The reuse of a landfill in a mountain community

Material Information

The reuse of a landfill in a mountain community a case study in planning the future uses of a landfill in Larimer County, Co.
Hamilton, Kathy
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
80 pages : illustrations, maps (some folded), plans (some folded) ; 22 x 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Fills (Earthwork) ( lcsh )
Land use -- Colorado -- Larimer County ( lcsh )
Fills (Earthwork) ( fast )
Land use ( fast )
Colorado -- Larimer County ( fast )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Landscape Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
[Kathy Hamilton].

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08895059 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A77 1981 .H36 ( lcc )

Full Text
. M
the Reuse of a Landfill in a Mountain Community
1 archives
a? / 1931

T4v ~
Advisors from the University of Coiorauu Denver:
Davis Holder Professor of Architecture,
College of Environmental Design Dan Young Director,
Landscape Architecture Program,
College of Environmental Design Martin Saiz Director of Small Town Development and Planning,
Center for Community Development and Design
Orville Stodard Senior Public Health Engineer, Colorado State Health Department.
Practicum Project July 1, 1981 Landscape Architecture College of Environmental Design University of Colorado at Denver
This document is submitted in partial completion of the requirements leading to the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture

1 the project
5 reuse
9 landfilling
15 the case study
23 the site 27 physical capacities
61 cultural adaptation 73 conclusions

the project

Estes Park is located in the Rocky Mountains north of Denver and west of Loveland, Colorado. The landfill site is southwest of the town of Estes Park, bounded to the south by Highway 36 which leads to Rocky Mountain National Park.

My awareness of the problem of s.olid waste disposal developed from coming across open dumping sites located in the arroyos of southern Colorado and the ravines of the Rocky Mountains. I am still amazed to find a lone set of bedsprings near the top of a mountain after I have struggled to arrive there on foot. After a certain scavenger-like interest in the castaway item has been satisfied, I am taken aback by this anomaly of bedsprings on the mountaintop. Even the proper places in which to dispose of this refuse contribute to the degradation of the environment.
I wanted to address the problems of landfilling in my practicum project, so I discussed the subject with Martin Saiz, Director of Small Town Development for northeastern Colorado at the Center for Community Development and Design He encouraged me to look into it further.
I found that Larimer County had two municipally run landfill sites. Martin arranged through Rex Smith, the Larimer County Director of Publi Works, for me to suggest an end use plan for the landfill site in Estes Park which might close in about two years. I felt that Larimer County could benefit by a broader approach to a problem that is usually relegated to lawmakers and engineers.
In this study, end use is interpreted to mean reuse, and the land and wastes of the landfill to be resources. We are conscious that resources are not endless and that all communities of people are interdependent in stewardship of the environment which ensures the survival of us all. We know that the conse-
quences of shortsighted actions eventually catch up. Planning with a longer view requires a rearrangement of our priorities. The old disregard for the quality and depletion of resources and taking the route of immediate economic advantage will have to be turned around. Ecologically sound is economical in the long run.
The problems of landfill reuse dredges up all kinds of buried shortsighted actions. The consequences of these past deeds hobble our new good intentions; however, this study will persist with a primary concern for finding what development the physical site can accommodate which is environmentally sound.
"The concept that a natural resource analysis should identify places in which natural resources constrain development rather than attract it...reverse the more typical suitability evaluation procedures and elevate resource patterns or resource areas which 'shall not' be subject to unconstrained development because of natural factors which would be detrimental to the interests of development itself."


The Cycle
Reuse of the landfill means not only reuse of the land but of the waste as well. In natural systems, energy flows in a continuous cycle. For example in the food chain, vegetation is produced and eaten by animals; the animals die and their remains become nutrients for more vegetation. In such a system, energy can be extracted with some efficiency by man. But often energy extracted by man is not looped back into the cycle but takes a linear route. This linear mode is particularly inefficient as waste which is allowed to dead end at a landfill. The reuse of waste lies in the recovery of either energy or materials.
Energy Recovery
Waste tapped by man in the form of energy products can contribute more revenue per ton than the typical mixture of waste materials. However, a steady stream of 200-250 tons per day of waste is the minimum required for economically feasible energy recovery and this is not possible at many small sites. Anerobic digestion is the only known process which does not require these amounts of waste and which does not require conversion into steam or electricity.
Materials Recovery
Materials recovery is generally a high technology process done after rather than before collection. Recovery of materials before
collection is called source separation. It takes less energy to reprocess recovered materials. The sale of these materials can help defray disposal costs and somewhat reduce the volume to be landfilled, but the concept must have available markets, volunteer labor and a central collection point in order to function.
Land Reuse
The most effective use of the land can be made when the end uses are planned for at the time of siting a landfill. A wider range of reuses exists when the physical design can be planned to accommodate the desired program of uses.
Then, the landform, landcover, surface drainage, subsurface drainage and visual impact can be more appropriate to the cultural uses and better facilitate the management of hazards and waste reuse options.
Questions concerning the legal implications of landfill reuse are: Who is responsible for hazard related conditions in the long term?
Who owns the by-products?
Decomposition and all the opportunities and constraints inherent in that condition of the land can continue for a hundred years or so, depending upon the site. This means that the risk due to hazards (especially leacheate and methane migration, and subsidence) can last for a very long time.
According to Colorado law:

# The existence of a landfill is not required to be recorded in order to inform subsequent landowners or utilities.
# The current owner is reponsible for land-fill-related hazard conditions, but if the owner is not aware of the previous use of the property, it is difficult to hold that person liable for damages.
# It is unclear whether gas produced in a landfill is a mineral right or property of the surface owner. However, a recently passed state bill, #1214, allows the local government the authority to mine the landfill gas as they see fit.

