HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082460.tiff r
• August 28, 2008
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Board of Commissioners
Attn: Chris Gathman
Reference: Case # USR-1661
This letter is in regards to the proposed livestock confinement operation for
Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC, located at CR 90 and I/2 mile east of CR 43, Ault, CO
80610.
We respectfully ask that you carefully consider the following when making your
decision about this request for the proposed feedlot.
The environmental, health, and safety impact of adding a 24,000 head feedlot
are some of our concerns. There is currently within 5 miles of this proposed
facility an existing large concentration of livestock located at the Longs Peak
Dairy. By adding an additional feedlot of this size there would be increased
traffic, odors and pest problems.
• The surrounding area of the proposed feedlot is already in distress due to the
removal of the agricultural irrigation water by the City of Thornton. The erosion
has increased and the winds create huge dust storms. The proposed area is
currently in its natural state of grasslands and the trampling of the livestock,
especially the buffalo, will contribute more to this existing problem.
With the removal of the water in the area there is less livestock feed that is
produced in the immediate area requiring more feed to be transported to the area
causing more traffic and road damage. We also understand there will be another
permit for a compost site of which will add additional traffic.
The location of the entryway for the feedlot is a huge concern for safety as CR 90
is mostly used by semi trucks travelling from State Highway 85 to State Highway
14. These trucks are usually travelling around 80 MPH and the entryway for the
feedlot is at the bottom of a hill. There may not be sufficient time for them to stop
to avoid an accident. This is also a school bus route.
The property values of those living in close proximity would decrease due to the
increased traffic, noise and odors. Many of the surrounding properties have
been family owned for many years and now may be forced to sell their homes
due to this intrusion and at a lower value. Some of the neighbors have already
experienced an increase in the pest problems from this operation due to the
• blood that was dumped on the property of which they did not have a permit to do.
2008-2460
EXHIBIT
t
The county should consider having a buffer zone of several miles when
•
permitting such large expansions.
We do support agriculture as we are engaged in it ourselves but we feel the size
of the feedlot would be detrimental to the area. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Wolf
Kathy L. Wolf
43423 WCR 43
Ault, CO 80610
970-834-1650
•
S
August 15"', 2008
• Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Jim Reeman AUG 2 7 mop
35710 County Road 39
Eaton, CO 80615 RECEIVED
Dear Jim and to whom it may concern,
I hereby authorize Jim Reeman to represent me and my interests regarding the following
items:
• Feed lot in Section -1-R
• Contamination and dumping of hazardous material
1 object to a feed lot in this area and 1 have not received notification of this land use. My
property values will be adversely affected in Sections 2, 10, II, 14, and 22. I am also
concerned about contamination of Owl Creek and underground water.
Thank you,
Dorothy J. Nelson
18933 Celtic Street
Northridge, CA 91326
• EXHIBIT
•
S2(2}-1 (a(9 -
A note from
James F Beeman
)CV S i r
ti - � A IAA °_.„LD II__
(ttsta e o e ct__--
Gti1\ci cod r- kA-lit- y
CCiLk�,a ��z �
c I42VS('Ai!1-kt\ rma i \
AWL
(CAGY' 4'_
_
\iitti, / he
dam, <, '.' `,t'",' W. ...ti, „e ,-
•
Wald County Planning Depathtial!
GREELEY OFFICE �C',i('_->.5 //c- A" i '
• niG 27 ?nnA 4/6// 1 ( Y'
RECEIVED 4 , .7_.7, 7- sY
ll cs/C/ CC/L ,%' /157-/ d/ /�a )1--2-//..?/ X17 .C-3C 5
6:7I-ee /c-) CZ
/i/i CX I-1:_5- G il-i_ ,, 1 .
re f. c—cc_ //SR — /f/l
//a 51 reere/ 41; -7 //C
As s c S//e- I'avicingr /7/ cZASe- th:x/ih>/ /
/C' elA-- trz/nz se J lid 1i / sC 4- fC'-F Li 4 ., -F6E/ •lC
i5./>c./C/l /l-I 'e_ L''rrt , YEc/C/C. .5 CCvx C i>/C� � /id t /C 2//c,_
• D/,1S/7ir ,/ ZIA'II; 6. (c/' c71 el ,(6rizc /7ccIs I OCC Ir z,re 03_
// //e- /1
/ /VSL., n.
X n^e 71'1 -1/ r a. A : I/4- i'/ fA /7i•a C //vs:a
/
r -// s5 //e •CVe.c%- Ye / C t-i n Z.r� C{CrcC-, •roc= l•c I' ;
f;n el /AC_ ,SCILrCC- el //7e disc' ail'C- , d,'/.SC'.xt !1''/// 62,.sC' 2,/,,_
•-ii,e 7)L rrs 1.> 7 1/1,277e-, f cr ig i/d -b.,>z, , a /c /// ,c-czwer
/ 2,-.r , ..1-zi /s �7 .
// j •,,-
'
�/ r,/ !/- C•Cd
rrE_71CC-j .4eCf 74-1/1, 1 ' CC'2'5 C1L-To, ,
� des �z aic- �r/'re_ /r`` 6,--6,-- ei c A c 17
Sr /LCC/7Ccis z// alt Jc'h/ 'stic- Ca /4-//E- A.E_C 'a <CS, e c• •1
li/6 /bC / L' f z- 17- K .LCL'/ na7// en ,2Li. . r •,,.;.,,
,)/f C e' re-7/
i .
