1 sh:1dt·s of gray ancl snntl'ti111l'\ yellow. The subsoil is clay 01· silt)' clay whii:h is vcr)' firm whl'11 moi,1. very plastic whrn wet, and very hard when dry. lt swells 011 wctti11g-, a11d shrinks ancl n:1cks on drying into strong mcdi11m angular l,lorky ,trurltlll' panirks. The rcddcr•colorccl subsoils arc toughl'I' whl'n moist, 11trll'l' pl:"ric when w<.:t, and harder when dry than thosl' wi1h 11111rh )'l'llow a11d g1:1v. :\foclcr;1tcly dcrp soil. Slopes '.!·30~{ .. mostly 3•1:!~; ................. !l'/,it,· .\fem· l'l:111mol (Aq.;ipan). White Store (NC, Va) (Tltc clay lo:1111 to cby soils proh:1hly arc nodcd pha\l·s, a11d tire ,oil :1pJ1t·:11s to be \·cry erodible) 2. Liv.ht gr;1y (/\,), yt'llowish•gray or yellowi~h.l,row11 (:\,) fri:tl,lc ,:,ncly lo::lll, or ,nodn:itcly firm ruldi~h-lirown ~andy rby i .. :,111 c•r ,:l:l\' (.-\, .. 11.,,.) rnrL,n· 73
I • soils varicolored bul mostly motlled redd.ish-gny, reddish-brown, ;md light gray clay or silty clay thin subsoil (B,) which is very firm when moist, ,•cry plastic when wet, :111<1 very hard when dry. Shallow lo very shallow soil. Slopes 3•!15%, mostly 5-18% ··--···-~·····-·-····-····---······-···--····· Pinluto11 Lithosol, Litz (NC, Va) (The clay loam or clay soils probably arc eroded phases) S. Gray 10 light gray (A,), brownish•gray (A,), ycllowish•brown (A,) loamy sand to loose sanely loam, or .YellowisJi.1,rown sandy clay loam (A,, H,,) sur-face soils orten I :!·20 inches thick; light ycllowish•brown to yellow friable sandy clay loa111 11ppa ~ulisoil (B,), •1-R inches thick; yellow or ycllowi1h• brown sanely clay middle suhsoil (B,), 8·18 inches thick, which is friable whc11 moist, slightly plastic whcu wet, and hard when dry; and highly var• ieg;11ccl or mottlccl n·cldish•brown, n:dclisli•gray, yellow, and gray clay lower sub~oil (B,) which is \'Cry firm when moist, very plastic when wet, and very hard when dry. The B, layer has we,1k medium subangular blocky structure; it swells 011 wcuin~ and shrinks and cracks on drying. Moderately deep to deep 50il. Slopes 2·18"{, rno~tly 3·8% .............................................. Crectf111oor Pl:rnosol (Fragipan), Conway (Va•NC} . (The saudy clay loam soil~ probably .ire eroded phases. The Creedmoor is esscnt.ially midway hctwtTll lhc White Store and the Granville series.) D. Soil with Yellow or flrow11isl,.