The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About962411.tiff 9:00 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 1996 VOICE MAIL MESSAGE TO GEORGE BAXTER RE HIRSCH DAIRY Harold Felte called to report the following: Feltes live one mile south and just a little east of the dairy. Since they have expanded to larger numbers of animals, Mrs. Felte cannot sleep lying down in bed. She has to sit up. The air is filled with stench and animal dander. She does not have asthma, but something prevents her from being able to sleep lying down in the summer when the windows are open. They cannot close the windows as they do not have air conditioning, and it gets too hot. They have lived there 38 years and never had a problem before. They are very opposed to expanding the operation to 2,000 animals. Feltes noticed a difference when the number was increased to just 600. They say it is terrible and ruining the community. They don't want that type of neighbor or institution in the area. Retrieved from voice mail by Vicky Sprague at 9:50 a.m., December 16, 1996 962411 ■ T0O'd 99SS'0N XR/X.L 170:3T 96/6T/TT l'' n CC . Ty EXHIBIT I___, 5! ivy/ LINI), LAWRENCE & 0TTENOQFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW T ) TV_;.' THE LAW BUILDING ' 1011 ELEVENTH AVENUE P.O,BOX 326 GREELEY.COLORADO 80632 (WOMEN.OTTENHOEF TELEPHONE KENNETH F.I.IND (970)35}2323 KIM R.LAWRENCE (970)356-9160 Ts Econn 36FPREY R.BURNS (970)356-1111 IMPORTANT TELECOPY NOTICE FAX SHEET DATE: November 19, 1996 TIME: , 2'.On TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) : $ TO: Weld County Planning Department ATTENTION: Todd Hodges TELECOPIER NUMBER: (970) 352-6312 FROM: Kenneth F. Lind W,id C linty Panning Dent. TELECOPIER NUMBER: (303) 356-1111 COMMENTS: NOV 1 9 1996 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES OR EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTY WITH TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT CINDY AT (303) 353-2323 . CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This facsimile transmission contains information belonging to the sender which is confidential and legally privileged This information is only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please call us collect to arrange for its return to us at our expense. Thank you. This fax was also mailed to the addressee: Yes No 962411 800/TOOL 1 DNI:IIMIE Earl Ella TITT9SC0L82, P0:ZT 90/BT/TT Z00'd 9SSS'0N XHI/XJ. 60:ZT 96/61/IT Charles F. Leaf,P.E Forrest A.Leaf,P.E. 13846 CR 55 Hillrase,CD 80733 LEAF ENGINEERING�970;887356 November 18, 1990 County Planning DI ;t, Department of Public Works NOV 1 9 7996 933 North 11th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 I�." � .tea •�. Attention: Drew Scheltinga, County Engineer Re: USR 1091 (Hirsch Dairy) Dear Mr. Scheltinga: Pursuant to the request of adjoining property owners, I have reviewed the Hirsch dairy USR application and compared it to information which has been submitted by Terracon Environmental, Inc. (a Hirsch consultant)and other information provided by the Hirsch Dairy. Of particular interest is the USR questionnaire, Question No. 15 and Hirsch response, (Copy attached as Exhibit"1"). The adjoining landowners requested that I review the USR Questionnaire in conjunction with the materials submitted on behalf of the Hirsch dairy and to prepare my own manure production calculations and resulting estimates of off-site trucking. I have also included my estimates for on-site delivery of feed products and off-site milk production trucking. Needless to say, the information provided to your department in the USR application is substantially different that information provided by the Hirsch dairy to the Planning Commission and by Hirsch dairy consultants. It is obvious that the trucking calculations provided in the USR application were down played and the actual trucking impact is massive. Manure Production (information from Terracon, Exhibit 2); 2,000 head generation= 15 tons per day per animal x 2,000 head=27,900 tons wet weigh basis (80 percent moisture) On-site land application(in addition to process waste water)= 155 tons(50 percent moisture)' On-site hauling= 13,795 tons (50 percent moisture) 'Average annual production; range 80 percent to 20 percent moisture AILB_L$TIH.DOC 962411 900/tooa 9NIa'IIna Mr'I mu ITIT9SCOL6$ SO ZT 96/6I/IT C00'd 9959'ON X11/X1 60:ZT 96/6i/TT Annual number of tandem manure trucks(20 tons each)=690 truck loads Peak loads hauled off-site daily(based on 12 weeks period)= 8.2 loads per day Feed Products Delivery: At the Planning Commission hearing held on October 15, 1996, the Hirsch dairy provided annual feed product consumption data as follows: -2,000 tons of hay, -900 tons of corn, -5,000 tons corn silage, and -3000 tons of beet pulp. In addition, two semi loads of brew mash per week. Not including brew mash, the annual delivery of feed products to the dairy is 10,900 tons. Assuming 50,000 pound net feed delivery, this equates to 436 truck loads delivered annually, or eight truck loads per week. Milk Production Off-Site Haul: One producing Holstein dairy cow produces 60 - 80 pounds of milk per day. Assuming 1,600 producing cows(80 percent of total head count-taken from enclosed graph, Exhibit 3) annual production is 20,400 tons. This equates to 817 semi loads per year or 2.3 loads per day. Summary: Total annual tonnage of commodities delivered and hauled off-site is 45,275 tons with annual truck loads totals 1,943. Daily truck traffic 5.3 trucks per day. However, we want to call to your attention the fact that manure trucking generally takes place in a twelve week period in spring (March 15 to April 30) and fall (October ] to November 15). This means that the traffic impact in fall and spring will be massive with approximately 58 manure trucks per week during the short time period when the roads are most prone to damage. We would request that you review this information and provide your input to the Planning Department and/or Board of County Commissioners at the hearing scheduled to take place on November 20, 1996. Sincerely, Forrest Leaf, P.E. Enclosure pc: weld County Planning Department a1LE_LE7TFLrxlc 962411 900/C000 DNIQ'IIIIH W19 WU TTTT9SCOL6ZI SO:ZT 96/61/TT 600'd 99SS'ON Xu/Xl 60:ZT 96/6T/TT 13 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OPERATING AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED ON SITE? 14 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY STRUCTURES WILL BE ERECTED (BUILT) ON THIS SITE? Two free-stall metal barns will be constructed for the expansion, plus additional corral fencing. 15 . WHAT KIND (TYPE, SIZE, WEIGHT) OF VEHICLES WILL ACCESS THIS SITE AND HOW OFTEN? Other than employee vehicls, the site is accessed once a day by a milk tanker transport SO feet in length and approximately 70, 000 pounds in weight when full. Feed commodities are delivered to the site once or twice a week by semi-load, the size and weight of which will vary, but possibly average 50, 000-70, 000 pounds in weight and 40-60 feet in length. 16 . WILL THIS SITE USE A SEPTIC SYSTEM OR PUBLIC SEWER FACILITIES? This site uses a septic system with a retention pond and settling system with manure separator. 17. ARE YOU PROPOSING STORAGE OR STOCK PILE OF WASTES ON THIS SITE? IF $0, WHAT IS THE SIZE AND TYPE PROPOSED? Manure is stockpiled awaiting delivery to area farmers. We also utilize manure on our fields. Approximately 1 acre used for storage. 18 . HOW OFTEN WILL DEBRIS, JUNK, OR WASTE BE DISPOSED OF? BY WHAT MEANS? A weekly trash-hauling service is used. We do not accumulate debris or junk. 19 . HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO CONSTRUCT THIS SITE AND WHEN WILL CONSTRUCTION BEGIN? The construction of the facilities necessary to expand the dairy to a 2, 000 head operation will occur over approximately 10 years . Initially, one additional free-stall housing unit for cows will be constructed within one year after the special use permit is approved. Five additional free-stall housing units will be constructed one at a time as the milking herd grows and as necessary to accommodate them. There will be no expansion to the existing milking barn, hospital pen, calf sheds, loafing barns, commodity sheds or other fixtures. 20 . EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLANS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE. The landscaping and erosion control measures already established under the existing special use permit will be adequate to accommodate this proposed expansion. The expansion consists only of adding free-stall housing units for cows and will occur on land already set aside for this purpose. These additional units will not extend into agricultural land nor will they expand the site-line dimensions of the dairy as seen from the county roads . 4 EXHIBIT 1 962411 r' 900/6D0j 9NI01Llff MV1 3IIS TTTI99C0L6.h B0:ZT 96/6T/TT 500'd 9S9S'0N xu/X,L b0:ZT 96/6T/TT Mr.Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 November 13,1996 Page 5 • draining from the separated solids are directed into the retention basin. The cows are toweled with a disinfectant prior to milking rather than using a water bath, which significantly reduces water use. All drains in the barn and wash water from the disinfectant towels is drained to the holding tank for additional use. 2.3 Process Wastewater Volume Currently, water used exclusively for process water Is not separately metered at the site. A meter will be installed to monitor process water used at the barn. Water usage records for the entire dairy and four (4) houses were obtained from North Weld County Water (NWCW). Monthly household use for the four (4) households on site, based on average usage volumes provided by NWCW, was subtracted from the highest monthly use recorded by NWCW during the last year. (It should be noted that lawn watering was not subtracted from monthly use.) The amount of water trucked away in milk production was also subtracted from the total monthly amount. This calculation was made using production records from the Hirsch dairy and a conversion of two (2) pounds water consumed per one (1) pound of milk production. This conversion factor was provided by Dr. Jerry Olsen, D.V.M. Based on these calculations, the process water use was calculated to be approximately 29 gallons per day (GPD) per cow. Dr. Olsen stated that water in the form of urine and moisture in manure is lost to evaporation (insensible losses) and will not enter the retention basin. Dr. Olsen also stated that manure is approximately 80 percent moisture which is in general accordance with Appendix E of the CAFOC regulation. Based on a herd mix of 88 percent adults producing 15 tons wet manure per year per cow (CAFOC Appendix E table 1); and 14 percent calves and heifers producing %2 the rate of an adult cow (7.5 tons wet manure per year per cow), it was estimated that a 2,000 cow dairy will produce approximately 27,900 tons wet manure per year. At 80 percent moisture lost to evaporation, this amount of wet manure yields 5,580 tons dry manure per year. The amount of moisture lost from the manure due to evaporation was estimated to be 7.44 GPD per cow. Based on the calculations described in the two (2) previous paragraphs, it was estimated that the amount of process water which will enter the retention pond is equal to 29 GPO per cow minus 7.44 GPO per cow or 21.56 GPD per cow. The CAFOC regulation requires that the retention pond be capable of storing a 6-month volume of process water in addition to run off from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. To estimate the process water storage capacity, evaporation from the pond surface must be subtracted from the total process water entering the pond. Lake evaporation curves from Hydrology for Engineers and Planners (1975) was used to estimate evaporation from the pond surface. Based on EXHIBIT 2 962411 900/900ll 9NICIIIH Mfl 335, TTTT95COL6$ 90 ZT 96/6T/TT 900'd 9SSS'0N X11/Xi YO ZT 96/6T/IT Mr.Jacob Hirsch/Manure and wastewater ".c^age ':e=r t p!