•Jri'ted States Region \t'.tl
' 36C Lio.com ftreet
d02S5
Soiifl Waste
3€PA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
SOLID WASTE OPTIONS
FOR LAKE CITY, COLORADO
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM -REPORT
SOLID WASTE OPTIONS FOR LAKE CITY, COLORADO
Prepared for :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regi on VIII
1860 Li ncoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by :
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
October, 1981
-------
SOLID WASTE OPTIONS FOR LAKE CITY, COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 USC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of;
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Background 1
B. Scope of the Study 2
II. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
A. Climate 3
B. Geology 5
C. Soils 5
D. Economy 7
D. Population 7
III. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
A. General 10
B. Applicable Laws and Regulations 11
C. Existing Solid Waste Services and Facilities ... 12
D. County Solid Waste Budget 13
E. Current and Projected Waste Volumes 13
IV. LANDFILL SITE EVALUATION
A. Site Descriptions 26
B. Quantitative Review Methodology 29
C. Landfill Operational Plans 42
D. Landfill Costs 52
V. WASTE TRANSFER EVALUATION
A. General Review of Solid Waste Transfer
Options 62
B. Operation and Costs 69
C. Gunnison Landfill 73
VI. CONCLUSIONS 74
VII. REFERENCES 79
APPENDIX A - State of Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Regulations A-l
APPENDIX B - Colorado Department of Health Guidelines
for the Review of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities B-l
APPENDIX C - Forest Service Guidelines for Solid
Waste Disposal C-l
APPENDIX D - List of Solid Waste Equipment Manufacturers
and Distributors D-l
-------
APPENDIX E - Sanitary Landfill Safety Considerations E-l
APPENDIX F - Solid Waste Facility Financing Options F-l
APPENDIX G - Tipping Fees Charged by Various
Colorado Landfills G-l
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Title Page
1. Climatological Summary for
Lake City, Colorado 6
2. Current and Projected Population
Figures for Hinsdale
County, Colorado 8
3. Current Annual Solid Waste Production by
Population, Hinsdale County
Study Area 15
4. Solid Waste Generation Rates,
Hinsdale County, Colorado 17
5. Projected Annual Waste Production for
the Hinsdale County Study Area 22
6. Comparison of Waste Tonnage Estimates
for Hinsdale County Study Area 23
7. Available Ground Water Information -
Hinsdale County Study Area 35
8. Landfill Siting Factors and Ratings
Assigned to Factor Categories 37
9. Site Specific Data and Scoring on
Potential Landfill Sites 38
10. Weights Assigned to Each Siting
Factor Under Three Alternative
Systems 39
11. Summary of Scoring Results 40
12. Hinsdale County Private North Site:
Development and Annual Operating
Costs 57
13. Hinsdale County BLM South Site:
Development and Annual Operating
Costs 58
14. Hinsdale County Forest Service Site:
Without Greenboxes - Development
and Annual Operating Costs 59
15. Hinsdale County Forest Service Site:
With Greenboxes - Development and
Annual Operating Costs 60
-------
16. Summary of Total Annual Costs for Three
Landfill Alternatives - Hinsdale
County 61
17. Transfer Station Cost Summary - Hinsdale
County, Colorado 72
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number T1tle Page
1. Hinsdale County Study Area 4
2. Hinsdale County Potential
Landfill Sites 25
3. Private North Site Layout 43
4. Trench and Area Methods of
Sanitary Landfilling 45
5. Trench Configuration for Private
North Site 46
6. Forest Service Site Layout 48
7. BLM South Site Layout 51
8. Transfer Stations 63
9. Tilt Frame/Roll-Off Transfer
Vehicle 65
10. Transfer,Trailer Vehicle 66
11. Greenboxes 68
12. Front and Rear-Loading Greenbox
Collection Vehicles 70
vn
-------
INTRODUCTION
A. Project Background
Until late 1980, northern Hinsdale County had utilized a
15-acre tract of public land (Bureau of Land Management) located
1/2 mile north of Lake City, Colorado as a county landfill facil-
ity. During the 26-year period of use, the suitable ground in
the tract has been totally utilized and the cover material com-
pletely exhausted, necessitating the search for a new County
landfill site or other means of solid waste disposal.
The most recent lease authorizing the operation of a land-
fill on BLM land, Recreation and Public Purposes Act lease
C-22844, was issued to Hinsdale County for a three-year period
beginning September 20, 1976. Recognizing the marginal suitabil-
ity of the site, the BLM approved this short-term lease in order
to provide the County time to locate an alternate, site or an al-
ternate means of disposal. Because Hinsdale County had been
unable to locate a new site within the three-year period a one-
year lease extension was granted on September 20, 1979 for the
purpose of allowing the County additional time to locate another
site. Subsequent to the expiration of R&PP Act lease C-22844,
Hinsdale County relocated the landfill to County property adja-
cent to the existing BLM site in order to provide interim solid
waste disposal services until such time as an alternative site or
method could be adopted by the County.
On September 16, 1980, the County requested technical as-
sistance for a solid waste disposal study from the Region VIII
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) located
in Denver, Colorado. The County's request was granted and the
EPA authorized its designated technical assistance consultant,
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., to provide specific solid waste
management services to the County. The consultant was directed
-------
to evaluate and develop cost estimates for various disposal and
transfer alternatives and provide recommendations as to the most
appropriate method of implementation.
B. Scope of the Study
As identified in the initial scope of work, waste generation
estimates were to be developed for the part of the County now be-
ing .served by the Hinsdale County landfill and projected for a
ten-year period. These estimates were to include residential and
commercial establishments as well as facilities maintained by the
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
In addition, the alternatives of transferring solid wastes
out of the County and disposing (1andfi11ing) of wastes within
the County were to be assessed. For the transfer option, it
would be necessary to investigate the use of the different types
of equipment available and the possibility of utilizing the Gun-
nison Landfill near Gunnison, Colorado as an ultimate disposal
site. The suitability of four potential landfill sites in Hins-
dale County, three on BLM. land and one on Forest Service proper-
ty, :were also to be evaluated in terms of volume requirements,
availability of cover material, land use compatibility, ground or
surface water problems, and other environmental constraints.
The original scope of work also dictated that a detailed
recommended plan be prepared for the selected alternative which
would include a list of the type of equipment needed and the
available manufacturers, a site layout, operational and capital
costs, staffing requirements, and an operational plan. A step by
step implementation plan would also have to be developed for the
recommended system. Finally, the various financing options
available would have to be identified in order to recommend an
arrangement suitable for Hinsdale County. A closure plan for the
old Hinsdale County Disposal Site and an itemization of the costs
involved were not included in the scope of work and have not been
evaluated in this report.
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Hinsdale County, located in the San Juan Mountain range of
southwest Colorado, is a sparsely populated predominantly rural
county with a total area of 1,057 square miles. There are
several mountain peaks over 14,000 feet and extreme topographic
relief is common throughout the County. The only land suitable
for development lies in the rather narrow valley formed by the
Lake Fork of the Gunnison River which runs almost due north out
of the County. Of the total land area, approximately 96 percent
is Federally-owned being managed primarily by the Bureau of Land
Management and three different National Forests.
The Continental Divide loops through the middle of the Coun-
ty and divides it into three major river drainages. The northern
section of the County, located within the Gunnison River basin,
is currently the only section serviced by the Hinsdale County
landfill (see Figure 1) and contains Lake City, the County seat
and the County's only incorporated area, and Lake San Cristobal,
a popular recreation area.
County governmental services are located in Lake City.
Three elected commissioners oversee the funding of all County
services.
A. C1imate
Low precipitation, short frost-free periods, and low winter
temperatures characterize the climatological conditions in the
study area. Topographic differences result in wide extremes of
climate, both locally and throughout the study area. Local
microclimates are caused by wind patterns, relief, and elevation
modified by gradient and the direction in which an area faces.
-------
QUNNISON
FIGURE 1.
HINSDALE COUNTY STUDY AREA
CREEDE
STUDY AREA
o
10
MILES
-------
Data supplied by the State Climatologist from a 41-year sum-
mary for Lake City reveals a mean annual temperature of 38.2
degrees Fahrenheit and a mean annual precipitation of 14.03
inches (see Table 1). July and August are primarily the wettest
and warmest months of the year. Mean snowfall, averages 95.1
inches a year for Lake City and frost can occur in any month.
B. Geology
The surrounding region experienced volcanic activity several
million years ago as evidenced by the Tertiary volcanic rocks
which cover most of the ground. Subsequent to this activity the
area experienced some sizable mud flows ("mass wasting"). Soil
and rock, lubricated with water, flowed down the hills from above
covering some hills and forming new ones. These flows appear to
be stable now. One such flow, the Slumgullion Slide formed a
natural dam across the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River creating
Lake San Cristobal.
C. Soils
Soils in the County vary from shallow to moderately deep
(they are predominantly shallow), and from moderately sloping to
very steep, well-drained gravelly loams and stony and rocky areas
on mountains, hills, and ridges. Soils in the study area make up
the Posant-Woodhal1-Stony Rock Land Association. These soils
formed in material that was derived mainly from fine-grained
igneous rocks. Open stands of conifers with an understory of big
sagebrush and grass typically comprise the vegetation on the
soils of the study area.
Soils maps have been prepared by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice for a small northern section of Hinsdale County including
the Lake City vicinity. Because of their general nature,
however, they have only limited 'value in this study. Detailed
-------
TABLE 1
CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY FOR LAKE CITY, COLORADO3
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Mean Temperature (°F)
14.8
19.0
27.4
37.4
46.0
55.0
60.2
58.3
51.8
42.0
29.3
16.7
Mean Precipitation (Inches)
0.87
0.7-9
-0.97
1.1-1
1.03
0.81
2.02
1.96
1.12
1.29
0.95
1.11
MEAN ANNUAL
38.2
14.03
a A summary of the 41 years between 1905-1979 for which data exists. Data
supplied by the Colorado State Climatologist.
-------
engineering studies at each landfill site will need to be under-
taken in order to discern the exact properties and depths of the
soiIs.
D. Economy
The local economy is almost totally dependent upon tourism
during the summer and fall seasons. The spectacular scenery, the
large tracts of wilderness land, the rustic lodging facilities,
numerous possibilities for outdoor recreational sport have com-
bined to make Hinsdale County a popular tourist area. Although
winter sports are promoted by the County, they have not yet
attained a high degree of popularity.
The mining industry, whose entry into the area resulted in
the founding of Lake City, historically provided economic stabil-
ity to the region. Little mining activity occurs today, however,
even though mineral exploration has continued. In fact, the most
promising deposit of alunite, a source of alum and mineral ferti-
lizer, recognized to date in Colorado is at Red Mountain, three
miles south-southwest of Lake City. As the market value of min-
eral commodities continues to escalate.further upwards, the Coun-
ty can expect to experience continued mineral exploration activi-
ties and the associated developmental impacts associated with
mineral exploration.
E. Population
Permanent
In general, the most accurate source of current popula-
tion data available for the study area is the U.S. Bureau of
the Census. According to census data, Hinsdale County con-
tains one of the smallest populations of any county in the
nation (see Table 2).
-------
TABLE 2
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION FIGURES
FOR HINSDALE COUNTY, COLORADO*
Projected
Area 1980 Population 1990 Population % Increase
Lake City 206 329 ... 60%
Total County 408 600 47%
a Source: U.S. Census Bureau and the Colorado Demographic Sec-
tion of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.
In 1970, Hinsdale County's permanent resident population was
202 people, according to the Federal Census; Lake City's 1970
count was 91 people. By 1980, the County figure increased over
100 percent to 408 people and Lake City's population similarly
increased to 206 people.
According to the Demographic Section of the Colorado Depart-
ment of Local Affairs, the County population is projected to in-
crease by .47 percent to 600 people by the year 1990. An even
greater population expansion (63 percent) is predicted for Lake
City with a 1990 projected population of 329 people. These pro-
jections, as developed by the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs, represent "high population growth scenario" estimates
for the region.
-------
As previously mentioned, the study area includes only the
northern section of the County contained in the Gunnison River
basin. Because of this, the 64 permanent residents (figures pro-
vided by the County Sheriff) who live in the southern part of
Hinsdale County, to the south of the Continental Divide, have
been excluded from further consideration in this study. Their
waste is either disposed of on private property within the County
or hauled to landfill sites outside of the County to the south.
Thus, the total permanent resident popul ation ' in the study area
i s 344 persons .
Seasonal
During the summer and fall tourist season, the population of
the Lake City area swells considerably and, as a result, so does
the volume of solid waste generated. The seasonal population
discussed herein includes only those people inhabiting the numer-
ous summer homes in the County and does not include seasonal
visitors to motels, lodges, R-V parks, organizational camps, and
campgrounds. Because seasonal residents call Hinsdale County
their home for less than six months out of a year, they are not
counted as permanent Hinsdale County residents in the official
U.S. Census tally.
Since no exact counts have ever been undertaken for the num-
ber of seasonal residents, several assumptions will have to be
made in order to estimate their numbers. 1980 U.S. Census fi-
gures indicate that there are 697 housing units in Hinsdale Coun-
ty, with, according to County sources, approximately 70 percent
or 488 housing units located in the study area. According to
1970 U.S. Census housing data, 85.7 percent of the total County
housing units were occupied by seasonal residents. Assuming a
similar 1980 occupancy rate, there are approximately 418 seasonal
housing units in the study area. Using the Colorado State aver-
age of 3.1 people per housing unit, there are approximately 1,300
seasonal resi dents.
-------
III. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
A. General
Hinsdale County's solid waste management situation is
common to many western U.S. counties because of the predominance
of publicly owned acreage in the County (96 percent of total
County land), and the heavy influx of tourists into the region
during the summer and fall months resulting 'in vastly increased
seasonal waste volumes.
In the past, the Hinsdale County landfill accepted all
wastes produced in the County, including those generated by the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However,
when the County moved the landfill off of BLM land in 1980, this
loose consolidation of solid waste management operations ceased,
and the Forest Service and BLM chose to separately contract out
to a private hauler to transport their wastes to the nearest
alternative disposal facility, the Gunnison' Landfill near
Gunnison, Colorado.
Waste volumes from all sources within the County have been
calculated in this report and will be used to design a new
disposal system for Hinsdale County. The consolidation of waste
disposal operations by the Forest Service, the BLM, and the
County represents a cost-effective, efficient solution to the
the County solid waste management problem and should be a topic
of negotiation for the various entities.
Because of the large seasonal population in Hinsdale Coun-
ty, a much larger volume of refuse is generated during the tour-
ist season. A situation such as this would seemingly require two
operation plans for the landfill, one for the summer and fall
months, and one for the rest of the year; however, such a dual
10
-------
operational system is currently not being utilized. The polarity
in waste production between seasons will be addressed in this
report.
When evaluating the existing solid waste management situa-
tion in Hinsdale County, there are three major aspects that must
be considered: 1) the current law and regulations which govern
the various phases of solid waste management; 2) the effective-
ness of existing solid waste storage and collection services and
the adequacy of the existing disposal facilities; and 3) the
quantities and characteristics of the solid waste generated.
B. Applicable Laws and Regulations
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires
individual states to formulate a solid waste management plan.
The Federal regulations now on the books are not, however, manda-
tory at the county level for landfills not located on Federal
lands. In Colorado, all solid waste disposal sites and facili-
ties, whether they be on Federal, State, county, or private land,
are regulated by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) under
directives adopted in 1972. The operation of a sanitary landfill
facility on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. Forest Ser-
vice lands must in addition follow regulatory stipulations formu-
lated by those agencies (see Chapter IV).
The current State of Colorado solid waste disposal sites and
facilities regulations are included in Appendix A and guidelines
used by the Colorado Department of Health to review solid waste
disposal sites and facilities are listed in Appendix B. The
Colorado Department of Health reviews sites and facilities in
order to recommend the approval or disapproval of a Certificate
of Designation which is needed before an applicant can dispose of
any solid waste. The CDH makes its recommendations to the County
Commissioners who then issue the Certificate of Designation to
the faci1i ty .
11
-------
C. Existing Solid Waste Services and Facilities
The curre-ot County landfill serves the citizens of Lake City
and its unincorporated environs as well as tourists and seasonal
residents in the area. As previously mentioned, it" does not now
take in wastes generated on Forest Service and BLM lands.
The landfill, owned and operated by the County, is situated
one-half mile north of Lake City and within 300 feet of Highway
149, a highly scenic river valley drive and the only transporta-
tion route north from Lake City. The site is visible, south-
bound, from the highway and appears as a bench, a little higher
than the highway, in a portion of an amphitheater-like arrange-
ment of forested hills and grass-covered lowlands. The site is
partially enclosed by a barbed wire fence and there is a gate
with a lock across the dirt access road at the entrance to the
site. The Hinsdale County landfill is open to the public 8 hours
a day, 5 days a week (being closed on Tuesdays and Sundays).
The old landfill occupied BLM property, adjacent to the cur-
rent site, where an area-terrace method of landfilling was uti-
lized. Currently, the landfill operation is a trench type where-
by wastes are deposited in a deep trench and compacted with a
955-H Caterpillar Traxcavator. Solid waste is also presently
being burned in order to extend the life of this interim site.
All residential and commercial waste types, except sewage, large
trees, and mining chemical wastes, are now and have in the past
been accepted. A separate pit exists for bulky white goods
(i.e., old refrigerators and stoves).
