Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 Prel. Site Evals for WC LandfillsPRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL ACQUISITIONS January, 1986 Prepared by Washington County Planning Conunission Acknowledgements Board of County Commissioners Ronald L. Bowers, President Richard E. Roulette, Vice President R. Lee Downey John R. Salvatore Martin L. Snook Washington County Planning Commission William E. Wolford Jr., Chairman Donald E. Zombro Jack B. Byers, Vice Chairman Dr. Ray Johns Michael D. Barnhart Judy Acord Richard E. Roulette, Ex Officio Planning Staff Jack S. Hawbaker, Executive Director Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner Richard B. Shipe, Assistant Planner (in absentia) John Gudmundson, Planning Draftsman Christene K. Wachter, Administrative Secretary 11 Table of Contents Page Table of Exhibits iv Preface V Initial Search Area Limitations 1 Study Design 5 Phase I 10 Phase I Summary 18 Phase II 19 Phase II Summary 38 Remaining Candidates - Rank Order 39 Phase III 40 Phase III Summary 56 Phase III - Final Rank Order 57 Footnotes 61 Selected References 62 iii Table of Exhibits Page Washington County Geohydrologic Terranes for Solid Waste Disposal Study Area -Candidate Parcels Candidate Sites -Alphabetical List and Site Number Assignment Candidate Sites -Numerical List by Tax Map Number Phase I Checklist Phase I Worksheet Study Area -Highway Plan Functional Classifications Phase I -Summary Phase II Worksheet Roads Determined Inadequate for Concentrated Landfill Traffic Estimated Physical and Chemical Properties Estimated Soil Limitations and Suitabilities for Selected Uses Bridge Adequacy Worksheet Study Area -Limited Bridges Phase II -Score Summary Remaining Candidates -Phase II Rank Order Study Area -Urban Growth Area Boundary Study Area -Martins Crossroads Proposed Water Project Study Area -Recreation, Open Space and Historic Places Recreational Areas Phase III -Relationship to Agricultural Lands Study Area Agricultural Lands Designation Phase III -Candidate Parcels Assessment Data Phase III -Ranking Summary -Final Rank Phase III -Final Rank Order Phase III -Final Rank Order and Comments Study Area -Final Rank Order iv Inventory Map -Worksheet Summary 7- 8 11 13 16 18 20 24 27 31 35 36 38 39 42 44 47 48 50 51 53 56 57 58 60 This study has produced the final list of 12 candidate sites which the Planning staff feels deserve further in-depth technical investigation. While the staff is confident that the method developed and followed is valid and logical, it is limited in scope and does not provide a guarantee that upon further investigation any of the remaining sites will prove to be a viable future landfill site. Additional data on each site in the form of completed worksheets for Phases I, II and III are not included in this report. They are kept on file in the Planning Commission office for those who wish to further review the material. u PRELIMINARY SITE EVALUATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL ACQUISITIONS The search for additional landfill sites only 3 years after the opening of the new Washington County facility on Resh Road stems from recommendations in the 1982 edition of the Washington County Solid Waste Management Plan. Item #2, under Recommendations, states: "...future availability (of land) should not be taken for granted. The County Commissioners should begin now to seek additional sites so we can be assured of waste disposal areas for at least the next 40 years. If an additional supply of land is not guaranteed, however, and if new disposal techni- ques do not become practical the County will then find itself...., with no alternative but to resort to costly volume reduction investment."1 The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County authorized the Planning staff to undertake the search recommended by the Solid Waste Management Study. This narrative will detail the methods used by the staff in the eventual selection of the twelve sites that appear at the end of this report which are judged to warrant further study in the way of more specialized testing. Initial Search Area Limitations Obviously, wandering randomly about Washington County in search of a suitable landfill site would be futile. The selection process undertaken here consists of a series of eliminations and rankings, each with a more narrowed scope of factors applied to a decreasing number of properties in each phase. -1- The original list of. 44 candidate sites was determined by two variables: geology and parcel size. The Martinsburg Shale geologic formation occupies a strip of Washington County approximately 2-1/2 miles wide, straddling the Conococheague Creek. Its selection as a suitable geologic formation for landfilling was based on two considerations. The first was its physical properties. The Martinsburg shale is classified in Terrane 1, one of five geologic regions in Maryland "considered in its relation to its fitness or suitability for some specific purpose."2 Terrane 1 consists of: "Dissected shale, siltstone, and sandstone areas of youthful to mature relief in the Appalachian physiographic province (includes coal bearing synclinial basins in western Maryland); entire area well drained."3 One of the prime geologic considerations in landfill siting is the relationship of leachate to groundwater. Base and cover material should not permit easy movement of substances from landfilled material into the surrounding soil and water table. Of the five different terranes found in Maryland, three are present in Washington County. Terrane I has been found to be "moderately amenable to solid waste disposal,... Degradation of the underlying groundwater by leachate is least likely in areas underlain by shale or other impervious material...."4 According to Mr. James J. Pittman, III, Chief, Municipal Waste Division Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, in a written response during the initial development of this selection process, "The Martinsburg formation may be the most advantageous geologic unit for a potential landfill site in Washington County because of the fine-grained nature of the shales. .."5 Under certain conditions, Terrane III, characteristically underlain by crystalline silicate rock, may be suitable for landfilling. However, fractures in the rock containing groundwater would present a limitation. Also, the possibility -2- of limited cover material (soil) and the presence of irregular boulders in the available soil make this terrane less attractive. Its location on the eastern edge of Washington County, along South Mountain, brings to bear the second consideration in choosing a suitable geologic formation, that of location. Not only is the Martinsburg shale formation geologically suitable for landfilling but its central location in Washington County makes it more economically reasonable. Location of a landfill on possibly suitable sites on South Mountain would present hardships resulting from high transportation costs of the landfilled material and possibly needed cover material. The extremes in slope, considered later in the study, also limit its desirability as a landfill site. Once the total land area had been whittled down from the 462 square miles of Washington County to approximately 20 square miles of land underlain by the Martinsburg shale (see page 4), the second variable, parcel size, was introduced to further aid the determination of the original list of 44 candidate sites. There is no universal or ideal size for a sanitary landfill. In the end, the most desirable size would be that which contributes to the most economical operation of the landfill and provides a useable area that will last for a reasonable amount of time. A minimum size of 75 acres was selected for the purpose of this study. A supporting premise for the 75 acre minimum would be consideration of the two existing landfills. The recently closed City -County Landfill site on Resh Road was 62 acres in size and was in operation from 1973 until 1982. The current Resh Road site contains 148 acres and is predicted to be useable until 2004, based on findings in the Solid Waste Management Report of 1982. The 75 -acre minimum falls within the range of the previous site areas. With a County -wide population of -3- uiofunuW g4noS N ................ ........::"• •• a' ... .... U O J Q O a io N c 2v C d • . .....' •p . ._... A O 0 } 0 w c m S o U o o 0 I- Z 0 J 0 d c d c • ............:• ...........:..::.• . 