DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT

Composting on Campus Report Prepared By: Bowling Green State University

Environmental Studies 4020: Environmental Impact Statements Instructor: Marco Nardone

Team Members:

Lin-z Tello

Ngan Nguyen

Rachel Woods

Magdeline Simonis

Taylor White

Ted Petryszyn

Project Coordinator:

Alyssa Piccolomini

April 2013

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.0 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 the Oaks Dining Hall ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Current Green Projects and Waste Dynamics at the Oaks ....................................................9

1.1.2 Project Clean Plate ............................................................................................................9

1.1.3 Recycling ............................................................................................................................9

1.1.4 Pre Consumer Recycling ................................................................................................... 10

1.1.5 Post-Consumer Waste ...................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Proposed Composting Site .............................................................................................................. 10

1.2.1 Geology .......................................................................................................................... 12

1.2.2 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 13

1.2.3 Climate/Precipitation .................................................................................................. 17

1.2.4 Flora .............................................................................................................................. 17

1.2.5 Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 17

1.2.6 History ........................................................................................................................... 18

1.2.7 Site Location and Proximity to other Buildings on Campus ...................................... 19

1.2.8 Building on landfill sites .............................................................................................. 20

2.0 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.1 No Action ............................................................................................................................................ 22

2.1.1 Description ................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.3 Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 23

2.2 Windrow ............................................................................................................................................. 23

2.2.1 Description ................................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Windrow Dimensions ................................................................................................... 23

2.2.3 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 25

2.2.4 Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 26

2.3 Orca ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

2.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................... 27

2.3.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 28

2.3.3 Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 29

2.4 In-Vessel ............................................................................................................................................. 29

2.4.1 Description ................................................................................................................... 29

2.4.3 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 30

2.4.2 Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 31

2.5 Shipping Method ............................................................................................................................... 31

2.5.1 Company Background .................................................................................................. 31

2.5.2 Cost ................................................................................................................................ 33

2.5.3 Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 34

2.5.4 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 34

3.0 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 35

3.1 Agencies Involved ............................................................................................................................. 35

3.1.1 Ohio EPA ........................................................................................................................ 35

3.1.2 Capital Planning ........................................................................................................... 36

3.2 Alternatives Selected ....................................................................................................................... 37

3.2.1 No Action ....................................................................................................................... 37

3.2.1.1 Description ................................................................................................................................................. 37

3.2.2 Windrow ....................................................................................................................... 37

3.2.2.1 Description ................................................................................................................................................. 37

3.2.2.2 Fauna ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

3.2.2.3 Earth Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 38

3.2.2.4 Atmosphere and Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 39

3.2.2.5 Land Qualities ............................................................................................................................................ 39

3.2.2.6 Impact Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 39

3.2.3 Orca ............................................................................................................................... 40

3.2.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................................................. 40

3.2.3.2 Physical Chemical Characteristics .................................................................................................... 41

3.2.3.3 Biological Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 41

3.2.3.4 Cultural Factors ........................................................................................................................................ 42

3.2.3.5 Ecological relationships ........................................................................................................................ 42

3.2.3.6 Impact Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 42

3.2.4 In-vessel ........................................................................................................................ 43

3.2.4.1 Description ................................................................................................................................................. 43

3.2.4.2 Land, plants, and animals ..................................................................................................................... 43

3.2.4.3 Cultural factors ......................................................................................................................................... 44

3.2.4.4 Water and air quality.............................................................................................................................. 44

3.2.4.5 Impact Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 44

3.2.5 Shipping ........................................................................................................................ 45

3.2.5.1 Description ................................................................................................................................................. 45

3.2.5.2 Atmosphere and Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 46

3.2.5.3 Employment ............................................................................................................................................... 46

3.2.5.4 Impact Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 46

3.2.6 Overall Impact Summary ............................................................................................. 47

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 48

4.1 Windrow ............................................................................................................................................. 48

4.2 Orca ..................................................................................................................................................... 49

4.3 In-Vessel ............................................................................................................................................. 49

4.4 Shipping .............................................................................................................................................. 50

4.5 No Action ............................................................................................................................................ 50

4.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 50

4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 52

A. Class II Composting Facility Requirements .......................................................................... 52

B. Composting Facility Registration Form Class II / Class III ..................................................... 60

C. Application Form ............................................................................................................... 64

D. Windrow Leopold Matrix ................................................................................................... 73

E. In-vessel Leopold Matrix.................................................................................................... 74

F. Orca Leopold Matrix .......................................................................................................... 75

G. Shipping Leopold Matrix .................................................................................................... 76

H. Adkins-Burke Checklist ...................................................................................................... 77

Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 79

Executive Summary

The Environmental Studies 4020 Course (Environmental Impact Statements) was asked

to research a potential project for the campus of Bowling Green State University. The focus of

this project was to create a composting proposition that could potentially help the University

move towards meeting its goal of becoming carbon-neutral (as stated by the President’s Climate

Commitment (PCC) that President Mazey signed in 2012).

With this guidance, our group decided upon four different alternatives for implementing

composting on campus: Windrow, Orca, In-vessel, shipping, and the no-action alternative. The

environmental impacts of the alternatives were found using an adapted Leopold Matrix.

To compare the alternatives, an adapted Adkins-Burke Checklist was created and

evaluated the alternatives based on the success in meeting the objective of the project, cost,

environmental impacts, safety, and community factors. Based on this comparison, alternative

four, the shipping alternative, would be the best short-term solution; and alternative three, In-

vessel, would be the best long-term solution to the problem. Alternative four has almost no legal

influences and it costs almost nothing for the University to adopt. Alternative three is most

costly, but it has a tremendous amount of positive effects on the community.

Therefore, we recommend the implementation of alternative four or alternative three

depending on the amount of funding that the University would be able to obtain to complete the

project.

4

Project Description

Since President Mazey signed the PCC in 2012, the Environmental Studies Department,

and various organizations at Bowling Green State University’s campus, have been looking for

ways to help the University move towards being carbon-neutral in the future. Because of this,

our group, along with Dr. Nick Hennessey of the Sustainability Department, and various

managers of Dining Services have introduced the possibility of implementing a composting

facility on campus. The cost of this project can be extremely high, but it can also offer the

University an array of benefits ranging from “green” awards to educational value. Because the

cost of composting machinery can be so expensive, our group, along with Dr. Hennessey, looked

into the possible alternative of having a company pick-up the Oak’s organic waste and shipping

it to their composting facility in Westerville, Ohio. If this were to be the alternative selected, the

University would lose out on a wider variety of educational demonstrations, materials produced

from the organic waste, and positive recognition. This document contains the various findings of

the different project alternatives along with specific information about the alternatives in regards

to cost, logistics, maintenance, and benefits compared to the challenges.

5

1.0 Environmental Setting

The environmental setting for this project varies according to site location. Potential sites

that have been analyzed for composting facilities include:

• An on-site location within The Oaks Dining Hall

• An off-site location that would be located next to the Campus Operations

building, on an area of land that is currently vacant (see Figure 1 below).

As The Oaks Dining Hall is a pre-existing building, we did not analyze the hydrology,

geology, flora/fauna, climate/precipitation, or history of the site. Instead, the building itself will

be described by analyzing its history, current green projects, and waste dynamics (focusing on

pre-consumer and post-consumer waste).

All dining and catering that is handled on campus is owned and operated by Chatwell’s,

Inc. Chartwell’s service is targeted towards schools K-12th grade, higher education (colleges),

and corporations. Their goal is to inform the consumer about healthier choices of foods and

provide these foods in a way that is inexpensive but also healthy for the consumer. In colleges

and elementary schools, there are programs set in place to help educate the kids and instructors

on a better diet. The major program is called, Eat.Learn.Live. This is geared towards providing

student with healthier foods, reaching out to them to ensure that they understand why eating

healthy is essential, and analyzing case studies to understand university trends in food

consumption. Along with providing food, Chartwell’s also provides service to the community

by incorporating their own staff into dining facilities to help monitor the way food is prepared

and served.

For the off-site location, several environmental aspects were analyzed in order to

establish an environmental baseline standard. The geology, hydrology, flora, fauna,

climate/precipitation, history, and site location/proximity to other buildings on campus were

analyzed in detail in order to identify the current conditions of the location. Furthermore, as the

site in question was once utilized as a landfill, research was conducted in order to identify any

concerns that might arise when constructing buildings/facilities on relict landfill sites.

6

Figure 1. Map of Bowling Green State University’s campus

http://www.bgsu.edu/images/bgsu/img23940t.jpg

1.1 the Oaks Dining Hall

The Oaks Dining Hall is a campus-wide dining facility that is located at approximately

41*22’42.56”N 83*38’31.26”W; on the corner of Pike Street and Thurstin Avenue in Bowling

Green, Ohio. The Oaks was built at the site of Macdonald dorms; Macdonald West was torn

down to make space for The Oaks dining center. There are approximately 18,000 students on

Bowling Green State University’s main campus and about 2,000 of those students visit The Oaks

on a daily basis (Bowling Green State University, 2013). The Oaks was constructed in 2010-

2011 and was opened in the fall of 2011. It is LEED Certified and can seat up to 700 guests at a

time.

Proposed composting site

The Oaks

7

Figure 2. Digital image of BGSU’s campus from 1943.

http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/cac/uarchives/uatour/page50290.html

Picture from 1943, green box highlights where Oaks is now

8

The Oaks has many sustainable features that help reduce the cost of energy consumption

and also helps to save the university money. One of these features is the Live-Roof. The green

roof has interlocking plant trays of Sedum that acts as a hardy ground cover and stays green

throughout the years. It has many benefits such as: little water use for maintenance (water used

is from rainwater retention system), repurposed deck from Douglas fir, reused barn siding, picnic

tables that are made from 100% recycled plastic bottles, lawn chairs that are made from 100%

recyclable resin, variety of vegetables and fruit plants, a solar powered water fountain, already

existing composting bin for organic materials, and it also reduced the indoor temperature 6-8

degrees in the summer and acts as an insulating layer in the winter months (Bowling Green State

University, 2013). Several other sustainable features are described in the following section.

1.1. Current Green Projects and Waste Dynamics at the Oaks

1.1.1 Project Clean Plate

Project Clean Plate is an event that takes place in both The Oaks and Carillon Dining

Halls two times a year. The first time is in late October/early November. The second time is in

late March/ early April. Project Clean plate is a Chartwells program that provides awareness to

international hunger and helps students focus globally and act locally to combat hunger, reduce

waste, save energy and initiate real change. It is designed to reduce overall food waste in all-you-

can-eat campus dining operations.