Most of the solid waste produced in the County is a residen-
tial/high commercial type waste and does not contain the propor-
tion of bulkier wastes present in the waste stream of a more
heavily urbanized area. As a consequence, the waste in the study
area is more compactible than most other municipal wastes. The
resulting volume reduction through compaction can result in con-
12
-------
siderable savings in solid waste collection, transportation, and
disposal/costs. Most of the bulkier rubble waste that is gener-
ated in the County comes from the construction of summer homes in
the area.
At .this time, no public collection services are available in
the Coun-ty other than numerous 2 1/2 cubic yard dumpsters provid-
ed by the U.S. Forest Service in high use areas for visitors.
These- containers are only in service during the summer season
(June 15 to September 30). The Forest Service owns a 16-cubic
yard rear-loading compactor truck; however, the Forest Service is
currently negotiating with a private hauler, Flash Trash, located
in Gunnison, to collect their wastes. Ultimately, these wastes
are hauled to the Gunnison Landfill for disposal. Recent budget
cutbacks have forced the BLM to withdraw most of its dunpsters
from the Hinsdale County region. At this time the B-LM provides
six dumpsters at the Mill Creek Campground which are emptied
every two weeks during the summer by Flash Trash and hauled to
the Gunnison Landfill-.
D. County Solid Waste Budget
For fiscal year 1981, the projected County budget for solid
waste management is $10,051. This represents a 13 percent drop
from the $11,607 earmarked for solid waste disposal during the
previous budgeting year. The expenditure for solid waste manage-
ment in the County in fiscal 1979 was $ 5,824. Overall, approxi-
mately one percent of the total 1981 County budget will go to-
wards managing solid waste.
E. Current and Projected Waste Production
To formulate an efficient solid waste management plan for
Hinsdale County, current solid waste tonnages will have, to be
calculated and projected for the ten-year study period. Because
13
-------
detailed data on existing waste generation sources, rates, and
composition are lacking, standard assumptions are used to define
the current and projected waste tonnages for the County. Special
consideration must be given to the significant quantities of
waste generated each year by tourists and seasonal residents who
pass through the study area. Information on the volume of waste
generated is needed for, among other things, the proper sizing of
landfill and transfer equipment, determining the amount of land
and cover necessary for a landfill, and for formulating the pro-
per method, operational plan, and cost of disposing of the waste.
If the quantities of solid waste generated in the past had
been accurately weighed and recorded, the task of predicting pre-
sent and future quantities of waste would be relatively easy.
However, as is often the case, no accurate record of the quanti-
ties of waste disposed of at the Hinsdale County Landfill
exists. Therefore, because of this void in waste generation
data, other sources of waste generation data were obtained and
reviewed so that quantities of solid waste could be estimated for
the study area. Based on the waste generation rates which were
determined to be applicable for this project, quantities of solid
waste were generated by multiplying the appropriate waste genera-
tion rate by the current specific population group involved.
Daily per capita waste generation rates in Hinsdale vary
greatly between each population group. Permanent residents as a
rule generate more waste than the transient population and each
group will be discussed separately. Waste generation rates for
the seasonal population were obtained from a 1971 Environmental
Protection Agency report entitled "Solid Waste Management in
Recreational Forest Areas" by Charles S. Spoonerl. Table 3
summarizes the waste generation rates utilized in this study.
ISource: Reference 12.
14
-------
TABLE 3
SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES, HINSDALE COUNTY. COLORADO*
Population Pounds/Person/Day
Permanent County Residents 4
Seasonal Residents^ 2.2
Lodge and Cabin Visitors 1.5
Motel Visitors 0.7
Recreational Vehicle Park Visitors 1
Campground Visitors0 1
a Source for all waste generation rates except permanent county residents:
Reference 12.
b Includes those people occupying housing units in the County who reside there
for less than 6 months out of the year.
c Pounds/Visitor Day.
15
-------
For the study area it is estimated that 1,400,000 pounds or
700 tons of solid waste are currently being generated annually.
Using a straight-1ine projection, it is estimated that in ten
years this waste production will increase to 1,920,000 pounds or
960 tons per year. A complete breakdown of current waste volume
generation is provided in Table 4 and a detailed discussion of
the derivation of these numbers follows.
Current Waste Production (Permanent Residents)
The daily per capita waste generation rate for the per-
manent residents within the study area is four pounds of
waste per capita per day. This figure agrees with figures
obtained from other predominantly rural counties in the
State of Colorado. Generally, residents of incorporated
areas produce in the neighborhood of five pounds of waste
per capita per day while residents of rural areas generate
only three pounds of waste per day. These estimates reflect
national and regional averages and the generally accepted
assumption that per. capita waste generation increases with
population density, due to the increase in commercial and
industrial activities associated with urbanization. One re-
port "Solid Waste Study for the Gunnison River Basin"2s pre-
pared in 1972 by the Gunnison National Forest, assumes a
waste generation rate of five pounds of waste per capita per
day for the permanent residents of Hinsdale County.
The four pound per capita per day waste generation rate
used in this study was obtained by averaging the generally
^Source: Reference 11.
16
-------
TOBLE4
CURRENT ANUAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION BY POPULATION, HINSDALE COUNTY STUDY AREA
PERMANENT POPULATION
Lake City
Unincorporated
SEASONAL POPULATION
Seasonal Residents
Lodge and Cabin Visitors
Motel Visitors
R-V Park Visitors
Campground Visitors
Forest Service
BLM
County
Percent Of
Persons Time (Days) Lbs/Day Lbs./Year Total Volume
206 365 4 300,000 22.2%-
138 365 4 200,000 14.®
1,296 100 2.2 290,000 21.5%
1,953 100 1.5 290,000 21.5%
203 100 0.7 14,000 1.0%
353 100 1 35,000 2.6%
(65,400)a 1 65,000 4.8%
(80,000)3 ! 80,000 5.9%
75,00$ 5.6%
TOTAL 1,400,000
(700 tons /yr.)
a Forest Service and BLM canpground visitor figures in visitor days.
b County canpground waste volure computed fron an estimated annual collection of
75 truckloads (1000 Ibs./truckload) of refuse.
17
-------
used rural waste generation estimate of three pounds per day
and the Forest Service report estimate of five pounds per
day for Hinsdale County.
Using the waste generation rate of four pound per capi-
ta per day and a 1980 permanent resident population of 344
persons, the current annual amount of waste generated by
permanent residents in the study area is estimated to be 250
tons per year and was calculated as follows:
344 persons x 4 1bs./person/day x 365 days/year
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 250 tons/yr.
Current Waste Production (Seasonal Population)
The seasonal population in this discussion includes
both seasonal residents (see Seasonal Population section)
and seasonal visitors (visitors to motels, lodges, R-V
parks,.organizational camps, and campgrounds). Again it is
emphasized that the following calculations represent the
best estimates available within the constraints of a limited
data set.
As previously mentioned, it is estimated that there are
1,296 seasonal residents who live in the county for the 100
day tourist season. With an assumed waste generation rate
of 2.2 pounds per capita per day they produce around 145
tons of waste a year. The calculation follows:
1,296 persons/yr. x 2.2 1bs ./person/day x 100 days
2,000 1bs./ton
= 145 tons/yr.
Recreational vehicle park visitors, lodge and cabin
visitors, and motel visitors generate waste at rates of 1,
18
-------
1.5, and 0.7 pounds per capita per day, respectively. Once
the number of' aval Table R-V park spaces, lodge and cabin
facilities, and motel rooms is known (information supplied
by Hinsdale County Chamber of Commerce), the total number of
these seasonal visitors can be calculated by assuming 2.5
persons per space/room and a 100 percent occupancy rate for
the 100-day tourist season. A 100-day, 100 percent occupa'n-
cy rate was chosen following conversations with County offi-
cials and also because it more closely approximates" the
actual number of tourists who come not only for the 100-day
summer season, but for the fall (hunting season) and winter
seasons as well. Based on these assumptions, 145 tons are
currently produced by lodge and cabin visitors, 7 tons are
produced by motel visitors, and 18 tons are generated by R-V
park users.
Waste production figures for the U.S. Forest service
and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) campgrounds were obtain-
ed from those agencies and were calculated from the standard
measure of recreation use, the visitor day. A visitor day
is 12 hours use of a recreation facility by one person, or
use by many persons whose aggregate tine in an activity
equals 12 hours. Waste generation rates for campgrounds was
assumed to be one pound per visitor day. With 65,400 and
80,000 tourist days estimated for the Forest Service and BLM
campgrounds respectively, total waste production for these
areas is computed to be approximately 73 tons as follows:
[(65.400 + 80.000) visitor days]/yr. x 1 1b./visi tor/day
2,000 Ibs./ton
= 73 tons/yr.
As previously mentioned, Forest Service and BLM wastes are
currently being transferred to the Gunnison landfill for ul-
timate disposal.
19
-------
Annual waste tonnage generated at the County-run camp-
ground/picnic area on Lake San Cristobal was estimated from
a local hauler's account that 75 full truckloads (3/4-ton
pickup truck) are carted away from the site each season.
Assuming that at capacity, a 3/4-ton pickup truck can hold
approximately 1,000 pounds of refuse, annual waste produc-
tion from the site approaches 38 tons and is calculated as
fol1ows:
75 truckloads/yr. x 1,000 1bs ./truckload
2,000 1bs ./ton
= 38 tons/yr.
Projected Waste Production
According to data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau,
the permanent resident population of Lake City and Hinsdale
County will increase by roughly 50 percent over the next ten
years. The number of seasonal' residents can be expected to
increase at a similar rate. Recreational use in the region,
according to estimates provided by Colorado Planning and
Management Region 10, is likely to increase 20 percent.
Based on these assumptions, the projected total waste
production for the study area during the ten-year study
period beginning in 1981 will be 8,300 tons (see Table 5).
This figure is equal to the sum of the projected annual
waste tonnages for the ten-year study period based on a
linear increase in waste volume of approximately 29 tons/
year. A constant increase in population and recreational
use is assumed as well as a constant rate of waste genera-
tion over the study period for each population and visitor
segment. Overall, annual waste generation would increase by
37 percent (260 tons) by the year 1990 (see Table 5).
20
-------
It is interesting to compare the current and projected
waste tonnage figures calculated in this study with similar
such estimates prepared in the past. Because different es-
timating methods and different numbers were utilized in the
approximations, the results cannot be viewed as reflecting
the actual increases in waste generation through the years
for the study area. The U.S. Forest Service estimated in a
1972 solid waste study^ that waste production generated
within the entire County in 1970 equalled 272 tons. In that
report, as mentioned previously, the author used a five
pounds per person per day waste generation rate for the
residents of Hinsdale County. In 1975, waste generation in
northern Hinsdale County was estimated by the County in
documentation supporting their request for a short term
lease on BLM land then occupied by the County landfill. In
Table 6 both of these approximations are compared with the
current and projected waste production estimates prepared in
thisreport.
^Source: Reference 11
21
-------
TABLE 5
PROJECTED ANNUAL WASTE PRODUCTION FOR THE HINSDALE
COUNTY STUDY AREA, 1981 - 1990
Projected Annual Waste
Study Year Volume (Tons)a
1981 700
1982 . 729
1983 758
1984 . 787
1985 816
1986 845
1987 874
1988 903
1989 932
1990 960
TOTAL 8,300 Tons
a Based on a 50 percent straight-line increase in permanent and seasonal
residents and a 20 percent straight-line increase in recreational use, both
over the ten-year study period.
22
-------
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF UASTE TONNAGE ESTIMATES FOR
HINSDALE COUNTY STUDY AREA
Forest Service Hinsdale Co. FCHA FCHA Projected
(1970)a (1975)b (1981) (1990)C
Pounds/Year 544,102 1,201,932 1,400,000 1,920,000
Tons/Year 272 601 700 960
a "Solid Waste Study For Gunnison River Basin" by Bill Smith, U.S. Forest
Service, Gunnison National Forest, 1972. Figure here represents total
Hinsdale County Waste Volume.
b "Lands For Public Use Application", Hinsdale County Disposal District, June,
1975.
c Projected from Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. (FCHA) 1981 figure based on an
annual linear increase of approximately 29 tons.
23
-------
IV. LANDFILL SITE EVALUATIONS
The objective of this portion of the study is to rank and
estimate costs for development and operation of the potential
landfill sites in the Lake City area. These sites must offer
conditions that make landfilling technically and economically
feasible, and must not pose significant risks to public health or
the environ ment.
Of the four original potential landfill sites (see Figure
2), two were identified by concerned County residents and two
were identified by the Forest Service. One of the original
tracts, the Ski Hill site, was eliminated early on due to its
prohibitively small size and lack of adequate cover material vol-
ume. The property inspected was less than one acre in size.
Soil material at the upslope side of the parcel appeared to be as
deep as two feet; however, it thinned considerably downslope
where the bedrock is exposed. The private north site was origi-
nally reported to be on BLM land; however, it was later identi-
fied as privately-owned property.
.All three sites are relatively accessible, do not exist on
land protected by easements for utility power lines or under-
ground pipelines, are not in floodplain areas, and ostensibly do
not exhibit highly prohibitive barriers to landfill development.
At the two Federally owned sites, it appears that there will be
no major impact on prime agricultural land, critical wildlife
habitat or endangered species, geothermal resources, or
archeological artifacts. Environmental assessments must,
however, be performed on the sites to determine the exact nature
of any possible impact on these factors.
Detailed soils and groundwater information for the sites is
almost entirely lacking and should be obtained from a detailed
engineering analysis of any site before a landfill can become
ope rat i ona 1 .
24
-------
FIGURE 2.
HINSDALE COUNTY
POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
PfllVATH NORTH 3IT
FOREST SERVICE SIT
-------
A. Site Description
Private North Site •
This proposed site lies approximately four and one-half
miles north., of Lake City within 300 feet of Highway 149, a
highly sceni-c river valley drive and the only transportation
route north out of Lake City. The 12-acre site rests on a
small all-uvial fan that descends from a high wall of Oligo-
cene age volcanic (lava flow) rock. Slope averages about 15
percent. The site rests more than 100 feet above the Lake
Fork of the'Gunnison River (500 feet to the east) and well
out of the floodplain. An intermittent stream transects the
site necessitating the construction of diversion structures.
to .prevent leachate production. Nearby roadcuts indicate
that the alluvial soil and rippable unconsolidated material
is quite deep (on the order of six to ten feet or more).
Vegetation at the site is dominated by grasses, scattered
shrubs, and intermittent stands of conifers and aspen.
Approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast, across the
highway, sits the old VC Bar Ranch, now a tourist facility.
Visibility of the site by visitors to the ranch and by mo-
torists on Highway 149 could be lessened by proper landscap-
ing techniques including fencing, earthen berms, and tree
planting. A private air-strip exists approximately 2,500
feet to the south-southeast, however, it is rarely if at all
used and should not experience undue hazards (from birds) as
a result of its proximity to the landfill site.
BLM South Site
This potential site rests immediately to the south and
adjacent to the town of Lake City. Access to the site is by
a steep unimproved dirt road approximately 3/8 of a mile in
length which is the extension 'of an improved dirt road that
26
-------
services a developing residential area to the north. The
site occupies about two acres of nearly level ground between
two small hills which lie at the base of rather precipitous
mountain face. In the Soil Conservation Service soils sur-
vey for this region, the soil is listed as Woodhall extreme-
ly rocky loam which consists of 35 to 60 percent stones and
commonly attains depths of only 20 to 40 inches. Soils here
have formed on rocks comprised of Oligocene volcanic tuff
and tuffaceous sandstone which forms prominent rock forma-
tions to the east of the site. Erosion from the slopes
which border the site on three sides may have increased the
soil depth at this site somewhat, but by how much is un-
known. The possible lack of adequate cover material volume
might require that additional cover material be shipped in
from another site. Although the foot of the site sits about
350 feet up and away from the Lake Fork of the Gunnison
River, no surface water contamination problem is perceived
to exist because of the small amounts of precipitation re-
ceived in the area, drainage patterns, and the relative
flatness of the site. In regard to vegetation the site is
mostly open grass with scattered aspen .trees around the
periphery of the site, especially against the climbing moun-
tain slope to the east. Even though the site is quite close
to residential areas, it is well contained and not readily
visible from any direction.
Although the southeast quandrant of Lake City, immedi-
ately to the north of the site, has been plotted for streets
and residences, little development has occurred there prin-
cipally because of topographic constraints. This, however,
does not preclude future development in this area. The pro-
ximity of the landfill site to this development corridor to
the north and to residences across the river to the west re-
mains the single most important limiting factor to the
acceptibility of constructing a landfill at this site.
27
-------
Forest Service Site
Located on U.S. Forest Service property in the Gunnison
National Forest approximately 10 miles south of Lake City,
this site is by far the largest under consideration occupy-
ing about 80 acres. The property fronts a light duty road
(dirt) with an improved surface. Spectacular mountain views
are afforded by this site, particularly 12,821-foot Grassy
Mountain to the north. Fourteen thousand and one-foot Sun-
shine Peak and 14,039-foot Redcloud Peak are also visible to
the west of the site.
