The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20122334.tiff EXHIBIT C • 00 I r. r 4 . 1" ' . A• • New. _ J, •,t' • I '•CC v 1`. �,,+ ,4. , j y l9 . •l., v 1. • ,0! .•y,.•{, SI N.' rt., ' .z �. > 3;' •►. s'4.i� fr ' is A; . 4 • .4 , , . . . i.,,, • , , ,. , ,,, , , . . . , I . . . . . . , , ._.. ,_.. _ • • . _. . . . t . . r.� T 400.000004. . . .. ... . t E...a ' tts ,� _ p.c. I• L 4' • .1 I I 1 F, 'I• I '.it . 4 • ill; +. ,r • ' b, I. Ki + Ili , . Q) t"" 4 N ; CC +- r UU • • I -- 0 W W O r. N CC - in O CD L I ` a) Cl.) .. t . > s. O, t� a. O • 4l Q • • .• • • . . y • 1. 1 , r 9If A.. _ _ _ 1: r t. . . • iI %yir l5 , i 1 _ 11 l is iit it,fillik.. 1 it..r air.: ter h •� ,, 1 r E • I , 1 E' ,j !f P. ji r- oi i' � r r i4 "; 1Jh • / at , lifillt \, • t • • i •� `• ' rat M I. • • 1 1 / • .1 . 11, 4- I ' (t .v� v. 411, • r , - - J � ,! ` : ( r : I . .. .. '& verse lac .,;•.1.1t. / }' • i - 4t.�� rti_�� 4 .. � r . • •• 1 •("� .t, 14/0! l q t', J V 4,t ' I •�.. r .1. O' f i \S" ''dr,� Il.. t ... .,i 9 F r`t ' +H. ' 4. . l•—•"— .' i1 e' A• ri rf ti1�va --r- ai ... ' `. . 1 n ,1 1, _ '. ,t f f 1 Si • 0 - - . .,fir )? f N ns KsYrFrLi >i . e ' ,, , • • . gl • �; �.. )•,., Ilk Z , ' • I y., Li • J rr • y '-- ' '1 41 'L - -� ' I • TIEN 1 • .4 . • i �, f—•-•—• 1 --T. I i li 1 , %'^^!!I I � • a 4L.__; . rf 1 • \ . I ,� 1 • • a . . ' • 1. ' l 4 ' I1 ;;; 'tr f 1 f . - r • tr i t . . ` . .V ' I • i .". i k 1 1 Il l - " I�� r ri \ I r .f t • i . • ' 1,r 1 • 1; 1 • &tl if 1%,4,,'",,,. .,* :75:- �- +43)-----mimis K q r l , ' • , l - • *N # -•tic' 1 `M; y �i 1 S / k 4, , . . ._ •_. ,.. Il I . yy i ' I 4 i it /ii. , • A, 4►. al► , k� J 1 fqt r i, { S4 'l. -1:15 l • Ij • ,'4. I. • ' • C 4 4.Y Q. .r . *4:: _el 1.f 1„ ' • % A -." • .: aki• ' - ••- --• .------_,,----.: ..4.. ' _ lid - q' . - •T��I�. �; � -• 4 • 1.. 4 - i ♦ 1 Jr } r s • ler; �` v yr Syl :vats ar , I i t - X 1 - 4} N •. -itti r Iii _ h • A it I Y•4 /•- rtitl 1 -�` ` 1 1/4 i '• I J 11 -I ._ ---.•. .J. - - • - L.-- I Y•x � �� ' • RAJ( , �,�:g ; ,� • ...' n 4 • r - • • y 1 i r. 1.1. Z i 1 s` ) VVV , . 4 , ,.. , .., , . ... tiv . . , • i t I « /J� f \ F I:, O. . • 1 . tj 1> ) 1. I i I .s, t ', 'it s ,u, i .q• .a jr C r ii • ♦`' •'ip 4.' •.r 1 • .' -•^ __ {, �, .t A •'iiy�V.1. •t.. 1 t ' •I.. - , • , ` o `r� ,., > vt.l ti 1 • • . .; iii h ' • •-i • . • \, - t t • ` `-. a ",..4,, ••Swk♦.,'B.'y ____'._ -- "�"K' 4F' Ahr• •! Fu=r • +•Y., I 1 lc • • •F.•1 • 1.44. I • •. '\ •-;r t K rt. : y � . 1 1 ' % hi fr. INY . 1 f , y.. .. { 7 _ } ~ ti - y;jam♦ . T. I �- - fV • " 1 L ' ` , 4l-i�� • Jam. r•l • ,• ; �•+. s � ' 71 y • ‘..1_,N... .):> - r -yard • L .it J . 1 - _- l `' .i\., ag.... v T ♦• t- ' 11 N. .� • i a.11 n , l • may' r w3 • ii:{ 1I • �e I {}'. w4 y, ", I _ X117•ti♦�♦ •,.� .f l- 11 R _,, .s i • • r . , ♦ 11 ,0t 1 r . . e•41 . •.p , t.. 1 r; . I.. ti • t i {ti . • f 1' , ��. .• A'itli . • , . ., • . ... • .„ . • y�y doillik 4,-e.gm • t . , - - e , 4 ] 1)" '� t 414.4%. ..„. �` mo�t{{ "` ..0.....,+ • T♦] R f r • I . • i 4,r - • as I , i . A �,- • tr 41 •• II. d 44 i N I I =r 1 • •= z 1 ._ r - - J ` , - JI • 1- _i 1 , • �• 1- __ O. . • - -I • 1 • R I 1 _ - ' • L , • 1 0 + ,Y ,1 • :4: — 4-.., . i Iyr. :I '7,4---- I - ....:. i , it:.:.4.1. 4..4, 4.' l r i • 1 a J •• I • t • ! 3 t , • —` 1 ilk •t4 • , • II , • y 1. .- - r� • I • . , 19l� •ff++,_yam}_ - , • I 1.1 •a r • ,.r f a tt ' -� r 4 Y Is. ..•a / ,_- -.- 1 d" 1 . • a t• ` .4 A • ?—c-. '� ' 4/ ' • • . i , •1 I ?Aka y C. WI I I I • Cr" 1d7�r i tr •: I ' 4 •9 �� 111 • •I •4 1, T_ 1 t • 1 I . 1 1, Iv* i• 1 Y • 'S - _.ar 4 i. t�, ��F �, . ' �� i � -µ "� i�k�jy^� ��) '��ti� f � • . Py � � �� . �'•, yY � i R Q l� � � . 1 , �r . .� , I ' S, + , �'` �, �pyp��. ' Y -� � � r.. t N! ' � h� } . y C $ {1 ; � e , , { s f �r4 . + ,-� ♦ ' . � � � . � - �� f � ' ' y � , i yr '' .. �• � i �- a . .�. _ � � �. , � , i i . � . � . , �s � ' .W. t�:�:. ' - `�' a ' . y ��' 1 - , - � � �, t ;�� _ ; � � a , � tM -. � + . . . r . �{: .. a r � . � '. i � �� 4 ; . � — "�@ �_G . . » i . . ' '�. . } ' i: � �1' 4 ' . ` � l � �'1 ` i < � 4�a.�. , � �. . ..+: � . ['i .: �' _ _ .- ; � �3. ;� .� J � � ! .,` (.. � i •dl s ' �E ; Y . i. a � AI(e s , �r ; +y� , .�E_ � . , . C,:.. sr �E . W I �G iR _' . � ._ �� i + � �� jc.� J� . / f .� i. i � r �� •� � . . . r. � 3) . �. -.. _ _ ' . . �r;,- . . � � - � .. � . .a �. : .. � - . . � �-- . . � �� ., � z �, . JT� s � ��.. �' T h • .. � � L� � r � � e! � u • ', j��' ' C, ,.ur � �� . a_ 'w � � J>p� � . �y � 1.�` �. � f �4 � � - � �'". n . . ! � W �{ ��'I � � . � . �T^ •.. 1 �� r� � > �'�r 1 `� a • / . qr, . � i .. . :. . � y �': . . ��r� k 'R' > $� 4 ' ,� , �� ' E:-_ . . � �' �: --`•.. r .. � 21� � �y l �. � , �: S,. vys`"� .t;� � . 9� �� .. I � �� ._ ` �w , „ ��4 e , .: � �v-ti�� : . ; ' �. 1'„SR �In .,. + � } •� � � j _ � �� _ � .. . . : , � � .. �}. . a� .:� - . - yy. l . � �. . � �,• .i ', 1 . ..� �7�F -. r� ., . . 'i � I � ° .c� � " � ,Fe . ! f ` '� . � •�il � � i,. �, r'��Ir.`�'� . . s 1 � ,. . " '. �' • 7 � • ' .e. �� Y��.1 � -4 � I � Y ' I� � ��'t ..- . ' , � ; f ' ` � '. ' �j � • � . { ♦ �1 � .. ♦ . '� � � 11 1 � �� y��'� �' .. . • f �✓ � ♦ - ♦ �� . � � �. � � V � j w 1 � ; � ..._ � ` #` ` � � l i> �p � � � � � � �;� � . ;r � � . � °�. i s- ' � , _ i �1,.. . ; • � � � ,{ ` , �'� �S �y � � _ . ; a . � � , � . , � � � � ' {� ♦ � � � ' �, C I! ' �i�^ � ..�, S�1 � � � � �t`�� 5.41d • � '��" j1` a�: � �. ^ 'ule' '^x �}�>j � � 1 � '�. . . �'�� y!�`�, . {i� � I� 1 _ � ¢ A��... ' ( �� e YI 'T � � . � � � •1 .�� . � ' l O � . • � � �. , ` ` •�� . � � � � � � Y � � ,,, _ , ,' � � .,� . . . , � , , ti , , ' � �i � " 1 �^A � fl �• � �. � . . � � �� _ +�� f ' � ,�� ,.. �,� � .• 1 � 1 �l . ! � . - r - �1a3 � �q� - � . ,..� j, . • '1 . � r'�y. � � i � � " �(l � i ` � i��{Ijr� t� . �. �+ M,i + .. ��-' - � ti Y ,�f �'� ' . , Y(��~�► '1YS'. ay A S ':.��jJf . � :r C i Y1-1',SI. � �� i9� � • ��_:YI.'i �S.• .r . .. '� � � ' � Y r � !� ��i ' �� . .r C6 .1... � 1 . . . e o � v � � �. : [ � .s T��fd� •✓� � .. � � � � i L Y �,. � � � . 'P3�4 . � . r2_J�F � f ' `�>� A �� R ' A �. _� ' , ' ' ' e, .s...)Lit,,...--..140S,,:sla*C- I - 4.'4 : ' 1 , i 1 N. r— _rte �• t •��••.I � '•.--- , •+_ 1 t1 1. •• I., i l f )1 ' .. qf, :.lL. `` i` / --/-;:l•-"H-- , 1 I} •t 1 Tom . .. `> :'•r •- I " - _ ,.r . Y •, 0I + ( � ._. /f •: • 4. i'' Y; I 1 i ♦ • i t -- M� - - a r�r � ,� y I • � iT•..1v e'd 44 f t f w i I - Jt ) I • / • l sr - Y • - - 4 . �•(}J - - - - Y. . •'- r. . 1 • li • • �. • ail 111 I a 1 - 1 L. 1t f . • t I �. � ♦ ,54 may" A ._ Wiz• 1 r. ♦"_ (. .S • t I _ i, • .40w h 1 I I II • a a t . • _ • - �4 .G* '• -. �. 4 mac. J�✓' ✓/� J. �V„ , f_C ire tie •• 1 l . A ,•. — a sr ff ,, • •J �t`•i] . .• . V 1 •_.Z.7*,,Or. - 1. • • 1 r '. 07"•• -^ * 44 ...d 44• .:1 tom. ' J : . 1 11. ..,° - - - 4.4.. 1 !- _ 0 • f . • • t • �•• ,.. , \ • ••• !i ti ti to m r • 4 i. / i •♦ 1. 42 s a- nil • _ ____ _ 'I M — y w JP _ ' i II to }a fFri ` _s•IWS �. r • . -1-•::::. - sA - - 1 ` ` \ _ 1 • t = S. s3 . ��, i.�. - w 3' 1 0 _. • 7 ta �r l \!t,_ �'... :Alt • . �. ' . ,t�/-+ '.. � • 01 7 > • , 4 i + : •• •a sa. i ll •q ',• �• �( \ ♦ , •�� ' . • t• ', -1 3 Il ' - 1:' *s• '4. Nik .iiihc 4. • % - 4, k . . , 1 • • , 4 .. .....• ....• . iit 4 4 •. P A • •. s tz J., ;Via. 3't+,;�i • , . , . • :lb '' 14iii:1 . '4 VI 4 (• ```,LLL...rrry 41 I•'ar 4, . .: ,(• . ' % ir -, I — 1 •w. •',A .0. ' 0,. i • w Y •1 ,� , •, ,) 1 ,chi- frv1,- & - ; i • 7 •• 41r i *• • I i •••, cl 1 . . el; Wit Ir, ♦• r t i 1 14C .35S •• ,.• i r i �. 1 J • • .4 - ♦ • , r. • ' ::: -• • - - _ r _ - ' \ fr z'a .r' r S r _ _• �_ I -- -61 • - r'i • • ill a _ r , • y 1 1 — -k-r‘''' , .� - 4 a ii+ ak' _' ' t } ., i y" 'trr' • t c-� • �l yi�1 • , r .) Yty P S. 'ti Ay a r• 474z • ^des , M1 , ,. -. i • - •' '4--r . . ,i. Yeirs ..,l ti .a :� I iii-If. is Y • . 5-• P. ..-..s I.. Viti , ' ,0: ,annill ' 11 -111) • t I*, • a • ,}' 4• w�s 'yam .:g . . . ..- �ey ;Jt.- - • ..•d'r�y API's' _ l• .. - • A •• V i t .F•' -J. S . •io14. ..L7 -!•.. .yF • ! -yam/ aJ 4 �'► r ,. .•A " ii , Ilrilitil° • ` • +h �• f ;' .- , ; J V- 4 • .to • : RJ f. ' sJa.• I r. . 4:• - .tf•-� '•." ".jY' p.i••tilT:• i },• 1 . .401,. ." •I:. 1 - [�>ct• . , - k[9� r j k � . ti r, r -W.. . .ga.M. fe ! 11NL f• • I A- -r' 1 . , I ti ' 1' �s •L i 1 �, ', i :¢ • t 1 a a I r 1 - .1 • v. :i . so it f Lc: L ICI: :,.;:-.:?.:*1-1-1:3:: --1": "1 11; . it .:. it 14,‘. --' . I. tt, - . • "Iii " I ' "'' 4 1 4 , 41 , ; , . •1``. t ••• 1 I .] 'mot n .. • I" '"` ^ i 'T. i. • { -• . 4. ✓ Id t F• , M ! . r J ♦�'� • i tea' . :, , - • t 4. .n - 4,..... . r• V1 .••t•. , r . i I,, I ti ; , 4 . •R 1 ; . ;,G;,GC. i • 46 `* " r • .+ A. t •. .. r . 1 • e4 I : , . 1' f I • ; .firs�j ' .. r 's' - or 1 i vi . . t i� • ,,I, - i A. • , .:, . , .. ii, li �, � ` • r , T a � r` 0 ,Iy �p 1 K 1 - p I • } I1 i . •l.. cii C . a•.. ,» .'' I � - _c • • - - i , - • • ' )I{[ cwt"y `1 _ :;4;•••0..;Y - , • ha i 11 , .1� 1. �t :r ".• , ,1 ' 1 fit'- .,. - i le t • 1t ._y - i. � : : It . • la.1 i /' ,•. ... I ..... . . , Il � 1:�1 r a \. , � r ._ iikkf., __ ._ . . . ,...• N4, jam .. �; y. ` , t ` 1 6. " -.rt. a• : i 'z , e. vYY 4. A ��1 I "Pg ?i - ` GYP ' :: - -�•44 � V .4•1`.. I J ( ft • � ��} R .: -• f� _ • iI. ailli y ' 1 - • f '' , 1� '' . :-....i'11-4 t•I'it ` t�1 1 ,i M. tr, ,. 1 v 1 i • , •.A • ' �f y, .�%1 - • lire. 1 , 0 7` .1• - r • .. 7!. . '. ' .rlt • '!. 1. ,. % ' M S. .. 4Pk / 11. t` , 1 f . 4. rail ' ► ,JS ; s • Sty: % - • /a (,- � . . 1 iv* v• 1 I. IN tt t 1;t <: ;.i is" P ' r;{. ~ qtr • ' ; tI • • 1 .4 t. ti + 1 •:..r: Vt.' "1, }` 4y . -1 1 4 ',. r t'141 t 1IL.. lI y� 1 4 7t. - ' i .:tk_ sit. " ,'• 6 • r • • t c .t ' ,3 '.• 1r }T ', , , ,- t- ... t 1t r 1 li �. 'fill 1 it's;. { t i , : ! ,t c.[ y 1, '�_ 1i � i•• • r .� ti' ' ., , F N fJ 11 1 �. .` Ai r .ii(.1 1 II il s t.1 l 1. .11 + . 1. 1 777 + l 1 1 Y•• r Ct. t I - --^� 1 ., f - • 1 j 1 t - ..4kI j((ll . �II ; V - q . i .., • ..c .. ,:qtra, e ... _ . • • • 1.4 N it 4 ., S ' • t . 1 lie ., , t4 ' ••r t ' 1 r fir. ' � , ti a•s d '' '' ill • '0 ! i t eimmpues sour -- • . �, , .. t:- . •: 1. ,y _.. A1 • _. •� - • .; • ,fi-I. .• .; t. tte ;i r , it i It `f : • • M , .17., . .:::t 4 r_ .... , ti,, , • • • i .Il 'W. 1 •'.•� t � s . fp V ` : c - ,a 1 , Y •d r , r v. 4 �• . • � •.� • - •r t i•/ Y , .-1 :• I I j • f ft r ! y- 1 ., • iy' i t h • • h • • ). - - ': ./• '6 -i-1 .• ` �.Lhi L . t � . 4 . 1..T 1 .'7ill• C.:: ;:6 . ‘ . ' #, C, I'Ia, • t 6.., t? V, '1 "'r"at +w.: J S 1�. 1 i s.A. a .i- 1 • - 1 n • I A .• SI - � ie d sit w fre lib— �` • Y (. I tai. e 1i" ' r • 1' ti [ r •. int— ./ Mtn r. • " , :„SAL .4 ., .: • tann y!." AMA• . �►/ s.' ." ..1 A) ' i:i y T � { ors } _ ,�9 + r i ?-' -� , ..: ..ray .1w 4 r • L eli ti 1, . ' n.Z J 9 .[1 •ar• yr •'1 • k�T ' ..it. r.-1. it - V~• ' - �. •111111k 3 • ' - '�'a ` t . t r . 7.-A' . •� . Ili f 1: .*. 1 as 1, t , 1 .;'4,.4 , : ^ 1 x. , . L • - A.a. _ ?' :_ ; . ---.4, ' . ii 1 • �� v UP4 , < . x - ., jai . vast. 4 ir§k‘ . 3 `:.•* r , r Y,: .„ ItII I `:,.1 '1 I' ?'� III 211.4 T° ' J T. 1/4.4.).,..,:j: 7_ .7-c,-it-: `.-.%. . In v 1' I `.1;, ! k tr 1 , -•w, i r 1 1 "i •' t�, r i i Y , 1 , r 4. VectiaDer; • • �' ,;� , : sue+}.om\ fikier Pr • • ,e•J.• 4 • ' . . . I • • ' i_Gisi ' tit • F. I Vir • .�. '. , .� • • A. 'TA . . + , jig • �,• ;iji• 1•111�� ,4 .. - 71, e' sti466 sliel.c r%,$,, • ' ` S I$ -! • • • al lair If . • 1a} /� j At' I r•5 a`_i. . • ,w f 1 �� rat :`�' ft : ~, 4- ' I . .} - 4-4414 al..., • - -' :g.<• , Y T 'ir '1 4 r 1Oil :ife-- . .• ` • act.. w� t • - ~.At' 1�_ 1 S: It , , 1:, II i.e- .2.• �a 1 • A.- *-- • M i . • J - O • t � , E♦ via; Ale `4 i.. #�•.. , atr#_ l e+St� ... pi••• e ••• . • • • - ' ' 1 I. ' 4•401 jir.J' ' w '. .r. .e.,„„„ .� >_ _ w.c- '• ` R . lir. .. , .. . . ...,, ._ L. . • -; ..- • of C' a* . .". .. ri - , •v -r ;yam. Y •• i ,. ••. ." ...`y ' s .mii i� Y 944 � �! •) - .V' n, • q i ti rr t3 a ,#t, • : S • 1 ''`• i 1 . IO • •., ./ t1',Y ., 11�a.• . 2 1 d •-� f'`I• IY , • •• ii, A .., 4 '1 i• �,� tom' . •'� :fir a r . 1i 1 ,� y� -J;Y.:• .... ••' • 1/• l+• • h • A' , 1 • .•, . • 1 i • N. fir , � *.'.2 . r, r • r • it A 'as , ,. . .: . . .., ...,:, . . il . „it .. . . ....„.. NI ... .0,.:,;, ,.. it, ..... o • 174: jli e;15 • il... .. •rj il it 11 lr:'- _• 1 �( .j' y 1. ,',r j es • - , - ,�" git- ,4411 • Y I t/ 4t / .I r t Jt' i it. Y' tI F. ft A Ito . Irk.r tAbe.A4_ r 1� .,, 4'u ' :a • .. .N :I, , 4" •ri -. •Via''.. tiViirgti.-1 ra4 .sj ' 444 •` �� ' .. •• ( • .[ •mil. I a. ' '. :��- i .,„-.. : . ,NriAcat4, ._ . . • c. ie fif i tE :7,, *sr:-r_ V, 7 i '• ; c • .....A. An- - - . • SW ell'A ' 4 • -:::,set r. • ;� _ T ' ' r �� : , . . : S- ... ._ i . te . f---.i .- : w,'- - , • • e ��' • it _ ,,.' _i -,�," .- e . . t .I l" • +a�' •• • • . .44V, ,; ' f fir, °..4flt T` : • • 1 1 ,r. 1 y. i ' r t i ` P'j 1, al- , • r , 77 e 1 i • H • �• r ' ' 1 S \h N..Y ' .,•.vot WI .,.., '-4f ti 1 s ! t ,�( ki figs aa--4 ±:'. '� ' '1. 2- 1,.•••,-t- . -. • re ♦ •t i%lei •• [ A 11 ', • '```,111 I I 1\ y ��I , 1 ! R L/1 cF'' 1 j II/ F. 1 • • i . 11 1 N 4 I , I '1. 11 I I' : Ir_ 1 - . N 1 .T` J d • 1 r. 7 ` rtr i • i ' : 4 t I. - -_ x `•e L L .LrL F•.l- • 4 • .- it-1‘ . I�a71_ �i.V'•• 7 ar a 'I , . iYX,1 .T 'f I • ^ • : ., - jam • x: St"', --01. .� T' f 4 1 •` I • ' h ID— yryr lis 4 -Etta r1 4 a _ J , rC J , • • s.ri 4 • V I 1 I. dip I ,k, .r^? j e' It Nil ,,,, . . , , . , . _a_ II - '7 r. ! ; , 1 .1 I IN • . • _ - ' r •• . ' 0`. ii 1_ � s -t ' W • - t C , 1 r ...mamma.......mamma.... . r• t . II • 1 M .aft• it , '� • 41 , J.. • C • ..I , . . •l • • -,' •- % . R1 carl I: • ' , .Si• ! t • n t -.e' - t e, n • 3 4 . , 1 I. i .4 I I w - fit — . 1 ' I . • I • , i .#: • ;)I- { • i ' •" • « , • I , ._ A a L ... . `• �'� C ::�.fir • i 4. L. f' _ r 4.• .tip - ., *f+Iiiirx go . ,41 t { Tr 3` 2i* `' ' „4 1p /1lr , - ' ti Ilot 1 t .1 ! ter r ,. Karla Ford From: Esther Gesick •nt: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:47 AM Karla Ford Subject: FW: Dairy construction Attachments: Letter of dairy concerns.docx; ATT00001.htm Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board/Office Manager 1150 O Street(P.O. Box 758'Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970)336-7215 X4226 • Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:08 AM To: Esther Gesick; Commissioners; Tom Parko Subject: Fwd: Dairy construction • Another one for record Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Buchholz<seroggen@skvbeam.com> Date: August 13, 2012 9:47:43 AM MDT To: Barbara Kirkmeyer<bkirkmever(cf�,co.weld.co.us> Subject: Dairy construction Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Phil 8/14/2012 • My name is Phil Buchholz of 5254 WCR 79 Roggen, CO. My family has lived and farmed in the Roggen community for almost 70 years. We value our heritage and our future here and hope my children, the third generation, will be able to enjoy the area the same as I have for 53 years. Lately I have become aware of what some might feel is a danger to the community's best interests here in southeast Weld county. Near some of our properties at 36510 WCR 16, construction has apparently begun for a rumored 2000 head dairy. I haven't been able to find anyone that has been contacted or notified of its construction. There have already been soil tests done,and 2 new water wells installed. If they are comparable to other irrigation wells in the vicinity they will be capable of several hundred gallons per minute production. Is this project going to roll right over our local laws? What will our quality of life be with a dairy of this size here? Will we be effected by water pollution and a lack of water? Will big money from out of the community make unreasonable demands on the people of this area? We hope uncontrolled progress won't bypass Weld county's zoning laws, the Lost Creek Water District laws and Roggen residents interests. I'm sure my family and I are not alone in these concerns. • Sincerely, Phil Buchholz. • Karla Ford From: Esther Gesick nt: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:31 PM Karla Ford Subject: FW: Dairy construction Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board/Office Manager 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758(Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970)336-7215 X4226 i}N M rf ' Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Tom Parko Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 12:01 PM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; Esther Gesick; Commissioners Subject: RE: Dairy construction atst an FYI that Mr. Buchholz lives just south of the Lost Creek Dairy. This dairy is a Use by Right operation. wners are out of New York. LandPro and Agricultural Production Services are the consultants. Any correspondence can be directed this way. Tom Parko, M.A. Planning Manager Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO. 80631 Office:970-353-6100, ext 3572 Mobile:970-302-5333 ptlr� - r puN Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. • From: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:08 AM 1 To: Esther Gesick; Commissioners; Tom Parko Subject: Fwd: Dairy construction Snother one for record Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Buchholz <seroggenna,skybeam.com> Date: August 13, 2012 9:47:43 AM MDT To: Barbara Kirkmeyer<bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Dairy construction Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Phil • • 2 Karla Ford om: Esther Gesick Friday, August 17, 2012 8:41 AM 0: Karla Ford Subject: FW: PROTEST LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED FRONT RANGE DAIRY FARM (CASE #USR12-0034) R 12-0034) Attachments: SIGNED PROTEST LETTER.pdf; ATT00001.htm Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board/Office Manager 1150 0 Street)P.0. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (9701336-7215 X4226 wn Confidentiality Notice'. This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged.confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 6:09 PM To: Esther Gesick; Tom Parko; Commissioners abject: Fwd: PROTEST LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED FRONT RANGE DAIRY FARM (CASE #USR12-0034) Another one for file Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Sanders <ssanderwaanunitrax.com> Date: August 14, 2012 6:13:09 PM Mill To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmever uco.kceld.co.0 > Subject: PROTEST LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED FRONT RANGE DAIRY FARM (CASE. #USR12-0034) Attn: Barbara Kirkmeyer Attached you will find my protest letter regarding the upcoming Planning Board Hearings regarding the proposed Front Range Dairy Farm (Case #USR12-0034). I hope this information will be taken into consideration before a ruling is given for the proposed dairy farm. Your consideration is greatly appreciated! . Thanks, EXHIBIT u 512.12-oo34- Rozell Watson & Family Susuzan4AMSN.Com. • ssanders(ilomnitrax.com Omnitrax Revenue Analyst Tele: (303) 398-4577 • • 2 S August 14, 2012 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave/ Greeley, CO. 80631 Re: Case# USR12-0034 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to protest the acre proposed 8,000 head dairy farm, namely Front Range Dairy with proposed location of 9743 WCR 20, Fort Lupton, CO. My property boarders the proposed dairy farm less than 1/8th of a mile East of on County Road 20. I have lived here 46 years having purchased the 20 plus acre property in 1966 along with mineral rights. I have also remodeled the house and added many improvements to the property as well. According to the site plan, the compost • area is adjacent to the West of my North property line. The proposed retaining ponds would be located immediately West my residence. I am well aware that this is an agricultural area; however the proposed dairy farm will be operated in a commercial manner that will sharply devalue my property as well as long time neighbor's home values. It will add multiple health and environmental hazards preventing it from being and acceptable place to live or sell. The proposed dairy farm is clearly a disguised approach of eminent domain without any consideration of the landowners that currently reside in the community. The control of the health and environmental issues look good on paper, but the reality is different for those who live immediately adjacent/or around the proposed dairy farm. I as well as many of my neighbors have medical related problems. I am on oxygen and have a weakened immune system. I am sure the proposed dairy farm will go along great with that. Please deny this special permit as it is not compatible with the size and location of the site and will compromise the quality of life for adjacent residents and the value of our established residences. The number of animal and the twenty-four hour operation is more clearly commercial instead of agricultural. I am sure the owner/owners of the proposed dairy farm would not appreciate it if the shoe was on the other foot and an 8,000 head dairy farm was built adjacent to their personal residence as well. • Sincerely, [151e4 7,14 Or' Roza Watson & Family 10228 WCR 20 Fort Lupton, CO. 80621 Tele: (303)288-9809 • Karla Ford glom: Esther Gesick nt: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:38 AM o: Karla Ford Subject: FW: USR12-0034 Attachments: Attention. commissioners.docx; ATT00001.htm Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board/Office Manager 1150 O Street I P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970)336-7215 X4226 Win Confidentiality Notice: this electronic transmission and any attached documents or other .vntines are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged.confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. II you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e mail and destroy the commons anon.Arty disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents at this communication or arty attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Tom Parko Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:27 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: USR12-0034 IllVI. Poe the Bo('('. I «ill not scan into Accela since this is something coo cuss \A,ill provide to Boards itt l\ier correct? P(' I 'caring was l ucsclac so this isn't a PC exhibit. Tom Parko, M.A. Planning Manager Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO. 80631 Office: 970-353-6100, ext 3572 Mobile:970-302-5333 • t 11 r! — �, ': Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.•From: William Garcia EXHIBIT Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:20 AM 1w4 i Z. 1 USK to-003+4 To: Esther Gesick; Trevor Jiricek; Tom Parko Subject: Fwd: USR12-0034 •or the record. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Charles Baum <akelacmb@yahoo.com> Date: August 23, 2012 8:34:12 AM MDT To: Douglas Rademacher<DRademacher@co.weld.co.us>, Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>, Sean Conway <sconway@co.weld.co.us>, William Garcia <WGarcia@co.weld.co.us> Subject: USR12-0034 Reply-To: Charles Baum <akelacmb@yahoo.com> Please read and take into consideration our request to defeat this prososal (as an undocumented revised plan) for a mega dairy/feedlot of unbleivable magnitude on the corner of CR29 and CR21 See attached letter. Charles Baum akelacmb@yahoo.com • • 2 • Attention,Weld County Commissioners: I am Charles Baum, 8519 WCR21 Ft. Lupton, CO. I represent our family of 3 in regards to a dairy farm,feedlot close to and west of our property; in addition to 24 other families of concern. We attended the Planning Board meeting this past Tuesday and were prepared to present our hopes to have this proposal USR12.0034 defeated. We found ourselves faced with Goliath (Agpro)who threw a last minute curveball to us by revising the original proposal; adding a 600 foot setback from residences located on the west side of CR21 (includes our property). With this at hand we had to scramble to come up with presentations compatible to their last minute change. In my opinion,the proposal should have been withdrawn and officially resubmitted later on so we all could have written documents and a drawn plan to review before another hearing could be scheduled. It is my belief that the planning board put our concerns on the bottom of their list, maybe with exception of two members. I feel that added tax revenue and the strong influence from Agpro were the winning factors. Let it be known that the set back may in some cases help with one major concern but does not address or resolve the many others. They reduced the usable area by a third and the number of cattle from 8000 to 6000(25%). I am in hopes our letters to the planning board will be forwarded to you for review prior to our September meeting. These letters spell out our grievences in more detail. The planning meeting, I feel was handled unfairly towards the several families present,especially with the sudden change in their proposal. Our concerns are as follows: • Constant strong odors and drainage towards the East, not fully controlable 24 for hours of employee/animal activity; excessive dust, noise, outside lights and etc. Multiple increase of disease carrying insects, pests, maybe a increase of hundred fold. Health hazards to our families, especially to those with breathing problems. Their promises for maintaining a clean and habitable area, insect, noise,dust and other required controls. We doubt these will be carried out efficiently or at all. 6000 head of cattle is far too many to be on a useable area of less than 100 acres. Our good living conditions are definitely a concern, as they will drastically deteriorate. Our property values would drastically decline and maybe be unsaleable. There are other issues to be addressed by other neighbors for their particular concerns. We neighbors have been united on this issue, but we are powerless against the huge Agpro business. They are far more experienced and too big to fight against. They approached us individually a week before (and not before)the hearing and gathered some of our concerns and then revised their proposal in accordance to one or two of our concerns. The only thing we can have on our side is a panel who are concerned mostly for the humane health, preserving investments and living conditions of those who have lived in this area for several years. In my case,42 years. Some have been here even longer. We ask that the Commissioners take a different attitude and defeat this proposal as presented (revised) due to our health, living conditions and the overcrowded conditions. Although we personally don't want to accept a business of this magnitude, downsizing the cattle to no more than 10 per acre would be far more reasonable. Remember,you are homeowners like we are and we are sure you would not want this to be your personal problem and you would fight it also. • Charles Baum akelacmb@vahoo.com Tonya Johnson leom: Jennifer Fuller nt: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:23 AM RECEIVED To: CTB Subject: FW: usr12-0034 WELD COUNTY Rleat.e add to file. COMMISSIONERS Jenny (VanEgdorn) Fuller (970) 336-7204 I www.co.weld.co.us From: Rhett Richards [mailto:rhettrichardshotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 9:59 PM To: Jennifer Fuller Subject: usr12-0034 Hello I was emailing you just to give my opinion on the dairy/feedlot that is trying to make weld county road 21 its home. not think that this is a good site for this at all. First of all that plot is only about 150 acres and they want 6000 head Lir cattle their? That is just ridiculous. The people around this plot have lived there for a long time and now their peace and quiet country living is in jeopardy and they're going to suffer from dust, flies, and that terrible smell. This is going to affect the neighbors and their animals badly. It will adversely affect all of the people and their way of life in this area. I ask you to please not allow this dairy farm to happen, as it will have a terrible outcome for all of the wonderful people that live in this area and have lived their for ages. Thank you for your time. EXHIBIT • a Jennifer Fuller • From: marian@learningunlimitedcocorn Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:03 PM To: Jennifer Fuller Subject: Front Range Dairy representative Dear Commissioners; On 8/21/12 in front of the Weld County Planning Commission the Agpro consultant for the Front Range Dairy special review application took the slated rebuttal time to cast aspersions on those resident/citizens, who had spoken against his client and the Agpro application. For this consultant to state that his applicant was a good, hardworking dairyman who deserves a pat on the back to an audience, who have worked hard themselves building and maintaining their homes and acreage, was insulting and spoke to none of the concerns we brought. Whether dairymen are on the decline, maybe because of larger dairies, was irrelevant to the concerns we voiced. To add injury to insult he indicated that we, as residents, did not need to live within agricultural zoning and we could relocate within residential zoning; tell that to our horses. We choose to move and live in Weld County years ago. His client can choose a location not quite so close to an established community. Our tight-knit neighborhood was not addressed, except for the deriding comment that we just seem to be anti-cow. How about anti-a feedlot in our backyards? • It was as if the consultant had heard none of our concerns, or as his rebuttal demonstrated, dismissed them all. When concluding, we were told how he chose to move his family from the city to the country to live right next to a feedlot. Research has proven that his "right next" is one mile away. This deceptive and spiteful rebuttal of this Agpro consultant seemed to influence all the voting Planning Commissioners, bar one. As citizens upholding the facts, it seemed necessary to revisit these half-truths that were so unnecessarily demeaning to us. Thank you for your time. Marian Hobbs EXHIBIT 1 . „ oia_A334 • To Whom It May Concern: We have been neighbors of Front Range Dairy for a number of years. Front Range Dairy has always operated a neat and clean operation. We know the do their best to reduce nuisances that a dairy may produce. We also have no problems living next door to Front Range Dairy. They always try to assist us with any problems we may have. Sincerely: Date: �S A '3 Al Address: `• V • • EXHIBIT Q • To Whom It May Concern: We have been neighbors of Front Range Dairy for a number of years. Front Range Dairy has always operated a neat and clean operation. We know the do their best to reduce nuisances that a dairy may produce. We also have no problems living next door to Front Range Dairy. They always try to assist us with any problems we may have. Sincerely: � \� ��,_; Date: e - /9. 1� Address: DC-Cc ge,v≤) �Cc LoLclitn • EXHIBIT 1 _J USIZla-oo Complaint Summary Form 2�tz COMPLAINT ID: CO0803277 sector Information Received by E 0200015 -SWAIN,MARCELA Resolved By EE0000129 Assigned Date: 8/1/2012 Resolved Date: 8/30/2012 Assigned Time. 11.29:13 Assigned to: EE0000129-SWAIN.TROY PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION FRONT RANGE DAIRY FRONT RANGE DAIRY Location CR 16&CR 21 Site Address Property O•,ner Address Not Specified Site Address. CR 16&CR 21 Phone Hm' Nu leer Not Specified Phone 1st: Number Not Specified Complaint Details FLY PROBLEM IS GEL LING WORSE. DOESN'T TIIINK THE DAIRY IS SPRAYING. NORMALLY EVERY YR ITS BAD BUT ITS JUST CRAZY RIDICULOUS NOW. Inspection Comments •rsday, August 30. 2012 3 16 PM -TROY SWAIN INVESTIGATION'. Operation said spray for flies 1/week, have chemical purchase records and chemicals on-site. based on on-site inspection facility is taking fly control measures consistent with standard industry practices. Most flies near calf/in calf huts, compost area absent of fly nuisance breeding. Some flies in wet manure dewatering/storage areas. Facility under control based on unannounced inspection 8/17/2012 -TES. Left message with complainant- no return call. FOLLOW-UP: Plan 1 follow-up site inspection within next two weeks. 8/29/2012 facility controlling flies has a lot of manure to compost. facility screening finished compost and setting up new windrows at time of follow-up inspection -TES. • EXHIBIT COMPLAINT ID: CO0803277 Inspector EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY 6200 rot ajar a—a33471 Complaint Summary Form Z-a�� COMPLAINT ID: CO0802971 Inspector Information Received by: EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY Resolved By: EE0000129 Assigned Date: 7/21/2011 Resolved Date: 7/28/2011 Assigned Time: 16:27:13 Assigned to: EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION DE HANN MANAGEMENT LTD DE HANN DAIRY Location:: N OF 16 ON 19(27-02-67) Site Address Property Owner Address Not Specified Site Address:: N OF 16 ON 19(27-02-67) GREELEY, FORT LUPTON,CO Phone: Hm: Number Not Specified Phone: 1st: Number Not Specified Complaint Details DAIRY'S @ 16& 19 FLIES Inspection Comments Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:01 AM -TROY SWAIN AmUSR-1231, talked to Dave DeHann(Partner). Sprayer has been down for about 2 weeks. Flies on facility"more than usual,"composts deads, some death exposed. Expected sprayer to be back on line Wed. Will cad Dept. -7/26/2011 on-site inspection. -TES Received call from Dave DeHann 7/28/2011 AM Sprayer on line will spray for flies daily until under control and then every 3 days-TES CLOSE, Follow-up as necessary. COMPLAINT ID: C00802971 Inspector EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY 6200 rpl Complaint Summary Form zo COMPLAINT ID: CO0600632 Inspector Information Received by: EE0000128-BREWER,PHIL Resolved By: EE0000163 Assigned Date: 7/6/2007 Resolved Date: 8/13/2007 Assigned Time: 13:15:00 Assigned to: EE0000163-EXBY,LAURIE PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Owners Name not Specified Property Name not Specified Location:: WCR 16 8 19 FRONT RANGE DAIRY Site Address Property Owner Address Not Specified Site Address: WCR 16&19 FRONT RANGE DAIRY Phone. Hm: Number Not Specified Phone: 1st: Number Not Specified Complaint Details FLY NUISANCE IS TERRIBLE FOR RESIDENCE ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF THIS DAIRY. COMPLAINANT HAS TRIED TO CONTROL FLY CONC. BY ALL MEANS AVAILABLE TO HER. NO RESULTS SHE HAS TRIED FOR YEARS WITH NO RESULTS. Inspection Comments COMPLAINT ID: CO0600632 Inspector EE0000163-EXBY,LAURIE 8200.rpt zo ; , TV h/ k& ' Complaint Summary Form COMPLAINT ID: CO0802970 Inspector Information Received by: EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY Resolved By: EE0000129 Assigned Date 7/21/2011 Resolved Date: 7/26/2011 Assigned Time: 16:21:39 Assigned to: EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION TE VELOE TV DAIRY Location:: 7678 CR 17 FT LUPTON CO Site Address. Property Owner Address Not Specified Site Address: 7678 CR 17 FT LUPTON CO GREELEY, FORT LUPTON,CO 80621 Phone Hm: Number Not Specified Phone: 1st: Number Not Specified Complaint Details DAIRYS AT WCR 16& 19 FLIES INVESTIGATION: USR-1356,CAFO Permit#COA-93 1095 Inspection Comments Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:34 PM -TROY SWAIN Facility clean with good manure management, no obvious sources of excessive flies found at facility. CLOSE -TES COMPLAINT ID: CO0802970 Inspector EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY 6200 rpt toll TV Ite.Y . Complaint Summary Form COMPLAINT ID: CO0802975 Inspector Information Received by: EE0000110-SALAZAR,CINDY Resolved 8y: EE0000129 Assigned Date: 7/25/2011 Resolved Date: 7/27/2011 Assigned Time: 11:44:08 Assigned to: EE0000129-SWAIN,TROY PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Properly Owners Name not Specified TV DAIRY Location:: NEXT TO 7543 CR 16 FREDERICK Site Address Property Owner Address Not Speed Site Address: NEXT TO 7543 CR 16 FREDERICK GREELEY, GREELEY, Phone: Hm: Number Not Specified Phone: 1st: Number Not Specified Complaint Details EXCESSIVE FLIES FROM T.V.DAIRY. Inspection Comments Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:47 PM -TROY SWAIN See CO0802970 complaint investigation from 7-26-2011. USR-1356, CAFO Permit#COA-931095. CLOSE-TES COMPLAINT ID: CO0802975 Inspector EE0000129-SWAIN.TROY 8400.rpr U O V Oi L a c, cts it* (ti O .