NC0089699_App E Engineering Alternatives Analyis_20170427

w
RECEIVEDINCDEQIDWR
APR 2 7 2017
Water Quality
Permitting Section
APPENDIX E
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
- Environmental
Are,Consulting &
Technology. Inc.

ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
APPLICANT:
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC
FACILITY NAME:
REIDSVILLE ENERGY CENTER
NTE CAROLINAS II, LLC
A.
y
E F � 1795
7n.
PREPARED BY:
KI(C
LKC ENGINEERING, PLLC
140 Aqua Shed Court
Aberdeen, NC 28315
[phone]
License # P-1095
In conjunction with:
SK Environmental, PLLC
303 Olde Point Loop
Hampstead, NC 28443

Engineering Alternatives Analysis
In support of NPDES application to discharge cooling water into the Dan River from the Reidsville Energy
Center, NTE Carolinas II, LLC
Applicant:
Rockingham County
Rockingham County Governmental Center in Wentworth
371 NC Hwy 65
Reidsville NC 27320
Facility Name:
Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas II, LLC
Address
Rockingham County, phone number, contact person
EAA Preparer:
LKC Engineering, PLLC
140 Aqua Shed Court
Aberdeen, NC 28315
910-420-1437
In conjunction with:
SK Environment & Engineering PLLC
303 Olde Point Loop
Hampstead, NC 28443
910-685-3528
1.
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC —Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Contents
Engineering Alternatives Analysis.................................................................................................................1
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................................4
1) Background.......................................................................................................................................4
2) NPDES Permit Request......................................................................................................................4
3) Need for Cooling Water....................................................................................................................5
4) Site location.......................................................................................................................................6
Step 1: Allowable Discharge Criteria.............................................................................................................8
1) Zero Flow Stream Restrictions..............................................................................................................8
2) Receiving Stream Classification..........................................................................................................10
3) Basinwide Water Quality Plan.............................................................................................................10
4) Impaired Water and TMDL.................................................................................................................11
5) Presence of Endangered Species and Species of Concern ................. :................................................
11
Step1 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................12
Step2: Flow Projections..............................................................................................................................13
1) Non -Municipal Flow Projections.....................................................................................................13
a) Flow.............................................................................................................................................13
b) Water Balance.................................................................................................................................13
b) Wastewater Constituents...........................................................................................................13
Step3..........................................................................................................................................................15
1) Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives................................................................................15
a) Wastewater characterization......................................................................................................15
2) Alternatives Considered..................................................................................................................15
a) Connecting to an existing wastewater treatment plant- Mayodan............................................15
b) Land Application..........................................................................................................................15
c) Wastewater Reuse......................................................................................................................16
d) Direct Discharge to Surface Waters................................................................................................16
Step4..........................................................................................................................................................17
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................17
2
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS �j ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

FIGURE 1 NTE SEWER PROJECT MAP................................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 2 NTE REIDSVILLE LoCALToPo MAP........................................................................................................................ 19
FIGURE 3 RESPONSE FROM USGS CONCERNING 7Q10 FLOW AT SETTLE BRIDGE SITE................................................................... 20
FIGURE 4 7Q10 AND 30Q2 FLOWS TABLE AT 02701000...................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 5 MINIMUM FLOW AT02701000........................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 6 STREAM CLASSIFICATION - DAN RIVER AT SETTLE BRIDGE........................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 7 WATER SUPPLY PROTECTED AREA MAP FOR EDEN FULL SIZE...................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 8 UPPER DAN WATER QUALITY REPORT.................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 9 AMBIENT MONITORING SYSTEM STATION SUMMARY FOR DAN RIVER SEGMENT 22(31.5)............................................... 26
FIGURE 10 TURBIDITY AND FECALTMDL SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 11 WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM................................................................................................................................ 28
FIGURE 12 TOWN OF MAYODAN DECLINING WASTEWATER ACCEPTANCE................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 13 REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - LAND APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................... 30
FIGURE 14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW FORM.................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 15 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................. 32
TABLE 1 DESIGN FLOWS FOR COOLING WATER USAGE AND DISCHARGE....................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/PRIMARY CLASSIFICATIONS...................................................................................... 10
This Engineering Evaluation of Alternatives follows the step -wise organization presented in the EAA
Guidance found at https://deg.nc.gov/document/eaa-guidance-20140501-dwr-swp-npdes. Exhibits in
support of statements or calculations are included in the Figures and Tables section.
3
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS fj ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

Project Description
1) Background
NTE Carolinas II, LLC ("NTE") plans to construct, own, and operate the Reidsville Energy Center (REC), a
greenfield, natural gas -fired one-on-one combined cycle gas electrical generation facility, with a nominal
output of 488 MW. The proposed site is located near Reidsville, in Rockingham County, North Carolina.
The power plant will employ one combustion turbine, either a Mitsubishi G-class or a Siemens H-class
advanced combustion turbine, with supplementary duct firing. The exhaust heat from the combustion
turbine and the supplemental duct firing will be captured and converted to steam in a Heat Recovery
Steam Generator ("HRSG"). The generated steam will pass through a steam turbine to extract additional
electrical power. Of the 488 MW output, as much as 275 MW will be generated from the combustion
turbine and up to 213 MW from to the steam turbine. The power plant has requested water and
wastewater service be provided by Rockingham County, thus this request for this NPDES discharge (the
project). Rockingham County has proposed to design, permit, construct, own and operate an intake
structure, pump station and pipeline that will draw water from the Dan River and provide the power
plant with adequate quantities of process cooling water. Subsequently, the plant evaporative cooling
blowdown will be discharged to Rockingham County.
2) NPDES Permit Request
The County seeks a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit to release
effluent, comprised of the cooling water blowdown and some low volume waste, back into the Dan
River via a County -owned lift station and 40,000-foot-long (7.6 miles), 12-inch diameter forcemain. The
county owned pump station will be situated on the REC property and used exclusively for the return of
cooling water blowdown. The forcemain route to the discharge site follows ROW of public roads
situated along ridge lines with no crossing of streams or wetlands (Refer to and
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Figure 2 for project maps). The convenient downslope topography helps in keeping project prices
manageable with respect to discharge pump sizing and energy consumption. Once constructed, the
pump station and forcemain will last for 20 years with appropriate maintenance.
3) Need for Cooling Water
The combined cycle power generation plant is a two-step process for converting the potential energy in
the natural gas fuel to electrical power. The first step in the energy extraction is combusting natural gas
fuel within a gas turbine. The expanding gases drive the turbine which then drives a generator through
rotating power take -offs. The second step involves the exhaust gas from the combustion turbine
flowing through a boiler tower to extract the waste heat and generate steam. The steam is introduced
to a second turbine which drives a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). When steam exits the second
turbine it must be condensed immediately, consistently, and reliably. Condensing the steam is very
important to maintain a constant pressure profile across the steam turbine and to avoid water
condensing within the rotating steam turbine.
The cooling sink for the steam condenser heat exchangers will be evaporative coolers. The cooling
water will recirculate from forced draft evaporative coolers to the steam condensers and back. Since
these coolers evaporate water to the atmosphere the cooling cycle water will need replenishing. The
replenishing water will originate from an intake and pump station on the Dan River. The river water will
pass through a clarifier to remove settleable solids before being introduced to the cooling units. The
concentrated solids from the clarifier will further be dewatered in a filter press and disposed of in a
landfill.
With water being lost to evaporation, the dissolved solids in the water would remain entrained in the
cooling tower and become concentrated to the point of precipitation if not removed. To prevent that
from occurring within the evaporation equipment, approximately 1/7th of the feed river water volume
will be returned to the river from the cooling water loop.
Design calculation results for the make-up cooling water usage and evaporator blow down discharge
were supplied by NTE and shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Design Flows for Cooling Water Usage and Discharge
Operating Condition
Expected Water Usage
(mgd)
Expected Discharge
(mgd)
Winter
2.1
0.31
Annual Average
2.8
0.41
Summer Max
3.5
0.51
Instantaneous Max
4.2
1.06
Since 6/7ths (86%) of the fed water will be evaporated the dissolved solids which originated in the
withdrawn river water will all be returned to the river in the 1/7m blowdown discharge flow.
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS f( ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC l�

4) Site location
The location of the project is shown on the site maps (
Figure 1 and
Figure 2). The REC plant line -of -sight distance is 8.8 miles from Reidsville, 11 miles from Eden, and 8.5
miles from Madison. This plant site is uniquely situated at the junction of the existing Transco natural
gas pipeline and regional high -voltage electrical distribution lines. Duke Energy currently operates a
peaking power generation plant just south of the REC site, but they do not require cooling other than
the release of exhaust gases to the atmosphere and radiators.
6
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS }� ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Step 1: Allowable Discharge Criteria
1) Zero Flow Stream Restrictions
a) Oxygen Consumption: Zero flow stream restrictions apply to oxygen -consuming waste discharged to
surface waters. The REC cooling water blowdown flow from the evaporative coolers will contain a net
reduction in oxygen -consuming compounds due to constituents removed in the raw water clarifier.
Therefore, the proposed discharge is not expected to cause oxygen deprivation downstream of the
release site.
b) Streamflow: The United States Geologic Survey (USGS, John C Weaver) was contacted to request the
low -flow statistics for the proposed discharge located at Settles Bridge on Settle Bridge Road. USGS
provided the "Low -Flow Characteristics and Flow -Duration Statistics for Selected USGS Continuous -
Record Stream Gaging Stations in North Carolina Through 2012", https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/,
pointing out the results for stream gage USGS Sta. 02071000 Dan River near Wentworth which is located
approximately 600 feet downstream from the proposed discharge site. Referencing page 20 index 17 of
that report shows the summer 7Q10 flow at 162 CFS and the summer 30Q2 flow at 403 CFS. The
minimum, mean, maximum and flow duration Table 5 on page 71 shows the lowest recorded flow at the
gaging station as 63 CFS. Correspondence with USGS, the 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows table, and flow records
tables are shown in
dOA Mt
Q
C rn P,)
Figure 3,
8
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS f( ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC l�

Figure 4, and
Figure 5. The report confirms that the Dan River at the proposed discharge site is not a zero -flow
stream.
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

2) Receiving Stream Classification
The NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) classifications online interactive map in Figure 7
shows the discharge site in the Dan River as stream segment 22 (31.5) WS-IV'. The Dan River is also
protected for Class C uses. Table 2 lists the activities and restrictions on the water source relative to the
WS-IV classification. Under these classifications industrial wastewater discharges are allowed.
Table 2 Surface Water Classification/Primary Classifications
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Surface
AGRIC4R.TIRtE
FOREST
TRANSPORTATION
DAMS
Freshwater
AREA
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
ALLOWABLE DENSITY
EROSIONAL
SEDIMENT
BEST
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
GUIOEUNES
BEST
mA AOf pNT
LANDFILLS
WATER
AFFECTED
ALLOWED
CONTROLS'
PRACTICES,
RILE
PRACTICES
ALLOWM
CE
Classifications
MANDATED
STANDA
MANDATED
S
Low DENSITY
MANDATEDRM
OPTION
HI
(w=DWEUNG
UNIT)
DENSITY
op-not9
STREAM
BUFFERS
'AC -ACRE;
12,nBs
aorneslic and
I do nr_ ac «
24x upon
2asox
low density - 1D'
stanawd nks
,.
Yes
Yam,.
no nev:
rro specfic
WATER SUPPLY - IV
arcar
M.U,.146
JIMI�aupdn
demih -tar
u,rnuS
resmctMS
ms-N),''d
I du 1112 "«
24-709L
Oz«eehd
domeade and
w,dusUiae
24%bLW upon
IAdlt
low d Y-JO
ho density tar
standard tole'
a
Yea
na specific
rerancaons
rro speunc
restncuons
atta
aB� , e
,area °
-
Visiting the DEQ Water Supply Watersheds tool, Figure 8 shows the that the discharge location is within
the protected area for Eden, NC water supply intake, thus the WS-IV designation. URLs from which the
Classification information was derived are listed below.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6el25ad7628f494694e259c8Odd6
4265 Location Map showing Dan River Classification
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8Ob5a3634eda417880aa6d2abddf
b6f2 Water Supply Protected Area Map for Eden
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/document-
library/NC Guide SurfaceWater AUGUST1%202011 FINAL.pdf Primary Classification Chart —
https://deg.nc.gov/document/nc-stdstable-11082016 Water Standards Table
3) Basinwide Water Quality Plan
Referencing http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-
resource-plans/roanoke-2012 Chapter 1, Upper Dan River Subbasin HUC 03010103, of the 2012
Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, page 1.14, shows that the segment of the river at the
proposed discharge location is impaired for turbidity and that a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for
Turbidity has been developed for the segment 22-(31.5). Figure 9 shows the pages from the Upper Dan
Water Quality Report pointing out that 15% of the water quality samples had exceeded the state
1 Water Supply IV (WS-IV) waters are used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a WS-I, WS-II or WS-III classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds.
10
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