₹n Terracor Project Number 43935049 November 13,1996 Page 10 will provide information regarding the property owner and the location of the application area or disposal and treatment facility. 2.6 Solid Waste Disposal The solid portion of the wastes which accumulate at the dairy basin will be land applied to cultivated fields. The primary crop will be corn. As discussed in Section 2.3, manure production from a 2,000-cow dairy (assuming 86 percent adults and 14 percent calves and heifers) is estimated to be 27,900 tons wet manure per year. After evaporation of the moisture in the manure, this yields 5,580 tons dry manure per year. Acreage calculations are as follows: Maximum loading rate using CAFOC Appendices D and E: • Crop nitrogen uptake rate for 200 bushel/acre of corn: 200 bushel/acre X 56 lb. /bushel = 11,200 lb. of grain/acre 11,200 lb. X 1.61% nitrogen = 180 lb. nitrogen/acre required Wet dairy manure contains 9 lb. nitrogen/ton wet 9 lb. N /ton wet manure 1 ton wet/0.2 tons dry = 45 lb. N/ ton dry manure 180 lb. nitrogen/acre /45 lb. nitrogen/ton = 4 ton dry manure/acre 5,580 ton dry/year/ 4 ton dry manure/acre = 1,395 acres As seen from these calculations, the maximum application rate without an agronomic analysis is four (4) tons dry manure per acre per year based on maximum loading rates. As discussed previously, Mr. Hirsch estimates that if the dairy is expanded to 2,000 cows that there will 165 acres available for corn production. If all 165 acres are used for lagoon water application, then all of the produced manure (5,580 tons dry) will be transported off- site. Mr. Hirsch.reports that manure is currently given away. Mr. Hirsch will provide documents from neighbors and business associates stating that the dry manure will be removed from the site. Mr. Hirsch may perform a site specific agronomic analyses to obtain a better estimate of acreage and land application rates. 3. DRY MANURE MANAGEMENT The dairy manure, waste feed and waste bedding from normal daily operations will be managed as described in the following subsections. 962411 sasinamin 900/9001) DNICII99 MV`t : HI TTTT9SCOL6a 90:gj 96/61/TT dhs to coincide with planting seeser 1. uVJ T Wihl;AV .T.:.: i.: ... ..__.... ""'"":'.Y `712:-'L MON* As has been generally described in the previous portions of this plan, the Hirsch dairy operation utilizes best management practices (BMPs) for its site specific conditions. BMPs L.ndude: '7 • Construction of ditches and grading to divert stormwatei from uncoi td rlinat u aioaa away from confinement, manure storage and prodess wastewater areas. • Installation of buried conduit for process wastewater. 1 • Installation of concrete walkways and feeding areas to facilitate manure collection from feeding areas. • Periodic manure collection. • Utilizing and recycling process-water recycling to flush walkways. • 962411 800/LOOIij 9NIQ'Ill1B MPI SRI TTTT9SCOL6f LO:ZT 96/6T/TT DOYLE, OTIS, FREY & HELLERICH,tit ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIC tMD N.DOYLE West Grosley Law Center DENVER METRO HENRY C.FREY 11112 66th AVENUE (303)669.7576 THOMAS E.HELLERICH GREELEY, COLORADO 60634 FRED L 07111 FAX (970)3304700 (970)3304969 ANTHONY V.HELLO November 19, 1996 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Hirsch Daisy USR #1091 Dear Members of the Board: I represent several landowners and neighbors in close proximity to the Use by Special Review Application of Hirsch Dairy. On behalf of my clients, I have enclosed herewith a packet of information we will be presenting to the Board in opposition to the application for the expansion of the dairy operation. I am hopeful you will have the opportunity to review this information prior to the hearing which is scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m., on November 20, 1996. Very truly yours, ) Sa THOMAS E. HELLERICH Attorney at Law TEH:cjm Enc. Y EXHIBIT 962411 u.s/� —/O9/ 2'd a31N3D Mdl A373385 IS3M Wd82:80 96. 6t AON POSITION STATEMENT Beginning with construction and commencement of operations in 1994 ; the filing of the USR application in 1995; to the Planning Commission hearing on October 15, 1996 and the date of this County Commissioner hearing: The Hirsch dairy has established a two-year pattern of providing false and inaccurate information, and evading and intentionally violating both County and State policies, statutes, ordinances and regulations . Our presentation will be based upon the following: I . A review of historic and current dairy operations pursuant to : (A) Construction plans, recommendations and reports; and (B) Violations, false information and compliance with regulations . II . The current proposal or application in accordance with: (A) The USR application; (B) Submitted Site Plans; and (C) Manure and Waste Water Management Plan dated September 30 , 1996 . • F:\KFIALIND\HIRSCH.205 962411 I-A PLANS , RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS Hirsch Dairy historic and current operations in accordance with (1) geo-technical report dated December 3, 1993 ; (2) Manure and Waste Water Management Plan dated December 10, 1993; and (3) supplemental plans and responses dated January 12 , 1995 to Colorado Department of Health comments on Manure and Waste Water Management Plan. 1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DATED DECEMBER 3, 1993 . (1) Page number and Statement: Page 2 . "Five borings were drilled in the area of proposed waste retention basin, " Fact: The waste retention basin was not constructed in the area of the borings . (2) Page number and Statement: Page 5. "The clayey sand and sandy lean clay when properly compacted are relatively impervious and are suitable for use in constructing the proposed waste retention basin. " Fact: The waste retention basin was not constructed where proposed. Part of the lagoon was in fact constructed in otero sandy loam which has rapid permeability and which causes a hazard of ground water contamination from sewage lagoons . (3) Page number and Statement: page 5 . "Ground water was not encountered in borings 1 through 23 at the time of field exploration nor when checked 4 to 22 days after drilling. . . . These observations represent only current ground water conditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations . Ground water levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions and irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site . " Fact: Some borings were performed on November 13 , 1993 . Borings 1 through 17 were taken on October 12, 1993 . Borings 1 through 12 were taken on the non-irrigated extreme eastern end of the property. Borings 13 through 17 were taken on higher elevation property in locations of proposed barn sites . Borings 18 through F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 1 962411 29 were taken in areas of cultivated fields and the proposed manure lagoon. These borings were not again checked until December of 1993 . Obviously, ground water would be lower at this time of year especially in light of the fact that the property is underlined with an underground drain system which serves to draw off irrigation water mainly during irrigation season when ground water would be at its highest level . (4) Page number and Statement: Page 5 . "Seasonal variations in ground water conditions are expected since the aquifer materials may not be perennially saturated. Ground water is generally encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet below ground surface; depth to seasonal ground water is generally 10 feet or less . " Fact: This is an area of high ground water and the existing drain tile runs on a continual steady year round basis . Some borings taken during irrigation season would have shown ground water at a much shallower depth starting at less than 3 feet . The installed and existing drain tile is for the purpose of removing water from the cultivated fields as quickly as possible. The drain tile drains water to the west . (5) Page number and Statement: Page 10 . "In view of the permeability rates of the on-site materials in their situ and compacted condition, it is our opinion that the proposed waste retention basin may be built with the on-site clayey sands, sandy lean clays or siltstone-sandstone bedrock. It is recommended the upper one foot of the wetted perimeter of the basin in cut sections be scarified and recompacted to form the relative impervious liner material . . . . Samples of the compacted materials should be obtained during construction and tested in the laboratory to evaluate permeability rates . . . .The bottom of the basin should be placed a minimum of 3 feet above existing ground water." Fact: The manure lagoon basin was not built on the proposed location. It was built in an area where soil tests were not performed. The constructed basin was not scarified and recompacted during construction. Samples of compacted materials during construction were not taken and tested. The bottom of the basin was placed less than 3 feet above ground water. Additionally, it is unknown what the thickness is of the purported compacted soils . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 2 962111 (6) Page number and Statement: Page 12 . "Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, ground water may be encountered in excavations on the site . " Fact: Ground water was encountered on site during excavation of the manure retention pond which was why the location was changed. However, no boring tests or sampling were done at the new location prior to construction or during the past two years of actual use . (7) Page number and Statement: Page 12 . "On-site clay and sand soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water content . . . .Adequate laboratory testing should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each chosen method of stabilization. " Fact: During construction of the manure lagoon significant rain and snow did occur. Proper compaction was not done due to the moisture accumulation and lab testing was never performed. • F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 3 962111 2 . THE MANURE AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED DECEMBER 10, 1993 . (8) Page number and Statement: Page 1 . "The intent of this regulation is to prevent the discharge of manure or process waste water from concentrated animal feeding operations into waters of the State . . . " Fact: Discharges from both manure and process waste water have occurred on site during 1995 and 1996 . (9) Page number and Statement: Page 2 . "A total of 29 borings were drilled to depths of 3 to 15 feet at the site . . . . The depth to water is described as being 5 to 20 feet below surface and may disappear seasonally. " Fact: Of significance is that the manure lagoon location was not bored. Borings were done out of irrigation season and did not take into account the existing drain tile structure nor other types of soil on site which are high permeability soils and which are used for irrigation from the manure lagoon water. (10) Page number and Statement: Page 3 . "The proposed dairy does not appear to be overlying a designated aquifer as described in "Classification and Water Quality Standards for ground water. Fact: These regulations were amended on December 27, 1993 and include all State aquifers . These amended regulations indicate that you cannot impact any aquifer. The dairy and lagoon was constructed above an aquifer. (11) Page number and Statement: Page 4 . "Water from the corrals on the east side of the site will be directed through a pipe under the irrigation canal to the retention basin. " Fact: Such pipe was never constructed and all runoff from the corrals as well as the dry manure retention area flows into the Smith Lateral or flows to the south and then enters the Smith Lateral or enters the barrow pits along County Road 78 . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 4 962411 (12) Page number and Statement: Page 5 (concerning the retention basin) . "Three permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the proposed pond area. " Fact: Permeability tests were not performed or collected from the constructed pond area as the location was changed. (13) Page number and Statement: Page 5 . "As seen from Figure 3 the basin will be a rectangular shaped structure measuring 300 feet by 250 feet to the top of the berm. " Fact: The manure lagoon is actually triangle shaped and covers in excess of 4% acres . (14) Page number and Statement: Page 6 (concerning liquid and solid waste disposal) . "The liquid portion of the wastes which accumulates in the waste retention basin will be land applied to cultivated fields to supplement irrigation water. . . . The Hirsch dairy will irrigate and incorporate solid manure into the remaining approximately 198 acres of the dairy property. . . . Potential application rates are provided in Table 1 . " Fact: The actual land available for application of solid and/or liquid wastes is less than 145 acres . Greeley ASCS office did planimeter acreage measurements on Hirsch fields . During 1995 and 1996 liquid wastes were applied on only 13 acres of land or less which resulted in discharges and pollution of the aquifer. Jake Hirsch admitted to the Weld County Health Department on July 11, 1996 that liquid waste was only being applied on 13 or 14 acres. Solid manure was also applied on this acreage. Applicant ' s Table 1 showed substantial acreage needed for both liquid and solid manure application in amounts totally unrealistic and not applicable for Weld County, Colorado. The report used a Texas study that suggested using 200 pounds per acre of plant available nitrate (PAN) or 151 tons of dry manure per acre. Normal Weld County application rates are 20 to 30 ton per acre. Even using the applicant ' s exaggerated rates of 151 ton per acre required 194 acres of land and only 145 were available . Also, the applicant ' s calculations did not take into account waste water application! F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KPL 5 962411 Both waste water and solid manure application during 1995 and 1996 have far exceeded appropriate rates . (15) Page number and Statement: Page 8 . "Drainage from the dry manure storage sites will be directed towards the basin. Excess runoff from areas up gradient of the manure piles will be diverted away from the manure piles . " Fact: Drainage from the dry manure storage site is not directed toward the basin. The dry manure storage site is less than 100 feet up-hill from the Smith Lateral . Runoff from the dry manure storage site has run into the Smith Lateral as well as onto adjoining properties . (16) Page number and Statement: Page 8 . . . . the proposed Hirsch dairy operation will utilize best management practices (BMPs) for its site specific conditions . " Fact: The Hirsch dairy has not utilized best management practices . The Hirsch dairy has provided false information to both the State and County Health Departments on a regular basis such that the Hirsch dairy would not be subject to the more stringent concentrated animal feeding regulations . The concentrated animal regulations come into effect when an operation has on site 1, 000 animal units . The Hirsch dairy has had in excess of 1, 000 animal units (as defined by the regulations) since at least September of 1995 . The Hirsch dairy has been in violation of State regulations since this time . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 6 9621111 3 . SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS AND RESPONSES DATED JANUARY 12, 1995 TO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMENTS ON MANURE AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. (17) Page 2, State Comment No. 2 : "The depth to water is described as being 5 to 20 feet below the surface and may disappear seasonally. The study does not provide any information as to the depth of the containment pond. Based on your own location map, it appears that the containment pond will be built in the lowest part of your property. Is this location going to be in a portion of your property that has high ground water?" Response by applicant: "Based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report . . . ground water was encountered in 5 borings . . . the containment pond was built in the western portion of the site but further south and west . . . . It is possible that the northwestern portion of the pond may be above relatively high ground water. . . .Mr. Hirsch explained that during construction the excavators were not able to dig enough at the original location because the subsurface became "mushy". . . . The area of the pond was increased to maintain adequate storage capacity." Fact: Not only is the manure lagoon pond located above high ground water, it is also located on high permeability soil . No borings were done of the constructed pond site nor were any compaction tests done during construction or during the last two years of use . "Mushy" meant that the construction entered into ground water which should have alerted the applicant as well as his engineers of problems as construction took place at the end of the irrigation season rather than early winter when borings were done . (18) Page 3, State Comment No. 4 : " [you state that] the proposed dairy does not appear to be overlying a designated aquifer as described in Classification and Water Quality Standards for ground water 3 . 12 . 0, 5 CCR 1002-8 . The referenced ground water regulations were amended on December 27, 1993 . The amended ground water regulations do include all state aquifers; therefore, there are ground water classifications and numerical standards, that you cannot adversely impact, for the underlying aquifer upon which you are building your dairy operation." Response by applicant: "The dairy appears to be operating in general accordance with the Manure and Waste Water Management Plan, it is not anticipated that the dairy will significantly impact the aquifer" . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 7 962411 Fact: The dairy did not operate in accordance with the Manure and Waste Water Management Plan even under best practices . The dairy has not operated in accordance with the more stringent concentrated animal regulations for two years . The dairy has and is impacting the underlying aquifer. The depth and status of the aquifer was not adequately studied. No study was done of the "underlying the manure lagoon". (19) Page 4, State Comment No.5: " [you state that] water from the corrals on the east side of the site will be directed through a pipe under the irrigation canal to the retention basin. . . .waste water will be conveyed through an earthen canal to the pipe. . . . exfiltration in this canal shall be limited to the maximum extent practicable through the use of very low permeability earthen materials and proper compaction. . Response by applicant: "It appears runoff water from the eastern corral is directed to the adjoining alfalfa field south of the corrals by sheet flow. Mr. Hirsch indicated that if this is not acceptable, then the flow could be redirected via a pipe under the concrete irrigation canal to the main pond". Fact: Not only is runoff water from eastern corrals directed to the south alfalfa field, it then flows further to the south into the barrow pits along County Road 78 and into the Smith Lateral irrigation canal . The applicant did not inform the State that the dry manure storage area also was directly above the canal and discharges into the Smith Lateral . (20) Page .6, State Comment No.7 : "Solids collected from the separator will be stockpiled with the semi-dry solids near the retention basin. The study does not mention if these wet solids are going to be placed on an impervious pad." Response by applicant: "The manure solids are stored on a concrete pad topographically up-gradient of the settling basin and pond. .Other manure stockpiles will be placed in areas such that runoff will be directed into the containment pond." Fact: The other manure stockpiles have not been placed on an impervious pad and the runoff is not directed into a containment pond. The runoff runs into the Smith Lateral and onto other properties . F:\KFIALIND\HIRSCH.KFL 8 962411 (21) Page 6, State Comment No. 8: "The waste retention basin will be an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements . . . . Three permeability tests were performed . . . . We would like to know what method, to test permeability, was used." Response by applicant: "The method used to test permeability was described in the Geotechnical Engineering Report . . . .As a safety factor, it was recommended that soil in the pond be compacted to 95% standard proctor. Mr. Hirsch indicated that the soils were compacted during construction." Fact: The applicant again fails to state that the permeability testing was done on samples that were taken from locations other than the location of the pond. During construction compaction tests were not performed and, in fact, the pond could not have been properly compacted due to accumulated water in the pond during construction. The applicant ' s own recent tests have shown that certain areas of the pond failed compaction tests . (22) Pages 8 and 9, State Comment No. 12 : "Your plan does not have any information about ground water depth, flow direction and quality. We suggest you obtain this information to evaluate the need for a ground water monitoring system." Response by applicant: "As discussed in the MWMP, ground water may seasonally disappear. . . .The Hirsch dairy does not appear to need ground water monitoring based on the following reasons . . . The dairy appear to be operated as a no-discharge facility, which includes manure and process waste water collection, storage and land application facilities . . . The dairy appears to meet the requirements for manure and process waste water retention and conveyance structures as evidenced by the observed permeability of both non-compacted and compacted soil samples collected from the site ." Fact: The dairy has not operated as a no-discharge facility and again the applicant fails to disclose that permeability tests were not performed in the location of the manure lagoon nor on areas of the farm that have high permeability soils . Ground water on this site does not seasonally disappear, it runs from drain tiles on a year round basis . The applicant ' s engineers admit that the ground water "studies" performed did not take into account any seasonal fluctuations . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFI, 9 oeon.. 3 (23) Page 11, Recommendation No. 5 : "A monthly water mass balance should be calculated for the lagoon system. . . .The calculation and logging of a water mass balance will help you control, if the integrity of your impoundment structure has been compromised." Response by applicant: "It does not appear that a water mass balance is required under the provisions of the CAFOC regulation. " Fact: This dairy has been in violation of CAFOC regulations for two years . Analysis has indicated that the manure lagoon has been compromised, discharges have taken place and on-site application of both liquid and waste manure is apparently reaching ground water. F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 10 962411 I-B COMPLIANCE, VIOLATIONS AND FALSE INFORMATION (24) August 28. 1995 . For three days process water from manure lagoon was discharging into barrow ditches along Weld County Road 78 and Weld County Road 23 ; then crossing the intersection of Weld County Road 78 ; flowing south bound in barrow ditch on the east side of Weld County Road 23 ; flowing in barrow ditch past two residences along Weld County Road 23 ; flowing in culvert underneath Weld County Road 23 to west side of road; continued flowing south and eventually flowing into the Larimer and Weld Canal (Eaton Ditch) . Weld County Department of Health issued violation notice on August 31, 1995 demanding submission of Manure and Waste Water Management Plan and plan of correction within five days from receipt of letter. On September 14 , 1995 Weld County Health Department received a copy of letter dated January 12 , 1995 and copy of December 10 , 1993 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan. No response was received concerning plan of correction for violation. (25) October 13. 