46' , 15., v. . ”a 3“ s ’ . 7:1". \: I O . .' COMPUTER ASSISTED ERNQEVALUANON FOR WASTE DISPOSAL IN EASTERN MONROE COUNTY. MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree Of M. 8'. MiCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WIM VAN LEEUWEN 1975 .‘figwm , fi' 0'? fl Egg 0 .7‘ 139% . "ffj ”0.. . r . . , _... ‘ . :11; i? 'i“ 3' ”'9! J 136230036 2 g [5 ABSTRACT COMPUTER ASSISTED LAND EVALUATION FOR WASTE DISPOSAL IN EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Wim van Leeuwen Several very critical factors determine the suita- bility of coastal land for waste disposal. Criteria used and delineated in this computer assisted study of the coastal zone in Monroe County, Michigan are obtained from geologic data, soil data, and socio-economic data. Continuous field data sources (e.g., floodplain map), point data sources (e.g., waterwell logs), and multiple data sources (e.g., soil map) are processed with help of several computer programs into regular spaced matrices for each factor and catalogued on computer file. Numerical values are assigned to each grid cell for each of these regular spaced matrices reflecting the suitability at that point for three waste disposal systems: (1) land- flooding, (2) septic tank use, and (3) sanitary landfill. These assigned factor matrices of each waste dis- posal method are arbitrarily weighted according to the relative importance to the method and then summed for each Wim van Leeuwen individual point. Summation values can then be displayed by computer contoured maps. The relative low summation values of the highest summations indicate that the coastal zone of Monroe County is not naturally favorable, without extensive engineering, for waste disposal. COMPUTER ASSISTED LAND EVALUATION FOR WASTE DISPOSAL IN EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Wim van Leeuwen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1975 DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife, Margie, and our future. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who helped me with my thesis, especially Dr. Sam B. Upchurch and Steve Tilmann, without whose help this thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to offer my thanks to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources who were very helpful in supplying information and suggestions. Acknowledgment also goes out to the members of my committee in particular the chairman of the committee Dr. H. Stonehouse, and Dr. D. Mokma of the Soil Science Department for their proofreading. Most of all I would like to thank my wife, Margie, for her support and patience during the making of this thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B. SOil O O 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 C. Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 DESIGN OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 1. Slope of Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2. Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3. Presence of Surface Water . . . . . . . 21 B. Sub-surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Depth to Zone of Saturation . . . . . . 21 5. Soil Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Soil Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. Waterholding Capacity . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Phosphorus Adsorption . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Depth to Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Sandy Surface Layer . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Clay Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. Karst Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 30 iv Page C. Established Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13. Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 14. Ownership Density . . . . . . . . . . . 32 15. Forested Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 16. Agriculture Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 33 WEIGHTING OF FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A. Fluid Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B. Sanitary Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 38 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY IN COMPUTER ASSISTED LANDPLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Assigned Weighting Values . . . . . . . . . . . 36 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of study area in Michigan and in Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. General soil map of eastern Monroe County, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Surface geology of eastern Monroe County, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Flowchart of procedures as proposed and used by Tilman 33 21., 1975 . . . . . . . . l7 5. Twenty feet depth to bedrock map . . . . . 28 6. Sandstone surface map . . . . . . . . . 31 7. Landflooding suitability in eastern Monroe County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 39 8. Septic-tank use suitability map in eastern Monroe County, Michigan. . . . . . . . 40 9. Sanitary landfill suitability in eastern Monroe County, Michigan. . . . . . . . 41 vii INTRODUCTION This study delineates factors important in evalu- ating sites with potential for three different waste dis- posal methods in the coastal zone in southeastern Michigan, and illustrates these factors in a computer-assisted tech- nique for evaluating land-use planning, described by Tilmann et 31. (1975a). The sites are evaluated for: (1) fluid waste disposal by landflooding; (2) septic tanks; (3) sanitary landfill. Availability of land in the coastal zone has become increasingly scarce, and with the growing awareness for a clean environment, an optimum not-polluting use of land is needed. Near-coastal waters constantly receive water from streams, rivers, runoff and groundwater, many polluted to Some extent by man, and have been subjected to accelerated eutrOphication. This includes near shore marine areas, bays, estuaries and most of the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie. The most important contributor to eutrophication is municipal wastewater (Science and Environment, 1969). One of the disposal methods that is increasingly used for liquid waste treatment is disposing of the liquid