standard for turbidity. Figure 10 is a table of ambient monitoring data that was taken between the first
of 2005 through the end of 2009 showing the distribution of water quality samples including turbidity.
The effluent characterization provided in the NPDES application projects a maximum turbidity of 20 NTU
which is below the water quality criterion of 50 NTU.
In addition, the entire Dan River basin in Rockingham County is under a fish and shellfish consumption
advisory due to mercury in fish tissue. The origins of the mercury are likely attributed to atmospheric
deposition, and the REC will not use or add mercury to their process.
4) Impaired Water and TMDL
Figure 11 shows the TMDL summary pages for the Dan River 22(31.5) as 303(d) listed for turbidity. Any
discharge permitted in this segment would need to accommodate the TMDL limitations.
5) Presence of Endangered Species and Species of Concern
The US Fish and Wildlife Service listed two endangered species and one federal specie of concern which
may be present in the Dan River.
1) Roanoke Logperch
The Roanoke logperch is a type of darter and listed as endangered.
Distribution: This species is known from portions of the Chowan and
Roanoke River basins within the ridge and valley, piedmont, and
upper coastal plain physiographic regions, including recent
collections in North Carolina in the Dan River, Mayo River, and Smith River watersheds. It appears that
massive habitat loss associated with the impoundments of the Roanoke River basin in the 1950s and
1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville, Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the
original cause of significant population declines of this species. In North Carolina, upstream range in the
Dan and Mayo Rivers is presumably impeded by dams.
Threats: Current threats are large dams and reservoirs, small dams/barriers, watershed urbanization,
agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing non -point source pollution, channelization, roads,
toxic spills/accidents, riparian/woody debris loss, and water withdrawals.
2) James (=Virginia) spineymussel
The second endangered species is the James (=Virginia) spineymussel
Distribution: This freshwater mussel is found in the upper James and
Dan River basins. The species has declined rapidly during the past two
decades and now exists only in small, headwater tributaries of the
upper James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia. In 2000, it was
discovered in the Dan River basin in North Carolina and Virginia.
11
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Threats: The primary reason for its decline is habitat loss and modification. Threats to this species
include siltation, invasion of the non-native Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), impoundment of
waterways, water pollution, stream channelization, sewage discharge, agricultural runoff including
pesticides and fertilizers, poor logging and road/bridge construction practices, and discharge of chlorine.
3) Green Floater
The third is a federal species of concern the Green Floater
Distribution: The green floater is more wide spread, ranging from
parts of the Cape Fear basin north to New York state including the
Dan River.
Step 1 Conclusions
1) Zero Flow Stream Restrictions: The calculated instantaneous maximum discharge of 1.057 MGD
(1.64 CFS) of cooling water blow down, that will have a net reduction in oxygen -consuming pollutants, is
likely not to cause a concern to the health of the Dan river. At the Settles Bridge site the 7Q10 flow is
measured as 162 CFS. The maximum discharge flow of 1.64 CFS would contribute 1% of the river's flow
at the discharge point at the summer 7Q10 flow.
2) Receiving Stream Classification:
The WS-IV classification of the stream segment 22(31.5) does not prohibit NPDES discharges to the river.
3) Basinwide Water Quality Plan: The Dan River at the proposed discharge site is under a TMDL
limitation for turbidity. The high suspended solids load in the river was originally noted as sourced from
in -stream mining operations which have since ceased and water turbidity counts are improving. The
TMDL implementation plan seeks to reduce TSS from both point and non -point sources. The proposed
cooling water that is discharged will be cleared of suspended solids by the plant clarifier and not
contribute to the impairment. The fish and shellfish consumption advisory for mercury in fish tissue is
attributed to atmospheric deposition, and the REC will not use or add any mercury to its process.
4) Impaired Waters: The river segment at the proposed discharge site is 303(d) listed for Turbidity
above the state standard not to exceed 50 NTU. The projected cooling water discharge maximum of 20
NTU will not contribute to NTU exceedances.
5) Presence of Endangered Species: There possibly exist 2 endangered species and one species of
concern in the river segment at the proposed discharge site. The proposed discharge would not impact
the river environment since its water will contain a net reduction in oxygen -consuming pollutants or
other toxins.
"l�z
12
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Step 2: Flow Projections
1) Non -Municipal Flow Projections
a) Flow
The flow to be discharged from the NTE Reidsville Energy Center to the Dan river via this proposed
NPDES permit is shown in Table 1. Energy demand peaks during the extreme seasons of summer and
winter, with lower demand during the in between seasons. The cooling water consumption of the REC is
generally proportional to the amount of energy generated at the facility but ambient temperature and
humidity influence cooling requirements also. As a result, when electrical power demand is up cooling
requirements are up as well. Table 1 shows the cooling flow to be withdrawn from, and returned to the
Dan river as calculated by NTE. The highest discharge flow should occur during the summer months at a
peak discharge of 1.057 MGD. The annual average discharge is expected to be 0.41 MGD.
b) Water Balance
Figure 12, pages 1 and 2, illustrate the flows of water introduced to, and discharged from, the NTE
Reidsville Energy Center. Water is supplied to the plant from a raw water intake in the Dan River and
from potable water supplied by Rockingham County/ Reidsville. Of the average flow of 63,000 GPD of
potable water, 60,000 GPD will be further demineralized and introduced as the working fluid in the
boilers and steam turbine. A flow of 3,000 GPD of potable water will be used for domestic purposes by
plant operators, the subsequent sanitary sewer effluent will be disposed of in an on -site leach field. Oil
from the oil separator and the solids collected from the clarifier will be trucked off site for disposal by a
qualified handler.
The raw river water inlet flow will annually average 2.8 MGD and range up to a peak of 4.2 MGD. An
estimated 85% of the raw river water flow will exit the plant through evaporation. This implies that
during peak 4.2 MGD flow, 3.1 MGD will be lost to the atmosphere. The balance of the water streams
flowing out of the plant will be conducted to the wastewater collection sump for discharge to the Dan
River via this NPDES permit.
b) Wastewater Constituents
Aquagenics Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts (http://www.aguagenicsinc.com/) obtained water samples
of the Dan River and the Rockingham County water supply during 8 sampling events from September
2016 through February 2017. From those sampling events the waters were analyzed for concentrations
of various constituents. Aquagenics further calculated the anticipated water constituent concentrations
also shown in that table under various scenarios.
When 85% of the raw river water is evaporated, the remaining water contains all of the original
nonvolatile materials but is now concentrated in the remaining volume. Since 6/7ths of the feed water
is evaporated, the dissolved components are concentrated into the remaining 1/7th of the original
volume. The dissolved solids will be discharged back to the river but their concentration is now 7 times
as great as when it was withdrawn. The settleable solids or total suspended solids (TSS) along with most
components contributing to NTU in the raw feed water will be largely removed in the plant clarifier,
therefore TSS, and other constituents likely to precipitate, do not become as concentrated by the loss of
13
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

water. Also, contributing to the dissolved solids concentration is the reject flow from demineralization
of potable water from the reverse osmosis (RO)/Mixed bed units. As a result, some dissolved solids
concentrations in the discharge stream are higher than the 7X concentration of the influent river water.
The temperature of the plant discharged cooling water will be the same as that seen in the basins of the
evaporative coolers. The temperature of the evaporator cooled water is largely governed by the
difference in wet bulb temperature (dew point) and dry bulb (measurable temperature) of the
atmosphere. Therefore, during a high humidity day (maximum observed dew point of 74° F from 2007
to 2009) and outside measured temperature of 103 F the evaporative cooling water is calculated to be
approximately 85.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The discharged blow down cooling water will flow to an onsite
pump station that will then pump the discharge water through a 12 inch PVC forcemain for 40,000 feet
to the discharge point at an average flow of 416 GPM (600,000 gal/day / 1,440) during the highest
blowdown flow periods of summer.
With the 85.2 degree water, an energy balance was conducted assuming that the surface soil
temperature during summer averaged 80 degrees F in clay soils with the forcemain buried 1 meter
deep. The result of the simulation showed that the water temperature exiting the 6-mile-long discharge
pipe under these worse case conditions would be about 81.6 degrees. This worst -case scenario would
be anomalous since over the previous 5 years the dew -point at Reidsville in August has averaged 68
degrees F which would produce cooling water discharge at the outfall at an estimated 82 degrees F.
14
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Step 3
1) Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives
a) Wastewater characterization
The nature of the "wastewater "generated by the REC will not contain pollutants from domestic or
industrial activities and is not toxic. Components in the wastewater stream only originated in the river
intake or the Rockingham County potable water system. The wastewater does not contact human or
animal waste or foodstuffs or used in any type of chemical process. Rather the water has been cleared
of settleable solids in a clarifier and circulated around a cooling loop of large heat exchangers made of
steel, stainless steel, galvanized steel, and thermally stable polymers. The discharge water will have a
net reduction in oxygen -consuming pollutants due to constituents removed in the raw water clarifier,
and it will not contain any component concentrations that would be toxic to individuals or organisms in
the natural environment.
2) Alternatives Considered
a) Connecting to an existing wastewater treatment plant- Mayodan
Connections to existing public or privately owned treatment works were explored -as a cooling water
disposal option in this alternatives process. The closest connection point to an existing facility by
installing a forcemain of 10.02 miles, is the Mayodan WWTP which discharges into the Mayo River via
NPDES NC0021873 and permitted at 2.5 MGD.
Mayodan was approached to consider the possibility of discharging to their WWTP. The town declined
accepting the cooling water flow, citing the fact that the flow had no food value or COD content and
would dilute their already low BOD influent values. They pointed out that the proposed zero BOD water
would make their current average 92 ppm influent BOD to be diluted to an average 57 ppm BOD and
would be problematic for reliable plant operations. The Mayodan plant was designed for treating
domestic strength wastewater, closer to BOD concentrations of 210 ppm.
As a result of their decline, connection to an existing WWTP is not feasible. See Figure 13 for the letter
declining the attachment request.
b) Land Application
Land application of the cooling water was considered in the alternatives analysis. The USGS web soil
survey tool is a practical tool to search for land application sites. In that tool, the area of interest can be
defined from fractions to many thousands of acres.
The area of interest defined was specified as bounded by the Dan River to the North, the crest of the
Dan River basin to the south and an estimated five miles East and West of the REC plant cooling water
pump station site and comprised33,500 acres. Appendix 1 contains the Soils report produced from the
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USDA site. In that report on pages 9
through 63, the soil classes and their characteristics are listed. From this list, it can be seen that the bulk
of the soils contain clay and all exist on sloped ground.
15
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

