HomeMy WebLinkAbout952645.tiffCheryl Schellenberg
5609 WCR 79
Roggen, Co 80652
303-849-5221
Weld County Board of Commissioners
To Whom it May Concern,
It has recently come to my attention that a new business is in the
process of being integrated into my community with very little
publication of said intent. That, in itself, is a major concern to me and my
family. Lack of adequate communication between the government and the
people is not fulfilling the basic premise of the Constitution. Decisions
are made by elected boards with the input of all citizens involved. In this
case you have violated the trust that has been established. A minimal
amount of advertising of intent has been done in newspapers outside of
the immediate area. This implies that the operation that is to be installed
in my community is less than desirable.
The fact that the operators of the Chicken Ranch have not informed
all. parties about the impact of their proposed water wells does not bode
well for community members. Water is at a premium in this community
and all aspects of use must, be carefully examined for any impact on all
concerned parties.
Another concern is the effect of refuse on the air quality in this
area. I do not believe that open air disposal of chicken corpses will in any
way add to my quality of life.
This community does not need portable housing that does not
increase the tax base for schools. At this time our educational system is
becoming severely taxed by lack of sufficient buildings. Ifabond
issueo is
proposed we need permanent structures in housing to pay for a
l.
I have been a resident of this community for twenty-six years and do
not wish my quality of life impacted negatively for the financial gain of a
few. This business is not one that I feel will benefit the area nor myself
in the future.
Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Schellenberg
Cho
952645
40Aid
.m.-cit.- *6 3 e . �. Lt zd_
cece
�icv gc��r--/
_;,,a A c_ conee-o4 dine dCrrr , to OJ✓far"' ptciot j- .
Olt/ per ,, a_ % ca.a-
quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles
restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land —use project
addressed to family needs ... The police power is not confined to
the elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is
ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the
blessings of quiet seclusion and cleats air make the area a
sanctuary of people. -
JO r6ca t L44.J urce4 4-
v
/Lrycuttec s eiinGe ,fucmctn tztetAccz testoGL ZcI
40-(21,-
".447-3-44-13 A-ccG,✓ Ce ✓ a, / 2Orr� 4V -or -A- —et,414.:. - eerie; Asir
w(.c.i r;na �i w
e YWu-f- /7t anti G_mcz& - �- 6≥ -c�ac rvfi
V)L.Z.N, )2 GGzzec /S) fC.L /,y/i.iC�'✓ L}�� /Z.hL c/v / ` i/
DD J
1 r
a 7i.CI •e - CGCcJ.L.- -64a-
7 ' o cn 2.C. /,,,,,„,,,, ,i45.f .4&'tot C,,,, z,..2,_,,..4:2,6
�fLe%� 6a2-' /779 PI / C- / 63 GC'' Lcr 6-1:0- X12O-74 64,14----1- G`-/
•
bC,-C LLc2tut-te ..Gn ya ,. ,
-inn,.
19-n.c. A ecru ryiA: <,r--- ..,1--rre-dc �
--12e,,,,,_,.,,,,‘ ,,,>t:D ..az r tcJ l tier Dy- • y'4 ` zo,
dc Az -eel -ad
£&'u'`C- CC�C,L( C•rC �jL,EJ G' G'>`,"-
e'artinttin4 711t LA, / ena - /
Mac, t -t
ec ttec- d2zy OY✓ g aazire"-z-,
/% i20� �' � °ter Cam z/
Owe-' C L4J Or' Gcring, - — " on--,
6-ccrcy / ,fir. , //um. l /to- +a&tm& &r
7
•40 /J lc .&/a/74 73.66107%./ nzcr.Gu-ea v U�
jr2c* t5 / _./Zel ,rs//�c,t z -‘ c c -L --ev 1:
lant'U (421n.a- • /L,ye `�
.co ` ice /It 2 c aaa I` l c /� "'� cj rL
,,t • o a'41t ten- 1L flvo"tcc"'a'
v z --t
(/el ,ur, cam,)" 4 `'
to or I— g -LO),,--, .5z Jr 3— p
It-t/te_, tic 4.e.444 -;c C /n: (7 M J/ Y7i ?� e (�/Y'" nee--
Ate ce joY cQ c n G C�/J�C� t enY_ dt ' LtY�u< 7L
n, c&t d)
Mt%' E t� �� /— and /../.7-7,4_L--
e. zz a ciao-cGt_`r / inJ eee;u
_4 -utter 7.ICcric-e _.
02, tel-enc-c-
cZ U .ems` _J C ytt/« ';
L C�cx Lor- -vt«;c. - Gv er
uta
r,✓ Gcourie /G-)
(telcrcc. cad
'c -c Are£ LU sf` ( XJ
-1--zyadr.Jc.zte“4 GUdi er
ddacri c, 64 -Lc
G oec-t o G._C-C,U)n m-a-r(eetcv
calf ` d, l dY G&t) .41 -Lions /n-orc--az`
e �vr w fl1 vfte.—"- <f
.GGn�- �✓e - _C - e d) —6v-tic
.cc. -L «G Y
1.Grr'vYt
C2-nri�//j1-4-c cA (
�,- c%hack=,.) �.,�,.� Gc
1 :r✓ Ccaikccn fz)�ax nr
i,n
MOARK
SCOPE OF MANURE AND CARCASS
MANAGEMENT AT PROPOSED ROGGIN SITE
TOTAL MANURE WEEKLY =
2,500,000 POUNDS
(TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS)
TOTAL MANURE MONTHLY=
10,000,000 POUNDS
(TEN MILLION POUNDS)
ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND HENS. (1,400,000)
FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PULLETTS ( 400,000)
1/4 LB/DAY MANURE ADULT HENS (by STATE VETERINARIAN)
1/8 LB/DAY PULLET HENS (ESTIMATED)
1.4 Million Hens X .25 lbs/day X 7 days = 2,450,000/ lbs. week
400,000 Pulletts X .08 lbs/day X 7 days = 115,000/ lbs. week
CHICKEN DEATH RATE
DEATH RATE AVERAGE: 1% Per Month (by STATE VET.)=600 dead/day
44
44
.5% Per Month (by Moark) =300 dead/day
(CHICKEN POPULATION: 1,8000,000 x 1% = 18,000 dead/MO
.5%= 9,000 dead/MO)
Approximately 12,000 lbs. of dead flesh weekly
(Semi -trailer 24 tons ---weekly manure = approx. 210 Semi-trailers/mo manure
EXHIBIT
MOARK HEARING OUTLINE
(Wood Eppelsheimer)
I. Scope of Roggen Manure Management
A. Waste Volume Projections
(1) Manure weekly :
Manure monthly
2,565,000 pounds
10,260,000 "
(2) Estimated Dead Bird wt/wk.:
wt/mo.:
TOTAL WASTE per WEEK
12,000 lb.
48,000 lb.
_= 2.577,000 lb.
TOTAL WASTE per MONTH == 10,308,000 lb.
(PLUS SEPTIC TREATMENT OF EGG WASH WATER)
B. Comparison of Proposal to other Moark facilities
(1) Moark Pullet, West of Hudson v.s. Roggen proposal
a. 400,000 pullets per year v.s. 1,400,000 adults plus
400,000 pullets.
b. 115.385 lb. manure per week v.s. 2.500.000 lb. manure
week
(Roggen 20 times more manure than Hudson)
(2) Grand Mesa, Fruta area v.s. Roggen
a. 600,000 adult hens v.s.
1,400,000 adult hens plus 400,000 pullets
b. 1,050,000 lb. manure Grand Mesa v.s..
2,500,000 lb. at Roggen. (Grand Mesa air drying
not effective and looking for off site dump.
Similar initial method as first step Roggen
process. Does not work at Grand Mesa.)
Roggen 2.5 times more manure than Grand Mesa)
2.
C. Comparison--Morningfresh to Roggen Proposal
(Perceived similarities to Morningfresh not appropriate)
(1) Morningfresh, Family owned and Owners live on site
(1) 1,000,000 adult hens -- 1,750,000 lb. manure/wk
(2) Raw Manure does not leave Morningfresh unless totally
processed, raw manure not spread off site.
(3) Different Manure process:
80% manure dried immediately
20% manure compost (75% of final manure compost are
added woodchips)
(20% manure = 350,000 lb./ week in "20 windrows 200 ft
long", Moark application -- 6-10 rows 150-180 ft. long, for
2,500,000 lb./wk?
(4) No complaints at county, v.s. many at Grand Mesa,
ndication of business concerns for proper operation
(5) Moark says a manure dryer some day. When, and dryer or
incinerator?
D. Spreading and Handling of Raw Manure Off Site
(1) Planning commission hearing
a. Paul Osborne statement --Traffic on 76 and 73 only,
very little traffic south
b. Dan Hudgens statement --Field drying area only
summer months, crops in field --Through winter they
spread manure on fields, theirs and others --calculated
cost, 1/2 commercial
c. Results of above statements:
Major truck traffic spreading raw manure all over
Prospect Valley (all roads), if trucks not closed, road
spills will pollute entire area. Direct spreading
promotes smell and flies, even if disked in; need to
blade slurry into soil with no air contact. (REFER TO
ARTICLE FROM WASHINGTON WITH SIMILAR
PROBLEM)
d. Fly problems treated by chemical, a temporary
solution.
Biological treatment as a better and more permanent
method. (Refer Washington letter)
E. Details in application vague and refer to process methods
that have not resulted in solutions at other facilities. Moark's
history at Grand Mesa suggest the implied manure
management is not compatible with area. More engineering
detail is needed to prompt a positive Board action.
F. Environmental problems do not indicate this is the
right area for this project with it's manure levels.
Site flooding, proximity to underground water, porosity of
soil on site, and a valley geography that creates area wide
inversions, with air quality control problems, all demand
extensive review before Board action.
4.
II. Support From Outside Interests for non -relevant Economic Issues and
supported by often inaccurate statements of fact
A. EDAP Board adopted a recommendation with misrepresented
facts and no stated consideration (or knowledge) of environmental
issues.
(1) Example: records from EDAP minutes 9/20/95:
" Moark Poultry. This poultry operation is considering
opening a new facility near Roger. They are currently in
the process of pursuing a use by special review permit
from the county and neighbors are upset because they feel
it would threaten their quality of life. The nearest
neighbor is approx. 3 miles from the proposed site.
After a brief discussion Don Hoff made a motion that
EDAP submit a letter of support to the county
commissioners for the Moark project . Mike Geile
seconded. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner
Webster abstaining from both the discussion and the vote."
* a. There are at least 50 farm families and 100 Roggen
residents within a three mile radius. Obviously the
EDAP Board comments are grossly negligent and time
was not taken to evaluate this very serious issue.
(2) EDAP letter of Sept 28, 1995 to Depart. of Planning,
Planning Commission, and Commissioners.
The author of the EDAP letter was John Dent. I called
Dent and asked if he had any specific knowledge of the
scope of the project, the environmental impacts, or any
other specifics to support his letter of by EDAP for
this project. He said he did not and EDAP supports
anything that will bring business to the County.
B. Letter from Larry Neuschwanger-Independent Bank 5.
(1)
Mother example filled with incorrect statements as a
basis of support for Moark. (included in packet presented to
Commissioners) Made more interesting by the
appeal to only "consider the facts". We ask the same of
him and for the Board to disregard his statements.
C. A few outside interests spoke to the economic issues only and all
had direct or indirect potential for personal gains.
D. At the planning meeting no resident inside the 3 mile radius of the
project spoke for the project. 30+ people attended and 19 had time
to speak against this proposal. This extensive presentation was
represented in ONE paragraph of the minutes of a meet lasting
about 6 hours).
(IS Economic Gain is the only issue in this case?
Precedent for the same area says NO. Serious Negative
environmental effect on the community must be the first
priority.)
III. Quotes from the WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. "As a land -use regulatory authority, Weld County is
responsible for decisions which can have a significant
effect on AIR QUALITY"
B. "In Weld County, the agricultural industry is also a way of
life that promotes the cultural and human values associated
with farming"
C. "As a secondary benefit, farmland preservation helps to
maintain natural systems and natural processes. These
include the preservation of wetlands, small watersheds,
aquifer recharge areas, flood plains,"
6.
D. "Individuals who find themselves with land designated and
zoned in a matter that does not accommodate their intended
use should consider seeking other more suitable lands: such a
transition will be to the long-term benefit of both the
individual and the public."
Application detail is not adequate for the scope of this project to
be pre -approved. Flood risk, air -pollution, and water pollution
concerns are real. This project, if considered at all, must be
assessed with details of solutions before Board action to insure
that the valley will not be seriously effected, if it is to be
considered at all.
County zoning guidelines and defined responsibilities require
consideration to the surrounding area environment for existing
land owners as well as consideration for a new business entry into
the county.