on land by sprinklers, surface irrigation, and surface flooding. This disposal method can be safely substituted for second- ary and tertiary liquid waste treatment (Bouwer, 1973) if the soil, geologic and hydrologic conditions are right. Soil can adsorb and filter waste material, dissipate the B.O.D. (Biological Oxygen Demand) and provide oxidizing and reducing environments for the uptake of effluents (Flach, 1973). The soil can fulfill these functions if it is deep, and contains suitable clay and organic matter. In order for the land flood system to be efficient, the soil must pass the liquids through the complete pro- file. In land flooding, the waste water is preferably applied in basins, using water depths up to several feet (Bouwer, 1973). It is however very important to have relatively long periods of drying, to allow the infil- tration rate to recover, as some clogging inevitably takes place because of suspended solids in the waste water. A period of drying will allow dessication and decomposition of the clogging material~(Bouwer, 1973). The drying period is important for the survival and development of vegetation which is used to remove the nutrients from the enriched soil. Ellis and Childs (1973) and Perlmutter (1964) showed clearly that individual septic tank waste disposal can be a major pollutant source for ground and surface water. The major natural causes for poor functions of septic tank disposal systems are unsuitable subsurface characteristics, including unsuitable soil, and the spacing of septic tanks too close together. Individual widely spaced, well located septic tanks contribute little to pollution of surface waters but may be hazardous when a household has its own domestic wells. Slowly increasing population without development of large scale monitored liquid waste treatment invariably produces serious regional pollution. .Solid waste disposal is another serious problem in growing population coastal zones and an important potential polluter. One method of solid waste disposal is sanitary landfill. Each day the solid waste is deposited and compacted in alternate layers with soil on the landfill site. On flat lands the above surface land- fill method is used, so no deep man—made pits are required (Schneider, 1970). However in Michigan the trench method is preferred. The landfill site must be sealed so imper- meable dykes are built around it to control the water table level, and prevent lateral leachate transport. An impermeable layer (clay) must be present below the site so no leachate can escape to the groundwater sources. Leachate solution contains dissolved and fine solid matter, particularly iron chloride, sodium, and microbiological waste products (Brunner & Keller, 1972). The computer derived summation mapping technique as described by Tilmann et al. (1975a) seems highly sen— sitive in evaluating land on a regional scale for specific purposes. Thus, failures and problems, e.g., toxic pol- lution that degenerates our environment, can be minimized and decisions concerning land use are facilitated. 'The objective of this study is to find the optimal disposal site for now and in the future. PREVIOUS STUDIES Scientific evaluation of land for particular uses is relatively new. In the past selection of sites have been based mainly on socio-economic reasons. Studies of site selection failures (Hughes, 1973; Ellis & Childs, 1973) show that more consideration of environmental criteria is needed to locate successful sites. Recently several techniques have been employed in evaluating the acceptability of the land to man's partic- ular activities, using geologic and socio-economic cri- teria. Leopold (1968, 1969; and with others, 1971) developed a complete evaluation of an individual site. But when using his technique, site visitation is necessary. So, an areawide study would take much time. When evalu— ating the physical suitability of the land for particular uses such as landfills and limestone quarries, the Alabama Geological Survey (1971) and the Bureau of Geology, Florida (1972) developed maps for each physical factor, e.g., soil infiltration and flood-prone areas, and then combined them into composited maps. This technique, how— ever, leaves no room for alternative evaluations. McHarg illustrated in his book Design with Nature (1969) a technique, derivative mapping, using successive acetate overlays. Each overlay represents a factor that can be acceptable, moderately acceptable or not acceptable on the location it represents. There are several limitations to this particular_ technique. Each factor needs to be mapped, which can be time consuming and expensive. The size of factor levels might be given a sudden change when represented on the map while in actuality the change might be gradual. The method is physically limited to the number of factor over- lays that can be clearly distinguished. No real weighting of factors can be used. Updating of factor maps is hard to accomplish without making complete new maps. However, McHarg's technique has also been used successfully by Christensen (1973) for a coastal zone in Florida. The computer-linked terrain analysis as developed by Tilmann et_al. (1975a) is not limited to a certain number of factors as is McHarg's (by the acetate overlays). The number of factor levels also are not restricted. Environmental and socio-economic factors can be included easily without changing data input. Updating of data can be done more easily without constructing new factor maps. THE STUDY AREA The area taken for study is the coastal zone of Monroe County, Michigan, roughly the eastern half of the county (Fig. 1). Monroe County is located in the extreme southeast corner of Michigan's lower Peninsula, bordering Lake Erie and situated between the metropolitan areas of Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio which increases pres- sure for residential development. This coastal zone area along the coast of Lake Erie runs inland with a width of approximately eight to fourteen miles. Two major rivers traverse the study area, the Raisin and the Huron. The Raisin River divides the county into northern and southern halves and the Huron River forms the border with Wayne County to the north. This area is of very low relief. Slopes are generally from 0-2%. The county's population was 18,479 in 1970, an increase of 17.2% compared with 1960 (Bureau of Census, 1971). Only Carleton (Mozola, 1970) and the town of Monroe (National Sanitation Foundation, 1964) have public .wucsoo woucoz ca cam :mmfinofiz CH mono mwsum mo coflumooq .H musmfim condo» I I [I l l III .IIIII I: B . I \ o \ I. x. \ .. \ \ 332.2: \ s .. \ $30 \ 23.5.2 \ j .