Bernabe carried the ash drawer from his kitchen stove out to the chicken pen and dumped the ashes over the fence so the chickens could fluff it into their feathers and kill mites.
Then he spooned a few dozen cat turds from the blue plastic boat serving as their kitty's catbox into a trash can, loaded four metal trash cans into his pickup, and headed down the north-south highway for the official Milagro dump.
There were, of course, a good many unofficial town dumps, starting with just about every citizen's backyard crammed full of useful "useless" junk, and moving on to all the oil drums people owned in which they still burned their paper refuse in defiance of state and county anti-pollution laws strictly forbidding this practice. And then there were spots in various arroyos for example, the east side of Arroyo del Marrano and the south side of Arroyo de la Urraca where people dumped all their empty cans and jars and dead dogs and chickens that had died from encephalitis and old washing machines and cars, because the official dump was too far three miles! -away. And finally, there was the favorite -what might be called the "official unofficial"
- dump, which was located in a gravel pit on west side mesaland belonging to Eusebio Lavadie, who had posted signes (to no avail) at the gravel pit, threatening, in both English and Spanish, to keehaul, garrote, draw and quarter, fine, jail and, in general, "prosecute to the full extent of the law" all trespassers, garbage dumpers, deadbeats, lewd lovers, and so forth.
The Milagro Beanfield War
John Nichols

Solid Waste Disposal
Open dumping is the term used for the traditional unmanaged disposal of solid waste. Open dumps are begun with no consideration for land and waste reuse or the environmental consequences of dumping at a specific site.
These refuse areas are unsightly, health and safety hazards, and mean decreased value of adjacent lands.
The basic criterion for site selection and method of disposal is that they be inexpensive. Open dumps are usually found near a road and in a topographically low area. Discarded materials are simply heaved over a cliff, into a ravine, or down a mine shaft with no one taking further responsibility for the waste.
Sanitary landfilling is an upgraded form of this way of disposing of waste materials. It was first used in the United States by Fresno, California and New York City in the mid 1930's, but was not commonly used until after World War II. By the 1950's it had gained a reputation as the most economical of the then acceptable disposal methods. The landfill became a fixture in almost every American community as machinery commonly used in public works projects could also be used to "dispose of refuse on land without creating nuisance or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area and to reduce it to the smallest practical volume and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary."
Sanitary Landfill Manual of Practice, 1959
Open dumping is still widely practiced, especially in rural areas. However, in October of 1976, a law was passed (Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) which provided for the closure or upgrading of all open dumps. It further spelled out the operation of acceptable sites and set forth guidelines for future disposal sites and sanitary landfills. For communities with already established dump sites, the upgrading has created a common dilemma. That is trying to establish an eco- logically sound waste disposal system or future reuse plan at a site which is inappropriate from the standpoints of the geology or hydrology. The problem is further compounded when records of past construction or fill content have not been kept.
As clean air and water quality laws are enforced, the waste which cannot legally be disposed of into the atmosphere or streams becomes a solid waste disposal problem.
Sanitary landfilling is not the ultimate answer to that disposal problem just the last resort And as a new wave of energy and waste reuse systems appear on the scene which cut down on the volume of waste and landfill area needs, landfilling is still the end of the line for the inevitable residues from these processes.
Landfilling has retained some of the old problems of the open dump such as water pollution by waste-contaminated water (leacheate) and erosion and dust due to the disturbance of the ground. While solving some of the old fire disease and rodent problems of the open dump by covering the waste, paradoxically landfilling has created some problems of its own. Covering the waste creates an environment in which

potentially explosive gases (notably methane) can be produced. Besides the obvious safety risk, this makes for difficulties in revegetation because the infiltration of gases to the root zone kills the plants. Subsidence, or settling of the land surface as the result of disintegration and compaction of the underlying fill, can result in ponding. Since this requires a period of continual grading, it presents a problem in establishing a vegetative cover. This settling of the land is also a risk to the development of permanent structures or impermeable surfaces like concrete, asphalt, etc.
A variety of schemes have been devised to deal with these problems with varying degrees of success. Awareness of the problems is so recent that most of the strategies are in the experimental stage. Factors in the economic or ecologic success or failure at a given site are so variable that it is hard to expect that repetition at another site would bring the same result. Decisions of siting, operation and reuse of land and waste must be site and community specific.
Decomposition Primer
Residential wastes contain a high percentage of organic materials such a paper products, food, yard waste and wood. The organic composition of the fill undergoes an evolutionary process of decomposition in a progression of environments which are hospitable to certain bacteria. The decomposition is accomplished by micro-organisms which live in the presence of oxygen (aerobic bacteria) or without oxygen (anerobic bacteria).
The makeup of by-products which are generated in the decomposition process will vary as the oxygen content of the fill environment changes. For example, more hydrogen sulfide (low BTU, rotten egg smelling gas) is produced in the aerobic environment and methane (high BTU gas) is produced only in the anerobic environment.
The quantity of gaseous and liquid by-products fluctuates depending upon the oxygen content, the nutrient supply, the temperature and availability of moisture in the fill. Although each site is different, the initial five years after landfill closing are generally considered to be the most critical. Much of the decomposition occurs then, although it can continue for one hundred maybe two hundred years.
Bi-product Control
Water is the element most commonly controlled to reduce by-product generation. A 25% moisture content is required for decomposition to begin, with peak production occurring at 60%. (Residential wastes commonly have a moisture content of about 30%.) Other factors important to the decomposition process (oxygen and temperature) are more difficult to control, and failure to control water in the fill can result in leacheate migration off the site.
Friend or Foe ?
Two of the by-products of the decomposition process which can be especially hazardous are potentially explosive gases methane in particular and polluted water from the fill -leacheate. The hazard is not in their produc-

tion but in their migration.
In the case of methane, being lighter than air, it rises until venting at the surface. If an impermeable surface is encountered, it will collect there or move laterally, flowing through soils with higher permeability. Methane is highly explosive at concentrations between 5-15% when mixed with air. When tapped, it is a high BTU energy source which can be used on site as is or cleaned and injected directly into a utility line.
Leacheate responds to gravity and flows downward until reaching an impermeable surface or groundwater. (Methane can be formed from leacheate some distance from the landfill.)
Once in contact with the groundwater, it forms a plume, mixing slightly with the water at the plume edges, and moves in the direction of ground water flow.
System Maintenance
The soil interface between the fill and ground-water is a natural system which can cleanse the effluent depending upon its characteristics of permeability, depth, pH and cationic exchange properties. This self cleansing capability will break down if the interface is overwhelmed by more pollutants than it can take care of.
In the manmade system of a landfill, it is important to make sure that the natural system's cleansing capacities are not over-taxed. Manmade strategies can be used to reduce the pollutants and can be monitored for effectiveness.
VI'*''-' MV1

/vr -nc>PoaRAPic hieths

'T' X o

9 L

The approach to finding reuses for the Estes Park landfill will be first to discover what the physical site can accommodate which is ecologically sound and economical in long term costs. Then from the cultural standpoint, to find uses that are needed by the community, are appropriate to the context and can adapt to the physical capacities of the site.
Use Zones
Three Use Zones were identified from functions
performed in the Current Operation of the Estes
Park landfill site:
1. Landfill Zone is that area which is underlain with waste. Two western entrances from Elm Road allow access to either the active or developed areas of the zone.
The area actively being filled has a toll collection shed at the entry and four unloading places the largest accommodates dumpsters.
2. Modified Zone is the area which has been disturbed by site operations, but has not been filled. A southern entrance from Elm Road and routes from the landfilled zone allow access to the roads and stockpiled materials of this section.
3. Undisturbed Zone is the area still displaying the original features of the site. It is being bisected by Elm Road as it enters the site from Highway 36.

