Landfill Project

Forks of Cypress Landfill Project
Team Kenya-
Elijah Evans, Scottie Lumpkins, and Claire Pennington
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of GE 225
Maps and Map Interpretation
April 26, 2001

Elijah Evans

Scottie Lumpkins

Claire Pennington

Methodology

From our first team meeting we decided that we were going to conquer this project together. This method became a little time consuming. However, we all learned more. Since that first week, we've met on the average of twice a week.

In researching we started with the information that was closest and easiest to access. These included the Florence Quad, Soil Survey book, and other sources of information on campus. These include the library and the Geology department. After exhausting these we ventured out into the city. First, a visit was made to the site so to get an idea of what we were working with. Later, we made visits to the Lauderdale County Courthouse, the USDA office (3 times), and the West Lauderdale Water district (2 times). At each place, on and off campus, we collected information.

In our last meetings, we divided up the work amongst ourselves, so that all were happy. One requirement that most of the class probably overlooked was the instruction to have fun. We might have come the closest to fulfilling this. If nothing else, we've become better friends.

Executive Summary

Our team set out to determine whether or not the location E1/2 sec30 T2S R11W would make a suitable site for a landfill. From our studies we learned many things, some more relevant than others. Evaluating the list of specific criteria was not a simple task. There were many factors to consider.

In our journey to our decision, we made many stops. The group met together many times to make decisions and visits. From the library to the Geology department and to the courthouse, we collected many maps and other pertinent information.

We came to a final conclusion that our site was not suitable to place a landfill. This does not mean that it couldn't match any of the requirements. To the contrary, it met many of the specifications. However, when looking at the whole scheme, there were just too many major problems.

Introductory Statement

Our purpose in this project was to determine if a pre-specified site would be a suitable location for a landfill. In doing so, we learned the basic steps required to complete the task at hand and obtained a greater knowledge of Geography. In addition we also gained the skills necessary to research future assignments.
Working as a group helped us to develop our team-player abilities, patience, and friendship. We were all joined by one main common goal, to receive an A on this project.

Forks of Cypress Landfill Project

The site, E1/2sec30T2SR11W, is a relatively flat plot of land nestled between Cypress and Little Cypress Creeks. It makes for a scenic piece of farmland and a home for several people. One of these is a very wealthy and prestigious doctor who loves his house and land. As nice as all this may sound for a home/property buyer, they would probably change their minds if they knew it was a possible sight for a landfill. However, all these characteristics must also in turn be considered when making decision about whether or not the location is appropriate for a landfill. This is what we set out to do and did accomplish in respects to the eight specific criteria for landfill placement.

The eight criteria are as follows:

1. A landfill shall be located so as to protect water quality.
2. High clay content is essential in landfill soil.
3. A site underlain by fractured limestone is to be avoided.
A landfill site must be free of sinkholes.
4. Solid waste must be buried a minimum of 5 feet above the seasonal high water table.
5. Solid waste must be buried a minimum of 5 feet above the underlying bedrock.
6. The run-on of surface drainage at a landfill site must be diverted. Avoid steep slopes.
7. A site where nearby residents obtain their drinking water form wells should be avoided.
8. A landfill site must be situated above the 100-year flood line.

Soil types

Four main types of soils are found in the E1/2 sec30. The two most prominent are the Decatur silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slope (DaB) and Grasmere silty clay loam as found in the Soil Survey book. The Decatur series' characteristics include sloping soils, possible karst topography, high levels of clay, moderate permeability, most is used as farmland, and native vegetation is mixed hardwoods. Also rills and shallow gullies sometimes are found.

The Grasmere silty clay loam has slopes of 0-2%. Some areas include those with poor drainage. Most of the characteristics of the Decatur series are also present in the Grasmere. Once again, it is especially well suited for agriculture.

The other two soil types found in our region are Lobelville cherty silt loam (Lo) and Bodine cherty silt loam, 10-35% slopes (BoE). Again the Soil Survey book is used to describe these. The Lobelville series, with a 0-2% slope, is moderately well drained, nearly level soil on a flood plain. The soil is cherty, water capacity is low, and overflow is a hazard.