On page 66 of the report is the map of soils scored for acceptability for land application of wastewater.
The map largely shows a region unsuited to land application. The red areas of the map are rated
unsuitable for land application while the yellow areas show land somewhat limited. The yellow areas
are largely situated at the crest or tops of hills and form a network of ridgelines. Spray fields would have
to be placed along these narrow fingers of land and scattered from one hill crest to the next, assuming
they were available for sale. There are some farm sites adjacent to the Dan River, northeast of the
proposed discharge site that could possibly support spray fields, but none of those farms is for sale and
are farther from the plant site than the river discharge site.
The summation of the scores on page 80 of the report shows 65.5% of the 33,500 acres evaluated as
very limited with 33.7% of the area rated as somewhat limited. While the area indicated by 33.7% is an
appreciable land area, it is scattered in fractured fingers or soils. The few areas that are large enough to
be used for wastewater disposal and do not possess limiting slope are used as working farms, either row
crops or livestock, and are not listed as for sale.
Figure 14 is a topographic map of the region local to the REC, that illustrates the sloped nature of these
foothill regions, a characteristic that contributes to the soil's poor land application ratings.
As a result of the nature of the high clay content soils and the persistent limiting slopes in the region,
land application is not considered a feasible cooling water disposal option.
c) Wastewater Reuse
Because of the cooling water's quality, reuse from the REC would be highly applicable if a consumer of
reuse quality water existed. The remoteness of the REC from population centers or from industrial users
makes the possibility of reuse also remote. During summer months, the spent cooling water could be
useful for the few farms in the area with row crops or hay, but a year-round solution for the cooling
water disposal is still needed and would require a permanent disposal source. Furthermore, a
conjunctive configuration using dual disposal sinks would increase the infrastructure costs as opposed to
a single disposal because of multiple pumping systems for appropriate pressures and flows to
accommodate both types of disposal.
d) Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
The preferred cooling water disposal option is the direct discharge to the Dan River at Settles Bridge on
Settles Bridge Road (NC 65) in Rockingham County. The direct discharge offers the most practical and
most reliable solution for the disposal of the cooling water stream.
Figures 1 and 2 show the proposed route of the discharge forcemain on both road and topo map
perspective. The topo map shows the forcemain following a ridgeline to the North in the highway 65
ROW then continuing down slope to the bridge site. The length of the forcemain along this route is
estimated at 40,000 feet or 7.6 miles.
The cooling water discharge is calculated to average 0.41 mgd with a peak flow of 1.057 mgd, (Table 1)
and would be released from an open pipe into the Dan River where it would mix with the ambient river
flow. As a worse case condition, if the peak summer cooling flow of 1.057 mgd (1.64 CFS), were
16
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

released to the Dan River flowing at the 7Q10 low flow of 162 CFS, the instream dilution will be 100:1
once mixed.
Looking at the ambient river concentrations of constituents in the far left column, in blue, "Dan River
Average Concentration", and comparing those values with the concentrations in the far right column, in
green, "River Concentration After Return 7Q10", a slight (4%-7%)increase in the concentrations of
dissolved constituents can be seen. This makes sense because the river water previously withdrawn has
largely evaporated, leaving behind the dissolved constituents which are returned to the river from which
they came making it a little more concentrated. Also adding to the dissolved solids in the plant
discharge is the RO demineralization reject flow of potable water that is used in the steam turbine loop.
Constituents that increased only slightly, (<0.5%), were TSS and Turbidity. These components are solids
and not dissolved, and as a result their concentration is reduced by the clarifier in the cooling water
pretreatment.
The direct discharge of the REC cooling water to the river via a NPDES permit is the only plausible and
practicable discharge option to provide a year-round, reliable disposal sink for the cooling water. The
cost of building and operating the pump station, forcemain, and discharge are shown in Step 4 below.
Step 4
For the Present Value Analysis, a spreadsheet was used as obtained from the NCDEQ Division of Water
Infrastructure. This spreadsheet application is well linked and simple to use. Since only one disposal
option was found to be plausible, that option is the only one included in the PVA. See Figure 16 for the
PVA.
Conclusion
The only reliable cooling water discharge practicable for the REC is the NPDES direct discharge to the
Dan River. The discharge carries no added pollutants and is therefore no load on the Dan River. The
WS-IV waters of the Dan River do not restrict new NPDES discharge.
If the town of Mayodan had been open to receiving the cooling water, the extra cost of 3 additional
miles of forcemain plus additional road crossings with bore and jack would have increased the project
cost by about $950,000.
The foothills piedmont region of the state does not lend itself to simple land application sites as those
found in the coastal plain. The eroding hills are rarely without slope and often comprised of soils with
lower Ksat values. As a result, spray fields are not a plausible disposal option in this region. The few
places in the region that are flat enough for spray fields that would not promote runoff are coveted for
agricultural fields and home sites.
17
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC— Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Figure 1 NTE Sewer Project Map
18
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

N
m t ,
W E akO'� D
z
o
S
Dan River
Approximate Location of
Discharge Point
Lat: 36' 24' 36. 77" N
\ Long: 79° 49' 36.15" W
�o
,o I
0
.q� I
HENRY RD
\90 0 _
Oi
i
'k
MASSEY CREEK RD
DR
gyp; v,
Rockingham County 90 M 1 , .yo
Landfill Site 9
I NEW LEBANON CHURCH RD /
NTE Energy Sewer Project Map
Rockingham County, NC
�I
i
va
p� r --6OLD FAN DR
z
4Q1
UT
P
BRAME RD
1
�I
Proposed 12"
Forcemain (32,000If)
FOCH FARM RD
0
Q�
C4.Dr
I �
i V
LEMINSFAR ;TRL
+,
SHARM/[L pR
I
NTE Energy
Project Site
HUFFiN '
�4fl '
ERNEST DR
Proposed Pump Station /
SIMS RD
Q(
- PUR�LL
�o
�o
Pam'
11
Legend
PE Proposed Pump Station
12" Forcemain
Landfill Property
i�
/ NTE Energy Site
Qo
Feet
0 1.000 2,Jv 3,000

Figure 2 NTE Reidsville Local Topo Map
19
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS }� ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

�.=t '�'. f E Reidsville Local Topo Map
Cooling Water Discharge
�— 3,
im
7111HI_
to?3Y
t
f
a r
Y t 7
a. e
t
y
ram.
t l E3
vz�� .lam
r
-
I-NTE Reidsville"
NTE Reidsville Power Station Site
NTESite 4 ;
NTE Blowdown Forcemain
..... Raw Water Main
W River Basin Boundary
+Illllllllllilm .., .. •.••.
Feet
0 1,300 2.600 5200.7,800 10.400 -

Figure 3 Response from USGS concerning 7Q10 flow at Settle Bridge Site
20
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

•
by( kXN, IC
Barry King <[e-mail]>
Response from USGS concerning... Re: Dan River near Wentworth USGS station
02071000
Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
To: Barry King <[e-mail]>
Cc: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Mr. King,
Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM
A very quick response and note to say the I received both your voice mail and email inquiring about the low -flow
characteristics for Dan River just upstream from the streamgage near Wentworth in Rockingham County.
The most recently published low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta. 02071000 Dan River near Wentworth are provided in
USGS SIR 2015-5001, initially released in March 2015.
The low -flow statistics for this streamgage, based on period of record ending March 31, 2012, are provided in Table 3 on
page 20 of the report document (site index number 17).
Flow -duration statistics for the analysis period of record along with maximum, minimum, and mean daily discharge are
provided for this site in Table 5 on page 71 of the document.
Visual inspection of a topographic map suggest no appreciable difference in drainage area for the Dan River between
Settle Bridge Road and the downstream streamgage. Thus, use of the recently published low -flow characteristics and
flow -duration statistics should be applicable to the upstream point of interest.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email. [e-mail]
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Barry King <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hello Curtis,
I am Barry King. I am preparing an Engineering Alternatives Analysis for a cooling water NPDES discharge into the
Dan river located 600 feet up stream from the apparently active river gauge 02071000 Dan River near Wentworth. The
proposed discharge would be located at the Settle Bridge ROW adjacent to the bridge and would like be precisely the
same flow at that location as that at the river gauge. (see attached map)
I am required to request from your division the low flow statistics required for the NPDES permit application.
Please tell me what I need to do to order this information.
I certainly appreciate your assistance,
Barry King

Barry King PE
SK Environment & Engineering PLLC
910, 685.3528

Figure 4 7Q10 and 30Q2 Flows Table at 02701000
21
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ��(%��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

20 Low -Flow Characteristics and Flow -Duration Statistics for Selected USGS Continuous -Record Streamgaging Stations
Table 3. Magnitude and frequency of low -flow characteristics at U.S. Geological Survey continuous -record streamgaging stations in
North Carolina.
[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, ft'/s, cubic foot per second, 7Q10, 7-day, 10-year low flow; 30Q2, 30-day, 2-year low flow; Winter 7Q10, winter 7-day,
10-year low flow; 7Q2, 7-day, 2-year low flow. Climatic year is the annual period from April 1 through March 31 that is used by the USGS for low -flow
analyses at USGS continuous -record streamgages, designated by the year in which the period begins. Source refers to the previous basinwide low -flow report
in which low -flow characteristics were republished in the current report. A previous report is cited only if no new data have been collected at the streamgage
since the report was published]
Site
index
number
(figs. 4, 5)
8
I1
14
16
17
19
22
23
25
26
28
30
31
35
38
39
40
43
45
46
50
51
52
53
55
59
USGS
station
number
Period of
analysis
(climatic
years)
Low -flow characteristic,
in ft'/s
7Q10 30Q2 Winter 7Q2
7Q10
02053200
1958-2011
0.46
4.9
4.8
3.4
02053500
1965-2011
1.4
4.3
3.0
2.9
02068500
1950-83;
43.0
82.0
64.0
69.0
1985-86;
1992-2011
02070500
1930-70;
58.0
126.0
113.0
108.0
1994-2011
02071000
1950-2011
162.0
403.0
343.0
332.0
02074000
1951-2011
162.0
292.0
211.0
245.0
02075160
1962-73
0.4
3.0
3.0
1.5
02077200
1965-2011
0
0.41
0.72
0.01
02077240
1965-74;
0
0.6
0.6
0.5
1977-81
02077250
1967-77
0
2.5
1.5
1.0
02077303
1974-2011
1.4
8.9
3.5
7.3
02077670
1984-2011
1.3
2.4
1.8
2.1
02080500
1964-92; 1994;
1,290.0
2,480.0
1,320.0
1,850.0
1996-2011
0208111310
1988-2011
0
0.11
0.01
0
02081500
1940-2011
0.16
3.4
1.2
1.5
02081747
1974-2011
6.7
35.0
30.0
23.0
02081800
1957-74
3.4
14.0
19.0
11.0
02082500
1950-69
0.07
1.4
0.55
0.39
02082506
1973-2010
38.0
106.0
44.0
90.0
02082585
1977-92;
29.0
112.0
39.0
84.0
1995-2011
02082770
1964-92;
3.6
23.0
22.0
14.0
1996-2011
02082950
1960-2011
1.4
14.0
9.1
8.6
02083000
1927-92; 1994;
12.0
74.0
48.0
55.0
1996-2011
02083500
1972-92;
83.0
262.0
149.0
201.0
1996-2011
02083800
1957-92; 1994;
1.9
6.3
2.7
4.4
1996-2001
02084160
1976-86;1994;
0
0.24
0.45
0
1996-2011
Source
Roanoke (Weaver,
1996)
Roanoke (Weaver,
1996)
Roanoke (Weaver,
1996)
Statewide (Giese and
Mason, 1993)

Figure 5 Minimum Flow at 02701000
22
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Table 5. Minimum, mean, maximum, and flow -duration statistics of daily mean discharges for indicated periods of record at selected U.S. Geological Survey continuous -record
streamgaging stations in North Carolina.
[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft'/s, cubic foot per second. Water year is the annual period used in flow -duration analyses in this report and lasts from October 1 through September 30, designated by the year
in which the period ends. Flows are listed for selected non-exceedance percentiles indicating percentage of time flow was equal to or less than indicated discharge]
Site
Minimum
Mean daily
Maximum
Duration of daily mean flow, presented as)0(th percentiles, percentage of discharges
index USGS
period of
daily
discharge,
daily
equal or less than indicated value for )0(percent of time, in fN/s
number station
analysis (full water
discharge,
in ft'/s
discharge
SOth
(figs. number
years only)
in ft'Js
(Unit flow,
in fN/s
5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th
percentile
4,5)
(date)
in [(ft'/s)/miz])
(date)
percentile percentile percentile(median) percentile percentile percentile
8 02053200
19"9 2012
0
222
15 I00
9 4 9 15 0 730 2520 612 0 917 0
(7/28/2011)
(.99)
(9; 17/1999)
11
02053500
1965-2012
0.59
60.1
7,710
3.0
4.0
7.2
17.0
48.0
126.0
248.0
(8/29/2010)
(.95)
(9/17/1999)
14
02068500
1950-84;
21
190
6,830
65.0
76.0
104.0
150.0
219.0
318.0
420.0
1986-87;
(9/4/1999)
(1.47)
(9/22/1979)
1993-2012
16
02070500
1930-71;
33
310
11,400
101.0
122.0
164.0
231.0
336.0
492.0
687.0
1994-2012
(8/11/2002)
(1.28)
(9/18/1945)
17
02071000
1950-2012
63
1170
47,800
301.0
378.0
541.0
802.0
1,230.0
1,970.0
2,950.0
(8/12/2002)
(1.11)
(6/22/1972)
19
02074000
1951-2012
46
639
16,700
176.0
222.0
319.0
457.0
753.0
1,170.0
1,540.0
(8/14/1967)
(1.19)
(6/21/1972)
22
02075160
1962-74;
0.21
26.9
1,950
1.6
3.0
7.2
14.0
26.0
49.0
87.0
1989
(10/3/1968)
(.82)
(6/21/1972)
23
02077200
1965-2012
0
44.7
7,400
0
0.68
4.0
15.0
37.0
84.0
160.0
(7/9/1966)
(.97)
(8/28/1995)
25
02077240
1965-75;
0
7.51
994
0.46
0.77
1.4
3.0
6.2
12.0
23.0
1978-82
(3/22/1977)
(1.01)
(7/13/1975)
26
02077250
1967-78
0
55.5
3,660
0.91
2.4
6.4
19.0
45.0
100.0
199.0
(8/24/1968)
(.98)
(7/14/1975)
28
02077303
1974-2012
0.27
154
9,280
4.1
8.2
14.0
24.0
103.0
343.0
696.0
(11/2/1997)
(.76)
(7/14/1975)
30
02077670
1984-2012
0.27
35.8
2,260
2.1
2.6
3.1
5.6
40.0
97.0
147.0
(8/21/1999)
(.67)
(9/7/1996)
31
02080500
1964-93;
818
7,680
36,000
1,750.0
2,040.0
2,550.0
5,710.0
10,200.0
18,700.0
20,100.0
1995;
(11/15/1970)
(.92)
(9/11/1996)
1997-2012
35
0208111310
1988-2012
0
110
14,500
0
0.02
2.2
30.0
109.0
257.0
445.0
(7/30/1987)
(1.02)
(9/17/1999)
m
rr
e�
erg
V

