WQ0015068_Staff Report_20210714

State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
DWR Division of Water Resources
WATER QUALITY REGIONAL OPERATIONS SECTION
Division of Water Resources NON -DISCHARGE APPLICATION REVIEW REQUEST FORM
June 30, 2021
To: FRO-WQROS: Trent Allen / Mark Brantley
From: Poonam Giri, Water Quality Permitting Section - Non -Discharge Branch
Permit Number: WQ0015068
Applicant: Robeson County
Owner Type: County
Facility Name: Rex WTP
Signature Authority: Gary Davenport
Address: 265 McGirt Rd., Maxton, NC 28364
Fee Category: Non -Discharge Minor
Comments/Other Information: [e-mail]
Permit Type: Other Non -Discharge Wastewater
Project Type: Renewal
Owner in BIMS? Yes
Facility in BIMS? Yes
Title: Water Treatment Superintendent
County: Robeson
Fee Amount: $0 -Renewal
Attached, you will find all information submitted in support of the above -referenced application for your review, comment,
and/or action. Within 45 calendar days, please take the following actions:
® Return this form completed. ❑ Return a completed staff report.
❑ Attach an Attachment B for Certification. ❑ Issue an Attachment B Certification.
When you receive this request form, please write your name and dates in the spaces below, make a copy of this sheet, and
return it to the appropriate Central Office Water Quality Permitting Section contact person listed above.
RO-WQROS Reviewer: Jim Barber
Date: 14 July 2021
FORM: WQROSNDARR 09-15 Page 1 of 1

Ki
fi State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
" Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge
Attn: Poonam Giri
From: Jim Barber
Fayetteville Regional Office
Application No.: W00015068
Facility name: Rex Water Treatment Plant
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are gpplicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 7 July 2021
b. Site visit conducted by: Jim Barber and Tony Honeycutt
c. Inspection report attached? ® Yes or ❑ No
d. Person contacted: Gary Davenport and their contact information: (919) 844 - 5611 ext.
e. Driving directions: From St. Pauls take Hwy 20 west toward the Rex community (approx. 3 miles west of
I-95). The Robeson County WTP infrastructure is on the north side of Hwy 20.
2. Discharge Point(s): N/A
Latitude: 34.831586 Longitude:-79.018927 (approx. center of lagoon from G.E.)
Latitude: 34.831517 Longitude:-79.018278 (approx. location of supply well from G.E.)
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: No direct discharge. The plant consists of an infiltration basin for
managing filter backwash water containing iron and manganese. Nearest surface water is Black Branch located
north of the plant approximately 1/ mile. Black Branch flows east/southeast and connects with Big Marsh
Swamp.
Classification: C Sw
River Basin and Subbasin No. Lumber River/LBR53 (index #: 14-22-2-3)
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Small braided swamp with timber.
Adiacent to the Rex WTP is the Sanderson Farms poultry processing plant and several other
industrial facilities along NC Hwy 20 oust before Black Branch connects with Big Marsh Swamp.
IT. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 7

4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Gary Davenport Certificate #: PC-1/27347 Backup ORC: James Hammond Certificate #:PC-1/1002423
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: Infiltration/Evaporative lagoon with a capacity of 130K gallons, one water
supply well and one temporarily abandoned supply well.
Proposed flow: 8200 GPD
Current permitted flow: 8200 GPD
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.)
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain: See attached geotechnical borings, lagoon design cross section and topo map for
lagoon location.
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage, and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas. The only change near the Rex WTP is the construction of the
Sanderson Farms poultry processing facility in 2015/2016. One residence exists across NC Hwy 20 greater
than 500' from the infiltration basin and has been in existence for the past 10 + years.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 7

9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 7

11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no. Dlease complete the followins (expand table if necessarv):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
0 , if
0 ,if
0 , if
0 ,if
0 , If
0 ,if
0 , If
0 ,if
0 , If
0 ,if
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ® Yes or ❑ No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: For some unexplained reason Robeson County has
not submitted NMDR monthly reports and BIMS violations exist back to at least 2015/2016 due to the last
permit renewal requiring the submittal of a monthly NDMR. Evidently reading comprehension is not a
high priority in the Robeson County education system. FRO is initiating contact with Robeson County
Public Utilities to correct this deficiency and may issue a NOD/NOV & NOI. This decision will be made by
the regional supervisor.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ® Yes or ❑ No
If yes, please explain: See comments below in Section IVA
14. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
® Notice of violation/NOD? ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ®No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 7