0 0 O ll.l .. .o .o .o .................... : :::::........... .............::::: Z = z Q m F d F m F- -4- 113,086 in 1980 and a diminishing projected growth rate for the future, a new landfill site of 75 acres could last ten more years after the present site closes, until 2014. There is no method to provide a guarantee that 75 acres would be a large enough site for a new Washington County landfill until after the depth of soil was determined from on -site borings. The available depth is as important in determining life expectancy as is the area requirement. The 75 -acre criteria also eliminates enough of the parcels in the study area to a workable number of 44. A larger minimum size, such as 100 acres, would have resulted in a smaller original list (33) and conversely, a smaller minimum would have produced a larger list. In retrospect it is felt that the decision of a 75 acre minimum was appropriate. The 12 sites remaining after Phase I and II appear to be more than sufficient to produce a suitable site with several alternatives. The original 44 candidate sites are shown on page 6. Also provided is an alphabetical listing by the property owners name and a numerical listing by tax map number, on pages 7 and 8 respectively. After determination of the candidate sites, the selection process took a more detailed look at criteria judged to be of significant concern in location of a sanitary landfill. An explanation of the design of the study is now in order. Study Design There is a host of factors to be considered in siting a sanitary landfill, among them, soil and geologic properties, environmental factors, transportation, topography, existing infrastructure, current regulations, and capital and operating costs. Several of these items are beyond the scope of this report, due to additional technical considerations. The study was designed to be simple and straightforward. Some of the most critical factors such as depth to groundwater -5- -6- CANDIDATE SITES Alphabetical List and Site Number Assignment SITE# NAME MAP BLOCK PARCEL ACREAGE ROAD NAME 01 Robert Burgesser 23 01 4 84.50 Md. Rt. 494 02 William Byers 36 21 132 79.73 Md. Rt. 63 03 Harry Casey 9 21 35 124.99 Wishard Road 04 Thomas Craig 23 20 165 137.60 Spade Road 05 Vera Cunningham 23 19 168 172.64 Spade Road 06 Victor Cushwa 47 24 48 120 Md. Rt. 68 07 John Downin 35 23 245 111.40 Pinesburg Road 08 Ira Drury 36 19 454 85 Walnut Point Rd. 09 Glenn Eby 23 11 45 87.44 Md. Rt. 63 10 Harold Eby 23 09 14 155.08 Md. Rt. 494 11 Karin Engstrom 47 18 35 104.07 Md. Rt. 68 12 Wheeler Ford 9 19 42 78.93 Shinham Road 13 Garland Groh 36 20 126 116.01 U.S. Rt. 40 14 Donald Grove 23 19 167 85.31 Spade Road 15 William Hamilton 23 03 107 106.35 Md. Rt. 494 16 Murray Hammerman 23 18 113 138.55 Spade Road 17 Murray Hammerman 48 02 333 133.06 Walnut Point Rd. 18 Bruce Hoffman & Son 23 08 103 301.06 Broadfording/Gossard 19 Jeffrey Hurd 48 02 775 88 Kemps Mill Rd. 20 Daniel Kaetzel 23 13 112 130 Cresspond Road 21 Leonard Lowry 9 14 39 121.00 Wishard Road 22 Wendell Lund 36 08 86 453.95 Independence Rd. 23 Frank Maietta 48 13 706 100.12 Kemps Mill Rd. 24 Ezra Martin 9 24 2 130.06 Md. Rt. 63 25 Ralph McCauley 9 14 38 144 Wishard Road 26 Henry McMullen 35 06 45 180.60 Independence Rd. 27 Earl Miller 23 11 65 76.28 Md. Rt. 494 28 Francis W. Moore 9 23 26 156.40 Md. Rt. 416 29 Edmund Niklewski 35 05 51 157.25 Rockdale/Independence 30 H. L. Powers 36 15 393 82.18 Md. Rt. 63 31 Paul Reid 23 02 8 195 Md. Rt. 494 32 Wilbur Rhoten 48 13 51 154.31 ----- 33 Stanley Schetronph 47 16 43 251.32 Md. Rt. 68 34 Charles Shank 8 18 10 148.20 ----- 35 Charles E. Shank 9 13 44 110.00 Wishard Road 36 Robert Shank 8 24 6 82.45 Gossard Mill Rd. 37 George Shinham 23 01 1 91 Md. Rt. 494 38 Vincent Smith 36 20 128 106.58 ----- 39 Harold Snively 35 18 183 158.57 U.S. Rt. 40 40 Ellis Strite 47 06 1 180 Kemps Mill Rd. 41 Roger Swope 9 22 29 110.44 Md. Rt. 416 42 W. Wallace Taylor 48 19 70 127.39 Kemps Mill Rd. 43 Charles Wyatt 23 05 25 109.74 Md. Rt. 416 44 Ralph Young 48 07 16 221.66 Kemps Mill/Walnut Pt. -7- CANDIDATE SITES Numerical List by Tax Map Number SITE# NAME MAP BLOCK PARCEL ACREAGE ROAD NAME 34 Charles Shank 8 18 10 148.20 ----- 36 Robert Shank 8 24 6 82.45 Gossard Mill Rd. 03 Harry Cosey 9 21 35 124.99 Wishard Road 12 Wheeler Ford 9 19 42 78.93 Shinham Road 21 Leonard Lowry 9 14 39 121.00 Wishard Road 24 Ezra Martin 9 24 2 130.06 Md. Rt. 63 25 Ralph McCauley 9 14 38 144 Wishard Road 28 Francis W. Moore 9 23 26 156.40 Md. Rt. 416 35 Charles E. Shank 9 13 44 110.00 Wishard Road 41 Roger Swope 9 22 29 110.44 Md. Rt. 416 01 Robert Burgesser 23 01 4 84.50 Md. Rt. 494 04 Thomas Craig 23 20 165 137.60 Spade Road 05 Vera Cunningham 23 19 168 172.64 Spade Road 09 Glenn Eby 23 11 45 87.44 Md. Rt. 63 10 Harold Eby 23 09 14 155.08 Md. Rt. 494 14 Donald Grove 23 19 167 85.31 Spade Road 15 William Hamilton 23 03 107 106.35 Md. Rt. 494 16 Murray Hammerman 23 18 113 138.55 Spade Road 18 Bruce Hoffman & Son 23 08 103 301.06 Broadfording/Gossard 20 Daniel Kaetzel 23 13 112 130 Cresspond Road 27 Earl Miller 23 11 65 76.28 Md. Rt. 494 31 Paul Reid 23 02 8 195 Md. Rt. 494 37 George Shinham 23 01 1 91 Md. Rt. 494 43 Charles Wyatt 23 05 25 109.74 Md. Rt. 416 07 John Downin 35 23 245 111.40 Pinesburg Road 26 Henry McMullen 35 06 45 180.60 Independence Rd. 29 Edmund Niklewski 35 05 51 157.25 Rockdale/Independence 39 Harold Snively 35 18 183 158.57 U.S. Rt. 40 02 William Byers 36 21 132 79.73 Md. Rt. 63 08 Ira Drury 36 19 454 85 Walnut Point Rd. 13 Garland Groh 36 20 126 116.01 U.S. Rt. 40 22 Wendell Lund 36 08 86 453.95 Independence Rd. 30 H. L. Powers 36 15 393 82.18 Md. Rt. 63 38 Vincent Smith 36 20 128 106.58 ----- 06 Victor Cushwa 47 24 48 120 Md. Rt. 68 11 Karin Engstrom 47 18 35 104.07 Md. Rt. 68 33 Stanley Schetromph 47 16 43 251.32 Md. Rt. 68 40 Ellis Strite 47 06 1 180 Kemps Mill Rd. 17 Murray Han¢nerman 48 02 333 133.06 Walnut Point Rd. 19 Jeffrey Hurd 48 02 775 88 Kemps Mill Rd. 23 Frank Maietta 48 13 706 100.12 Kemps Mill Rd. 32 Wilbur Rhoten 48 13 51 154.31 ----- 42 W. Wallace Taylor 48 19 70 127.39 Kemps Mill Rd. 44 Ralph Young 48 07 16 221.66 Kemps Mill/Walnut Pt. and soil properties are site specific. Testing to determine this information is also expensive and time consuming to obtain on one site let alone 44. In order to further narrow the list of sites that should receive in-depth study and testing, this examination consists of a series of eliminations and rankings, each one more specific than the preceeding one. In its development of the study framework, the Planning staff received assistance from various County and state agencies in the design of the guidelines which were used to arrive at the final list of 12 candidate sites. Since landfilling is a common method of solid waste disposal, there was abundant information available from case studies on the development of individual sites which provide general overviews of various procedures. These sources have been noted throughout this report and a complete list appears in Selected References at the end of this report. Several local and state sources were consulted for their knowledge of local conditions and for their expertise in certain aspects involved in the site selection. A tentative list of selection criteria was developed by the Planning staff with the knowledge gained from the voluminous reading material. This preliminary framework was transmitted to and reviewed by the Washington County Engineer, Washington County Health Department, the Soil Conservation Service, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Washington County Landfill Director. Implementation of some of the comments received from these various reviewing agencies resulted in the finalized study procedure in March, 1984. The methodology in its final form was transmitted to the above parties. In the transmittal memo the study method was generalized as follows: -9- "The first phase will examine limitations so undesirable that any site possessing one would be eliminated from consideration. The criteria used in this part of the review are not comparative, but absolute." "The qualities of remaining locations will be weighted relative to one another. This second phase uses practical criteria to establish each site's attractiveness." "Finally, the most desirable sites will be investigated thoroughly to assess the impact of site development and its feasibility. Along with all items from the weighted criteria list, additional items will be examined, as well as site -specific special conditions." Phase I As noted, Phase I presents gross limiting factors. A sample checklist is shown on page 11. One will note that each item required a yes or no answer. These five items are considered the basic necessities or absolute eliminators. One will also note that the minimum size of 75 acres is used here and is maintained throughout the entire study as a minimum workable size. Item 1 - Are there at least 75 acres of land outside the flood plain? In order to determine this yes or no answer, each site was located on the 1"=2,000' scale U.S.G.S quadrangle sheets (Mason-Dixon and Williamsport). Limits of the 100 year floodplain were also plotted from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps developed by the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, (Community Panel Numbers 240070 0060A, -0070A, -0080A and -0090A). The remaining portion of each site was measured with a 100 acre grid overlay and the remaining acreage, free -10- PHASE I - CHECKLIST SITE # Is there at least 75 acres of land outside the Flood Plain? Is the average slope on the parcel less than 25% Is a road of Minor Collector Class or better within 1/2 mile of the parcel? Is the site separated from the County airport by at least 10,000 feet? Is the site at least 1/2 mile from any hospital? Site Eliminated Reason: -11- of floodplain was entered on the Phase I worksheet. (Blank copy on page 13) In answering question #1 it was a simple matter of a yes for 75 acres or more, a no for less than 75 acres. Of course, common sense tells us that land subject to flooding, no matter how infrequent, would be undesirable for landfilling. There is the danger of flood waters washing away cover and waste material and the resulting pollution, increased erosion and sedimentation from unstabilized soil and disruption of daily landfill operations. Prudent landfill design involves grading in such a manner as to eliminate standing water and collection of runoff rather than permitting excessive infiltration. Standing floodwaters would increase infiltration problems. Most technical data reviewed during preparation of the selection study cautions against locating a sanitary landfill in a floodplain. Cunmiins, Bhatt and Pelton state it very clearly. "Whenever possible avoid land in a floodplain. Otherwise, high development costs could incur... protective measures such as levees or impermeable membranes".7 Related to this caution is the additional design and regulatory