Figure 6 Stream Classification - Dan River at Settle Bridge
23
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS jT ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC I�

tip`. NC DEQ Ctassificattonn X NC Surace Water CI-0 X
A S-we httpsjlmdenr.maps.arcgis.comJappsjwebappvie r/index.htmt?id=6el25ad7628t494694e259COWd6426S
3 By PVC s In a. CIr Metal, i s '...... `.. s .r
NC Surface Water Classifications ctif., rnoretnformaron NC Clsssificatians Websdn
— 32m,
Surface Water Caufcatonsri Rwer Ba:
Sopt,orts FFhuv oy Mau E ter,- (?
O Refresh
Cream €ndec
'. Stream Name:
DAN RIVER
22-33
Many Creek
-234-42)
Rock Hoare Creek
faetares 0 selected
Description: Cimaificerion:
from a point 0.7-le upstream of Jacobs WSAV
Creek. a point 0.8 —ia downstream of
Mammony Creek
From source to Den River WSlV
From Rockingham Countly SR 2381 to Dan VJSN
River
raJ/e r
!+!Is Rd
Sudeoe Water Classi8cations�
Stream mdcs 22{31 5}
Stream DAN RIVER (j
Name: i
Descnpnon. From a poem 0.7 mile
upstream of Jacobs Creek w a
point 0.8 mae dcwrut "of
MammRny Creek
eifi n 'OVS-fV j
Date of ua 2, 1992
Clasa.:
Rber Basin Roanoke
What does M int c
Ts Cass. 5
w
Ra
State of North Carolina DOT, Esd, HERE, Germin. INCREMENT P. Intermap, USGS,
Data of Crass.:
August 2, 1992
Auguat2, 1992
'Augu3t2, 1992
River Beam:
Roanoke
Roanoke
Roanoke
w— O X
.. ._.. _ __....._.:._..
S� J
» Other bookewks
EPA, USDA
What doeathis Clem. mean. 0
http,//deq.rrc.gov/eixouUdiv:sions�rveter
resources'plannnglciaxiificetiorr-
standardshlasufi<atiartsfDWRRimetyClessiFcati
hopl/deq nc.govfabouttdivsionatwater-
resourcestpanncngtdeas^.fication-
stendardsic€assifcatiortskDWRPrimaryClassificati
hnp: //deq.—gov/about/div:s,onstwater-
oume/plann:nglctess.fication-
standardslclassi;cations*DWRP,,maryClasaif cat-.
l

Figure 7 Water Supply Protected Area Map for Eden Full Size
24
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS f( ��
Rockingham County, NC —Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

NC Water Supply Watersheds
f n <
M19at ri many
Sandy I II Ldcn
Riei jc 5Wn5C[
mills
p..
Deb
..:cnc�ritle ,
N rest orwtl le
5 ni!on
E Ha risnris
Proposed Discharge Site at srr�ads
Dar,
Settles Bridge
I.
valley
bventivortli urr�srriry
Mar6scH, 11.'i rs
m el lr g e nce
- �. Plemanrr,llc l
�,df,cM
5 ens "
!_i Qr'TGc7t� �•�
1
i
RC��'tIIC
Nomo Od
EIImboro
ILiI _.
mild _ Frn e tit
Hill P,eUery lls
March 3, 2017
dwq_wsws_20141126
WS-III NSWP
WS-IVC
WS-IC
WS-111C
WS-IVP
WS-II NSWC
WS-IIIP
WS IVC
WS-II NSWP
WS-IIP
WS_IVP
WS-IIC
WS-IV NSWC
WS-III NSWC
WS-IV NSWP
I,
iHoomme
Stephens
C„ r-5rr>aris
Porrells
r„ec ,,,
HdI Sto2 RLArm
fl. l
SI ar ey
Sadler
I a�vscr,ville
' Carrille
A rsc.
r
am.liIan a
Clerry
Cr'o,,r
1:180,560
0 1.75 3.5 7 mi
0 1.75 3.5 7 km
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community
NCDENRDiv. Water Resources
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garrnin, NGA, USGS, NPS I Esri, HERE

Figure 8 Upper Dan Water Quality Report
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Recommendations
a
r.
m
X
W
C
M
W
D
KA
Examine the possibility of additional monitoring stations, stream walking or other investigation to try to identify
causes and sources of turbidity problems in Dan River. The upper part of this segment is located in Elk Creek
subwatershed which is one of the subwatersheds targeted for greater focus and resources by WRIT; therefore,
additional resources maybe available for investigation. DWQ should coordinate with VA when working on this
river segment.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(8)]
This segment of the Dan River is approximately 26 miles from Big Creek [AU#:
22-9] to Town Fork Creek [AU#: 22-25b]. However, only about 11.6 miles of the
segment are within this watershed. The land cover for majority of the drainage
area is forest and agriculture. There are two mining operations towards the
downstream portion of the segment.
Water Quality Status
SUPPORT:USE 2008 IR Cat. 2
2010 IR Cat. 2
Benthos
(NB9) Good (2009)
The benthic station is just downstream from the Little Dan River watershed (0301010301) boundary and gives
a representation of the water quality in that watershed. The land running parallel to the river in this upstream
area is mostly forested. Samples have been taken at this benthic site since 1994 when it received a Good -
Fair rating. That rating increased to a Good in 1999 and has remained at that rating ever since with a slightly
increasing overall score. A few rare species (Trycorythodes robacki and Ceraclea mentiea )were collected in
the 2009 sample.
Recommendations
This segment and the rare species found within it would benefit from additional protections on a state and local
level.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(31.5)a & (31.5)b]
These two segments of the Dan River are approximately 14 miles combined
from just over half a mile downstream of Jacobs Creek [AU#: 22-32-(3)] to Mill
Branch [AU#: 22-39.5]. Land cover along these segments is mostly agriculture
and residential with urban area around the Town of Eden. This segment has
been on the Impaired Waters List since 2002 for turbidity standard violations.
Water Quality Status
= There is one monitoring (AMS) station between these two segments. Almost 15% of turbidity samples exceeded
C the state standard at this station. Instream mining operations have been noted as a source in past plans.
n DWQ developed a TMDL for turbidity for this section of the Dan River in 2005. The TMDL recommended a
C) —-
W 59% reduction in total suspended solids between both point and nonpoint sources. As seen in Figure 1-20,
0
0
majority of sampling results have been reduced to below 35 NTUs since the TMDL was released in 2005
-� indicating progress.
0
W
1.14

Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)a & b]
These two segments of the Dan River run from Mill Branch [AU#: 22-39.5] about USE SUPPORT:'
12 miles northeast to the state line. The river flows through Virginia for roughly
205
six miles, crosses back into NC for a mile and a half before it returns to Virginia. IR cat.
After crossing state line again into NC, it flows for about 10 miles before its 2010 IR Cat. 5
final exit just before reaching the Town of Milton. These segments are lined AMs
with agriculture and some forested areas, with tributaries draining additional (N3000000) Turbidity (19%)
9 g
farmland and residential areas. There are also two major dischargers within (N3500000) Turbidity (23%)
two and a half miles from the Smith River confluence (City of Eden WWTP and Duke Energy Dan River Steam
Station). These segments have been on the Impaired Waters List for FCB and Turbidity since 2008.
Water Quality Status
There are two AMS monitoring stations along these two segments. Both station's samples exceeded the
turbidity state standard. The average turbidity levels for both stations have decreased; however, the amount
of samples exceeding the standard have increased at both stations. Both segments are on the Impaired
Waters List for FCB standard violations as well. A TMDL for FCB for the Smith and Dan Rivers was developed
in 2009 to address that impairment.
BMP Implementation
NC Division of Soil & Water Conservation was awarded an NC Section 319 NPS Program grant in 2008 to
implement BMPs throughout the Dan River Watershed. BMPs that will be installed during the course of this
project include: conservation cover, conservation crop rotation, cover crop, critical area planting, diversions.
livestock exclusion fencing, field borders, grassed waterways, heavy use area protection, troughs, water wells,
and watering facilities. This grant will conclude in March 2012. The DSWC received an additional 319 grant
in 2011 to continue implementing these BMPs throughout the watershed. Quarterly reports providing updated
on these projects are on the NPS 319 Program webpage.
c�
0
0
0
Cl)
0
0
z
Q
m
m
U)
Of
w
Z
a
0
w
a
a
D
z
W
Q
m
w
ry
w
Y
O
z
Q
O
ry
Li
1.15

Figure 9 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summary for Dan River segment
22(31.5)
26
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Ambient Monitoring System
Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division
of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Location: DAN RIV AT SR 2150 NR WENTWORTH
Station #: N2300000
Hydrologic
Unit Code:
03010103
Latitude: 36.41055
Longitude:
-79.82693
Stream class:
WS-IV
Agency: NCAMBNT
NC stream index:
22-(31.5)
Time period: 01/10/2005
to 12/03/2009
#
#
Results not meeting EL
Percentiles
results ND
EL
# %
%Conf Min
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
O
D
Field
0
D.O. (mg/L)
60
0
<4
0 0
6.3
7.2
7.8
9.6
11.4
13.3
14.7
m
60
0
<5
0 0
6.3
7.2
7.8
9.6
11.4
13.3
14.7
pH (Si)
60
0
<6
0 0
6.6
7
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.7
8.2
m
X
60
0
>9
0 0
6.6
7
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.7
8.2
W
Spec. conductance
58
0
N/A
37
58
64
71
84
140
158
(umhos/cm at 25°C)
z
Water Temperature (°C)
60
0
>32
0 0
1.4
5.4
8.8
17
23.8
25.8
28.8
Other
m
TSS (mg/L)
19
6
N/A
2.5
3
6.2
10
23
150
201
Turbidity (NTU)
61
0
>50
9 14.8
92 1.6
3.3
4
7.1
15.5
118
550
z
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
61
47
N/A
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
m
NO2 + NO3 as N
61
0
> 10
0 0
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
0.34
TKN as N
61
26
N/A
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.23
0.31
0.89
2.2
W
Total Phosphorus
61
1
N/A
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.22
0.83
z
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)
9
0
N/A
110
110
175
320
700
6600
6600
C
Arsenic, total (As)
9
9
>10
0 0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
C)
Cadmium, total (Cd)
9
9
>2
0 0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
CD
W
Chromium, total (Cr)
9
9
>50
0 0
10
10
25
25
25
25
25
0
Copper,total(Cu)
9
8
>7
0 0
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
Iron, total (Fe)
9
0
>1000
2 22.2
390
390
535
700
1125
5000
5000
v
Lead, total (Pb)
9
9
>25
0 0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Manganese, total (Mn)
9
0
>200
0 0
21
21
27
32
54
90
90
Mercury, total (Hg)
8
8
>0.012
0 0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
D
Nickel, total (Ni)
9
9
>25
0 0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-o
m
Zinc, total (Zn)
9
7
>50
0 0
10
10
10
10
12
25
25
m
z
°
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
-
m
# results: Geomean:
# > 400:
% > 400:
%Conf:
61 101.6
10
16.4
KW
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
1-C.4 Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence

Figure 10 Turbidity and Fecal TMDL Summary
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Total Maximum Daily Load for Turbidity and Fecal Coliform for
Haw River, Deep River, Third Fork Creek, and Dan River in North
Carolina
Final Report
EPA Approved Date: Jan 11, 2005
Cape Fear River Basin and Roanoke River Basin
Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section — Planning Branch of WA�,q
1617 Mail Service Center tea`' q
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 ; r
[phone] Q V

Turbidity and Fecal Coliform TMDL: Haw River, Deep River, Third Fork Creek, and Dan River
SUMMARY SHEET
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
1. 303(d) Listed Water Body Information
State: North Carolina
Counties: Alamance, Caswell, Durham, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham,
Stokes, and Surry
Major River Basins: Cape Fear River Basin (03030002 & 03030003) and Roanoke
River Basin (03010103)
Watersheds: Haw River, Deep River, Third Fork Creek, and Dan River
Impaired Water Body (2002 303(d) List):
Water Body Name -
Water Quality
Subbasin
Impairment
Length
(AU)
Classification
6-digit Code
(mi)
Haw River - 16-(1)d
C - Aquatic life and
03-06-02
Turbidity
13
secondary contact recreation
Haw River - 16-(1)d
C - Aquatic life and
03-06-02
Fecal Coliform
13
secondary contact recreation
Deep River - 17-(4)b
S-IV - Potable water
03-06-08
Fecal Coliform
6.8
supply
Third Fork Creek
S-1V - Potable water
03-06-05
Turbidity
3.6
16-41-1-12-(2)
supply
Dan River - 22-(31.5)
S-1V - Potable water
03-02-03
Turbidity
14.2
Isupply
Constituent(s) of Concern: Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Turbidity
Designated Uses: Biological integrity, water supply, propagation of aquatic life, and recreation.
Applicable Water Quality Standards for Class C and Class WS IV Waters:
• Turbidity: not to exceed 50 NTU
• Fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 mL (membrane filter count)
based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor
exceed 400/100 mL in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period.

Figure 11 Water Balance Diagram
28
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Net-
SOLIDS
C Mod MacDonald
This dcwmenl'is issued for the party wlrldi commissioned it Intl for specific purposes wnneded with the capUaned pmjerd only. It sneuld not be relied upon by any oewr party pr used for any oMw purpose.
We accept 11 responsibility for the wnsequenpee of this document being relied upon by any Ituw party, or being used for any o0wr purpose, or containing eny army or omiW- which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by odler parties.
9
3.
4.
sm
COOLING TOWER CYCLES OF
CONCENTRATION ARE MAINTAINED AT 7
FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL, WINTER FIRED
AND SUMMER FIRED CASES.
INSTANTANEOUS PEAK CASE FLOWS
ASSUME 4 CYCLES OF CONCENTRATION
TO ACCOUNT FOR A CHEMISTRY UPSET,
WHICH SHOULD LAST NO LONGER THAN 8
HOURS.
CTG INLET EVAPORATIVE COOLER CYCLES
OF CONCENTRATION ARE MAINTAINED AT 2
FOR ALL CASES.
COOLING TOWER DRIFT IS CALCULATED AT
0.0005% OF THE CIRCULATING WATER
FLOW RATE.
Reference Drawings
I A 101/2.7/17 I AF I FOR CLIENT REVIEW JW I JW
Rev Date Drawn Description Ch'Ifd App'tl
101 Steel- OrW
Swb 130
Weahvopd, MA 02090
unite Sfetes
T s1 (791) g154015
Mott MacDonald :'"m'o91�°°°'
�15Owm
Client
REIDSVILLE ENERGY CENTER
NORTH CAROLINA
Title
WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM
Designed JW Eng check
PRELIMINARY Drawn AF Approved
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION Dw'gcheck - PrajectMngr -
REPLACE WITH Scale at ANSI D Date Rev
ENGINEERS STAMP SCALE 01/23/17 A
AT CONSTRUCTION
AND/OR Drawing Number
FABRICATION 334954NR-WBD-101 01

G Mott MacDorW
The doament is issued for tee part w ,c, wmmesioned
We aae t no res
p ronsibility for the mnaequences of Mis
P\33a95 NTEDevelopment\3U9MNC2RaidsNlle\Dmw,ngs\me
Notes
Legend
Reference Drawings
A
01/27/17
AF
FOR CLIENT REVIEW
JW
JW
Rev
Date
Drawn
Descdptlon
Ch'Ifd
App'd
101 Station D-
Suist 130
weatwcoe, Mn gzo9a
Unaed Sbba
• +1 (7B1)915J1016
Mott MacDonald Pwnapn�a
Client
REIDSVILLE ENERGY CENTER
NORTH CAROLINA
Title WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM
it and for specft pamoses mnneded wim the oned
pd Pmled only. If ahpuld nd ba relied upon by arty otter pedy a used for arty ether purpwe.
doareent being relied upon by any o0wr party. a bang used Wary otlwr purpose, w mnl&ning any error or ameuon 1Midi a due b en errer w omimion
aniraf3UgUNC7-WBD-101.dv Jan27,2017-11:3 FED77076
in deb applied b us by d
w parties.
PRELIMINARY
NOTFOR
CONSTRUCTION
REPLACE WITH
ENGINEERS STAMP
AT CONSTRUCTION
AND/OR
FABRICATION
Designed JW Eng check -
Drawn AF Approved
check - Prq�MI -
Scale at ANSI D Date Rev
SCALE 0/23/17 A
brewing Number
334954NR-WBD-101 02
Description
Stream
No
Winter Fired
Averge Annual
Summer Fired
Instantaneous peak
Notes
Ambient Condition (DB / WB)
25 / 23
59 / 53
92 ' 76
103 / 83.5
Duct Burner/Evap cooler
on /off
on off
on
% on
on/on
gpm
mgd
gpm
mgd
gpm
mgd
gpm
mgd
Raw Water at Battery Limit to Clarifier
1
1,432.3
2.063
1,920.5
2.766
2,403.4 I,
3.461
2,912.4
4.194
Clarifier -Solids disposal retained water
2
1.4
0.002
1.9
0.003
2.4
0.003
2.9
0.004
Water to Raw Water/Firewater Tank
3
21.8
0.031
52.6
0.076
84.1
0.121
95.5
0.137
Fire Water System
4
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
Service Water System
5
21.8
0.031
52.6
0.076
84.1
0.121
95.5
0.137
CT make-up
6
1,409.1
2.029
1,866.0
2.687
2,317.0
3.336
2,814.0
4.052
CT Drift loss
7
0.6
0.001
0.6
0.001
0.6 �
0.001
0.6
0.001
CT Evaporation loss
8
1,245.0
1.793
1,650.0
2.376
2,050.0
2.952
2,170.0
3.125
CT Blowdown
9
206.9
0.298
274.4
0.395
341.0
0.491
722.7
1.041
Not used
10
Quench water to HRSG Blowdown
11
16.8
0.024
16.9
0.024
16.9
0.024
16.3
0.023
Plant Wash Down
12
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
Contaminated Drains to OWS
13
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
Make-up to CTG Evap Cooler
14
-
-
30.7
0.044
62.2
0.090
74.2
0.107
CTG inlet evaporative cooler evaporation
15
-
-
15.4
0.022
31.1
0.045
37.1
0.053
CTG inlet evaporatvie cooler blow down
16
-
-
15.4
0.022
31.1
0.045
37.1
0.053
Potable water at Battery Limit/back-flow preventer
17
45.3
0.065
45.5
0.065
45.5
0.065
44.4
0.064
Potable water/Sanitary
18
2.0
0.003
2.0
0.003
2.0
0.003
2.0
0.003
Water to RO/Mixed Bed units
19
43.3
0.062
43.5
0.063
43.5
0.063
42.4
0.061
Recovered water from RID/Mixed Bed unit
20
8.7
0.012
8.7
0.013
8.7
0.013
8.5
0.012
DM Water to Storage tank
21
34.6
0.050
34.8
0.050
34.8 �,
0.050
34.0
0.049
Make-up to Steam cycle
22
34.6
0.050
34.8
0.050
34.8
0.050
34.0
0.049
Misc losses
23
5.0
0.007
5.0
0.007
5.0 ''
0.007
5.0
0.007
Steam sampling losses
24
6.0
0.009
6.0
0.009
6.0 �
0.009
6.0
0.009
Steam cycle Blowdown
25
23.6
0.034
23.8
0.034
23.8
0.034
23.0
0.033
Steam vent losses
26
5.7
0.008
5.7
0.008
5.7
0.008
5.5
0.008
Water from flash tank
27
34.7
0.050
34.9
0.050
34.9
0.050
33.7
0.049
Sanitary waste to on site leach field
28
2.0
0.003
2.0
0.003
2.0 I
0.003
2.0
0.003
Waste Water to off site lift station
29
217.9
0.314
285.4
0.411
352.0
0.507
733.7
1.057

Figure 12 Town of Mayodan Declining Wastewater Acceptance
29
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC— Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

,FEB — 6 20V
Town of Mayodan. 210 W. Main Street. Mayodan. NC. 27027. [phone]. www.townofnayodan.com
James A. Collins Municipal Building
February 2, 2017
Mr. Ronnie Tate, Director
Department of Engineering and Public Utilities
Rockingham County
371 NC Hwy 65
Wentworth, North Carolina 27375
Re: Request for Wastewater Discharge
NTE Energy Project
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tate:
The Town of Mayodan understands your request for our consideration and input regarding the
potential to accept the wastewater discharge for the proposed NTE Energy project. Our review for
this consideration is based on the acceptance, treatment and discharge of the wastewater, and does
not address the need for improvements that may be required to transport the wastewater to our
system.
Based on our average daily flow of approximately 1.0 MGD, with a peak flow during 2016 of 4.26
MGD, the Town of Mayodan does not feel that it is in our best interest to accept the flow from this
project. Our treatment facility is designed to treat domestic wastewater with an anticipated BOD of
200 mg/1. However, we currently receive low BOD in the influent, averaging 92 mg/1 under normal
flow conditions. If we were to introduce an additional 600,000 GPD of BOD-free cooling water
during summer peak flows, our influent BOD would likely fall to around 57 mg/l. This low food
value for our biological treatment plant would be more than challenging and are uncertain if we
could successfully operate the process.
Therefore, we hope that you understand that this type of demand would create a difficult operating
situation for our staff and equipment, and as a result, we must respectfully decline your request.
If you should have any questions or comments, or if our staff can be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate in contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Brandt
Town Manager

Figure 13 Regional Topographic Map - Land Application Considerations
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS !��
Rockingham County, NC— Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Regional Topographic Map��,
s� i
t �.
Land Application Consideration _.
s
pp
F
Reidsville Energy Center
Rockingham County, NC
Legend
. r
• Proposed Pump Station
River Basin Boundary
NTESite
401�� *11'
w_
F-
.
Reidsville Energy Center •
z E.
LA
b
,u
r
1
Z*�
��,"
r

Figure 14 Local Government Review Form
31
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS f( ��
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC L�

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government k 1�V F S A M CQ V t` [ r y
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes VNo [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes VNo [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facili consistent with the ordinance? Yes [v>'
No[ ] 00 MO
Date O I o� l Signature
(City Manager/County 4ana )
State of !� t? i� N a V\ C.- County of � i; r�t V%. 0, VVI
On this '21 day of personally appeared before me, the said
name L cyw c e_ L • I _\ e TL-lt f' to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true. Iq
Ivly Commission expires 1 a ' g .(Signature of Notary Public) S
Notary Pu) iti r 1t-4 j S
r NOTA
, Ry=
:o•
,� • .•• U
•,���C'NAM GO,,°,
EAA Guidance Document Revision: Apn12014
Page 1 of 8

Figure 15 Present Value Analysis
32
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Table 5.2.1. Capital Costs
Reidsville Energy Center -Cooling Water Blowdown Disposal
0
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown, use pulldown menu to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the capital costs.
NPDES Direct Discharge to Dan River
Project Administration (S):
$548,000
Component
Unit Costa
Unit
Quantity
Total Cost
Pump Station
$ 435,000.00
EA
1
$435,000
12" Force Main PVC C900
$ 52.00
LF
40,000
$2,080,00
Emergency Generator
$ 75,000.00
EA
1
$75,000
16" Steel Casing (B&J)
$ 550.00
LF
500
$275,000
Ductile Iron Fittings
$ 45,800.00
LS
1
$45,800
Asphalt Open Cut and Patch
$ 50.00
SY
200
$10,000
Select Material
$ 25.00
CY
3,000
$75,000
OutfalI Structure at the River
$ 75,000.00
LS
1
$75,000
Seed in /Mulchin /Erosion Control
$ 50,000.00
LS
1
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
'Unit costs are in today's dollars, not future dollars. Total Construction Cost:
Construction Contingency Cost:
Project Administration Cost:
Total Capital Cost:1
$3,120,800
$312,080
$548,000
$3,980,880

Table 5.2.2. Project Cost Life Cycle Assumptions
Reidsville Energy Center -Cooling Water Blowdown Disposal
0
NPDES Direct Discharge to Dan River (Preferred)
Complete the areas shown in gray.
Component
Expected Life
Cycle
Replacement
Expected?t
Rationale for Expected Life Cycle
Pump Station
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
12" Force Main PVC C900
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Emergency Generator
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
16" Steel Casing (B&J)
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Ductile Iron Fittings
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Asphalt Open Cut and Patch
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Select Material
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Outfall Structure at the River
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
Seeding/Mulching/Erosion Control
20
N
No Replacement Anticipated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tPeriod for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.