\ \ P \ sewer facilities. The remainder of the county depends on individual septic tanks for liquid waste disposal. Drinking water is obtained primarily from indi- vidual domestic wells. Only the towns of Monroe, Carleton and Rockwood supply the public with water, Monroe from Lake Erie, and Carleton and South Rockwood from bedrock wells (National Sanitation Foundation, 1964). A. Climate The Great Lakes, because of the prevailing westerly winds, have little effect on the weather of Monroe County. The weather brought by the westerly winds is modified and moistened by Lake Michigan, but the appreciable distance it travels overland to Monroe County lessens its effect. When winds are between northeast and southeast the Lakes' influences on the county's weather are at its strongest. The winters are long but only moderately severe. The average frost-free season is from May 4 to October 16. The summers are warm and short. The mean annual tempera- ture for the town of Monroe is 50.1°F. January mean minimum is 25.7°F. July mean maximum is 73.4°F. Mean annual precipitation is 31.29 inches. Mean annual snow- fall is 30.7 inches (Knutilla & Twenter, 1973). 10 B. Soil Soils are products of their parent material (the drift), climate, topography, soil biota (such as vege- tative cover and organisms within the soil), time and man. The major soil associations of eastern Monroe County are shown in Fig. 2. Generally within Monroe County, near Lake Erie, marsh and associated soils are found. Soils are typically rich in clays (over 40%) and poorly drained, changing inland to poorly drained clay loams and sandy loam soils, interrupted by shallow ridges of sands. Soils in the southwestern part are mainly sandy. C. Geology Major geologic events that influence the environ- ment of the area are the ancient marine seas during the Paleozoic Era and the more recent Pleistocene glaciation. Paleozoic sediments are mainly non—clastic, such as limestones and dolomites from Late Silurian through Middle Devonian; only the Sylvania Sandstone (Middle Devonian) is clastic. The area is in the southeastern part of the Michigan basin and hence the Paleozoic strata dip gently to the northwest, while the sediments get younger from southeast to northwest. During the Pleistocene glaciation valleys might have dissected the bedrock in a northwest-southeast ll an an Ht 2" 0 GENERAL SO”. MAP 0 V m 0' ‘ A EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, nu MICHIGAN “1‘. “If a. has D W A [—J u “ MAJOR sou D .. ““ ASSOCIATION w," E an" 8 [fl] uou-cuueo fl. I-uuou - rouoo on an -uumu D ouvuu-nonow—oamn m umnou-umr-nmuo nrmou-owum-couuma s‘ ,5- I B 1 1 a a a o n: C k scare m mu: m % v .- “DI - I an em '“ Figure 2. General soil map of eastern Monroe, County Michigan. Modified after Monroe County soil Conservation Service. 12 orientation, since the level of various lakes in the Erie basin stood, at times, much lower than at the present (Mozola, 1970). These lakes were formed because the drainage and climate were drastically changed. The glacio-lacustrine conditions resulted in area features such as dunes, beaches, bars, and lake bottom deposits (Mozola, 1970). Lake beds consist commonly of fine to very fine grained materials, well sorted and stratified. They do not transmit large supplies of water (Southeastern Michigan Water Resources Study, 1973). A till plain has been laid over much of the bed- rock surface. Moraine debris deposited directly by the glacier is rich in clay sized material. Sporadically, within the till outwash, sand and gravel is present, but does not occur at the surface. The above mentioned beach deposits are found in the western part of the area while the lake deposits are found at the surface in the rest of the area. 13 EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN ‘ ; ‘ I LIR',‘ .5 f |.'. ‘.f: .. _-.. . ‘ '.__°." ,-~’ '. a at" ’.\ ."-/.'.}' “" - n‘ o . T‘nt" '1 . a a . .- s .0 _- ' ~° “o. 6;?- ).' ' ';- 1" . ‘0. F. "'~.:f .‘J4 L I s'T’.’fi ": Lfl ‘Tf/p' - D \.. .,_. ' l,_; . P ‘. . ‘ . I .1 ' ‘ ' . '~. ’ :‘ s ‘ - , .I ‘ ’ I . :n . . ,I‘I ’: "a? ‘ ‘ ' q ': I. ‘ " Q g . 'nt}. a) {thi‘é ARYLz-J I 7 1 Y 1 l I IVE ,. T. '3'. Rug".- u ‘0 . .0 v ‘ . ', -. ' I O ‘ . 9 ’ l- a ' . -_ 'v A" '1. A {'5‘ Q I . - - ‘.'.‘ f ' a". .1 ' .0, V I “- "A ‘05 '. ‘ 3. , . 5 ‘."~ ' n ' ' (I ,. . ‘11» I. " .’ § : x‘ . any ..-S a.‘ '2“. . r .i, - c . m :3". .. O ' 35 o ' 1‘. L “I U. ‘ I ....... "a. ‘. ' I. .. SURFACE GEOLOGY [::]LACUCNNNE CIA? EEEIOANO -Lacusmm¢ Loam ALumAL venom .mau oucm. use mum: ”I my“: menu mo mu. WI moo W SCALE m INCHES ’tfi.55 Figure 3. Michigan. Sherzer, 1900. Surface geology of eastern Monroe County, Modified after Mozola, 1969, and DESIGN OF STUDY Several important criteria must be distinguished for a proposed waste disposal system on land, so that environmental and socioeeconomic conditions are protected. Criteria are defined by "factors" obtained from continuous field data sources (e.g., flood map), from point data sources (e.g., water well-logs) and from multiple data sources (e.g., soil map which gives data for several different factors). Continuous field data sources are digitized in such a way that a regular spaced factor matrix is constructed. Point data sources are processed by a spatial interpolation program (Grid, Wittick, 1974). The program constructs a regular spaced matrix with the same grid cell width and grid cell points as used for the continuous field data sources. Multiple data sources are processed into the same regular spaced matrices. Data sources used for this study are: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture soil map (medium intensity) for soil information, aerial photographs, U.S.G.S. Topographic maps for floodplain construction, depth to bedrock map (Mozola, 1970), maps from the Platbook of Monroe County 14 15 for ownership density, and well logs for information about sand cover thickness and thickness of clay