The site rests on an alluvial deposit formed by the ac-
tion of streams on the steep-sloped San Juan Mountains, vol-
canic in origin, immediately to the south and southeast. No
general or site-specific soils data exists for the site how-
ever, field observation substantiates a relatively thick
mantle of alluvial material which apparently thins towards
the rocky slopes to the southeast. Several intermittent
drainages and a permanent stream flow down to the Lake Fork
of the Gunnison •River north of the site. Because of the
size of the pro.perty the landfill could be located far
enough away from the Gunnison River and the permanent stream
to avoid contamination; however, some drainage diversion
would probably be necessary for the intermittent streams
which run across the site. Slope here averages 10 percent.
The site is completely forested with aspen and a few coni-
fers.
The great disadvantage of this site is its location
ten miles south o.f town a gravel service road (Cinnamon Pass
Road). Although this road receives moderate to heavy use
during the summer tourist and fall hunting seasons, it is
not a route commo:nly travelled by area residents.
28
-------
The majority of traffic in the County follows Highway 149,
especially heading north out of Lake City towards Gunnison.
Because residents have become accustomed to the convenience
of the current landfill site and because of the ten mile
travel distance involved, the County may have to implement a
collection service in Lake City to transport wastes to this
1andfi11 site.
'The Williams Creek Campground, operated by the Forest
Service, and the Red Cloud Ranch, an organizational camp,
border the site to the north. An environmental assessment,
required by the Forest Service before the site can be used,
will analyze any land use conflicts involved with the pro-
ximity of this site to these recreational areas. In order
to be assimilated effectively into the pristine surround-
ings, a forested buffer zone could ring the site reducing
potential visibility and.noise problems.
B. Quantitative Review Methodology
As an alternative to a more generalized descriptive method
of selecting a final best site, .a more quantitative system of
ranking sites by scaling and weighting certain siting factors is
presented here. The results of this methodology can be compared
with the specific capital and operating costs of each alternative
(developed in section C of this chapter) in order to select the
most cost-effective site. Whenever several alternative landfill
sites are being compared, a scoring system with suitable weight-
ings reflecting the relative importance of various site factors
is often used. In order to test the sensitivity of the site rat-
ings, different tests can be made by varying the importance of
each of the eight siting factors. An average of the results of
several tests is thus more free of personal bias in subjective
non-engineering judgements. The American Society of Civil Engi-
29
-------
neers (ASCE")4 recognizes the importance of this type of scoring
system. The ASCE recommends this methodology as it demands an
orderly and- rational process of comparison.
Siting factors deemed most critical and appropriate are soil
depth, slope, area, impact upon ground water, impact upon surface
water, haul distance, access, and adjacent land use. Presented
below are descriptions of each of the eight siting factors uti-
lized in this method, as well as the rationales for their selec-
tion.
Soil Depth
Depth of the soil is important in selecting the appro-
priate landfilling techniques and determining whether or not
an adequate amount of cover material exists for the opera-
tion. Because no site-specific soil information or soil
survey was available, subjective determinations were made of
soil depth through field observations of the site. Soil
depth can be determined at the sites by using a backhoe.
Excavations should be made both at the upslope and downslope
(toe) ends of the site in question. A general soils map
prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, useful for a
generic description of a soil type and depth but lacking in
site-specific information, was the only published informa-
tion available on area soils. This general map only deline-
ated the soil series present at two of the three sites, the
Private North site and the BLM South site. In this discus-
sion, the term soil refers not only to the actual surficial
soil horizons, but to any unconsolidated rippable material
overlying bedrock. Even though most area soils are shallow
^Source: Reference 1.
30
-------
and rocky, the "soil" depth at the Private North side and
Forest Service site are much deeper, owing to the fact that
both sites occupy alluvial and colluvial deposits of uncon-
solidated material. These two sites will therefore receive
a higher score for soil depth. It is anticipated that at
least three feet of soil will be needed for all three land-
fill site operations, six inches for intermediate soil cover
(for operational vector, fire, litter, and moisture con-
trol), and two feet for final cover. Final cover serves
basically the same functions as intermediate cover, but it
must also support vegetative growth.
Slope
Slope serves as an important factor in determining the
method of landfilling, selection of equipment, design of
drainage controls, etc. In general a more favorable score
is assigned to the flatter slopes, which, in this study,
were chosen to be less than 8 percent. Slopes greater than
8 percent can require substantial grading to mitigate ero-
sion and surface water runoff problems and can present
equipment operational problems.
Area
No minimum landfill area has been established for the
study, although with a smaller area more fill depth will be
required and there will be a greater potential requirement
for off-site cover procurement. A larger surface area
allows for a more flexible operation and leaves room for
future expansion when necessary. Larger sites therefore
will receive a higher ranking. Five acres is the cut-off
point in regard to ranking because this is the approximate
area needed to contain the projected County waste production
for the ten year study period in an area landfill at a
standard cell depth of eight feet; This assumes a loose
31
-------
refuse density of 250 pounds per cubic yard and a standard
compaction ratio of 2:1 compacted to loose refuse density by
weight. With a deeper fill depth and greater compaction of
the landfilled trash, the effective size required could be
reduced. The two acre BLM South site could therefore be
utilized. However, if this site is used, a highly efficient
operation would have to be employed to guarantee the useful
life of this site over the ten year study period.
Ground Water Impact
To assess the risk of ground water contamination by
1andfi11-produced leachate, the location of the zone of sat-
uration must be determined as well as the direction and rate
of flow of the ground water. Because of the relative impor-
tance of this parameter it is included as a siting factor
even though site specific ground water data does not exist
for the three sites. When such information does become
available, following a detailed engineering analysis, it can
be assimilated into the scoring system matrix. A generally
accepted rule of thumb is that a sanitary landfill should be
located at least ten feet above the seasonal high water
table. This means that if a fifteen foot trench is
excavated, the seasonal high water table should be at least
ten feet below the bottom of this trench. Therefore, if
fifteen foot deep trenches are used, ground water test
borings need only be drilled to a depth of twenty-five to
thirty feet. /
Limited ground water information is available for wells
that are in proximity to the landfill sites. What informa-
tion is available is listed in Table 7. On the whole, most
of the wells listed are located in the same quarter-quarter
section, or within the same 40 acre parcel. The data
supplied in Table 7, however, is not intended to represent
the exact ground water conditions at each of the three sites
32
-------
and was not applied to the evaluation of ground water at the
sites. For example, the wells owned by the VC Bar Ranch,
close to the Private North site, are actually located a good
distance away from the site across the Lake Fork of the
Gunnison River to the northeast. Likewise, all wells listed
in proximity to the BLM South site are probably located down
from the site along the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River
where ground water depth is much shallower because of
proximity to the water table.
The information supplied in Table 7 does not provide
sufficient information to evaluate depth to ground water or
the migration pattern of the ground water at the three
sites. Specified information must be obtained through field
testing at the sites. Rather than drilling cased water
wells, it is recommended that two hollow stem auger drill
borings be made at the periphery of each site being con-
sidered for a landfill. A drill borehole is much less
expensive than a fully cased well and can be used to discern
the depth to the water table. Boreholes should be drilled
in the spring (when the ground water table is the highest) in
order to determine the seasonal high water table. If the
ground water level is within 15 feet of the bottom of the
landfill, it is recommended that casings be used and that
permanent monitoring wells be constructed so that
fluctuations in the ground water level can be measured.
If the direction of ground water flow is needed, be-
cause of possible concerns involving the contamination of
water wells and surface waters, a third borehole can be
drilled. Two boreholes will Only delineate the direction of
ground water flow in a straight line between the two
boreholes; three boreholes will provide a plane of reference
in which the direction of ground water movement can be
better ascertained. The elevation of the Lake Fork of the
Gunnison River can be used (assuming it is in -contact with
the water table) in place of the information that would
supplied by sinking a third borehole.
33
-------
Surface Water Impact
Leachate production might also result in the pollution
of surface water bodies. Landfills should therefore not be
located in direct contact with the surface water system.
All three sites are within 500 feet of the Lake Fork of the
Gunnison River, however, with proper drainage improvement
structures (needed to divert surface water flow around the
landfill operations), leachate contamination of the river
should not occur. The need for drainage improvement struc-
tures is the basis for ranking here with a higher score
going to the site which does not require major drainage
improvement to protect surface water bodies. This factor
represents more than just a cost it indicates the existing
potential for surface water pollution.
Haul Distance
The distance of the landfill site from Lake City, the
principal area of waste generation in the County, represents
the haul distance. Given the convenience of the current
operation and the increased cost of a longer haul, a more
favorable score is assigned to a site that is within 5 miles
of town .
Access
Each site is ranked for access because of the great ex-
pense involved with road construction. Currently, it costs
approximately $60,000 per mile to construct an unpaved all-
weather road and up to $200,000 per mile to build a paved
road^. Sites located on an improved all-weather road or with
5$ource: Reference 9.
34
-------
TABLE 7
AVAILABLE GROUND WfVTER IFfORMATIGN - HlffiDAUE GOUN1Y STUDY AREA*
• Well Locationb
T44 R 4 Sec. 1 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
«R 4 Sec. 1 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
R 4 Sec. 1 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
R 4 Sec. 1 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
T44 R 5 Sec. 2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 -
m R 4 Sec. 34 NE 1/4 NW 1/4
T44 R 4 Sec. 34 NW 1/4 NW 1/4
JR 4 Sec. 34 NW 1/4 NW 1/4
R 4 Sec. 34 SW 1/4 M 1/4
R 4.Sec. 34 SW 1/4 NW 1/4
fR 4 Sec. 34 SE 1/4 NW 1/4
R 4 Sec. 34 SE 1/4 NW 1/4
Closest
• Landfill Site
Private North
Private North
Private North
Private North
Private North
BLM South
BUM South
BLM South
BLM South
BLM South
BLM South
BLM South
Proximity to
Closest
Landfill Site
Same 1/4 Section
Same 1/4 Section
Same 1/4 Section
Same 1/4 Section
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Oner
Or Tenant
Year
Completed
Well
Depth (ft.)
Depth to
Water (ft.)
V/C/Bar Ranch
V/C/Bar Ranch
V/C/Bar Ranch
V/C/Bar Ranch
C.O. Mil fond
1964
1966
1953
1964
1957
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
Same 1/4 1/4 Sec.
L.W. Grandon
H.E. Gibson
B.W. Reeves
L.D. Hagler
A.L. Millinex
B. Mullinex
N.B. Jordan
1935
1963
1958
1957
1957
1959
1959
T42 R 4 Sec. 8 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Forest Service Same 1/4 1/4 Sec. G.M. Hinkel
1960
72
166
28
23
23
25
25
34
27
29
15
33
58
8
26
14
12
Unknown
15
7
5
5
8
5
5
45
I
Source: "Records of Registered Wells", Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, 1972.
Represents available ground water information in closest proximity to the three potential landfill sites. Data sup-
plied here is not intended to represent the exact nature of ground water conditions at each of the three landfil 1
ites.
Well locations are listed by township (T), range (R), section (1-36), and quarter-quarter section. A listing such as
I Section 1, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 indicates a 40 acre parcel located in the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 section of sec-
tion 1.
35
-------
close access (1/4-mile or less) to one via existing roads
are scored higher than sites with no or more distant
(greater than 1/4 mile) existing access to an improved road
surface.
Adjacent Land Use
Certain land uses near the proposed landfill sites may
pose problems to the acceptability of the landfill opera-
tions. A landfill immediately adjacent to Lake City or re-
sidential development in the area may be objectionable due
to noise or to odors, dust, and vector problems occasionally
associated with landfill operation. Because even the best
sanitary landfills attract birds, landfills located near
airports can be a serious danger to low-flying aircraft.
Airstrips are present in the study area (one is near the
Private North site); however, they are rarely, if at all,
used. Conflicting land uses, such as those described above,
are the basis for scoring here with a more favorable score
being assigned to those sites at least a mile away from a
conflicting land use. It is assumed that with the proper
landscaping techniques there will be no serious land use
conflict at the Forest Service site. Any possible problem
that exists as a result of the proximity of this site to
nearby camping facilities will be evaluated in an
Environmental Assessment to be prepared by the Forest
Servi ce.
Each of the above factors has been divided into two
categories with assigned scores of either 1 or 2, with a
score of 1 indicating a more favorable condition. Table 8
lists the siting factor, the two relevant categories, and
the scores assigned to each category. Because at the pre-
sent time there is no accurate ground water data for the
sites in question, this siting factor was not included in
the scoring analysis.
36
-------
TABLE 8
LANDFILL SITING FACTORS AND RATINGS ASSIGNED TO FACTOR CATEGORIES
Siting Factor
1. Soil Depth
2. Slope
3. Area
4. Ground Water Impact
5. Surface Water Impact
6. Haul Distance
7. Access
8. Adjacent Land Use
Factor Scaling Categories
> 3 feet depth
< 3 feet depth
< 8 percent
> 8 percent
> 5 acres
< 5 acres
GW depth > 5 feet.
GW depth < 5 feet.
Major drainage modification
not required.
Major drainage modification
requi red.
0 - 5 miles
> 5 miles
< 1/4 mile to existing all-
weather road
> 1/4 mile to existing all-
weather road
> 1 mile from conficting land use
< 1 mile from conficting land use
Ratings
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
37
-------
TABLE 9
SITE SPECIFIC DATA AM) SCORING ON POTENTIAL LAJCFILL SITES
Soil
Depth Slope Area
Surface Haul Adjacent
Water Impact Distance Access Land Use
Private North
Site Specific
Data
Score
> 36"
1
10-15%
2
12 acres
1
Drainage
Modi f ications
Needed
2
4.5 miles
1
On Road
1
1/2 Mile
fron
Airstrip
2
BLM South
Site Specific
Data
Score
30"
2
0-5%
1-
2 acres
2
Drainage
Modi f ications
Not Needed
1
0.5 miles
1
3/8 mi .
fron
Road
2
Adj. to
Lake City
Urb. Area
2
Forest Service
Site Specific
Data
Score
> 72"
1
10%
2
80 acres
1
Drainage
Modifications
Needed
2
10 miles
2
On Road
1
No Ap-
parent
Conflict
1
38
-------
TABLE 10
WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO EACH SITING FACTOR
UNDER THREE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
System No. Siting Factor Weight
I Soil Depth 1/7
Slope 1/7
Area 1/7
Surface Water Impact 1/7
Haul Distance 1/7
Access 1/.7
Adjacent Land Use 1/7
II Soil Depth/Slope/Surface
Water Impact 1/5
Area 1/5
Haul Distance 1/5
Access 1/5
Adjacent Land Use 1/5
III Area 1/4
Haul Distance 1/4
Soil Depth 1/10
Slope 1/10
Surface Water Impact 1/10
Access 1/10
Adjacent Land Use 1/10
39
-------
Table 9 summarizes the site-specific data with respect
to the seven remaining siting factors described above for
each of the three potential landfill sites. For each site
in Table 9, the score assigned for each siting factor is
also 1i sted .
In order to test the sensitivity of the site ratings to
different assumptions regarding the importance (weight)
given to each of the seven siting factors, the scores were
calculated using three alternative factor weighting systems
(see Table 10). System I represents the case where all
seven siting factors are perceived as being equally impor-
tant and, thus, receive equal weights. System II assigns a
greater significance to the social and economic factors,
area (i.e., site life), haul distance, access, and adjacent
land use. System II was utilized because with proper site
modifications, all three sites could be operated in a manner
that would not prove detrimental to public safety or the
environment. County officials perceive area (i.e., site
life) and. haul distance as the two most important factors
operating in the study area so in System III these factors
were weighted more heavily. Table 11 summarizes the results
from these analyses and ranks the sites accordingly.
SITE
Private North
BLM South
Forest Service
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF SCORING RESULTS
RANK
System I
First (Tie)
Third
First (Tie)
System II
First (Tie)
Thi rd
First (Tie)
System III
First
Thi rd
Second
40
-------
According to the weighting systems utilized, the Private
North site appears to be the most favorable of the three sites
examined. This designation is, however, made without an examina-
tion of the specific costs involved with the development and
operation of each site - a task undertaken in Section C of this
chapter. The Forest Service site did score equally with the Pri-
vate North site in the first two rating systems, however, in Sys-
tem III, where haul distance was emphasized, the Private North
site received a more favorable score. Pending further investiga-
tion, the Forest Service site, in light of its large size, could
certainly be deemed a suitable site if the County is unable to
purchase the Private North site.
A special use permit for the operation of a sanitary land-
fill on Forest Service land can be issued by the Forest Service
to the County for a minimal leasing fee. Appendix C explains the
procedures and requirements necessary in obtaining a special use
permit. The operation of a landfill by the county on Forest Ser-
vice land would be subject to the minimum standards specified in
the special use permit (see Appendix C, p. C-4). In order to
receive a special use permit, the County would need to prepare an
engineering report, which includes a detailed evaluation of the
site's soils (textural classification and type) and information
on .the depth to maximum seasonal high water table, and an engi-
neering design and operational plan..
In order for the County to acquire the use of the Forest
Service site, the District Ranger will have to prepare an Envir-
onmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed plan and determine
whether a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
necessary. The preparation of an EA could delay the expedient
utilization of the site for up to a year. If the Forest Service
site was selected, such a delay would force the County into
developing an interim plan (such as transferring wastes to the
Gunnison Landfill) until such time as the site could become oper-
ati onal .