1.1.2 Recycling

The Oaks only participates in cardboard recycling because it has limited use of other

recyclable materials. The dining center consumes mostly fresh food that does not come from

plastic jugs and cans, so it does not have a need for other recycling programs.

9

1.1.3 Pre Consumer Recycling

Pre-consumer recycling is the process where the waste of manufacturing is recycled

before the final products get to the consumer. This type of recycling can be carried out in many

different industries. Many restaurants and diners, including universities’ dining hall have

successfully contributed to pre-consumer recycling. Dining halls are equipped with containers

for recyclable metals and plastics associated with food preparation, cooking, and/or baking, and

general trash disposal. Dishwashing areas usually contain compost-specific containers. Although

compost is typically used for post-consumer waste they also serve as receptacles for pre-

consumer foods that cannot be prepared due to expiration, or for food scraps generated in the

preparation process. Pre-consumer food scraps are contributed to an in-vessel composter.

1.1.4 Post-Consumer Waste

Post-consumer waste is the waste generated by the consumer. For example post-

consumer waste is the waste that gets thrown away after the consumer has received their items.

All of the food items that have not been consumed that gets thrown out are considered post-

consumer waste. This can include: fruit skins, meat bones and leftover food. Post-consumer

waste can also include non-food waste too. Such items like; coffee cups, utensils, napkins,

takeout containers, paper bags and food wrapping are all considered post-consumer waste. Also

recyclable items like newspaper, junk mail and aluminum cans are all classified as post-

consumer waste (PlentyMag.com, 2009).

1.2 Proposed Composting Site

The proposed off-site composting location consists of an L-shaped plot of land, located

South of Poe Road and between Park Avenue and Williard Road, shown in Figure 3 below. The

site is currently owned by Bowling Green State University, and the parcel number is B07-511-

190201002000. The site is comprised of 20.17 acres (Wood County Auditor Office, 2013).

10

Figure 3. Aerial view of proposed composting site

Green box indicates where the proposed composting site would be. The “L” shape indicates the end of the boundary line.

11

1.2.1 Geology

Figure 4.

The geology of Ohio consists of Permian, Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian,

Silurian and Ordovician geologic systems. Wood County, where Bowling Green State University

and the Oaks resides, consists of Silurian ground soil. The Silurian time era started 1.5 million

years ago and went until 500,000 years ago. Silurian ground soil is derived from the melting of

icecaps and glaciers. This contributed to a rise in sea level spreading out the sediments evenly.

12

1.2.2 Hydrology

The city of Bowling Green was a part of the Great Black Swamp, which was formed by

glacier. The swamp was built due to clay and silt material in the lake bed, causing water

difficulty to move through. The problem in Northwest Ohio generally is how to get rid of the

water, as the settlers spent years on turning the swamp into usable land. Around the city is a

system of ditches that is used to let the water flow away whenever it rains, but it is still a little

difficult because of the clay that is left in the soil. There are also some wetland areas left. The

limestone bedrock is effective in supplying water for many different uses. An analysis site

reveals a well capacity of 25 gpm, with the depth to the limestone bedrock is 22 feet. See table

for chemical constituents.

Examining the tech pond near the site, we find out that the limestone bedrock is very

close to the ground surface. The bedrock actually can be seen very clearly in the west side of the

pond. This means that the soil layer of the site can be very thin, and a small amount of water can

be stored underground. In case the groundwater is contaminated, the amount affected would not

be as much as other locations. It would also be easier to clean up.

Figure 5. Picture of Tech Pond facing West.

13

Figure 6. Picture of Limestone at the Tech Pond.

Figure 7. Historic map of the Great Black Swamp

http://blogs.bgsu.edu/blackswampjournal/2011/04/14/history-of-the-great-black-swamp/

14

Figure 8. Groundwater resource of Wood County

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0490_87.html

15

Table 1. Groundwater characteristic at well 3, Bowling Green, OH

Groundwater characteristics

Well Depth (feet) 235

Capacity (gpm) 25

Depth to bedrock (feet) 22

Water-Bearing Formation Limestone

Total dissolved solids 2240

Hardness 1760

Iron 3.1

Manganese 0.05

Chloride 18

Sulfate 1410

Fluoride 1.6

16

1.2.3 Climate/Precipitation

Bowling Green follows a steady trend for seasonal temperature averages. For example

according to weather data from The Weather Channel the average Winter temperature is 34 F°,

the average Spring temperature is 65 F°, the average Summer temperature is 84 F° and the

average Fall temperature is 63 F° (Weather, 2012). For precipitation Bowling Green on average

receives below 3 inches of rain in the Fall and Winter months. However, through the spring and

summer, Bowling Green receives between 3 - 4 inches of precipitation (Weather, 2012). Also on

average Bowling Green has around 101 precipitation days and 182 sunny days with a UV index

of 3.5. For humidity Bowling Green has an annual average of 76.10% and an annual average

wind speed of 13.18 mph (Best Places, 2010).

1.2.4 Flora

Of the dozens of various plant species that exist in Northwest Ohio, there are none

growing on the specific coordinates of where the proposed composting facility will be. There is

little vegetation growing on the site in question. What exists now is limited to crabgrass

(Digitaria sanguinalis), invasive thistle (Dipsacus fullonum), and various shrubs. The land is

maintained to be a grassy area as many organizations use that area as a practice field or for group

meetings. Any composting structure that is located on this site will not be large enough to affect

local flora and will most likely be structured in the middle of the old landfill site where only

crabgrass will be disturbed (Ohio, 2013).

1.2.5 Fauna

There are several animal species that will be affected by the creation of the composting

facilities on campus. It is known that many squirrels, rabbits, white-tailed deer, red tailed hawks,

skunks, other small mammals, and variety of small birds heavily populate the campus and

surrounding area of Bowling Green. The pond located next to the Technology Building has a

variety of reptiles and amphibians, as well as a few mammals and insects, but they would not be

close enough to the construction of the compost are to greatly be affected.

17

The area that is being proposed to build on is mostly populated by sparse vegetation and

therefore will not inhabit a large variety of critters. There are currently no threatened or

endangered species that are living in the area or that have ever been sited on Bowling Green

State University’s campus (ODNR, 2013).

1.2.6 History

A few of our chosen alternatives for this proposed project require a site that can be used

to house composting facilities. Land parcels that Bowling Green State University already owns

were considered for this project, in order to reduce expenses. In order to identify possible

locations that are not already in use and are not slated for future use, our team contacted the

University’s Capital Planning office and acquired a map, with possible composting sites

outlined. After considering a number of potential sites, our team concluded that the best option

consisted of a plot of land situated on-campus, next to the recycling plant, which is currently

vacant. The site in question is about 20 acres, and can be seen in the image below.

In order to gain further knowledge regarding the lot’s history, our team visited the Wood

County Auditor’s office in order to acquire the parcel number, and then tracked the ownership of

the particular lot by searching through files in the Wood County Recorder’s Office. The lot in

question was purchased by Bowling Green State University in 1974, from the City of Bowling

Green. The City had owned the land since 1930, when it purchased the land from a local

resident, Fred C. Moore. Prior to this time, Moore’s family had owned the land for at least 20

years, and had used the land for agricultural purposes. Moore filed a petition asking the city to

vacate the land, after it was acquired, so no houses or streets were created on the parcel, although

our records state that a landfill was created on the site at some point during the time that the City

of Bowling Green claimed ownership of the plot (Wood County Auditor Office, 2013).

According to the Bowling Green City Public Works Department, the city built a waste

water treatment plant on the site, which was in operation from 1944 to 1979. In 1974, the land

ownership was transferred to the University, and in 1979 the existing water treatment plant was

vacated, and a new one was built off-campus by the city. A hill and pond currently exist on this

site. The pond may be seen in Figure 7, labeled Tech Pond, and the adjacent area north of the

parking lot is where the hill is located. These features are remnants from a spoil field that was

18

created when the water treatment plant was demolished, and the uncapped site is classified as a

landfill. The landfill on the site contains dirt and pipes that were left over from the water

treatment plant (Bowling Green Public Works Department, 2013).

The University does not have any plans concerning the site at this time. While the

history of the site (having been a landfill) may pose some issues for our team, we felt that the

close proximity to other buildings on campus (including the recycling facility), as well as the

general size of the lot proved that it was the best option.

1.2.7 Site Location and Proximity to other Buildings on Campus

Figure 9.

The coordinates for the center of the available area are 41°22'59.45"N, 83°38'9.62"W.

This point was used for reference to nearby buildings and high traffic areas for students and staff.

The distances to these points were calculated using Google Earth, and are listed below.

● 142 meters to the closest on campus sidewalk on the western edge of parking lot

12.

● 167 meters to the Tech Pond (closest surface water source).

19

● 255 meters from both the Technology Building, (closest class building).

● 255 meters the nearest corner of the Marching Band Practice Field next to the

Perry Field House.

● 279 meters from the Wood County Airport Building.

● 486 meters from Falcon Heights (closest student dormitory).

1.2.8 Building on landfill sites

When building on a landfill there are many factors that need to be considered and

examined when determining if the former landfill is suitable for construction. Historically,

municipal landfills were no more than a “free for all” dumping site that would take in anything

from solid waste, junked cars and machinery all the way to toxic chemicals. These traditional

landfills lacked any sanitation regulations which would protect the surrounding environment

from pollution and physical hazards that were a direct result of the landfill. As landfills

progressed throughout time, more stringent rules were enacted so that potentially hazardous

issues could be avoided.

The first issue that deserves acknowledgement when building on a former landfill would

be settlement of the soil underneath the new structure. Settlement is a result of the weight of the

structure above the former landfill adding pressure to the landfill underneath. As a result the

landfill soil becomes compressed and any void space inside of the landfill, (example: a junk car’s

void space) would become compact and the structure would sink (McLaughlin, 1995).

Many landfills do not compress their waste and thus leave a void space filled with air that can be

compressed if there is a strong enough force adding pressure. Settlement can be as slight as a

crack in the foundation or as extreme as total building structure collapse. There are many ways to

mitigate settlement when building so that the structure is safe. The most common type for former

landfills would be to insert piles, similar to stakes in a tent (The Risk and Rewards.., 2005). The

steel piles act as props to keep the structure from settling at an accelerated rate and help to

position the new structure over the landfill to alleviate pressure. Between the steel piles a cement

base slab is positioned to help support the building. Possible settlement is unknown, much like a

home settling and thus a factor that should be considered when building any type of structure on

20

top of a former landfill and should be monitored for the first few years of construction and post

construction.