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item Reason
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
Section Iunder
Monitoring anndd Reporting.
The facility backwashes filters daily and effluent generated is sent to the
Flow cannot be estimated
infiltration basin. The amount of backwash water used/generated is supposedly
at this facility based on
pre-set for a certain amount. Flows cannot be estimated or obtained from water
water use records. The
use records since non exist. The facility sends water to the on -site elevated tank.
facility needs to install a
The flows that are metered at the facility are from the supply well to the
effluent flow meter within
treatment plant based on demand from the distribution system. As demand
180 days of the issuance of
increases (development) or other wells sites are temporarily shut down, then
the renewed permit. A
artificial demand is created on existing well sites. With higher demand,
condition is needed under
potential exists for backwashing filters more frequently. Assuming that only the
Section I —Schedules.
pre-set amount of water is used is not accurate and prone for incorrect estimates.
5. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
® Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office.
❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information.
❑ Issue
❑ Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 7

Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: -
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 6 of 7

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
No additional comments.
Please send the DRAFT permit to the attention of Trent Allen ( trent.allennncdenr.gov ,) and TonHoneycutt
tony.honeycuttnncdenr.gov ) next week (week of 19 July) for review once complete. I will be out of the office from
Tuesday thru Friday, returning on Monday 26 July. My last day is Friday 30 July 2021. Thanks Jim Barber.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 7 of 7

Y
4*
IL
_7
W
i
VA
ST qp-4 L
" X� FIP
yqL
L
r . f
IL N
t _
416 :4 %j4l
IL
- - --w - I . . X
nor 4N
Ak
"Al *-7' &V'
, ( -� , e
AP n4m;
t _
Vr
qh
�lk All
1
in ,Fr
ar IL
~ • • ; % �. Tom,' ;

���-' � , �-���1 ' � � � 1 - ' Jam` `�'� f•'� ti .
r L
fj
/ 1 -Y
jr
r�
or
F f
IF
LL
F
r N. - L
IL-
- - Vr
it fit ation & evaporative lag core ( 4_ 15 & -79_01 7), #• -'-h -+f ,..*.•� }
4� prod u otion well ( 4- 81_5!17 & -7 _018 78)
. well - out bf ervice (34.831225 -79.019 7 )
C -11P
-jOOC c earth
imagery uaze; iu{zz){zui-j lat 34.8 14Ui� ion -/9.018D8u° elev 173 ft e'{e alt 1ogn ft