1995 . Weld County Department of Health issued a letter demanding an update to the Manure and Waste Water Management Plan due to the fact that said plan did not address control of runoff from land application of manure and process waste water. The plan stated that the facility would operate as a no- discharge facility and the August discharge violated the regulations and the plan. On October 13 , 1995 the Weld County Department of Health had a telephone conference with Hirsch dairy owner, Jake Hirsch. Hirsch indicated that he would comply with the October 13 letter. On November 1, 1995 the Hirsch dairy stated "We will closely monitor the application of waste water on the land. We will take any steps necessary to control the runoff to adjacent properties . " No additional update or correction to the December, 1993 was submitted. (26) July 11, 1996 . Process water from manure lagoon used for irrigation was discharging off property; the process water was being used to irrigate a few rows of corn to the north; the water F:\KFL\LINO\HIRSCH.KFL )) 962411 was then discharging into the east barrow pit along County Road 23 and flowing in a northerly direction; the lagoon water then entered a culvert and flowed to the west underneath Weld County Road 23 ; the water then flowed north along the west side of County Road 23 ; the water then flowed to the west into adjoining landowner' s ditch and property. Complaint was made to Weld County Health Department . Weld County Health Department contacted Jacob Hirsch who informed them that the manure lagoon water could be applied to only 14 acres which consisted of 3 to 4 acres of corn and 10 acres of wheat . This discharge was in violation of State statutes and regulations and also in violation of the Manure and Waste Water Management Plan dated December 10, 1993 as well as Mr. Hirsch' s agreement of November 1, 1995 that runoff would not flow onto adjacent properties . Photographic evidence of the discharge was supplied to the Weld County Health Department on July 19, 1996 but the County Health Department did not take action on the basis that a Health Department employee did not actually inspect and observe the discharge . (27) August 1. 1996. Complaint filed with the Weld County Health Department due to process water from manure lagoon again discharging off property and flowing north along Weld County Road 23 and onto adjacent property located west of the Hirsch dairy in the same pattern as the July 11, 1996 incident . Personnel from Weld County Health Department performed inspection, however, when personnel arrived at the site, the pump removing the manure water from the containment pond was no longer operating and manure water no longer flowing. Action not taken again as County personnel indicated that they had to personally see the operation of the pump and discharge even though there were two witnesses . This was another violation of State and County regulations, the Manure and Waste Water Management Plan of December 10 , 1993 , the Colorado Clear Water Act. and Hirsch agreement dated November 1, 1995 . Hirsch also told the Health Department personnel that he only had 600 head on site which means he was not subject to more stringent regulations . This was false information (See Paragraph 31) . (28) September 23. 1996 . In a meeting between Hirsch dairy, Terracon Environmental, Weld County Department of Health and Weld County Department of Planning Service, Jacob Hirsch informed all in attendance that the current number of cows on site was approximately 600 . This was false information (see Paragraph 31) . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 12 962411 (29) September 26. 1996. Representatives from Weld County Health Department (Trevor Jiricek) and State Department of Health (Victor Sainz) performed on-site inspection. Jacob Hirsch told the representatives that he had just leased some additional cows and he now had approximately 724 head on site. However, he wasn' t sure of the exact number as the dairy did not keep records . (This was false information (See Paragraph 31) . (30) September 30. 1996 . Terracon and Hirsch submitted another Manure and Waste Water Management Plan dated September 30 , 1996 . On Page 7 in the second paragraph it is admitted that "Although compaction density testing was not performed during construction of the retention basin, the pond was reportedly compacted through wheel rolling of the equipment used to construct the pond. Terracon has performed some preliminary testing along the berms and bottom of the pond. The majority of the tests have passed 95% compaction. For those tests which did not pass 95% compaction, permeability tests are being performed. If the permeability does not meet the CAFOC requirement of 1/32 inch per day, Terracon recommends that the pond be recompacted to meet that requirement ." This is a continuing violation of prior Manure and Waste Water Management Plans; a violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations; a violation of the Colorado Clean Water Act; and is not in compliance with engineering recommendations or the geotechnical studies performed by Terracon in 1993 . (31) October 14. 1996 . Based upon a disclosure made by an employee of the Hirsch dairy, the Weld County Department of Planning Services did an on-site count of numbers . Additionally, on October 14, 1996 the Weld County Planning Department and Health Department received a telefax of animal numbers from Hirsch representative, Terracon Environmental . The count indicated there were in excess of 1, 000 head on site . Weld County zoning ordinance permits a max of 960 on site (240 acres x 4 per acre) . Records provided by the Hirsch representative, Terracon, were based upon DHIA generated records and these indicated that records were being kept (contrary to statement made by Jake Hirsch, see F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 13 962411 Paragraph 29) and there had been more than 960 head on site since at least May of 1996 . State regulations concerning Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations establish two standards being (1) best practices and (2) concentrated guidelines . The concentrated guidelines are far more stringent due to potential adverse impacts and are applicable when an operation has more than 1, 000 animal units on site . The DHIA records showed that during September of 1996 there were 1, 430 animal units on site or an average of 1, 246 for the year 1996 . These records also showed that as of at least September, 1995 there were over 1, 000 animal units on site. No records were provided for the time period prior to September, 1995 . (32) October 22. 1996 . The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment submitted a letter to the Hirsch dairy based upon the field inspection of September 26 , 1996 . The State indicated that the manure drying pile (manure storage) did not have any type of runoff containment berm to direct runoff to the containment lagoon. The State recommended that a containment berm be immediately installed or the manure storage area be relocated. As of this date a containment berm has not been constructed nor has the manure storage pile been relocated. This is a violation of the Manure and Waste Water Management Plans which indicate that facilities will be constructed to insure that runoff from the manure storage piles will be directed to the retention pond. This is also a violation of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations and a violation of the Colorado Clean Water Act . • (33) October 28. 1996. Weld County Health Department was verbally informed that at least one permeability test on the manure lagoon pond had failed. Terracon refused to provide any information to the County or State Health Department as to the locations of compaction tests or permeability tests performed in accordance with the September 30, 1996 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan (see Paragraph No. 30 above) . On or about November 1, 1996 the Hirsch dairy performed some "patch work" repairs, however, Terracon had previously recommended that the pond be recompacted to insure safety (See Paragraph 30 above) . As of this date the pond has not been recompacted. This is a continuing violation of the Manure and Waste Water Management Plans and the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations and the Colorado Clean Water Act . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 14 962411 (34) January 1. 1995 to current date. This is a continuing violation of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations and a violation of the Colorado Clean Water Act . It is evidenced by a memo dated July 24 , 1996 addressed from Weld County Health Department (Trevor Jiricek) to Weld County Planning Department (Todd Hodges) . This memo reviews the in-place December 10 , 1993 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan. Said December 10 , 1993 plan incorrectly indicates that the Hirsch dairy has 198 acres available for land application of solid and liquid wastes when in fact the maximum available is 145 acres at the current time not taking into consideration any proposed expansion. Said 1993 plan on Pages 6 and 7, using a Texas study, suggested that up to 151 tons per acre of dry manure be applied. Interestingly, by using 151 tons of dry manure per acre that meant the dairy only needed 194 acres of land. The July 24 , 1996 memo was actually used for the purpose of review of the 2, 000 head request, but the analysis did use correct Weld County application rates of a maximum of 30 ton of dry manure per acre per year. Using the proper application rates indicates that the Hirsch dairy was substantially over applying dry manure and liquid wastes during 1995 and 1996 as the dairy would have needed at least 450 acres of land for proper application rates of dry manure not even taking into consideration waste water application. This July 24 , 1996 memo also indicates that Hirsch was applying liquid waste to only 3 or 4 acres of corn and 10 acres of wheat when the over stated December 10, 1993 plan indicated that a minimum of 53 acres of land for waste water application would be required. Thus, the Hirsch dairy has even failed to comply with its existing Manure and Waste Water Management Plan. The July 24, 1996 memo indicates that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing manure lagoon structure meets the required permeability regulation. The applicant did not have evidence that a liner meeting the requirement was constructed. Finally, said July 24 , 1996 memo requires that the plan and maps show conveyance structures for application of liquid wastes . None of the submitted plans to date show location, design or type of "conveyance structures" . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 15 96211 II-A HIRSCH DAIRY - USR APPLICATION DATED MARCH 16 , 1996 (35) USR Question No. 2 : How does this proposal meet with the intent of the zoned district it is located in? Hirsch Response: "Under Section 24 , Uses by Special Review, the County must engage in a lengthy and detailed process to determine that the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, minimizes the conversion of farm land and complies with a variety of specific standards . Applicant ' s dairy went through this process when it was originally permitted and was found to conform to, and comply with, all of the criteria and standards set forth in Section 24 . Thus, it has previously been determined that a sizable dairy operation in this location is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Fact: Applicant ' s dairy has never gone through a Use by Special Review process and has never been permitted through a Use by Special Review permit . (36) USR Question No. 6 : What efforts have been made to conserve productive agricultural land? Hirsch Response: "As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land will be taken out of production. (Note : In response to Question 4 of the USR application, the applicant stated ' the dairy, as expanded, by the permit being sought, will not expand into County productive fields, but rather will involve land which has already been taken out of production' . ) " Fact: The existing dairy operation, when constructed in 1994, removed approximately 40 acres of land from productive agricultural production. The applicant ' s September 30, 1996 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan at Section 1 .2 states that the existing operation encompasses approximately 42 acres and the proposed increase will encompass approximately 75 acres . The most current plan map provided by the applicant shows that the additional land will be used immediately to the north of existing pens. This means that another 30 acres of productive agricultural land will be removed from production. F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 16 962411 (37) USR Question No. 7 : How will public health, safety and welfare be protected? Hirsch Response: "Health, safety and welfare is already protected by the requirements for the original Special Use Permit when this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue to apply, together with all requirements of the County Health Department . The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use . " Fact: Again, applicant ' s dairy has never gone through a Special Use process application or permit . A Use by Special Review application has never been approved for this applicant . Obviously, going from a Use by Right of 960 animals on site to 2, 000 animals on site will have a substantial impact on public health, safety and welfare . (38) USR Question No. 9 : How close is this site to other residential structures? Hirsch Response: "The closest residential structure is situated approximately 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site . " Fact: The closest occupied residences are located within 50 FEET from the boundary line of this site. One occupied residential structure is situated only 400 feet from one of the dairy improvements which is the manure lagoon. (39) USR Question No. 10: How many people will be employed at this site and what hours will they work? Hirsch Response: "12 people will be employed full time on rotating hours, which averages 1 employee per 50 cows . " Fact: 1 employee per 50 cows totals 40 employees . Additionally, at the Planning Commission hearing on October 15 , 1996 the applicant stated "we currently have 15 employees". As applicant proposes to double the size of the dairy, one must assume that the minimum number of employees will be 30 and the maximum 40 which is applicant ' s stated 1 employee per 50 cows . F:\KFL\LINE\HIRSCH.KFL 17 962/111 (40) USR Question No. 12 : What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site . Hirsch Response: "The expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our operation. " Fact: The applicant is currently in violation of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance by having in excess of 1, 000 head of livestock on site. The applicant has been in violation since at least May of 1996 . (41) USR Question No. 15 : What kind, type, size, weight (of vehicles) will access this site and how often? Hirsch Response: "Other than employee vehicles, this site is accessed once a day by a milk tanker transport 50 feet in length and approximately 70 , 000 pounds in weight when full . Feed commodities are delivered to this site once or twice a week by semi load, the size and weight of which will vary, but possibly averages 50, 000 to 70 , 000 pounds in weight and 40 to 60 feet in length". Fact: There are 10 employees in 4 trailer houses by the dairy barn which means that currently at least 5 additional employees drive to and from the site . The expansion will result in employees numbering between 30 and 40 which means employee traffic alone will be an additional 20 to 40 round trips per day minimum. Expansion will result in two milk tanker trucks per day. At the October 15th hearing the applicant stated that he is currently purchasing 2, 000 tons of day per year, 900 tons of corn, 5, 000 tons of silage, 3, 000 tons of pulp and at least 2 semi loads of (brew mash) per week. Not counting brew mash, this is 10 , 900 tons of commodities per year which is 21, 800, 000 pounds . With a 50 , 000 pound net feed delivery of a semi truck, this is 436 semi loads per year or more than 8 semi loads per week not even taking into account that many commodities are delivered by smaller farm trucks which substantially increases the traffic . Also this does not take into account delivery of any straw or bedding. If the expansion is approved, this means there will be 872 semi loads per year or 17 semis per week, again not taking into account the standard sized farm trucks or other commodities such as bedding. The applicant also fails to discuss the impact of current and future dry manure removal and future liquid waste removal . F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 18 962411 Based upon the applicant ' s September 30, 1996 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan, amounts of both dry and liquid manure that can be applied to the farm and amounts that must be removed can be determined. Said 1996 plan indicates that all of the liquid effluent will be applied to the farm. Said plan uses 200 bushel per acre corn and application on 165 acres . However, the farm only has 145 acres of land available for farm production and the County- wide average for corn production is 143 bushel of corn per acre. To produce 150 bushel corn on 145 acres of land requires 19, 575 pounds of nitrogen. Based upon applicant ' s own figures, the liquid effluent will provide 17, 728 pounds . The remainder (19, 575 - 17, 728) of 1, 847 pounds of nitrogen will presumably come from application of dry manure. The dairy produces 166 , 005 pounds of manure and after applying the 1, 847 pounds of dry manure needed for crop production, this leaves 164, 158 pounds of manure to be removed from the dairy. The applicant calculates dry manure to only have a 20% moisture content, however, this is inaccurate as the 20% moisture does not take into account the fact that the manure will be piled and thus accumulates moisture from rain and snow and evaporation is limited. A proper calculation is a 50% moisture content . Based upon a 50% moisture content, the dairy must haul off-site 13 , 795 ton of manure for application on 1, 216 acres of 150 bushel per acre corn land. Using a semi-truck for removal of dry manure from the dairy means that 20 tons of dry manure can be removed in one truckload. Removal of the dry manure from the Hirsch dairy will require 690 loads per year or 13 semi loads per week. As manure is usually only removed during spring and fall, the road impact during these times is substantial . Taking into account feed delivery and manure removal, approval of expansion means an average of 30 loaded semi-trucks (one way per week) and 30 semi-trucks (empty) per week. • (42) USR Question No. 17 : Are you proposing storage or stockpile of waste on this site? If so, what is the size and type proposed? Hirsch Response: "Manure stockpiled awaiting delivery to area farmers . We also utilize manure on our fields . " Fact: The applicant fails to discuss the amount of manure produced by existing and future expansion including dry manure storage or the 434 acre manure lagoon. F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 19 96241.1 (43) USR Question No. 20 : Explain the proposed landscaping plans and erosion control measures associated with this site . Hirsch Response: "The landscaping and erosion control measures already established under the existing Special Use Permit will be adequate to accommodate this proposed expansion". Fact: There is not an existing Special Use Permit and the landscaping as shown on plans dated March 10, 1994 have not been installed. (44) USR Question No. 25 : How will storm water drainage be handled on this site? Hirsch Response: "On-site drainage is directed into a lagoon designed to handle a 25 year rain. Water from this lagoon is then pumped onto the fields for irrigation. Storm water drainage will not be accelerated or increased as a result from the permit applied for. The drainage system was designed and constructed in the manner approved by the County Commissioners under the original construction permit". Fact: A doubling in size of the dairy operation will result in substantially more drainage and lagoon storage from cows and milking operations . The lagoon and drainage system was never designed and constructed in a manner approved by the County Commissioners . In fact, the lagoon system was not constructed in the location or in accordance with the design prepared by applicant ' s engineers . • F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 20 962411 II-B SUBMITTED SITE PLANS (45) Site Plan dated December, 1993 : This plan was submitted as part of the original USR application and submitted to both State and County officials as part of the 1993 Manure and Waste Water Management Plan. 1 . This plan is inaccurate or false in the following aspects : a. Does not show the manure storage area; b. Indicates location of pipeline under ditch which was to transport waste water from east side corrals to manure lagoon, however, this pipeline was never constructed; c . Barn is in wrong location; and d. Lagoon is in wrong location and shows the size to be 250 ' x 300 ' . (46) Revised USR plat map dated January 10, 1995 : This revised plan was submitted as a revision to the original plan with the USR application. This plan was also used for submission by Hirsch dairy concerning four trailer houses to show Commissioners and public that the facility would be landscaped to screen from view. It is inaccurate as follows : a. Location and dimensions of manure pond are inaccurate; b. Substantial landscaping around dairy operation is shown; c . Irrigation pump in northwest corner of lagoon with arrow showing transfer to supplemental lagoon was not constructed and does not exist; d. Future corrals interfere with existing pipeline easement; e . This plan deletes the culvert under or over Smith Lateral purportedly for purpose of allowing wastes from east corrals and north storage area to enter manure lagoon; and f . Manure storage area and corrals located east of irrigation canal are not shown. F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.KFL 21 362411 (47) USR plat map dated September 28, 1995 : The dairy and associated facilities were not constructed in accordance with this plan. a. Winter manure storage area does not show type of retention structure to prohibit drainage into irrigation canal; b. "Crop land" west of trench silo does not exist ; c . Drainage structure either under or over Smith Lateral ditch is not shown; d. Location of future corrals shows them being constructed over pipeline easement; and e . Manure on lagoon shows irrigation pump which does not exist . (48) Plan dated September, 1996 : This was part of the September 30, 1996 Manure and Waste Water Plan. a . Location and size of manure lagoon is inaccurate; b. Proposed tail water pond will not catch waste water from all of the irrigated crop land as indicated in plans ; c . Culvert under Smith Lateral is shown, however, plans have never been submitted to Board of Directors of Smith lateral and Smith Lateral has never approved installation of culvert either under or over Smith Lateral; d. Culvert cannot be installed under Smith Lateral without installation of pump system to raise elevation for flow into manure lagoon. Culvert over the Smith Lateral will not be approved due to interference with irrigation ditch and maintenance road; e . Pumping plan from manure lagoon is not shown nor is location of proposed center pivot sprinkler; and f . Center pivot sprinkler cannot be installed that will irrigate all crop land as indicated. F:\KFL\LIND\NIRSCH.KFL 22 96241.1 SUPPORTING INDEX F:\KFL\LIND\HIRSCH.POS 962411 