clearance time and expense required to comply with the Department of Natural Resources floodplain construction regulations. These are involved any time there is a proposal "to change in any manner the course, current or cross-section of a stream or body of water within the State, except tidal waters, including any changes to the 100 year frequency floodplain of free flowing streams."8 -12- PHASE I WORK SHEET NAME: AREA: FLOODPLAIN DATA Area of Floodplain * Area of non-floodplain excluded SLOPE Remainder Area with slope of 25% or greater * Area with less than 25% slope excluded ROAD Remainder Distance to quality road AIRPORT Distance to County Airport HOSPITAL Distance to hospital ** *Indicates land without the limiting criteria (floodplain or excess slope) that is inaccessible due to intervening land with limiting criteria. **No site in study area was found within 1/2 mile of a hospital. —13— Item 2 - Is the average slope on the parcel less than 25%? Extremes in topography provide natural valleys in which fill material could easily be buried. However, this topography is also indicative of underlying geology which could limit the available on site cover material requiring importation of additional soil cover. Natural depressions found in steeply sloped areas are also the places where water collects; small streams also form quickly, due to the high rate of runoff from surrounding steep slopes. Elimination of standing water is a major concern in landfill design to prevent stagnation, the development of areas attractive to insects and rodents and also to limit percolation through the soil to the fill material which may result in leachate. Extreme topography, although it provides natural depressions for filling, also requires additional earth moving which is a deterrent to daily operation of landfill equipment. A more desirable topography would he flat to gently rolling. It provides a more uniform working surface and a larger useable area. Since each site is different, a measure that could be applied to each one uniformly had to be devised. The plotting of each site on the quadrangle sheets was again used. The 20' contour intervals were interpreted and the areas of each site with slopes of 25% or greater were subtracted from the total area. A site with a slope of less than 25% on less than 75 acres received a no answer and was eliminated. -14- Item 3 - Is a road of Minor Collector class or better within 1/2 mile of this parcel? In an attempt to reduce unnecessary stress on existing infrastructure and to avoid incurring large costs for improvements, the road network was considered as one of the prime eliminative factors of Phase I. A majority of material received at the landfill comes by way of commercial haulers from residential communities throughout the county. This material arrives at the landfill in a variety of vehicle types, many of which are large compactor trucks. During the weighing survey conducted in July 1981 at the old City -County landfill on Resh Road, an average of 384 vehicles per day entered the landfill. Approximately 55%(211) of these vehicles were the traditional "garbage truck" variety. Although these trucks travel roads of lower classifications throughout the county on a regular basis to collect the refuse, they do not present the severe problem of wear and tear on county roads due to the low number of vehicles and infrequent travel. However, a conflict arises in maintaining county roads in good condition as the concentration of weight and frequency of travel increases on roads leading to the landfill. The frequent stream of heavy truck traffic on local roads is also a nuisance to nearby homeowners more likely to be found on local roads where residential density may be greater than on minor collectors. Roads of Minor Collector classification or higher as taken from the Washington County Highway Plan, were mapped (See Page 16), and distances were measured and entered on the worksheet. The appropriate yes or no answer was placed on the Phase I checklist. -15- PENNSYLVANIA \ 3 �•� �35 �' 2i 25 ; 3`\♦ l 24 I 12 1 �41/ / \�� / 36 1r-... r j i 26 ) \ 37/ ' 31 I \ I - / 1 / I / e� 43 L 15 / 494 Cearioss Rockdale I 18 ^'' /27,' 10 1 11 1 ( 9 / 20 16 .' Martins _ SI --/ 1 Crossroads Il 14�>. 4 !.. % 5 CURRENT LANDFILL ♦ w/ACCESS ROAD N / / 29 7 ( C— LJ I 26 1 22 L� PREVIOUS LANDFILL US 40 Conocochev9ve"' Creek "sue r -To 39 1---- 1 7 1 1 17 ♦♦ j ♦♦ 40 \\ Gg I 19 (-F- /32 1—� 6 42 WEST VIRGINIA HIGHWAY PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL t ® MINOR ARTERIAL ® ® 5• MAJOR COLLECTOR piieiipp1MINOR COLLECTOR LOCAL ROAD IC G —16— Item 4 - Is the site separated from the County Airport by at least 10,000 feet? The nature of much of the material taken in at the landfill is attractive to birds and rodents (i.e. food). Although birds are not as objectionable as rodents, large flocks are common near landfill sites and present a strike hazard to aircraft. For this reason, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that landfill sites be separated from runways of an airport which is available for public use without prior permission and which regularly handles turbojet aircraft in non -emergency situations by at least 10,000 feet of 'airline' distance. Radii of 10,000 feet were measured and plotted from the ends of the runways at the Washington County Regional Airport as depicted on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle sheets. Any site which was partially included within that area was eliminated. Item 5 - Is the site at least 1/2 mile from any hospital? The Health Environmental Article, Section 9-210(D) stipulates that no landfill site may be located within 1/2 mile of a hospital. As with the required separation from airports, this standard is mandated by law. Although it must be considered as an eliminator from the start of the selection process, no potential site was eliminated by this item. Any site which received a "no" on any one of the above five items was eliminated. The check lists and worksheets for each property eliminated in Phase I are on file in the Planning Commission office. A summary sheet containing the Phase I results appears on page 18. All remaining properties, those which received "yes" answers on all 5 items moved onto the Phase II review. This group of properties is free of gross limitations to landfill establishment. -17- SITE# 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 X 43 44 PHASE I - SUMMARY "NO" ANSWERS ITEM 2 3 4 5 X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X ELIMINATED X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 Sites Eliminated Phase II In Phase II, rather than eliminating sites immediately due to undesirable characteristics, the remaining twenty-five parcels were rated relative to one another using a weighted point system. Phase II rankings are a measure of relative desirability or attractiveness. The nine physical characteristics measured in Phase II are listed below with explanations of the logic for that variable and its application to each site. A sample of the Phase II worksheet is provided on page 20.The system of assigning points for each item on the worksheet was designed to allocate "penalty points" or more points for an undesirable situation. The more points assigned to a particular site, the less suitable it is for use as a landfill. Site Isolation - For obvious reasons, the smaller number of structures used for human habitation in proximity to the landfill the better. In addition, the Washington County Zoning Ordinance requires a 1000 foot buffer between landfill activity and "any lot in an "R" District or any lot occupied by a dwelling, school, church, or institution for human care not located on the same lot as the said use or buildings, or any lot which is part of a duly recorded subdivision."(See Sections 6.2 (r) and 4.9 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance) The application of the required buffer noted above was accomplished on the smaller number of sites (12) remaining after Phase II. In Phase II, the general suitability of prospective sites was measured by the actual number of dwellings, churches or institutions within 1000 feet. An additional point was assigned for an undeveloped PR zone within 1000 feet since it presents the opportunity for additional dwelling units, although until development, the impact of the PR zone is variable. In order to obtain the necessary data to determine the number of dwellings, and other places of habitation in proximity to a proposed site, the Atlas of -19- PHASE II WORKSHEET IDENTIFICATION #: SITE ISOLATION: "R" zones within 1000 feet Dwellings within 1000 feet Churches within 1000 feet Institutions for human care within 1000 feet Subtotal SURFACE WATERS: Surface waters not in 100 Year Flood Plain. Flood Plain within 600 feet ACCESS TO MAJOR ROADWAY: Length of roadway that would have to be improved or developed (in hundreds of yards) x 10= PART OF SITE IN FLOOD PLAIN: Percentage of a site that lies within the 100 Year Flood Plain x 10= SURFACE SLOPE: Site with gently rolling topography x 10= Page 1 Subtotal -20- Page 1 Subtotal SOIL TEXTURE: Deep Soil Limitations and Suitabilities x 3.5= Subtotal WATER TABLE: Depth to seasonal high water table AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY: Prime long term % x 5 1000 Productive long term % x 3.75 1000 Short term % x 2.5 1000 Productive capability % x 1.25 1000 Other % x 0 BRIDGE ADEQUACY: Relationship to bridge with limited bearing capacity -21- x5 = x3 = Subtotal Rank after Phase II Existing Land Use for Washington County and aerial photography from October, 1980 and May, 1981 were consulted. The proposed sites were located on Washington County Zoning maps (scale 1" = 600'). Structure locations from land use maps (dated 1975) were transferred to these zoning maps. The aerial photography was then employed to locate additional structures erected since the original land use survey. A circular area with a 1000 foot radius measured from the approximate center of the subject parcel was drawn on the maps. The actual number of dwellings, churches etc. located within the 1000 foot radius were counted and entered on the worksheet. Surface Waters Surface waters, streams and ponds, which do not have related floodplains were mapped at a scale of 1" = 2000'. Each individual occurrence of surface waters within 600 feet of a candidate site was counted as one point on the checklist. Two small streams which converge to form a larger one were counted only once. However, a pond was assigned a point along with the stream which fed it. Surface waters, as with floodplains, present opportunities for contamination and therefore should be avoided. Access to a Major Roadway The importance of this item is twofold. First it gives an indication of where it may be necessary to implement road improvements in order for the site to be useable. Secondly, the number of points assigned is equivalent to the length in hundreds of yards of road improvements necessary and indicates the magnitude of possible necessary improvements. This will increase the total point value in direct proportion to the length of road that needs improvement and therefore the undesirability of the site. In reviewing road adequacy, it was initially determined that expecting to find a perfect site serviced by a perfect road may be unrealistic. Included in the cost of establishing a new site should be at least the preparedness to appropriate funds for road improvements if they are needed. Of course, it would be ideal to locate -22- the site on a good road at the onset. It was determined that one-half mile of road improvement would not be unreasonable if a suitable site were located. The needed improvements would either be to an existing county road deemed inadequate or marginal, or the construction of an access road to the subject parcel from a suitable county road. The aid of the County Engineer was enlisted in determining the adequacy of roads in the study area. Based on the department's knowledge of the rights of way and overlay history the following list of roads was developed (see page 24). This list was used throughout the study in determining inadequate roads. The roads were plotted on the quandrangle sheets. The length of improvement necessary was measured and entered on the worksheet. There were many cases where no improvements were deemed necessary in which a case a "0" was entered. Part of the Site in a Floodplain Prospective sites with excessive amounts of floodplain reducing the useable area of the site to less than 75 acres have already been eliminated. There are still several sites which contain floodplains, and those areas would still be considered unuseable. The inclusion of this item a second time will penalize those properties which could not be fully utilized or may incur additional expense to mitigate flood damage. It is also undesirable to alocate a landfill on or near lands subject to flooding due to chances of pollution. In order to obtain a point value to enter on the checklist, the percentage of the site containing a floodplain area, expressed as a fraction of one, was taken from the Phase I worksheet. As shown on the Phase II worksheet, this figure was weighted by 10 to obtain the figure added into the total. Surface Slope As stated on numerous occasions in the literature reviewed during the research phase of this study, the most suitable topography for landfilling is that of a gently rolling nature. -23- ROADS DETERMINED INADEQUATE FOR CONCENTRATED LANDFILL TRAFFIC ROAD NAME FROM TO Broadfording Church Rt. 494(N) Intersection with Resh and Broadfording(S) Broadfording Resh Road(E) Rockdale Road(W) Broadfording MD Rt. 63(E) Resh(W) Cresspond* Broadfording(N) Rockdale(E) Independence* Rockdale(N) U.S. Rt. 40 Kaiser Ridge* Spade(N) Mt. Tabor Church(S) Kemps Mill Walnut Point(E) Ridge(W) Keeps Mill Wright(N) Terminus(S) Kemps Mill Walnut Point(N) Wright(S) Pinesburg* Kemps Mill(N) Rt. 68(S) Resh Broadfording(N) 4000' south Rockdale Broadfording(N) U.S. 40(S) Rockdale Gossard Mill(N) Broadfording(S) Shinham MD Rt. 416(E) MD Rt. 494(W) Spade* Resh Road(E) Terminus(W) Walnut Point Kemps Mill 2000' north Walnut Point,East U.S. Rt. 40(N) 2000' southwest Walnut Point,West U.S. Rt. 40(N) 700' south Walnut Point U.S. Rt. 40(N) Kemps Mill(S) Wishard Road* Rt. 416(E) Rt. 494(W) *= Entire length of road -24- Since each site could not be evaluated in detail within a reasonable time and expense framework, approximations were used. From the U.S.G.S. quadrangle sheets contours were interpreted and the percent of each site which fell into each of three slope categories was determined (taken from Phase I: 0-8% slope, 8-25% slope and greater than 25% slope). Since gently rolling landscape was the goal, the 0-8% slopes category was interpreted as being the most desirable. A scale was developed where the greatest number of points was assigned to the sites with the least amount of land containing 0-8% slopes indicating the largest amount of undesirable area. Remember that a low total score in Phase II will place a candidate site nearer the top of the resulting rank order list. The scale is as follows: 100% - 95% of site containing 0-8% slopes = 0 points 94%-90% 1 89%-85% 2 84%-80% 3 79%-75% 4 74%-70% 5 69%-65% 6 64%-60% 7 59%-55% 8 54%-50% 9 49% or less 10 Soil Depth Soil depth is a critical factor in landfill operations. It is also one of the most difficult items to rate without detailed site inspections. Although there is abundant data on various soil properties, they are generalizations and cannot and should not be considered a guarantee of what one will find upon field investigation. They should not be applied uniformly to all the soil of that type on a particular parcel nor to the same soil classification on two different parcels. -25- However, since soil is such an important aspect of siting a landfill, a method to compare many sites on a single scale had to be developed. There are many soil properties to consider in determining suitability for the landfill, among them are workability, grain size distribution, permeability, pH, load -bearing abilities, and depth. The last item, soil depth, has been included in Phase II. It is a variable that cannot be compensated for in the event of inadequacies without considerable cost as can some of the other properties. It must be emphasized that average depths are used in the rating scale, and they represent average depths of a particular soil in a typical cross section. The real depth can very likely be different in the same soil group on different parcels and even in different areas of the same parcel. A ranking scale was developed for this item by employing soil depth data from a technical series publication from the Maryland Department of State Planning titled Natural Soil Groups of Maryland. The manual was developed specifically with broad categories of land use in mind. Natural soil groups fall into three categories of depth as indicated on the chart on page 27 titled "Estimated Physical and Chemical Properties" from the Natural Soil Groups of Maryland; 0-20", 0-40" and 0-60" with average depts of 10", 20" and 30" respectively. The categories were assigned point values of 2, 1 or 0 points; higher point values for shallower soils, therefore contributing more points against the site in the total, indicating less desirability. In evaluating each site against the ranking scale, the natural soils group map was employed to determine the predominant soil group or groups on each site. One or two major groups were identified for each site and are listed on the Phase II worksheet. The corresponding depth, or average depth if two groups were identified, was noted and the corresponding point value was entered on the -26- " °o 0 0 0 v 0 o v o _ •c= c J J EV f f f 2 f O O 00 00 00 O 9 00 O 0° 300 O N 6 J J J2 -42 -12J EQ J2 J J> Jf J I j O O N N N 0 a2 N O in O O N N N O O ¢ a N a e a a N a a a e CI "a! g m u E LLo we a 00 So 00 90 w0 So 0(0 2O2 U)0 2 um So (0m NN wa E = n. n 0 m d o o V o o V 0 m m d 0 e '0 o V n o e n �Eo _ E9C m d a 6 m 0 P = o n 0 a N E q z o o 0 0 o d o d - Ja Ja �ru �ru �r� 05 s>u 05.0 ilia 05 hru s9 1ru io - ii 3 3 R .r. n tv j_ j2 ., 3 ±2 o em ery ery e 'fn q ery e n i d dd dd dd d a ad a dd a d a N f d{V rid ad is 't'2" a a ¢¢ ¢ ad ad da ad d da as - .. `L 002 U Um UN U °V y 00 j U to � Nh N J mn �NU EU' U� iU' V U'EU EN �N U -> o >QE E E $o E Er ESE E a c E E> E> o-_ E >02 2 E- 5900 - _E E r E t .>> 0 > o°a Et >E ;Eoo>;2>>,-__ - - ' qE �o>Eo 900990200> ;E>9E>;E> Eo Jn$N _- N —x xanur Nmuu�Uu 3 Nxxuu—Nw NxwnN SNBu BuN uJ'{ 9E' o- m o o (c d m d Po d o a d d (0 d n o m d e n F =3" - n a a- n e N go n __ _ 0 = n n n n o ry O a r Jr n n n n o 23 Q a U V Q Q m m m U U 0 w w w -27- LU LU 0. 0. !