The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20013290.tiff November 26, 2001 Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Co. 80632 For nearly 19 years we have lived and farmed at this location. We are the on the north half of the north east quarter of section 28 where the Busker dairy is located. For the majority of those years we lived 3 miles from the town of Firestone but within the last few years we now live less than a mile from Firestone and we didn't move. The area continues to develop as urban mixed with rural acreages. The ground in the area is marginal farm ground. It is also a non-tributary area allowing commercial wells without augmentation, which is probably why the dairy located in this area. He purchased his land in late 1994 and began milking in late 1995. This area was a heavy mix of small farms and acreages when he purchased his land. There were 11 homes on and surrounding the section when he bought. There are now 15 not counting Scott's accessory to farm trailers. One stick built home was removed to a location about a mile away or there would be 16. We are in Area 3 of the Southwest Weld Service Area established by Ordinance 211 effective December 1, 1999. This ordinance is to reduce the impact of the rapid growth in the area on services such as roads. Weld County Rd. 18 on the north of section 28 is slated for Urban Pavement meaning curb and gutter. The project is in the 5-year plan with 2 years having already passed. That shows that by no means is the area remaining rural. The Safeway in Firestone opened in June. It is on Road 18 & 13 which will surely hasten the pavement of 18 between Rd. 19 and Firestone. The impact fee has not seemed to slow the growth in the area with numerous acreages and subdivisions being established since its inception. The county has also increased the width of the easements on the roads in anticipation of the growth improvements. Mr. Busker is asking for the USR#1356 because he reconfigured his land and proposes to expand his dairy on the southern 80 acres of his property retaining 3 lagoons, 3 pens and his manure management on the northern 80 as use by right. He has informed the neighbors that the animals in those pens would be dairy stock as use by right. This appears to skirt the intent of the USR process by giving him the best of both worlds. Yes, there has been a change is state law but that does not mitigate the conflict with current and . EXHIBIT 2001-3290 C Use 11356 future uses of the surrounding area as outlined in the USR#1202 denial of Feb. 3, 1999. He bought about 220 acres dissected by a deeded ditch and still owns only the 220 acres. We do not feel that he has satisfied the burden of proof that he has mitigated the reasons for denial of his original Use by Special Review application. We are farmers and come from a Colorado ranching family. We endorse agriculture. In a more rural location Mr. Busker would not incur opposition to his proposal. His request will increase his financial well-being at the sacrifice of the surrounding property owners and economics is not justification to grant his request. Thank you. Gilbert C. Evans Diana L. Evans 7987 Weld County Rd. 19 Ft. Lupton, Co. 80621 (303) 833-4720 November 26,2001 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Ave. Greeley,Co. 80631 Attn: Bethany Salzman-Zoning Compliance Subject: Busker Dairy Non-Compliance Dear Bethany, We are presenting this evidence regarding the non-compliance of the Busker Dairy with the Weld County regulations of 4(four)head per acre and also to show he has been misrepresenting his head count to the County. We made our original complaint on August 6,2001 and had communicated on several occasions with Ms.Daniels-Mika about our failure to receive a prompt reply to our complaint. Ms.Julie Chester finally addressed our concerns in her letter of August 24,2001 to in effect tell us that there is no infraction for over-cows in Weld County(if you jump through the proper hoops)and asserting he was in compliance. We find that reply unsatisfactory and would at this time like to present this aerial photo of the dairy taken by: American Reprographics-2620 W.2nd Ave. Denver,Co. The photo was taken May I,2001. As you can see the pens can be counted and the head number obtained by counting the pens. We counted the pens by five different people in our group and come up totals ranging from 940 to 979 in the various counts. This is an error factor of about 3%. This figure is just for the 9 milking pens and does not include all the other stock at the dairy. We also have aerial photos of the calf huts additional stock from the same date. We have issued our own numbers to the pens for reference. Mr.Tom Heron acknowledged at the Planning Commission Hearing November 20,2001,that Mr. Busker is allowed 880 head as use by right. Ms.Chester said there were 850 on the inspection date. If he wasn't over cows on that date this proves he HAS been over cows and we will address this issue further at the Dec.5 hearing. We are presenting these photos to Planning Services early so you can verify our figures and address this evidence. We also wonder why there was an inspection for August 3 when our complaint was acknowledged as received by the county on August 8. We request this photo be made as evidence for the Weld County Commissioners hearing December 5, 2001. We reserve the right to refer to it at that time. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens of Section 28 8600 WCR#18 Ft.Lupton,Co. 80621 pc: Monica Daniels-Mika-Director Mike Geile,Chair,Weld County Board of Commissioners Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney attch:reply of Aug.24-Ms.Chester 4. EXHIBIT USE#(3.5/0 a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES t PHONE .(870)35381fl0,EXT.3540 FAX (970)304-6498 vivAv.co.weld.co.us WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE VE OFFICES FICECES COLORADO 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 August 24; 2001 • Concerned Citizens 8800 WCR 18 Ft Lupton, CO 80621 Subject Letter regarding Scott Busker Dairy, 'Webster LW, Contiguity rules Dew Concerned Citizens: This is a response to your letter received in this office on August 8, 2001. You specifically addressed three issues. 1. number of cattle on the Scott Busker Dairy. You have madea foPlannl ing rt has regarding ssforhandling alt zoning.complaints,as follows: The Department Planning Services a process The complaint is received by our office and investigated. Investigation includes requesting written documentation from the property owner and a physical site inspection by the. Department of Planning Services'staff. This is normal operating procedure for all zoning complaints. If no violation is found to be occurring on the property,the case is closed. Ifthe complaint is substantiated,a zoning violation case is set up and a five day compliance encouragement letter is sent to-the property owner. If the violation is ON substantiated a minimum of five days w after r s tet letter is sent, a a tha thirty day zoning violation is sent allowing property owner property into compliance. The property owner may ask for additional lime to bring the properly into compliance and generally, if progress is being made on the property, an extension can be given. If the violation still persists after the thirty day period and an extension is not given or progress is not being made,the property owner may be asked to come before the Board of County Commissioners. At that time,the property owner may also ask for a period of time to bring the property into compliance. The Board of County Commissions Office to pie ither grant an extension or turn the case over to the County Attorney legal action. It has been determined by the Deparbnent of Planning Services'staff,by visual inspection of the property on August 3,2001,that the number of animals was approximately 850 animal units and is below the number abased by right(880 animal urns). Mr. Busker has oho provided written records to indicate the number of animal unit currently baited on the property. At the time of inspection the property was in compliance with Weld County Zoning (Ctopter 23)of the Weld Cosy Code. In regard to a citizen accompanying staff on-an inspection, Weld Canty dodgy, not have the authority to allow citizens onto another citizen's property. If you would like to hoped the Buskers property,you should contact them directly to obtain perrnr&on' 2. The second issue brought up was clarification of "contiguous" land: Weld County has consisterdly.interpreted contiguous land to be all of the land owned by the property owner which is not separated by publc.road rights-of-way. The Hog Farm cars addressed tic fiestas ofdiic ixt and whetheror not they separated property.m.reg?rd to corthgt4ty. It W?dc-trarnkx%t plots ditch does not-cut off contiguity. In the instance of.Mr..Husker's pry-sly,it is cps siderelf wrAtoous for the purposes'ofdetennk*ng the m!nit*t of enimal was ithwe,s. Trw,fitpittiraf.44 Qc rtKsirrirp Services and County Atlorney O icehaveconsisten₹lyintccprcrtf 6contfc$Ks Ivnc;hr4s na=rrow. 3. The third issue was in regard to the'Webster"law. According to the Weld County Attorneys Office,the*Webster law is separatefccsenfio trrtcrgovc:rnmc.fniw.iAerGO-rrtcrtl(WA)at,f tic fc � Frederkic and Dacano. The repeal of the State law does not have any effect.on the !GA. l you have any further questions or ornaments,please let us know. Thank you for your inquiry in this matter. C)/tduSincerely, ‘ detP5. Jule A.Chester Lead Planner pc;Mice OS Chair,Weld County Board&County Commissioners Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney Monica -Mira. Director,Department-of Planning Serer Elva M. Marino 8600 Weld County Road#18 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 November 27,2001 Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O.Box 758 915 10th Street Greeley,CO 80632 RE Busker Dairy Expansion USR 1356 Gentlemen: i would like to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of the Busker Dairy. I live one half mile from the current dairy and have found this dairy to be an extreme detriment to my quality of life. My late husband and I purchased the property upon which we built our home in 1987. The location was chosen with care so as not to run afoul of exactly the situation in which I now fmd myself. The proximity of the residence to the towns of Firestone and Frederick granted us,we thought,the facilities which would assist us in our final years. We were no more than two miles from these communities. Since this was located within the area which these towns believed they would be developing we felt sure that extremely intense use would be precluded from this area. Now we fmd that the county never chose to recognize these growth areas and the cities were constrained to negotiated boundaries which were adopted after our purchase of the property. We also had no idea when Mr. Busker proposed a small family dairy that what he really intended was a factory farm. Because of that original misrepresentation by Mr.Busker we did not oppose his starting his dairy. We did,however,oppose his expansion in 1999. Later that same year my husband died of a stroke. At its current size we fought flies,dust,and traffic issues,all in association with the dairy. The flies during the summer are sufficiently annoying as to make it impossible to use our outside doors. Rather we have to enter our home through our garage, where we have installed a battery operated spray system to kill the flies. From there we can enter the house with a minimum of invasion. When I mistakenly failed to latch the door it took my children four hours to clear the house. i cannot even begin to guess at the possible numbers of fly's which had invaded our home. My husband and I never complained our effort to get along and allow Mr. Busker the same rights which we all enjoy,without the hassle of constantly bickering with one's neighbors. Obviously the good neighbor policy has not been in our favor since Mr.Busker holds it up as evidence that he is not an undesirable addition to the area. The biggest problem with the dairy,however,is the extremely noxious odor which constantly emanates from the location. I enjoy gardening and fmd that it no longer is the pleasant activity which it once was. The stench that permeates the area makes it extremely difficult to work outdoors with any degree of enjoyment. Since my husbands death I have sold the property to my daughter and her husband. Together we continue to fight this unwise expansion in an area of increasing residential growth. I am devastated to think,that in their effort to assure my comfort in my final years,my children will be financially compromised due to their inability to recover the value of our home,as studies have been done that show residences which are located in close proximity to CAFO's lose up to 80%of their normal value. i ask that you consider carefully and hope that you will see the inadvisability of approving an expansion which will so adversely effect Mr.Busker's immediate neighbors lives and their rights to the enjoyment and best use of their properties. I have also found in discussion with friends that the dairy adversely effects many of the thousands of people who have lived for years in the two aforementioned communities. Due to notification limitations a great many of these people will never know until possibly it is too late just how much more adversely affected they may be. One friend I spoke to actually thought that we had a pig farm east of town since she was sure that cows couldn't smell like that. Should one man be granted a special right that will deny so many the right of their regular land use. Perhaps I am old fashioned,but that doesn't seem to hold to American values. Thank you for your consideration. \ � �ta „,e = EXHIBIT Y " //Sae ilk/3% Chester D. and Niki G. Rozean 8600 Weld County Road#18 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 (303)833-5224 November 27, 2001 Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Busker Dairy Expansion USR 1356 Gentlemen: We wish to advise you that we are opposed to the Busker dairy expansion. We feel we have several good reasons for this opposition. Mr. Busker is not a good neighbor. We have been advised that while he has not been neighbor friendly in the past,that expanding his dairy will cause him to fall under additional regulations which somehow makes his operation more palatable. In our opinion this is very weak logic. Mr. Busker has not been made to comply with the existing regulations under which he operates and we have no confidence that the agencies which have failed to oversee him in the past will suddenly become more adept at achieving his compliance in the future. We feel that the location of his dairy is very poorly planned. The communities immediately to his west, specifically Firestone and Frederick,have predated him for decades. Both are growing, thriving communities which pump a great deal of tax income into this county. To ignore their right to exist without the extremely vile smell of dairy lagoons is not reasonable. To penalize those of us who located close to them for the conveniences they offer, is equally unreasonable. When Mr. Busker was denied his original application(USR#1202) in 1999, we felt confident that we could purchase our mother's house and help her to finish her final years in her own home without undue risk of not being able to enjoy our new home. We were supported in that decision by the fact that the commissioners in their denial,had determined that a large dairy was not compatible with the current and future uses of the area. It never occurred to us that with recorded exemptions and redrawing imaginary lines upon maps that Mr. Busker would proceed to reconfigure his property so that he became his own surrounding land use. Nor did it ever occur - to us that by moving his operation 500 feet to the south that he somehow became more compatible with all his neighbors and the communities. The neighbors have obviously not ( I EXHIBIT i 1 GCS' -x/356 changed their location,but the towns of Firestone and Frederick are closer now than they were two years ago. Additionally,we never imagined that no one would apparently notice that with his mixed use capabilities that his cow density in a worst case scenario is essentially the same, only decreasing by 1.8 cows per acre. We realize that many think that looking at worst case scenario's may not be realistic,but we have found that with Mr. Busker one must ALWAYS look at the worst case scenario. We wish to make it clear that we are not against all dairies, but feel that this dairy will place the farming community and the urban community in direct conflict with each other. If this happens, history should alert us that farming always loses eventually. Only by intelligent,thoughtful planning,which does not place intense use farming,which is extremely odoriferous on the doorstep of residential communities,can farming flourish. At the current rate of the growth of these two communities, it will not be long before their voting populations will protect their own rights thru the ballot box. This need not happen and there is certainly no need to accelerate possible conflict by antagonizing the people who collectively are the centers of commerce that support the infrastructure to our entire region, farms included. The thoughtful people who established the comprehensive plan made provision for the unwise intrusion of one segment of our collective lives into the venue of another. This provision is the process of the USR. If they had not feared the encroachment into areas ill suited for proposed uses they would not have included Sec 23-2-230, Subdivision B, numbers 3 and 4. They realized that at times like these, and as much as we would like farming to always prevail, that there would be occasions when it would be inadvisable. They established commissioners to make these tough decisions. As much as we favor the farming lifestyle, in this instance, we ask that you make this tough decision and deny expansion. Sincerely, Patrick Berrend PO Box 781 Frederick,CO 80530 303.833.2994 --- 27-November-01 Weld County Board of Comissioners PO Box 758—915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80632 Ladies&Gentlemen: I would like to formally submit my objection to the proposed USR #1356 expansion to the Busker Dairy. When I learned of their proposal to significantly expand the scale of the dairy operation I wanted to take this opportunity to voice my protest due to the immediate proximity to the Towns of Frederick and Firestone. I am a resident of old town Frederick, a member of the Frederick Planning Commission and have lived here for nearly ten years. This town has been in existence since 1907. The dairy operation started approximately 1996. The smell of this dairy is already overbearing for the residents of Frederick and Firestone. I cannot begin to imagine how bad the smell will increase if the USR application is approved. I completely understand, and agree with the right to farm issue observed in Weld County, however I am vehemently opposed to this application for several reasons: • The Towns of Frederick and Firestone have predated this dairy corporation for nearly 100 years, and deserve to have the continued right to clean fresh air. • Why should one corporation's "Use by Special Review" supercede the basic rights of the thousands of people directly affected by the pollution this Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is producing? • Will the dramatic impact to the quality of life for the people of these towns not even be considered? Many of these families have lived in the area for decades. • The surrounding area has very shallow ground water, and it is well documented fact how much nitrate pollution that a CAFO contributes to poorly drained soils. • This dairy operation already has a track record for poorly managed manure containment, pollution control and excess of the livestock per acre ratio allowed under current regulations. Why should we believe it will be better managed with an almost 300% increase in scope on the same acerage? This is not an opposition to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather, it is a plea to consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. I respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. Respectfully: tj+-1A-) Patrick Berrend x EXHIBIT use It/35& Greeley Tribune Online Page 1 of.3 near Nd ". Hayes St. t* PN,,tbtervt Sru.Je t+t 4s'Gefilte t. H6rq,y Ylea¢frvr; P.41, „1 :''• {2;q .SY ca Login or Create an account November 30, 2001 ��-„ 4x &Main Menu °` Editorial: Rural life comes with costs Loginb. • Home Posted on Thursday, November 29 @ 03:18:04 EST(219 Nickname • Local reads)/ • Nation &World Password •Community Neighbors of dairy owner Scott Busker have •About Us fought him for years. We believe they should take a look outside their windows. r b_ • Subscribe Today They live in a rural part of the county. It's an Don't have an agricultural zone. A zone isn't just a defense. It's account yet?You