EXHIBIT
I COD
• Dr. Renae Moreschini
422 West Orman Avenue
Pueblo, Colorado 81004
Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
Attention: Chris Gatham
Dear Chris Gatham,
Subject: Proposed Bison feedlot in Weld County
Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners,
I am writing to express my opposition to the bison feedlot proposed
by Hasbrouck Holdings L.L.C. near Pierce Colorado.
The Pueblo Chieftain recently printed an article stating that this
feedlot would will eventually hold 15,000 buffalo on only a 152 acre site. I
feel that this is not nearly enough space to create a healthy situation both for
• the animals and the inhabitants of Weld County. These animals are not
cattle, and cannot be treated in the same manner. They still exist in more of
a wild state, and are not as docile. Allowing Hasbrouck to continue with
their proposed plan violates core ecological models on numerous levels, and
therefore would be a very uneducated and poor decision.
One should also take into the ramifications of this feedlot on the local
community's water system. There is growing concern throughout the
country involving the pollution of ground and surface water from the
seepage and runoff from feedlots of this magnitude. It should be the
responsibility of your commission to review and educate yourselves on the
current information regarding these matters before allowing Hasbrouck to
create a situation that affects the greater community adversely. I suggest the
following as a good website to consider in this case:
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollutioniffarms.asp
Please consider that your decision on this matter will set a precedence
that future generations will continue to feel the ramifications of for years to
come. I encourage you to think of the future when making your decision.
• EXHIBIT
• Respectfully,
Dr. Renae Moreschini
•
,
• August 27, 2008
Weld County Planning Commission
C/O Mr. Chris Gathman, cgathman@co.weld.co.us
918 10`h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Sirs:
Our main concerns with the presence of the buffalo/beef cattle feedlot are
the following:
I. Health:
A. Three neighbors have severe asthma, including two handicapped
children. The dirt and gasses from the feedlot and lagoons present a
dangerous situation for them.
B. Biting flies, mosquitoes, and small animals, traveling from these
facilities to us and our livestock, are possible carriers of disease.
• They are also a nuisance and,this summer,made our animals miserable
when they came from the illegal blood dumping ground that Hasbrouk, LLC,
has north of us.
II. Safety:
A. WCR 90 is a fairly busy road. Oil, dairy, cattle, military, and
gravel trucks, traffic to the Pawnee National Grasslands, and the local traffic
all use it as a direct route to Greeley, Cheyenne, Fort Collins, and the towns
along U.S. 85. The majority of these vehicles travel well over the 55 mph
speed limit. We have had several accidents in the area in the eight years we
have lived here, including a fatality. The motorcyclist who died at our
corner was reportedly doing 90 mph.
The proposed access for the feedlot to this road is only a short way
from the bottom of a steep,blind hill. The vehicles traveling west,
especially fully-loaded semi-trucks, will not have time to slow down or stop
in time to avoid a collision with feedlot trucks turning onto WCR 90. With
a wide irrigation ditch on the south side and a home on the north side, there
is no place to go to avoid a wreck.
B. In addition, WCR 90 is a school bus route. If the feedlot trucks
head for the packing plant in Pierce at an early hour, the fact that the busses
• EXHIBIT
, ti
• come by about 6:30 am, along with local traffic headed for work in town,
must be considered. If the school busses were re-routed they would have to
go three miles east and five miles south and then back that way again. There
are no other through roads.
C. Mr. Hasbrouk stated to us that Ted Turner was insisting that he put
steel fencing around the bison pens. Even at Turner's Terry Bison ranch
south of Cheyenne,bison have been known to break through this type of
fencing. Having worked with the slaughtering of bison in northwest
Wyoming, we know that they are very belligerent and aggressive animals.
Having them loose does, of course, make us concerned.
III. Water:
A. The proposed feedlot is bordered on the east by Owl Creek. U.S.
Regulation 81 states that a feedlot may not be located next to a United States
waterway.
B. It is not unknown for Owl Creek to over-run its banks during
heavy rainfall. The refuse from the feedlot would wash into the ditch and on
down to the main Eaton ditch, plus onto surrounding properties.
C. According to adjacent neighbors who have farmed the land, and
• Thornton, the ground consists of very shallow topsoil and "gravel"under
that. This means that the leaching from the feedlot will contaminate the
neighboring wells since this is such porous terrain. Many of the wells in this
area are shallow. Ours is only ten feet down.
IV. Property Devaluation:
Our property has already declined in value because we live in
northern Colorado and because we are in the middle of the Super Slab. A
feedlot with 24,000 bison/beef and a composting facility a half mile away
will also decrease the value of our real estate.
V. Odor:
The stench from a composting facility and a feedlot with 24, 000
bison/beef cattle will be unlivable. On Saturday, August 2, 2008, at our
home, Mr. Hasbrouk said the same about the new dairy he lives next to on
WCR 39. He stated that his feedlot would not be like that since he wouldn't
keep as much water in his lagoons. This statement doesn't make sense-even
his smaller feedlots on Highway 14 give off a strong odor, especially after a
heavy rain.
VI. Private Property Rights:
As mentioned above, two years ago we were notified that we are in
the middle of the Super Slab and that we should sell our property to them.
Now we are being told by Hasbrouk, LLC, that we will have to put up with
their business, including all the above concerns plus the blowing dirt, lights,
noise, and increased traffic, in our valley whether we want them or not.