layer. The distance between each grid point chosen for this study is 2640 feet, giving a grid cell a square area of 160 acres. Only in the southern part of the study area do the grid points coincide with the corner points of each quarter section, for the land survey in large parts of Monroe County is not regular. Computer programs encourage treatment of a rec- tangular region, so because of the irregular shape of the area studied, all grid cells within the rectangular region, but outside the study area, were arbitrarily assigned a zero factor value. Following data accumulation, scores are assigned to each factor range. A zero score is assigned if the factor is absolutely limiting for use, such as waste disposal in Open water. A score of one is assigned if the factor is least desirable but not absolutely limiting. The maximum possible factor score, given in a situation that has a most desirable factor for the waste disposal site. Any other conditions between these extremes are assigned scores that reflect the degree of acceptability. All factors are normalized to 5. For example, a high amount of phosphorus adsorption by the clay minerals in the soil is very desirable; consequently, if the upper three feet of the soil adsorbs more than two thousand pounds per 16 acre (this is very high), a maximum score is assigned; if the adsorption is less than one thousand pounds per acre in the top three feet (low), it receives a minimum score. This procedure is applied to all factors. However the number of levels in each factor might be smaller, because further distinction is irrelevant or impossible. Each factor was then weighted separately, depending on its relative importance to the particular waste dis- posal use, e.g., phosphorus adsorption by the clay minerals in the soil, is a much more important factor, when waste water rather than solid waste is disposed on land. Weightings are changed for each different disposal use. For each grid point, factors are weighted and summed. High sums will now reflect areas which will have high potential suitability for the particular waste dis- posal and low sums will reflect the unsuitable potential site. These results can now simply be displayed by a contour mapping program. Fig. 4 shows a flow chart of the above procedure. The weighting and summation at each grid point is Obtained as follows: n Sum (x,y) = Z W. F. w, f, + W F + ....Wn F where l7 .._.._—. —-———v————a—- Car '7 mm R31! Data Maps H20!" On ~ ‘ ’ TIT; my I J. L-“ .- _ .. [I i--- .. --‘~. TAM Digitize crch diia array Morgtgilied ngd ifil'dWBl l 1 (”Jam library tile O m? J\ Discontinue-av /lrnlll|7h /-DOA‘2) '31“ plotdisplay ~ Di3play? |fl0 ' I CR1 or plot display \ Weighted “ff“: composite 6mm" (I ('1 maps my. IIF‘T. .Ji- w or 3 :15 Squat ramps and Weight (“on assign with equal (or given land weightings use [ -— [ weighti] \l (‘c’ors Normalize scores to Summation Of all v FROG; (it) vs." 6201mm!) in Lacy? hilly .-._T-___ .‘S ”i. n T‘.I' Data Arrays ” ' Synthusirc Each I‘Ita array by surixe liitiI’I] tethn‘qucs Library file of soil- and rock- type capabilities \___v___J '0 Decomposeto' l tlasictutors F Scan area for unacceptable (actors 1 Does tactor rule out land use? yes Zero out scorrs oi of plot display ‘ Drvise land- US: who, or ailsrratiws ! Figure 4. $9.1." 1975. all factors in this area Flowchart of procedures as preposed and used by Tilmann 18 W = Weighting value of the factor F = Factor score i = Identification of the factor e.g., i = l = slope of terrain 2 = floodplain n = 16 = Suitable agriculture areas x and y are the co-ordinates of the grid point. Most of the factors used in this study consist of information obtained from soil maps. This has been done because of the lack of good subsurface information, but the soil is seen as a good indicator of the underlaying parent material in this coastal zone, more so than in most other areas in Michigan. There are no clear-cut sanitary code regulations for waste disposal in Monroe County. The sanitary code of the Monroe County Health Department of 1963 certainly needs updating concerning septic tank use. Limitations pertaining to land use as stated on the engineering interpretation sheets for each soil series of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service were ignored since they are too lenient. The following literature was used in setting guidelines for obtaining factor score: Alabama Geological Survey (1972); Bureau of Geology, Florida (1972); Christen- sen (1973); Hughes (1967); Iverson (1974); McHarg (1969); and Tilmann gt gt. (1975a). FACTORS Several important factors are selected based on environmental and socio-economic criteria. They are: A. Surface 1. Slope of terrain 2. Floodplains 3. Surface water B. Sub-surface Depth to zone of saturation Soil drainage Soil permeability Waterholding capacity of the soil Phosphorus adsorption . Depth to bedrock 10. Thickness of sandy surface layer 11. Clay thickness 12. Karst conditions \OOOxIONUl-b C. Established land uses 13. Urbanization 14. Residential density 15. Forested land 16. Suitable agricultural soils. A. Surface l. Slope of Terrain No erosion should occur at any waste disposal site. A large gradual slope will increase the total erodibility of the terrain (Tilmann gt gt., 1975b) and hence will increase malfunctioning of the waste disposal. 19 20 Since the terrain of a sanitary landfill is drastically changed during the filling no differences were assigned to 0-2% and 2-6% SIOpe classifications. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Septic Tank Use Score Comments 0 Over 12% slope 1 6-12% slope 3 2-6% slope 5 0-2% slope ~_—___.______ _. Assigned Factor Levels for Sanitary Landfills Score Comments 1 6-12% slope 5 0-6% slope 2. Floodplains Areas subject to flooding and on floodplains get a zero score, as flood water should not reach the disposal areas and take up the effluents and leachates. The Michigan Geological Survey advises that no sanitary landfill should be constructed on any floodplain. Monroe County not only has river floodplains but also an extensive Lake Erie floodplain. 