can create one. As ,Marketplace b. a tool. It's a way for county officials to organize registered user you • Find a Home our land. have some advantages like • Find a Job Zones essentially tell us where we can put things. • Find a Car theme manager, comments We can put stores in commercial zones. We can configuration and • classifieds put homes in residential zones. And we can put post comments with • Coupon Book dairy cows in agricultural zones. your name. • Dining Guide • Featured Busker had a plan two years ago to expand his Advertisers dairy by 3,500 cows. That may have been a bit 'Related Links h too many cows, and the county rejected his plan, • Greeley Tribune stating that it wasn't compatible with his • Microsoft AComing s neighbors. But now he wants to expand by 1,450 tomorrow cows. That not only seems compatible. It's Top 5 stories in The In the downright reasonable. Trib Editorials this Classroom page week: features Windsor Busker's neighbors don't see it that way. They ' High School students recently protested Busker's proposed expansion 1 Editorial: Rural who create cool p p p comes with costs cereal boxes as part when he went before the Weld County Planning life of a computer class Commission. The commission approved it, so his 2 Editorial: Board project. neighbors promise to do it again when it goes before the Board of Weld County Commissioners. resign ent should 6 The board will make the final decision in a 3 Applause: deNewsletter hearing scheduled for Dec. 5. Another holiday Subscribe today for success; Young the Tribune Online What his neighbors don't understand is they live patriots; United weekly eNewsletter! in an agricultural zone. In fact, they've never Way is your email appreciated address attempted to rezone the land to residential. They 4 Stampede like their rural lifestyle. Committee makes _ i. , € good selection But with a rural lifestyle comes the understanding 5 Financial that they can't live in a cow-free zone. Agricultural commitment To Unsubscribe keeps developers nrrp:rrwww.gr-eeieyrno.comrarncre.pnp(sra=)219 g EXHIBIT 11/ill/U1 U51(4155ir Greeley Tribune Online Page 2 of 3 .u .n Hoer= - - • • Honest cows. Can you imagine the uproar if Busker opened up in west Greeley? Or near the Elk ID 21 Lakes Shopping Center'? Or even in the center of Handheld Edition GilCrest? Weld County is growing, and our agricultural land toms r. .a is being replaced by homes. That's fine. We ogs welcome the growth and the retail stores it's sure Pas to attract. But those who choose to live in the county's Golden Web ■ countryside need to understand that we need to preserve the agricultural land that's left. We would be more sympathetic if Busker was a sloppy producer. But he appears to run a clean operation. Not only that, but Busker has plans to improve the smell that he acknowledges is there. We would encourage him to do whatever he can aPaul F. Moloney afford. His neighbors don't seem to mind it too much anyway. We find it amusing that the only time his neighbors have complained to the county is when he has applied for an expansion. Weld County was built on agriculture. Its future, for now, remains with agriculture. That's still obvious today if you just take a look Look into a moment around. of the lives of the famous and not-so- famous, Paul Sound off Moloney's Friends Would you like to comment on this editorial? Click and Celebrities. here to send a letter to our editor. Order your copy online now. "Editorial: Rural life comes with costs" I Login/Create an Account 12 comments Threshold Thread Oldest First The comments are owned by the poster.We aren't responsible for their content. Re: Editorial: Rural life comes with costs (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday,November 29 @ 13:21:25 EST It's about time that someone stands up for the ag. background of Weld County. If you don't like the smell, then you don't have to live here. The reason that Greeley and Weld County are where they are today is because a man named Ken Monfort was able to put up with that smell. If you don't like it, you are more than welcome from any of us to go back to California or nnp://www.greeteyrno.comiarticle.pnp rsto=3L 19 II/swot Greeley Tribune Online Pa;,e = of '. I Reply to This Re: Editorial: Rural life comes with costs (Score:0) by Anonymous on Thursday,November 29 @ 23:18:17 EST I feel that Greeleyites should band together for Mr. Busker at the December 5th meeting of the Weld County Planning Comissioners. I am sure we can outnumber the few complaining transplanted Greeleyites. What do you say Weld County? Dee [Reply to This All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective ov.nc s. fhe(heeler. Fribune is not responsible for comments posted by readers.All other content 3?1999-2001 Greeley'frihune.al rights reserved. Creaky Tribune Online 2001 Privacy Policy. You can syndicate our new:using the file backend.php • rrup://www.greeieytno.comiarume.pnp(sla=)t l9 1 iiiU/U i VRANESH AND RAISCH, LLP Jerry W. Raisch (\a__ ATTORNEYS AT LAW John R. Henderson Michael D. Shimmin Eugene J. Riordan 1720 14th Street, Suite 200 Paul J. Zilis P.O. Box 871 Boulder, Colorado 80306-0871 Julie S. Erikson Telephone 303/443-6151 Asimakis P. latridis-Of Counsel Telecopier 303/443-9586 George Vranesh (1926-1997) November 29, 2001 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Weld County Board of County Commissioners Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street, Third Floor Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Busker Dairy Application-USR 1356 Dear Commissioners: I represent nineteen of the immediate neighbors of the current Busker dairy. The Busker Dairy is currently an 880 cow"Use By Right" dairy, seeking to expand its herd. The neighbors oppose the expansion because of the continued negative impact on the existing neighborhood, particularly problems in controlling odor and flies from its waste processing operations and lagoons. Even the applicant admits that odor problems will worsen as the total herd size rises from 880 cows to a total of 2010, and that there is no real solution in sight for the existing odor problem from the lagoons and composting area. We have previously commented to the Planning Commission on this matter. I attach a copy of that letter, which is incorporated by reference. We will attempt not to duplicate those earlier comments except where necessary. Impact on and Compatibility With the Existing Neighborhood The area surrounding the Busker Dairy is rural residential, and has been since before the arrival of the use by right Busker Dairy. These people do not oppose agriculture, and some are farmers themselves, or conduct agricultural operations on their home places. Before the Planning Commission, a number of arguments were made to negate the impact of what is happening to the neighbors, which we wish to refute here. Members of the planning commission made the point that residential use is an "incursion" into the area of Ag zoning, even where the residential use pre-dates the Use by Special Review, or where neighboring farmers live on their farms. One member took this further to say that residents of Ag zoning areas buy their properties subject to any use which could be made in the r. future by Special Review. That is simply not the standard to be applied. The applicant must take the neighborhood as he w finds it. The rural-residential uses preceded the arrival of the dairy a few years ago. Here, the nra m a November 29, 2001 Page 2 applicant is already maximizing his use by right. It would be accurate to observe that homeowners do occupy the land subject to the bulk limitations contained in the land use regulations, here, 4 cows per acre. The neighbors did not buy their lands subject to, or without grounds to protest, a future Use by Special Review. If the argument were true, neighbors would have no right to object to a new application for 10,000 cows on 40 acres as a Use by Special Review. They do have the right to object, and to complain about the problems which have already happened with odor, flies, dust and runoff. This point is clearly made in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance at Sec. 23-2-200 A. "Uses by Special Review are uses which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zoning district...Uses by Special Review require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and operated in a manner which is compatible with existing and planned uses in the neighborhood." Clearly, a neighbor occupying a residence does not occupy the property subject to any special use that could conceivably be made on adjacent ground: his interests as to the new level of intensity must be considered. Indeed, a Use By Special Review is a new application for what is a new use. We must point our that the results for them of the Busker expansion are wholly negative. The applicant admits that odor problems from 2010 cows will almost certainly increase at times, and that odor problems from the existing 880 cow herd have yet to be solved. One of the witnesses, himself a farmer, described the odors as "unbearable" at times if you were in a living situation in the odor's path. Luckily for him, his fields, not his home were most impacted. The others are not so lucky. Neighboring municipalities have also made it clear that increased odor and fly vector problems are not compatible with their own planned residential uses. These planned uses within the municipal growth boundary deserve consideration under the Weld County Zoning Ordinance: existing and future residents here have not lost their voice in the face of a USR application, ag or not. Appraisal evidence indicates that lands directly adjacent to a CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) can have a modest to severe impact on property values. There is no evidence that a larger dairy will not devalue adjacent properties, or restrict the rates of growth of the value of those properties due to odor, flies, dust and other off-site impacts. Certainly, in a weak market those properties will tend to suffer more. In essence, Mr. Busker is forcing the costs of his own operations onto his neighbors. A 2010 Cow Dairy is a Very Intense Use of Land Only a few short years ago, a family milking herd of 40-80 cows would have been regarded as a good-sized family dairy farm. The largest milking herds in some dairy states did not exceed 500 S Client\Wimmer\weld county Comm.Itr of 1128.0l.wpd November 29, 2001 Page 3 milkers. Now, more dairies here and elsewhere claim that they must expand to multiples of this size to compete. Unlike an 80 cow family farm, a CAFO of 1500 to 2000 cows has the waste generation impacts of a small city. The difference is that cities are required to properly treat wastes. For CAFO herds, the waste is managed in open lagoons, and the solids are openly composted. Thus, the waste, fly and odor impacts are far greater than a small city. Mr. Busker answers that the 560 cows on adjacent lands will not be on the dairy property"at the same time" as the 1450 USR cows. How is this to be avoided? The USR must be conditioned upon a requirement that no more than 1450 cows occupy the USR site at any time. The method for avoiding an exceedance shall be explained. The Real Number of Cows Associated With the Dairy is 2010 The neighbors continue to point out that there is only one Busker dairy, and that the real herd size is 2010. Where there is only one dairy facility and one dairy operation, we feel that it is bad policy to combine a Use by Right with a Use By Review. The Planning Staff has spoken of a Busker Use by Special Review Dairy, and a Busker Use By Right Dairy. In fact, there is only one dairy and one milking facility. The Commissioners should consider only one dairy, with 2010 cows, which is the real proposal. In my view, the Colorado Hog Farms case would control only to determine how many cows Mr. Busker could have under the bulk regulations, here, 880 cows by right. He already has those. When considering the changes which will come to the existing neighborhood, the reality is that the dairy will service 2010 cows. That is the real herd size, that is what should be considered for its impact on the neighborhood. As a further protective condition, Mr. Busker should be allowed to increase his herd only upon a demonstration that he can solve the existing odor problem. In the event that expansion is allowed, there should be a step increase of half of the requested new number to determine if the Busker Dairy is capable of operating within the approved conditions, including odor control and fly abatement for an increased herd. Mr. Busker Appears to Have Exceeded His Use By Right Numbers The County's bulk regulations allow 4 cows per acre. At the Planning Commission hearing, the capable consultant for Mr. Busker correctly indicated that the County regulations define one cow as one cow. The limit is four cows per acre, with no adjustment for dry cows, calves, immature cows, etc. S VClientAWimmer\weld county Comm.Itr of II.28 01 wpd November 29, 2001 Page 4 The neighbors will present an aerial photo taken during the spring of 2001. Our counts show cows in excess of the 880 cow limits imposed by the bulk regulations. Each of the five counts came in at 940 to 979 cows. The neighbors invite the Commissioners and Planning Staff to confirm our counts, pen by pen, field by field. If the neighbors are right, Mr. Busker has consciously exceeded the bulk limitations in the past. We use the word conscious, because every dairy farmer carefully tracks his herd, and is aware of the precise number of cows of all types on the property at all times. If Mr. Busker has not complied with the use-by-right numbers, it does not bode well for future compliance with a host of other conditions required of a Use by Special Review. The neighbors may present other evidence of non-compliance. The Comprehensive Plan Preference for Supporting Agriculture Does Not Trump Land Use Regulations There can be no doubt that agriculture is the economic base of Weld County. The County's historic records for the production of crops and livestock speak for themselves. Still, this is not a battle with agriculture, nor should the applicant be allowed to cast the neighbors in the role of"opposing agriculture". The Comprehensive Plan is a planning tool; where the regulations do not speak, the Comprehensive Plan offers guidance to achieving consistency with its purposes; it does not, and cannot, override regulations as written. Here, Use by Special Review is available for evaluating proposed uses which are especially intense, or which exceed the limits of Use by Right. Weld County recognizes the Right to Farm at Appendix 22-E of the Comprehensive Plan. The Appendix is not applicable to this case. The rural residential use at this site precedes the Busker Dairy. Thus, the neighbors are not seeking to move to this area and to create "conflicts with longstanding agricultural practices", nor are the neighbors seeking to cause Mr. Busker to change those same "longstanding agricultural practices". The issue here is that Mr. Busker is seeking a more intense use of land with the strong potential to damage his neighbors; this is done by the regulations governing the Use By Special Review, in which neighborhood impact is a critical key for your decision. The neighbors are not asking Mr. Busker to change longstanding practices. He, instead, is seeking a use which will make their lives worse, with no consequent benefit. One of the key touchstones of this analysis is neighborhood impact, as I point out in my earlier letter, attached. The fact that the proposed Special Use is agricultural in nature does not deprive the neighbors of their voice, or vitiate the regulations because of the Comp Plan's strong support S'.AClientAWimmer\weld county Comm.Itr of 1128 01 wpd November 29, 2001 Page 5 for ag. Instead, and as stated in the Comp Plan, the land use regulations carry out the intent of the Comp Plan. Water Ouality Concerns As pointed out in testimony before the planning commission, lagoons of the size proposed could still leak approximately a million gallons per year of waste into groundwater at a 1/32 inch per day seepage rate. Mr. Busker and his consultant claim that his existing ponds leak at a slower rate, and cite the above figure as a"worst case analysis", or one which might only apply to the first few years of lagoon operations. By way of illustration of the allowed seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day, we note that Applicant Busker has proposed lagoons with a total surface area of 141, 862 square feet at liquid capacity. At the 1/32 inch standard, the ponds could discharge 369 cubic feet per day of liquid waste to groundwater, or 2,760 gallons. This would be over a million gallons on an annual basis. Thus the "allowed" rates used to test the compaction of the liner allow a lot of seepage, being no small amount of potentially highly concentrated animal waste. This is not a worst case analysis, but one predicated on what the CAFO regulations allow without being out of compliance. At an allowed seepage rate of 1/32 of an inch per day, the allowed daily and annual seepage from lagoons of this size, when filled to designed fill levels, is huge. This would result in the deposition of high concentrations of nitrates, ammonium, salts coliforms and other pathogens to shallow groundwater. Mr. Busker points out that his well on the property has been tested. But, as he admits, this is not an alluvial well, and is thus irrelevant to discharges to shallow groundwater. A series of shallow test wells around the existing lagoons should be constructed to monitor groundwater. As the lagoons are adjacent to the property boundary, such testing is appropriate. Those wells should be periodically monitored for nitrates, ammonium, salts and coliforms, and the results provided periodically to the County Health Department and the State. A series of shallow test wells and the reporting of independently verified results should be one of the conditions of approval, and incorporated into the Site Specific Development Plan. Screening of Site Busker Dairy proposes to screen the site with up to 700 trees. The neighbors understand that these trees consist principally of immature cottonwoods. A mixture of evergreens and more mature trees should be included. The applicant should be required to submit a detailed planting plan, including provisions for caring for and irrigating the S:\Client\Wimmer\weld county comm lir of 11.28.01.wpd November 29, 2001 Page 6 trees in the years after planting, and the replacement of failed trees. The failure of other tree planting projects on the site in the past indicates that applicant may not have properly considered the need for care after transplanting new tree stocks. The Permit Should be Conditioned upon the Installation of Hooded or Diffused Lighting Both at Old and New Lighting Sites At the Planning Commission hearing, we believe that the Applicant agreed to install hooded of diffused lighting both on the existing Use By Right Dairy, and at new construction on the site. Since the site is illuminated 24 hours per day, this would reduce the impact on the neighbors of nuisance lighting. The use of diffused lighting would also help to maintain the rural character of this rural residential area, without compromising the safety or efficiency of dairy operations. The Standards for Approval Under Sec. 22-2-230 B. Do Not Include Economic Benefit to Mr. Busker The standards for a Use By Special Review Focus upon satisfying the standards stated in Sec. 22- 2-230 B. Those standards focus almost exclusively on compatibility with the existing neighborhood (B.3) and future development (B.4), and compliance with other aspects of the code. The area to be protected is not just the adjacent lands, but the surrounding area. The interests of the surrounding communities, including Frederick and Firestone, are properly considered, as their municipal growth boundaries are part of the immediate surrounding area. As a point of fact, the Busker Dairy has re-submitted its plans to take its project out from within one of those municipal growth boundaries. The area is still there, and directly proximate to the dairy. The economic benefit to Mr. Busker from running a larger CAFO is not part of the regulatory calculus. The interests of the neighborhood in being protected from increased problems with odor, flies, decrease in property values and the potential for contamination are not weighed against this benefit, but are themselves the touchstone of your decision. Were there not multiple homes, existing municipalities and municipal growth boundaries this might be an easy decision, as the compatibility of the new use with a purely agricultural environment would be greater. This, however, is not that case, and the economic benefit to Mr. Busker should not enter your decision. Summary In summary, this proposal places too many cows in too small an area too near existing homes and municipal growth boundaries. All the other problems flow from this point. The impact on existing and future planned uses is substantial, and cannot be satisfactorily remediated by the conditions. Applicant admits that it has not solved the odor problem from the 880 cow operation. S:\Client\Wimmer\weld county Comm_hr of 11 28 01 wpd November 29, 2001 Page 7 The neighbors oppose the expansion. If the expansion is approved, expansion should be conditioned upon solving the existing odor and fly problems prior to expanding the herd size. As a protective condition, any expansion should be in two or more steps, subject to demonstrating compliance with the approved plans and conditions, including resolution of the odor and fly problem. As an additional protective condition, shallow groundwater monitoring wells should be placed around the existing and planned lagoons and monitored on a regular basis to determine if pollutants, including nitrates, ammonia, salts, and coliforms and other pathogens are, in reality, migrating into the surrounding shallow groundwater supply. The test of Mr. Busker's deep, non- alluvial well is not relevant to this inquiry. Sincerely, V E TCH, L P Jo . enderson E-mail: irh(civrlaw.com JRH:k cc: Lauren Light, Weld County Planning Services (w/enclosure) (via fax and mail) Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney(w/ enclosure) Sd Client AWimmerAweld county comm hr of11.28 01 wpd Sent By: VALLEY BANK; 3038258081 ; Nov-30-01 10:37; Page 2 November 27,2001 Board of County Commissioners Greeley,Weld County,Colorado Dear Cons nbsionets, My husband and I bought our place in 1971 after we retired from a lifethne of farming near Grand Wand,Nebraska. I am g8 gears old and now widowed. 