Their method of going about this has not been commendable. Telling
neighbors that their property values are going to drop so they should sell
now, informing others who have farmed their property for 45 years that
Hasbrouk is going to buy their land without even asking if they want to sell,
and notifying others that they should sell their livestock to Hasbrouk because
they are incompatible with bison have all been included in this plan. We are
puzzled how forcing several neighboring farmers and landowners off their
land can "preserve the agricultural economic base historically attributed to
the area." as stated at the bottom of the third page of their permit application.
In essence, this doesn't seem any different than the intentions and method of
Ray Wells and the Super Slab.
In conclusion, Hasbrouk, LLC, has a history of health violations, of
• doing things "out of order", and of not being "straight-faced" as noted at the
August 4, 2008 Weld County Commissioners Meeting. We are concerned
that this will be a continuing trend in the future, one with which we do not
care to have to deal with consistently. We ask you to deny this application
for a feed lot and we thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
5/1/44ack_1( -bias, A .
Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Killion
21003 WCR 90
Pierce, CO 80650
t ,
Page 1 a
Chris Gathman
IL: Skyband0@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:18 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Opposition to Bison Feedlot
Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners,
I am writing to express my thorough opposition to the bison feedlot proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings L.L.C. near Pierce
Colorado. I have lived and worked in Larimer county for the past ten years, working directly with large and small
animals and the veterinarians, health professionals, infectious disease researchers and farmers and ranchers in the area. I
have developed a strong connection with, and an appreciation for, the agricultural, environmental and natural resources of
northern Colorado and for those reasons I oppose this proposed bison feedlot.
According to the recent article in the Northern Colorado Business Report, this feedlot would will eventually hold 15,000
buffalo on only a 152 acre site, averaging less than 413.82 square feet per animal or less than 23' X 23' feet per animal. Whe
taking into consideration the space needed for outbuildings, parking, and other areas not used for holding animals, the spac
is reduced even further.
Bison are not cattle, do not act like cattle, nor handle like cattle. I have worked with bison previously. Ranching friends in
South Dakota are making efforts to restore herds in areas just outside of Rapid City, and other producers are working with
small family ranches on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to do the same. I have worked around these bison herds to assist
with moving, with vaccination and with feeding and watering. They are still wild animals, not your traditional domesticated
fa animals.
0T e parameters and conditions proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings is questionable even for cattle, let alone for the larger,
more fractious bison. Have we learned nothing from the overcrowded conditions to which we subject our cattle? The
opportunity for the swift spread of deadly--possibly zoonotic--disease can be shoulod be estimated in epidemic proportions
for such overcrowded conditions proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings. Have you considered the waste produced by this operatio
and its effects on the health and quality of life of the human and animal residents of this region? The pollution of ground an
water resources?
I recommend you visit the website for the National Resource Defense Council, which has studied the problems encountered
by a number of livestock operations around the country and published its findings about pollution from livestock farms at:
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution . Including:
• In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions and high nitrate levels in
Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots."
• High levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or"blue-baby syndrome," whict
can kill infants.
• Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform,
which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to
humans through manure.
• In May 2000, 1,300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported and six people died as the result of E. coli contaminating
drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. Health authorities determined that the most likely source was cattle manure
runoff.
• In this country, roughly 24 million pounds of antibiotics -- about 70 percent of the nation's antibiotics use in total --
are added to animal feed every year to speed livestock growth. This widespread use of antibiotics on animals
contributes to the rise of resistant bacteria, making it harder to treat human illnesses.
•• Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-
acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill kille
about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shetlfishing.
EXHIBIT
09/01/2008
Page 2 o:
• From 1995 to 1998, 1,000 spills or pollution incidents occurred at livestock feedlots in 10 states and 200 manure-
related fish kills resulted in the death of 13 minion fish.
Ilpectfully ask you to deny the Hasbrouck Holdings' proposal as well as any future proposals of this nature that threaten
the health and well-being of every human and animal in this region.
Sincerely,
Karen Wheeler BA AAS CVT
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here.
1111
09/01/2008
Page 1 0
Chris Gathman
on: may fu [auspiciousheart@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 9:11 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Fwd: Strong Opposition to Proposed Bison Feedlot in Weld County
Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the appalling proposed bison feedlot in Weld County. I oppose the
feedlot for several important reasons:
- Animal Health & Safety: The proposed feedlot allots each of the 15,000 bison less than 23x23 feet of space in whicl
to live. This level of confinement is cruel, inhumane, and unsanitary.
- Environmental Health & Safety: Such feedlots generate enormous amounts of animal waste that nearby soil and wat
sources cannot sustain. As a result, preventable and fatal diseases proliferate not only among the bison population but
also the plant,animal, fish, and human populations of the surrounding areas.
- Public Health & Safety: The proposed feedlot directly and negatively impacts the health and safety of individuals,
families, and, especially, children, living in Weld County. The feedlot would expose residents and visitors to dangero
and life-threatening bacteria and illnesses.
I ex ect the Planning Committee and Commissioners to have the interests of Weld County residents at the center of
t earts. The quality of life, health, and happiness of Weld County people, animals, plants, and minerals will be
ne ively impacted by the proposed bison feedlot. I urge you to reject this damaging proposal immediately.