Bodine cherty silt loam, 10-35% slope is well drained with steep slopes on uplands. This soil is also very cherty, and permeability is moderately rapid. Approximately 90% are wooded. In addition, DaB, Gr, and Lo are all associated with depressions according to the hydric soil chart we received from the USDA.

After researching these four types of soils and contrasting them to the land fill requirements, the results vary. BoE and Lo are definitely unsuitable for they both are cherty. DaB and Gr do have high clay contents and controllable drainage. However, they are best suited for farmland.

Limestone and Sinkholes

To find information about the underlying limestone, we consulted the Physical Geography Lab book and the USDA. First, we needed a good idea of what we were looking for in 'karst topography'. The lab book explained this well. This is the surface feature of what is taking place under the ground. Karst topography is characterized with many irregularities, and small hills and depressions. The most common is sinkholes.

When we went to the USDA office for information, they gave us a map of sinkholes in Lauderdale County as of 1977. On our designated area there are at least two sinkholes in the SE1/4 with another in close proximity. Therefore, our land is karst. The trusty lab book explained further that karst regions have poor surface drainage systems. This is replaced by structured under-ground systems. Water simply seeps through the soil and into the cracks.

Obviously, a landfill could not be placed here for this reason. Leachate would seep into the ground and be carried off. This is in strong violation to the landfill code.

Bedrock

Bedrock is in close relationship with the underlying limestone. However, the bedrock is not problem- some in our area. The guidelines required a minimum of five feet below the surface for bedrock. This is for burial of the rubbage. After examining the book of Soil Surveys, we learned that the BoE and Lo have bedrock depths greater than five feet. Also, the Gr and DaB have depths greater than six feet.

With this information, it can best be concluded that these soils have bedrock layers that are appropriate for landfills. The requirement is only five feet, which can be reached and succeeded.

Water Table

As previously mentioned, there are four different types of soils found on our land. They are BoE, Gr, DaB, and Lo. The Soil Survey book gives the high water table for each. BoE has a level greater than five feet. Gr is greater than four. The DaB is approximated to be over six feet. And Lo has the highest water table being only one to three feet below the surface.

In addition, BoE and Lo are classified as being soils that are hydric due to a water table at or near the surface. DaB and Gr are categorized as being soils that are ponded for long duration during the growing season. We received this information from a chart of hydric soils given to us by the USDA office. The requirements we were given stated that waste must be buried a minimum of five feet above the seasonal high water table. This would eliminate land with the soil types of Lo and Gr. BoE barely makes the cut, but DaB is at an acceptable depth. However, being unable to use the Gr eliminates much of the land that would in other aspects be expectable and necessary.

Slope and Run-on

The site we inspected had very little slope. From our calculations using the Florence quad map, we determined a seven percent slope. Furthermore, this slope is over a very wide area, more than ½ mile. With this in mind, there will be little interference of off-site run-on.

On the other hand, with such a small slope, there is little run-off. The precipitation that falls accumulates and stands on the surface. This is not a positive attribute for landfills. But this is not one of the designated guidelines. However, slope is. Our land does meet the specification for slope and run-on.

Surface Water Quality

In examining our site on the Florence quad the first requirement for the landfills was easily rejected. Our site is located between two main streams, Cypress Creek and Little Cypress Creek. In fact, the confluence of these two is around ¼ of a mile southeast of our area.

Efforts to protect the water quality would be difficult. The water must go somewhere and it will drain into the creeks. The contamination would seem inevitable. Any efforts to divert it would be extremely expensive.

Flood Line

From our on-site observations, we could quickly conclude that this was a flood-prone area. The visit was made soon after a heavy rainfall, and there was a considerable amount of standing water.

Since this sight is relatively flat and located between two creeks, flooding is a major concern. On a general flood map, we found the 100-year flood line drawn to the 500' contour. This estimate takes a large chunk of possible usable land. While we were at the Lauderdale County Courthouse looking for information, we explained our project needs to Mr. Robert Bevis, solid waste manager of Lauderdale County. He was quick to point out that there was too much flooding to be able to put a landfill on that location. From Mr. Bevis, we also received the official flood plain map, which recorded the line at 486-495 feet. This zone covers part of our land.