1 have wosdedW neighbors who have helped me resrain in my home because it is more difficult being rural when you get old. Mr.Busher Is not anion the good neighbors. He came bete a few gears ago and started his dairy.He told us it was going to be a small family dairy. My husband a1 had a dairy in Nebraska and so I as familiar with the daisy business. He lied to me. Ills dairy has been nothing bat a nuisance. The Hies, the smell, the backslap beepers at all hours of the day and night,the intense lighting. That is so much light at night that it is never dark. Can't the lights be off after final milking and pens cleaned during the day so we bean some peace at night? It is not=common for the beepers to be going at 4:00 A.M. I raise a large garden for extra income and get out at Hutt light because I as already awake from all the noise. The sell can be so bad at dames,especially theesell from the bare wash,that my laundry smells when I take it off line. The lagoons often smell like raw sewage. I always believed that good lagoon shouldn't smell so often. lie had his people close off my access to my back hay field the day ahcr be was denied his last request to expand. Put a gate across the oil well aocAN,no fence,just a gate to dose off me and another neighbor. He didn't have anything to fence in,just wanted to close as out He owns the surface but I own the ssineral rights and was told by an oil field man several years later he couldn't deny my access because that is my task battery and lease. I gaps Mr. Busker Just did it for spite became he was mad about being denied. The neighbors bad to build a sew skive to replace mite that they bad used for 12 years. My son finally got fed up and used the access to harvest my hay this year but until then I couldn't do it. I don't know what he is doing for Hy control but we didn't have any songbirds this summer. Just had scavenger type birds,not the good birds. It makes me wonder if his way of controlling Isn't killing the birds dace they eat the bugs and could get the poison My trees used to be bit of birds in the morning. So noisy from birds slating. 1 mimed that this saner. Now that fall is here some birds have come back but not as many as asu&L When you bare farmed you notice when something is wrong with your environment and look for causes. I don't know the cause for sure but suspect he is the cause. I stand with my neighbors that he hasn't dose things good sow so why let him have a different set of rules to break. Irene Schutt 7707 WCR#19, Ft.Lepton,Co. 80621 1ls1Aai, 'cL EXHIBIT N us m1356 Sent By: VALLEY BANK; 3038258081 ; Nov-30-01 10:38; Page 3/5 November 27, 2001 Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th St. Greeley, Co. 80632 Dear Commissioners, We reside directly south the dairy and our north property Ilne Is the south boundary of the dairy. We haven't been here as long as the dairy but our house has and it was here before the dairy was built. We are the third owner of this home. In the 1970's and 80's Weld County allowed and encouraged the subdivision of this marginal form ground into small acreages. The close proximity to the Td-Town area created a nice mixed-use area. Then in 1994 Mr. Busker comes here to start his dolly. He has asserted that we moved here after he came. That may be so but remember the acreages were here first and HE knew that when he bought HIS land. When we bought this home It was to fulfill a dream of living in the country. We love to grow trees and keep a nice place. We have invested all our dreams in our home. We knew the dairy was there when be bought but it was not large and imposing. How he has changed all that in recent years. We do not oppose anyone's right to fully utilize their property. It is one of the basic rights of owning properly. The problem begins when you want more rights than the other guy and you are expecting others to give up some of their pleasures of use for your benefit. We can no longer eat outside for the fly and odor problems, We do not complain to authorities because that is a port of the dairy but If this is a problem now what is going to mitigate it if he expands? At night his lights illuminate the whole area and safety beepers are common in the middle of the night. The truck traffic on WCR 16 is very heavy and creates a lot of dust. He says he will control dust on the dairy but what about the dust the excessive traffic creates? This becomes the county and our problem, not his. His intensifying the dairy on the southern portion of his property will intensify these problems and more. it will reduce our property value and greatly impact our way of life even more. Sincerely, AI and Violet Betz 8179 County Rd. #16 Fort Lupton, Co. 80621 (1 EXHIBIT use-fo , Sent By: VALLEY BANK; 3038258081 ; Nov-30-01 10:38; Page 4/5 7543 WCR 16 Ft. I-upton,CO 80621 November 28,2001 Weld County Commissioners Dear Commissioners: My name is Dave Mallory. I live at 7543 Rd 16, 114 section at the NW corner of p roads 18 and 17,directly west of the dairy across road 17. I have since 1983. I am a full-time farmer and make my living growing on this s property alfalfa on this farm. My home is located on the southwest corner of my property approximately 34 mile from the diary and away from the prevailing north and westerly winds. Being in agriculture myself, I am generally tolerant of the smell, noise,traffic, and lighting that are a byproduct of the existing dairy. If my home were located in the northeast corner of my property, it would certainly not be tolerable. I support everyone's right to fully enjoy their property as they wish, as long as the use of their property does not infringe on adjacent property owners' rights of the same. My property is bordered on the west and south by the town of Frederick's growth boundary and on the north by Firestone's growth boundary. I intend to continue my present use of my property as long as I an physically able to continue farming myself. When I become unable to continue farming my property,the next logical use would be to develop the property into multiple home sites. In my opinion, allowing the dairy to expand will directly impede the future use of my property and Infringe on my right to enjoy my property and my ability to produce income for my family and myself. My financial security is directly tied to the future value of my farm. I recommend denying this request on the grounds that there have been no substantial changes and that the dairy expansion is still incompatible with existing rural residential subdivisions and with future development of surrounding areas,as ruled previously by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County. Sincerely, O,24 " Dave Mallory Eg. EXHIBIT IIstS tale, Sent By: VALLEY BANK; 3038258081 ; Nov-30-01 10:38; Page 5/5 8275 WCR 16 Ft. Lupton Co.80621 November 28,2001 Weld County Commissioners Greely,Colorado. To the Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your time in this matter with the ncighbor vs.Buskor Dairy. As you can tell this neighborhood is adamant about not having the expansion to the dairy. His practice of using the same wash water repeatedly may save on water conservation, but it sure does cause a horrible stench at my house and kennel business. The ponds he built without engineering testing for compaction arc situated so that g Thai the wind,any kind of wind, come from that direction 1 get the stench of his ponds. This has adversely affected my dog boarding facility. When city people come to check out my facility and it smells so bad it burns their sinuses,they can't distinguish between a poorly run kennel and cow manure so they don't bring there dogs and I lose revenue. As you probably know the logistic of running a dairy of Buskors size requires lots of feed and manure removal. He does not grow any feed of his own so it is ALL trucked in day andT,,,I've been woken up between 12am to Sam by trucks making deliveries to his dairy. We as a neighborhood have complained to him about the speed at which the semi's fly down the road thus causing a large dust cloud choking you if you are outside working dogs or riding our horses. He tells the trucking companies to slow down and they do fora week or so then back up to mach speed they go.I've had quite a few of my clients have close calls with these semi's. I realize that dirt roads and dust are part of the ambiance of living in the country and I accept this,but when I moved here there was no dairy or heavy truck traffic.It popped up without anyone's ability to air concerns over the IMPACT it would have to the area and still does. What will the impact of allowing 800 more cows be in the terms of truck traffic and manure smell. Since this will effectively double his herd size T can only equate that this will double the truck traffic and with more ponds increase the odor. My last concern for this expansion is the new dry pen that is 1200' long that will butt up to the back of my property. Since these will be his dry or MIL cows how much effort will be given to control disease and odor because he will completely cover the entire north side of my property as well as four other property owners. So that ANY north wind will carry the smell to my house and kennel thus I can never escape it. Respectfully yours, Wayne and Mary Lockwood I.&YV Kennela��`� j EXHIBIT . I1 tSl2 1356 Sent By: VALLEY BANK; 3038258081 ; Dec-4-01 13:38; Page 2/2 My name is Judy Stevens and 1 am a neighbor to the south of the Buskirk Dairy. I regret that I cannot be here today to read this letter myself, but the demands of my job would not allow it. I have asked that another neighbor of mine,Nikki make my appeal for me today. We all live approximately 1 mile from the towns of Fredrick,Firestone, and Dacono. There are many new homes and subdivisions going up everywhere around us, as to be expected, living so close to a tri-town area. Scott Buskirk and his dairy are one entity and I understand that he had a right a few short years back to open a"small flintily dairy" as he promised his neighbors that would be the case. A few years have gone by, and now he wants to expand his overexpand dairy that already houses even more cattle than the county allows according to overhead photographs that I have personally viewed. What about the rights of the majority?What about the rights to breath fresh air, instead of having to breath in the stench of the dairy, the right to have our windows open on a summer day without the inside of our house filling with the pollution of the dairy.Last summer we could not even have one outdoor barbecue because of the stench from the dairy and the flies. The flies are yet another health issue. Our screens are black with flies in the summer; and they are impossible to keep out of our home. We cannot leave any food uncovered for even a few minutes, a pie or bread left out to cool from the oven would be covered with flies in a matter of minutes. We take the risks of many different pesticides to try to control the fly problem,but it is almost a defeated effort. In September of this year,the flies were so bad in our house that they were laying maggots on our ceiling, and we would have to brush them down with a broom every morning. I want you to understand that our home is very clean and is kept spotless, so it is not like there is a sanitary problem in my home. It is so frustrating to have to live like this. Doesn't anyone else have any rights in this community?If the dairy is allowed to expand even more,then the problems with the odor pollution and the flies will increase and health problems will increase. The semis that go to and from the dairy, through an uncontrolled intersection, on dirt roads with no stop sign, no speed limit, will increase as well. My opinion is that if the Buskirk dairy wants to expand,then they should move their operation out to a rural area, away from towns and communities, instead of forcing their neighbors to move to get away from them. 1a�1-390 Very Sincerely, c and ForrestC E X I B I T Judy,Dan and our children Kim, Sara, Chrys 4 i3S13 oulit� a ?ova! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: \\ a‘ ,20 Of . THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AN VISIBLE FROM A UBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FORA SPECIAL REVIEW OR CHANGE OF ZONE IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY 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 PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. SiCtiA.) Wits Posi-�.r�'_) I/f / (3,,) Id I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT FEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S HEARING FOR CASE \SR \Z`f THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: 6fS k 0A) HD/C CA) NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN SIGI�Q"ATURE OR PER RS ON SIGN STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS, DAY OF 11YoY) ./ , 20O I Iltoi jtitAil NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 1-1/O1Od n THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE. 2. EXHIBIT Use:#1351,9 ) ) ) +-- Dairy Comp 305 Busker Dairy Page 1 -+ Command : MONITOR + C:COWFILE1.DAT 12/ 3/01 -+ # Parameter 03/08/01 04/14/01 05/13/01 06/18/01 07/12/01 08/15/01 09/08/01 10/16/01 11/10/01 12/03/01 1 REPRODUCTION 2 % PREG/HERD 45 47 45 50 47 53 48 42 41 42 3 #PREGNETCHECK 63 94 30 0 100 96 123 62 78 64 4 ABORTIONS 7 7 1 0 6 4 15 6 6 2 5 %OPEN DIM>150 17 18 23 20 19 16 16 17 21 17 6 AVG DAYS DRY 59 57 57 58 56 56 57 59 61 61 7 % PREGNETCHECK 39 41 38 0 50 46 46 34 46 38 8 AVG DAYS N MILK 179 177 184 186 175 181 172 165 171 168 9 AVG DIM/1STBRED 92 83 77 73 64 66 64 66 65 66 10 AVG DAYS OPEN 128 123 117 119 113 119 121 123 121 122 11 AVG CALVING INT 388 386 389 392 391 390 393 398 397 397 12 PRODUCTION 13 MILK @ LACT=1 71 78 82 79 80 82 80 80 89 86 14 MILK @ LACT=2 77 80 85 85 90 92 86 91 87 88 15 MILK @ LACT=3+ 76 78 82 79 86 89 82 87 85 90 16 MILK @ HERD 75 78 83 81 85 87 82 85 86 88 17 FRESH COWS MILK 76 84 62 75 82 89 89 91 89 90 18 FRESH HFRS MILK 50 67 51 58 45 60 63 66 68 63 19 305ME @ LACT=1 30,9 32,1 32,3 32,1 30,4 30,5 29,5 31,2 31,3 31,3 20 305ME @ LACT=2 28,3 28,6 28,7 29,5 28,9 30,1 29,9 31,4 31,2 31,2 21 305ME @ LACT=3+ 26,3 26,5 26,8 26,8 26,2 26,9 25,9 26,9 27,3 27,3 22 305ME @ HERD 28,3 28,8 29,1 29,2 28,3 29,0 28,4 29,7 29,9 29,9 23 AVG COW FAT 3.54 3.45 3.56 3.53 3.5 3.58 3.61 3.57 3.52 3.61 24 AVG SCC HERD 215 189 185 210 225 265 272 245 236 215 25 %SCC>500 7 9 8 11 8 12 11 12 10 10 26 COW INVENTORY 27 TOTAL MILK COWS 675 718 712 735 726 707 720 715 710 715 28 TOTAL DRY COWS 120 173 195 124 134 96 113 151 121 135 29 TOTAL CALVES 68 65 61 56 78 59 63 76 58 76 30 TOTAL ANIMALS @ HERD 863 956 968 915 938 862 877 942 889 926 31 TOTAL 1ST LACT 281 289 297 281 287 271 276 281 291 283 32 TOTAL 2ND LACT 220 229 241 229 215 215 222 240 218 225 33 TOTAL 3RD+ LACT 294 373 369 349 342 321 335 345 322 342 34 COWS DIED 4 1 4 2 4 3 5 5 3 4 [1 EXHIBIT S Use #I ) ) ) { ti "..rr�'/ > V ,+ ,cir'v-. :,. 'W6D[ I a , ;MFR..,. T' ..` a„`"""4+Y x,.,ns I., '1'°'kw_ Y ..;~'..,., .�". /r li ,e�.-".:s.ypp= ate,.:." .. w ..r�,w+Liu33F _ i₹a'neddgPoSy 1 .. .a. Y_ r � c ,,. '.. �ypr. l•-•f" Y.'rIT�" •-F .vim n ^`"'c"s/' - l.! ... '" _. .- L 'I. n . ..-. �.�..- ...... . -�_.. ...• „i •`'."" _ �:� '. _mot k p t. 3 w— ..... �p +.va..w..w —'�'^.-"^- 01 ' D cwt r' 7 ---— 2V r .�^iaA' A4'L4 'PO-0` bd5"aNYC'Bof - a/ ' {f -.13*,'), ,,,:71. b 'q� `� r Yy}• , .a ti, Nyis a ✓K �'� EXHIBIT ¢ax <f I b> n I ,�+.1 l,�w. do- _r t' Y .. 't x+ .....-::,-(;-,.,47.71,, w ,{� r a`.$J�I„c 1 'v+Y.a o- �� . M ` _ tAS2,#13� -�. Y 4.1 a : �, dz ; ,., Zee Q / /47 1 7 Cab ^ice / f I ..7 /:p S �� P� / s Tr i( r , :. . ,f i / ' - i . 1El e; 41 a ix r � ' . � / k. fSa_11�. B'.. i•`.7 ��.� ~..i.,4-.:,i V 1 a% 1 . / 4- yyy I r 4 111 F k 121 r $4, i f Irv4 .1 / I 44' / ti ' ,\ . : I:, .(101;4') i I , „,.4,:17, 5,41ir -14 vt, " r.. } ^ f i ,1 ' •..a I i�f5 3 F t =I '� t iA !c" : E` - 35:. .. . v rihrif,, L ; ;; 1 u O; 4 . . t ;:k ' -4 yiLp , ..L,!5. tt i•,�r ,i i l t # i, } .k N 4.tiff I r ! ; 4p 1.1 I 0 i • ¢ 1 k 4 b s f x (fir r I I \ , . all ' ,c a ' o , z e H 41v. ^ iii�i % �.. i , : h I. k j 1 x. �Y� 1 Y I " r i. 11I , I , I I1 k i. ₹ , Y$ 1 4; ;kf'' ` 1 II 1 i to It e F , .x 1 Iit h4 , L M1 e Y.1 y a t. if �_ 11/4 k t ; i 1= �(t` � I 4"-'44" ► I 'I E I I � y}{+ �, , 1 �I v \ 1, 1 Oki , ft. toot.. g,Y1 ; t I 't i "; y 'i a u�` I }glk o 'i� `, ';.=• c.'<'",,'''' cw . . y . 22 . \, «3 \ \ >gv.> .y 4 \ dam = }� . . . . . . .�� .-:-..,,I.„ :mwe wa < ryw « -* ��? « /� y < \« \ � ' y/ ,r, \ / _< y,. . yy , , < » < : « ©y»§ x: 2 ? - . / / \ \ " . . - w. ; \ \ »>} \ » , r : . . \\ \ . \• < d . d : , > P bF y I ( r / 5 At . 9l CI 1 �� \it'eup,i.A,6,5 0 ,. . -i-. ! I pry' • ` l K I , 6 ke�ix,�a C F A _ r ..' 8 iliAL; , \ , OuNG7 ?uPei S A gE '. ri=. 2 M-K IN A A rrc 6 t vTh cTY y5n-m i A S ,ifmTt. iiS. rte • �F� - <F\1 :.