Table 5.2.7. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
Reidsville Energy Center -Cooling Water Blowdown Disposal
0
NPDES Direct Discharge to Dan River
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 0.09% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Employee (rtionofonecoun technician)
$40,000
Yr
1
$36,431
$34,767
$33,180
$31,665
$30,219
$28,839
$27,523
$26,266
$25,067
Electrical Power
$36 300
Yr
1
[$534643
$33061
$31551
$30111
$28,736
$27424
$26 172
$24 977
$23,836
$22,748
Misc. Line Re airs
$5,000
Yr
1
$4,554
$4,346
$4,147
$3,958
$3,777
$3,605
$3,440
$3,283
$3,133
Small E ui ment Re lacement
$2,500
Yr
1
$2,277
$2,173
$2,074
$1,979
$1,889
$1,802
$1,720
$1,642
$1,567
Contract Services and Sampling/Analysis
$10,000.00
Yr
1
$9,543
$9,108
$8,692
$8,295
$7,916
$7,555
$7,210
$6,881
$6,566
$6,267
Permitting/Regulatory Costs
$5,000.00
Yr
1
$4,772
$4,554
$4,346
$4,147
$3,958
$3,777
$3,605
$3,440
$3,283
$3,133
Capital Outlay
$30,000
Yr
1
$28,630
$27,323
$26,075
$24,885
$23,749
$22,664
$21,629
$20,642
$19,699
$18,800
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 1-10):
$122,919
$117,3071
$111,9511
$106,8391
$101,961
$97,305
$92,8631
S88,6231
$84,5761
$80,714

Table 5.2.8. Pi
Reid4
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 0.09%
Component
Unit Cost
Uni
Employee (portion of one county technician)
$40,000
Yr
Electrical Power
$36,300
Yr
Misc. Line Repairs
$5,000
Yr
Small Equipment Replacement
$2,500
Yr
Contract Services and Sampling/Analysis
$10,000
Yr
Permitting / Regulatory Costs
$5,000
Yr
Capital Outlay
$30,000
Yr
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expense

NPDES Direct Discharge to 1
Ile_Energy_Discharge_Present_Worth_AnaIysis.xIsx °,^,e 1 of 1

Appendix 1
REC Soils Report
33
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ���
Rockingham County, NC — Reidsville Energy Center, NTE Carolinas, LLC

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................
2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................6
SoilMap..................................................................................................................
9
Soil Map (REC Soils Map)..................................................................................10
Legend................................................................................................................11
Map Unit Legend (REC Soils Map)....................................................................
12
Map Unit Descriptions (REC Soils Map).............................................................14
Rockingham County, North Carolina...............................................................16
AyF—Ayersville gravelly loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes..............................16
BaB—Banister loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded .........................17
CaB—Casville sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ......................................
18
CaD—Casville sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes ....................................
19
CfB—Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes.........................................20
CgB2—Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded...................................................................................................
21
ChC—Clifford-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes ........................23
CmB—Clover sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes........................................24
CmD—Clover sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes .....................................
25
CmE—Clover sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes....................................26
Cn62—Clover sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded...................................................................................................27
CnD2—Clover sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately
eroded...................................................................................................
28
CsA—Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded..................29
DaA—Dan River loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded ...............
31
DcB—Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ..........................................
32
DeD—Devotion fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes ............................33
DeF—Devotion fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes ..........................
34
FpD—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes ..................
35
FpE—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes ................
37
FpF—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes ................
38
FrD2—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderatelyeroded................................................................................40
FrE2—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
moderatelyeroded................................................................................42
JkB—Jackland fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes...............................44
JkD—Jackland fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes .............................45
NaB—Nathalie sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes......................................46
NaD—Nathalie sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes....................................47
OkB2—Oak Level sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded...................................................................................................48
PnC—Pinkston fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes ............................
49
PnF—Pinkston fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes ...........................50
4

Custom Soil Resource Report
PrC2—Poplar Forest-Udorthents complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes,
gullied....................................................................................................51
Pt —Pits, clay...............................................................................................52
RnB—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ....................................
53
RnD—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..................................54
RnE—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes ................................
55
SmC—Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes .....................................
57
SmF—Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 45 percent slopes ...................................
58
SpB—Spray loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes ....................................................
59
Ud—Udorthents, loamy...............................................................................60
Ur —Urban land...........................................................................................
61
W—Water....................................................................................................
61
WhB—Wickham sandy loam, mesic, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely
flooded..................................................................................................
62
YaB—Yadkin loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ...................................................
63
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................64
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................64
WasteManagement........................................................................................64
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation (REC Soils Irrigation Map) ................
64
References............................................................................................................
82
5

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
9

Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
7

Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
0

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

3
36° 26 32" N
C
36° 17 48" N
593000 595000 597000 599000 W1000 W3000 W3ID
3
Map Sole: 1:114,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet
� N McOers
N o Ism 3000 6000 9000
/V
0 500D 10000 20000 30000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zane 17N WGS84
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map (REC Soils Map)
�/CW WWI 611000 613000 615000
3
36' 26 32" N
25
if
tS
36° 17 48" N
617000
3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
.vs Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
V Blowout
® Borrow Pit
clay spot
0 Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
O Landfill
A. Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
e* Mine or Quarry
O Miscellaneous Water
O Perennial Water
V Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Q Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
14
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Q
Stony Spot
very Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
�y
N
Wet Spot
Other
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
.�
Special Line Features
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Transportation
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
*+4
Rails
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
�y
Interstate Highways
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Major Roads
of the version date(s) listed below.
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Rockingham County, North Carolina
Background
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 20, 2016
-
Aerial Photography
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
11
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 10, 2010—Apr
30, 2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend (REC Soils Map)
Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
AyF
Ayersville gravelly loam, 15 to 44.61 0.1%
45 percent slopes
BaB
Banister loam, 0 to 4 percent 36.4 0.1%
slopes, rarely flooded
CaB
Casville sandy loam, 2 to 8 154.0 0.5%
percent slopes
CaD
Casville sandy loam, 8 to 15
57.3
0.2%
percent slopes
CfB
Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 8
247.9
0.7%
percent slopes
Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
28.9%
CgB2
9,691.5
slopes, moderately
eroded
ChC
,percent
ifford-Urban land com�Iex2
62.9
0.2%
to 10 percent slopes
597.0
CmB Clover sandy loam, 2 to 8
1.8%
percent slopes
1.0%
CmD Clover sandy loam, 8 to 15
328.4
percent slopes
0.1%
CmE Clover sandy loam, 15 to 25
32.2
percent slopes
CnB2
Clover sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
127.5
0.4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CnD2
I Clover sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
125.9
0.4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CsA
Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent
1,268.2
3.8%
slopes, frequently flooded
DaA
Dan River loam, 0 to 2 percent
574.4
1.7%
slopes, frequently flooded
DcB
Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8
10.5
0.0%
percent slopes
DeD
Devotion fine sandy loam, 6 to
55.5
0.2%
15 percent slopes
DeF Devotion fine sandy loam, 15 to 106.4
0.3%
45 percent slopes
FpD Fairview -Poplar Forest 1,433.5
4.3%
complex, 8 to 15 percent
I slopes
7.6%
FpE Fairview -Poplar Forest 2,554.8
complex, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
FpF Fairview -Poplar Forest 1.018.8 3 0%
complex, 25 to 45 percent
slopes
FrD2
Fairview -Poplar Forest
5,606.4
16.7%
complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
2,997.9
8.9%
FW2
Fairview -Poplar Forest
complex, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
JkB Jackland fine sandy loam, 2 to
19.3
0.1%
8 percent slopes
13.5
0.0%
JkD Jackland fine sandy loam, 8 to
15 percent slopes
500.8
1.5%
NaB Nathalie sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
NaD
Nathalie sandy loam, 8 to 15
133.9
0.4%
percent slopes
Oak Level sandy clay loam, 2 to
OkB2 .
17.0
0.1%
8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
PnC
Pinkston fine sandy loam, 6 to
5.7
0.0%
15 percent slopes
Pinkston fine sandy loam, 15 to
PnF
34.6
0.1%
45 percent slopes
PrC2
Poplar Forest- Udorthents
34.9
0.1%
complex, 2 to 15 percent
slopes, gullied
Pt
Pits, clay
2.2
0.0%
RnB
Rhodhiss sandy loam, 2 to 8
377.8
1.1%
percent slopes
RnD
Rhodhiss sandy loam, 8 to 15
818.0
2.4%
percent slopes
RnE
Rhodhiss sandy loam, 15 to 30
1 2,363.0
7.0%
percent slopes
Smc
Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10
599.9
1.8%
percent slopes
SmF
Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 45
956.7
2.9%
percent slopes
SpB
Spray loam, 0 to 5 percent
7.5
0.0%
slopes
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
85.8
0.3%
Ur
Urban land
11.6
0.0%
W
Water
247.1
0.7%
WhB
Wickham sandy loam, mesic, 1
152.9
0.5%
to 4 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
YAB Yadkin loam, 2 to 8 percent
5.5
0.0%
slopes
33,519.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Descriptions (REC Soils Map)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Rockingham County, North Carolina
AyF—Ayersville gravelly loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hfym
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Ayersville and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ayersville
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or mudstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: gravelly loam
Bw - 8 to 22 inches: gravelly loam
C - 22 to 26 inches: very gravelly silt loam
Cr- 26 to 30 inches: weathered bedrock
R - 30 to 80 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock; 20 to 40 inches
to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class. Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating. No
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
BaB—Banister loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2179m
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Banister and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Banister
Setting
Landform: Flats on stream terraces
Down -slope shape. Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old clayey alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam
E - 6 to 10 inches: loam
BE - 10 to 18 inches: clay loam
Bt - 18 to 50 inches: clay
C - 50 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
CaB—Casville sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2178w
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Casville and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Casville
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional). Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
E - 6 to 10 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 10 to 38 inches. clay
C1 - 38 to 50 inches: sandy clay loam
C2 - 50 to 80 inches. loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
18

Custom Soil Resource Report
CaD—Casville sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2178y
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Casville and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Casville
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
E - 8 to 10 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 10 to 38 inches: clay
C1 - 38 to 50 inches: sandy clay loam
C2 - 50 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile. Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
19

Custom Soil Resource Report
U13—Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tgd2
Elevation: 330 to 980 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 43 to 47 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 230 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clifford and similar soils: 93 percent
Minor components: 7 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clifford
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite residuum weathered from granite and gneiss and/or
saprolite residuum weathered from schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
Bt1 - 6 to 35 inches: clay
Bt2 - 35 to 55 inches: clay loam
C - 55 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural 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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Westfield
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Halifax
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Bentley
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Jackland
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
CgB2—Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2sjdl
Elevation: 330 to 980 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 51 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 190 to 230 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
21