Current Operation

The Estes Park landfill evolved in the classic open dump manner around the turn of the century. It was located in the drainage swale of a south facing hillside, west of town. It began as the Stanley Hotel dump and came to be the town dump as people got accustomed to discarding there. Eventually the town bought the property and burning of the waste was practiced at the now official Estes Park dump.
In 1974 the dump attained the status of sanitary landfill when the engineering firm of Brisco, Mapis, Murray and Lamont made recommendations for the site called the "Larimer County Sanitary Landfill Operation Plan for Estes Park." Included in this plan was a geology report by James A. Pendleton, which is the most specific analysis of the site geology which has been done. The Operation Plan suggested that two knolls of refuse be constructed in the area slope method. The construction recommendations were made with no end uses in mind, but it was suggested that no permanent structure be placed on refuse filled areas. It was estimated by the engineers that the knoll landforms could accommodate the projected guantity of waste which would be generated until 1982 or as long as cover material could be obtained. Recommendations for closure included repair of settled areas, reseeding, site cleanup, Health Department inspection and filing of operational and other records with the county clerk. The plan was not followed, possibly due to a communications gap between the operators and plan makers.
An assortment of operators had worked the site until 1975 when the county leased the operation from the town. An agreement was drawn up with a provision for closing the site so that,
"when the landfill site is completed so that it is not reasonable to be used for further deposits of waste material and is completely covered with earth material, the County shall plant the same with surface vegetation and this agreement shall be terminated with the Town's portion of the site to be then available for such use as it may desire."
In spite of the Operation Plan recommendation that no structures be placed upon filled areas, a tan colored Butler building was built upon an asphalt slab at the northwest corner of the site to house the Estes Park Power and Light facility. Problems developed with explosive gas levels and settling, so in August of 1980, the Larimer County Health Department looked into the problem at its two solid waste disposal sites the larger landfill between Loveland and Ft. Collins and the smaller Estes Park landfill. The 1980 study, Report on Methane Evaluation at Landfills in Larimer County, recommended a venting and blower system at the Power and Light building. The venting was done but the settling problem has continued.

Reuse Barriers
Some of the barriers to reuse of the land and waste at the Estes Park landfill are due to the history of planning, construction ana operation which has taken place there:
1. No planning was involved in siting the dump.
2. No construction plan has been followed.
3. In the operation, wastes have not been systematically segregated or recorded.
Some of the barriers to reuse are inherent in landfilling in a mountain community:
1. The climate is severe with greatly fluctuating temperatures which can crack covers and liners. The poorly developed soils cause the landfill to need imported cover material and provide poor cleansing capabilities of the interface between fill and groundwater. Native soils at the surface are highly erodible. A short growing season and slow growing plants cause revegetation difficulties.
2. The isolated location of the mountain town means long-haul distances for imported cover. This would also apply if recovered materials were hauled and waste were transferred for consolidation at the Loveland-Ft. Collins landfill.
3. A small area (about 24 acres) and small waste volume (average about 36 tons per day) limits energy-and materials-recovery
4. Erratic generation of wastes because of the influx of tourists between May and October causes an unsteady supply of materials for reprocessing industries.

physical capacities

What can the physical site accommodate which is ecologically sound and economical in long term costs?
A landfill is comprised of elements which are interrelated so that changes in one element can cause changes in the dynamics of the other parts of the system or adjacent natural systems.. The relativity of the parts must be understood in order to make responsible design decisions.
Six parts comprise the physical inventory and analysis of this study:
Land Cover
Surface Drainage
Subsurface Drainage
Subsurface Utility Lines
Visual Impact
The dynamics of each site are unique and, therefore, the information upon which to base decisions must be site specific.
Several factors have limited the wisdom of conclusions and recommendations which can be made concerning the Estes Park landfill site. These factors are:
lack of applicable data
time and funding constraints
lack of research due to relatively recent
concern (mine and others) with the issues.
lack of precedent
I have indicated when I felt that more specific data were needed.

Construction of the landfill determines the carrying capacity of the site in terms of spatial parameters, load bearing, fill environment and duration and intensity of hazard conditions.
The fill content establishes the nutrients and the initial moisture which contributes to the fill environment and, therefore, to the by-products generated.
Landforms of the Estes Park Landfill are:
1. Manmade fill deposits, the construction and contents of which have been unsystematically managed (by turns of management) and unrecorded, consist of:
a. depressed areas to be filled with the "non-hazardous" waste which is accepted at the landfill.
b. shelf and cliffs which make for sharply contrasting landforms perched on the hillside.
2. Manmade formations which are the circulation routes and materials needed in site operations:
a. stockpiles of various road-making materials.
b. east shelf and cliff made up of soils deposited and compacted.
c. west flat area which has been scraped and the soil compacted by vehicles on site.
3. Natural remnants of the undistrubed topography:
a. rock outcropping
b. hillside

makimade la njd forms
P'HA&F 2- THRU__
* 6UILp'MGf6
PFA5F. i. 1
STEEPER 6LSP& & 2.0 ym

Construction of the existing landform and its perched condition has resulted in problems of erosion, moisture entry, a more aerobic fill environment (encouraging hydrogen sulfide production and curtailing methane production) and undirected gas migration.
Modifying the shelf/cliff landform can help these problems and can be accomplished to a large degree by adding waste to the existing form rather than moving already buried refuse. The formation should blend with the surrounding curvilinear topography. A more gradual grade at the cliff face would allow a gravel liner (to direct methane migration and act as a capillary barrier), and permit soil cover to stay in place. The new landform should accommodate the spatial requirements of proposed uses. It can also help vertically separate "incompatible" uses of the filled and modified zones.
Content of the fill high in organics and the unrecorded history of fill materials and construction indicate that phased development is the most flexible and economical strategy. The initial phase would entail no permanent structures or impermeable surfaces vulnerable to settling, gas explosion or gas entrapment.
Recovery of the relatively small amount of methane produced in the fill (about enough for lighting a path or heating a restroom), would depend upon land reuse needs. If vented, the gas should also be flared.
Landforms of the modified zone are appropriate for immediate development of permanent structures or impermeable surfaces. Landforms of the undisturbed zone are amenities unique to the site which create a tie of continuity with similar formations of the region.