41
-------
Ranking last in all three scoring systems, the BLM South
site presents real obstacles to the proper design and operation
of a sanitary landfill in Hinsdale County. The small size of the
site and the shallowness of the soils suggest that adequate
amounts of cover material may not be present and may have to be
shipped in from other locations. Only through a highly efficient
site operation, with the emphasis on achieving high waste com-
paction ratios, can this site expect to sustain a useable life of
ten years. An access road would also need to be constructed, and
travel to the landfill on the access road would occur in conflict
with the adjacent residential land use.
C. LANDFILL OPERATIONAL PLANS
Conceptual operation plans are presented for the Private
North site, the BLM South site, and the Forest Service site. The
operation of the Forest Service site includes the consideration
of a greenbox collection system which is necessitated by the
longer haul distance involved (10 miles).. The operational con-
siderations posed by the heavy seasonal waste generation are also
presented.
Private North Site
A system of five trenches, the longest of which would be
1000 feet, would proceed from south to north along the contour of
the property, and downslope from west to east. Figure 3 illus-
trates the layout schematic for this site. These trenches would
be fifteen feet wide across the bottom and fifteen feet deep on
the downhill side, with sidewall slopes at a 45 degree angle
steeper (depending on stability considerations). Because of the
trench configuration, a minimum amount of cover material would be
required each year (about twenty per cent of the excavated spoil
would be needed), meaning a large amount of excess fill material
would be produced each year. This material could be stockpiled,
42
-------
FIGURE 3
PRIVATE NORTH SITE LAYOUT
-------
used to terrace each trench, improve the access road, or hauled
off site. Figure 4 illustrates the trench and area methods of
sanitary landfilling.
Access to the site would be via an improved road along the
eastern and southern property boundaries. This road would take
traffic to each trench where a temporary road, constructed on a
shallow berm on the downhill side of the trench, would be built
to allow dumping into the trench from the sidewall. The second-
ary road could be constructed concurrently with each year's
length of trench, thereby reducing site development capital
requirements. In addition, a row of trees could be planted on
the edge of the secondary road berm to screen off visibility of
the operation from the highway. A schematic of the trench
configuration is shown in Figure 5.
No ground water problems are expected at this site, but this
must be verified by field investigations (borings) prior to final
acceptance of this alternative. Precluding detailed borings in-
formation, in general, the only ground water of concern would be
alluvial in nature associated with the intermittent stream
crossing the property, and flowing along the bedrock-alluvium
interface. This interface is probably located at a depth of
thirty feet or more throughout the property. Again, this
assumption, based on nearby road cuts and regional geology, must
be verified by field investigations.
The intermittent stream drainage previously alluded to must
be diverted around the property. If the diversion structure is
built on the western edge of the property sloping downwards to
the north, it will also efficiently serve as surface drainage
control. The design of such a structure should consider the'
local ground water mound which might occur due to infiltration.
The structure should be located so that the potential mound does
not intersect the westernmost trench, thereby contributing to
leachate formation.
44
-------
FIGURE 4
TRENCH AND AREA METHODS
OF SANITARY LANDFILLING
Trancfc IVWthod
i
Reference 2.
45
-------
CROSS-SECTION
EXCESS SPOIL.
V
PLAN VIEW
SPOIU
FIGURE 5
TRENCH CONFIGURATION FOR PRIVATE NORTH SITE
46
-------
Forest Service Site
This site, because of- the apparent soil and unconsolidated
overburden depth, is also suitable for a trench type operation,
and would be operated similarly to the Private North site. A
series of trenches, wi.th approximately the same dimensions (fif-
teen feet wide and deep with 45 degree sidewall slopes), would be
placed parallel to each other and to the contours of the proper-
ty. Trenches would start at the southern property boundary and
move northwards. Excavated material in excess of that required
for cover would be stockpiled or hauled off site. Again, a tem-
porary access road could be built alongside each trench. See
Figure 6 for a diagram of the layout of this site.
Because of the apparent depth of colluvial material and the
natural topography of the site, no surface water drainage or
ground water problems are expected. Surface water diversion
ditching will be needed around the upslope reaches of the site.
The stream which divides the site empties out of a relatively
small drainage suggesting that the stream is ephemeral in na-
ture. Most of flow in this drainage will occur in the spring as
a result of snow melt runoff. Before final design of the site is
initiated, a ground water investigation must also be completed to
accurately identify depth and quality/quantity . considerat ions for
ground water present.
Aesthetics are again a major consideration, because the site
is adjacent to a nearby campground and other recreational facili-
ties. It is believed that visibility is not a problem, however,
as long as clearing/grubbing operations leave a forested buffer
zone around the perimeter of the site.
The one aspect of this alternative which makes it less feas-
ible is its distance from the population center. A quantifiable
.estimate of the costs involved with operating a greenbox collec-
47
-------
FIGURE 6
FOREST SERVICE SITE LAYOUT
BRIDGE
__ PROPERTV
//// FENCS U\N£
— — MAIN IKCCCSS
TEMPORARY ACCESS
• (AVERSION b»TCH
48
-------
tion vehicle system should be compared to the cost and inconve-
nience of having County residents directly hauling their wastes
to the landfill before any decision is made concerning the cost-
effectiveness of each alternative.
For the Forest Service site, a system of greenboxes could be
provided to lessen the distance residents would have to travel to
dispose of their trash. It is believed that since the Forest
Service site is 10 miles in a direction not normally traveled by
area residents, many Lake City citizens may be very inconvienced
in disposing of their trash. In addition, an added impact of
local residents hauling trash over the ten-mile distance is an
increased amount of trash along Highway 149 and the Cinnamon Pass
Road resulting from debris blowing out of and lost from
vehicles. To resolve these problems for this site, greenboxes
could be situated at the current town dumpsite where residents
could dispose of their wastes. Either the town or a private
contractor could then transfer the wastes from these greenboxes
to the new County landfill on a regular basis. Citizens should
be urged to cover their wastes when hauling to the greenboxes.
A .reasonable number of 2 1/2-cubic yard greenbox containers
required is 10. Approximately 230 trips will be required to
transport waste from the greenbox station to the landfill each
year. During the peak season daily greenbox collections will be
necessary; every second or third day pick-up will suffice for the
rest of the year. Eight greenboxes would be placed on a slab at
the old landfill, while two would be held for reserve,
replacement, or possible location elsewhere in the County if the
demand arises. Although the Forest Service has a 16-cubic yard
rear-loading packer truck, it is doubtful that a leasing
agreement with the County can be arranged for the use of this
truck.
49
-------
BLM South Site
This site, due to limited space and depth of cover, will
have to use a progressive ramp variable to the area fill method
(see Figure 4). More intensive operation and supervision is also
required to reach the desired 10-year site life. More time and
more equipment operation hours must be expended to compact the
trash to the highest densities possible in order to reduce the
amount of area needed to contain the waste material. However,
these factors are partially offset by the benefits derived from
reduced cover material handling, proximity to town, and potential
beneficial end use of the site after landfill operations cease.
The property is accesible via a road currently used by a
developing residential area on the east side of .the town. A
total of 2 acres is usable for landfilling. Figure 7 shows the
site layout involved in this operation. The conceptual plan
calls for prestripping of soil to a depth of 2 1/2 to 3 feet in a
band along the west side of the road. This material will be used
to build an 8 to 10 foot berm near the eastern property boundary,
which will provide the starting point for the initial cells as
the fill progresses from one end of the berm to the other. Cover
material is stripped immediately ahead of the working face as the
operation progresses. However, the equipment time saved in this
manner must be used in a more intensive compactive effort (appro-
ximately 900 to 1000 pounds per cubic yard (pcy) rather than 800
pcy normally specified for the trench operations). Cover materi-
al available at a depth of 2 1/2 feet over the area is sufficient
to construct a 10-year landfill, based on this specified compact-
ed waste density of 900 pcy and the assumption that 20 per cent
of the landfill volume will be occupied by cover material.
No ground or surface water problems are perceived at this
site. Natural drainage flows southwards of the property, and the
access road, if upgraded,.would enhance that pattern. No drain-
age diversion ditches will be necessary.
50
-------
FIGURE 7
BLM SOUTH SITE LAYOUT
J t '
0 «
51
-------
Nearby residents should not be adversely impacted if the
site is operated as a sanitary landfill, as there is no direct
visual access to this site. Also, of the three sites, this site
has the most potential for a beneficial public land use after
completion, since the conceptual plan calls for a final slope of
less than or equal to the original ground slope of 2%. The site
could be used for recreational uses after reclamation.
Operational Constraints - Seasonal Fluctuations
Seasonal fluctuations in the incoming waste volume and the
climate should not pose problems to the daily operation of a
landfill. As stated in previous assumptions (see Chapter 3,
Section E), approximately 64 per cent of the waste (450 tons)
produced in the study area are produced during the summer tourist
season. For both trench-type landfills (the Private North and
Forest Service sites), an entire year's trench volume is
excavated in late spring, prior to the summer tourist season.
Additionally, temporary labor can keep the site clean, direct
traffic, and do other tasks as required during the summer and
fall. In an area type landfill, cover material can be obtained
directly in front of the working face and compacted on the
waste. In this way, a small excavation is prepared for a portion
of the next day's waste. Seasonal fluctuations in the amount of
waste received will only affect the operation by increasing the
daily or weekly equipment time required for waste spreading and
compaction.
Frozen cover material is potentially a problem in the win-
ter, as would be cold weather starting and use of the equipment.
The CAT 955 crawler loader or equivalent currently used, appears
to be large enough to rip the stockpiled material for either
trench. Some cover should be stockpiled in the fall for the area
fill. Also, an electric engine heater for the crawler loader
could alleviate cold weather engine problems.
D. LANDFILL COSTS
The cost analyses for the three landfill sites are based on
52
-------
the following assumptions:
1. No overhead or profit is included (County operation).
2. No landfill closure costs are included.
3. A single piece of equipment, equivalent to a Caterpil-
lar D-7 track dozer is used to operate and maintain the
landfill .
4. No ground water problems at all potential sites.
5. Site specific assumptions about depth of cover and rip-
pability are subsequently verified by field investiga-
tions.
6. Average annual waste generation over 10 years is 900
tons.
7. The site and equipment will have no salvage value after
10 years.
Although there is a chance that the County can obtain any of
the three sites for a nominal yearly fee, it is more likely that
a relatively large investment will be required for the Private
North site, the only privately owned site of the three. The BLM
has in the past traded its land for other parcels of private land
at the request of private individuals and local governmental en-
tities. Such a land trade does not, however, appear feasible at
the Private North site because of the number of landowners in-
volved (3) and the general opposition to sell the land. The pos-
sibility of trading this land to the BLM for other property did
at one time appear feasible. However, the recent acquisition of
this piece of land by three separate interests and their lack of
interest in such a "land swap" have all but eliminated this
p o s s i b i 1 i ty .
53
-------
With respect to equipment purchases, the County indicates
that it currently owns a relatively new Caterpillar D-7 dozer,
and a back-up D-7 dozer which can be used for compaction and
cover operations. Regardless of the alternative chosen, this
equipment may need to be replaced in time and this expenditure
should be planned for. A crawler-loader with a ripper and a min-
imum flywheel rating of 80 Hp is recommended as the most versa-
tile type of equipment available. Appendix D provides a list of
solid waste equipment manufacturers and distributors.
Costs for each site are broken down into developmental and
operational costs. Developmental costs include all the work
required before the property can be used as a landfill, such as
clearing, all-weather road construction, drainage modifications,
and miscellaneous items such as fencing, operator/equipment shel-
ters, signs, and initial cover stockpiling or trench excavation.
Engineering fees will be required to prepare an engineering and
operational plan (see page 12) that must be submitted to the CDH
for review. Monitoring wells are not included because of the
perceived low potential for ground water pollution.
Operational costs include the labor, equipment, and materi-
als required to spread, compact, and cover the wastes, maintain
the site, and reclaim disturbed areas. Operational costs also
cover annual expenditures for a gatekeeper, the preparation of
new fill areas, revegetation of completed fill areas, landscaping
and maintenance, fuel, and utilities. Depending on the County's
role in the landfill operation, either the administrative and
supervisory costs of the County or the private contractor's over-
head and profit will need to be considered in these costs.
The landfill site need only be open three or four afternoons
each week during the summer season (June, July, August, and Sep-
tember) and three afternoons each week the rest of the year. A
gatekeeper would provide general site clean-up, collect fees (if
desired), and record the incoming waste volume during this time.
54
-------
It is desirable to know how much waste is being received in order
to more effectively formulate user fees and to plan for the
design of future solid waste management operations. An equipment
operator will also be required on an as-needed basis to dig the
trench, spread, compact, and cover the wastes, and to provide
maintenance to roads and ditches. Each of the cost summary
tables specifies what it will cost for all of these tasks on an
annual basis. Because of the significant risk of accidents and
injuries at the landfill, both the gatekeeper and the equipment
operator should be knowledgeable about the various safety consi-
derations involved (see Appendix E).
For this analysis, a generally accepted rule-of-thumb value
of $60.00 per hour was used to calculate equipment costs. This
hourly equipment cost includes fuel, maintenance, insurance,
capital depreciation c.osts, etc. This cost estimate is based on
regional experience and the size of the specified crawler dozer
needed. Equipment failure will not be a severe problem since the
County can provide for a backup from another department. The
cost of materials is assumed to include an operator shelter,
signs, and barricades ($5,000 per site). The total cost of
revegetation is estimated- at $1,000 per acre.
Revegetation at the Private North site includes a more cost-
ly ($2,000/acre) revegetation operation for the bermed roadway
which would be used for access to the trench. Revegetating this
sloping berm would involve hydroseeding, mulching, and fertiliz-
ing techniques and equipment.
Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15 display the specific development
and annual operating costs for the Private North site, the BLM
South site, the Forest Service site without greenboxes, and the
Forest Service site with greenboxes, respectively. Costs for the
Private North site are listed with and without land purchase
costs, which are assumed to be $2,000/acre.
55
-------
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is used in this analysis
to project the annual payments which would be required to finance
site development (or equipment costs) at 10% interest over 10
years. This capital recovery factor (0.16275) can be multiplied
by the debt to derive the uniform annual payments necessary to
retire the debt. For the Forest Service site a greenbox replace-
ment fund can be established to finance the purchase of new
greenboxes after the old ones depreciate (5 years). A 5 year
annual $1,000 deposit accuring 6 percent interest over 5 years
will finance the acquisition of new greenboxes.
Table 16 summarizes the total annual cost for developing and
operating a landfill at each of the three alternative sites. As
can be seen from this table, the total annual costs at all three
sites are somewhat similar if land purchase costs (Private North
site) and higher service level costs (greenboxes at the Forest
Service Site) are not included. The addition of land purchase
costs for the Private North site and greenbox costs for the
Forest Service site make the total annual costs at those sites
respectively, 91 percent and 58 percent higher than it would be
without those additional costs.
The various financing options available to the County are
listed in Appendix F. The options listed in Appendix F apply to
the financing of either a landfill or a transfer station system
(discussed in the next chapter).
56
-------
TABLE 12
HINSDALE COUNTY PRIVATE NORTH SITE:
DEVELOPMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Development Costs
Item
Road Construction
Site Development (initial trenching)
Fencing
4ft. Stock
Gate
Drill Boreholes (2 borings)
Engineering and Design (7% of total
development cost)
Miscellaneous (shelter, signs, etc.)
(Land Purchase)
TOTAL
Without Land Purchase
(With Land Purchase)
Unit Cost
Quantity
Lump Sum
$ 2,000/acre
80 acres
Total Cost
$60,000/mile
$60.00/yd3
$ 4.10/ft.
$ 350/each
1,600 ft.
40 yd. 3
1,900 ft.
1
$18,200'
2,400
7,800
350
300
2,400
5,000
(160,000)
$36,500
$196,500
Annual Operating Costs
Labor
Operator
.Gatekeeper
Trenching (for subsequent year)
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Revegetation
Trench
Bermed Roadway
Maintenance
Roads and Ditches
(equipment)
TOTAL
$
$
$ 5.20/hr.
$ 4.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
1,060/acre
2,000/acre
280 hr.
860 hr.
40 hr.
104 hr.
52 hr.
0.4 acres
0.5 acres
$ 1,500
$ 3,400
$ 2,400
6,200
3,100
400
1,000
$60.00/hr.
80 hr.
4,800
$22,800
Source:
9.
Hourly equipment operation costs, Reference 10. All other costs, Reference
57
-------
TABLE 13
HINSDALE COUNTY BLM SOUTH SITE:
DEVELOPMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS3
Development Costs
Item
Unit Cost
Road Construction $60,000/mile
Site Development (berms and drainage) $60.00/hr.
Fencing
4 ft. Stock
Gate
Drill Boreholes (2 borings)
Engineering and Design (7% of
total development cost)
Miscellaneous (shelter, signs, etc.)
$ 4.10/ft.
$ 350/each
Quantity
2,700 ft.
40 hr.
1,000 ft.
1
Lump Sum
Total Cost
$30,700
2,400
4,100
350
300
2,800
5,000
TOTAL
$45,700
Annual Operating Costs
Labor
Operator
Gatekeeper
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Revegetation
Maintenance
Road and Ditches (equipment)
TOTAL
$
$ 5.20/hr.