(/r f» f# {≥9 f! f } / / < } - ; }!] \ ! § ! ! i -28- checklist for each site. Water Table It has been stated several times that soil properties are among the most important factors in locating a potential landfill site. Within the soils framework, depth to the water holds great importance. It is defined as the"...distance from the surface of the soil downward to the highest level reached in most years by groundwater. It is the highest point of the soil or underlying rock material that is wholly saturated by water*."9 Not only does a high water table limit depth at which landfilling activities can occur but proximity to groundwater also increases the chances for groundwater contamination. In measuring suitability for landfilling in light of groundwater, the Natural Soils Handbook was again employed. "Estimated Physical and Chemical Properties" (page 27) was consulted in the evaluation of this factor. In reviewing the above -referenced chart, we find that in the soils for the lands under review the water table can vary from the level of the ground surface to a maximum depth of 10 feet and is very often stated in terms of a range, such as 0- 1 foot or 4'+. Taking the most cautious approach, the highest water table level for the range of depth was established for each natural soil group. Assignment of ranking points was then made giving the greatest distance between the ground surface and the water table the lowest number of penalizing points and conversely the smallest distance the highest point value. The natural soil group or groups identified in the soil depth variable were also used in the water table rankings. These notations can be found in the Phase II worksheet. The point values assigned to the Water Table variable are listed below. In cases where two soil groups are present, as noted on the Phase II worksheet, the most limiting group (the one with the highest water table) was used. -29- Least Depth To Water Table (in feet) Score 0 =5 1 =4 2 =3 3 =2 4 =1 5 =0 As with several of the other ranking variables of great importance, the depth of water table item was weighted by multiplying the point value by a factor of five to achieve the value to be added into the total. Because soil properties are so important to landfill siting a third soil rating was employed. The Natural Soils Groups of Maryland Handbook contains an evaluation table tailor --made for our purposes. The manual was developed to assist in evaluating soils for some broad categories of use. Among those uses identified was sanitary landfill. The manual contains a table titled "Estimated Soil Limitations and Suitabilities for Selected Uses". That table rates each soil group on its suitability and limitations for use as a sanitary landfill. The ratings on the chart, shown as colored circles, were converted to point values and each site was assigned points based on those assigned to the soil group. The table, as modified for our purposes, is reproduced on page 31. Agricultural Capability Agriculture is an important industry in Washington County. Through the county's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan with a major component geared toward the Rural -Agricultural area of the county, efforts should be made not to fragment the agricultural community by pursuing a purchase of valuable agricultural land. As an action item from the Comprehensive Plan, the Washington County Commissioners adopted the Agricultural Lands Inventory Map on June 12, 1984. The map identifies land in 6 categories which are of importance to the Washington County Agricultural Industry. -30- CMC CM N I r 0'0®-000!0a:0.0:0. c® j@0 ®- 0-0.0 0G-0too- 0"0'(3 a 0=oao_ O O O" o" 3- @"O: O 0- ® O" O" 0. &©0 O:O"O O:O"o O 0- Q 0: O- 0- @ 0. 0 0: O. ® 0!000 0:0 0 0;0.0O O:® 0-0:(0° 0 a 00.0-e 0 Q !00®'0 '@ Q" ®&0-;®f@!0 0 0 0 0 0 o'o 0. 0- O- 0= O O 0 -0O0 - O O @ 0- - 0 0 @' O 0- 0- O° O @: O 0"@=0 0 0-:0 O.O 0 0 OHO: OO 0 0-0.0 0 0 O -0.O O -O O_:0:. 0--� 0=0-0 O O 0'O -O o'o O'O 0&00 0 000000®o-0OO"0000_ OOO-OO ee ®&®"O"&OO-.OO- 0 0.0 o e e® -0.0.O0© S 0 -0 -0 -0 -o -e e O-® O-0" O O O O O 0-0- O-& e e ®• ® O O. 01 O 0-0- © ®Wflee-&® Go's o-o^OI.O ®:S 0 0-0 0 ® ©& o- 0- 0= 0- o°_ e e 0- o: o o° 0. 010 0-: & 0 O. e e E QE 3n' 12 6u!IIaM0 a .',o vfl c — ? J. In ¢ 05¢e RI!I!9e1!ng c cn tl v3E acv dcy in o _9 qE c F u c O n -31- LU a 0 0 Cl U U d U U C') CM U) N U m a m m a a a e � ° As stated in the narrative which accompanies the map, it is being used in the landfill site selection process as "an informational resource" to assist in planning public improvements in the Rural Agricultural Area. To provide an indicator of the relative importance of land that might be converted to a landfill site,the categories from the inventory map were assigned relative point values. High values were assigned to more important agricultural lands (ie. prime vs. short-term) keeping in mind, as with other variables, a higher point score indicates lesser desirability. Parcels with large amounts of prime agricultural land would have higher point values and therefore presumably end up as less desirable potential landfill sites. Each of four categories shown on the Phase II Worksheet was assigned a point value. Prime orchard lands do not appear in the study area and are not included. Non -identified land was also included as a category for record -keeping purposes but did not receive a point value. The assumption is that the most desirable site for landfilling from the agricultural point of view would be one which was 100% non - identified land, posing no threat to conversion of agricultural land and having the lowest possible score. The percentage of a parcel occupied by each category was determined by approximate methods using a 180 acre grid laid over a 1"-2000' quad sheet upon which the prospective sites were outlined and Inventory Map data applied. The percentage of the parcel containing each category of land was entered on the worksheet. These percentage figures were then multiplied by their "importance" factors to obtain total points for each category which were subsequently added to provide a complete indication of agricultural desirability. -32- Bridge Adequacy Location of the study area straddling the Conococheague Creek necessitated special attention to bridge capacities. Since materials received at the landfill are generated from all areas of the county, from South Mountain to beyond Clear Spring, sooner or later the transporting vehicles would have to cross the creek to reach the landfill. The fact that some of the bridges on major routes across the Conococheague Creek are historic in nature, indicating that there is less than adequate width or weight supporting ability, limits their use. Bridge adequacy was an especially difficult but necessary item to evaluate. It was also a checklist item that was prone to subjectivity, the nature of which will appear obvious in the explanation of the development of this item. Major routes from the eastern and western areas of the county were determined on the assumption that the quickest, shortest, or best maintained roads would be used. These consist of the major roads feeding the Conococheague area. While the major routes have been identified, drivers may not always use them for a number of reasons. Personal knowledge of road and traffic conditions as well as pickup routes may encourage or discourage the use of these routes. The predisposition of the driver cannot be completely accommodated. In determining these routes, the nature of the road, whether it was classified as adequate, marginal or inadequate in previous reviews was also taken into consideration. Wherever possible and logical during the review of routes, marginal and inadequate routes were avoided. It was felt that encouraging use of these routes by considering them as suitable ways to the landfill was poor policy. However, in some cases, sticking to a route of only adequate roads was completely illogical. Expecting a driver to follow that route when there was a much shorter or more direct route available, even if it was somewhat less adequate, just didn't make sense. -33- The established routes used to identify conflicts with inadequate bridges are listed below and are followed by a blank copy of the Bridge Adequacy Worksheet (page 35). A map of the study area with limited bridges located is also shown on page 36. From the east: I-70 to Md. Route 63 to subject site U.S. 40 to Md. Route 63 to subject site Md. Route 58 to Md. Route 63 to subject site From the west: Md. Route 68 to subject site I-70 to Md. Route 63 to subject site U.S. 40 to Md. Route 63 to subject site Md. Route 494 (Broadfording Road) to subject site The worksheet contains six questions which require a yes or no answer. Each yes answer was counted as one point against the site with six points being the highest possible score indicating the greatest amount of conflict due to weight restricted bridges. The heaviest truck weight specified was the highest gross vehicle weight entering the existing landfill during the July 1981 weighing survey. The average weight was calculated considering all vehicles during that same weighing survey. The last item presents the opportunity to further review bridge adequacy by considering other limitations. The only other variable, a restriction to single lane traffic, was applicable to the bridge over the Conococheague on Md. Route 68 near Williamsport. -34- BRIDGE ADEQUACY WORKSHEET IDENTIFICATION#: YES NO -Is Route Obstructed By Limited Load Bridge? From East From West Bridge Name Load Limit -Is Alternate Route More Than 1 Mile Longer Than If Bridge Were Not Limited? _ How Much Longer? -Does Limited Bridge Restrict Heaviest Truck? (59,660 lbs) _ _ -Does Limited Bridge Restrict Average Truck? (23,378 lbs) _ -Does Bridge Present Limitations Other Than Weight? _ Other Limitations TOTAL (transfer to Phase II Worksheet) _ -35- PENNSYLVANIA S. 1 35/ 21 If 25 i 24 1r- 41/ \`J 12 1 /36 / / ' I- r-� 1 28 ��\ •s 37/ 37/ 31 \ �/ 43 / 15 j 999 ¢_ Ceorfoss Rockdale 1 C / 18 ^'' 1 r -J /27,' 10 1 ' sm / 20'\ 2 l9/ ��...' 