Sincerely,
May Fu
Fort Collins, CO 80521
• EXHIBIT
I
09/11/2008
Chris Gathman
From: Sarah Manno [sarahhm@frii.com]
nt: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Chris Gathman
Subject: buffalo feedlot
We need fewer, not more feedlots. They are environmentally damaging and inhumane. Please
hold to the 4 buffalo per acre limit if permitted at all. !
Thank you,
Sarah Manno,
211 Clover
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
•
• EXHIBIT
6I
t
Page 1 of 1
Chris Gathman
•m: Kristina P [kepcsu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: No to Bison Feedlot
Please vote no on the Bison Feedlot Proposal
That will be absolutely disgusting for the buffalo feedlot to have 100 animals per acre, not only for the buffalo, but also for the
consumers and everyone that lives within Weld County.
Please decline this proposal.
Thanks,
Kristina
See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. Check_It Out!
•
• EXHIBIT
lfJ
09/01/2008
Chris Gathman
From: Norm Illsley[illsley@lamar.colostate.edu]
nt: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:49 PM
Chris Gathman
ilubject BISON FEED LOT
Greetings Chris,
Regarding the Hasbrouck feed lot proposal, I have reservations.
My background is agricultural engineering with international development experience in 16
countries. Without knowing more of this proposal my concerns include:
1. Domesticating bison is relatively new. Should it start that large?
2. Turkey farms in Riverside County, CA were kept small for (at least) two reasons: if the
birds panic they will stampede causing extensive injury; and if a disease enters, it will
quickly affect the entire flock. Keep threats small!
3 . Of the needed resources (water, feed, drainage, market access, fuel and energy, etc)
which is least available and will limit size.
4. Is the income from this operation going to primarily benefit Coloradoans who are
putting in the labor, or outside investors?
5. Is such an operation consistent with the socio / economic / cultural qualities we
value in Colorado and America?
I am not a NIMBY and am for progress --- but progress is more than
just financial profit. I trust your judgment!
Respectfully
Norman Illsley,
•
• EXHIBIT
(O)4
1
Chris Gathman
From: Summer Jawson [sdjawson@gmail.com]
ili
nt: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:24 PM
Chris Gathman
ubject: Hasbrouck Holdings LLC - Proposed Feedlot
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I am writing to you today as a concerned member of the Northern Colorado Community. The
bison and cattle feedlot that has been proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings LLC near Pierce,
Colorado has caught my attention. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the original
special review permit documents on your website and am basing this letter on news reports.
However, my concern remains and I am therefore writing to urge Weld County to reject the
Hasbrouck Holdings LLC special review permit and hold them to the current Weld County
Standard of 4 cattle or bison per acre.
As I understand the proposed use of this property would be to hold 15, 000 to 24, 000
bison/cattle on a 152 acre site. Standard engineering design would anticipate that a
minimum of 10% of the area would be used for office, parking and stormwater runoff
facilities. This would leave 137 acres for animal holding areas, equaling 109 - 158
animals/acre, or 27 times the current Weld County Standard. My concern for this project is
twofold.
First, animal wellness cannot be maintained in this tight of a feedlot. The Weld County
Standard of 4 cattle/bison per acer was established for a reason and i strongly believe
that it should be adhered to. Animals forced to be in quarters as tight as the ones
proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings LLC will be highly prone to injury and sickness. I
understand that this is meant as a short term holding facility only. However, i do not
believe that the length of time these animals will be in the facility justifies the gross
disregard for standard practice, hygiene, health and safety.
0cond, •
cwater and air quality in Weld County is a high priority as increased urbanization
and agriculture strain the abilities of our ecosystem to recover. A feedlot of this
magnitude will have a significant environmental impact upon the surrounding ecosystem.
Both surface and groundwater quality will be effected. Any facility to address these
environmental impacts on site will further reduce the area available to the live animals.
Colorado's new energy economy is showcasing the many ways that waste - especially bio wast
as will be generated on this site - can be harnessed and converted to produce alternative
forms of energy and prevent the release of gases into the atmosphere. I believe that it is
our responsibility to look at each new development, no matter how large or small, as an
opportunity to explore the capture of waste for fuel. A feedlot is the perfect example of
how properly treated wast can both minimize the environmental impact and produce clean
energy. Please don't overlook this important component in the review of this project.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns about this project.
Best regards,
Summer D. Dawson, E.I.T.
• EXHIBIT
i
l0 L-
Page 1 0:
Chris Gathman
Om: Christinia [christiniawin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Proposed Buffalo ranch
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I am sending this e-mail as a part of the public response to the proposed bison feedlot planned in Weld County. Born
in South Dakota, I am a registered member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. My family moved to Fort
Collins in 1955 where my father was one of the few minority businessmen having a music store here for just over 50
years.. I have been a resident of Larimer County off and on for the past 45 years. Currently I am a member of the
United Nations Association of Northern Colorado and was just voted Chair of our newly created "Indigenous Concen
Committee".
I grew up hearing stories about the huge bison herds of the plains. They were, and continue to be, our brothers. Our
creation stories tell of how we lived in Wind Cave in the Black Wills of South Dakota, and when it was time for us tc
come to the earths surface, it was the Buffalo Nation who led us up, and taught us how to live in harmony with the
earth and all of her children. They taught us through observation how to never take more from the earth than we
needed for our survival. We saw that when they ate the grasses, they never jerked the roots out of the ground. At tha
time, they were free to travel and to go to where the grasses could sustain them. We followed them, and so we becarr
nomadic along with our brothers. When they would return to the plains, there was always a new abundance of grasse
w ng for them.