The Operation Plan for Estes Park landfill, done in 1974, shows two hills of waste to be formed. The plan was not followed and the waste has instead been formed into a flattish shelf, perched on the hillside. Depressed areas are being filled with waste and will become part of the shelf or adjacent flat area. There is no "as built" record of the landfill construction.
£ The perched construction and cliff face exposure of the fill creates an aerobic fill environment and encourages the production of low BTU, malodorous hydrogen sulfide gas.
£ The construction does not encourage methane migration to a tapable or controllable point.
0 Development of footings on dikes between cells of refuse is not possible due to haphazard construction. A permanent structure built- on such a site would require a more expensive solution.
0 Modify the landform which will:
create added waste capacity
create a more anerobic fill environment
direct the methane migration
decrease erosion
Methane production according to the 1980 Methane Evaluation of the site indicates a possible production of 30 to 47 cu. ft. per day. This was roughly estimated from gate receipts after 1974, which showed an estimated 39,000 to 61,000 tons of waste in place.
Depth of fill is estimated as 20-30 feet.
Character of fill is approximately 78% organic.
Density of fill must be estimated at the lower range of 800-1000 lbs. per cu. ft. (average density of residential waste), because this information for the Estes Park landfill is not available. However, the site has such constraints on availability of cover and area that every effort has been made to compact the waste efficiently.
Time of decomposition is site specific and the record of construction and content is too confused to allow calculation.
0 There is little methane being produced, not enough to sell and very little for on-site use. The quality of the gas would need to be determined if used.

0 Long term monitoring for gas will be
required, though peak production of methane will probably occur in the first five years after closing.
9 Settling is determined by the density,
character and especially the depth of the fill. One to four feet of settlement can be expected. Settling can continue for 1004-years .
0 Future contruction at the site requires phased development in the filled zone and should be appropriate to the hazard risk.
Phase I would begin at the time of landfill closing with no permanent structures or impermeable surfaces constructed. Uses at this time should allow for regrading of the surface. Phase I would end when methane gas can no longer be detected by monitoring devices, five years or so after closing.
Phase II development would need to be able to withstand or allow for continual settling and regrading as subsidence can continue for 100 years or more. Monitoring for gas and leacheate will also need to continue indefinitely, although the risk of gas explosion is reduced.
Landforms of the modified zone are a result of circulation and materials needed for landfill operations and municipal maintenance purposes.
They consist of stockpiles temporary piles of soils or asphalt; the west flat area compacted, undisplaced soil; and the east shelf/ cliff compacted structural fill and soil of the site.
Q The modified zone is appropriate for permanent structure or impermeable surface.
Landforms of the undisturbed zone are the remains of the natural topography with the exception of the northeast hillside which has an altered profile from blasting and scraping for cover in September of 1980.
Formations of the undisturbed zone are the hillside and rock outcropping.
^ Restoration of the profile of the scraped northeast hillside would require a lot of soil and be very expensive.
0 The undisturbed forms are natural amenities of the site. They are features which are both unique to the site and a tie with similar formations of the area.

Land Cover
Land covering permeability determines the rate and movement of gases and water between the atmosphere and subsurface zones. Vegetative covers help maximize evaporation by transpiration. Land covering materials affect soil erosion on the site.
Land covers of the Estes Park landfill rest on waste filled or unfilled ground. The covers are sealed, soil and protective/vegetative.
1. Sealed covers are the asphalt and Butler building on fill which have been having explosive gas and settling problems, and the exposed rock hillside.
2. Soil covers are of various types, in all states of compaction and varying degrees of vulnerability to erosive forces.
3. Protective/vegetative covers are five specimen evergreens in danger of dying from mechanical damage or unnatural grade, and the natural vegetation of the site which is adapted to the severe climate and south facing aspect.

Control of increases in hazard conditions is largely determined by land covering strategies and permeability characteristics above the fill.
Manmade control systems can be allowed to deteriorate as the landfill ages and the hazard risk decreases. The natural systems should be allowed to take over as soon as they are less taxed to maintain a balanced ecology. This approach would be economical in long term costs and ecologically sound if monitored for safety. Long term maintenance will be needed at the Butler building and future structures, in the form of gas monitoring devices.
Control strategies should reflect the natural migration routes of the gases and water. For example:
# a gravity flow drainage pipe system in the final cover to catch water before it enters the fill.
# a gravel liner (which doubles as a capillary barrier) beneath the final cover to direct migrating gases to an uphill tapping or venting point.
# manipulation of the slope and cover permeability relationship to obtain the desired runoff.
Occasional regrading and replanting will be needed to protect the drainage characteristics. Revegetation efforts in all zones can be modeled on the plant types native to the site and on the plant grouping patterns already established in the surrounding undisturbed areas.

Impermeable, sealed asphalt parking area and Estes Park Power and Light building in the northwest corner of the site have had settling and hazardous gas problems. Explosive levels of methane gas, 0 to 8% were found and resulted in the 1980 Methane Evaluation which recommended the gas venting system now in use.
Permeable, manmade soil cover of inconsistent type has been hauled in at some cost (cover has been frequently skimped upon). One big source of imported cover was a "clay and humic rich silt" (1974 Geology Report) dredged from Lake Estes. Cover was obtained on site in September of 1980 by scraping and blasting the south facing hillside in the northeast corner of the site. Existing soil in the site is poorly developed, decomposed granite. It is hard to assess or get representative samples of soil so assembled.
# Methane being vented at the Power and Light building should be flared as it can collect on the surface as a danger.
0 Long term maintenance:
regrading only to protect drainage characteristics
revegetation after regrading
gas monitoring, venting or tapping
% Given the difficulty in the mountains of obtaining soil for the final cover layer, the relationship between slope and cover permeability can be manipulated (following a flexible plan) to obtain the desired percolation.
0 Leacheate and methane control systems can be allowed to deteriorate as the landfill ages and hazard risk decreases. The natural systems should be allowed to take over as soon as they are less taxed to maintain a balanced ecology.
Permeable soil of native, decomposed granite which has been well compacted by vehicles covers the majority of the modified area.
Protective vegetation in the form of five large, specimen Ponderosa Pines exists in this zone. These trees are in danger of being stripped of bark and, therefore, food supply, by working machinery. The roots are being oxygen starved or physically damaged due to an unnatural (too low or high) grade.
0 Bare ground and some erosion in this area are inevitable as long as the landfill and stockpiling continue on site.