The second issue that warrants issue is referred to as “landfill gas” this is the result of

years of dumping unknown and known chemicals and mixing with the decomposition of solid

and liquid waste. Landfill gas consists of methane gas and carbon dioxide which is a byproduct

of the decomposition of solid waste (Last, 2006). These gasses in the open atmosphere warrant

no immediate health risk, yet in a confined structure can be an issue. A structure above a former

landfill site endures the chance of landfill gas infiltrating into the building and in higher levels in

a confined area can be toxic and methane near any form of ignition can explode which could

result in fatalities. This hazard would require the structure above the former landfill to have

excellent ventilation systems to keep the structure’s air quality pure, if in an enclosed area. In

addition, the carbon dioxide and methane levels should be monitored often, along with any other

toxic chemical that would enter the area’s atmosphere as a result. Yet in most cases, the older the

landfill site the lower the levels of landfill gas that are emitted but the precaution is still there.

Another hazard from landfill gas is the possibility of the foundation cracking because of the

pressure trying to escape the landfill site underneath, which can cause structural damage. This is

a minimal risk that should only be looked into if cracking is experienced.

Overall, building on former landfill sites is of no real concern. Land settlement is a

normal factor in all construction projects and should be anticipated when building on a former

landfill. The longer time between new structure construction and the close of the former dump

helps to lessen the amount of settling. Landfill gas also warrants little risk as long as preventative

measures are taken to decrease accumulation of the gasses in enclosed structures (McLaughlin,

1995).

21

2.0 Alternatives This section is an overview of the five alternatives proposed for the pre-consumer and

post-consumer organic waste produced by the Oaks Dinning hall, located on Bowling Green

State University campus. These alternatives are compiled of No Action (2.1), Windrow (2.2),

Orca (2.3), In-Vessel (2.4) and Shipping (2.5). Following the description of each alternative there

is a detailed description of the challenges and benefits of each selected alternative.

2.1 No Action

2.1.1 Description

Currently all compostable waste from the Oaks dining center is disposed as garbage,

which is collected by the company, Waste Management, Inc. The average daily waste at the

Oaks is 906.66 pounds per day, which costs the university about $14.96 per day (the price per

ton is $33.00). The university must also pay to haul the garbage to the landfill, which is $150 per

haul, and there are approximately 3 hauls per month, but the number of hauls changes with the

amount of garbage produced. Currently, this program is costing the University approximately

$860 dollars a month, and is not generating any revenue (Hennessy 2013).

2.1.2 Challenges

The university is paying money to haul away the compostable garbage to the landfill,

with little benefit. Sending compostable material to the landfill causes the organic material to

decompose in the absence of oxygen, which emits methane, in some ways more detrimental

greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Organic material that is composted and which decomposes

in an aerobic environment does not release methane (CUESA 2013). Furthermore, a methane

collection and burning facility to generate electricity from the landfill in Bowling Green, Ohio

does not currently exist, thus causing any methane currently produced in the landfill to serve as

only a detriment to society, with no gain (WCSWMD 2013).

22

2.1.3 Benefits

The amount of waste that is produced is being immediately removed from the facility.

The university/facility is only responsible for the waste for a short period of time until the

container needs to be emptied, and then it becomes the responsibility of the landfill. The waste

container is small enough to be kept on site, and no other site construction needs to be taken into

consideration.

2.2 Windrow

2.2.1 Description

Windrow composting consists of placing the mixture of raw materials in long narrow

piles, called windrow, that are turned on a regular basis. Windrow composting requires a very

tight schedule of rotating the compost, due to the fact that Windrow’s piles aerate primarily by

natural or passive air movement. Windrow requires a lot of oxygen to ensure aerobic

decomposition (Large Scale Composting, n.d). Temperature is another factor that influences

Windrow composting. The temperature should reach 131 degrees Fahrenheit in order for

pathological reductions to occur. If the temperature is allowed to go above that range, the

microorganisms begin to die, slowing the composting process. However, if the temperature is

lower than this range, aerobic decomposition slows (College Guide, n.d).

2.2.2 Windrow Dimensions

Windrow composting at Bowling Green would consist of three rows. Each row would be

60 feet in length and 10 feet in width, and the height would be about 4 feet. Shown below (in

Figure 10) are the exact measurements of the proposed Windrow compost row for Bowling

Green State University's campus. The equipment needed for this first alternative consists of a

bulldozer or multiple compost Windrow turners. An access road off of Park Avenue in Bowling

Green can serve as a transportation road for a compost turner or a bulldozer (College Guide, n.d).

The dimension of the Windrow compost and the 10 feet space in between each row for easier

turner/bulldozer accessibility is demonstrated below in Figure 11. Finally, Figure 12 shows an

23

aerial view of the compost pile, if this alternative was chosen and created, and Figure 13 shows

where the facility site will be located in relation to the rest of campus (Jerome Library is pictured

in the center).

Figure 10. Alternative 2. Dimensions of Windrow Compost in Bowling Green

Figure 11. Dimensions of 3 Windrow rows on Bowling Green’s property

24

Figure 12. Future Windrow location on Bowling Green’s Campus

2.2.3 Challenges

Windrow composting is pressed with many issues concerning the environment,

economics and social obligations of everyday life. To begin with, Windrow requires workers

and/or volunteers to turn the compost every 3 days (College Guide, n.d). If a compost turner

machine is used, it will cost on average from $30,000 to $130,000 to purchase the machine

(Composting Equipment, 2013). One effect of the turning of the piles is the exhaust emission by

the compost turners. Every time that they are used harmful exhaust will be released into the

atmosphere unless the compost turners can run on a cleaner burning fuel. Also, Windrow

requires a lot of land for composting, and it attracts a variety of scavengers and produces odors.

As a consequence of these issues, Windrow requires large buffer zones in order to prevent odors

25

or vermin from negatively impacting local residents. Finally, permits are required depending on

the size of the facility.

Figure 13. Landfill site facing East.

Windrow compost requires a "turn-over" maintenance, which can be done manually or

with a bulldozer. Since this is a former landfill site, there is always a chance of land subsidence,

which is the act of the land sinking in elevation due to added pressure on top of the site. Since it

is almost impossible to determine if the site has already compacted over the years, it must be

noted that there is always a risk of subsidence or land compaction due to the constant pressure of

bulldozers and trucks that will be required to transfer the compost to and from the location

(Pierce 2010). The subsidence will be unnoticeable over short periods of time and thus,

negligible, yet must still be factored in as an added risk when constructing at this location.

26

2.2.4 Benefits

Windrow can handle a large volume of material, has a low capital cost and uses less

equipment and maintenance than many other composting methods. It also can reduce the

amount of waste to be disposed. Construction of a Windrow Compost pile on the selected landfill

parcel will require little to no maintenance and/or alterations to the landfill site, which will result

in virtually no construction associated challenges. The Windrow compost will be organized into

three rows and placed on top of the former landfill. The former landfill site is 20.17 acres (stated

in section 1.2), which is roughly 878,605.2 square feet of flat area to construct upon. The

proposed three Windrow rows and buffer zones will require a surface area of 80 feet by 70 feet,

which will only utilize 0.64% of the entire landfill location (see Figure 13). The remaining space

will allow for future windrow piles, if necessary, due to an increase in compostable materials

from the campus, in the case that campus dining may choose to create compost from other

facilities in addition to The Oaks at some point. An added benefit from construction on this

proposed landfill site is that the hill is already flattened on top where the piles would be located.

This ensures that there will be no future problems associated with flooding, as this area is already

elevated. It should also be noted that there is no reason to have a cement separation between the

landfill site grass and the Windrow piles themselves.

2.3 Orca

2.3.1 Description

Orca (Organic Refuse Conversion Alternative) is an alternative to conventional

composting facilities. Orca is a bioreactor system that reduces organic waste to water within 24

hours. Environmentally friendly microorganisms break down the organic materials in an aerobic

environment ("Orca," 2010). Orca is capable of composting 2400 pounds of waste each day.

Burgis Envirolutions has machines available in 400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, and 2400-pound

capability increments ("Orca food waste," n.d.). Considering the current waste production of the

Oaks dining center (906.66 pounds per day), the 1200-pound capable machine would be the best

choice (see Figure 14 below for further information regarding the 1200 pound capacity machine).

27

Figure 14. Specifications for the Orca system, based on a unit that can decompose up to

1200 pounds of waste daily ("Orca food waste," n.d.).

The ORCA Green waste disposal system works using “bio-chips” which house the

microorganisms used to break down the organic waste. The “bio-chips” are similar in

appearance to charcoal, but degrade much slower than food-waste, so they house the

microorganisms between uses. The machine operates on a fully automated schedule, and remains

on at all times. The machine mists water regularly onto the material, and then agitates the

mixture for a brief period. After the mixture has been agitated, the machine allows it to sit and

the microorganisms decompose the material. The waste inside is fully reduced within 24 hours.

The machine can decompose vegetables, fish by-products (including the meat and bones), meat

(poultry, beef, etc.), rice, noodles, bread, and fruit. The machine is silent and odor-free because

the food is not allowed to sit and develop an odor. The resulting compost water may be used for

irrigation, compost tea, or non-potable plumbing ("Orca food waste," n.d.).

28

2.3.2 Challenges

The Orca system is fairly expensive, as the cost ranges from $23,000 - $60,000 dollars,

depending on the size of the unit ("Orca," 2010).

Typical water usage for a 1200-pound capacity Orca system is around 150 gallons per

day, which may increase the net water usage for the Dining Center. However, much of this

water usage is counteracted by the water that Orca produces, which is then recirculated back into

the system. Also, the system emits a trace amount of carbon dioxide along with the water that is

produced. Finally, Orca also uses a power of 0.7 kW which, if it runs continuously, would use

600 kWh/month, amounting to about $60/month in electrical costs ("Orca food waste," n.d.).

2.3.3 Benefits

The Orca composter uses low temperature aerobic composting, eliminating odors while

running silently. Also, a general benefit of composting is a reduction in methane (a by-product

of conventionally disposing waste) and lower fuel emissions from transporting waste. Since

water (and a trace amount of carbon dioxide) is the main by-product, Orca also reduces insect

and rodent problems as compared to conventional waste disposal alternatives. Furthermore, the

water produced can be used as a fertilizer, reducing landscaping costs, and possibly generating

revenue for the University ("Orca," 2010).