21 Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding, Septic Tank and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 0 Land on floodplain 5 Land not on a floodplain 3. Presence of Surface Water Waste disposal sites should not be located in waterbodies since they are in direct connection with water supplies or are breeding areas for Wildfowl. A low score is assigned if an intermittent stream is in the area, and lowest scores if a perennial stream, lake, or swamp is in the area (Iverson, 1974). Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding, Septic Tank and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 0 Data point in open water 1 Open water or marsh in area 3 Intermittent streams in area 5 No open water in area B. Sub-surface 4. Depth to Zone of Saturation Waste disposal systems should not be constructed on lands where the zone of saturation is close to the 22 surface. This helps prevent nutrients from traveling too quickly out of the zone of aeration (the zone above the zone of saturation) which functions as a biological, chemical and physical filter for waste products (Ellis & Childs, 1973; Miller, 1973). The volume of waste retention is directly proportional to thickness of the zone of aeration, other conditions being equal. Depth to, and fluctuation of, the zone of saturation are given for each soil in the report of Schneider and Erickson (1972) who divided water table ranges for natural drainage for soils in Michigan into three categories, variable between: (1) 0-24 inches; (2) 24-120 inches; and (3) over 60 inches. Several checks with an unpublished U.S. Soil Con- servation report on the water table ranges of soils in Washtenaw County showed the above figures to be fairly accurate. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 1 Variable between 0-24 inches to zone of saturation 2 Variable between 24-60 inches to zone of saturation 5 Variable over 60 inches to zone of saturation 23 5. Soil Drainage Natural drainage is related to depth, to the zone of saturation and number of months during the year that water is in contact with a particular part of the soil (Schneider & Erickson, 1972). Septic tank systems need well-drained soils, moderately well drained soils are less desirable while very poorly, and poorly drained soils are not desirable. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding Use Score Comments 1 Poorly/very poorly drained 3 Somewhat poorly drained 5 Well/moderately well drained Assigned Factor Levels for Septic Tank Use Score Comments 1 Somewhat poorly/poorly/very poorly drained Moderately well drained Well drained U19.) 6. Soil Permeability Soil permeability is that characteristic of the soil that enables it to transmit water or air (Schneider & 24 Erickson, 1972) and is a very important factor for waste disposal on land. Permeability of soil is expressed in inches of water per hour, under specific temperature and hydraulic conditions. There is a good correlation between permeability obtained from soil maps and percolation tests (Mokma & Whiteside, 1972). For septic tanks and landflood systems permeability should be high enough to pass the discharged fluid through so the water does not reach the surface, but slow enough so maximum adsorption can take place. Since leachate should not travel from the sanitary landfill site high permeability rates are given a minimum score and very slow permeability rates a maximum score. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding Use Score Comments 1 Less than .20 inches per hour 2 Over 10.00 inches per hour 3 0.2 - 0.8 inches per hour 5 0.8 - 10 inches per hour Assigned Factor Levels for Septic Tank Use Score Comments 1 Less than 1.0 inches per hour 2 Over 10.0 inches per hour 5 1.0 - 10.0 inches per hour 25 Assigned Factor Levels for Sanitary Landfills Score Comments 1 Over 10.0 inches per hour 2 2.5 - 10.0 inches per hour 3 0.8 - 2.5 inches per hour 4 0.2 — 0.8 inches per hour 5 Less than 0.2 inches per hour 7. Waterholding Capacity "Waterholding capacity is related to particle size and to arrangement and size of pores" (Schneider & Erickson, 1972). Smaller particles tend to have a higher water retention because of the larger surface area in the total volume (Grim, 1953). The waterholding capacity for a sanitary landfill should be very high so leachates will stay at the site. However, waterholding capacity should be inter- mediate for use of septic tanks and landflooding waste disposal systems because it is necessary that the water moves slowly through the soil. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Septic Tank Use Score Comments 1 Very high 2 Very low 3 High 5 Low to medium 26 Assigned Factor Levels for Sanitary Landfills Score Comments 1 Very low 2 Low 3 Medium 4 High 5 Very high 8. Phosphorus Adsqtption Phosphorus is very often the limiting factor for plant growth in waterbodies, and thus, an important factor for unnatural eutrophication. Therefore, it is very important that the soil has high phosphorus adsorption capacity. However, this is of minor importance for solid waste landfill. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding, Septic Tank and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 1 Less than 1,000 lb. per acre 3 ft. 2 1,000-1,300 per acre 3 ft. 3 1,300-l,600 per acre 3 ft. 4 1,600—2,000 per acre 3 ft. 5 Over 2,000 lb. per acre 3 ft. 9. Depth to Bedrock Bedrock in Monroe County functions as an aquifer; 90% of the county's waterwells are drilled into the 27 bedrock (Mozola, 1970). If bedrock is close to the sur- face waste material could easily pollute the bedrock aquifer. So, a maximum score is given for deep seated bedrock, and a minimum score for bedrock close to the surface. Michigan Geological Survey Division advises a minimum of 30 feet clearance between the bedrock and the base of the solid waste disposal site, if the area is underlain with continuous clay layers. Because of the inaccuracy of the depth to bedrock map, the cut off used is 20 feet and not 10 feet. The 0-5 feet interval is obtained from the soil map. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 0 0-5 feet 1 5-20 feet 2 20—30 feet 3 30—40 feet 4 40-50 feet 5 More than 50 feet Assigned Factor Levels for Septic Tank Use Score Comments 0 0-5 feet 1 5-20 feet 4 20-30 feet 5 Over 30 feet 28 '7‘ no: ‘ -‘ ... 5 EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, {31:33 w MICHIGAN % 1». 'I'OS I £3 0““ [Q AREA WITH Iconocx LESS THAN 10 FEET UN” "I ”FACE SCALE IN MILES RTE . A Figure 5. Twenty feet depth to bedrock map. Modified from Mozola, 1970. 