0 Areas of landfill operation can be consolidated while revegetation can be started in unworked sections of the active operation.
£ The Ponderosa Pines can be protected and care taken in maintaining the natural grade at the base and out to the drip line of each tree.
Perennial Sunflower
Silvery Cinquefoil
Yellow Stonecrop
Wheat Grass
June Grass
Needle and Thread
Geranium fremontii Helianthus pumilus Penstimon sp. Potentilla hippiana Sedum stenopetalum Tragopogon pratensis Agropyron
Koeleria macrantha Stipa connata
The impermeable surface area in the northeast corner of the site is rock which has been exposed on the south facing hillside. It was scraped and blasted in an effort to obtain cover in September of 1980.
Protective land cover of the undisturbed zone consists mainly of the remaining naturally occurring vegetation. A short list of the plants on the site would include:
Ponderosa Pine Rocky Mountain Maple Serviceberry Sage
Cliff Jamesia
Antelope Bitterbrush
Wax Currant
Paintbrush Trailing Wild Daisy Sulphur Flower Gaillardia
Pinus ponderosa Acer glabrum Amelanchier sp. Artemisia sp. Chrysothamnus sp. Jamesia americana Prunus virginiana Purshia tridentata Ribes cereum Alyssum minus Antennaria rosea Artemesia sp. Castilleja integra Erigeron flagellaris Eriogonum flavum Gaillardia aristata
% The scraped hillside increases the amount and velocity of runoff water.
0 It will be difficult to revegetate the scraped hillside due to lack of water, little soil, severe climate and south facing aspect.
£ Plant species existing on the site can be used as a model for revegetation efforts. The plant types and grouping patterns can guide the revegetation design. Dry land, high altitude grass mixtures can be used for interim or long term revegetation.

Surface Drainage
The amount of moisture available at the surface and its proximity to the fill can affect the rate of decomposition and, therefore, the bi-product Generation. Water management in relation to slope and land cover is also a factor contributing to soil erosion on the site.
Surface drainage of the Estes Park landfill flows into the Big Thompson River unless evaporated and transpired or percolated into the ground. The 183 acre vegetated watershed contributes runoff water to two crudely constructed, unstabilized drainage channels which divert the water around the fill area (the major channel borders fill on the east). The major channel is especially variable in width, depth and grade. Sheet drainage occurs on bare or vegetated ground and on grades ranging from flat to slopes (at the refuse cliffs) of 40+ percent. Four major bowls where waste is being deposited, as well as other minor dips in the ever changing surface of the landfill, allow water to collect.


Surface Drainage


In any one year, there is a 4% chance of severe erosion and scouring of the major channel and a 1% chance that the runoff water will exceed the channel capacity. If water were to exceed the channel capacity, fill areas would be inundated resulting in leacheate production and migration. This is a particularly undesirable calamity because conditions of the subsurface drainage indicate the need for a strategy which allows as little water as possible to enter the fill.
Strategies dealing with the surface drainage which were considered and rejected include piping the water through the fill and a combination of retention pond and stilling basin. The idea of piping was discarded because such a large structure to catch debris would be needed and because faulty joints are not known to leak until some damage has already been done. The retention pond/settling basin combination is unacceptable because it would be expensive, require alot of space, and because the storing of liquids on fill is wrong in principle.
An acceptable alternative is to build a series of check dams to slow the water velocity, together with raising the stream's capacity for water volume. This could be accomplished by further building up by landfilling, the fill side bank of the channel where such treatment is needed. A cover of impervious clay soil (at least 5 feet thick) and rip rap would then cover the filled bank. In order to design the channel in detail, a hydrologic study should be undertaken.
Sheet drained areas of the modified and landfill zones are in need of slope modification and revegetation. This will create drainage characteristics which encourage the runoff of water without promoting soil erosion. Long term maintenance by the continual regrading and revegetation of settled/pond creating areas will be needed to protect the established drainage characteristics.

The watershed which contributes to drainage through the landfill extends above the site to Deer Ridge and to the lower property line at Highway 36. Rainfall for Allens Park of 20.95 inches averaged per year was used in calculations of runoff instead of the Estes Park figure of 14.66 inches. This was done because of their similar altitude, proximity and the older records (33 years ending in 1978) of rainfall at Allens Park.
A detention pond above the site recommended in the 1974 Operations Plan is not evident.
Runoff has been diverted around the site along two drainage channels, both of which are soil lined and crudely constructed. They may have been considered to be temporary measures in view of the changing nature of landfill topography. The swale of the major channel is of variable width and depth and the longitudinal slope ranges between 4 and 13 percent. The minor swale is a borrow ditch beside Elm Road and does not carry water from the watershed above the site.
Q In any one year, there is a 4% chance of severe erosion and scouring of the major channel.
0 In any one year there is a 17 chance that the runoff water will exceed the channel capacity. If water were to exceed the channel capacity, fill areas would be inundated resulting in leacheate production and migration.
0 Upgrading the existing major channel is needed in the form of a series of check dams to slow the water velocity.
0 The stream capacity for water volume will need to be raised. This could be accomplished by further building up the fill side bank by landfilling where necessary. A cover of impervious clay soil (5 feet minimum thickness) and rip rap would then cover the filled bank.
Sheet drainage areas range in slope from an average at the fill/cliff face of 40 percent to an average of 7 percent on the fill shelf. Both areas are covered by permeable bare soil.
£ Long term maintenance of regrading to
protect the drainage characteristics will help to avoid ponding, particularly on the shelf surface.
O Modification of the landform can take into consideration the relationship between the slope and cover permeability to get the desired drainage.
There are four distinct bowls where waste is being deposited and there are other less significant dips and holes in the changing

landfill surface. An attempt has been made by the operators to cut down on the number of filling areas (to help the windblown litter problem) and they are grading away from the rims of these bowls. This has helped to cut down the amount of water which can collect in the cavities.
Sheet runoff in the modified zone is on bare soil which has been compacted by vehicles.
The east shelf/cliff is the only steeply sloping section.
0 Grades are acceptable for future development and erosion control on flatter sections.
The east cliff/shelf needs a modification of the slope and stabilization.
£ Phased or interim revegetation would curtail soil erosion.
Sheet drainage on the vegetation-protected slopes averages 13 percent. The area does not contribute to the erosion problem of the site, except for the scraped hillside section.
0 The native vegetation helps slow the velocity of sheet runoff.
9 The scraped hillside can be revegetated.