CONCLUSION
In closing, our opinion is theproject is being proposed for the
wrong location and should be denied. If the project is considered
at all, it must be with operational guarantees and engineering
detail pre -approved that insures a solution to the above concerns.
Those solutions to site flooding, ground water pollution potential,
and air quality considerations for the community, (to say nothing
of the heavy resident disapproval), have not been adequately
addressed in the application.
(Wood Eppelsheimer, 33500 WCR #16, Keensburg, Co. 80643)
- .1/24/95 13:26 FAX
tjoo9
Summary of Minutes
EDAP Board of Directors
Re: Moark Poultry Project
Date: 10/10/95
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting in which the Moark Poultry project
was discussed by the EDAP Board of Directors. This was the only EDAP Board meeting in which
the Moark project was discussed:
Present John Pacheco, Diana Laws, Mike Geile, Cathy Schulte, Jodi Hartmann, Bill Webster,
Bill Argo, Don Hoff, Don Warden, Dick Wood, Paul Grattet, Lyle Butler, John Dent,
Royce Clark, Ann Bailey
Chairman John Dent presided over the meeting.
Existingindusiry Report
Cathy (Schulte) reported on the following companies she's been working with recently in their
expansion efforts:
Moark Poultry. This poultry operation is considering opening a new facility near Roggen_ They
are currently in the process of pursuing a use by special review permit from the county and
neighbors are upset because they feel it would threaten their quality of life. The nearest nei b
a print 3 miles from the proposed site, After brief discussion Don Hoff ma a motion that
EDAP submit a letter of support to the county commissioners for the Moark project_ Mike Celle
seconded. Motion pawed unanimously with Commissioner Bill Webster abstaining from both the
discussion and the vote.
pectfully submitted
odi Hartmann
EDAP Board Secretary
pore: 3
pit :LC
RADI uS a S -o FAQ'L
pAwH-iu
1' Sao pcopce
#%066 in)
1'0/24/95 13:26 FAX
Z005
i ti'i SR11� )j oc:ou r
7-.S
-RanaIr
el
rnniralC
Irr
\'VFT I)
September 28, 1995
Weld County Department of Planning
Weld County Planning Commission
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership (EDAP)
Board of Directors, I would like to offer our support of Moark Productions, Inc. in
their efforts to establish a fully integrated egg processing operation south of Roggen.
It's our understanding that this facility would provide fresh eggs to the Colorado,
Phoenix, and possibly California markets, and upon final build out, could house up
to 1.9 million birds at a total investment of $10 million. The facility will start out
employing approximately 20 full-time employees and will reach 50 at build out.
Employee wages will range from $6.50 to $10.00/hour plus a full benefits package.
Moark is committed to being a good corporate neighbor, and have plans to purchase
supplies, such as grain, from local farmers whenever possible.
Moark ownership and management are committed to running a safe, state-of-the-
art operation, and we feel this facility will be a benefit to the immediate area and
Weld County as a whole. The rural, sparsely populated area south of Roggen is
almost exclusively comprised of ag production, making it a logical location for an
operation such as this. When coupled with the operational conditions imposed by
the Weld County Health and Planning Departments to enforce high quality
management practices, we believe the location is a good one.
Weld County is one of the most important agriculturally diverse counties in the
entire country, partially because we have welcomed quality ag producers and have
shown our commitment to the industry by working to ensure a good business
climate. Agricultural production is an invaluable economic engine fueling our
county enhance economy.
economy. Therefore, we encourageosed Moark your support of this er strengthen
oje and
OCT 2 1.995
.
Sincerely,
John Dent, Chairman
Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership
Enclosure: EDAP Board of Directors List
GREELEveyIECJ•!,_;)nli Ironis CEVL I L,...'.c'icr. RARTNE a3.,i)'rIL
822 Se•emn Saari 5,0 Of pe'rt. ". on 90631
(970)356 4565 • F.v (97')) 1'.' 2'116
EXHIBIT "B"
Z002
0 2
10.24/95 13:26 FAX
OCT-20-1995 09:26 FROM KFRSEY STATE BANK TB
3520242 P.01
RLan
PA Oa 790 • R.L.tS CONM
Flee PAWPC=
INDEPENDENT BANK
Memct FOIL
Grader
ism tat• these Wow
moo two) 716810
October 20, 1995
Farm
PA ea1SM.Wng m®6Mi
Paw(PO)J6.MW
PM- azSO•vwaWexec
w P(V7q 1K -M4
TO: Our Honorable Weld County Commissioners
FROM: Larry Neuschwanger - Independent Bank
DATED: October 20, 1995
vans
PO- asaCO • viVrc CO miss
0
cn
C
N
o O
.?c
I am writing this letter to ask you to vote yes in allowing
Moark (Mr. Hollis Osborne) to establish the hen/chicken
operation near Roggen. PLEASE consider the FACTS AND MERIT
of what this company will provide for Weld County.
Weld County is an agricultural county and is very dependent
on agricultural and ag-related busin•asses. A Pew years ago,
National Hog Farms had the same problems coming to Weld
County. The voters overwhelmingly approved (by over 70%) to
allow the firm to locate here. As all can see, they have
been good neighbors and have helped Aeld County tojgrow and
expand.
I live just outside of Kersey with the largest cattle fPed1nt
4 miles east and the closest turkey operation 1/2 mile west
with more east and south. Bot of these operations are open -
aired_ The hen/chicken o with MO
obn?'ined 11ot in the omen. I have to+:lred the Morning Fresh
Farms at Platteville (an almost identical operation) and have
found a very clean facility. Morning Fresh Farms have
contributed greatly to the Platteville area and to our
county.
I am only asking you to consider the true facts inithis case,
not the emotional -issues or putting flame on Mr. Osborne or
his firm on thin s that will Kr. Osborne is a
goo businessman and knows what needs to be done to get along
With the environment and neighbors.
please vote veal to allow this Ag Com2any to be in weld
County::
xha
OCT 20 '95 9:36
cooperation.
anger, President
'Does
vu s
FACr
TOTAL P.01
303 356 2418 PQGE.001
4((76,(5,'
ON FIF
& aLu Ee datntuy �
From the Field 0000sal ecaAlMon*b� ��� er ,P
Management Program to ontrol Flies and sP �,v
Odor In Poultry Manure Storage and Disposal?�
Mariana a. Guhllm
Abstract
Agricultural activities often are incompatible with residential areas. The
disposal of animal waste, particularly, may produce offensive odors and
generate flies which are a nuisance and of public health concern to
neighbors of the animal waste disposal site.
The problems encountered with the disposal of poultry manure on
agricultural land near a small rural town are described The legal process
used to gain successful control of the problems is described. The advan-
tages of augmented biological control with parasitic chalcid wasps
(Pteromalidae) and the injection of poultry manure beneath the surface
of the ground are demonstrated to be effective management practices for
satisfactory control of flies and odors.
Lincoln County, Washington is the
seconrmost productive s feat growing
county in the United States. Despite its
sparse, rural population, a fly and odor
problem developed in 1978 between the
community of Sprague and a beef
feedlot operation approximately two
miles north of town.
This feedlot was unusual in that the
operators planned to "recycle" poultry
manure from their poultry houses in
neighboring Spokane County. Some
manure would be mixed with other
products to feed the cattle. Excess
manure, beyond what could be fed to
the cattle, would be applied to local
farmland as fertilizer.
The Problem
At first the poultry manure was
broughi in by trucft anCteposited
either at the feedlot for immediate pro-
cessing or dumped in two pits about a
half mile from the feedlot. The pits
were about 60 feet long. 30 feet wide,
and 7 to 10 feet deep. The bottom of
the pits were clay, and there were no
covers provided. As the pits were fill -
Journal of Environmental Health, V. 47 (6)
314-317.
Marlena P. Guhlke, PS. Director of
Environmental Health. Lincoln County,
P.O. Du% 105, Davenport, WA 99122.
led, the manure was removed with a
bucket on a tractor, dumped into
manure -spreading trucks, and spread
on the fields. Later it was worked into
the ground with a disc plow.
In April 1978, the Lincoln County
Environmental Health office began
receiving complaints from people in
and near Sprague concerning flies and
, dors. The frequency and seriousness
of these complaints escalated. Owe a
penod of four years and two court pro-
ceedings, the court declared the opera-
tion- a public nuisance, and changes
were made that have worked
succasfullyt
Initially, the manure spreading
trucks used -for transport into Lincoln
County did not contain the manure
adequately. Manure leaked from the
doors, sloshed over the top of the mils,
or was lodged in the tires. This
deposited considerable manure on the
-road: including an interstate freeway
and state -highways. People traveling
these roads irked u hemanure-on
I eir ve ide tires. The manure -and -its.
odor went home with vehicles traveling
in every direction. The manure also
provided a fly breeding medium in
home garages and neighborhoods,
adding considerably to thejocal fly
population. Also, a severe fly problem
develo. at the manure storage pits.
FrOt employees who were instructed
to spray flies with Cygone and
Ravape insecticides did so only
sporadically. As time passed, even
sporadic spraying lost effect as flu
seemed to develop resistance to the in-
secticides (3).
The manure at the feedlot generated
flies as well, and an enormous fly pro-
blem developed when the manure was
applied to the ground. Perhaps worse,
manure spreading procedures
created a severe odor problem.
Before the manure was applied to the
ground, the manure that was com-
posting in the storage pits had
developed a crust. The crust tended to 5TiRI7g
reduce odors by containing them cA ses-
beneath it. When the crust was broken
by the tractor that was used to lift Oa
manure into spreader trucks, an intense
and disgusting odor was released.
When the wind switched to the north-
east, the obnoxious odors drifted into
the town of Sprague
The fields were a major source of
odors because during the manure
spreading operation, the manure tend-
ed to slide out of the trucks in large
dumps rather than being spread as a
thin, even coating. These uneven
dumps occurred even though the
manure was in a semi -liquid state, and
they were from six inches to four feet
of fresh, odorous manure. The
disagreeable odor easily carried to
Sprague
These manure dumps intensified the
fly problem. When the disc plow was
used, the manure could not be com-
pletely covered with soil. Later a mold-
board plow was used to turn the soil
over end cover the manure more effec-
tively, but the manure had been so
thickly applied that the plow was still
not able to completely cover the
314 Journal of Environmental ttl1ealth Vok 47, No. 6
sffgut-n rf6Qt4 r 6ic( o -r.5.'ore ter/W;g.ut Liu rte.7 inic_
control program was to be used (2,>f.
Biological fly control was substituted
for chemical control because it was
highly effective, compared with spray-
ing the surface of the manure pits, and
it eliminated many of the problems
normally associated with pesticides (3).
Chemical control measures at the pits
were believed to be detrimental to
biological control.
—Parasitic chalcid wasps,
Muscidifurax raptor, Muscidifurax
zaraprot, and Spatangia endius were
released at the pits. These chalcide
(family Pteromalidae) kill flies by
either puncturing the puparium and
sucking out the contents or by laying
eggs inside the fly puparium (1,6). The
eggs develop into wasp larvae that feed Lon the fly pupae inside the puparium
and kill the developing pupa.
The parasitic chalcids provide con-
tinual control instead of sporadic con-
trol achieved with spraying insecticides
(4). Also, house flies, Musca
domestica, have not developed
resistance to these parasites.
Close supervision is necessary to
maintain the control desired because of
fluctuations in the life cycle of the fly.
As the chalcids kill pupae, adult flies
are reduced in number so that very few
fly eggs are laid for pupal development
As the pupal population declines, the
chalcid population also declines
because these parasites must have fly
pupae as hosts. With reduction in
numbers of chalcids, eggs, larvae,
pupae and adult flies that arrive with
new manure deposits can increase in
numbers until more chalcids are in-
troduced in the environment to attack
successive fly generations. To be effec-
tive as biological control agents, these
chalcids are "seeded" into the area in
greater numbers than they occur under
normal conditions (1,5,6).
The pits were inspected by a respon-
sible employee of the company who
monitored the effectiveness of the fly
control measures. Fly traps (Bishopp-
type) installed around the pits were
helpful in assessing fluctuations in the
fly population and in removing adult
flies locally attracted to the pits.
Samples of the flies collected indicated
when to release more parasitic chalcids
at the pits. More flies meant more
chalcids.
On occasion, insecticides such as
Cygone or Ravapa were used, but in
316
a manner to minmize the death of
chalcids (I). The chalcids tended to live
on the periphery of the storage pits
where the fly pupae developed. The
flies pupated there because the manure
is dryer adjacent to the soil banks of
the pit. This area was not sprayed with
insecticides. Instead, insecticides were
sprayed on the grass and weeds grow-
ing around the pits to kill the adult flies
that rested in the vegetation. Elimina-
tion of these plants made spraying with
an adulticide virtually unnecessary.