1 _ 16 G Martins Crossroads 14-� '' 4 % 5 I eel .... CURRENT LANDFILL II w/ ACCESS ROAD / N i 29 / c rte. i ) 26 22 L, PREVIOUS LANDFILL US 40 Conococheagoe •/` Creek L. Wilson ." V1 L�\D 39 \�\ � RUYetts 1-70 13 T_ 8~-- 2 7 1 38 / 17 40 /5 I I 19 !r --- I I r Pinesbar9 r l� II % 32 / ' 23 6 42 ��olomac o '"er WI WEST VIRGINIA LIMITED BRIDGES CO. RTE. 416 40,000 Ibs 2 BROADFORDING ROAD 20,000lbs 3 KEMPS MILL ROAD 20,000 Ibs 4 MD 68 I Lane 27,000 lbs Fe /g -36- To assign points for yes or no answers, each of the established routes was followed from the east or west on the map to each prospective landfill site. In cases where there were two possible routes to a particular site, the shortest one was used and an attempt was made to stay on roadways classified as adequate. In some cases there were two equally suitable routes, two restrictive routes or an alternate route including a restricted bridge or inadequate road that was so much shorter it appeared that the bridge and road may have been used anyway. The reader must be cautioned against assuming that every possible route was determined. This is where subjectivity appears in this item. The bridge adequacy item was meant to uncover glaring limitations of bridge use. After determination of a final score on the worksheet, it was entered in the appropriate place on the Phase II checklist, weighted by 3 and added into the total score. The nine physical characteristics of the sites evaluated in Phase II are ranked in the table on page 38. -37- PHASE II - SCORE SUMMARY wH 0 Ha 9r CID 0 HO 0 E-IH 9+ H w C4 w0 w as U CO 00 w 9 ga 9w aw urn 0� a w Wa ww w0 Hw wW aH wa H Qa FC R4 HE HO fxH Oh C4 P40 HX Hr1 PP Hw H Z H H m p ry U I Z p a O w 4 9 CD fx 0 0 mZ mH m3 4 C4H mm mH 3H a,'U FQ4 H ia. 1 6 0 0 .11 3 7 10 1.438 0 27.548 1 3 16 1 3.9 1.9 10 7 20 3.750 12 75.550 13 4 19 0 0 2.3 10 15.75 17.5 2.000 12 78.550 14 5 25 0 7.3 3.7 10 13.125 17.5 3.125 9 88.750 19 6 20 1 0 0 10 15.75 17.5 .750 15 80.000 15 7 20 4 7.9 .5 9 9.625 15 3.938 12 81.963 16 8 16 2 0 0 5 14 15 2.125 0 54.125 5 9 26 0 0 0 3 15.75 17.5 2.375 0 64.625 9 10 18 3 0 0 10 14 15 3.250 0 63.250 7 11 30 1 0 0 10 12.25 15 1.250 15 84.500 18 13 34 1 0 0 3 14 15 1.125 0 68.125 12 15 8 1 0 .94 6 15.75 17.5 1.563 0 50.753 4 17 21 2 0 0 1 14 25 2.125 0 65.125 11 18 30 2 0 2.6 10 14 10 3.500 15 94.600 22 23 18 0 0 1.89 10 5.25 10 4.500 15 64.640 10 27 61 0 0 0 0 14 15 3.375 0 93.375 21 28 13 4 0 2.36 8 14 15 3.250 0 59.610 6 31 9 1 0 .1 5 11.375 17.5 4.438 0 48.413 3 33 37 7 2.6 0 10 15.75 17.5 1.250 12 103.100 24 37 16 0 0 1.3 4 7 10 1.250 0 39.550 2 38 2 2 3.9 0 10 15.75 17.5 1.250 12 64.400 8 39 110 1 2.6 3.0 7 9.625 15 4.125 0 152.350 25 41 26 0 2.7 2.3 10 17.5 17.5 2.125 15 93.125 20 43 58 1 0 .1 5 14 15 3.125 0 96.225 23 44 22 3 9.2 .4 10 9.625 15 1.625 12 82.850 17 -38- REMAINING CANDIDATES - PHASE II RANK ORDER RANK PHASE II SCORE SITE# 1 27.55 1 2 39.55 37 3 48.51 31 4 50.75 15 5 54.13 8 6 59.61 28 7 63.25 10 8 64.40 38 9 64.63 9 10 64.64 23 11 65.13 17 12 68.13 13 13 75.55 3 14 78.55 4 15 80.00 6 16 81.96 7 17 82.85 44 18 84.50 11 19 88.75 5 20 93.13 41 21 93.38 27 22 94.60 18 23 96.23 43 24 103.10 33 25 152.35 39 -39- Phase III In Phase III, the twelve highest ranking sites as a result of the Phase II evaluations were scored in ten categories. The ten categories are listed below: 1. Relationahip to the Urban Growth Area. 2. Relationship to Proposed Martin's Crossroads Water Line. 3. Proximity to Existing Landfill. 4. Relationship to Agricultural Preservation Districts, Easements, National Register of Historic Places and Established Recreationsal Sites. 5. Relationship to the Agricultural Lands Inventory Map. 6. Percent of Site with 0%-8% Slopes. 7. Necessary Road Improvements. 8. Value Per Acre. 9. Relationship to Washington County Zoning Ordinance. 10. Ranking from Phase II. The twelve sites ranked in Phase III equal approximately one-half of the 25 sites considered in Phase II. There is a slightly larger difference between scores at this point in the Phase II Rank Order list (page 39), between site ranked 12 and 13, than at any other logical division point. Twelve sites were considered a manageable number and still able to produce some clear final choices and alternatives. Four of the ten ranking items (1, 2, 3 and 4) rate each site on its proximity to some pre -established variable such as the Urban Growth Area. For example, the site farthest from the Urban Growth Area would be considered the most desirable and would therefore be ranked #1 under this item. However, the site closest to the existing landfill would be considered more desirable, and in this case the closest parcel would be ranked #1. The remaining candidate parcels received their rank accordingly. -40- Items 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 assign absolute figures for such things as acquisition costs to each candidate parcel. These figures were then assigned a rank order. Item 7, Needed Road Improvements, assigned the actual road length as the score. The rankings from each of the ten variables were averaged to determine the final standing. As has been mentioned several times before, no site is considered perfect for a landfill. For this reason, Phase III also contains a "Comments" section which notes items to be considered in the selection of testing sites and final choices. 1. Relationship to the Urban Growth Area - The establishment of the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the incorporated municipalities of Hagerstown, Funkstown, and Williamsport is a Comprehensive Plan Policy which was implemented on August 23, 1983. "Growth and development should be guided to these Growth Areas in order to maximize the use of existing investments in sewers, highways, parks, transit, and other services and to permit reasonable economy in the 10 provision of new services." Use of lands in or near the Growth Area would subtract from available land for urban development in an area that has been traditionally, and is expected to be in the future, the major center of population concentration. Development of a landfill would decrease the desirability of surrounding properties. The greater the distance from the Urban Growth Area, the higher ranking (lower number) a property received. Some may argue, and rightfully so, that a landfill should be near the concentrations of people that generate waste material to lessen transportation costs. The necessity of locating the landfill in the Martinsburg Shale geologic formation has already been discussed. Part of that choice had to do with its central location in Washington County. The study area has been located as near as possible to the population concentration. Within that area, the greater distance to the Urban Growth Area the better. -41- PENNSYLVANIA -- 34 /� r 1r.... ^ I \ p 1 /35 21 1 25 j 3L%};; 24 - Q 41 �/ 12 1 /'36 ` 28 37/ ' 31 I \ ,- / / / / / 15 �/43 L_/ ) / 494 Cnorfoss RocFdole 1 —aV 1 18 10 1 / 27 / / / i ^✓ 2O\ i 9 `\yl 16 \—J •' Martins Crossroads 14 I 4 / 5 CURRENT LANDFILL \ N F / / WI ROAD oa000 W o i_ 1 1 26 22 .....,1 (3 Q W I L� j PREVIOUS Cpnacocgeo l �! LANDFILL^. Z' US 40 gap Wilson V.n L 0 j Ii 1-70 39 \ a. es® -� 13 1—""— //iL \1 e se i I9 C Pinesburg /. / 1 Polomai 33 WEST VIRGINIA URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY INCLUDES, HAGERSTOWN WILLIAMSPORT FUNKSTOWN —42— 2. Relationship to proposed Martin's Crossroads Water Line - This water line project is a result of a directive from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to correct serious water quality problems in the Martins Crossroads vicinity which lies at the center of the study area. Eventually, it will represent a sizable financial commitment by the State, County, and individual property owners. For this reason, proximity of the landfill to an area proposed to be served by a public water system would be undesirable from an economic standpoint. In order to make the public facility as economical as possible without extreme costs to individual property owners, as many residents as possible will have to be hooked up. A landfill in the midst of an area served by public water would render several properties undesirable and, therefore, reduce the return on the initial investment. Aside from the financial considerations, another reason for not concentrating homes near a landfill is the possibility of groundwater pollution. While those homes with public water would not be affected, homes on wells either nearby or some distance away may be. The distance from each prospective site to the closest proposed extension of the water line was measured. The site farthest from any point on the waterline would be the most desirable and was ranked number 1. It must be noted that the extent of service proposed in the water line project has changed several times in response to citizen requests. The proposal considered in this review of landfill sites may not reflect the final project design. It may be prudent to reevaluate this item upon a final commitment on the project design. -43- -44- 3. Proximity to Existing Landfill - Proximity to the existing landfill or to the closed site, both on Resh Road, would have several advantages. If a new site were immediately adjacent to the existing landfill, the costs of setup (buildings, sanitary facilities, roads, scales, etc.) could be reduced. The existing improvements could remain in place and the fill area could easily be expanded onto the new site. This variable may more effectively indicate the amount of resistance from the nearby property owners to the establishment of a new site. Logically the resistance may be less if there is already one nearby. There would also be a lesser degree of disruption of transportation patterns and fluctuation in transportation costs. The location of the former and existing landfills are shown on each of the "Study Area" maps in this report. 