In t e world of today, there is no such respect for the life and dignity of the four-leggeds. The last wild herd of Buffa
in Yellowstone are constantly subjected to slaughter....and now they want to corral others and make them live like the
many cattle ranches I have seen in my life. No, I say to this proposed plan. I ask the planning commission to see the
wrongness of this and not allow it to happen. For once, I am able to give voice to what may or may not happen to my
brothers and I thank you for the opportunity.
Be well, stay strong, and walk ever in balance. *\Christinia Eala
• EXHIBIT
1 62M
09/01/2008
Page 1 of
Chris Gathman
Om: David Bartecchi [dbartecchi@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:50 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Comments Regarding Bison Feedlot Proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings L.L.C.
Dear Mr. Gatham,
Below are my comments regarding the feedlot proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings. Please confirm that you received thi
and that it will be presented to the Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Bartecchi
206 Remington #4
Fort Collins, Co 80521
dbartecch@gmait.com
08/13/08
Dear Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners,
I ("writing to express my opposition to the bison feedlot proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings L.L.C. near
Pierce Colorado. Originally from Pueblo, Colorado, I have lived and worked in Larimer county for the pa:
fifteen years and have developed a great appreciation for the quality of life, strong agricultural traditioi
kindheartedness and compassion of the people of this region. It is in the defense of these qualities that
oppose this feedlot.
According to the recent article in the Northern Colorado Business Report, this feedlot would will
eventually hold 15,000 buffalo on only a 152 acre site. That is less than 413.82 square feet per animal of
less than 23' X 23' feet per animal, it is even less when you consider the space that will be needed for
outbuildings, parking, and other areas not used for holding animals. As a person who has worked with
bison for the past five years, helping small family producers restore herds to the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation in South Dakota, I have learned a lot about the bison, their advantages for human health, ar
their unique suitability to this region. As such, I am a great promoter of the expansion of the bison
industry. However, unlike cattle, who have been bred for centuries by humans to be docile and used to
handling, bison are still very much wild animals. While the the ethics of subjecting cattle to the
conditions proposed by Hasbrouck Holdings is questionable, it is even more questionable for bison.
Another issue that your commission and board should consider is the waste produced by this operation a
its affects on the health and quality of life of the residents of this region. There is growing concern in th
country, backed by sound research, surrounding the pollution of ground and surface water from the
seepage and runoff from feedlots of this magnitude. While there is a large body of independent academ
re arch on the subject, The Natural Resource Defense council recently summarized a list of facts about
petion from livestock farms on their website at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp.
Below are just a few items taken from their report that should raise concern among your council and the
EXHIBIT
09/01/2008 "'N
l Page 2 of
residents in this region:
California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitrate pollution in more than 100,000
square miles of polluted groundwater.
• In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions and high nitrate levels in
Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots."
• High levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or "blue-baby syndrome," which
can kill infants.
• Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform,
which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to
humans through manure.
• In May 2000, 1,300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported and six people died as the result of E. coli contaminating
drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. Health authorities determined that the most likely source was cattle manure
runoff.
• In this country, roughly 24 million pounds of antibiotics -- about 70 percent of the nation's antibiotics use in total -- an
added to animal feed every year to speed livestock growth. This widespread use of antibiotics on animals contributes t
the rise of resistant bacteria, making it harder to treat human illnesses.
• Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-acre
hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spilt killed aboi
10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.
• From 1995 to 1998, 1,000 spills or pollution incidents occurred at livestock feedlots in 10 states and 200 manure-relate
fish kilts resulted in the death of 13 million fish.
This feedlot presents a larger dilemma we face as a society when it comes to our food system and the
direction that the citizens and agricultural industry of Northern Colorado want to go. On the one hand w
have a system dominated by a few large actors who dictate local and global food policy. A system that
heft millions of family farms indebted and struggling to maintain both our national food security and
vs/Wof life for their children. A system that seeks to maximize profits at any cost whether it be the
careless introduction of antibiotics and growth hormones into our food and water or feeding school
children meat from animals too sick to stand under their own weight.
Ironically, bison has emerged at the crux of this debate. In many ways, they, along with Northern
Colorado could come to symbolize a new turn in the food system of the West. A healthy, more localized
food system that brings the focus back onto the family farm and the rich tradition of farming communiti
in the American West. For these reasons I ask you to deny the Hasbrouck Holdings' proposal and any futu
proposals of this nature.
Sincerely,
David Bartecchi
•
09/01/2008
Page 1 01
Chris Gathman
on: Jessica Sterner[j-sterner@peacemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:56 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Hasbrouck Holdings Bison feedlot in Weld County
[)car Mr. Chris Gathman,
I am writing to you in regards to the Hasbrouck Holdings bison feedlot that is under consideration in Weld County. I
am concerned that the proposal is allowing too many bison on too little space posing a threat to the buffalo, which like
all beings arc sacred, and this concentred proposed operation is also unhealthy tier area residents and consumers of tht
product. I think it is clear that we are moving into an era where we can conciously put people, life, and intelligence
above profits.
I appreciate your efforts in collecting public comments. Thanks for all your service.