The absence of plants also increased air
circulation and thus aided the frying of
manure. The employee -monitor sub-
mitted records to the Environmental
Health Department on a weekly basis
showing wind direction, release of
parasites, application of pesticides and
fly counts at the traps.
during inversion periods or when wind
would carry the odor into Sprague
„would
The manure was removed from the
storage pits to the cylindrical tank in
a manner that would minimize odors.
Negative pressure from a vacuum
pump was used to extract the semi-
liquid manure from beneath the crust.
When this procedure was not success-
ful, water was added to the pits and the
manure agitated, making it possible to
transfer the manure from the pits to the
tanker, The agitation and liquefaction
of the manure also lessened fly produc-
tion. Odors were confined to the pit
area since most of the manure was
composted by this time Also, the
weather was favorable at that time of
year to prevent odors from drifting
toward Sprague,
The parasitic chalcids were very ef-
fective for fly control at the storage pits
and did not bother people Nor did the
chalcids (smaller than houseflies)
bother the employees who worked near
them. The chalcids appeared to remain
at high population levels at the manure
storage pit for extended periods of
time
Using the parasitic hynenoptera was
economical in comparison with
pesticides for fly control (1,3). Approx-
imately 40,000 chalcids were released
every 15 days at a cost of about $96 per
month; compared to about $300 per
month for pesticides applied twice a
week. Labor costs are additional and
increase with the use of pesticides, since
spraying is necessary at least eight
times per month, compared to releas-
ing parasites only twice a month.
Therefore, the parasites give more ef-
fective control and at lower cost than
pesticides. �!►
Land Application —Good manage-
ment practices were crucial not only at
the storage pits but also in the fields
where the manure was applied to the
land for disposal and fertilizer. The
poultry manure was applied to the
fields during the fall season. A tractor
pulling a cylindrical tank with shanks
attached and designed to inject the
manure beneath the surface of the
ground was used instead of a manure
spreading truck. This prevented the
manure from exposure to the air, thus
preventing odors. The thin application
with quick incorporation into the soil
prevented breeding of flies so the use
of parasitic chalcids in the fields was
not necessary. Wastes were not applied
Conclusion
Wow land application of poultry
waste from this operation occurs in the
fall, spring and early summer as long
as wind direction and weather condi-
tions are favorable, and without
developing fly or odor problems. Land
application activities are halted during
holidays such as July 4 and during the
wheat harvest season in August, to fur-
ther reduce the possibility of flies or
odors annoying people in the area. This
management program has been in use
since June 1982 with few complaints
from the community.
This operation, utilizing an injection
method of manure disposal rather than
land spreading has proven successful.
The use of parasitic chalcids instead of
insecticide sprays for fly control is suc-
cessful, as well. Decreased use of insec-
ticides also allows for populations of
other naturally occurring bio-control
agents to build up in addition to the
augmentation of chalcid wasp popula-
tions. These two management practices
should be considered by others who are
looking for means to make the disposal
of agricultural manure waste environ-
mentally tolerable in areas where there
is nearby population.
Aeknowtedgemeat
The author acknowledges the assistance of Dr.
Paul Caits. Entomologist at Washington State
Univers,iy and Greg Simmons. Instructor of
English at Green River College for their critical
review of this manuscript. Dr. Casts was in-
strumeni al in developing a satisfactory solution
to the poultry waste disposal problem, and his
expertise is most appreciated.
Referents
I. Hartman, Roland C. (1971), Integrated Fly
Control is Gaining. Poultry Dig., 36:184-186.
Journal of Environmental Health Vol. 41, No. 6
O1)6.Ni titG
6 ke� _ GPPE �-sa� E_nee- -
3 5nca__uJL2 - 4cEtr 4&s.S AaG
e rtaf-ne� Ue ienrner+1
DUr taL NELG L C. 14 cob (k(corn invto)Ty)
L (Run
L_Alm4car ))L[ . Ru [t3 A F12ST CL&!e_r G P20( ucTrorJ
OF'aRAT[oN TN-cr Wi/ [ Ar AM er 7b L?T
l iW _g_Q61> *lit
"APPL,LCfl _OPE-2,4-yr A.SI` /m IL e... FA CILITy n4CAR
APs t__Jue/Cr/OAfr_�Q _ tEfGw-r Ve-'-rRc ,&yi Aiv ,4PDi7OM4z
(D. / /ff APalG4N(S aPURIPON /3
,OF _711E CCU N.EsT__ oCrPy _CPS 1Q!gs ?J
IA. Ss
-P[EAs_e_ 4LLor.J___ 1162a_1si' lit- You - A_JItSTvt2J' _OF gesilb
�Ecit2G sN u/TA ) (D1
_ _We do 1`�oT_-116P�� 3I T µ -'t1 s 5?A 4 r-7YI &ThIES
I I 1 E -Al ral P Laat VISIT mob TFI nTUs — -areT/ n1 C1t1
7NESE -Picm.tp c. ccsn i c B - D U4)
olM P 02a PiCrurd Nov/&t /994
csyuCGn q uot4'ris prior -k) our V151+. PAW_ OS83e.10e
�OcPt,81�L—D 2[xgss Lc1 np 1 Y'i rs o Y11a� Ch,rty troX2 .
I.l 1-fri e -Ro-r
COMpLAIND STATUS
_ .RliN - _ _MESA_ E".GGS - PLANT 5%a ��s_- ._EL 4)19%A
A• AC,AGL?oIt Un1O
-- 7— 11_` Nagms ._P _(_.chick%
it4(LS, LA ie.
doWSra_ucflOJY 2-0_12PL.Wik-zi s/v /QS 7
N L.417, D_ f _ -a _�li 5/7/29 ive ha vi Cc fr y a then -l-0 _ t_zlisoziv
re ns erni_n_ _ 9-.spoli7s _r£& r at n IsJdai&t _4o_sues4r*
cv/effafi_onac__,orrrchLes af_gthfrgaL_o ,o tC of �hic�'oltr/
-eo oeisg_osa( o. d ick Dark 4 eega < ;n k4li-she
�Ji1r _ort_-Prop l
1 CQYrona—pC4tt_i'2ef ih pQce.
b, one_ 5/9./90 — _ ONe ar —E2
}— ----_. _- 41'm€ 40 ban }i,+DGEMS__Co-fic rninL5__same---f�incl of
practices _he_sardi A ci poste L J cJ _4U4t e_ iclCevL
— cirfs- e53s _ - —
([•esf7on doThoussO ecs _- JASlkls Att)_ x/vrtal uF
A _ORSTCLASS 61.10 _OPERA !7Dn1 _Rcu) S QNe
TA IS C'ootJTRY
eOP)I PL 4 / NT S - Ye, gs
_dli4L'D4?e_2 IO _Ly IvPwMJ7OJv
kUT AL_;o.R_O1:0k4 _ L`t ED I rJG_J1J,H- SVQcf5-AP_E_11.l}1 _
To TN6
chE
S1E1CA_1 ,LoF U QEStOLt CJ es
REThFr - Ia9
. 4 s poon2 -N?
.2._ANIA 2L jL)4s; - 300 - S1 k
3. tA-TEL—cs5 - A OPRvx Soo ^" Wee
Ge?1_ actLail f oQoses it 2 _ Th.1 l_L or, birds)
Corn PLAT NT STcrcLS - con 4
ri
P 12T�� _ y )4EALTU �nlCERNS - Fea : i4
L bue jo WASTE ,V1- JtAciicr 5 Ery1PLo166 [3y Grnt
�CLI� ( .U12p�1`Yc c9F SUES sN AQEA Age JHArk.EQ r4
AJwnn 1 -iv A LEGn WHiur terfSuL1% rn Pa6uc PEALiU A1UiSAAre
;o?, O QY12 tt LT2Y M eE (oN nE. offF SITE) aS S1a11 FiVANr
4Tr/aA c_knrf 0 FIVES
IT1 - IR>ALoe'nut — Ld k �'.. (Vl. F M+ Focused oN
rm1PRbVf /✓2E-.rirs T }{(t'Tt f 2Ac71ces WY(CW 0.�AL tyeT�l
?7+e CDLcc-+ON StockPILA JC r PieoctSsrn)c. � 2nsAI_
nr ThuLTKy MA►�u n (�n/(YY12� L+A►2L�ssi=s (Vertj
issues as in Ia2Q - toll())
As u 1A)11J e ±J MEmu2A Duvtn DAra✓r ti - 1S-93 D12ecrwE
li
I
1 ac,yA STEVEN be Fr: rEr fN 2Ecrb C. EN ur 2 . f-4 &A LT u -+o
I NA il_Ack SA N rrA 12.) LA — u)hich
ONGoiriC PRbzirms AT (',ME NFED To 13S
-
AS
FoR m ALLY AUDQeSSe
r-rs2M "To sk of !-Sot v/ilk_Qb02 r4.
$Y ThnacnWHwu . W Eck
-DLo(r)/ CI TN►s AcTIPN yAai.o . ER,4GTio,J c,Jirw 6m6
j OFFI C't! S A FLV PRoyra m (.Z bpl i fr de i -fs A s.e of
Ism AQcr)) Lc�.A s -tin f%e7n NT�-D1 i,ancg Tb 1/AGE
A6A Th-7) F%y '0,eo&r r --m
CVcXaL tars byFor' ac-(tior, Lofts -hiker)
/Mesa County
Health
Department
515 Patterson Road
P.O. Box 20,000-5033
Grand Junction, Colorado
81502-5033
Administration
(303) 244-1743
Environmental Health
(303) 244-1753
Nursing
(303) 244-1759
Animal Control Center
362 28 Road
P.O. Box 20,000-5002
Grand Junction, Colorado
81502-5002
(303) 244-1892
:7
g rzuicli
r ,r. ..1`.1^3'!
Hollis Osborne
parr Productions
U, 13cct 1'IL
Neosho, PC. 64850
Lear Mr. Crcborrle:
r W [ ate. 9 mUtN.
.cimplaln ` al ,VIA t
_ �'Yiit7
ellitiltiy i'+i a : ei . :r,
+i .,;2 l: i'. 1 i a t 3 iala ra ti&.Xmasewr
?< o f :'tht:_ .i. x t'he;;,_ comp.lr, i zit; r nge 3 r caac-3 w:
.orr-tte_" raper -19 and
"WELLNESS IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT""
dfaw i1/46,„
c
r J...l •u , ,� ie , Isposa -.c,'� u ,
rata_ os
ea's, tRtl
These practices h;ivrr been •
c'
clo:ae
••, in prOY.10,1 ty-.. 7.77....1:11
refill
erg
et'
in'r.. • ur i,. partment, does not have any local
r"r'f'Ulati'-•nu cisv ring your operation, I contact
ed
Dr. Stovrn Horn, the Colorado Agriculture
!' his assistance. He was kind
enough t. send me the existing regulations on
poulLcruuel,iurt. I am wi•_Luing a photo con, for
your p.'j;l.:al and t': view.
1':•-:,:c ur.L:', Ror;utat.iern Yb-1 G1 deals with the
d.5peition of d•:ud animals and the penalLlei
11,VLIIVrd with violating this statut.. k.
-1;U J.a 1. l.J rl
P5 SI the local henll.h department the right.
" ,r cc a riuisancy;, sourceelpf .filth, and
causes of sickness which may he in,juriou:, t.o the
hcall, of inhabitants, within its town, city or
line nse .i' the Ir:t number r,P complaints,the
eh:: •.t.muri t.
l ,r'feels L},:It a nui;;rurer, prc,LJrm
along w.i I.h complaints of re:::idrints in the close
proximity (1/4 mile) of being sick. t'wil1 be,
William for the area manager, Mr. Williaa.
m Byers,
t:o contact the dear me t th mr
ra on I Jt.lot ff -the
pritierriSthenottrce e omp a nts e f t
neighbors as soon,as7possible7V57the7D6WRIUTr
"73 1aotagi
Fir. Hollis Osborne
l'tage 2
Hay 17, 1939
Sincerely,
Dr. George M. Clank°, Director
Environmental Health Department
GMC:gr
enclosure
William Byers;
Commic:ioner Doraiyn Genova
Dr. Kenneth Lampert
File
k.-,. " 9. 1990
/Vlesa County
Health
Department
515 Patterson Road
P.O. Box 20,000-5033
Grand Junction, Colorado
81502-5033
Administration
(303) 244-1743
Environmental Health
(303) 244-1750
Nursing
(303) 244-1759
Animal Control Center
362 28 Road
P.O. Box 20,000-5002
Grand Junction, Colorado
81502-5002
(303) 244-1892
"WELLNESS IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT"
Grand Mesa Eggs
1133 21 Road
Grand Junction, Colorado 81505
Attn: Dan Hudgens
Dear Mr. Hudgens:
Due to a complaint received by this Department,
inspections were made of the Grand Mesa Eggs
property located at 1133 21 Road, Fruita, Colorado
on April 25, 1990 and April 30, 1990. The complaint
se a posa r -ste -ch!!AOr
r 5 -and eggs on ffie-WeS
The inspection of April 25, 1990 revealed several
i"tken - carcasSe - -exposed: n:.theY
Fii rdTWO'Sal=-si-te. Some flies were noted. The
April 30, 1990 inspection, that you were present
for, revealed the chicken carcasses were not being
completely covered each time after they were dumped.