29 10. Sandy Surface Lgyer Only a small portion of the study area has a non- clay surface layer. Sand has a greater permeability than clay. So, a thick sandy cover is not suitable for solid waste disposal, not only because of high permeability for leachates but also because of gas from the decomposing solid waste material which causes problems especially in the winter when the top soil is frozen. The gas might then leave the disposal site laterally. A thick sand cover allows more fluid waste to be recharged. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Septic Tank Use Score Comments 1 0—5 feet 3 5-15 feet 5 Over 15 feet 11. Clay Thickness Clay has a low permeability, hence if the clay is present in the disposal site the bedrock aquifer is better protected from receiving polluted groundwaters, such as leachates. The Michigan Geological Survey Division advises that a clay layer of at least 20 feet thick be present under the base of the solid waste disposal site. 30 Assigned Factor Levels for Sanitary Landfills Score Comments 1 0-20 feet 3 20-40 feet 5 40 and above 12. Karst Conditions An increased volume of water flowing through the bedrock, as might be the case when the land flood system is used, will accelerate solution of carbonated rocks such as limestones, dolomites and dolomitic limestones. These rocks commonly underly the study area. Karst areas, subject to this solution (Thornbury, 1954) are topo- graphically characterized by sinkholes. These solution depressions might come into conflict with man's planned use of the land, so areas that are not underlain by car— bonate rocks receive a higher score. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding Use Score Comment 1 Carbonate Bedrock 5 Non-Carbonate Bedrock 31 EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN i“ as? .77. IEDIOCK SURFACE l8 MAINLV SANDCTONE l at: \ (9113954 SCALE m mt." 4 "E Figure 6. Sandstone surface map. Modified from Mozola, 1970. 32 C. Established Land Uses l3. Urbanization Urban areas can become too densely populated to allow septic tank use. Sanitary landfills and land flood- ing systems are undesirable from the inhabitant's view- point. Therefore, urban areas are not considered favor- able for any waste disposal system. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding, Septic Tank and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 0 Within town 5 Outside town 14. Ownership Density Ownership density represents ownership fragmentation, an important obstacle when land has to be bought for a dis- posal site. Locations with fewer owners per unit area received a higher score than those with a dense residential population. Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 1 Over 10 owners per 160 acre area 3 5-9 owners per 160 acre area 5 1-4 owners per 160 acre area 33 Assigned Factor Levels for Septic Tank Use Score Comments 1 Over 10 owners per 160 acre area 5 1-9 owners per 160 acre area 15. Forested Land Forested land should not be changed into sanitary landfill sites because of aesthetic reasons. Reconnaisance of forested lands were obtained with help from aerial photographs and U.S. topographic maps. . ow* ~..-‘.._. - _._._— Assigned Factor Levels for Landflooding, Septic Tank and Sanitary Landfill Use Score Comments 1 Forested area 5 Non-forested area 16. Agriculture Areas Soils having a high potential for favorable agri- cultural purposes should not be developed for sanitary landfills and received a lower score. 34 Assigned Factor Levels for Sanitary Landfills Score Comments 1 Soils suitable for agriculture 5 Not suitable for farmland WE IGHTING OF FACTORS Factors used for this study vary in importance when evaluating land for safe use of disposal systems. For this reason factors are weighted separately for each specific waste disposal use. Weighting values (see Table l) are obtained arbitrarily to simulate the relative importance of the factors to each other in Obtaining a safe use of the disposal system. Most emphasis is given to the environmental cri- teria, which is the purpose of this study; namely finding the optimum, safe sites for waste disposal without degen- erating the environment. A. Fluid Waste Disposal The suitability of the soil for septic tank use and the landflooding system is a very important factor. Hence the soil criteria are, in total, weighted very highly (see Table 1). Phosphorus adsorption receives a high weighting in contrast with the solid waste disposal since fluid waste has high phosphorus contents. Fluid waste material should not enter the bedrock before it is completely renovated. Depth to bedrock is seen as a very important factor, because thickness of 35 36 Table l.--Assigned Weighting Values. Septic Tank Factor Landfill Landflooding Use Slope l l 2 Floodplain 3 3 3 Surface Water 1 l 2 Depth to Some of 2 2 _ Saturation Soil Drainage - 3 g 5 Soil Permeability 5 5 5 Waterholding Capacity 1 .1 1 Phosphorus Adsorption 0.5 3 2 Depth to Bedrock 3 3 3 Thickness of Sand 0.5 3 2 Thickness of Clay 3 - - Karst - 3 - Urban Areas 3 3 3 Ownership Density 2 2 2 Forest 1 l 1 Agriculture 0.5 - l 37 drift cover is proportional to wastewater renovation, other conditions being equal. A thick surface layer with very little clay is important so transmission from the site is obtained. Other factors have been assigned weighting values, that reflect the relative importance as seen by the writer (see Table l). B. Sanitary Landfill Isolation of a solid waste disposal site from all water resources is the most important criterion for a sanitary landfill. Leakage from such a site to the out- side is hazardous and costly if the site does not have natural protection barriers. Low-permeability is an important factor in isolating a site therefore permeability received the highest weight- ing value. Other factors that complete the isolation cri- terion are thickness of the clay and depth to bedrock; these factors also received a very high weighting value. Soil water already present in the site is judged to be less of an important criterion than the one mentioned above. Drainage and saturation in the site are much easier controlled. These conditions will change when the land- fill starts operating and even after the