Respectfully,
Jessica Sterner
The Northern Colorado Business Report(http:_!w‘.ti'w.nebr.c om_artic:_le_aseid=94975 )recently reported on a huge
bison feedlot being planned near Pierce Colorado in Weld County. This proposed feedlot will eventually hold 15,000
buffalo on only a 152 acre site. That's less than 413.82 square feet per animal or less than 23' X 23' feet per animal
( � less when you consider the space that will he needed for outbuildings, parking, etc.). This proposal was
Isu miffed by a company called "Hasbrouck Holdings" which proposes to purchase buffalo from the area and be fed
corn, alfalfa and grass hay tar 90 days prior to slaughter.
hup:_,toolhar.C'are2 com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).
http.://www.Care2.eom Green Living, Human Rights and more - 8 million members!
EXHIBIT
• C, O
____________-----
09/11/2008
Page 1 01
Chris Gathman
•m: Gotshall,Barbara [Barbara.Gotshall@ColoState.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Bison Feedlot
Dear Mr. Gathman
I am writing regarding the proposed buffalo feedlot in Pierce, Colorado. I hope that the Weld County Planning Commission will n
approve such a feedlot. The feedlot would be in violation of Weld County zoning which allows a maximum of four cattle/bison pe
acre to be kept in a feedlot without a special permit. The Hasbrouck Holding's proposal calls for 100 animals per acre. This feed)
would be inhumane to the animals—the feedlot would eventually hold 15,000 buffalo on only 152 acres which is less than 23' x
23' per animal. This kind of factory farming of animals is brutal. It will also have a negative impact on the surrounding environmt
and the people who live in the area. It is an extreme way to produce inferior meat.
Thank you.
Barbara Gotshall
Fort Collins
•
•
EXHIBIT
I CO?
09/01/2008
Chris Gathman
From: Norm Illsley[illsley@lamar.colostate.edu]
ent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:32 AM
o: Chris Gathman
Subject: Bison feedlot
Questions to consider (which you probably already are considering! ) 1. Who is behind
"Hasbrouck Holdings"? Should "foreign to Weld County and Colorado" interests be given
priority on scarce local resources (water for one) over local farmers who are struggling
to survive?
2. Which is better for our overall community? One 150 acre, 15, 000 head feedlot or 150 ten
acre locally owned and operated diversified ranches including ten bison? Disease,
pollution, locally grown or trucked in feed, local or foreign labor, humane treatment of
livestock! ! ! just for starters.
3 . What effect will this have on the present bison producers such as the North Dakota
native American who are trying to develop this as part of their economic base?
As an elderly agricultural engineer with lots of field experience I'm initially leary of
this one! Don't let the almighty dollar be your only guide.
Thanks,
Norm Illsley
Ft Collins
•
• EXHIBIT
t 6G
Chris Gathman
From: M [msajbel@gmail.com]
en!: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:48 PM
o: Chris Gathman
Subject: Public Comment on Hasbrouck Holdings Bison Feedlot Proposal
Dear Chris,
I was referred to address my concerns to you regarding an application I have been made
aware of that was submitted to the Weld County Planning Commission by Hasbrouck Holdings
to place a Bison Feedlot on far too little land for the number of bison this proposal is
said to "support" .
I urge the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to carefully consider the
ramifications of accepting such a proposal, not the least of which is gross violation of
Weld County's own zoning policy of four bison per square acre of land. Bison are nomadic
animals; to contain 98+ bison on one square acre of land is horrifying, disgusting, and
inhumane. Additionally, the ecological destruction caused by the food industry and the
incredible waste of resources typical of factory-farmed food production is staggering.
Please do not accept this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
Miriam Sajbel
•
•
EXHIBIT
1 Cp�
Chris Gathman
From: Sabine Kruger[sabinekru@yahoo.com]
any Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:41 PM
o: Chris Gathman
Subject: bison feedlot
Dear Mr./Mrs. Gathman,
Please uphold the existing Weld county feedlot zoning requirements as they are. the
proposal by Hasbrouck Holding's is greedy, crual and unreasonable.
Thank you,
Sabine
•
•
EXHIBIT
1 1 ( 5
Page 1 01
Chris Gathman
.m: Suzanne Brown [suzanneb@frii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:38 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Bison
I think no exception to the planning and zoning rules should be allowed in this case. Conditions must be humane. This plan does
not sound humane.
Thank you,
Suzanne Brown
•
•
EXHIBIT
I COT-
09/01/2008
Traffic Study Results
• 90/43-45
Date of study: 8/25/2008 to 8/27/2008
Type of study: Classification of paved road
Length of study: 48 hrs
Reason for study: Truck%,AADT & Speed
Requested by: Don Dunker
Classification counter was placed in the requested location on CR 90
between CR 43 and CR 45.
AADT: =251
Truck percentage: = 35%
85th percentile: = 69 mph
• Speed limit: 55 MPH
• EXHIBIT
3.8 CATEGORY R-A- Regional Highway
• Functional Characteristics and Category Assignment Criteria
(1) This category is appropriate for use on highways that have the capacity for medium to
high speeds and relatively medium to high traffic volumes over medium and long distances in
an efficient and safe manner. They provide for interregional, intra-regional, and intercity
travel needs. Direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to
through traffic movements. This category is normally assigned to National Highway System
routes, significant regional routes in rural areas, and other routes of regional or state
significance.