— J O Q co O S. p cc Cc . . C its Q- C.� gt O 0 ao iv) '1- EXHIBIT aoia- q Request • Use by Special Review Permit • 5, 000 - 6, 000 calves and heifers • 2, 000 to 3, 000 milking cows • +/- 150 Acres in USR boundary D� AGPROIessmnals , LLC • Front RanDairy______ • USR # 1231 Approved Nov. 2005 • Original Bearson Dairy • 4, 000 total - 3, 000 milking • Located I mile east of Frederick • % mile east of Firestone UGB AGPROIessmnals , LLC DeHaan Family • Fifth generation dairy family • Dave & his brother Casey both currently dairy in Weld County • Started Front Range Dairy at the age of 22 • Dave and his family have lived in the Firestone/Frederick area for almost a decade • Family Farm A9sctiOLIessionals LLC Aerial of ., ___ ___� _ CR .. . isialk, •= • - CR20 I Mee r_ I- �: .iy. Ma .alv . \ i-ZINS II 7. .- - . iiii . 11;.' - - ,,,a-,....______ 4 4•46,7k , , . .. , .. 1 1 ___ _ I it: ____..... k_ __ _ , ., . ......___ . \ i, . t . .... ..J .,\. , i L.,, ,.___ . - r, ,.... ; i ,.A f . . . , , _ i 04 IL N a -I I - 7, 'iik.Hi ; _ _. Ix __ gilt"le _____ rr i• Asol=9 Awe,' , I I'l 1, iIra ' a \ i ' ' lit. . . k' , 1 lin 7111 I _,, il AGP ROtessionais, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE „ , Proposed Facility ___ ueT342”.;•,k %L. -.1_,.13 Wyatt WAD ZJ . 11►t_. 1"Malf (PAP= 41.r swum.' 7? rv7r flflh Cr w �— if 41/41.4.r:7114 s Pest 20u 1410 2IILL 2041 sut %AL 2041 nut 201_ Fib 143411OE1 1-OTh FEFIJ ERR F431311+5U ETU 5j I I car?Me RI 1 rm r !NI rf7 4 !MIA Mil IL] ? r fl ff MI 1 -xi IMP 1 r it t ux I N ' 1 >; 124 Mil Mel OM MI LOW Mel rn1 ! LIMY 1-y oar r a UMWva+ r134 a sv. Mir fec Fel 1 PF31 ]PM J PEI spe gat11 1N 1 Fa WM Iww Fell via HMI FEN 7 i#a EVER F'el 7 l'JfE HMI Fell ln?E RIB PEI 1 1ha4 fff l Fee 07 fvo11 - h. l rtoini tat ] I - - - - matt In I. PE NM II , 7 r4ly�'f rt„nrerr Lamna .,r UM ttlel rd 11 WIZ ter ref t' LAIR Cal MI P IV¢ reel ref I 1.1¢ tefl rfl 7 • — Al • Ili) MINN I I ii left .c- . 4 Cie w t ' - it e'r4 P r - ,_ I MCI GM c: WIC Nsirit'u-! 39C1o� g N I I K �� . , j U J elm _ l� _ II — W. Mk � � ■ I a au¢r 4141 1, � � — jig;.g*� Lp� actup13 Pa _ c. 4 imi i a 16 s riLI r - - CIT If Q Q Q " Q Q a Q Q a ' /' GPM roc V - ( ' iL- • 4"i- itdrun ANA risi"Aar :;E NK.1'1F'E 4t�ldatf 1'1n aiw0rcy yiiii a e teeAGPROjessionais, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE 4 Historical Use • Poultry Production Facility • County EquivalentAU. - 2, 000 • CAFO Equivalent AU. - Z800 D� AGPROIessmnals , LLC ... RevisedSite Plan ♦ ......... A'''---e -' 717 'aim <--••:- --. •-- "r .� -__ `- �- .rA ,....... %.* -s- 4 r• --c: . .--.---'-- � . :::C->-, � -'� \ .:-r' 4--:=7t7?-' - '```'• c.l } t\ate• - Z�f11 ..�\.-� .•••2?' a�� . - �' -ti n �, ~ate _ ---= � �y�` , .yam,_ �j `�' - `-`�'� _••�., � - f fe Ce #' .vim `�ti1 � (., .}��1. �y�j. j'f_ �� /�i .....5..;;;> 'vim_-. ....,..... .,........„1/4. �" _ "�N.Y \ r ...-c.---- i l ` v :>.e.,. � -:� -- 46.° ililliilllHilillliiiH �-, r �ii�� l�y�i414' I II I I illl 'ililiiiii�r - -� _reessew � II ► iiiiiiI � � � � ii ' ii wuE uiui ----- � 11111111111 I � Mal 1 III{- 'C . c--.' 1; ' IHIFI ' ll ' II alit IIIIIII Dill II. MIMI ill Milli IIIINIP 1 r! I - .r :r= illE�i TfllI II IlIftU II I I I li .. ,IT tlI� �III� AP R f 1 G � essiona s, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE PROPOSED REVI SED • 2, 000 - 3, 000 Milking • 1, 500 Milking • 5 - 6, 000 Calves & Heifers • 4, 500 Calves & Heifers • 150 ' Buffers • 600 ' Buffers • 25AcresBuffer • 5OAcresBuffer • Ponds East • Ponds Revised / West • 25% Animal R&uction • 1/3 of Propertyldle i - AcPR� Ies„onals , LLC Map of Confined Animal Locations ♦ ., p : . =- it. i • _y a �r j 04 t• r . i � � 10 • Ni • • . et _ �� N L _ Q CR 24 O I FIRESTONE . Q CR 22 . 5 .CR 22_ • . ti M N . Ce CR 2U O U ci N . . __ . - 'A - i'a y "` FREDERICK: --' Q - 0 4 N CR 16 •Q c CR 14 .5 • V .. • CR 14 N. - FL,IFT LUPTC xi r-4 s 4 r-1 V al irroe -a AGP RO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE A . U . Zoning vs . A . U . CAFO • A . U . Zoning - Total hd . Regardless of size -6 , 000 • A . U . CAFO - Animal weight & manure production -4 , 350 � DM:PROIessmnals , LLC Applicant Obligations Sec . 23 -2 -260 A . Uses by Special Review Consistent with : 1 . Chapter 22 - Comp Plan 2 . Intent of District - A Zone 3 . Existing Surrounding Uses 4 . Future Development 5 . Complies with Article V - Overlay Districts 6 . Conserve Prime Farmland 7 . Adequate Provisions for Health , Safety & Welfare AGP ROtessionais, LLC Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 4 Sec. 22- 1 - 120. Comprehensive Plan guiding principles. B. Respect for Our Agricultural Tradition. Sec. 22-2- 20. Agriculture goals and policies. A . A . Goal 1 . Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural operations for purposes which enhance the economic health and sustainability of agriculture. 3. A . Policy 2. 3. Encourage development of agriculture and agriculturally related businesses and industries in underdeveloped areas where existing resources can support a higher level of economic activity. Agricultural businesses and industries include those related to ranching, confined animal production, farming, greenhouse industries, landscape production and agri-tainment or agri-tourism uses. AGPROfessionals, LLC .■ AGP RO fessionals, LLC DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE 23-3- 10 A (Agricultural Zone District) Intent 4 • Promote agriculture • Provide areas for agricultural activities • Protect Ag activities from incompatible uses • Provide areas for Uses by Special Review • "Livestock Confinement Operations " • Zone for protection • Meets "Intent " �� oe-1PGmOfessionals, LLC Map of Confined Animal Locations ♦ ., p : . =- it. i • _y a �r j 04 t• r . i � � 10 • Ni • • . et _ �� N L _ Q CR 24 O I FIRESTONE . Q CR 22 . 5 .CR 22_ • . ti M N . Ce CR 2U O U ci N . . __ . - 'A - i'a y "` FREDERICK: --' Q - 0 4 N CR 16 •Q c CR 14 .5 • V .. • CR 14 N. - FL,IFT LUPTC xi r-4 s 4 r-1 V al irroe -a AGP RO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Compatible with Existing & Future Development 23- 2-230 • As permitted by existing zone • Projected by County Comp Plan • Adopted Master Plans • Ft . Lupton wants the dairy IN city limits necaoressionais, uc � AGPRQressionals , Lic Existingvs . Future • , i, 4 t?) r, - - — ,� • cv ;r k + . } r ats s fir ,• _ r4 L, ' r . , • --ill; .. it ' "4.—HI'Alts:11177*.:4- Ili . -. ,, IS ps 11. . -• .• -lir: A Lin• . CR 20 k= = , 1 i ,. . i - 1, • , 1 r - Al , 1 C7 • 4- - - , ,_ .11 d CR 18 .5 - • FIRESTONE ,� I .. - ,1 .s P { w ,II . ; c t. .1., • _ yr. a{i I - . ,., 1 ' - • 46 , . . ' .r A '. , .. . J . _ . , . . -- R . , Li , - - 41 C 1 I v - .. _ 145 .. ! ail U FREDERICK •. - -- �, . tL' ' a 1_i I • 9 m FORM IJP_TON AGPROfessionals, LLC AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE ,._,. Dairies and., • a a ..:„ . _ ... .ite,. t .,,,L . _,..„. t _____ ...„ __ atisks„.. ..,' i . 4. 1 Ill' _ . t l ` ' _ N � y g S 11.4 , _ iJ •} 1 IpAlfr..i...... .� • A • . . erty g • - - - -_ -----�_ir I w w-__ • - _. _*h .F i► 4 1f • [. _ !► • • . - a ea." . e t",•4:"14_ , ;• rrrk �►p ,* 1 "04,4. - • . . : R :� re.,...r � to r aver - ,J t •1•"y ' . 4 r Pt* reri.Se fates p. -r _ , .. tF Rao !hi �-rell�eenoettik , j i aI a Ma oth .C1 - T' � 1.* Hen`d'ers1" -le e• A .._I4 I, . .• a�..4- v, sib.�0'�. • i _ri t ea ! ► -iNod 1 ri7 • 14C%; - 7 -C,� r Wilson-Ave , 5. rrYon't'Ct o� N • .: . e• . r � G { e - • ,Q cnr_��Fra`hklin=Ave ; ' • ' _ .. ss = :GranttAvo T S " f o _ - -Si '` N £ l 1 . _ r ti 2007 NavteqLi air* ��a ' . ., /1 E ... r .f Ima'go'S.s3PA • tiPrgi114. j4.1 OadieldtAt r►' ,• •®'20-07 Europa Technologies ire-- I � 1• ' a il!! it 1 I I ! t+ Pointer 40'42'47.80" N 105 '00'54 .91 " W elev 5213 1! Streaming IIIIIIIIIi ; 00% Eye' aIt^-t1i1,65.5 ft AGPROfessionals, LLC AGPRO f'essionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE 4 Property Values • Hirsch Dairy - Windsor • Aurora Dairy - Platteville • TV Dairy - Firestone • Front Range Dairy - Frederick • Five Rivers - Gilcrest • Veeman - Johnstown • M & J - Johnstown necaoressiooais, LLC �� AGPmressionals , LLC Veeman and M & J Dairy Area • j •rw rat' r at atit lii! • N • • CR 48 _ AGPROfessionals, LLC ■� AGPRO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURI Dairy I/ TVD ° an a ' A... • a a a __....._. =_ _ 6 N rea , CC Asr.-,L v y >a T .-D__La. LFIRE`•TONE f * RV •' I r. x1111 L. ,,.h_\ a- CR C• 1 • nn _ _ .•pHs :� T- tt Ali 'T'F<SC?� z ,- v _—� ,r e N a r .r . `'' f Ert„ Fky' r u Y - I. 11 l 3 M ritC'Mil- ��`j1#}��,f{71111 - - ``p u -'C#!1-Zr.ii f F I . "is I / -7 a �k t 7�i. Y 1 �� at 7. 76 as' 'i^_'� +w+ 1 / • • ■ —_ P L'❑AllLB�rt�t�1 rZ...� e �71 _Li ($1.:0% J�� lit. r iv J t'' jrr-h1 ._ ..r 1 S r ylF4$� a If Frt� i+ .• " ~J N J T bp rf• /•'ris • ' f� - - __ -T - 1 =-�I . •' I -- ,� - ' �� • - - - ---'• i //111111 Iltlli EEY� ('C ag ( >�'-- u u a• Fsy �, ^ hie..i.17 Tj : �. �� WWI(AIL. �J la f ' J�� t cc, _�� r r��4 1 M.1 PO • it0. i i i s Iffl - _ - 1 - i . ., r i ; Th 4"I.>: 4 'tM>v✓�� Js a ...e . si 1 �1 741 /.�i�1/. A TM 1 � , fqi a - r !-1 t.- l AGPROfessionals, LLC ■� AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE Dairy ! an a ' A.... • — _ _ ......u, . , _. i , .. . _ _ ... rea a,, _ w.r z1 = I II :ESTONE ( ` ..w.�t _��y' as 11 1- 10 ,: J CR 1 �3 --_ 1 TV DAIRY FRONT \11 UGB RANGE N DAIRY at \I! c”.•‘: 171 a • if a -_ 1 a + ' I 4 I• . I A. A Y , _ � ' 1 r • Ci . , - de 0 tICK ditd� " �' ; a. I. „11=. y CR lig I $ . - I •=4:1K \. @I - r -- [al; .11. i .; , - AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ I\.GPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURI ♦ .,„ TV Dairy I Dairy P TV / Front Range Diary Address Distance form Facility Date of purchas Purchase Price Date of Sale Sale Price Gross Gain 8445 CR 16 50 ft. South 4/14/1989 $210,000 3/31/2008 $355,000 $145,000 8076 CR 18 1 ,350 ft. North 1 /30/2006 $400,000 10/26/2009 $452,500 $52,500 7124 CR 19 775 ft. West 10/28/2008 $99,900 7/8/2011 $155,000 $55, 100 7513 CR 16 2,500 ft. SW 9/13/1991 $86,500 1 /4/2008 $204,000 $117,500 AGPROfessionals, LLC ■� AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE iv r iv rs crestProperties F ..... e e • a a a 4 b. • ij[ . 0 y is r. RT.,: (N.. , I. .. '' • . • ,- .. '1 . - -. i' c. f i.� J t• ,�: 4 ) - . - 1.4 f-. I L.l • - - � ,-- - 'r i OM ir -4-74.„. r 1 4: ff ' 1. IPII: ra _ {. eif N; 1 . :11LLIK _ CR 39 b e.. `•�� `_r ; /At r .• 1 T 1ig I r'' -...r., 7. 7 --Ir O. 8 ,•_,. rY. Jr ' ii - rt.....sj. . ligl , di f d - ea7 , i diii J CR 46 46 _ l CR 46 _ `+ - GR 46 — - y—' �_ Jr: CR 46 r- L. -• A � {. 4 ' I AGPROfessionaIs, LLC ■� AGP RO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE Five Address Distance form Facility Date of purchas Purchase Price Date of Sale Sale Price Gross Gain 21205 CR 33 6 , 180 ft. SE 4/27/2006 $89 ,500 12/29/2010 $320 ,000 $230 ,500 2801 E Prairie Dr. 11 , 150 ft. West 9/13/2010 $20 ,500 11 /26/2010 $ 164 ,300 $ 143 ,800 2821 E Prairie Dr. 10950 ft. West 4/25/2007 $ 105 ,000 7/30/2007 $205 ,600 $ 100 ,600 2731 Prairie Dr. 11 ,550 ft. West 5/12/2006 $43 ,000 7/6/2009 $ 158 ,000 $ 115 ,000 AGPROfessionals, LLC AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE 37th Street . . . . . _ ..,„ . _ _ , 46' • , - -ICA0116 .1111 flu . • '.V.19-41r:441k -CI kriftYill II r-.1-7:pippriainmammur -a --;--.. ,, - -„, . Ni 1:4-9. i a reap., is l+ /ilk I '', ...in I mika ..). v......i.......,4„„1.7.43,,____, Z.- -- ., _i.e. . ..ea.,.- .- 1- , „.... ' r ....„lli rip v- ,/,‘,., te....; ,%, ,*-. - 7 .7- ,.. , Weideman galkiriv4-cl . 'r, �. 11 • Dairyas �• .� _ �ii — N �• +' 11 `, Ira i�+. i.� • •itip a- =4 - ' ..■..fir a..�.�s a - � 'i, '■ l�■� lAit111l1firiillil'til�'T� • -- •�s1Yi/11ttf/•Vr�f/f•P*1 I. ♦ .ra wa,.- -wr-..a+ w awj��. � it sp = y •■.r rlrr/aV. t. 7 � ,Poo M oss b u rg 1 g ,.� • . ,,,,� .. ' . I ♦. 1 - �.• •mania_ s - •as it ..ti Dairy4 F ..... r .a r jt.�o • •.c i td ati r.nli..... it -4... -.. • 1 tiev 13 _ VIIII s.;,f�tN• I►fir •gpr laintWill.MI ........... .)II 4 111 . tilt III _A ',el 9 �a,E, ii , I, _ ■■ , nuns * Ir'• ' . �; ,' ;`� � ,■■�.� • ,� ` .+.+. rrr �,. - ,y . ._ Fee d lot -"� i rat rik-. .--i, - . .710 �, �. iri .a.,,ii ITS lir .. / I /IN, , ..,. ■ : . . ' ' allifirwe d'-jitif 1- ---." - _,..... ei it yam " I, Vii i... . it. ii,.icit ....,—. - — — �'ILLI KEN 1p - tai CI. lilt t. 41 — . . . • 1 ---IL—Iweel INIIIr --nor • IV Ili; . 3 :, " /- - - - - i . i./- AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ AGPRO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE Hirsch ./ ... . lrirer - ..... _-ra... h.. _ n lits.abk "r I ' 'I elistt _ . r , - Sheep S Feed lot _ ' '.e.,:1 ri �\ 1 �. I air ,a Beef -s ;� \ Feedlot t . V r, , Ck .. Ike le— . . • Hirsch Dairy 1 --- r , t N.,\ iiiiI 1 d M OI A I 1 ' r. . 1 II • 7 1 a. - wb 1 4 ... .. .1„,\Ip.,....... . 2 .., if. te.. . ..,. . . _ _r- - Amise . 'lgt• -• • II able1 • N :, - .__ 1 • • %, I 1 '• 1 r 1 A -2\("esdie • % . L sirrik , —TT1 SEVERANCE % alit M •IL1,.., \ Si AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ AGP RO fessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE Hirsch • , _ _ _ _._ ir ., • . , „rt./ ..,: _,.. , • ••.... ., _ ___ , , „ . ____ _ , sE'te' E RAI. :' E / \ -I's' et" It_ wiLi , / .. .. 4' Z 1'N 'a i '1r �v f f \‘4 • Subdivision ..-* 1 C. reark ". %...e" . 4% . .... . . , .... ..., 1... . , ,_ _ .:)._, • I . ...t_. 4,.. . .„, . , • . . . . , CR 80 - - , .. r .... w lir Ilk 11 A 4. I Ir , . ' et' ' Sheep 111, Feedlot illigi • Beef �`- Feedlot ai.r � r _ Y - _ -,t • - s I ie ILL,. +• n -...... .......111to lk Hirsch • ill Da44. iry f ►► _ z • lkangiSilliS ''.�i` I: .0* illr Nil a, is , 'S.'\NI i a "Net: •.�- Subdivision CR 7 8ow -- a.. 744" 1 1 . 71 k Li _alis 1 Alin M it 1 ilk 11 .11 AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ AGPRO fessionals, LLC ®■ DEVELOPERS OF AURICULIURE ♦ Hirsch Table Subdivision to the North Address Distance form Facility Date of purchas Purchase Nice Date of Sale Sale Price Gross Gain 39013 Lake Shore 4 ,694ft North 5/26/2000 $ 142 ,300 3/11 /2011 $660 ,000 $507 ,700 39006 Rangeview Dr 4 ,325 ft. North 8/15/2002 $ 130 ,000 10/16/2009 $620 ,000 $490 ,000 3911 Hilltop Circle 5248 ft NE 3/9/2005 $ 145 ,000 4/4/2007 $ 160 ,000 $ 15 ,000 Subdivision to the South _ _ _ Address Distance form Facility Date of purchas Purchase Price Date of Sale Sale Price Gross Gain 2216 Dominic Ct. 600ft East 1 /30/2003 $270 ,000 12/9/2011 $297 ,500 $27 ,500 2210 San Miguel Dr. 1 ,300 ft SE 12/4/2006 $415 ,000 8/25/2011 $436 ,500 $21 ,500 1107 Cortez W ay 650 ft South 2/26/2009 $286 ,000 12/9/2010 $295 ,000 $9 ,000 AGPROfessionals, LLC AGPROfessionals, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Rules for Ag Zone • Acceptance & Protections for Agriculture - Right to Farm • Acceptance & Protections for Community - Permits & Code - Conditions & Standards - Laws necaoressionais, uc � AGPRQressionals , Lic Provisions for Protection of Health , Safety , Welfare • Water Protection • Air Quality • Water Supply • Pest Control • Septic and Sanitation • Noise , Light and Traffic • Manure and Stormwater • Codes , Referrals , Conditions and Developments Standards • Nutrient Management �� oe-1PGMOfessionals, LLC Pond Odor Controls • Design Factors — Depth Solids • Management Factors — Dewatering — Timing — Cleaning ;; AGP ROtessionais, LLC Pen Odor Controls • Design - Drainage - Square footage , pen stocking • Management - Harrowing pens - Cows must be kept clean ■� AGPROIessmnals , LLC Dust Control • Stocking rates • Feed type • Breed • Management • No dairy dust complaints • Feed processing • Roads AGPROIessmnals , LLC Other Controls • Flies & Mosquitoes, Rodents and Birds — Cleanliness • Bunks cleaned daily • Pens harrowed daily • Habitat removed • Composting • Spraying and bait i - Ac PR� tes„onals , LLC Other Controls ( Continued ) • Dairies are inspected for flies and rodents • Grade A dairy certification • Health and production of cattle • Written plan approved AGPROIessmnals , LLC Noise • Sec. 23- 2-250 A . I C. R. S . 25- 12- 103 • Limited to : 70 db (A ) Daytime ( 7 am to 7 pm ) 65 db (A ) Nighttime ( 7pm to 7 am ) • Except May increase 10 db ( A ) not to exceed 15 minutes in any one - hour period i - AcMtes„onals , LLC Light • Shielded • Not on adjacent properties • Setbacks • Lighting plan • Development Standard AGP ROtessionais, LLC Water_Protection • Run -on water eliminated • Storm event run off contained • Pond lined • Dairy site hardpan cap • State and Federal requirements • Reviewed by County Health Department �� oe-1PGor 1�Ofessionals, LLC Engineering Calculations . . . . _ ... ., - -. ProfectName: Front Range Dairy Cam,xned 8y: MK Checked By: Location: South Pond Dare: 8/13/2012 Daze: ■ Climate StatlOn: Greeley UNC,ave.year BASIC DATA POND DESIGN VOLUME RECTANGULAR STORAGE POND DESIGN DIMENSIONS Solids & Slurry Inflow : 0 cu.ft. May Bottom Width: 370 ft. Inside Top Width: 450 I Other Liquid Waste Inflow: 33000 gal. May Max Working Storage: 21.52 Acre-ft Bottom Length: 370 ft. Inside Top Length: 450 ft. Contributing Roof Area: 0 sq.ft. Design Storm Runoff: 8.27 Acre-ft Design Depth: 8-0 ft. Total Depth: 10 ft. Contributing Paved Lot Area: 0 sq.ft., CH = 97 Design Requirement: 29.79 Acre-ft Freeboard: 20 ft. Design Surface Area: 202,500 sq.ft. Contributing Earth Lot Area: 35 Acres, CN = 90 Inside Slope: 4 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 29.74 Acre-ft 25yr-24hr Precipitation Depth: 140 inches Available Storage: 100% of design Evaporation Area: 136,900 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 8.97 Acre-ft 10yr-10day Precipitation Depth: 4.21 inches Storage Safety Factor: 1.3 Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 38.71 Acre-ft Annual FWS Evaporation: 45 inches 1.:.,/rreeboardl Seepage Area: 142884 sql. AVERAGE ANNUAL MASS BALANCE FOR ESTIMATING MAXIMUM WORKING STORAGE REQUIREMENTS MONTHLY POND INFLOW MONTHLY POND OUTFLOW WORKING STORAGE Monthly Contribution to Working Storage from Precipitation Waste Inflow Total Surface Seepage Planned Total Monthly Accumulated Precip. Earth Lot Runoff Paved Lot Runoff Roof Runoff On Pond Solids Liquids Inflow Evaporation Loss Drawdown Outflow In • Out Storage Month (inches) (inches) (Acre-ft) (inches) (Acre-ft) (inches) (Acre•ft) (Acre-ft) (Acre•ft) (Acre-ft) (Acre-ft) (inches) (Acre-ft) (Acre-ft) (Acre-ft) (Acre•fl) (Acre-ft) (Acre-ft) carry over Jan. 0.53 0.00 _ 0.00 012 0.0000 . 