The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20050106 AGPROfessionals, LLC LANDPROfessionals, LLC 4350 Highway 66, Longmont, CO 80504 „ Office: (970) 535-9318 Fax.' (970)535-9854 December 7,2004 Department of Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley,CO 80631 Subject: COA for AMUSR-1441 Dear Ms. Lockman: This letter addresses the concerns of Greeley as outlined in their letter dated November 15, 2004. It is important to remember that the washout facility is already approved and the amendment will not change the number of trailers to be washed or the already approved waste management system. The following list is our response to Greeley's concerns. 1. State regulation that will be addressed through State Health Department if needed. 2. Done. 3. Already have an approved waste management system. 4. Done. 5. Facility is not adjacent to Greeley city limits. Sewer is approximately 1 '/2 miles west. 6. Weld County Public Works responsibility to address. We are already meeting County requirements. We do understand the concerns of Greeley and would be willing to sit down and explain the waste handling system to them to appease their concerns. Sin rely, L ren Light Ili ghtAagpros.corn AGPROfessionals, LLC LANDPROfessionals, LLC -5a 7 1 z � 2005-0106 v`^iii t A 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359854 AGPROS PAGE 02/07 Management Plan for Nuisance Control L.W. Miller Truck Terminal and Washout Greeley, Colorado Developed in accordance with. Generally.Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By . . A ' " 'i' VE Pi CT x'ucx z. r Et'"$" zs try 1 t F AGPROfessionab, LLC 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 (970) 535-9318 December 2004 EXHIBIT 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359854 AGPROS PAGE 03/07 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods LW. Miller Truck Terminal and Washout will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in facilities that handle animal manure.This supplement outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or Colorado Regulation. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into surrounding areas and local communities. L.W.Miller Truck Terminal and Washout will use these management and control practices to their best and practical extent. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons. Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Name: L.W. Miller Address: 5100 West Washington Boulevard, Ogden,Utah 84405 • Phone: (435) 753-8350 The individual(s)at this facility who.is(are)responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below. Larry Miller Owner (Name) . (Title) •(Name) Manager (Title) • AGPROfessionals, LLC 2 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359654 AGPROS PAGE 04/07 • Nuisance Control ' This Management,Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods kW. Miller Trucking Terminal will use to minimize the potential for the nuisance conditions of dust, odor and flies. This plan outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will use these management and control practices, to their best and practical extent. The three main potential nuisance conditions at the site are dust,odor and flies. Air quality and fly populations at and around facilities that handle animal manures are affected primarily from the relationship of soiUmanure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns are dust and odor. However,the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently.compatible. Wet surfaces and manure can produce odor. Dry surfaces and manure can be dusty.. The manager or operator shall closely observe conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control. Odor control from wastewater impoundments is managed by four considerations: 1, Design of the containment 2, Loading or amount of manure in the wastewater 3. The amount of wastewater in the impoundment and time of containment 4. Land application or dewatering activities Design of the containment system is an important factor in odor management. The area of exposed surface and the depth of the containment can partially determine the area of potential odor production and the type of odor production. The ratios of volume, depth, surface area and loading are designed to minimize odor production . The loading or amount of manure in the wastewater is important in odor control of wastewater impoundments. A substantial manure screening process is designed to reduce the amount of loading that enters the containment. Additionally,the design and plan of the facility allows for mixing of fresh irrigation water to the wastewater to reduce the loading volume. The amount of wastewater in the impoundment and time of containment are factors in odor management. As the volume increases, the potential for odor may increase depending on the season; Water that is held stagnant for extended periods may also produce odors. The L.W. Killer Trucking Terminal plans to land apply the water as soon as possible to keep the volume and detention time to a minimum. Periods where land application would not be possible are when the ground is frozen or saturated,and during harvest in the fall. • AGPROfes ronals.LLC 3 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359854 AGPROS PAGE 05/07 Land application and dewatering activities are a main concern for odor production and are managed with timing,dilution with irrigation water,duration of application and • method of application. Due to heating and cooling of the earth and associated convection, typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will consider weather conditions and prevailing wing direction to minimize odors from land application of stormwater. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. Land application will be with a mixture of wastewater and litigation water, when available, and will be applied by low pressure sprinkler systems: Other Management Methods The best management systems for dust, odor and fly control involve moisture management. Dust control will be accomplished by wetting down the access roads and facility roads as necessary to minimize fugitive dust at the site and migrating fugitive dust off-site. Intensive management of the surface by routine cleaning,scraping or wading of the surface usually controls dust from surfaces. The purpose of intensive surface management is to mix dry and moist surfaces to reduce dust and odor and eliminate fly habitat. Odor control will be achieved by routinely removing sources of odor from the site such as manure solids stockpiles and reducing areas of standing water. Management methods L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal shall use to control dust,odor and flies are: Odor • Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms. Also, raw wet feedstocks left exposed also may produce odor as a result of microbial degradation. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant,the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around agricultural operations. In the event,off-site odors are detected, operations will be evaluated and more frequent removal as outlined below and/or covering of temporary stockpiles with bulking agent such as straw or sawdust will ocrrr. Should these procedure prove inadequate, bio-f hers or other masking materials will be utilized to mitigate the odor migration problem. Regular manure stockpile removal L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will remove solid manure stockpiles accumulated from the facility on a frequency and basis that minimizes'nuisance potential from odor, dust and flies but no less that once per month. Use of the facility; site conditions,weather conditions such as temperature, humidity and wind, and seasons all affect the potential for nuisance conditions. It is expected that manure removal frequency will increase • • 4GPROfessiarals, LTC 4 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359854 AGPROS PAGE 06/07 during warm summer months and wanner periods throughout the year. Under warm conditions,the frequency may require weekly or daily removal as necessary. Sprinkling Should nuisance dust conditions arise, sprinkling may be used for moisture control on ' surfaces and internal roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. Establish good surface drainage Dry materials are less odorous than wet materials.' The facility will conduct routine cleaning, grading and harrowing to reduce standing water and minimize wet material. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper. surface maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the facility to reduce standing water. Additionally, standing water is fly breeding habitat and reducing standing water will reduce the fly population. The.wastewater ponds will be mixed with irrigation water and reduced to the minimum operating level via land application except during periods when the land application area is frozen or saturated. Land application timing. Due to heating and cooling of the earth and associated convection, typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will consider weather conditions and prevailing wing direction to minimize odors from land application of stormwater. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. F1@9 Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1)have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices LW__Miller Trucking Terminal will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat, and then reduce the available food supply. On-Site: The presence of flies will be minimized by frequently removing manure as necessary to avoid anaerobic conditions which tends to produce pockets of decayed wastes which, in turn, attracts flies. Additionally,the fly population will be controlled through the use of spray/mist equipment using EPA approved chemicals to treat the surface areas of the site where flies are observed to congregate. Off-Site: If flies are observed to be originating at the subject site and move offsite;fly bait traps will be placed along the perimeter of the site to minimize off-site migration. • AGPROfecsionals, LLC 5 01/10/2005 11:41 9705359854 AGPROS PAGE 07/07 • The facility may also use parasitic wasps that prey on fly larvae. These parasitic wasps are harmless to humans and have proven effective on feedlot and dairy facilities. The facility will control.flies by applying one or more of the following practices as needed: • Regular manure stockpile removal • The management and frequencies outlined in this operations plan removes both food sources and habitat Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground,for insects Minimize fly habitat Standing water,weeds and grass, manure, and raw feedstock,stockpiles,etc:, are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. Manage weeds and grass • Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. Grass and weeds will be kept at or below approximately 18 inches. • Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to a minimum. Biological treatments parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay • their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. Baits and chemical treatments • Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of defense for insect control. However,they are very effective. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. • AGPROfessionals,LW 6 A i :\ e +42 \ \»»a . ee < • a�a m22 » ? I \2 \/ .44 - §> « y _s.{@a ) ci - \ \ Odor and Vehicle Emissions Air Quality Survey 2004 a. � . r\. % e , Table of Contents Background 5 Method Significant Findings 5 Offensive Odors in the Air 6 Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing 7 Demographic Profile of Respondent Sample 20 Tests of Between Subjects Effects-Cross-Tabs and Chi-Square 24 28 Emissions- Gender Age-Emissions 28 Smoking-Emissions 30 Sensitivity to Odor-Emissions 33 Income-Emissions 36 Where They(or Friends/Relatives) Work-Emissions 39 42 Length Of Time In The Community-Emissions 47 Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community-Emissions 50 Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From-Emissions Odor- Gender 53 Age-Odor 57 Smoking-Odor 60 Sensitivity to Odor-Odor 64 Income-Odor 67 Where They(or Friends/Relatives) Work-Odor 71 Length of Time in the Community-Odor 74 Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community-Odor 80 Area Respondent is "From"-Odor 84 Comments 87 Conclusions 93 103 Asmus 5 City of Greeley Odor and Vehicle Emissions Air Quality Survey, 2004 Background The survey was first administered in 1997 as a post-evaluative assessment of the odor ordinance implemented in April of 1996 by a committee formed for the specific purpose of coming up with a solution that would attempt to mitigate the negative chronic and offensive odors produced by the area's industries. Specifically, the ordinance stated that an odor violation would occur if within a six-hour period, ten telephone calls were received and confirmed within the city limits and could be pinpointed to a single source; or, a measurement of the odorous air was found to exceed a dilution factor of 7:1 (clean air to odorous). A phone line, called the "Odor Hotline," was designated to receive citizen complaints. The complaints were to be responded to and the odor investigated by trained odor detectors within two hours of the call. In mid-April of 1997, the Air Quality and Natural Resources Commission, a five-member citizen's board, reviewed the first year's report of the citizen's use of the odor hotline. The summary showed 61 calls, 22 confirmed, and no violations for the whole first year. After a year of implementation, the odor ordinance and hotline had failed to provide the committee with the necessary information to make any type of recommendation or direction for a plan to manage or mitigate the odors. A social survey was proposed and developed to determine who is annoyed by the odor, ^ how annoyed are they, how does odor rank as a serious issue in Greeley, what are some of the effects of the odor on citizens and quality of life, what do citizens think should or will be done about the odor, and what are the reasons for the apathy (low number of complaints) toward the use of the odor hotline. The number of respondents surveyed, by telephone, was roughly 1% of the population at that time: 719. The data was reported and presented to the City of Greeley. In 2004, seven years after the first survey, the odor ordinance has been slightly altered. The ordinance now states that an odor must not exceed the 7:1 dilution rate or three or more calls in a six hour time period located to a single source. Development of the current survey instrument (2004) was initiated after a discussion with Karen Scopel,Natural Resources Planner for the City of Greeley. Based on these discussions, and consultation with the Air Quality and Natural Resources Board, additional items were added to the survey to understand the citizen's attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in regard to the motor vehicle emissions testing program. Federal air quality standards for carbon monoxide pollution have been met in Greeley and the State is considering discontinuing the existing vehicle emissions testing program. However, in the preceding summer, a rise in the level of ozone pollution near violation of the Federal standards was observed and recorded in Greeley. This rise alerted the City planners to the possibility the pollution from vehicles may still be necessary to control through some program. Therefore, vehicle emissions were an important issue to gain understanding of what the current citizen behavior, attitudes and beliefs were. Method The 2004 Greeley Odor and Vehicle Emissions Air Quality Surveys were conducted in January, February and March of 2004. Telephone surveyors completed 804 surveys of Greeley residents. Using a phone book, surveyors randomly choose every third number and called. The 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 6 response rate, "yes, I will survey" compared to "no, I will not complete the survey" was 46% agreeing to survey. Nineteen Spanish-speaking respondents were surveyed. Data was recorded on data entry disks so no transposition of numbers could occur. Data was analyzed using reliability, frequencies, cross-tabulation, and analysis of variance(ANOVA) where appropriate. Significant Findings Odor • Odor in the air, as an issue in Greeley, has dropped from the second most serious issue in 1997 to one of the least important issues in Greeley. Water conservation was rated the most serious issue for Greeley residents in 2004. • Over 10 percent of the respondents stated that the odor affects them either physically (11%) or emotionally(12%). This is still quite high but less than 1997 were it was 16 percent. • Annoyance from odor in the air decreased from 60 percent in 1997 to 44 percent in 2004. • Under-employment, not unemployment, was mentioned over and over again as a problem in Greeley. • The belief that the odor in the air annoyed the adult guests of the respondents was more than twice as important to the respondents as any other negative outcome due to the odor in the air. This supports findings from the 1997 survey that the perception others hold of the home of respondents (Greeley) is very important to the residents. Perhaps a social norming marketing campaign of the improved perceptions and pro-active City behavior around the air quality and other positive aspects of the City of Greeley may improve other community's perception of Greeley. • Those who reported the odor annoyed their adult guests were significantly more likely to be annoyed by the odor in their neighborhood; but not in Greeley as compared to those who did not report the odor annoyed their adult guests. They were also more likely to report emotional reactions to the odor(frustration, anger, depression) but not physical reactions (loss of energy, sleep or appetite). We found that those who reported yes to the odor annoying their adult guests were also more likely to use the odor hotline and to think the hotline was a good idea. This finding can be summarized by stating that self-concept (how we appear to ourselves and others) is a very important factor. Even the comments talk about "drawing negative attention to Greeley' by simply having an odor ordinance. Reactions to the odor ranged from denial and acceptance to actively working with the programs provided by the City(the hotline). • Even though residents mostly believed that nothing will be done about the odorous air in Greeley, most believe something can and should be done. This shows that citizens have not increased their expectations of mitigating the odor problem, even seven years after the implementation of the odor ordinance. • Comparing whether the odor has gotten worse,better, same or different found that most of the respondents believe the odor has changed for the better, while in 1997, most stated the odor had gotten worse. • In 1997, knowledge of the existence of the odor ordinance and use of the odor hotline was higher than it is in 2004. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 7 • Again, as in 1997, odor in the air in Greeley was found to be more unacceptable than in the respondent's neighborhood, even when in 93% of the cases, the respondent's neighborhood is in Greeley. • Odor appears to be more annoying if one lives west of 23rd Avenue and north of 16th Street. Emissions Testing Program • Most respondents believe that the motor vehicle emissions testing program is important to air quality in Greeley and that the community should do as much as they can to not only maintain the air quality, but they should do enough to improve it. • Most of the respondents claimed that their normal behavior is to maintain and repair their own vehicles with or without an emissions program. Yet, they claim that others need to have more than incentive programs or educational programs to maintain the air quality in the community. This more than likely means that their stated normal behavior is inflated toward the positive. Next survey, recommend asking what the respondent believes their neighbor does in regard to maintaining and repairing their vehicle to comply with emissions standards. • The interviewers "sense" was that there is very little knowledge of the importance of ozone levels in the air. This may be an important education/information campaign to undertake. • Almost half of the respondents would support a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program, even at a small fee. This may also support our earlier belief that the respondent states they keep their vehicles up but others don't unless forced to do so. Demographics • This survey, 2004, had a more representative sampling of age groups than did the 1997 survey. • The mean household income has gone up over $5,000 per year from 1997 to 2004. Offensive Odors in the Air The first question asked citizens to rate the seriousness of common issues faced by communities "in their neighborhoods." Results can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 1. Table 1. Percent of Participants Rating the Seriousness of Community Issues in Their Neighborhood. Very Somewhat Not Don't Serious Serious Serious Know Lack of Recreation areas/programs 11.2 27.9 52.3 8.7 Unemployment 40 22.1 19.7 18.2 Offensive odors in the air 15.7 27.1 55.6 1.5 Ethnic Issues 24.2 27.6 40.8 7.4 Juvenile Delinquency 39.8 29.7 22.4 8.1 Traffic Congestion and Lack of 33.8 30.5 35.1 0.6 Parking Air Pollution 10.2 24.3 60.2 5.3 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 8 West Nile Virus 29.1 34.6 29.4 6.9 Curbside Recycling 16.6 23.9 47.1 12.3 Lawn and Garden Recycling 10.2 28.7 47.8 13.4 Violent Crimes 26.4 24.6 45.2 3.8 Burglary/Theft Crimes 32.2 30.6 33.7 3.5 Housing (affordability, lack of, etc.) 32.5 25.1 36.9 5.5 Growth Issues (losing green spaces, 35.3 32.8 29.4 2.5 etc.) Wildlife Habitat 21.2 30.1 42.0 6.7 Water Conservation 56.0 29.9 13.1 1.0 Figure 1. Percent of Respondents Choosing "Serious" or "Very Serious" for Community Issues in Greeley 100 90 co 80 a 70 -� 50 b. v 30 gua + .-j 20 10 O Lack of Recreation Areas/Programs ■ Unemployment 7 ❑ Offensive Odors in the Air 0 Ethnic Issues ■ Juvenile Delinquency ■ Traffic Congestion/Lack of Parking ■ Air Pollution al West Nile Virus ■ Curbside Recycling • Lawn/Garden Recycling O Violent Crimes ■ Burglary/Theft Crimes • Housing • Growth Issues • Wildlife Habitat ■ Water Conservation The percent of respondents choosing"somewhat serious" or"very serious" can be seen in Figure 1. The issue considered the most serious by the most participants is "water conservation" — (85.9%). "Juvenile delinquency" (69.5%), "growth issues" (68.1%), "traffic congestion/parking" (64.3%), "West Nile Virus" (63.7%), "burglary/theft crimes" (62.8%), and "unemployment" (62.1%) were also rated as either"serious" or"very serious" by at least 60 percent of the 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants. Asmus 9 participants. "Offensive odors in the air" was rated as "somewhat serious" or "very serious" by 43% of the participants. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show these same results in groupings of the percent of respondents choosing "somewhat serious" or"very serious" for"Economic/Growth" issues, "Environmental" issues, and "Well-being/Social" issues. Figure 2. Percent of Respondents Choosing "Serious" or "Very Serious" for Economic/Growth Issues in Greeley 90 ` `�� .� t�. 80 . tx A i 60 50y . • a 40 '. 8 30 P., 20 yx y 3 10s� ,-. ® Housing 57.6 ■ Growth 68.1 ❑ Wildlife Habitat 51.3 ❑ Water Conservation 85.9 ■ Traffic/Parking 64.3 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 10 Figure 3. Percent of Respondents Choosing "Serious" or "Very Serious" for Environmental Issues in Greeley a40 35 30 P25 20 w = 49 15 _ 10 5 0 • Offensive Odors in Air 42.8 ■Air Pollution 34.5 CI Curbside Recycling 40.5 O Lawn/Garden Recycling_ 38.9 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 11 Figure 4. Percent of Respondents Choosing "Serious" or "Very Serious" for Well-Being/Social Issues in Greeley 70 i z� 60 , 50 , ' p x . 40 a • NEl 30 • 20 • • 10 le Lack of Recreation 39.1 Areas/Programs •Unemployment 62.1 O Ethnic Issues 51.8 O Juvenile Delinquency 69.5 • West Nile Virus 63.7 ® Violent Crimes 51 • Burglary/Theft Crimes 62.8 Comparing the 1997 survey to the 2004 survey, we find that the number one issue in Greeley rated "very serious" or"somewhat serious" by the participants was "juvenile delinquency" (81%), followed by"offensive odors in the air" (64%), "growth issues" (63%), "burglary/theft crimes" (61%), and "violent crimes" and "ethnic issues" both at 59%. West Nile Virus and water conservation were not included in the 1997 survey. Offensive odors has moved quite significantly from being a highly rated serious issue to a much less serious issue for the citizens of Greeley. All 1997 issues and the percent of respondents who rated them as "very serious" or"somewhat serious" can be found in Table 2. Table 2. Percent of Respondents Rating Community Issues as "Very Serious" and "Somewhat Serious" in the 1997 Air Quality Survey in Greeley Community Issue Percent Rated "Very" and "Somewhat Serious" Lack of recreation areas/programs 44 Unemployment 64 Offensive odors in the air 64 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 12 Ethnic issues 59 Juvenile delinquency 81 Traffic congestion/lack of parking 56 Violent crimes 59 Burglary/theft crimes 61 Housing 54 Growth 63 Preserving wildlife habitat 49 Figure 5. Experiences of Unacceptable Odor in Greeley 60 r *;' 40 1� P0 w w 20 I 0 ' Yes No Don't Know Missing 44 52 1 3 Figure 6. Experiences of Unacceptable Odor in Neighborhood •100 h. t tt^^Y u , I9 ...�I zie .,,.M + s r Yes No Don't Know Missing 32 64 1 3 The participants were then asked if they ever experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley followed by unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood. Often, people will attribute negative qualities to an environment they believe is outside of where they reside, yet will be reluctant to do so when the environment is one they choose to live in. In other words, we expect people to complain more of odor in Greeley than they would of odor in their neighborhood. Such differential perception may be a means of coping with the odor. Figures 5 and 6 confirm this phenomenon with 44% of the participants admitting they experience unacceptable odor in Greeley, yet 32% will admit the odor is in their neighborhood, even though their neighborhood is in Greeley. If a participant answered "no" to both of these questions the surveyor skipped the rest of the odor questions and.jumped to the odor hotline and ' vehicle emissions questions. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 13 In 1997, there was no difference found between ratings of the odor in their neighborhood as compared to Greeley. Both found 60% stating that they have experienced unacceptable odor in both their neighborhood and in Greeley. The decrease from 1997 to 2004 of respondents stating they found odor to be unacceptable is highly significant (60% to 44%). In other words, a significant number of people found the odor in the air to be less in 2004 than in 1997. The following reactions to the odor will be analyzed from the 44% that stated they have experienced unacceptable odor in either their neighborhood or the City of Greeley. In other words, the 44% of the respondents who have experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley will be 100% of the sample for the following"odor" questions. Figure 7. Mean Number of Days Experiencing Annoying Odor aa, P. . -• ., i 5 � � .. 4.5 ? 4C 1 . Extremely Annoying Moderately Slightly Annoying 4.81 4.88 5.54 The mean number of days in a typical month that a person stated they experienced extremely annoying odor was 4.81 days, moderately annoying odor 4.88 days and slightly annoying odor 5.54 days (Figure 7). On a scale of"1" to "10", with"1" = to "no Annoyance" and"10" = to "extremely annoyed", the average annoyance rating in this survey was 6.11. In 1997, the mean number of days a person experienced extremely annoying odor was 5.52 days, moderately annoying odor 5.1 days and slightly annoying odor 4.51 days. Again, the annoyance to the odor appears to have decreased from 1997 to 2004. Figure 8. Percent of Participants Experiencing Physical Reactions to the Odor 100 few14 77 " cep C4 �y Ya}tjjt�P`+'• S' 4' Yes No Don't Know 11 88 1 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 14 Figure 9. Percent of Participants Experiencing Emotional Reactions to the Odor 100 ° 1s� x, ' ti v P y2 50 , a , , Yes No Don't Know 12 87 1 Figures 8 and 9 show that most of the participants that have experienced unacceptable odor in the air have not experienced physical or emotional reactions to the odor. Still, over 10% stated that the odor affects them either physically(11%) or emotionally(12%). Some of the physical symptoms experienced due to the odor that were listed in the survey included loss of energy, loss of sleep, or lack of energy. Some of the emotional symptoms experienced due to the odor that were listed in the survey included frustration, anger or depression. In the 1997 survey, 18% of the respondents stated they had experienced physical reactions to the odor and 22% stated they had experienced emotional reactions to the odor. Again, this percentage is significantly decreased in the 2004 survey. Table 3. Negative Outcomes Experienced Due to the Odor Yes No Don't Know Interfered with your children playing outdoors? 16.5 78 5.4 Annoyed your adult guests? 50 46.3 3.8 Interfered with you working or recreating outdoors? 19.6 79.4 0.9 Forced you indoors? 23.1 75 1.9 Bothered you indoors? 17.6 81.5 1 Forced you to temporarily leave the neighborhood? 4.7 95.3 - Caused you to file a complaint? 11.4 88.6 - Made you sick or ill? 6.6 93.0 0.3 Caused you to consider moving? 16.8 83.2 - Resulted in a reduction of property values? 23.4 58.4 18.1 Table 3 and Figure 10 show the percent of participants who said "yes" to various outcomes the odor has had in the respondent's neighborhood. Though most of the respondents themselves have rarely been inconvenienced or annoyed due to the odor, half of the respondents state that it has annoyed their adult guests (50%). Again, residents are less likely to perceive odor as a problem for them or in their neighborhood, but they do perceive it to be a problem for others. This question was new for 2004. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 15 Figure 10. Percent of Respondents Indicating the Odor has Caused Specific Negative Outcomes 0. 60 a. 40 co 30 U 0) 20410, 10 ■. ca $ x ■ Interfered with Child's Outdoor Playing • Annoyed Adult Guest ❑ Interfered with Outdoor Activities Forced Respondent Indoors • Bothered Respondent Indoors MI Forced Respondent to Leave Neighborhood (temporarily) ■ Caused Respondent to File Complaint O Made Respondent Sick/Ill IN Caused Respondent To Consider Moving ■ Resulted in Loss of Property Value One of the major findings for the 1997 survey was that the perception of odor in the air in Greeley to others was very important to the respondents. It was one of the few significant "reasons" why people were annoyed by the odor in the air. To determine whether those who reported "yes" and those who reported "no" to the question of whether the odor in the air annoyed their adult guests responded differently to some of the other odor questions, an ANOVA was run to check for significant differences. Table 4 shows the findings to this analysis. We found that those who reported that the odor annoyed their adult guests were significantly more likely to be annoyed by the odor in their neighborhood (F = ).24, p = .006) but not in Greeley(F < 1.0). They were also more likely to report emotional reactions to the odor(frustration, anger, depression) (F = 9.68, p= .000)but not physical reactions (loss of energy, sleep or appetite) (F < 1.0). We found that those who reported yes to the odor annoying their adult guests were more likely to use the odor hotline(F = 2.57, p= .07) and to think the hotline was a good idea (F = 4.38, p= .01). Table 4. Significant Effects of Respondent's who Answered "Yes" to the "Odor Annoys my Adult Guests" to Various Other Odor Responses F Significance Odor in Neighborhood 5.24 .006 Experienced Emotional Reactions to Odor 9.68 .000 Have Used the Odor Hotline 2.57 .07 Think the Odor Hotline is a Good Idea 4.38 .01 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 16 Figure 11. Percent of Respondents Indicating "Strongly Support" or "Support" Possible Odor Control Actions ctions or Remedies 50 �3k 61 40 a30 20 10 a ® Warnings to Odor Source ■ Voluntary Compliance by Odor Source ❑ Stronger Regulations for Offenders O Fine Offenders ■ City Finance Improvements ® Relocate Offenders Figure 12 shows the results of how the participant rates a possible action or remedy that could be undertaken with a business or someone who is generating odor in the air in Greeley. "Warnings" or"voluntary compliance" were rated as the most acceptable of the solutions with the relocation of offenders the least acceptable of the possible solutions. The results show that most of the respondents favor the less intrusive actions such as "Warnings to Odor Source" (53%) and "Voluntary Compliance by the Odor Source" (50.6%). "Relocating Offenders" was the least desired action (31.5%) significantly less than all the others. Results from the 1997 survey were very similar in that most respondents strongly supported the"warnings" (74%) or"voluntary compliance" (70%) as opposed to the stronger measures such as "relocate offenders" (47%). Figure 12. Participant's Belief That Anything Will Be Done to Allievate The Odors 100 �x 50 1 , a ° .:l I i v 0 Yes No Don't Know 33 52 15 ANOVA revealed that the participants who reported"Don't Know" to "will" anything be done to alleviate the odors were significantly more likely to report"don't know" to "warnings to odor source" (F = 3.47, p = .02) and "voluntary compliance by odor source" (F = 3.39, p = .02). There was no significant difference between the respondents to "can" something be done to alleviate the odors for possible odor control actions or remedies. For"should" anything be done, there was a significant difference (F = 2.95, p = .03) in how the respondents answered using "warnings to odor sources" with more respondents believing that there should be warnings (M = 2.87, SD = 1.77) than those who stated there should not be warnings (M = 2.17, SD = 1.60). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 17 Figure 13. Participant's Belief That Anything Can Be Done to Allievate The Odors 100 o • 0 Yes No Don't Know 63 22 15 Figure 14. Participant's Belief That Anything Should Be Done to Allievate The Odors 100 .fix Yes No Don't Know 75 20 5 Figures 12, 13 and 14 show the effects of perceived control over the odor for the respondents. The second and third questions asked if anything could be done about the problem. The first question actually got at the actualities: Their view that anything would be done. The third question determined their personal opinion of remedying the problem. If all of these questions resulted in a small amount of the population believing anything can, will or should be done, one might read in this a kind of apathy, perhaps in part the result of past unfulfilled expectations, which could be particularly difficult to overcome. Interestingly, more believe that something should (75%) be done than can (63%) be done. Yet, even less (52%) believe that anything will be done. The 1997 survey did not ask the question of whether or not anything should be done; however, it found that even less of the respondents believed anything could (60%) or would (42%)be done. This increase shows that citizens have not increased their expectations in the past seven years of mitigating the odor problem. Even more citizens believe that things will not get better now than did in 1997 around odor in Greeley. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 18 Figure 15. Participant's Belief That Odor has Changed Since Moving to Greeley Area 100 W 8 50 ' 0 ' Yes No 57 43 Figure 16. How has the Odor Changed? 50 ac 4.4) il ppry� a QI �i , Better Worse Same Different 44 17 35 4 To further determine the respondent's attitude toward past actions in reference to the odor, the respondents were asked if they believe the odor had gotten better in their experience. Two questions were used to make this determination. First we asked if the respondent felt the odor had changed since they moved here (Figure 15). More (57%) of the respondents believe that is has changed. The second question asked them how the odor had changed (Figure 16). Again, most (44%) believed it had changed for the better, 35% felt it is the same and 17% stated it was worse. In the 1997 survey, 50% said the odor had changed, and 50% said it had not. However, in 1997, most of the respondents felt the odor was worse (48%), with 14% stating it was the same, and 35% rated it as "better." 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 19 e Figure 17. Knowledge of an Odor Ordinance r . 100 r � dp .ti so QI X t tqc Yes No Didn't Know 68 31 1 Figure 18. Percent of Participants Who Have Ever Used the Odor Hotline �r r: , , x• 1 w kd Yes No 8 92 Figure 19. Opinion of the Odor Hotline 100 E " 0 G. qsn d w` 2 U 50 x r �� " r v Good Idea Bad Idea Neutral 58 23 19 Interestingly, the odor ordinance was better known in 1997 (75%) than it is now in 2004 (Figure 17) (68%). The percent of participants that have ever used the odor hotline (Figure 18) is also slightly decreased from 10% in 1997 to 8% in 2004. This may be due to less people knowing of its existence or that the odor is annoying to less people: both findings of this survey. Yet, (Figure 19) more people in 2004 (58%) feel that the odor hotline is a"good idea" compared to the 1997 survey(53%). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 20 Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing (These questions are all new for 2004). Figure 20. Belief That Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing Program Plays an Important Role in Air Quality in Greeley 100 a1'' N P d; 50 a r; y Yes • No Not Sure 64 28 8 The first question (Figure 20) under the motor vehicle emissions testing section asked the respondent whether he or she felt the existing vehicle emissions testing program plays an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley. Most (64%) of the respondents felt that it did, while 28% stated it did not and 8% were not sure. Figure 21. How Much Should the Community do to Address Vehicle Emission's Impact on Air Quality? as " � x 60 20 d 4. 1 0 E Just Enough to Prevent Violating Air Quality Standards IN Enough to Maintain Current Air Quality O Enough to Improve Air Quality ❑Nothing To better understand how much the respondent felt the community should do to impact air quality from vehicle emissions, the survey asked if they felt the community should do (Figure 21). Results found that most believed the community should do "enough to improve air quality (48%), followed by"enough to maintain air quality" (35%). Eleven percent thought that "nothing" should be done, and 7% felt the community should do "just enough to prevent violating air quality standards." 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 21 Figure 22. Does Cost and/or Convenience Factor in to Respondent's Position Regarding Motor Vehicle Emission's Impact on Air Quality? Gyy%ee z, ;' 40 ' . .� a, 0 20 0 •Neither is Important • Only Cost is Important ❑ Only Convenience is Important O Both are Important Most respondents stated that "neither" cost nor convenience factor in to their position regarding vehicle emissions testing programs (52%). However, 34% felt both were factors, 11% stated "cost" alone was relevant and only 2% stated that "convenience" alone was a factor (Figure 22). Figure 23. Should There be Local Ordinances/Enforcement Prohibiting Smoking Vehicles? • 100 0-t , � u q r 2 .'o 50 } 0 Yes No Didn't Know 68 19 13 A full 68% of the respondents stated that in addition to State laws that "smoking' vehicles" can be reported as violating State laws; there should be a local ordinance with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles in Greeley(Figure 23). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 22 Figure 24. Respondent's Typical Behavior and Attitude Toward Their Own Vehicle's Emissions 80 4 a 60 40 a 20 0 — _ El Maintains and Repairs Vehicle Just Enough to Pass Emissions Test •Maintains and Repairs Vehicle Regularly Anyway, Regardless of Emissions Program O Not Affected, as Vehicle is Not Required to Undergo Emissions Testing When the respondents were asked to complete the following sentence: "Because of the existing emissions testing program..." almost all (79%) chose"I maintain and repair my vehicle regularly anyway. I would do it with or without an emissions program" (see Figure 24). Figure 25. Will Other Types of Vehicle Emissions Measures or Programs Improve Air Quality? 80 •a 60 v ._ ' : El Will Help , 40 ' ■ Will NOT Help j u 20 � s i a 0 Education and Incentive Programs Information Because the State is considering possible elimination of the vehicle emissions testing program in the North Front Range, other measures to maintain their current high air quality standards are being considered by the City of Greeley. Two possible programs are education and information programs and incentive programs. The respondents were asked whether or not they believed these programs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality (Figure 25). While 40%believed education and information programs would help, 56% believed the incentive program to be more promising. Respondents were also asked how much they might be willing to pay for these two programs (Figures 26 and 27). Most (47% and 45% respectively) were not willing to pay anything, and 16% were willing to pay$25.00 for either program. One 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 23 r quarter of respondents were not sure about the ability of either of these to impact air quality in Greeley. Figure 26. What are Respondents Willing To Pay for Other Programs That May Maintain or Improve Air Quality? 4 50 40 v ` , ® Education tP 30 s„ ,. . pia and :1 Information i 20 ' ' ar 10 's t J ' , ■ Incentive i Programs $25/Yr. $15/Yr. Other Nothing Not Sure Amount Figure 27. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspections ® Yes, at a Small Pro'ram Additional Fee 4 ' 50 t ki . }Ta gliir a ® Yes, if it Did 30 n �r Not Cost ✓ fgY More Money 20 9 I_ D No 0 One additional question asked the respondent if they would be willing to support adding a vehicle safety inspection to the mandatory vehicle emissions testing program were it to be kept in place in Greeley(Figure 27). Most (49%) stated "yes, at a small additional fee", 27% said "yes, if it didn't cost me more money"and 24% said "no." r 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 24 Demographic Profile of Respondent Sample Figure 28.Number of Driwrs in Households 60 a fir 50 ' r ',1441.14":4!"../-<,• - °' 40 ,b 20 3 a 10 IIIIIIIIII o El 1 2 3 4 >4 The year of the car for the majority of the respondents fell between the years of 1997 and 2004 with the median car year being 1998 and the mode (occurred the most) at 2002. Most respondents owned 2 cars. These questions were not asked in 199T They were added this year due to the emissions questions. Figure 29.Gender of Respondents 60 ` , tAg " so a40 ,,,,--,4..,,..1 t�`'r 0 200 w 30 I c 20 . I l� j II1997 u 'F 0 Male Female In 2004, the respondents were 49.9 percent male and 50.1 percent female. In 1997, there were 40 percent males and 60 percent females. Figure 30. Age of Respondents 25 ' :2 , 0 20 ' ` • 1 3 ii € s 15 z s` r °7 'cs" ❑ 2004 a 10 2 n; :j F. a ■ 1997 5 s= , 3 .i ' ,. �•vj 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >65 The 2004 survey was much more representative of the age range of the community of Greeley than was the 1997 survey. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 25 Figure 31.Tobacco Use �, ski ,� ytn ' q." `+'', 4. 4 •4 • 25 r- .......' ....- :::-. . se . . y ::. '' 20 ,. _... . ! 9 15 ,I ❑2004 10 ■ 1997 o 15 ■ a., 5 0 Snake Smokeless More 2004 respondents smoked cigarettes or chewed tobacco compared to 1997. Figure 32. Sensitivity to Odors 50 ',-1;::' i z40 ,, 'ten 2 30 j, � w 20 .:1 , I 1 i 2004 10 a14 it. ■ 1997 Very Somewhat Not Sensitive Don't Know Sensitive Sensitive The percent of various reported sensitivity to odors was very similar from 1997 to 2004. Figure 33. Average Annual Household Income of Respondents 40 • r '4� 35 ,a a 30 ; 1 A `{ y R i +N+ 25 �' •r b''',4 ;s rn,f ` �.0.G 15 • 1 , I U 10 : ' . 4. ,, -a i ".a • $10,000 $10,000- >$50,000 No Response $50,000 This question was phrased differently from 1997 to 2004. In 1997, the mean household income of the respondents was $44,847.00. In 2004 it was $50,000.00. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 26 Almost all of the respondents lived within the city limits of Greeley(93%). Figure 34. Length of Time Lived in the Greeley Area 60 � 50 3 2x .940 30 ' o 2004 G ■ 1997 °0 20 is 0 <5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years >15 years Figure 35. Length of Time Intend to Live in the Greeley Area 70 i a 2004 d�., � � •■ 1997 30 <� ::` `*"-er '117, II 10 ;, c' <5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years >15 years Cross-tabs were run on where those annoyed by the odor"in Greeley" and "in your neighborhood" lived within the Greeley city limits. For those who stated they have experienced unacceptable odor in Greeley, more people were annoyed west of 23'd Avenue(67%) than east of 23`d Avenue (31%) and north of 16`h Street (57%) than south of 16th Street (43%). For those who have experienced unacceptable odor in the air"in your neighborhood" that lived within the Greeley city limits, again, more were annoyed west of 23`d Avenue (68%) than east of 23`d Avenue (32%) and north of 16`h Street (58%) than south of le Street (42%). In other words, the highest concentration of annoyance to the odor in the air in Greeley comes from those who live west of 23`d Avenue and North of 16th Street. (See Figure 36) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 27 Figure 36. Length of Time Intend to Live in the Greeley Area 70 .. =- r , ��, t 3 , 4 60 ' 50 1 j 'r Y ed in 40 , ; Greeley 30 ■ Annoyed in 20 Neighborhood a 10 0 West of23rd East of23rd North of 16th South of 16th Avenue Avenue Street Street Figure 37. Type of Area Respondent Came From Prior to Moving to Greeley Area 25 ® Been Here all My Life i ■ Large City(>200,000) n 20 7 { t, l r -. 15 "` ' [ Ifi . i a 3 ;31: r`3 D Mid-Size City(>50,000, but < 200,000) 10 ,_. D Small City(<50,000) f J w 1 ■ Town(<5,000) 1 3s.` 1 ® Rural 0 2004 1997 Some fundamental differences can be seen in "where" respondents came from prior to moving to the Greeley area. In 2004, most of the respondents came from either a large city or a rural area. In 1997, the differences between the types of areas were less with respondents coming from all different types of areas. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 28 Figure 38. Does the Respondent, or a Friend or Relative, Work at Any of the Following? ® Bi-Products Facility 18 'y ■ Chemical Plants �-emu 1 16 i O Feedlots/Dairies O Meat-Packing 1 12 ' ' ■Truck Washout 10 "' 8 ®Wastewater � Treatment p i 6 : i � ■ Sugar Industry P. r 4 ' I al Emissions Testing 2 ' J j °n ■ Auto Repair Tests of Between Subjects Effects-Cross-Tabs and Chi-Square This section reports the findings that showed significant differences on responses across different respondents by age, gender, smoking, sensitivity to odor, income, where they work, length of time in the community, length of time intend to live in the community and the type of area the respondent comes from. Emissions and odor in the air are in separate sections. All non- significant differences are indicated with a"NS." Each table lists the percent and number of respondents choosing particular responses. The percentage columns are highlighted. Emissions- Gender There was a significant difference between males in females in: • Belief in the importance of the existing vehicle emissions program on maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley with female respondents more likely to support the program than male respondents. • Male respondents were three times as likely to hold the attitude that the community should do nothing to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality. • Female respondents were more likely to believe that the community should do enough to improve air quality through the vehicle emissions program. • whether cost or convenience factors into positions regarding vehicle emissions testing programs around convenience with males more than twice as likely to state that convenience is important. • Whether or not incentive programs to help repair non-compliant vehicles would help air quality with female respondents more likely to believe they would. • Male respondents were significantly more likely to be in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program with male respondents more in support of paying a small fee than females. However, female respondents did support it if it did not cost more money. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 29 Table 5. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Gender. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % _ Number % Number Difference Male 59 232 34 133 7 28 Female 68 271 23 91 9 36 .004 There was a significant difference between males in females in beliefs in the importance of the existing vehicle emissions program on maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley with female respondents more likely to support the program than male respondents (Table 5). Table 6. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Gender. Just Enough Enough to Enough to Nothing to Prevent Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality Quality Quality Standards Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference Male 4 16 37 146 42 - 165 17 67 Female 10 38 31 124 54 213 5 21 .000 Male respondents were three times as likely to hold the attitude that the community should do nothing to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality while female respondents were more likely to believe the community should do enough to improve air quality through the vehicle emissions program. (Table 6) Table 7. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Gender. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Inyortant Significant % Number % Number. '% Number % Number Difference Male 48 187 11 42 71 12 37 ' 148 Female 56 222 11 44 1 5 31 123 .04 There was a significant difference (Table 7) between male and female respondents in whether cost or convenience factors into their position regarding vehicle emissions testing programs. The difference was only around convenience with males more than twice as likely to state that convenience is important. Most male and female respondents stated that neither was important. Table 8. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Gender. Yes No Not Sure Significant a Number % Number ° Number Difference`, Male =t0258 20 78 15 57 NS Female "69 274 18 71 13 52 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 30 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents (Table 8) in whether or not there should be a local law with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles. Table 9. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing3rogram..." By Gender. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and repair ... I am not affected Significant repair my vehicle my vehicle regularly as may vehicle is not Difference just enough to anyway. I would do it required to undergo pass the emissions with or without an an emissions test. 4st. , emissions grogram• Number 4, Number bfo Number Male 12 307 18 72 NS Female 2 9 79 315 19 74 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents(Table 9) in stated behavior around maintenance and repair of vehicles. Table 10. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Gender. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information ' Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs WILL Repairs Will Significant WILL Delp NOT Help Help NOT Help Difference % _Number '.% Number :'% Number % Number Male 40 157 60 232 47 185 53 207 Female 38 ` 151 62 245 65 258 35 _ 137 .005 — There was no significant difference between male and female respondents as both generally felt that education and information programs would not help to reduce vehicle emissions (Table 10); however, there was a significant difference in whether or not incentive programs to help repair non-compliant vehicles would help with female respondents more likely to believe that incentives would help. Table 11. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Gender. Yes, at a Small Yes, if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference °fo Number % Number °a Number Male 5 ' 51 199 21 81 229 113 Female 48 190 32 125 20 81 .001 Male respondents were significantly more likely to be in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program that would cost a small fee than females. However, female respondents did support it if it did not cost more money. (Table 11) Age-Emissions There was a significant difference between the ages of the respondents in: • Whether they believed that the existing vehicle emissions program plays an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley originating from the "not sure" response. All ages believed it does play an important role, but the younger (under 36) and older(over 65) were more likely to be"not sure." 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 31 • How much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality with the young(under 26) and the old (over 65) more likely to state that "just enough" should be done. Those over 65 were three times as likely as the other age groups to state that "nothing" should be done. Respondents between the ages of 36 and 56 were the age groups most in support of"improving" air quality. • There should be a local law with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles; however, the 18-25 year old group was significantly higher than the other groups in responding "no" there should not be laws and enforcement against smoking vehicles. • The older and younger respondents were more likely to state their vehicles are not required to undergo an emissions test. • Support of incentive programs between age groups with those under 46 believing incentive programs for repairs will help more so than those over 45. • Support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program with the younger respondents (18-25) and the older respondents (> 65)more likely to support a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program than the other age groups. Table 12. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Age. ,,es No Not Sure Significant % Number % Number % Number Difference 18-25 63 : 22 23 8 14 5 �.. 26-35 66 63 22 21 13 12 36-45 70 116 27 45 4 6 46-55 68 ' 129 28 53 4 7 56-65 61 83 32 44 7 9 .002 >65 56 ` 92 29 48 15 25 There was a significant difference between the ages of the respondents in whether they believed that the existing vehicle emissions program plays an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley (Table 12). The difference originated from the "not sure" response. All ages believed it does play an important role, but the younger (under 36) and older (over 65) were more likely to be "not sure." Table 13. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions' Impact on Air Quality by Age. 4 tEnough Enough to Enough to Nothing event Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality entity Quality Significant, u er % Number % Number % Number Difference 18-25 14 5 40 14 40 14 6 2 26-35 5 ', 5 37 35 47 45 12 11 36-45 6 31 51 59 98 7 12 46-55 j: 10 36 68 5tl. 98 9 16 56-65 t,„ 6 45 59 � 58 7 9 .000 >65 71% fy 22 26 43 4=1 : 67 20 33 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants --, Asmus 32 There were some interesting results between age groups on how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality. Most, in all age groups believed that something should be done. However, the young (under 26) and the old (over 65) were more likely to state that"just enough" should be done. Those over 65 were three times as likely as the other age groups to state that"nothing" should be done. Respondents between the ages of 36 and 56 were the age groups most in support of"improving" air quality(Table 13). Table 14. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Age. Neither is Only Cost is Orly Both are portant Important Convenience}s .:Important inflOrtaili. Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference 18-25 4,2 14 12 4 0 0 46 14 26-35 •57 52 12 11 1 1 30 27 36-45 46' 76 16 27 1 1 37 62 46-55 49 _ 93 10 18 4 7 ;38.. 71 56-65 -50 - 68 9 12 8 6 l-48 35 .006 >65 61 101 10 17 _ 0 0 '29 47 Though most respondents stated that neither cost nor convenience was important there were some significant differences between age groups. The 18-25, and 36-45 were more likely to state that cost was more important than the other age groups (Table 14). Table 15. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Age. Yes No Not Sure Significant % .Number % Number _ % Nuniber Difference _. 18-25 66 23 34 12 0 0 26-35 58 56 25 24 17 16 36-45 73 122 12 20 15 25 46-55 71 134 20 37 9 17 56-65 74 100 21 29 5 7 .000 >65 60 99 15 25 25 41 _ Again, most respondents believed there should be a local law with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles; however, the 18-25 year old group was significantly higher than the other groups in responding"no" there should not be laws and enforcement against smoking vehicles. In addition, many in the over 65 age group were "not sure" in comparison to the other age groups (Table 15). Table 16. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Age. .. .I maintain and ... I maintain and repair .. I:am not affected Significant repair my vehicle my'vehicle re lady , as my vehicle isznot Difference If t enough to anyway. I would dolt 'required to undergo *.,:,:the emissions with or witho t,8n . an emissions s , 4 test emissions pro` r u. v 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 33 % - Number % Number % Number _ 18-25 6 _ 2 _ 63 22 31 11 26-35 4 4 81 78 15 14 36-45 2 3 82 138 16 26 46-55 1 3 86 162 13 24 56-65 4 6 84 112 12 16 .001 >65 2 3 65 - 107 33 55 Surprisingly, the older and younger respondents were more likely to state their vehicles are not required to undergo an emissions test. Most, in all age groups, stated they would maintain and repair their vehicle with or without the required emissions testing program (Table 16). Table 17. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Age. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs WILL Repairs Will Significant WILLWIL&StIP NOT help Help TOTIT0iP ,Difference % ".lumber % Number % Number % Number 18-25 42 13 58 18 86 - 29 17 ' 6 Education & 26-35 51 49 49 47 73 70 27 26 Information: 36-45 36 60 64 107 64 106 36 59 .112 (NS) 46-55 38 71 62 118 51 96 49 93 Incentive 56-65 43 58 57 76 46 62 54 72 Programs: >65 36 60 64 105 49 80 51 83 .000 As in gender, there was no significant difference between age groups for education and information programs. There was,however, significant differences in support of incentive programs between age groups with those under 46 believing incentive programs for repairs will help more so than those over 45 (Table 17). Table 18. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Age. Yes, at Small Yes, if,it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee ,Cost More Money Difference %J Number % Number % Number 18-25 40 „ 14 43 15 17 6 26-35 45 43 31 30 24 23 36-45 53 88 1'7 31 29 48 46-55 47 89 31 ' 58 22 42 56-65 50 68 20 ' 27 30 ; 41 .03 >65 53 87 29 ' 47 18 29 _ The younger respondents (18-25) and the older respondents (> 65) were less likely to not support a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program than the other age groups. However, those over 65 were more likely to still support it even if it cost more money than the 18-25 year old age group (Table 18). ,---. Smoking-Emissions There was a significant difference found between smokers and non-smokers in: 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 34 • Whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with smokers more likely to state that it does not and non-smokers were more likely to be "not sure." • How much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality at all response levels making it difficult to interpret this finding. • Belief that there should be local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles in Greeley with more non-smokers "not sure" and more smokers stating "no" there should not be local laws with local enforcement. Table 19. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Smoker/Non-Smoker. lees No Not Sure Significant % Number % Number °fa Number _ Difference Smoker 61 107 36 63 3 6 Non-Smoker 65 399 23 161 9 58 .012 There was a significant difference found between smokers and non-smokers in responses to whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with smokers more likely to state that it does not and non- smokers were more likely to be"not sure" (Table 19). Table 20. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Smoker/Non-Smoker. Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Violating Maintain Improve Air Air Quality Current Air Quality Standards Quality Number %o Number % Number % Number Significant Difference Smoker 11 19 40 71 40 70 9 16 Non- 6 35 32 199 50 308 12 72 Smoker .009 There was a significant difference between smoking and non-smoking respondents around how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality at all response levels making it difficult to interpret this finding (Table 20). Table 21. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Smoker/Non-Smoker. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both.are Important Important Convenience is Important niporfalit Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference Smoker 45 79 13 23 1 2 41 72 Non- 54 330 11 66 2 15 33 199 Smoker .08 (NS) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 35 A^ Smokers were more likely to state that both cost and convenience is important, and non- smokers were more likely to state that neither is important. Convenience only was twice as important to non-smokers than smokers (Table 21). Table 22. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Smoker/Non-Smoker. Yes No Not Sure Significant % Number % Number % Number Difference Smoker 61 107 32 56 7 13 Non-Smoker 428 15 93 16 96 .000 _ There was a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers in the belief that there should be local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles in Greeley with more non-smokers "not sure" and more smokers stating"no" there should not be local laws with local enforcement (Table 22). Table 23. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Smoker/Non-Smoker. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not affected Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle as my vehicle is not Difference just enough to pass regularly anyway. I required to the emissions test would do it with or undergo an "' without an emissions emissions test. program. % Number % Number % Number Smoker 3 6 80 141 17 29 Non- 2 ' 15 79 484 19 117 Smoker .61 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers (Table 23) in stated behavior around maintenance and repair of vehicles. Table 24. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Smoker/Non-Smoker. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs Repairs Will Significant WILL Help NOT Help WILL Help NOT Help Difference % Number % Number % Number % Number Smoker 45 79 55 97 58 ' 101 42 74 Ed/Info:=.19 (NS) Non- 18 232 62 380 56 342 44 273 Incent.=.85 Smoker (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers (Table 24) in belief that other programs such as education and information or incentive programs for repairs ^^ would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. Table 25. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Smoker/Non-Smoker. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants • Asmus 36 Yes, at a Small Yes, if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference Number °fo Number % Number Smoker 48 85 26 46 26 45 Non-Smoker 49 304 27 163 24 149 .12 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers (Table 25) in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection with or without a small additional fee. Sensitivity to Odor-Emissions There was a significant difference between the respondent levels of sensitivity to odor by: • Whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley with the"not sensitive" and"don't know" much more likely to state that it does not play an important role. • How much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality with the "very" and"somewhat" sensitive to odors more likely to state the community should do enough to "maintain" or"improve" air quality than those that were "Not sensitive" or"don't know" to odors. • Support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection with those that identified themselves as "very sensitive' or"don't know" more likely to approve the safety inspection program even at a small additional fee. Table 26. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Sensitivity to Odors. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Very 68 174 26 68 6 15 Sensitive Somewhat 66 206 25 78 9 29 Sensitive Not Sensitive 5$ 102 31 55 11 20 .01 Don't Know 31 22 48 21 0 0 There was a significant difference found in responses to whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with the"not sensitive" and"don't know" much more likely to state that it does not play an important role (Table 26). Table 27. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Sensitivity to Odors. Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality Quality Quality Standards Significant Number % I Number % I .Number % I Number Difference 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 37 Very 6 15 37 95 49 125 9 22 Sensitive Somewhat 9 29 31 98 53 166 7 23 Sensitive Not 3 5 34 59 42 72 21 37 Sensitive Don't 12 5 40 17 35 15 14 6 .000 Know There was a significant difference around how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality with the"very" and "somewhat" sensitive to odors more likely to state the community should do enough to "maintain" or"improve" air quality than those that were "Not sensitive" or"don't know" to odors (Table 27). Table 28. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Sensitivity to Odors. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important Significant % Number % Number % _ Number % _ Number Difference Very 51 127 16 39 2 ; 5 31 78 Sensitive ,--^ Somewhat 53 166 9 28 2 8 36 114 Sensitive Not 51 90 10 17 2 4 37 66 .40 (NS) Sensitive Don't 58 25 12 5 0 0 30 13 Know There was no significant difference between the respondent levels of sensitivity to odor by their position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program (Table 28). Table 29. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Sensitivity to Odors. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % I Number % 1 Number Difference Very 73 187 18 45 9 24 Sensitive Somewhat 65 205 17 55 18 56 .07 (NS) Sensitive Not Sensitive 64 114 38 14 25 Don't Know 65 28 — ; ¢ 11 9 4 No significant difference was found between respondent levels of sensitivity to odor by attitudes toward local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles (Table 29). Table 30. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Sensitivity to Odors. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 38 ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle affected as my Difference just enough to regularly anyway. I vehicle is not pass the emissions would do it with or required to test. without an emissions undergo an -)rogram• emissions test. Number % Number % Number Very 4 9 82 210 14 36 Sensitive Somewhat 2 5 78 247 20 64 Sensitive Not 4 7 76 134 220 ` 36 19 (NS) Sensitive Don't 0 0 79 34 21 9 Know There was no significant difference between levels of sensitivity to the odor (Table 30) in stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles. Table 31. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Sensitivity to Odors. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Repairs Repairs Will Significant WILL Help Will NOT WILL Help NOT Help Difference Help % Number % Number %° Number % Number Very 42 109 58 148 64 164 36 92 -Education & Sensitive Information Somewhat 40 124 60 188 52 163 48 152 =.55 (NS) Sensitive Not 34 59 66 116 54 95 46 80 Incentive Sensitive Programs = Don't 42 18 58 25 46 20 54 23 .08 (NS) Know There was no significant difference between sensitivity to the odor (Table 31) in either belief that other programs such as education and information or incentive programs for repairs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. Table 32. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Sensitivity to Odors. Yes, at a Small Yes,if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference %o Number % Number %° Number Very 58 148 20 52 21 575 Sensitive Somewhat 44 139 11 97 78 Sensitive r '" 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 39 r Not Sensitive 42 75 27 48 31 54 .01 Don't Know 60 26 28 12 12 5 There was a significant difference across sensitivity to odors (Table 32) in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection with those that identified themselves as "very sensitive' or "don't know" more likely to approve the safety inspection program even at a small additional fee. Ineome-Entissions There was a significant difference between the respondent income categories in: • Whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley with those in higher income brackets believing the program does play an important role compared to those earning less than $10,000. • How much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality with those earning less than $10,000 per year responding three times as often that the community should do "just enough to prevent violating air quality standards" than those earning more than $10,000. In addition, those earning more than $50,000 per year were four times as likely as those earning less than $10,000 per year to state the community should do "enough to improve air quality." • Attitudes toward local laws with local enforcement across incomes to prohibit smoking vehicles with those that gave "no response" more than half as likely to support this law as those that did respond to this question. • Stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles across income categories with those earning less than $10,000 per year at least eight times as likely to state they would do "just enough to pass the emissions test than those that earn more than $10,000 per year. Table 33. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Income. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number % _ Number Difference <$10,000 38 9 54 13 8 2 $10,000- 75 ` 181 21 50 4 10 $50,000 >$50,000 66 202 27 83 7 21 .000 No Response 51 ' 114 35 78 14 31 There was a significant difference found in responses to whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with those in higher income brackets believing the program does play an important role compared to those earning less than $10,000 (Table 33). Table 34. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Income. r 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 40 Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality Quality Quality Standards Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 17 4 54 13 12 3 17 4 $10,000- 5 13 42 102 43 103 10 23 $50,000 >$50,000 $ 14 28 85 59 179 _ 9 26 No tiy 23 S2 70 42 93 16 35 .000 Response There was a significant difference around how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality with those earning less than$10,000 per year responding three times as often that the community should do "just enough to prevent violating air quality standards" than those earning more than $10,000. In addition, those earning more than $50,000 per year were four times as likely as those earning less than$10,000 per year to state the community should do "enough to improve air quality" (Table 34). Table 35. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Income. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important Significant %o Number % Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 42 10 0 0 0 0 58 14 $10,000- 50 119 11 27 3 6 36 84 $50,000 .21 (NS) >$50,000 57 173 11 35 2 6 30 92 No 49 107 12 27 2 5 37 81 Response There was no significant difference between the respondent income categories by their position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program (Table 35). - Table 36. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Income. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 71 17 17 4 12 3 $10,000- 65 156 16 40 19 45 $50,000 >$50,000 72 219 17 51 11 35 .05 No Response 27 143 36 54 24 26 There was a significant difference in attitudes toward local laws with local enforcement across incomes to prohibit smoking vehicles with those that gave "no response" more than half as likely to support this law as those that did respond to this question (Table 36). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 41 Table 37. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Income. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle affected as my Difference just enough to regularly anyway. I vehicle is not pass the emissions would do it with or required to test. without an emissions undergo an program. emissions test. Number %q Number %u Number <$10,000 17 4 54 13 30 7 $10,000- 1 2 79 190 20 47 $50,000 >$50,000 2 7 85 159 13 40 No 4 8 73 163 23 52 .000 Response There was a significant difference (Table 37) in stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles across income categories with those earning less than $10,000 per year at least eight times as likely to state they would do "just enough to pass the emissions test than those that earn more than $10,000 per year. Table 38. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Income. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs Repairs Will Significant WILL Help NOT Help WILL Help NOT Help Difference % Number % Number % Number % Number <$10,000 38 9 62 15 50 12 50 12 Education & $10,000- 46 112 54 129 59 141 41 100 Inform = .06 $50,000 (NS) >$50,000 40 120 60 182 58 176 42 129 Incentive _ No 32 70 68 151 52 114 48 106 Programs = Response .42 (NS) There was no significant difference between income categories (Table 38) in either belief that other programs such as education and information or incentive programs for repairs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. (NS=Not Significant) Table 39. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Income. Yes, at a Small Ves,if;it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee l��r.,s' st'More Money Difference Number 94 Number % Number <$10,000 54 13 rt 4 29 7 $10,000- 46 112 34 81 20 48 .08 (NS) $50,000 >$50,000 $3, 162 67 25 77 No Response 46 102 57 28 j 62 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 42 There was no significant difference across income categories (Table 39) in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection. Where They (or Friends/Relatives) Work-Emissions Table 40. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number %o Number % Number Difference Bi-Products 51 21 42 17 7 3 .28 (NS) Facilities Chemical ' 42 15 g18 8 3 .03 Plants Feedlots 65 89 21 29 14 19 .015 Dairies Meat- 64 70 32 29 7 6 .90 (NS) Packing Truck 52 11 29 6 19 4 .28 (NS) Washout Wastewater 46 24 44 23 10 5 .08 (NS) Treatment Sugar 66 48 27 20 7 5 .96 (NS) Industry Emissions 40 11 30 8 30 8 .000 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 69 127 22 41 8 15 .23 (NS) Shop Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at chemical plants were more likely to respond "no" the existing emissions program does not play an important role in air quality in Greeley. Those who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at feedlots/dairies were more likely to respond "yes" the existing emissions program did play an important role in air quality in Greeley. Those who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at an emissions testing station were more highly likely to respond"not sure" that the existing emissions program did play an important role in air quality in Greeley. Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a bi-products facility, meat packing plant, truck washout, wastewater treatment plant, sugar industry or an auto repair shop did not show significant differences in whether or not they believed the existing emissions program plays an important role in air quality in Greeley. (Table 40) Table 41. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 43 Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality Quality Quality Standards Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference Bi-Products 0 0 46 19 37 15 17 7 .06 (NS) Facilities Chemical 0 0 17 6 47 17 36 13 .00 Plants Feedlots j 2 41 56 46 63 12 16 .03 Dairies Meat- 3 3 42 46 40 44 15 16 .04 Packing Truck 0 0 67 ` 14 19 4 14 3 .007 Washout Wastewater 6 3 30 15 50 27 14 7 .87 (NS) Treatment Sugar 3 2 30 22 53 39 14 10 .34 (NS) Industry Emissions 0 0 60 15 20 5 20 5 .005 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 2 3 37 67 54 97 8 14 .003 Shop _ Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at chemical plants were more likely to respond the community should do "enough to improve air quality" to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley. Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at feedlots/ Dairies, meat-packing plants or an auto repair shop were more likely to respond the community should do enough to either"maintain" or "improve" vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley as compared to those who felt the community should do "nothing" or"just enough to prevent violating standards." Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a truck washout or an emissions testing station were more likely to respond that the community should do "just enough to prevent violating standards" compared to any other response. Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a bi-products facility, wastewater treatment plant, or sugar industry did not show significant differences in how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley. (Table 41) Table 42. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important Significant % I. Number % I Number % 1 Number % Number Difference 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 44 Bi-Products 61 25 5 2 0 0 35 14 .36 (NS) Facilities _ Chemical 53 19 17 6 0 0 31 11 .59 (NS) Plants Feedlots 53 72 6 9 1 ` 1 40 54 .11 (NS) Dairies Meat- 53 57 6 6 1 1 40 43 .13 (NS) Packing Truck 65 13 0 0 0 0 35 7 .33 (NS) Washout Wastewater 47 24 8 4 2 1 22 43 .57 (NS) Treatment Sugar 55 39 7 5 1 1 37 26 .64 (NS) Industry Emissions 56 15 11 3 0 0 33 9 .88 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 56- 99 9 16 ' 1 : 1 34 61 022 (NS) Shop L Respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at any of the listed places of employment did not show significant differences in how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley. (Table 42) Table 43. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number %o Number Difference Bi-Products 68 28 24 10 7 3 .36 (NS) Facilities _ Chemical 69 25 25 9 6 2 .27 (NS) Plants Feedlots 72 99 24 18 10 14 .33 (NS) Dairies Meat- 66 72 23 25 11 12 .39 (NS) Packing . Truck 81 17 5 14 3 .24 (NS) Washout Wastewater 62 32 30 16 8 4 .05 Treatment Sugar 53 39 18 13 29 21 - .000 Industry Emissions 6/ 18 1$ 5 15 4 .99 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 63 115 23 43 14 25 .17 (NS) -� Shop .__ . 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 45 Respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at all but two of the listed places of employment did not show significant differences in how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley. Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a wastewater treatment plant or in the sugar industry were more likely to respond that the community should do "just enough to keep from violating standards" than any other response. (Table 43) Table 44. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing_Program..." By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle affected as my Difference just enough to regularly anyway.I vehicle is not pass the emissions would do it with or required to test. without an emissions undergo an program. emissions test. Number % Number % Number Bi-Products 5 2 71 29 24 10 .38 (NS) Facilities Chemical 11 4 '72 26 17 6 .005 Plants Feedlots 1 2 74 101 25 34 .08 (NS) Dairies Meat- 10 11 67 73 25 23 .000 Packing Truck 0 0 62 13 38 8 .05 Washout Wastewater 2 1 88 46 10 5 .21 (NS) Treatment Sugar 1 1 64 47 34 25 .001 Industry Emissions 0 0 93 25 7 2 .20 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 4 6 81 149 15 28 .40 (NS) Shop Respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a chemical plant, a meat packing plant, a truck washout or in the sugar industry were more likely to state that they would "maintain or repair their vehicle regularly with or without an emissions program" than any other response. Respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at bi products facilities, feedlots/dairies, wastewater treatment plants, emissions testing stations, or an auto repair shop did not show significant differences in how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality in Greeley. (Table 44) Table 45. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 46 Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Repairs Repairs Will Significant WILL Help Will NOT WILL Help NOT Help Difference Help % Number % Number % Number % Number Bi-Products 42 17 58 24 68 28 32 13 .63 (NS) Facilities .36 (NS) Chemical 33 12 37 24 31 11 69 24 .72 (NS) Plants .01 Feedlots 41 55 59 78 41 ! 84 L 53 .06 Dairies .20 (NS) Meat- 36 39 64 70 62 67 38 42 .002 Packing .102 (NS) Truck ,43 9 57 12 38 8 :42 13 .78 (NS) Washout .27 (NS) Wastewater 44 23 56 29 64 ` 33 3`6 19 .47 (NS) Treatment .54(NS) Sugar 38 28 62 45 44 32 56 41 .89 (NS) Industry .04 Emissions 56 14 44 11 68 17 32 8 .20 (NS) Testing .61 (NS) Stat. Auto Repair 39 70 61 111 56 105 44 79 .38 (NS) Shop .09 (NS) There were very few significant differences in where a respondent worked or had a friend or relative that worked for the other programs. Only incentive programs for chemical plants and the sugar industry showed significant differences with more believing that the incentive programs would NOT help in both groups as compared to those who believed it would help. Only education and information programs for feedlots/dairies and meat packing plants showed significant differences with more believing that the education and information programs would NOT help in both groups as compared to those who believed it would help. (Table 45) Table 46. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. Yes, at a Small Yes,if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference % Number % Number % _ Number Bi-Products 61 25 10 4 29 ' 12 .17 (NS) Facilities Chemical 61 22 17 6 22 8 .62 (NS) Plants Feedlots 47 65 22 30 31 42 .30 (NS) Dairies Meat- 43 47 ' 19 21 8 I 41 .01 Packing 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 47 Truck 67 14 24 5 10 2 .49 (NS) Washout Wastewater 62 32 15 8 23 12 .33 (NS) Treatment Sugar 52 38 29 21 19 14 .84 (NS) Industry Emissions 48 13 11 3 41 11 .22 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 48 88 25 45 27 50 .69 (NS) Shop Respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at all but one of the listed places of employment did not show significant differences in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection program. Those respondents who worked or had a friend or relative that worked at a meat packing plant were significantly more likely to respond that they would pay for this program with a small additional fee. (Table 46) Length Of Time In The Community-Emissions There was a significant difference between the amount of time the respondent has lived in Greeley by: • Whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with those living in Greeley between 5 and 15 years agreeing that it does play an important role more often than those who have lived there under 5 years or over 15 years. • Their position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program with those who have lived there under 5 years stating that cost is important, whereas most of the respondents stated neither was important. • Stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles. This difference can be seen for those who have lived in Greeley 5-10 years were more likely to report that they are not affected by the vehicle emissions program. • Beliefs that incentive programs for repairs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. However, there was a significant difference between lengths of time respondents have lived in Greeley by the belief that education and information programs will help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley with the group of residents that have lived there between 11 and 15 years feeling that education/information would NOT help the air quality. • Approval of the safety inspection program even at a small additional fee with those who have lived there over 10 years more likely to approve of it. Table 47. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Not Sure Significant % Number 97 Nltmber % Number Difference < 5 years 61 79 1 40 8 11 5-10 years 72 83 25 7 8 11-15 years 19 , 60 9 9 7 > 15 years 61'; 283 146 38 .008 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 48 There was a significant difference found in responses to whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with those living in Greeley between 5 and 15 years agreeing that it does play an important role more often than those who have lived there under 5 years or over 15 years. (Table 47) Table 48. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Length of Time in the Community. Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Violating Maintain Improve Air AiraQuality Current Mr Quality itanrds Quality % Number % Number % Number ` % Number Significant Difference <5 5 7 37 48 49 63 9 12 years _ 5-10 9 10 34 40 47 54 10 12 years 11-15 4 3 46 35 4f 36 3 2 years > 15 7 34 31 143 48 224 13 62 .102 (NS) years _ There was no significant difference around how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality across the length of time people have lived in the community of Greeley (Table 48). Table 49. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Length of Time in the Community. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference < 5 58 74 19 24 1 1 23 29 years 5-10 50 55 10 11 0 0 45 40 years 11-15 42 32 17 13 0 0 41 31 years > 15 22 244 9 41 3 16 36 165 .003 years There was a significant difference between the amount of time the respondent has lived in Greeley by their position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program with those who have lived there under 5 years stating that cost is important, whereas most of the respondents state that neither is important. (Table 49) Table 50. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 49 Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number % Number Difference < 5 years 65 85 19 25 15 20 5-10 years 66 76 17 20 17 20 11-15 years 68 52 18 14 13 10 > 15 years 69 319 19 88 13 59 .64 (NS) No significant differences were found between the lengths of time the respondent has lived in Greeley by attitudes toward local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles. (Table 50) Table 51. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Length of Time in the Community. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not affected Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle as my vehicle is not Difference just enough to pass regularly.anyway. I required to undergo the emissions test would do it with or an emissions test. without an emissions program. % Number °fo Number % Number < 5 3 4 83 108 14 18 years 5-10 2 2 75 85 24 27 years 11-15 1 1 82 62 17 13 years > 15 2 11 79 368 19 88 .000 years There was a significant difference found between the length of time the respondents have lived in the City of Greeley (Table 5 1) by stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles. This difference can be seen for those who have lived in Greeley 5-10 years were more likely to report that they are not affected by the vehicle emissions program. Table 52. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Length of Time in the Community. Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs WILL Repairs Will Significant WILL Hely NOT Help Help NOT Help Difference % Nnt ber % Number % Number % Number < 5 40 52 60 ; 78 57 73 43 55 years Education & 5-10 46 52 54 57 '62 72 38 44 Information years = .04 11-15 24 18 76 58 63 48 37 28 years Incentive 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants I Asmus 50 > 15 40 185 60 280 53 245 47 220 Programs = years .06 There was no significant difference between the lengths of time respondents have lived in Greeley (Table 52) in the belief that incentive programs for repairs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. However, there was a significant difference between lengths of time respondents have lived in Greeley by the belief that education and information programs will help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley with the group of residents that have lived there between 11 and 15 years feeling that education/information would NOT help the air quality. Table 53. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Length of Time in the Community. Yes, at a Small Yes, if it Didn't No Significant „MOW e l Fee Cost More Money Difference % Number % Number % Number < 5 years 0, 51 3 41 29 38 5-10 years 44 51 33 38 24 27 11-15 years 48 44 15 11 28 21 > 15 years ` '2 ' 240 25 118 23 107 .031 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent has lived in Greeley (Table 53) with those who have lived there over 10 years more likely to approve the safety inspection program even at a small additional fee. Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community-Emissions There was a significant difference for length of time respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley in: • Whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with those who lived there "> 15 years" more likely to be "not sure" if it did or not. • Position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program, with those who intended to live in the Greeley area almost three times as likely to state that"only cost was important" as compared to the other age categories. • Incentive programs for repairs with those respondents who intended to live in Greeley "11-15 years" more likely to believe that an"incentive for repairs" program would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. • Support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection with those that intended to live in Greeley"11-15 years" more likely to NOT approve the safety inspection program. Table 54. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community. Yes No Not Sure Significant °!o. Number % Number % Number Difference <5 years �} 51 25 5 4 -� 5-10 years Si,, 56 ,- 22 3 2 11-15 years 2 10 �,,,,;, 3 .0,1 0 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 51 > 15 years i 63 379 28 169 9 53 .05 There was a significant difference found in responses to whether the existing vehicle emission program plays an important role in maintaining of improving the air quality in Greeley with those who lived there "> 15 years" more likely to be"not sure" if it did or not (Table 54). Table 55. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community. Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Violating Maintain Improve Air Air Quality Current Air Quality Standards Quality % Number % Number % Number % Number Significant Difference <5 11 9 34 27 43 34 12 10 years 5-10 4 3 22 17 56 44 18 14 years 11-15 0 0 8 1 77 10 15 2 years > 15 7 41 37 219 47 279 10 60 .08 (NS) years I _ There was not a significant difference around how much the community should do to address vehicle emissions' impact on air quality by length of time intend to live in the community of Greeley (Table 55). Table 56. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important _ Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference < 5 59 47 10 8 7 6 24 19 years 5-10 64 51 2 2 '0 0 34 27 years 11-15 31 4 39 5 -8 1 23 ' 3 years > 15 50 299 12 72 2 10 36 214 .000 years There was a significant difference between the respondents' position regarding cost or convenience of the vehicle emissions program, with those who intended to live in the Greeley area almost three times as likely to state that "only cost was important" as compared to the other age categories (Table 56). r Table 57. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 52 Yes No Not Sure Significant Vo Number % Number % Number Difference <5 years 60 48 23 18 17 14 5-10 years 65 52 28 22 7 6 11-15 years 62 8 31 4 8 1 > 15 years 60 412 17 100 15 88 .20 (NS) No significant difference was found between the length of time respondents intended to live in Greeley by attitudes toward local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles (Table 57). Table 58. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community. ... I maintain and ... I maintain and ,.. I am not affected Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle as my vehicle is not Difference just enough to pass regularly anyway.I required to undergo the emissions test would do it with or an emissions test. without an emissions program. Number % Number % Number <5 0 0 85 68 15 12 years 5-10 4 3 80 64 13 15 years 11-15 8 1 92 12 0 0 years _ > 15 3 15 78 468 19 116 .47 (NS) years There was no significant difference between the length of time respondents intended to live in Greeley (Table 58) in stated behavior around the respondent maintenance and repair of their vehicles. Table 59. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community Education & Education & Incentive Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Will Repairs WILL Repairs Will Significant WILL Help NOT Help Help NOT Help Difference % Number % Number % Number % Number , < 5 38 30 62 50 %63 50 37 30 years Education/ 5-10 46 37 54 43 48 38 52 42 Information= years .82 (NS) 11-15 23 3 10 77 77 10 23 3 years ,L ., Incentive for > 15 z 235 61 363 4, 334 44 263 Repairs= eteyears ,, < i .F .000 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 53 There was no significant difference between the length of time respondents intended to live in Greeley in the belief that other programs such as education and information programs would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley. However, there was a significant difference in incentive programs for repairs with those respondents who intended to live in Greeley"11-15 years" more likely to believe that an "incentive for repairs"program would help maintain or improve the existing air quality in Greeley (Table 59). Table 60. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Length Of Time Intend To Live In The Community. Yes, at a Small Yes, if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference Number % Number % Number < 5 years 44 35 31 - 25 25 20 5-10 years 33 26 t2 34 25 20 11-15 years 31 4 23 ! 3 46 6 .01 > 15 years 54 324 23 137 23 138 There was a significant difference across the length of time the respondent intends to live in Greeley (Table 60) in support of a mandatory vehicle safety inspection with those that intended to live in Greeley"11-15 years" more likely to NOT approve the safety inspection program. Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From-Emissions There was a significant finding in where a respondent was from in: • Belief that the existing vehicle emissions program does play an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley with residents who came from the country before they moved to Greeley believing it does play a big role. • How much they believe the community should do to alleviate or maintain the air quality for those who have lived in Greeley all there life stating that "nothing" should be done more often than those from other areas. • Respondents from a mid-size city were more likely to state that both cost and convenience are important and those from a mid-size city and a rural area were more likely to state that "only cost is important" as factors in their position regarding vehicle emissions testing programs. • Respondents that came from a large city were significantly more likely to state that there should not be local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles in Greeley. • Respondents from a rural area were more likely to state that they keep their vehicles repaired and maintained anyway since there are often not vehicle emissions laws outside of cities. In addition, those from towns were also more likely to state that they are not required to undergo emissions testing. • Supporting other programs to reduce vehicle emissions. Those from a small city were the only group where more believed that an incentive program would help and those from a mid-size city were the only group to be more likely to state that education and information programs would help • Only the respondents that came from a small city were more likely to stat that they would be support of a mandatory vehicle inspections program only if it did NOT cost them more 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 54 money. Respondents from small cities and rural places were more likely to support this program even if it did cost more money. Table 61. Does The Existing Vehicle Emissions Program Play An Important Role In Maintaining Or Improving The Air Quality In Greeley By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Yes No Not Sure Significant °To- Number % Number ° - Number Difference Been Here 51 65 42 54 7 9 all Life Large City 61 118 33 63 6 13 (>200,000) Mid-size 64 72 21 " 24 15 16 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 6$ 54 31 27 7 6 (<50,000) Town 68 82 26 22 11 13 (<5,000) Rural (lived 75 110 20 30 5 7 .001 in Country) Interestingly, for those residents who came from the country before they moved to Greeley, a significant percentage believe that the existing vehicle emissions program does play an important role in maintaining or improving the air quality in Greeley(Table 61). Table 62. How Much Should the Community Do to Address Vehicle Emissions Impact on Air Quality by Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Just Enough to Enough to Enough to Nothing Prevent Maintain Improve Air Violating Air Current Air Quality Quality Quality Standards Significant % Number ° Number Vo Number ° Number Difference Been Here 0 0 41 53 40 51 19 24 all Life Large City 5 m 10 39" 74 42 ! 81 14 27 (>200,000) Mid-size 1flr 11 25 28 56 ' 63 9 10 (>50,000, but < 200,000) Small City 8 7 37 32 40 35 15 13 (<50,000) Town 14 17 29 35 50 60 6 7 (<5,000) t, Rural (lived 7 32 : 47 5D 86 5 7 .000 in Country) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 55 There was a significant finding in where a respondent was from and how much they believe the community should do to alleviate or maintain the air quality for those who have lived in Greeley all there life stating that "nothing" should be done more often than those from other areas (Table 62). Table 63. Does Cost Or Convenience Factor In To The Respondent Position Regarding Vehicle Emissions Testing Programs By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Neither is Only Cost is Only Both are Important Important Convenience is Important Important _ Significant °/p,� Number % Number % : Number % Number Difference Been Here 57 72 8 10 5 6 31 39 all Life Large City 55 106 5 16 2. 