Access Granting Criteria Including Category Related Access Location, Operation and Design
Criteria
(2)When application is made, one access shall be granted per parcel of land if reasonable
access cannot be obtained from the local street or road system. Reasonable local access will
be determined in consultation with the appropriate local authority. A determination of
reasonable access from a local street or road should include consideration of the Local
Street or road function, purpose, capacity, operational and safety conditions and
opportunities to improve the local street or road. Direct access to the highway should not be
denied if the alternative local access would create a significant operational or safety problem
at the alternative location and the direct access to the state highway would not be a
significant problem to the highway.
(3) (a)The standard for the spacing of all intersecting public ways and other accesses that
will be full movement, or are or may become signalized, is one-half mile intervals, and based
upon section lines where feasible. Exceptions to this one-half mile standard shall not be
permitted unless the proposal documents that there are no other reasonable alternatives to
achieve a one-half mile interval, there is a documented necessity for the intersection at the
proposed location, and a signal study acceptable to the Department is completed in
• accordance with section 2.3(5).
(b)Where it is not feasible to meet one-half mile spacing and where signal progression
analysis indicates good progression (35 percent efficiency or better), or does not degrade the
existing signal progression, a full movement may be allowed. Spacing to nearby intersections
shall be sufficient to accommodate the 20th year left turn vehicle storage queue for both
turning movements. The access location must also meet other Code access spacing, design
and need requirements. If 20th year
projections for the access indicate that the access volumes would be less than 75 percent of
those required for M.U.T.C.D. traffic signal volume warrants, or if there are less than two
nearby(within one mile either direction) accesses that are or could be signalized, the
intersection location does not need to be on one-half mile spacing, nor does it need to meet
progression analysis criteria.
(c)Where topography or other existing conditions make one-half mile intervals inappropriate
or not feasible, location of the access shall be determined with consideration given to
topography, established property ownerships, unique physical limitations and or unavoidable
or pre-existing historical land use patterns and physical design constraints with every attempt
to achieve a spacing of one-half mile. The final location should serve as many properties and
interests as possible to reduce the need for additional direct access to the state highway. In
selecting locations for full movement intersections, preference shall be given to public ways
that meet or may be reasonably expected to meet signal warrants in the foreseeable future.
(4) If a restrictive median exists, left turns at unsignalized intersections should be restricted,
unless the restriction of these movements would cause a safety or operations problem, or
cause an out-of direction movement of greater than one mile. If a traversable median exists,
left turns will be permitted unless an operational or safety problem is identified.
Auxiliary Lane Requirements
(5)Auxiliary turn lanes shall be installed according to the criteria below.
•
EXHIBIT
(c)\/
.
• (a)A left turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any access with
a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 10 vph. The taper length will
be included within the required deceleration length.
(b)A right turn deceleration lane and taper length is required for any access with a projected
peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 25 vph. The taper length will be included
within the required deceleration length.
(c)A right turn acceleration lane and taper length is required for any access with a projected
peak hour right turning volume greater than 50 vph when the posted speed on the highway is
greater than 40 mph. The taper length will be included within the required acceleration
length. A right turn acceleration lane may also be required at a signalized intersection if a
free-right turn is needed to maintain an appropriate level of service in the intersection.
(d) Right turn deceleration and acceleration lanes are generally not required on roadways
with three or more travel lanes in the direction of the right turn except as provided in
subsection 3.5.
(e)A left turn acceleration lane may be required if it would be a benefit to the safety and
operation of the roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. A left turn acceleration lane is
generally not required where; the posted speed is less than 45 mph, or the intersection is
signalized, or the acceleration lane would interfere with the left turn ingress movements to
any other access.
(6) No additional access rights shall accrue upon the splitting or dividing of existing parcels of
land or contiguous parcels under or previously under the same ownership or controlling
interest. All access to newly created properties shall be provided internally from any existing
access or a new access determined by Code design standards or by permit application and
consistent with this subsection.
(7)When an existing access meets the warrants for a traffic signal as defined in the
M.U.T.C.D., and the location does not meet the requirements of subsection 3.8(3), the
• access shall be reconstructed to eliminate or reduce the traffic movements that cause the
traffic signal warrant to be met, and the access brought into conformance with appropriate
design criteria. A raised median may be required. Closure may be required if alternative
reasonable access is available.
(8)With the exception of frontage roads, any new rural highway location or newly designated
state highway shall be considered no less than an access category R-A highway until the
Commission has specifically assigned an access category.
(9)Where frontage and service roads are present, unless otherwise specifically categorized,
a category R-A shall be assumed for all at-grade rural roadway sections within Department
right-of-way between frontage and service roads and the main roadway.
•
08/29/2008 09:26 19702212077 AGRI ENTERPRISES INC PAGE 01
• This letter I am sending to you is in regards to the upcoming Weld County meeting on the
Buffalo feedlot and compost site.I am the direct neighboring farm to the proposed site
and I am in full support of the plan from Double J feeders.My farm is directly South of
the site along Cr 90.
Don Bensen—Owner
970-215-5550.
CAS G-99 - /64 /
3o�— Gy5�
•
• EXHIBIT
Weld County Planning Commission
918 10th Street
•
Greeley, Co
We liveat 21678 Co Rd 92, which that section of Co Rd 92 only runs
from Co Rd 43 up to our house which is .6 mile so no thru traffic. It is
quietand peaceful with only the antelope, deer,coyotes and occasional
rattlesnke to share it with (other than during hunting season) . We have
been here since 1960 so we're the old timers and our quality of life has
been to die for.