0.35 0.0000 0.2053 0.0000 31355 ' 3.35 1.35 0.3536 0.0000 0.00 0.35 2.99 15.50 15.4948 Feb. 0.38 0.02 _ 0.05 0.05 0.0000 0.21 0.0000 0.1472 0.0000 3.0343 3.23 _1.58 0.4125 0.0000 0.00 - 0.41 2.82 18.32 Mar. 1.16 0.09 0.26 0.56 0.0000 0.95 0.0000 0.4494 0.0000 3.1355 3.85 2.48 0.6482 0.0000 0.00 0.65 3.20 2132 A r. _ 1.81_ 0.35 1.03 112 0.0000 1.59 0.0000 0.7012 0.0000 _ 3.0343 4.76 _4.05 1.0607 0.0000 10.00 11.06 -6.30 15.22 Ma _ 2.55 0.77 2.26 1.80 01000 232 , _0.0000 _0.9879 0.0000 3.1355 , 6.38 _5.40 1.4143 0.0000 5.00 6.41 -0.03 15.19 June _ 1 .80 0.35 1.01 111 0.0000 1.58 0.0000 0.6973 0.0000 3.0343 4.74 _6.53 1.7089 0.0000 5.00 6.71 1.97 13.22 Jul 1.42 0.18 0.52 0.78 0.0000 120 0.0000 0.5501 0.0000 3.1355 4.21 _6.75 1.7678 0.0000 5.00 6.77 -2.56 10.66 ' A . 1.18 0.10 0.28 0.58 0.0000 0.97 _0M000 0.4571 0.0000 3.1355 3.87 6.08 1.5910 0.0000 5.00 6.59 -2.72 7.94 S . 119 010 _ 029 0.59 0.0000 0.98 0.0000 0.4610 0.0000 3.0343 3.78 4.50 11785 0.0000 6.70 7.88 , -4.09 3.85 Oct. 0.89 0.03_. 0.08 0.35 0.0000 0.68 -0.0000 0.3448 0.0000 31355 3.56 315 0.8250 0.0000 0.00 0.82 2.73 6.58 _ Nov. 0.84 0.02 0.05 0.32 0.0000 0.64 0.0000 0.3254 0.0000 3.0343 3.41 1.80 0.4714 0.0000 0.00 0.47 2.94 9.52 Dec. 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.0000 0.30 0.0000 01860 0.0000 31355 3.34 1.35 0.3536 0.660 0.00 0 35 298 12 50 Totals- 1493 9110 5 35 7 4R n nn 11 75 n nn s s1 n nn 3719 1 4A 4'; 4-. All 11 7!-1 11 011 3r; Iii 4R 49 RAINFALL AIID RUNOFF ESTIMATION FOR WASTE STORAGE POND DESIGII Earth Areas Paved Areas Roofed Areas Pond Surface Pond Volume v. Depth 2%r-24hr Stoma Event 1 day Curve Numbers: 90 97 100 100 96 45.000 25yr-24hr Rainfall: 3.40 inches 3.40 inches 3.40 inches 3.40 inches Freeboard 25yr-24hr Runoff: 2.35 inches , 3.06 inches 3.40 inches 3.40 inches 40.000 I - - .olio Runoff Volume: 6.87 Acre-ft 0.00 Acre-ft 0.00 Acre-ft 1.32 Acre-ft 35.000 Total 241K-23yr Event Runoff Volume: 8.18 Acrett Monk Storm(10 day every 30.000 Desig olurne 10 day Curve Numbers: 81 94 100 100 % li 25.000 - --- 10yr-10day Rainfall: 4.2 inches 4.2 inches 4.2 inches 4.21 inches Q Working is/plume 10yr-10day Runoff: 2.28 inches 3.54 inches 4.21 inches 4.21 inches 20.000 {startplmipingj Runoff Volume: 6.64 Acre-ft 0.00 Acre-ft ii coAcre-ft _ 1.63 Acre-ft c 15.000 - , Total 10yr-10day Event Runoff Volume: an Acre-tit > l ' 10.000 -I Average Moan*Runoff Contritunion to Working Storage 30 day Curve Numbers: 77 II 93 98 100 % 5.000 — - ---J--- - - - - - - - - - J- ° - - - - - Monthly Runoff: (see computations in monthly mass balance table above) 0.000 Average Annual Rainfall: 14.2 inches 14.2 inches „ 14.2 inches 14.2 inches , 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12 i00 Average Annual Runoff: 2.00 inches 7.46 inches 11.75 inches 14.23 inches Runoff as % of Rainfall 14% 52% 83% 100.0% Depth,feet AGP ROièssionais, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULIUkI Water and Sanitation • Central Weld County Water District • Existing 1 " service tap • Well • Well setback for ponds at 300 feet • Existing septic at residence • Proposed septic for parlor facility �� oe-1PGor 1�Ofessionals, LLC Manure & Water Management Manure • Harrowed Daily • Stored as Compost & in Pens • Removed Seasonally Wastewater Management • Agronomic rates • Soil sampling • Manure and water sampling • Crop consulting • Full documentation • Required by State and Federal Law �� oe-1PGorIOfessionals, LLC Nuisance Management Plan Air Quality Cleanliness • Dust • Bunks cleaned daily • Odor • Pens harrowed Pests • Habitat removed • Flies • Spraying and bait • Mosquitoes • Rodents • Birds �� oe-1PGor gOfessionals, LLC 4 Traffic • WCR20 - Paved • Semi -tractor milk trailer- 3 / 24 hours per day • Commodity trucks - 1 -2 per day • Manure/ Bedding /Compost trucks - 1 -2 per day • Rendering — as needed • Employee - 30 - 35 per day max �� oe-1PGor 1�Ofessionals, LLC Conservation of Prime Farmland Overlay Districts Sec . 23 -2 -230 6 ". . . diligent effort to conserve PRIME FARMLAND " West Greeley Soil Conservation District " We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. " No Overlay Districts 1 . No Floodplain 2 . No Geologic Hazard 3 . No IGA / UGB / Municipal Comp Plan � AGPROIessmnals , LLC Use by Right vs . USR • Practical Issues - Use by Right all milking cattle - Multiple locations & multiple impacts • 1600 head dairy for milking • Heifer feedyard • Bulls • 1 , 000 calves - calf yard - Locations without conditions D� AGPROIessmnals , LLC ,. . Use by Right...,‘ .._ i; _ _ _, .,., \NEMO CP n CR 20 111 -s.., • Pro osed Facility�► ip ' , .� e F • 150 acres r -t l' • . `` •�rs........ 4. _.,t, • + . y i i I Sitilill" 0 are �i- I �1_ - �i�- 1—... —.. . awe i -, ., , . . . .. „./. ... s , • AI M -- - . ,- •EnINM. t_� N S ....... .„.... .i.,, alt i vial 41/6 Jag Al•nag - : lillietZe Olt! ley- _ _ ' . .Da tip a", a"1 -Fen - I S+le a i • ti - ► M • . 1 iv C CR1 AGP ROtessionais, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULFURE Referrals Conditions Development Standards E • 18 Local, State and Federal referral agencies responded • Health and safety plans reviewed, approved, conditioned • 10 Conditions and 35 Standards • 5 and 18 relate to Health, Safety and Welfare � AGPROIessmnals , LLC 4 Benefits of a USR Approving this permit will: • Provide Control for the County • Security for Community • Certainty for the DeHaan Family • Localized where Impacts Exist • Enforcement �� oe-1PGor 1�Ofessionals, LLC 4 USR Requirements Sec. 23- 2- 230 B . Uses by Special Review Consistent with Chapter 22 Consistent with Intent of District Consistent with Existing Surrounding Uses Consistent with Future Development Complies with Article V Overlay Districts It Conserve Prime Farmland Adequate Provisions for Health, Safety & Welfare � AGPROIessmnals , LLC ... RevisedSite Plan ♦ ......... A'''---e -' 717 'aim <--••:- --. •-- "r .� -__ `- �- .rA ,....... %.* -s- 4 r• --c: . .--.---'-- � . :::C->-, � -'� \ .:-r' 4--:=7t7?-' - '```'• c.l } t\ate• - Z�f11 ..�\.-� .•••2?' a�� . - �' -ti n �, ~ate _ ---= � �y�` , .yam,_ �j `�' - `-`�'� _••�., � - f fe Ce #' .vim `�ti1 � (., .}��1. �y�j. j'f_ �� /�i .....5..;;;> 'vim_-. ....,..... .,........„1/4. �" _ "�N.Y \ r ...-c.---- i l ` v :>.e.,. � -:� -- 46.° ililliilllHilillliiiH �-, r �ii�� l�y�i414' I II I I illl 'ililiiiii�r - -� _reessew � II ► iiiiiiI � � � � ii ' ii wuE uiui ----- � 11111111111 I � Mal 1 III{- 'C . c--.' 1; ' IHIFI ' ll ' II alit IIIIIII Dill II. MIMI ill Milli IIIINIP 1 r! I - .r :r= illE�i TfllI II IlIftU II I I I li .. ,IT tlI� �III� AP R f 1 G � essiona s, LLC ■■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE • 9-3-12 Ted and Darlene Wokersin 9111 WCR 20 Fort Lupton CO,80621 303-833-3211 To the Board of Weld County Commissioners, We have been approached by persons concerned about the development of the old turkey farm property adjacent to us at 9111 WCR 20 Fort Lupton CO they were looking for support to oppose this project.At that time we expressed our favor to them about this project,and the benefits to our area,as we do not believe they will convey our opinion to you;let this letter serve as our support to the Dehahn family developing this property into a dairy. My wife grew up on the family dairy that has supported 3 generations and many employees in their community. My family milked cows when I was young then at the age of 16 I earned my first job picking up milk in cans and was in the transportation of milk until my retirement recently. We understand that with any project of this size there will be many challenge's but with new technology,regulatory oversight and good stewardship those can be overcome and in turn the benefit to the local economy,the creation of new jobs and the utilization of a property that has become • dilapidated,overrun with prairie dogs and an eyesore far outweigh any reason not to move forward with this project.Thank you for your time,should you want to contact us please call the attached phone number. Sincerely, Ted Wokersin 7 PC/ J y�1` Darlene Wokersin ittA • Ml vZt /Z-6634 • Allfalf---; . _ ,; • N •_ 9 i it y i Y"`. r ;n r': j . . " ''4:40 7,i ,htl t I s.• ,,1 i } yf b r' t4 44.C..: - *. M1' ' :i i4• " !ii ; 1,r -# } y rt r#�"i lit ' C sry V i .. ...• i F 4 + + I kT' *se' ' t r Y . d • 4 y ( fir+ 7'1:4A-:1 r i Fi + 1Y"N uA:+-4, +4wMYW`+k4'"• t 3i: # a i Y'u 4'Y. ` i,, • ...::,,,•............:..."...:k,..., ..„7...- t< 5 .? of �t 'I+ Fri ^t. 4 .!, --'+ 't'- • ,:..t �" # ♦ it i a M USX "` t t 'n yFl+ -F { 4 a'ar .fix F 1}' j 4# kr s b - .;+: i r x tP • u Kt A � to :P,iK. - - 9 �ai° +�4 dOY t'L ,r,_ N.r + - ifiA � "aII1 '� ' i;. -P €t nw t� o F 'sa44 ,A: [. a i; .I" Sv minzYy f'e'e' �. (,R�e M1`'dy` •Gf 1 j" • • • 2a +... - . Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities Author Carrie Hribar, MA Project Coordinator— Education and Training National Association of Local Boards of Health Editor Mark Schultz, MEd Grants Administrator/Technical Writer National Association of Local Boards of Health r©©2010 National Association of Local Boards of Health 1840 East Gypsy Lane Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 www.nalboh.org ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • Foreword The National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH) is pleased to provide Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities to assist local boards of health who have concerns about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or large industrial animal farms in their communities. The Environmental Health Services Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) encouraged the development of this product and provided technical oversight and financial support. This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 5U38HM000513. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC. The mission of NALBOH is to strengthen boards of health, enabling them to promote and protect the health of their communities, through education, technical assistance, and advocacy. Boards of health are responsible for fulfilling three public health core functions: assessment, policy development, and assurance. For a health agency, this includes overseeing and ensuring that there are sufficient resources, effective policies and procedures, partnerships with other organizations and agencies, and regular evaluation of an agency's services. NALBOH is confident that Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities will help local board of health members understand their role in developing ways to mitigate potential problems associated with CAFOs. We trust that the information provided in this guide •will enable board of health members to develop and sustain monitoring programs, investigate developing policy related to CAFOs, and create partnerships with other local and state agencies and officials to improve the health and well-being of communities everywhere. A special thanks to Jeffrey Neistadt (NALBOH's Director-- Education and Training), NALBOH's Environmental Health subcommittee, and any local board of health members and health department staff who were contacted during the development of this document for their contributions and support. • UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Notes • • iv ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Table of Contents Introduction 1 AFO vs. CAFO 1 History 1 Benefits of CAFOs 2 Environmental Health Effects 2 Groundwater 3 Surface Water 4 Air Quality 5 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change 7 Odors 7 Insect Vectors 8 Pathogens 8 Antibiotics 10 Other Effects— Property Values 11 Considerations for Boards of Health 11 Right-to-Farm Laws 11 Board of Health Involvement with CAFOs 12 Board of Health Case Studies 13 Tewksbury Board of Health, Massachusetts 13 Wood County Board of Health, Ohio 14 Cerro Gordo County Board of Health, Iowa 14 Conclusion 16 Appendix A: Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFOs, and Small CAFOs 17 Appendix B: Additional Resources 18 References 19 • V ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • Introduction Livestock farming has undergone a significant transformation in the past few decades. Production has shifted from smaller, family-owned farms to large farms that often have corporate contracts. Most meat and dairy products now are produced on large farms with single species buildings or open-air pens (MacDonald &McBride, 2009). Modern farms have also become much more efficient. Since 1960, milk production has doubled, meat production has tripled, and egg production has quadrupled (Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production, 2009). Improvements to animal breeding, mechanical innovations, and the introduction of specially formulated feeds and animal pharmaceuticals have all increased the efficiency and productivity of animal agriculture. It also takes much less time to raise a fully grown animal. For example, in 1920, a chicken took approximately 16 weeks to reach 2.2 lbs., whereas now they can reach 5 lbs. in 7 weeks (.Pew, 2009). New technologies have allowed farmers to reduce costs, which mean bigger profits on less land and capital. The current agricultural system rewards larger farms with lower costs, which results in greater profit and more incentive to increase farm size. AFO vs. CAFO A CAFO is a specific type of large-scale industrial agricultural facility that raises animals, usually at high-density, for the consumption of meat, eggs, or milk. To be considered a CAFO, a farm must first be categorized as an animal feeding operation (AFO). An AFO is a lot or facility where animals are kept confined and fed or maintained for 45 or more days per year, and crops, vegetation, or forage growth are • not sustained over a normal growing period (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2009). CAFOs are classified by the type and number of animals they contain, and the way they discharge waste into the water supply. CAFOs are AFOs that contain at least a certain number of animals, or have a number of animals that fall within a range and have waste materials that come into contact with the water supply. This contact can either be through a pipe that carries manure or wastewater to surface water, or by animal contact with surface water that runs through their confined area. (See Appendix A) History AFOs were first identified as potential pollutants in the 1972 Clean Water Act. Section 502 identified "feedlots" as "point sources" for pollution along with other industries, such as fertilizer manufacturing. Consequently, a permit program entitled the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was created which set effluent limitation guidelines and standards (ECUs) for CAFOs. CAFOs have since been regulated by NPDES or a state equivalent since the mid-1970s. The definitions of what was considered an AFO or CAFO were created by the EPA for the NPDES process in 1976. These regulations remained in effect for more than 25 years, but increases and changes to farm size and production methods required an update to the permit system. The regulations guiding CAF'O permits and operations were revised in 2003. New inclusions in the 2003 regulations were that all CAFOs had to apply for a NPDES permit even if they only discharged in the event of a large storm. Large poultry operations were included in the regulations, regardless of their waste disposal system, and all CAFOs that held a NPDES permit were required to develop and implement a nutrient management plan. These plans had CAFOs identify ways to treat or process waste On a way that maintained nutrient levels at the appropriate amount. 