Please be informed that C.R.S. 25-1-612 provides for
the proper disposal of dead animals and the
maintainence of such areas.
"Dead animals - disposition - penalty. No person
shall put any dead animal or part of the carcass of
any dead animal into any lake, river, creek, pond,
road, street. alley, lane, lot, field or meadow, or
common or in any place within one mile of the
residence of any person, unless the same and every
part thereof is burned or buried at least two feet
underground. If the owner thereof knowingly permits
the same to remain in any of the aforesaid places,
to the injury of the health or to the annoyance of
any citizen of the state, he is guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction there, shall be
punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor
more than fifty dollars, together with the costs of
prosecution...Every twenty-four hours said owner
permits the same to remain after such conviction
shall be deemed an additional offense against the
provisions of this section..,"
Fur he �,ection 25-1-613 states: ftfm9 a)...1
tiifii-km_f The board of health shall examine all
nuisances, sources of filth, and causes of sickness.
which, in its opinion. may be injurious to the
health of the inhabitants, within its town, city, or
county...and it shall destroy, remove, or prevent
the same as the case may require."
Grand Mesa Eggs/Ernie Greenwood
May 10, 1990
Page 2
It is the responsibility of the owner/operator to
properly maintain the burial/disposal site in
accordance with the above noted regulation.
Further, all complaints concerning the
burial/disposal site will result in an inspection by
our Department to insure compliance with the
regulations.
I have enclosed a copy of the above referenced
regulations for your review. Please feel free to
contact me at 244-1762 or 244-1750 if I may be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Darleen L. McKissen
Sanitarian
DLM:dm
Enclosure
cc: Mesa County Board of Commissioners
(GMEgg.Ltr/DMS)
SEP 18'95 13:42 P.22
COMPLAINT STATUS REPORT
Complaint Location:
Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc.
1133 21 Road
Grand Junction, CO
Nature of Complaint: Odor and Flies
Submitted By: Dana A. Black, Sanitarian 1
Date: February 4, 1994
BACKGROUND:
Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., is owned in partnership by Olson Farms of
Beverly Hills, California and Missouri -Ark Hatchery of Neosho,
Missouri. The Grand Mesa Eggs complex is located at 1133 21 Road,
Grand Junction, Colorado and is under the general management of Mr.
Dan Hudgens. The prime enterprise of G.M.E., Inc. is the production
of fresh whole eggs for distribution to local markets and western
Colorado food wholesalers and retailers, ie. City Market and Sam's
Club, etc. There are twc secondary enterprises, marketing/disposal
of poultry manure and cash crop farming, both of which are directly
connected and inter -dependent to the production of eggs in the
specialized, intensified management system employed by G.M.E. Inc.
The corporation farms approximately 400 acres of irrigated crop
land which is used indirectly to off -set feed cost of the layer
operation. The acreage also serves as a disposal site for poultry
manure which in applied in quantities to displace equivalent
increment applications of commercial fertilizer for plant growth
and optimizing crop yielde. The poultry manure enterprise involves
the marketing/disposal of waste to local area crop farms which
include small vegetable truck farms, orchards, animal forage farms
and row crop farms. Approximately 1% of manure waste produced is
marketed as a livestock feed additive. Contruction of the complex
was initiated in 1986 and completed in 1987.
SEP 18 7SS 13:43 P.23
.7 ,
Grand Mesa Eggs
Complaint Status Report
Page 2
Nature of Complaints:
Over the past several years, numerous complaints from residents in
the surrounding area have been recorded by the Department. The
complaints primarily concern mal-odor and increased fly
populations. It is acknowledged here that the potential for odors
and fly breeding media sources are inherent to the intensified
management of any livestock specie. Furthermore, the concentration
of 485,000 laying hens in 6 houses, combined with the accumulation
of animal waste in the range of 300 to 350 tons per week and the
associated death loss of approximately 300 hens per week, will
naturally correlate with intensified emissions of mal-odors and the
increased potential for fly breeding media sources. It is further
acknowledged that agricultural uses in the general area, will
provide background sources for mal-odors and potential fly
breeding, which are not directly related to the Grand Mesa Eggs
complex.
The land area immediately surrounding the facility, (1/2 mile
radius), is open farm land with few dwellings, most which are
homesteads tied to large tracts in the range of 40 acres or more.
To the west and southwest and within a 1 mile radius of the
facility, the density of single family dwellings dramatically
increases. Many of the smaller parcels are in the 1/2 acre to 10
acre range and many of the residents are engaged in some form of
livestock rearing, be it horses, sheep or cattle. A small cattle
feedlot with an estimated capacity of 150+ animals is located in
the northeast corner of the intersection of 20 and K roads.
Complaints generated over the last seven years are primarily
related to odor. During 1993, an increase in complaints concerning
excessive and invasive fly populations precipitated further
evaluation by this Department. No historic data exists concerning
fly populations in this area and recent evidence is limited to
residential complaints and personal experience of Department
representatives. The origin of fly complaints is centered at the
intersection of 20 and K roads with a 1/4 mile radius. In January
of 1994, the Mesa County Health Department initiated a dialogue
with Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., specifically related to control of odor
and fly breeding sources. Progress in this matter has been limited
to assessing current management practices and options available
within the industry.
SEP 18 'A.95 13:44
P.24
Grand Mega Eggs
Complaint Status Report
Page 3
Department concerns at this time revolve around the premise that,
due to waste management practices employed by Grand Mesa Eggs,
Inc., the naturally occurring fly populations in the area are
enhanced in number, to a degree which results a public health
nuisance. Dialogue with Grand Mesa Eggs management is focused on
the efficacy of current and future improvements to management
practices which deal with the collection, stockpiling, processing
and disposal of poultry manure and animal carcasses. The intent of
adopting improved management practices would be to significantly
reduce or eliminate mal-odor and the fly breeding media sources.
Odors can be deleterious to air quality with aesthetic as well as
public health impact. In either case, mal-odors are of significance
when assessing environmental health concerns. Whether confined to
G.M.E. Inc. property or carried off the property by changing wind
currents, odor from poultry manure is a significant attractant to
flies.
Information provided by Colorado State University Cooperative
Extension Service, indicates that the predominant fly species in
Colorado are expected to be blow flies,(Calliphoridae), house
flies, (Musca domestics) and face flies, (Muses autumnalis).
In July of 1992, Mr. Perry Buda, Mesa County Health Department, Air
Pollution Specialist, conducted an air quality study of the area
surrounding Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc. The "Fruita Area Odor Study"
defined plumes of detected poultry related odors transported by
predominant air currents. See the attached maps marked as Fruita
Study # 1 and Fruita Study # 2. According to Mr. Buda, the location
of the surrounding mountain topography causes air currents on the
valley floor to fluctuate resulting in the plumes as shown on the
maps. The plumes have three dominant directions, northwest,
'southeast and southwest. The latter being the dominant direction.
The location of Adobe Creek drainage may also affect air currents
and the transport of odors. Predominant wind currents are of
significance to the fly populations for at least two reasons.
Number one, the odor transported_by_wind Lemtts es. a„„ettimetnC6
be extremely strong fliers and therefore wind currents will
influence their range of flight.
Mesa County Health Department
515 Patterson Rd.. Grand Junction. CO81506
P.O. Box 20000. Grand Junction. CO 81502-5033
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana A. Black, Sanitarian I
FROM: Steven L. DeFeyter, Director of Environmental Health
DATE: November 15, 1993
SUBJECT: Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc.
The ongoing odor and fly problems at the Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc. facility located In
your area need to be formally addressed by this Department . Therefore I am
assigning you to the long term task of attempting to resolve this situation. I will
do what I can to assist you In this effort and will participate when and where I can.
As I have requested, you should be reviewing Department flies to gain an
understanding of past complaint problems. To gauge reasonable future progress
performance deadlines need to be set. For the present let us use the following
schedule:
Administration 248.6900
Environmental health 248-6900
Nursing 248-6950
Animal Control 242-4646
362 28 Rd.
December 1993:
Establish contact with company officials, inspect the facility and surrounding
premises -- prepare and submit a status report. You, I and Dr. Aduddell meet
and discuss the situation.
January 1994:
Following study and internal discussions on the matter we formally meet with
company officials to discuss the problem. We request that they provide within 30
days control plans on specific areas of concern which we have identified.
February 1994:
We meet with GME officials to discuss control plans and implementation
schedules.
March to spring thaw and beyond:
initial control plan implementation and verification inspection. Thence, monthly
and/or complaint inspections based upon intensity of fly and odor problem.
-RANb MEs4 otoK SUtNEY - Ig92.
MESA Coo NTY 14EALT{I DEPT.
—�= 3ouRCtOF Oo Rs
l. C� r L'Lp WILE SL a P1L.n AAPALutge
z ik ran - M4kuec z -s s,QtA0 our ()sere
-I-he die id A -MO ALLacta 7o .02y 8&Te E ,S& h≤
4GQAPL:b S1gTo
lv/n113tow c
Mina
-2 �� c //CN 41M1n1l4 OpNrENr m �u rRy �t/nNu2t
AIVO N e bq ivA/e7' sN W l4IC H 21" _TS NA N oL.Ea rs
%N( GJ2/mq /ey Et\\jry T1l i S OEERAror•t__ MOPS
n/”-C-_C-7o/IIA.Bce- /MIN 077/Fe TYPES of L-fu&5iocc
razzAlg OPEe4 o n/s
�. �5T/ /J�/l TFs �F VULrr, lLF An�moiJi 4 Si L$5ibkLS
Ruu%hLy 30-4o "Foss ANIEAE, -WA)
t-I-Ajje 3 - 4 -I-( N1es -4 1 al- muck)
b OttoR -
cc�-d(nc -tc thgornrutii 1
V c5TE MP t.1 AgL - 5 RorQC 1.2&�Ay
YuM.c-Oci -- -- — t_Le92GS.f___C�i 1Q"Itlli_ kACi .o dS
al ni'S LO S, NC fJP Ti Tts
• T'^�/---lif-gD itie UP . -1-b' 4d.1 IV140y PE i
411 U F 50) BLED G&
* MANY eafl pM h4d 5 GN�i rl2 . 'i 7IIE FVEN iu —
t -fr Lac Q.arennteirtts !lord rd Y14 1:ir).1 obit
�erlo n - 6r 1 vu4-s;dQ dirt hair
_e.41 -0r\ -%: inf iA ski , j people car -
- l a _auto_ n- aJ_ tuah -?-. _
Onk iueg1C h.)01"1e, _- oc.ey/Ls _i
1cviabie -k, use - ;r su,1 n'C ccodegs
Corn -Fly-+ of tfS-_ - 6i vice -tecj draLo-4'h-e
.4JA4 -iA Saars i nsic{t,
-7
"rf sMO VI 13.g_ _NoT_>-__A r Ai_t_ U gYzx_t___a;evr iJG_ok -nok s
A E �X FJY1P_T__ akA A c_Au_A LiTY _1n3l,Lbi_ ACr - Y(ilESA
11_ _AL Ai -7 td aPr___41&t�___Nc—A3u ) TY To 6r3FORCc Ai.Y/77.4 , t)G
Vial) Caucus A 40kAP -RULE'Cu)n)i'i l0401
A LLoa,Us_ _ -1•D s1VI Posp. C otJ1.)t T)b las (:) A U sg
PPL c s— uJyu L UEs --i3/4
__A31L iry
I uJ on - hresho-IL _
SNJ_W__- Tit a__ 1 RA1FR1-y- CEAAiEY &eM mE7rie- —
his ✓i ee used -k L/ef Qrmi_ne rF i.a GcioY
is a _()wsurie-C -
LLElC ACT" i&4tet-_cf neeoA L�
a Pos&i / P:
jots
— /5 hn/eS--- dap op -1
_4oles
-r4 4-t_ a_ 5ful-P Qe 't-Aed Huse. 4 -/6 do -4-hi 3
-r by Ise* i s C� r -I'► fled nose •
.Y-
hc1,Le - rte_! Y o% i c m —&1 tma h, n P i li t i
-rn ni (1F -`'h-e ndor is c? /lUis trli5 whdd'e-
AGR )e .