3 35 65 (>200,000) Mid-size 34 38 15 17 2 2 49 55 (>50,000, but < 200,000) Small City 53 45 9 8 2 2 35 30 (<50,000) Town 57 67 10 12 2 2 31 36 (<5,000) Rural (lived 54 80 19 26 0 0 28 41 .001 in Country) Those respondents from a mid-size city were more likely to state that both cost and convenience are important and those from a mid-size city and a rural area were more likely to state that "only cost is important" as factors in their position regarding vehicle emissions testing programs (Table 63). Table 64. There Should be a Local Law With Local Enforcement to Prohibit Smoking Vehicles in Greeley By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Yes No Not Sure Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 66 84 46 20 19 24 all Life Large City 58 112 6 51 16 31 (>200,000) Mid-size 77 ' 86 f8 20 5 6 (>50,000, but < 200,000) Small City 66 76 16 14 8 7 (<50,000) Town 65 79 12 15 22 27 (<5,000) Rural (lived 71 104 ID' 28 1€1 14 .000 in Country) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 56 Respondents that came from a large city were significantly more likely to state that there should not be local laws with local enforcement to prohibit smoking vehicles in Greeley(Table 64). Table 65. Sentence Completion of: "Because of the Existing Emissions Testing Program..." By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. I Maintain and ... I maintain and ... I am not Significant repair my vehicle repair my vehicle affected as,my Difference gust enough to regularly anyway.' vehicle is not ;pass the would do it with or required;to to tiissions:test. without an=emissions undergo an grogram. emissions test. o/d Number % Number a/o Number Been Here 1 1 80 104 18 23 all Life Large City 7 13 75 145 19 36 (>200,000) Mid-size 0 0 83 91 17 19 (>50,000, but< 200,000) Small City 2 2 77 • 67 21 18 (<50,000) Town 1 1 69 84 30 36 (<5,000) Rural (lived 2 3 88 130 10 14 .000 in Country) Of course, those respondents from a rural area were more likely to state that they keep their vehicles repaired and maintained anyway since there are often not vehicle emissions laws outside of cities. In addition, those from towns were also more likely to state that they are not required to undergo emissions testing (Table 65) Table 66. Support of Other Programs and Measures to Reduce Vehicle Emissions By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Education & Education & Incentive -Incentive Information Information Programs for Programs for Programs Programs Repairs Repairs Will Significant WILL Help Will NOT WILI •Help NOT Help Difference Help 04 Number ll/o Number % Number. % Number Been Here 45 ! 58 55 70 57 73 43 55 all Life Large City 35 62 67 129 51 98 40 94 (>200,000) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 57 Mid-size 57 64 43 48 61 68 39 44 Education/ (>50,000, Information but < _ .000 200,000) Small City 31 36 64 56 48 42 52 45 Incentive (<50,000) Programs Town 30 35 70 82 59 71 41 49 = .000 (<5,000) Rural 37 55 92 63 61 89 39 58 (lived in Country) There were significant differences found between where a person was from in regard to supporting other programs to reduce vehicle emissions. Those from a small city were the only group where more believed that an incentive program would help and those from a mid-size city were the only group to be more likely to state that education and information programs would help (Table 66). Table 67. Support of a Mandatory Vehicle Safety Inspection By Type Of Area The Respondent Comes From. Yes, at a Small Yes, if it Didn't No Significant Additional Fee Cost More Money Difference % Number % Number % Number Been Here 48 62 22 28 30 38 all Life Large City 45 87 25 48 30 59 (>200,000) Mid-size 46 50 20 22 34 38 (>50,000, but < 200,000) Small City 37 32 49 43 14 12 (<50,000) Town 56 66 27 33 17 20 (<5,000) Rural (lived 59 87 22 33 18 27 .000 in Country) Only the respondents that came from a small city were more likely to stat that they would be support of a mandatory vehicle inspections program only if it did NOT cost them more money. Respondents from small cities and rural places were more likely to support this program even if it did cost more money (Table 67). (The following section crosses odor responses with demographics.) Odor- Gender There was a significant difference between males and females in: • Experiencing physical symptoms due to the odor in the air in Greeley with more females stating they have than males. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 58 • Can anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with twice as many females stating that they"don't know" if anything can be done as compared to male respondents. • "How" the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with many more females stating that the odor was different. • Whether they believed the odor hotline was a good idea with many more males stating it is a"bad idea" as compared to female. Table 68. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male 6.'I 176 - 198 2 5 .24 (NS) Female 43 168 '5 225 ' 0 2 There was no significant difference between males and females in experiencing unacceptable'odor in the air in Greeley. (Table 68) Table 69. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Gender. Yes _ No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male 35 132 64 240 1 5 .07 (NS) Female 30 119 70 274 0 1 There was no significant difference between males and females in experiencing - unacceptable odor in the air in "my neighborhood". (Table 69) Table 70. Experience of Physical Symptoms Due to the Odor By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male 8 13 92 153 0 0 .014 Female 15 22 83 124 2 4 There was a significant difference between males and females in experiencing physical symptoms due to the odor in the air in Greeley with more females stating they have than males. (Table 70) Table 71. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant _ % Number % Number % Number Difference Male 10 17 ; 99 146 0 ` 0 .09 (NS) Female 15 22 ;$ 125 2 3 There was no significant difference between males and females in experiencing emotional reactions due to the odor in the air in Greeley(Table 71). Table 72. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference --- Male 34 48 $ 96 13 21 .10 (NS) Female 38 57 45 67 17 25 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 59 There was no significant difference between males and females in will anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley (Table 72). Table 73. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male 69 115 23 39 8 13 .014 Female 59 88 21 31 20 30 There was a significant difference between males and females in can anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with twice as many females stating that they"don't know" if anything can be done as compared to male respondents (Table 73). Table 74. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male 76 127 21 35 4 6 .37 (NS) Female 75 112 17 26 7 11 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents in should anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley (Table 74). Table 75. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Gender. Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference Male 54 90 43 76 .14 (NS) Female 61 90 39 58 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents in whether the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air has changed since they moved to Greeley (Table 75). Table 76. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Gender. Better Worse Same Different % Number % Number % Number % Number Significant Difference Male 46 72 20 31 36 53 1 2 .04 Female 44 62 15 21 34 ' 48 8 ' 11 There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in "how" the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with many more females stating that the odor was different (Table 76). Table 77. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Gender. Yes No Don't Know Significant of Number % Number % Number Difference Male 69 270 30 ' 121 1 2 .53 (NS) Female 6$ 270 � ` 1 123 d'4 3 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 60 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents in knowledge of the odor ordinance (Table 77). Table 78. Use of the Odor Hotline By Gender. Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference Male 9 35 91 358 .53 (NS) Female 8 31 92 366 There was no significant difference between male and female respondents in use of the odor hotline (Table 78). Table 79. Is the Odor Hotline a Good Idea By Gender. Good Idea Bad Idea Neutral _ Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Male $6 217 28 109 16 64 .004 Female 6 246 18 72 20 80 There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in whether they believed the odor hotline was a good idea with many more males stating it is a"bad idea" as compared to females (Table 79). Age-Odor There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in: • Whether they have experience unacceptable air in Greeley with very few of the 18-25 year olds having experienced the noxious odor compared to the other age groups. • Experiencing unacceptable odor in the air in their own neighborhood with both the 18- 25 year olds and those over 65 stating they have not more than the other age categories. • Having experienced physical symptoms due to the odor in the air in Greeley with the 26- 35 year olds much more likely to state that they have compared to the other age groups. • Having experienced negative emotional reactions due to the odor in the air in Greeley with, again, many more 26-35 year olds more likely to state that they have compared to the other age groups. • Will anything be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with none of the 18-25 year olds believing anything will be done? • Can anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with more of the older population compared to the younger believing something can be done. The 18-25 year olds were"not sure" anything can be done more often than any other groups. • Should anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with several different findings across the age groups? • Whether they believed the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air have changed since the respondent moved to the Greeley area with many more of those aged 26-35 and 46-55 stating that the odor has changed. • "How" has the odor changed since moving to Greeley with those 18-25 more likely to state it is the same. • Knowledge of the odor ordinance with fewer of those under 35 knowing about the ordinance than those over 35. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 61 r.. • Use of the odor hotline with very few of the respondents under the age of 35 having used it as compared to the other age groups. • Belief that the odor ordinance is a good or bad idea with the 18-25 and 56-65 more likely to state it is a"bad" idea. Table 80. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Age. p :4':'"1,9 tn'':11:'7-/- t.= 'ha.''a ` 3 yti : +'F� yt 'P k h ° Don'1 ow "� iii (4�anto-`ti ro °. _ »' 18-25 26 9 74 26 0 0 26-35 43,_ 41 .53 51 4 4 36-45 56 91 43 70 1 1 46-55 50 92 50 94 0 0 56-65 42 56 55 73 3 4 >65 34 54 65 103 1 1 .000 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in whether they have experience unacceptable air in Greeley with very few of the 18-25 year olds having experienced the noxious odor compared to the other age groups (Table 80). Table 81. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Age. '. Y a tt�: I 1 o T: 4��" ,,'%s Don't ow r r i i iiiost % jberl t nNu be '% umber- v� .�! f.„e'c 18-25 23 8 _ 77 27 0 0 26-35 33 31 67 64 0 0 36-45 48 78 51 83 1 1 46-55 39 72 61 114 0 0 56-65 34 45 63 83 3 4 >65 12 19 87 137 1 1 .000 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in experiencing unacceptable odor in the air in their own neighborhood with both the 18-25 year olds and those over 65 stating they have not more than the other age categories (Table 81). Table 82. Experience of Physical Sym,toms Due to the Odor By Age. r', i ° C .y° a �+r1 1 j g (�. a T. Y J 4 .D`on CJ.-ems 1 1.1:7(1' (1' w� r^r a �s �'�� n � 1 "¢;7 .�' � �i 4 �t�ro 18-25 0 0 100 9 0 0 26-35 23 9 69 27 8 3 36-45 11 9 89 71 0 0 46-55 13 11 87 77 0 0 56-65 0 0 98 49 2 1 >65 12 6 88 46 0 0 .001 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in having experienced physical symptoms due to the odor in the air in Greeley with the 26-35 year olds much more likely to state that they have compared to the other age groups (Table 82). Table 83. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Age. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 62 f„ CP > t F Don't K ow , t., fa 4.N }Y �:a . `� "� ' `tuber_ ., °AG.. .ti mber' 0a „ rNu ' e . 18-25 0 0 100 9 0 0 26-35 31 12 69 27 0 0 36-45 10 - 8 86 70 3 4 46-55 14 12 73 86 0 0 56-65 10 5 90 45 0 0 >65 2 1 98 50 0 0 .001 • There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in having experienced negative emotional reactions due to the odor in the air in Greeley with, again, many more 26-35 year olds more likely to state that they have compared to the other age groups (Table 83). Table 84. Will An hin• be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley B A.e.fl r i 99�� „ t--. :.:„:„.::5, ,a ,D ,, a a i'{, (,,h^i.. yasy Y� ,i ", .-?!:C711';',;, .:;,- „r r .,a4; ii.:1,.....5 f.., 31 R yF _• atktli i3ffigx ut.P • _ .i fi ro_. .. 18-25 0 0 56 5 44 4 26-35 18 7 56 22 26 10 36-45 32 26 49 40 19 15 46-55 34 ' 29 56 48 10 9 56-65 48 24 42 21 10 5 >65 37 " 19 51 26 12 6 .002 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in will anything be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with none of the 18-25 year olds believing anything will be done (Table 84). Table 85. Can An hin' be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Age. �, l 3: ,0.,� a a ..a a �'' t', xt < a '� t • ::" ., . i9°}o r ;:e'niher₹ 0/,, Number Tot.-; Nuii ,erg ; J nce 18-25 33 3 11 1 56 5 26-35 49 19 31 12 23 8 36-45 67 - 54 22 18 11 9 46-55 71 61 24 21 5 4 56-65 ; 69 36 '=10 6 22 11 >65 601 31 `23„ 12 17 9 .002 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in can anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with more of the older population compared to the younger believing something can be done. The 18-25 year olds were "not sure" anything can be done more often than any other groups (Table 85). Table 86. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley B Age. ₹� k :,. 't : " ,; wl�; M. tai ! 0 ! B ! 0.t. Al a %"':ial�' ,+LEtr _18-25 89 < 9 .11 1 0 0 26-35 73,P 27 Al 4 '16 6 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 63 r 36-45 68 55 25 20 7 6 46-55 74 67 26 23 0 0 56-65 86 43 12 6 2 1 >65 73 38 19 10 8 4 .022 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in should anything be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with several different findings across the age groups (Table 86). Table 87. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Res.ondentt Moved to Greeley By Age. '2ri :.ci, , 6' zs . ''L' ,, ye s, u+4'.•31.,:i,'AlletakAilitaitilltirltigatiligiti512r:" II'.18-25 67 6 33 3 26-35 46 18 54 21 36-45 68 54 3;2 26 46-55 4 39 55 47 56-65 5?8 29 42 21 >65 65 34 35 18 .034 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in whether they believed the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air have changed since the respondent moved to the Greeley area with many more of those aged 26-35 and 46-55 stating `� that the odor has changed (Table 87). Table 88. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Age. 4`E Bettd y ' � .t ' � ..� o�f»a'f Si11G _ �V., r Different "�`J` uB um auk ati x e �Y*a yw t t + ,$.441 x fi F '� i.tayA� 4 ✓ Yw" '.4f m .71111#4;11.* ��+� 1" 3k � r � � � f �• Significant > i t i- r tr + ' Ditaahe 18-25 0 0 0 0 89 8 11 j 26-35 23 9 8 3 61 24 8 3 36-45 56 42 19 ' 14 19 61 0 8 46-55 41 34 23 19 32 27 4 3 56-65 49 22 20 ' 9 29 13 1 4 >65 53 27 14 7 24 12 10 5 .000 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in"how" has the odor changed since moving to Greeley with those 18-25 more likely to state it is the same (Table 88). Table 89. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Age. t rsa 4 a a '` 2 . ' sw t nikic,a►►t .-,,t .c, rara. diablitigudadaai “t Y/Q M ber 'biltce 18-25 39 13 61 20 0 0 26-35 41 39 5.' 57 0 0 36-45 7f . 118 : 47 1 2 46-55 70 133 " 53 2 3 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 64 r. • 56-65 78 106 22 30 0 0 >65 77 127 23 37 0 0 .000 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in knowledge of the odor ordinance with fewer of those under 35 knowing about the ordinance than those over 35 (Table 89). Table 90. Use of the Odor Hotline By Age. 18-25 0 100 35 26-35 1 99 95 36-45 _ 21 87 146 46-55 6 12 94 ' 176 _ 56-65 11 15 9 121 >65 13 17 147 .005 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in use of the odor hotline with very few of the respondents under the age of 35 having used it as compared to the other age groups (Table 90). Table 91. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Age. - ` p�E 5&,_s : : + e 'e F ;'!.7:74;-"47 Nil-mb& x +9,,C, fl + r ,y''—la *G WB , 18-25 46 16 31 11 23 8 26-35 65 62 13 12 23 22 36-45 62 103 16 27 22 37 46-55 59 110 25 48 16 31 56-65 5 71 30 40 23 16 >65 61 100 25 40 14 23 .03 There was a significant difference between different respondent age groups in belief that the odor ordinance is a good or bad idea with the 18-25 and 56-65 more likely to state it is a"bad" idea (Table 91). Smoking-Odor There was a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers in: • Should be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with more of the non-smokers believing something should be done. • Whether or not the respondent knew there was an odor ordinance with a significant percentage of the non-smokers more aware of the ordinance than the non-smokers. • Whether or not the respondent had used the odor hotline with a significantly larger percentage of smokers, compared to non-smokers who stated they had used the hotline. Table 92. Unacceutable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant °A Number % Number % Number Difference Smoker .;?;� 79 55 96 0 0 Non-Smoker 265 54 326 2 10 .228 (NS) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 65 There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable air in Greeley (Table 92). Table 93. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference _ Smoker 31 55 69 120 0 0 Non-Smoker 33 199 66 393 1 6 .357 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable air in their neighborhood (Table 93). Table 94. Experience of Physical Symptoms Due to the Odor By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant 11/0 Number % Number' % Number Difference Smoker 14 10 87 64 0 0 Non-Smoker 10 25 88 216 2 4 .408 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent has experienced any physical symptoms due to the odor in the air(Table 94). Table 95. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference _ Smoker 10 7 90 67 0 0 Non-Smoker 13 32 86 207 1 3 .421 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent has experienced any emotional reactions due to the odor in the air (Table 95). Table 96. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant ,Number % Number % Number _ Difference Smoker 26 19 59 44 15 11 Non-Smoker 35 86 49 119 16 _ 38 .10 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent believed anything will be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley (Table 96). Table 97. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number _ Difference Smoker 53 40 O 22 17 13 Non-Smoker 6') 163 Si 48 13 33 .06 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent believed anything can be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley(Table 97). Table 98. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant I Number % I Number % I Number Difference 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 66 Smoker 76 56 13 10 10 8 Non-Smoker 74 183 22 54 4 9 .03 There was a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent believed anything should be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with more of the non-smokers believing something should be done (Table 98). Table 99. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Smoking. Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference Smoker 57 42 43 32 Non-Smoker 51 1138 4 105 996 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent felt the annoyance or offensiveness of the odor in the air has changed since they first moved there (Table 99). Table 100. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Smoking. Better Worse Same Different - Number % Number % Number % Number Significant Difference Smoker 44 31 20 14 33 23 3 2 .821 (NS) Non- 44 103 16 38 35 81 5 11 Smoker There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by how the respondent felt the odor had changed since first moving to Greeley(Table 100). Table 101. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Smoking. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Smoker 59 103 40 70 1 3 Non-Smoker 71 437 29 176 0 2 .004 There was a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent knew there was an odor ordinance with a significant percentage of the non- smokers more aware of the ordinance than the non-smokers (Table 101). Table 102. Use of the Odor Hotline By Smoking. Yes No Significant 13/0 Number % Number Difference Smoker 13 23 8., 153 Non-Smoker 7 43 95, 573 01 There was a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by whether or not the respondent had used the odor hotline with a significantly larger percentage of smokers, compared to non-smokers who stated they had used the hotline (Table 102). Table 103. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Smoking. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 67 Good Idea Bad Idea Neutral Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Smoker 53 94 26 45 21 37 Non-Smoker 60 368 22 136 18 110 .301 (NS) There was no significant difference between smokers and non-smokers by how the respondent felt about the odor ordinance (Table 103). Sensitivity to Odor-Odor There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in: • Whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with those who are "not sensitive" much more likely to never have experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley. • Whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood with those who are "not sensitive" much more likely to never have experienced unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood. • Whether they believed anything will be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with many more of the not sensitive and somewhat sensitive much more likely to state that nothing will be done than the very sensitive. • Whether they believed anything should be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with many more of the not sensitive and somewhat sensitive much more likely to state that nothing should be done than the very sensitive. • Whether they have used the odor hotline with more of the"don't know" never having used the hotline with many more of the "very sensitive" having used the odor hotline. • Whether they believed the odor hotline was a good idea with many of the"somewhat sensitive" replying in a neutral position. Table 104. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Sensitivity to w Odor. $ z ties s 4 i on't thiow Significant % Number % fljlper °fo Nprxl rer Difference Very 49 123 51 130 0 0 Sensitive Somewhat 46 139 52 157 2 8 Sensitive Not Sensitive 40 70 60 104 0 1 Don't Know 26 11 72 31 2 1 .006 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with those who are "not sensitive" much more likely to never have experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley (Table 104). Table 105. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Sensitivit to Odor. / tlq, a # �9 + i Very 38' 96 6.2 155 0 0 Sensitive ws 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 68 Somewhat 36 109 62 190 2 5 Sensitive Not Sensitive 22 38 78 136 0 0 Don't Know 26 11 72 31 2 1 .001 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether or not the respondent has experienced unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood with those who are "not sensitive" much more likely to never have experienced unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood (Table 105). Table 106. Experience of Ph sical Sym.toms Due to the Odor By Sensitivity to Odor. ' ,. tea` 1 r " 2 m 9 4aAr .17: :--TihrfriPtik Very 10 12 87 105 3 4 Sensitive Somewhat 13 15 87 104 0 0 Sensitive Not Sensitive 12 8 88 58 0 0 Don't Know 0 0 100 12 0 0 .201 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they have experienced negative physical symptoms due to odor in the air(Table 106). Table 107. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Sensitivity to Odor. l', �` '>= f• ° kW � 4o5'`t a `' ' i Aar 1�}1�6�2� t 3'n ' :hu p " x ,z t ex : _ � , ft l4. Number V.1, Niiiii i 12t -eif' Very 16 19 84 102 0 0 Sensitive Somewhat 14 17 83 99 2 3 Sensitive Not Sensitive 3 2 97 62 0 0 Don't Know 9 1 91 10 0 0 .06 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they have experienced negative emotional reactions due to odor in the air (Table 107). Table 108. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Sensitivity to Odor. Very 45 54 45 55 10 12 Sensitive Somewhat 27 32 50 60 33 27 Sensitive Not Sensitive 26 17 65 43 9 6 Don't Know 18 2 46 5 36 4 .005 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they believed anything will be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with many more of the not sensitive and somewhat sensitive much more likely to state that nothing will be done than the very sensitive (Table 108). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 69 Table 109. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Sensitivity toOdor. °o Number ' , �.• r. eit,i= .. ,• A, ,,. , fq4` .' Mt-Bier r� .iti : Very 74 90 16 19 10 12 Sensitive Somewhat 53 63 27 32 21 25 Sensitive Not Sensitive 64 42 23 15 14 9 Don't Know 64 76 4 0 0 06 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they believed anything can be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley(Table 109). Table 110. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Sensitivity to Odor. Ji a � l a i a �7 :; Very 84 101 12 15 4 5 Sensitive Somewhat 74 89 20 25 6 7 Sensitive -- Not Sensitive 61 40 35 23 4 3 Don't Know 82 9 0 0 18 2 .009 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they believed anything should be done to alleviate odorous air in Greeley with many more of the not sensitive and somewhat sensitive much more likely to state that nothing should be done than the very sensitive (Table 110). Table 111. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Re..pgondent Moved to Greeley By Sensitivity to Odor. .L� at '₹if k 4'00,P-040 .,./.c. '. �®4m ; " r T'1'fle iii:°: 4::;:'7;1"-tat;q o/a i t � ea a , 9 �crc a Very 54 65 46 56 Sensitive Somewhat 59 70 41 48 Sensitive Not Sensitive 59 39 41 27 Don't Know 55 6 45 5 .81.7 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether the annoyance or offensiveness of the odor in the air had changed since the respondent moved to Greeley (Table 111). Table 112. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Sensitivity to Odor. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 70 Very 52 58 14 16 32 36 1 1 Sensitive Somewhat 41 47 11 13 40 45 8 9 Sensitive Not 39 26 30 20 26 17 5 3 Sensitive Don't Know 27 3 27 3 46 5 0 0 .007 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in how the annoyance or offensiveness of the odor in the air had changed since the respondent moved to Greeley (Table 112). Table 113. Knowled•e of the Odor Ordinance By Sensitivity to Odor. .,.`a--- ,, , %SAS ° a 'j a ' .A-s " Yithiit aee I Very 66 168 32 85 1 3 Sensitive Somewhat ' i 223 28 90 1 2 Sensitive Not Sensitive 64 113 36 63 0 0 Don't Know 81 35 19 8 0 0 .06 (NS) There was no significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether -� they knew about the odor ordinance (Table 113). Table 114. Use of the Odor Hotline By Sensitivity to Odor. s ,I. ,, : l u ,``r, 1-., a. ' ex,umber Differene4b Very 13 32 87 225 Sensitive Somewhat 8 26 92 289 Sensitive Not Sensitive 5 ! 8 95 168 Don't Know 0 0 100` 100 .005 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they have used the odor hotline with more of the"don't know" never having used the hotline with many more of the "very sensitive" having used the odor hotline. (Table 114). Table 115. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Sensitivit to Odor. = t� �„„ ;Yid., g� ,au Mill. � � �� ' � � . ,I.I 1 iltratacialria '''' tit 'natal Very t 3 167 22 55 13 33 Sensitive Somewhat 55 174 21 66 24 75 Sensitive • Not Sensitive ,',4' 100 26 46 17 30 Don't Know ,_ ,E1 21 13, 13 19 : 9 .02 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 71 There was a significant difference by sensitivity of the respondent to odor in whether they believed the odor hotline was a good idea with many of the "somewhat sensitive" replying in a neutral position (Table 115). Income-Odor There was a significant difference across respondent income categories in: • Whether the participant experiences unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with very few with incomes <$10,000 stating"yes." • Whether the participant experienced any emotional reactions due to the odor in the air with those with a yearly household income of under$10,000 significantly less likely to say"yes." • Whether the participant believed anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those earning over$50,000 per year significantly more likely to respond "yes" something can be done. • How the respondent believes the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with those earning less than $10,000 stating the odor is "different" more often than any of the other income categories. Table 116. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant 04 Number % Number % Number _ Difference • <$10,000 13 3 87 21 0 0 $10,000- 49 116 48 113 3 7 $50,000 >$50,000 47 140 52 156 1 2 No Response 39 85 61 132 0 1 .000 There was a significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant experiences unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with very few with incomes <$10,000 stating"yes" (Table 116). Table 117. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % _ Number Difference <$10,000 13 3 87 21 0 0 $10,000- 35 82 63 150 2 4 $50,000 >$50,000 31 94 68 202 1 2 No Response 35 75 65 140 0 _ 0 .116 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant experiences unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood (Table 117). Table 118. Experience of Physical Symptoms Due to the Odor By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference ' <$10,000 0 0 {,tl4 3 0 0 $10,000- 14 16 96 1 ., 1 $50,000 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 72 >$50,000 10 13 88 115 2 3 No Response 8 6 92 66 0 0 .619 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant has ever experienced any physical symptoms due to the odor in the air (Table 118). Table 119. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 0 0 100 3 0 0 $10,000— bhp ' 11 90 101 0 0 $50,000 >$50,000 1 23 82 105 0 0 No Response "1 5 89 65 4 3 .011 There was a significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant has ever experienced any emotional reactions due to the odor in the air with those with a yearly household income of under$10,000 significantly less likely to say "yes" (Table 119). Table 120. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant h• Number % Number ° Number Difference <$10,000 34 1 33 1 33 1 $10,000- 35 39 57 63 8 9 $50,000 >$50,000 37 48 45 58 18 24 No Response 23 17 56 41 21 15 .106 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant believed anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley (Table 120). Table 121. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant • Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 ,'67 2 33 1 0 0 $10,000- '7 63 31 34 13 14 $50,000 >$50,000 ' - 96 16 21 11 15 No Response 38 42 19 14 23 17 .045 There was a significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant believed anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those earning over$50,000 per year significantly more likely to respond "yes" something can be done (Table 121). Table 122. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 Vs P 2 .31 1 0 0 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants r Asmus 73 $10,000- 68 74 27 30 5 5 $50,000 >$50,000 75 100 19 25 6 8 No Response 84 63 11 8 5 4 .204 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant believed anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley (Table 122). Table 123. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Income. . Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference <$10,000 100 3 0 0 0$10,000- 56 62 44 49 $50,000 >$50,000 61 79 39 51 No Response 49 36 51 37 .185 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant believed the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air had changed since moving to the Greeley area (Table 123). Table 124. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Income. Better Worse Same Different Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference _ <$10,000 33 1 0 0 0 0 67` 2 $10,000- 42 44 13 14 39 41 6 7 $50,000 >$50,000 49 62 21 26 28 36 2 3 No Response 40 27 18 12 40 27 2 1 .000 There was a significant difference across respondent income categories in how the respondent believes the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with those earning less than $10,000 stating the odor is "different." more often than any of the other income categories (Table 124). Table 125. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Income. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 63 15 37 9 0 0 $10,000- 63 151 36 88 1 2 $50,000 >$50,000 72 223 27 82 1 3 No Response 70 154 30 67 0 0 .236 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant had any knowledge of the odor ordinance (Table 125). Table 126. Use of the Odor Hotline By Income. Yes I No I 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 74 Number % Number Significant Difference <$10,000 13 3 87 21 $10,000- 11 27 89 214 $50,000 >$50,000 7 20 93 284 No Response 7 16 93 207 .190 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in the use of the odor hotline (Table 126). Table 127. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Income. Good Idea Bad Idea Neutral Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <$10,000 64 13 37 9 8 2 $10,000- 62 149 18 44 19 46 $50,000 57>$50,000 57 174 24 73 19 57 No Response 56 126 25 55 19 42 .308 (NS) There was no significant difference across respondent income categories in whether the participant believed that the odor ordinance was a good idea or not (Table 127). Where They (or Friends/Relatives) Work-Odor ^ Table 128. Experienced Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley by Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. : i "'i:::-::?.S4. '..: .4riber I 0:4;1 C Nuj$IW 'ii, (i i .n Bi-Products 35 14 63 25 2 1 .403 (NS) Facilities Chemical 42 15 56 20 3 1 .698 (NS) Plants Feedlots 56 75 43 57 1 1 .008 Dairies Meat- 57 62 42 45 1 1 .013 Packing Truck 30 ? 6 70 14 0 0 .344 (NS) Washout Wastewater 39 ' 20 59 30 2 1 .689 (NS) Treatment Sugar 46 33 54 39 0 0 .587 (NS) Industry Emissions 52 14 48 13 0 0 .632 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 48 88 52 94 0 0 .119 (NS) Shop 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 75 Table 129. Experienced Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Respondent's Neighborhood by Where Res•ondent or Friends/R�ejlative Work. ,B !f ti1 A0 � r emu-• -.y.". Z" -:•'_.,-.J,'-'.,.'''. '!.: -� � 1 _ Significant 4131,4„ � ',� 1, : Numbet % Number Ti } er i tee',��.t._ � €� .,,� � a� ' f �. Dif ere e Bi-Products 33 13 65 26 2 1 .443 (NS) Facilities Chemical 39 1 4 58 21 3 1 .255 (NS) Plants _ Feedlots 44 58 55 : 73 1 . 1 .012 Dairies Meat- : ,.;�� 46 50 5 :'�!- 57 l'''' 1 .005 Packing _ Truck :5 1 " 95 19 0 0 .023 Washout Wastewater :.2 15 69 35 2 1 .539 (NS) Treatment Sugar 35. 25 65 ' 47 0 0 1 .70 (NS) Industry Emissions 52 14 48 13 0 0 .096 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 40 72 60:" 110 0 0 .042 ..-- I Shop Table 130. Reported Experiencing Physical Reactions Due to the Odor in the Air By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. 1 _ ;' • ;' o �h� riOn4.,Rnow Sign fxcant , , : *rat-- . *if . 44"' u ber ?umber�....�. :. ... ._+ ≥l��k.�. � ., � ..::�... , . . Difference Bi-Products 21 3 79 11 0 0 .410 (NS) Facilities Chemical 0 0 93 13 7 1 .06 (NS) Plants Feedlots 3 2 97 63 0 i 0 .040 Dairies Meat- ',.1.3 ..: 8 1.187 53 _0 0 .530 (NS) Packing J Truck 6 0 . 1'.06 5 0' 0 .702 (NS) Washout Wastewater 0 0 X160 17 0 0 .286 (NS) Treatment Sugar 21. 6 79 22 0 0 .154 (NS) Industry Emissions 39 5 _ 61 8 0 0 .005 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 20 16 ,,'' - 009 P 66 ° 0 Shop .:p ,._ .. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 76 Table 131. Reported Experiencing Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor in the Air By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. � 'yg�, ax �19�..r j ;1ya :Willi of "'@ �AI zi«s r' N I , .v g mber ,TuNttrftmjkstiffifii. . s,--: Bi-Products 36 5 64 9 0 0 .024 Facilities Chemical 29 4 71 10 0 0 .160 (NS) Plants Feedlots 9 6 86 56 5 3 .002 Dairies } Meat- 33< 20 53 32 14 8 .686 (NS) Packing � Truck 0' 0 100 5 0 0 .677 (NS) Washout Wastewater 0 0 100 16 0 0 .275 (NS) Treatment i. Sugar '2`5 ' 7 75 21 0 0 .092 (NS) Industry Emissions 23 3 77 10 0 0 .462 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 15 12 85 70 0 0 .462 (NS) Shop A—.... Table 132. Does Respondent Think Anything Can Be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. ,� ',C ,,:2-4.',17:::::,:t 3 .t 7% Number °e . '* , i a • i g� r ' Bi-Products 38 5 31 4 31 4 .325 (NS) Facilities Chemical 54 7 46 6 0 0 .270 (NS) Plants Feedlots 34" 19 52 33 18 11 .861 (NS) Dairies Meat- 33 20 53 32 14 8 .930 (NS) Packing Truck 0 0 100 4 0 0 .281 (NS) Washout Wastewater 5 ' f 8 47 7 0 0 .217 (NS) Treatment Sugar 1'8 5 67 18 15 4 .343 (NS) Industry Emissions 23 3 62 8 15 2 .867 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair L44 t 28 49 39 16 13 .876 (NS) Shop «Jv 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 77 Table 133. Does Respondent Think Anything Will Be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Where Res ondent or Friends/Relative Work. 1 ,1.e 1 ,r. Quo- '` .a a1 a - e 9 Bi-Products 93 13 7 1 0 0 .136 (NS) Facilities Chemical 79 11 21 3 0 0 .453 (NS) Plants Feedlots 63 40 23 15 14 9 .951 (NS) Dairies Meat- 52 32 : 36 22 12 ` 7 .03 Packing Truck 40 2 60 3 0 0 .210 (NS) Washout Wastewater 75 12 19 3 6 1 .366 (NS) Treatment Sugar 71 20 18 5 - 11 3 .832 (NS) Industry Emissions 23 3 62 8 15 2 .004 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 73 59 23 19 4 3 .017 Shop Table 134. Does Respondent Think Anything Should Be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. Bi-Products 79 11 21 3 0 0 .844 (NS) Facilities Chemical 83 15 11 2 6 1 .797 (NS) Plants Feedlots 78 50 22 ` 14 0 0 .211 (NS) Dairies Meat- 72 44 28 17 0 0 .094 (NS) Packing Truck 20 1 80 40 0 0 .01 Washout Wastewater 35 7 65 13 0 0 .000 Treatment Sugar 80 24 20 6 0 0 .597 (NS) Industry Emissions 100 . 13 0 0 0 0 .204 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 73 58 27 21 0 ! 0 .049 Shop ; 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 78 Table 135. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. tr."! x "'Yk. )ri t4'll > 'O Bi-Products 86 12 14 2 .025 Facilities Chemical 64 9 36 5 .56 (NS) Plants Feedlots 48 30 52 33 .101 (NS) Dairies Meat- 48 29 52 32 .105 (NS) Packing Truck 0 0 100 5 .01 Washout Wastewater 50 8 50 8 .574 (NS). Treatment Sugar 61 17 39 11 .660 (NS) Industry Emissions 100 13 0 0 .001 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 66 53 34 27 .048 Shop Table 136. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. fLoPT somas 1 '� ` -4,•c!'l'Sk 4 5 9 9+$ '4;#41 " 4er mbe i.M1 11 D .0 'i •`-4 yr 1 { Y x2 ., a fir. a" Al�r � � � ' ksn „, 4�'E � .33 ! I'' `` r- it �'�� ,'�• 'Piffe.e . .u. Bi-Products 64 9 29 4 7 1 0 0 .101 (NS) Facilities _ Chemical Plants 50 7 21 3 21 3 7 ` 1 .740 (NS) Feedlots 32 19 22 13 42 25 5 3 Dairies _ .186 (NS) Meat-Packing 36` 22 13_ 8 48 29 3 2 .114 (NS) Truck Washout 0 0 0 0 100 5 0 0 .021 Wastewater 50 8 0 0 50 8 0 0 .175 (NS) Treatment Sugar Industry 39 11 29 8 29 8 4 1 .416 (NS) Emissions 79 11 0 0 21 3 0 0 .051 Testing Stat. Auto Repair 51 41 14 11 31 25 4 3 .508 (NS) Shop Table 137. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Where Res ondent or Friends/Relative Work. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 79 /1 elii is i .r t % :11***C::'.Afs, * .# ', 141,0,,,00:, '`1,o Iut eK $.tgnifcant ii �! {�¢ t o �.t, Sk .2�S' ' a � ku-r�l+' j a , 'h; a r ,.,,,..� c i. ,.9 u`.'`�x;�"`+ {`` ,,.f . fir'. i1s, tir ,r,;: :r�ti . " , e a�,,u1 . ......,jY1 f, 'erenCe. Bi-Products 53 21 40 16 7 3 .000 Facilities _ Chemical 64 23 36 13 0 0 .865 (NS) Plants Feedlots 68 92 32 44 0 0 .673 (NS) Dairies Meat- 51 55 49 52 0 0 .000 Packing Truck 50 10 7 15 3 .000 Washout Wastewater 64 33 36 19 0 0 .000 Treatment Sugar 86 62 14 10 0 0 .007 Industry Emissions 56 15 44 12 0 0 .478 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 68 123 31 57 1 2 - .06 (NS) Shop Table 138. Use of the Odor Hotline By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. ' g .•, `s . AWu �' 14T `':1--1,414,.1 1:064r: ..b,5'in, r, .. r _n•`'i b4A nom; liiii 4 w 3."z4 • f {7,iRw c. + i';:'1100, 1 erOnce Bi-Products 5 2 95 38 .434 (NS) Facilities Chemical 11 4 89 32 .537 (NS) Plants Feedlots 9 12 91 124 .820 (NS) Dairies Meat- 6 6 94 101 .273 (NS) Packing Truck 5 1 95 19 .256 (NS) Washout Wastewater 0 0 100 52 .024 Treatment Sugar 12 9 88 ' 63 .180 (NS) Industry Emissions 0 0 100 27 .111 (NS) Testing Stat. Auto Repair 9 17 91 165 — .575 (NS) Shop Table 139. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Where Respondent or Friends/Relative Work. ixr j� �iv px�L �rnw�gy9 't dd,y1 rjj t..'h _ SAM 4�� teE�`' �''��7r�':! ' : r V ,j; �'-�}1'.i11$4ek'.tr..°i-lt Y k d rt n h k_ items, _ . �'₹* IrPR,�. ..� S. Tom `,+Y.it70 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants ,1 Asmus 80 *a , ;, ` p Number Fri iS e �gx it �'"n� ' '%:44,±4;11,411;;:-I :-::: . - .I i i . .thy,., „, , ?Siyy e t" Bi-Products 35 14 30 12 35 14 .004 Facilities Chemical 42 15 36 13 22 8 .084 (NS) Plants Feedlots 56 76 29 39 15 21 .177 (NS) Dairies Meat- 57 61 24 26 19 20 .93 (NS) Packing Truck 15 3 35 7 50 10 .000 Washout Wastewater 58 30 29 15 13 7 .461 (NS) Treatment Sugar 54 39 19 14 26 19 .197 (NS) Industry Emissions 44 12 26 7 30 8 .237 (NS) Testing Stat. ` Auto Repair 57 104 26 47 17 31 .532 (NS) Shop Length of Time in the Community-Odor There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by: • Experience of any negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air with those whom lived there 5-10 years more likely to state that they had. • Experience of any negative emotional reactions due to the odor in the air with those whom lived there less than live years more likely to state that they did not know. • Belief that anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 5-10 years less likely to respond "yes" they believed something will be done. • Belief that anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 5- 10 years more likely to respond "no" they believed something could not be done. • Belief that anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 11-15 years more likely to respond "yes" they believed something should be done. • Belief that the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air had changed since they moved to Greeley with those whom had lived there less than five years much more likely to say it has not changed. • How the odor had changed with those whom lived there less than five years more likely to state it is the same. • Knowledge of the odor ordinance with those whom lived there less than five years less likely to know it exists. • Use of the odor hotline with those whom lived there more than 15 years less likely to have used the hotline. • Belief that the odor ordinance is a good idea with those who have lived there less than five years stating it was a good idea more than other categories. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 81 Table 140. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years 44 55 53 ` 65 3 4 5-10 Years 44 50 55 63 1 2 11-15 Years 44 32 56 40 0 0 > 15 Years 45 206 54 ` 249 1 4 .556 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent had experienced unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley (Table 140). Table 141. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Length of Time in the Community Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years 36 45 64 79 0 0 5-10 Years 30 34 69 79 2 2 11-15 Years 33 24 67 '' 48 0 0 > 15 Years 33 150 66 303 1 4 .812 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent had experienced unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood (Table 141). Table 142. Experience of Physical Symptoms Due to the Odor By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number _ % Number Difference <5 Years 2 1 93 51 5 3 5-10 Years 25 10 75 30 0 0 11-15 Years 18 6 82 27 0 0 > 15 Years 9 17 91 172 1 1 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent had experienced any negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air with those whom lived there 5-10 years more likely to state that they had (Table 142). Table 143. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number °F° Number % Number Difference <5 Years 15 8 SO 44 5 3 5-10 Years 13 5 $I. 35 0 0 11-15 Years 9 3 94 29 0 0 > 15 Years 12 22 8$ 166 0 0 .02 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent had experienced any negative emotional 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 82 reactions due to the odor in the air with those whom lived there less than five years more likely to state that they did not know (Table 143). Table 144. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant • Number % Number % Number Difference _ <5 Years 49 27 42 23 9 5 5-10 Years }7 7 58 23 25 - 10 11-15 Years 23 7 74 23 3 1 > 15 Years )4 64 49 94 17 32 .002 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent believed anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 5-10 years less likely to respond "yes" they believed something will be done(Table 144). Table 145. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant • Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years 69 38 24 13 7 4 5-10 Years 60 24 35 14 5. 2 11-15 Years 66 21 22 7 13 4 > 15 Years 63 120 19 36 18 35 .021 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent believed anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 5-10 years more likely to respond "no" they believed something could not be done (Table 145). Table 146. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant • Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years 66 35 34 18 0 0 5-10 Years 7 31 10 4 12 5 11-15 Years vi 30 3 1 0 0 > 15 Years 73 142 21 41 6 12 .001 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent believed anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air with whom had lived there 11-15 years more likely to respond "yes" they believed something should be done (Table 146). Table 147. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Length of Time in the.Community. Yes No Significant Number % I Number Difference 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 83 <5 Years 38 21 62 34 5-10 Years 70 28 30 12 11-15 Years 61 19 39 12 > 15 Years 59 112 41 78 .011 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by whether or not the respondent believed the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air had changed since they moved to Greeley with those whom had lived there less than five years much more likely to say it has not changed (Table 147). Table 148. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Length of Time in the Community. Better Worse Same Different Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years 40 20 6 3 54 27 0 0 5-10 Years 46 18 23 9 j6 10 5 2 11-15 37 10 30 8 15 4 19- 5 Years > 15 Years 46 86 17 32 33 62 3 6 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by how the odor had changed with those whom lived there less than five years more likely to state it is the same (Table 148). Table 149. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference <5 Years Al 52 59 76 0 0 5-10 Years 65 75 35 41 0 0 11-15 Years 80 61 20 15 0 0 > 15 Years 75 351 24 110 1 5 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by knowledge of the odor ordinance with those whom lived there less than five years less likely to know it exists (Table 149). Table 150. Use of the Odor Hotline By Length of Time in the Community. Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference <5 Years 14 14 89 'J 116 5-10 Years 12 14 a8 102 11-15 Years 13 13 84 63 > 15 Years 5 24 95 441 .004 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by use of the odor hotline with those whom lived there more than 15 years less likely to have used the hotline (Table 150). Table 151. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Length of Time in the Community. I I Good Idea I Bad Idea I Neutral 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 84 Number % Number % Number Significant Difference <5 Years 71 92 14 18 15 20 5-10 Years 58 66 32 37 10 11 11-15 Years 49 , 37 32 24 20 _ 15 > 15 Years 57 266 21 98 22 101 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent lived in the community of Greeley by belief that the odor ordinance is a good idea with those who have lived there less than five years stating it was a good idea more than other categories (Table 151). Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community-Odor There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by: • Experience of unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with those who intend to live there 11-15 years more likely to state"yes" they have. • Experience of unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood with those who intend to live there 11-15 years more likely to state"yes" they have. • Experience of negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air with those how intend to live there more than 15 years more likely to state "yes" they have. • Belief that the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air have changed with those who intend to live there less than five years more likely to say it has not changed. • How the odors in the air have changed with those intending to live there less than five years and between 11.-15 years more likely to state it is the same. • Knowledge of the odor ordinance, with those intending to live there more than 15 years more likely to know about the ordinance. • Use of the odor hotline, with those intending to live there between 11-15 years more likely to have used it. Table 152. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. p r :' a0 o tl �sa 1 s e1. .41 1 SK`,1 '!". • t...: it iiritibi'liktm i .. as ® ?' -TMa: s .®4"x.z ,:,1:'/a .e"EL-Kai. ,.,a, .k N_,,, f r �.: r.. <5 Years 0 41 48 38 0 0 5-10 Years 40 44 35 5 4 11-15 Years M i `. 9 31 4 0 0 > 15 Years 245 57 335 1 5 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by experience of unacceptable odor in the air in Greeley with those who intend to live there 11-15 years more likely to state"yes" they have (Table 152). Table 153. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. „� 2 r %+ }} t , - c ate r _ " 1 a i li[19.rga a ' a�a .z <5 Years `i k;� 25 Os; 54 e 0 : 0 5-10 Years j.: )k 35 1 40 5 4 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 85 11-15 Years 54 7 46 6 0 0 > 15 Years 31 180 69 401 0 2 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by experience of unacceptable odor in the air in their neighborhood with those who intend to live there 11-15 years more likely to state"yes" they have (Table 153). Table 154. Experience of Physical Symptoms Due to the Odor By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. 4 dt,,b Y i 1 41;. WIMItiat,t. 1 aY1� k Vittf i i -. \ 1. -i 6 >1' <5 Years 6 2 94 ., ti34 . 0 0 5-10 Years 5 ' 2 87 32 8 ' 3 11-15 Years O 0 100 9 0 0 > 15 Years 13 29 47 199 0 . 1 .002 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by experience of negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air with those how intend to live there more than 15 years more likely to state "yes" they have (Table 154). Table 155. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. c'� �- 4;1 s" w# r,r' I es' �:; 6r -. o ° g'la y" ''t _,e 'g ' 'Kino ,,cSi n, fIr, r'"'t r> umberi,EA ,y 1,-.1, Nunmber r�%' .' umber ' 1,4x.Difference1,r <5 Years 14 5 86 31 0 0 5-10 Years 20 7 80 28 0 0 11-15 Years 0 0 100 9 0 0 > 15 Years 10 23 89 202 1 2 .850 There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by experience of negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air(Table 155). Table 156. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. 3' -' ',vii e i 1 1 1 a '47.01,441111144..1:1 O3 g .4tri rt t � 1 i 't e : i 11 ' i . <5 Years 34 12 40 " 14 26 9,. 5-10 Years 35 - 13 57 21 8 3 11-15 Years 33 3 67 6 0 0 > 15 Years 32 17 52 118 16 36 .439 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by belief anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley (Table 156). Table 157. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Communit . {a: s r. ; 1 a 1 & ali :4,1:471 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 86 ' <4 4 gA 'P'01111Yer` %fo ll llbe4':: ar P h3 x i : tt i mr a.i4,s, :'.5Y. n i b.�c "v Q '! <5 Years 72 26 8 3 19 7 5-10 Years 68 25 32 12 0 0 11-15 Years 78 7 0 0 22 2 > 15 Years 61 140 23 52 16 36 .298 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by belief anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley (Table 157). Table 158. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Sta in the Community. <5 Years �55 . 18 30 10 '15 1 5 5-10 Years 87 32 8 3 5. 2 11-15 Years 78 7 22 2 z¢ 0 > 15 Years 75 175 20 47 5 10 .075 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by belief anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley (Table 158). Table 159. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Res.ondent Moved to Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. 'H 1nrItqW ' pA A F4 A5 W t •y i�;fta Jmber N. "er P41 n 1^<5 Years 17 6 83 29 _ 5-10 Years 51 19 49 18 _ 11-15 Years 33 3 67 6 > 15 Years 64 145 36 82 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by belief that the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air have changed with those who intend to live there less than five years more likely to say it has not changed(Table 159). Table 160. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Communit <5 Years 7 8 10 3 63 19 =b' 0 ffi 5-10 Years 35 ' 13 19 7 38 14 $ 3 11-15 Years 22' . 2 11 1 67 6 ,0 0 > 15 Years €48 106 18 39 29 64 5 10 .005 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by how the odors in the air have changed with those intending to live there less than five years and between 11-15 years more likely to state it is the same(Table 160). 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 87 Table 161. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. J. Asr7 x"- a� a� f ` rati3tlt '100;1-7: , �` 5i .. ° Y '�S<t G <5 Years 45 36 55 44 0 0 5-10 Years 48 38 50 40 2 2 11-15 Years 69 9 31 4 0 0 > 15 Years 74 447 25 151 1 3 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by knowledge of the odor ordinance with those intending to live there more than 15 years more likely to know about the ordinance (Table 161). Table 162. Use of the Odor Hotline By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. 1,:1106' a » t Nik.41MONtriYINbY110, <5 Years 5 ''< 4 95 76 5-10 Years 3 2 97 78 11-15 Years 23 3 77 10 > 15 Years 4 54 91 546 .000 There was a significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by use of the odor hotline with those intending to live there between 11-15 years more likely to have used it (Table 162). Table 163. Belief That the Odor Ordinance is A Good Idea By Length of Time Intend to Stay in the Community. 1dea p a 18a z' ' b6l NIRRal '�t^ I IIFlleanf P,I ¶t j ...�`. :Vc ' l jumb�t S to <5 Years 65 52 18 14 17 14 _ 5-10 Years 48 38 35 28 17 14 11-15 Years 62 8 31 4 7 1 > 15 Years 59 350 22 132 .19 116 .131 (NS) There was no significant difference across length of time the respondent intends to live in the community of Greeley by belief that the odor ordinance is a good idea (Table 163). Area Respondent is "From"-Odor There was a significant difference across where the respondent is"from"by: • Experience of unacceptable odor in Greeley with those from a small town less likely to state"yes." • Experience of unacceptable odor in their neighborhood with those from a small town less likely to state "yes." • Experience of negative emotional reactions due to the odor with those from a mid size city more likely to state they had. • Belief anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a small city less likely to state "yes." • Belief anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a rural area more likely to state"yes." 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 88 • Belief anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a mid-size city less likely to state"yes." • Belief that the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with significantly more of those from a small city stating it is the same. • Knowledge of the odor ordinance with those from a town more likely to state "yes." • Belief that the odor hotline is a good idea with those from a mid-size city more likely to state "yes." Table 164. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 48 62 48 62 4 4 All My Life Large City 46 -' 87 52 98 2 4 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 53 ` 58 47 51 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 35 30 65 57 0 0 (<50,000) Town 27 30 73 81 0 - 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 50 73 50 73 0 1 in country) .000 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by experience of unacceptable odor in Greeley with those from a small town less likely to state "yes" (Table 164). Table 165. Unacceptable Odor in the Air in My Neighborhood by Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 3d 38 67 86 3 4 All My Life Large City 45 84 55 103 0 0 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 35 38 65 70 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 3) '' 27 69 60 0 0 (<50,000) Town 1$ 17 85 94 6 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 33 49 66 97 1 1 .000 in country) ;.,, n, 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants • Asmus 89 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by experience of unacceptable odor in their neighborhood with those from a small town less likely to state "yes" (Table 165). Table 166. Experience of Physical Sym.toms Due to the Odor By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 16 9 84 46 0 0 All My Life Large City 8 7 88 75 4 3 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 2 1 98 53 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 14 4 83 24 3 1 (<50,000) Town 15 4 85 22 0 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 13 9 87 58 0 0 in country) .122 There was no significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by experience of negative physical symptoms due to the odor in the air (Table 166). 42, Table 167. Experience of Emotional Reactions Due to the Odor By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % _ Number Difference Been Here 9 5 91 50 0 0 All My Life Large City 17 14 83 69 0 0 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 24 13 76 41 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 3` 1 97 28 0 0 (<50,000) Town 12 3 88 23 0 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 3 2 92 61 5 3 in country) .002 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by experience of negative emotional reactions due to the odor with those from a mid size city more likely to state they had (Table 167). Table 168. Will Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." I I Yes I No I Don't Know 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 90 Number % Number % Number Significant Difference Been Here 19 10 67 36 15 8 All My Life Large City 30 25 49 41 21 18 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 48 26 43 23 9 5 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 14 4 76 22 10 3 (<50,000) Town 50 13 50 13 0 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 37 25 42 28 21 14 in country) .004 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is"from" by belief anything will be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a small city less likely to state"yes" (Table 168). Table 169. Can Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 44 24 34 19 22 12 All My Life Large City 61 51 21 18 1-8 15 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 66 36 27 15 7 4 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 72 21 21 6 7 2 (<50,000) Town 58 15 23 6 19 5 (<5,000) Rural (lived 81 54 9 6 10 " 7 in country) .019 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from"by belief anything can be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a rural area more likely to state"yes" (Table 169). Table 170. Should Anything be Done to Alleviate Odorous Air in Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number %° Number % Number Difference Been Here5.$'. 29 4 19 13 7 All My Life 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 91 Large City 84 72 16 14 0 0 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 91 51 9 5 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 59 17 24 7 17 5 (<50,000) Town 69 18 31 8 0 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 79 51 14 9 8 5 in country) .000 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by belief anything should be done to alleviate the odorous air in Greeley with those from a mid-size city less likely to state"yes" (Table 170). Table 171. Has the Annoyance or Offensiveness of the Odors in the Air Changed Since Respondent Moved to Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Significant Number % Number Difference Been Here 62 34 38 21 All My Life Large City 49 41 51 42 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 70 38 30 16 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 41 12 59 17 (<50,000) Town 62 16 38 10 (<5,000) Rural (lived 58 39 42 28 in country) .088 (NS) There was no significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by belief that the annoyance or offensiveness of the odors in the air have changed since the respondent first moved to Greeley (Table 171). Table 172. How Has the Odor Changed Since Moving to Greeley By Area Respondent is "From." Better Worse Same Different Significant % Number % Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here All My 36 20 24 13 36 20 4 2 Life Large City 33 25 23 17 40 30 4 3 (>200,000) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 92 Mid-Sz. City 65 33 18 9 17 9 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 31 9 10 3 52 15 7 2 (<50,000) Town (<5,000) 50 13 4 1 31 8 15 4 Rural (lived in 53 34 14 9 30 19 3 2 country) .003 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by belief that the odor has changed since moving to Greeley with significantly more of those from a small city stating it is the same(Table 172). Table 173. Knowledge of the Odor Ordinance By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No Don't Know Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 61 78 36 ' 46 2 3 All My Life Large City 63 122 37 71 0 0 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 67'' 75 33 37 0 0 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 77 65 23 ' 20 0 0 (<50,000) Town 82 99 18 22 0 0 (<5,000) Rural (lived 67 99 32 47 1 2 in country) .001 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by knowledge of the odor ordinance with those from a town more likely to state "yes" (Table 173). Table 174. Use of the Odor Hotline By Area Respondent is "From." Yes No . Significant Number % Number Difference Been Here 2 3 9$ 124 All My Life Large City 9 , 18 91 175 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 13 14 87 98 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 10 9 90 78 (<50,000) Town `' � � - 11 I1- ' 110 (<5,000) 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 93 Rural (lived 6 9 94 138 in country) .07 (NS) There was no significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by use of the odor hotline (Table 174). Table 175. Belief that the Odor Ordinance is a Good Idea By Area Respondent is "From." Good Idea Bad Idea Neutral Significant Number % Number % Number Difference Been Here 50 63 26 33 24 31 All My Life Large City 58 112 27 52 15 29 (>200,000) Mid-Sz. City 75 82 15 17 10 11 (>50,000, but <200,000) Small City 63 53 16 14 23 20 (<50,000) Town 46 56 36 44 18 21 (<5,000) Rural (lived 64 94 14 21 22 32 in country) .000 There was a significant difference across where the respondent is "from" by belief that the odor hotline is a good idea with those from a mid-size city more likely to state"yes" (Table 175). Comments • I love the city of Greeley! • Current standard for designing roads and addresses is ridiculous! • Air is truly bad near process plant. If she knew the incentive or ed. Programs would help, she would pay quite a bit. Felt that it was a good survey. This is all part of growth and increased knowledge and desperation. • Annoyed with Stampede Committee-More Public Collaboration Required. • Agriculture built this town and should stay. Emissions is a joke-people from Evans and LaSalle just drive into town with smoking tailpipes and I have to pay • It's not the cows, it's the drainage within the area. Retired and don't drive so emissions not important • Does not like cigarette smoking-bigger issue than feedlots • Hotline is a bad idea b/c it allows for the wrong input from the wrong people-only people who like to hear themselves call hotlines •. It's not the cows; it's the sewer/trash disposal and water treatment plants. Biggest issue is youth/gangs in the area. Especially Noise from car/home stereos. Also there's a lack of communication between community and police and little crime info reported • The county did a great job on the spraying to reduce the WNV threat. She used to call in to the odor hotline but nothing was ever done. She did not know that the ordinance had changed from the 10 calls to what it is now. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 94 • feedlot and sewage treatment plant • Smell is not animals, its cars and trucks-emissions! Thanks for the new light on 85! Does not like that the goats are going to be moved. • Adjustments to school boundaries cause children to suffer b/c of government. Taking children away from environments they're acclimated to is not fair. Also, we will loose our community and heritage if we do not preserve history...downtown is no longer a community. • Nit picking about odors causes undue hardship to business owners who have been here a lot longer than most of the citizens! Wouldn't it be cheaper to have one city sanitation service? More enforcement of snow removal on sidewalks! City should do something. • Trouble to have commercial vehicles, appropriate to store them some where else. - smoking ban, not good for all businesses. • Believes that laws aren't just enough they must be enforced. For question 25 wants the children to be educated on emissions. Voted for the smoking ban but thinks there should be more options for recycling. _ • Thinks cigarette prices should be raised. Thinks that there should be more done about the West Nile Virus, that it is very serious. • Greeley is great town. • College area is trashed, no respect, they go to school to learn how to party only, no respect for property police need to do a better job in patrolling stricter laws on speeding through alleys. Beer bottles in his yard. Vandalism. Fights in front yard • More police patrol on outside of town • City ordinance on RV parking in driveway. • There should be laws on selling cars over a certain age. • She doesn't know what exactly causes all of the smells, so her opinions aren't very supported. She thinks "smoking vehicles" should be ticketed until get vehicles fixed. Sterner punishment for illegal aliens--if we have to pay taxes, so should they. • Smoking vehicles fined or ticketed. • Ethnic Issues: need to know how to communicate, cost tax payers money if they don't have a reliable job. Should provide more recreation for teenager • Too much housing. Emissions are a waste of time when surrounding cities/states don't require it. No more "give away programs" instead of taxes going to welfare and emissions, they should go to increasing infrastructure-MORE ROADS/BETTER ROADS! • Recycling is a great idea-we should have more. Emissions is a hoax to keep people buying cars. Downtown has been destroyed-open up streets and parking and folks will go downtown instead of the mall. Also, old homes should not be torn down only to be replaced by cracker-boxes! • Housing is overpriced and over-populated-we're going to find ourselves in trouble in a few years! If emissions are not statewide-it's useless! New RV law really hurts older residents. Not enough space in already crowded areas to obey law. No "outs" were given to those who CANNOT comply. -� 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 95 • Housing is too expensive-no low income possibilities. The industry was in place before people moved here that couldn't handle the smell. Ice Arena needs to get started and more brew pubs (NOT DIVES) are needed • Monfort/farmers are suffering due to outsiders. People need to learn that water is important before it's gone. BFI folks Keep fluxuating pick up times, can anything be done? Too many people moving here from out of state...too crowded as it is. • Appreciate the city's efforts to repair our cul-de-sac and keep it from flooding last year. • The air is the worst in the summer, lower property taxes, and 50% off utilities • Less laws not more. • People running red lights is a big concern--should add cameras to the intersections. Also feels that the storm drainage fee should not be assessed on the basis of the size of the house. Should be assessed based on whether it is on a steep hill or corner. • On question # 10 where it talks about fining offenders, would like to know how one would define an actual offender, if a solid definition, then yes, would support. • Thinks police officers should do their jobs!!! And thinks that noise ordinance in Greeley should be more strictly enforced. • During the snow cleaning on small street better, more activities that young kids can be involved and better program outdoors, things for the public that they can do themselves. • Questions too specific/loaded as far as taxing the city for programs. • Don't understand why tear up roads and then leave them uncompleted. • Thinks parking downtown not good and workers don't make enough to pay for it; Thinks people should be allowed to water front one day and then back another, but more days that just every other three. • Spend money on unimportant things I.e. RV Parking • Need to enforce noise ordinance! • Street in very bad condition and needs to be resurfaced 2500 block of 15th street. Also have very bad water pressure! • Wishes there was a way to relocate the dog food plant w/o harming the business. Also need speedbumps or stop signs along 32nd street between 11th and 23rd. It's like a racetrack out there and there's A LOT of kids around! • Those who complain about the smell are city-goers who want a pristine life in the countryside. They don't understand that the Ag industry was here first and IS the countryside. Traffic is TERRIBLE on 12th Ave around.26th/27th. Despite what the city THINKS-construction on 11th Ave Will affect my area! Currently speeders and stop sign runners are rampant on my street, but the cops wouldn't know (only see 1-2 cops per year!). CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T CARE-ignores mine and my neighbors pleas for correction of the issue. I can't even let my kids go to the park down the streets because of traffic and the teenagers who destroy the park. City Council's attitude and uncurbed growth will cause me to move soon! • Those who don't like the smell are not from around here and they can go back where they came! Vehicle safety inspections should be enforced by police. Lives and owns business on 9th street (14-23rd area) for 15+ years and can count on one hand the number of cops seen during those 15+ Years! Speeders (65+) and wreckless driving are seen EVERDAY and are uncontrolled (NO COPS!)!! We need additional law enforcement patrolling area 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 96 and also a stop light on 18th to help control traffic PLEASE-thus far City Council has ignored all requests! • Build ice rink out WEST • Nothing except that you folks KNOW the issues yet don't want to deal with them. • RV ordinance is frustrating. Have lived here for 30+ years and owned an RV for 10. Location does not allow for me to abide by ordinance...WHAT AM I SUPPOSE TO DO? • Why are we overdeveloping land and selling water rights when we citizens are forced to conserve water? WHO DO WE BELIEVE? Stoplight syncros are crazy! Intervals are way too long at times. Couldn't they be adjusted for high/low peak travel times and growing population? 47th ave is too rough and needs some work. • Illicit drug situation in this area is terrible. We need to focus on this for our youth's sake. • Overall Greeley is a great city. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's far better than most! • Water tax is to much. Doesn't like how people outside city can drive in here with there polluting cars. West Nile Virus must be dealt with. • Spend time preventing problems before they get too serious. Major issues of concern, water conservation, air quality, water quality, timing for sprinklers. • Regarding the "smoking" vehicles, I don't think local police need anymore responsibility with pulling people over. They spend too much time in speed traps, and not enough time taking care of violence or "real crimes" • Don't raise taxes, people with fixed incomes have it rough • Too much control, some people lose and some win...things can be done that are equal for everyone. No refunds for repairing cars. • Too many trash pickup trucks--would ease traffic if limited • Traffic and street repair should be taken care of, as well as careless driving, and speeding • Make insurance laws cheaper • Rid the smoking ban! • Emissions problems come from lack of growth control, not from upkeep of cars,just the volume • Marijuana smell in neighborhood is worse than the other odor • The hardships the city is placing on new businesses coming into the city. Such as permits etc. • She likes Greeley! • Strongly supports smoking • Building too many houses, taking too much water. We are leaving old houses to sit. Downtown area problems with that. • Vandalism is a huge issue. • For air quality. • A+ for smoking ordinance. Road on HWY34 at 65th heading east-grooves on road (running N to S) cause unacceptable noise. Can anything be done? • Annoying Neighborhoods-too controlling, can't tell people how to live when they own their own home! Can the city intervene in these issues? Also the speeds (cars) in residential neighborhoods EVERYWHERE are way too high-what about the kids?? Speed-bumps or something? ` Need a better household recycling program-especially cardboard! 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 97 4111/4, City needs to have FREE recycling and more availability of recycling (more types- cardboard, plastic, metal, etc.) • Traffic light synchronized on 10th St from 54th to 35th is non-existent-did you even reset it after the Wal-mart light was installed? • Emissions control is difficult when surrounding areas don't have to comply-that's the MAJOR issue. Illegal parking is out of control. When I asked a police officer if they were going to ticket someone illegally parked (the violator was right in front of the officer) in a handicap zone, the officer said, "NO, there's nothing I can do about that."- SINCE WHEN? Also, city/humane society needs to pay more attention to reports of barking dogs. I'll take smell over a barking dog at 2am ANYDAY!!! • Strongly support smoking ban, but city should consider a waiver for "bars" (ie: no food or under 30% income from food). Local bars will not be able to survive w/o smokers and they don't effect those of us who only were concerned with enjoying a meal. • City should consider plowing ALL roads w/I city limits, not just HWYs! Have lived in Greeley for 4 years and have NEVER seen a plow down my street (not even during the blizzard). Must ask friends to come and get me to work at times! • Residential growth is exceeding business growth-THIS IS BAD-causes increased crime, insurance rates, and traffic congestion from commuters. But so far Greeley seems to be a great town (only been here 2 years) • If Educational Programs are to take place of Emissions Program, then city should attend to ALL Greeley citizens-Bilingual Programs! • Should have some continuous/random local or state double-check and enforcement of Auto Insurance. I know several people who go purchase auto insurance and then cancel it the minute they have their license/registration. Also ALL community programs should be bilingual. • Colorado Residents should look at H2O conservation REALISTICALLY-Possibly a dual water system (I don't mind grey water on my lawn!). Smell is part of Greeley's economy and HISTORY! Emissions shouldn't be dropped b/c it's too hard to implement a new program and air is too important. Roads need to be improved-we have a strong tax base so what's the issue? Too MANY PARKS-wastes water, $$, and city resources on too small of a population. Sad to see what's being ignored due to growth-example- STAMPEDE issue is totally politically incorrect...should serve community NOT committee! • Overall pleased with Greeley thus far, BUT there's too many speeders in this town. Especially in residential and school areas. I contacted the Head Traffic Engineer and he blew me off completely!! • There should be financial assistance for people who don't have the money for required city programs. • "Odors" were here before the complainers! If they don't like it leave or don't move here in the first place. Current growth trends (and decisions made by local government during growth) will make me relocate away from an area I USE TO LIKE!! Air Quality issues in the Front Range are way too big for Greeley to truly have any impact. Against new truck washout...if you have to expend the money to develop ordinance/odor hotline, why are you allowing more fuel to the fire (BAD decisions again!). Speeds in residential areas are out of control...How about some ENFORCEMENT? Also, since when do residential streets need to have a 30 mph speed limit? What happened to 25mph? 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 98 • City's funding of public centers is all for SHOW and not for GO...an ice rink? How useful is that to the community as a whole? Why not take some of the existing green space (that is regulated so strictly that kids can't even hold soccer practice!) and funnel some of the money into making them functional instead of TRYING to beautify a town that was naturally beautiful ten years ago before you started this mess! • -Bothered indoors - on a low level; Sick/ill - made stomach turn; can be done - if you take them away, take part of the community away; should be done- distribute information; Incentive program - should be fined, not paid; education programs - send it out to the people, not forced to go or paid to do it • Juvenile delinquency - over all very serious; traffic congestion - 23rd ave and mall and 34rdNurbside recycling - only partially done; Housing - making sure there is planning for them; growth - Greeley could grow more to do more for their citizens, city does not have a good attitude, not enticing businesses; wildlife- important to maintain a balance, by planning growth; water- need to conserve due to drought, only so much water, Greeley's cost is expensive; odor in Greeley- Greeley has good control; emissions important - doesn't think it helps in making air quality better at all, don't think emission has a impact; How much community address - not for emissions testing, wants something worth while worth the money, think community should be involved, do more things for the city; programs - those with low income it would help them out, better well spent money than emissions testing, getting those involved that might skip getting the emissions test done. • west nile virus - last year; community addressed - didn't know that anything was being done • Build more dams & plant more trees. • Parks and recreation top notch-->appreciates walking trails and parks built in new neighborhood developments, also thankful for beautifying major entries into the city; Glad wires on west 10th street are now underground. S.. Need recycling • Too much housing, do not want to loose all the farm land • City is getting too big • Believes pollution is coming from other areas, city is getting too big • Need more affordable housing, emission from smoking vehicles needs immediate attention, and cell phone laws. • More awareness about west Nile virus and should have been done sooner; violent crimes becoming more of an issue and need attention; if safety inspections were implemented should not go overboard; general appearance of Greeley has deteriorated, property ma •�. More recycling options, some bad traffic lights: 5th street & hwy 85, and continuing efforts to beautify downtown Need recycling; No more laws • Noise problems are just as important as pollution and emissions! • More affordable housing; should not raise the fees. • Old cars that do not have to have emissions testing should be required to. • Need more NEIGHBORHOOD parks; Greeley shouldn't worry about other community water problems, Greeley should benefit from the good planning 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 99 • Appreciate the smoking ordinance...will make dinner much more enjoyable. Anything you can do to strengthen the economy would be welcome...we need better jobs with more $$$ in Greeley. Recently moved from Longmont and can't believe the job market here!! • Can you folks do anything about the Donation/Solicitation calls I receive from local orgs? • Greeley is very good to the elderly and handicapped-big thanks! • We need to add green space(park like areas) for ALL residential developments instead of big parks every couple of miles. • There are too many people living in single family homes-NOT Hispanics-THEIR COLLEGE HOUSES! Speeds are way too high in residential areas-need more enforcement. Lights on 10th street are not in sync. Want to move ASAP (will retire from UNC SOON!), have never liked it here-people are not friendly. • Greeley is a GREAT community-don't see why people complain. They should move to the mid west! • Try to conserve water all you want, but there's just too many people here for the water supply to last!‘leed city recycling program-too much waste and people are too lazy to take it to the recycling centers themselves! Need city recycling program and increased marketing for local businesses-retail especially(preferably before they all close down!). Also, need to run city buses later- DISABLED CAN'T GET AROUND AFTER 6PM!!! • Illegal and Unconstitutional to change voted measures-the sales tax initiative and how you folks have decided to spend the money different from what the tax payers agreed to! Also need more baseball/softball facilities! • I wish law enforcement could be more visible. Wannabe gangs are getting out of control and the graffiti is totally beyond any tolerable limit. • Traffic Congestion is pretty bad but parking is adequatk Lawn and Garden recycling is necessary but curbside is too messy! Inflation's Pretty Bad. Populations are too stratified. Hotline/Ordinance:hurts Greeley by drawing unnecessary attention to business that are already doing all they can. By harassing the businesses, you feed into the ethnic, unemployment, and crime issues of the community. States should handle emissions- municipals have enough to worry about! • Need to help retail and small businesses survive in Greeley. I don't shop at Walmart and refuse to so if you run out all the local businesses, I'll take my consumer chores to another town! • fix the streets! • If they really want to address air pollution they need to crack down on the construction equipment as they are doing all the polluting. • Keep it up. I was part of the first survey. • There is odor but you don't feel that amounts of money or huge efforts should be spent on it. He also thinks that vehicle emissions are not necessary as most of the vehicles are not polluting. He thinks that Greeley is the low income sister city to Fort Collins. • The main problem is the lack of good paying jobs and chasing out any company that has a union. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 100 • There are no good paying jobs, there are a lot of jobs, they could pay better, with better employers. • Big issue with car emissions test. A lot of cars past emissions that shouldn't. • Important to educate community. Pay as long worth it. • Main contributor is the cars not oil and gas. Think emission is main problem. • Has had good experience with the odor hotline, they responded and is very happy • Need more services • Stronger regulations for industrial areas around residential areas. More recycling and easier access to it; more affordable housing; more information about pollution from oil wells and stronger regulations for those who run them 14, Need more recycling; enforce laws and ordinances, quit making new ones • Too many immigrants taking jobs around here; should have more and stronger punishments for juveniles; not enough parking in downtown should have recycling • More affordable housing k. Need more recycling opportunities provided by the City; need more affordable housing. • need more affordable housing; quit building on the agricultural land; pull out the nuclear bombs; emissions testing programs that help those who do not have much money; need more information about West Nile Virus; more work with the police about burglary and theft; and more affordable housing. ` More recycling; more affordable housing • Vandalism in parks is a problem -� • The wages are too low for the cost of living in the city; the timing with the lights need to be better; enforce noise ordinances along Hwy 34, suggests a noise wall along the by- pass intersections; lack of affordable housing; quit moving into the wildlife habitat; and there should be more options for police officers when there are domestic violence issues. • City should Promote diversity; more research and information on the West Nile Virus; promote recycling and have more recycling programs;more affordable housing; should have Major growth restrictions, too much growth around. • Citizens do not understand how the waste water tax works, need more information on how it is billed Need more recycling opportunities; something needs to be done about all of the car racing and speeding around the community • More city landscaping and beautification, more open space and parks; should focus on issues other than odor and emissions • Need more affordable housing N Need recycling opportunities '`•,.. More recycling opportunities from the city; lack of affordable housing • Too much housing, getting too big; not enough water to keep up with the growth • More parking downtown; water storage for snow; need more affordable housing • Worry more about moving traffic and the congestion; quit building; the results of this survey should be published somewhere other than the Greeley Tribune so the results are not twisted around. Need more affordable housing;' ore recycling options • Too much housing; Smoking ban should be lifted, too many business are losing out! 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 101 • Need to address the diversity issues, community needs to accept the diversity, this will help with juvenile problems and gang problems; Need more affordable housing • Too much housing • Need to crack down on speeding along the main roadways!; more attention to the West Nile Virus; The water in Greeley should STAY in Greeley; The emissions program should be done away with and have only a safety program • City of Greeley NEEDS more parks and open space, need more intense program. • If they really want to address air pollution they need to crack down on the construction equipment as they are doing all the polluting. • Wages are too low in this town. • Car companies need to make better cars. • Too many people moving here from out of state...too crowded as it is. • Also feels that the storm drai.nage fee should not be assessed on the basis of the size of the house. • The industry was in place before people moved here that couldn't handle the smell. • People need to learn that wager is important before it's gone. • Need to enforce noise ordinance! • Those who don't like the smell are not from around here and they can go back where they came! Vehicle safety inspections should be enforced by police. • Build ice rink out WEST • Why are we overdeveloping land and selling water rights when we citizens are forced to conserve water? • Illicit drug situation in this area is terrible. We need to focus on this for our youth's sake. • Stoplight intervals are way too long at times. Need to be adjusted. • ALL community programs should be bilingual. • Police need to spend more time on real crimes instead of smoking vehicles and odor. • don't raise taxes, people with fixed incomes have it rough. Don't re-elect Bush! • Road on HWY34 at 65th heading east-groves on road (running N to S) cause unacceptable noise. Can anything be done? • add checking of automobile insurance to the road checks • Kudos on the smoking ordinance. • Speeding (cars) in residential neighborhoods ! Need more speed bumps. • Emissions control is difficult when surrounding areas don't have to comply-that's the MAJOR issue. • Educational programs will need to be bilingual. • "Odors" were here before the complainers! If they don't like it leave or don't move here in the first place. • NO ice rink!!! • Greeley could grow more to do more for their citizens, city does not have a good attitude, not enticing businesses • if safety inspections were implemented should not go overboard • Anything you can do to strengthen the economy would be welcome...we need better jobs with more $$$ in Greeley. • It needs law enforcement to be more visible. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 102 • No one can stop growth, but we can plan better for it. For example the water issues we're experiencing are only destined to get worse if we keep building the community without increasing storage. Emissions is important, but if the state does not require ALL vehicles to have emission, it won't do any good. I will not support ANY emissions program that is not state wide. The recent smoking ordinance is a false representation of the public. More than half of the people who voted for the ordinance never plan to step foot in a bar, so why do they count? All it's doing is hurting businesses and forcing people to spend their money in another town! • I'm concerned about why you would even consider dropping the emissions program. If we know it increases air quality why go through all the work of training the community to another program, or worse, doing nothing at all and then have to face the community when we have to replace the emissions! • Car emissions are nothing compared to the ag/cattle particles! Where are the water restrictions??? Folks are already wasting water on dormant lawns...please hurry!! Also, need more requirements for driver's licensure...I couldn't figure out why folks around here can't drive UNTIL I heard that you don't require driving instruction prior to licensure. That NEEDS to change!! • Residential Speeds (autos) are averaging 10-15mph over the posted limit. This is occurring all over Greeley. Don't the police monitor residential streets?? • With all of the older cars being phased out and the new ones being run by primarily the computer, there is a decreasing need for emissions testing. • True clarification of recreation vehicles in the neighborhood • Redesign roads and city • Survey is good. We need to know how to address growth. • Get rid of the people running the government. • This town has to put more effort into having programs for our young people. • Also, old homes should be restored and the matchstick houses kept out of this area. Cheap housing and low paying jobs. Great growth! • We need more activities that young kids can be involved in after school and better program outdoors for both the children and the adults. • Finish one road before you tear up others. • Parking downtown is terrible and is hurting businesses. • This City spends money on unimportant things • Need to enforce noise ordinance! • Put speed bumps or stop signs along 32nd street between 11th and 23rd. People drive too fast and there are children around that area. • Those who don't like the smell are not from around here and they can go back where they came! • Methamphetamine drug use is very bad in this area. This is what we should be spending our time and money on, our youth! • Odor in Greeley - Greeley has good control • Emissions shouldn't be dropped because air is too important and the education and other program will not work. • Colorado Residents should water their lawns with gray water or not at all. We are in a drought, a lawn is a luxury, not a necessity. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants • • Asmus 103 • There should be financial assistance for people who don't have the money to meet the emissions. • forget the ice rink! Who needs it?!?! • I have been bothered indoors from the stink. It has made me ill. • Housing - making sure there is planning for everyone • Greeley could grow more to do more for their citizens, city does not have a good attitude, not enticing businesses • Parks and recreation are important, keep up the good work! • water _ need to conserve due to drought. There is only so much water! *ilk- curbside recycling- only partially done • Need the city to run the buses later in the evening. • More baseball and softball fields are needed. • There is not enough parking in downtown • Too many immigrants are taking the few jobs we have here in Greeley. Conclusions Following the 1997 survey, the Urban Renewal Authority purchased the E. 8`h Street feedlot. In addition, the Air Quality Board has conducted several "show-cause" hearings in accordance with the Odor Ordinance in response to apparent violations. All such cases have settled for a deferred prosecution dependant on eliminating or alleviating the noxious odor. The first year of operation of the Odor Hotline received 650 calls. Currently calls are recorded at approximately 60 to 90 per year. Even though the numbers of calls are down, the odor ordinance has held people and businesses responsible for managing offensive odors. Still, the community continues to grow and conflicts between agriculture and growth will grow with it. As in 1997, belief that"others" perceive their home (Greeley) as a noxious smelling community is still a very powerful factor for residents. It may be useful for the City to carefully advertise the (now) high quality of air in Greeley due to the odor ordinance (this survey results) and emissions programs (air quality readings) to bring some pride to the community around this historically"sensitive" issue: air quality in Greeley, Colorado. Valid information can "arm" the resident against the negative comments from neighboring communities and bring a trust and pride for their community. In other words, build on the strengths of the air quality and programs in Greeley. The 2004 survey found that noxious odor in the air is less of an issue and annoys less people than it did in 1997. Whether this is because there are other more serious issues such as the water shortage and West Nile Virus or because the odor ordinance and the air quality board in Greeley are making an impact we can not know. Odor is a serious issue in many communities across the nation that face urban growth in areas where traditional livestock operations also exist. Greeley appears, for whatever reason, to have partially addressed this issue and alleviated some of its adverse consequences. The survey results also reveal that, even though the automobile emissions testing program can potentially be discontinued due to meeting air quality standards, the citizens of the community, in general, believe it should remain in place. This is a community that has long struggled with air quality issues and is generally supportive of any measures that alleviate poor air quality. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants Asmus 104 It came through very strongly in this survey that growth is causing some serious issues in Greeley. Water, parking, recycling, crime, movement through town, crowding and underemployment (low paying jobs) are all major issues according to the citizens of this survey. Social/economic issues, as a group, are the major issues of this time in Greeley followed closely by the environmental issues. 2004 Survey Environmental Behavior Consultants ,--,‘ , -' CITY OF GREELEY ODOR COMPLAINTS B ~ 1997 - 2003 SUMMARY Gredry .-- TOTALS 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL CALLS 1825 650 230 358 363 230 147 96 A. COMPLAINT STATUS CONFIRMED ODOR REPORT 835 260 95 159 168 156 89 56 UNCONFIRMED ODOR REPORT 802 318 98 157 161 70 57 38 NOT INVESTIGATED* 189 72 37 42 34 4 1 2 TOTAL 1826 650 230 358 363 230 147 96 *inadequate info,called wrong#,outside city B. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED ODORS 1.WITHIN CITY LIMITS . UNKNOWN 189 96 44 23 19 8 3 2 BFI TRANSFER STATION 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 GREELEY TRUCK WASHOUT 22 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 E 8TH ST FEEDLOT 66 55 11 0 0 0 0 0 CONAGRA/SWIFT BEEF PLANT 111 39 17 25 18 12 5 0 PLATTE RIVER BY-PRODUCTS 22 11 4 7 0 0 0 0 WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 22 4 22 17 2 2 13 0 02 20 1 WESTERN SUGAR 1 OTHER 37 3 4 5 4 21 9 4 SUB-TOTAL 487 247 89 65 42 45 21 8 2. OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS - UNKNOWN 323 26 13 81 93 112 63 43 35 AV/37 ST DRY 8 2 0 0 5 1 3 4 ,--49 AV/10 ST FL 30 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 16TH ST FL 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 A/CBP 20 12 1 2 4 1 1 0 OTHER 52 1 1 23 27 0 1 0 SUB-TOTAL 441 77 17 106 129 114 68 47 TOTAL CONFIRMED ODOR SOURCES** 928 324 106 171 171 159 89 55 **One call may result in more than one source. SOURCE LOCATION INSIDE 488 247 89 65 42 45 21 8 OUTSIDE 443 77 17 106 129 114 68 47 TYPE OF ODOR DESCRIBED _ TOTALS 1997" 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 RENDERING/COOKING 224 50 42 35 66 18 11 2 DEAD ANIMAL - 81 11 19 20 13 8 6 4 MANURE/FEEDLOT 1127 334 101 205 197 140 88 62 SEWER 169 47 20 37 26 13 20 6 MONFORT/CONAGRA 45 4 11 10 14 3 2 1 OTHER 349 59 58 72 58 53 28 21 TOTAL* 1995 505 251 379 374 235 155 96 *ONE CALL MAY DESCRIBE MORE THAN ONE ODOR ^INCOMPLETE DATA(TOTAL OF 650 CALLS) RECYCLING CONCEPTS 4.8.04 1. Economic Development a. Good time to be growing this industry; markets favorable; b. New bottling company provides a particularly good opportunity for companion businesses (e.g. glass recycling) - but need to act on prospects quickly. 2. Offering Community Recycling Opportunities a. Start small with a high visibility, easy and best opportunity to succeed market b. Mixed paper best opportunity now c. Consider two sites at public places (Aims, City facility parking lots) as demonstration projects d. Size need: 30' x 30' e. 4 - 5 days a week pick-up f. Low-risk; City just provides space and informal promotion (no $) 3. Supporting Change a. City sponsor a community recognition of environmental stewardship (e.g. "Excellence in Environmental Stewardship") b. Outline award criteria, number of annual awards given, announce program and open nominations to community c. Host award presentation at a City Council meeting d. Contract with local artist to create a distinctive/classy award from some type of recycled product e. Education opportunity f. Promote Greeley as a progressive community: find way to make message fit for Greeley's culture. 4. Consider Educational Opportunities a. Consider public agencies as testing ground for inducing recycling b. Use available media opportunities to promote environmental stewardship through recycling. 5. Green Waste & other programs a. Evaluate community feedback from Air Quality Survey b. Determine if there is enough sentiment to encourage a year-round (or 9 month) green waste or other recycling program. c. Frame program concept accordingly • / co us .. I L/ r • Animal Violations (barking dogs) 100/103 Iro L:, v D , Zag . 101/22 Dog and Cat Licensing 102/45 Northern Colorado Animal League 103/28 6 Urban Wildlife 104/30 1 Squirrels 105/13 c Burial Space and Pre-arrangement Program 110/8 )37 "C Cremation Services 111/23 Grave Decorations and Removal Deadlines 112/4 Agenda Items 120/13 Getting on the Agenda 121/9 Alcohol Offenses 330/16 Child Support Referrals 331/30 Copies of the Law 332/20 Divorce Information 333/124 Dropping Charges 334/18 Employment Problem Referrals 335/39 Landlord/Tenant Referrals CRLS 336/44 Legal Help 337/128 Municipal Court Appearances 338/43 Municipal Court Jurisdiction 339/16 Jury Duty 340/79 Parking Tickets 341/9 Restitution 342/7 Subpoenas 343/6 Traffic Tickets/Lost Tickets 344/66 Victim/Witness Information 345/8 .Farmers:Market.— — Festival of Trees 151/11 Greeley Art Commission 153/3 Historic Preservation 154/9 Centennial Village Museum-Tours/Rental 155/23 Children's Programs 156/7 Friends of the Museum 157/1 History Alive! 