The Flood Insurance Study done in 1980 reported that Cypress Creek is one of the major flooding areas in Lauderdale County. In terms of discharge, the study recorded a peak estimate of 30,000 cfs. This measurement was taken just upstream of the confluence of Little Cypress Creek. This is our perspective site.
As for the aspect of flooding, our site is not appropriate for a landfill. This is supported by several different pieces of information. Even though there were small discrepancies as to the exact 100-year flood line location, they did show them coming unto our proposed placement.

Residential Water Supply

Landfills have the potential to be hazardous in many different aspects. Water quality must cause the biggest scare. Residents who live close to landfills need to be assured that their drinking water is sanitary. With our research we were led to (as appointed by Mr. Bevis) the West Lauderdale Water District. Upon talking to an employee in that office, we were presented with a map. We located our site and discovered it to be settled well into the zone supplied with public water in their district.

Short of going to each home and asking, we can only assume that all residents take advantage of this. If someone does receive the water from a well and if a landfill were placed in the area, the alternate water supply is there for their use. So, the perspective site does fit this criterion for landfill placement.

After weighing the many different factors that go into the consideration of a landfill site, the given site E1/2 sec 30 T2S R3W is not suitable. Yes, several conditions are favorable, but they cannot compensate for the others. Aspects, such as the flood plain interference, are uncorrectable. The major problems tip the scale in their favor. In a group decision, this is our conclusion.

Reference

1. Bevis, Robert. Solid waste manager, Lauderdale County, Alabama.
2. Federal Regulations about Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Units (MSLF) (2000). CFR, vol 40, parts 190-259, p 385ff-Subpart A-General.
3. Flood Insurance Study: Lauderdale County, Alabama, Unincorporated Areas (1980). Federal Emergency Management Agency: Federal Insurance Administration
Pp 5,9.
4. Flood Plain Map (1981). Federal Emergency Management Agency

5. National Wetland Map (1981). U.S. Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service.
6. Non-hydric soils of Lauderdale County, Alabama (1990). United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.
7. Karst Topography. Physical Geography Lab Manual. McKnight. Pp205-206.
8. Sinkholes in Lauderdale County Map (1977). United States Geological Survey.
9. Soil Survey of Lauderdale County, Alabama (1977). United States Department of Agriculture soil Conservation Service. Pp 7-18, sheet 38.