�0
Ya 1 ] e c b -e �a,ciieirr n 4 — h,,J- (- die la; - 1 di if -i of t�
�-rinv 4Pfl
J II
- ---a i . n e ' f
ipun _ colI eonsiliev /� 0(kbk
--
_
-F-F S±-�Je-J__WcN c -PI w uiLno4 IYe nit on P1Samplh
t
of .5 a uun-1- of G'of, aersA
?IN t3u�i,y'4- no GO We oni3o1 Clean -E-es�
Mesa.t.D01-ti
� d aLr s,pc.r.:L Va I l -e �� . W u V . a, L p We
rrr� passe e R__4\AE E To .DEPEND o �l A AA AU 1 i N E i o
kunk oicv
US SFou L 4j R STS N RS
--MD ) rl e LEVEL- Dc S—mEe_Y_c)2- EYYCEED
T-1121 (�JIu rr 'A E T� 5�cJE_ Q�,i E2? -
C F> 31t2eL eau LD A.DD2ess 7F/ts ssscja)
BALI( So C_fic_m_e_. ice.U 6N/
_PALO lac- rtkv.t3l tWY) -RQA-l. :( ) 1'L&
UJP LIE VA I L1 /Jot (yr FLIES
I- 4roducacr in MAtJU2i=
SS
IS
a -{ecin b 0 do„ � A �� n � � ra re- 7� nevi Pos-Ho
methods -It nn-rol ft/ a nl) ?oF�_—m
/atltl = 4/or& Le,ltAt APPS -Rs Tb Sc LAG; i,JG as A n) fl''NT I i
To Mori UATE C.lbi_E rN7, o _(,t
A LrEeA!A ri V6 6Q a clig s
-Pty sE MEm lee -eh( .5 1R0 J ev. LJAs
%.SUL/ >k rig - yea-rs after 494- `'`'p.
AT i-titJidc Netl,P,NG i)AA) "Hi b& ALs it19r
-utd -fheir Manure_ probiern ;5 nn -b berj hsoIved
Gn e)At✓n fic [1),J f ne LAS7 i)e To OQV 00 S,rE
-"ha Sy_GTtoN. -1Th Itecen — I-IAut_ OFFSDesE2T
Why CAN4'-I-he9 11PL&YIStT -Pr'opev Drtn� �C.ompoxHnnc c-ocgtvvi
-opoc,eJ by APPucA are r --rue goseN Fcmo>zy
0?,) Tern -r aan
0-S KaJ)nh,/]a4- 4\�1t o —
['Oki ,,s4 -a id _�h L n --ye a
C(x L ILL hancLL° _1yvu3 u he 41s&g- ? —
51:bak %es o►RA
FRUITA AREA ODOR SURVEY (FOS)
JNTRODUCTION
From July 13th to the 24th, a two week odor source survey was
conducted by the Mesa County Health Department in the Fruita
area at the request of the Colorado Department of Health and on
behalf of residents in the Fruita/Lower Valley area. The survey
consisted of daytime and nighttime surveillance of three odor
sources: Persigo WWTP, Grand Mesa Eggs and the Landmark
Petroleum Refinery/Western Slope Refining Co. facility.
Although this area is highly agricultural and therefore subject
to typical agricultural type odors (feedlot & open -burning), the
three identified sources have been responsible for numerous odor
complaints over the past several years and comprise the bulk of
such complaints regularly logged by this Department.
PROCEDURES
During week one, early morning and late evening odor observa-
tions were taken upwind and downwind of each source and readings
were noted when appropriate using a Barney Cheney Scentometer
supplied by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Week two consisted of midday observations with scentometer
readings taken as before. Daily weather records were obtained
during briefings held at the National Weather Service Office
located on Horizon Drive.
Odors from each source were qualified according to the type of
activity/emission characteristics unique to the source. For
instance, Persigo odors were characterized as a sewer gas or
hydrogen sulfide type of odor. Grand Mesa Eggs was best
characterized as a rotten manure/strong decay type of odor.
Landmark Petroleum odors ranged from a heavy (oily -pitch)
asphalt odor to an aromatic (naptha/kerosene) hydrocarbon type
odor as well as a strong, garlicy, rotten onion (hydrogen
sulfide) odor. Also noted were periodic combustion gas odors
mostly associated with heater/boiler combustion (including the
calcining unit) and with heavy flaring.
Western Slope Refining Co., which is in process of remediating
the old gilsonite acid sludge ponds next to Landmark, could best
be characterized as emitting a strong, acrid, creosote -chemical
type of odor that has been extremely hard to qualify because it
has no common medium for comparison.
Page 2
Odor Survey
8-04-92
The basic technology behind the Barney Cheney Scentometer is to
provide a way for diluting odorous air into a chamber of air
purified via an activated carbon bed. By breathing different
dilutions of this air through the nose one is able to detect
when an odor exceeds a dilution threshold for which a regulatory
standard has been set.
It should be noted that during the course of the survey, no odor
violation could be documented using this instrument. This is
not to say that an odor problem does not exist at any of these
sources. Rather, it points out the inherent weakness in the
device and Regulation No. 2 (Odor Emissions) of the Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission in general.
RESULTS
In order to best generalize the results from the survey, each
source has been evaluated individually as follows:
PERSIGO WWTP
The potential for any WWTP to have an odor problem will always
exist. It should be noted, however, that this source is not
being considered as a major problem. Odors were only determined
to be slight to moderate with no detectable readings using the
scentometer. The odor plume was characteristically noted no
farther than 14 mile from the source with a minimum number of
residential dwellings (`4) impacted, mainly to the north and
west. The addition of ferric chloride treatment as well as an
increase in effluent flow have both contributed to alleviating
some of the H2S problems associated with recent.years.
GRAND MESA EGGS
Grand Mesa Eggs is considered to have a larger impact from its
/operation. Odors are considerably more offensive and affect a)
[,barger area than Persigo. The source of the odors is primaril
a 5 acre field near the west end of the farm where slurried
manure from the nearly Si million chickens is treated. The
manure is spread out over the field and allowed to dry before
being scraped into a windrow and sold to local farmers as a
fertilizer. Some areation with a tractor and harrow or disc was
evident before the manure was fully dry.
Page 3
Odor Survey
8-04-92
The high ammonia content in poultry manure and the manner in
which it is handled is the primary reason that this operation
seems more objectionable than other types of livestock feeding
operations in the valley (an exception may be Clymers Dairy on
Orchard Mesa). Rough estimates place volatile ammonia emissions
between 30-40 tons/year. At times when the manure layer is
allowed to build up, an anaerobic condition may exist creating a
strong, putrescible odor.
Valley breezes were noted to be typically east to west with
diurnal changes causing tangential variations. Westerly breezes
seemed to occur only when regional weather disturbances created
a strong upvalley flow so that the primary residences that are
affected are those that are west and southwest of the source.
Approximately 20 dwellings are consistently downwind from the
source.
i/
On at least one occassion during the survey, the odor plume from
this source was tracked as far west as 18% Road and other
complaints indicate that the odor has been detected west of 18
Road in Fruita. Although low readings were detectable using the
scentometer, no dilution threshold violations were noted. It
should also be noted that all livestock feeding operations are
exempt from the Colorado Air Quality Control Act so that any
enforcement action or litigation to control emissions from this
source would have to come from either local or private parties.
Another problem from the source is an unbelievable number of
flies. Residents within h mile of the manure treatment field
mot& have noted a considerable fly problem since the source began
`O• ,o
perating. operating. Previous concerns about improper burial of dead
0`o0vschickens contributing to the problem appear to have been
L,y,e' adequately addressed as the burial pit was observed as being
properly maintained. Having a continuous layer of manure
available for fly reproduction appears to be the sole contr-
ibutor to this problem. It should be noted that current
*composting technology of poultry manure is available to control
both the odor and fly problem. What appears to be lacking is an
incentive to motivate GME into exploring alternative solutions.
A final comment concerning sewage disposal from the egg wash
plant and employee generated effluent is being included to
demonstrate regulatory compliance when applicable. Due to an
inadequate initial design, water from the egg wash plant and
effluent from employee restrooms was first being jointly treated
in an undersized individual sewage disposal system.
Page 4
Odor Survey
8-04-92
Because of the tremendous liquid volume, it was only a matter of
months before the system failed and liquid effluent began
surfacing on the ground. This failure contributed to the odor
problem but was finally addressed under current regulations by
a combined effort from the Mesa County Health Department and the
Colorado Department of Health.
Improvements to the system included an areation lagoon to treat
liquids from the egg washing plant and a separate ISDS to treat
employee waste. This problem was effectively addressed and
overcome even though, as a potential healthhazardto the
neighboring community, its impact was probably less than the
odor and fly problem still existing.
LANDMARK PETROLEUM/WSRC
Finally, the refinery complex shared by Landmark Petroleum and
Western Slope Refining Co. was monitored for odorous emissions
and by far surpassed any other source in terms of impacting the
local community.
As previously mentioned, a variety of odors have been noted from
this facility which are both unique and extremely offensive.
Although several toxic and hazardous compounds are recognized as
either products or biproducts of refinery production, it is
currently unknown if any emissions from the facility present a
health hazard to Fruita area residents.
Odorous emissions from the current refinery operation can best
be broken down into three areas:
1)
Pitch Heating --The main feedstock being"used is pitch,
tank bottom and vacuum unit residuals, and heavy gas
oils. These products need to be heated before they can
be pumped through pipes to either storage tanks or
process units. The characteristic odor is a hot tar
or asphaltic type with slight aromatic qualities.
2) Coking --Once the feedstocks have been adequately heated
they are directed to the vacuum unit which is able to
extract additional liquid fractions before being routed
to either of the coking drums. AftA a ar is f' "-',
ael the material fnz 20 24 hours in
a reducing or near oxygen free environment until the
liquid fractions a:e completely driven off and carbon
residual remains.
3cc75 J' /{saTeh PrRl4 (moo -77-/E b?dwl
'HLIivCI .- Zv•2.L NOOKS Io GILL •• •
Page 5
Odor Survey
8-04-92
This material is the coke which can be later calcined
into a metallurgical grade product. The liquid
fractions are routed to a distillation tower where
various grades of raw fuel liquids (diesels, napthas,
kerosenes) can be condensed out separately or as the
case of what currently is being achieved, a mixture of
these condensates are being desulfurized and then
converted by light hydrotreating into stabilized, hi -
grade synthetic crude oil.
At a point near the end of the coking cycle, the second
drum is steam heated in preparation for filling and kept
hot as vapors from the first drum are vented into the
second before passing on to a water and steam knockout
drum. What ever vapors make it past this rudimentary
control device are vented to the atmosphere from the
coke unit quenching stack.
The coke unit quenching stack is the primary emission
point from the process units currently being used and
for a long time has been suspect as a major emitter from
the refinery. Although steam is what is mainly observed
from this stack, unsaturated hydrocarbon vapors present
will condense out as a visible aerosol and appear as a
light colored smoke beyond a breakpoint where the steam
evaporates.
Additionally, in the delayed coking process such as
used at the refinery, once the drum has been filled and
the coke removal process is initiated, the drum has to
be opened up at the top and bottom in order to cut out
the coke by a high-pressure water jet. The resulting
slurry then falls out into an awaiting hopper car below.
Significant VOC (volatile organic compound) and partic-
ulate matter emissions can occur during this process.
Compounds typically found in these emissions include
benzene, toluene, xylene, hydrogen sulfide, aldehydes,
metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Unfortun-
ately, emission factor data concerning these types of
units is lacking in EPA references manuals due largely
to the scarcity of these units and costs/difficulties
associated with emission testing procedures.
3) Furnace/boiler combustion & flaring --Combustion gasses
are the primary regulated emissions from the refinery.
This is largely due to the sulfur dioxide issue but
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are also pollutants
that need to be considered.
Page 6
Odor Survey
8-04-92
Although it is not believed that combustion gasses are
primarily involved in the odor issue, they may, however,
play a role as irritants to residents who are consist-
ently downwind and within a 2-3 mile radius of the plant.
Flaring of sour gas and sulfur contaminated steam, for
example, could result in a smelly cloud of partially
oxidized sulfur compounds that loses bouyancy after
cooling and returns to the surface a couple of miles
downwind. This could help explain why certain complaints
sometime occur miles downwind but not nearer to the
refinery itself.
Western Slope Refining Company continues to own part of the fac-
ility. Its liability involves mainly with the cleanup of the
gilsonite acid sludge impoundments and related activities.
These impoundments have historically been a major source of
odor, especially during hot summer months when liquids become
volatile enough to off -gas through the heavy tar layer that
floats on the surface. Although the specific compounds respons-
ible for the odor are not well identified, reference to the odor
in the Acid Sludge Closure Plan (1990/ERM, Inc.) describes it as
a "noxious amine/petroleum odor" generally related to "alkylated
pyridines or similarly substituted aniline based compounds."
"Most of these compounds have the appearance or aromatic rings
with one of the carbon atoms replaced with a nitrogen atom."
These nitrogenous compounds have proved to create an extremely
unique and offensive odor which can not only stay airborne for
long distances (>20 miles) but tend to remain very homogenous -
not breaking down very quickly.