1 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • The 2003 CAFO rule was subsequently challenged in court. A Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision required alteration to the CAFO permitting system. In Water Keeper et al. us. the EPA., the court directed the EPA to remove the requirement for all CAFOs to apply for NPDES. Instead, the court required that nutrient management plans be submitted with the permit application, reviewed by officials and the public, and the terms of the plan he incorporated into the permit. As a result of this court decision, the CAFO rule was again updated. The current final CAFO rule, which was revised in 2008, requires that only CAFOs which discharge or propose to discharge waste apply for permits. The EPA has also provided clarification in the discussion surrounding the rule on how CAFOs should assess whether they discharge or propose to discharge. There is also the opportunity to receive a no discharge certification for CAFOs that do not discharge or propose to discharge. This certification demonstrates that the CAFO is not required to acquire a permit. And while CAFOs were required to create nutrient management plans under the 2003 rule, these plans were now included with permit applications, and had a built-in time period for public review and comment. Benefits of CAFOs When properly managed, located, and monitored, CAFOs can provide a low-cost source of meat, milk, and eggs, due to efficient feeding and housing of animals, increased facility size, and animal specialization. When CAFOs are proposed in a local area, it is usually argued that they will enhance the local economy and increase employment. The effects of using local materials, feed, and livestock are argued to ripple throughout the economy, and increased tax expenditures will lead to increase funds for schools and infrastructure. • Environmental Health Effects The most pressing public health issue associated with CAFOs stems from the amount of manure they produce. CAFO manure contains a variety of potential contaminants. It can contain plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens such as E. coil, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals used as additives to the manure or to clean equipment, animal blood, silage leachate from corn feed, or copper sulfate used in footbaths for cows. Depending on the type and number of animals in the farm, manure production can range between 2,800 tons and 1.6 million tons a year (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2008). Large farms can produce more waste than some U.S. cities—a feeding operation with 800,000 pigs could produce over 1.6 million tons of waste a year. That amount is one and a half times more than the annual sanitary waste produced by the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (GAO, 2008). Annually, it is estimated that livestock animals in the U.S. produce each year somewhere between 3 and 20 times more manure than people in the U.S. produce, or as much as 12--1.37 billion tons of waste (EPA, 2005). Though sewage treatment plants are required for human waste, no such treatment facility exists for livestock waste. While manure is valuable to the farming industry, in quantities this large it becomes problematic. Many farms no longer grow their own feed, so they cannot use all the manure they produce as fertilizer. CAFOs must find a way to manage the amount of manure produced by their animals. Ground application of untreated manure is one of the most common disposal methods due to its low cost. It has limitations, lirowever, such as the inability to apply manure while the ground is frozen. There are also limits as to how many nutrients from manure a land area can handle. Over application of livestock wastes can overload 2 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH soil with macronutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous and micronutrients that have been added to • animal feed like heavy metals (Burkholder et al., 2007). Other manure management strategies include pumping liquefied manure onto spray fields, trucking it off-site, or storing it until it can be used or treated. Manure can be stored in deep pits under the buildings that hold animals, in clay or concrete pits, treatment lagoons, or holding ponds. Animal feeding operations are developing in close proximity in some states, and fields where manure is applied have become clustered. When manure is applied too frequently or in too large a quantity to an area, nutrients overwhelm the absorptive capacity of the soil, and either run off or are leached into the groundwater. Storage units can break or become faulty, or rainwater can cause holding lagoons to overflow. While CAFOs are required to have permits that limit the levels of manure discharge, handling the large amounts of manure inevitably causes accidental releases which have the ability to potentially impact humans. The increased clustering and growth of CAFOs has led to growing environmental problems in many communities. The excess production of manure and problems with storage or manure management can affect ground and surface water quality. Emissions from degrading manure and livestock digestive processes produce air pollutants that often affect ambient air quality in communities surrounding CAFOs. CAFOs can also he the source of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change. All of the environmental problems with CAFOs have direct impact on human health and welfare for communities that contain large industrial farms. As the following sections demonstrate, human health can suffer because of contaminated air and degraded water quality, or from diseases spread from farms. Quality of life can suffer because of odors or insect vectors surrounding farms, and property values can drop, affecting the financial stability of a community. One study found that 82.8% of those living near and 89.5% of those living far from CAFOs believed that their property values decreased, and 92.2% of those living near and 78.9% of those living far from CAFOs believed the odor from manure was a problem. The study found that real estate values had not dropped and odor infestations were not validated by local governmental staff in the areas. However, the concerns show that CAFOs remain contentious in communities (Schmalzried and Fallon, 2007). CAFOs are an excellent example of how environmental problems can directly impact human and community well-being. Groundwater Groundwater can be contaminated by CAFOs through runoff from land application of manure, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through leaks or breaks in storage or containment units. The EPA's 2000 National Water Quality Inventory found that 29 states specifically identified animal feeding operations, not just concentrated animal feeding operations, as contributing to water quality impairment (Congressional Research Service, 2008). A study of private water wells in Idaho detected levels of veterinary antibiotics, as well as elevated levels of nitrates (Batt, Snow, &Alga, 2006). Groundwater is a major source of drinking water in the United States. The EPA estimates that 53% of the population relies on groundwater for drinking water, often at much higher rates in rural areas (EPA, 2004). Unlike surface water, groundwater contamination sources are more difficult to monitor. The extent and source of contamination are often harder to pinpoint in groundwater than surface water contamination. Regular testing of household water wells for total and fecal conform bacteria is a crucial element in monitoring groundwater quality, and can he the first step in discovering contamination issues • 'elated to CAFO discharge. Groundwater contamination can also affect surface water (Spellman & 3 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS Whiting, 2007). Contaminated groundwater can move laterally and eventually enter surface water, such . as rivers or streams. When groundwater is contaminated by pathogenic organisms, a serious threat to drinking water can occur. Pathogens survive longer in groundwater than surface water due to lower temperatures and protection from the sun. Even if the contamination appears to be a single episode, viruses could become attached to sediment near groundwater and continue to leach slowly into groundwater. One pollution event by a CAFO could become a lingering source of viral contamination for groundwater (EPA, 2005). Groundwater can still be at risk for contamination after a CAFO has closed and its lagoons are empty. When given increased air exposure, ammonia in soil transforms into nitrates. Nitrates are highly mobile in soil, and will reach groundwater quicker than ammonia. It can be dangerous to ignore contaminated soil. The amount of pollution found in groundwater after contamination depends on the proximity of the aquifer to the CAFO, the size of the CAFO, whether storage units or pits are lined, the type of subsoil, and the depth of the groundwater. If a CAFO has contaminated a water system, community members should be concerned about nitrates and nitrate poisoning. Elevated nitrates in drinking water can be especially harmful to infants, leading to blue baby syndrome and possible death. Nitrates oxidize iron in hemoglobin in red blood cells to methemoglobin. Most people convert methemoglobin back to hemoglobin fairly quickly, but infants do not convert back as fast. This hinders the ability of the infant's blood to carry oxygen, leading to a blue or purple appearance in affected infants. However, infants are not the only ones who can be affected by fbexcess nitrates in water. Low blood oxygen in adults can lead to birth defects, miscarriages, and poor general health. Nitrates have also been speculated to he linked to higher rates of stomach and esophageal cancer (Bowman, Mueller, & Smith, 2000). In general, private water wells are at higher risk of nitrate contamination than public water supplies. Surface Water The agriculture sector, including CAFOs, is the leading contributor of pollutants to lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. It has been found that states with high concentrations of CAFOs experience on average 20 to 30 serious water quality problems per year as a result of manure management problems (EPA, 2001). This pollution can be caused by surface discharges or other types of discharges. Surface discharges can be caused by heavy storms or floods that cause storage lagoons to overfill, running off into nearby bodies of water. Pollutants can also travel over land or through surface drainage systems to nearby bodies of water, be discharged through manmade ditches or flushing systems found in CAFOs, or come into contact with surface water that passes directly through the farming area. Soil erosion can contribute to water pollution, as some pollutants can bond to eroded soil and travel to watersheds (EPA, 2001). Other types of discharges occur when pollutants travel to surface water through other mediunis, such as groundwater or air. Contamination in surface water can cause nitrates and other nutrients to build up. Ammonia is often found in surface waters surrounding CAFOs. Ammonia causes oxygen depletion from water, which itself can kill aquatic life. Ammonia also converts into nitrates, which can cause nutrient overloads in surface waters (EPA, 1998). Excessive nutrient concentrations, such as nitrogen or phosphorus, can lead to eutrophication and make water inhabitable to fish or indigenous aquatic life (Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, n.d.). Nutrient over-enrichment causes algal blooms, or a rapid increase of algae growth in an aquatic environment (Science Daily, n d) Algal blooms can cause a spiral of'environmental problems to an aquatic system. Large groups of algae can block sunlight from underwater plant life, which are 4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • habitats for much aquatic life. When algae growth increases in surface water, it can also dominate other resources and cause plants to die. The dead plants provide fuel for bacteria to grow and increased bacteria use more of the water's oxygen supply. Oxygen depletion once again causes indigenous aquatic life to die. Some algal blooms can contain toxic algae and other microorganisms, including Pfiesteria, which has caused large fish kills in North Carolina, Maryland, and the Chesapeake Bay area (Spellman &Whiting, 2007). Eutrophication can cause serious problems in surface waters and disrupt the ecological balance. Water tests have also uncovered hormones in surface waters around CAFOs (Burkholder et al., 2007). Studies show that these hormones alter the reproductive habits of aquatic species living in these waters, including a significant decrease in the fertility of female fish. CAFO runoff can also lead to the presence of fecal bacteria or pathogens in surface water. One study showed that protozoa such as Cryptosporidium parvu.m and Giardia were found in over 80% of surface water sites tested (Spellman & Whiting, 2007). Fecal bacteria pollution in water from manure land application is also responsible for many beach closures and shellfish restrictions. Air Quality in addition to polluting ground and surface water, CAFOs also contribute to the reduction of air quality in areas surrounding industrial farms. Animal feeding operations produce several types of air emissions, including gaseous and particulate substances, and CAFOs produce even more emissions due to their size. The primary cause of gaseous emissions is the decomposition of animal manure, while particulate substances are caused by the movement of animals. The type, amount, and rate of emissions created depends on what state the manure is in (solid, slurry, or liquid), and how it is treated or contained after it is excreted. Sometimes manure is "stabilized" in anaerobic lagoons, which reduces volatile solids and • controls odor before land application. The most typical pollutants found in air surrounding CAFOs are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and particulate matter, all of which have varying human health risks. Table 1 on page 6 provides information on these pollutants. Most manure produced by CAFOs is applied to land eventually and this land application can result in air emissions (Merkel, 2002). The primary cause of emission through land application is the volatilization of ammonia when the manure is applied to land. However, nitrous oxide is also created when nitrogen that has been applied to land undergoes nitrification and denitrification. Emissions caused by land application occur in two phases: one immediately following land application and one that occurs later and over a longer period as substances in the soil break down. Land application is not the only way CAFOs can emit harmful air emissions ventilation systems in CAFO buildings can also release dangerous contaminants. A study by Iowa State University, which was a result of a lawsuit settlement between the Sierra Club and Tyson Chicken, found that two chicken houses in western Kentucky emitted over 1.0 tons of ammonia in the year they were monitored (Burns et al., 2007). Most studies that examine the health effects of CAFO air emissions focus on farm workers, however some have studied the effect on area schools and children. While all community members are at risk from lowered air quality, children take in 20-50% more air than adults, making them more susceptible to lung disease and health effects (Kleinman, 2000). Researchers in North Carolina found that the closer children live to a CAFO, the greater the risk of asthma symptoms (Barrett, 2006). Of the 226 schools that were included in the study, 26% stated that there were noticeable odors from CAFOs outdoors, while 8% stated 5 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Table 1 Typical pollutants found in air surrounding CAFOs. CAFO Emissions Source Traits Health Risks Ammonia Formed when Colorless, sharp Respiratory irritant, microbes decompose pungent odor chemical burns to undigested organic the respiratory tract, nitrogen compounds in skin, and eyes, severe manure cough, chronic lung disease Hydrogen Sulfide Anaerobic bacterial Odor of rotten eggs Inflammation of the decomposition of moist membranes of protein and other eye and respiratory sulfur containing tract, olfactory neuron organic matter loss, death Methane Microbial degradation Colorless, odorless. No health risks. Is a of organic matter highly flammable greenhouse gas and under anaerobic contributes to climate conditions change. • Particulate Matter Feed, bedding Comprised of fecal Chronic bronchitis, materials, dry matter, feed materials, chronic respiratory manure, unpaved pollen, bacteria, fungi, symptoms, declines in soil surfaces, animal skin cells, silicates lung function, organic dander, poultry dust toxic syndrome feathers they experience odors from CAFOs inside the schools. Schools that were closer to CAFOs were often attended by students of lower socioeconomic status (Mirabelli, Wing, Marshall, & Wilcosky, 2006). IThere is consistent evidence suggesting that factory farms increase asthma in neighboring communities, as indicated by children having higher rates of asthma (Sigurdarson & Kline. 2006: Mirabelli et al., 2006). CAFOs emit particulate matter and suspended dust, which is linked to asthma and bronchitis. Smaller particles can actually be absorbed by the body and can have systemic effects, including cardiac arrest. If people are exposed to particulate matter over a long time, it can lead to decreased lung function (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality [MDEQ] Toxics Steering Group ]'PSG], 2006). CAFOs also emit ammonia, which is rapidly absorbed by the upper airways in the body. This can cause severe coughing _and mucous build r mayand if severe enough, scarring of the airways Particulate matter ea ore severe health consequences r those expose , eir occupa ion. 7 arm workers can develop acute and chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive airways disease, and interstitial lung disease. Repeated exposure to CAF0 emissions can increase the likelihood of respiratory diseases. Occupational asthma, acute •nd chronic bronchitis, and organic dust toxic syndrome can be as high as 30% in factory farm workers 6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). Other health effects of CAFO air emissions can be headaches, respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea, weakness, and chest tightness. There is evidence that CAFOs affect the ambient air quality of a community. There are three laws that potentially govern CAFO air emissions—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as the Superfund Act), the Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). However, the EPA passed a rule that exempts all CAFOs from reporting emissions under CERCLA. Only CAFOs that are classified as large are required to report any emission event of 100 pounds of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide or more during a 24-hour period locally or to the state under EPCRA (Michigan State University Extension, n.d.). The EPA has also instituted a voluntary Air Quality Compliance Agreement in which they will monitor some CAFO air emissions, and will not sue offenders but instead charge a small civil penalty. These changes have attracted criticism from environmental and community leaders who state that the EPA has yielded to influence from the livestock industry. The changes also leave ambiguity as to whether emission standards and air quality near CAFOs are being monitored. Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Aside from the possibility of lowering air quality in the areas around them, CAFOs also emit greenhouse gases, and therefore contribute to climate change. Globally, livestock operations are responsible for approximately 18% of greenhouse gas production and over 7% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Massey & Ulmer, 2008). While carbon dioxide is often considered the primary greenhouse gas of concern, manure • emits methane and nitrous oxide which are 23 and 300 times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, respectively. The EPA attributes manure management as the fourth leading source of nitrous oxide emissions and the fifth leading source of methane emissions (EPA, 2009). The type of manure storage system used contributes to the production of greenhouse gases. Many CAFOs store their excess manure in lagoons or pits, where they break down anaerobically (in the absence of oxygen), which exacerbates methane production. Manure that is applied to land or soil has more exposure to oxygen and therefore does not produce as much methane. Ruminant livestock, such as cows, sheep, or goats, also contribute to methane production through their digestive processes. These livestock have a special stomach called a rumen that allows them to digest tough grains or plants that would otherwise be unusable. It is during this process, called enteric fermentation, that methane is produced. The U.S. cattle industry is one of the primary methane producers. Livestock production and meat and dairy consumption has been increasing in the United States, so it can only he assumed that these greenhouse gas emissions will also rise and continue to contribute to climate change. Odors One of the most common complaints associated with CAFOs are the odors produced. The odors that CAFOs emit are a complex mixture of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide, as well as volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (Heederik et al., 2007). These odors are worse than smells formerly associated with smaller livestock farms. The anaerobic reaction that occurs when manure is stored in pits or lagoons for long amounts of time is the primary cause of the smells. Odors from waste are carried away from farm areas on dust and other air particles. Depending on things like weather conditions and farming techniques, CAFO odors can be smelled from as much as 5 or 6 miles away, although 3 miles is a more ommon distance (State Environmental Resource Center, 2004). � 7 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Because CAFOs typically produce malodors, many communities want to monitor emissions and odors. Quantifying odor from industrial farming can be challenging because it is a mixture of free and particle- bound compounds, which can make it hard to identify what specifically is causing the odor. Collecting data on specific gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, can be used as a proxy for odor levels. CAFO odors can cause severe lifestyle changes fbr individuals in the surrounding communities and can alter many daily activities. When odors are severe, people may choose to keep their windows closed, even in high temperatures when there is no air conditioning. People also may choose to not let their children play outside and may even keep them home from school. Mental health deterioration and an increased sensitization to smells can also result from living in close proximity to odors from CAFOs. Odor can cause negative mood states, such as tension, depression, or anger, and possibly neurophysciatric abnormalities, such as impaired balance or memory. People who live close to factory farms can develop CAFO-related post traumatic stress disorder, including anxiety about declining quality of life (Bonham et al., 2007). Ten states use direct regulations to control odors emitted by CAFOs. They prohibit odor emissions greater than a set standard. States with direct regulations use scentometers, which measure how many times an odor has to be doused with clean air before the smell is undetectable. An additional 34 states have indirect methods to reduce CAFO odors. These include: setbacks, which specify how far CAFO structures have to be from other buildings: permits, which are the most typical way of regulating CAFOs; public comment or involvement periods: and operator or manure placement training. Insect Vectors 0 CAFOs and their waste can be breeding grounds fbr insect vectors. Houseflies, stable flies, and mosquitoes are the most common insects associated with CAFOs. Houseflies breed in manure, while stable and other flies breed in decaying organic material, such as livestock bedding. Mosquitoes breed in standing water, and water on the edges of manure lagoons can cause mosquito infestations to rise. Flies can change from eggs to adults in only 10 days, which means that substances in which flies breed need to be cleaned up regularly. Flies are typically considered only nuisances, although insects can agitate livestock and decrease animal health. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found evidence that houseflies near poultry operations may contribute to the dispersion of drug-resistant bacteria (Center for Livable Future, 2009). Since flies are attracted to and eat human food, there is a potential for spreading bacteria or pathogens to humans, including microbes that can cause dysentery and diarrhea (Bowman et al., 2000). Mosquitoes spread zoonotic diseases, such as West Nile virus, St. Louis encephalitis, and equine encephalitis. Residences closest to the feeding operations experience a much higher fly population than average homes. To lower the rates of insects and any accompanying disease threats, standing water should we cleaned or emptied weekly, and manure or decaying organic matter should be removed twice weekly (Purdue Extension, 2007). For more specific insect vector information, please refer to NALBOH's vector guide (Vector Control Strategies for Local Boards of Health). Pathogens Pathogens are parasites, bacterium, or viruses that are capable of causing disease or infection in animals gar humans. The major source of pathogens from CAFOs is in animal manure. There are over 150 pathogens in manure that could impact human health. Many of these pathogens are concerning because 8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • they can cause severe diarrhea. Healthy people who are exposed to pathogens can generally recover quickly, but those who have weakened immune systems are at increased risk for severe illness or death. Those at higher risk include infants or young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those who are immunosuppressed, HIV positive, or have had chemotherapy. This risk group now roughly compromises 20% of the U.S.population. Table 2 Select pathogens found in animal manure. Pathogen Disease Symptoms Bacillus anth.raci.s Anthrax Skin sores, headache, fever, chills, nausea, vomiting Escherichia coli Colibacilosis, Coliform Diarrhea, abdominal gas mastitis•metris Leptospira pomona Leptospirosis Abdominal pain, muscle pain, vomiting, fever Listeria monocytogenes Listerosis Fever, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea • Salmonella. species Salmonellosis Abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, chills, fever, headache Clostirduur. tetani Tetanus Violent muscle spasms, lockjaw, difficulty breathing Histoplasnt.a capsulatunt Histoplasmosis Fever, chills, muscle ache, cough rash,joint pain and stiffness Microsporuatt. and Trichophyton. Ringworm Etching, rash Giardia lanr.blia Giardiasis Diarrhea, abdominal pain, abdominal gas, nausea, vomiting, fever Cryptosporidium species Cryptosporidosis Diarrhea, dehydration, weakness, abdominal cramping Sources of infection from pathogens include fecal-oral transmission, inhalation, drinking water, or incidental water consumption during recreational water activities. The potential for transfer of pathogens among animals is higher in confinement., as there are more animals in a smaller amount of space. Healthy or asymptomatic animals may carry microbial agents that can infect humans, who can then spread that infection throughout a community, before the infection is discovered among animals. 9 V UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • When water is contaminated by pathogens, it can lead to widespread outbreaks of illness. Salmonellosis, cryptosporidiosis, and giardi.asis can cause nausea, vomiting, fever, diarrhea, muscle pain, and death, among other symptoms. E.coli is another serious pathogen, and can be life-threatening for the young, elderly, and immunocompromised. It can cause bloody diarrhea and kidney failure. Since many CAFO use sub-therapeutic antibiotics with their animals, there is also the possibility that disease-resistant bacteria can emerge in areas surrounding CAFOs. Bacteria that cannot be treated by antibiotics can have very serious effects on human health, potentially even causing death (Pew Charitable Trusts, n.d.). There is also the possibility of novel (or new) viruses developing. These viruses generate through mutation or recombinant events that can result in more efficient human-to-human transmission. There has been some speculation that the novel MINI virus outbreak in 2009 originated in swine CAFOs in Mexico. However, that claim has never been substantiated. CAFOs arc not required to test for novel viruses, since they are not on the list of mandatory reportable illness to the World Organization for Animal Health. Antibiotics Antibiotics are commonly administered in animal feed in the United States. Antibiotics are included at low levels in animal feed to reduce the chance for infection and to eliminate the need for animals to expend energy fighting off bacteria, with the assumption that saved energy will be translated into growth. The main purposes of using non-therapeutic doses of antimicrobials in animal feed is so that animals will grow faster, produce more meat, and avoid illnesses. Supporters of antibiotic use say that it allows animals to digest their food more efficiently, get the most benefit from it, and grow into strong and healthy animals. The trend of using antibiotics in feed has increased with the greater numbers of animals held in confinement. The more animals that are kept in close quarters, the more likely it is that infection or bacteria can spread among the animals. Seventy percent of all antibiotics and related drugs used in the U.S. each year are given to beef cattle, hogs. and chickens as feed additives. Nearly half of the antibiotics used are nearly identical to ones given to humans (Kaufman, 2000). There is strong evidence that the use of antibiotics in animal feed is contributing to an increase in antibiotic-resistant microbes and causing antibiotics to be less effective for humans (Kaufman, 2000). K,,..! Resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria in animals, which can be transferred to humans thought the handling or eating of meat, have increased recently. This is a serious threat to human health because fewer options exist to help people overcome disease when infected with antibiotic resistant pathogens. The antibiotics often are not ul y meta ohzed by animals and can be present in their manure. If manure pollutes a water supply, antibiotics can also leech into groundwater or surface water. erieSTDMs Because of this concern for human health, there is a growing movement to eliminate the non-therapeutic // use of antibiotics with animals. In 2001, the American Medical Association approved a resolution to ban all low-level use of antibiotics. The USDA has developed guidelines to limit low-level use, and some major meat buyers (such as McDonald's) have ,stopped using meat that was given antibiotics that are also used for humans. The World Health Organization is also widely opposed to the use of antibiotics, calling for a cease of their low-level use in 2003. Some U.S. legislators are seeking to ban the routine use of antibiotics •vith livestock, and there has been legislation proposed to solidify a ban. The Preservation of Antibiotics or Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which was introduced in 2009, has the support of over 350 health. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • consumer, and environmental groups (H.R. 1549/S. 619). The act, if passed, would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses. t er Effects— Property Values Most landowners fear that when CAFOs move into their community their property values will drop significantly. There is evidence that CAFOs do affect property values. The reasons for this are many: the fear of loss of amenities, the risk of air or water pollution, and the increased possibility of nuisances related to odors or insects. CAFOs are typically viewed as a negative externality that can't be solved or cured. There may be stigma that is attached to living by a CAFO. The most certain fact regarding CAFOs and property values are that the closer a property is to a CAFO, the more likely it will be that the value of the property will drop. The exact impact of CAFOs fluctuates depending on location and local specifics. Studies have found differing results of rates of property value decrease. One study shows that property value declines can range from a decrease of 6.6% within a 3-mile radius of a CAFO to an 88% decrease within 1/10 of a mile from a CAFO (Dakota Rural Action, 2006). Another study found that property value decreases are negligible beyond 2 miles away from a CAFO (Purdue Extension, 2008). A third study found that negative effects are largest for properties that are downwind and closest to livestock (Herriges, Secchi, & Babcock, 2005). The size and type of the feeding operation can affect property value as well. Decreases in property values can also cause property tax rates to drop, whit can 1 overnment budgets. *Considerations for Boards of Health Right-to-Farm Laws With all of the potential environmental and public health effects from CAFOs, community members and health officials often resort to taking legal action against these industrial animal farms. However, there are some protections for farms in place that can snake lawsuits-hard to navigate. Right-to-farm laws were created to address conflicts between farmers and non-farming neighbors. They seek to override common laws of nuisance, which forbid people to use their property in ways that are harmful to others, and protect farmers from unreasonable controls on farming. All 50 states have some form of right-to-farm laws, but most only offer legal protections to farms if they meet certain specifications. Generally, they must be in compliance with all environmental regulations, he properly run, and be present in a region first before suburban developments, often a year before the plaintiff moves to that area. These right-to-farm laws were originally created in the late 1970s and early 1980s to protect family farms from suburban sprawl, at. a time when large industrial farms were not the norm. As industrial farms grew in size and number, the agribusiness industry lobbied for and achieved the passage of stricter laws in the 1990s, many of which are now being challenged in court by homeowners and small family farmers. Opponents to these laws argue that they deprive them of their use of property and therefore violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Some state courts have overturned their strict right-to-farm laws, such as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Askand Kansas. Others such as Vermont have rewritten their laws. Vermont's updated right-to-farm bill 11 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • protects established farm practices as long as there is not a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare. Boards of health need to he aware of what legal protection their state offers farms. Right-to-farm laws can hinder nuisance complaints brought about by community members. State laws can prevent local government or health officials from regulating industrial farms. Board of Health Involvement with CAFOs Boards of health are responsible for fulfilling the three public health core functions: assessment, policy development, and assurance. Boards of health can fulfill these functions through addressing problems stemming from CAFOs in their communities. Specific public health services that can tackled regarding CAFOs include monitoring health status, investigating health problems, developing policies, enforcing regulations, informing and educating people about CAFOs, and mobilizing community partnerships to spread awareness about environmental health issues related to CAF Os. Assessment: Board of health members should ensure that there is an effective method in place for collecting and tracking public complaints about CAFOs and large animal farms. Since environmental health specialists at local health departments are often responsible for investigating complaints, the board of health must take measures to ensure that they are properly trained and educated about CAFOs. It is possible that the board of health may be responsible or choose to do some investigations itself. Schmalzried and Fallon (2008) advocate that local health districts adopt a proactive approach for addressing public concerns about CAFOs stating that health districts can offer some services that may •help ease public frustration with CAF Os A fly trapping program can establish a baseline for the average number of flies present prior to the start-up of CAFOs or large animal farms, which can then establish if a fly nuisance exists in the area. Testing for water quality and quantity can provide evidence if CAFOs are suspected of affecting private water supplies. Boards of health can also monitor exposure incidences that occur in emergency rooms to determine if migrant or farm workers are developing any adverse health conditions as a result of their work environments. Establishing these programs benefit both members of the community and provide information to future animal farm operatos, and local boards of health should recommend them if they've been receiving complaints about CAFOs. Policy Development: Boards of health in many states can adopt health-based regulations about CAFOs, however, they may be met with some resistance. Humbolt County, Iowa, adopted four health-based ordinances concerning CAFOs that became models for regulations in other states, but the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ordinances were irreconcilable with state laws. Boards of health that choose to regulate CAFOs can also he subject to pressure from outside forces, including possible lawsuits or withdrawal of funding. Boards of health should also consider working with other local officials to institute