4. Relationship to Agricultural Preservation Districts, Easements, National Register of Historic Places and Established Recreational Sites - Establishment of Agricultural Preservation Districts and Easements represents a private property owner's formal commitment, in some cases short term, to a means of employment and a way of life. This state and local voluntary program should not be undermined by another ann of the government. Closer proximity to a preservation district or land from which an easement has been purchased receives a lower score. -45- Designation on the National Register of Historic Places represents a formal commitment by the owner and/or community to preserve its heritage. Proximity to a landfill would detract from the limited protection received. In some cases, listing in the Register may represent the likelihood of a significant financial commitment to restore the particular site. There are four National Register sites in the vicinity. During the development of this variable, it was not known that the four historic sites were all stone bridges. The subject parcels are ranked according to their proximity to the closest site. The recreation sites considered are those identified in the Washington County Open Space, Parks and Recreation Inventory. The sites are enumerated in a separate list. A one -mile radius was drawn around each prospective landfill site to determine one large study area consisting of all lands within all the one mile radii of the 12 candidate parcels. All recreation sites within that study area were plotted on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map. Each landfill site received a point value equal to the number of recreation sites located within its respective one mile radius. In order to establish a rank for each parcel in this category, a ranking (1-12) was assigned for proximity to an Agricultural Preservation District and also for proximity to National Register sites. The average of these two figures was added to the actual number of identified recreational sites. The resulting figure is the sites final ranking for item #4. -46- -47 RECREATION AREAS Significant Natural Areas Conococheague Creek C & 0 Canal Major Conservation Areas C & 0 Canal National Historical Park National Parkland C & 0 Canal National Historic Park Jordan Junction County Parks Wilson Bridge Picnic Area Community Parks Tammany Park Van Lear Park W. D. Byron Park (Williamsport) Potomac Park (Williamsport) Schools Conococheague Elementary School Williamsport Schools (Elementary, Middle and High) Private Campgrounds Snug Harbor Recreation Area Golf Courses, Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts Brightwaters Club, Inc. Sportsman Clubs Izaak Walton League, Inc. Acres of Pheasants Recreation Centers Williamsport Youth Center -48- 5. Relationship to the Agricultural Lands Inventory Map - The development of the Agricultural Lands Inventory Map was also a Comprehensive Plan directive. More than a year's worth of study resulted in the adoption of the map by the County Commissioners on June 12, 1984. The Map categorizes land in six groups according to, among many variables, soil type and use. The lands identified on the Map are judged to have agricultural significance . The Comprehensive Plan further states that the County should develop a local agricultural preservation strategy based on the Inventory Map. This has not yet been accomplished. The current status of the Map implies that lands identified would be the areas targeted for some form of preservation by an as yet undetermined method. Removing valuable agricultural land from production to establish a landfill should be avoided. The categories of agricultural land were assigned a point value as follows: Prime Long Term .0125 Productive Long Term .025 Short Term .0375 Productive Capability .05 Non -Identified Lands .1 One can see that the most important lands agriculturally received the lowest point values. Conversely, those lands which did not fall into any category of agricultural significance received a higher value. The percentage of the subject property which fell into each category was multiplied by the point value assigned to that category. The resulting figures for each category were added to arrive at a total point value for the property which represents the relative agricultural importance. The largest total would indicate the least amount of land -49- PHASE III - RELATIONSHIP TO THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS INVENTORY MAP - ? RKSHEET IDENTIFICATION# ACREAGE CATEGORY ACREAGE % x VALUE POINTS Prime Long Term .0125 Productive Long Term .025 Short Term .0375 Productive Capability .05 Non -Identified Lands .1 TOTAL IDENTIFIED TOTAL NON -IDENTIFIED TOTAL * *Value to be assigned for this item. -50- -51- identified on the Inventory Map within the limits of the parcel. The larger the point score, the lower the agricultural value and the more suitable for use as landfill. The most suitable site was ranked number 1, the least suitable, number 12. A parcel which was 100 percent nonidentified land would be ranked highest. One which was 100 percent Prime Long Term or Prime Forest would be ranked lowest. A blank copy of the worksheet used to tally this data is shown on page 50. 6. Percent of Site With 0% - 8% Slopes - As has been mentioned before, flat to gently sloping or rolling topography would be most desirable for a future landfill site. Each site was rated on the amount of land within its boundaries in the slope category of 0-8%. The larger the percentage of the site within this range , the higher the site was ranked. Slope calculations from Phases I and II were again used in this item of Phase III. 7. Necessary Road Improvements - The County Government will want to avoid as much unnecessary cost as possible in establishing a new landfill. Construction or upgrading of roads to serve a proposed site represents a possible sizable and avoidable expense. Not all sites will need road improvements. This item is not ranked on a "best to worst" scale. The length of road in hundreds of yards, established in Phases I and II, which would need improvement, is indicated. Any improvements, as opposed to none, will lower the average score for that site. 8. Value Per Acre - This ranking item provides an indicator of the possible cost of acquiring the site. It must be stressed that the actual dollar figures provided on the worksheets are used only to provide a constant measuring tool. They should not be used in any manner to determine actual costs since that figure can fluctuate depending on the willingness of the buyer and seller. -52- m0 H en t0 NON N 1n d' H H H NM01 MN1n N0 NO\ (_ } l l H N n M' 1 W O f 1 M HIn OJNMHNNM1n0 W O\m HOOHIn0ntO0\NN Ln10 � NWCl I4'IWN NtOtn0 €" b rUflt410 0Mvfl0t00000 (i OJC W M111CNO1tn N0\ 1(1! WH0INHO V1 N001N M t O W N W U 1 H H 0 N Un 03 H H H H en (J cdPdpdPiOPdP 0101010110101 I (w,) W 01010101101011 I I l 1 H H H 04 w In w I Z HHHH1/1HHt11✓1NN1(1 10 W N 03 0 tb 0 0 N W 0J W 0) H to F H w /� Ui H U1 ❑ Fi 00000000(0000 i.] t0w MNMN0lNOl VIN01 N 0tNOV1H0NN010N an N l0 01 N 01 O WIN v1 W N Hp H H H N OOwlnotolnN 'O(0H 1n0 W mon'O V)d'OOO eM H 1n t0 V1 1n N N h O In t0 O O H H O O H H H H H H MI HN Hv10 W OOJ01Mrt"1 ()) 1+1 03 H N H M N H H M 03 en -53- The figures were derived from the Maryland Department of Assessments data. The subject sites were assessed for tax purposes in either 1981 or 1985. The 1981 assessments were adjusted by a factor of +12.2% representing the average increase in land values over the intervening period as determined by the Assessment Office. This provided a 1985 value/acre, including improvements, for all sites considered. The parcels were assigned ranks based on their value per acre which is included in the chart on page 53. The lowest value per acre would be ranked #1. 9. Relationship to Washington County Zoning Ordinance - The ordinance permits as a special exception use: 6.2 (r) Refuse or garbage disposal areas, provided such use shall be subject to five (5) times the distance requirements specified in Section 4.9. Once, and if, the special exception is granted, the ordinance requires that landfilling operations be at least 1000' from any lot containing the uses enumerated below. 4.9(a) Any uses or buildings subject to compliance with this section shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any lot in an "R" District or any lot occupied by a dwelling, school, church, or institution for human care not located on the same lot as the said use or buildings, or any lot which is part of a duly recorded subdivision. The required setback, where there are none of the above uses, is 50' from the property line. In order to assess the useable area of each site in light of Zoning Ordinance requirements, each site was mapped at a scale of 1"=600'. The required setbacks -54- were drawn on the individual maps based on the location of existing dwelling from the 1975 Land Use Survey and 1980-81 aerial photography. (SEE SITE ISOLATION IN PHASE II FOR DESCRIPTION OF DATA MAPPING) It is important to note that no site with 75 acres of useable area passed this test. Several sites have no useable area at all after application of the zoning restrictions. Since the results of any case that may be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals is unknown at this time, this ranking item was retained in Phase III rather than abandoned due to its completely negative results. 10. Ranking From Phase II - Several items on the Phase II checklist are technical indications of a site's suitability for landfilling, although it has been indicated that they do not provide conclusive evaluations. The existing ranking from Phase II was included in the Phase III review for two reasons: 1. Consideration should be given to technical suitability of proposed sites in all phases of the selection process. 