2.4 In-Vessel

2.4.1 Description

In-vessel composting is a process in which all materials are kept in a container to produce

compost in certain conditions of moisture, oxygen concentration, airflow, and temperature (up to

70 degrees). There are two types of In-vessel composting: aerobic, which includes the presence

of oxygen; and anaerobic, in which oxygen is absent (Aslam, 2007). Depending on the size of

the vessel, the system can treat anywhere between 365 tons and 20,000 tons of organic waste per

year. A medium size vessel (approximately 5x30 feet) can process 1000 to 3000 lbs. of food

29

each day (Aslam 2007). After about 2 weeks of active composting in the vessel, and a month of

curing, the result is a mixture of organic matter, water, and microorganisms (“Technology Fact

Sheet,” 2012). Figure 15 (below) shows a rough outline of the components that would involve

an In-vessel machine.

Figure 15. Example of In-vessel components

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/WFdev_OWTFtech.html

2.4.3 Challenges

To operate and maintain In-vessel composting, some expenses and skills are required. An

In-vessel system can cost $25,000 to $50,000, plus $30 to $50 for operation and maintenance for

each ton of material treated (“Technology Fact Sheet,” 2012). A significant amount of

ventilation is required, while it is also necessary to turn the compost (Evans, 2011.). At the end,

sometimes windrows are still needed to cure the products after In-vessel. The size of the vessel

can limit its capacity. Also, the system can be closed when odor problems occur if poorly

managed.

30

The In-vessel system is an enclosed container that will be located on the previously

proposed landfill site. Weight will be an issue when determining if land settlement will occur.

As stated previously (Windrow section 2.2.3), a compost site on this location would result in an

undetermined amount of settlement, which on a long-term scale, can be an issue. In-vessel

would require a platform made of cement or a similar material to act as a foundation for the

structure. This foundation would also need to be fixed into the ground by piles to help structure

the foundation (Kerkes, 1995). Also, even though it is not required, a possible lab/house may be

constructed next to the In-vessel for laboratory related issues concerning the composted materials.

In addition to constructing a “laboratory”, a road leading up to the In-vessel would be needed

that could support any machine used to transport compost. This would only increase settlement

of the location slightly and is not a large factor in the construction of the facility. Overall, In-

vessel construction on the former landfill site would not require any special constructional needs

that would cause serious problems.

2.4.2 Benefits

In-vessel composting does not require a large amount of land area. Since it takes place in

an enclosed container, it is also less affected by the weather and has less impact on the

surrounding environment. Using In-vessel composting will reduce the amount of organic waste

that would normally be transported to the landfill. Compared to other types of composting

methods, In-vessel releases a very low amount greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide,

nitrous oxide and especially methane. The product of In-vessel composting can be used as a

kind of fertilizer, which can prevent soil erosion, increase soil’s ability to hold water and

nutrients, and add organic matters to reduce the use of chemical fertilizer (Aslam, 2007). The

compost that will be created from this system could be used in the landscaping on campus. This

will allow the University to save money on mulch and fertilizer each year.

31

2.5 Shipping Method

2.5.1 Company Background

The company that will be collecting and processing all organic waste is Viridiun, LLC.

In collaboration with Ohio Mulch, Viridiun operates a completely chemical-free, turnkey process

all of which takes place in Ohio; they convert waste into tangible and marketable products –

enriched soil and nutrient-rich mulch. The company is based out of Westerville, OH; this is

where all waste will be transported to on a weekly basis. Viridiun collaborates with many

different states along with Ohio, but Ohio compost is handled in a specific way. In Ohio,

Viridiun does not make their own products out of the compost, instead, they ship it to Ohio

Mulch where they make the product: Green Envy (Abrams, 2013).

Green Envy is 100% organic compost that can be used to help enrich indoor and outdoor

plants (2). It is sold at all Ohio Mulch retailers. Ohio mulch doesn’t just sell organic mulch,

they also provide a variety of other substances such as: gardening tools, grass seed and straw,

mulches, seed products, and stone and pavers.

Figure 16. Map of Ohio, highlighting where the composting facility is located in relation to

Bowling Green, OH.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/USA/ohio_map.htm

32

2.5.2 Cost

Roughly 2 tons a month will be diverted by composting 4-64 gallon containers on a

weekly basis, these containers will be provided by Viridiun. Cost of compost program: $140.00

per month if serviced 1x per week. Approximately 2 tons x $33.00 (Landfill tonnage fees):

$66.00 (Landfill Tonnage Fees). Hauls will be reduced and spread out as well. Every 2 months,

hauls to the landfill would be reduced by one. This would result in a savings of roughly

$75.00/Month. $141.00 plus fuel and environment fees would be the cost to landfill. This

essentially makes the compost program cost neutral and as the program grows and more weight

is diverted, Bowling Green will see a savings on the landfill fees.

The following terms and conditions apply:

• Viridiun will provide time/date stamp of each service along with weights for each

pick up. These reports will be generated weekly.

• If liners are to be utilized, All compostable bags must be purchased through Ohio

Mulch at their current pricing (Currently .99 per bag).

• Viridiun to participate in the training of employees to help ensure proper

execution of service

• Service start date to be jointly developed between Bowling Green and Viridiun

• Contamination: In the event that contamination is found in the waste material

during a service or during tipping, the service fee for that event will be applied.

In addition, Bowling Green agrees to pay all expenses incurred to dispose of

contamination to include but not limited to transportation, tipping fees, and

landfill fees.

• Containers: Bins will be provided per the pricing structure above.

• In the event that the volume per location exceeds the projected volume capacity

and additional bins are requested, then additional fees apply.

• Payment terms: Net 30 days

• In the case of bin damage or excessive wear, beyond normal use, then bin

replacement and or repair costs will be charged.

33

• Organic material is defined as food waste, vegetable, fruit and bakery material

and all compostable material (Hennessy, 2013).

2.5.3 Benefits

Using Viridiun as a source to ship out compostable material will not require any more

funding than is already available. The University would be essentially breaking even when

paying Viridiun to haul off materials and also sending other wastes to the landfill. Compared to

the Windrow, ORCA, and In-vessel alternatives, shipping off the materials would be the most

cost-effective.

While the University would not be seeing any of the product turned over to us, it is still

generating revenue for the company of Ohio Mulch and is decreasing the amount of waste

hauled off to a landfill each month, therefore producing less methane.

2.5.4 Challenges

Viridiun only has one composting facility in Ohio, and that is located in Westerville, OH,

approximately 120 miles away (see Figure 7). The movement of material would not exactly be

the most environmentally friendly way to dispose of the University's organic waste, but Viridiun

does convert the material into a reusable, organic fertilizer when done. After the compost

reaches maturity, Viridiun turns over the facility to Ohio Mulch. Ohio Mulch then uses worms

to decompose the organic materials and finally uses the castings to make a 100% organic

fertilizers called Green Envy (Abrams, 2013).

34

3.0 Impact Assessment

The Leopold Matrix uses a scale of -10 to +10 to measure the potential magnitude of

impacts from a proposed project. The matrix also measures the significance of an impact on a

scale from 0 to 10, with ten being the most significant. The matrix is comprised of a grid of

possible project actions along the horizontal axis and environmental factors along the vertical

axis. An impact that receives a high magnitude means that the impact will be pertinent, but the

significance scale will determine if the impact will have monumental effects on the area being

surveyed. In order to assess the impacts of this proposal efficiently, our group decided to add

only the values of the matrix that had a number not equal to zero in our Leopold Matrix. We

only included impacts that had a value greater than zero in this document. The full matrix for

each alternative can be found in Appendix D-G.

3.1 Agencies Involved

3.1.1 Ohio EPA

Ohio law defines composting as a method of solid waste disposal using controlled

biological decomposition. As such, composting is regulated by the Division of Materials and

Waste Management. The Ohio EPA classifies compostable material into four different class

groups. They are as follows:

● Class I – mixed solid waste ● Class II – source-separated yard waste, agricultural waste, animal waste, and food

scraps ● Class III – source-separated yard waste, agricultural waste, and animal waste ● Class IV – source separated yard waste

All Class II and Class III solid waste and composting facilities must register with Ohio

EPA in accordance with Section 3734.02 of the Ohio Revised Code and Chapters 3745-27-40 to

3745-27-47 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). Acceptable additives and bulking agents

for Class II composting facilities include: wood chips, straw, sawdust, shredded brush, shredded

newspaper, shredded cardboard, stover, biodegradable containers, urea, rice hulls, earthworms,

bacterial/fungal inoculum, and sterilized, dried and crushed egg shells. A complete list of the

35

types of materials that can be added are listed on pages 1 and 2 of Appendix A (Types A-E).

Class II composting facilities must also use a combination of the following methods: Windrow,

In-vessel, or aerated static pile. Other facilities may be used, but they must be first approved by

the director of the Ohio EPA. For a complete list of rules and regulations the Ohio EPA has

created a Guidance Document. The complete list can be found in Appendix A.

The Ohio EPA also requires a license to operate a composting facility and therefore

charges an annual fee in which the price depends on the amount of tonnage. The university will

have to submit a Registration Form which can be found attached to this document in Appendix B

and the Application Form is attached as Appendix C. Since the campus will not generate more

than 12 tons on a daily level, the university will be charged only 300 dollars per year.

3.1.2 Capital Planning

The Office of Capital Planning serves the Bowling Green State University community by

planning and managing funding for new construction and renovation projects on campus. The

goal of the office of Capital Planning is to provide oversight and administration of Local and

State funding provided for construction and renovation projects that benefit the University as a

whole. The Capital Planning office also manages space, classroom upgrades, property, and small

improvement projects. Additional responsibilities include long-range planning and building

project program development. Capital Planning will be responsible for hiring the contracting

company to build the composting stations and the will oversee the project from start to finish.

In order to receive funding for the project, a write up of costs would have to be submitted

to the council on the Capital Planning Board. The office of Design and Construction has a list of

forms that can be accessed for any construction proposal and they can be found on Bowling

Green State University’s website.

3.1.3 City of Bowling Green Public Works

Since the university is located in the city of Bowling Green, it would be wise to contact

them about any construction on the proposed composting site for the Windrow and In-vessel

alternatives. According to the city of Bowling Green Public Works, the site proposed used to be

36

an area of a water treatment facility. After that as demolished, the city put in a temporary landfill

on the site. There are some specific rules and regulations associated with building on landfills,

and the department of Public Works will be responsible for determining if the proposed

alternatives can be built on the proposed site in compliance with the Ohio EPA rules and

regulations.