site is abandoned these conditions should be improved taking into conside- ration that the landfill is properly managed. For weight- ing of the factors for-sanitary landfill use see Table l. RESULTS The obtained summations are arbitrarily assigned into 20 summation classes from 0 (zero sum) through 19 (maximum sum) in a linear fashion. Comparisons of the availability of land for the three disposal sites are now possible. Results of the summation are shown in the contour maps (see Figs. 7, 8, and 9) with contour values, that represent the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth contour levels. Highest contour levels are not present on the maps since no matrix cell received a maximum or even close to maxi- mum sum. The extensive floodplain of Lake Erie was, for all waste disposal methods, the largest areal limitation. Another rather large areal limitation for waste disposal use in the study area is the depth to bedrock. The over- burden thickness is very small in the area especially in the northeastern part of the county and along the Raisin River. Land potentially more acceptable for waste water disposal is found more westerly where lacustrine sand, delta sand or beach deposits are present, but where the 38 RE TSS 703 lANDFlOODlNG SUITABILITY IN EASTERN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN 773 SCAIE IN MILES CONTOUR LINE VALUES- I S 9 13 14 (SEE TEXT) AL Figure 7. Landflooding suitability in eastern Monroe County, Michigan. 4O Lrss TTOS SEPTIC-TANK USE SUITABILITY EASTERN MONROE COUNTY“ MICHIGAN | Q t I J O Q J OCALE IN MILE. CONTOUR llNE VALUEI~ I 6 O H 1‘ (SE! Text) JIHE .j __ “-0... ______...-___ __-——.—- v Figure 8. Septic-tank use suitability map in eastern Monroe County, Michigan. 41 SANITARY LANDFIIL SUITABILITY EASTERN MONROE COUNT Y, MICHIGAN ' 3 -4 4 a 4, ML”: SCALE IN MIIES CONTOUR LINE VALUES- I h 9 I3 '01 (sec IEII) Figure 9. Sanitary landfill suitability in eastern Monroe County, Michigan. 42 soil also is suitable to renovate the wastewater during all seasons. Most of the houses in the study area with an on- site septic tank disposal are located in areas where sum— mation values are low or even worse, where the contour value is zero and hence they are located on floodplains or where bedrock is within five feet from the surface. Even when municipal sewer lines are constructed (as is the case for the town of Detroit Beach) the bedrock has to be blasted which becomes very costly, and there are no potential landflooding disposal sites nearby. Even in areas that on first sight seem suitable for septic tank use because of favorable soil conditions are not suitable after a house is constructed since the construction activities may disturb the soil at the site to such an extent that the relatively thin sandy beach ridges become mixed with clay and develop poor percolation rates. Hence the site is unsuitable for safe septic tank use. None of the sites in the study area can be rated as Optimal sites. Even the areas within the 14th contour level should be investigated since some limitations are probably present (the 14th contour level has an average factor score of only 4). Land potentially more acceptable for solid waste disposal is found in the eastern part of the study area 43 above the floodplain where no lacustrine, delta sand or beach deposits are present and hence the overburden, including the soil, is quite impermeable. However, existing licensed solid waste disposal sites are found on the floodplains at the zero contour level or on lands with sandy deposits. The relatively low summation scores for the most "optimal" sites indicate that much engineering will be needed (see page 3) and careful management even after the site is abandoned. The relatively low summation values of all matrix cells for all three waste disposal methods are due particularly to the poor drainage of very flat, low coastal land. The computer assisted technique used was suffi- ciently flexible to make it possible to scan selected factors when minimum criteria are met, however this was not done because the purpose was to find the optimal suitable disposal site for now and in the future. Areas most likely to be more suitable for a certain type waste disposal site should be thoroughly investigated on-site before further planning takes place since local variation in geologic and soil features may reduce the suitability of the terrain (e.g., different kinds of soil can occur within short distances). The study area is one of the best agricultural areas of Michigan; thus, given the increasing need for 44 food in the world and the poor suitability for waste dis- posal, the study area should be reserved for agricultural purposes. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY IN COMPUTER ASSISTED LANDPLANNING To increase the speed and efficiency to point out favorable sites, a combination of the overlay technique as described by McHarg (1969) and the computer assisted technique as described by Tilmann 33 al. (1975a) would be beneficial in areas where several go/no—go factors are present. For instance, areas that can be directly omitted without further data gathering are floodplains and areas such as wildlife grounds, urban areas, and areas with bed- rock very close to the surface that need environmental protection. The result is that now less time has to be spent on digitizing since all no-go areas have a set value. In areas where factors change rapidly, as in glacial areas, more grid points per unit should be digitized. If so called "canned programs" are used in future studies, the user should be aware of variations in input and/or output formats and other variations of these pro- grams, for they may differ from the users chosen format. 45 SUMMARY The computer assisted land evaluation for potential optimal waste disposal sites is much more flexible than the overlay techniques and is only limited by the avail- able basic data, particularly the scarcity of geologic subsurface data. The use of waste disposal in the coastal zone of Monroe County, Michigan is not only severely limited by an extensive floodplain and poor drainage characteristics, as so many other coastal plains, but also by bedrock, often close to the surface. Relatively low summation values clearly show that the coastal zone of Monroe County, Michigan is hardly suitable for the three waste disposal methods discussed in this study and might only be suitable with the aid of costly engineering. In addition to the above mentioned limitations the study area is particularly unsuitable for fluid waste disposal due to the fact of poor drainage characteristics of most of the area and the thin "suitable" soils. Sanitary landfill might be possible on some sites in the eastern part of the county, above the floodplain, where bedrock is seated deeply, and the drift "impermeable." 