158/1 Meeker Home Tours/Info 159/1 Municipal Archives 160/4 Plum Farm 161/2 Selma's Store 162/2 Special Events 163/8 Volunteering 164/2 Union Colony Civic Center 180/15 Facility Rentals 181/8 Membership Program 182/4 Art A La Carte 183/0 Catch A Star Family Series 184/1 Stage Spectaculars 185/2 Special Events 186/? Services for the Disabled 188/6 Ticket Office 189/12 Tointon Gallery 190/2 Volunteer Program 194/5 City Employment Job Line 200/1616 Firefighter Recruitment 201/9 Police Officer Recruitment 202/15 Concrete - Shared Improvement Program 220/29 Construction Project Update 221/7 Pavement Maintenance Program 222/20 TtispectiQst. �,.223143� Site.Plansanspection m .24E No Street Numbers/Addressing 225/19 Adopt A Street 241/6 �..Quality/Odor amplaints_,Pu.a_:. m. 24x46 Bicycle Routes 243/5 Graffiti Removal Hot Line 244/39 Green Waste..Disposal. ..il4usebald<...liazatalous.:Haste sposal ,29.6LbL6 18 1 Water Conservation Tips & Info 248/28 Donations/Memorial Tree Planting 260/13 Right of Way Landscaping Seasonal Information/Tree Care 262/14 Sight Obstruction 263/13 Sick Tree Inspection 264/8 Tree Work Licence Information 2657 rHouring-Authority.Programs- Lead.Poisoning. . ,. 3726. ADA Compliance 273/6 Radon a, --f 241A Budget Information 300/11 Business Licensing 301/62 CDL License 302/56 Contractor Licensing 303/12 Driver's License 304/575 Food Tax Rebate 305/27 License Plates 306/661 Liquor Licensing 307/14 Marriage License 308/93 Property Tax 309/20 Encroachment, Street Obstruction 310/7 Excavation 311/4 House/Structure Moving 313/9 Sales Tax Information 314/34 Citizen Comment Line 360/78 Ordinances 365/11 Boards and Commissions 370/3 Golf Advisory Board 401/2 • Island Grove Regional Park Advisory Board 402/7 Parks & recreation Advisory Board 403/15 Parks & Recreation Suggestion Line 404/4 Park Hours &Rules 405/23 alua li agluspec,Giaas aufiding.EnrrnitsZees. 12I(48 -. I 07 auildiug Pla R P , P.=, ....A22/ll.v., Getsprelieneiue-Plate .....,. .M ..42.4/5.:.,, Deuelopmen.G_Code- a..,u.,..... ,,., .425/7,- "Family! 1127/1iOw. Flood Plain Infnt a..,,,.....,— 1244 •4I enro'Oocupations/Buaiseases-. ,w ._.I29{k0-• I4ettsing Rehabilitation -• :r,: ..,:.. : 42G 6— Landscaping. - . - _t 44-1/2 L,ancl,I s eposal - - . .__ .,v m .. ., 432/2s. 411/54�, -PoriniatioSeenstt -Infox Cation----.. - : q q aepe>ty Liatgs. �., _,. a 41.5m I ental Iensi ig-I egistfeitier }.•..- � 43fil1.3. .,,.&eaaoning..P.socess. 44015- Sanitation Complaints WA ci iubbis r.l nk Cars.,,,.,:n>w.:,. --44.1122._ -Signs:...,,t ., Street Maps-City 443/7 ..:.Zoning_ Fire Department Services Arson Hot Line 500/4 Burning Permits 501/6 Emergency Mgnt 502/4 Fireworks 503/3 Information About 911 504/0 Tours of Fire Stations 505/3 Police Department Services Crime Prevention 520/17 Crime Stoppers 521/12 Handicapped Parking 522/4 Hispanic Advisory Committee 523/0 Internal Affairs Officer 524/4 Neighborhood Watch 525/4 Police Explorer Program 526/3 Police Reports 527/22 Property Release Information 528/0 Reporting Crimes 529/11 Reporting Missing Persons 530/0 Reporting Suspicious Persons 531/7 Reporting Traffic Accidents 532/7 Santa Cops 533/2 -� Victim Services Program 534/7 .PoudreSiver,Trai1... Recreation Center Golf Courses-Municipal 561/3 Indoor Ranges 562/1 Jesus Rodarte Cultural Center 563/7 Rodarte Center Rental 564/2 League Information - Adult 565/10 Youth 566/27 Membership, Classes, etc. 568/64 Senior Activity Center 570/10 Swimming Lessons 575/1 Swimming Pools 576/15 Youth Activities 580/23 Streets, alleys and Sidewalks Alley/Street Maintenance Requests 600/30 Clogging Storm Drains 601/3 Irrigation Ditches 602/1 Local Improvement Districts 603/1 Pothole repairs 604/3 Sidewalk Snow Removal 605/7 Snow Removal/Sanding 606/7 Emergency Snow Routes 607/1 Street Lights 608/30 Street Sweeping 609/1 Traffic Signals 610/1 Bus Service Routes Fixed Routes 620/18 Paratransit Bus Service 621/14 Teaching In Transit 622/4 Bus Service Fares 623/4 Youth Fares 624/1 Car/Vanpools 625/8 Voter & Election Information Absentee Ballot 640/16 Ballot Information 641/2 Election/Campaign Signs 642/0 Polling Places 643/1 Voter Registration 644/26 Water and Sewer Billing Information 650/67 Emergencies 651/7 Emergency Water Shut Off 652/6 Interruption of Water Service 653/14 Locating utilities Before You Dig 655/58 Septic Tanks 656/7 Sewer Backups 657/11 Sprinkling Regulations/Variances 658/139 Stormwater Program 659/3 Tap Fees 660/11 Water and Sewer Rates 661/11 Plant Tours 662/4 Water Pressure Checks 663/3 Youth Service Youth Commission 680/3 Youth Initiative 681/6 Youth Net 682/1 Miscellaneous Birth and Death Records 690/39 Chamber of Commerce 691/23 Community Foundation 692/5 Compssting,..- --reacealtWklealvana .1l lnlaa T-andfill._ _. 694/27 Water & Sewer 695/79 • A,- f ,,__' reeAejC/ � Courti k .. APR 2 CU04 1 10f r i ...J'[w C2 eeAey O. Sc2% 3 `� far ceOcilt_C. i . Mel t 1 1 ea 1 i^er-, o,c5 e (`PC l i Cict P ' /An* Gas+ revs hob. 1p - IA)stNu W/ hcLura. to , doll tc: ��nf irtS.5 Pau I ycl na ; t1J � ; � , (5 Kil, r F hi .thy-lROt1 cianAt teice +, nA (craeJo& , c1: pPST) le- cal 9P.{ There.. 0a3i1.y ,w Mad �Sar\ f-hireignrdeS I . UZr e e C: Ur __ r ( APR 29 2004 000 6 ._ e e 6 • DetarCocAncl \ iAktilki Here Are 4o 2 �det)6 t- i 1 �, �ve IabNay `e.c, i'. k l . I rs i I d (:t I . ( Skoulci oc-u-kfine INT-,,i--C it, - e (Yl� �e 9 Li p R eA Anne on 1 Ir►-e r a t al 4e, A i rt i1 (OA 61enA S 0 Le9covAcielf3/1144-1 • - o e-i-s u • 'e esorle. 04 ) ui ; . e :/) &ralye o te,rr wrc, ,; c� ,0t5 t `\i 5haea atb .1-- 2 cA, -ib, FQt(&I in i S ;ir Nora Peo Ia re, T. -e 4ke,- 0CA( qP c,‘ t, ()0f4 (An F, he.Ve 6 SrP,AA so IncA_G k y loa1-ec3, o1J t I � f 4 , . .:I1 on k ,uC ', . • • = 62-Keeler C n 1 _ 1OOO r10 ' Sfreeef APR 28 2004 • %fee fey CO R6a31 4 4 20011 e\c Comna Hine ore .Rnrne fensons WlIl y Z +k;n k we tkili N cP.rye ie nrvie.r. _ 7Y1 n S s 1 r�n1/4-4trl • 1ec ;l e 1/4/ An k rn c,i ) beam,se we °P - n104 r74 I r,, . , h e use. 1 yn k,, use r, Soon pecpie .„, ) J cinvoi -EoO may re 4 cIa^, -}hPIN wee. Yvexn � ewe. P:Y�atie in -trees Y)ee ou.4se pe Ae c `ti} 4-ee �O ,nlc e new P cyren, 'ill; vim,rat -Aistn T6,1OUe (-Ctir£, c4arcxA . One cam, stir Ne 45 /44h, nn! itiah (Slide ;ar14.. -41-141.1 c,4-} nrnt, ;(-\ the rn d a 1 e of &or:eret �j Comez _ G tr,ar cc; co,K °I APR 26 2004 1raca tda'- P C p 2p(.2.a.\ ba c oc .:vir .\ mem1De, Items A\ft• c- o-ene YAcs)c\S c^.C\,y �1rp c ?Y ic�..1� 'tha{'T K'P e-yVno�Ftt- "( \ "�C�'.t��l L . )P_ Li Y )EcRc;,? `tr'Rsyr L, ne'M cote_ a tqy Cdr/;- ei-I 73h -sec. ‘nacaL.c,e first r_c .� , tOrt #C\ tt e \ems-, pro'liik)ere St \A � n \ n1ryW4\\y t cf S �>,�. ,�,� ear' pcary icio rew,ee 'S-'Ke . r evar v a Waco/ *- -c. ,-,,n,7OA I a d,,y�..04;4_ Fcry Ua.r re Pu n-rr r , Grtcvcl 64- 1/ �c0U. c\ c ,. i our-3 1041^ f tar att 1 r I t r 1 ()..3 ) Z(,Oy bcicc CO.Incl I Mlc acbr I -T\ 1 -ou S-Va c Rric at jr so. w< co\ Vic ow.w. 0[3 c � Q qi) i �P 9 4notitr rcASon we Sh ,la Rccyclt tS So .\t fir, `t k cccs Reipsti tea #o cgc< -foil Qb€ *- L; Wi y1e *hoc knish t n +1\ r ,- rccSicic . 15;4n5 , Yours ATVV'j} cnrin4 R.r cq •Th! ♦ lrtei c; ( oloctt APR 282004 I )00o lo-1, , �. c • - eCrwwkr co en63 t A C/ �7 1= ! • n J I /73 7rfd� , ear Member; T Itli ll k we cchnJel gla.4rer ;J; y ketamiP. L4 ‘AiI nor)- t,t Wnr(4 1$ q0• stG k, i-yp el.. \M'e 'ham r/ keen pe* ,It tram 441v4tq;1nq ill), et nK tiir aNllrl,vtd it vile cnrr' to o &c', YltLc 1 .. _ Sc pat (b�,p er, T 41-/ yQo,pie:, N'P ail 0-1 41;51 ,pr II' Wo "M N)'t too Aaro,uf74. I-C ?wt. doNl�S'.{ A{^Pcyr';o prat ,7'Ftr worir !mill Itlelirlr jt. Clertti. g;hcerb, satobV hc) r' n N � " ' �7re�ie ,�( 0 -EM COfAnctl I APR28 2004 I : ; 10 ©O �O'W sk ► -- !- ► Greeley, GO 86 1 nefiCCdie e I Member Here prp snrrne ideas T ho ye abotii- r'ecti,� lincLHy:51 pec?o1a atmak neIzJcparPro :'t oL /d aSt° 4hp nla n.pcus pa= Ref's .for lite hP/n Ones /74 G1P recgcleA . .\IP.* if we ►' cjc erA 9Oper +he. coo \ to nut4,nk g of hni xerd in and Srne\ \. Last / i+, . tanctict be help cut tf £v<x-whacks rec .ri.ee, i>lper hr.cnu 4hP_vi' inn a Id n'-- .be 5G much frnsGi_ s Thaf-'sLoh* ret,s.c1 ► n3 3o4 because 14- Co u ta. he.\ I-) }'- eikc s Sihcer ` $ Slikttlekr -. I ° fr, r et 6 teeJek 0-9 Job ---)4 /ifel 23 / .2_ aOlt oy S 4 0 a Pa PPS IRE C y ' e w o d� / R o tj- and hY 0 id W o l- ar e ' p. DPIe C 'ou d dap- 61c, Pa Per eas ; ) y, T-c -1- tiehe was Q PQ Pei' bill on 3h 4Vor+ h , fog ")) FAS' 4n( VlPY+ Side 0-P gre e l €y 4-1-) eh Peo PIe Cbu ) d .recy-if any_ ►me. Then IJJ e ' would So Ue our +rrPs ar\ A not hatiR, - ch .- So many down, i11 (eh ly Jock / ckvM≥. IC rr^Q`e kik C 41C n U.n ( APR 2 8 2004 :4)004d`r'a ce�-� Or C ous gJ Memccr II11 Hera are 'C�mc C'Erl rie--2 r ,..S\(l� t 4Rnct LYN SlonV.kck et•NV (CST ,.` 1h le S'�cg a1& r^" r l �C\e Int.cai 1.3c._ f Je l�i,G V---,e-e9 5:t r.o- a ash a Inc\ 1,1 'etP t `lcwl \nP Vnn n . ...n a 3 nek jr1n Y`eiCf e Y]e CPtA5t° L:- e Lk') Yt T n' n�� \- au e n C r 4- c an *'cr'&S Yrkir \rn re R7-a pea Y 'n /hen Line Ae. an fim Ar��w,nk., trY?RC . II \\ �in .,, lan47tiai. . t die 4nni t.A re,r cscT c-.o r `.e. c'.rt \Kale c Vea►2 c%-t ar,c.\ —C 4 int -, \rosc A.ia4 r� tcr .klck reC . 4e tee, r . > n 1_� 60 C417\ ,,1 1' - revs \e .n* v\-1nr.e_ n Lew. 0 a0 r"r � r-ireelekl CoRnc\ 1 , I; \00O Inch 5-h 'APR 292004 C-rr�ele �l, co 6,0b3 l Lt.-Ty '._.`L`,``.` "._.....1 Apr t l0,6/ aDON Qe or C 1'k � Coa nct . t\-i VAS I+ ;1/45t n O cS v\ea tnn rec_yc. i to raper- (Jecc use. you can m A Kee net) paper.) i K n,o.4)spapr nok mat' cs, an Astir,ar why (')P_ S hr,U [a re_c yc is raver ,SO rile drink Have *o (A Sn may _}-rep s : II � 1 I +'hrnk 7nu 5nO!aLA piA. +- -t-h2 nor: yI�J�ny� him be. h-; A +-h€ rhea, 42a/ I /)7a.r-f-sn penp�e roC (,�cxU ✓ o f A iyP k29 nT n -�-+' 4-heirUUlh'r' cnrer^e 1 \/ Teo, APR 2 9 2004 oeb � o, / thst Apr. c , 2 O 1,9- Deni r G, . _ Can r."r, lmaV�1ii Y .S L n,. / �/, g *O_1- / re. cu.-2k' no 1 I d n Sri )t) et- lw Q)OCF .-. '/.��/ r S r1-��, r.4 Li/ d � On gonal ire- (-7.c IL UJr Jr— l(fi�iL !}; l ^,rf E c 1 hit / j 1110 c.c s 11 es _ Al.- rr_x1 rya srtic/-> '(. ,_- • C en. C.' v�.{ ! s ,71C1 Jn r'� .� e C ° LJr to A <Y7 cr.',. 1 7" t �C w�irk . of r.�r, <3007it—et- r IS . )45/i rdf . /J / 11t,,. ✓r_r= J- sAno • 1l1•h7f 71c• 6 h , - Fri..1.11/12.. 2 iIIilk laic, ski r.free /5 IL. 4&r drn i nY- Fr __r is Y7 4-4 b), /A.. r•o .. r. T n. re, 01 na !1/.-m 0/r // ( I arezte`.4`, F CHAPTER 5 • ENVIRONMENT URBAN FOREST Greater attention has been given in recent years to the urban forest, which encompasses a community's tree resources. Urban forests are urban forest - the trees growing one of a community's greatest resources, particularly for a plains within an urbanized community. community such as Greeley. Trees can remove air pollution,reduce household energy consumption by providing shade in summer and allowing the sun through in winter and provide refuge for urban wildlife. As irrigation was brought into the community, residents were able to grow a variety of trees that are not native to this area. While many trees tend to grow slower in this semi-arid climate, many species thrive with proper irrigation and care. Greeley received"Tree City"status in 1980. The City requires trees as part of the landscaping requirements for parking lots, perimeter treatments of new developments and in buffer yards. One of the lessons learned in past years has been to plant a wider variety of trees so that if a disease strikes a particular species,it will not have a devastating affect as did Dutch Elm disease several decades.ago. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Since the 1970's, there has been an increasing emphasis on the man- agement of natural resources, particularly for non-renewable resources and a focus on energy conservation. Building codes estab- conservation - management of a lish minimum energy conservation standards through insulation and natural resource to prevent exploita- building design requirements. The use of solar energy and tech- tion or destruction.niques such as siting buildings to take advantage of solar orientation were popular in the 1970's and 1980's and are still required in some communities. A more recent approach has been to use "green" green construction - methods wed building and construction practices and materials. These practices for construction of buildings that are include the use of renewable resources such as solar,wind and geo- earth and people-friendly,protecting thermal power; recycled and recyclable building materials and the human health and having little impact on the environment.use of sustainable development practices, which would discourage recycling/precycling - the process development from areas of ecological sensitivity and in areas where by which waste products are collected, roads and services do not already exist. separated,stored and reduced to raw materials and transformed into new and often different products. • 5- 11 • /e4 .eo.ed Av+YJ/r tezenspin CHAPTER 5 • ENVIRONMENT • A community's land use pattern can have a significant affect on natural resources -natural de- our natural resources and the resulting quality of life. Communities meats relating to land,water,air, with a lower density and isolated land use pattern such as Greeley's plant and animal life of an area or means thatgreater travel distances are required for trips from home community and the interrelationship q P of these elements. to work and to shopping and recreation activities. This takes more time, contributes to increased air pollution levels, increases the cost of operating a vehicle and increases the amount of traffic and con- gestion on city streets. A more dense,compact development pattern that includes mixed land uses means that residents have a shorter dis- tance to travel for their goods and services and to work and leisure activities. In an ideal sense,residents should be able to walk or bicy- Can our wealth, our technology and cle to work and to nearby stores for shopping and to parks for recre- ourpolitiml ability produce a livable ation, or to take a bus,rather than drive their car. The changes that urban environment,or are we damned to live in the waste of our are needed to encourage this type of community mean that new mistakes? This question may types of development, offering increased densities and mixed land well be one of the crucial tests - uses must be encouraged. Increased densities can be accomplished of our civilization. by providing a greater range of housing unit types and sizes, rather - Lawrence S.Rockefeller than the traditional large, single-family detached lot. Behavioral --- changes will also be needed to encourage citizens to give up their automobile for at least part of the time and to rely on alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, taking a bus or carpooling. Waste management is a major element in resource management. Area waste hauling is provided by private companies,some of which do offer curb-side recycling services. The area landfills are also owned. and operated by private companies. Weld County instituted a surcharge on waste disposal several years ago. Funds from this sur- hazardous materials/waste - shall charge are used to support the county Household Hazardous Waste mean any substance or materials that facilities and programs and to repair county roads impacted by waste by reason of their toxic,caustic,cor- haulinglg activities. The Household Hazardous Waste program oper- rosive,abrasive,or otherwise injurious properties,may be ates facilities at a central site in Greeley and a south Weld site near detrimental or deleterious to the Dacono. These facilities collect such things as empty aerosol cans, health of any person handling or ceramic glazes, solid fertilizers, paints, shoe polish and nail polish if otherwise coming into contact with such material or substance,or which completely dried. The program also provides information on how may be detrimental to the natural to dispose of materials that are not accepted at these sites, as well as environment and/or wildlife non-toxic alternatives for commonly-used hazardous products such inhabiting the natural environment. as fertilizer,weed killer and mothballs. 5.12 • k),)---e•fiee+ 2a.'la n C:HHAPTER 5 • ENVIRONMENT EN4.4 Encourage the planting and maintenance of native species of trees,shrubs and other vegetation to encourage native wildlife and minimize demands for water. EN4.5 Weigh the value of trees when resolving infrastructure conflicts;select and plant appropriate tree species on public rights-of-way which maximize benefits from the plantings while protecting the safety of area residents. EN4.6 In land development applications,where appropriate, give recognition and credit for existing tree and vegeta- tion cover and consider tree replacement when removal is unavoidable. EN4.7 Protect and retain trees and groups of trees of significant historical,cultural,horticultural, environmental, and aes- thetic value (see also policies CD1.7 and 1.9, CU1.2, LU2.10 and RE3.4). EN4.8 Encourage stewardship practices associated with manage- ment of the urban forest among community residents through education, training, and volunteer participation in community programs which care for such environ- mental infrastructure. EN4.9 Reinforce-the City's designation as a "Tree City" through support of tree plantings in public areas includ- ing street rights-of-way (see also policy CD1.8). EN5 Resource Management In order to maximize the efficiency of resource use in the area and to encourage the use of renewable resources, the City will seek to incorporate short-and long-term environ- mental costs into resource planning decisions. EN5.1 Promote the conservation and efficient use of energy through a review and revision of building codes, as appropriate, to require new buildings to incorporate up- to-date conservation measures. EN5.2 Provide leadership by example in improving energy effi- • ciency in all City operations and programs. 5.24 ,etlon Recommended Action Related Performance Review Period Action Tools Interested Parties tem N Policies On going Shrt turn Mid-rnge 0-3 yrs 3 S yn N5.4 Reduce solid waste through measures which emphasize recycling and ✓ nrCompost Programs nrCity(Cmty reuse and proper disposal. eClean Up Weekend Devel.,Public • A)encourage innovative reuse of yard waste through composting a-Ordinances to support Wrks,Parks) and mulching; "pay as you throw" B)pursue programs which encourage the creative treatment of QIGA wastewater and composted wastewater sludge. C)encourage programs which provide precycling and source separation recycling programs,such as curbside recycling for households and businesses; D)encourage a shift from land fill disposal to alternatives that more effectively conserve energy and natural resources;and E)continue partnerships with other governmental entities and private operations to reduce solid waste and emphasize precycling, recycling and reuse through incentive programs and waste disposal fee structures. 453 Minimize the public's exposure to hazardous waste,and prevent hazardous HS3.7 - V a-Public Education arCity(Public waste contamination through the facilitation of proper use and disposal. PS2.4 a1GA Wrks,Cmty TR2.4B erStudy Devel.) Weld County Hshld reWCHHWP Hazardous Waste Prog. 45.6 Work with other community partners to assess the effects of household HS3.7A V QBuilding Codes +City(Cmty hazards in the form of lead-based paint,radon,asbestos,carbon monoxide, RE1.6 nrHousing Codes Devel.,Public and other potential indoor hazards;and support continued efforts to PS2.4C aIGA Wrks) educate residents on the identification and management of such household raTublic Education hazards. EN 5-2 1 .-, CHAPTER 5 • ENVIRONMENT dards for development and construction activities that can take place within the 100-year flood plain, to ensure that property and life is not endangered. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION There is an increasing need for community environmental education and in particular, for targeting this information to children and youth. Establishing good habits for recycling and understanding of and respect for the natural environment at an early age can result in future generations that are more sensitive to limited natural resources. The Household Hazardous Waste program and the Weld County Health Department offer a variety of information on recy- cling and the philosophy of"reduce,re-use and recycle." VIEW SHEDS AND IMPORTANT CORRIDORS Greeley's setting is unique,with its position near the western edge of the plains, surrounded by agricultural lands, and wide vistas of the Rocky Mountains to the west. One of the most impressive views is along the U.S. Highway 34 corridor, west of Highway 257. Other view shed - the surface areas from important view sheds include the Poudre River Trail Corridor, which a viewpoint is seen. Sheep Draw and the bluffs near"O"Street,on the north side. Most people take these views and vistas for granted, assuming that they will always be present. Concerns are often raised only when it is too late and the views are either gone or are diminished by buildings or structures. Others may not yet realize the value of such expansive views as part of Greeley's setting and as important entryways into the community. Greater consideration with respect to the placement and design of buildings and structures at blending in with the natur- al environment is needed. Taller buildings,communication and util- ity towers are all common things to live with,yet when placed with- in a view shed or corridor, their visual impact can be overwhelm- ing. Attention to such things as building siting or placement at the edges of view corridors, architectural design, height, mass, materials and color can be used effectively to enhance a view shed or vista. • 5.14 eelev Coawr htnslve Plan-2000 lnn,lemenraHon Srrateelts ENVIRONMENT )AL:EN7 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (*denotes highest priority work items) Action Recommended Action Related Performance Review Period Action Tools Interested Parties Item# Policies f Ongoing Shrt-trm Mid-rage a N7.1 Work with school district educators,Aims Community College and the V - eIGA •+City(Cmty University of Northern Colorado to develop curriculums and learning eOperational Practices Devel.,Public opportunities which provide"hands-on"exposure and promotion of Wrks,Parks) environmental awareness and stewardship,as well is opportunities to shape Er Aims policies and procedures. ErUNC orSchool Dist N7.2 Consider all possible venues for nepanuling public awareness of the V "+Written pub. City(Cmty community's environmental assets. wElectronic med. Devel.) A)written publications; eCable/telecom. B)electronic media; eField sites C)cable and telecommunications; ***Annual"report card" D)field experience and demonstration sites. E) production of an annual"report card"of Greeley's actions to support environmental conservation and protection. N73 Involve citizens in a wide range of volunteer opportunities to expose them to V eOperational Practices eCity(Cmty environmental needs and experiences. Devel.,Public Works,Parks& Rec.) N7.4 Consider inducements to community residents and businesses to promote good V eStudy eCity(Cmty ecological practices and conservation of natural resources. Devel.,Public Works,Parks& Rec.) EN 7—1 •• SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE The following questions are to be answered and submitted as part of the USR application. If a question does not pertain to your use, please respond with"not applicable",with an explanation as to why the question is not applicable. 1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property. There are two uses that are proposed for the property which are considered agricultural service establishments, a livestock trailer washout facility and truck terminal. The livestock trailer washout facility will be located to the north of the truck terminal. Approximately 10 trailers a day will be washed and there will be five bays. The washout is for trucks owned or operated by LW Miller and is for private use only. It takes approximately one hour to wash out a truck and 3,000 gallons of water, A water storage tank will be located onsite which ensures adequate pressure will be available. North Weld Water suggested the use of a water storage tank. The primary use of the washout is for the inside of the trailers,there will only be a quick rinse for the outside of the trailers. Once the trailers are washed out they will be taken to the terminal bay and a final wash will be done. The water from the terminal bay will be pumped to the reception pit. The truck terminal will consist of office space for the dispatch operations of LW Miller, which hauls livestock from feedlots to processing plants.The shop space will provide minor repair as well as support operations. All wastes, such as oil, will be collected and picked up by an outside agency such as Safety Kleen. Parking space for the company owned trucks will be provided for approximately 50 trucks 2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 22(Comprehensive Plan). Section 23-2-40 states the benefits of the agricultural industry in Weld County. Sections 23-2-40.8.3 and 6.D reiterate the benefits that transportation services provide to the agricultural industry. Transportation is an important aspect of the livestock industry as animals are hauled to processing plants as well as to and from feedlots and dairies. There is a need for a livestock washout facility in Weld County due to the numerous amounts of livestock related operations in the County. Section 22-2-601.A.Policy.1.1 states in part"Agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for agricultural activities and other uses interdependent upon agriculture." A livestock washout facility and truck terminal is directly related to and dependent upon the agricultural industry. Section 22-2-60.3.A.Policy.1.3 states in part "Agricultural businesses and industries will be encouraged to locate in areas that minimize the rernoval of agricultural land from production. Agricultural business and industries are defined as those which are related to ranching, livestock production, farming and agricultural uses." The parcel proposed for the livestock washout facility and truck terminal is a part of the larger farm that is not viable to farm due to irrigation patterns. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23(Zoning)and the zone district in which it is located. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-3-40.8 of the Weld County Code provides for Agricultural Service Establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry,or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The proposed facility will support the livestock industry which is consistent with the intent of the agricultural zone district. 4 . t'y y 'P 4. What type of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The surrounding uses consist of agricultural operations such as onion storage, farming and feedlots. The Greeley/Weld Airport is located to the west. As the proposed facility is located in the airport overlay zone there will not be any new residential uses located in close proximity to the livestock trailer washout facility and truck terminal. 5. Describe, in detail, the following: a. How many people will use this site? _ r_ _.steek.Mailer ecialtttxil+iw 441ave approximately ten drlaer5 a dtretitizing4hesite. The truck terminal will consist of fifteen drivers dispatched from this site, two mechanics and four office staff. b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Six. c. What are the hours of operation? The livestock trailer washout hours will be 6AM to 10 PM Monday through Saturday. The truck terminal will operate from 7 AM to 8 PM daily. d. What type and how many structures will be erected (built)on this site? A shop/office of approximately 10,300 square feet in size will be constructed. Five outside bays for the truck wash will be built. e. What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? None. f. What kind (type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often? Ten empty livestock trailers a day will utilize the trailer washout. Approximately fifteen to twenty livestock semi-trucks and trailers could potentially utilize the truck terminal. Six passenger car type vehicles for employees would access the site during hours of operation. g. Who will provide fire protection to the site? Western Hills Fire Protection District. h. What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation). A tap from North Weld County Water District is available. A letter from the District has been submitted in conjunction with this application. What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed). An individual sewage disposal system is proposed for the shop/office building. The livestock trailer washout will consist of a solid separator system and lagoon similar to what is used at livestock confinement operations. A certificate of designation is not required for this facility. A groundwater discharge permit has been applied for through the State Health Department and will be approved prior to operation of the truck wash. j. If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? Trucks may be parked over night while in transit to another facility. Fuel will be stored onsite and storage units will meet all County, State and Federal regulations. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure(SPCC)plan will be submitted. A water storage tank will be used to transfer water from the tap to the livestock washout. 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping shall be separately submitted as a landscape plan map as part of the application submittal. A minimal amount of landscaping is proposed due to the amount of heavy truck traffic that will be utilizing the site. Landscaping is indicated on the attached landscape plan. 7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs. Should the facility be permanently discontinued for use as a livestock washout facility/truck terminal, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its greatest and best use. 8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site. Stormwater detention is planned in the southwest corner of the property. The site will be graded to allow offsite historic drainage to be diverted around the developed site and to contain the developed site's runoff within the proposed stormwater detention. 9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to begin. Construction of the new facility is anticipated to begin as soon as the plat is recorded. It will take approximately six months to build out the site, depending on weather conditions. 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site. A limited amount of waste material may be stored on site from the truck terminal. A waste handling plan will be submitted to Weld County Department of Health and Environment for approval. The plan will indicate wastes generated, type and volume of chemicals to be stored onsite and the waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed of. Gregory Thompson 31CDCB00.TIF Pagel HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 2004-42 RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1441 FOR A BUSINESS PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT OR AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT(AGRICULTURAL TRUCK TERMINAL AND WASH) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,IJOHN CREER A public hearing was conducted on May 12,2004,at 10:00 a.m.,with the following present: Commissioner Robert D. Masden,Chair Commissioner William H.Jerke, Pro-Tern Commissioner M.J.Geile Commissioner David E.Long Commissioner Glenn Vaad Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman Health Department representative,Char Davis Public Works representative,Donald Carroll The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 23,2004,and duly published April 28,2004,in the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Farmland Reserve Inc./John Greer for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1441 for a Business permitted as a Use by Right or an Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District(agricultural truck terminal and wash)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney,made this a matter of record, Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She gave a brief description of the location of the site,which is within the three-mile referral area for the City of Greeley and Town of Kersey. She also described the surrounding uses and displayed photographs of the area. In response to Chair Masden,Ms.Lockman stated the two feedlots in the area contain approximately 59,000 cattle. She stated 15 referral agencies reviewed this proposal; ten responded favorably or included comments that have been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. She further stated the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority expressed concern regarding the possible odor from the site,and staff received 13 letters of opposition and two letters of support from surrounding property owners. She stated there was extensive testimony at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the potential contamination of vegetables stored on the Murata property; however, since that time the Murata facility has been sold to L.W. Miller and submitted a letter retracting their previous objections. The applicant's sign plan indicated an entrance sign measuring 16 feet by 8 feet,which exceeds the maximum size normally allowed in the Agricultural Zone District;however,it is smaller that what is typically allowed in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts. Ms.Lockman stated if this application is approved,the applicant will submit an amendment to the permit to include the onion storage facility in the plans.The applicant's representative has submitted a letter, marked Exhibit M, requesting a waiver of submittal fees, _ 2004-1163 PL1718 P''/� 7`7 LC as) 7-psi Gregory Thompson - 31CDCB01 TIF Page 1 HEARING CERTIFICATION- FARMLAND RESERVE INC. /JOHN CREEK(USR#1441) PAGE 2 submittal of a new site plan and a legal description without notification to the surrounding property owners, preadvertisement, and early release of Building Permits. She stated staff agrees the applicant has spent a considerable amount of time mitigating concerns of surrounding property owners;however,they do not support circumventing the normal procedure because of the interest shown by the public through this process. In response to Commissioner Geile regarding whether there will be an injection well associated with the washout facility,Ms.Lockman stated the applicant will give a presentation on how the facility will operate. Char Davis,Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the waste water will go through a treatment system,including a holding tank and storage lagoon,and there will not be any discharge into a floor drain or septic system,which is also considered a form of injection well. Responding to Commissioner Long, Donald Carroll, Department of Public Works,stated the facility will be accessed from Highway 263 using a shared access with the adjacent parcel to the east, which contains the onion facility. He stated the entrance should be wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic and an adequate turning radius for large trucks. Mr.Carroll stated the applicant will be required to pave a tracking pad extending 100 feet into the site from the highway,and the access will be a minimum of 60 feet in width. In response to Chair Masden,Ms.Lockman stated the application indicates this facility will have ten trucks using the washout, 15 to 20 semis using the terminal,and six employee vehicles. Lauren Light, AGPROfessionals, LLC, represented the applicant and stated L.W. Miller hauls products nation wide,the headquarters are in Utah,and the company intends to create its own private truck terminal and trailer washout,since it currently pays approximately$100,000 annually to the Greeley Washout facility. Ms.Light stated the original application was for the truck terminal, and was later amended to include a trailer washout. She stated one week before the Planning Commission hearing, Murata Farms submitted a letter expressing concern with the potential contamination of the onion storage facility, therefore, the hearing was continued to allow the applicant time to address the concerns. She further stated L.W.Miller purchased the 4.9-acre onion storage facility from the Muratas, which addresses the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearing. Ms.Light stated the property is within the Airport Overlay District,therefore, residential uses are discouraged. This is an ideal location for the proposed use,which will have access from Highway 263,and a direct route to U.S.Highway 85 and the ConAgra facility in Greeley. She stated there will not be an increase in traffic on the highway because the applicant's trucks already use the route to enter the Greeley Washout facility, the applicant is working with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),there will be six employee cars, a maximum of 15 trucks making two trips per day,and 50 parking spaces for trailer storage and maintenance. She stated the Planning Commission questioned whether there was enough business to support two washout facilities;however,she reiterated this will be for the applicant's private use. She further stated there will be no animals on the site,so there will be minimal odor. Ms.Light described the layout changes which will need to be made to incorporate the adjacent property that has been purchased, and she also described the self-contained waste water treatment process for the record. She stated the site will be landscaped,the facility will use a tap from the North Weld County Water District until the water augmentation application is complete, the septic system for the terminal building will comply with Weld County Health standards,and there will be parking around the new terminal building and at the office,if needed. Ms.Light stated this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Code,an amendment will be submitted to incorporate the adjacent parcel,and if this application is approved,they will begin construction on the washout facility. She reviewed the various requests outlined in Exhibit M,which the applicant feels is reasonable since the land use won't change and the concerns regarding the onion facility have been eliminated. She stated the 2004-1163 PL1718 Gregory Thompson - 31 CDCB02 TIF Page 1 • HEARING CERTIFICATION-FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,/JOHN CREER(USR#1441) PAGE 3 proposed facility will save the applicant a lot of money which is currently being paid to the Greeley Washout facility. In response to Commissioners Jerke and Long,Tom Haren,AGPROfessionals,LLC,stated the tallest building on the site will be 20 feet and,since the applicant purchased the other site,they have considerable room to accommodate the trucks and will work with CDOT and the Weld County Department of Public Works. Mr. Haren requested the Condition requiring a shared access be modified since the onion facility is longer under separate ownership. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,Mr.Haren stated the Greeley Washout has been annexed into the City of Greeley,and he is not sure what percentage of the Greeley Washout income will be lost with approval of this request. In response to Commissioner Geile's previous question regarding an injection well,Mr.Haren stated Condition of Approval#1.D.1 is standard language for maintenance shops that may have chemicals entering a floor drain and septic system. He stated this facility will have a sump that will be pumped and waste will be removed from the site by a professional handler,therefore,the applicant will not be subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. Mr. Haren gave a brief description of the waste handling system design,and added the system will help eliminate odor. He stated the applicant has applied for a Groundwater Discharge Monitoring Permit,and although the volumes will be much less than dairies and feedlots,the applicant will monitor the water wells in the area. Responding to Chair Masden,Mr.Haren stated the State is reviewing their request to monitor only the existing wells on the property. He further stated the applicant could not disprove any negative affects on the onion storage facility; however, the matter was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Since that time the applicant has spent$0.5 million to purchase and enhance the site,as well as approximately$25,000 per month for trailer washout, parking,etcetera.Mr.Haren stated because there was some delay in the process and the use will not change,the applicant is requesting the amendment process be limited to a new site plan and legal description,a waiver of fees for a streamlined review,and preadvertisement of the amended Use by Special Review Permit. He also requested early release of Building Permits to allow the applicant to begin remodeling the onion facility, and priority scheduling before the Planning Commission. Mr.Morrison stated the Board needs to hear testimony and make a determination on this permit before considering requests regarding an amended application. He stated the Board will need to discuss the items related to mitigation of the onion facility since that is no longer an issue. Commissioner Geile concurred. In response to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Haren stated Lot B is a 56-acre parcel owned by Farmland Reserve,Inc.,which is under contract with L.W.Miller pending approval of this permit. He further stated L.W.Miller has no interest in area feedlots;however,the company does provide hauling services for Cervi. Mr.Haren reiterated this will be a private facility for L.W. Miller trucks, and the company has no vested Interest in feedlots; it is just a trucking company. He further stated the applicant did purchase Lot A from Brian Murata;however,there is a buyback option if this permit is not approved. Responding to Commissioner Jerke,Mr.Haren stated although Lot B was owned by the Church of Latter-Day Saints,it was deeded to Farmland Reserve,and if approved,the property will be transferred from Farmland Reserve to L.W.Miller, which will be subject to commercial property taxes;it will not receive an exemption. Responding further to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Haren stated the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards do not preclude the applicant from accepting other trucks for washout purposes; however,it is their primary intention to have the site for private use. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Haren requested Development Standards #29 and #30 be modified to set higher 2004-1163 PL1716 Gregory Thompson 31CDCB03.TIF Page 1 HEARING CERTIFICATION-FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,/JOHN CREER(USR#1441) PAGE 4 maximum amounts that will be consistent with the amounts listed in the application. Commissioner Jerke commented there should be no limit on how many trucks are washed per day. Chair Masden concurred. Ms.Lockman explained there does need to be a limit which will be consistent with the amount of water allowed by the State. Responding to Commissioner Long,Mr.Haren stated the site facilities and ponds will be above grade and will only contain stormwater that falls directly on the ponds. He explained the site drains to the southwest,and that portion of the site will be designated for stormwater collection that will be released at the historic rate. He stated the waste from the washout will go though the treatment process and then stored for land application, The trucks will be washed in an enclosed building,and the water will go into the floor drain and eventually through the treatment process. Responding to Chair Masden,Mr.Hares stated the storage ponds can be treated for mosquito control;however,in monitoring other facilities he has found that this type of wastewater is not conducive for breeding mosquitos. He explained the facility will be able to contain three to four months of wastewater during times when the ground is frozen or saturated;however, they will try to keep the ponds dewatered at other times,if possible. Responding further to Chair Masden,Mr.Haren stated studies show the potential for spreading disease is minimal because it cannot be transmitted without airborne water droplets, and the water spray will not not extend beyond 50 feet from the washout. Char Davis,Department of Public Health and Environment,stated Development Standards#29 and #30 were included to address the minimum discharge and industrial wastewater application,which states the washout process takes one hour and requires approximately 3,000 gallons of water per trailer. She stated the application also indicates the washout will be used for ten livestock trailers per day,which contradicts the containment of the storage lagoon,in the amount of only 15,000 gallons per day. Commissioner Geile indicated he had similar concerns and slated the facilities should be designed to accommodate the amount of trucks and trailers being parked on the site. Bernard Gesick, surrounding property owner, expressed concern with increased traffic on Highway 263. He stated the highway is narrow and dangerous,trucks have a difficult time entering the narrow access to the Greeley Washout,and the access to the proposed site is in a poor location due to sight limitations. He stated the southwest portion of the site is located in a natural drainage area,which has been flooded in the past. He further stated there are residents in the area who are opposed and could not attend this hearing,and he expressed concern regarding the potential dust nuisance. Ed Duggan, Greeley Washout operator, questioned whether the proposed site will be for commercial or private use. Ms. Lockman stated the application materials indicate this will be a private facility and allowing other trucks would be considered a violation. Responding to Chair Masden,Mr.Duggan stated his facility averages 30 trucks per day,and the washout is connected to Greeley sewer. Brian Murata, previous owner,stated he had Issues but has come to a working arrangement to address his concerns. In response to Commissioner Long,Mr,Murata stated there are options for relocating and purchasing other facilities. He stated in 1996 there were not concerns regarding airborne pathogens,but there have been many studies since that time and it is more difficult to find a location that encompasses those concerns in Weld County. There being no further comments, Chair Masden closed public testimony. (Switched to Tape#2004-22.) 2004-1163 PL1718 Gregory Thompson 31CDCB04.TIF — Page 1 HEARING CERTIFICATION-FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,/JOHN CREER(USR#1441) PAGE 5 Mr. Haren requested Condition of Approval #1.E be modified to postpone the improvements agreement so it does not interfere with the release of Building Permits. Ms.Lockman proposed moving the language under Condition#2 prior to construction of the proposed office/shop,and the Board concurred. Mr.Haren stated control of Highway 263 may be transferred from CDOT to Weld County,therefore,he requested Condition#1.G be modified to replace the words"issued by"with "submitted to"and reflect that the applicant will comply with the requirements of whichever entity applies. He stated Condition of Approval#1.1.1 requires opaque fencing around all parking areas; however, due to the topography of the site, no amount of screening will shield the trucks from Highway 263. Commissioner Jerke suggested only screening the semi truck and trailing parking areas. Mr. Haren reiterated they will still be visual from the highway. Commissioner Jerke commented seeing semi trucks will not likely be a problem and it may be better to eliminate the condition. Mr.Haren stated the truck facility in Utah is landscaped and well kept with graded parking areas. Commissioner Geile commented regardless of the condition of the facility in Utah,there needs to be regulations in place for the Greeley facility to ensure the conditions are acceptable. Commissioner Jerke moved to delete Condition of Approval#1.1.1 because it is not possible to adequately screen the site. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion. He stated fencing in this situation will not be adequate; however, the remainder of Condition #1.1 does address other landscaping and screening issues which will be reviewed by staff. The motion carried unanimously. Mr.Haren stated Condition of Approval#1.1.4 is no longer necessary since the onion facility is no longer in operation,and the Board concurred. He stated Development Standards#3 and#20 each deal with dust control,therefore,he requested Development Standard#20 be deleted or that the issues be consolidated into one standard. Chair Masden recessed the hearing for lunch until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening,Commissioner Geile expressed concern that the interests of the onion facility were not being protected. Mr.Haren clarified the applicant has purchased the onion facility to eliminate any potential liability. Responding to Commissioner Jerke,Mr.Haren stated the existing onion storage building could be modified and used for the truck terminal office/shop,which will require an amendment to this permit,if approved. He further stated Mr.Murata does not intend to relocate his business within proximity of a facility that contains animal waste. He clarified Lot A was purchased from Mr.Murata to address the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearing,and the applicant will close on Lot B contingent upon approval of this application. Regarding Mr. Haren's request concerning Development Standards#3 and#20, Ms.Davis stated Standard#3 requires the applicant to have the equipment necessary to control dust. Mr.Car roll added Standard#20 addresses dust caused by traffic in the parking and circulation areas. Mr.Haren stated the clarification is adequate,and the Board indicated both Standards should be left in the Resolution. Mr.Haren further stated the applicant is working on a Substitute Water Supply Plan and Augmentation Plan for uses of other water and would prefer not to be limited to the North Weld County Water District as stated in Development Standard#9. Mr.Morrison suggested adding"or an adjudicated water source"to the end of the sentence,and the Board concurred. Mr.Haren stated the discussion regarding Development Standards#29 and#30 needs to be resolved. Ms.Lockman explained Development Standard#29 needs to based on how much the facility can handle,therefore,she suggested the language be modified to state,"Given that approximately 3,000 gallons is required to clean one trailer,the plat shall be amended to include a note stating the maximum number of trailers the system can handle. Staff shall verify this number with the State Division of Water Quality Control." She stated that language will need to be moved to Condition#1.K. Commissioner Jerke stated he does not feel there should be a limit on the applicant when the specific amount has not been determined. Commissioner Geile commented 2004-1163 PL1718 Gregory Thompson 31CDCB05.TIF Page 1 • HEARING CERTIFICATION-FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,/JOHN CREER(USR#1441) PAGE 6 he prefers to have a benchmark for the applicant and staff to follow. Chair Masden indicated he does not want the applicant to be over regulated to the point where they are unable to operate. Ms. Davis stated the final amounts will be determined by the State permit. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Haren stated the truck wash is only one component of the business and there are parking spaces for various types of trailers;however,the trailers that haul animals will be washed within one day of being parked at the site.Mr.Haren stated Development Standards#30 can be addressed further through the amendment process when they are more certain of the new site plan. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Haren stated the application was submitted with the intent of allowing only the applicant's trucks,but his opinion is that others may be allowed if the site is suitable. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Brian Murata clarified he has no further interest in the site and he will locate his business elsewhere. In response to Commissioner Long and Chair Masden,Mr.Carroll stated the plat shows 60 feet for ingress and egress,which he will check at the site,and that is an adequate width. He stated there will also be an additional 100-foot approach pad so materials are not tracked onto the highway. Commissioner Jerke commented this will be a compatible use in the area,the access issues have been addressed,there is a need for this operation based on the amount of cattle feeding operations in the area, this is a large company that will benefit from the use of a private terminal, and the applicant has made extensive mitigation measures. Commissioner Long commented the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearing have been mitigated with the purchase of the Murata facility. He stated during the past six months there have been instances of trucks emptying their trailers on the roadways, and although it is unclear who is responsible, he feels an additional wash area is needed. Chair Masden stated due to the significant number of cattle operations in the area and the sale of the Murata facility,he supports this project. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the request of Farmland Reserve,Inc./John Creer fora Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1441 for a Business permitted as a Use by Right or an Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District(agricultural truck terminal and wash)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record. His motion also included deleting the language from Condition#2.E and adding as a new Condition#2.C,modifying Condition#2.G to replace the words"issued by"with"submitted to", deleting Conditions #1.1.1 and #1.1.4, adding a new Condition #1.K to state, "Given that approximately 3,000 gallons is required to clean one trailer,the plat shall be amended to include a note stating the maximum number of trailers the system can handle. Staff shall verify this number with the State Division of Water Quality Control.",modifying Development Standard#9 to add"or an adjudicated water source"to the end of the sentence,deleting Development Standard#29,and renumbering or relettering as appropriate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long. Commissioner Celle commented many of the issues and modifications should have been resolved by the Planning Commission rather than making this many significant changes at the last phase of the process. There being no further discussion,the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was completed at 2:10 p.m. 2004-1163 PL1718 GregoFy Thompson - 31 CDCB06.TIF Page 1 HEARING CERTIFICATION-FARMLAND RESERVE INC.,/JOHN CREER(USR#1441) PAGE 7 This Certification was approved on the 17th day of May 2004. APPROVED: �,�,'e � ,4,� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS , 0i � W LDCQOUNTY,,COLORADO test ({, �j-5,-.�� 11/1 ' r ►:r Robert D. Masden, Chair ,sika% \�� i!Clerk to the Board ,714a William H. J e, Pro-Tern eputy Clerk te the BoardM. J. Ile TAPE#2004-22 David . ong DOCKET#2004-42 Glenn Vaad 2004-1163 PL1718 I T I 3_ 1 _ 4 I `- r I • ... ... � FARMLA ID RESERVE, 1f lC, I OS• M • ' :i . g U IlimilissulintoiMiN MT2arma C MP wale CwW.D0 `/S #1141, ' T M I B TI-00 B 0.11 Raw Larva CIM a IMNP6Y 6 0 • — . PART OF LOT B OF RE-190I,NE 114 OF THE NE 1/4, OF SECTION I,OF TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,OF RANGE 65 WEST • • 2 ' * OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO ~ O • r • r u VICINITY MAP _.._._ SCALE: I--xOOO' SOILS CLASSIFICATIONS: 52-OTERO SANDY LOAM x6-HAVERSON LOAM 41-NUNN CLAY LOAM I 1 LOT B Cf RE-19O1 I • • .t`sa. + I ,U511 BOUNDARY , '41.1kA.3 .new M FTL/Trr- 1 I x • .. e. •I +.�.w... ` + � N'S LOT A RE-19O1 1 : 1171 (NOT NODDED) Lw MILLER ` .. ... f* mo Oi .ten . .s.... t I I. 1 I I .;.i.;',17-.1......../t:!:,: :. ..n."' �,sic 1 �AM6S ofe�rt 31b.3]AOl5 a�a I (ry,s,,00'TO BC PA1fD) `�'LAYl6 "'y -' V (r/tMYUY Cr 100'11JAIa11C RAN) / 1..•NO SCALE •8d 4 �.n.r i --J� K "� ...,..74,1`4„, \ .- , t.L0D' - r y0. I .... k..I1z•,: r-2-70,01": : xrl'� -.--�` r `- _~ - I sII:t __.- --- --- _-------- '_�_1� µTGµW rs?s>i:a.... si ASE • f tg -- --- Vt. ,,Auk; C IBC zoo Vi TN£ IRA*.ER WASFIOUT IS DESIGNED TO HANDLL AN AVERAGE g CAPACITY Of 2O TRAILERS PER DAY. SCALE'I'=100 1 1 1_____.. 2 4 • 6 1 7 i______11 3 X a.,, 96/11/« un A5 Srvwe+ AHew,Esc PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION `"` ARCH 0 TM m TMs Is to certify that the Weld County Planning comlvbn has certified and does hereby recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, for is confirmation, approval and adoption of this Site Specific n-, I cf I Development Plan and Use y Sy ial Revm as shown and described hereon this_ (J day of w.ry s, NAC Cr,hOI eW Id Lounly Planning Commission s-• „scx.r Hory HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERIIFICATIO l Mos is tO cerGly that the R, o or e my c s, weld e ty o d e confirm a adopt e Specific Development PI d Use by Special R a/� rslonmms os no.n andd described n (h' dad Of p ��' PRO 4TiE5r. I ears , • I were mp ty Clem t t c,a.-c By: > ueFurl'der, m he IBA i '' ate I A 1 7 — AGPaoacsiamlr.H.lc PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTTFCATION The undersigned major property owner's) do hereby'agree to the Site Sp rip Development Ran and Use by Special Review Development Standards as Cescrlbed hereon Ns_]_ day of _u,3a, , 2risr[_. Tr SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN U RR 0Cli USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT l DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1-.) N Y FARMLAND RESERVE, INC. - USR /11441 N 1. THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1441 IS FOR A BUSINESS PERMITTED AS A USE C NO BY RIGHT OR AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE I-1 (INDUSTRIAL) ZONE DISTRICT(AGRICULTURAL TRUCK TERMINAL AND WASH)IN THE A .OSt (AGNIDARDS L) ZONE DISTRICT, AS INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS ON FILE AND SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT T 1-I {L STANDARDS STATED HEREON. cn 2. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN MAY CREATE A VESTED PROPERTY RICHI PURSUANT TO SECTION 23-8-10 OF THE WELD COUNTY w ((f I CO CODE _ 3. THE FACILITY SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO IMPLEMENT DUST CONTROL AS REQUIRED HY THE WELD 1^ v (�1 COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND EN IN THE NT. J Mn 4. ALL LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES, AS DEFINED IN THE SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES ANC, FACILITIES ACT, SECTION y 30-20-100.5, C.R.5. SHALL BE STORED AND REMOVED FOR FINAL DISPOSAL IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS AGAINST SURFACE I� M AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. O 5. NO PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF WASTES SHALL DE PERMITTED AT THIS SITE. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO INCLUDE THOSE WASTES B SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF A SOLID WASTE IN THE SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES ACT SECTION 30-20-100.5, C.RS. 6. WASTE MATERIALS SHALL DE HANDLED, STORED, AND DISPOSES w A MANNER THAT CONTROLS FUGITIVE OUST. BLOWING C DEBRIS, AND OTHER POTENTIAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS. 7. FUGITIVE DUST AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SHALL BE CONTROLLED ON THIS SITE. l t S �j 8. THIS FACILITY SHALL ADHERE TO THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE NOISE LEVELS ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT AS < H.H DELINEATED IN SECTION 25-12-103, L R.5- a W 9- THE FACILITY SHALL UTILIZE THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY(NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT)OR AN ADJUDICATED WATER SOURCE. 10. THE APPLICANT SHALL OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED WASTE HANDLING PLAN. I. ADEQUATE TOILET FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEES AND PATRONS OF THE FACILITY. 12 ANY SEPOC SYSTEM LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH A11. PROVISIONS OF THE WELT COUNTY CODE PERTAINING TO INEL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. 13. IF APPLICABLE. THE THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 14. AN ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE EVENT THAI ODOR LEVELS DETECTED OFF SITE OF THE FACILITY MEET OR EXCEED THE ODOR LIMIT AS SPECIFIED BY THE REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONIROI COMMHISSION. THE PLAN SHALL ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE EVENT THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT RECE VIES A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ODOR COMPLAINTS AND IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THERE EXISTS AN ODOR CONDITION REQUIRING D DESIGN THE TRAILER WASH SHALL BE OPERATED IN ACSSHALL CE WITH THE APPROVED DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN. 16. ANY ABOVE OR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AND ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATIONS(]OCR 1101-14). 17 THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL STATE, AND FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS. 1B. THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY REQUIRED PERMIT OR REGULATION OF THE WATER DUALITY CONTROL DIVISION OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 19. THE SITE SHALL UTILIZE THE SHARED ACCESS POINT WHICH ACCOMMODATES BOTH LOTS A AND B OF RECORDED EXEMP TON #1901 (2Q CET-STREET PARKING AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR TRUCK DRIVER AND TRUCK PARKING SHALL BE SURFACED WITH RECYCLED ASPHALT OR THE EQUIVALENT TO KEEP THE DUST DOWN AS TRUCKS ARE CIRCULATING THROUGHOUT THE FACILITY. • 21 THE SITE SHALL MAINTAIN A PAVED APPROACH WITH ADEQUATE TURNING RADIUSES FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET. THE U PAVED APPROACH SHALL ACCOMMODATE TWO-WAY-RUCK TRAFFIC. 22. THE HISTORICAL FLOW PATTERNS AND RUN-OFF AMOUNTS WILL BF MAINTAINED ON THE SITE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT I1 WILL REASONABLY PRESERVE THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND PREVENT PROPERTY DAMAGE OF THE TYPE GENERALLY ATTRIBUTED TO RUN-OFF RATE AND VELOCITY INCREASES. DIVERSIONS.CONCENTRATION AND/OR UNPLANNED PONOINO OF STORM ^ RUN-OFF. '" A$ 23. THE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ON THE SITE SHALL BE MAIN IAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING LLJ Eb,, AND SCREENING PLAN. 24. SEPARATE BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP/OFFICE BUILDING AND THE II 4 i i TRUCK WASH BAYS. A PLOT PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED SHOWING ALL STRUCTURES WITH ACCURATE DISTANCES BETWEEN w a STRUCTURES, AND FROM STRUCTURES TO ALL PROPERTY LINES. IF THE EXISTING DWELLING IS TO BE DEMOLISHED, A DEMOLITION — 'N 9 PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. (n , n v25. A PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE EACH BUILDING PLANS FOR THE SHOP SHALL INCLUDE A FLOOR PLAN AND A NW " COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WORE THAT W,LL BE DONE TO SERVICE OR REPAIR VEHICLES. AN ENGINEERED L1 yJ FOUNDATION, BASED ON A SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OR AN OPEN HOLE INSPECTION PERFORMED BY A COLORADO !V REGISTERED ENGINEER, IS REQUIRED. UNLESS EXEMPTED BY STATE LAW. PLANS FOR THE BUILDING SHALL BEAR THE WET STAMP IS Y Q LI- OF A COLORADO REGISTERED ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. TWO COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS ARE REQUIRED WHEN APPLYING FOR EACH 0 `,a PERMIT 26. BUILDINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS CODES ADOPTED AT THE THE OF PERMIT APPLICATION. Q D `Y_ CURRENTLY ME FOLLOWING HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY WELD COUNTY. 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, RESIDENRAL, MECHANICAL. R ON PLUMBING AND FUEL GAS CODES, 2002 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, AND CHAPTER 29 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE. J 27. THE SHOP BUILDING WILL PROBABLY BE CLASSIFIED AS TYPE 5-3 REPAIR GARAGE WITH A TYPE B OFFICE FIRE RESISTANCE Z n OF WALLS AND OPENINGS, CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT. AND ALLOWABLE AREAS WILL BE RENEWED AT THE PLAN Cr m a RENTER. SETBACK AND OFFSET DISTANCES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CHAPTER 23 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE 28 BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED TN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE AND HEIGHT FOR VARIOUS USES AND TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ft BULK REQUIREMENTS FROM CHAPTER 23 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 23 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH OFFSET AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 6 OFFSET AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE MEASURED TO THE FARTHEST PROJECTION FROM THE BUILDING. 29. A5 INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, Y0 MORE THAT FIFTY(50) TRUCKS SHALL BE PARKED AT THIS SITE I. 30. AS INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, -POURS OF OPERATION FOR THE TRUCK WASH SHALL BE FROM 6'00 A.M. TO 10.00 PM., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. 31. AS INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE TRUCK TERMINAL SHALL BE FROM 7-00 A.M. TO 8.00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. 32 THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL ALLOW ANY MINERAL OWNER THE RIGHT OF INGRESS OR EGRESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT. COMPLETION, RECOMPLETON. RE-ENTRY. PRODUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING OR FUTURE OPERATIONS LOCATED ON THESE LANDS 33 THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL BF RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPI SING WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS or SECTION 23 2-240 WELD COUNTY CODE lJn 34. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL DE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ME OPERANON SANDARDS OF SECTION 23-2_250, WELD COUNTY CODE 35. WELD COUNTY PERSONNEL SHALL BE GRANTED ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY Al ANY REASONABLE TIME IN ORDER HO DRAWING: ...m... ENSURE THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ON THE PROPERTY COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STATED HEREIN AND ALL APPLICABLE WELD COUNTY REGULATIONS. 36. THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AREA SHALL AL EMI TEO TO THE PLANS SHOWN HEREON AND GOVERNED MY THE FOREGOING STANDARDS AND ALL APPLICABLE WELD COUNTY REGULATIONS SUBSTAN TIAL CHANGES FROM THE PLANS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SHOWN OR STATED SHALL REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE PERMIT BY THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE SUCH Cl-ANDES FROM THE PLANS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE PERMITTED. ANY OTHER CHANGES SHALL BE FILED IN THE OF F.CE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES. 37 THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MAY BE REASON FOR REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I OF I DWGS FARMLAND RESERVE 1 6 T 7 —F a X UPS M441 Odor Potential Odors result from the natural decomposition processes of waste products such as manure, which will be the odor-generating product, associated with the truck wash. Although occasionally unpleasant, odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily associated with animal waste products. The odor potential for the truck wash will be significantly less then the existing adjacent feedlots as the amount of manure will be considerably less then what is generated at a feedlot. L.W. Miller will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor control: 1. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper maintenance and surface grading will he conducted by the facility to reduce standing water. No chemical additives or treatments of the pond for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor efficiency, if any, of these products. 2. Land application tinting Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. L.W. Miller will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. If Weld County Health Department determines odor conditions persist, L.W. Miller may increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously outlined. Additionally, if nuisance conditions continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, L.W. Lfiller u•il( install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to fin-ther minimize nuisance conditions flow odors. Page 1 of 1 Kim Ogle From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:18 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: FW: USR-1441 Conditions From: Charlotte Davis Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:11 PM To: Sheri Lockman Subject: USR-1441 Conditions Sheri, I have reviewed the letter from LandPro dated 6-15-04 regarding required conditions prior to recording the plat. The following is my response: Condition 1D.1 UIC Class V Injection wells-Floor Drains According to the information provided from LandPro the facility with not have floor drains located in the maintenance area. The condition is not relevant to this use and can be removed. Condition 1D.2 Dust abatement plan The dust abatement plan submitted has been reviewed and is approved by this department. Condition 1 D.3 CDPS permit I have reviewed an application for a Minimal Discharge Industrial Wastewater permit. It appears the application was filled out by LandPro but my copy was not signed or dated. I have concerns with this application as written. The applicants should supply a signed and dated application or an approved permit from the state to this department before this condition can be approved. This condition has not been met. Condition 1D.4 Design and operation plan. A plan was submitted with the application but was not approved. If another design and operation plan has been submitted by LandPro after the referral comments were sent we have not seen this document. The applicant should provide us with the documentation for review and approval. This condition has not been met. Condition 1 D.5 Aboveground Storage Tanks. The applicants indicate in their letter that there are not aboveground storage tanks proposed and that they tanks will be underground. The application actually states that"Fuel will be stored onsite and storage un'.ts will meet all County, State and Federal regulations". I have not received documentation from The Department of Labor and Employment, Oil Inspection Section or from the applicant in regards to Fuel Storage tanks. This condition has not been met. • Condition 1D.6 Waste Handling Plan. A waste handling plan has been submitted and is approved by this department. Should you have questions or concerns please let me know. Regards, Char • 01/10/2005 UNiON __ COL NY FIRE/RESCUE AUTHORITY 1 100 IOU Street Greeley, CO 8063 FIRE PREVENTIONBURE.4Gt Ph_ 970/350-9513 Fax 970/350-9518 January 7th, 2005 Matt Cain AGPROfessionals 4350 Hwy 66 Longmont, CO 80504 Mr. Cain: • The following lists requirements for the various buildings and facilities located at the proposed Miller Truckwash located at 23691 Highway 263 just east of Greeley The following requirements are taken from the 2003 International Fire Code and are listed per building or facility. Overall Site 1 . All locked gates shall be provided with a Knox Padlock or Knox Key Switch These can be ordered from www.knoxbox_com 2. Roads into the site and areas around the lounge, repair shop, truckwash, and fueling facility shall be an all-weather surface capable of handling the weight of a fire apparatus (55,000 pounds) 3. The all-weather roads shall be maintained at a minimum of 24' wide with no parking allowed Coordination of the actual locations of the all-weather surfaces and parking may be necessary. Lounge Building 1. Address numbers shall be provided on the street side of the building Letters or numbers shall be of contrasting color to the building, he plainly visible, and be a minimum of 4" high with a minimum stroke width of 0 5" 2 At least one multi-purpose dry chemical fire extinguisher shall be provided Extinguishers must have a minimum of rating of 2A I0BC Extinguishers shall be mounted in a conspicuous place with the handle of the extinguisher mounted no higher than 5" above the floor Repair Garage/Service Building.. 1. The two fire walls shown that are used to keep the building from requiring sprinklers must be 2 hour area separation walls. 2. Address numbers shall be provided on the street side of the building. Letters or numbers shall be of contrasting color to the building, be plainly visible, and be a minimum of 4" high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5". 3. Fire extinguishers shall be provided. In the office area, extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 2A 10BC with a maximum travel distance of 75'. In the shop areas, extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 4A 80BC with a maximum travel distance of 50 feet. Extinguishers shall be mounted in conspicuous locations and shall not be obstructed. 4. The fire flow for the building is 3,500 gallons per minute. Because of the difficulties and cost in providing water to the site for fire flow, a decrease is being allowed per B 103.1. In lieu of providing full fire flow, a fire detection system is required in the building. This shall include automatic detection in all areas, pull stations at all exits, and notification throughout. This system shall be monitored by a central station fire alarm monitoring company. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Fire Authority. Plans shall be stamped by a P.E. 5. Hazardous materials and flammable and combustible liquids shall not exceed the exempt amounts found in the Fire Code. A table listing these amounts is attached to this letter. 6. A Knox Box shall be provided on the building. One can be ordered from www.knoxbox.com. 7. The following are additional requirements found in the International Fire Code that must be met: SECTION 2211 REPAIR GARAGES 2211.1 General. Repair garages shall comply with this section and the International Building Code. Repair garages for vehicles that use more than one type of fuel shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section for each type of fuel used. Where a repair garage also includes a motor fuel-dispensing facility, the fuel- dispensing operation shall comply with the requirements of this chapter for motor fuel-dispensing facilities. 2211.2 Storage and use of flammable and combustible liquids. The storage and use of flammable and combustible liquids in repair garages shall comply with Chapter 34 and Sections 2211.2.1 through 2211.2.4. 2211.2.1 Cleaning of parts. Cleaning of parts shall be conducted in listed and approved parts-cleaning machines in accordance with Chapter 34. 2211.2.2 Waste oil, motor oil and other Class IIIB liquids. Waste oil, motor oil and other Class IIIB liquids shall be stored in approved tanks or containers, which are allowed to be stored and dispensed from inside repair garages. Tanks storing Class IIIB liquids in repair garages are allowed to be located at, below or above grade, provided that adequate drainage or containment is provided. Crankcase drainings shall be classified as Class IIIB liquids unless otherwise determined by testing. 2 2211.2.3 Drainage and disposal of liquids and oil-soaked waste. Garage floor drains, where provided, shall drain to approved oil separators or traps discharging to a sewer in accordance with the Plumbing Code. Contents of oil separators, traps and floor drainage systems shall be collected at sufficiently frequent intervals and removed from the premises to prevent oil from being carried into the sewers. Crankcase drainings and liquids shall not be dumped into sewers, streams or on the ground, but shall be stored in approved tanks or containers in accordance with Chapter 34 until removed from the premises. Self-closing metal cans shall be used for oily waste. 2211.2.4 Spray finishing. Spray finishing with flammable or combustible liquids shall comply with Chapter 15. 2211.3 Sources of ignition. Sources of ignition shall not be located within 18 inches (457 mm) of the floor and shall comply with Chapters 3 and 26. 2211.3.1 Equipment. Appliances and equipment installed in a repair garage shall comply with the provisions of the International Building Code, the Mechanical Code and the • Electrical Code. 2211.3.2 Smoking. Smoking shall not be permitted in repair garages except in approved locations. No Smoking signs shall be provided in conspicuous locations in the shop areas. 2211.4 Below-grade areas. Pits and below-grade work areas in repair garages shall comply with Sections 2211.4.1 through 2211.4.3. 2211.4.1 Construction. Pits and below-grade work areas shall be constructed in accordance with the International Building Code. 2211.4.2 Means of egress. Pits and below-grade work areas shall be provided with means of egress in accordance with Chapter 10. 2211.4.3 Ventilation. Where Class I liquids or LP-gas are stored or used within a building having a basement or pit wherein flammable vapors could accumulate, the basement or pit shall be provided with mechanical ventilation in accordance with the Mechanical Code, at a minimum rate of 1.5 cubic feet per minute per square foot (cfm/ft 2 ) [0.008 m3/(s m2)] to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors. 2211.5 Preparation of vehicles for repair. For vehicles powered by gaseous fuels, the fuel shutoff valves shall be closed prior to repairing any portion of the vehicle fuel system. Vehicles powered by gaseous fuels in which the fuel system has been damaged shall be inspected and evaluated for fuel system integrity prior to being brought into the repair garage. The inspection shall include testing of the entire fuel delivery system for leakage. 3 Fueling Station 1. There are numerous requirements for the aboveground tank and associated fueling equipment. Because few details were provided in the plans, detailed requirements from the Fire Code are provided in this letter. The most important issues are tank size, type, and distance from dispensers. These particular requirements are highlighted below. A new plan showing tank and associated equipment layout and product data shall be submitted to the Fire Authority for review and approval prior to installation. The Submittal must address the requirements listed below. SECTION 2203 LOCATION OF DISPENSING DEVICES 2203.1 Location of dispensing devices. Dispensing devices shall be located as follows: 1. Ten feet (3048 nun) or more from lot lines. 2. Ten feet (3048 mm) or more from buildings having combustible exterior wall surfaces or buildings having noncombustible exterior wall surfaces that are not part of a I-hour fire-resistance-rated assembly or buildings having combustible overhangs. Exception: Canopies constructed in accordance with the International Building Code providing weather protection for the fuel islands. 3. Such that all portions of the vehicle being fueled will be on the premises of the motor fuel-dispensing facility. 4. Such that the nozzle, when the hose is fully extended, will not reach within 5 feet (1524 mm) of building openings. 5. Twenty feet (6096 mm) or more from fixed sources of ignition. 2203.2 Emergency disconnect switches. An approved, clearly identified and readily accessible emergency disconnect switch shall be provided at an approved location, to stop the transfer of fuel to the fuel dispensers in the event of a fuel spill or other emergency. An emergency disconnect switch for exterior fuel dispensers shall be located within 100 feet (30 480 mm) of, but not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) from, the fuel dispensers. For interior fuel-dispensing operations, the emergency disconnect switch shall be installed at an approved location. Such devices shall be distinctly labeled as: EMERGENCY FUEL SHUTOFF. Signs shall be provided in approved locations. SECTION 2204 DISPENSING OPERATIONS 2204.1 Supervision of dispensing. The dispensing of fuel at motor fuel-dispensing facilities shall be conducted by a qualified attendant or shall be under the supervision of a qualified attendant at all times or shall be in accordance with Section 2204.3. 2204.2 Attended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities. Attended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities shall comply with Sections 2204.2.1 through 2204.2.5. Attended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities shall have at least one qualified attendant on duty while the facility is open for business. The attendant's primary function shall boto supervise, observe and control the dispensing of fuel. The attendant shall prevent the dispensing of fuel into containers that do not comply 4 with Section 2204.4.1, control sources of ignition, give immediate attention to accidental spills or releases, and be prepared to use fire extinguishers. 2204.2.1 Special-type dispensers. Approved special-dispensing devices and systems such as, but not limited to, card- or coin-operated and remote-preset types, are allowed at motor fuel- dispensing facilities provided there is at least one qualified attendant on duty while the facility is open to the public. Remote preset-type devices shall be set in the"off' position while not in use so that the dispenser cannot be activated without the knowledge of the attendant. 2204.2.2 Emergency controls. Approved emergency controls shall be provided in accordance with Section 2203.2. 2204.2.3 Operating instructions. Dispenser operating instructions shall be conspicuously posted in approved locations on every dispenser. 2204.2.4 Obstructions to view. Dispensing devices shall be in clear view of the attendant at all times. Obstructions shall not be placed between the dispensing area and the attendant. 2204.2.5 Communications. The attendant shall be able to communicate with persons in the dispensing area at all times. An approved method of communicating with the fire department shall be provided for the attendant. 2204.3 Unattended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities. Unattended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities shall comply with Sections 2204.3.1 through 2204.3.7. 2204.3.1 General. Where approved, unattended self-service motor fuel-dispensing facilities are allowed. As a condition of approval, the owner or operator shall provide, and be accountable for, daily site visits, regular equipment inspection and maintenance. 2204.3.2 Dispensers. Dispensing devices shall comply with Section 2206.7. Dispensing devices operated by the insertion of coins or currency shall not be used unless approved. 2204.3.3 Emergency controls. Approved emergency controls shall be provided in accordance with Section 2203.2. Emergency controls shall be of a type which is only manually resettable. 2204.3.4 Operating instructions. Dispenser operating instructions shall be conspicuously posted in approved locations on every dispenser and shall indicate the location of the emergency controls required by Section 2204.3.3. 2204.3.5 Emergency procedures. An approved emergency procedures sign, in addition to the signs required by Section 2205.6, shall be posted in a conspicuous location and shall read: IN CASE OF FIRE, SPILL OR RELEASE 1. USE EMERGENCY PUMP SHUTOFF 2. REPORT THE ACCIDENT! FIRE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NO. FACILITY ADDRESS 5 2204.3.6 Communications. A telephone not requiring a coin to operate or other approved, clearly identified means to notify the fire department shall be provided on the site in a location approved by the fire code official. 2204.3.7 Quantity limits. Dispensing equipment used at unsupervised locations shall comply with one of the following: 1. Dispensing devices shall be programmed or set to limit uninterrupted fuel delivery to 25 gallons (95 L) and require a manual action to resume delivery. 2. The amount of fuel being dispensed shall be limited in quantity by a preprogrammed card as approved. 2204.4 Dispensing into portable containers. The dispensing of flammable or combustible liquids into portable approved containers shall comply with Sections 2204.4.1 through 2204.4.3. 2204.4.1 Approved containers required. Class I, II and IIIA liquids shall not be dispensed into a portable container unless such container is of approved material and construction, and has a tight closure with screwed or spring-loaded cover so designed that the contents can be dispensed without spilling. Liquids shall not be dispensed into portable tanks or cargo tanks. 2204.4.2 Nozzle operation. A hose nozzle valve used for dispensing Class I liquids into a portable container shall be in compliance with Section 2206.7.6 and be manually held open during the dispensing operation. 2204.4.3 Location of containers being filled. Portable containers shall not be filled while located inside the trunk, passenger compartment or truck bed of a vehicle. SECTION 2205 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2205.1 Tank filling operations for Class I, II or IIIA liquids. Delivery operations to tanks for Class I, II or IIIA liquids shall comply with Sections 2205.1.1 through 2205.1.3 and the applicable requirements of Chapter 34. 2205.1.1 Delivery vehicle location. Where liquid delivery to above-ground storage tanks is accomplished by positive- pressure operation, tank vehicles shall be positioned a minimum of 25 feet (7620 mm) from tanks receiving Class I liquids and 15 feet (4572 mm) from tanks receiving Class II and IIIA liquids. 2205.1.2 Tank capacity calculation. The driver, operator or attendant of a tank vehicle shall, before making delivery to a tank, determine the unfilled, available capacity of such tank by an approved gauging device. 2205.1.3 Tank fill connections. Delivery of flammable liquids to tanks more than 1,000 gallons (3785 L) in capacity shall be made by means of approved liquid- and vapor-tight connections between the delivery hose and tank fill pipe. Where tanks are equipped with any type of vapor recovery system, all connections required to be made for the safe and proper functioning of the particular vapor recovery process shall be made. 6 Such connections shall be made liquid and vapor tight and remain connected throughout the unloading process. Vapors shall not be discharged at grade level during delivery. 2205.2 Equipment maintenance and inspection. Motor fuel-dispensing facility equipment shall be maintained in proper working order at all times in accordance with Sections 2205.2.1 through 2205.2.3. 2205.2.1 Dispensing devices. Where maintenance to Class I liquid dispensing devices becomes necessary and such maintenance could allow the accidental release or ignition of liquid, the following precautions shall be taken before such maintenance is begun: 1. Only persons knowledgeable in performing the required maintenance shall perform the work. 2. Electrical power to the dispensing device and pump serving the dispenser shall be shut off at the main electrical disconnect panel. 3. The emergency shutoff valve at the dispenser, where installed, shall be closed. 4. Vehicle traffic and unauthorized persons shall be prevented from coming within 12 feet (3658 mm) of the dispensing device. 2205.2.2 Emergency shutoff valves. Automatic-closing emergency shutoff valves required by Section 2206.7.4 shall be checked not less than once per year by manually tripping the hold-open linkage. 2205.2.3 Leak detectors. Leak detection devices required by Section 2206.7.7.1 shall be checked and tested at least annually in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications to ensure proper installation and operation. 2205.3 Spill control. Provisions shall be made to prevent liquids spilled during dispensing operations from flowing into buildings. Acceptable methods include, but shall not be limited to, grading driveways, raising doorsills, or other approved means. 2205.4 Sources of ignition. Smoking and open flames shall be prohibited in areas where fuel is dispensed. The engines of vehicles being fueled shall be shut off during fueling. Electrical equipment shall be in accordance with the ICC Electrical Code. 2205.5 Fire extinguishers. Approved portable fire extinguishers complying with Section 906 with a minimum rating • of 2-A:20-B:C shall be provided and located such that an extinguisher is not more than 75 feet (22 860 mm) from pumps, dispensers or storage tank fill-pipe openings. 2205.6 Warning signs. Warning signs shall be conspicuously posted within sight of each dispenser in the fuel- dispensing area and shall state the following: 1. It is illegal and dangerous to fill unapproved containers with fuel. 2. Smoking is prohibited. 3. The engine shall be shut off during the refueling process. 4. Portable containers shall not be filled while located inside the trunk, passenger compartment, or truck bed of a vehicle. 7 2205.7 Control of brush and debris. Fenced and diked areas surrounding above-ground tanks shall be kept free from vegetation, debris and other material that is not necessary to the proper operation of the tank and piping system. Weeds, grass, brush, trash and other combustible materials shall be kept not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from fuel-handling equipment. SECTION 2206 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID MOTOR FUEL-DISPENSING FACILITIES 2206.1 General. Storage of flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance with Chapter 34 and this section. 2206.2 Method of storage. Approved methods of storage for Class I, II and IIIA liquid fuels at motor fuel-dispensing facilities shall be in accordance with Sections 2206.2.1 through 2206.2.5. 2206.2.3 Above-ground tanks located outside, above grade. Above-ground tanks shall not be used for the storage of Class I, II or IIIA liquid fuels except as provided by this section. 2. Above-ground tanks used for above-grade storage of Class H or IIIA liquids are allowed to be protected above-ground tanks or, when approved by the fire code official, other above-ground tanks that comply with Chapter 34. Tank locations shall be in accordance with Table 2206.2.3. 3. Tanks containing fuels shall not exceed 12,000 gallons (45 420 L) in individual capacity or 48,000 gallons (181 680 L) in aggregate capacity. Installations with the maximum allowable aggregate capacity shall be separated from other such installations by not less than 100 feet (30 480 mm). 8 TABLE 2206.2.3 MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ABOVE-GROUND TANKS Minimum Distance From Lot Line Which Minimum Is Or Can Distance Be Built Front Upon, Minimum Nearest Minimum Including Distance Important Distance The From Individual Building On From Opposite Nearest Side Minimum Class of Tank Same Nearest Fuel Side Of A Of Any Distance Liquid and Capacity Property Dispenser Public Way Public Way Between Tank Type (gallons) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Tanks(feet) Class I protected above- >6,000 15 25 25 15 3 ground tanks or tanks in vaults Class H and III protected above >6,000 15 25 25 15 3 ground tanks or tanks in vaults Other tanks All 50 50 100 50 3 2206.2.4 Above-ground tanks located in above-grade vaults or below-grade vaults. Above-ground tanks used for storage of Class I, II or IIIA liquid fuels are allowed to be installed in vaults located above grade or below grade in accordance with Section 3404.3.2.8 and shall comply with Sections 2206.2.4.1 and 2206.2.4.2. Tanks in above- grade vaults shall also comply with Table 2206,2.3. 2206.2.4.1 Tank capacity limits. Tanks storing Class I and Class II liquids at an individual site shall be limited to a maximum individual capacity of 15,000 gallons (56 775 L) and an aggregate capacity of 48,000 gallons (181 680 L). 2206.3 Security. Above-ground tanks for the storage of liquid fuels shall be safeguarded from public access or unauthorized entry in an approved manner. 2206.4 Physical protection. Guard posts complying with Section 312 or other approved means shall be provided to protect above-ground tanks against impact by a motor vehicle unless the tank is listed as a protected above-ground tank with vehicle impact protection. 2206.5 Secondary containment. Above-ground tanks shall be provided with drainage control or diking in accordance with Chapter 34. Drainage control and diking is not required for listed secondary containment • 9 tanks. Secondary containment systems shall be monitored either visually or automatically. Enclosed secondary containment systems shall be provided with emergency venting in accordance with Section 2206.6.2.5. 2206.6 Piping, valves, fittings and ancillary equipment for use with flammable or combustible liquids. The design, fabrication, assembly, testing and inspection of piping, valves, fittings and ancillary equipment for use with flammable or combustible liquids shall be in accordance with Chapter 34 and Sections 2206.6.1 through 2206.6.3. 2206.6.1 Protection from damage. Piping shall be located such that it is protected from physical damage. 2206.6.2 Piping, valves, fittings and ancillary equipment for above-ground tanks for Class I, II and ILIA liquids. Piping, valves, fittings and ancillary equipment for above-ground tanks shall comply with Sections 2206.6.2.1 through 2206.6.2.6. 2206.6.2.1 Tank openings. Tank openings for above-ground tanks shall be through the top only. 2206.6.2.2 Fill-pipe connections. The fill pipe for above-ground tanks shall be provided with a means for making a direct connection to the tank vehicle's fuel-delivery hose so that the delivery of fuel is not exposed to the open air during the filling operation. Where any portion of the fill pipe exterior to the tank extends below the level of the top of the tank, a check valve shall be installed in the fill pipe not more than 12 inches (305 mm) from the fill-hose connection. 2206.6.2.3 Overfill protection. Overfill protection shall be provided for above-ground flammable and combustible liquid storage tanks in accordance with Sections 3404.2.7.5.8 and 3404.2.9.6.6. 2206.6.2.4 Siphon prevention. An approved anti-siphon method shall be provided in the piping system to prevent flow of liquid by siphon action. 2206.6.2.5 Emergency relief venting. Above-ground storage tanks, tank compartments and enclosed secondary containment spaces shall be provided with emergency relief venting in accordance with Chapter 34. 2206.6.2.6 Spill containers. A spill container having a capacity of not less than 5 gallons (19 L) shall be provided for each fill connection. For tanks with a top fill connection, spill containers shall be noncombustible and shall be fixed to the tank and equipped with a manual drain valve that drains into the primary tank. For tanks with a remote fill connection, a portable spill container is allowed. 2206.7 Fuel-dispensing systems for flammable or combustible liquids. The design, fabrication and installation of fuel-dispensing systems for flammable or combustible liquid fuels shall be in accordance with this section. 10 2206.7.1 Listed equipment. Electrical equipment, dispensers, hose, nozzles and submersible or subsurface pumps used in fuel-dispensing systems shall be listed. 2206.7.2 Fixed pumps required. Class I and Class II liquids shall be transferred from tanks by means of fixed pumps designed and equipped to allow control of the flow and prevent leakage or accidental discharge. 2206.7.3 Mounting of dispensers. Dispensing devices except those installed on top of a protected above-ground tank that qualifies as vehicle-impact resistant, shall be protected against physical damage by mounting on a concrete island 6 inches (152 mm) or more in height, or shall otherwise be suitably protected in accordance with Section 312. Dispensing devices shall be installed and securely fastened to their mounting surface in accordance with the dispenser manufacturer's instructions. 2206.7.4 Dispenser emergency valve. An approved emergency shutoff valve designed to close automatically in the event of a fire or impact shall be properly installed in the liquid supply line at the base of each dispenser supplied by a remote pump. The valve shall be installed so that the shear groove is flush with or within 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) of the top of the concrete dispenser island and there is clearance provided for maintenance purposes around the valve body and operating parts. The valve shall be installed at the liquid supply line inlet of each overhead-type dispenser. Where installed, a vapor return line located inside the dispenser housing shall have a shear section or approved flexible connector for the liquid supply line emergency shutoff valve to function. Emergency shutoff valves shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, tested at the time of initial installation and tested at least yearly thereafter in accordance with Section 2205.2.2. 2206.7.5 Dispenser hose. Dispenser hoses shall be a maximum of 18 feet (5486 mm) in length unless otherwise approved. Dispenser hoses shall be listed and approved. When not in use, hoses shall be reeled, racked or otherwise protected from damage. 2206.7.5.1 Breakaway devices. Dispenser hoses for Class I and II liquids shall be equipped with a listed emergency breakaway device designed to retain liquid on both sides of a breakaway point. Such devices shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Where hoses are attached to hose-retrieving mechanisms, the emergency breakaway device shall be located between the hose nozzle and the point of attachment of the hose- retrieval mechanism to the hose. 2206.7.6 Fuel delivery nozzles. A listed automatic-closing-type hose nozzle valve with or without a latch-open device shall be provided on island-type dispensers used for dispensing Class I, II or IIIA liquids. Overhead-type dispensing units shall be provided with a listed automatic-closing- type hose nozzle valve without a latch-open device. Exception: A listed automatic-closing-type hose nozzle valve with latch-open device is allowed to be used on overhead-type dispensing units where the design 11 of the system is such that the hose nozzle valve will close automatically in the event the valve is released from a fill opening or upon impact with a driveway. 2206.7.6.1 Special requirements for nozzles. Where dispensing of Class I, II or IIIA liquids is performed, a listed automatic-closing-type hose nozzle valve shall be used incorporating all of the following features: 1. The hose nozzle valve shall be equipped with an integral latch-open device. 2. When the flow of product is normally controlled by devices or equipment other than the hose nozzle valve, the hose nozzle valve shall not be capable of being opened unless the delivery hose is pressurized. If pressure to the hose is lost, the nozzle shall close automatically. Exception: Vapor recovery nozzles incorporating insertion interlock devices designed to achieve shutoff on disconnect from the vehicle fill pipe. 3. The hose nozzle shall be designed such that the nozzle is retained in the fill pipe during the filling operation. 4. The system shall include listed equipment with a feature that causes or requires the closing of the hose nozzle valve before the product flow can be resumed or before the hose nozzle valve can be replaced in its normal position in the dispenser. 2206.7.7 Remote pumping systems. Remote pumping systems for liquid fuels shall comply with Sections 2206.7.7.1 and 2206.7.7.2. 2206.7.7.1 Leak detection. Where remote pumps are used to supply fuel dispensers, each pump shall have installed on the discharge side a listed leak detection device that will detect a leak in the piping and dispensers and provide an indication at an approved location. A leak detection device is not required if the piping from the pump discharge to under the dispenser is above ground and visible. 2206.7.7.2 Location. Remote pumps installed above grade, outside of buildings, shall be located not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from lines of adjoining property that can be built upon and not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) from any building opening. Where an outside pump location is impractical, pumps are permitted to be installed inside buildings as provided for dispensers in Section 2201.4 and Chapter 34. Pumps shall be substantially anchored and protected against physical damage. 2206.7.8 Gravity and pressure dispensing. Flammable liquids shall not be dispensed by gravity from tanks, drums, barrels or similar containers. Flammable or combustible liquids shall not be dispensed by a device operating through pressure within a storage tank, drum or container. 12 If you have any questions, please call me at 970-350-9513. I look forward to seeing the submittals on the fueling facility and the fire alarm system for the repair/service building. Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Re ctfully, Jared W. Moravec Fire Protection Engineer 13 • Management Plan for Nuisance Control L.W. Miller Truck Terminal and Washout Greeley, Colorado Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By AGPROfessionals, LLC 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 (970) 535-9318 December 2004 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods L.W. Miller Truck Terminal and Washout will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in facilities that handle animal manure. This supplement outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or Colorado Regulation. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into surrounding areas and local communities. L.W. Miller Truck Terminal and Washout will use these management and control practices to their best and practical extent. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Name: L.W. Miller Address: 5100 West Washington Boulevard, Ogden, Utah 84405 Phone: (435) 753-8350 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below. Larry Miller Owner (Name) (Title) Manager (Name) (Title) AGPROfessionals, LLC 2 Nuisance Control This Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will use to minimize the potential for the nuisance conditions of dust, odor and flies. This plan outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will use these management and control practices, to their best and practical extent. The three main potential nuisance conditions at the site are dust, odor and flies. Air quality and fly populations at and around facilities that handle animal manures are affected primarily from the relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently compatible. Wet surfaces and manure can produce odor. Dry surfaces and manure can be dusty. The manager or operator shall closely observe conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control. Odor control from wastewater impoundments is managed by four considerations: 1. Design of the containment 2. Loading or amount of manure in the wastewater 3. The amount of wastewater in the impoundment and time of containment 4. Land application or dewatering activities Design of the containment system is an important factor in odor management. The area of exposed surface and the depth of the containment can partially determine the area of potential odor production and the type of odor production. The ratios of volume, depth, surface area and loading are designed to minimize odor production The loading or amount of manure in the wastewater is important in odor control of wastewater impoundments. A substantial manure screening process is designed to reduce the amount of loading that enters the containment. Additionally, the design and plan of the facility allows for mixing of fresh irrigation water to the wastewater to reduce the loading volume. The amount of wastewater in the impoundment and time of containment are factors in odor management. As the volume increases, the potential for odor may increase depending on the season. Water that is held stagnant for extended periods may also produce odors. The L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal plans to land apply the water as soon as possible to keep the volume and detention time to a minimum. Periods where land application would not be possible are when the ground is frozen or saturated, and during harvest in the fall. AGPROfessionals, LLC 3 Land application and dewatering activities are a main concern for odor production and are managed with timing, dilution with irrigation water, duration of application and method of application. Due to heating and cooling of the earth and associated convection, typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will consider weather conditions and prevailing wing direction to minimize odors from land application of stormwater. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. Land application will be with a mixture of wastewater and irrigation water, when available, and will be applied by low pressure sprinkler systems. Other Management Methods The best management systems for dust, odor and fly control involve moisture management. Dust control will be accomplished by wetting down the access roads and facility roads as necessary to minimize fugitive dust at the site and migrating fugitive dust off-site. Intensive management of the surface by routine cleaning, scraping or grading of the surface usually controls dust from surfaces. The purpose of intensive surface management is to mix dry and moist surfaces to reduce dust and odor and eliminate fly habitat. Odor control will be achieved by routinely removing sources of odor from the site such as manure solids stockpiles and reducing areas of standing water. Management methods L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal shall use to control dust, odor and flies are: Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms. Also, raw wet feedstocks left exposed also may produce odor as a result of microbial degradation. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around agricultural operations. In the event, off-site odors are detected, operations will be evaluated and more frequent removal as outlined below and/or covering of temporary stockpiles with bulking agent such as straw or sawdust will occur. Should these procedure prove inadequate, bio-filters or other masking materials will be utilized to mitigate the odor migration problem. Regular manure stockpile removal L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will remove solid manure stockpiles accumulated from the facility on a frequency and basis that minimizes nuisance potential from odor, dust and flies but no less that once per month. Use of the facility, site conditions, weather conditions such as temperature, humidity and wind, and seasons all affect the potential for nuisance conditions. It is expected that manure removal frequency will increase AGPROfessionals, LLC 4 during warm summer months and warmer periods throughout the year. Under warm conditions, the frequency may require weekly or daily removal as necessary. Sprinkling Should nuisance dust conditions arise, sprinkling may be used for moisture control on surfaces and internal roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. Establish good surface drainage Dry materials are less odorous than wet materials. The facility will conduct routine cleaning, grading and harrowing to reduce standing water and minimize wet material. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper surface maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the facility to reduce standing water. Additionally, standing water is fly breeding habitat and reducing standing water will reduce the fly population. The wastewater ponds will be mixed with irrigation water and reduced to the minimum operating level via land application except during periods when the land application area is frozen or saturated. Land application timing Due to heating and cooling of the earth and associated convection, typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will consider weather conditions and prevailing wing direction to minimize odors from land application of stormwater. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. Flies Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices L.W. Miller Trucking Terminal will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat, and then reduce the available food supply. On-Site: The presence of flies will be minimized by frequently removing manure as necessary to avoid anaerobic conditions which tends to produce pockets of decayed wastes which, in turn, attracts flies. Additionally, the fly population will be controlled through the use of spray/mist equipment using EPA approved chemicals to treat the surface areas of the site where flies are observed to congregate. Off-Site: If flies are observed to be originating at the subject site and move offsite; fly bait traps will be placed along the perimeter of the site to minimize off-site migration. AGPROfessionals, LLC 5 The facility may also use parasitic wasps that prey on fly larvae. These parasitic wasps are harmless to humans and have proven effective on feedlot and dairy facilities. The facility will control flies by applying one or more of the following practices as needed: Regular manure stockpile removal The management and frequencies outlined in this operations plan removes both food sources and habitat Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects Minimize fly habitat Standing water, weeds and grass, manure, and raw feedstock stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. Manage weeds and grass Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. Grass and weeds will be kept at or below approximately 18 inches. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to a minimum. Biological treatments Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. Baits and chemical treatments Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of defense for insect control. However, they are very effective. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. AGPROfessionals, LLC 6 14/U0/4U04 1&:14 VILA 1 4JJ (DU Do[[ LP 61ILLYN 1 HANSYUKIAIlUj' 1¢1002 fil .:_ii„...,..t,--.:7----,,,:-4 i- L-rp.cr-cmuvrAt nHiAr i 'Ay, . V:,75; iI 11j1�.t -...1. . I_. a ' L' 1 I I II 'Y.I - \ , - --1' _nr . l December 6, 2004 L.W. Miller Companies Attn: Larry Miller 1050 West 500 South P.O. Box 512 Logan, Utah *4323-0512 Dear_Miller: This is for information about the Wash Rack,(permit#200) located in Logan City; This facility is a wash facility for washing trucks that haul animals.We have never had a complaint about smell or odor about this facility. We have been working with the Wash Rack sense 1984. They clean up the animal waste daily and land apply for soil enrichment. Our sampling shows compliance. If there are any questions please contact Lynn Miller City of Logan. (435) 716-9756. Thank You, r Lynn Miller Environmental Compliance Manager EXHIBIT 1 I have continued to rummage *'—''i the certification materials that I have —"lected and that ... Page I of 17 Lesson duration: 45 min- 2 hr/lesson (The more photos and figures the better.) Target audience: CAFO owner/operator Lesson title Air quality around production facilities and land application sites Intended outcomes The participants will • gain an understanding of air quality concerns. • learn basic techniques for odor gas and dust measurement. • Have some understanding and familiarity with several air emissions control techniques or strategies. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Why do we care about air quality 3. Measuring gases 4. Measuring odor 5. Measuring dust 6. Setbacks and dispersion "" 7. Controlling emissions from barns 8. Controlling emissions from open lots http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage the certification materials that I have 'ected and that ...Page 2 of 17 9. Controlling emissions from manure storage 10.Controlling emissions during land application 11. Solving odor related problems Activities (this can be example problems that are worked during the session) Other resources • LPES manual • Web pages at MN, IA, CA, etc Ten possible test questions answered in the chapter. 1. Can you predict if odor is a problem by measuring a single gas? (Y/N) 2. How is odor measured? Patches? Tubes? Olfactometry 3. What gases will most likely be regulated more closely in the future? 4. List two air emissions control technologies for barns 5. List two control technologies for open lots 6. List two control technologies for barns 7. List two control technologies for barns 8. How will diet affect odor emissions 9. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage '"'1 the certification materials that I have ---"'ected and that ...Page 3 of 17 Introduction In the past, airborne emissions were considered only a minor drawback for livestock and poultry production operations. However, with the trend toward larger, more concentrated production operations, odors and other airborne emissions are rapidly becoming an important issue for all animal producers. Shifting population distributions; the unwillingness of many to tolerate odors, gases, and dust emitted from animal production; and the economic importance of animal agriculture in the United States all contribute to the urgent need for stakeholders to find adequate solutions to these issues. A prerequisite to good solutions, however, is a thorough understanding of the issue. This first section will deal with understanding the health and regulatory issues of air emissions and will be followed by some information on measurement of odors, gases and dust. The final sections will deal with the control of gaseous emissions through a variety of techniques and technologies. Airborne Emissions and Human Health No evidence showing a direct impact of airborne emissions from animal operations on human health has yet been found, but quality-of-life factors for those livin near animal facilities hay nted. At last report, nearly two-hundred different gases have been measure in t e exhaust streams of livestock and poultry facilities. Dust emissions are also of concern. In high enough concentrations this dust or various gas emissions can cause respiratory and gastrointestinal health symptoms (runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, and diarrhea). It is likely that ambient air concentrations of these gases may be high enough at times to cause such health concerns but typically this has not been the case. High ambient concentrations of these gases and dust near livestock and poultry facilities is a function of type and size of the facilities and the local climate and geography. Airborne Emissions from Animal Production Systems Type of emissions Odor emissions from animal production systems originate from three primary sources: manure storage facilities, animal housing, and land application of manure. In a 1982 study in a Uluited_Kingdom (U.K.) county (Hardwick 1985). Almost 501Qof all odor complaints were traced back to land a lication of manure, about_201nwereSZom manure storage facilities, and another 25% were from animal buildings. Other sources included feed production, processing centers, and silage storage. Between the three animal species, hogs were identified as the source of slightly more than half of the complaints (54%), with cattle and poultry being the source of 20% and 24% of the complaints, respectively. Eve_n thou these fmdings from the U K ire nearly 20 years old, gen try seem to agree with this distribution of odor sources, However, with the increased use of manure injection for land application in certain parts of the country and longer manure storage (and larger manure storage structures), there may be a higher percentage of complaints in the future associated with manure storage facilities and animal buildings. Most of the odorous compounds that are emitted from animal production operations are byproducts of anaerobic decomposition/transformation of livestock and poultry wastes by microorganisms. Animal wastes include manure (feces and urine), spilled feed and water, bedding materials (i.e., straw, sunflower hulls, wood shaving), wash water, and other wastes. This highly organic mixture includes carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and other nutrients that are http://pasture.een.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t4^i the certification materials that I have 'lected and that ...Page 4 of 17 readily degradable by microorganisms. The gaseous byproducts of microbial decomposition depends, in a major part, on whether it is done aerobically (i.e., with oxygen) or anaerobically (i.e., without oxygen). Microbial degradation of manure done under aerobic conditions produces fewer odorous gases than those done under anaerobic conditions. Moisture content, temperature, and pH of the manure affect the rate of microbial decomposition. 168 different gas compounds have been identified in swine and poultry wastes. The compounds arc often listed in groups based on their chemical structure. Some of these gases are odorous, can cause human health problems or environmental problems while others are odorless and safe. For instance, methane and carbon dioxide have implications for global warming issues but are odorless. Hydrogen sulfide has a strong odor and in high enough concentrations causes health problems. The most common gases emitted from livestock and poultry facilities are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane Dust, pathogens, and flies are also airborne emission concerns from animal operations. Dust is another airborne emission concern that is difficult to eliminate from animal production units. It is a combination of manure solids, dander, feathers, hair, and feed. It is typically more of a problem in buildings that have solid floors and use bedding as opposed to slatted floors and liquid manure. Pathogens are yet another airborne emission concern for animal production operations. Although pathogens are present in buildings and manure storage units, they typically do not survive aerosolization well, but some have been transported by dust particles. Measuring Outdoor Air Quality Components Gas Measurement Methods The following section briefly describes some of the more common methods used to measure select gases in the air around livestock facilities. Some instruments or measurement methods can measure concentrations to within ±1 part per million (ppm) of the true concentration. Others may only be able to measure concentrations to within ±20 ppm of the true concentration. Devices with greater precision can be used to detect small differences in concentrations that less precise devices cannot detect. However, devices with greater precision usually cost more. Patches. Patches are single-use pieces of cardboard or plastic coated with a chemical that changes color when exposed to the gas being measured. Both the amount of time exposed and the amount of color change are important. Patches give an integrated or average value but are not very precise. They can be hung in a space, worn by workers, or combined with small fans for different applications. Hydrogen sulfide patches are the most commonly used patches in livestock odor work. Patches are usable inside animal buidings; they are not sensitive enough for off-site measurements. Indicator and diffusion tubes. Different types of indicator tubes are available to measure a wide range of gases. Indicator tubes are glass tubes with both ends sealed. To take a reading with an indicator tube, the tips on both ends of the tube are broken off, and the tube is attached to a hand-held pump. The pump pulls a known amount of air through the tube. The media in the tube reacts and changes color with select gases in the air sample. A scale on the tube indicates the concentration. Tubes come with limited scales; precision is around 10% of the full-scale reading on the tube. Indicator tubes give nearly instantaneous readings. Tubes cost around $5 each, and the hand-held pump costs from $100 to $250. Like patches, tubes are only usable within livestock buildings. Electronic sensors. Many different electronic sensors are available for measuring gas concentrations. Their method of action and precision vary. Some units have multiple gas sensors; some units are used in http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/.jonesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage i the certification materials that I have— lected and that ...Page 5 of 17 the safety field to monitor gas concentrations and sound alarms if safe concentrations are exceeded in --- confined spaces. Many of these units cannot measure gas concentrations at low enough levels that are needed for odor monitoring. The Jerome®meter is a portable electronic device for measuring hydrogen sulfide concentrations that gives a nearly instantaneous reading. The meter can measure hydrogen sulfide concentrations down to 3 parts per billion (ppb). Electronic meteres are very expensive. Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer. A gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS), generally considered a research laboratory device, can be used to both identify and measure gas concentrations. Gas measurement vs. odor measurement There are various means of quantifying odors. One method is to measure individual gases or groups of gases and correlate these measured values to odor. In some cases, with known gases or standard gas mixtures odors and gas concentrations have correlated well. Unfortunately, using gas measurements to quantify odor from livestock and poultry facilities has not been as successful. This lack of success is the result of the complexity of the gas mixture generated from the decomposition of the manure. Some of the gases generated are very odorous at very low concentrations which makes there detection by current laboratory equipment difficult. Also, the mixture of these odorous gases results in odors that are different than the simple sum of the individual odorous gases. You cannot predict odors by measuring just one or two gases. • Therefore, the best means of measuring odors is with the human rose. This measurement method is referred to as olfactometry. The key advantage of olfactometry is the direct correlation with odor and its use of human's highly sensitive sense of smell. Another advantage of olfactometry is that it analyzes the complete gas mixture so the contribution of each compound in the sample is included in the analysis. Odor measurement methods: an introduction to olfactometry Olfactometry is a method whereby humans sniff three air samples, one with odorous air mixed in, two with only fresh air. They must determine which sample has the odor. Two odor concentrations (thresholds) can be measured: detection threshold and recognition threshold. They are usually reported as odor units (ou). Odor units are defined as the volume of diluted (non-odorous) air divided by the volume of odorous sample air at either detection or recognition. At the detection threshold concentration, the panelists begin to detect the he odorous air mixture from the two other air streams. This is the most common concentration determined and reported. The following five different parameters that can be used to quantify or describe an odor: concentration, intensity, persistence, hedonic tone, and character descriptor. Odor concentration and intensity are the two most common odor characteristics measured. Persistence is a calculated value based on intensity and concentration. Hedonic tone and character descriptors relate to a perception by the individual smelling the odors. Concentration. The recognition threshold is the at which trained panelists can correctly recognize the odorous air. Intensity. Intensity describes the strength of an odor sample and is measured at concentrations above the detection threshold. It changes with gas or odor concentration. Intensity can be measured at full-strength (i.e., no dilution with non-odorous air) or diluted with non-odorous air. In either case, it is measured using a standard scale such as 0-5 where 0 is no odor and 5 is a very strong odor. Typically, the scale is a referenced to various concentrations of a standard gas in air (often n-butanol). In this way, a standard, repeatable scale is developed. To learn the scale, trained panelists sniff containers of n-butanol at different concentrations in water. They then are presented diluted or full-strength (diluted is always presented first) odorous air samples that they rate against the n-butanol scale. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/-jonesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t the certification materials that I have c-4Jected and that ... Page 6 of 17 Odor measurement devices and techniques Electronic nose. The term "electronic nose" describes a family of devices, some commercially available, that measure a selected number of individual chemical compounds. The devices use a variety of methods for measuring the gas concentrations. Researchers have and continue to evaluate these devices. To date, they have not successfully correlated livestock odors with the output of electronic noses. Scentometer. The scentometer, developed in the late 1950s (Barnebey-Cheney 1973), is a hand- held device that can be used to measure ambient odor levels in the field. It is a rectangular, clear plastic box with two nasal ports, two chambers of activated carbon with air inlets, and several different sized odorous air inlets. A scentometer is used to determine the dilution-to-threshold concentration of ambient air. A trained individual places the two nasal ports up to his or her nostrils and begins to breathe through the scentometer. All of the odorous air inlets are closed so that the inhaled air must pass through the activated carbon and is deodorized. The individual begins sampling by opening the smallest odorous air inlet. More and larger odorous air inlets are opened until he or she detects an odor. The ratio of the odor-free dilution air to the odorous air is used to calculate the dilution-to-threshold concentration. Portability and relatively low cost are some advantages of scentometers (Barnebey-Cheney 1992). However, the scent_orne_ter is nat known for high accuracy (Jones 1992). It requires a sufficient number of panelists to get more accurate measurements, and panelists often suffer odor fatigue if not isolated from the ambient odorous air. Olfactometer. Most laboratories measuring odors from agricultural and industrial sources use,4 dynamic, triangular forced-choice to factometer to determine detection threshold concentrations. A dynamic, triangular forced-choice olfactometer presents three air streams to the trained panelists. One of the air streams is a mixture of non-odorous air and an extremely small amount of odorous air from a sample bag. The other two air streams have only non-odorous air. Panelists sniff each air stream and are forced to identify which air stream is different (i.e., has some odor) than the other two non-odorous air streams. Initially, panelists must guess which air stream is different because the amount of odorous air added is below the detection threshold. In steps, the amount of odorous air added to one of the air streams is doubled until the panelist correctly recognizes which air stream is different. A panel of eighnrained people is normally used to analyze each o r le. The panel's / average concentration is reported and used in statistical analysis. Dust measurements The measurement of dust concentrations in and near animal facilities is typically performed using gravimetrical methods. This is accomplished by weighing a collection filter before and after a known quantity of sample air is passed through the filter inside or near the animal unit. The results are generally given in units of mg of dust per cubic meter of air(mg/m3). Another method of dust measurement is electronic particle counters. These devices report the number(not mass/weight) of particles per volume of air (particles/m'). Often these instruments can categorize dust into particle diameter, which is beneficial in assessing livestock, poultry, and human health risks. Odor Control for Buildings Odors and gases are emitted from the buildings that house livestock and poultry by (1) ventilation fans or(2) buoyancy or wind forces in naturally' ventilated barns. Methods to reduce these odors and gas http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4__odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t' the certification materials that I have r"ected and that ...Page 7 of 17 emissions are less well documented than either manure storage facilities or land application control -- methods. Of the three sources (buildings, storages, and land application), buildings arc believed to release a relatively constant amount of odor and gas. Building emissions, combined with releases from the manure storage facility, form the "baseline" emission levels from an animal production operation. The three approaches to minimizing odors from buildings are (1) enhance dispersion (2) minimize the odor generated and (3) treat the odor as it exits the building. Siting facilities to enhance dispersion. The movement or dispersion of airborne emissions from an animal production facility is difficult to predict and is affected by many factors including topography, weather, and building orientation. It is clear however that the further the separation distance the less likely the odor complaint. Recomiuendations for separation d;erances of animal production acilities from residential developments and other public and private areas where people live and work are typically from 500 feet to one mile or more. `— Prevailing winds should be considered so facilities are sited to minimize o&r transport to close or sensitive neighbors. For existing facilities, this is impossible but for new facilities this is may be a critical factor. Other techniques for enhancing dispersion are wind breaks and shelter belts. The CommuniGu Siting- iassessment tool (see Appendix B� 'ill assist a producer in identifying facilities or land application sites t at present t e greatest an least risk of causing odor nuisances. Minimizing Odor Generation Manure removal management and housecleaning Manure wet feed, and other products that could produce odors in buildings should be removed re larly. This list includes dust buildup both on the inside and on the outside of buildings but especially inside animal housing facilities. Odor from floor surfaces will be reduced if the floors are kept clean and dry. Control of odors from under-floor manure pits depends on the type and length of manure storage. Manure stored longer than five days will generate more offensive gases. Undiluted liquid manure has a large potential for odor production. Therefore, to reduce odors from shallow gutters with pull plugs, the manure should be removed at least once a week. Often, weekly cleaning is not a standard practice but may become so if odor control is the main objective. Bedded systems Using solid manure systems rather than liquid manure systems is generally considered to reduce odor. Although gases and dust are emitted from solid or bedded systems, most people feel that odor from bedded systems is less objectionable than the odor from liquid systems. Using bedding/dry manure systems for animals is generally considered to be more environmentally acceptable from both water quality and outdoor air quality viewpoints. Relatively small bedding levels may be enough to have an effect on odor generation/emission. Until liquid systems were adapted, primarily for convenience, bedding had been used for livestock production for generations. Many dairy and poultry facilities still use dry or solid manure systems. Hoop structures have recently become popular for a few swine and dairy producers, in part due to their odor control effectiveness. They feature a deep-bedded pack system using straw or other crop residues to provide animal comfort and soak up manure liquids. Bedding availability is crucial for solid manure systems except for high-rise layer houses. Hoop structure bedding requirements for finishing swine are estimated to be 200 pounds of baled cornstalks per pig marketed. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.eduF-jonesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage the certification materials that I have c^'ected and that ... Page 8 of 17 Vegetable oil sprinkling Airborne dust, a common problem inside animal housing facilities, has been linked to both human and animal health concerns. Since suspended dust particles can and often do absorb toxic and odorous gases, the reduction of the airborne dust concentrations inside buildings lowers the odor and gas emissions from these animal housing facilities. Research has shown that sprinkling small amounts of vegetable oil inside pig buildings reduces the indoor airborne dust levels. Washing walls and other wet scrubbers Using water to scrub odorous dust, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other gases from the airflow of swine building ventilation fans can be an effective method of controlling odor. Many industrial air pollution control systems use sprays of water to scrub dust, ammonia, sulfur oxides, and nitrous oxides from various polluting air streams. In a wet scrubber, an alkali is usually added to react with acidic pollutants. Chemical and biological additives In some instances, chemical additives are an option for odor or gas emission control. A recent laboratory std to ure pr rives PC 2001) and found that only four products reduced odor hwLa_25%/ "certainty" level. Approximately 10 products reduced H,S by either a 95% or 75% certainty level while 12 products lowered ammonia by the same percentages. Until the mechanisms for the various products are understood so reliable performance can be predicted, the additional costs for additive products may be hard for producers to justify. Ozonation Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent and a very effective natural germicide. Ozone high in the atmosphere protects the earth from solar radiation. At ground level, however, the gas can be toxic at high levels. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit for ozone is 0.1 part per millon (ppm) for an 8-hour, time-weighted average exposure (OSHA 1998). Ozone generators are sold to "freshen" the air in offices and industrial facilities. A number of commercial ozone generators are currently being sold as residential air-cleaning devices. At low concentrations of 0.01 to 0.05 ppm, ozone has a "fresh or outdoor smell" associated with it. At higher concentrations, it begins to smell like an "electrical fire." The decomposition of ozone to oxygen is very fast. The half-life of ozone can reach 60 minutes in a cool, sterile environment and is near 20 minutes in typical conditions. Ozone reacts with and oxidizes most organic material. Thus, the relatively high level of indoor odors and dust in livestock buildings, the ability of ozone to oxidize pollutants, and the potential for ozone to be rapidly depleted continue to make the ozonation of indoor air an attractive but controversial technology for reducing emissions from animal facilities. Diet manipulation Nutrition may become an important means of reducing emissions from livestock and poultry facilities. Research has begun to focus on the effect of diet on odor and gas emissions from animal manure, already showing that reducing the amount of protein in animal diets reduces the potential emission of ammonia from manure. — Much of the feed animals consume is excreted. After excretion, microorganisms break down this undigested feed, along with the other partially digested material in the feces and urine. During the microbial degradation of manure, gases are given off Researchdras vlentified at least 1_68_gaseous compounds resulting from the anaerobic decomposition of manure; of these compounds, 30 are http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/jonesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t" the certification materials that I have '" "ected and that ...Page 9 of 17 • responsible for the majority of manure odors (O'Neill and Phillips 1992). Many of these compounds — contain nitrogen or sulfur. Much of the reseitch on reducing odor through diet focuses on reducing nitrogen and sulfur intake. Other odor reduction research focuses on improving the digestibility and/or balance of various feed ingredients. To date, most of the work on odor control through dietary formulations has focused on the swine industry. Although there are many positive indicators, significant odor reductions due to diet manipulation have not been shown. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide reductions have been significant. Treating Odor Emissions from Buildings Biofilters Biofiltration is an air-cleaning technology that uses microorganisms to break down gaseous contaminants and produce non-odorous end products. It is used successfully around the world for treating a wide range of air emissions from industrial sources. Biofiltration works well for treating odors because most odorous emissions are made up of compounds at low concentrations that are readily broken down by microorganisms. The byproducts of the process are primarily water, carbon dioxide, mineral salts, some VOCs, and microbial biomass. Odorous air is exhausted from the building with wall or pit ventilation fans that are connected by a duct to the biofilter plenum. The plenum distributes the air evenly across the biofilter. A supported porous screen holds the media above the plenum. The air passes through the media before it is exhausted to the atmosphere. As the air passes through the biofilter, the odorous gases contact the media and arc absorbed onto the biofilm where they are degraded by aerobic microorganisms. Biofilters are relatively inexpensive. Management includes keeping the biofilter media moist, managing weed growth on the biofilter media and controlling rodents. Windbreak walls Walls erected just outside of the fans that exhaust air from tunnel-ventilated poultry buildings are being used on more than 200 farms in Taiwan to reduce dust and odor emissions onto neighboring land. These structures, known as windbreak walls, provide some blockage of the fan airflow in the horizontal direction. They can be built with various materials covering a wood or steel frame; plywood and tarps are common. The walls are placed 10 to 20 ft downwind of the exhaust fans of tunnel-ventilated barns (Figure 41-5). Another variation of the windbreak wall is called a straw wall. These systems have been used in North Dakota and elsewhere. They are made with wooden structures and "chicken wire." Straw is placed inside the structures, providing a barrier to dust and other air emissions. They may also offer some filtration capability. Windbreak walls work by reducing the forward momentum of airflow from fans, which is beneficial during low-wind conditions, because odorous dust settles out of the airflow and remains near the barn. In addition, the walls provide a sudden, large vertical dispersion of the exhausted odor plume that acts to mix fresh outside air into the odor plume at a faster rate than would naturally occur, providing additional dilution potential. Research data suggests that the wind break walls will reduce the amount of dust leaving the site but will have little effect on the total mass of chemicals leaving the site. These walls will however enhance the -- dilution of the gases and odors. This dilution will be most noticeable nearer the facilities. Natural windbreaks Rows of trees and other vegetation known as shelterbelts, which have historically been used for snow http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/-jonesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t'^ the certification materials that I have c ected and th... Page 10 of 17 and wind protection in the Midwest, maxljave value as odor r, s. — Similarly, natural forests and vegetation near animal facilities in other sections of the country may serve / dn the same purpose. These shelterbelts also create a visual barrier. Altho gb not rnnfim ed by solid research, it is generally believed that windbreaks reduce odors by dispersing and mixinpjb S e odorous air ( NOWIfFesh air. Windbreaks on the downwind side of_animal create mixing and dilution. Windbreaks on the upwind side deflect air over the houses so it picks up less odorous air. Producers Eyek i,;r should avoid placing dense windbreaks so close to naturally ventilated buildings that cooling breezes and winds exchanging the air in these buildings are eliminated or greatly reduced. A minimum distance of 100 feet, or five to ten times the tree height, from a naturally ventilated building is recommended. Reducing Air Emissions front Open Lots Citizens of the United States are increasingly aware of dust and odor from confined animal production. In contrast to air quality impairment from most swine and poultry facilities (which are under roof), air quality impairment from the open lot systems characteristic of beef and dairy production tends to be driven principally by short-term weather patterns. Although it is not the only predictor, the most obvious predictor of dust and odor emissions is the moisture content of the open lot or corral surface. Ilust-nredominates at low moisture content and odor at high moisture content, so minimizing minimiziag both dust and o nr h moisture management alone is impossible. However, researchers found that when the moisture content of the open lot surface is between 25% and 40%, both dust and odor potential are at manageable levels. -- Corral design Corrals should be designed to reduce any standing water or high moisture spots. The corral slopes should be between 3% and 5%, down away from the feed apron. A 3% to 5% slope sheds rainfall more rapidly than a flatter corral, reducing the likelihood of puddles that go anaerobic. Where these slopes are not practical or where they are thought to impair livestock performance, drainage should be enhanced through the use of feedlot mounds (Sweeten 1982). Pen-to-pen drainage of rainfall runoff has been minimized. Corrals that drain discretely and directly into a runoff conveyance are seldom likely to detain water behind the manure ridges that develop under fence lines between corrals. Access to the corrals by manure-harvesting equipment is convenient. Frequent manure harvesting is vital to ensuring rapid, complete drainage. If access by manure-removal equipment is difficult or awkward, the corral surface will be difficult to manage. Corral soils should be firm, stable, and not easily eroded into rills and gullies. Eroded corrals are prone to detain water. A supply of fill dirt should be readily available. When gouging or erosion occurs in a corral, rapid maintenance reduces the likelihood of puddles developing from rainfall or spilled drinking water. Pen shape should be conducive to edge-to-edge manure removal. Pens that are irregularly shaped cannot be maintained in the hard, smooth conditions that are central to effective manure removal. In some older feedlots, the downstream edges of the corrals are prone to temporary flooding. Stagnant water in a corral is a major contributor to intense, disagreeable odors. Ensure that runoff channels are well maintained and do not create backwater, especially within corral boundaries. Clean rainfall runoff must be diverted around corrals and manure storages, relieving pressure on the holding pond and reducing the amount of water that is potentially detained on the corral surface or http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t' the certification materials that I have c'ected and th... Page 11 of 17 around the base of manure stockpiles. Corral maintenance No matter how well an open lot has been designed, corral maintenance will have the biggest effect on odor and gas emissions. Again, the key is to keep the corral surface hard, smooth, and as dry as possible, maintaining a firm 1- to 2-inch base of compacted manure above the mineral soil. Corrals that shed water rapidly and completely have the least potential to create odors. • Frequent, proper manure harvesting. Open lot dairies are frequently capable of daily manure removal while the cows are in the milking parlor. Daily manure removal may be too frequent, however, especially if manure-removal equipment cannot be adjusted to maintain a 1- to 2-inch layer of compacted manure above mineral soil. Weekly manure removal may be a better option,both operationally and economically. In cattle feedlots, on the other hand, manure removal typically occurs only after each corral of cattle is emptied for slaughter or transfer, an interval of 120 to 180 days. In flat feedlots or where rainfall is plentiful, an interval of 120 days or more between manure removal activities will almost certainly lead to corral conditions that generate odor. A few modem, large (capacity> 35,000) feedlots in Texas have experimented with continuous manure harvesting in which two or three tractors with box scrapers operate continuously across the yard, even with cattle present. Corral conditions are excellent, and managers report little to no depression in feed-to-gain performance or increased cattle stress. • "Pull" blade vs. "push" blade. It is physically more difficult to ensure that a pushed scraper blade (e.g., front-end loader) leaves an even, smooth surface than a pulled blade(e.g., box scraper). Blades that gouge and scar the corral surface reduce the corral's water-shedding efficiency. • Operator training in manure-harvesting objectives and techniques. As with any essential AFO function, employees need to be trained both in the techniques of manure harvesting and in the justification, motivation, and objectives of the manure-harvesting function. Machinery operators who understand both the"what" and the "why" will be more apt to make sound decisions when managers are not around to answer questions. • Frequent inspection for and correction of pits, holes, and wallows. Bunk readers, feed-truck drivers, pen riders, and nighttime security providers employed by a feedlot or dairy should be trained and equipped to note pits and holes developing in the corrals. Such corral damage should be corrected with compacted fill dirt as soon as practical. Managers should assign higher priority to holes and wallows near water troughs and feed aprons, where spilled and excreted water may collect even during dry weather. • Manure mounds for flat corrals. Construction of manure mounds serves a threefold purpose: (1) a temporary storage for excess manure, (2) a cattle refuge from muddy, wet, and cold conditions and (3) a means of enhancing the water-shedding efficiency of corrals with little or no slope. • Rigorous maintenance of overflow waterers, misters, and water distribution systems. Water leakage in corrals, near feed bunks, and near manure storage areas can contribute significantly to odor. Feedlot employees should be trained to look for signs of leaky distribution systems and water troughs. • Frequent inspection of fence lines for manure ridges, especially before rainfall events. The moist manure that accumulates under fence lines as a result of hoof action is a fertile breeding ground for flies. When rainfall occurs, these ridges also function as http://pasture.een.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/zi_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage ti" the certification materials that I have r^"'ected and th... Page 12 of 17 dams, creating puddles and wet spots that generate odors. Especially when rainfall is expected or when flies are becoming a major nuisance, these ridges should be knocked down and the manure spread out across the corral to dry. Feeding strategies • As with housing systems, diet can be an important factor in reducing the amount of manure excreted and the amount of nutrients in the manure. With the push to faster rates of gain often excess nutrients are fed. Rations should be designed to balance both N and sulfur comounds in particular to avoid overfeeding them. Reducing Dust Emissions from Open Lots Dust control strategies for open lots follow the same lines as odor control strategies with respect to pen surface management. Major dust events occur when dry, loose manure accumulates on the corral surface and is pulverized and suspended by hoof action. The well-known evening dust peak appears to result from the following three main factors: • The afternoon heat, wind, and solar radiation have driven off surplus moisture, leaving the manure pack drier than at any other time of the day. • Cattle emerge from their typical afternoon lethargy to move to the feed bunk, to take a drink of water, or to play. • With the atmosphere's tendency to become more stable between dusk and midnight than during the afternoon, the manure particles suspended in the air by cattle activity tend to remain near the ground, creating a "dust cloud."The resulting dust event may persist well into the evening or early morning. The general approach to dust control consists, then, of(a) removing dry, loose manure from the corral surface; (b) manipulating the moisture regime at the corral surface to achieve optimum moisture content; and (c) attempting to reduce peak cattle activity during the critical late afternoon hours. Feeding strategies Preliminary data suggest that delay of the last daily feeding (typically, the third of three) into the afternoon may drastically reduce cattle activity in the late afternoon and early evening. Although the method requires further validation, the concept has some merit. Modest increase in ration's fat content (experimental). Slight excess fat content in rations may increase the cohesiveness or plasticity of the resulting manure, making the dried manure less susceptible to re- suspension. This method has not been conclusively evaluated in production-scale research and is likely to be expensive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this approach may increase the hazard to pen riders due to the slicker corral surface. Other Options for Reducing Emissions from Open Lots Vegetative barriers Vegetative barriers may be used to increase dispersion by elevating dust-laden air from the ground surface and mixing it with cleaner air aloft. Fast-growing trees also provide a visual barrier that may indirectly reduce nuisance complaints or improve relations with neighbors and passersby. Where flies are a persistent problem, however, vegetative bathers may make the problem worse by providing additional pest habitat. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage tl"the certification materials that I have c- - cted and th... Page 13 of 17 Stocking density Stocking density (number of animals per unit con-al area), or its inverse, animal spacing, may be adjusted to compensate for increases in net evaporative demand (evaporation depth less the effective or retained precipitation), shifting the moisture balance in favor of dust control. Auvermann and Romanillos (2000) evaluated this option experimentally on a commercial feedlot in the Texas Panhandle and found that decreasing the cattle spacing from 150 ft2 he to 75 ft' he reduced net (measured less background) PM10 concentrations at the corral fence line by about 20%. As daily net evaporation increases, the effectiveness of increased stocking density is likely to decrease; furthermore, increasing the stocking density may induce behavioral problems and reduce overall feed-to-gain performance. Corral surface amendments Corral surface amendments are still in the experimental phase with respect to dust and odor control. Crop residue mulches (waste hay, cotton gin trash) may cushion hoof impact and reduce the shearing that causes dust, and they may decrease the net evaporative demand by storing additional water and reducing evaporation rates. Resins and petroleum-based products, which have been shown to reduce dust emissions significantly from unpaved roadways, may also be effective, although the continuous deposition of manure on the corral surface suggests that these compounds would need to be reapplied frequently and would therefore be cost prohibitive. Reducing Air Emissions from Liquid Manure Storages Manure storage facilities can be a significant source of on-farm odors. Not only are storages the most "apparent" odor source on many farms (especially if there are no visual barriers from neighbors or passersby), but open storage systems are the most susceptible to seasonal effects as well as day-to-day weather changes. L Since many people know that the odors corning from animal farms originate with the manure, it is natural for them to focus on the manure storage facility and assume that it is the main (some may think only) source of odors from the production site. This attitude can be reinforced by the "visual" observance of the manure storage if it is located on a site that can be easily observed by passersby or visitors. A number of technologies can reduce the odor and gas emissions from storages. Covers 'A logical method to reduce the odors being emitted from open manure storage facilities is to contain the odors and gases inside an impermeable cover or place some type of floating cover on the surface of the manure. By covering an outside manure storage pit or tank, the mass transfer of hydrogen sulfide and other volatile organic compounds from the liquid to the gas phase is reduced. Covers cause reduced ventilation over the manure, and liquid turbulence is minimized. Impermeable Covers Impermeable covers are those covers that do not allow gas to pass through them. Because of this, impen ame l�esavers will reduce odor emissions by 9O-10n1°/. These covers can be constructed from concrete, wood, fiberglass, plastic, aluminum, etc. Rigid covers are usually more expensive than flexible covers but they may last longer (10-15 years), depending on the material. Floating I-IDPF co rs a e typically the most common impermeable cover us y. This type of cover has been used on muntetpa act t tes or severa years. With any impermeable cover system, the design must include somenrovisions for the gases erg e__ rated in the manure storage to escape. These gases may b treated u,t+h .,ar Pry of gas treatment technologies or re ease too sp ere depending on the amount of control needed. These covers must also http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/—jonesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t'^t the certification materials that I have P.-fleeted and th... Page 14 of 17 provide some access for agitation and pumping. Permeable Covers Permeable covers allow gases to move freely through them, but still reduce the transfer of gases from the liquid to the atmosphere due to an increase of the chemical physical transfer processes. These covers also reduce the wave action and wind effects that tend to "strip" off the gases. Typically these covers float on the manure surface. Thicker organic covers, such as straw covers, also provide an aerobic zone on the top of the manure storage which provides some treatment to the escaping gases. Permeable covers, such as straw, have been shown to be as efficient for reducing odor from livestock manure facilities than impermeable covers. Recent work by University of Minnesota researchers indicated that 4-inch, 8-inch, and 12-inch layers of straw alone reduced odors 60%, 80%, and 85%, respectively. Both barley and wheat straw can be used a.s organic floating covers. The straw is applied to manure storage tanks using a straw chopping/blowing machine. These straw covers typically last between 4-16 weeks with thicker layers (up to 12 inches) lasting the longest. The cost of a straw cover is between 10 and 15 cents per ft2 for a 12 inch layer of straw. A single, large round straw bale (6 ft in diameter) will cover about 500 ft2 of storage area (100 bales/acre).. Other floating permeable covers, such as geotextile materials, may provide a better solution than straw for certain type of storage basins that are not annually agitated and pumped, even though they have a somewhat higher initial cost. A geotextile membrane is self-floating and grows a biofilm that might self- seal when in contact with manure. Geotextile covers alone had only a slight effect on odor emissions. Odor reductions varied between 10% to 45%, depending on geotextile thickness. Putting straw on top of the geotextile covers resulted, in general, in lower percent reductions of odor emissions than with straw ^ alone. There is anecdotal evidence, from actual farm sites where a geotextile was installed, that this type of material can significantly reduce odor and other gaseous emissions from manure storage facilities. Geotextile covers have been estimated to cost between 25 to 40 cents per ft2, which includes both the initial and application costs. The life expectancy is between 3 and 5 years. Selecting the appropriate type of cover and/or materials depends on such items as the type and size of manure storage system, the type of manure treatment system (if any), the frequency of pumping, the amount and quality of labor available, and the cost. Research continues to evaluate and develop other cover materials that will be more effective and economical for livestock producers. Physical Processes for Reducing Air Emission Liquid/solid separation is sometimes used to reduce the loading on anaerobic lagoons and thus reduce odors. The basic concept is that the by reducing the microbial food in the manure there will be fewer gases produced. Unfortunately, no research to date has shown that theeprocess of_solid liquid separation will, by itself, reduce odor and gas emissions. However, separation of solids is a critical first step in reducing the"load" on biological and chemical treatment systems. Performance data of mechanical separators vary widely not only because of the different testing and reporting procedures. Total solids (TS) in separated material vary from as low as 5% with a stationary screen up to 30% or 35% with centrifuges. Separation efficiencies for TS can vary from less than 10% to about 60%. Presses and centrifuges are found to have higher separation efficiencies and produce drier solids than screen separators. Biological Processes Biological treatment of manure is not a new phenomenon. Manure that is stored in earthen basins, pits, or tanks or is spread on land undergoes biological degradation. In these cases, the processes involved are relatively uncontrolled and may take a long time. Biological treatment systems or technologies can help • http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t}-^the certification materials that I have c-"-icted and th... Page 15 of 17 accelerate the natural process and can be, for most of the cases, well controlled. The main applications of these systems in the agricultural area are (a) stabilization of manure; (b) removal of odor; (c) removal of organic matter; (d) nitrification; and (e) removal of nutrients. Aerobic treatment Complete aerobic treatment eliminates manure odors. Aerobic treatment is usually only suitable for separated slurry or dilute effluents. Solids in manure increase the amount of oxygen needed and also increase the energy needed for mixing. The degree of oxidation depends on the amount of oxygen provided and the reaction time allowed in the treatment process. Slurry aeration allows microorganisms to metabolize dissolved components such as organic acids, phenols, indoles, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, low molecular weight proteins, etc., which are responsible for most offensive odor emissions. Since complete stabilization of livestock manure by aerobic treatment is normally not be economi _justifiable, lower levels of aeration have been recommended for partial odor control. Lagoons can be aerated to control odor. Aerated lagoons are able to reduce odor significantly by avoiding the anaerobic treatment environment that can produce odorous compounds. The biggest draw" backs to aerated lagoons are (a) the cost of energy to run the aerators; (b) biosolids proion, which is higher than in anaerobic systems; and (c) the�otential for release of ammonia if the aeration level is not correct. Also, if too little oxygen is put into the system, manure will not be stabilized and the nxithat rP „1r ,.,.n t ate, additional odors. The costs associated with the operation of such systems are still too high to encourage widespread adoption of the technology by producers. Anaerobic treatment Anaerobic Lagoons. Anaerobic treatment of manure takes place in the absence of oxygen. The most common type of anaerobic digestion system used for livestock manure, which also combines storage, is the anaerobic lagoon. Design and management are key factors in maintainin&acceptable odor levels from lagoons. When properly sized and managed, an anaerobic lagoon (Figure 43-10XXX) can he operated with a minimum of disagree ble odoo Greater potential for odor emission occurs when retention times are too short, or lagoon loading rates increase due to expanding animal numbers, slug loading, concentrated waste streams, and/or inadequate water for dilution. Odor emission from anaerobic lagoons is more likely during system startup, when the lagoon surface is disturbed during windy 2nditions; during agitation and umping for land application; and during spring turnover—defined as very vigorous bactena activity during the spring due to incomplete metabolism of material during winter. When acid-forming and methane-forming anaerobic bacteria are in balance, an anaerobic lagoon produces minimum odors. Distinct purple- or pink-colored anaerobic lagoons have been observed to produce less odor (Chen et al. 1997). The color and odor reduction is caused by naturally occurring purple sulfur bacteria, phototrophic organisms that oxidize sulfide under anaerobic conditions. When these organisms are dominant, lagoon odor, chemical oxygen demand, ammonium nitrogen, and soluble phosphorus concentrations are reduced. The purple or pink color is a good indicator of a healthy lagoon. However, lack of this purple or pink color does not indicate an unhealthy or odorous lagoon. Anaerobic digesters and filters. Anaerobic digesters are designed and managed to optimize the bacterial decomposition of organic matter u:nder more controlled conditions than in a lagoon. A well designed and managed anaerobic digester will convert the easily degradable organic matter into methane (60%) and carbon dioxide (40%). Methane is a flammable gas that can be used in a convened into electricity using a variety of techniques including burning in a combustion engine, powering a micro- turbine, or a fuel cell. Neither the methane or carbon dioxide is odorous. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage th.— he certification materials that I have c cted and th... Page 16 of 17 Several designs of anaerobic digesters are used. The type of design depends on the concentration of volatile solids in the manure, the total solids content, and the preference of the design engineer. Anaerobic digesters include plug-flow, complete-mix, contact digesters and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digesters. The anaerobic sequencing batch reactor is another alternative. Chemical and Biological additives Many producers are considering the use of commercial manure and/or feed additives to minimize odor and other air emissions from livestock farms. In addition to odor control, many products are marketed as having other beneficial effects such as improved nutrient value of the manure, improved animal performance, fly control, etc. Product additives are generally described as compounds that can be added directly to freshly excreted or stored manure for odor abatement. A recent laboratory study tested 85 different manure pit additives (NPPC 2001) and found that only four products reduced odor by a 75% certainty level. Approximately ten products reduced H25 by either a 95% or 75% certainty level while 12 products lowered ammonia by the same two percentages. Microbiological additives Microbiological or digestive deodorants generally contain mixed cultures of enzymes or microorganisms designed to enhance the degradation of solids and reduce the volatilization of ammonia and/or hydrogen sulfide. The microorganisms are meant to metabolize the organic compounds contained in the manure. Digestive deodorants may act to inhibit selected biological or digestive processes by changing the enzyme balance (ASAE 1994). Most digestive deodorants are applied directly into the manure collection area and/or the lagoon and must be added frequently to allow selected bacteria to predominate (Sweeten 1991). Each product has a specific method of application, frequency, quantity, and length of time before the product is considered "most effective." Some products are pH and temperature dependent and only work within narrow ranges of pHs and temperatures. Reducing Air Emissions from Solid Manure Storages Although stockpiled manure generally is not a source of large odor or gas emissions, several management options should be considered. • Avoid longterm stockpiling of manure, if possible. Unmanaged stockpiles will eventually exclude oxygen, and even if the stockpiles are not odorous, old, stockpiled manure releases more odor upon land application than manure exposed to oxygen. If stockpiling is necessary,_minimize stockpile size. r-- • To avoid overheating, put manure up dry (< 45% moisture). When land applied, charred stockpiles release intense, uniquely disagreeable odors. • Locate stockpiles and com ostin• operations u wind relative to prevailing winds and the AFO center. Because ofihe o or entta of ock iles and storage areas, they should be located as far upwind of the principal downwind property line as topography or of er operational considerations permit. • Provide supplemental carbon for composting. A proper carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in a compost pile or windrow encourages faster composting and reduces odors and ammonia emissions over the long term. • Aerate compost piles at a frequency appropriate to their moisture content and composition. In general, for wet manure put up for composting, aerate at 2-day intervals until the moisture content is reduced to 65% or less, then weekly or bi-weekly thereafter. High moisture content reduces the http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/Honesd/cert/4 odor.htm 1/5/2005 I have continued to rummage t'- the certification materials that I have --fleeted and th... Page 17 of 17 oxygen content of the pore spaces in a compost pile. • Preferably use drier manure for land application. Dry manure spreads more uniformly than moist manure, and because it has probably been exposed to more oxygen than manure with more moisture, dry manure releases less odor upon land application. http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/—jonesd/cert/4_odor.htm 1/5/2005 AIR POLLUTION FACTS (WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING OUT IN OUR RURAL SKIES) • Air pollution from hog operations are emitted by barns, lagoons, pits, slurries and land application. Noxious gases have been detected four miles downwind that are as intense as at a lagoon. Heavy accumulations occur most frequently between 6-8 a.m. and 7-9 p.m. Even small levels of odors and gas molecules can produce strong reactions in humans. Roof shingles, siding, fabrics and other material can trap odors and release them when conditions are right Workers can become desensitized because the molecules tie up their olfactory nerves. (Susan Schiffman, Duke University Swine Odor Task Force) • Toxic dusts and gases are found in confinement houses (Kelley J. Donham, MS, DVM) • "A new study on human health effects of living near industrial hog operations has found that people living near large hog farms suffer significantly higher levels of upper respiratory and gastrointestinal ailments than people living near other farming areas. The study was done by the University of North Carolina, School of Public Health." (Kansas Rural Papers, May 1999) • "The gases and dust that we know are being transferred to the exterior." Kendall Thu, formerly at the University of Iowa (now at Northern Illinois University) • Symptoms of exposure to hog gases include, "more tension, more depression, more anger, less vigor, more fatigue, and more confusion" (Susan Schiffman, Duke University) • Other symptoms reported from exposure to gases emitted by hog facilities, "may elicit nausea, vomiting and headache, cause shallow breathing and coughing; upset stomach and loss of appetite; irritated eyes, nose and throat; disturb, annoy and depress -Overcash etal 1984 (Understanding the Impacts of Large-Scale Swine Production, June 1996) • A Kinderhook resident asked Dale Brokamp of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, if odor can be detected as far away as 5-6 miles, he said "yes" • "Please be advised that the Agency has documented livestock waste related odor problems at distances far greater than one-quarter mile. In fact, we have been involved with situations where offensive odors were reported detected two to three miles from swine production and/or waste handling facilities." (IEPA letter to Little Timber, L.L.C. 10-10-96) • "Many of us still ignore the fact that wind direction and times of spreading are very important to neighbors...Odors can drain downhill a long distance, from three to five miles," said Ted Funk, University of Illinois extension agricultural engineer specialist. (Agrinews, 9-17-98) • "People have symptoms, legitimate symptoms. You can't deny them," Kelley Donham, director of the University of Iowa's Center for Agricultural Safety and Health. Ammonia and sulfide are tremendous intoxicants. Ammonia can burn eyes and lungs. Dust can aggravate asthma. "Ammonia from the farm rises into the atmosphere, returning as rain." "Some dust can carry organisms...one pathogen associated with stomach cancer has been found in manure." (Des Moines Register, 10-25-98) • "A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study using a computer model found that hydrogen sulfide levels could be expected as far as five miles downwind from confinement sites" (Des Moines Register, 10-25-98) • Evidence suggests that bioaeorosols (dander, feed, excreta and bedding) are associated with microbial pathogens of swine. These "can be carried and spread on dust." "Contrary to odors, many gases are odorless and tasteless, making them benign since they are difficult to detect with the human nose." Odor and gases are different, but both contribute to decreased quality of life of neighbors (Controlling Odor and Gaseous Emmision Problems from Industrial Swine Facilities, Yale Environmental Protection Clinic, Spring 1998) • Hydrogen Sulfide, found in swine waste gases, "Is considered to be an insidious poison because our sense of smell rapidly fatigues, and therefore, fails to provide a good warning of gas concentration." Symptoms include eye and upper respiratory irritation headaches, and dizziness. Higher concentrations can cause "severe eye and respiratory tract irritation, acute conjunctivitis, lacrimation, and difficulty breathing, as well as a sudden loss of consciousness: (Safety Net, UC Davis Environmental Health and Safety, 2-1993) • BAEU-17 Odor Control for An/trial Agriculture Page 1 of 11 • BIOS'YS"1ENIS AND At RlCULTURAI. ENGINEERIN(; UNIVERSITY OF MINNC;SOTA EXTENSION PROGRAM November1998 ODOR CONTROL FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE BAEU-17 Larry Jacobson, David Schmidt, Richard Nicolai, Jose Bicudo Extension Agricultural Engineers Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering INTRODUCTION Reducing the impact of odors on the surrounding community is an essential part of managing livestock and poultry farms. Unfortunately, odor generation, emissions, and movement are very complicated processes. Several technologies can significantly reduce odors from livestock production. These technologies range from simple to complex, from low maintenance to high maintenance, and from inexpensive to expensive. Some of these technologies have demonstrated odor reduction based on scientific measurements while the effectiveness of other technologies is supported only by ane�tal evidence and teshmoma s. This anecdotal evidence is useful but should be verified where possible with actual measurements. This document reviews many odor control technologies, some that have been rigorously tested and others that have yet to be evaluated but are generally accepted by some engineers and/or producers. SOURCES OF ODOR It is important to realize that odor emissions from an animal production site originate from three primary sources: manure storage units, animal housing, and land application of manure. Table 1 shows the results of a 1982 study in the United Kingdom (Hardwick, 1985) which identified the odor source and animal species from justifiable complaints. It shows that almost 50% of all odor complaints were traced back to land application of manure, about 2:0% were from manure storage units, and another 25% from animal facilities. Between the three animal species, pigs received slightly more than half(54%) of the complaints, with cattle and poultry receiving 20% and 24% of the complaints, respectively. Even though these findings are from the U.K., general observations in Minnesota and the Midwest seem to agree with this distribution of odor sources. However, with the trend toward increased use of manure soil injection and longer manure storage times (larger manure storage structures), there may be a shift to a higher percentage Of odor complaints associated with manure storage units and/or animal facilities. Odor Source Pigs Cattle ftoultry Total 11-1711-11-71 II I http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeul7.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for A —Thal Agriculture Page 2 of 11 No. % No. % fo. %o No. % Buildings 224 22 65 18 C"'I 36 452 25 Slurry Storage 169 17 98 28 E'TI 17 345 19 Slurry Spreading 526 52 122 34 f9 42 838 46 Animal Feed 84 8 4 1 1 1 1 3 99 5 Production L Silage Storage 10 1 68 19 2 86 5 Total 1013 100 357 100[50 100 1820 - • 56 - 20 - 24 - - 100 Research observations at the University of Minnesota agree with the common complaint of higher odors from manure storage units during the months of April and May when manure storage units "turn over" as a result of thermal stratification (Jacobson et al., 1997). Limited data exists on odor emissions from animal facilities but it can be expected that these odor emissions are fairly constant throughout the year, unlike the variable odor emissions from eithcr manure storage units and during the application of manure on cropland. Most odor control technologies are often specific to the odor source of the particular manure handling system. Therefore, some assessment of your situation is needed so an appropriate technology can he chosen to deal with your site specific odor sources. ODOR REDUCTION DURING LAND APPLICATION Land application of manure typically brings about the most complaints. Fortunately, odors from land application can virtually be eliminated by injection or immediate incorporation of the manure into the soil. These techniques also increase the amount of nitrogen and other nutrients available for crop uptake. Unfortunately, injection and incorporation are techniques most easily adapted to liquid manure application. Incorporation of solid manure typically requires another pass with some tillage implement. This is both time consuming and costly but is necessary to achieve effective odor control. Another aspect of manure application that generates odors is the agitation of liquid manure storage facilities prior to manure removal. Agitation is necessary to reduce the solids buildup in storage, break up any surface crust, and evenly distribute the nutrients throughout the manure. Reports from many livestock producers suggest that some manure pit additives reduce solids buildup in the storage units. Although there is little university research to support this claim, this technique should be viewed as a possible odor control method. Chemical additives also have the potential to reduce specific gas formation such as hydrogen sulfide during agitation. These additives will have an immediate, short-term effect on gas emissions. More research is needed to determine dosage rates and costs for this technology. The issue of reduction of odors and/or certain gases like hydrogen sulfide (especially in Minnesota due to the state regulatory agency's 1-125 emission standard) during manure storage agitation is very critical. Weather conditions, primarily wind speed/direction and humidity, should be evaluated before manure is land applied to insure minimal impacts on neighbors and the public. The weather least suitable for spreading manure is high humidity and very light winds or clear, calm evenings. These conditions prevent odors from dispersing and thus increases the chance of creating a nuisance or receiving a complaint. http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeu17.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for Anal Agriculture Page 3 of 11 ODOR REDUCTION FROM MANURE STORAGE Manure storage units are the most "apparent" odor source on many farms, especially if there is no visual barrier of the storage system from neighbors or passersby. Open storage systems are the most susceptible to seasonal effects as well as day-to-day weather changes. ODOR AND GAS DISPERSION Manure storage facilities can be the most significant source of on-fame odors. However, several technologies can significantly reduce odor emissions from manure storage. One way to reduce these odors is with a cover. A cover on a manure storage can act in one of two ways. A gas impermeable cover will capture the gases as they leave the manure. These gases need to be treated using a biofilter, a flare, or some other technique before they are released. A gas permeable membrane serves to increase the boundary layer between the liquid and air, which decreases the gas emissions to the air. Farmers in the Netherlands have made extensive use of permeable covers to reduce ammonia emission from manure storage tanks. A floating organic cover or crust is a combination of a gas permeable cover and a treatment system. The organic cover increases the boundary layer between the liquid and reduces the gases that are released. An organic cover or crust can develop naturally, depending on the type of feed use, total solids content, and weather conditions, or can be created artificially by using straw or some other organic material. Anaerobic digestion is a technology that reduces odors from manure storages. Anaerobic digestion is a process that controls the microbial degradation process and results in the generation of biogas (primarily methane) which can be used to generate heat or produce electricity (Sweeten et al., 1981). About 15 to 20 days are needed to obtain a treated liquid effluent that is relatively stabilized. The treated material generates significantly less odor than the raw manure. Aeration is another very effective means of'controlling odors from stored manure. Aeration of manure results in the acceleration of the biological degradation and stabilization process. This is achieved by optimizing the supply of oxygen to microorganisms within the slurry. The odor producing compounds are oxidized and degraded within three to four days of continuous aeration (Svoboda, 1995). Although aeration is very effective at reducing odors, the cost to aerate can be substantial. Aeration research includes attempts to make the aeration process more efficient, or reduce the amount of manure that is aerated by creating an aerated layer near the top of the liquid manure storage system. http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeu17.html 1/7/2005 • BAEU-17 Odor Control for Atonal Agriculture Page 4 of 11 Anecdotal evidence suggests that windbreaks may impact the dispersion of odors released from manure storage. These windbreaks create turbulence in the odor plume which increases the dilution of the odors. Research from Iowa (Zahn et al., 1997) also indicates that the vegetation on trees and other plant material will collect certain odor components released from manure storage units and production sites. Windbreaks and creative landscaping can reduce the perception of odor by providing a visual barrier. ODOR REDUCTION PRACTICES FOR BUILDINGS Livestock buildings are a source of odors that are often overlooked. The most significant problem with reducing odors from buildings is the ability to control gas generation or capture the gases before they are emitted into the atmosphere. Odorous gases are generated from manure soiled flooring, animals, and from any manure stored below the flooring. Each of these odor sources requires different control methods. The best approach to control odor in buildings seems to be eliminating the source of odor rather than capturing the odor and treating it. This means both design and management systems which minimize odor generation on floor surfaces and in manure storage gutters or pits. In the last 20 or 30 years, animal genetics and ration formulation have improved swine feed conversion efficiencies from 5 lb feed per pound of gain to 2.5 lb feed per pound of gain (Barker, 1998). This improvement means less feed required and less manure produced by a given number of animals. Current U.S. and European research on diet manipulation indicates considerable progress being made in this area. One obvious way to reduce odors that are released from buildings is to modify the diet feed to the animals housed so odors are minimized. Research work being carried out in Europe and also in the U.S. indicates that reducing the crude protein content of the diet (RCP diets) reduces the concentration of odorants and N in the slurry (Hobbs et al. 1996). Recently (Misselbrook et al., 1997) showed that RCP diets supplemented with synthetic amino-acids to give the ideal ratio of essential amino-acids, resulted in reduced N losses and improved utilization follwing pig slurry application to grassland. N losses due to ammonia volatilization were decreased by 35%, compared to conventional diet slurry. Odor from flooring will be reduced if the floors are kept clean and dry. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some organic bedding, straw, compost, or newspaper may reduce odor emissions. European research seems to support the use of sonic type of bedding (especially sawdust) for reducing odor generation/levels in buildings and subsequent odor release or emission (Nicks et al., 1997). Relatively small bedding levels may be enough to have an effect on odor generation/emission. Recent preliminary research in Canada (Zhang et al, 1996) and in Minnesota (Jacobson et al., 1998) showed odor emission reductions when very small amounts of vegetable oils were sprinkled in swine pens on a regular(daily) basis. This practice was developed to reduce indoor dust levels and since particulates may transport odorous compounds, odors may be reduced as well. Control of odors from under floor manure storage depends on the type of manure storage. Manure stored longer than five days will generate more offensive gases. Therefore, to reduce odors from gutters with shallow pull plugs, the manure should be removed at least once per week. Often weekly cleaning is not a standard practice but may become so if odor control is the main objective. One method of shallow gutter management for odor control that is still under debate is the practice of using recharge water. Some facilities use clean recharge water, some recycle recharge water, and others do not recharge their shallow gutters. Anecdotal evidence suggests that using clean or "treated" recycled recharge water may reduce odorous emissions compared to using no recharge water. However, these reductions are likely to be very dependent on the quality of recharge water. http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeu17.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for A- Thal Agriculture Page 5 of 11 There are very few options for reducing odor generation from manure stored below the barn in deep pits. The management of the pit ventilation system to regulate or minimize odor emission was investigated by a Canadian study (Choiniere et al., 1997). They found that the odor emissions could actually be increased with certain types of pit ventilation systems. A balance exists between maintaining good indoor air quality and minimizing the emissions of odor to the environment. Odors from buildings can also be captured and treated, provided that the building is mechanically ventilated. Air from a livestock building can be passed through a biofilter. A biofilter is a bed of organic material where aerobic microbial activity takes place and breaks down odorous gases into non-odorous by-products (Figure 1). Biofilters have been very successful treating exhaust air from industrial processes and wastewater treatment plants. Research at the University of Minnesota now suggests that low-tech biofilters are effective and economical for agricultural uses. x Figure 1. Biofilter schematic ODOR MANAGEMENT PLANS It is becoming a standard practice to have a manure management plan developed for an animal production system to document the proper handling and application of manure onto cropland. Likewise, in the near future, a similar "odor management plan" may be needed by animal producers to indicate what control technologies and strategies will be implemented to reduce odors emitted from a livestock or poultry farm. Such a plan would need to systematically list each of the potential odor sources from a particular farm including the three sources outlined in this paper: manure land application, manure storage units, and buildings plus the farm's dead animal disposal method. After this inventory is taken, each building, storage unit, application method, and carcass disposal system would need to be assessed for odor http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeul7.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for A'nal Agriculture Page 6 of I 1 potential. If a particular source has an odor potential above a given "threshold" level, even during a short period of time during the year, some control strategy(s) would be suggested and implemented to reduce the odor emissions below a reasonable level. Control strategies could be technologies like those listed in Table 2, management practices, or a combination of both. Like the manure management plans, odor management plans could be optional or in some cases required as part of the permitting process-they would be reviewed regularly and assessed for effectiveness and costs. Such plans could serve to diffuse some of the controversies between producers and neighbors by directing the discussion to strategies and practices which will help to mitigate the problems. Knowledgeable individuals to make these assessments and develop the odor management plans are in short supply at the present time. As odor research and application of that research becomes available more people will be able to make these decisions and assessments. SUMMARY The debate will continue on how much odor control is enough. However, one fact remains, odors from animal production systems must be reduced in order for producers to remain in business and still coexist with neighbors and the community: Several technologies are currently available to reduce odors, unfortunately, economics often prohibit such technologies from being implemented. Currently, there is a substantial effort by university researchers, industry representatives, and producer groups to find and implement odor control technologies. These efforts can be enhanced through the efforts of everyone involved in the livestock industry. Producers, engineers, technicians, consultants, veterinarians, nutritionists, and others must combine their expertise with the basic principles of odor generation, emission, and dispersion to develop and implement practical odor control solutions. Table 2. Sample Odor Management Plan Odor Source Potential Nusiance Risk and description* Odor Control Plan 200 Sow This mechanically ventialted building is a source of low odors throughout the If odor complaints occur, I plan to Farrowing/Gestation year. The risk of nuisanceproblems form implement an oil spray technique or Building this building is LOW. add a biofilter. I am currently using an odor control This basin tends to be a large source of additive. If nuisance complaints odor throughout the year. Complaints persist, I plan to blow a straw cover Earthen Basin have been received during agitation and on the basin each spring. If pumping. This basin is a HIGH risk for complaints continue due to this nuisance problems. manure storage, I plan to install a permananet synthetic cover. The dead animal composting area typically emits very little odor. Occasionally odor problems exist when Add more carbon-based material to Dead Pig Composting the compost pile is not covered properly. cover properly. This compost facility is at a LOW risk for nuisance problems. Currently, manure is surface applied twice per year. Most fields have adequate http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeuI7.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for Aral Agriculture — Page 7 of 11 separation distances from neighbors. Occasionally complaints come during If odor complaints arise from land Land Application land application. Land application is at MEDIUM risk for nuisance problems six application, I plan to inject manure. days per year. This building is a naturally ventilated building with a deep pit. Setback If Proposed Two 100 distances are approximately 1000 feet th odor problems arise as a result of Head Finishing from the nearest property line and 1/4 this building, I plan to implement • Building mile from the nearest neighbor. It is oil spraying and a windbreak anticipated that this will be a LOW around the building. source of odor problems. *Potential nuisance risk is currently a subjective rating based on common sense, experience, and an understanding of how odors are generated. Most farm operators and owners are capable of making these decisions. Table 3. Summary of Odor Control Technologies Summary of Technologies for Odor Control Process/System Description Advantages Disadvantages Cost Observations Phytase Product(enzyme):is Lower P content in mixed into the feed the manure Not known yet N/A On-going research Low phytase Use low phytate 1 Lower P content in Not known yet N/A On-going research com corn for feed the manure Diet Synthetic Lower N content in Manipulation amino-acids Products are mixed the manure, may and low crude into the feed reduce odor and Not known yet N/A On-going research protein content NH3 emissions Feed additives Products are mixed 1 May reduce odor (Yucca into the feed J and NH3 emissions Not known yet N/A On-going research schidigera) Creates an oily Vegetable oil is Helps in the environment and sprinkled daily at reduction of greasy residue on $1.00 Oil Sprinkling low levels in the the floor and pen per On-going research airborne dust and partitions if too pig animal pens odors much oil is sprinkled Usually $0.25 Always ask for the Chemical or questionable biological products May redeuce odor products; may not to product to be tested Manure Additives are added to the and NH3 emissions achieve desirable $1.00 by a certified manure results under field per laboratory(ex: conditions pig ISU,NCSU) Summary of Technolgies for Odor Control Process/System Descriptiion Advantages Disadvantages Cost Observations I II �I -�I II II 11 I http://www.bae.umn.eduiextens/aeu/baeu17.html 1/7/2005 • BAEU-17 Odor Control for A'-nal Agriculture Page 8 of 11 Solids are May reduce odor Capitol and separated from and NH3 operational costs; Contact a liquid slurry Solid through emissions; reliability; adds $1.00 to specialist for separation sedimentation reduced liquid another"waste" $3.00 advice before basins or volume; easier stream to be dealt per pig buying the mechanical agitation and with by the equipment separators pumping farmer Biological process in which aerobic bacteria convert organic Reduces odor Capital and material into a and organic Solid soil-like material matter;produces operational costs; $0.20 to Contact a called compost; a saleable marketing skills $0.40 specialist before composting required if implementing it is the same product;canper i p g process that include other by- product is to be p g such a system decays leaves products sold and other organic debris in Manure nature Treatment Biological process whore $250 apical 0 organic carbon is Reduces odor Capital cost; may capital a converted Lo and or anic cost; € require Contact a may Anaerobic methane by matter;produces resonably skilled produce specialist for digestion anaerobic biogas; retains operator; $$$ advice before bacteria under nutrients; easier attractive where worth of implementing ... controlled handling or energy supply is such a system • conditions of liquid an issue energy if temperature and properly pH operated Biological process where organic.ma.tter is • oxidized by Reduces odor, Capital and $2.00 to Contact a Aerobic aerobic bacteria; organic matter operating costs; $4.00 specialist for treatment mechanical and nutrients(if separation step is advice before aeration is needed) necessary for per pig finished implementing required in order effectively most slurries such a system to supply oxygen to the bacterial population Summary of Technologies for Odor Control Process/System Description Advantages Disadvantages Cost Observations Odorous gases are passed through a bed of compst and Reduce odors •Biofilters wood chips; and H2S May need special $0. to On-going bacterial and fans becuase of $0.80 0 emissions pressure drop per pig research fungal activity effectively help oxidize volatile compounds I II ---II II II I I http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeul'7.htm1 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for At'al Agriculture Page 9 of 11 Odorous gases are passed through a column packed with different media types; Reduce odors, Capital and Contact a Biological water(and/or H S and NH3operational costs; specialist for and chemical chemical) is Z disposal of N/A advice before wet scrubbers sprayed over the emissions collected buying the Exhaust Air top of the effectively pollutants equipment Treatment column to help optimize biological and chemical reactions Odorous gases Reduces H2S and Non-thermal are oxidized Not knownyet On-going plasma when passed NH3 emissions N/A research through plasma effectively Straw is blown to the surface of the stored Helps in the Temporary Straw(wheat manure (about reduction of On-going 100 bales to solution; straw $0.10 and barley cover I acre of odors, HZS and sinks after a per ft2 research • surface area with NH3 emissions certain period a layer of 12 inches) Floating clay Helps in the balls (LecaTM or reduction of t=are must be $2.00 to Floating clay taken during balls MicroliteTM)are odors,H agitation and S and $5.00 placed over per ft2 NH3 emissions pumping manure Covers Geotextile membranes are placed over the surface of the Helps in the manure; straw reduction of $0.20 to Geotextile Not known et $0.40 On-going may be blown odors,HZS and y research over the NH3 emissions per ft2 geotextile for more effective results Several varieties of plastic can be Helps in the placed over reduction of $1.00 to Plastic cover manure storages odors,H2S and Capital cost $2.00 (floating or rigid per ft2 ( g g NH3 emissions structures) Summary of Technologies for Odor Control Process/System Description Advantages Disadvantages Cost Observations Many odorous compounds are adsorbed on dust http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeu17.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for Ai-Thal Agriculture Page 10 of 1 particles and conveyed on dust.A wall made of tarp or with any other porous material is place 3-6m from exhaust fans. The walls May reduce dust Periodic cleaning Wind-break provide some blockage and odor of dust from the of the fan airflow in walls is necessary $1.50 On-going walls the horizontal effectively for sustained odor direction. Dust and control odor levels in the area downwind of the wind- breaks can be lower since the plume is deflected Rows of trees and other vegetation arc planted around a building, thus creating a barrier for both dust It may take Dust Reduction and odorous May reduce dust several years to Shelterbelts compoundremoval and odor On-going grow an effective N/A from building exhaust emissions research air. Trees can absorb effectively vegetative odorous compounds windbreak and they create turbulence that enhances odor dispersion upward A wetted pad evaporative cooling system is installed in a stud wall about 1.5m upwind of ventilation Reduces about Residence time Washing fans and downwind of 50%of dust and inside the pad is $5.70 On-going walls hogs in a tunnel 33%of ammonia very samll thus ventilated building. All at medium odor removal may per pig research of the ventilation ventilation rate not be effective airflow passes through the wet pad before being pulled through the fans REFERENCES Barker, J. C. 1998. Swine environmental issues: snowballing legislation and manure management-where are we headed?In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry (T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques, eds.), Nottingham University Press, 81-92. Choiniere, Y., B. Marquis and G. Gingras. 1997. Ammonia and Contaminant Concentrations with Conventional versus Pit Ventilation in Finishing Pig Units. pp. 365-372. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities. (Voermans, J.A.M. and Monteny, G. editors). Research Institute for Pig Husbandry, Rosmalen, Netherlands. Hardwick, D. C. 1985. Agricultural problems related to odor prevention and control. pp. 21-26. In Odor http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeul7.html 1/7/2005 BAEU-17 Odor Control for A-Mal Agriculture Page 11 of 11 Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and Livestock Farming. Edited by V. C. Nielsen, J. H. Voorburg, and P. L'Hermite. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, New York. Hobbs, P. J., B. F. Pain, R. M. Kay and P. A. Lee. 1996. Reduction of odorous compounds in fresh pig slurry by dietary control of crude protein. / Sci. Food and Agric. 71: 508-514. Jacobson, L. D., C. Radman, D. Schmidt, and R. Nicolai. 1997. Odor Measurements from Manure Storages on Minnesota Pig Farms. Proceedings of the ILES-V. May 29-31. Bloomington, MN pp. 93- 100. Jacobson, L. D., B. Hetcher, K. A. Janni and L. J. Johnston. 1998. Odor and Gas Reduction from Sprinkling Soybean Oil in a Pig Nursery. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual Inter. Meeting in Orlando, FL., St. Joseph, MI. USA. Misselbrook, T. 11., D. R. Chadwick, P. J. Hobbs and B. F. Pain. 1997. Control by dietary manipulation of emissions from pig slurry following landspreading. Procs. of the Intl. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities, Vinkeloord, The Netherlands, October 6-10. pp. 261-266. Nicks, B., A. Desiron and B. Canart. 1997. Deep Litter Materials and the Ammonia Emissions in Fattening Pig Houses. pp. 335-342. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities. (Voermans, J.A.M. and Monteny, G. editors). Research Institute for Pig Husbandry, Rosmalen, Netherlands. Svoboda, J. F. 1995. Aerobic Treatment of Livestock Slurries. SAC Technical Note, Environmental Series No. 2. Sweeten, J. M., C. Fulhage and F. J. Humenik. 1981. Methane Gas from Swine Manure. Pork Industry Handbook (PIH-76). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Zahn, J. A., J. L. Hatfield, Y. S. Do, A. A. :DiSpirito, D. A. Laird, and R. L. Pfeiffer. 1997. Characterization of Volatile Organic Emissions and Wastes from a Swine Production Facility. J. Environ. Qual. 26(6). Zhang, Y., A. Tanaka, E. M. Barber and J. J. R. Feddes. 1996. Effect of frequency and quantity of sprinkling eanola oil on dust reduction in swine buildings. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 39(3): 1077-1081. • University of Minnesota, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Minnesota Counties Cooperating Page URL http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeu17.html Last updated December 17, 1998 by webnaster © 1998 Regents of the University of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This page is part of the ttiosystems and Agncultm al EngineeringDevitt ment web at http://www-bae.umn.edu/ http://www.bae.umn.edu/extens/aeu/baeul7.html 1/7/2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS JANUARY 2, 2004 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, SHERI LOCKMAN, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR AMUSR-1441 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT. SHERI LOCKMAN Name of Person Posting Sign Signat e of Person posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD l r ( ' The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me thisr�.) day of 1 X`t j ,1 _ - ( , 2004. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Litt-7 C't-' EXHIBIT tilt J! •r SN„+.ratystS o- ��Illwv it i I sn( CI S °d '' "f"•nq;riut,,t ymt ja i �g {I u3lPpr p S I t I a erS p, i.{I C I I I I a r I .i v I Sr2 S I �4 :F�^e-4 t I hl c i T!iiiifiliiiiillifilliiiiiI3'a S c4(3k4I rv�*� [yy4!NO q,�LE 44•4 Y•wan, 3 .Pri 4 /,f'e^itY`K MCi' p 4,- wW I :t ,x�xE tAx . ' 6 H fi'.. .1A �F • 9 : - �9 $40 I e !e , a } }} °• its, am�@@ , L l i � Y t � 'k, y, h �� F � ?C" Sr 1 4 4 hf �, I t 4-;t w S.YirT �'t 9 • 2H . yg t& S �r�� mG� M L. i,I h t 4 a. '� u,nr,`��''1411� '. ' tit:a u'aN� , III r$ n, � [r• t� �.' 4� w��. .. � [ ;r1'1..:,;"•;!;;•rr v/ ��¢ };� y� �� i Sj+s^ 4,. * i « .�t•v�� T, y..� + +.GN-. r . . trf '"6 CFIg iy. .1Cit *" . [.. -[' ,: yt - 5h w «x i� rr S ..r a;. n.11,4,1 } [ I t� r �l lr `a t:L ,+ S` ,,:.7 77TT ,4: �[ $ hyK9 1•P11 , iY1 :4 • 4 ��" ,•u dr, '; ` 0iv. j t ';,-,. � ; }g i S . .ors&F "![y k r r . y[: .,�*"ii >7 ..� } t[ Y 5�} 1t� ti� ^. u,Fyg; ;r}' '" r .' '� ! �.•:,.'. ,/,'.'",,'- ...... � ': • •7',1;' '''''.".:••!... x r ,.•k_, E ai « v�a�` `?!a.,;°.'b : per, ?4,4-4••,,e, ' . :. "e ' ; a i+ d ': :>[s*qka ":k,",. `k '.ta t4 y ..7(4‘ •t� •'� .�. ..3"� p 'l,. * n .,. +W �• per., [v ±e _ Posted 12/22/2004 by Sheri Lockman Hello