$ 4.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
1,060/acre
320 hr.
860 hr.
, 156 hr.
52 yd. 3
0.2 acres
$ 1,700
$ 3,400
$ 9,400
3,100
200
$ 60/hr.
112 hr.
6,700
$24,500
a Source: Hourly equipment operation costs, Reference 10. All other costs, Reference 9
58
-------
TABLE 14
HINSDALE COUNTY FOREST SERVICE SITE: WITHOUT GREENBOXES
DEVELOPMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS3
Development Costs
Item
Road construction
Clearing
Site Development (initial trenching)
Fencing
4 ft. Stock
Gate
Drill Boreholes (2 borings)
Engineering and Design (7% of Total
development cost)
Miscellaneous (shelters, signs, etc.)
TOTAL
Unit Cost
Quantity
Lump Sum
Total Cost
$60,000/mile
$ 935/acre
$60.00/hour
$ 4.10/ft.
$ 350/each
1,140 ft.
0.4 acres
40 hr.
4,000 ft.
1
$13,000
400
2,400
16,400
350
300
2,700
5,000
$40,600
Annual Operating Costs
Labor
Operator
Gatekeeper
Trenching (for subsequent year)
Spreading and Compacting
Covering
Revegetation
Maintenance
Road and Ditches (equipment)
TOTAL
$ 5.20/hr.
$ 4.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$60.00/hr.
$l,060/acre
280 hr.
860 hr.
40 hr.
104 hr.
52 hr.
0.4 acres
$ 1,500
3,400
2,400
6,200
3,100
400
$60.00/hr.
80 hr.
4,800
$21,800
a Source: Hourly equipment operation costs, Reference 10. All other costs., Reference 9,
59
-------
TABLE 15
HINSDALE COUNTY FOREST SERVICE SITE: WITH GREENBOXES
DEVELOPMENT AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS*
Development Costs
Item
(Road construction, clearing, site
development, fencing, drill
boreholes, and miscellaneous same
as Table 14)
Greenboxes (2.5-yd.3)
Concrete Slab
Engineering and Design (7% of
total development cost)
TOTAL
Unit Cost
Quantity
Total Cost
$400/each
$200/yd.3
10
14 yd. 3
$37,900
4,000b
2,800
3,100
$47,800
Annual Operating Costs
(Labor, trenching, spreading and com-
pacting, cover, landscaping,
revegetation, and maintenance
same as Table 13)
Greenbox Replacement Fund
Truck Operation (Fuel, tires,
maintenance, etc.)
Truck Leasing
Labor (truck)
$ 1.50/mile
$ 500/mo.
$ 4.50/hr.
$21,800
1,000
4,600 miles 6,900
12 months
334 hrs.c
6,000
1,500
TOTAL
$37,200
a Source: Hourly equipment operation costs, Reference 10. All other costs, Reference
9.
b.This is a 5 year cost and was calculated using a sinking fund factor of 0.1774 for
an annual deposit accruing 6 percent interest. It is assumed that greenboxes will
sell for 560 in 5 years (40 percent cost increase due to inflation).
c 150 hours during the summer and 184 hours the rest of the year.
60
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS FOR THE THREE LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
HINSDALE COUNTY
Item
Annual Annual
Development Costa Operating Cost Total Annual Cost
Private North Site
With Land Purchase
Without Land Purchase
BLM South
Forest Service
With Greenboxes
Without Greenboxes
$32,000
5,900
7,400
7,800
6,600
$22,800
22,800
24,500
37,200
21,800
$54,800
28,700
31,900
45,000
28,400
a Using annual capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275 to determine the uniform an-
nual debt retirement payment at an interest rate of 10 percent over 10 years.
61
-------
V. SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
A. General Review of Solid Waste Transfer Options
Rural, sparsely populated areas like Hinsdale County are
often faced with collecting solid wastes from a very large area.
Additionally, in these areas, land is either unsuitable for sani-
tary landfill operations or suitable land is unavailable due to
either prohibitive costs or incompatibility with adjacent land
use patterns. The combination of these factors often make it
advantageous to transport wastes out of the area for ultimate
disposal. For this option to be feasible, transportation costs
must be reduced to a minimum. One method to reduce transporta-
tion costs is to utilize a transfer station where solid wastes
are temporarily deposited and then transferred to large capacity
vehicles (usually a semi-trailer with the capacity to transport
up to 20 tons of waste). These large vehicles, in turn, trans-
port the wastes to a regional disposal site.
Transfer Stations. Transfer stations are commonly designed
to function in one of two ways (see Figure 8). One method is
direct transfer (direct dump) of the wastes from the collection
vehicles to the larger capacity transfer trucks. The second
method (stockpile/front end load) consists of stockpiling the
wastes from the collection vehicles and periodically moving the
stockpiled wastes into the transfer vehicle. Generally in cases
involving small daily waste loads on the order of 50 tons per day
(TPD) or less, direct transfer of the wastes is the most cost-ef-
fective alternative. Larger volume transfer stations - 50 to 250
TPD - usually utilize the stockpile method plus sophisticated
transfer equipment. Additionally, transfer stations of this size
have the potential to implement limited resource recovery opera-
tions (e.g. paper and aluminum can separation and recycling) to
offset capital and operating costs. Transfer stations with vari-
ous arrangements of optional equipment are commercially available
from a number of nationwide manufacturers, some of whom offer
turn-key services.
62
-------
FIGURE 8. TRANSFER STATIONS
DIRECT DUMP TRANSFER STATION
STOCKPILE/FRONT END LOAD TRANSFER STATION
Source: Hegdohl, Tobias. Solid Waste Transfer Stations,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
(SW-99),I973. 63
-------
Compaction Unit. In general, areas where populations exceed
1,000 or where transportation distances exceed approximately 15
miles, it is most economical and practical to have the transfer
station equipped with a compaction unit to reduce the volume of
the waste. This allows for a substantial increase in the
quantity of waste which can be transported each trip and thus
decreases the number of vehicle trips taken to the ultimate
disposal site.
Transfer Vehicles. There are two types of transfer vehicles
which can be used with compaction equipment. These are the tilt
frame/roll-off container vehicle, and the transfer trailer.
The tilt frame/roll-off is so named because of the moveable
rail structure which is mounted directly on the truck chassis or
separately on a trailer bed (see Figure 9). A roll-off container
is collected by "tilting" the rails and winching the entire con-
tainer onto the structure. When the container is to be emptied,
the rear doors of the container are opened and the entire package
is tilted so that the compacted refuse falls out. Commercially
available tilt frame/roll-off transfer vehicles must be equipped
with a separate refuse compactor. Refuse is deposited in a hop-
per feeding the compactor which forces the waste into the roll-
off container. There is little compaction of refuse until the
container is nearly full since, only then does the compactor
exert a signficant pressure. A typical ratio of compacted to
loose refuse density achieve able by this type of system is 1.9 to
1 by weight.
In contrast to the external compactor associated with the
tilt frame/roll-off type of trailer, the transfer trailer has a
hydraulic ejection ram mounted inside the trailer compartment
(see Figure 10). When emptying the trailer, the rear doors are
opened and refuse is pushed out by the ram. This ram provides a
signficant .advantage for the transfer trailer as opposed to the
.roll-off system. The ram allows the transfer trailer to achieve
64
-------
FIGURE 9.
TILT FRAME/ROLL-OFF TRANSFER VEHICLE
1.
1. Refuse is inserted into the compactor hopper by
various methods. Loading procedure can be selected to
best suit each installation.
2. Simply activate pushbutton control and your trash is
compacted and stored in a sanitary, closed system.
3.
3. High compaction forces allow large volumes of refuse
to be stored in the smallest space.
4. Your trash- is removed by a roll-off truck when your
receiving container is full and your system is ready for
work again.
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
65
-------
FIGURE 10. TRANSFER TRAILER VEHICLE
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS, KNOXVILLE , TENNESSEE
66
-------
a much higher density of wastes in one of two ways. If a separ-
ate compactor is utilized, it can work against the ejection ram
which is extended at first and gradually retracted as the volume
of contained wastes increases. Alternatively, the ejection ram
can be used as a compaction device. In this system, wastes are
introduced via a hopper into a "top dumping" trailer just behind
the face of the ram. When a certain volume has been deposited,
the operator can use the ram to compact the wastes against the
rear door of the trailer. The advantage of this method is that
no separate piece of compaction equipment is required. All that
the trailer requires is a source of hydraulic pressure which can
be provided through a "wet-pack" hookup from the tractor rig or a
stationary hydraulic pump (gas or electric). A typical ratio of
compacted to loose refuse density achievable by this type of
system is 3 to 1 by weight.
"GreenBox" System. One type of transfer system that is of-
ten used effectively in conjunction with a transfer station is a
rural disposal or "greenbox" system* For rural areas and commu-
nities with populations less than approximately 1,000 where no
individual door-to-door collection service is available, a poten-
tially economical solid waste collection alternative is the use
of containers strategically placed :throughout the service area.
Through the use of specially-equipped vehicles, these containers,
referred to as greenboxes, are emptied periodically and the waste
is then transported to a central transfer facility to await final
transportation and disposal at a regional disposal site. In many
rural areas, a container system .has replaced several small
indiscriminate dumps allowing for an economical waste disposal
method which is in compliance with all local, State, and Federal
laws.
The "greenbox" system consists of locating several small
containers (see Figure 11) varying from 3 to 8 cubic yards in
size throughout a sparsely populated area. These containers are
placed in locations which are readily accessible including inter-
67
-------
FIGURE 1 1. GREENBOXES
SOURCE: GEORGE SWANSON & ^ON, INC., ARVADA, COLORADO
-------
sections of local highways, recreational areas, previous dump
sites, and in or near small communities. These container systems
can be designed such th.at the waste in the containers can be emp-
tied into either a front .loading or rear loading waste collection
vehicle (see Figure 12).
The "greenbox" system would require special County-wide
ordinances to control the type of waste being deposited in these
green boxes. Such ordinances would have to address the fact
that:
a) Containers can accept:
residential and household waste
light commercial waste
yard trimmings
b) Containers cannot accept:
burned or burning materials
industrial waste
bulky waste; i.e., stoves, refrigerators, construc-
tion debris, tree trunks, auto parts, etc.
dead animals.
B. Operation and Costs
A transfer station can be centrally located at the current
Hinsdale County landfill ,site to service the entire study area.
Such a system would eliminate the cost and difficulty of acquir-
ing valuable land in the County, provide an immediate solid waste
disposal facility, and lessen public opposition to the initiation
of a new landfill site. On the other hand, a transfer station in
Hinsdale County would require a dependence on waste disposal
facilities outside the County (like the Gunnison Landfill) which
might be exhausted in the near future.
69
-------
FIGURE 12.
FRONT AND REAR-LOADING GREEN BOX
COLLECTION VEHICLES
SOURCE: PERFECTION - COBEY CO.. GALION, OHIO
SOURCE: DEMPSTER DUMPSTER SYSTEMS. KNOXVILLE-. TENNESSEE
70
-------
From an operational standpoint, a private hauler would be
contracted to handle the task of transferring waste. The site
would be equipped with two 40-cubic yard roll-off containers, one
to handle municipal wastes and the other to contain bulkier
rubble waste material. County residents could deposit their
trash directly into these containers. A third 40-cubic yard con-
tainer would be needed to replace the container that was being
picked up and hauled out of the County to:the Gunnison Landfill,
65 miles away in Gunnison, Colorado. The acquisition of a third
container would save the private out-of-County hauler the added
expense of making two round-trips for one trash pick-up. The
private hauler would utilize a rol 1-off trailer and truck for the
transfer operation. Currently, the County does not own nor has
future plans for the purchase of such transfer vehicles. The
municipal waste roll-off container would be outfitted with a com-
pactor (3-cubic yard hopper) to reduce waste volume (and reduce
the number of transfer hauls). The compactor would have to be
covered to protect it from the elements. In order to provide a
stable base for this container and its compactor, a concrete pad
(15 ft. x 35ft.) would be constructed. The concrete pad is
necessary for the compaction operation and therefore would not be
required for the rubble container in which wastes are not com-
pacted. An operator would be needed to collect fees and maintain
the site during the normal 40-hour operating schedule. As with
the landfill alternatives, it might be more ideal to open the
facility only three days a week especially during the winter
months and thus reduce operation hours and expenses. The trans-
fer of wastes would be contracted out to a private hauler who
could lease, if called upon, all the necessary transfer station
equipment components.
Table 17 presents a cost analysis for the transfer station
discussed above. As presented here, the County would purchase
three roll-off containers and compactor and contract out the
waste hauling to a private contractor. The purchase of the
requisite equipment is necessary because of equipment deprecia-
71
-------
TABLE 17
TRANSFER STATION COST SUMMARY
HINSDALE COUNTY, COLORADO*
Capital Costs
Item
Concrete Pad
Roll-off Containers (40-cubic yd.)
Compactor (3 cubic yd. hopper)
Miscellaneous (shelter, signs, etc.)
TOTAL
ANNUALIZED COST
Annual Operating Costs
Labor, operator
Utilities, electric
Landfill Tipping Fees
Truck Costs (includes fuel,
labor, maintenance, insurance,
etc.)
TOTAL
Unit Cost
$ 200/yd.3
$ 3,800/each
$10,000/each
Quantity
20 yd.3
3
1
$ 4.00/hr. 2,080 hrs.
Lump Sum
$ 1.50/yd.3 2,800 yds.3
$ 1.50/mile 9,100 miles
Annual Capital and Operating Costs Summary
Annualized Capital Cost
Annual Operating Cost
TOTAL
Total Cost
$ 4,000
11,400
10,000
5.000
$30,400
$ 4,900b
$ 8,300
1,200
4,200
13,700
$27,400
$ 4,900
$27.400
$32,300
a Source: Reference 9.
b Assumes a 10 year, 10 percent interest loan with a capital recovery factor (CRF) of
;: 0.16275. ' " '
72
-------
tion over the ten year study period. If the County seeks an
interim solid waste plan while pursuing the acqusition of a suit-
able landfill site, the operation of a transfer station utilizing
leased containers and a compactor might prove to be an agreeable
short-term disposal alternative. The leasing of this equipment
would be more expensive than outright purchase especially where
short-term leasing is involved. The cost of transporting this
equipment over great distances to the Lake City area would cer-
tainly raise the cost of any short-term leasing agreement. Capi-
tal costs for this equipment are on the high side of such cost
estimates and include the cost of transporting the equipment to
the Lake City area.
As mentioned previously, operating costs might be reduced by
opening the station to the public fewer hours per week which
reduces labor costs. Landfill tipping fees, another operating
cost, are quoted at $1.50 per cubic yard rather than the current
$1.00 per cubic yard figures currently charged at the Gunnison
Landfill. This figure reflects anticipated increases in the
tipping fees at the landfill and the present fee policies at the
landfill. Fees are charged according to the capacity of the
truck not by the actual weight or volume in the truck. This
means that partial loads are charged the same as full loads. The
truck costs cited in Table 17 reflect the amount that the County
will pay directly to the private hauler (in addition to the tipp-
ing fees) for the use of his or her services.
C. Gunnison Landfill
The landfill which serves the City of Gunnison, the Town of
Crested Butte, and other municipalities and federal facilities in
Gunnison County is located 65 miles to the northeast of Lake
City, just outside the limits of the City of Gunnison. Currently
owned and operated by the City of Gunnison, the landfill is a 43
acre site occupying a bluff overlooking the Gunnison River
Valley. The bluff is composed of sorted and non-sorted fluvial
73
-------
and alluvial deposits, a conglomerate-composed soil cap, and
glacial till. The bedrock is sandstone. All waste types are
received at this site with the exception of hazardous wastes and
sewage treatment plant sludge.
Wastes are hauled by City trucks, private haulers, and indi-
viduals. At the present time, the City charges $1.00 per cubic
yard of loose or compacted trash (in a collection truck) based
upon the capacity of the truck.
The estimated life of this site is approximately two years.
After closure, the County will assume the regulation and opera-
tion of a new landfill facility. Currently, the County, with
assistance from the State of Colorado, is actively evaluating
possible future landfill sites around the City of Gunnison. The
City of Gunnison has indicated that if Hinsdale County does
decide to transport their wastes to Gunnison, they would request
the negotiation of a separate contract for the use of the land-
fill, exclusive of any contract negotiated with a private hauler
operating in Hinsdale County.
74
-------
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Hinsdale County, Colorado, because of its small population
and limited resources and the large influx of seasonal visitors
who produce a large proportion of the County's wastes, must come
to terms with a difficult, but not unsolvable, waste disposal
problem. Several alternatives are available. When considering
the various options, the County will have to examine not only the
financial burden imposed by each alternative, but all of the
other considerations examined previously as well.
It is recommended that the County work expeditiously to
solve the problems created by the open burning of waste. Open
and burning dumps can contribute to water and air pollution and
provide food, harborage, and breeding grounds for insects, birds,
rodents, and other carriers of diseases. In addition, burning
dumps increase the danger of fire in surrounding areas and very
often lessen the value of nearby land and residences. By defini-
tion, no burning of solid waste occurs at a sanitary landfill.