The value of our property and that of our neighbors will decrease
drastically with the proposed buffalo/cattle feedlot and the proposed compost
facility. We, being us and our neighbors, were here first but Hasbrouck
Holdings' attitude is they will buy us out.
Their plan for dust control for the proposed feedlot is to use the
3 irrigation wells on the proposed compost property year around rather than
seasonal which they have only been used for previously. The water level
has dropped drastically already which affects our house, our irrigation
well and the flow of Owl Creek.
• Earlier this summer?they burned the trees on the north and west sides
of the gravel pit pond affecting birds and wildlife activity on the pond.
People use to drive out, park and bird watch.
We have had 5 instances this summer where the electric fence between us
appeared to be intentionall°irshorted out. After comtacting Jay Hasbrouck,
there have been no more instances at this time. This is a border fence
and half of it is his responsibility.
There is a manure compost pile on the north end of the proposed
property and across the fence from us that was hauled in from someplace
else, not their property.
There should be a law passed to the effect that anyone putting in a
feedlot should have to live at the feedlot themselves.
We do not want the sights and sounds of 18 wheelers disturbing our
peace and quiet!
Respectfully,
• Jack and Teddy Reeman
EXHIBIT
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commissioners DATE: September 2, 2008
Chris Gathman, Planning Services
FROM: Don Dunker, P.E., Public Works
SUBJECT: USR-1661, Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC (Feedlot)
Please have the following conditions added to the 1. Prior to recording the plat: A.
9) The offsite drainage shall be addressed as to quantity and manner (swale sizing and erosion stability) it will
be routed through the site or around the site and address any impacts to adjacent properties and roadways.
10) All Engineering calculations and drawings submitted to Public Works shall be stamped and signed by a
registered Engineer able to practice within the State of Colorado.
Please then renumber the remainder of the section.
•
c: USR--D 6D61
:\
PLANNING EVELOPMENT REVIEV USR-Use by Special Review\USR-1661 HashBrouck Holding LLC Feedlot\Plannin Commissioner memo
USR-1661.DOC
EXHIBIT
y
• August 31, 2008
To The Planning Commission,
This letter is in regards to the proposed buffalo feedlot in Ault. My husband and I
received notice because our property is within 500 feet of the property on which the
feedlot would be located. We have some concerns regarding the feedlot.
The first has to do with my health. I have asthma. In the Land Use Application
Summary Sheet submitted by Hasbrouck Holdings regarding this matter, it states that the
impact to surrounding properties is minimal. The feedlot has a high probability of having
a very big impact on my health. Between the dust from the feedlot and the ammonia
from the wastewater pond, we are highly concerned that this will severely impact my
ability to breathe. The pond will be located within 250 feet from our bedroom window.
This measurement takes into account the 40-foot right of way and the minimum 50 feet
requirement from the edge of the road right of way.
Also in regards to this pond, we are concerned about their ability to contain the
contents in the event of a heavy rain. During the last rainstorm, there was standing water
in that corner for about a week after the storms ended. If the pond would overflow its
banks, it would end up in our living room. Aside from this personal concern, it would
also flow into the nearby Creek and affect the state water source.
We are also concerned about our property value and our ability to sell the
property in the event that my health deteriorates as a result of the feedlot. I think I can
assume that no one on the planning commission would want to live that close to a
• wastewater pond and think it will be difficult to find anyone who likes that idea.
Our final concern has to do with our sheep. There is a disease called Malignant
Catarrhal Fever, which can seriously impact buffalo and is carried by sheep. Mr.
Hasbrouck is aware of this and offered to buy our sheep, which we are not interested in
selling. Our concern is that if there is an outbreak, he will attempt to hold us liable.
Please see attached information taken from the Washington State University website.
Thank you for your time.
Sin•erely,
Larry and Karen King
• EXHIBIT
`L
--T-MecT,7
-AA'--d T w�o�JS G"� �ra�'tn
s
• http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/mcf/index.htm
WELCOME TO THE MALIGNANT CATARRHAL FEVER WEB SITE AT
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
What is Malignant Catarrhal Fever?
Malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) is a generally fatal disease of cattle, bison, true
buffalo species, and deer. It is caused by viruses belonging to the Herpesvirus
family. MCF occurs worldwide and is a serious problem, particularly for bison in
the United States and Canada. MCF in bison is caused by a virus called ovine
herpesvirus-2 (OvHV-2).
MCF is recently emerging as a serious problem for bison breeding and feeding
operations in the U.S.( =-,- _). Bison producers have been put out of business
by MCF after their neighbors moved a sheep flock onto near-by premises. A
• 2003 outbreak in a bison feedlot in Idaho has resulted in over 800 head lost, with
losses in the vicinity of a million dollars (Crawford, et al., U.S. Animal Health
Association Proceedings, in preparation).
The source of virus for transmission is nasal and perhaps ocular secretions in
both sheep and wildebeest ( - - ). Field observations indicate that the
virus is transmitted most efficiently by intimate contact, but that remote
transmission, presumably by shared water sources, mechanical vectors and
other ill-defined routes is not infrequent. Transmission over considerable
distances—up to a couple miles, has been observed.
Does MCF occur in people?
No.
• EXHIBIT
(�5
Hello