	Landfill Project

	Forks of Cypress Landfill Project Team Kenya- Elijah Evans, Scottie Lumpkins, and Claire Pennington Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of GE 225 Maps and Map Interpretation April 26, 2001 Elijah Evans Scottie Lumpkins Claire Pennington Methodology From our first team meeting we decided that we were going to conquer this project together. This method became a little time consuming. However, we all learned more. Since that first week, we've met on the average of twice a week. In researching we started with the information that was closest and easiest to access. These included the Florence Quad, Soil Survey book, and other sources of information on campus. These include the library and the Geology department. After exhausting these we ventured out into the city. First, a visit was made to the site so to get an idea of what we were working with. Later, we made visits to the Lauderdale County Courthouse, the USDA office (3 times), and the West Lauderdale Water district (2 times). At each place, on and off campus, we collected information. In our last meetings, we divided up the work amongst ourselves, so that all were happy. One requirement that most of the class probably overlooked was the instruction to have fun. We might have come the closest to fulfilling this. If nothing else, we've become better friends. Executive Summary Our team set out to determine whether or not the location E1/2 sec30 T2S R11W would make a suitable site for a landfill. From our studies we learned many things, some more relevant than others. Evaluating the list of specific criteria was not a simple task. There were many factors to consider. In our journey to our decision, we made many stops. The group met together many times to make decisions and visits. From the library to the Geology department and to the courthouse, we collected many maps and other pertinent information. We came to a final conclusion that our site was not suitable to place a landfill. This does not mean that it couldn't match any of the requirements. To the contrary, it met many of the specifications. However, when looking at the whole scheme, there were just too many major problems. Introductory Statement Our purpose in this project was to determine if a pre-specified site would be a suitable location for a landfill. In doing so, we learned the basic steps required to complete the task at hand and obtained a greater knowledge of Geography. In addition we also gained the skills necessary to research future assignments. Working as a group helped us to develop our team-player abilities, patience, and friendship. We were all joined by one main common goal, to receive an A on this project. Forks of Cypress Landfill Project The site, E1/2sec30T2SR11W, is a relatively flat plot of land nestled between Cypress and Little Cypress Creeks. It makes for a scenic piece of farmland and a home for several people. One of these is a very wealthy and prestigious doctor who loves his house and land. As nice as all this may sound for a home/property buyer, they would probably change their minds if they knew it was a possible sight for a landfill. However, all these characteristics must also in turn be considered when making decision about whether or not the location is appropriate for a landfill. This is what we set out to do and did accomplish in respects to the eight specific criteria for landfill placement. The eight criteria are as follows: 1. A landfill shall be located so as to protect water quality. 2. High clay content is essential in landfill soil. 3. A site underlain by fractured limestone is to be avoided. A landfill site must be free of sinkholes. 4. Solid waste must be buried a minimum of 5 feet above the seasonal high water table. 5. Solid waste must be buried a minimum of 5 feet above the underlying bedrock. 6. The run-on of surface drainage at a landfill site must be diverted. Avoid steep slopes. 7. A site where nearby residents obtain their drinking water form wells should be avoided. 8. A landfill site must be situated above the 100-year flood line. Soil types Four main types of soils are found in the E1/2 sec30. The two most prominent are the Decatur silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slope (DaB) and Grasmere silty clay loam as found in the Soil Survey book. The Decatur series' characteristics include sloping soils, possible karst topography, high levels of clay, moderate permeability, most is used as farmland, and native vegetation is mixed hardwoods. Also rills and shallow gullies sometimes are found. The Grasmere silty clay loam has slopes of 0-2%. Some areas include those with poor drainage. Most of the characteristics of the Decatur series are also present in the Grasmere. Once again, it is especially well suited for agriculture. The other two soil types found in our region are Lobelville cherty silt loam (Lo) and Bodine cherty silt loam, 10-35% slopes (BoE). Again the Soil Survey book is used to describe these. The Lobelville series, with a 0-2% slope, is moderately well drained, nearly level soil on a flood plain. The soil is cherty, water capacity is low, and overflow is a hazard. Bodine cherty silt loam, 10-35% slope is well drained with steep slopes on uplands. This soil is also very cherty, and permeability is moderately rapid. Approximately 90% are wooded. In addition, DaB, Gr, and Lo are all associated with depressions according to the hydric soil chart we received from the USDA. After researching these four types of soils and contrasting them to the land fill requirements, the results vary. BoE and Lo are definitely unsuitable for they both are cherty. DaB and Gr do have high clay contents and controllable drainage. However, they are best suited for farmland. Limestone and Sinkholes To find information about the underlying limestone, we consulted the Physical Geography Lab book and the USDA. First, we needed a good idea of what we were looking for in 'karst topography'. The lab book explained this well. This is the surface feature of what is taking place under the ground. Karst topography is characterized with many irregularities, and small hills and depressions. The most common is sinkholes. When we went to the USDA office for information, they gave us a map of sinkholes in Lauderdale County as of 1977. On our designated area there are at least two sinkholes in the SE1/4 with another in close proximity. Therefore, our land is karst. The trusty lab book explained further that karst regions have poor surface drainage systems. This is replaced by structured under-ground systems. Water simply seeps