The cleanup project consists of a treatment facility which
removes the acidic liquid from the ponds and blends it with a
powdered calcium silicate waste supplied by Pabco Insulation.
The resultant slurry is allowed to react in large storage drums
to neutralize the acid before being taken to a field on the west
side of the property. It is then applied onto the field and
plowed under to allow naturally occurring soil bacteria to
digest any remaining hydrocarbons. A recent problem identified
with this process was that the rate of soil plowing on the field
was being overlooked
Although the process appears to be working well, a tremendous
odor is released during the application process. After the
material has been plowed under, the odor diminishes consider-
ably. Since the odor is very unique (an acrid, petrochemical
type), it can often be distinguished from typical refinery
process odors. The majorportionof this cleanup will come to
completion by mid to late fall of 1992 with some remediation of
remaining sludges continuing into 1993.
Page 7
Odor Survey
8-04-92
h
f.Ftnpr5 <i addressing the fugitive dust problem and for not maintaining a
>c J0u rr`ePplowing schedule which would limit airborne emissions of odorous
'rte' SaN agents from the landfarm operation.
L zE
A review of complaints received by this Department has shown a
QV strong correlation between the startup date of this process and
the number of complaints received. A similar correlation
occurred with the startup of the coker unit this summer after
Landmark Petroleum resumed operations following a four month
shutdown.
It should be noted that the land application process of the
Waste Closure Plan was severly neglected by both the Hazardous
Materials & Waste Management Division and the Air Pollution
Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. The plan
ultimately did little to address fugitive dust emissions from a
revision in the handling of Pabco Calsil as well as haul road
dust. In addition, much concern was directed towards VOC/odor
emissions from the blending facility but none was directed
towards the resultant material offgassing after being applied to
the designated field on the landfarm site. It should be noted
that the blending of the acid liquid with the calsil material
only aided in neutralizing the acid pH while suspending the
liquid in a bulky sludge. No destruction or suppression of the
odorous and/or volatile organic compounds was achieved during
this process. It is believed that the eventual decomposition
of these compounds will occur as the result of microbial action
once the material has been plowed into the soil.
Permit requirements for the landfarming process was completely
overlooked by either Division and was later addressed by the
?c Mesa County Health Department. It is now apparent that lack of
a plowing schedule has been largely responsible for odorous
emissions as odorous sludge has been allowed to lay on the
4,a aF surface of the ground for as long as a month before being turned
under with a plow. WSRC has been faulted for both a lack of
Page 8
Odor Survey
8-04-92
SUMMARY
Odor plume characteristics were given considerable attention
because, as expected, valley breezes play a dominant role in who
may be affected and when an a problem downwind is likely to
occur. It was most surprising to note that when regional -scale
weather dynamics were lacking, wind conditions between Grand
Junction and Fruita were rarely the same. Typical early morning
drainage winds at Walker Field would be SE @ 10 mph but in
Fruita, winds would be N -NW at 10 mph. A dead spot sometimes
occurs between the two communities when these conditions
prevail. Several distinct drainage wind patterns were noted to
occur at different points in the valley. These patterns are
believed to be influenced by upland topography on the Grand
Mesa, Bookcliffs and Uncompaghre Plateau.
Regional -scale dynamics, when present, control the wind flow
through the entire valley. For instance, when a frontal
disturbance is entering the valley from the NW, a strong
westerly wind will frequent the entire valley. During such an
event, odors from the refinery can be transported upvalley as
far as the Clifton area (-20 miles). During typical evening and
nighttime episodes, however, slight up -valley breezes will tend
to pool large quantities of malodorous air in and around the
Fruita area as well as along the Redlands. Anytime an air
temperature inversion is present, this situation will be
amplified as low-level trapping of refinery emissions (esp. in
the winter) causes a fumigating effect near the surface.
Observations taken during the survey period indicate that the
odor plume tends to travel towards and away from Fruita and the
Redlands an equal number of times during the morning, afternoon
and evening hours. A distinctive east/west diurnal shift of
nearly 180° was evident almost daily lending'to the difficulty
of making specific conclusions as to the predictability of
plume direction. A log of odorous events provided by a resident
living in the Redlands noted 9 such events occurring between the
dates of June 29 and August 3. Six of these events occurred
between midnight and 5:30 a.m. No odor problem was reportedly
experienced by this resident previous to these dates during the
spring of 1992. The refinery type odors described best match
those emitted by the coker unit. The dates also correspond to
the most recent startup date of this unit.
Page 9
Odor Survey
8-04-92
Conditions that exist during stagnant wintertime inversion
episodes are more homogenous and lend to a more predictable
plume nature. As a result, more consistent odor problems tend
to occur in the Fruita/Lower Valley area including the Redlands.
Typical surface based inversions resulting from overnight
radiative heat loss tend to be under 500 feet in altitude. Thus
given the 200 foot elevation difference between the refinery and
the Redlands, it becomes evident that these residents will be
more severly impacted since they reside higher off the valley
floor in an area of greater pollution concentration.
Health concerns are principally mentioned because of refinery
related emissions. Although no epidemiological study has ever
been performed on any residential effects, most of the
complainants have indicated some form physiological problems
when strong odors occur. Mentioned are sore throats, head-
aches, sinusitis, tightness of chest and bronchial distress -
mainly wheezing and coughing. A limited number of complainants
have reportedly required some care from a physician with medical
treatment prescribed. Increasing concern is also noted for
residents with either asthma or COPD (Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease). While a growing population of young and old
people with these diseases are showing up in the Grand Valley,
it is unclear what effects odorous emissions may have on them.
Finally, it should be mentioned that along with health concerns,
odorous emissions of the nature described also contribute to
socio-economic problems. For instance, a common remark received
from complainants is loss of sleep and quality family time in
the evenings and nighttime hours. The summertime use of evap-
ortive coolers which draw outside air into the home frequently
causes the inside of homes to be filled with malodorous air --the
impact of which is fairly obvious. The only solution would be
to turn off the unit and not cool the home or in the case of
some individuals, to purchase a refridgerant type cooler which
does not exchange air with the outside environment. Addition-
ally, the real-estate market has been negatively affected
when/if disclosure of odorous refinery emissions are required
for a property transaction.
Although it is not the position of this Department to be for or
against the continued existence of any referenced source, there
is a desire and a continuing effort to work with'these sources
towards finding a more environmentally suitable way of
controlling their emissions.
FOS.rpt/disc #2/pb
o%
W •
c' ;:"?'i
4 y
•
1 r
• , . ....._:.,...s .1✓•. _ •I 4. , ��‘
..-1.i \,r\1 \.I : ? , _1 ; I )�:%^'.. \÷
.
b,\.- �^ .�i - `! .1 - .\.I. / f iia .
\:1\\-....
:i \rte ! (� ^7i \'<— r \ \ � r. • 1 1 r
I .t a
I
-r
Cirri: t �.,
, \t t40'
!I' I
...;;\. I --- .1
• ,
\�"
•
P!. �7:w�e• r
Grand Valley - Fruita Area
6 —Refinery Complex® —Moderate Odor
®—Strong Odor ❑—Slight Odor
KILOMETERS 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
\
!.
•fro
lafL C. En
465
MILES 1 0 1 2 3
4.710
yo. +
\ \ei �-_ l . •1' \ 1
\ �— �. ^ — tea \ -\,.r. t
\, {I
I. /�( - _ / ...a....--—�. • \+ \ ilk.-! .a
fA--___- •• a..�c
7 �
..---r_---.3_,' ‘tI� a i. t
.
•
3;..-..-4,\.
•
Ceer•al i
ens:. ,,,. i j
al
� e
,. - "C- v .
Grand Valley - Fruita Area
EH -Persigo WWTP D -Moderate Odors
-Strong Odor
O -Slight Odor
:.
wl
♦'' weneeirs—
I Ty ib
i 1
♦_ .-�� r /, - ms's l I
i
MILES
T..
%."7-
STATEWALDUPE
KILOMETERS 1
0 1 2 3
a 5 6
t wval
a C 8•
i
AS It
—°
.a ti
1C1
E
..-,—,--or---,..,—,..._VI e1
1
0
1
2 3
L.w
Si MI
K
p•riame Suitt
ATA
•
Taal 144.
off
GlimmerIv
I I I
Its i
c — — - ''. •-
(---- — 6-= C sf
r �ti 1
su tale
• �- • �\ • : 1 •Y.,•
-'cam \ •` si •
u
o r`'
.• a I'
l / x ,— . r t/a.i
•
�'l.^ / . , -� "' "...\1.$ `l / im r '. "AIL
tfr�\��• ; • ✓1J‘, A' !``
7 r R
Grand Valley - Fruita Area
® -GME Farm ®-Moderate Odor
-Strong Odor O -Slight Odor
T
KILOMETERS 1 0 1 2 3 4
5
6
•
•
•
•
_e ,...•
-- `.` •n.
+•
�s
:I!.u�
•u+l -.
_•^- i=
Air
STATeN,NSA' SA.A. ..\�+
246.
_ v
I 30
� 1: r� •. � ens
rI
•
'
r3 a
MILES 1 0 1 2 3
ODOR INTENSITY DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION
1. $light Odor - Characterized as noticeable so as to discern
source of origin. May be barely noticeable to some and not
noticeable to people with low sensitivity.
2. Moderate Odor - Very noticeable to most people. Odor may
be disturbing to some people. Definite characterization
of odor type.
3. Strong Odor - Detectable using scentometer at D/T of 2:1 or
greater. Some irritating effects may be noted with more
sensitive people.
eta. Urtint-t
�-� X71(— -1„4t- ( (
v
p1
C.31RANO MESA SEWAGE
-r
c GCE
�. 3EP_ /c 3'j C\ e�'►�i (mace, ,D ado A ERo'JCt
eN 4 - k7
2- 85 We fly? i"? c orc sy-horn re.
. A14 3-e -hc'in(i Alc kcarrel Onh BYoOnd .
�- r25- qn Leach uric avea Sa->ic)rated
\ A0LAr/DJ of-SsLoAGe REG.
f..ASG. L.odc Ar y-QTDs Or SITE. - Da re r nl C-, T(a IS sISj Fier F,aud
NESA C. UEALn f% grAauslkep r•e.cLraE
_A0st7iirnr>w1 or L,4GIX)r35 u.bFP -fo &Ain' f Apeil. II 109/ —
Cbmpic+ed t 1 Y_ I, 1 c1
5 WE #MvL" U nil? l iEb Suu, I I,1441 , leocv vri nn -& si-k i rI spChor1
fix, Y��fl Iqq 1 f WWI; 440 Nor y e)&Cw) " L.EAcµ Fic�.A ;Ames
s1 L1 --.FP U i r� G
LS fl IX 01, �s AS P Q; Q.c va),/ ame AND ACtelrEP
6v i .n_ -Pr•
1.Cjpti -:)th_ a 1) • F -C .oQe Is aL L ae? As `/emu I u,k
\AL--i.Ma_—se-Et ...)b.G ^%1rLA LSE -.-14301-1=7--/0 S C'LU SCUD
al._--EA-11- le_ Sim'?_.-- EY__lt t 010LAT(oK)
A -4-he IJcJjh lapv , nnr corn rh n r I y 'J Coon ;-y (,c)e
C�'tnno c — DIVonTh€nfaII.1)-4inanoiaU y ov
I'
JAMES BURKE & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Con autan9 &ngintnl
145 GRAND AVE.. SUITE A
DRANO JUNCTION. COLORADO •ISOI
243-9090
April 27, 1987
Mesa County Department of Health
515 Patterson Road
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Attn: Mr. James MeikleJohn, Sanitarian
Re: Grand Mesa Egg Processing Plant
21 & K Road
Septic System
Dear Sir:
I visited the site on 4/27/87 and found the septic system
complete. This inspection and other previous inspections
revealed no significant departure from the approved design
and no difficiencies were noted.
The above certified on 4/27/87.
JAMES BURKE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
John F. Cunningham, P.E.
r
JFC/Sbb
CC: Ernie Greenwood
_„w1111fUWU!/p�i
•QfpGA, N
EG/
Na'4' 9)'''
P.31
SEP 18 '95 13:51
MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
515 Patterson Road
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
COMPLAINT RECORD
All complaints must be recorded. Refer unrelated
complaints. to. proper departments and inform complainant.
Address of Complaint
Occupant/Establishment
Owner
Phone 1151-76-4_
Q._
.Address
Phone_
Complainant Tv WW
Address 20/4
K ,Phone 16(--3w
REPORTED BY:
Telephone,/ Letter / In Person
PREVIOUS C
Nature of Complaint:
C/1L. eilMO
at y""lf
'.
LAINT ON PILE:
/ No
Investigation Information: (Record all contacts and reinspect
il-t-111- 9 sr,
fir. , „,„Ak
114 ... •,.