Of all the landfill . options considered, the use of the
Forest Service site (with greenboxes in Lake City) appears to be
the most environmentally suitable and publicly acceptable. An
engineering analysis of this site will point out any possible
problems concerning the depth to the seasonal high water table at
this site. Because of its larger size, the Forest Service par-
cel, if operated properly, can be utilized as a landfill for
decades. Additionally, it is proposed that a greenbox station be
provided for area residents to consolidate the transportation of
wastes from Lake City to the site 10 miles to the south. Such an
operation would provide greater convenience to residents, and
prevent blowing litter problems created by increased travel on
the road leading to the landfill site.
75
-------
Although the Private North site scored equally, and in one
scenario better, than the Forest Service site in the quantitative
analysis, the likelihood of having to acquire the site through
condemnation proceedings (with three landowners) and the high
purchase price involved (approximately $160,000) make it a less
desirable landfill site. Even after landscaping, operations at
the site will still be somewhat visible from nearby recreational
facilities thus increasing any public opposition which might
e x i st.
Operating a landfill at the BLM South site is not recommend-
ed in this study. Size, cover material, access deficiencies, and
proximity to residential areas make this site the most likely to
experience problems in operating ah efficient and safe system.
Due to the small size of the site and the high waste compaction
ratios needed to maintain the life of the site over 10 years, BLM
South is the site most apt to encounter most ballooning due to
increased equipment operation time. It is highly unlikely that
this site can be used for more than 10 years making it actually
more expensive (in developmental costs) than the other two land-
fill options.
The transfer of waste to Gunnison County remains a viable
solution to the solid waste problem in Hinsdale County. The es-
tablishiment of a transfer station in Lake City would eliminate
the difficulty of obtaining valuable land in the County, provide
an immediate solid waste disposal facility, and lessen public
opposition to the initiation of a new landfill site. The current
total estimated cost of operating this transfer station would be
$32,300 a year which compares favorably to the total annual cost
of $45,000 required to operate a landfill (with greenboxes) at
the Forest Service site. A transfer station would, however, re-
quire a dependence on waste disposal facilities far away from
the County which might be exhausted in the near future. Hinsdale
County would also witness a greater outflow of capital to busi-
ness concerns and governmental entities outside of the County.
76
-------
Using the current total annual estimated cost ($45,000) of
the Forest Service site landfill option (with greenboxes), the
annual cost per user and per housing unit can be derived. De-
tailed cost information can be compiled for each population seg-
ment or user type listed in Table 4. This information will be
useful if financing is to be accomplished by direct user fees.
The cost for each population segment is calculated from the
percentage of waste they produce each year. The cost to the
permanent County population, which directly produces 37 percent
of the waste volume, equals approximately $48/person/year or
$4/person/month for use of the landfill facility. Seasonal
residents costs would be approximately $7.50/person/ year or 62
cents/person/month for their use of the landfill. Lodge and
cabin, motel, and. recreational vehicle park visitors also add to
the cost of the system at a rate of, respectively, $5/person,
$2.20/person, and $3.30/person for the entire 100 day tourist
season. These figures equate to 4, 2.2, and 3.3 cents per person
per day for each of the 100 days in the tourist season.
All campground visitors produce 16.3 percent of the annual waste
volume. This cost is estimated to be 3.3 cents per visitor day.
Overall, for all population segments, it will cost approximately
3.3 cents per pound of waste to finance a landfill operation
(using greenboxes) at the Forest Service site. Tipping fees
developed from these estimates can be compared to thosecharged by
other Colorado municipalities and counties listed in Appendix G.
The total cost of the recommended landfill alternative per
housing unit will provide useful information if the system is
financed through taxation. Again, the Forest Service landfill
site with supplementary greenboxes is used in this cost analy-
sis. Costs per resident will be higher in this analysis because
all property owners will be expected to pay for the waste pro-
duced by seasonal visitors. With 488 total housing units in the
study area (1980 data), the total annual cost per household will
be approximately $92. The monthly fee per household will be
roughly $8.
77
-------
The options detailed in this study represent three and four
fold increases in annual expenditures committed by the County in
the past for solid waste management. Costs, however, should not
overshadow the .complexity of the situation or the real solution
to this and other solid waste management problems. It must be
emphasized that the resolution of solid waste management problems
in Hinsdale County lies in the active commitment of area citizens
and local government in selecting an alternative that protects
not only public safety, but the environment as well.
78
-------
VII. REFERENCES
1. American Society of Civil Engineers. Sanitary Landfill. ASCE Solid Waste
Management Committee of the Environmental Engineering Division, New York,
1976.
2. Brunner, D. R., and Keller, D. J. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, EPA SW-65ts, 1972.
3. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria,
Illinois, 1980.
4. Colorado Planning Region Ten Solid Waste Study. Big Country Comprehensive
Health Planning Council, Inc., Montrose, Colorado, 1973.
5. Grant, E. I., and Ireson, W. G. Principles of Engineering Economy. 5th
ed. Ronald Press Co., New York, 197U^
6. Hall, R. B. World Nqnbauxite Aluminum Resources. U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1076-A, 1978.~~
7. Hunter, W. R., and Spears, C. F. Soil Survey of the Gunnison Area,
Colorado: Pa.rts. °f Gunnison, Hinsdlile, and Saguache Counties. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1975.
8. Lipman, P. W. Geologic Map of the Lake City Caldera Area, Western San Juan
Mountains, Southwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.G.S.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-962, 1976.
9. McMahon, L. A. 1981 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction
Costs. McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co., New York, 1980.
10. Rental Rate Blue Books for Construction Equipment. Equipment Guide-Book
Co., Palo Alto, 1981.
11. Smith, W. D. Solid Waste Study for Gunnison River Basin. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Region 2, 1972.
12. Spooner, C. S. Solid Waste Management in Recreational Forest Areas. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
79
-------
APPENDIX - A
State of Colorado
Solid Waste Disposal Sites
and
Facilities Regulations
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 East lich Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
REGULATIONS: SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES
AUTHORITY: Chapter 36, Article 23, CRS 1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as
amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws 1971.*
The following regulations were adopted by The Colorado State
Board of Health pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 1963,
Section 3-16-2 as amended**, and Chapter 36, Article 23,.CRS
1963 (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp.) as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado
Session Laws 1971, for the designation, operation, maintenance,
and design of Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities.
Adopted February 16, 1972
Effective Date April 1. 1972
Section 1. SCOPE These regulations shall be applicable to all solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, whether designated by ordinance within the
corporate limits of any city, city and county, or incorporated town or by
the Board of County Commissioners in unincorporated areas.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS (1) The following definitions extracted from Section
36-23-1, CRS 1963, as amended***, shall apply when appearing in these
regulations:
a. "Solid waste" means garbage, refuse, sludge of sewage disposal
plants, and other discarded solid materials, including solid
waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and from
community activities, but shall not include agricultural waste.
b. "Department" means the Department of Health.
c. "Approval site or facility" means a site or facility for which
a "Certificate of Designation" has been obtained, as provided
* Title 30, Article 20. CRS
** 24-^-102, CRS 1973
*** 30-20-101, CRS 1973
A-l
-------
in this act.
d. "Person" means an individual, partnership, private or municipal
corporation, firm, or other association of persons.
e. "Solid waste disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment,
utilization, processing, or final disposal of solid wastes.
f. "Solid waste disposal site and facility" means the location and
facility at which the deposit and fins. treatment of solid
wastes occur.
g. "Transfer station" means a facility at which refuse, awaiting
transportation to a disposal site, as transferred from one type
of collection vehicle and placed into another.
h. "Recyclable materials" means a type of material that is subject
to reuse or recycling.
i. "Recycling operation" means that part of a solid waste disposal
facility or a part of general disposal facility at which
recyclable materials may be separated from other materials for
future processing.
Definitions. (2) Other terms used in the statute or regulations are defined
as follows:
a. "Certificate of Designation"1 means a document issued under
authority of the Board of County Commissioners to a person
operating a solid waste disposal site and facility of a
certain type and at a certain location.
b. "Hilling-tailings" are that, refuse material resulting from the
processing of ore in a mill.
c. "Metallurgical slag" is the cinder or dross waste product
resulting in the refining of metal bearing ores.
A-2
-------
d. "Mining wastes" are either taill-cailings or metallurgical, slag
or both.
e. A "Junk automobile" is defined to be the hulk or body of a motor
vehicle essentially suitable only for one use as scrap metal.
Junk automobile parts constitute the normally recyclable materials
obtainable from a motor vehicle.
f. "Suspended solids" are finely divided mineral and organic sub-
stances contained in the sewage existing in a sewage system.
g. "Engineering data" shall mean information describing the area of
disposal sites in acres, a description of the access roads and
roads within the site, a description of fencing enclosing the
disposal site, and overall plan listing the method or methods by
which the disposal site will be filled with refuse and the use to
which it will be placed once the site is filled 'and closed.
h. "Geological data" shall mean classes of soil to a reasonable
depth from the ground surface, the location and thickness of
the significant soil classifications throughout the area of the
site and to extend some distance beyond the boundaries of the
site, to include information on groundwater elevations, seepage
quantities and water wells 1,000 feet beyond the boundary of
the disposal site.
i. "Hydrological data" shall include average, maximum,' and minimum
amounts of precipitation for each month of the year, surface
drainage facilities, streams and lakes adjacent to the disposal
site, irrigation water ditches adjacent to the site, wells,
streams and lakes.
j. "Operational data" shall include a plan for overall supervision
of the disposal site co include supervisory personnel and labor
A-3
-------
personnel, equipment and machinery consisting of all items
needed for satisfactory landfill operation, traffic control,
fire control, cover material, working face, moisture content.,
compaction control, and rodent and insect control.
k. "Sanitary landfill" is the final disposal of solid waste on the.
land by a method employing compaction of the refuse and covering
with earth or other inert material.
1. A. "Composting plant" is a solid waste disposal facility utilizing
biochemical degradation to change decomposable portions of solid
waste to a humus-like material.
m. "Incineration" is the controlled combustion of solid, liquid or
gaseous waste changing them to gases and to a residue containing
little combustible material.
n. "Hazardous material and toxic substances" are liquid or solids
which can be dangerous to man, animal and plantlife unless
properly neutralised.
o. "Minimum Standards" (See Section 3) shall mean the requirements
which shall be applied to all solid waste disposal sites and
facilities.
p. "Engineering Report Design Criteria" (See Section £) shall mean
the minimum requirements which shall be applied to new facilities
proposed for designation as a solid waste disposal site and
facility.
Section 3. MINIMUM STANDARDS (1) (a) the following minimum standards are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein as directed by Section 36-23-10 CRS
1963, as amended*:
(b) Such sites and facilities shall be located, operated, and nain-
A-4. *30-20-110, CRS 1973
-------
cained in a manner so as to .control obnoxious odors, prevent rodent and
insect breeding and infestation, and shall be kept adequately covered
during their use.
(c) Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws,
standards, rules and regulations of the Department, the Air Pollution
Control Commission, the Water Pollution Control Commission, and all appli-
cable zoning laws and ordinances.
(d) No radioactive material or materials contaminated by radio-
active substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not speci-
fically designated for that purpose.
Ce) A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall
provide means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner to
minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, windblown debris, insects, rodents,
smoke, 'and shall provide compacted fill material, adequate cover wich suit-
able material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and wacer and
wind erosion; prevent water and air pollution and; upon being filled, shall
be left in a condition of orderliness, good esthetic appearance .and capable
of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of such a sice and
facility, the solid wastes shall be distributed in the smallest area consistent
with handling traffic to be unloaded, shall be placed in the most dense volume
practicable using moisture and compaction or other method approved by the
Department, shall be fire, insect and rodent resistent through the appli-
cation of an adequate layer on inert material at regular intervals and shall
have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and
placed into the fill.
(f) Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as to prevent
waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and debris
A-5
-------
shall not be allowed to accumulate along the fence line.
(g) Solii wastes deposited at any site or facility shall not be
burned, provided, however, that in extreme emergencies resulting in the
generation of large quantities of combustible materials, authorization for
burning under controlled conditions may be given by the Department.
Section 4. ENGINEERING REPORT DESIGN CRITERIA
a. The design of a solid waste disposal facility hereinafter
desingaced shall be such as to protect, surface and subsurface
waters from contamination. Surface water from outside the
immediate working area of the disposal site shall not be
allowed to flow into or through the active disposal area. The
design shall provide for the deflection of rain or melting snow
away from the active area where wastes are being deposited.
As filling continues to completion, the surface shall be sloped
so that water is diverted away from the area where refuse has
been or is being deposited. The design shall include methods
of keeping groundwater out of the area where refuse is deposited.
b. The site shall be designed to protect the quality of water
available in nearby wells. The necessary distance from the
wells is dependent in part on the direction of flow of groundwater
under the site and the means used in the design to prevent
precipitation falling on the site from reaching the aquifer
in question. Soil characteristics. The soil used for covering
of landfill type operations shall have enough adhesive character-
istics to permit a workable earth cover.
c. The location of the solid waste site and facility should provide
for convenient access from solid waste generation centers.
A-6
-------
d. The access routes shall be designed so as to permit the orderly
and efficient flow of traffic to and from the site as well as on
the site.
Traffic control routes on the site'shall permit orderly, efficient
and safe ingress, unloading and egress.
e. The design of the facility shall provide for effective compaction
and cover of refuse materials in such a program as will prevent
the emergence or attraction of insects and rodents.
f. Solid waste deposited at disposal sites and facilities shall be
compacted prior to covering, "se of moisture or change of
particle size to aid in compaction is recommended.
g. The design shall contemplate the location and construction of
the disposal site and faclilcy in such a manner as will
eliminate the scattering of windblown debris. All solid wastes
discharged at the sits shall be confined to the site and any
material escaping from the active discharge area shall be
promptly retrieved and placed in the active discharge area.
h. Recyling operations may be designed to operate at solid waste
disposal sites and facilities, provided such recycling operations
do not interfere with the disposal of other wastes and provided
that such recycle operations are carried out without creation
of a nuisance and rodent and insect breeding.
i. The design shall include such equipment and operational methods
to prevent the burning of solid wastes at the site and to
extinguish any fires.
A-7
-------
j. Final Closure. Prior to closing a solid waste disposal site
except for cause as set forth in Section 36-23-13 CRS as
amended*, the final cover of the deposited solid wastes shall be
graded to the elevations which shall be shown in the initial
design. The cover shall be of such thickness and material as
will prevent the entrance or emergence of insects, rodents, or
odors. Such closure elevations shall be such as will provide for
the diversion of rainfall and runoff away from the fill area.
k. A plan and method for protecting solid wastes disposal sites and
facilities against damage from floods shall be a part of the
engineering design.
Section 5. THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT to County Commissioners or municipal
officials, recommending approval or disapproval of the application, shall consist
of a written and signed- document made in accordance with criteria established
by the Board of Health, Water Pollution Control Commission and Air Pollution
Control Commission.
Section 6. OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTZ DISPOSAL FACILITY
An operational plan for placing into operation the engineering design
for the disposal site and facility is required.
Such a plan shall include the following information:
a. The name or titles of the person or persons who will be in charge
of the disposal site and facility. Such name(s) shall be of
person(s) having the responsibility for the operation as well
as the authority to take all corrective action necessary to
comply with the requirements of this Department.
b. The list of equipment to be used at the disposal site.
c. The hours of operation of the site.
A-8
MO-20-L12, CRS 1973
-------
d. The fire fighting equipment or department available for
extinguishing fires.
e. The frequency of cover of the deposited wastes.
f. The frequency of retrieval of windblown debris.
g. A contingency plan for eradication of rodents and insects.
h. Procedures for implementing other aspects of the design.
Section 7. RESTRICTIONS OF OPZ5ATIONS. CLOSING SITES
a. In the event a person applying for a Certificate of Designation
does not wish to receive at his site all items defined in the
statute as solid wastes, his application to the county commissioners
for approval of designation shall set forth the limitations as to
materials to be accepted at the site. If such site is thereafter
designated, the owner shall erect at the entrance to such a site
an appropriate design setting forth the items not receivable at
such site.
b. If a person having a site officially designated wishes to close
the site for any reason, he shall inform the county commissioners
at least 60 days in advance of such closing and shall post a sign,
readable from the seat of an entering motor vehicle, informing
the public of his intent to close such site. Such sice shall be
considered officially closed upon receipt of an official notice
from the county commissioners, provided such closing date shall
be at least 60 days after the notice to the county commissioners
and the posting as above set forth. Upon closing of the site,
the owner shall post a notice that the site is closed and shall
take reasonable precautions to prevent the further use of such sice.
A-9
-------
Add Section 3. Notification of Violations of an Approved Engineering Design
Report
(a) Whenever che Department determines that .a solid waste disposal
site is not being operated substantially in accordance with the
criteria provided in the Engineering Design Report or these
regulations, the operator shall be informed of the nature of
the alleged violation by certified mail and within tan days
from and after receipt of the letter of .citation, he may
request a variance from the Engineering Design Report by making
Written application to the Department stating the grounds for
such request.
(b) The Department shall either approve such request or schedule
the matter for an administrative hearing. If the operator
fails to request a variance, or the Department refuses to
grant a variance after the hearing, the operator shall be
deemed to be in violation of the law and these regulations and
the "Certificate of Designation" shall be subject to suspension,
revocation or injunction as provided in Sections 36-23-13 and
14, CSS 1963, as amended by Chapter 103, Colorado Session Laws
1971*. The Department shall pomptly report the action taken co
the Board of County Commissioners.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the decision of che Department may
request a hearing before the State Board of Health and shall be
afforded his rights to judicial review as provided in Section
66-1-13, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963**.