through the soil and into the cracks. Obviously, a landfill could not be placed here for this reason. Leachate would seep into the ground and be carried off. This is in strong violation to the landfill code. Bedrock Bedrock is in close relationship with the underlying limestone. However, the bedrock is not problem- some in our area. The guidelines required a minimum of five feet below the surface for bedrock. This is for burial of the rubbage. After examining the book of Soil Surveys, we learned that the BoE and Lo have bedrock depths greater than five feet. Also, the Gr and DaB have depths greater than six feet. With this information, it can best be concluded that these soils have bedrock layers that are appropriate for landfills. The requirement is only five feet, which can be reached and succeeded. Water Table As previously mentioned, there are four different types of soils found on our land. They are BoE, Gr, DaB, and Lo. The Soil Survey book gives the high water table for each. BoE has a level greater than five feet. Gr is greater than four. The DaB is approximated to be over six feet. And Lo has the highest water table being only one to three feet below the surface. In addition, BoE and Lo are classified as being soils that are hydric due to a water table at or near the surface. DaB and Gr are categorized as being soils that are ponded for long duration during the growing season. We received this information from a chart of hydric soils given to us by the USDA office. The requirements we were given stated that waste must be buried a minimum of five feet above the seasonal high water table. This would eliminate land with the soil types of Lo and Gr. BoE barely makes the cut, but DaB is at an acceptable depth. However, being unable to use the Gr eliminates much of the land that would in other aspects be expectable and necessary. Slope and Run-on The site we inspected had very little slope. From our calculations using the Florence quad map, we determined a seven percent slope. Furthermore, this slope is over a very wide area, more than ½ mile. With this in mind, there will be little interference of off-site run-on. On the other hand, with such a small slope, there is little run-off. The precipitation that falls accumulates and stands on the surface. This is not a positive attribute for landfills. But this is not one of the designated guidelines. However, slope is. Our land does meet the specification for slope and run-on. Surface Water Quality In examining our site on the Florence quad the first requirement for the landfills was easily rejected. Our site is located between two main streams, Cypress Creek and Little Cypress Creek. In fact, the confluence of these two is around ¼ of a mile southeast of our area. Efforts to protect the water quality would be difficult. The water must go somewhere and it will drain into the creeks. The contamination would seem inevitable. Any efforts to divert it would be extremely expensive. Flood Line From our on-site observations, we could quickly conclude that this was a flood-prone area. The visit was made soon after a heavy rainfall, and there was a considerable amount of standing water. Since this sight is relatively flat and located between two creeks, flooding is a major concern. On a general flood map, we found the 100-year flood line drawn to the 500' contour. This estimate takes a large chunk of possible usable land. While we were at the Lauderdale County Courthouse looking for information, we explained our project needs to Mr. Robert Bevis, solid waste manager of Lauderdale County. He was quick to point out that there was too much flooding to be able to put a landfill on that location. From Mr. Bevis, we also received the official flood plain map, which recorded the line at 486-495 feet. This zone covers part of our land. The Flood Insurance Study done in 1980 reported that Cypress Creek is one of the major flooding areas in Lauderdale County. In terms of discharge, the study recorded a peak estimate of 30,000 cfs. This measurement was taken just upstream of the confluence of Little Cypress Creek. This is our perspective site. As for the aspect of flooding, our site is not appropriate for a landfill. This is supported by several different pieces of information. Even though there were small discrepancies as to the exact 100-year flood line location, they did show them coming unto our proposed placement. Residential Water Supply Landfills have the potential to be hazardous in many different aspects. Water quality must cause the biggest scare. Residents who live close to landfills need to be assured that their drinking water is sanitary. With our research we were led to (as appointed by Mr. Bevis) the West Lauderdale Water District. Upon talking to an employee in that office, we were presented with a map. We located our site and discovered it to be settled well into the zone supplied with public water in their district. Short of going to each home and asking, we can only assume that all residents take advantage of this. If someone does receive the water from a well and if a landfill were placed in the area, the alternate water supply is there for their use. So, the perspective site does fit this criterion for landfill placement. After weighing the many different factors that go into the consideration of a landfill site, the given site E1/2 sec 30 T2S R3W is not suitable. Yes, several conditions are favorable, but they cannot compensate for the others. Aspects, such as the flood plain interference, are uncorrectable. The major problems tip the scale in their favor. In a group decision, this is our conclusion. Reference 1. Bevis, Robert. Solid waste manager, Lauderdale County, Alabama. 2. Federal Regulations about Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Units (MSLF) (2000). CFR, vol 40, parts 190-259, p 385ff-Subpart A-General. 3. Flood Insurance Study: Lauderdale County, Alabama, Unincorporated Areas (1980). Federal Emergency Management Agency: Federal Insurance Administration Pp 5,9. 4. Flood Plain Map (1981). Federal Emergency Management Agency 5. National Wetland Map (1981). U.S. Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service. 6. Non-hydric soils of Lauderdale County, Alabama (1990). United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 7. Karst Topography. Physical Geography Lab Manual. McKnight. Pp205-206. 8. Sinkholes in Lauderdale County Map (1977). United States Geological Survey. 9. Soil Survey of Lauderdale County, Alabama (1977). United States Department of Agriculture soil Conservation Service. Pp 7-18, sheet 38.
		Home