3.2 Alternatives Selected

3.2.1 No Action

3.2.1.1 Description

Currently all compostable waste from the Oaks dining center is disposed as garbage,

which is collected by the company, Waste Management, Inc. The average amount of daily waste

costs the university about $14.96 per day to dispose of the waste in the landfill on top of a

hauling fee which is $150 per haul. There are approximately 3 hauls per month, but the number

of hauls changes with the amount of garbage produced. Currently, this program is costing the

University approximately $860 dollars a month, and is not generating any revenue (Hennessy

2013). The disposal of compostable food waste in the landfill setting negatively affects air

quality because it produces methane. It also negatively affects food chains and increases pest

fauna populations because it attracts insects, mammals, and birds.

This No Action alternative functions as a baseline that the following alternatives will be

compared to, in order to identify both the positive and negative impacts associate the following

alternatives.

3.2.2 Windrow

3.2.2.1 Description

Windrow composting consists of placing the mixture of raw materials in long narrow

piles, called windrow, that are turned on a regular basis. Windrow composting requires a very

tight schedule of rotating the compost, due to the fact that windrows aerate primarily by natural

or passive air movement. Windrow requires a lot of oxygen to ensure aerobic decomposition

37

(Large Scale Composting, n.d). Temperature is another factor that influences windrow

composting. The temperature should reach 131 degrees Fahrenheit in order for pathological

reductions to occur. If the temperature is allowed to go above that range, the microorganisms

begin to die, slowing the composting process. However, if the temperature is lower than this

range, aerobic decomposition slows (College Guide, n.d).

3.2.2.2 Fauna

The four alternatives all have very high, negative impacts for the fauna at the site. In

general, all the alternatives will take away parts of surface land. In the Leopold matrix we

ranked fauna in the high negatives (-8,-9) with a significance ranging from (4-10). The windrow

material will take up an area of about 5,600 ft. So some important habitats for local species as

well as other animals, including micro-fauna would be negatively affected. Adding the windrow

compost will also attract different fauna such as raccoons, possums and coyotes. The waste

emplacement and emplacement of tailings, spoils and overburdens for fauna were also ranked

very negatively containing fauna. If the windrow piles cannot contain all the excess waste, it

would negatively affect the surrounding fauna. For example, animals would not have as much

space to run, and there would be less open land for birds to land on.

3.2.2.3 Earth Characteristics

The earth characteristics contain three sections. Construction materials, soils and

landforms are all a concern. Impacting soil in any environment can cause a significant impact.

Soil is important for the health of the flora and fauna in any wilderness area. A change in the soil

of our location could have impact on habitats, ground cover, roads and trails, emplacement of

tailings, spoils and overburden. Due to this soil has been assigned a high significance compared

to other environmental factors. The use of the windrow compost will also have a slight negative

effect due to roads and trails. In order for the windrow turner and bulldozer to reach the windrow

compost there will need to be a road created for them to drive up. This would affect the earth

characteristic because it would create a non-pervious road.

38

3.2.2.4 Atmosphere and Air Quality

Since the Windrow piles are to be placed on a landfill site, the release of methane into the

atmosphere from the landfill will be inevitable. Also if Windrow is the chosen alternative the use

of Windrow turners will release exhaust emissions into the atmosphere. Unless the compost

turner machines run off a clean burning fuel or an alternative energy source, diesel combustion

emissions will be released. Also the use of large dump trucks to pick up and or move the

compost will release pollutants into the atmosphere from their exhaust. The release of such

pollutants negatively will affect the surrounding habitat and environment.

3.2.2.5 Land Qualities

With the addition of window compost piles, there will be some effects on the surrounding

land qualities. Currently the proposed site is completely bare and resembles a flat field. The

addition of three Windrow compost piles, Windrow turner machines and the surrounding fences

will add an industrial image to the land site. In order for the Windrow alternative to be put into

effect some wilderness qualities on the land site will have to be negatively affected. For example

the public would much rather want to see an open field than a fenced in area with three piles of

compost.

3.2.2.6 Impact Summary

In order to assess the impact of the Windrow alternative, a Leopold matrix was created

(found in appendix). Found below are the four categories in which we separated the impacts

from a value of high significance to low significance.

The high negative impacts that deal with Windrow are:

• Habitat displacement • Pest attraction • Predator attraction • Poor air quality due to turning machine exhaust • Attraction of insects • Operational Accidents

39

The medium negative impacts that are a result from Windrow are:

• Odors and emissions from waste • Open field loss • Negative image • Weeds

The low negative impacts that are a result from Windrow are:

• Non-previous access roads • Possibility of leaching to surface or groundwater • Local flora removed • Additional infrastructure built

The positive impacts that are result from Windrow are:

• Use less landfill space • Positive image for Bowling Green State University • Ability to take on more compost at once • Recycle nutrients back to the earth • Increase soil productivity

3.2.3 Orca

3.2.3.1 Description

Orca (Organic Refuse Conversion Alternative) is an alternative to conventional

composting facilities. Orca is a bioreactor system that reduces organic waste to water within 24

hours. The organic materials are broken down by environmentally friendly microorganisms in

an aerobic environment ("Orca," 2010). With the current waste production from The Oaks

Dining Center of over nine hundred pounds per day, the Orca would be a qualified candidate for

this type of large scale waste production.

The ORCA Green waste disposal system works using “bio-chips” which house the micro-

organisms used to break down the organic waste. The “bio-chips” are similar in appearance to

charcoal, but degrade much slower than food-waste, so they house the microorganisms between

uses. The machine operates on a fully-automated schedule, and remains on at all times. The

machine mists water regularly onto the material, and then agitates the mixture for a brief period.

After the mixture has been agitated, the machine allows it to sit and the microorganisms

40

decompose the material. The waste inside is fully reduced within 24 hours. The machine can

decompose vegetables, fish by-products (including the meat and bones), meat (poultry, beef,

etc.), rice, noodles, bread, and fruit. The machine is silent and odor-free because the food is not

allowed to sit and develop an odor. The resulting compost water may be used for irrigation,

compost tea, or non-potable plumbing ("Orca food waste," n.d.).

After completing and analyzing a Leopold matrix for this alternative, our team identified

the following impacts.

3.2.3.2 Physical Chemical Characteristics

The Orca system impacts the physical and chemical characteristics on a very small scale,

this is because the Orca system is not located on the selected landfill site it is actually located

inside the Oaks Dining hall adjacent to the other waste disposal facilities in the dining hall. The

orca system will require pipelines connected to the current drainage system or to a separate

drainage system, which could require some underground construction. This will require some

construction but very minimal, which results in low magnitudes and significance values for

construction materials and soil. The Orca system emits a very small amount of carbon dioxide

gas which would require the Orca to be in a well-ventilated area. The gas emissions will also add

to the greenhouse gas emissions, this is why it is ranked very high.

3.2.3.3 Biological Conditions

When concerned with the impacts that the Orca system could have on biological factors,

our team found that insects were of most concern. Due to the location of the Orca, there is

minimal chance of this impacting the flora and fauna in any noticeable way. Since Orca is an

enclosed system inside of a building there is little chance of this attracting any wildlife.

Unfortunately when the Orca system is processing the waste, it can only contain a finite amount

of waste until the process is finished. It is likely that any pre-consumer and post-consumer waste

that is awaiting processing will require a storage bin that could possibly attract insects in the

building. This obviously would have a negative impact and would require some mitigation to

prevent this issue.

41

3.2.3.4 Cultural Factors

Our team found that installing Orca would have a mild negative impact on cultural

patterns and lifestyle, since workers within the Oaks dining facility would have to undergo new

training procedures in order to learn how to sort out compostable items to place into the new

Orca compactor. Also, health and safety would be negatively impacted to a degree, in the case

of an operational failure or if the machine was placed over capacity, as workers may come in

contact with effluent or waste if the machine broke down or exceeded its capacity. Furthermore,

we found that structures and utility networks would encounter somewhat of a negative impact if

the Orca processor were to break or if the machine went over capacity, as waste may leak into

the surrounding habitat.

3.2.3.5 Ecological relationships

In the case of operational failure, our team found that eutrophication could possibly

occur, resulting in a negative impact. However, this impact would have little significance due to

the relatively small size and capacity of the Orca processor. Finally, operational failure or over-

filling the machine could increase the number of disease and insect vectors in the vicinity (as the

waste would serve as a potential habitat for disease/insect vectors), resulting in a mild negative

impact.

3.2.3.6 Impact Summary

Our team found that the Orca alternative would have the potential to cause a few

significant impacts. We found that severe consequences of installing Orca could occur in the

case of:

• Operational failure • Emplacement of tailings, spoils, and overburden

These were found to be the most significant impacts because Orca has a finite storage

capacity, and if the machine was not able to process waste or if too much waste was placed into

the processor, several negative outcomes could occur.

A few minor negative impacts associated with the Orca alternative include:

42

• Creation of pipelines for drainage, which may disrupt the local environment • A small amount of carbon dioxide emissions • Potential to increase number of insects/pests near the Orca processor • Crew members at The Oaks would need to learn new procedures associated with the

installation and use of the machine

Despite Orca’s expensive price, compared to the “No Action” approach, there a many

benefits that in comparison make the price appear minuscule. The water produced by Orca could

be used:

• For landscaping practices • To create a Grey-water system for plumbing in building at the University • To create a revenue for the campus buy selling the water for multipurpose

Overall, with the vast amount of benefits that would ideally pay for the initial cost of

Orca system and to run the system. Orca would save the University thousands of dollars every

year, which the University would normally use for potable water, on plumbing and landscaping.

The benefits from using Orca would outweigh the minor negative effect from running the

system.

3.2.4 In-vessel

3.2.4.1 Description

In-vessel composting is a process in which all materials are kept in a container to produce

compost in certain conditions of moisture, oxygen concentration, airflow, and temperature (up to

70 degrees). There are two types of In-vessel composting: aerobic, which includes the presence

of oxygen; and anaerobic, in which oxygen is absent (Aslam, 2007). Depending on the size of

the vessel, the system can treat anywhere between 365 tons and 20,000 tons of organic waste per

year. The result is a mixture of organic matter, water, and microorganisms (“Technology Fact

Sheet,” 2012).