Subsurface Drainage
The natural cleansing system for leacheate released from the fill lies in the subsurface soils of the interface between the fill and water table. Flow characteristics of this subsurface drainage from the site is dictated by the bedrock geology.
Subsurface drainage of the Estes Park landfill was determined by information from two main sources.
The 1974 Geology Report describes the poorly cleansing interface soils and the shallow depth of the west side interface. The 1980 Methane Evaluation describes seven core samples bored from test holes from which the depth to bedrock was calculated. These elevations indicated the southeast corridor of leacheate migration. The direction of flow is reflected in the linear trend of the surficial geology which appeared in areas of undisrupted topography. Bedrock of the area is fractured.
"Near vertical fractures striking from N 30 E to N 60 E are commonly present along with a flat lying joint set that crudely parallels modern topography."
1974 Geology Report
The Methane Evaluation suggested that the surfacing of bedrock at Elm Road as described in the Geology Report would halt the uphill migration of gases.

Subsurface Drainage

_ eovEQ-

The fractured condition of the bedrock underlying the Estes Park landfill would account for the apparent lack of groundwater in test holes bored for the 1980 Methane Evaluation. The importance of bedrock geology is seen in the attention it receives from publications concerned with siting criteria for a landfill:
"A great many factors influence the selection of a site for a sanitary landfil1...the chief concerns at this stage will be to limit the risk that the underlying strata may prove highly fissured or excessively permeable."
Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook
"...avoiding site location above the kind of subsurface strata that will lead the leacheate from the landfill area to water sources, e.g., fractured limestone."
Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management
Subsurface drainage characteristics of the landfill site indicate that a strategy of leacheate PRODUCTION control discouraging water from entering the fill in the first place is the most ecologically sound alternative.
If a strategy were instituted allowing a high moisture content in the fill (accelerating the decomposition process and, therefore, also the settling rate and methane production) the resulting leacheate could not be captured. The contaminated water would not be cleaned by recirculation, filtering, evaporation or some other leacheate control strategy. The shallowness and poor cleansing characteristics of the interface compounds the disadvantages of an accelerated decomposition program.
Leacheate production control will result in a longer duration of hazard conditions in the landfill zone and longer period of long term maintenance (gas and leacheate monitoring systems and leacheate production control system). However, it is the most economical strategy in the long run,if possible environmental clean-up costs and the incalculable cost of water pollution to health are considered.

Inventory Cleansing System
A poorly developed soil of decomposed granite serves as the interface between the fill and water table. According to the 1974 Geology Report, the interface is one to three feet thick along the west road and twelve feet thick from the Power and Light building to the southeast corner of the landfill. These were the old drainage channels before the drainage was diverted around the site.
Flow Characteristics
Depth to bedrock was calculated from core samples taken from seven test holes bored for the 1980 Methane Evaluation and show that the bedrock surface dips to the southeast. This is contrary to the description in the 1974 Geology Report which only refers to the regional trend and says it dips to the northeast. The southwest direction is reflected in the linear trend of the surficial geology as seen in areas of undisturbed topography surrounding the site.
The bedrock is fractured, according to the 1974 Geology Report. There is no information about the condition of ground water in the corridor southeast of the site. Five test holes were bored below the landfill in the Methane Evaluation but show "no major accumulation of ground water." So, no samples were taken by U.S.G.S. decision. The Colorado State Health Department has been taking samples of ground water at
landfill sites in the state and, though the Estes Park site was to be checked, it was not tested due to lack of funds to study all sites.
The bedrock surfaces at the west road and according to the Methane Evaluation, this should stop gas from migrating further uphill.
0 The soil interface does not have good leacheate cleansing characteristics and is very thin (6 ft. is the minimum interface depth regardless of soild type -Nobel), especially on the west side of the property.
0 The whole corridor southeast of and under the landfill will be the path of leacheate migration. If leacheate reaches the groundwater, it will probably surface at the Big Thompson River. Seep wells could be used for long term (indefinitely) leacheate monitoring in the southeast corridor.
0 It must be assumed that fractures underlie the whole site and that, without further geologic analysis, leacheate can run into these fractures. Leacheate PRODUCTION control (rather than leacheate control, i.e. recirculation, ponding) should involve the whole filled area.

This area does not contribute to the pollution of subsurface drainage unless material stockpiled contain harmful substances. The area is in the path of groundwater flow.
0 Groundwater monitoring should occur at the modified and undisturbed zones in the southeast corridor of groundwater flow under the landfill.
Subsurface Utility Lines
Utility lines can act as a path for migration of methane as can road beds and other more permeable soil lenses. The availability and proximity or absense of utility lines can affect the range of reuses of the site.
Underground lines under Elm Road are water, sewer and gas. Some old sections of gas line run through the Landfilled Zone and should be investigated possibly trenched or collared. According to the 1980 Methane Evaluation, methane should not migrate beyond Elm Road as the bedrock surfaces there. However, it is unclear as to where on Elm Road this occurs gas could migrate up a utility channel if the bedrock surfaces on the far west side of the road.
Access to water, gas and sewer lines from Elm Road or Highway 36 are advantageous to future development.

Visual Impact
Three interest groups were identified as being concerned with the visual impact of the landfill site.
These groups and their positions relative to the site are:
1. Motorist/Tourist viewing the site from Highway 36, below the site.
2. Resident/Opposite Hillside viewing the site from the south on the opposite hillside often at an elevation higher than the landfill.
3. Motorist/Local viewing the site from Elm Road along the south and west edge of the landfill property.
Factors contributing to what is seen are distance, speed, relative elevation and expectation.
1. Distance Details can be seen at close range; whereas, at some distance away, only form and
color may be visible. The relationship of the area to its context is more apparent at a
2. Speed The driving motorist has a cone of vision of about 60 degrees which limits the time for focusing on an area and therefore limits the detail which can be seen as well as limiting the viewing angle.
3. Elevation Elevation of the viewer relative to the site can expose or conceal, depending upon the topography and vegetation.
4. The Estes Park area is famous for its scenery and it can be assumed that the groups most concerned
with continuity of the panorama would be the tourist and resident. The local motorist would be
more accustomed to a contrast of sights.