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Jacob Hirsch ° ELI Project No. 20935228 Although final site grading plans were not available prior to preparation of this report, ground floor level for the barn is anticipated to be at, or near existing site grade. The basin will be constructed with maximum cuts of approximately 5 feet and a maximum berm height of approximately 5 feet. SITE EXPLORATION The scope of the services performed for this project included site reconnaissance by an engineering geologist, a subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Feld Exploration: A total of 29 test borings were drilled to depths of 3 to 15 feet at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. Ten borings were drilled within the area of the proposed barn and alternate barn site. Five borings were drilled in the area of proposed waste retention basin, two borings in the area of the proposed pipeline and twelve borings were drilled in the proposed 1 soil absorption bed areas. All borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig, utilizing 4-inch diameter solid stem auger. Twelve soil percolation tests were performed in the 3-foot deep borings. The location of borings were positioned in the field by measurements from property lines and Iexisting site features. Elevations were taken of the ground surface at each boring location by measurements with an engineer's level from a temporary bench mark (TBM) shown on the Site I Plan. The accuracy of boring locations and elevations should only be assumed to the level implied I by the methods used to determine each. 1 Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the engineering geologist during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by • means of pushing thin-walled Shelby tubes, or by driving split-spoon samplers. Representative 1 bulk samples of subsurface materials were obtained from selected borings. [ Penetration resistance measurements were taken with each sampling with the split-spoon by [ driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. When properly interpreted, the penetration resistance is a useful index to the consistency, relative density or hardness of the Imaterials encountered. 1 Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the time of site exploration, and 4 to 22 a 1 days after drilling. I 2 9621111 1 I 1 Mr. Jacob Hirsch . EU Project No. 20935228 The upper 1 'fa to 41/2 feet of the bedrock is highly weathered; however, the underlying interbedded sandstone and siltstone is firm to very hard. Laboratory Test Results: Laboratory test results indicate that the sand and clay subsoils at the ( site have non to low swell potential, and the bedrock has low swell potential and high bearing I characteristics. The clayey sand and sandy lean clay when properly compacted are relatively impervious and are suitable for use in constructing the proposed waste retention basin. Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was not encountered in Borings 1 through 23 at the time of field exploration, nor when checked 4 to 22 days after drilling. Groundwater was encountered j in Borings 24 through 29 at the time of drilling at depths of 10 to 12'k feet below the surface. When checked 22 days after drilling, groundwater was encountered in Borings 25, 26 and 27 at [ depths of 7 to 9 feet below the surface. Borings 24, 28 and 29 were caved at depths of 6 to 10 I feet when checked 22 days after drilling. These observations represent only current groundwater 1 conditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions and irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey maps (=Hillier, et al, 1979), regional, groundwater beneath the project area predominates in colluvial, landslide or windblown materials,or in fractured weathered consolidated sedimentary bedrock located at a depth near ground surface. Seasonal variations in groundwater conditions are expected since the aquifer materials may not be perennially saturated. Groundwater is generally encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet I below ground surface; depth to seasonal groundwater is generally 10 feet or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Site Development Considerations: The site appears suitable for the proposed construction. The shallow bedrock and moderate bearing subsoils may require special attention in the design and Iconstruction. i Because of variations in the engineering properties of the on-site soils, foundation bearing levels, 'r structural loads, and possible final grades, the following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site: I • 'Hillier, Donald E-; Schneider, Paul A., Jr.; and Hutchinson. E. Carter. 1983. Depth to Watt Table (19791 in Oa gau/da-fort Cans-cnaley Ana. Front Range Urban Lankier,-Ca/ende,United States Geological Survey, Map 1.855-1K 5 962411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch ELI Project No. 20935228 The upper 11/2 to 41/2 feet of the bedrock is highly weathered; however, the underlying interbedded sandstone and siltstone is firm to very hard. Laboratory Test Results: Laboratory test results indicate that the sand and clay subsoils at the Isite have non to low swell potential, and the bedrock has low swell potential and high bearing characteristics. The clayey sand and sandy lean clay when properly compacted are relatively impervious and are suitable for use in constructing the proposed waste retention basin. Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was not encountered in Borings 1 through 23 at the time 1 of field exploration, nor when checked 4 to 22 days after drilling. Groundwater was encountered in Borings 24 through 29 at the time of drilling at depths of 10 to 12'f feet below the surface. When checked 22 days after drilling, groundwater was encountered in Borings 25, 26 and 27 at fdepths of 7 to 9 feet below the surface. Borings 24, 28 and 29 were caved at depths of 6 to 10 feet when checked 22 days after drilling. These observations represent only current groundwater Iconditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions and irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey maps (2Hillier, et al, 1979), regional groundwater beneath the project area predominates in colluvial, landslide or windblown materials,or in fractured 1[ weathered consolidated sedimentary bedrock located at a depth near ground surface. Seasonal variations in groundwater conditions are expected since the aquifer materials may not be fperennially saturated. Groundwater is generally encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet below,ground surface; depth to seasonal groundwater is generally 10 feet or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISite Development Considerations: The site appears suitable for the proposed construction. The shallow bedrock and moderate bearing subsoils may require special attention in the design and Iconstruction. Because of variations in the engineering properties of the on-site soils, foundation bearing levels, structural loads, and possible final grades, the following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site: 1 'Hillier, Donald L; Schneider, Paul A., Jr.; and Hutchinson, E. Carter, 1983. Depth to Wetter Table (19791 in the Bouldr-Fort Cans-Greeley Area, Frent Range Urban Candor,•CW/erade,Unitsd States Geological Survey, Map I-855.1K 5 I IMr. Jacob Hirsch EU Project No. 20935228 The upper 1 '/4 to 4% feet of the bedrock is highly weathered; however, the underlying interbedded sandstone and siltstone is firm to very hard. Laboratory Test Results: Laboratory test results indicate that the sand and clay subsoils at the site have non to low swell potential, and the bedrock has low swell potential and high bearing characteristics. The clayey sand and sandy lean clay when properly compacted are relatively impervious and are suitable for use in constructing the proposed waste retention basin. Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was not encountered in Borings 1 through 23 at the time of field exploration, nor when checked 4 to 22 days after drilling. Groundwater was encountered in Borings 24 through 29 at the time of drilling at depths of 10 to 12'f feet below the surface. When checked 22 days after drilling, groundwater was encountered in Borings 25, 26 and 27 at Idepths of 7 to 9 feet below the surface. Borings 24, 28 and 29 were caved at depths of 6 to 10 feet when checked 22 days after drilling. These observations represent only current groundwater conditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions and irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey maps (=Hillier, et al, 1979), regional groundwater Ibeneath the project area predominates in colluvial, landslide or windblown materials, or in fractured weathered consolidated sedimentary bedrock located at a depth near ground surface. Seasonal variations in groundwater conditions are expected since the aquifer materials may not be Iperennially saturated. Groundwater is generally encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet below.ground surface; depth to seasonal groundwater is generally 10 feet or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISite Develooment Considerations: The site appears suitable for the proposed construction. The shallow bedrock and moderate bearing subsoils may require special attention in the design and Iconstruction. IBecause of variations in the engineering properties of the on-site soils, foundation bearing levels, structural loads, and possible final grades, the following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site: 1 I =Hillier, Donald E.; Schneider, Paul A.. Jr.; and Hutchinson, E. Carter, 1983, Ova to Warr Tara (1979) in this Booklet-Fort Coins-Gnt ay Ant Front Range Urban Conidor,•Cokondo,United States Geological Survey, Map I-855-IK 5 - 962411 1 1 Mr. Jacob Hirsch ELI Project No. 20935228 be a minimum of 14 inches and a maximum of 26 inches below finished grade. The beds and/or % trenches should be covered with an untreated building paper to help minimize clogging of the ( gravel with earth backfill. Positive drainage should also be provided to reduce the potential for surface water to enter the system. The systems should be designed in accordance with State and ICounty regulations using the data provided in this report. The systems should also be placed the required minimum-distance•from all pertinent-ground-features,-as-described-in-the Weld County regulations. Waste Retention Basin: Laboratory tests were run on selected composite samples from the test fborings to determine the physical properties of the embankment and foundation materials for the proposed waste retention basin. Permeability, shear characteristics and unconfined compressive istrengths were determined on the embankment material. The on-site soil when compacted to 95 percent of Standard Proctor Density has an angle of 1 internal friction of 25.6 degrees and a cohesion of 340 psf. The on-site soil when compacted to 1 95 percent of Standard Proctor Density has a permeability rate of approximately 0.03 x 10-' centimeters per second. The interbedded sandstone and siltstone bedrock when compacted to 195 percent of Standard Proctor Density has a permeability rate of approximately 0.08 x 10-' centimeters per second. The in-situ sandy lean clay in its undisturbed condition has a permeability rate of approximately 0.30 x ,0, centimeters per second. In view of the permeability rates of the on-site materials in their in situ and compacted condition, Iit is our opinion the proposed waste retention basin may be built with the on-site clayey sands, sandy-lean clays or siltstone-sandstone bedrock. It is recommended the upper 1-foot of the wetted perimeter of the basin in cut sections be scarified and recompacted to form the relativel9 Iimpervious liner material. The compacted subgrade in cut areas and the compacted embankment material should meet a permeability rate specification of 1 x 10''centimeters per second. Samples Iof the compacted materials should be obtained during construction and tested in the laboratory 1 to evaluate permeability rates. Embankments constructed to form the proposed basin should be constructed with the on-site clayey sand, sandy lean clay or sandstone-siltstone bedrock. The Ibottom of the basin should be placed a minimum of 3 feet above existing groundwater. Earthwork: • General Considerations: The conclusions contained in this report for the proposed construction are contingent upon compliance with recommendations presented in this section. 