3.2.4.2. Land, plants, and animals

The presence of the vessel on the site may disturb the land; the construction materials and

the topsoil will be altered. Though only in a small scale, the construction will also take away

some habitat of plants, birds, land animals and insects. On the other hand, it may increase their

populations at the same times since they are attracted to the composting materials.

43

3.2.4.3. Cultural factors

The utility network will need to be applied in the area due to the huge amount of energy

required to run the system. Transportation network and other structures may also need to be

expanded. There may be some noise from the construction when the system is being installed,

but not significant since there is no residential community around the site.

3.2.4.4. Water and air quality

If roads and trails are to be built for transportation, dust will be released, causing air and

water quality problems. Compared to other types of composting methods, In-vessel releases a

very low amount greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrous oxide and especially

methane. However, the most important impact the system can have is the leaking of odor,

methane and carbon dioxide from inside the vessel, in case of operation failure. This can

significantly increase the amount of insects and microorganisms that are attracted to the

composting materials. Eventually this may lead to health and safety issue for people.

3.2.4.5. Impact Summary

The positive impacts of the project will be the increase of employment that needed to

work on the project, such as on transportation an especially on installation and maintenance.

Also, the land will actually be useful instead of its current conditions which is just a piece of

unused land. A composting system on campus can be a great opportunity to educate students and

give them a closer look at composting technology and green initiatives. Overall, the negative

impacts of In-vessel composting system on the environment are not too significant and can be

reduced once the project is well managed. The main actions that can have impacts on the

environment are:

• Modification of the land surface when the system is set up • Roads and rails for transportation • Energy required to run the system • Waste treatment • Operation failure

The high negative impacts are:

• Construction material, soil and landform

44

• Birds, land animals, insects, and microorganisms • Health and safety issues • Compaction and settling processes

The medium negative impacts are:

• Air quality • Precipitation process • Utility network

The low negative impacts are:

• Wilderness and open-space quality • Trees and grass • Water quality • Transportation network • Cultural patterns

Positive impacts are:

• Employment • Education • Land use

3.2.5. Shipping

3.2.5.1 Description

The company that will be collecting and processing all organic waste is Viridiun, LLC.

In collaboration with Ohio Mulch, Viridiun operates a completely chemical-free, turnkey process

all of which takes place in Ohio; they convert waste into tangible and marketable products –

enriched soil and nutrient-rich mulch. The company is based out of Westerville, OH; this is

where all waste will be transported to on a weekly basis. Viridiun collaborates with many

different states along with Ohio, but Ohio compost is handled in a specific way. In Ohio,

Viridiun does not make their own products out of the compost; instead, they ship it to Ohio

Mulch where they make the product: Green Envy (Abrams, 2013).

Green Envy is 100% organic compost that can be used to help enrich indoor and outdoor

plants (2). It is sold at all Ohio Mulch retailers. Ohio mulch doesn’t just sell organic mulch;

45

they also provide a variety of other substances such as: gardening tools, grass seed and straw,

mulches, seed products, and stone and pavers.

Roughly 2 tons a month will be diverted by composting 4-64 Gallon containers on a

weekly basis. These containers will be provided by Viridiun. Cost of compost program:

$140.00 per month if serviced 1x per week. Approximately 2 tons x $33.00 (Landfill tonnage

fees): $66.00 (Landfill Tonnage Fees). Hauls will be reduced and spread out as well. Every 2

months, Hauls would be reduced by 1. This will result in a savings of roughly $75.00/Mth.

$141.00 plus fuel and environment fees would be the cost to landfill. Essentially, the cost of the

compost program would be cost neutral and as the program grows and more weight is diverted,

Bowling Green will see a savings on the landfill fees.

3.2.5.2 Atmosphere and Air Quality

If the shipping alternative is chosen this means that there will be an negative effect on the

surrounding air quality. In order for the waste to be transported to a facility, it must be shipped in

large trucks. These large trucks produce lots of exhaust which releases CO2 into the atmosphere

thus negatively affecting air quality. This alternative compared to the other proposed ones will

inevitably produce more CO2 emissions because the transport trucks will constantly be shipping

the waste to Viridium in Westerville, Ohio.

3.2.5.3 Employment

The shipping alternative will have a positive effect on employment. As mentioned

previously, The Oaks does produce a lot of food waste. This alternative will support an Ohio

business and therefore, have a positive impact on employment.

3.2.5.4 Impact Summary

In order to assess the impact of the Windrow alternative, a Leopold matrix was created

(found in appendix). Found below are the four categories in which we separated the impacts

from high significance to low significance.

The negative impacts that deal with Shipping are:

46

• Methane and CO2 emissions from trucks traveling • Possibility machinery failure (trucks break down)

The positive impacts that are result from Shipping are:

• No effect to locals- No smell, no inconvenience • Costs less than Windrow and In Vessel

3.2.6 Overall Impact Summary

In general, the selected alternatives each have different impact potentials on the

surrounding area. Each alternative affects the environment in different ways. The windrow and

in-vessel alternatives both have similar impacts on the environment due to the fact that the

methods require either an open or closed pit area to store food waste which is then rotated and

turned into compost. The construction of the facility to store these alternatives has a negative

impact on the area. Also, since windrow occurs in the open, different animals may be attracted

to the area, which has a significantly negative impact on the area of the composting site. For

both windrow and in-vessel, equipment will be required to turn the compost. This equipment

will have a negative impact on the environment not only from turning up the surrounding soil,

but also in fuel emissions. Orca, on the other hand, mainly has negative impacts due to the

potential for mechanical failure or overfilling the compost processor. The shipping method’s

most significant negative impact is on the air and atmosphere due to the increased burning of

fossil fuels that is required to transfer the food waste to the composting site. Some positive

impacts are associated with these alternatives, since both the shipping alternative and in-vessel

have positive impacts due to an increase in employment. Another positive impact for all of the

composting alternatives, other than no action, is that they are able to be used for educational

purposes, and can be a point of pride for Bowling Green State University and its Green

Initiatives Programs.

47

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives

An Adkins-Burke Rating Checklist was used to compare and evaluate the different

alternatives. This method scores impacts on a scale of -3 to +3, with +3 being the best rating and

-3 being the worst. A rating of zero is neutral. There are no exact guidelines for rating the

alternatives, but a relative explanation of the criteria is defined in the comments section of the

model. A completed copy of the Adkins-Burke model for the alternatives being evaluated can be

found in Appendix H.

Table 2. Results of the Adkins-Burke checklist for alternatives.

4.1 Windrow

Using the Adkins-Burke rating checklist we figured out that for cost the windrow

alternative would have the most negative scores out of all of the alternatives. For example, the

initial cost of purchasing material and the cost of maintenance both scored a -3 where as other

alternatives scored -1 and -2. This is because windrow has the highest price range (we do not

know the official cost of a machine for BGSU, but windrow can potentially have the highest

range). For environmental impacts like methane emission and aesthetics, windrow scored a +3.

However other factors like the overburden of compost, displacement of flora and fauna and the

construction of roads all scored -2 or -1. In the safety section, windrow scored a -2 for risk of

injury due to poor maintenance and material used because windrow uses machines to turn the

compost. Also windrow scored a -1 for students not involved with the project entering

unsupervised. Lastly, under the community factors section, windrow scored a +3 for

environmental education, material produced like organic fertilizer and compost tea and property

48

value. This is because the University will be able to use any compost tea and fertilizer than is a

bi-product of the windrow machine.

4.2 Orca

Using this system we found that Orca resulted in a positive 5 overall rating, ranking it as

the third best option for composting on campus. Orca received a negative -2 for cost range and

raw materials because the cost of Orca is quite expensive yet not as much as other alternatives

and exposed raw material could be a hazard if there are not proper storage containers available.

Orca received a -1 for maintenance hazards safety and for construction cost, this is because the

Orca installation would be costly and there is a possibility of minor hazards from installing the

system. Materials produced received a positive rating of 1 because the Orca system will produce

water and compost tea, which could be used for agriculture or will be recycled into the sewage

system. Aesthetics and environmental education received a rating of positive 2 because since it

will be out of public site it will not pollute our campus aesthetics; also it is an opportunity to

educate students on recycling programs on campus. Students will be affected by the methods

used to collect the organic food waste, which is why Orca did not receive a positive 3 like

Alternatives 1 and 3. Finally, Orca received a positive 3 in property value and methane emission

because the campus will be more environmentally friendly which will make the campus more

desirable and also decrease the methane emissions from sending our waste to a landfill.

4.3 In-Vessel

Based on the Adkins-Burke Rating Checklist, In-vessel composting system does meet the

project’s objective. Compared to the Windrow alternative, it is significantly better because it

will not be directly placed on the ground, it is a closed system (beneficial during extreme

temperatures), and it can automatically be turned. In term of cost, it seems to be the second best

choice, with total score of -4. Compared to other composting methods, In-vessel is not the most

expensive system, though the construction is costly but the materials and maintenance are

relatively less. Some negative impacts of In-vessel include damages due to overflow, impacts on

plants and animals’ habitat, impacts of construction on Lot 12, and increased amount of

49

transportation to access the construction. Significant positive impacts of In-vessel on the

environment are the positive image for the university, and the reduction of that materials go to

the landfill, which means less methane is released to the atmosphere. Overall, the In-vessel

environmental impacts score is 0. In-vessel system does require maintenance since there may be

problems with odor leaking due to improper management. There also needs to be some kind of

security during the construction and afterward when the system is working. In term of safety, In-

vessel system score is -2, and is only better than windrow. The products of In-vessel can be used

as organic fertilizer. This is also be used by the University for environmental education, and

makes BGSU a more sustainable campus.

4.4 Shipping

The Shipping Method would be the number one short-term choice, because it receives a

rating of 8 on the Adkins-Burke checklist. Compared to other composting methods, it is more

budget friendly to ship compostable waste with the company Viridiun until an on-campus

alternative could be constructed. It has very few differences from shipping the waste to the

landfill, and would be an easy transition method, with the benefits of a “green” project. The

project would stay in Ohio, which keeps employment within the state, which is another benefit;

however, it produces more carbon dioxide emissions to ship the waste farther.

4.5 No Action

We gave the No Action Alternative scores of all zeros because there is currently no

composting on campus. All sections reviewed in our Adkins-Burke were based on impacts that

could potentially happen if composting became available on campus. If composting did not

become an option, all actions for removing waste from The Oaks would remain as is.