}'e/low subsoil I. Gr:iy loamy sand (A,), ycllowish•gTay (A,), pale yellow (A,) very friable sandy loam surface soils; yellow to brownish•yellow sandy clay subsoil (B,) which is moderately r,rm when moist, slightly plastic when wet, and hard \\'hen dry. The su!Jsoil has ,,·cak crumb to weak fine mban~ular blocky 1 structure, a gritty fecl, and sometimes contains sm;1ll amounts of mica. Moderately clecp to deep soil. Slopes 2•12%, mostly under G% ..... Granville Red.Yellow Pod1olic, Durham (Va, NC) E. Soil with Yelloruish•llrow11 or Jl1·ow11 si1bsoil I. Pale brown (1\,), hrowni,h•ydlow (A,,•) loam surface soil; yellow, yellowish• hrnwn, or brown silty day loam subsoil (H1) which is firm when moist, slightly pbstio: when wet, and sli~lnly hare! when ilry. Modl'rately deep soil. Slopl's 2· l :i%, rnostly under Ro/., .......... ... ................................ .. .. .... f.1111.1d11/~ Rcd•Yellow l'odmlic, l.an~d.dc (Pa. NJ, Md, Va, very Jiuk i,-1 NC) F. Soih with some to 11111ch <;r11y in the subsoils I. Cray (A,), i;rayish.lnmrn (A,) friahle silt loam surfact' soil, which usually co111ai11, some sh;;le f1;og111nlls; gr;,y, 1111111kd with pale yellow and pak hrown, silly clay lo,1111 lo <l.iy subsoil (II,) which generally has some to much ,li.dy ma1nial. The s11h~oil is firm whe11 moist, plastic when wet, aud hard wlH'n dry. :\lo,lcl'atcly dt·t·p 10 shallow soil. Slopes !1•35%, 111ostly under I!!'}~} ---· l'lanosol (Fragipa11), Lehigh '.?. Sn· page G\J for 3. Sec page fi~ for (Pa, NJ, :--•Id, Va, very liule in NC) VI. Soils Dcrind from Quartz :\Tica Schist and Related Hocks A. Soils with /{,:ti subsoil~ l,e/,i~h J-l'orsl,a111 Colfax I. Gray (A,), hrownish•l-:ray (J\,) rriabl<: fine sandy loam, or redclish•brown fri;1l,le clay loam (,\., B,,,) ,urrace soils containing considerable mica; red• 'tlish•lirown to reel friable to moderately fmn micaceous clay subsoil (B,) whid1 has a smooth, ;,11110\t gn·a~y fed. \Vhen clry the subsoil is hard, whl'n ·~· wet it is plastic. It has weakly developed medium platy structure. Moderately deep or deep soil. Slopes 4•30%, mostly 6•15% ····--····-·--·········--Statesville• Rccl•Yellow Podwlic, Cecil (V.i, NC, SC) ' (The redder loam aud all clay loam soils pr.obab.ly a.re eroded phases, anc'---the-so·il appears to uc very erodible. The series is essentially a "very mica• ceous Cecil".) 2. Gray (A,), grayish-brown (A,) friable sandy loam, or reddish-brown friahlc clay loam (,\,, n,,,) surface soils containing much mica; yellowish.reel, brownish.reel, or reel friable micaceom clay loam subsoil (11,), wliid1 is usually shallow or ,-cry sli,lllow. :.lilopl's ;1.:1:,1:;.,. 1:iostly 7•18•.t ........ l.1111isn Lithoso!, Loui5a (\la.J\la) (The clay loam soils probably arc eroded phases, bcc111se the soil appears to be very erodible) 3. Gr:iyish•urown loamy sand (A,), yellowish-brown to light reclcli~h•hrown sar:dy loam (A,), or redclish.lJrown friaule sa1,dy clay loa111 (AP, B,") surface soih containing flat CJUanz mica schist frag111t.·111s and so111c mica !lakes; reddish.Jirow11 to lirow11 clay lo;i111 to clay firr11 up1•tT (II,) sulisoil :111d reddish-brown to light red, often ting-eel with rcddish•.~r.iy clay loam or clay lower (B,) subsoil which is fri.ible to fir111 when moist and sli.~htly hard when dry. The subsoil has weak medium suba11g11hr blocky to vt.:ry weak platy structure, and contains much mica and flat angular fragments of schist. .\·fodcr.itcly deep to somcwha t sh al low soil. Slopes 2.,10%, ll1<)sl ly (i. f 5'X, Red.Yellow Pnclzo!ic, Cecil (Va.,\Ja) /\I ,1tliso11 (The sanely cfay loam soils probabiy :ire croclccl p!1asc\) B. Soil with Yellowish-Red or Light Red subsoil i. Cr;1y (A,), gr,1yish-brow11 (.-\,), gr;1yi~h•yellow (A.) fri;,hlc sandy loam sur, fa<-c soils containing flat quartz mica schist frag111e111s ;111d some mica flakl's; reclclish•ycllow clay loam upper (H,) subsoil, strong brown clay loa111 or clay middle (B,) subsoil, and yellowish.reel tu light red clay loam or clay lower (B,) subsoil. The entire subsoil is rriablc to !inn when moist, slightly plastic 1vher1 wet, and hard when clry. It has very we;,k pl.11y structure. Throughout 1he profile the co11tl'11t o( 111ica aud ll;1t•a11~ular fr;1gme11h of schi,1 varies fro111 some to very 11111cJ1. Moderately deep 111 rn111t'l\'l1at shallow soil. Slopes 2·20~'.{,. mostly 5•12'½, ........................................ .......... ......... ..... Gro11,:r Reel.Yellow Poclzolir, Appling (Va.Ga) C. Soil with Ycl/owi.1/,.Jlruwn or Uetltli.r/,./Jru1,•11 subsoil I. Brown (A,), brownish•ycllow (A,) friable lo.1111, or yellowish.brown 10 red. dish•brown clay loam (A,,, B,,,) mrL,cc soils; y<'llowish•brown to rl'ddi~h• lirown day subsoil (11,) which is rnoder:1tcly firm when moist, slightly pbsiic when wet, and hard when dry. The subsoil has weak 111odcra1e suuani.:11lar to angul:ir blocky structure. Small mica !Likes arc prl'sc11t i11 llhlst lnc11inr1s, ancl in some pL1ces numerous sh;de and st:hist rragments arc prc,ent 011 the surface and throughout the profile. l\fode1.itelr deep soil. Slope~ ·l•:•O'i;., mostly 8•20% ····-·······---·······-----....... ____ ··•· .. ···················• ............. : ................ S11ny Reel.Yellow l'oclmlic, Cecil (Va, NC) (The day loam soils probably arc eroded pha~es. This series i.s al)()ut mid. \\'ay between the Cecil series ant: till: l'ortns wrin) D. Soil with some Gray i11 the subsoil, see p;1gc fiK ··-·· ................................. Cu/fax E. Soil witii much Gray in the sub,oil, we pa~l' fi'I . ................. ll'onl1r1111 75