Concl
f r. I►
tki„
�4
as
needed.)
1Qi. ,rcr`
2 ,.-.
y
2
ail
.l�
44A“
Date: Sanitarian:
This complaint has been referred toi Date(
BY
Sanitarian:. Complaint -#
Dates
..oEr. 18. X95.1..13:5aa P.3?'
"WE4 t•NESs IN A SAFI ENVIRONMENTT"
Mesa County
Health
Department
515 Patterson Road
P.O. Box 20.000-5033
Grand Junction, Colorado
81502-5033
Administration
(303) 244-1743
Environmental Health
(303) 244-1750
Nursing
(303) 244-1759
Animal Control Center
362 28 Road
P.O. Box 20.000-5002
Grand Junction. Colorado
81502-5002
(303) 244-1892
November 8, 1989 CERTIFIED: P 915 501 128
(Mewl Mnan likiut
1130 21 Ruud
Grand Junction. Colorado, 81503
Attn: William Byers, Manager
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Re: Sewage Discharge, 1133 21 Road, Grand
Junction, Colorado
Dear Mr. Byers:
w
Due to a complaint being received by this office,
an inspection was made of the Grand Mesa Eggs
property located at 1133 21 Road. Grand Junction.
Colorado, on November 8, 1989. During that
inssection it was noted that sewage was being
discharged onto the surface of the ground from the
on -site individual sewage disposal system. This
condition is in violation of Section 3.1 of the
Mesa County Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
Regulations and must be corrected.
Section 3.1 of the Metia_Cnunty individual Sewage
111auusaL Syst.Ift Regulations states:
"General Sanitation Requirements: The owner of
any structure where people live, work, or
congregate shall insure that the structure
contains adequate, convenient, sanitary facilities
and a sewage disposal sysitent in good working
order. Under no condition Shall sewage or
effluent be permitted to be discharged upon the
surface of the ground or into waters of the state,
unless the sewage or effluent meets the minimum
requirments of these Regulations or the water
quality standards of the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission, whichever are applicable."'
Repairs must be made to the existing individual
sewage disposal system to insure that no sewage is
discharged as noted above and that the system will
work properly in accordance with the Regulations.
Before any work is begun on repairs to the
individual sewage disposal system, an application
for a permit must be obtained from this office,
completed and returned for review, before a permit
can be issued for the repair. The repair must be
designed by a Registered Professional Engineer.
Section 3.3 A. of. the Regulations states:
5EP 18 '95 13:53 P.34
Page 2
November 8, 1989
Grand Mesa Eggs/William Byers
"Prior to commencing construction, any person who
wishes to install, alter, or repair an individual
sewage disposal system shall obtain a permit from
the Department and shall furnish the following
information on forms provided by the Department:"
(form enclosed)
A reinspection will be made on November 27, 1989 to
determine that compliance has been met. Failure to
correct by that date may result in a Cease and
Desist Order being issued regarding the use of the
individual sewage disposal system.
Any questions you may have should be directed to
this office, phone 244-1750 or 244-1754.
Sincerely,
Phili.J. Romeo, R.P.S.
Sanitarian I
PJR:pjr
(nov-mil.ltr)
P.19
SEP 18 '95 14:09 /t.ts_
MEMO
To: Doralyn Genova, County Commissioner
From: Philip J. Romeo, Sanitarian II
Date: May 4, 1990
Re: Grand Mesa Eggs, 1133 21 Road, Fruita, Colorado
Inspections were made of the property noted above on April 25 and
April 30, 1990 to determine compliance with the Mesa County
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Regulations and Section 25-1-
612, Dead Animals, C.R.S., 1973.
On April 25, it was noted that what appeared to be sewage
effluent was standing on the surface of the ground above the
system's leaching area. There was no evidence that effluent was
entering any waters of the State, i.e. surface waters. This
condition, however, is in violation of the Regulations.
The dead chicken and broken egg disposal site revealed that,
aveapt for two or three chicken carcasses, all remains were
properly buried.
The inspection made on April 30 revealed that the condition of
the leaching was the same as noted on April 25. The dead chicken
and broken egg disposal site revealed recent improper burial,
however, with many exposed carcasses.
Darleen McRissen, the area Sanitarian, and I met with Ernie
Greenwood, the corporation's representative who will be working
at this location for about a month, on April 30. He requested a
week to ten days to try to solve the problems at both sites.
Darleen will make inspections approximately every three days to
determine if compliance has been met. Notices of Violation will
be sent to the company at the end of the week or ten days if
there has been no correction. Darleen will continue to monitor
the property and will work through the correction procedure
regarding the failing sewage disposal system (plan review, permit
issuance, inspections). 400 n -
If the sewage disposal system begins to drain into the
V'�
irrigation or drainage systems or other surface waters, the State
Health Department's Water Quality Control Division will be contacted.
At this time there are no regulations enforceable by this
Department regarding odors.
(DG-GME)
SEP 18'='5 14:10
P.20
investigation information,: -.(Record all Contacts and reinspect as needed)
Sm---9p
-_ ao
4'azra. 77(9 Pia, .�/le(u,�••
1.11e11D G�ui .
/
.-n C,cb, .ud
� . 72 -en"
si-i/ A in � � J�P" ..fit ntil',� /72 /1�i..M,_/r � /L�✓.,/�.
5/21/90 - Ifispected both•sintes iq'ith Steve °.DeFeyter. Runoff from sewage system
.is:small and contained.aw4y.•f any ditches. Burial site has 2 or�3:dead '
carcasses (from previous trenc.exposed There is an odor and some:fliec present.
No evidence of -:trucks pa4><ked'elsewhere :on property; ,just behind the}fac 1
5/25/90 - Spoke'with "6rent�.ltithe site Mr, weh
Nudaens and Mr. GreQnff� were not,
able to be reached. To,i4 r t . aibout tbe. complaint re: parking tr..N" '�Ir cFry.
Inspeteted both sites �c�'lo o' x�jhtt mime 'T went on the nnrth c,. e of -0 �
fence to view the acitika d-'elnd,xunoff. A. ditch :and' a hold -(e‘44,01,
and 4-5' deep). has bee , diviuct'wo`ct.`` if -the ceptir svenm IrP '
into' the hole ..:;.Hoje'gr, s gs, +resent, odor''bad, water running -4
'P.i' v . .
1st ivGtures were taken •r
Ctrs
Y 5/21 90 - Call from .ban
rung f from the:.itch:4P;
Site: trench and he sa'. --'•
'.records from 11/12/86 p p
ail�ieposal et+ Nn activity nnv,pnc•c`.•jn
q colncerns l+rlth ,»rater table due to dept
s drairj t4tp fflal1ed 16� 4eep ,n th rP�
e e �lndtcate,�SWr at et.;' Also addressed,ttie^'co"mpl,aint.
:Address. 1: �t.,... ::`' ,..
date: s�4c9rz
San ltarlS F.
'Y
1+a1Y imam.
•
p•fg.st ispec-
�yi7'f.M1 I.
uosal
'tfoff i ce
Complaint i :.':S
SEP 16 "Y5 14:11
P.21
:Investigation information: (Record ail contacts and reinspect as needed.)
Mr.. Hudgeons stated that the mapeur haulers are reminded not -to park on the
roadway, only. by the back (west) u .tII bulldiny....Fie said trucks are to be
empty. and.. clean, • and; are, to be,parked=.by the manure sheds. He:did try to
contact Mr. try concerning the situation.
'5/29/90 - Reported,.pit area to-•Steve.DeFeyter. He.said th 't'wou-ld._.not constitute
an'Approved_repair,_.yertfied.that.np,permits.had been issued. and said to wait
:until the NOV date was due O/18/901:
/n -.7-,Q 4,,, e„ _ jet), h i 211..,7 1,7,• S. Airy 40, . e ..:&) :, aa, •L
/
IJACti .lJ,li e2—27/LetoAr/lru.,(7
/r fpm/,, �2;
r � ,, W /CAL, n /%, /,. ,a D
fr
EvA.00 AZII al-.
647-90 - Site inspected. Large holeis full of runoff from septic system, eggs.
and flies present. at that site. .Odor noted 'downwind from large hole. Virtually
no runoffwater. in the trench._ Five new holes have been excavated at the site.
See. attached drawing. Standing.water-in.all...five holes.: Fl.ies.and..odor present
at each hole. Tank has also been:exposed (water present). Disposal site inspected
and is in an acceptable c ndition. ;No odor..,. or• flies,.
6-7-9.0 - Call from'Vicki Gould 933-20 'Road regarding chicken manure.
6-7-90 .- Call. from Gordon :Ashurst 858-0357...regarding chicken manure .01) ..1916_Road.
6-7-90 - 1 call Dan"Hudgens at Grand Mesa E9gs_ Hellas snld•Chicken manures to
Harold Gaff: They.had. ordered 4 loads tut only.took, Z loads. ::Mr. Raff's number
' is 858-3715. Mr. Hucgenc is to inspert the fialjL ar Mr Achnrct ctatpd that there
are..dead chickenParts,in•the manure:;.and the.odor:is.o#;'dead:animals.
"1-7-90 — Call to Mrc Raff They nian to mark (stir) in'the manure and then irrigate
-the :Meld._ The field is in pasture so_,it woq, be..imppossibl.e"to disC_it in;. Hera,
husband works out of town and'won` be able to de the Work fnr',at',lpact AR (wurs;;'.
6;8-90 - Call from•1'laxine.at_State liea1th.::6ill V:idman~245-3120' complaining. about
a oile''of manure on -,:the •Fact c,dn of jA K Road '
Call to. Dan':Hudgens•.; He,.ts{aware.`. of. the. stockpiling of manure. .He said
the odor from the wile �r
a product that con .',eprayed. An the aii Lejtel.Lca ucti auge thee, od9r _ Al sq , ;he
did Walk •the fie3d on`.14 1/?:Road Thrusday At 6 309'_M ' One rhirkPn wing Was-.
noted:'in the.fi&id; °: ",.
Received attachedletter from Grand'.Mesa'Eaas addressina''the Proper
maintenance of the:. disposal site, ••• AisQ, majtpre truck, operator$:;, arg_in.S.tructed to
'Addressn remove any chicken Darts•they see prior'to spreading chicken manure.
.Date:
Sanitarian: ,e0nYh144..__
Complaint I__
SEP 16 '95 13:48
P.26
Investigation Information: (Recorc4'all contacts and reinspect as. 'needed;;) '
G -1-9n i/(.t id..
y
fr/.riaOAta/
X4111 111 >)
.4174Oa
✓lord. /1...
////�Mn. /J
2y-
6-14-90 - Call from:BBi11 at Westwater Pntineerin4. A percolation test -.hole
has been excavated adjacent td -the existing field.Reports sandy gai'1`.:;to 6''
depth. sandy edam 64=10' wish ground water fable at 8'. percolation rate o£'-`
2.35 minutes per inch. Plans to use '1800 gallons/day and then;to increase the._
figure 50T_ Draftam n is nn geeoreion.. hnr hnpes to have plans'-,tn-nor' e`ffd�q
no later than Tuesday; June 19,x1990. Technology Management(Carlia Chambers)
is involved ip Rpi1pzJng he •R .. gem a "W 'parr to•Ytiir p'pr"x! Ca(1i' ed
Ay the acid wash the facility.uses`:weekly...'Ingtructed Bill to; submit plans."
patrol ntinn rani, l•rR.• etr for review print' fn any rnnwrn,ntinn-nf'ehe Rim
'r
'A
C
.1Y
H. -
H
Address:
Date: Sanitarian: Complaint,
SEP 18 'J5 13.49 P. -'Q
"WELLNESS IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT"
'Mesa County
-ealth
)epartment
15 Patterson Road
.O. Box 20.000-5033
rand Junction. Colorado
1502-5033
dministration
103) 244-1743
rvironmental Health
;03) 244-1750
ursing
103) 244-1759
nimal Control Center
52 28 Road
.O. Box 20,000-5002
rand Junction, Colorado
1502-5002
I03) 244-1892
June 14, 1990
Mr. Frank Fry
1164 21 Road
Fruita, CO 81521
Re: Grand Mesa Egg Company
Dear Mr. Fry:
The Mesa County Health Department has been actively:
involved in efforts to alleviate citizen complaints
at the Grand Mesa Egg Company facility. Although
our authority does not extend to all complaint areas,
we have attempted to offer recommendations where we
lack regulatory authority. The areas which we have
clear authority, the individual sewage disposal
system for the egg washing operation and the dead
chicken burial operation are being constantly mon-
itored.for compliance. Overall odor problems, the
storage and handling of manure, application of manure
as commercial fertilizer, and property trespass issues
are beyond the scope of our regulations. We therefore,
recommend that citizens in the affected area of the
plant contact those agencies under which potential
regulatory involvement would-be found.