r
k
1 Jkk�* IV "
e. gl"T
l
6
i
-P
t
_* a
4 L _ _ � %r
NOW �: t
�
.d'f klr
r�
t
a
J f
i J
A 0
�.
FF +
L
L 'T
r J
ti f ■ . ��.
d L
1
. ' �7' d.1 F,
■ 7
`
I
r
p :1
I 'j,,. ' •
L
{' + �r '�� i I :h� I y'' 1 ?EMI' t
I. I
j 1
■ I :
' I i I 1
lb
. I , fi I I I 1
r I 7
1 , + Ir I 14
L' ' r If Ily 5 I I ' 1 ' I• I: w' I � AL 34 • i ��� - .
: d r 1 I y 7 1 1 I I J
1
' L 1 ' r h IN L :. • '� I+'.' 1 ++■ �� I, � j 1+• '. '. d � h -__ `��� �
41 Ij`'I • 1 r� I I J' J r• '
1 ' ,} ' 1' '1 r, ' : 1�jij�� + , L '4 _ I y J 4 y I , _
r I'� I i!I ' '� �4 kLy, I' w J , f
1 II L 5 i dIF'I++ I'� II r r ,4�� ,' X, ■# x =tip, L� z • _�'`,
d .•'�. _ I I ' ' lyl ','F*�1 1 F:`' 1 I + • �, '�.,�I j:'+' ► + +'} 'l y�+l_ f�� +-��
1r + 1
l �� f j1p
+� ■ i' Lei
+ }.� '17 ' h 1 4 ' 1 4+i' �+ i + �537 ■y 3 _ i- _,
I '1 . e N a r y , ■- ` ra F J I + #k ti,' 4 + ,. JF }•' .. , t�.' .Y . f rt
7t a s I I �' 1 `. M ,r'4`I F F 1 L' h �JI�.� '' 5 �l 4-1
ti
.L•�f F '� �yw ,■ ti I I A r. �+d1 ''h �w y L ; Ii* r
r P.
•Yr — #
1116 h� y• M1 ' {�'� +' }y J �� �,' I'. r r , ;� �'� , ' - t 1 r
Apt
re
r + ' r ti'r, l■ r� 1 ti i ' ' I
:L.
r by NL 'J,
* x �. I �■+' I I 11i tti3 i ylJ�i{R' '+ .
ek
,� �`• _ i , JL ' �'F h :� '� J �_. ~' T� •�' yr4 Y '+,' Fi lr A I +� }' r { sy tr •' } F _
_ t ' k I : 1 + '4 f. + L' `# ' • , kw * f* �' ti w I.� I I L y., 1 f■
r 4 i. ,I R' s F r' M � r ti Yes _ z ti �f 1 1 y ;' *��� u ,:. '� 1 F
yy . r .4 ,
dA
�� •ri�ti � `y ' IR •,�II�1 _ + '14 r �{'� - r ;.i'i :h-. 1�•h,�, �!r 'I'.. '*{i ■ . 141�� �1 L'ra �l'�fl t' f�.J 't � 1ifF •ii ` •, 1 �`w 4W, } ■
t—
IL i

mapper.acmexoro a L`
•`� ti Evans i
4p a� Bay ti
�� a m'� 's Davis 'in
'r _ _ �� Bay
dr New 7aoa i
-\ - .fig,
\ A*k
lee
lion
I path
ildfdlz Ga;axlr;�'sr ._ �` /'-_._...- f � � • � i`!, '�. T7 \ i � ; ..'
_ -�" ,` � �. ���"" `yam - . - j _ ;': �.. � ',. ,�1i13�� � . • I
,� k Happar .2 CIE P cE A
;i. - •• �' , a . �. N 34.83158 W 79-018 1 da k
.27.7 km
r 16.8km54WofHv ktpe _%NC.23.7kmNof WTNaonN .
M Y
5x5+h' of Fayelte'nlle NC 34,2 km 3 of F�1 rag
r .
1yl it r7 _." — — — — RBI here Markers Links Options ACMELaW
i Y � � f' - •' � � ry"" •5 .. �? .1.. WY ... fit'. ��+i� -._ ,`'lll ' � .

00" two W
10 Do
'G..
V.Ev
4E
z F�-
k
_,a M7' U �-,6k k
silly—.QX
71
ZW
Al:rew UALL
I" gpllt'"4
C-1
Ilk
A
Via
w
k. U.- Akwft"
14r bw V&L-C
ar
Sc yyki.
L
e4 tg C&O
Zb
SCALE: Not to Scale
PROJECT:
mw�
JOB No: 1-98-0074-EA
St. Pauls
Back Wash Lagoon GooTechnologies, Inc FIGURE No: 1
St.Pauls, North Carolina

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.6
3.0
6.0
7.5
17.(
19.,
20.1
F�T;E-�RECORD
ST BORING
DESCRIPTION ELEVA17ION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
ffT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n 1 a m 40 60 100
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
1-98-0074-EA
C-2
1-29-98 C;eoTechnologles, Inc.
PAGE I OF 1