2. The additional ranking helped to further differentiate the rankings and present a clearer choice for optimum sites. The chart on page 56 lists each site and its rank or values assigned during the Phase III review. The final column contains each site's final rank. Page 57 contains the list of sites in order according to their final rank. Included on pages 58 and 59 is a comments column detailing some of the best and worst characteristics to be considered in choices of sites for further testing. -55- N V H N M d' N H 01 l0 V1 O tO W H as ro�o U M.i C m 01H C m w d' m cc dO a N y' O M h N V1 M N l0 b N O 0 0 HF N a} Ui O V) O O O N Ill O Ill (�y M N h ILO (1 Ui M N l0 tD Ill ID l0 l0 O H W d' M N O N Ui lO Ol H N H H H H bl M O1 Ol H d' N Ol Ol N 01 N Ol Ol W H H O N N M to N Ui cc H H H M O\ N O rvi O O O O O O O o O O yx q; N tll Vl Vl ali C OH l0 Ul � Ol l9 ¢1 N H N � � H Ill I/1 Vl N Ill N I() l0 h 1� h lD N W O h r Ol Ol d H H lO O l"1 T 1� N H Ol N N H OJ Irl H H If1 N V1 Il1 H N N d' M H OJ lO O Ui N OI O H RI «l H N M O N m Ol N M M H M M N H N H H N 4j i cc -56- PHASE III - FINAL RANK ORDER SITE # FINAL SCORE FINAL RANK 1 3.85 1 37 3.95 2 15 5.15 3 31 5.40 4 28 5.95 5 8 6.40 6.5 17 6.40 6.5 13 6.45 8 10 6.80 9 9 6.85 10 23 7.40 11 38 7.94 12 -57- PHASE III -FINAL RANK ORDER & COMMENTS FINAL COMMENTS RANK 1 Consistent "high scorer"; also ranked #1 in Phase II; least desirable aspect is cost and site division into two parcels by Md. 494; among best scores for site isolation, slope, soil texture and water table in Phase II; site is cleared for farming and probably highly visible from highway. 2 Consistent "high scorer"; also ranked #2 in Phase II; least desirable aspect is cost, site division by Md. 494 and large amount of creek frontage; did well in slope, soil texture and water table in Phase II; almost completely cleared for farming except for tree lines along creek and southeast property line. 3 Did poorly in slope and relationship to zoning regulations in Phase III; ranked #1 on value/acre; among best for site isolation but faired poorly in soil texture and water table; still scored well in Phase II; may be some significant stands of woodland available for site screening including road frontage; partially cleared for fanning. 4 Ranked #1 for amount of area remaining after applying zoning regulations; among worst on value/acre and Ag. Inventory Map; site is divided by Md. 494; did well on site isolation and fair to poor on soil qualities; most of property well cleared for farming; some road frontage screened by trees. 5 Among best for amount of area remaining after zoning regulations; poor on relationships to Martins Crossroads water project and Ag Inventory Map; no outstanding qualities from Phase II; site is bisected by Toms Run; moderate size stand of woodland in southern corner; road frontage mostly cleared except for some trees on northeast side of highway. 6.5 Ranked #3 for value/acre; fair to poor in other Phase III items especially relationship to Urban Growth Area and recreation sites; best showing in Phase II was for site isolation which is only fair; immediately adjacent to equal scorer site #17; road frontage well cleared; parts of other property lines are screened; long narrow shape may be difficult to utilize. 6.5 Ranked #1 in slope but fair to poor in other Phase III items especially Phase II ranking; immediately adjacent to equal scorer site #8 most of parcel is cleared for fanning with small woodland in interior; may be very visible from 1-70. 8 Ranked #1 in relationship to Ag. Inventory Map; also did well in slope and value/acre; poor in sight isolation and relationship to Urban Growth Area; immediately adjacent to U.S. 40 and may be highly visible site. FINAL RANK COMMENTS 9 Best aspect is site isolation; did not do well on relationship to Urban Growth Area and recreation sites; moderate to poor results on other items; most of parcel is well cleared for farming; small tree stand near creek. 10 Best aspect is slope in both Phase II and III; lowest scorer on value/acre; many immediately adjacent dwellings but not high density area; well cleared with minor interior tree lines; may be very visible from Md. 63. 11 Farthest removed from Martins Crossroads water project and ranked #2 for value/acre; poorest showing for slope, Ag. Inventory Map and recreation areas; fair to good in soil characteristics; former mining operation, current status uncertain; more removed from major highways; slightly isolated by Conococheague Creek. 12 Only site in Phase III which needs road improvements (property is landlocked); highest scorer for site isolation; poor scoring on soil qualities but still did fair in Phase II; well cleared for farming but removed from major highways; immediately adjacent to parcel currently proposed for mobile home park. -59- I -- Rockdale Q PENNSYLVANIA 34/ /11 I / � 1 I 36 /35`12 I 16 i 5 40 N 1 19 Pinesburg `--( � „ V ?olomaa o Rry_ , WEST VIRGINIA 2tT74r Martins Crossroads \CURRENT LANDFILL w/ACCESS ROAD. It a -60- FOOTNOTES 1. Washington County Planning Commission, Solid Waste Management Study, (1982), pp. X-1-2. 2. American Geological Institute, 1962 ed., Dictionary of Geological Terms; Doubleday and Co., Inc., p. 545 cited by Edmund G. Otton, Solid Waste Disposal in the Geohydrologic Environment of Maryland (Maryland Geological Survey, 1972), p. 27. 3. Edmund G. Otton, Solid Waste Disposal in of Maryland (Maryland Geological Survey, 1972), p. 4. Ibid., p. 1. 5. James V. Pittman, III, Chief Municipal Waste Division, to Richard B. Shipe, Assistant Planner, 24 January 1984, Washington County Planning Commission Files, Hagerstown, Maryland. 6. Richard B. Shipe, Assistant Planner, to Glenn L. Dull, County Engineer et al, 14 March 1984, Washington County Planning Commission Files, Hagerstown, Maryland. 7. William A. Cummins, Harry G. Bhatt and Edward A. Pelton, "Sanitary Landfill Location, Planning and Design Primer - Part 1", Public Works, (December, 1982) pp. 43-46. 8. Maryland State Department of Natural Resources, Rules and Regulations ninq Construction on Non -Tidal Waters and Floodplains, (August 11, 1978), - UU.UJ.V}.11 k. 9. Maryland Department of State Planning, Natural Soil Groups of Maryland, (December, 1973), p. 58. 10. Washington County Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan, (February 17, 1981), p. II -8. -61- Selected References Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland. Health -Environmental Article. Title 9 - Water, Ice and Sanitary Facilities. The Michie Company (1982). Baker-Wibberly & Associates, Inc. "1981 County Bridge Inspection Program". Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Maryland Hazardous Waste Management Program. "Siting Study Progress Report." September 1981. Burns, James and Karpinski, Gail. "Water Balance Method Estimates How Much Leachate Will Produce." Solid Wastes Management, August 1980, pp. 54-86. Cummins, William A., P.E., Bhatt, Harry G., P.E. and Pelton, Edward A. "Sanitary Landfill Location, Planning and Design Primer - Part 1." Public Works, December 1982, pp. 43-47. Hudson, James F. and Marks, David H. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Chapter 13: Routing and Siting. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1977. Institute for Solid Wastes, American Public Works Association, Education Foundation. "Students Manual Landfill Siting." July 1979. "Landfill Site Selection." Waste Age, June 1981, pp. 178-196. Martin, David A. and Kunes, Thomas P., P.E. "Involving Public Aids Landfill Siting Process." World Wastes, December 1983, pp. 19-31. Maryland Department of State Planning. Natural Soil Groups of Maryland. December 1973. Maryland Environmental Service and Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Maryland Hazardous Waste Management Program. "Final Report -Facility Site Inventory." November 1981. Niessen, Walter R. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Chapter 14: Estimation of Solid -Waste -Production Rates. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1977. Noble, George P.E. Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook. Connecticut: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Oliver -Gump & Associates, Inc. "Design Report for Resh Road Landfill, Washington County, Maryland." (1977). -62- Palesh, Cheryl M. "Landfill Siting Under Tight Guidelines." Solid Wastes Management, February 1982, pp. 78-80. Stone, Ralph. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Chapter 8: Sanitary Landfill. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1977. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. "Soil Survey Interpretations." 1977. U. S. Department of the Interior, Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey. Hydrogeology of the Formation and Neutralization of Acid Waters Draining from Underground Coal Mines of Western Maryland, by E. F. Hollyday and S. W. McKenzie. Report No. 20 (1973). U. S. Department of the Interior, Maryland Geological Survey. Geologic and Hydrologic Factors Bearing on Subsurface Storage of Liquid Wastes in Maryland, by Edmond G. Otton. Report of Investigations No. 14 (1970). U. S. Department of the Interior, Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey. Solid -Waste Disposal in the Geohydrologic Environment of Maryland, by Edmond G. Otton. Report of Investigations No. 18 (1972). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Investigation of Sanitary Landfill Behavior. (July 1979). Vol. 1 and 2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Significance of Size Reduction in Solid Waste Management. (August 1980). Vol. 2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Municipal Washington County Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan. February 17, 1981. -63-