regulations on CAFOs, such as zoning ordinances. Assurance: Boards of health can execute the assurance function by advocating for or educating about better environmental practices with CAFOs. Board members may receive complaints from the public about CAFOs, and boards can hold public meetings to receive complaints and hear public testimony about farms. If boards of health are not capable of regulating industrial farms in their communities, they can still try to collaborate with other local agencies that have jurisdiction. Board of health members ean educate other local agencies and public officials about CAFOs and spread awareness about the nvironmental and health hazards. They can request a public hearing with the permitting agency of the 12 • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • CAFO to express their concerns about the potential health effects. They can also work with agricultural and farm representatives to teach better environmental practices and pollution reduction techniques. In many states, boards of health are empowered to adopt more stringent rules than the state law if it is necessary to protect public health. Board of health members should examine their state laws before they take any action regarding CAFOs to determine the most appropriate course of action. Any process should include an investigative period to gather evidence, public hearings, and a time for public review of draft policies. Board of Health Case Studies Tewksbury Board of Health, Massachusetts Locals have complained about Krochmal Farms, a pig farm, for many years, but complaints have increased recently. The addition of a hog finishing facility to the farm coincided with the time that community member complaints grew. Most complaints are centered on the odor coming from the farm. The complaints were originally just logged when phone calls were received; however, the health department added a data tracking system as the number of complaints increased. After a complaint is received, the sanitarian or health director does a site visit to investigate. The health director in Tewksbury filed an order of prohibition against the farm., which is allowed under Massachusetts law 111, section 143, for anything that threatens public health. The order of prohibition was appealed and the matter was taken to the hoard of health for a grievance hearing. The board of health hearing included months of testimony about the pig farm. The board of health is also doing a site assignment, which determines if a location is appropriate for treating, storing, or disposing of waste, including agricultural waste. The site assignment process includes both the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the local board of health. The board of health holds a public hearing process, while the DEP reviews the site assignment application. The board of health grants the site assignment only if it is concurrently approved by the DEP. The health director in Tewksbury points out that the only laws the board of health is able to regulate the farm under are nuisance laws. There have been efforts by the community to do a home rule petition to address the air quality and pest management complaints. The home rule petition is currently working its way through the Massachusetts state house. The status of the petition is unknown. The board of health has tried to work directly with the pig farm to manage complaints. The farm contains manure composting facilities and the health district has requested advance notice to warn the community before manure is treated or applied to the soil. The farm has adopted a new manure management system. This system uses Rapp technology to control odors and reduce ammonia and hydrogen sulfide levels. However, questions still remain as to whether this addition will fully solve the odor issue. Typically, systems using Rapp technology include an oil cap that floats on manure holding pools and helps seal odors inside. These techniques have been researched and proven to reduce odors. However, the Tewksbury farm did not install the oil cap, and it is unknown whether the exclusion of I he cap will hinder the technology's ability to reduce odors. The complaints about the farm primarily concern the odor that emanates from the farm. The complaints alo include mention of health side effects, including nausea and burning eyes. The health director has also heard concerns about potential environmental effects from the pig manure. Community members are 13 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS worried the manure runoff is entering and contaminating Sutton Brook, since there has been flooding in • that area. There has been no confirmation of this occurring. The board of health is aware that the farm has a nutrient management plan, but they are not allowed to request and find out what is incorporated in that plan. The Tewksbury piggery is technically not classified as a CAFO, though it is believed to be the largest pig farm in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The area around it has become densely populated and the community members state that they just want to live peacefully with the farm. The board of health has submitted multiple grant applications to study the health effects associated with the farm. After the site assignment process is complete, the hoard of health will decide how it will regulate the farm. At the beginning of 2010, the board of health was still working on drafting regulations for the pig farms. Wood County Board of Health, Ohio Wood County, Ohio, contains two existing large dairy farms, both of which were proposed in 2001 to be expanded to over 1500 cows each. It is also the site for three other proposed dairy farms. There is a large community effort that supports restricting the operation and expansion of these farms, mainly represented by the community group Wood County Citizens Opposed to Factory Farms. The Wood County Board of Health became involved in investigating these dairy farms through this community group and other local officials. The Trustees of Liberty Township requested assistance from the Wood County Board of Health in supporting a moratorium on factory farm operations until local regulations were in effect. The trustees believed that manure runoff from the farms could contaminate local waterways, lower the ground water table, increase the presence of insect vectors, and devalue local properties. The Wood County Health Director, in cooperation with the board of health, contacted nearby counties to determine what actions they had taken against farms in their communities. While the health director and board of health investigated action in the form of a nuisance regulation against the farms, they were advised that nuisance lawsuits filed against farms in Ohio were held to a tough standard, and they would be forced to demonstrate with scientific proof that the farms have a substantial adverse effect on health. They found that no other board of health in Ohio had opted to regulate farming operations and relied on the enforcement of existing state laws. The board of health held a public forum to hear public opinion regarding the industrial farms. Ultimately, the Wood County Board of Health took actions other than regulations to help protect the health and environment of its community. They helped community members protect the safety of their water wells by offering free and low cost water well testing and inspections. They tested area ditch and water ways for fecal conform bacteria, phosphorous• and nitrates to monitor the impact of farm runoff. They also purchased fly traps to monitor and count fly types to determine if the farms have caused an increase in insect vectors. Board of health members also met with state officials from the Ohio EPA in an effort to facilitate cooperation regarding the factory farms. While the Wood County Board of Health and Health Department chose not to institute any local regulations, they continue to monitor the situation and respond to community complaints. Cerro Gordo County Board of Health, Iowa Officials in Cerro Gordo County, Iowa began looking into regulating gulating animal feeding operations after the *umber of hog farms in Iowa started to grow. Floods in North Carolina and new regulations in Colorado meant that many hog farms began relocating to Iowa. Many citizens had concerns over the effects of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • CAFOs, and the Iowa State Association of Counties wanted to review air quality issues. Officials in Cerro Gordo County originally began working on a regulation that required inspections and was based on public health concerns, since farms were already exempt from any regulations related to zoning. However, Iowa state senators soon introduced legislation that passed and prevented any animal feeding operations from being regulated from a public health angle as well. As Iowans were now prevented from regulating animal feeding operations in terms of zoning or public health, officials in Cerro Gordo County decided to place a moratorium on the construction of new animal feeding operations in that county. They wanted to temporarily stop the growth of animal feeding operations until they could get better science about their effects. Cerro Gordo County Ordinance#40, the "Animal Confinement Moratorium Ordinance," went into effect on May 14, 2002. Since the moratorium did not address public health or zoning, officials were able to get around the rules and still have a way to temporarily control animal feeding operation growth in their county. The ordinance placed "a 1-year moratorium on any new construction, expansion, or activity occurring on land u.sed for the production., care, feeding, or housing of animals." The ordinance also afforded "local public health officials adequate time to appropriately assess health and environmental concerns that may be related to confined animal feeding operations and concentration of animals; establish objective measurable standards of enforcement; exercise the Board of Health's responsibility to protect and improve the health of the public; refrain from impacting farm operators unfairly, and provide penalties for violations of the provisions hereof pursuant to Chapter 137, Code of Iowa" (Cerro Gordo County, 2002). The moratorium was first adopted by the Cerro Gordo County Board of Health. It was then presented "Ito the county board of supervisors by the health director on behalf of the board of health. Before the board of health adopted the moratorium, they held an investigative meeting in which representatives from the Iowa Farm Bureau and other industry spokespeople exchanged opinions on the issue of animal feeding operations. The moratorium was created through a collaboration between local and county officials—health department staff', the board of health, and the board of supervisors. The moratorium did not receive any help or backing from state officials, who were concerned about the political nature of the ordinance. However it did receive backing from a Globe Gazelle editorial. The moratorium was immediately met with resistance from state officia Is. The Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors was contacted by a local legislator, and the Iowa Farm Bureau stated they would challenge the county budget. The Iowa Farm Bureau threatened to take the county to court. There were concerns over the cost of a court trial, which was estimated to be as high as $60,000. The county attorney doubted the legality of the moratorium and ultimately recommended removing it. The moratorium was in effect until June of 2005, when it was repealed by the county board of supervisors. Since the moratorium was repealed there have been a few hog farms built in Cerro Gordo County, but the decline in pork prices has prevented any large growth of hog farms. Health officials believe that if the county had not implemented the animal confinement moratorium, there would have been many more farms built in their county, since many hog farms were built in counties south of Cerro Gordo County. There is now a process for siting new animal confinement operations in Iowa that uses a Master Matrix scoring system. The Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors tracks the blaster Matrix system, but so far no animal feeding operations in Iowa who have applied using this system have been denied the right •o build. 15 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Conclusion Concentrated animal feeding operations or large industrial animal farms can cause a myriad of environmental and public health problems. While they can he maintained and operated properly, it is important to ensure that they are routinely monitored to avoid harm to the surrounding community. While states have differing abilities to regulate CAFOs, there are still actions that boards of health can and should take. These actions can be as complex as passing ordinances or regulations directed at CAFOs or can be simply increasing water and air quality testing in the areas surrounding CAFOs. Since CAFOs have such an impact locally, boards of health are an appropriate means for action. Boards of health should take an active role with CAFOs, including collaboration with other state and local agencies, to mitigate the impact. that CAFOs or large industrial farms have on the public health of their communities. • • 16 Er,V RCr.M[\uL rIE,LT- Appendix A: Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFOs, and Small CAFOs Size Thresholds (number of animals) Animal Sector Large CAFOs Medium CAFOs' Small CAFOs2 Cattle or cow/calf pairs 1,000 or more 300-999 Less than 300 Mature dairy cattle 700 or more 200-699 Less than 200 Veal calves 1,000 or more 300-999 Less than 300 Swine (over 55 pounds) 2,500 or more 750-2,500 Less than 750 Swine (under 55 pounds) 10,000 or more 3.000-9,999 Less than 3,000 Horses 500 or more 150-499 Less than 150 Sheep or lambs 10,000 or more 3,000-9,999 Less than 3,000 • Turkeys 55,000 or more 16,500-54.999 Less than 16,500 Laying hens or broilers' 30,000 or more 9,000-29,999 Less than 9,000 Chickens other than laying hens' 125,000 or more 37.500-124,999 Less than 37,500 Laying hens' 82,000 or morel 5,000-81.999 Less than 25,000 Ducks' 30.000 or more 10,000-29,999 Less than 10,000 Ducks` 5,000 or more 1,500-4,999 Less than 1,500 Data: Environmental Protection Agency ' Must also meet one of two "method of discharge" criteria to he defined as a CAFU or must be designated. Never a CAFO by regulatory definition, but may be designated as a CAFO on a case-by-case basis. Liquid manure handling system ' Other than a liquid manure handling system • 17 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Appendix B: Additional Resources American Public Health Association. Precautionary moratorium On new concentrated animal feed operations. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/dcfault.htm?id=1243 Center for a Livable Future. http://www.livablefutureblog.com/ Environmental Health Sciences Research Center. Iowa concentrated animal feeding operation-air quality study. http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm Environmental Protection Agency. Animal feeding operations. http://Cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home. cfm?program_id=7 Food and Water Watch. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ Impacts of CAFOs on Rural Communities. http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Indiana%20--%20 CAFOs'5120%20Communities.htm#_ftnl Land Stewardship Project. http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/index.ht nil Midwest Environmental Advocates. bttp://www.midwestadvocatesorg/ National Agriculture Law Center. Animal feeding operations reading room. • http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/rcadingrooms/afos National Association of Local Boards of Health. Vector control strategies for local hoards of health. http://www.nalboh.org/publications.htm Pew Charitable Trusts. Human health and industrial farming. http://www..saveantihiotics.org/index.html Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production. http://www.ncifhp.org/ Purdue Extension. Concentrated animal feeding operations. http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/CAFO/ State Environmental Resource Center. http://serconline.org • 18 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • References Barrett, J.R. (2006). Hogging the air: CAFO emissions reach into schools. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(4), A241. Retrieved from http://ehp02.niehs.nih.gov/article/ info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%9Fehp.i H-a241a Batt, A.L., Snow, D.D., & Aga, D.S. (2006). Occurrence of sulfonamide antimicrobials in private water wells in Washington County, Idaho, USA. Chemosphere, 64(11), 1961-19;1. Retrieved from http:// digitaleommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=101 7&context=wa tercenterpubs Bowman, A., Mueller, K., & Smith, M. (2000). Increased animal waste production from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs): Potential implications for public and en.u/ronrnental health. Nebraska Center for Rural Health Research. Retrieved from http://www.unmc.edu/rural/ documents/cafo-report.pdf Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer. P., Heathcote, S., Kolpin, D., Thorne, P., et al. (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. En.vironntental Health Perspectives, 11(2), 308-312. Retrieved from http://www.mibi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817674/pdf/ ehp0115-000308.pdf Burns, R., Xin, H., Gates, R., Li, H., Hoff, S., Moody, L., et al. (2007). Tyson broiler ammonia emission monitoring project:Final report. Retrieved from http://www sierracluh.org/environmentallaw/ • lawsuits/dots/ky tysonreport.pdf Center for Livable Future. (2009). Flies may spread drug-resistant bacteria from poultry operations. Retrieved from http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2009/(13/flies-map-spread-drug-resistant- bacteria-from-poultry-operations/ Cerro Gordo County, Iowa. (2002). Ordinance #40:Animal confinement moratorium ordinance. Retrieved from http://www.cghealth.net/pdf/AnimalContinementMoratoriumOrdinance.pdf Congressional Research Service. (2008). Animal waste and water quality: EPA regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Retrieved from http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cis/ RL31851.pdf Dakota Rural Action. (2006). CA PO economic impact. Retrieved from http://www.dakotarural.