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (FT.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
0.0 0 10 20 40 60 100
0.7
3.5
&o
8.5
20.0
Topsoil
Firm Fine to Medium Light Gray Silty CLAY
CL
3-3-4
3.0'
Very Stiff Orange Brown Fine to Medium Sandy
CL
CLAY
5-9-11
Very Stiff Light --Gray Silty Fine to Medium
CL
Sandy CLAY
B-11-13
Dense Light Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND
SP
1148-20
13-15-18
11-16-16
Boring Terminated at 20.0'
Groundwater encountered at 3.0' after 24 hours.
JOB NUMBER 1-9"74-FA
BORING NUMBER C-1
DATE 1-29-98
......... C;eoTechnclogiies, Inc.
PAGE 1 OF 1

0
0 00
PVC
5"x6' WIDE CONC. fNFLUENT
5' TOP BERM=179.O' SPLASH PAD
BOTTOM ELEV.=174.0' g5s�r�ti� &IA7�`
f
1
BA-CKFILL WITH
CLEAN SAND 2 TONS CLASS 1
RIP -RAP
RECF[VED/DEN#jDW
70' NTS SHM •
SEP 0 9 2015
Water Quality
LAGOON w007)15-6(o�
N TS OF

ComMiance Insaection Report
Permit: WO0015068 Effective: 01/01/17 Expiration: 12/31/21 Owner: Robeson County
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Rex WT.P
County: Robeson 2342 NC 20 W
Region: Fayetteville
Rex NC 28378
Contact Person: Myron Edward Neville Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications: PC1,
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 07/07/2021 Entry Time 12:OOPM
Primary Inspector: Tony W HoneycuttEWE697DUCW2
DocuSigned by:
Secondary Inspector(s): � ...
Reason for Inspection: Routine
Permit Inspection Type: Other Non -Discharge Wastewater
Facility Status: N Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions Wells
1
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 01:OOPM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Page 1 of 3

Permit: WO0015068 Owner - Facility: Robeson County
Inspection Date: 07/07/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
This is a well system backwash facility with an infiltration basin.
The basin appears well maintained and operating normally.
Excessive leakage from the well head pump around the shaft was noted and needs to be addressed.
No additional items noted.
Page 2 of 3

permit: WQ0015068 Owner - Facility: Robeson County
Inspection Date: 07/07/2021 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Type
Reuse (Quality)
Lagoon Spray, LR
Infiltration System
Single Family Spray, LR
Activated Sludge Spray, LR
Activated Sludge Spray, HR
Activated Sludge Drip, LR
Recycle/Reuse
Single Family Drip
Yes No NA NE
El
El
Page 3 of 3

mapper.acme.com ;B`= "�'

xoMo.' 44P
• r1[t 5"C[1 IC-3
q I
-j
cte.40 mom ve of
+...�u :�[v.-•rt is
� � t i � iJ+S• -M ' �w
i t j v `� �7CPK0
uttun rCLe
L t i INC
[t[v -rya•' 1 ; - 1-•`
ZP
.p WAR - LUI!:
• hi•0 SwKS fMv. •NK�f elf• 1
iCCVSC> >M.C•u, oI• ..` LnIOMG� �� 7 _---�� _— ��� '.
I•t `•�� � : ••i• ar.•R:: �,. • • .. � CAI
Luis f.
sr
xi t . t • VOW ,
of -it 049
rL COO
GooTechnologies, Inc
EftckWish
SCALE: Not to Scale
dnc
JOB No: 1-98-0074-EA
Lagoon
FIGURE No: 1
orth Carolina

DEPTH
(FT•)
0.0
0.6
3.0
6.0
7.5
17.1
19.
To—
L✓
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION
(FT.) (BLOWS/Fr.)
0
10
20
40
60 IM
Topsoil
Stiff Light Gray and Orange Sandy Silty CLAY
CL
Stiff Orange Brown Fine to Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY
CL
VeryStiff Light Orange Brown Silty Fine to
Medium Sandy CLAY
CL
sDense-LighC Brown Tan,Sllty_ Fine to Medium---'
SP
SSA iDumgDeiise White Silty Fine to.Medium-1
SP
: •.
i OMWium Dense Light Gray=GlaY--9 Si1ty.Fine t2j
Medrum;SAND�
SP
�Baring`TeitedaE,20 0
i
JOB NUMBER 1-98-0074-EA
BORING NUMBER C-2
j DATE ' 1-29-98
PAGE 1 OF 1
BLOWS PER
SIX INCHES
3-4-7
5-7-9
7-10-18
19-23-27
17-20-18
12-12-6
GeoTechnologies, Inc.
Ld