- - ₹a { 6 University of Nebraska Extension EC 91-1763.B ins • L Work By James R. Brandle. University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Sherman Finch. Soil Conservation Service Windbreaks are barriers used to reduce and redirect As wind blows against a windbreak, air pressure wind. They usually consist of trees and shrubs. but builds up on the windward side(the side towards the may also be perennial or annual crops and grasses. wind). and large quantities of air move up and over the fences, or other materials. The reduction in wind speed top or around the ends of the windbreak. Windbreak behind a windbreak modifies the environmental condi- structure—height. density, number of rows, species tions or microclimate in the sheltered cone. composition. length,orientation, and continuity—de- termines the effectiveness ofa windbreak in reducing wind speed and altering the microclimate. �T— • • -1 N ��. • e \/ •� • . EXHIBIT • ct US12 # 13-% A uwelldesigned/arm or ranch incorporates many types of windbreaks to protect fields. livestock and the homesite. Iv -'t Windbreak Characteristics Effect of height 4111. Open Wind Speed 20 mph Deciduous 25-35% Density Windbreak height(H)is the most important factor determining the downwind area protected by a wind- break. This value varies from windbreak to windbreak. ee•. bs , �: �� ,"-;..,��,,; and increases as the windbreak matures. In multiple- n _ "' �u 'qtr.30 row windbreaks• the height of the tallest tree-row de- n y- y:' termines the value of H. miles per hour 1O- 13 16 17 20 _ On the windward side of a windbreak. wind speed t r ' 7s .. - �` n -`10 reductions are measurable upwind for a distance of 2 �r _ �}til - �0 6 to 5 times the height of the windbreak (2H to 5H). On the leeward side(the side away from the wind), wind speed reductions occur up to 301-I downwind of the Open Wind Speed 20 mph Conifer 40-60% Density barrier. For example, in a windbreak where the tallest trees are 30 ft. lower wind speeds are measurable for 60 ft to 150 It on the windward side, and up to 900 ft on the leeward side- Within this protected zone, the ce �,,,��T i- - ,.I ""'30 structural characteristics ola windbreak,especially H density,determine the extent of wind speed reductions. miles per hour 6 10 12 15 19 Effect of density speedy ° W0%• � 5, Mil Windbreak density is the ratio of the solid portion of 'i the barrier to the total area of the barrier. Wind flows through the open portions of a windbreak, thus the 4, Open Wind Speed 20 mph Multi Row 60-80% Density more solid a windbreak, the less wind passes through. Low pressure develops on the leeward side of very dense windbreaks. This low pressure area behind the windbreak pulls air coming over the windbreak down- ward.creating turbulence and reducing protection st 1nZ z fi downwind. As density decreases. the amount of air r, i...s',i. �', ,, t e A. 1,j,t'4 passing through the windbreak increases,moderating �-:r xb the low pressure and turbulence,and increasing the miles per hour 5 7 13 17 19 length of the downwind protected area. While this row l'- protected area is larger, the wind speed reductions are c j 44t ° ?t''''''''''. not as great. By adjusting windbreak density different irlm„ �:• -W ' -j'' $.! - :m wind flow patterns and areas of protection are estab- lished(Figure 1). • In designing a windbreak,density should be adjusted Open Wind Speed 20 mph I Solid Fence 100% Density to meet landowner objectives. A windbreak density of 40 to 60 percent provides the greatest downwind area of protection and provides excellent soil erosion con- trol. To get even distribution of snow across a field. '+ tp'' ce +' r e m `- ` s�"' densities of 25 to 35 percent are most effective, but may not provide sufficient control of soil erosion. miles per hour 5 14 18 19 20 Windbreaks designed to catch and store snow in a _ _ confined area usually have several rows,and densities ; t 'k�"'rt " ` 4 c,' 6 in the range of 60 to 80 percent. Farmsteads and live- - • _ .. _. ,< _ stock areas needing protection from winter winds require multiple row windbreaks with high densities. Figure I. Wind speed reductions to the lee of windbreaks with differ- In o ent densities. Al density of 25-35 96. B1 density ofp the protected 0-GO 96. C)density wind speed reductions are greater but of 60-80 96. DI density of 100%. cases,area is smaller. ti The number of rows, the distance between trees,and species composition are factors controlling windbreak A density. Increasing the number of windbreak rows or WIINDRt+ SR greasing the distance between trees increases den • - and provides a more solid barrier to the wind. The PROTECTED AREA species chosen for the windbreak will determine height as well as density.and will influence the length of the sheltered area. The interaction of height and density determines the degree of wind speed reduction,and ultimately the length of the protected area. For a given height, the protected area usually increases as density increases. However, if density is below 20 percent,the windbreak (.7tWINDBREAS-'2 LZ0113NFI does not provide useful wind reductions. If density is above 80 percent.excessive leeward turbulence may PROTECTED AREA reduce windbreak effectiveness beyond 8H. • The cross-sectional shape of windbreaks with equal densities has minimal influence on wind velocities within lOH of the leeward side of a barrier. Beyond IOH. straight sides provide slightly more protection than slanted sides,because more wind passes through the trees, and extends the protected area farther to the leeward. ew Effect of orientation Windbreaks are most effective when oriented at right Figure 2. In areas with variable winds, multiple-leg windbreaks or angles to prevailing winds. The purpose and design of windbreak systems provide greater protection to the field orfarm- h windbreak is unique. thus the orientation of indi- stead than single-leg windbreaks. vtuual windbreaks depends on the design objectives. wind changes direction and is no longer blowing di- Farmsteads and feedlots usually need protection rectly against the windbreak, the protected area de- from cold winds and blowing snow or dust. Orienting creases (See Figure 21. The use of multiple-leg wind- these windbreaks perpendicular to the troublesome breaks provides a larger protected area than a single winter wind direction provides the most useful protec- windbreak. Again, individual placement depends on bon. the site, the wind direction(s).and the design objec- tives. Field crops usually need protection from hot,dry summer winds.abrasive.wind-blown soil particles,or Effect of length both. The orientation of these windbreaks should be perpendicular to prevailing winds during critical grow- Although the height of a windbreak determines the ing periods. extent of the protected area downwind, the length of a windbreak determines the amount of total area receiv- Successful field windbreaks should be designed to fit ing protection. For maximum efficiency, the uninter- within the fanning operation. Consideration should be rupted length of a windbreak should exceed the height given to reducing wind erosion. providing crop protec- by at least 10:1. This ratio reduces the influence of tion. increasing irrigation efficiency and improving end-turbulence on the total protected area. wildlife habitat. Windbreaks protect fall-seeded small grains like winter wheat that may need protection from The continuity of a windbreak also influences its summer and winter winds. To control soil erosion, efficiency. Gaps in a windbreak become funnels that windbreaks should be planted to block the prevailing concentrate wind flow.creating areas on the downwind winds during the times of greatest soil exposure-winter side of the gap in which wind speeds often exceed open and early spring. To recharge soil moisture with field wind velocities(Figure 3). Where there are gaps. drifting snow. windbreaks should be placed perpen- the effectiveness of the windbreak is diminished. Alkiiular to the prevailing winter winds. Lanes or field accesses through windbreaks should be located to minimize this effect or if possible avoided al- Although wind may blow predominantly from one di- together. rection for a season. it rarely blows exclusively from that direction. As a result. protection is not equal for all areas on the leeward side of a windbreak. As the Microclimate modifications The reduction in wind velocity - behind a windbreak leads to a change in the microclimate within ! ---: the protected zone. Temperature and . .4.4 ±4et; r humidity levels usually increase. 60,80 y-_i:" ri , 6'0'80 - decreasing evaporation and plant r7: • water loss.Actual temperature `� modifications fora given windbreak depend on windbreak height,density. OPII ,l orientation. and time of day. Daily `f air temperatures wittintOHleeward - _ f ur' of a windbreak, are generallyseveral degrees higher than temperatures in -- the open. Beyond I0H, air tempera- tures near the ground tend to be 1 's cooler during the day. On most 20-40 nights. temperatures near the ground in sheltered areas(OH to 30H) are , in slightly warmer than in the open. - i, However,on very calm nights, shel- • -�r tered areas may be several degrees „,} . • -' cooler than open areas. - r: ;y 20-40 Soil temperatures in sheltered • \ areas are usually slightly warmer ��' than in unsheltered areas.Taking . advantage of these warmer tempera- - tures may allow earlier planting and - 60-80 .--• germination in areas with short growing seasons. In the area next to an east-west windbreak soil tempera- tures are significantly higher on the 20-40 ® 60-80 •ttr ii[I south side due to heat reflected by the windbreak. On the north side of . an east-west windbreak.SO. Cem- Figure 3. Wind flow increases through gaps in a windbreak decreasing the effectiveness of the windbreak. Numerical values represent the percent Of open field u'tnd speed (after peratures.especially in the early ,vageHl. spring, are lower due to shading by the windbreak. These cooler temperatures may reduce Most windbreak benefits come about indirectly be- the rate of snow melt, and cause problems with field cause of changes in the microclimate of the sheltered access in early spring. zone. One exception is the direct benefit of reducing wind speed to control soil erosion. A well designed Relative humidity in sheltered areas is 2 to 4 percent windbreak can reduce soil erosion to near zero within higher than in openareas.depending on windbreak ION of the leeward side of the tree row. density. Higher humidity decreases the rate of plant water use, so production is more efficient than in Summary unsheltered areas. However, if the windbreak is too dense, and humidity levels get too high. diseases may Windbreaks reduce wind speed on both the leeward become a problem in some crops. and windward sides.The resulting reductions in wind speed lead to moderation of the microclimate in these Heat loss due to wind-chill is reduced on the leeward protected zones. With careful planning. and in consul- side of a windbreak. Moderation of the chill factor is tation with local professionals. these changes in micro- most important in farmstead and livestock windbreaks climate can be used to create desirable environments where humans and other animals readily notice in- for growing crops.raising livestock, and protecting the creased energy efficiency. living and working areas. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work.Acts of May 8 and June 30. 1914. in cooperation with the U.S. Department of flan .Agricult ire. Kenneth R. Bolen. Director of cooperative Extension. University of Nebraska. Institute of Agriculture;Ind Neutral Resources Cooperative Extension provides Information and educational programs to all people without regard to race.color.national ungin sea or handicap. DcDcuw This series of windbreak publications is jointly sponsored by the University of Nebraska. the USDA Soil Conservation Service. t:o.:C o" Noah Dakota State University and the Forest stewardship Program of The Nebraska Forest Service Its goal Is to • corms ride the proper management of all of our woi sitand resnuroes. Estimates vary on the seasonal application in an urban setting. �� from reductions t 40% from 40%figure one or two row windbreak is from 3% to 40%.The 40%figure extremely effective for limited; applies to the situation of poorly situations and in fact,studies h sealed buildings in the windiest con- shown only a small benefit in re ditions such as those found En the ing air exchange by adding moi northern Great Plains rows to the windbreak. • ^�/�D There are several important points to For quicker results, one or two n remember when designing a wind- windbreaks are often planted at break First, for a windbreak to be close spacings. A single row of most effective it should be perpen- evergreens like pines•spruce arm `! i�r�� dicular to the prevailing winds. Since can be planted 6-8 feet apart, with: i the wind doesn't blow from just one some thinning necessary at a later direction and windbreaks aren't port- time.A second row could be added The story begins . . . . _ able,the best solution is to place the 12 feet away.The additional space It was a cold plantings on at least the north and • between rows allows more light to - - west sides of the structure to be pro- reach lower branches.A staggered and January night• • - tatted.Consider protecting all sides planting will increase effectiveness How would most Nebraskans fill in .. _ _ for maximum effectiveness. Be sure • • • In mocking winds that hit the the blank?"Windy'comes to mind to consider winter shading of the .- windbreak at a right angle. more often than not Thestory in structure and snow drifting. Nebraska generally readscold - For years the standard formula for windy weather and high winter - _ locating the windbreak has been energy costs.Windbreaks can based on the tree height(H),so that ZH-d H' change this familiar storyline for the windbreak is placed ten times many homeowners.This newsletter the height of the trees away from the L 'ti.,•"„will help you edit your landscape fori�,� : '�, a happy ending to your energy saga. stricture it is to protect.This led to •t L.....•-• confusion since the tree height(H) '�---%. 1 �, For homeowners who livein the changes over time.A recent trend ti.. country or on-an acreage.-there are has been to make the recommenda- several sources of excellent informa- tion from a more permanent feature- A more naturalistic. mixed species creates ticn on the design and planting of structure height(H'). a wider zone of protection. . windbreaks.These include the Ne- Many factors such as shading, snow- A mixture of species of plants within braska Forest Service, the Natural drifts and available space influence the windbreak is an unconventional Resource Districts,and the Coopera- windbreak placement With those approach, but one that makes good rive Extension Service.When it considerations in mind,a windbreak sense.Avoiding a situation of just comes to planting in an urban or • location should be selected.between one kind of plant is smart from the ngiphborhood situation, the scale of 2H'and 4H'feet from the structure. disease and insect situation. Re- tr roject changes. But the prin- This will provide maximum energy search has also shown that the c,,..es don't.This newsletter will conservation. If a windbreak is to be resulting "rough edge effect" of a focus on the basics of windbreaks placed on the south side of a struc- mixed species planting increase the and how they can be adapted to an ture it should be placed 3H' or 4H' protection zone of the windbreak urban environment feet away to avoid shading and allow The mixed planting also provides Most Nebraskans know that wind- favorable solar energy gain. more interest in the landscape and is breaks help reduce home heating more naturalistic in appearance. costs but they don't know how. Air Other landscape features can com- exchange, solar radiation transmis- w'"° H, element the effectiveness of a small sion through windows, and heat con- •itl,. windbreak planting. Berms, or gentle duction through walls, floors. �f�-, - zr, mounds of soil in the landscape,can ceilings, and windows are the three Berm , be constructed then planted with the ways that homes gain or lose heat. windbreak species. In a sense, they Here we'll focus on air exchange • add immediate height for the since it is the culprit that windbreaks Berms complement the effectiveness of windbreak to begin protecting the affect.Air moves in and out of small plantings houses through cracks around doorslength structure.immediate des can i used for and windows, and through small The aof a the structure windbreak should anotheret yet limited wind- extend beyond the structure it is to break structure. pores in the walls.This is partially protect The extra length provides due to differences in inside and out- additional protection from a wider Taking good care of the windbreak side temperatures, so lowering the range of wind directions. It also planting will mean the planting will thermostat to reduce the differencetake good care of you sooner. Water reduces the impact on the structure can help. Air exchange is also due to of the wind turbulence at the ends of and weed control are the two critical wind pressure.As the wind speed the windbreak components in a care program. increases the wind pressures in- Drip irrigation systems have proven crease and the air exchange T 5 and 10 row windbreaks often to be very effective in windbreak ncreases Windbreaks interfere in f nd in agriculture have little plantings and also efficient in this cycle by reducing windspeeds • The windier the condition,the greater impact the windbreak will Nebraska Statewide Arboretum have on reducing total heat loss. y-,.- -, '' 112 Forestry Sciences Laboratory '-" �;' ' �, University of Nebraska t'f ai • - �4 ' Lincoln NE 68583-0823 Itt. for ♦ ). „'' 4f5. energy i • - ezeO-Cese9 3N ulODL e)seJgaN jo OiisJanrt /uoieiogr saauaio9 kitsatod 3 wniaJogJy apimajejS pseigy H3ll31SM3 .. . • HISPEBS conserving the water resource.At A wildlife packet containing 60 trees, UNL, Lincoln, NE 68503.0814, or any rate, regular and thorough water-. 10 trees of 6 species is also avail- your County Extension Service. ing will maximize growth when in able for promoting wildlife habitat for \ conjunction with good weed control. a wide range of birds and animals. Learn to Conserve Energy Whether you choose hand or chemi- cal weed control, mulching can make Keep in mind these seedlings are Naturally the job easier. Mulches have the 12-15" in size. For better survival in The multi-media program that added benefits of soil high traffic areas, it is wise to obtain addresses the questions of how to added e, moderating conserving n the plants from a commercial nur- _ . implement energy conserving land- moi ture, mod,and raati g l tern- sery Talk to the local nurseryman scape practices is now available to organic matter to the soil. now to make arrangements for larger community groups. Conserve Energy -plants._. - — -- - - Naturally is a 20 minute slide show • For information on Clarke-McNary on conservation principles as an Sources for Windbreak Trees - seedlingpss,,contact the Nebraska - - introduction to the one hour seminar Tree and shrub seedlings are avail- ForestService, 101 Plant tndustry.• conducted by the Arboretum Educa- able for windbreak and other toner - - -• . --- tion Director.The program is also vation plantings through the Clarke- available on video-tape for small McNary program.Generally this pro- --. / greed group study. gram supplies trees to farmers and - ��✓��J�GGCi✓ Contact the Arboretum office to ranchers, but Nebraskans can also - make arrangements for the conse tape advantage of It for their urban vation program in your communi• cohservation plantings. Over 25 kinds of seedlings can be purchased ..' This material was prepared with for 533 per 100. Each species is ' at: support of the U.S. Department -,+railable in multiples of 50, with a . - _ • Energy(DOE) Grant No. DE-FG al minimum order of 100. Neigh- .r ri- _: 80CS69109, and Oil Overchan ..orhood cooperative purchase of the — w •• .= Escrow Funds. However, any seedlings can mean best use of the _ et:, e- art, -. opinions,findings, conclusions minimum orders of 100 plants, and - - _ �.., recommendations expressed $ can also encourage aconcerted - r t' r- - �• • a f .. are those of the author and do effort by the community. - 4 - ,40, ve necessarily reflect the views o • July 2001 • The • nal .pp j• Volume LXIX Number 3 ' •L' The Sales Comparison Approach and l i the Appraisal of Complete Facilities fa �r a rva f See inside for more Ar{ • .REF S ' i I: EXHIBIT usk #ice A APPRAISAL INSTITUTE® I features Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values by John A. Kil irk abstract Property located� '.. concentrated animal feeding operation(CAFO) ncentrated animal feeding operations (CMOs) are often called"feed_ by this extenwity. The Co . lots."They may include facilities where animals are raised or where animals are degree of impairment brro u ht i oyr loa�anter.imals.' common denominator is a large,perpetual inventory depends on proximity and Currently, the USDA and the EPA estimate that livestock in the United property type and we. States produces 130 times the amount of manure produced by the entire her- Properties hith higher man population of this country. Spills from CAFOs have killed fish in several unimpaired values are states;phosphorus in land and water has been correlated with livestock density; Prof,impacted more and manure has caused eutrophication and degradation of U.S. waterways.' than otherwise lower- The trend toward CAFOs has been rapid and pronounced in the U.S., but valued properties. federal and state laws generally are considered to have some gaps.In addition to water quality issues resulting from manure and waste run-off, these facilities attract flies and other insects and pests that parasitize the insects.' Professor John Ikert,an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri at Columbia, sums up the problems quite succinctly in a recent working paper when he says, "Piling up too much 'stuff' in one place causes problems."Writing specifically about swine CMOs, he goes on to comment, "If you spread out the hogs and let hog manure lay where it falls in a pasture,it doesn't bother anyone very much.But if you start collecting it,flushing it,spreading and spraying it around—. all normal practices in confinement hog operations—it becomes air pollution."* Because of the noxious and obvious problems associated with CAFOs,many states have enacted severe restrictions on permits. For example, in 1997 the 1. Numerous documents were reviewed to develop this section,see subsequent footnotes for details.Much of the Open nom n enchature Water, from rattlDrew ww L Ker�AID,and Chuck Barlow,ID,'Concentrated Animal Feeding on Agricultural Management Roundtable lion Environmentalmf han BarAssociation Special Committee (Sep- tember 23,1999). Challenges in Animal Feeding Operations,2. Stephen'arm, Developmentsn Bar b Water Pouution Carts Strategies and Regulations.'Presented at the ,--. Challenges b Animal Special committee on Agricultural Management Roundtable II on Environmental Feeding Operations,Minneapolis,MN,(May 12,1999). 3. mental Responsibility.'It Working Water Sciences, 27 evil al). See Feeeding/www. ens—Renounces for EsMrwf agwaste.htmb for more details 4http://www.groundwatersysterns.contr tenystems.com/ 4. John wentEconomic,and CulturalImpacts otrarge-Scale,CorMrkment Animal Feeding Operadon.