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=30 Donham, K.J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J.L., Hodne, C., Thu, K.M., et al. (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding CAFOs. Environmental Health Perspectives 715(2) 317-320. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM('1817097/pdf/chp0115-000317.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Environmental impacts of animal feeding operations. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/feedlots/envimpct.pdf • 19 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Environmental assessntent of proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination. system regulation and the effluent guidelines for concentrated animal feeding operations. Available from http://c(puh.epa.gov/npdes/dots. cfm?view=a.rch ive dp ro g&p ro gra m_i d=7&sort=n am e Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Water on tap:A consumer's guide to the nation's drinking water. Retrieved from http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps21800/www.epa.gov/safewater/wot/ where does.html Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Detecting and mitigating the environmental impact of fecal pathogens originating from confined animal feeding operations: Review. Retrieved from http://www. farmweb.org/Articles/Detecting%20and%20Mitigating%20the%20Environmental%20Impact%20 of%20Fecal%20Pathogens%20Originating'%20from%20Confincd°620iAnimal%20Feeding%20 Operations.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Animal feeding operations. Retrieved from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ npdes./home.cfm?program_id=7 Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990- 2007. Retrieved from http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html Government Accountability Office. (2008). Concentrated an lino]feeding operations: EPA needs more • information and a clearly defined strategy to protect air and water quality from pollutants of concern. Retrieved from http://wwwgaogov/new.items/c108911.pdf Heederik, D., Sigsgaard, T., Thorne, P.S., Kline, J.N., Avery, R_ Bonlokkc, et al. (2007). Health effects of airborne exposures from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 298-302. Retrieved from http://www.nehi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC1817709/pdf/ehp0115.000298.pdf Herriges, J.A., Secchi, S., & Babcock, B.A. (2005). Living with hogs in Iowa: The impact of livestock facilities on rural residential property values. Land Econonucs, 81, 530-515. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445--156. Retrieved from http://ehpnetI.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p445- 456horrigan/EHP110p445PDF.PDF Kaufman, M. (2000). Worries rise over effect of antibiotics in animal feed; Humans seen vulnerable to drug-resistant germs. Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved from http://www.upc-online. org/000317wpost_animal_feed.html Kleinman, M. (2000). The health effects of air pollution on children. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/ forstudents/health_ef'fects_on_chiIdren.pdI • 20 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • MacDonald, J.M. and McBride, W.D. (2009). The transformation of U.S. livestock agriculture: Scale, efficiency, and risks. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.ers. usda.gov/Publications/EiB43/EiB43.pdf Massey, R. and Ulmer, A. (2008).Agriculture and greenhouse gas emission. University of Missouri Extension. Retrieved from http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G310 Merkel, M. (2002). Raising a stink:Air emissions from factory fams. Environmental Integrity Project. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalintegrity org/pdf/publications/CAFOArrEmissions white_paper.pdf Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Toxic.s Steering Group (TSG). (2006). Concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAPOs) chemicals associated with air emissions. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CAEOS Chemicals_Associated_with Air Emissions_5-10-06_158862_7.pdf Michigan State University Extension. (n.d.) Air emission reporting ?eider EPCRA for EAPOs. Retrieved from http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/Portals/0/MSUF..%2OEPCRA%20RP:POB'IING%20 FACT%20SHEET.pdf Mirabelli, M C., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., & Wilcosky, T.C. (2006). Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle-school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding Operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(4), 591-596. Retrieved from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/realfiles/ members/2005/8586/8586.pdf Pew Charitable Trusts. (n.d.)Antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and unnecessary human health risks. Retrieved from http://www.saveantibiotics.org/resources/ PewHumanHealthEvidencefactsheet7-I4F1NAL.pdf Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production. (2009). Pulling meat on the table:Industrial farm animal production in America. Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf Purdue Extension. (2007). Contained animal feeding operations—Insect considerations. Retrieved from http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/cafo/ID-353.pdf Purdue Extension. (2008). Community impacts of ( 1l"Os: Property ralae. Retrieved from http://www.ces. purdue.edu/extinedia/ID/Ill-363-W.pdf Schmalzried, H.D. & Fallon, L.F., Jr. (2007). Large-scale dairy operations: Assessing concerns of neighbors about quality-of-life issues. Journal of Daiiy Science, ,90(4), 2047-2051. Retrieved from http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/90/4/2047?maxtoshow=&hits=1 0&RESULTFORMAT-=&fulltext=larg e-scale&searchid=l&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=90&issue=d&resourcetype=HWCiT Schmalzried, H.D. & Fallon, L.F., Jr. (2008). A proactive approach for local public health districts to address concerns about proposed large-scale dairy operations. Ohio Journal of Environmental Health, Fall/Winter 2008. 20-25. 21 UNDERSTANDING CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS • Science Daily. (n.d.)Algal bloom. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/a1ga1_bloom.htin Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. (n.d.) Glossary of CAFO terms. Retrieved from http://michigan.sierraclub. org/issues/greatlakes/articles/cafoglossary.html#E Sigurdarson,S.T. & Kline, J.N. (2006). School proximity to concentrated animal feeding operations and prevelance of asthma in students. Chest, 129, 1486-1491. Retrieved from http://chestjournal. chestpubs.org/content/129/6/1486.full.pdf Spellman, F.R. & Whiting, N.E. (2007). Environmental management of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. State Environmental Resource Center. (2004). Issue:Regulating air emissions from CAFOs. Retrieved from http://www.serconline.org/cafoAirEmissions.html • • 22 S , fillill: ,., -, ..--7 ,---, ., iI f l (: 11 ,.r { LI rr5 jt3: gr1 g@ 9 jS { 9• i it Mt r 1 i 1 i. FTIMMIFIEMIIMMTI ?$ Malronal A.,ncsai{o.1 •.f Local Boards of Htalr,, • IP: 0 . i ' ;k -.{, Ill 1' .I µ 1 i- If : r}�r{,P�• W } r y 1 1, l' t'a'i :,l: .i';.'..0,^.,'. i. _ ..... 'i;t _ 1 `41`-4._ ,''.I.:'F 6d� a... . w: laidlu; Extension AS-10-01 • OHIO STATE htctSheet EXTENSION Animal Sciences, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1095 Questions Pertaining to Large Dairy Enterprises in Ohio: Community Impact Who will work at large dairy farms? small family corporations. Characteristics of Ohio dairy Ohio currently has a very tight job market. Many farms are similar to those that describe farms in the dairy farms are having difficulty finding an adequate United States. iiinumber of qualified employees. An expanding livestock farm or a large livestock farm new to a community is Why are farmers in the Netherlands interested in likely to face especially difficult hiring problems. As a locating in Ohio? consequence most large livestock farms will consider There are actually two parts to this question.The first both local people and people new to the community in one is why are farmers in the Netherlands leaving their filling positions. country?The second part is why are they choosing Ohio? Large livestock farms are likely to turn to recruitment The Netherlands covers an area equal to 40% that of of employees from other areas of the United States or Ohio. Yet, its population of 18 million people is approxi- from other countries (e.g., migrants) when they are un- mately 50% larger than that of Ohio. Additionally, there able to find local people to fill all their positions at are approximately six times more dairy cows in the Neth- economically justifiable wage rates. Success in hiring erlands than in Ohio.Needless to say, land is getting very local people will depend on such things as wages and scarce and expensive. Additionally, the Dutch govern- benefits, job descriptions, length of work week, work ment has agreed to new European Union regulations aimed schedule, flexibility in work schedule, working condi- at reducing by 25% the animal population over a period tions, orientation and training programs,communication, of ten years. Hence, it is now nearly impossible for a sense of importance to the business, opportunities for Dutch dairy farm to increase its size to bring their sons advancement,and reputation in the community as a desir- and daughters into the operations. Consequently, many able place to work. Dutch farmers are selling their farms in their homeland and are relocating their families in other countries,prima- Who generally owns large farm operations? rily Canada, New Zealand, France, East Germany, Po- There are still approximately 100,000 commercial land, Portugal, and the United States. dairy farms operating in the United States.Of those,more Within the United States, the eastern cornbelt is rap- than 99.5 percent are family owned. Interestingly, the idly becoming an area of choice for Dutch farmers. The . same is true of large dairy farms.Of farms with more than climate is similar to that of their homeland. Agronomic 200 cows,more than 99 percent are owned by families or resources (soil, air, and water) are generally very favor- Abbreviation:TIF=Tax Increment Financing Usti l2-00 AS-10-01—page 2 •able to milk production. Dutch churches have been estab- property tax stream. People opposing new livestock TIF lished in some locations. Ohio is a milk deficient state or enterprise zone agreements are causing the loss of (more milk processed and consumed than produced) and potential income to their school districts,rather than caus- many of its processors are looking for additional milk to ing financial harm to the farm owners. provide the dairy products consumed by its growing popu- lation. Will large dairy farms decrease neighboring property values? What is the true cost to the community to There is no scientific study that supports a certain accommodate large farms, e.g., in terms of "yes" or"no"answer to this question. Large farms could improved roadways? even increase land value. The key element to keep in If the dairy developer works with and cooperates with mind is to recognize that locating a large dairy next door local economic development professionals and state eco- doesn't automatically translate to lower values for neigh- nomic development specialists,the cost to the community boring properties.Values could increase because of higher will be zero. The reason is the ability to utilize Tax value products and lower costs of production.Value could Increment Financing (TIF) or enterprise zone programs decline because of poor neighbor relations and inept farm that set aside NEW tax dollars from real property im- managers.Values could remain unchanged because neigh- provement. Thus, without the dairy project, the increase bors choose to and fulfill their obligation to treat each in taxes will not materialize. Next, the state has infra- other, their community, and their surrounding natural structure grant programs available to assist communities resource base with the respect each deserves in a civil in improving publicly owned roads, and water or sewer society. infrastructure. These programs facilitate lowering the amount required for local dollars to improve intrastate- If local farmers receive threats or experience ture, resulting in leveraging of additional local tax funds. vandalism, how should they proceed to report such occurrences to authorities? •Are tax abatements available to large dairy farms? Farmers should report threats and vandalism to law No, the available structure being recommended for enforcement authorities. In terms of threats, they need to large livestock farms is a tax redirection through a negoti- write down as much detail as possible about the probable ated TIF or Enterprise Zone (EZ) Agreement. The farm time and circumstances. The same holds true for vandal- pays the same dollar amount that the taxes would nor- ism. The goal is to help law enforcement understand the malty be,but the dollars are dedicated to specific catego- seriousness of the incidents, possibly identify a pattern ries: to help the County Engineer and Township Trustees (because most threats and vandalism are not committed fund road improvements and/or help the local school by a perpetrator only one time,but many times),and seek district. If dollars are directed towards the school system, to catch the perpetrators. a gift in lieu of taxes must be used to protect the school Second,farmers should share information with trusted from lost State revenue. This prevents the State from neighbors. Rural law enforcement resources are spread lowering the amount of money sent to the local school thinly in open-country areas, and neighbors are very im- district based on its State formula for funding. portant for helping to maintain surveillance of property and for reporting suspicious activities. Do schools lose tax money when the large dairy farms come into a community? How can farmers help to establish good relations Schools gain revenue if an agreement with the dairy with neighbors? farm is negotiated that allows for a 100%agreement with Dairy farmers can establish good relations with neigh- a gift back to the school. If an agreement is arranged,the bors with some of the following strategies: school system continues to receive the State formula dollars, plus the gift funds. If no agreements are created, • Get to know the interests and lifestyles of your neigh- the school sees roughly a zero increase in revenue even bors what's important to them. though the local tax revenues increase significantly be- 0 cause of the farm's presence. All school districts are • Communicate with your neighbors, at community presently penalized by the state with a reduction of State events or through a newsletter, to let them know what formula dollars for any income increase in their real is taking place with your agricultural business. • AS-10-01—page 3 . • Be neighborly;friendly help when needed shows inter- • Use proper channels to resolve conflict instead of"tak- est in their concerns. ing measures in your own hands." • Schedule tasks so as to minimize odor, noise, and traffic flow nuisances and notify neighbors when such Editors tasks will be occurring (e.g., by way of a newsletter, Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal etc.). Sciences, The Ohio State University • Make your farm attractive. Suzanne Steel,Director of College Communications,Corn- • Use environmentally sound farming practices. munications and Technology, College of Food, Agri- cultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State • Conduct a community event on your farm(e.g., tours, University free sweet corn, free meal, etc.). • Clean up around the farm and the roadways after har- Technical contributors vesting crops and spreading manure. Don Clark,Ohio Department of Economic Development • Be proactive by explaining to local officials about your Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal farming business. Sciences,The Ohio State University • Make sure employees also are building positive rela- Bernard Erven, Professor, Department of Agricultural, tionships with the community. Environmental,and Development Economics,The Ohio • Annually budget funds for neighbor relations. State University • Contribute to charities, buy animals at county fairs, Allan Lines,Professor,Department of Agricultural,Envi- etc., to let people know that you are investing in the ronmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio well being of the community. State University 0 • Be active in the community to build farm and non-farm David Patton,Associate Professor,Community Develop- relationships. ment, Ohio State University Extension • Provide leadership in local and state organizations to Normand St-Pierre, Associate Professor, Department of provide proactive directions for animal agriculture. Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University • Take the attitude of avoiding conflict instead of creat- ing it. Visit Ohio State University Extension's WWW site"Ohioline"at: ohioline.osu.edu All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race,color,creed, religion,sexual orientation,national origin,gender,age,disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L.Smith,Associate Vice President for Ag.Adm.and Director OSU Extension. • TDD# 1 (800)589-8292(Ohio only)or(614)292-1868 3/01-100-klw h-c.J Y Li A; 1�- i -_ ); - '1_11 , _ �I IPd i. ,� si —. __ _h.�., �I Is ; Fri a al l' —1\61:th Eli. ii; Ill I i i _1' IFI • fa II H i ilr i/I1 'cr I � I�� I o ® = fiFNI — J I I L CO Hello