:Iote: These regulations rescind-and supersede soild waste regulations
and standards adopted November 21, 1967. Effective January 1, 1968.
*30-20-112 and 113, CRS 1973
fl-1 n
H iu **25-l-113, CRS 1973
-------
PART 4
GENERAL REGULATIONS
30-15-401. General regulations. (1) In addition to those powers granted
by section 30-11-107 and by parts 1, 2, and 3 of this article, the board of
county commissioners has the power to adopt ordinances for control or licensing
of those matters of purely local concern which are described in the following
enumerated powers:
(a) (I) To provide for and compel the removal of rubbish, including trash
and garbage but not including weeds, brush, or other growing things in place,
from lots and tracts of land within the county, except industrial tracts of
ten or more acres and agricultural lands currently in agricultural use as that
term is defined in section 39-1-103 (6) (a) (I), C.R.S. 1973, and from the alleys
behind and from the sidewalk areas in front of such property at such time, upon
such notice, and in such manner as the board of county commissioners may prescribe
by ordinance and to assess the whole cost^thereof, including five percent for ,
inspection and other incidental costs in connection therewith, upon the lots and
tracts from which such rubbish has been removed. The assessment shall be a lien
against such lot or tract of land until paid and shall have priority over all
other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments.
(II) To inspect vehicles proposed to be operated in the conduct of the
business of transporting ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial
waste products or any other discarded materials and to determine, among other
things, that any such vehicle has the following:
(A) A permanent cover of canvas or equally suitable or superior material
i
designed to cover the entire open area of the body of such vehicle;
(B) A body so constructed as to be permanently leakproof as to such
discarded materials;
(C) Extensions of sideboards and tailgate, if any, constructed of permanent-
materials;
A-ll
-------
(Ill) To contract with persons in the business of transporting and disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials to provide such services, but in no event on an exclusive
territorial basis, to every lot and tract of land requiring such services within
the unincorporated area of the county or in conjunction with the county on such
terms as shall be agreed to by the board of county commissioners. Nothing in
this subparagraph (III) shall be deemed to preclude the owner or tenant of any
such lot or tract from removing discarded materials from his lot, so long as
appropriate standards of safety and health are observed.
(IV) To regulate the activities of persons in the business'of transporting
ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other
discarded materials within the unincorporated area by requiring each such person
to secure a license from the county and charging a fee therefor to cover the cost
of administration and enforcement and by requiring adherence to such reasonable
standards of health and safety as may be prescribed by the board of county
commissioners and to prohibit any person from commercially collecting or disposing
of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any
other discarded materials within the unincorporated area without a license and
when not in compliance with such standards of health and safety as may be
prescribed by the board;
(V) To do all acts and make all regulations which may be necessary or
expedient for the promotion of health or the suppression of disease;
(VI) To require every person in the business of transporting ashes, trash,
waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded
materials to and from disposal sites to have, before commencing such operations,
in such motor vehicle a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or evidence
of such policy issued by an insurance carrier or insurer authorized to do
business in the state of Colorado in the sum of not less than one hundred fifty
thousand dollars for the damages for or on account of any bodily injury to or
the death of each person as the result of any one accident, in the sum of not
less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars for damages to the property of
A-12
-------
others as the result of any one accident, and in the total sum of not less than
four hundred thousand dollars for damages for or on account of any bodily
injury to or the death of all persons and for damages to the property of others.
Any liability for failure to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph (VI)
shall be borne by the individual, partnership, or corporation who owns such
vehicle.
(4) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to
the transporting of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials which are collected by a city, county,
city and county, town, or other local subdivision within its jurisdictional
limits, provided every vehicle so engaged in transporting the discarded materials
has conformed to vehicle standards at least as strict as those prescribed in
subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1). Such governing body shall
not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the collection and
transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or industrial waste
products or any other discarded materials.
(5) Any provision of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to
the contrary notwithstanding, the governing body of a city and county- shall not
be precluded from adopting ordinances, regulations, codes, or standards or
granting permits issued pursuant to home rule authority; except that such
governing body shall not grant an exclusive territory or regulate rates for the
collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish, garbage, or
industrial waste products or any other discarded materials.
(6) The board of county commissioners, or the governing body of any
other local governmental entity, shall not issue or enter into a contractual
agreement for the collection and transportation of ashes, trash, waste, rubbish,
garbage, or industrial waste products or any other discarded materials in
any area where a hauler or haulers are then providing service without first
giving a six-month public notice to said hauler or haulers advising-them of the-T •"
intent to enter into said proposed contractual agreement. Said public notice
shall be given in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area served
A-13
-------
by said haulers.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in this section
shall prohibit the providing of waste services by a private person, provided such
person is in compliance with applicable rules and regulations, within the limits.
of any. city, county, city and county, town, or other local subdivision if such
service is also provided by a governmental body within the limits of such
governmental unit. Such governmental body may not compel industrial or
commercial establishments or multifamily residences of eight or more units to
use or pay user charges for waste services provided by the governmental body
in preference to those services provided by a private person.
Source: Added, L. 79, p. 1144, § 1; (l)(a) amended and (l)(i) and (3) to (7)
added, L. 80, pp. 744, 479, 746, § § 7, 2, 7
A-14
-------
APPENDIX - B
Colorado Department of Health Guidelines
for the
Review of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires individual states
to form a solid waste management plan. The plan must encourage long-term
regional disposal sites which promote resource recovery and minimize environ-
mental impacts that endanger public health and safety.
The Solid Waste Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part 1, delegates regulatory
authority between state and local agencies. A Certificate of Designation is
required before an applicant can dispose of any solid waste [as defined in the
Solid Waste Act: 30-20-101 (6)] on any site. The following guidelines suggest
the minimum technical information usually required for review by the Division
of Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control.
I. Alternative sites' feasibility
II. Size and expected life of site
III. Feasibility of resource recovery - technical and economic
IV. Describe projected site use after closure
V. Engineering geologic data (requires exploratory borings or trenches)
A. It is recommended that the following data be evaluated to a depth
of ten feet beneath the deepest natural or excavated surface on site.
i
B. Unconsolidated overburden materials
1. Soils classification - Unified Soils Classification System
2. Soil thickness and area! extent
3.- Pertinent engineering properties: grain size distribution,
atterburg limits, moisture density and compaction characteristics,
permeability, etc.
B-l
-------
4. Estimated volumes available for cover or liner material
C. Bedrock Materials
1. Rock type, strike, dip and thickness of bedding, joint or
fracture size and spacing, fracture filling material,
permeability, rippability, etc.
2. Estimated volumes available for liner or cover material
D. Geologic hazards on or adjacent to the site such as:
1. Rockfall, landslide or debris and mudflow hazards
2. Slope stability
3. Faulting and folding
4. Erosion potential
5. Mine subsidence
VI. Engineering Hydrologic Data
A. Surface waters
1. Proximate lakes, rivers, streams, springs or bogs
2. Site location in relation to 100 year floodplain
3. Size and slope of contributing drainage basins
4. Design of diversion and catchment structures for a 25 year,
24 hour precipitation event
5. Impoundment of contaminated runoff
6. Background surface water samples
B. Groundwaters
1. Depth to groundwater - seasonal variations
2. Wells within one mile radius of site: depth of well, depth
to water, yield, use, casing intervals
3. Nearest points of groundwater discharge
4. Background groundwater samples, as necessary
5. Major aquifers beneath site
B-2
-------
C. Surface and groundwater monitoring; plans for leachate collection
and treatment.
Operational Data for Solid Waste Disposal
A. Landfills
1. Location and construction details for access roads
2. Plans for waste recycling, as applicable
3. Names of persons in charge of site; having authority to take
corrective action
4. Slope of fill surface must divert runoff from working face
5. . Refuse cell size, type of construction, location and arrangement
6. Amount of cover and frequency of application to working face
7. Direction of prevailing winds: maximum and average velocities
8. Provisions for retrieval of windblown debris, on and off the
site
9. Equipment and manpower retained on site
10. Compactive effort to be applied to refuse and cover material
11. Types of waste received and their segregation
12. Provisions to ventilate methane gas from completed landfill
13. Measures to prevent or contain insect and rodent infestations
14. Measures and equipment to extinguish or prevent fires
15. Hours of operation
16. Final fill surface contours
17. Thickness and compaction of final cover
18. Provisions for maintenance after closure
19. Program of records keeping
i
B. Potentially toxic industrial or mining solid waste disposal sites
1. All previously listed criteria, as applicable
2. Chemical concentrations of processing and waste solvents
3. Chemical concentrations of solid waste
4. Engineering..designs for diversion structures, dams, liners,
• dikes, tailings or dump sites
B-3
-------
5. Engineering designs for holding ponds containing solvents and
solutions
6. Plans for ground and surface water monitoring and long-term
site maintenance
7. Ultimate disposal of solid waste recycling plans, if applicable
These criteria are applied on a site-to-site basis in the review process.
Applications containing this information will be reviewed more quickly and
efficiently. Four copies should be provided to this Division for review.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX - C
Forest Service Guidelines
for
Solid Waste Disposal
-------
7460^-1
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CHAPTER 7460 - SOLID WASTES
7460 - SOLID WASTES ;
. v
1. Definition. As used in this supplement, solid wastes, or
refuse, comprise all garbage and rubbish such as food waste*, paper,
cans, glass, ashes, litter, sewage treatment plant sludge and grit,
vault toilet and septic tank pumpings waste, bulky waste such as
appliances, furniture, large automobile parts, and trees and
branches generated by other than industrial and agricultural
activities.
2. Solid Waste Management. The publication, Solid Waste ^
Management in Recreational Forest Areas, published by the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, Public Health Service, in cooperation with
the Forest Service, should be used for general reference and
guidance.
To prepare an adequate program for the storage, collection and
disposal of solid wastes, Forests may be divided into control areas
or districts consistent with size, geographical controls, quanti-
ties of refuse generated, adjacent communities, environmental
quality considerations and other related factors. An engineering
report should be prepared to cover each control area or district.
3. Solid. Waste Disposal. There are several methods of
disposal of solid wastes including sanitary landfill, incineration
and.composting. An engineering report should include a discussion
of the various alternatives. However, sanitary landfill at this
time appears to be the most logical method of ultimate disposal in
any case. Incinerator residue, bulk wastes that cannot be placed
in incinerators, and metal and other wastes that cannot be com-
posted, must normally be disposed of in sanitary landfills. For
this reason, the following material applies primarily to that
method of disposal.
4. Sanitary Landfills. The American Society of Civil Engineers
defines a sanitary landfill as: "A method of disposing of refuse
on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or
safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the
refuse to Che smallest practical area, to reduce it to the
smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth
at the conclusion of each day'a operation or at such more frequent
Forest Service Manual December 1970
R-2 Supplement No. 1
C-l
-------
7460—2
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Intervals as nay be necessary." Public Health Service Publication No.
1792, Sanitary Landfill Facts, describes procedures for operating
true sanitary landfills.
Where the volume of refuse tributary to a site is low, costs can be
reduced by limiting the number of operational days to one or two
per week, or less. However, compacted earth cover must be applied
each day that refuse is deposited. In these cases, the site oust be
firmly closed at all other times. Properly designed transfer sta-
tions may be utilized when collection must continue during periods
that the landfill is closed. Storage of wastes in sealed plastic
bags at transfer points, where feasible, should be utilized to aid
in vector control and help prevent accidental burning.
a. Engineering Report. An engineering report should be
submitted by the proponent for each proposed sanitary landfill
project prior to the design. It shall be the responsibility
of the proponent (Forest or special-use permittee, if operation
will be by town, county, association, or private individual)
to submit this report. The report should be written on the
basis of an environmental and economic analysis of a study area
for individual or combined solid waste disposal problems, and
should Include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A description of the proposed project and its
location, including vicinity and topographic maps, and a
brief description of existing and/or proposed access roads,
including suitability under all weather conditions during
which the landfill will be operated.
(2) Source, nature, and amount of solid waste material
generated. The number of people number of campground
units, and other such data which will help define the
problem.
(3) A description of alternatives which were considered,
including reliability, Initial and annual costs,'operation
and maintenance requirements, and desirability of each
alternative.
(4) Special considerations such as:
a Location of ground water table and proximity of
lakes, watercourses, and domestic water supplies.
December 1970 Forest Service Manual
B.-2 Supplement No. 1
C-2
-------
7460—3
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
b_ Soil conditions and topography. (See FSH
7409.11, R-2 Supplement No. 6.)
£ Adjacent property use and ownership.
d Source of borrow for cover material.
e_ Present and future development in the area.
(5) An operation and maintenance plan which includes:
a A description of the total operation, i.e.,
amount and type of equipment to be used, personnel
required, proposed filling procedures, safety program,
periodic inspections, signing, fire protection, and
_ record keeping.
b_ Daily operational routine.
c Ultimate site use and procedure for bringing
completed site to beneficial use.
b. Engineering Design. The design phase Involves the
development of an operational plan and preparation of necessary
detailed plans and specifications which are essential for
construction, operational control, and inspection. This is the
responsibility of the proponent.
Detailed plans for the landfill operation shall be submitted.
The plans shall include one or more topographic maps of a scale
of not over 40 feet to the inch, with 2-foot contour intervals,
and an engineering design of the following as a minimum:
(1) The proposed fill area.
(2) Any borrow areas.
(3) Access roads.
(4) Grades for proper drainage of each lift and a
typical cross section of a lift.
(5) Drainage devices, as necessary.
Forest Service Manual November 1971
R-2 Supplement No. 2
C-3
-------
7460—4
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING .
(6) Any fencing, equipment shelter, or employee
facilities.
(7) Existing, and proposed utilities, if any.
(8) A wind rose, adjacent property use and ownership,
and adjacent developments.
All other pertinent information to clearly indicate
the orderly development, operation, and completion of the
landfill.
c . Operational Requirements for Sanitary Landfills.
The following minimum standards shall apply to the operation
of sanitary : landfills on National Forest and National
Grasslands in Region 2:
(1) Access roads and bridges must be capable of
supporting loaded vehicles during all weather conditions.
(2) Access to the site by unauthorized persona shall
be limited by suitable fencing or other controls.
(3) The entire area shall be policed regularly. If
necessary, a portable fence shall be placed near unloading
and spreading areas to catch windblown paper and other
materials .
(4) Wastes shall be spread and compacted in shallow
layers not exceeding a depth of 2 feet of compacted
material. Individual cells should not exceed 8 feet in
depth.
(5) Solid wastes shall be compacted and covered with
at least 6 inches of suitable compacted cover material at
the end of each day's operation. Final cover for the landfill
area shall be a layer of suitable compacted material at least
2 feet thick.
*-(6) Stabilized sludge and grit from sewage treatment
plants may be disposed of at a sanit.iry landfill site.
However, thett« wastes must l>* «ilHpoH<>d nt \n n s«p«rnte trench
or pit, and be covered with compacted earth on the day of
deposit.-*
^-November 1971 Forest Service Manual
R-2 Supplement No. 2-*
C-4
-------
7A60--5
TITLE 7AOO - ENVTRONMJiNTAL ENGINEERING
*-Slnce pumping wastes from vault and chemical toilets and
septic tanks are not stabilized, contain disease bearing
organisms, and often contain various chemical contaminants,
they cannot be disposed of in sanitary landfills without
creating public health and potential water pollution problems.
These wastes must be disposed of at municipal, sanitary
district, Forest Service or other central sewage treatment
facilities providing adequate treatment. Landfill disposal
may be used as an interim measure until such facilities are
available. To meet requirements of Executive Order 11507,
pumping wastes generated at Forest Service facilities must be
properly treated by no later than June 30, 1974.-*
(7) Adequate drainage ditches, trenches, or piping shall
be provided to minimize drainage onto and into the fill, to
prevent erosion or washing of the fill or fill cover, to
drain off rainwater falling on the fill, and to prevent
standing water.
(8) Although motor vehicles, agricultural equipment or
parts thereof may be disposed of in the landfill, other
methods of disposal should be encouraged. If the landfill
must be used for these wastes, they must be disposed of in
a separate trench or pit from those used for other wastes,
and special compaction techniques must be used. The wastes
shall be covered with compacted earth on an intermittent
basis a* the wastes accumulate.
(9) Vectors, such as flies, mosquitoes, and rodents,
shall be controlled.
(10) Landfill sites shall not be subject to flooding.
(11) Suitable measures shall be taken to control dust on
the site and the access road.
(12) There shall be no burning or salvaging at landfill
sites.
(13) Adequate records should be kept to aid in evaluating
the landfill and in pl.-tnninp for future Installations.
(14) Frequent inspections and evaluaCions shall be mad*
of landfill operations.
Forest Service Manual *-November 1971
R-2 Supplement No. 2-*
C-.5
-------
7460—6
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
d. Special-Use Permits. (See 2723.13.) Applicants for
special-usa permits to establish sanitary landfills shall
submit Form 2700-3, "Special-Use Application," with the
Engineering Report. Prior to construction, Engineering Design
and Operational Details required in previous sections will be
submitted along with the following:
(1) Textural classification of representative samples
of soil material, and the percentages of sand, silt, and
clay.