4.6 Recommendations

After reviewing all of these alternatives, it is decided that Shipping would be the best

short-term method while In-vessel would be the best long-term method. Shipping is definitely

the most cost-effective alternative because it costs almost just as much as the University spends

50

now in sending waste to the landfill site (No Action) and the University would not need to

comply with any EPA standards. In-vessel is the second most cost-effective and is

environmentally preferred to the other alternatives because it is not directly placed on the ground

(leaching is minimized), it is a closed system (unlike Windrow), and the compost does not need

to be manually turned. Orca would be economically preferred because all organic waste would

immediately be put into the machine and this would reduce the amount of odors generated and it

would also be installed in the building. Windrow would only be beneficial if the University did

agree to put in a small composting facility and then add onto it at a later date once more dining

halls were incorporated to the program. Adding onto Windrow is the simplest alternative in

these terms.

4.7 Summary

Based on the summary of our Adkins-Burke chart located above in Figure 1, we

concluded that the Shipping Alternative would be the best choice for the University right now.

With the shipping method of composting, BGSU will not be responsible for contacting the EPA

for regulations, paying fees, the cost of building a composting facility, or hiring staff to maintain

the compost site. Shipping is by far the most cost and labor efficient alternative. Contrary to the

ratings, we also believe that the In-vessel would be the more sought after Alternative in regards

to long term goals for the University. In-vessel received a combined score of 6 in our Adkins-

Burke checklist. This alternative is much more expensive to purchase and maintain in the long-

run in comparison to the Shipping Alternative, however, we believe that the In-vessel Alternative

will benefit the school to much greater lengths in the long run and although BGSU might not be

able to afford this alternative right now, we hope it will be something that can be considered in

the near future.

51

Appendix A Class II Composting Facility Requirements 52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Appendix B Composting Facility Registration Form Class II / Class III60

61

62

63

64

Appendix C Application Form 65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Environmental Items

Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material -2 8 -5 6 -6 3 0 0 -6 3 -2 3 0 0 0 0 -6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -27 27b. Soils 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21

c. Land form -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Underground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2

b. Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1

a. Quality (gases, particulates) -5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -17 23

d. Methane and CO2 emissions 3 9 0 0 0 0 -6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -9 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

c. Deposition (sedimentation,precipitation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -6 15

f. Compaction and settling -7 9 -8 9 0 0 -8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 4 0 0 0 0 -4 4 -31 35

B. Biological Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a. Trees/shrubs/grass -1 1 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

e. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Birds -2 4 0 0 0 0 -7 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -11 14b. Land animals including reptiles -7 4 -7 4 0 0 -7 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -25 17d. Insects -9 10 -1 2 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -13 18e. Microfauna 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -8 5 0 0 0 0 -8 5 -11 11f. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Cultural Factors

1. L

and

Use

a. Wilderness and open spaces 4 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 10 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Wilderness qualities 0 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -6 6c. Open-space qualities 3 4 -3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -3 11d. Landscape design 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 -4 1 0 0 0 0 -4 1 1 13

f. Rare and Unique species or ecosystems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Cultural patterns (life-style) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3b. Health and safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -10 5 -13 9

c. Employment 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Structures -2 2 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 2 0 0 -3 3 0 0 0 0 -3 3 -14 12b. Transportation network (movement, access) 0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -2 9c. Utility networks -3 2 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 5

d. Waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 6 0 0 0 0 -3 6 -6 12

D. Ecological relationships

b. Eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Disease and insect vectors -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 3 0 0 0 0 -7 3 -15 8d. Food chains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4

Actions Totals -13 78 -24 43 -6 3 -16 9 -28 54 -2 3 0 0 0 0 -12 5 -42 57 0 0 -60 57

Leopold Matrix for Windrow

Actions

E. Land alteration J. Accidents

C. Resource extraction

D. Processing I. Chemical Treatment

A. Modification

of regime

B. Land transformation

and construction

En

vir

on

me

nta

l It

em

To

tals

e. J

unk

disp

osal

c. O

pera

tiona

l fa

ilure

H. Waste emplacement and treatment

l. S

urfa

cing

or

pavi

ng

m. N

oise

and

vi

brat

ion

e. E

nerg

y ge

nera

tion

h. T

rans

mis

sion

lin

es, p

ipel

ines

, an

d co

rrid

ors

b. S

urfa

ce

exca

vatio

n

c. S

ubsu

rface

ex

cava

tion

and

reto

rting

1. E

arth

2.

Wat

er3.

Atm

osph

ere

c. E

mpl

acem

ent

of ta

iling

s, s

poils

, an

d ov

erbu

rden

d. L

ands

capi

ng

d. W

eed

cont

rol

e. R

oads

and

tra

ils A. Physical and Chemical

Characteristics

c. M

odifi

catio

n of

ha

bita

t

d. A

ltera

tion

of

grou

nd c

over

4. P

roce

sses

1.Fl

ora

2.

Aest

hetic

s an

d H

uman

In

tere

sts

4.

Cul

tura

l St

atus

5.

Man

ufac

ture

d fa

cilit

ies

and

activ

ities

2. F

auna

Appendix D Windrow Leopold Matrix 74

Environmental Items

Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material -2 8 -5 6 -6 3 0 0 -6 3 -4 3 0 0 0 0 -8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -31 28b. Soils 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21

c. Land form -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Underground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2

b. Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1

a. Quality (gases, particulates) -5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -17 23

d. Methane and CO2 emissions 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -9 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

c. Deposition (sedimentation,precipitation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 -3 5 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -6 15

f. Compaction and settling -7 9 -8 9 0 0 0 0 -8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 4 0 0 0 0 -4 4 -31 35

B. Biological Conditions

a. Trees/shrubs/grass -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

e. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Birds -2 4 0 0 0 0 -7 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -8 11b. Land animals including reptiles -7 4 -7 4 0 0 -7 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -22 14d. Insects -9 10 -1 2 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -11 16e. Microfauna 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -8 5 -3 6f. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Cultural Factors

1. L

and

Use

a. Wilderness and open spaces 4 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 10 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Wilderness qualities 0 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -6 6c. Open-space qualities 3 4 -3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -3 11d. Landscape design 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 -4 1 0 0 0 0 -4 1 1 13

f. Rare and Unique species or ecosystems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Cultural patterns (life-style) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3b. Health and safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -10 7 -13 11

c. Employment 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 15 130 0

a. Structures -2 2 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 2 0 0 -3 3 0 0 0 0 -3 3 -15 12b. Transportation network (movement, access) 0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 2 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -3 9c. Utility networks -3 2 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 11

d. Waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 6 0 0 0 0 -3 6 -6 12

D. Ecological relationships

b. Eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Disease and insect vectors -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 3 0 0 0 0 -4 3 -9 8d. Food chains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4

Actions Totals -13 78 -24 43 -6 3 -16 9 -28 54 -4 3 0 0 0 0 -22 12 -25 46 0 0 -49 64

Leopold Matrix for In-vessel

Actions

E. Land alteration J. Accidents

C. Resource extraction

D. Processing I. Chemical Treatment

A. Modification

of regime

B. Land transformation

and construction

En

vir

on

me

nta

l It

em

To

tals

e. J

unk

disp

osal

c. O

pera

tiona

l fa

ilure

H. Waste emplacement and treatment

l. S

urfa

cing

or

pavi

ng

m. N

oise

and

vi

brat

ion

e. E

nerg

y ge

nera

tion

h. T

rans

mis

sion

lin

es, p

ipel

ines

, an

d co

rrid

ors

b. S

urfa

ce

exca

vatio

n

c. S

ubsu

rface

ex

cava

tion

and

reto

rting

1. E

arth

2.

Wat

er3.

Atm

osph

ere

c. E

mpl

acem

ent

of ta

iling

s, s

poils

, an

d ov

erbu

rden

d. L

ands

capi

ng

d. W

eed

cont

rol

e. R

oads

and

tra

ils A. Physical and Chemical

Characteristics

c. M

odifi

catio

n of

ha

bita

t

d. A

ltera

tion

of

grou

nd c

over

4. P

roce

sses

1.Fl

ora

2.

Aest

hetic

s an

d H

uman

In

tere

sts

4.

Cul

tura

l St

atus

5.

Man

ufac

ture

d fa

cilit

ies

and

activ

ities

2. F

auna

Appendix E In-vessel Leopold Matrix 75

Environmental Items

Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -4 5b. Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1

c. Land form 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0

a. Underground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Quality (gases, particulates) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 4 0 0 0 0 -1 2 -4 6

d. Methane and CO2 emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 1 0 0 0 0 -5 4 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 -2 3 -12 110 0

c. Deposition (sedimentation,precipitation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f. Compaction and settling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1

B. Biological Conditions

a. Trees/shrubs/grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

e. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Birds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b. Land animals including reptiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d. Insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 5e. Microfauna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f. Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Cultural Factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. L

and

Use

a. Wilderness and open spaces 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Wilderness qualities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Open-space qualities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d. Landscape design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f. Rare and Unique species or ecosystems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Cultural patterns (life-style) -9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -13 8b. Health and safety -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 7 0 0 0 0 -7 5 -14 14

c. Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 1 0 0 0 0 -3 5 -6 6b. Transportation network (movement, access) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Utility networks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -2 2

d. Waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 3 0 0 -8 5 0 0 0 0 -3 2 -15 10

D. Ecological relationships0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 2 -4 2c. Disease and insect vectors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 5 0 0 0 0 -6 4 -11 9d. Food chains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Actions Totals -11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 8 0 0 0 0 -9 7 -28 41 0 0 -29 26

4. P

roce

sses

1.Fl

ora

2.

Aest

hetic

s an

d H

uman

In

tere

sts

4.

Cul

tura

l St

atus

5.