46 47 However the site must be engineered and managed properly in the future because of the poor drainage characteristics of the sites. The eastern part of Monroe County should be saved from any residential development and used for agricultural purposes. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alabama Geological Survey. 1971. Environmental geology and hydrology, Madison County, Alabama. Meridian- ville quadrangle: Atlas Series #1, p. 72. Bouwer, H. 1973. Land Treatment of Liquid Waste. Pro- ceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Studies and Effluents on Land, pp. 103- 112. Brunner, D. R., and Keller, D. F. 1972. Sanitary land— fill design and operation: United States Environ— mental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 59. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1973. Characteristics of the population. Michigan, Census of Population, 1970, v. 1, part 4. Christensen, F. A. 1973. Rational protection of water resources in coastal zones through planned devel- opment. Water Resource Bulletin, v. 9, pp. 1201- 1209. Ellis, 8., and Childs, D. E. 1973. Nutrient movement from septic tanks and lawn fertilization. Water Quality Protection Project, p. 83. Flach, D. W. 1973. Land resources. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, pp. 113-120. Florida Bureau of Geology. 1972. Environmental geology and hydrology, Tallahassee Area, Florida. Special Publication #16, p. 61. Grim, R. E. 1953. Clay Mineralogy. New York: McGraw- Hill, p. 384. Hughes, G. W. 1972. Hydrogeologic considerations in the siting and design of landfills. Environmental Geology Notes #51, Illinois Geological Survey, p. 22. 48 49 , Landon, R. A., and Farvolden, R. N. 1971. Summary of findings in solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois. Environmental Geology Notes #45, Illinois State Geological Survey, p. 25. Iverson, C. M. 1974. Computer-linked terrain analysis for landfill waste-disposal site selection. M.S. Thesis, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 69. Knutilla, R. L. 1971. Gazetteer of hydrologic data for the River Raisin Basin, southeastern Michigan. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey, p. 100. , Twentor, F. R. 1973. Gazetteer of hydrologic data for incidental streams draining into St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Lake Erie, southeastern Michigan. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey, p. 75. Leopold, L. B. 1968. Hydrology for urban planning. U.S.G.S. Circular 554, p. 18. . 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic features among rivers. U.S.G.S. Circular 620, p. 16. , Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, and Balsley, J. R. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 645, p. 13. McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, p. 198. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1974. Geologic and hydrologic guidelines for evaluation sanitary landfill sites in Michigan, p. 7. Miller, R. H. 1973. Soil microbiological aspects of recycling sawage sludges and waste effluents on land. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Manicipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, pp. 79-90. Mokma, D. K., Whiteside, E. P. 1973. Performance of septic tank disposal fields in representative Michigan soils. Research Report 157 from M.S.U. Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, p. 15. Monroe County Sanitary Code. 1963. Monroe County Health Department, Monroe, Michigan, p. 36. 50 Mozola, A. J. 1970. Geology for environmental planning in Monroe County, Michigan. Geological Survey Division, investigation 13, p. 34. National Sanitation Foundation. 1964. Sewerage and drainage problems. Report on Metropolitan Envi- ronmental Study, Six-county Metropolitan Area of Southeastern Michigan. Prepared by the Foundation for the Supervisors Inter-County Committee. Perlmutter, N. M., Lieber, M., and Frauenthal, J. E. 1964. Contamination of ground water by deter- gents in a suburban environment, South Farmingdale area, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geologic Survey, Professional Paper SOl-C, p. 170—175. Plat Book of Monroe County. Rockford Map Publishers, Inc., p. 41. Schneider, I. F., and Erickson, E. E. 1972. Soil limi- tations for disposal of municipal waste waters. Research Report #195, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 54. Schneider, W. J. 1970. Hydrologic implications of solid waste disposal. Geological Survey Circular 60l-F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 10. Science and Environment. 1969. Commission on Marine Science. Engineering and Resources, Panel Report, v. 1, p. 368. Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Special advanced report based on the Soil Survey of the eastern part of Monroe County, Michigan. Aerial photographs, soil survey maps and interpretation, medium intensity. Thornbury, W. D. 1969. Principles of Geomorphology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 594. Tilmann, S. E., Upchurch, S. B., and Ryder, G. 1975a. Computer-assisted geologic evaluation for land— use planning. Bulletin Geological Society of America, in press, p. 26. 51 , Mokma, D. L., and Stockman, R. L. 1975b. Determining regional soil losses resulting from construction activities. Project for the Use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation. Michigan State University, p. 21. Wittick, R. I. 1974. GEOSYS, an information system for the description and analysis of spatial data. Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social Science Research. Technical Report, pp. 53-74. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES lllll llllllullllllllllllll IWIIII "1111" 11 III III! Hill 3129 5 310108542