- World paper,University of MISSOllli(March 2,2001). NE legislature of typically livestock-friendly Oklahoma It is important to note that in the U.S.property mandated setbacks and other pollution controls,and itself is not "owned," but rather the rights of the in 1998 that legislature enacted a moratorium on property are owned."The ability to delineate these new livestock permits.' Kansas is another typically rights,and the ability of owners to transfer some or agriculture-friendly state that recently has enacted a all of these rights voluntarily is a necessary condi- moratorium on CAFOs,and it is considering legis- don for property valuation. lation to end CAFOs.'In 1998,the North Carolina legislature,faced with unregulated establishment of Use and Enjoyment CAFOs,enacted House Bill 1480,which mandated The first of these rights,that of use and enjoyment,is the registration of growers for integrators,extended generally interpreted to mean that the owner may de - a moratorium, and mandated substantial elimina- termine how property will be used,or if it is to be used don of both atmospheric emission of ammonia and at all.The right of use traditionally is limited in west- odor beyond the boundary of existing CAFOs.7 Min- em culture by both public restrictions (e.g., eminent nesota enacted similar odor control legislation in domain, police power) and private restrictions (e.g., 1997 and established both a complaint control pro- liens,morrg ge5)•Private restrictions are generally vol- tocol and an enforcement response protocol specific unary, and property owners willingly submit to the to CAFOs.' disutility of such restrictions in trade for some other economic benefit.For example,a property owner will CAFOs and the Value of Nearby Real issue a mortgage to a lender in trade for leverage in the Estate purchase.Also,a homeowner will purchase in a subdi- A CAFO impacts the value of proximate properties vision with covenants and restrictions in trade for the to the extent that the CAFO is viewed, in the mar- assurance of uniform property use within the neigh- ket,as a negative externality.'As an externality, it is borhood. It is noteworthy that the voluntary accep- typically not considered to be economically "cur- tance of private restrictions is always in trade for some able"under generally accepted appraisal theory and economic compensation. For example, a property practice tau Some of this loss in value may be at- owner may grant a scenic easement,which restricts the tributable to stigma,when there are unknowns and use and enjoyment of his or her property,but will«- risks associated with ownership of the property. pea to be compensated for that easement. An impairment often places a restriction on the impairment and Value—An Overview right of use without some economic compensation. From an economic perspective, the rights enjoyed This is illustrated in potential restrictions that may be by a fee-simple owner fall into three categories: placed on the use of real estate due to a physical im- pairment and can thus limit the property to something 1. Right of use and enjoyment 2. Right of exclusion less than its highest and best use.For example,odor or flies from a nearby CAFO will restrict the use and en- 3. Right of tratsfer13 joyment of impaired property without compensation. 5.Michelle Stephens,"NGO and Grassroots Perspectives and Action."Presented at the American Bar Association Special Committee on Agricultural Management Roundtable Bon Environmental Challenges in Animal Feeding Operations,Minneapolis,MN,(May 12,1999). 6.Roger Myers,'Graves May Uft ucensl g Ban on large-Scale Hog Fanning,'The Topeka Kansas journal(24,1998). 7.Michael C.Williams,"CAFO Odor Control Options.'Working paper, North Carolina State University,presented at the American Bar Association Special Committee on Agricultural Management Roundtable 11 on Environmental Challenges in Animal Feeding Operations(September 23,1999). 8.Michael Sullivan,'Minnesota's Program Regarding Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from CMOs.'Working paper,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, presented at the American Bar Association Special Committee on Agricultural Management Roundtable II on Environmental Challenges in Animal Feeding operation(September 23,1999). 9.For a thorough discussion in this context,see Appraisal Institute,The Appraisal of Real Estate,11th Ed.(Chicago:Appraisal Irutltute,1996):46-48, 336-337,398. 10.Ibid.,336-337. 11.For a discussion of the incurability of external obsolescence,see Hal Smith and John Comfit,Real Estate Perspectives,2nd Ed.(Boston:Irwin,1992): 524. 12.Under some circumstances,such as a alas-action suit,the externality may be curable.However,when considering one impacted parcel alone,the ^^ externality probably is not economically curable. 13.While owners'rights are delineated in many texts,this specific characterization is derived from Austin I.Mee and Demetrios Louziods Ir.,"Property Rights and Economic NRclency,"journal of Real Estate Literature(4,1996):137-162. 14.Armen A.Aichlan and Harold Demsetz,'The Property Rights Paradigm,"journal of Economic History(53,March 1973): 16-27.See also,Harold Demsetz,'Toad a Theory of Property Rights,'American Economic Review(57,1967):347-373. 4 ®11rlgrrallrruIIE 7001 'II I, Right of Exclusion Real estate economics and I' t The right of exclusion—often called the right of I, LI exclusive use or right of exclusive enjoyment—pro- appraisal practice uniformly vides that those who have no claim on property 'I t i should not gain economic benefit from enjoyment recognize that many i of the property. In other words, the right of use is externalities such as exclusive to the property owner, and any violation of the right of exclusive use typically carries either contamination may have a payment of compensation to the rightful owner or negative impact on propertyill I i'Li I assessment of a penalty. For example, if"A" ties- ++�� II passes on land owned by"B,"then"A"will be guilty value?' I of a crime and a possible criminal penalty may be in order,as well as civil damages.Physical impairment, II such as the odor or flies, in effect is a trespass on to consider the impacts of such contamination in the property rights and violates the right of exclusion. value estimation process.17 Society places a high value on the right of exclu- Fianle was one of the first ro look az the value of I�l sion,for justifiable reasons.Exclusion provides that rights of a property owner In the face of impair- III both the current benefits of ownership as well as the meat—in that case,a toxic chemical pollution.As an future benefits accrue only to the rightful owner, anthropologist and a professor of anthropology she and his/her successors and assigns.In the absence of looks principally at residanial values and considers not ll exclusion, the right of use is under constant threat only the real aspects of"violation of the home"by con- of nullification without just compensation. In an nomination (e.g., carcinogenic effects of polluting economy without the right of exclusion, property chemicals)but also the symbolic intufrxence of what III li owners would adopt short-term strategies for use, she calls "...a threat to the assumptions people have rather than long-term strategies. d an economic Inabout themselves and the way life is supposed to be."" sense,this would lead to widespread inefficiency riht o in She notes,"Toxic contamination also attacks the val- the allocation of resources. Hence, the right of ex- clusion carries with it a significant societal good," ued institution of homeowner-ship,violating many of a6 the rights that are assumed 03 flow from the ownership and thus a significant,societally recognized value. of ones home,including the assumed right to control i entry to it....Chemical contamination may affect Right of Transfer homeowners more seriously than renters,not only in ability,the right swap transfer resource provides for the owner Art terms of potential financial loss,but also in terms of the m im t restricts one right of another ay devaluation of die achieved status of homeowners." improy the fthe ral ogetherfer, and may Edelstein also deals with this"home"theme,and destroy the right of transfer altogether. calls impairment to or near a residence an"...inver- I Effects of Negative Externalities on reran of home..."when"...the previous locus of fun- ily security and identity becomes instead a place of property Values danger and defilement"20 He builds on previo s III Real estate economics many and sas practice uniformly works, such as Perkin and Altman and Chemers, u recognize that manyexternalitiestiimp such aso conterty v ins the home has in lion may have a negative impact on property values. that show the very special place For exatnple appraisers are required by the Uniform American society, culture, and economics. Perin Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) states,"Not being a nation of shopkeepers,America I American Philosophical Quarterly(9,April 1992). 15.See for example,Frank Snare, The Concept of Property,' 455-469. 16.George Stigler,'Law or EcawmirsU"journal of law and Ecm anla(35,October1992): permitted.For a unreels 17.TMs S opedfally covered under USPAP Rule 1-2(e).TIM is one of the rules from which departure ly 1995):128-129,Fo129,149-54, discussion of the apprelsers respordbRity see also.I.D.Eaton,Real Estate Valuation in Litigation(Chicago:Appraisal 235-37. The Cultural Meanings of Home and FsomeawrKrsNP:Numon Organiza- tion 18.pant M.Fltchen."When Toxic Chemicals Pollute Residential Environments: yon(48,Winter 1989):313-324. 19.Ibid.,320. of ArdmltecWre Planning and Research(3,1986):237-251. 20.Michael R.Edelstein,"Toxic Exposure and the Inversion of the Morrie,"journalUniversity Press, 986):. 21.Constance Perin, Everything In its pass Social Order and Land Use in America(Princeton,NI:Princeton 22.1 Altman and M.Chetners,Culture and Environment(Monterey,CA Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1980). merr aithiJRi I elraa 6ari =-J ll.d,g'n88FmI"'RK I .11 is one of homeowners, busily investing in plant expense born either by the property owner or some ! maintenance and expansion with both money and other responsible parry,while the latter manifests in — :' time, keeping the product attractive for both use property value diminution even in the absence of a and sale."73 cost to cure. For example, a property that is corn- Edelstein specifically stresses the investment pletely cured may continue to suffer a diminution diminution aspect of the inversion of home prin- in value, and hence damages,because of stigma. ciple.In citing case studies of experiences following Kilpatrick outlines the quantitative model by neighborhood-wide impairment in the Legler sec- which the value of income producing property is tion of Jackson Township in southern New Jersey, reduced by the effects of stigma manifested via in- he shows that residents could not separate the psy- creases in market driven capitalization rates.7b He dialogical pride in home ownership from the ques- outlines four components of income producing don of economic value. Surveys of the population property value impacts: net operating income, =- found uniformity of opinion that property values tual cost-to-cure,ongoing increases in maintenance, had diminished as a result of the problem. While and stigma. In his model, the stigma losses actually previous studies had focused on the diminution of overwhelm the other three factors as a component value from existing homes,Edelstein was one of the of value diminution.He concludes that under many first to focus on the opportunity costs stemming circumstances the stigma impacts are actually the from the inability to move. In short, homeowners greater portion of value losses to property owners. were stuck holding unsellable homes with stagnant prices, while homes in other neighborhoods were Other Proximate Contamination Issues soaring in value.Thus,the owners were harmed not The issue of value loss for proximate contamination only by the diminution of value in the existing resi- or other impacts has been considered in a number dences,but by the opportunity costs inherent in lost of studies, and includes how the citing of an exter- y gains from alternative home investments. nality, such as a CAFO, can impact nearby values. Some of the earliest researchers,such as Blomquist, _ Value Loss: Stigma issues looked at the impact of locating a power generating Edelstein refers, in a general sense, to the issue of plant,�7 while Guntermann showed that landfills stigma as a mechanism for manifestation of value have a negative impact on the value of surrounding diminution in residential property. Stigma is an in- industrial property, and that this value loss has a creasingly common term in appraisal and real estate spatial component.n Kinnard and Geclder had simi- j economics literature, and xcfcsa to a very specific lar findings for nuclear facilities?as did Kinnard" quantitative mechanism by which value is impacted and KieP1 for hazardous waste sites. by proximate contamination or negative extern&- In a similar vein, Colwell analyzes the property ties. value diminution associated with proximity to power The earliest references to stigma as a quantita- lines,32 and Kirshner and Moore show that water tive concept in real estate economics appear to be in quality can impact nearby residential property val- the writings of Patchin7A and Mundy.35 The latter ues.33 Simons's study of pipeline ruptures shows that I, study differentiated between the cost to cure and diminution in value occurs on properties up to two the cost of stigma.The former is an out-of-pocket miles from the site of a petroleum spill" . i! 23.Perin,120. ', 24.Peter Patchin,'Contaminated Properties-Stigma Revisited,'The Appraisal puma(Aprd,1991):162-172. I ' 25.William Mundy,"SBgma and Values,The Appr°hd Journal Oanwry,1992):7-13. 26.John KRpaMds,'Appraisal of contaminated Propetty,'Career Now(University of South Carolina,Dada Moore School of Business,Mgrs 1998). 27.Glenn Blomquist,'The Effect of Electric Utility Power Plant location on Area Property Values,'Land Ecoromia(50:1,1974):97-100. I E,. II I 28.Karl Guntermann,'Sanitary Landfills,Stigma and Industrial Land Values,"puma!d Real Estate Reseda,(10:5,1995):531-542.. '.' 29.William Kinnard and Mary Beth Gelder,"The Effects on Residential Real Estate from Proximity to Properties Contaminated with Radioactive MaKrF ILLI els,"Red Estate Issues(Fall/Winter,1995):25-36. I,1 30.William Kinnard,'Analyzing the Stigma Effect of Proximity to a Hazardous Waste She,"Environmental Stitch(December,1989):4-7. I;II 31.Katherine Kid,'Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values,'Land Eco omia(71:4, III,.. 1995)426-435. * t 32.Per Corm',"Power Lines and Value/Journal of Red Estate Reward;(5:1,1990):117-127. n'I iy;.I 33.D.Kirshner and Deborah Moore,'The Effect of San Francisco Bay Water Quality an Adjacent Property Values,'puma,o(Enwonmemtd Management I I P I (27,1989):263-274. II I c,j 34.Robert A Simons,"The Effect of Pipeline Ruptures on Noncontamlnated Residential Easement-Holding Properly in Fairfax County,"The Appraisal a lound(hdy,1999):255-263. I ®lit Witul Ifni kl1J001 • Case Studies counties.They found a statistically significant pric- The following cases illustrate the effects of CAFOs ing impact related both to the existence of a CAFO and the impact of CMOs on property value. as well as the distance from the CAFO. In other words, not only does a CAFO have a significant Minnesota Case Study" impact on property value,but the nearer the CAFO, A homeowner in Minnesota lives about two miles the greater the impact. The researchers also found from one swine CAFO and about three-quarters of that CMOs tend to be located near older or lower a mile from a second CAFO. When these CAFOs valued homes.Hence,the pricing impacts in a simple were first opened in the early 1990s, she was ini- empirical study may be muted by other negative daily a supporter. However, she and her family im- impacts to value, and high-valued residences may mediately began suffering illnesses, which they at- be impacted to a greater degree by CAFOs than tributed to the proximate CAFOs. She contacted would be suggested by their findings. the Minnesota poison control center and for the first time learned about the dangers of hydrogen sulfide University of Missouri Study" emissions.She kept track of her illnesses and weather Following the methodology of the Minnesota study, conditions(e.g.,wind and direction)and concluded researchers at the University of Missouri were able that her illnesses were caused by the emissions from to quantify both the average value impact of a CAFO the CMOs.Testing was warranted, and on at least and the impact by distance.An average vacant par- one occasion the reading was above 1,000 ppb hy- cel within 3 miles of a CAFO experienced a value drogen sulfide,well above danger levels. loss of about 6.6%. However, if that parcel was lo- cated within one-tenth of a mile from the CAFO North Carolina Study" (the minimum unit of measure in the study) and Palmquist,a.al,were the first to quantitatively de- had a residence on it,then the loss in value was esti- termine that the distance from a residence to a mated at about 88.3%. CAFO has an impact on residential values. How- ^ ever, their study looked only at residences already Pasco, Washington Case Study" near CMOs and measured the impacts of additional A 309-acre family farm that had been operated for CAFO capacity (either new CAFOs or additional many years produced alfalfa,asparagus,corn,apples, livestock at existing CMOs) located at 0.5-. 1.0-, peaches,nectarines,cherries,melons,and a range of and 2.0-mile distances from the residence. None- garden produce.A CAFO was adjacent to the resi- theless,they established a methodological model for deuce (about %4 mile away), and consequently the spatial impacts of CMOs. farm product was impacted by dust, flies, fly fecal matter,and odor.The farm was appraised for litiga- University of Minnesota Study" tion purposes and a value diminution of over 50% In 1996,the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was determined, using traditional farm appraisal commissioned a study by researchers at the Univer- methods.The CAFO settled the lawsuit by purchas- shy of Minnesota on the topic of value diminution ing the plaintiff's farm and relocating the residents resulting from proximate CMOs. In addition to to a nearby farm that was not impacted by the CAFO substantial secondary research in the area,the study externalities. authors also conducted primary research into value impacts in that state. Specifically,they conducted a Michigan Hone Farm Case Stud" hedonic price analysis on 292 rural residences that A horse-breeding operation(owner-occupied farm) were sold during 1993-1994 in two Minnesota is located approximately 1,000 feet from a recently 35.Presentation at the American Bar Association Special Committee on Agricultural Management Roundtable lion Environmental Challenges in Animal Feeding Operations(September 23,1999).Results of the study not independently validated by the author. 36.R.Palmquist, F.Roka,and T.Vuldna,"Hog Operations,Environmental Impacts,and Residential Property Values,"Land Economic(73:1,1997):114- 124.Results of the study not independently validated by the author. i"^ 37.Steven I.Taff,Douglas Tiffany,and Sanford Weisberg,'Measured Effects of Feedlots on Residential Property Values in Minnesota:A Report to the Legislature,"University of Minnesota Staff Paper Series(July,1996).Results of the study not independently validated by the author. 38.Mubarek Hamed,Thomas Johnson,and Kathleen Miller,'The Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations on Rural Land Values,"University of Missouri- Columbia Community Policy Analysis Center Report R-99-02(May,1999).Results of the study not Independently validated by the author. 39.Mundy Associates,LLC files.Details of case confirmed by property owners. 