Man

ufac

ture

d fa

cilit

ies

and

activ

ities

2. F

auna

2. W

ater

3. A

tmos

pher

e

c. E

mpl

acem

ent

of ta

iling

s, s

poils

, an

d ov

erbu

rden

d. L

ands

capi

ng

d. W

eed

cont

rol

e. R

oads

and

tra

ils A. Physical and Chemical

Characteristics

c. M

odifi

catio

n of

ha

bita

t

d. A

ltera

tion

of

grou

nd c

over

m. N

oise

and

vi

brat

ion

e. E

nerg

y ge

nera

tion

h. T

rans

mis

sion

lin

es, p

ipel

ines

, an

d co

rrid

ors

b. S

urfa

ce

exca

vatio

n

c. S

ubsu

rface

ex

cava

tion

and

reto

rting

1. E

arth

A. Modification

of regime

B. Land transformation

and construction

En

vir

on

me

nta

l It

em

To

tals

e. J

unk

disp

osal

c. O

pera

tiona

l fa

ilure

H. Waste emplacement and treatment

l. S

urfa

cing

or

pavi

ng

Leopold Matrix for ORCA

Actions

E. Land alteration J. Accidents

C. Resource extraction

D. Processing I. Chemical Treatment

Appendix F Orca Leopold Matrix 76

Environmental Items

Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b. Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

c. Land form 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 20 0

a. Underground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b. Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a. Quality (gases, particulates) -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3

d. Methane and CO2 emissions -3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 60 0

c. Deposition (sedimentation,precipitation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f. Compaction and settling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. Biological Conditions

a. Trees/shrubs/grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

e. Endangered Species -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2

a. Birds -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2b. Land animals including reptiles -1 2 -1 2 -1 2 -4 6 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9 15d. Insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e. Microfauna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f. Endangered Species -1 2 0 0 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 5

C. Cultural Factors

1. L

and

Use

a. Wilderness and open spaces -2 3 -3 4 -3 2 -2 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 130 0

b. Wilderness qualities -2 3 -3 4 -3 2 -2 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 13c. Open-space qualities -2 3 -3 4 -3 2 -2 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 13d. Landscape design -2 3 -3 4 -3 2 -2 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 13

f. Rare and Unique species or ecosystems -1 2 -1 2 -2 3 -1 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 11

a. Cultural patterns (life-style) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b. Health and safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 -2 3

c. Employment 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 2 90 0

a. Structures 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6b. Transportation network (movement, access) 2 3 2 3 3 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 14c. Utility networks 1 2 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8

d. Waste disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D. Ecological relationships

b. Eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Disease and insect vectors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d. Food chains -2 3 -2 3 -2 3 -1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 12

Actions Totals -13 45 -11 30 -11 30 -15 21 -3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 6

Leopold Matrix for Shipping

Actions

E. Land alteration J. Accidents

C. Resource extraction

D. Processing I. Chemical Treatment

A. Modification

of regime

B. Land transformation

and construction

En

vir

on

me

nta

l It

em

To

tals

e. J

unk

disp

osal

c. O

pera

tiona

l fa

ilure

H. Waste emplacement and treatment

l. S

urfa

cing

or

pavi

ng

m. N

oise

and

vi

brat

ion

e. E

nerg

y ge

nera

tion

h. T

rans

mis

sion

lin

es, p

ipel

ines

, an

d co

rrid

ors

b. S

urfa

ce

exca

vatio

n

c. S

ubsu

rface

ex

cava

tion

and

reto

rting

1. E

arth

2.

Wat

er3.

Atm

osph

ere

c. E

mpl

acem

ent

of ta

iling

s, s

poils

, an

d ov

erbu

rden

d. L

ands

capi

ng

d. W

eed

cont

rol

e. R

oads

and

tra

ils A. Physical and Chemical

Characteristics

c. M

odifi

catio

n of

ha

bita

t

d. A

ltera

tion

of

grou

nd c

over

4. P

roce

sses

1.Fl

ora

2.

Aest

hetic

s an

d H

uman

In

tere

sts

4.

Cul

tura

l St

atus

5.

Man

ufac

ture

d fa

cilit

ies

and

activ

ities

2. F

auna

Appendix G Shipping Leopold Matrix 77

1

Table X.X: Adkins-Burke Checklist Factor Description Alternative Comment

1 2 3 4 5 A. Success in meeting objective of project

Creating a composting option for the campus of Bowling Green State University

+3 +3 +3 +3 0 Taking the No-Action alternative will not complete the goal of the project.

B. Cost 1. Materials Initial purchasing amount of all

materials -3 -2 -1 0 0 Alternative 1 has the highest price range, Alternative 2 has the second highest and

3 has the smallest range. Alternative 4 would cost just as much as the method that is now in existence.

2. Maintenance Cost of the alternative over time -3 -1 -1 0 0 Untreated compost could result in more pests and foul odors. The fourth Alternative would not exist if maintenance was not upheld. Alternative 3 would be automatically turned.

3. Construction Labor costs, tools, etc. -2 -1 -2 0 0 Construction costs will be similar in Alternative 1 and 3. Alternative 4 will have no construction cost

C. Environmental Impacts

1. Raw Materials Overburden of compost -2 -2 -2 0 0 If the properly sized vessel is not suitable for the amount of waste produced, the vessels will overflow and cause severe damages.

2. Methane emission Reduction of the amount of materials going to the landfill.

+3 +3 +3 +3 0 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 will decrease the amount of waste processed at the landfill, and therefore decrease methane production.

3. Flora and Fauna Some plants and animals could be displaced

-1 0 -1 0 0 Construction of Alternative 1 and 3 will decrease the amount of open area on campus, although, no endangered species live in the area.

4. Aesthetics Creates a positive image for Bowling Green State University

+3 +2 +3 +2 0 Alternatives 1 and 3 will be visible, as they are outside. Alternative 2 and 4 will not be directly visible.

5. Increase in motor vehicle traffic

Construction of roads to easily access compost material

-1 0 -1 -1 0 Access roads will have to be built for Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 4 will result in more vehicles entering the loading dock behind The Oaks.

6. Construction Aspects occurring during assembly of compost vessels

-2 -1 -2 0 0 Construction during the process could block Lot 12 on campus or cause The Oaks dining hall to become noisy.

D. Safety 1. Maintenance Hazards

Risk of injury due to poor maintenance and materials used

-2 -1 -1 -1 0 Alternative 1 requires manual turning of the compost pile. Alternative 4 could be a hazard due to driving and operative duties at Viridiun.

Appendix H Adkins-Burke Checklist 78

2

2. Unauthorized personnel

Students not involved with the project entering unsupervised

-1 0 -1 0 0 If fences and security are not put into place properly, students could enter the premises.

E. Community Factors

1. Environmental Education

Use by school and public +3 +2 +3 0 0 Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have this opportunity. The school and public will not be directly affected by the fourth alternative.

2. Materials Produced Materials such as organic fertilizer and compost tea.

+3 +1 +3 0 0 BGSU will benefit from organic fertilizer produced by Alternatives 1 and 3 (organic fertilizer that does not have to be bought) and Alternative 2 (compost tea). Alternative 4 will also produce fertilizer and tea, but it will not be property of the university.

3. Property Value The effect of the property on fulfilling the President’s Climate Commitment.

+3 +3 +3 +2 0 Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 will make BGSU a more environmentally-friendly campus.

Rating Scale: -3 to +3; -3 being the worst rating, 0 being neutral, +3 being the best rating Alternative 1: Windrow; Alternative 2: Orca; Alternative 3: In-vessel; Alternative 4: Shipping; Alternative 5: No Action

79

Works Cited

Aslam, Danielle.(Dec 19, 2007). The Science Behind In-Vessel Composting. Retrieved From :http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lea/conference/07conf/presentations/day1/compost101/aslam.ppt Bowling Green Public Works Department. Phone interview. 27 Feb. 2013.

Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). What We Do - Capital Planning and Design. Retrieved April 2013, from Bowling Green State University: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/architect/ Bowling Green State University. (2013). The Oaks Dining Center. Retrieved February 2013, from Campus Sustainability: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sustainability/page96889.html

College Guide to Campus Wide Composting (n.d.). In Project Compost. Retrieved From http://projectcompost.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/COLLEGE_.pdf Composting Equipment (2013). In Earth Saver. Retrieved From http://earthsaverequipment.com/Composting-Equipment CUESA. (2013).Composting: Recycling Our Food. Retrieved from: http://cuesa.org/page/composting-recycling-our-food

Evans, Steve D. (Aug 28, 2011) Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vessel Composting Versus Other Organic Waste Treatment Methods. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-In-Vessel-Composting-Versus-Other-Organic-Waste-Treatment-Methods&id=6525003

Hennessy, N. (2013). Waste Management, Inc., information on the Oaks. Interview with Randy Abrams, Viridiun. 2013 Kerkes, David J. (January 1995) Factors to Consider When Planning Landfill Construction. Retrieved from http://www.geotechconsultant.com/articles.htm Large Scale Composting (n.d.). In FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retrieved From http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5104e/y5104e07.htm

Last, S. (2006). Building on Landfill Sites. Retrieved February 2013, from http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_Last

McLaughlin. W. (1995). Construction Over Old Landfills. Fifth Annual Northeast

Mother Nature Network: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/stories/post-consumer-waste

80

Natural Gas Seminar. Retireved 2013 from http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/Construction%20over%20Old%20Landfills.pdf

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, ODNR Division of Wildlife. Retrieved February 21, 2013, Web site: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/4414/Default.asp

Ohio EPA. (n.d.). Composting. Retrieved April 2013, from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dmwm/Home/Composting.aspx

Ohio Nature. (2006-2013). Ohio Wildflowers List. Retrieved February 2013, from http://www.ohio-nature.com/ohio-wildflowers-list.html

Orca. (2010, August 4). Retrieved from http://www.infobarrel.com/Orca Orca food waste digester . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://burgisenviro.com/textbelow.php?category=orca Pierce, Jeffrey L. (March 2010) In Commercial Development of Closed Landfills: Case studies and Technical/Regulatory Issues. Retrieved From: http://www.scs-secure.com/Papers/6-02%20Commercial%20Development%20of%20Closed%20LF.pdf.

PlentyMag.com. (2009, April 23). Post-consumer waste. Retrieved February 26, 2013, from

Technology Fact Sheet: In Vessel Composting. Retrieved from techaction.org/Factsheets/ref15x07.pdf . 21. June, 2012. The Risks and Rewards of Reclaiming Old Landfills (2005). Boston Business Journal. Retrieved February 2013 from http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/04/04/focus4.html?page=all

The Weather Channel. (2013, February 25). Average Weather for Bowling Green, OH. Bowling Green , Ohio, USA: Weather Channel.

Windrow Composting (2003, October). In Job Service Pollution Prevention Opportunity Hankbook. Retrived From http://www.p2sustainabilitylibrary.mil/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/7_II_A_2.html

Wood County Auditor Office. (2013) Property data information for Parcel B07-511-190201002000.Retrieved Feb. 21, 2013 from Wood County Auditor Office.

Wood County Solid Waste Management District (WCSWMD). (2013). Landfill. Retrieved from: http://www.wcswmd.org/landfill.html

81