1 10 - 962411 7 Mr. Jacob Hirsch EU Project No. 20935228 2.. Excavations penetrating the hard bedrock may require the use of a large track mounted backhoe or a track mounted tractor or ripper tooth. 3. Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, groundwater may be encountered in excavations on the site. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to -control water-within excavations. .Well-points-may..be.-required for significant groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. 4. On-site clay and sand soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Use of lime, fly ash kiln dust, cement or geotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization technique. Adequate laboratory testing should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each chosen method of stabilization. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping. • Slab Subarade Preparation: 1 . Where existing sand and clay soils will support floor slab, the soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum depth of 8 inches. .2. A minimum 4-inch layer of clean, graded gravel or crushed rock devoid of fines should be placed beneath slabs. Slab exhibiting heavy floor loads should-be underlain by a minimum of 8 inches of aggregate base course. • Pavement Subarade Preparation: The subgrade should be scarified, moistened as required, and recompacted for a minimum depth of 8 inches prior to placement of fill and pavement li materials. • Fill Materials: 1. Clean on-site soils or approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following: 12 • Mr. Jacob Hirsch EU Project No. 20935228 2. Excavations penetrating the hard bedrock may require the use of a large track mounted backhoe or a track mounted tractor or ripper tooth. 3. Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, groundwater may be encountered in excavations on the site. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to -control water-within,excavations. .Well-points-may..be-required for significant groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. 4. On-site clay and sand soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Use of lime, fly ash kiln dust, cement or geotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization technique. Adequate laboratory testing should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each chosen method of stabilization. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping. • Slab Subarade Preparation: 1 . Where existing sand and clay soils will support floor slab, the soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum depth of 8 inches. .2. A minimum 4-inch layer of clean, graded gravel or crushed rock devoid of fines should be placed beneath slabs. Slab exhibiting heavy floor loads should-be underlain by a minimum of 8 inches of aggregate base course. • Pavement Subarad•Preparation: The subgrade should be scarified, moistened as required, and recompacted for a minimum depth of 8 inches prior to placement of fill and pavement materials. • Fill Materials: 1. Clean on-site soils or approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following: 12 - 962411 Terracon MANURE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSED HIRSCH DAIRY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Project: Number 43935049 Date: December 10, 1993 1. INTRODUCTION This Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (MWMP) was prepared to assist Hirsch Dairy in complying with the State of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) Regulation, "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4 .8 . 0, 5 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 1002-19. The intent of this regulation is to prevent the discharge of manure or process wastewater from concentrated animal feeding operations into waters of the State and to encourage beneficial use on agricultural land. 1. 1 Purpose The purpose of this MWMP is the following: 1. To describe stormwater and process water management practices for the subject site. 2. To describe solid waste (manure) management practices . 1.2 Site Description The proposed dairy is owned by Mr. Jacob Hirsch. The general location of the subject property is shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A. The property is located in the west h of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian in Weld County, Colorado and is approximately two (2) miles north of Severance, Colorado. Figure 3 is a site location diagram. As seen from Figure 3 , the proposed dairy property will encompass approximately 240 acres, 42 of which will consist of an open lot configuration with concrete feed-bunk areas, fenced corrals and shade shelters, care-taker and staff trailers, a commodities 962411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 2 storage area, milking parlor, manure separator and wastewater retention pond. The Hirsch Dairy anticipates that the proposed facility will eventually confine approximately 850 milking cows and heifers. 1. 3 Bite Geology and Hvdrolocv The following geologic and hydrologic description is based on Terracon's review of U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey maps, U.S. Geological Survey Maps and soil boring information from a geotechnical exploration performed by Terracon's affiliate company, Empire Laboratories, Inc. (Empire) . A total of 29 borings were drilled to depths of three (3) to 15 feet at the site. Details and soil test results from the geotechnical exploration are included in a separate report prepared by Empire dated December 3 , 1993 . Information from that report has been used for developing this MWMP. The proposed dairy lies within an area containing shallow surface deposits of sand, silt and loess. The Fox Hills Sandstone Formation underlies the surface soil at the site. The Fox Hills Sandstone consists of cross bedded, tan sandstone which grades downward to brown, fine-grained, silty sandstone interbedded with gray shale. The Pox Hills Sandstone ranges from approximately 300 to 500 feet thick and is underlain by the Pierre shale. The water table in the vicinity of the site is described as being within either surface colluvium, windblown deposits or consolidated surface rock deposits when it is fractured or weathered. The depth to water is described as being five (5) to 20 feet below surface and may disappear seasonally. Observations made during completion of the geotechnical exploration were consistent with geological survey maps and SCS maps. Near surface soil was predominantly sandy clay and clayey sand. Weathered bedrock, sandstone and siltstone was encountered at depths ranging from 1. 5 to 7. 0 feet 962411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 3 below the existing ground surface. It is underlain by what appeared to be unweathered Foxhills Sandstone which extended to the bottom of the borings at approximately 15 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was not observed in the soil borings while drilling. However, groundwater was observed in the borings at depths ranging from seven (7) to 12 feet below ground surface four (4) to 22 days after drilling. Surface water generally flows to the west toward Loop Lake and the Eaton Canal. The proposed dairy does not appear to be located in the 100-year flood plains for the local creeks and streams. The proposed dairy does not appear to be overlying a designated aquifer as described in "Classification and Water Quality Standards for groundwater" 3 . 12 .0, 5 CCR 1002-8. 2 . STORMWATER AND PROCESS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT The stormwater and process wastewater management plan for the dairy includes provisions for a drainage system, conveyance facilities and a retention basin. It also incorporates methods of managing liquid and solid wastes. Land application of liquid wastes and solid manure is an important aspect of the waste disposal process. The following subsections contain descriptions of the proposed grading and drainage; process wastewater conveyance systems; a retention basin; and the liquid waste disposal method. 2 . 1 Grading and Drainaae As shown on Figure 3, the site is divided into two (2) sections for livestock confinement. The western portion of the property will consist of livestock corrals surrounding the milking parlor. The eastern portion of the property will contain commodities, corrals and care-taker staff trailers. The western and eastern portions of the property are separated by a concrete irrigation canal. • 962411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 4 The total area of the east and west sections is approximately 42 acres. Precipitation, spilled water, urine and other drainage from the proposed corrals will be directed to the retention basin on the west side of the site by surface grading. Water from the corrals on the east side of the site will be directed through a pipe under the irrigation canal to the retention basin. The corrals will be graded such that the ground surface slopes downward to the west to a slope of approximately three (3) percent. Ditches will be designed to transport the estimated stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 2.2 Process Wasterater Conveyance System The milking parlor and holding pen floor will be cleaned at least three (3) times per day at shift changes. Cleaning will consist of scraping and washing with clean or recycled water. The semi-dry solids will be removed from the milking parlor and stockpiled in designated areas near the wastewater basin. Clean or recycled water will be used to wash walls, fences, curbs and floors. Wastewater containing cattle manure, urine or milk from the dairy center will be collected at a common point at the barn. The wastewater will flow by gravity via buried 10 to 12 inch PVC piping to the manure separator. The liquid fraction or supernatant will flow by gravity from the separator to the wastewater retention basin located on the western side of the site. Solids collected • from the separator will be stockpiled with the semi-dry solids near the retention basin. 2 . 3 Retention Basin As seen from Figure 3 , a retention-basin system will be required for collection of liquid wastes when the dairy begins production. The retention basin has been designed to contain the estimated runoff volume from both the western and eastern portions of the site. The hydrologic design method used was the SCS method 962411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 5 utilizing curve number 90 for open lots as described in the CDH regulation. The basin has been designed to store the estimated run-off volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm based on the production and confinement area of the site. The basin has the additional capacity to store up to six (6) months volume of process wastewater from the new milking parlor. -Berms will be -constructed around the boundary of the site to redirect runoff which has not been in contact with dairy wastes away from the basin. The waste retention basin will be an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements in Section 4 . 8 . 4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulation. Three (3) permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the proposed pond area. The permeability of the samples that were compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D698 Standard Proctor ranged from approximately 2.7 x 104 to 3 . 0 x 10'' cm/sec which exceeds the CDM requirement of 1 x 104 cm/sec. Based on this information a synthetic lining system..does not appear to be required at the site. When constructed, the upper. 