CREATE. plakitable.
. '


I ( (
'r ^)
V /

Expectations of visual continuity along Highway 36, scenic corridor to the National Park entry, indicate that the natural look of the undisturbed zone should be maintained. Also, the scraped hillside and cliff face which are visible from the highway should be revegetated for continuity of color.
Expectations of visual continuity by the Residents of the Opposite Hillside suggests that steps be taken to camouflage the colors and forms of the disrupted areas to better blend with the predominantly undisturbed surroundings. Camouflage for color would mean painting the Butler building a dark color and revegetation similar to the native plant materials and plant groupings. Camouflage for form might entail a modification of the landfill deposit and other cliff/shelf forms to become more curvilinear. Reshaping or relocation of the stockpiles or possibly consolidation of the industrial uses would make for less contrasting forms.
Although the Motorist/Local group expects less visual continuity, some partial screening of contrasting elements along Elm Road would enhance the general image of the site from close range. Partial screening with landforms and vegetation would help soften the site's negative aspects.

Physical Objectives
Leacheate Production Control is a strategy of primary importance to the ecological soundness of the manmade landfill system. Unfortunately it delays and curtails some reuses of the site.
Leacheate production control is a precaution needed on this site underlain with fractured bedrock, in order to assure that the natural cleansing systems of the soil interface are not overtaxed by pollutants. This would mean controlling water at the surface, before it can come in contact with the fill. Control of the quantity of water which percolates into the fill and control of the water quantity and route taken by the drainage channels at the landfilled zone will change the dynamics of the system by slowing down the rate of decomposition.
This in turn creates barriers to reuse of the wastes and land by slowing the rate of methane production and rate of settling. Furthermore, this strategy will prolong the period of maintenance required monitoring for gas and leacheate.
Self Maintaining Systems for aid in directing gas migration and leacheate production control will be economical in the long run. This means a maximum use of "passive" strategies which use natural forces (i.e., gravity, convection) to advantage rather than active strategies which employ an extraneous energy source.
Development which is Appropriate to the Risk from Hazards will result in the phased development of the landfilled zone. As the fill ages, the risk to development from explosive gas and settling decreases.
Phase I, in which no permanent structures or impermeable surfaces are to be constructed, will last until no methane gas can be detected. In Phase II the settling will continue to a lesser degree and the possibility of methane gas production will still exist, but the probability and therefore the risk will be much reduced.

cultural adaptation

What is needed by the community, is appropriate to the cultural context and can adapt to the physical capacities of the site?
In searching for possible uses of the landfill site, private enterprises were not considered because of the legal implications of landfill reuse. Also, a private use would first need a market survey to determine its feasibility.
The public use possibilities in this paper were confined to the categories of educational, recreational and industrial needs.
Elements of the cultural context were identified as:
1. Location Relationship
2. Linkage Pattern
3. Recreation System
4. Needs Expressed by Area Residents
The first four elements represent opportunities for the future use to coordinate with an existing relationship, pattern or system of the site's cultural context. A less systematic approach was taken in brainstorming for possible uses by the people of Estes Park.


Location Relationship
The site is located along a tourist transportation corridor (Highway 36) connecting two poles (town and park). RQcky Mountain National Park at one end is the attraction and Estes Park at the other is the source of supplies and lodging. The town has a strip development intensity, but structures thin out as the transportation network gets further from town. Development is sparse on the hillsides.
Highway 36 is just beginning to be festooned with businesses in a fashion typical of strip development.
The site lies halfway between the poles and at the lower end of a draw which has been relegated to accommodate the most socially obnoxious industries of the area: the landfill, A-l Trash Service, a quarry, a cement batch plant and county shops. Sharing the access of Elm Road are several residences inhabited by the hardy souls who live along the western hillside and in the upper end of the draw.
The zoning designation 0 or open signifies that almost any use is acceptable on this land which has been host to developments (the dump/ landfill) of a most incompatible nature. It is immediately surrounded by two zoning designations commercial abutting the west and north property lines, with tourism on the south and west.
The location of the 24-acre site is halfway between the poles, which are about two miles apart. This puts the property in the position of being in close proximity to the town and the park but distant enough to have a nebulous aura
as it is identified with neither. The town is growing (at an estimated 2.5% per year) but not by the leaps and bounds which would result in the landfill acreage being enveloped in the near future. The aura of being neither here nor there will change, depending upon the direction taken by future development surrounding the site.
The landfill property is central to the surrounding west-of-town residences, the industrial draw and the transportation corridor itself.
A more immediately viable use may be found in response to demands of the neighborhood directly surrounding the site.

LINKAGE PATTERN North _______r*
T fCAMOKOlCHTCnosj kiouTE-u
^iierHW/KY ^>C*

Linkage Pattern
Linkage systems which can have some relevance to future uses of the Estes Park landfill are utility lines and transportation routes.
Utility lines in close proximity to the site are gas, sewer, water and electric.
Transportation routes were identified as being:
Highway 36 which is a heavily traveled tourist thoroughfare.
A trail beginning at the dead end of
Elm Road and leading into the National Park.
The Big Thompson River which is a protected greenbelt designated by the Estes Park Land Use Plan and is undeveloped at present.
The site can be considered as the hub of these transportation linkages or as a point along a traffic route.
If viewed as a hub, the site could become a station point with roads and trails radiating from it. Horse trailers or cars could be left at the "station" as the people continue their trips by foot or horseback.
The National Parks Service has been interested in the landfill property as a busing shuttle base. It would become part of an effort to cut down the amount of automobile traffic encroaching upon Rocky Mountain National Park and the Bear Lake area, in particular. The modified zone has room for the minimum of 105 cars which the shuttle would require. However, they are most hesitant about using the site because of the bad image created by the landfilling operation. Closure of the landfill and the vertical separation of the modified zone and the industrial uses by the landform design would alter the negative view considerably.
The Parks Service is also uneasy about the nebulous location of the site being neither at the park or in town. This situation could only be changed as development at the site and its environs results in a definite identity relating to the park, town or hub itself.

If the site is considered to be a point along a traffic route, a different set of possibilities emerges. The automobile will probably continue to be the dominant mode of transportation to and from the landfill location. Presently walkers, horseback riders, and cyclists are attracted to more readily navigable terrain found elsewhere, and the highway is a formidable barrier to the river corridor. However, it is conceivable that a route between the town and National Park may someday be in demand which will accommodate these less agressive forms of transportation.
A route along the Big Thompson River from Estes Park, up Elm Road and continuing along the trail into the National Park would avoid the incompatible automobile traffic. The site might be a form of way station for such travelers.