.l
.,
)
.J
J
. . . • ; ,i i
i: i J = ~ -~
• •
r:•· .. -t ~
. ..
'""':'"~~,-:,:~ii'/~yr,11 "'· .,•J~~;):'.iiC~r?., !. · .,. ~'-J-"'I ~:.· . ,..__. ·""-·'\.,· , -0:~,,.-;::;::· l·rt~ • 'f'•r r-:;. I ._-. "' ·.··· . ,y)'CJ--S.::-• _,. -· -, ... _ ., ~ T r~ -• • _., ,,A. I Wit KCI ~ .... ,~:· t\l~) J \--· , 9[jJ.j_· . ,,,,,,.,.,"' .. " ., , . • -~ -----· ---.C·· ... ' --. .. "-'/""\ __ .,. -. -~, . . .,, t NG vfilc'(;}·\~:-;,~~ • ·•·•·.·· • ::::~. ~~---p AC i {'I I II fr'i_)~~ ,J ~.;. ·. c~! . I AJN · I. ' -r-. 5.~i/1((, ·,:~ · .,.. " · ' • ,.. --;.;· • ' -· " L , , t. -... . ~ .• /.:x ~ • ,'ft•/ r-·, :, ··-·-~ • -·-· . ·-· I 1 ~-' ./ v ~t \v• l JL •.-< ... ,..,,,.,,. ,,,, .. ,,,,_ · .• :,···. . ' -~ 'd ,J.,.M . ,.-•'.-;,.,,,.,. "' • • • ,, ~ ' . ' . . " . I>' • "' ~-\» , .. r. < ~ ,(~ ,/,,-:.,, •. ,,-,,.,,-,;~ 11trr•••-~-•;-•~• ·),. / •• ,_.,~ ~ • , ~ . •--., • 0:,' .,.,, (•.' ,-, (f~.._".wc;-~½ -~ . ; •,·, . ,, . , , ,_ , /'' , ,"..':~-'"·'\/~°1A·<,,.,',;,.\·_•,;,: ,.::;:-~··-;" ~-C'" < )'' · .. :· "'t > •t~ ·. \\T \/.6:_ 'r-1/I ."V'f."/ _··< •• ··--..\ '-) -I 1. •· . u ·~ '< . ' <\i \lJ ~-', ",''.-' .ir,,_ .. c ,,/II(-..-,.... _..,., 1, ,~ I · . 1 l u,.,,.,, c:;---..,, -"" \. \ \:. _, ... -~ .... , .,.-.• , . / .... ,.,., . ' ~ ,.,v -::.,'i' "x-' ,·, • ;<""'\_.,'-<,_, .,-,., ) . ·,w.J ,,,.,,,~L '" ,~ ,--~ N' l!.,Jj O / ', • ., ' .• -.'-, , .. ,. .. " .._,," ,..-.. "" / '·~ ,t' I ~ ., ··-~ ' . ~ '. ' ,. . . ' . ' . ! ,,_.' . , .r.,.,,.~ I.,.,. -~ , n I r-D h, 0 " ... , . .•• ,~,. °";...., --•t-~ C· .•.• , ' 1'• . (. \ ' \ r -r:::i-~ . '"-·1 I ~ ·• ·. •. , ) (,c---\"', c,r,..,,. '. ..~--~---~-AO · .. ' Q A ~ -r, I, -/ . rl C';} l ,, , '" • V -.. _,.. •" ~ • • " .... _,, ', ...... ;. ,-, . ... .,. .J ·-··-1 ---I., '"') , \' ,, '-p---... '. '.,i. .. 1 ••• J .. ,... ·-·-·-·-• • " . '·' . ,, ...-. . "' . "' . . ,, . ,, "" . . .. ' ., " ,,.-':j,\ i,._,;-~t.•• ·--.l :r" . " -'..,....., > _,.. N ~I . \ ' \ ........ ~---.:;, ~ ':.> l i\ I j' . . ~ -~~-J -", < ., •-,' 1 r \., , •• • ) . r " ? -;;: , I -~ ' ~ ' <>" \ ~ ' ,. . • -, ,. I • ' " • •' •'. • --=~N • :.,. ""'""<•:,-• J ·. \.' ,• , .. • ' . --f. ... ., .,;,,_.., > ' ( ~~,~--.; ~A rNC ....-·-~-. :•;;,;, . \'·"'. . . .. ,:, : . .. ... -,. 1 • ~ • · · _., )•< ,• • , •• ·-,mv ,,..,.. •• ,., .'