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Clifford, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clifford, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite residuum weathered from schist and/or saprolite
residuum weathered from gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
Btl - 6 to 22 inches: clay
Bt2 - 22 to 37 inches: clay
Bt3 - 37 to 52 inches: clay loam
C - 52 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Woolwine, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional). Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Westfield, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
22

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
ChC—Clifford-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215yd
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clifford and similar soils: 55 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clifford
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 6 to 52 inches: clay
BC - 52 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
23

Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Parent material: Impervious layers over human transported material
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Udorthents, loamy
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating. No
CmB—Clover sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 216xv
Elevation. 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation. 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clover and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clover
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or residuum weathered
from shale and siltstone and/or residuum weathered from sandstone
24

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 50 inches: clay
C - 50 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat).
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile. 7.0
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
CmD—Clover sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216xx
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature. 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Moderately high to
Map Unit Composition
Clover and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clover
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or residuum weathered
from shale and siltstone and/or residuum weathered from sandstone
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 50 inches: clay
25

Custom Soil Resource Report
C - 50 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 7.0
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
CmE—Clover sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216xz
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clover and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clover
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or shale and siltstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 9 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 9 to 38 inches: clay
C - 38 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
26

Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 7.0
Available waterstorage in profile: High (about 9.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
CnB2—Clover sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216y1
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clover, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clover, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or shale and siltstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: sandy clay loam
BE - 5 to 8 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 8 to 43 inches: clay
C - 43 to 80 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
27

Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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. More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 7.0
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group. B
Hydric soil rating: No
CnD2—Clover sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 216y2
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Clover, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clover, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or shale and siltstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: sandy clay loam
BE - 5 to 8 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 8 to 43 inches: clay
C - 43 to 80 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
9.1

Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 7.0
Available waterstorage in profile: High (about 9.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
CsA—Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215zx
Elevation: 200 to 1,560 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature. 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Codorus and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Codorus
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bw1 - 8 to 18 inches: silty clay loam
Bw2 - 18 to 30 inches: loam
Bw3 - 30 to 38 inches: silt loam
BCg - 38 to 50 inches: silt loam
Cg - 50 to 80 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
29

Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Low
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 6 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hatboro, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Dan river
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional). Tread
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Comus
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Pfafftown
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ronda
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Natural levees on flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Banister
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
30

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Flats on stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
DaA—Dan River loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215zy
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Dan river and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Dan River
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 18 inches:
loam
Bw - 18 to 46 inches:
loam
C1 - 46 to 55 inches:
sandy loam
C2 - 55 to 72 inches:
clay loam
C3 - 72 to 80 inches:
loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
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 30 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
31

Custom Soil Resource Report
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hatboro, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
DcB—Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2mlhn
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation. 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Davie and similarsoils: 85 percent
Minor components: 3 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Davie
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, footslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase
and/or gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 40 inches: clay
C - 40 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 18 inches
32

Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Elbert, undrained
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Drainageways on interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape. Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
DeD—Devotion fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2178j
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Devotion and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Devotion
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Saprolite derived from granite and/or saprolite derived from
gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 10 to 22 inches: sandy loam
C - 22 to 25 inches: sandy loam
Cr- 25 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
33

Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature. 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
DeF—Devotion fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2178r
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Devotion and similar soils. 90 percent
Minor components. 1 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Devotion
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional). Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from gneiss and/or saprolite derived from
granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 10 to 22 inches: sandy loam
C - 22 to 25 inches: sandy loam
Cr- 25 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope. 15 to 45 percent
34

Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
FpD—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216y6
Elevation: 200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Fairview and similar soils: 45 percent
Poplar forest and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fairview
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional). Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
E - 5 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 29 inches: clay
35

Custom Soil Resource Report
BC - 29 to 38 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 38 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature. More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Poplar Forest
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 5 to 29 inches: clay
BC - 29 to 34 inches: clay loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report
FpE—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 216y7
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Fairview and similar soils: 45 percent
Poplar forest and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fairview
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 3 to 29 inches: clay
BC - 29 to 37 inches. sandy clay loam
C - 37 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
37

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Poplar Forest
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 3 inches. sandy loam
E - 3 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt1 - 8 to 25 inches: clay
Bt2 - 25 to 31 inches: clay loam
C - 31 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
FpF—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216y8
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Fairview and similar soils: 45 percent
Poplar forest and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
38

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Fairview
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches. sandy loam
E - 5 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Btl - 8 to 29 inches: clay
Bt2 - 29 to 38 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 38 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
Description of Poplar Forest
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam
E - 3 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Btl - 8 to 25 inches: clay
Bt2 - 25 to 31 inches: clay loam
C - 31 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
39

Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group. B
Hydric soil rating: No
FrD2—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2vy6k
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 43 to 51 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 190 to 230 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 50 percent
Poplar forest, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite residuum weathered from granite and gneiss and/or
saprolite residuum weathered from schist
Typical profile
Apl - 0 to 4 inches: sandy clay loam
Ap2 - 4 to 9 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 9 to 24 inches: clay
BC - 24 to 29 inches: clay loam
C - 29 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
40

Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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. More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating. No
Description of Poplar Forest, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
residuum weathered from metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 6 to 26 inches: clay
BC - 26 to 37 inches: clay loam
C - 37 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated). 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Westfield, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Ridges, interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
41

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Woolwine, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Ridges, interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
FrE2—Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216yb
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils. 50 percent
Poplar forest, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 9 to 24 inches: clay
BCt - 24 to 29 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 29 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
42

Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group. B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Poplar Forest, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches. sandy clay loam
Bt - 6 to 26 inches: clay
BC - 26 to 37 inches: clay loam
C - 37 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
43

Custom Soil Resource Report
AB—Jackland fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 21603
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Jackland and similar soils. 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Jackland
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional). Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase
and/or gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 6 to 24 inches: clay
BC - 24 to 28 inches. clay loam
C - 28 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating. No
44

Custom Soil Resource Report
AD—Jackland fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 21604
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Jackland and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Jackland
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional). Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum weathered
from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase and/or residuum
weathered from gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 6 to 24 inches: clay
BCt - 24 to 28 inches: clay loam
C - 28 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile. High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated). 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating: No
45

Custom Soil Resource Report
NaB—Nathalie sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215y8
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Nathalie and similar soils. 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nathalie
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape. Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
E - 6 to 9 inches: sandy loam
BE - 9 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 12 to 48 inches: clay
BC - 48 to 53 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 53 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
al

Custom Soil Resource Report
NaD—Nathalie sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215y9
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature. 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Nathalie and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nathalie
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches. sandy loam
E - 6 to 9 inches: sandy loam
BE - 9 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 12 to 48 inches: clay
BC - 48 to 53 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 53 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile. Moderate (about 8.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
47

Custom Soil Resource Report
OkB2—Oak Level sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216yl
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature. 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Oak level, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Oak Level, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase
and/or gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: clay loam
Bt - 7 to 30 inches: clay
BC - 30 to 38 inches: clay loam
C - 38 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile. Moderate (about 8.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
48

Custom Soil Resource Report
PnC—Pinkston fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hfzt
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification. Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pinkston and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Pinkston
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or shale and siltstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 16 inches: loam
C - 16 to 23 inches: loam
R - 23 to 80 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
49

Custom Soil Resource Report
PnF—Pinkston fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hfzs
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pinkston and similarsoils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Pinkston
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mudstone and/or shale and siltstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 16 inches: loam
C - 16 to 23 inches: loam
R - 23 to 80 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
50

Custom Soil Resource Report
PrC2—Poplar Forest-Udorthents complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes,
gullied
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2179h
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Poplar forest, gullied, and similar soils: 50 percent
Udorthents, gullied, and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 6 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Poplar Forest, Gullied
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 6 to 26 inches: clay
BC - 26 to 37 inches: clay loam
C - 37 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
51

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Udorthents, Gullied
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
C - 0 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class. Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Gullied land
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Pt —Pits, clay
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hfzv
Mean annual precipitation. 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification. Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pits, clay: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
52

Custom Soil Resource Report
RnB—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216yc
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rhodhiss and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rhodhiss
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam
E - 3 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 25 to 30 inches. sandy clay loam
C - 30 to 80 inches. sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
53

Custom Soil Resource Report
RnD—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216yd
Elevation: 200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Rhodhiss and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rhodhiss
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam
E - 3 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 25 to 30 inches. sandy clay loam
C - 30 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
54

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Devotion
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Stott knob
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):
Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Bannertown
Percent,of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape. Linear
Across -slope shape. Convex
Hydric soil rating. No
RnE—Rhodhiss sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol.- 216yf
Elevation: 200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation. 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature. 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rhodhiss and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rhodhiss
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
55

Custom Soil Resource Report
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape. Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam
E - 3 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 25 to 30 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 30 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope. 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating. No
Minor Components
Devotion
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Stott knob
Percent of map unit. 5 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Bannertown
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
56

Custom Soil Resource Report
SmC—Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 216z7
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification. Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Siloam and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Siloam
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape. Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase
and/or gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 15 inches: sandy clay loam
Cr- 15 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No
57

Custom Soil Resource Report
SmF—Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2177g
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Siloam and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Siloam
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase
and/or gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 15 inches: sandy clay loam
Cr- 15 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report
SpB—Spray loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hg02
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification. Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Spray and similar soils: 95 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Spray
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale and siltstone and/or mudstone
and/or sandstone
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam
Bt - 6 to 17 inches: clay
C - 17 to 80 inches: very channery silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 2.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
59

Custom Soil Resource Report
Ud—Udorthents, loamy
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hg08
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 145 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Udorthents, loamy, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Udorthents, Loamy
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and clayey human transported material derived from
igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Typical profile
C - 0 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat). Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating. No
Minor Components
Urban land
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
01

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (two-dimensional):
Landform position (three-dimensional).
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Ur —Urban land
Summit, shoulder, backslope
Side slope
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hg09
Elevation: 200 to 3,670 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 145 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Urban land: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Impervious layers over human transported material
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water. 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8w
61

Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soil rating: No
WhB—Wickham sandy loam, mesic, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 2179n
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wickham and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wickham
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down -slope shape. Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 42 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 42 to 50 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 50 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
M.

Custom Soil Resource Report
YaB—Yadkin loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 215yf
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Yadkin and similar soils. 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Yadkin
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on stream terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Old alluvium derived from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam
Bt - 6 to 74 inches: clay
BC - 74 to 81 inches: sandy clay
Properties and qualities
Slope. 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
63

Soil Information for All Uses
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use
The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations
displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the
selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by
aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This
aggregation process is defined for each interpretation.
Waste Management
Waste Management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in
evaluating soils for use of organic wastes and wastewater as productive resources.
Example interpretations include land application of manure, food processing waste,
and municipal sewage sludge, and disposal of wastewater by irrigation or overland
flow process.
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation (REC Soils
Irrigation Map)
Wastewater includes municipal and food -processing wastewater and effluent from
lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a
municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may
have received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food -
processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk,
cheese, and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium
and chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to
treat or store food -processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic
and food -processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities
that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30
milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage
ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly
because the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The
content of nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams
per liter. When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that
nitrogen, heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.
64

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation not only disposes of municipal wastewater and
wastewater from food -processing plants, lagoons, and storage ponds but also can
improve crop production by increasing the amount of water available to crops. The
ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the design, construction,
management, and performance of the irrigation system. The properties that affect
design and management include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water
table, ponding, available water capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat),
slope, and flooding. The properties that affect construction include stones, cobbles,
depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, and ponding. The
properties that affect performance include depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, bulk
density, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, reaction, and the cation -exchange
capacity, which is used to estimate the capacity of a soil to adsorb heavy metals.
Permanently frozen soils are not suitable for disposal of wastewater by irrigation.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to
which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste
management. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can
be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be
expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary
by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer
are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is
shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those
that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition
of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better
understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
65

.J
r ' ,�t _► .� '� ,.- fit_. �,, -a / $ ^`:+� �� � � 1 �. _

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (A01) Background
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest (AOI) . Aerial Photography
1:24,000.
Soils
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Soil Rating
Polygons
measurements.
®
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Not limited
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
0
Not rated or not available
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Soil Rating
Lines
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
,y
Very limited
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
a r
Somewhat limited
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
�y
Not limited
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Not rated or not available
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
Soil Survey Area: Rockingham County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 20, 2016
0
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
0
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 10, 2010—Apr
Streams and Canals
30, 2011
Transportation
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
+44
Rails
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Interstate Highways
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
67