(2) Type of soil material to a irinimum of 10 feet
below proposed bottom of refuse. The soil profile shall
be determined by borings sufficient in number to yield
representative results.
•
(3) Depth to maximum seasonal hi^h water table.
Approval of Solid Waste Disposa1 _Systerns and Operational
All solid waste disposal systems, whether Forest Service or
authorized by special-use permit, will be reviewed and approved by
die Regional Forester, upon the advice of the Regional Engineer
prior to beginning of construction.
As capability is developed at the Forest level, the Regional Forester
m»y assign responsibility for the approval, planning, design, con-
struction, and operation supervision of all solid waste disposal
systems and structures.
November 1971 Forest Service Manual
R-2 Supplement No. 2
C-6
-------
7460.2
TITLE 7400 - ENV1KQNMKNTAL ENGINEERING •'
7460.2 - Objective. The objective of the solid waste management
prograa la Region 2 la to dispose of solid wastes at all sites
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by sanitary and
nuisance-free methods to enhance environmental quality and prevent
air and water pollution.
Forest Service Manual December 1970
R-2 Supplement No. 1
C-7
-------
7460i3
TITLE 7400 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
7460.3 - Policy. The policy of Region 2 on solid waste management
is to:
1. Meet or exceed for new facilities the more stringent
applicable control regulations, codes and standards, whether they
be Federal, State or local.
2. Have ell existing disposal sites and facilities on
National Forest And National Grasslands meet or exceed applicable
criteria required for new facilities by December 31, 1972, or as
soon thereafter as possible.
3. Actively cooperate with other Federal, State and local
agencies and organizations involved in solid waste management.
4. Use private or local government disposal sites rather than
operate Forest Service disposal sites where (a) environmental
quality may be enhanced, (b) the private or local government sites
meet State and Federal regulations, and (c) economic benefits will
be realized.
Forest Service Manual December 1970
R-2 Supplement No. 1
C-8
-------
APPENDIX - D
List of
Solid Waste Equipment Manufacturers
and
Distributors
-------
Landfill Equipment
Al 1 is Chalmers
Bandaret Equipment Inc. - 289-5793
4500 E. 60 Ave.
Denver
Case Power Equipment - 288-1551
5775 Eudora
Commerce City
Caterpillar
Wagner Equipment Co. - 289-6111
6000 Dahlia
Commerce City
International
H. W. Moore Equipment Co. - 288-0771
5990 Dahlia
Commerce City '
John Deere
Pete Honnen Equipment - 287-7506
5055 E. 72nd Avenue
Commerce City
Rexnord
Booth-Rouse Equipment - 288-6625
5700 Eudora Street
Commerce City
Local Manufacturers and Distributors of Waste Handling Equipment
American Transportation & Equipment - 922-3636
2225 So. Kalamath Jay Weitz, Distributor
Denver
Jacobs Equipment Company - 292-3580
1950 31st Chip Spratlen, Distributor
Denver, 80216
Kois Brothers - 399-7370
4950 Jackson Street George Kois, Manufacturer and distributor
Denver, 80216
Swanson and Sons - 423-6200
400 So. Marshall Al Whiddley, Manufacturer and distributor
Denver, Co. 80226
D-l
-------
APPENDIX - E
SANITARY LANDFILL
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
The nature of operations at landfill sites are such that the risk of acci-
dent/injuries, fires and health hazards are significant. The reduction of
accident/injuries on the job means savings in time, money and equipment, not to
mention reducing suffering and disability to members of the work force, the
development and enforcement of a continuing safety program will help reduce the
accident/injury potential at the landfill operation, thereby reducing the over-
all cost of the operation. Areas of concern should include but are not limited
to:
Individual Safety. Personnel working at landfill sites should be familiar
with the nature and hazards of the operation they are performing. Proper safe-
ty clothing and equipment should be used at all times. Examples of safety
equipment are: safety shoes, shatter-proof glasses, heavy work gloves, chemi-
cally resistant work clothes, and hard hats.
Fire. Burning of wastes is not permitted at a sanitary landfill, but fires
occur occasionally when there is careless handling of open flames and smoldering
waste materials. The use of daily cover should keep fire in a cell that is
under construction from spreading laterally to other cells. All equipment oper-
ators should keep a fire extinguisher on the their machines at all times since
it may be necessary to put out a small fire. If the fire is too large, waste in
the burning area should be spread out so that water can be applied. This is an
extremely hazardous chore, and water should, be sprayed on those parts of the
machine that comes in contact with the hot wastes, A fire plan, for the land-
fill should spell out fire-fighting procedures and sources of water. All land-
fill personnel should be thoroughly familiar with these procedures. In the
event a collection truck arrives carrying burning wastes, it should not be
allowed near the working face of the fill but be routed as quickly as possible
to a safe area away from buildings, where its load can be dumped and the fire
extinguished.
Traffic Control. Traffic flow on the landfill site can effect the effic-
iency of daily operations. Haphazard routing in the area can lead to indiscrim-
E-l
-------
inate dumping and cause accidents. Pylons, barricades, guardrails, and traffic
signs can be used to direct traffic. All vehicles hauling waste to the landfill
^\
should be of a closed type or have the means to properly secure the load to pre-
vent the blowing or falling off of waste matter en route to the landfill. This
requirement should apply to private vehicles delivering waste to the landfill
site.
First Aid. First aid kits should be installed on all landfill vehicles
and in the landfill office. All landfill operating personnel should be familiar
with first aid procedures.
Salvage and Scavenging. Salvaging usable material from solid waste is
laudable in concept, but it should be allowed only if a landfill has been
designed to permit this operation and appropriate processing and storage
facilities have been provided.
Scavenging, sorting through waste to recover salvageable items, must be
strictly prohibited at the working face. Scavengers are too intent on searching
to notice the approach of spreading and compacting equipment, and they risk
being injured. Moreover, some of the items collected may be harmful, such as
food waste, canned or otherwise, which may be contaminated.
Firearms Control. Landfill sites are usually located in areas wherein
population density is light and areas surrounding or adjacent to the landfill
are open country or farm land. These areas and the landfill site are likely to
attract people interested in target shooting or small game hunting. Signs
should be posted, outside the landfill boundaries, in all directions warning
that hunting, target practice, or shooting of any type is not permitted within
300 feet of the landfill perimeter or on the landfill proper.
Bird/Aircraft Hazards. Birds that are sometimes attracted to landfill
sites can be a nuisance, a health hazard, and a danger to low-flying aircraft.
The primary method to reduce the problem is to make each working face as small
as possible and to cover all wastes as soon as possible.
E-2
-------
Decomposition Gas. Gas is produced naturally when solid wastes
decompose. The quantity generated in a landfill and its composition depend on
the types of solid wastes that are decomposing. Methane and carbon dioxide are
the major constituents of landfill decomposition gas, but other gases are also
present and some may impart a repugnant odor.
Landfill gas is important to consider when evaluating the effect a
landfill may have on the environment, because methane can explode when present
in air at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent. Since there is no oxygen
present in a landfill when methane concentrations in it reach this 'critical
level, there is no danger of the fill exploding. If, however, methane vents
into the atmosphere (its specific gravity is less than that or air) it may
accumulate in buildings or other enclosed spaced at dangerous levels close to a
sanitary landfil 1.
The potential movement of gas is, therefore, an essential element to
consider when selecting a site. It is particularly important if enclosed
structures are build on or adjacent to the sanitary landfill or if it is to be
located near existing industrial, commercial, and residential areas. Periodic
checks of buildings on or adjacent to the landfill should be made.
Landfill gas movement can be controlled if sound engineering principles are
applied. Permeable vents and impermeable barriers are the two most widely used
methodologies.
Communications. Telephone or radio communication should be provided so
that landfill operating personnel will be able to report fires or injuries. The
use of a radio which can be tied into the Police network or the highway depart-
ment should be satisfactory.
Fencing. Peripheral and litter fences are commonly needed at sanitary
landfills. The first type is used to control or limit access, keep out child-
ren, dogs, and other large animals, screen the landfill, and delineate the prop-
erty line. Litter fences are used to control blowing paper in the immediate
vicinity of the working face. As a general rule, trench operations require less
litter fencing because the solid waste tends to be confined within the walls of
E-3
-------
the trench. At a very windy trench site, a 4 foot snow .fence will usually suf-
fice. Since the location of the working face shifts frequently, litter fences
should be movable.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX - F
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
FINANCING OPTIONS
-------
APPENDIX F
SOLID WASTE FACILITY FINANCING OPTIONS
Solid waste collection and disposal entails such capital costs as land,
equipment, and site improvements. Operating costs include salaries, utilities,
fuel, site and equipment maintenance, and administrative costs. Several methods
of funding solid waste systems are available, and the following discussion con-
siders the advantages and disadvantages of current revenue ("pay-as-you-go")
financing, long-term borrowing, leasing, and government grant and loan utiliza-
tion. The' applicability of the methods to the small community will be examined.
CURRENT REVENUE FINANCING
Current revenue financing employs a sales tax, property tax, special as-
sessment tax, or a combination of the above, and is based on the "pay-as-you-go"
philosophy. The advantage of using current revenues is its simplicity—few in-
formational, analytical, institutional, or legal arrangements are required. The
general tax fund often cannot provide enough money to meet capital costs, but it
is frequently used to help meet operating costs. An advantage in using the gen-
eral fund for supplying operating expenses is that administrative procedures and
the extra cost of billing and collecting are eliminated.
Solid waste management is commonly regarded as a low priority when general
funds are apportioned, resulting in an insufficient budget and inadequate admin-
istration. Due to the lack of large amounts of available money in the general
fund, another source of financing, such as long-term borrowing, is often neces-
sary for financing capital costs. A disadvantage in using current revenues for
capital expenditures is that tax revenues lag behind needed public services.
For areas experiencing rapid growth, this places an inequitable burden on the
present population.
In regard to special assessments, some states including Colorado have
enacted legislation enabling the Board of County Commissioners to levy a special
property tax to be deposited in a county fund for use in operating a solid waste
system. This funding mechanism is provided by Title 30, Article 20 - Part 1,
F-l
-------
Solid Vlaste Disposal Sites and Facilities. Section 30-20-115. The legislation
states:
"Any county is authorized to establish a county solid wastes
disposal site and facility fund. The board of county commissioners
of such county may levy a solid waste disposal site and facility tax,
in addition to any other tax authorized by law, on any of the taxable
property within said county, the proceeds of which shall be deposited
to the credit of said fund and appropriated to pay the cost of land,
labor, equipment, and services needed in the operation of solid
wastes disposal sites and facilities. Any county is also authorized,
after a public hearing, to fix, modify, an collect service charges
from users of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities for the
purpose of financing the operations at those sites and facilities."
Certain states also permit the formation of solid waste disposal districts,
for the purpose of property taxation. No solid waste disposal districts have
yet been formed in Colorado. Presently, there is an effort in Yuma County,
Colorado to establish a solid waste disposal district. A 1953 Colorado statute
provides for setting up solid waste disposal districts. County and municipal
officials in Yuma County have, however, found problems with this statute since
districts can be formed that cover only the unincorporated areas within a
County. The formation of districts in unincorporated areas is somewhat
impractical because waste generation is concentrated in the incorporated areas.
Also, the statute limits taxing to 1/2 mill, an amount that is thought to be too
small. An effort is underway to determine if a solid waste disposal district
can be set up under other statutes for special purpose districts or to change
the Colorado law.
Charges levied on the users of the collection and disposal system are ano-
ther source of funds for the "pay-as-you-go" method of financing. User fees are
a means of obtaining operating revenue, but they may also be used to generate
funds for future capital expenditures. Fees must be periodically updated, to
provide a fair and viable source of income.
For small communities experiencing rapid increases in population, the "pay-
as-you-go" method forces present citizens to pay for future demands. A straight
user fee would place too large a burden on the present population. If waste
generation surges, Zausner^ suggests using general fund contributions or another
See Source 1.
F-2
-------
form of financing to pay for initial costs. Future user charges can then be
used to cover annual operating expenses and debt amortization.
LONG-TERM BORROWING
Long-term borrowing is a common method of financing the capital costs of
solid waste systems. Typical instruments are the revenue bond and the general
obligation bond.
Revenue bonds are tax-exempt obligations that pledge user fees to guarantee
repayment of the debt's principal and interest. In this case, fees must be
charged to landfill users in amounts necessary to cover all capital and operat-
ing expenses. Revenue bonds and associated user fees are attractive because the
producer of solid waste pays the true cost of its disposal. Also, voter
approval is not necessary.
A possible disadvantage to consider is that a feasibility study of the
project to be financed is required, which may be expensive. Revenue bonds are
generally used to finance a single project, and the effective minimum size
offering is normally greater than that of a general obligation bond. For a
small, single community, revenue bond financing is often uneconomical.
General obligation bonds are the most commonly used instrument for
financing capital outlays. They are tax-exempt obligations secured by the full
faith and credit of a political jurisdiction which has the ability to levy
taxes. Because the real estate taxes of the jurisdication are usually pledged,
the bond is less risky and more marketable than a revenue bond. General
obligation bonds also do not require a detailed feasibility study of the
proposed project, and offer the lowest interest rates of any financial
instrument.
However, state legislation usually limits the amounts of debt a community
can incur. This could restrict or rule out the use of a general obligation
bond, if a community is already liable for a substantial debt. If the bond is
retired with revenues generated by the landfill operation, the amount of ad
valorem taxes necessary for bond retirement is minimized.
F-3
-------
LEASING
Another option to consider is leasing. The local government rents the use
of an asset (land, mobile equipment, etc.) which has been purchased by a third
party. The government can in turn lease to a private operator.
An advantage to leasing is the postponement and spreading out of cash pay-
ments, therefore lessening the demand on initial capital outlays. In this re-
gard, leasing may be a useful option for financing systems to be used by areas
experiencing high population growth. Less legal work is usually involved than
for other types of financing, and generally voter approval is not required.
Leasing is more expensive than long-term, tax-exempt bonds. At the expira-
tion of the lease, the local government will not own or control the machinery or
land leased, unless the contract specifies leasing with an option to buy. If
municipal credit is poor or bonds can't be issued, leasing may be the most
viable option.
GRANTS AND LOANS
Financial assistance through federal, state, and regional entities is a
method of supplementing other types of financing. The Farmer's Home Administra-
tion (FmHA) is authorized to provide financial assistance to public entities, in
the form of grants and loans, for waste disposal facilities in rural areas and
towns with a population less than 10,000. To be eligible, the applicant must be
unable to obtain credit or financing from other sources. Priority is placed on
areas with a population less than 5,500.
According to FmHA authorities, however, grants and loans have not been pro-
vided for solid waste disposal in Colorado in the past ten years. Funds are not
expected to become available in the near future. Additional information may be
obtained by contacting the county or district office of the FmHA.
The Environmental Protection Agency is another potential source of
funding. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authorizes funding through
the Solid and Hazardous Waste branch, for technical assistance in state level
planning studies for solid waste management. The act also authorizes funding of
F-4
-------
regional and local government projects. However, funds have not been provided
at the state or local level. The EPA has indicated that funds for solid waste
assistance are not currently available, and no immediate change'-is expected in
that status.
At the state level, Colorado Health Department authorities have stated that
no grants or loans are presently available for planning or operating solid waste
projects. For public entities which qualify, socio-economic impact funds,
provided by the State of Colorado, may be available. The state monies,
generated by federal lease royalties and severence taxes, are delegated to
counties and municipalities for use on designated projects. Further information
may be obtained by contacting the Socio-Economic Impact Office of the Colorado
State Department of Local Affairs. In general, the probability of receiving
state or federal aid for financing solid waste systems appears to be extremely
low.
The previously described methods of financing are intended to provide a
broad overview of techniques available. This description is not comprehensive,
as other less common methods, and creative combinations of the described
methods, may result in viable financing alternatives. It is recommended that
professional financial consultants be utilized to model a financial plan, when
the solid waste system is ready to be implemented.
F-6
-------
SOURCES
1. Financial Solid Waste Management in Small Communities by Eric Zausner,
Report (SW-57ts), USEPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1972.
2. Federal Financial Assistance for Pollution Prevention and Control, prepared
by the USEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality.
3. Resource-Recovery Plant Implementation: Guide for Municipal Officials
Financing, compiled by Robert Randall, Guide No.-471, USEPA, 1975.
4. Sanitary landfill Design and Operation by D.R. Brunner and D.J. Keller,
Report (SW-65ts), USEPA, 1971.
F-7
-------
APPENDIX G
TIPPING FEES CHARGED BY VARIOUS COLORADO LANDFILLS
-------
TIPPING FEES CHARGED BY VARIOUS COLORADO LANDFILLS9
Landfill Location
$/yd3
Tipping Feesb
Est. $/ton
Other
City of Boulder
City of Longmont
Town of Erie
Eagle County
City of Golden
Town of Empire
Larimer County
Teller County
City of Denver
El Paso County
$1.10 $4.40
$1.60 $6.40
$1.60 $6.40
$1.70 $6.85
$1.50 $6.00
: $5-full trash truck
$ .75 $3.00
free free
$5.00
$1.10
a Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc
Based on a compacted density of 500
G - 1
------- |