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.7
TEST BORING RECORDJI
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION -PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n 10 20' 40 60 100
Topsoil
3-3-4
3.0"
5-9-11
8-11-13
11=18-20
13-15-18
11-16-16 .
1
Firm Fine to Medium Light Gray Silty CLAY
CL
Very Stiff Orange Brown Fine to Medium Sandy
CLAY
CL
Very Stiff Light. Gray Silty Fine to. Medium
Sandy CLAY
CL
� ,,Dense, Light Grdy'Silty Fine to Medium°SA
SP
:'•
c'Boring`Lerniina[ed at�20`.0' 7
Groundwater encountered at 3.0' after 24 hours.
JOB NUMBER 1-98-0074-EA
BORING NUMBER C-1
DATE 1-29-98
PAGE 1 OF 1
GeoTechnologies, Inc.

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Depth (Ft.)
C-1 C72
0 .M
7 VA 11
_
LEGEND
4
20
- Topsoil
16 ■
-Slightly Silty Sand
8
24
® - Low Plasticity Clay
28
8- Standard Penetration Resistance
38
50 = - Groundwater After 24 Hours
r
12
33
38
16
20
32
18
-
FPROJECIT: SCALE:AS Shown
"~ JOB NO:1-98-0074-EA
C;coTechnologies, Inc.
ack:Wash LagoonNorth Carolina
FIG N0:2

C-2— - - -------------- ---
' 27
_7 hl!PSVI'VJEbSCi.15urvcynrcs.usda.gov/appA'debSoi[Sup4ey.a5px
Area pf intere t i Soil Data Explorer Download Soils Data; ']I .'Shopping, Cart (Free)
PrintabliVirs6hj -Add to ShOPP ingairtIl
� I
Robeson County, North Carolina (NC155)
lRobeson County, North Carolina (NC155)
. . . . ......... ..
Map Acres
Percent
Unit Map Unit Name i
in
of AOI
Symbol AOI
NOA 3—Vog1k 16 2.8 53.5%
_s_ani�, —0to 2
percent slopes
; 2.3 42.6% Ra '`Rains a0dy oarr;:::
o 2 percent
slopes
01375akulla -'sand-to 0.2 4.0%
G. ce, e
..... .. ..... ...... .
'Totals for Area of 5.3 100.0%
Interest

Map Unit Description: Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes —Robeson County, North
Carolina
Robeson County, North Carolina
Ra—Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 2v760
Elevation: 30 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches.
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period. 200 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained
Map Unit Composition
Rains, undrained, and similar soils. 58 percent
Rains, drained, and similar soils. 24 percent
Minor components. 18 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Rains, Undrained
Setting
Landform: Carolina bays on marine terraces, broad interstream
divides on marine terraces, flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip, talf
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
Eg - 6 to 12 inches: sandy loam
Btg - 12 to 65 inches: sandy clay loam
.BCg - 65 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 7.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Hydric soil rating. Yes -
r Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/12/2021
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

Map Unit Description: Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes —Robeson County, North
Carolina
Robeson County, North Carolina
NoA—Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 2v75w
Elevation: 10 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period. 200 to 280 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Norfolk and similar soils: 83 percent
Minor components: 17 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Norfolk
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, flats on
marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Convex, linear
Across -slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material. Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches. loamy sand
E - 8 to 14 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 14 to 65 inches. sandy clay loam
BC - 65 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 40 to 72 inches
Frequency_of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/12/2021
.i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2

Map Unit Description: Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes —Robeson County, North Carolina
Robeson County, North Carolina
WkB—Wakulla sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 3vg5
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wakulla and similar. soils. 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Wakulla
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian
sands
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sand
E - 7 to 24 inches. sand
Bt - 24 to 42 inches: loamy sand
C - 42 to 85 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to
very high (1.98 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water capacity. Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/12/2021
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2