40.Mundy Associates,LUX files.Details of the case confirmed by property owner and attorneys for both sides. roe[entlafl animal brlmi oration al proximate rosy ohm constructed large scale,Porkprocess' use and enjoyment of the home een di.The rangingmpaire ern 50% ne to arly 90%of otherwise trtt_ ished by airborne externalities,and the ability • I has bn diuse in- ur'Pd value. the site as a farm maybe compromised as a result of to a When CAFO, the app a property locatedproximate flies carrying animal blood and feces that contain specific issues,each of considernp seven i erty owner appealed fora property 2000, the prop- the value conclusions: have an impact on representing a devaluation o er 0% from tax fent airsubject p market value, and the county 1. Type of roperty, with that appeal attorney concurred 2. Distance to the CAF°, 3. Physical manifestations(e Michigan Residence Case Study" 4. Er rin seen ��air quality, )' airEngineering/scientific testing perforated (e.g.,AY Purchased a"fixer upper"residence in m- quality), l burg,Michigan in 1995. In 1997,a large- 5.income on vacanro use(e.g,habitability,rental pork processing facility was located about 700 I feet from the home. The reduction in air quality 6'comparable ropr evidence(e, .was so severe as to force the residents to abandon cemparable properties), g dine on market of their home and movee. o p per+«),and not been able to sell the a home. date, they have 7. Impact on highest and best use. facility offered to coin e owner of the While there is little processing facili ocompensate them for has an impact on surroun�nt that a CAFO 60% of the fair market value of the home (i.e., a degree of Impact is dearly a 60%diminution in value).As of this writing,litiga- proPettothei values, the don is pending. g trga- play of these factors. function of the inter- Summary and Conclusions The above suggests that the establishment of The result in a John A. Kilpatrick may value diminution to other A trick Is a partner on senior analyst nearby properties. The amount of the value loss is with Mundy Associates,LLC,an economic,market typically an inverse function ofdistance d and valuation ftrm ernes (closer estate matters headquarteredsPecealizing in complex real diminish moron a function of (newer, residence lose more), property type ton. Kilpatrick th in Seattle books Washing- , of property nicer c use �will lose and a function author of four s,and and value due to dimin- numqu en speaks on o real real estate matters,and is a ished productivity and comparative marketability frequent speaker on other farm lands).While the a to valuation. He did his estate k Real ate only begun q pp�profession has graduate work in t Real I to quantify the loss attributable to Finance S at the university of South Ca 9 First CAFOs> it is dear from the above case studies that contact:Suite shin ova diminished marketability,loss of use and enjoyment Avenue,Seattle,Wa:inn Watermark Tower n09 First and loss of exclus to fu(206) 9ton sstot.(zo6y 6211.2935; ry can result in a diminishment ;email:1°h^R'^ Y+awc r om ki Table Summary ry of CAFO impacts r Case Study Minnesota Value Loss North Carolina N/A Remarks University of Minnesota N/A Significant diminution in air quality UniverN/A s Established distance component to value ity of Missouri Residential 3 miles:6.6% O sited near older,less-expensive Residential 0.1 mile:83% homes Washington Family farm adjacent: Quantified average farm 50% Impact Wage value impact loss ofby distance Michigan included flies and farm Michigan residence Farm adjacent 50% income Residence adjacent:60-10p% Impact included loss of use as a farm Residence abandoned,could not be sold 41.Mundy Associates,LLC files.Details of the rare confirmed by property owns and mss. itn., a r-� PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County "Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family fanning operation in rural Weld County. Rather,we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address Telephone Signature 1 bigtne ,l 'aP R i(78/-/ 3,3 835 ( P.O. b of-Rt n 2 JAc&lb.Aa\`;v ara st1 o 3c St Fre a - 303-233- i -tit( �1gg 3 R fl off P.og gax�o6 3 - Vii ' AlIIL{I R gDL'/e/t/P1C ffledtfi i co c4L 363$.�7 / 5 �g4��r',c� iv,s-3>3b3-&$3-J'/c@uffit 1-41 4,ec44/.ck t4 6 o g95.7.O 3a7- e3?- (55)pe {? f--!i s 706 S-J- nre . 3 - S33 e /f1141Af°, c• mit-(4 L -moo z.iitic,Attur S t t0�-eng 461 10 fJ-v� fi,.�r�z ,?0‘ .�.�' 1�^a✓.,�1yrM.�N� sr c(-�j l -is�f�t 11 �(� " o \W .-E-\A�4 �.' �lY ftCI- 6�� et a 12 Lj nr75a j 6ri-f fr 35b.k 5 ApitiltrA. If: 753 -Z095- 13 `371‘O,() �I fiti... 7132, cerira.r are-,/ O 14 n.ltc. taw. --7°3 (ednf- , 133-b% m t-44(7“-ib .. 15 '�� ,M,. 701 o�av -!z 8331 7°S 16 Fibre3 Fri ".,�1 `7b0 & 5/. f33-5224 _tf4,.r,t r-- 17 ? Lgiti (2 i �arc zt,d QDO (S' +- S-r 833-0-k77 (Sittly 1e • �D /�I.� _ -too G',:i. .!- s-A 8373 -.22. 77 19 c- A 0199 ��a/// / —.34 fig , C 20 [a... ., _mil• /Z[tt.G-, d o(G .(..,.�.. !/J �Da�y4. A-w . M104,‘„,.4 „,.4 4 EXHIBIT Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 I ust 135 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County"Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather, we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address / Telephone (�[, Si�ggg�n�atyurre� c 22 21 k�rl 4°1 l5® Eml(;o S 3-Ct-tJ- o7b 1 41liL Lt E eu�lhi� ( / o1.5 .?'UD 51R. 5o3-g332Z76 vSci� 23 butt -a , �IQ�� 534 -2 03 -R33-22 6 a..e v 24 24 't 4 , ie I4�.aCH. 7 S 31,4, rU .Cow 303-533-303? 25 YYY 50Z9 i 5 t ( - 31 "ago- 25 SRRI3 tl'IJ REID Si 77//e4957.fiG 3 -2533 27 (00166CP �s��E/�r�id 05U/7cyob i/?irdcs,t Fri 3--(pea?9 �, 28 576)60 'JA2�U,Aio aoa #5kt4Es? 638.33-3(.0y - - 29 -01 0 t t%r Zo 2 `Mc.4?ka 5 . &cc.. 3 03-Y 33 ai( RS 30 rt fP�tr` 2°6 L CYL St. 3a�239-33`I( 31 _ "`-a 1 1 1/ 5 oanne 32 1, Ert Lo'}u£ria' t_ 3v1 i►.plcv 3-T 30,3 �f33�S�"yl 33 SW It oC. - 3o3 Lndo° SI- 03-F35- 34 at2B/I- 4-Fgefia ) L/n/bl-r/ 3-7L6 -76o 35 i= ly/5 vaG es Sao ,<.I/1.4w i P -766-7 7.- 36 If nG CI-O ES 30)- L w(,¢A& Sr-4--- 36 3-Kw-441n7 try "�J 37 n.iA) 1A --.,.e. 301 Under- S- 303-833-614h aL.t..r 38 e'gj21 pp1-,7 Ik heNer 301 Lnd� 3o3-S33-07Ln 7e 1Jo Is24r 3H Li haen S/f-'1 303-833-3vS 7 4° —31." /t/e/50t-, 3/0 />1J r1 `77, //62 Busker Dairy Opposition Petition—November 26,2001 2 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County"Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather,we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address Telephone Signature 41 es &ids°74 _Y/(7 (.JN /Ac t V')4 (2�� e4r' <: Care& (&r 41 n yg Ln14Lind eii/ e2.60-4,43.7757 43 R ox 'JS&&nten rfclricf X332 -59 � apt arr "' _ .,. $.403 L' d. X33 2a to to u'•• sea "s Den etardlik 3/3 �dllf7 3-031{0 In / Orr", 46 ba-In-6t Y.rnn traAtA 51, $33-S7-sl �" Q O o c ,,V l_31I ,✓ Q✓\d J` . O3 -6ZSI /®'lJJoul, 48 1-oafeifv, a -SDI i I Fred k,33%)-1 s .9 [.t_ `t 333 3 50 g41 1• /71,4�// Q . .LS��. �t Iv4QevA..K d33`3a3`t 51 ,DO.,,,,,DO.,,,, ti jf• /Y//ore„ aV e7631Jrt3 7re�,g,s'( Z.13. a&3 r 52 j D�,vID I'T�.'Pr-rtwt.u, Zol 6ehrV} &thy ILK 643 -2-441 53 p AA TAI-Ric1A \ATcgCLL Zol Grarti•Si-•rredenck_ 733. 2.c)(„'1 (Jct. k Unienr�vbp.c TO> 4,25-bt$I �ti ' £i 2 sari 3ov /�e �JJod s5 tt Auln g. witutms ib URt.OLLT FIletkAcA f43 -zozo l(? R ,I�/ 56 14). +(L4 t\If, a s q ^51.*I 'e,,t 75333--a " zthAn_&JC/��y)7i4,.,�C QO5 6rHsr �RflKRWtt. B 33 ",.41G elf// s 7-4e411-4e- 58 Lb `/ 4-74/ 4) /T w,t4u raRiVC l 93347/6 --er-' �-r✓ 59 L≤4a4etlle Cs, Writ 3601/Normry She hg/".573sz £ .4a z& P atic 6o ri earl'n• D wai 536 tor" f rered 8 33,L93; W.t.ejled p4.1407,1 Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 3 i"3/4, PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County"Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather,we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy Is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address v(/9 Telephone Signature 61 re...../(� n.+ v..C-LoJ >7C. (915 5e 62 -7/10K� Tn �'v\.IvU" fi PEA/ , fl3awc..Z 2 0 303. .31-7 Olt 63 <A n) 3b4 (v4mAck 3D3.%≤ - / 9 w -Dadic `get, q" Si-, 30)c33ocjoc, �►. ! i 65 /otc May a.z_ LAD 434- (21\3)g33]44t2c 66 /jl'[,�7✓,(q 61 r'I'y 1\ k¢Z t D 4 /1k 9- % 3- UC/Jf9 / - 67 1\,eb4y-aa5 bss ale 90 1-14' �i-- 3(rt3- `433-3ra-'-0Q �/?y�;, , ',��) 66 f1 �& 332_WU.\rust-S-1 3�3J 3?J: ZZ 1 l I OTha jG` 69 di 310 &12n NT- Sr 3°� -833-osh'�,(«.it, £ . .(� 70 i( t , Kona__ 71 C44 72 '�/ �,�C�/��f/ i.ceA l-'53/140:51441(Ify/fit)yay .- - // 73 /4(.96VLl N S &0S' L4ev )C9)-17723 5-'-3 ,��ll( .r/ 74 �Y/s^ 44.(�G" 6051/ \ refur.e /�/ew 303-233�� ,I 76 e(( P�C.(ll „ d/ca) °3&,/�' 3. 76 /,,lcdR 86 epoo/!��G45ttn./. 30-&33-077/ - 77 .L4 &, � pLa( 1p o. f � 3fl3-X73-37 76 . - A7 moo≤ 5 S7' o. 79 Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 4 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County "Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather, we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an Incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address Telephone Signature 81 f e�kir lry Johnson (pal 5 /=6(- ctu_t f., .303_833-0(o7/ Ah.0 JaQ 0. 92 car-1 /G / - c5±. 303'�332,�6t tQ p��'d �F.. l Ti IA 3 o —S-331. sv flastc vy 84 ce,. 0A) LA/tjcrA6 ( 3W ST 5 43 133 -00 21 85 COUtC.Xt,,, _ 5(e ! 3F-ct S -. 303-g33-dy 86 Ji[�.P.e ,t-r: 5't, .env ar. a_3 3 329 y�- 87 a) 3a ,S. l�da�TI/naIJ Cr 303 - 88 >t3.4-2>i7 .b}elpdo it 3oz S. - 89 G 6cir% /a,eivf 29517 wr r'' /9 1O3 -Y722t,f Atx- f---y- 90 wivec /J/1/-a4/-in a/c-2(4 L 51 Cam It L1/4,---1,,,I)ltac toce 92 4)/ 1 772 l /- 56,5 Cif 4 - - 93 [n/ c t? / I L /LO Z CC? A- 6(o oC wC2 Jig 30 -&.33- 3! ik " fr ilk )W141 ',(a/7 - 3v3S35/*a/ at 95 J9I (chit L�"r�� 6/S X1/O �1.y/tea, �r,e ff- 5b3507 3s/3 447'l 96 5WT 4 i 7122d t/cQ C� 97 PC'et (vc/CO7O 763 -k33) 98 99 100 Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 5 ,..^ PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County"Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is Incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family farming operation in rural Weld County. Rather, we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address Telephone Signature A ✓ 102 (11 io S3302,6 1 103 2 �Y,C1 0 �r5 ofsy7 44 / 12 ac,A170/0 30.3-g 'I -1,,, 104 (L ___ 105 Q - ck O 1 O r.1 Q ` \ - 1414` �l��rcJ 2ati $33 k114' 106 ,:<.1 rn Nicol.* Zpb Hawthorn 303-`&33.3z38 \,-m OD Liecir 107 ptcor//Ju,`i//ri- rawly liaiolhavi 3O3 x.33-30235`-7 - ,oa t% .SirtilZ ),I0 I TI-ID/rl .3)3-K33--I a ,os Ali 0 cS u rA, it l' Q11� �/ ,., X\ „0 �(i Yl '. lka, k.��1%,- ,an ��:f�i,l- /1/iS1Y� SD3 {}�3 1 lv 1.�otiV^'-, �''lfl- 111 sr �aa i�4 U LI I( �` (/ f� _/�/ / aJ „2 113 9 3 3 6 / 1 0 .3 114 f!/ti7G/+_, jee /471/Xc't i -303-V.,_3 119re Wat 115 tX, [/1{tin 1,<, �� Z1) {-,�, w"7`17 4r 2:02) ;;- 57I/ G nle jitC (t, D119311itt 311 6ti4Kwee I. 'a-')5 5Y/i/ t ,/A /74- „7 / --hw eve' 1�75A4G1 30 idWtcJ ,7 X03-7133 'fir'fir " „5 tt 3a 26/ Po kilt're)5A ,10 Sk1E95rq! "9 /6 AIRS& (/303 33034/ 120 [�jc l(0 1310p(v It 3;12, 1'33-a3v Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 6 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick and Firestone formally oppose the expansion to the Busker Dairy under Weld County"Use by Special Review"application#1356. We believe that the expansion of this corporate dairy operation will further and significantly affect our quality of life due to the immediate proximity to the historic towns of Frederick and Firestone. We believe that this corporate dairy operation is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and local community. We are not opposed to an historic family fanning operation in rural Weld County. Rather,we are opposed to a large corporate dairy expansion that has only been in existence for 5 years, significantly affecting the clean air and property values of the residents of two century-old towns. Please consider that this corporate dairy is an incompatible use due to its immediate proximity to the historic residential neighborhoods of Frederick and Firestone. We respectfully ask that you please evaluate the interests of all of the taxpaying citizens of this area of Weld County, and consider the rejection of this USR application. # Name Address Telephone Signature 121‘ 1 ,z L3 ittis /Nike4 :31 _ � 3X3 .33 tzz 123 ---2_24, 1» /r biz 3r s-b'-77,/3 ,ai' .4 'ey- ,za 7 Miter ')A 5 v _ 125 n n,.�^��V�ni ,�NatfI slam. 390 t Aktuol'P ?_ , 5-6 33-obc� Ca/�41 (r/ _. 126 Keit/14.C g-t,"{-- 4-i-/Z { flop(.e DAA\tc. 303&32- t?3 Pa 127 Md-CI Sc bft , ,q r/C�t/I,rrigL_ 14.5-I /c t liciA stir 128 %1,, )R�!'�)ee�CL'/dy f 3 4J MA Pi-L' !h ' 3 ,Ul'�t 129 L •v . . . 7 11 '�( ! 130 �Yipr 61&14.1A 3`1 3 mot 4 1l7iv 3D3 bit lY .... ,3, ja cd va.Ktte CO r - 3-3 tfv- I,e, br, 303- 33 O 7 t ° 132 hi---5 R`y 333IIA-PLar DR. 3o3833 er-M (4,_____5Kart ,33 ^e^ , ,�_ 3:).G Mai e +'. (303)8 3E 1��,i_.., ,3a (---)„,„,e, y_� Tc wL =-- 2_1-, Kay lc_Tv, , 3)$33-vz°/ C 135 in 1 P14/'I d2 . )3 3J et 55) ,, : re, 136 i .f/ 04_11.16/47, 1)C ;dl, riA1> �730s- -- - n�",37 - .; e ____ //U "iviez rfhrcv 5 3033- 733-O)1' JS�e./,r� ,36 /Mt.'', 139 i ,�i7Vn g/ti , i3j4Q;;� > �.. 7� E. "° , tuka diZ t. ''l (Gf 12a- —3f,?3337a. i (Am l..erL fn " , _so ig23.37/1 Busker Dairy Opposition Petition-November 26,2001 7 .i" PETICION Nosotros, los residentes de undersigned de Frederick y Firestone se oponen formalmente la expansion a la Lecherla de Busker bajo Condado de Weld"el Uso por la Revision Especial"la aplicaci6n#1356. Creemos qua la expansion de esta operaclon corporative de lecherla hace adicional y afecta significativamente nuestra calidad de la vide debido a la proximidad inmediata a los pueblos histOrlcos de Frederick y Firestone. Creemos que esta operation corporative de lecherla es incompatible con los vencindarios residenciales existentes y la comunidad local. Nosotros no somos opuestos a una operation histories de la agriculture de la familia en el Condado rural de Weld. Algo, somos opuestos a una expansion corporative grande de la lecherla que tiene solo estuvo en la existencia por 6 aflos,afectando significativamente el limpio afreo y los valores de la propiedad de los residentes de dos pueblos vlejos del siglo. Considere por favor que esta lecherla corporative es un use incompatible debido a su proximidad inmediata a los vencindarios residenciales histOricos de Frederick y Firestone. Pedimos respetuosamente que usted evalce por favor los intereses de todos los cludadanos de taxpaying de este area de Condado de Weld,y considere el rechazo de esta aplicaci6n de USR. # El Elf �Nombre // La direction Telef6nica La Firma 501 E G V A'Z // 502 7e-1G P� 33 el Mhbe 0 Y 3 63 3133 6 971+1'4 (/�� 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 La Petition de la Oposlcion de la Lecherla de Busker—el 26 de novlembre de 2001 26 /"a, PETICION Nosotros, los resldentes de undersigned de Frederick y Firestone se oponen formalmente la expansion a la Lecherla de Busker bajo Condado de Weld"el Uso por la Revision Especial" la aplicaclon#1356. Creemos que la expansion de esta oparaeien corporativa de lecheria hace adicional y afecta significativamente nuestra calidad de la vida debido a la proximidad inmedlata a los pueblos histOricos de Frederick y Firestone. Creemos que esta operaciOn corporativa de lecheria es incompatible con los vencindarios residenciales existentes y la comunldad local. Nosotros no somos opuestos a una operacien histbriea de la agriculture de la familia en el Condado rural de Weld.Algo, somos opuestos a una expansion corporative grande de la lecheria que tiene solo estuvo en la existencia por 5 afios,afectando significativamente el limpio ekreo y los valores de la propiedad de los residentes de dos pueblos viejos del siglo. Considers por favor que este lecheria corporative es un use incompatible debido a su proximidad Inmediata a los vencindarios residenciales histericos de Frederick y Firestone. Pedimos respetuosamente que usted evalUe por favor los intereses de todos los ciudadanos de taxpaying de este area de Condado de Weld,y considers el rechazo de esta aplicacion de USR. # El Nombre La direction Telefonica La Firma 1 nd., 581 j N Ov\Y\A-Gtr -r Aeenc< Co 8os3n (3o3)831CGSl \ c �Y-, ^- ,e 582 C FL Li( 1St/Chili 3/5 �o%lfq/1 57/ F,f Ri:/S 303 833©317 rhvm e< edit)9 sv.ge D 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 La Petition de la Oposicien de la Lecherla de Busker—el 26 de novlembre de 2001 30 r Exhibit X Video of Busker Dairy Dated 05/01 /1999 See Original File DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ,-- *et1517 16TH AVENUE COURT 119 GREELEY, CO 80631 0ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635 COLORADO HEA0) 353-0639 LTH (970) 356-4966 February 19, 1999 Certified Letter No: Z 193 639 689 Scott Busker Busker Dairy 7678 Weld County Road 17 Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 Subject But Dairy Dear Mr.Busker. As the result of a complaint and testimony presented in front of the Weld County Board of County Commissioners,myself and Sharyn Frazer observed the Busker Dairy(the Dairy),on February 18, 1999. I also observed the Dairy with you,Tom Haren,and Julie Chester on October 27, 1998. The Dairy is located in Part of Section 28,Township 2 North,Range 67 West,of the 6th Principle Meridian, east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 17,and south of Weld County Road 18. The complaint alleged that the facility's waste water lagoons were constructed without adequate liners,that the facility had inadequate means to deal with waste water generated on the site,and a general lack of compliance with the Confuted Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulations((CAPO RegulationsX5 CCR 1002- 81)). We acknowledge that following the land use hearing with the County Commissioners that was held on February 3, 1999,your consultant,EnviroStock,Inc.,submitted a letter dated February ry 5, 1999,that indicated that you were aware of several deficiencies,pertaining to the CAFO Regulations,on the property. The letter also Stated that you were in the process of developing a comprehensive manure and waste water management plan for the Dairy that would address any deficient areas on the property. Additionally,the letter stated that the manure and waste water management plan would be submitted to this office and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The fact that we received a complaint and that the complaint has been verified by our Department, triggers the violation process in Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance(WCZO). Section 47 requires that you submit a plan and time line for correction for the deficiencies on the property. Unfortunately,EnviroStock's February 5, 1999,letter does not satisfy this requirement. EnviroStock's letter does indicate that you will submit a comprehensive manure and waste water management plan within 90 days from the date of the letter. However,it does not provide a time line to correct the deficiencies. As a result,we are requesting that in addition to the plan,you submit a time line in which i— all deficiencies on the property will be corrected. Please submit the time line when you submit the manure and waste water management plan. EXHIBIT N usz4t 135t• Scott Busker February 19, 1999 Page 2 We also need to advise you that failure to respond may result in civil,criminal,or administrative penalties as deemed appropriate by the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,in accordance with C.R.S.25-8-601,and appropriate action in accordance with the WCZO. Additionally,during my visits to the Dairy,I observed several areas on the property that did not appear to comply with the CAFO Regulations. You may want to consider these areas during your assessment of the site,as we will consider them,among others,in our review of your manure and waste water management plan. They are as follows: • It did not appear that all precipitation that came into contact with manure in the pens and the manure storage area would be captured prior to discharging from the property. This is a requirement of Section 813 of the CAFO Regulations. • As EnviroStock's letter states,the facility does not have evidence that the lagoon lining materials and seepage rate complies with Section 814 of the CAFO Regulations. • As I recall,the land application area for waste water generated at the site lies east of the Stanley Ditch. The method that any wastewater will be carried across the ditch should be addressed. Additionally,written permission from the ditch company should be provided. I have attached a copy of both Section 47 of the WCZO and the CAFO Regulations. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at(970)353-0635,extension 2232. Sin ly, Trevor' cek Supervisor Environmental Protection Services 1311198 cc:Jeff Stoll,Director,Environmental Protection Services Lee Morrison,Weld County Attorney's Office Derald Lang,Colorado Department of Public Health do Environment Sbaryn Frazer,Weld County Planning Department Tom Haren,EnviroStock,Inc. ^ Front Range Community College 3645 West 112th Avenue • Westminster, CO 80030 • (303)466-881 1 12 May 1999 To whom it may concern: RE: BUSKER DAIRY FARM OVERFLOW On 3 May 1999 I received a call from Gilbert Evans , owner of Evans Farms , just west of Fort Lupton, Colorado. He indicated that a nearby dairy farm owned by Mr. Scott Busker, had been flooded by the recent heavy rains and that the holding ponds were overflowing. He said that he was concerned about the potential for possible pollution and contamination. The roads near his property also were being eroded by the runoff. Using sterilized containers he col- lected three samples of the water which was heavily loaded wi_. na.a4re a:}d, exhbited a frothy foam and characteristic,..o ', H , ndiestee that: ,. f t 'ffithrltilliotndah holding tanks on the Busker- Da irPERIC''' _'' I visited the collection sites on 5 May 1999. Sample number one was taken approximately one quarter mile southwest of Evans ' Farm at the junction of WCR 17 and 18. Sample number two was taken about a quart- er mile south of the juncticn(near Westmoreland Driveway) , and Sample number three was taken about a quarter mile further south (Near the oil battery tanks ) . The three samples were taken to Colorado Analytical Laboratory in Brighton cn 6 May 1999. The results indicate elevated levels of Nitrogen, _citrate, and Nitrite . Refer to the three pages of Labora- tory analysis report sheets . The nitrite concentrations are quite high and represent a high degree of toxicity in the runoff. Upon examination c£ aerial hotographs of the Busker Dairy Farm holding tanks , I observed numerous patches of water nearby indicating a high degree of leaching of water into the soil surrounding the tanks . I do suspect that the tanks are not properly lined and do leak contaminated water into the surrounding environment. I under- staac this is a concern also expressed by other neighboring farmers and ranchers . It is , therefore, my conclusion that this dairy farm poses a poten- tial pollution problem to the environment in which it is located. I recomnrndthat the Weld County Health Department should take immedi- A, ate action to have the owner conform to the regulations aid bylaws pertaining to containment of manure and associated water-holding units . are,Sincerly, Gerald R . Dotson, Ph. D. Professor Emeritus o_ Biology and Ecology GRD :bbm • COLORADO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES LABORATORY LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TO: DR GERALD DOTSON LAB NO: 6123.01 DATE RCVD: 5/6/99 BILL TO: FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 8496 OTIS DRIVE REPORTED: 5/12/99 ARVADA, CO 80003 PROJECT: - PO NO.: VERBAL SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: #1 RUNOFF ANALYSIS REPORT: PARAMETER AS RECEIVED BASIS DRY MATTER BASIS SOLIDS-TOTAL(%) 72.34 100.00 MOISTURE(%) 27.66 0.00 ^NITROGEN-TOTAL(%) 0.138 0.190 NITROGEN-ORGANIC (%) 0.129 0.178 NITROGEN-AMMONIA(PPM) 88.2 122.0 NITROGEN-NITRATE (PPM) 2.16 2.98 NITROGEN-NITRITE (PPM) 0.24 0.33 air A ALYSIS SUPERVISED BY A A APP O D R RELEASE BY Al 240 S. Main Street • Brighton, Colorado 8O6O1 • (303) 859-2313 Mailing Address: PO. Drawer 507 Brighton, Colorado 80601 • COLORADO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES r LABORATORY LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TO: DR GERALD DOTSON LAB NO: 6123.02 DATE RCVD: 5/6/99 BILL TO: FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 8496 OTIS DRIVE REPORTED: 5/12/99 ARVADA, CO 80003 PROJECT: - PO NO.: VERBAL SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: #2 RUNOFF ANALYSIS REPORT: PARAMETER AS RECEIVED BASIS DRY MATTER BASIS SOLIDS-TOTAL(%) 81.84 100.00 MOISTURE (%) 18.16 0.00 ^NITROGEN-TOTAL(%) 0.087 0.106 NITROGEN-ORGANIC(%) 0.085 0.103 NITROGEN-AMMONIA(PPM) 23.0 28.1 NITROGEN-NITRATE (PPM) 1.34 1.64 NITROGEN-NITRITE (PPM) 0.12 0.15 NALYSIS SUPERVISED BY TA APPROVE OR LEASE BY �a 240 S. Main Street • Brighton, Colorado 80601 • (303) 659-2313 Mailing Address: PO. Drawer 507 Brighton, Colorado 80601 • COLORADO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES LABORATORY LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT REPORT TO: DR GERALD DOTSON LAB NO: 6123.03 DATE RCVD: 5/6/99 BILL TO: FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 8496 OTIS DRIVE REPORTED: 5/12/99 ARVADA, CO 80003 PROJECT: - PO NO.: VERBAL SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: #3 RUNOFF ANALYSIS REPORT: PARAMETER AS RECEIVED BASIS DRY MATTER BASIS SOLIDS-TOTAL(%) 39.00 100.00 MOISTURE (%) 61.00 0.00 iITROGEN-TOTAL(%) 0.074 0.190 NITROGEN-ORGANIC(%) 0.069 0.178 NITROGEN-AMMONIA(PPM) 44.3 113.6 NITROGEN-NITRATE (PPM) 1.29 3.31 NITROGEN-NITRITE (PPM) 0.08 0.20 I L latkNALYSIS SUPERVISED BY 'I1 APPR D F R RELEASE BY 240 S. Main Street • Brighton, Colorado 80601 • (303) 659-2313 1111 411 Mailing Address. PO. Drawer 507, Brighton, Colorado 80601 • • COLORADO ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES Invoice ^ LABORATORY Invoice Number 014162 Invoice Date: May 12, 1999 Page: 1 Sold To: Ship to: FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ATTN: DR GERALD DOTSON 8496 OTIS DRIVE ARVADA,CO 80003 Customer ID Customer PO Payment Terms DOTSON C.O. D. Sales Rep ID Shipping Method Ship Date Due Date Cust. Pickup I 5/12/99 5/12/99 Quantity I Item Description Unit Price I Extension 3. 00I LAB TESTING RUNOFF SAMPLES - NITROGEN 30 . 00 90. 00 PKG T \---. r--- 5 c i r C'''H L,- i (lz I ,. V......... •1 ,r ,,„„ ,. ,1 ,.. I I I I j r, • Subtotal 90 00 PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INV4I E. THANK YOU. Sales Tax (� Q�/ Total Invoice Amount 90 ,00 Check No: Q��' E, , Payment Received Q 0 00 4Et4°‘\ 11\ TOTAL 90 . 00 a 240 S. Main Street • Brighton, Colorado 80601 • (303) 659-2313 IOW Mailing Address: PO. Drawer 507 Brighton, Colorado 8O6O1 You are here:atab 'Etre `�� crops CmipaciguE I(',a�4Eyo1.n I no. 0.520 Sii G t ati Anal by R.M. Waskom, J.G. Davis and J.R. Self t Quick Facts... • Yearly sampling of each crop field is recommended to make accurate nutrient management recommendations. • Lawn and Garden management also can be improved by soil sampling. About a dozen soil cores are adequate for a typical urban lawn or Garden sample. • Manure testing is the best way to determine the fertilizer value of manure spread on fields or Gardens. • Annual water testing is suggested to help monitor the quality of your private water supply. Soil and manure testing are the foundation of an economically and environmentally sound crop management program. Plant tissue analysis can be a useful method to assess crop nutrient status. In addition, rural homeowners should periodically test their well water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There are a number of qualified laboratories in Colorado that provide these services. There also are commercially available quick test kits that are less accurate but can be used at home for testing both soil and water. Without an analysis, you may be buying unnecessary fertilizer or applying too much manure to your fields. Neither practice is sound. In some cases, a $35 soil analysis can save a crop producer thousands of dollars in unnecessary ferti!i7er cores. Soil Testing Yearly sampling of each crop field is recommended to make accurate nutrient management recommendations. Routine soil sampling also provides valuable information about soil salinity, pH and organic matter content. Obtaining a representative sample is the key to getting accurate results. For proper sampling steps, contact the analytical laboratory that will analyze your samples or see fact sheet 0.500, Soil Sampling, available from your Colorado State University Cooperative Extension county office. To get a representative sample, use clean tools to collect soil cores from a variety of locations in the field. Combine 20 to 30 individual samples and mix thoroughly before transferring the soil to the sample bag. Avoid (or sample separately) any unusual areas that will bias your results. Break large fields into smaller sampling units based on crop, yield and 4663 Table Mountain Dr. Golden, CO 80403-1650 x j x x ; x x (303)277-9514• es, Web: acculabs com F ,ACZ Laboratories, Inc. 2773 Downhill Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (970) 879-6590, (800) x x x ! x x 334-5493 E-mail: christyv@acz.com Agri-Test, Inc. %2043 Kimberly Road !P.O. Box 4 ;Twin Falls, ID 83301-0004 x x ! x x x ;(208) 734-2303, (800) ;632-0842 Analytica Environmental — — — Laboratories, Inc. ;325 Interlocken Pkwy, Suite ;200 'Broomfield, CO 80021 x x i x x ;(303) 469-8868, (800) 873-8707 ( i ;Internet: jwww.analyticagroup.com 11282 Alturas Dr. Moscow, ID 83843 1(208) 883-2839, (800) 943-2839 Fax_ (208) 882-9246 'E-mail: moscow@anateklabs.com ;Web: www.anateklabs.com x x j x x x x :504 E. Sprague, Suite D ISpokane, WA 99202 (509) 838-3999, (888) 1534-3999 ;Fax: (509) 838-4433 E-mail: spokane@anateklabs.com ;Web: www.anateklabs.com 1 Aspen Analytical ;1110 Elkton Dr. Suite A Colorado Springs, CO 80907 x x x x x ;(719) 593-9595, (800) `866-9594 • u x 5 AgPro Environmental Services,LLC o.t .,`r Site Description Facility Busker Dairy is an existing dairy facility located one and one-half miles north of Highway 52 on Weld County Road 17. Dairy construction is industry-typical steel and wood posts,pipe and cable fence, concrete feed aprons and feed bunks, feed alleys and cow movement alleys, feed storage areas and associated storage structures and maintenance facilities, waste management and control structures. Busker Dairy plans to expand its milking and total capacity. The plan includes approximately 1,100 milk cows,200 dry cows, and 150 replacement calves for a total of 1,450 head. Busker Dairy plans to add onto the existing milk parlor,add two milk-cow corrals and a dry-cow corral along with some calf huts and a small calf corral. The milk-cow corrals will be on the west side of Stanley Ditch and the calf facilities and dry-cow corral will be on the east side. Maps The maps described below are included in Appendix A. Topographic Map The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Busker Dairy, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. Site Layout Map The Site Layout Map details the configuration of the expanded dairy. Soils Map The USDA Soil Survey map details the area's soil types. Also included are detailed soil descriptions. Stormwater and Process Wastewater Management Surface Runoff Busker Dairy will control stormwater on the west side of Stanley Ditch with a series of four retention ponds,three already existing and adding one on the south side. The east side will be controlled with a new pond constructed in the northeast corner of the property(see Site Layout Map in Appendix A). Busker Dairy will monitor the site and maintain appropriate diversion structures to ensure runoff enters the stormwater collection system. �r °ltfls yetn�;Maur storm event ibrthe area cos orPret�'.L ',colt,s3 M& la to ,+Using the SCS runoff curve number 90 for un-surfaced lots and 97 for paved areas,the amount of runoff generated during a 25-year event is 8.46 acre-fret for the west side and 3.26 acre-feet for the east side. The 10-year, 10-day storm event for the area east of Frederick, Colorado is 4.3 inches. Using the SCS runoff curve number 90 for un-surfaced lots and 97 for paved areas,the amount of runoff generated during a 10-year event is 9.26 acre-feet for the west side and 3.57 acre-feet for the east side. These figures account for rainfall occurring directly on the pond surfaces. The retention structures on the west side of Stanley Ditch will have a total capacity of 27 acre- feet and the new pond on the east side will contain 6 acre-feet. The west side runoff will be forced into Ponds 1&2 on the north side and Pond 4 on the south side using runoffconta9mnPnt berms. The north side runoff will back up into the corrals at an average depth of 18 inches and Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 4 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Northglenn, Colorado 80233 VIROPhone (303) 457-4322 1�V Fax(303) 457-4609 TOCK,1 . Trevor Jiricek � � 1 Weld County Health Department f` 1517 16th Ave. Court �, i 61 ? 199 Greeley, CO 80631P7 Subject: Busker Dairy Lit Dear Trevor: This letter is to provide information and continue our communications regarding Busker Dairy, issues from your February 18, 1999 site inspection, and subsequent certified letter Z 193 639 689 dated February 19, 1999. Enclosed is a copy of a revised Manure and Wastewater Management Plan dated March 1999. We believe this plan addresses the issues asserted during your site visit and subsequent correspondence. The major issues, corrective actions and timelines are summarized in the following paragraphs. 1. Containment of stormwater here is adequate lct• oon:met= . frome25= „ .. •.�,.., �_ ... -However, tnv�t""�!i' CI'l evaluation determined due to the ' configuration of the facility,not ant be es via gravity to system A new stormwater-only pond was designed in the northwest corner of the facility adjacent to the exiting northern-most lagoon. The pond's design incorporates the corner and elevation of the existing,northern-most lagoon and will be constructed to grade approximately 350' east Pond will contain approximately 5 acre-feet of water.'The pond is connected to the northern- most lagoon via a 12" culvert located 2' below top-of-berm. Construction of this structure will begin as soon as Weld County has accepted the plan. Once the plan is accepted, construction plans can be finalized and placed for bid, and a contractor can be retained and scheduled. Upon completion of the stormwater pond, it will be lined and certified by a registered professional engineer. Current plans are to line the stormwater-only containment to the ''A"per day standard. Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry Run-on stormwater was identified as a significant contributor to the stormwater management system. The maps included with the Plan outline the construction of several stormwater run-on diversion berms and ditches. Manure and composting areas were relocated and designed to self- contain stormwater within the composting area boundary. The calculated watershed for the dairy facility was reduced from almost 70 acres to approximately 36 acres by incorporating these run- on diversion improvements. Construction of these diversions will begin immediately upon approval of this plan by Weld County. Construction will be completed by Busker Dairy. Existing composting areas will be incorporated into one location. The existing composting areas will be reclaimed and maintained as farmground or grass pasture. Stormwater from these areas will be excluded from the facility's stormwater management system via diversions upon completion 2. Evidence of lagoon lining The six existing lagoons were constructed and lined in the early 1990's with design assistance from the USDA -Natural Resource Conservation Service. However, no evidence or testing of the liner's permeability was documented as required by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation. The lagoons were tested in February 1999 by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) of Fort Collins, Colorado. EEC's report indicates permeability of the liners in the range of less than 10"g cm/second. A copy of the report is in Appendix E of the Management Plan. 3. Land Application of Wastewater Land application areas for stormwater and wastewater included Busker Dairy property both east and west of the Stanley Ditch. Stormwater and wastewater application across the Stanley Ditch is via rigid pipe placed temporarily across the ditch as needed. We would hie the opportunity to review these improveinti_is with your department in person at your convenience. Please call(303) 457-4322 if you have any questions. Sint ly, Thomas Haren Vice President Cc: Scott Busker, Busker Dairy Derald Lang, CDPH&E, Water Quality Control Division Jeff Stoll, Director, Environmental Protection Services Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney's Office Sharyn Frazer, Weld County Planning Department Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 11 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE r‘at GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION(970)304-6410 PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING(970)304-6420 C FAX(970)304-6415 O ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(970)304-6415 FAX(970)304-6411 • COLORADO May 25, 1999 Thomas Haren EnviroStock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Northglenn, Colorado 80233 Subject: Busker Dairy Dear Mr. Haren: The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment (WCDPHE) has reviewed the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan (the Plan) for the Busker Dairy. The Plan, dated March 1999, and submitted under cover letter, dated May 3, 1999, was received into our office on May 7, 1999. As we discussed, we had withheld our comments in order to receive any comments from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that result from their review of the Plan. The Plan appears to substantially comply with the CAFO Regulations and Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. However, we have several comments concerning the Plan that should be adequately addressed. They are as follows: 1) Page 7 of the Plan discusses Retention Facilities. e ' a . = e . L ,L E; � fvater i need to be captured in the event of25- e ,24-hour storm. , epropo cater pond is designed too capture 5 acre-feet.*You have verbally indicated to me that the southwest portion of the facility will flow into pond#2 and that an overflow pipe would be installed from the proposed pond into pond#6 in order to capture excess run-off. This should be more thoroughly described in the text of the Plan. Additionally, the facility map should be revised to clearly show the divide and direction of flow for that portion of the facility that will flow into pond#2. 2) Page 8 of the Plan discusses Retention Facility Dewatering. However, it does not describe the equipment that is available to dewater the retention facilities. We recommend that this be a part of the Plan as Section 4.8.3(C)(4) of the CAFO Regulations requires that adequate equipment, or agreements for equipment, are in place. 3) Appendix E provides information on Lagoon Liner Certification. As we discussed on the Thomas Haren May 25, 1999 Page 2 ' telephone only limited information is available f'.' _� .'art, la udorma' eh'be provided, such as the bring logs and soil • pe 'tedbility tests conducted, a map with the location h sit= te ii* tli'1 m " use acco to Appendix D the slope of each of the sir Veep. As a result,it is difficult to adequately compact Ole silo Qlnpez 4) The map provided in the Plan indicates a"self-contained" composting area. The area will be enclosed by a containment berm. The Plan should demonstrate that the berm will be adequate to contain the run-off from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 5) Neither the cover letter nor the Plan provide a time line that describes when the improvements will be completed. A time line for correction is required by Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Please provide this time line. These conclude the WCDPHE's comments at this time. Please provide a comprehensive response to the above items. If you have any questions please call me at(970) 304-6415, . . extension 2209. Sincerely, Trevor Jiricek Supervisor Environmental Health Services tj\1265 cc: Scott Busker, Busker Dairy Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office Sharyn Frazer, Weld County Planning Department ! DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMEN' ii Y,C COLORADO UI 63 ^. 7:1 GREELEY,COLORADO8063 ADMINISTRATION(970)304-641 o PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING(970)304-642 FAX(970)304641 O ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(970)304-641 FAX(970)304-641 COLORADO January 19, 2000 Thomas Haren EnviroStock,Inc. 1597 Cole Boulevard, Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80404 Subject: Busker Dairy Dear Mr. Haren: The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment(WCDPHE)has reviewed your January 3, 2000,letter concerning the lagoon liner evaluation for the Busker Dairy. The letter fulfills the last outstanding issue concerning the facility's Manure&Process Wastewater Management Plan(the Plan). Therefore,we approve the Plan and consider this matter to be closed. Should you have any questions,or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at(970)301 6415, extension 2214. Sincerely, 1#11461\-11/4—Perip Trevor Jincek Director Environmental Health Services tj\cafo\busker cc: Scott Busker,Busker Dairy Derald Lang,Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office Julie Chester, Weld County Planning Department STATE OF ,COLORADO Bill Owens,Governor Jane E. Norton,Executive Director , OF co`o Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado (He -`' o. 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division '' �1.° Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. %'/876 `* Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line(303)691-7700 (303)692-3090 Colorado Department Located in Glendale,Colorado of Public Health httpl/www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment Scott Busker - - Busker Dairy 7678 WCR 17 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 RE: Follow-up Letter to June 8, 2001, Site Visit . Dear Mr. Busker: This is a follow-up letter to the on-site visit that the Water Quality Control Division ("the Division") made to your dairy on June 8, 2001. The visit was required as a result of the Division receiving a complaint (on June 1, 2001) about wastewater from the dairy being discharged into man-made ditches and allowed to seep into the ground or evaporate. Also present during the visit was Mr. Tom Haren with AgPro Environmental. [dam did tlttlrtLie 'tsfdaiiy animals on site was 680 milking cows, 105 dry cows, and a if of immature dairy animals. U fder Regulation No. 81 of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, this dairy is a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). This regulation requires certain design criteria, operation and maintenance, and ground water protection elements, and standards for beneficial use and disposal of manure and process wastewater. It was apparent during our visit that Mr. Haren is serving you in these matters. The dairy informed that it has a Manure Management Plan as required under Regulation No. 81. The dairy began operation in late 1994. Manure management at the dairy consists of having a contractor compost solids on-site. Process wastewater and stormwater runoff is diverted into six retention basins located at the western edge of the property. Two of the basins hold only process wastewater. The retention structures are designed to evaporate the received stormwater and wastewater. If pumping of wastewater is necessary to maintain at least two feet of freeboard in the structures, over 100 acres are available for the wastewater to be land-applied. The dairy informed that all of the retention structures had from two to four feet of freeboard on the day of the Division's visit. Our drive by the structures revealed at least two feet of freeboard. I C:\My Documents\CAFOs\Complaints\Busker Dairy.June 2001.doc The dairy informed that it recently constructed two ditches around parts of a 40-acre crop field located on the north side of the dairy. A tour of this site revealed the existence of one of these ditches on the west side (and north side?) of the field; the other ditch was located on the south of the field. A shallow tail water pond existed at the southwest corner of the field, into which the two ditches flowed. The purpose of the ditches and pond is to collect tailwater from applied wastewater. Applied wastewater apparently flows in a northwesterly direction through the field. ? The dai mfoY 1ciglt wastewater from some retention structures since they om ia:mak-aireseipinlog was provided to the Division that indicated that 5.54 metes otprecipitation had been received at the site from May"'1 thrbttgh NTlti"9tof 2004., 4 The wastewater was pumped on May 26 to the 40-acre crop field located on the north side of the dairy. A "Process Wastewater Application Rate Determination Sheet" (`the Sheet") provided to the Division shows that the field can receive 25 pounds per acre of fertilizer nitrogen, since the gross fertilizer N recommendation is 50 lbs/ac, and the N credits are 25 lbs/ac. Soil N credits were determined from a soil sample analyzed by Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc. on May 30, 2001. This analysis revealed 2.6 ppm of N in the top two feet of soil from the field. The Rate Determination Sheet does not indicate a yield goal in the space proyidedat part 2a) of the sheet. Yield goals must be provided. the i" ' 1 that the crap lobe grown is wheat. However! our visit of the site showed that the crop in fact is vo un ,er rye. art 2.b) of the Sheet states that fertilizer N recommendations are to be acquired from Tables 7a-7e of CSU Bulletin 568A. None of these tables provides N recommendations for either wheat or cereal rye. Therefore, the 50 lbs/ac of ^ gross N fertilizer figure needs io be justified on the Sheet. The dairy did indicate that 50 lb/ac was intended to be a conservative value. Part 3.c) of the Sheet indicates an N credit from soil organic matter of 15 lbs N/ac. Since the soil test sheet shows an organic matter percentage of 0.5, the N credit is actually 1.5 lbs/ac (0.5% * 30/%). The dairy provided a "Miscellaneous Analysis Report"of the effluent that was to be land applied. The report shows values for organic N (1.56 lbs/1000 gals), ammonium-N(0.19 lbs/1000 gals), and nitrate- N. The report correctly reflects the amount of N available from organic N in the application year(1.56 * 0.35). In contrast, the report incorrectly reflects the amount of available ammonium by multiplying by 0.78 instead of 0.55 (1.00—0.45 volatilization rate). volatilization rata for wastewater »• ;" The dairy indicated that the wastewater applied on May 26, 2001, flowed about 2/3 of the way down the field. The dairy also indicated that it does not intend to harvest the rye crop, that the crop will not receive irrigation water, and that the field will receive additional wastewater. ells '* should + + , t 'd Rate Determination Sheet, and on the fact that 2/3 tifehe already reeetyed a0tr:gen • ° .,.. The dairy related that it has not discharged wastewater into manmade ditches for the purpose of disposal. /1/ The Division applauds the dairy for its active use of a recordkeeping system that provides nutrient budget, land application, precipitation, pond inspection, preventative maintenance, and other information. 2 CV's/1y Documents\CAFOs\Complaints\Busker Dairy.June 2001.doc ^ The Division, or some other authority, may have occasion in the future to inspect your dairy. We encourage you to continue to remain aware of CAFO regulations that apply to you operation. In particular, the EPA is proposing new CAFO regulations. Once finalized in 2002, the state will need to change its regulations to meet the new requirements. Thank you for your time and cooperation during our visit. Contact me if you have questions or comments about this letter or visit. Sincerely, Ron Jepson Water Quality Control Division 303-692-3520 xc: Dave Akers, Section Manager,CDPHE-WQCD Susan Nachtrieb,Permits Unit Manager,CDPHE-WQCD Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Health Tom Haren,AgPro Environmental,4311 Hwy. 66, Ste.4,Longmont,80504 3 C:\My Documents\CAFOs\Complaints\Busker Dairy.June 2001.doc oat ' ' A B C DIEIF G H I I_ J I K L ' I i 1 JAN O i FEB 0 MAR 0 I APRO r D _ _.JUN JUL__ •AUG_ ,_- SEP_T_--i_OCT OV 'DEC_ _ G _ a�—. __6_ O -._. �- - --- -; --- __ --- 4 -_ q r O j p f _ - 5 f - ° f 4 -T -'Z i so- o__f-._- - 6 i13- -- — a ° - n - -� - Q -I " - -G I- a- 7 0 :Q=?rR'�-011 -f - l --y ---�-- o n 8 a I v ?in C� 0 —o IO' - ---f- 0 --- g n-- - ° j --- --- __._ p - _tea a - `- - ---f-- ---- 12 Q- - O �1 —.$f l"". ID 0 i i -. - 13 D 9 — 0 -t-- 14 v •- N_ 4 _ n- Q =''1D t-- - -_ 15 _ O 4 In_ _J ---. L --- i6 S-5".4"r — n E?— -2 - ---- _ -- 17- -- -- — - o 1 .o— 1S_1.,+rr.e�t t IR=_7c '° — 3e 0 _12_ I -0 -4 0 o — o ! + --.f —_ — — — — io - ° m 1 R.t _ _ - 4-- .---- -- 21 _ o . 1_ Q I o . _ I . D — _ -. 22 0 �� n - ---r L , 24 0 O u 26^ n 9 _ 1 I — 27 2.aa iS-i" 7 — l 0 — -- 28,5 " 7 q _4 , O Q _!x;..05 I I.1 -- i q-- _ 5:th "- .tom' ! D F.1 .i5 --� -�+ — — — - - 31r---. - f , 0 L— O D 32 SUSt M,- .3° .6,, aQ .4'9 i /4-2 ._-}�.9 ..---- .._.._-- 35 iv fSiL—i1 der f w3'lr e !nfa- - — -mow _ _--I 36 D=DRIZZL L.T=._LIGHTNING+THUN?ER S----SNOW H=HAIL R=RAIN R.S.=RAIN+SNOW MIX L.H.=LARGE HAIL S.H.=HAIL S.H.R.=AL11 F 38 T=TRACE=.01"OR LESS RLT=Al- 10"SNOW= I"WATER .10 P/INCH.__ _^ 1APPROX.TOTAL YR.a __ 20_01 39.REMARKS : } I -�.._ — ---- �'--- --` --- --T — --43, r -- - _ - --- - -—___ — ——_—J'44 1-7L - ,o' 6)/-3/U 1.n 6.-a.�'',E -Ct rn C5lL Vie. Ain-4-in.,.,6 //J...,Y/__ IC ,- ....._- LJ-r,n,... _1 RI I / r Exhibit Z Oversized Aerial Photograph (08/012001 ) See Original File Exhibit AA Oversized Aerial Photograph #1 (08/01 /2001 ) See Original File Exhibit BB Oversized Aerial Photograph #2 (08/01 /2001 ) See Original File n. Exhibit CC Oversized Aerial Photograph #1 Enhanced (08/01 /2001 ) See Original File Busker Dairy: Legend for photos presented as evidence 12-5-01 C ' ' I ...... N / .. I {4. * a y„,!^ I..-- ""°'1�1Cx1^^wmnu..n�'"• j zk- c.5: {{7%' ¶" a r ixp Y n. EXHIBIT !! qtA Exhibit EE Oversized Aerial Photograph #2 Enhanced (08/01 /2001 ) See Original File Exhibit FF Oversized Aerial Photograph (04/22/1998) See Original File r Requested Conditions of Approval for Busker Dairy 12-05-01 A. Require that the dairy obtain the Central Weld Water District water-tap that it has obtained a commitment for. B. Require directional shrouding on all existing and future lighting on the dairy. C. Require an adequate number of the trees used for screening to indude a substantial volume of evergreens to allow continued screening with seasonal changes. D. Test wells - to be independently verified on a periodic schedule. E. Make provisions to assure there will never be over 1450 head on the 80 acres contained within this USR permit. F. The applicant will provide engineering information regarding the existing lagoons including boring logs, soil descriptions, number of permeability tests conducted and a map with the location where samples and/or boring was done to certify the lagoons. 4 EXHIBIT Colorado Secretary of State Page I of 2 • pv-COb, ( oloradH ti« re rcta of St' ,``v '14 • - Business t. 49 j Center 76 Search Business Entities Entity Detail F-File Periodic Reports E View History and Documents. Obtain Certificate of Good Standin Name: BUSKER DAIRY,LLC Search Our Site Entity ID: 19971018478 Enti T LIMITED LIABILITY n yam' COMPANY Filing Date: 02/06/1997 Status: DISSOLVED State of CO Incorporation: Term: PERPETUAL Inactive Date: 11/01/2000 Last Report: Report not filed Last Report Filing ID: none Name Reservation N/A Expires: Registered Agent Name: OTTENHOFF GEORGE H Physical Address: 1011 11TH AVE GREELEY Colorado 80631 PO Box: EXHIBIT None use L35b http://www.sos.state.co.us/cgi-forte/fortecgi/frte_corporationProdAccess 1421161 B211 F0`... I 1/27/2001 Colorado Secretary of State Page 2 of 2 Principal Address: 7678 WCR 17 FT LUPTON CO 80621 Secondary Address: DJ View History and Documents. Elections I Business I Information I Bingo License I Contact Us I Home I'1 http://www.sos.state.co.us/cgi-forte/fortecgi/frte_corporationProdAccess 1421161 B211 F05... 11/27/2001 man ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION roanimas= OF etwecose asr 14 HIGH PLAINS ENGINEERING,INC. THE UNDERSIGNED,a natural person of the age of eighteen years or more,for the purpose of forming a corporation under the laws of the State of Colorado,adopts the following Articles of Incorporation for such corporation: ARTICLE I NAME The name of the corporation is High Platen Engineering. Inc. ARTICLE II 315 N 9991158 PERIOD OF DURATION (1 X58 CF STATE The duration of the corporation shall be perpetual. 50.00 SECRETARY 1999 09:St 04 ARTICLE HI PURPOSES The purpose for which the corporation is organized is to transact all lawful business for which corporations may be incorporated pursuant to the Colorado Business Corporation Act. ARTICLE IV POWERS The corporation shall have and may exercise any and all powers granted to corporations under the Colorado Business Corporation Act as the sane may from time to time be amended. ARTICLE V AUTHORIZED SHARES SECTION 1. thaw. The aggregate number of shares which the corporation shall have authority to ism is one hundred thousand(100,000)shares of common stock,without par value. SECTION 2. Agog. Every holder of comunon stock of tie corporation shall be entitled to one vote for each share of stock standing in his name on the books of the corporation and entitled to vote. Cumulative voting shall not be allowed in the election of directors or for any other purpose. e:VamoanaaaNnamro,*ar.as WMPUTEfl UPOAIE(XTf[A• El.— EXHIBIT USE 4 135(9 ^ SECTION 3. entamthaigho. The shareholder shall have no pitrumpti e rights to acquire additional or treasury shares of the corporation or securities convertible into shares or stock,purchase warrants or privileges. SECTION 4. Transfer of Stock. The corporation may have the right by appropriate action to impose restrictions upon the transfer of any shares of its common stock,or any interest therein, from time to time issued,provided that such restrictions or notice thereof,shall be set forth upon the face of the certificates representing such shares of common stock. SECTION 5. LiwilWio. The Board of Directors may from time to time distribute to the shareholders in partial liquidation.out of stated capital,or capital surplus of the corporation, a portion of is assets,in cash or property,subject to the limitations contained in the statutes of the State of Colorado. ARTICLE VI REGULATION OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SECTION 1. cantliamommli. The general management of the affairs of the corporation shall be exercised by a Board of Direcors. SECTION 2. Bylaws. The Board of Directors shall have the power to make,alter,amend or repeal the Bylaws,but any Bylaw so made may be altered,wended or repealed by such vote as established in the Bylaws. SECTION 3. Contracts with Directors. No contract or other transaction of the corporation with any other person,firm or corporation.or in which this corporation is Interested, shall be affected or invalidated by:(a)The fact that any one or more of the directors or officers of this corporation is interested in or is a director or officer of another corporation;or(b)The fact that any director or officer, individually or jointly with others, may be a party to or may be interested in any such contract or transaction. Each person who may become a director or officer of the corporation is hereby relieved from any liability that might otherwise arise by reason of his contracting with the corporation for the benefit of himself or for die benefit of any fine or corporation in which he may be in any way interested. SECTION 4. ammo. At all meetings of the shareholders, a majority of the shares entitled to vote at such meeting represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum. ARTICLE VII INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS,OFFICERS,EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS Each Director,Officer,Employee or Agent of the Corporation(and his heirs,executors and administrators)shalt be indemnified by the Corporation against expenses reasonably incurred by or imposed upon him in connection with or arising out of any action, suit or proceeding in P:10110a1aa,in 1Q11_ART.MC 2 • �1 which he may be involved or to which he may be made a party by reason of his being or having been a Director,Officer,Employee or Agent of the Corporation,or at its request,of any other corporation of which it is a shareholder or creditor and from which he is not entitled to be indemnified(whether or not he continues to be a director or officer at the time of imposing or incurring such expenses),to the fullest extent permitted by die laws of Colorado,as they exist or may hereafter be amended. including in circumstances in which itde miftcatiou is otherwise discretionary under Colorado law.in accordance with and subject to die limitations which may be contained in the bylaws of the corporation from time to time in effect. 'The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive of otter rights to which he may be entitled under applicable state statutes. ARTICLE VIII LIMITATIONS ON LLARILTI'It(DIRECTORS) Directors of the corporation shall have no personal liability to the corporation for monetary damages for breach of a fiduciary duty as a Director. Nothing contained herein shall be construed,however,to eliminate or limit the liability of a Director to the corporation for monetary damages for a breach of the Director's duty of loyalty to the corporation;acts or omissions not made in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;or from any transaction for which the Director derived an improper personal benefit. ARTICLE IX REGISTERED OFFICES AND AGENT SECTION 1. $roien.a_Cetrr_mkt_ amian^r'd Arm The addicts of the initial registered office of the corporation is 1011 Eleventh Avenue,Greeley,CO 80631,and the name of the initial registered agent of the corporation at such address is George H. Ouenhoft. The written consent of the initial registered agent to the aipointnient as such is stated below. SEC ION 2. princes]Business Office. The address of the principal business office of die corporation is 735 Denver,Avenue, Fon Lupton,CO 80621. ARTICLE X BOARD OF DIRECTORS SECTION 1. Number. The number of directors constituting the Board of Directors shall be fixed in the manner provided by the Bylaws of the corporation,provided,that if the number of shareholders of record is fewer than three, the number of directors may be the same as the number of shareholders. F:IUWt6:M COIDIM4a uC 3 /rte SECTION 2. bath'Directors The names and addresses of the initial directors am as follows: Scott D.Busker 7678 WCR 17 Fat Lupton,CO 80621 Susan J.Busier 7678 WCR 17 Pat Lupton,CO 80621 Cecil R.Crowe 735 Denver Avant Pest Lupton,CO 80621 ARTICLE XI INCORPORATOR SECTION 1. kkatattaint44. The name and address of the incorporator of the corporation is u follows: George H.Ottaihoff HE l Eleventh Avenue Greeley,CO 80631 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,1, the undersigned, being a natural person over the age of eighteen years, being the incorporator designated in Article XI of the foregoing Articles of Incorporation,have executed said Articles of Incorporation as of this 17. day of August, 1999. H. ,TnW[poralor The undersigned consents to the appointment as the initial registered agent of High Plains Engineering,Inc. e . ►ACIMMIIMICUMIONPUOAtTJ C 4 380000-101 STATE OF COLORADO DONETTA DAVIDSON _-: c •,'= ass tug SECRETARY OF STATE �Y =.,o b" R.as.y 1 s AGE PAID 1580 BROADWAY STE 200 ire' n �t{j{{ �"` ta. DENVER CO 80202-5169 1•== s nz� :3Ci•- t'nW XralialzU sit TER RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 6830]05 20011195556 II PERIODIC REPORT $ 25.1 ! SECRETARY OF STATE Pee $25.00 due on or before 10/31/2001 10-10-2061 14:4b:27 19991158315 DPC HIGH-SLAM .ENGINEERIHG, -3NC. STATE/CODNTRY OF C eO-.- OTTEHH0PP -GEORGE H 4.?SK-� 1011 11TH AVE Year =? GREELEY CO 80631 _ -- OUP% •seat IIQGIbu111nullnntbdLlNLnhlnllHollndbhl"Vl � __ = EXHIBIT jcri Ib u111 i -,�' - .- _ _ _ fit tl qN• C- in.)I lr.d pii1 _ - , -ir-ii, InjcY111altort foot 114h-iiri "6r it1eyt `u in.cpst,i m ,d undeli,- I ri-. 4.,.upfon. n �cpar. II .yore.I-.'sce l oi.i.i is rzril i 01 u. i,u +II ie:u i . 71 Sili81 illd iii. v ...I. .l i .:, .0 . ._ . - i,i '_ .. 75 !.i ln�,vu•:'. Ste 2(10. Gain 1111 2 I • '.t lit, in, .4.I:r v Mt' lr id'._ +•;aiil;, lo. O dui,.ii. S, 'i _ r.. itl _ I_,li. i I hi, i-puii n1V41 be -. r Inrl . z.i an a i" .il.t side. For ulrre ildiorileI ..SII c. _ 'i.<l� ''.11 iiie 3_. Exhibit KK Oversized Aerial Photograph (10/14/1997) See Original File �� rGV i J PS a z 1� II Lwr ry w I' TA_ 1 ,, ft - • Ty i S I 2 i 'a tilt' y 1 } ci. IA i 4 IL .1$ , gni f ( ,,, _..0101 EXHIBIT ILL L1sc-it 135b r 16ki 17 V 8"- V 1,9 V 20 ' 21 V 22 V 23 IV 24 as I fedetat ---_ _ _3 LARAMIE,,., • .r Rh- o-1 -. _1- after s _ +1 a. �. Flne i Bushnell.��_—_ • - --- = 30 v II Y a• Bums Bluff/s a• _;� � s r ° r 1o�� t*e. y. e • bC t KIMBALL I per R /� + - 71 u 70�• 0.P •- •e(/1°� s ry !m I -� zm'" 9 CaMen• � �aaa�.w•�r .` � ��e�� a woos::rd_a %x : w er•..�w w e..s� � Sys I G. haft. 30333 Can Pawn I 1 % Ntllene 73 Ili ♦ n Rockport \ C F r , Gras'1@ntl F „—.i1 '- �— q 4 RI Erg 34 61 c BS v I!. 6 �, • `�Y I N • K i. @,rt: I C_ _ lei M r . The Fens •, \ I .'.•,1+••11e711,.••I r P@ 4 �. id � 5P �� mJ \ wdm 281 Welln t. ° Nunn `_ N.Bonel 31R+•ra g. . c•' ai•e_ e ,i•n a Oranland • , h m a ; ST LING 3 ° Purcell. • ,(• Mace .n'.. —1RJR"Tl �B •ak N i1� r * IN LO •LLINS a • �n Buckingham • e• r La H O� i,4 a 1e •�. •.� • I Rapper l sw,, x/30 - ` o .< pv. ? , Ls�I3/�4 ance • 4pn Galeton _ 6`.It.GYD ;•WI ds r , .• _ -a t NNE ..w • `�.'GR EL 1 • • Barnswlie 4 _ 4P 1 a H ¢ .. el_ Ian @ Z��l''i rzr n >&" © WELD I • f� ./ R w '+; H° • •+� My •S� Irekw. • lock o • • /I .16 , INl4 � an 'P .� eldona a C mp an "'� • I - w..rw. �. X 2 '45nvI.r . �r + 4t11'. r 0 3r. Mil L ,� .3i R Mr `. Ian '"4 / thou• I -iFi r ¢ f r0l•//' tN l 7<� R •k tim eB a + 16"44. B1 4 I1•hnsbw �tham ry Ie •B •ue� s +/s e i --� s e p c N � s t c• • .. ,_ d• p lla aR �1 Sr •- i • p' w p' a y /ti w • '8 1 a "e^ o- s ° FT H Brush M••" �a zaa:� 1 ��"' 4131 . fi � i$ns ..0�¢ MORGAN e i s 1 attevMe ° V l• u.t v • •< AKRON • T • - P,. c v em - NYBtene© L .RaL• u©S S P a� F "bur I �. u.•v 11 I '>ri �' 'a w Ono ortkred ricdl n ° ©esbur. ROBgen • © u� � IIF. -3 lFo' II 1 c•.,•_. IH Ion ©•6 / . • Prospect valkr I — —.11\ I a I.. �.. ERs °Pt' ) I • �rata, T� x„ 111 ,, I --1--- ---- —i� li s� N + Ir� 1 I #' * 7 • }‘ii F o.s l v li It Woodrow I MIR LIE selF. s ill ti B••3. �� :8 obm• leo I it pi ft iI I__. i WAiHINGTON cos • d 1 g .4 Pltc l r ADAMS .._...�� ras tea 93 � w-'4 c , 3.tU /I I l I 9 • L' a • • "' •— •-#a R aski Bennett f g h b �• I•, c/Nnce 1•. ro Landon 4/ Os i I Anton _3_ • M � d,a'y Tie, • d(I �3 •r�.►�Sn 4 l xl 3 36. /Ii\ a gryR \/ I ' Al rora • 1340al? iC ri I® Yers` e \ W.1 g/. ! cr I ai 2a xA s Em l 8 u 1 e J IB® s q B �. ARAPAHOE ,.� a 'r •�I a€9� NI 344 p�` nB3 �� T t LF• Y I 1��. 7�BBR '7.Tn -- ��.—_— I- Ire. Y ,3• p... Mai' 95 y jIs -Parke I ,7 �I� 3 1� G� d ,E) A+\ a _M^^. "'WAIF•( . Louden . d£Ii 6 t I Il q -. 71 FFEf ON , ° �. 11 1'' ,fit .• 7aa �I Cr mton, oa eJs,Bh'a •all •.. / , ,I A _ _ y 144 3 , •--•�� p� • ;fin©Or/ I� Y� a' ! / p^„�A. I ti j-�/ _ ._ 'Ft' • Q lea . Elizabeth' 3♦ r •287 63 p F/ tm CI TL - �, aow ELBE'T / �: 'In n / • a M:OS •I 5 • c. v 1 ry i y 1 / f' ..• ai •panes�" .. R / n I j oeckey, to d �,. ° x/ • ® 43 : ----ti I U� e 4 EXHIBIT z� l �� l ..•nhen • • � sWIIII a - - c w use-lsSC \ '\ \ + 1• 11 - - , `\. • tted 11 t a It\ 1 • ' t^ \` .fix....:-;. ` llik 1 t: ' ir p• . _-_ _ Actste- , - 'IliSNIk k:r/• Crl 1 ;1/ c'friii•‘, 7 v i i NM •r. 4 a' cap\ 1 3:4i' lirli I Sr 4. . , I .. _ .... _ _.ii •..4 -_ _•__.....__ 1'� f15' y aE 6e,v g, t hJRp y y I r •WV.5--f J ; r •^ _ : 1 A - f`, .k a•�, • _ II i r • ' f l b/ L k, ...• J i^ r Hello