-. , " ,r .-, lo .. ( , • • 4-, ~ /, , If \' _ , J ~ u\ I ~~ ., ' .. I..:.. ,,_. ) ' ' .. '" • ' ..,J " ./ \' -. ' ,4 I ·~ . ' ' ... ' ( ' . ~ l -·-•. · --d \ _,J . ·t,f...1(,ztl 'I ....... "'\ ' C l' J \ .,. ,. .. "'·: J / ,. • 1 . '"'''""""" ' .J /) ' 1 . . -· '·"··, ..... , • • ........ : ... ~,,-.,·. / ( ; ' ... ., f.j •r..---:·"" \ ~L , •:· --/ .. r ,.1 , ~ . .--">-::-...,,-.. . t------· . \,.,.J -. 'r /. ... , ./"-.J ,~ \ ~ " -.,,:,. .. lu < ' . • ......... .' ARO LINA ~ J ::sa· u ([) ~ '1 ~YJ;~~ SOIL ASSOCIATIONS PIEDMONT !2.!11, Ourfl4!• M\\oaa aloft& 1t.rH••• AU1o1•l•l 10th •r• not ot 1wfCl-•t1t. f• be 11ho"" oa the Mp, e ■eept ter one 10,000 acre an& alon( the .he!": t.hu-, tl)ll• er• ,...,..wh•t. roorlr duln1d Hd are und Mlnly for U\e "' •t r., a,wl ot.l\1r vat.er t.ohrant. tre••• ~-nrt11 .. "c:1 lo•• 10Lh wlLh n-J, uCdLf • 1•110•, or yellow, '1rt1 "'"'-, >,,;aio.n.v, u~•: ..,nlt Ol'I 1,.12• 1ll"p•5 •n~ •ubJ•~t to t•••r:• •ro1ion; '•"'1 h r•n-ir• 1,.1 h•t• 1,;•••h•t dtf(l\:\llt. to h•n11•. S•l•-:t•d 1r1a1 · ... ,.,.., ·-.. "·-. Pl t~•\f ·</: ... ~ _:~ 4._ ?NO • • . -~ I -, --· '' Sm« ,J~,,~~-, " ,i/ I ..,.~ ,...1, ·::'tv,rv ~J",q,/),._,_""""~~: -,ff:,.. .. "'V, . J'\.:V I \'\\~<;. -:. \ \. \ <c-."\? I.,) At' ~~--'---1~--_,,•( . • . '-. \"~•~V• \~.-'(I' ,. '-'-•'\ DL I:'-">~ ~ f / _'·•~ ... ~ / II/, •r,Dr ~ <I• ,.,,.,,,,., \:"'"~_r.on.-N ,,.,.,. f> • '--:".'.".::/11~ '\ L II ~ , )'•' .. ~ r H ~ · 1H .. ,, 1,N ~j~kf<--~·t;J'. •~i --~~-''L .. R • .. 1 Ol (\ ,,-;,,,:;-~ . ;--...._'\.~ 1, ,,,1,r...,_::---_~\'.'..:,o, I (. :,, i.,. }( . "'· .._.. • J \ . ,,,---, .. ., -';." >"!~ r-,.l_1 ,. .. .,,--:...., ~~-)/ ' ' • '}:. I' ,, • l • jh•l•·al,~ •llk·t• Cr11 ••~•, ~"'• •1~h •·1• r•.1ow te t.,...... '"'•'II•~• "'7 (I" e:,n11 clry HM~ to e11n•tr cl•r e:-,~,, ,,,,-c.:., nl\•,. 1( "''•~ , ..... ,.,.., •""" •-• 1q,at. •hell.ow; 1,0l'J,000 Hr"•; .. -!'1,lr -••·•' 1:.,...,1 eJ-A•lt.t,..~!• J•M l• •• .. ~••, , · • ., ~·1~l\U \ : ~-' j ·~ ~ ·'♦I, \ ,. l 1 _, ' .. ,,; .. ' -·••'* .. Vi 'l • ~/;r•·v \· .) ,..~ • • . I_.., ,-''-I ~ ..,_(ii ,'\ ,~ .,l-.• •, I erodc-d, "nd l•r,;" tr1c•~ "·~•" •••• .,., •. , ..... , ,,...,1, .\l, ••-• ... ,_,_.,., ,., ..,..., .,.,,. ,, .,..'~•-II\':-',~, ..r', ~.>:; :7.. ' "' \ . ;.,., o~•rr1 ~ro1lon b,.c,11,, .. or <o•i•• ,.,, •. .., -.., • .-1•1• , ..... r1,•. tt•-•H•••.,. ~ sell•; ,ll.:; In ere,.,•~;,_~:, r·•· .•• • •·•• -~-:~r-.-,j--.·-; _-r·;, ·rnr tob·c-:o ..,;,-=n cnr1'f,,:y .,~.u·•1, r•.t ,, • (. 1r ,, .. ,.., , •1" ,.,..,,, •• ,, .. , ••. 1 I ··:•