Custom Soil Resource Report
Tables —Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation (REC Soils
Irrigation Map)
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation—
Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County North
Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
j
values)
AyF Ayersville
Very limited
Ayersville (100%)
Slow water
446
0 1 °
gravelly loam.
movement
15 to 45
(1.00)
percent slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
j
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Droughty (0.89)
BaB
Banister loam, 0
Somewhat
Banister (90%)
Depth to
36.4
0.1%
to 4 percent
limited
saturated zone
slopes, rarely
(1.00)
flooded
Too acid (0.77)
Slow water
movement
(0.37)
CaB Casville sandy
Very limited
Casville (85%)
Slow water
154.0
0.5%
loam, 2 to 8
movement
percent slopes
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
CaD Casville sandy
Very limited
Casville (85%)
Too steep for
57.3
0.2%
loam, 8 to 15
surface
percent slopes
application
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
oo acid (0.92)
oo steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
CfB
Clifford sandy
Somewhat
Clifford (93%)
o acid (0.67)
247.9
0.7%
loam, 2 to 8
limited
percent slopes
tee for
T o steep
p
urface
pplication
0.32)
(1j

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Westfield (2%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Too acid (0.21)
Bentley (2%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(0.46)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Slow water
movement
(0.22)
Too acid (0.14)
CgB2
Clifford sandy
Somewhat- Clifford,
Too steep for
clay loam, 2 to
limited moderately
surface
8 percent
eroded (90%)
application
slopes.
(0.32)
moderately
eroded
Too acid (0.03)
Low adsorption
(0.02)
Droughty (0.93)
Woolwine.
moderately
eroded (5%)
Depth to bedrock
(0.46)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Too acid (0.21)
Westfield,
Too steep for
moderately
surface
eroded (5%)
application
(0.32)
Too acid (0.21)
Clifford -Urban
Somewhat Clifford (55%)
ChC
Too acid (0.77)
land complex,
2 to 10 percent
slopes
limited
—
Low adsorption
(0.69)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.08)
Udorthents,
Too steep for
loamy (10%)
surface
application
(0.68)
m
9,691.5
62.9
28.9%
0.2%

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Crr
C rr
Cn
Cn
Cn
Slow water
movement
(0.22)
Clover sandy
Somewhat
Clover (100%)
Too acid (0.08)
Too acid (0.92)
597.0
1.8%
B
loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
limited
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Sodium content
(0.02)
D
Clover sandy
Very limited
Clover (90 )
Too steep for
328.4
1.0%
loam, 8 to 15
surface
percent slopes
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Sodium content
(0.02)
iE
Clover sandy
Very limited
Clover (85%)
Too steep for
32.2
0.1 %
loam, 15 to 25
surface
percent slopes
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Sodium content
(0.02)
B2
Clover sandy
Somewhat
Clover,
Too acid (0.92)
127.5
0.4%
Gay loam, 2 to
8 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
limited
moderately
eroded (90%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Sodium content
(0.02)
125.9
0.4%
D2 Clover sandy Very limited Clover, Too steep for
clay loam, 8 to
moderately
surface
15 percent
eroded (85%)
` application
slopes,
(1.00)
moderately
eroded
acid (0.92)
110
70
r90 sTeep Tor
sprinkler
application
(0.78)

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
CsA
DaA
DcB
Codorus loam, 0 Very limited
to 2 percent
slopes,
frequently
flooded
Dan River loam,
0 to 2 percent
slopes,
frequently
flooded
Davie sandy
loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes
Very limited
Very limited
Sodium content
(0.02)
Codorus (85%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.01)
Hatboro,
Depth to
undrained (5%)
saturated zone
(1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Dan River (2%)
Flooding (1.00)
Too add (0.85)
Depth to
saturated zone
(0.24)
Pfafftown (2%)
Too add (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.08)
Ronda (2%) Filtering capacity
(1.00)
Droughty (0.63)
Flooding (0.60)
Too acid (0.08)
Dan River (85%) Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Depth to
saturated zone
(0.24)
Hatboro, Depth to
undrained (5%) saturated zone
(1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Davie (85%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
71
1,268.21 3.8%
574.41 1.7%
10.51 0.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres In AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
4:491
DeF
uevonon Tine
sandy loam, 6
to 15 percent
slopes
Devotion fine
sandy loam,15
to 45 percent
slopes
Very limited
Very limited
view -Poplar Very limited
orest
Dmplex, 8 to
5 percent
lopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Elbert, undrained
Depth to
(3%)
saturated zone
(1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Devotion (100%)
I
Droughty (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Depth to bedrock
(0.84)
Too steep for
sprinkler
!
application
(0.61)
Devotion (900/9)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Droughty (1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Depth to bedrock
(0.84)
Fairview (45%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Oo acid (0.77)
ow adsorption
(0.31)
Poplar Forest
o steep for
(40%)
surface
application
(1.00)
72
55.51 0.2%
106.4' 0.3%
1,433.51 4.3%

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.77)
Low adsorption
(0.31)
Fairview -Poplar Very limited Fairview (45%) Too steep for
FpE
2,554.8
7.6%
Forest surface
complex, 15 to application
25 percent (1.00)
slopes
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Low adsorption
(0,54)
Poplar Forest Too steep for
(40%) surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Low adsorption
(0.12)
FpF
Fairview -Poplar Very limited
Fairview (45%) Too steep for
1,018.8
3.0%
Forest
surface
complex, 25 to
application
45 percent
(1.00)
slopes
Too steep for
sprinkler
i
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Low adsorption
(0.31)
Poplar Forest
Too steep for
(40%)
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
73

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Low adsorption
(0.12)
FrD2 Fairview -Poplar Very limited
Fairview.
Too steep for 5.606.4
Forest
moderately
surface
complex, 8 to
eroded (50%)
application
15 percent
(1.00)
slopes,
moderately
Too steep for
eroded
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.55)
Poplar Forest,
Too steep for
moderately
surface
eroded (40%)
application
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.77)
'Westfield,
Too steep for
moderately
surface
eroded (7%)
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.21)
Woolwine,
Too steep for
moderately
surface
eroded (3%)
application
(1.00)
Droughty (0.93)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Depth to bedrock
(0.46)
Too acid (0.21)
FrE2
Fairview -Poplar Very limited
Fairview,
oo steep for 2,997.9
Forest
moderately
surface
complex, 15 to
eroded (501/6)
application
25 percent
(1.00)
slopes,
moderately
eroded
74
16.7%
8.9%

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
JkB Jackland fine Very limited
sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent
slopes
JkD Jackland fine Very limited
sandy loam ,8
to 15 percent
slopes
NaB Nathalie sandy I Very limited
loam. 2 to 8
percent slopes
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Low adsorption
(0.45)
Too add (0.21)
Poplar Forest,
Too steep for
moderately
surface
eroded (40%)
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Low adsorption
(0.42)
Jackland (85%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Too acid (0.08)
Jackland (100%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.08)
Nathalie (85%)
Too acid (1.00)
Low adsorption
(0.48)
75
19.31 0.1 %
13.51 0.0%
500.81 1.5%

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NCI 57)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
NaD
Nathalie sandy
Very limited
Nathalie 85%)
Too steep for
loam, 8 to 15
surface
percent slopes
application
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Low adsorption
(0.48)
OkB2 Oak Level sandy
Very limited
Oak Level,
Slow water
clay loam, 2 to
moderately
movement
8 percent
eroded (85%)
(1.00)
slopes,
moderately
Too steep for
eroded
surface
application
(0.32)
PnC Pinkston fine
Very limited
Pinkston (100 )
Slow water
sandy loam, 6
movement
to 15 percent
(1.00)
slopes
Droughty (1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(0.95)
PnF Pinkston fine
Very limited
Pinkston (100%)
Slow water
sandy loam, 15
movement
to 45 percent
(1.00)
slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
oo steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
oughty (1.00)
T o acid (1.00)
PrC2 Poplar Forest-
Very limited
Poplar Forest,
T steep for
Udorthents
gullied (50%)
urface
complex, 2 to
pplication
15 percent
.00)
slopes, gullied
133.91 0.4%
17.01 0.1 %
5.7 0.0%
34.6 0.1%
34.91 0.1 %

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Udorthents,
gullied (40%)
Pt Pits, clay Not rated Pits, clay (100%)
RnB Rhodhiss sandy Somewhat Rhodhiss (90%)
loam, 2 to 8 limited
percent slopes
RnD Rhodhiss sandy Very limited Rhodhiss (90%)
loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
Devotion (4%)
Stott Knob (3%)
Too acid (0.77)
Low adsorption
(0.42)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.40)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.40)
Low adsorption
(0.29)
Too acid (0.77)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too acid (0.77)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Droughty (1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Depth to bedrock
(0.84)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Slow water
movement
(1.00)
2.2
0.0%
377.8
1.1%
818.0
2.4%
77

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Droughty (0.25)
Bannertowq (1 %) Slow water
movement
(1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Droughty (0 841
RnE Rhodhiss sandy Very limited Rhodhiss (85%)
loam, 15 to 30
percent slopes
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.78)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
0.00)
Too acid (0.77)
Devotion (6%) Too steep for
surface
application
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Droughty (1.00)
Too acid (0.92)
Depth to bedrock
(0.84)
Stott Knob (5%) Slow water
movement
(1.00)
2,363.0
7.0%
78

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
CTbo steep for
sprinkler
application
(1.00)
Very limited Siloam (85%)
79

Custom Soil Resource Report
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Map Unit — Rockingham County, North Carolina (NC157)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Ud Udorthents, Very limited Udorthents, Too steep for 85.8 0.3%
loamy loamy (85%) surface
application
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(0.22)
Too steep for
sprinkler
application
(0.10)
Too acid (0.08)
Ur
Urban land
Not rated
Urban land
11.6
0.0%
(100%)
W
Water
Not rated
Water (100%)
247.1
0.7%
WhB
Wickham sandy
Somewhat
Wickham (85%)
Too acid (0.42)
152.9
0.5%
loam, mesic, 1
limited
to 4 percent
slopes, rarely
flooded
YaB
Yadkin loam, 2 to
Somewhat
Yadkin (100%)
Low adsorption
5.5
0.0%
8 percent
limited
(0.82)
slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Too acid (0.14)
Totals for Area of Interest
33,519.8
100.0%
Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation— Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Very limited
21,959.5
65.5%
Somewhat limited
11,299.4
33.7%
Null or Not Rated
260.9
0.8%
Totals for Area of Interest
33,519.8
100.0%
Rating Options —Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation (REC Soils
Irrigation Map)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced
to a single value that represents the map unit as a whole.
A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is
either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute
being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute
:1

Custom Soil Resource Report
value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes,
the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents the
map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic
map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on
any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is
recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component
typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a
critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The aggregation method "Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for
the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set to the
sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These
groups now represent "conditions" rather than components. The attribute value
associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is
returned. If more than one group shares the highest cumulative percent
composition, the corresponding "tie -break" rule determines which value should be
returned. The "tie -break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value
should be returned in the case of a percent composition tie. The result returned by
this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit
only when no tie has occurred.
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Components whose percent composition is below the cutoff value will not be
considered. If no cutoff value is specified, all components in the database will be
considered. The data for some contrasting soils of minor extent may not be in the
database, and therefore are not considered.
Tie -break Rule: Higher
The tie -break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
81

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nresl 42p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
82

Custom Soil Resource Report
value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes,
the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents the
map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic
map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on
any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is
recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component
typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a
critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The aggregation method "Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for
the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set to the
sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These
groups now represent "conditions" rather than components. The attribute value
associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is
returned. If more than one group shares the highest cumulative percent
composition, the corresponding "tie -break" rule determines which value should be
returned. The "tie -break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value
should be returned in the case of a percent composition tie. The result returned by
this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit
only when no tie has occurred.
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Components whose percent composition is below the cutoff value will not be
considered. If no cutoff value is specified, all components in the database will be
considered. The data for some contrasting soils of minor extent may not be in the
database, and therefore are not considered.
Tie -break Rule: Higher
The tie -break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
81

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
n res/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www. nres. usda. gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nresl42p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
82

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 43041. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres 142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
83