Regarding the storage, handling and use of chicken
manure it is recommended that you contact the Colorado
Department of Agriculture. Mr. Jerry Mc Donough,
telephone number 243-9373, may be able to assist you
in that regard.
Odor is addressed under the Colorado Department of •
Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Stationary
Sources Section. Mr. John Clouse, telephone number
331-8576, is the head of the section in the main
office in Denver.
Property trepass would be under review by the Mesa
County Sheriff's Department, telephone number 244-
3521.
We hope that this information will be of value to you
in the event of future complaints. We will be perform=.._
ing surveillance on those operations which fall under
our jurisdiction. If you have any questions concerning
this matter, feel free to contact this office at tele-
phone number 244-1745.
Sincerely;
Steven L. DeFeyter
Environmental Health Supervisor
cc: Steven Ausmus, Mesa County Administration
SEP 18 '95-14 01
F.10
MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
. 515 Patterson Road
Grand Junction, colorAdo 81501•
All damplainte must.be"recorded. Refer unrelated
complaints'to..proper departments and inform complainants,':-
, Addteis of Complaint . , `
occupantr//Establistmwnt. '"
Owner .firm .../i77sea Address %/a4Sen2J :Phone
ya
Description of housesiness and location information:
-47
Coaplainant4e. _ )4.:, yn4 Address _
Letter./ In Parson
Nature of Complaint: •;Lj •/
n.e
A
Investigatio
ce
1n n76
Information."[ (Record all contacts and reins
kairni
4/-:; i'2# A�.
eri
O�i
Conclusion:
. ,s
.04
Ain
SF
T.
id.)
4
w
1
'Lt
i
Date: :
Sanitarian:'
This .complaint has been ipferi'ad to
Pate:; Sanitarian:.
Complaint ''' IS/
(Form #10/82)
Mesa County Health Department
515 Patterson Rd.. Grand Junction, CO 8150t
P.O. Box 20000-5033, Grand 'unction. CO 81502-5033
CERTIFI-_D MAIL a P 915 501 388
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Grand Mesa Egos, Inc.
1133 21 Road
Grand junction, Colorado 81505
Attn: Dan Hudgens
dd:nnnumi,oa
Enauonmcnr1. Hcal:l•,
\ursm[
inimal C: nirol
n. ?e -Rd
RE: Plans and Specifications for Eogwash wastewater
Treatment System
Dear m-. Hudoens:
As YD.- e -aware. this office has reviewed and approved the
plans alit specifications for the proposed wastewater
treatment plant.
r•+n;
.48-oJ:,Q
24'-4”ir
Acite .rspection was conducted on July R. 1991 which
re•:ea.e., that work on the Proposed system has not yet -begun.
Instr:on al -so revealed that the ex.istinQ leach field is
still filing. resulting in effluent being oischaroed into an
evdoo-align pit located northwest of the leach field.
At the ,eeting held on November 29, 1990 at the Mesa County
Health Department. the following deadlines were established:
,. :construction of the lagoons were to begin by April 1.
-he lagoons were to be completed by July 1, 1991.
Durinc nu- telephone conversation today, you proposed the
fc:low:,g deadlines:
Commence construction on the lagoon by July 16, 1991.
The lagoons are to be completed by September 3, 1991.
It will be necessary for this Department to inspect all
plumb:n-_1 pertinent to the actual separation of humanwaste
from rhn industrial -wastes. It will be necessary to remove
the p,'= aipe that allows the existing individual sewage
Grand -Mesa Eggs, Inc.
Dan Hudoens
July 11. 1991
Pape 2
disposal system to discharge into the evaporation pit and to
fill the evaporation pit. This Department will continue to
monitor the existing individual sewage disposal system for
proper operation.
Should you have concerns or questions concerning the above
compliance dates, please contact this office immediately at
248-6968 or 248-6960.
Sincerely,
Darleen L. McKissen, Sanitarian
(GMEggPlant.Ltr/DM4)
I"
Investigation ln'pnnatinn: (Record all contacts and reinspect as needed.)
o td de -( D.4 beg().
Air ftCs
ickc,
cis r,
auiftk.,
Luny 01) t4 z ° gas4 ,,tkii; lo tie -ND wti
(f ° eat+,u fry -we I c .. An Drat
'H 77 it/tit-cr-
./1. 'V/r'..- /i_r 1 Cn t -il 12 (i(.//n' /.a /ivlS:.,. I di...•n//ln.'e%I h., , y>�in„A i /'
7, �!✓ /-c r�J .17 VIA, i A!i»s�stii1 l4 Li ), lr Ai.I Pit I /i%�ar�XI
/ 11J/r _ O-1/17 5,1 1.20-1P %. X /.n. l!`N . i)1,A2.
AIIrJree,-::
Date:
Sanitarian: Complaint 0
auDA LETJEE.
MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEr
ID:3032486972
OCT 27'95 7:4' No.001 F.'_
!Mesa County Health Department -Environmental Health Division -Air Pollution Control
515 Pnnn:ron Road -Grand Junction, Co 81506 (970) 248-6966 fax: 248.6972
Mrs. Woody Eppelsheimer
33500 WCR #16
Keenesburg, CO 80643
(303) 732-4643
October 19, 1995
i
Re: Mo-Ark Hatcheries/GME
Dear Mrs. Eppelsheimer,
Enclosed is an odor complaint summary received by the MCIW regarding the egg production facility
located at 1133 21 -Road, Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado and known as Grand Mesa Eggs.
Photocopies of individual complaint records are being provided to Mr. Bob Wilson who will he
forwarding them to his daughter who I understand to be your neighbor.
To be brief, the summary only includes the clay the complaint was received although other information
pertaining to most of the complaints is on record. It should be noted that a decrease in complaints
has been recorded during 1994-95 while the highest number occurred during 1990-91. A couple of
explanations may exist First_ GME has made noted improvements to its overall facility due largely
to the hard work of Mr. Dan Hudgens, Plant Manager. Better management practices have been
employed for cleaning manure from the laying barns and associated stockpiles immediately outside
of the barns. However, it is my contention that the majority of the historic odor problems lies with
the manure drying beds at the west end of the facility's property. The location of the drying beds in
relation to several nearby residences creates the potential for invasive odor episodes to occur during
certain times of the day based on local valley wind patterns. Little consideration, if any, was ever
Div .n to our unique valley climate and complicated terrain for collaborating with malodorous
emissions from this facility.
In addition Mesa County is not a home -rule county, and is entirely subject to state statutes for
regulating and enforcing air quality rules, Since the state specifically exempts sericultural activities
from being subject to air quality regulation, our department must inform complainants that no
response will he made to an odor problem emitting from such facilities. Upon gaining this
understanding, complainants generally have no recourse but to live with the problem and eventually
stop making complaints This is probably a major factor contributing to a decrease in complaints
recorded over the past couple of years. I do not defend this air quality ruling and believe that in some
instances may have the opposite effect for which it was intended I would site the situation with
GME as one of those cases. The substantial interference of a person's use and enjoyment of his
property must he recognized at a legitimate concern in facing the prospect of a local economic
benefit that such a facility may provide.
MESA COUNTY HERL`TH DEP ID:3032486972 OCT 24'95 11 01 No.002 P.03
Page 2
In a recent conversation held between Mr. Hudgens and myself, I stated that we were in agreement
that the egg laying facility was state-of-the-art and well maintained_jn addition. several lingering
environmental concerns such as waste water disposal and fly control have been addressed and are no
longer considered to be problems. But I stressed that poultry manure disposal, cperifirally the
location of the manure drying beds, continues to be a problem and will always cause odor problems
until a new location (or prorres) ran be found for handling this material He stated that he WAS in
agreement with me on this issue and has renewed a property search for obtaining such a location.
Based on my observations, a facility three times larger than the one located in Mesa County has great
potential to being a constant source of malodorous air emissions. Such a source could impact an area
of up to 2 miles radius from the manure drying beds unless a detailed and workable management plan
can be developed and successfully employed.
I look forward to hearing how this matter is resolved in your community.
Sincerely,
Perry Buda/Air Pollution Control
Mesa County Health Department
enclosure
co: Steven DeFeyter/1vICII)
Scott Miller/CDPHE
I!ugh Davidson/CDPI E
5 e ":e9t; e
0
o ‘ik /550P 4b,'` \P‘ \i‘k vtiY-
1/40;pct, 1911/4 etRt
�Ae�R� �a
eiec
10/24/1995 17°'25 303-849-525B
EDITORIALS
ANALYSIS, :f
MMENTS
;;'PHONE LINE
AR GREELEY (COLO.) TRIBU
TRIBUNE OPINION
Team deserves
more support
The University of Northern Colorado foot-
ball team deserves better.
The Bears football team recorded a heart -
stopping 30-27 victory
Saturday by scoring in
the final seconds of the game. The victory
came over St. Cloud State University, which
was ranked 11th in the country and had lost
only once before.
A new stadium, a winning football team
playing an exciting brand of football, a quality,
nationally ranked opponent, an& a warm fall af-
ternoon should have earned the Bears more
than 2,230 fans.
We'll admit that there's a lot to do on a Sat-
urday afternoon in Colorado. Bu[ there's also a
lot of reasons to get excited about the Bears:
■ Nottingham Field. In case you've missed
it, this is an excellent Division II facility.
■ Local ties. Of the 100 players on UNC's
roster, 82 are from Colorado, including seven
from Weld County towns.
■ The North Central Conference. It's wide-
ly regarded as one of the nation's finest NCAA
Division II athletic conferences. In seven of the
last 13 years, an NCC team has advanced to the
Division II national championship game. Near-
ly every Saturday the Bears take on a quality
UNC BEARS
'A ^nnsider itself
SHOENEMAN 5-M RANCH
'LETTERS
Weld residents should
oppose chicken farm
On Oct. 3, the Weld County Planning Commission '
unanimously approved a proposal for an egg produc-
tion factory of more than 1.4 million hens despite the
opposition of a number of Weld County residents.
The owner of the proposed factory is the brother of
the current manager of Boulder. Valley Poultry Farms.
BVPF is the No.1 complaint of area residents due to the '
owner's and manager's disregard -for public health and
animal welfare issues. Piles of decaying bodies and ma-
nure have been insulting the farms neighbors for years
with offensive smells and unsanitary conditions.
Footage shot undercover at the poultry farm has been
broadcast around the country, showing incredible filth
and horrific conditions for the birds, including some
who were abandoned to die slowly in closed wings of
the factory.
Intensive poultry and egg production fouls the envi-
ronment. According to an article in Poultry Digest, a 1
million hen complex produces 125 tons of wet manure
a day. The staggering amounts of waste contain large
quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which ,
contaminate pound and surface waters and spawn ex-
cess algae that consumes aquatic nutrients and suffo-
cates fish. High levels of nitrates in groundwater have ,
been linked to methaemoglobinaemia. a blood disorder,
in infants. Factory poultry manure also contains added
•
chemicals fed to the hens and deadly heavy metals in-
cluding arsenic, a known carcinogen. Poultry workers
are exposed to ammonia vapors salmonella, psittacosis
and a variety of respiratory toxins. Poultry carcasses
and manure expose wildlife in the area to diseases for
which they have no immunity.
BVPF's owners and managers have demonstrated
their indifference to the suffering of the animals they
use as well as to the farm's neighbors. If Weld County
approves -this facility, its residents will long regret that
decision. Contact Rocky Mountain Animal Defense at
(303) 543-0755 for further documentation of these con -
TONY JACOBS
Boulder
PAGE 01
_�• l -2--q0 C_CAi-e.—C�{z l� ��; n—
r�c� Li
E�� ILLsI__i- <T. b_c- . "-� tcJck:4i l't=
mere due cyclic vi DPI- <P peCtC-e_
lane___<�t Li"
S�t� -F} ids ilia 1'1 �\c�11 \� S «h c
-C .-Sihin i I et r
tt CLt.,2 Q n d -fresh c ,I e r. 0 O, t
.S
�
• T4_s.- v I.ot.ts_AaWe -F
2
5 on C
-t-r -017
o+ moun-ici h i qg -t?
_yet!i_
QuQ-' eL of ti -Fe e A
w
_____P�r�loy .
Ess_ ND)ca-coe or Curuee 2coj n Ce
r1NE
v 4Sr -R-R Foe.fraA--i&
µ t S -stJt O( A-0 DO tOE-( Qi -5s ti) I nt 4O( ToDP.4
----___ -
.1
Dt CATF5 nkAi -71-JC. O5ex)Q.r36S P&2k --ARp
-LA4 CR S
ailh olOn TAL Y-•_ VVk AQE -14 uE
— - --
_ASPAIDE-
—rAin1t-1E )4E,-..,6,--10 -,:b..Sul_e P'oTEc to1J
__7!
or ouk. EaJi/i2o_v_Mm1T-- h_ is_1E-piccafivn .56000
,_he__ d e Lcc1 -
Hello