Recreation System
Most of the active recreation of the region is administered by the Recreation District and the facilities are located mainly on the east side of Estes Park. For this study, passive recreation of the region will be considered to be administered by the National Parks Service and located in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Active recreation facilities are very adequate for a town of about 8,500 residents (not including tourists). An inventory of the facilities clustered east of town includes:
2 golf courses (one nine and the other
eighteen holes)
3 softball fields (no lights)
indoor pool (in use two months of the year
because of high heating costs)
horse showing facility
tennis courts
tot play area
picnic tables and shelter
Also administered by the Recreation District but located within the National Park is the Hidden Valley Ski Area.
Softball is the sport currently in biggest demand. Last year the three available fields were in use to the limit of their daytime capacity. Precautions could be taken to allow the landfill zone to be shaped to accommodate a ball field. The exceedingly bright lights of a ball field used at night would be compatible with the adjacent industrial uses near the site but it could be annoying to residents of the draw and opposite -hi 11 side.
Racketball courts and an activity center for seniors is being considered, but the Recreation District wants these additions located within the east-of-town cluster. With this concept for placement of recreation facilities, the landfill site has little opportunity for use as a satellite of the area's active recreation system.
For passive recreation, the landfill property could be useful to the National Park as the shuttle base, trailhead parking or as part of a trail between the town and National Park.
All three ideas were discussed under Linkage Pattern.

(3 i '3! J J [
j PQ£-£ *-<

F=fsj£.r3. IJMIV. £R>/
C=rATH3RlM(n (cCKlp)

Needs Expressed by Area Residents
On April 3, 1981, an advertisement was run in the local newspaper, the Trail Gazette, soliciting ideas from the local population for future uses of the landfill site. This elicited no response, but the newspaper noted the ad and ran a front page article about difficulties at the landfill and brought attention to the search for thoughts on reuse of the property. The Center for Community Development and Design was contacted by two citizens the owner of a gas station/miniature golf course and the owner of a motel, both located on Highway 36 near the landfill. Their concern was mainly that whatever happened there be compatible with the promotion of tourism.
In spite of the small amount of voluntary response, the newspaper coverage did get people thinking about the situation and, when contacted, many were ready to respond with already formulated suggestions, such as:
picnic area
waste disposal
free university gathering place
nursery co-op
The people also expressed a desire for a focus for the west side neighborhood, west side recreational facilities, and indoor wintertime activities.

ideas wanted
1 100 1 4TH ST.
(303) 629-2816

Cultural Objectives
An adequate forum for community involvement was not set up for this study and no major interests are discernible. Therefore, the basic community needs of a waste disposal alternative and the protection of tourist interests were chosen as primary purposes of the site. A third use of a nursery co-op was arbitrarily chosen in order to allow the schematic plan to show how the task of designing for future uses can be carried forward.
Disposal Alternative This industrial use will be a separation collection point and a waste transfer facility as Phase I development in the landfilled zone. A source separation effort should be doggedly encouraged. Voluntary source separation of certain materials such as newspaper, possibly glass and used food cans can only be expected to be done by residents and businesses. Tourists would not likely help the effort. Separation at the central collection point will be a backup system. A transfer facility would be used for hauling separated materials and unseparated waste to the Loveland Ft. Collins landfill site. Waste of the county could be consolidated so that energy or materials recovery from Estes Park refuse would be more economically feasible.
A transition period will occur in changing over to the new combination of disposal methods. As problems are being shaken out
of the separation and transfer systems, waste can be deposited in the landfilling method forming shapes which will accommodate future uses.
Scenic Corridor This use, related to recreation, will be to retain and amend the undisturbed zone as part of the scenic corridor between the town and National Park. The lower part of the site would continue to act as a buffer along the tourist route of Highway 36. The scraped hillside which is also highly visible will be restored so that its visual impact shall not be negative. Perhaps the decision to preserve the scenic reputation along this section of road will encourage a reversal of the current strip development trend.
Nursery Co-op This use, related to education, will begin with the building of a structure and parking area in the modified zone. The child care facility will be expanded as Phase II development of the fill zone.
(This is another arbitrary decision as another use could be chosen and planned for.)


A simple program of requirements for the uses of Disposal Alternative, Scenic Corridor and Nursery Co-op might entail:
Disposal Alternative
waste separation collection point
transfer facility
sanitary landfill
gas venting
(Extension of the Nursery Co-op a day care center)
future softball field
Scenic Corridor
buffer area
monitoring of subsurface water quality
Co-op Nursery Complex
nursery building
car parking
play field
play yard
The following preliminary plan is an example of planning the physical site shown in a Design Schematic to accommodate the program of use requirements, thus making Site Use Areas. The drawings of Design Schematic and Site Use Areas correlate so that, a spot with low visibility and screening from the wind is the location of the transfer facility; topographic high points of the landfill are gas venting points; the curvilinear form of the landfill results in a vertical separation of the disposal alternative from the nursery co-op complex, and so on.
A detailed design will be needed before implementing a future use plan for the Estes Park Landfill site.


a '-r3^

"What Price Progress in Solid Waste Disposal." American City and County Magazine, January, 1980. p.84.
Briscoe, Mapis, Murray, Lamont, Inc. Larimer County Sanitary Landfill Operation Plan for Estes Park. May 1975.
Associated: Pendleton, James A. The
Geological Investigation of a Potential Sanitary Landfill Site Adjoining the Existing Refuse Disposal Site at Estes Park in Larimer County, Colorado.
April 2, 1975.
Colorado State Department of Health.
"Regulations: Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities." (Effective April 1, 1972.)
"Title 30, Article 20-Part 1- Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities." Reproduced by Colorado Department of Health undated.
Dix, Stephen. Methane Evaluation at Landfills in Larimer County. Summer 1981.
Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1977.
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
Register. Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste; Proposed Guidelines.
Hart, Fred C. and Associates, Inc. Solid Waste Disposal in Climatically Severe Areas. Environmental Protection Agency, August,1980.
Jones and Jones. Union Bay Teaching/Research Arboretum Master Plan and Preliminary Report. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1976.
Lovins, Amory B. "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?" Foreign Affairs; Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. 1976.
Morgan, Gary P. Intergovernmental Task Force: Methane on the Move Your Landfill7-? Silent Partner. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981.
New Alchemy Institute. The Village as Solar Ecology. East Falmouth, Maine. 1980.
Nichols, John. The Milagro Beanfield War. Random House, Inc., N.Y. 1974. p.373.
Noble, George. Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook. Technomic Publishing Co.
Westport, Connecticut. 1976.
Slater, Philip. The Pursuit of Loneliness; American Culture at the Breaking Point.
Beacon Press. Boston, Mass. 1970.
Steinitz, Carl. A Comparative Evaluation of Resource Analysis Methods. Research Office, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass. 1969.
Wehran Engineering/Zion and Breen Associates. Master Plan Richard W. De Korte State Park. (Prepared for Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission.) 1979.