1-foot of the wetted perimeter of the basin cut sections, the bottom and side slopes of the pond will also be compacted to 95 percent of Standard Proctor. As discussed previously, the basin has been sized to contain six (6) months normal flush water and will have the additional capacity to contain the stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The basin will be managed to maintain a 2-foot free-board capacity. . The basin will be pumped periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation of cropland. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the basin will be drained within 15 days to regain its original holding capacity. As seen from Figure 3 , the basin will be a rectangular-shaped structure measuring 300 feet by 250 feet at the top of the berm. The side slopes of the basin will be 3 : 1 horizontal to vertical. An alternative basin design utilizing berms on the north, west and s62/C 1 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Project Number 43935049 Terraces December 10, 1993 Page 5 utilizing curve number 90 for open lots as described in the CDH regulation. The basin has been designed to store the estimated run-off volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm based on the production and confinement area of the site. The basin has the additional capacity to store up to six (6) months volume of process wastewater from the new milking parlor. -Berms will be -constructed around the boundary of the site to redirect runoff which has not been in contact with dairy wastes away from the basin. The waste retention basin will be an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements in Section 4 . 8. 4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulation. Three (3) permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the proposed pond area. The permeability of the samples that were compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D698 Standard Proctor ranged from approximately 2 . 7 x 104 to 3 . 0 x 10° cm/sec which exceeds the COM requirement of 1 x 104 cm/sec. Based on this information a synthetic lining system does not appear to be required at the site. When constructed, the upper. 1-foot of the wetted perimeter of the basin cut sections, the bottom and side slopes of the pond will also be compacted to 95 percent of Standard Proctor. As discussed previously, the basin has been sized to contain six (6) months normal flush water and will have the additional capacity to contain the stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The basin will be managed to maintain a 2-foot free-board capacity. The basin will be pumped periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation of cropland. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the basin will be drained within 15 days to regain its original holding capacity. As seen from Figure 3, the basin will be a rectangular-shaped structure measuring 300 feet by 250 feet at the top of the berm. The side slopes of the basin will be 3 : 1 horizontal to vertical. An alternative basin design utilizing berms on the north, west and 362411 Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 6 south with natural grading on the east may be utilized at the dairy. 2 . 4 Liquid and Solid Waste Disposal The liquid portion of the wastes which accumulates in the waste retention basin will be land applied to -cultivated fields to supplement irrigation water and to provide nutrients to the soil to enhance crop production. Solid manure waste from the dairy will also be land applied. The Hirsch Dairy will irrigate and incorporate solid manure into the remaining approximately 198 acres of the dairy property. The primary irrigated crop will be corn for silage. Two (2) alternatives for land application are possible for the dairy. The first alternative assumes that both wastewater and solid manure will be applied to cropland for plant nutrients and additional commercial fertilizer is not required. For this case, application rates are based on pre-established conditions and recommendations developed, in "Manure Spreadsheets, " Texas Agricultural Extension Service, October 1989 at Texas ASM for cattle feedlots in the Great Plains area. Potential application rates are provided in Table 1. TABLE 1 APPLICATION RATE BASED ON PLANT AVAILABLE NITROGEN (PAM) PAN Application Rue Wastewater Solid Manure Total Acres pounds/acre/year Acres Required Acres Required Required 100 106 281 387 150 70 188 258 200 53 141 194 300 35 94 129 400 26 71 97 962/T11 I Vim • t I --—' fix. Q rte.r i a,s_ - y • • i .41.—: ' 141, • M • ( I _ •- /' - :r`; _ -cC ::_•. - i lob , � - �� .. ' ! t Z • y • _ ":::‘,L1.:1,.....1.17.1.1,:1-:,;.1:14'.--711::::::i. �� ti ,f.. �. ` ` \ •fv 3 rya l�• I ` fl irlir T.. • �!'' I 1 Y 'S4 > A\�F P t v ..:-..-77 ,, ¢ .e • I 3. \ -; ' \� ' f: • 4.„-_-.,..„. y.. 962e".1 ncC 996 �� Memorandum To: Todd Hodges, W.C. Planning Department CC: Lee Morrison, W.C. Attorneys Office From: Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Health Department Date: July 24, 1996 Subject: USR-1091, Hirsch Dairy The Environmental Protection Division (the Division) has reviewed the application materials for USR-1091, submitted by Hirsch Dairy. The Division recommends that this case be continued until the facility has demonstrated that it can comply with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations (the Regulations ). The request is based upon the fact the Division is not convinced that the Dairy can dispose of all manure and waste water generated on the site. The Division has found that the submitted materials are inadequate and are in need of supplementation. The primary deficiency lies in the facility's manure and waste water management plan. The Division has the Following concerns: • 1) The plan was written for a dairy of 850 head of cattle. Mr. Hirsch is proposing to increase the capacity to 2.000 head. An increase in the total number of cattle results in an increase in the amount of manure and waste water which the facility must be able to dispose. According to the submitted materials Mr. Hirsch has 198 acres. The facility's manure and waste water management plan also states that all manure and waste water will be applied to this same 198 acres. Using the Regulations we have computed application rates, which indicate that Mr. Hirsch does not have adequate area for land application of all of the manure which the facility will generate. These calculations are attached. Keep in mind that these calculations do not account for nutrients available in waste water application. 2) The current manure and waste water management plan uses incorrect values to determine land application rates. Application rates must be determined in accordance with Section 4.8.5(A)(5) of the Regulations. 3) The current manure and waste water management plan does not adequately demonstrate that the on-site waste water retention structure • .56;.171-4.4.1. Todd Hodges Hirsch Dairy July 22, 1996 • Page 2 was constructed to a permeability not to exceed 1/32"/day. In accordance with Section 4.8.4 of the Regulations, "the operator shall • have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting the requirements...was constructed". 4) The manure and waste water management plan does not indicate the amount of acreage available for liquid waste disposal. Mr. Hirsch informed me on July 11, 1996, that land application of liquid waste occurs on only 3 to 4 acres of corn and on only 10 acres of wheat, because the facility did not have the means to pump a farther distance. The manure and waste water management plan must demonstrate that adequate acreage is available for this application. A demonstration of the conveyance structures should be a part of this. The manure and waste water management plan must be revised to address these items, among others. We believe that this demonstration is pertinent in order to continue with this hearing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at extension 2232. tj\407 • • • • 96244,, Todd Hodges Hirsch Dairy July 22, 1996 Page 3 Hirsch Dairy Land Application Calculations Estimated manure production (Appendix E): 2,000 head X 15.0 ton/year = 30,000 ton/year of manure Proposed land application rate per acre, Hirsch Dairy: 30,000 ton/year/ 198 acres = 151 ton/acre/year Minimum acreage need for disposal using table values in the Regulations: We are assuming that crop yield for Hirsch Dairy is 200 bushels/acre/yr of corn. 200 bushel corn/acre X 1.35 lb nitrogen/bushel = 270 lb nitrogen/acre Total N in manure = 9 lb nitrogen/ton (appendix E) 270 Lb nitrogen/acre/ 9 lb nitrogen/ton = 30 ton manure/acre/year • 30.000 ton/year of manure/30 to manure/acre/year = 1,000 acres minimum nec,icd Maximum loading rate using appendices D and E: Crop nitrogen uptake rate for 200 busheVacre of corn 200 busheVacre X 56 lb/bushel = 11,200 lb of grain/acre 11,200 lb X 1.61% nitrogen = 180 lb. nitrogen/acre required dairy manure contains 9 lb nitrogen/ton 180 lb nitrogen/acre/ 9 lb nitrogen/ton = 20 ton manure/acre 30,000 ton/year of manure/ 20 ton manure/acre = 1,500 acres • 962C 1 so `k auui COvv. ukJ kO aux \\IC- C1n „ate7 I ) ICI C7 „in.\ , • . . 962111 4 I lf{ Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Ci IProject Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page B iI western lots. Drainage from the dry manure storage sites will be i directed toward the basin. Excess runoff from areas upgradient of I { the manure piles will be diverted away from the manure piles. I 1 3 .2 Dairy Buildinas Manure which collects in the milking parlor and cattle holding pens f will be removed after each milking shift and transported to the designated storage areas near the basin. Washdown water containing manure solids will be directed to the manure separator. The liquid 1 fraction of the waste will enter the basin leaving the solids to be stockpiled in the storage areas. j I3.3 Dry Manure Disposal Dry manure which accumulates in the designated storage areas will Ibe incorporated into the on-site agricultural lands owned by Hirsch Dairy. The manure will generally be distributed during the spring 1 and fall months to coincide with planting seasons. i 4 . BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As has been generally described in the previous portions of this Iplan, the proposed Hirsch dairy operation will utilize best management practices. (BMPs) for its site specific conditions. BMPs Iwill include but not be limited to: • Construction of ditches and grading to divert stormwater from 1 uncontaminated areas away from confinement, manure storage and process wastewater areas. I • Installation of buried conduit for process wastewater. • Installation of concrete walkways and feeding areas to facilitate manure collection from feeding areas.I • Periodic manure collection. I • Utilize process-water recycling to flush walkways. I 562/7_1:1 El Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon 1 Project Number 43935049 December 10, 1993 Page 8 western lots. Drainage from the dry manure storage sites will be directed toward the basin. Excess runoff from areas upgradient of 1 the manure piles will be diverted away from the manure piles. 1 i 3.2 Dairy Buildings Manure which collects in the milking parlor and cattle holding pens will be removed after each milking shift and transported to the Idesignated storage areas near the basin. Washdown water containing manure solids will be directed to the manure separator. The liquid 1 fraction of the waste will enter the basin leaving the solids to be J stockpiled in the storage areas. • I3. 3 Dry Manure Disposal Dry manure which accumulates in the designated storage areas will Ibe incorporated into the on-site agricultural lands owned by Hirsch Dairy. The manure will generally be distributed during the spring and fall months to coincide with planting seasons. 4 . BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As has been generally described in the previous portions of this Iplan, the proposed Hirsch dairy operation will utilize best management practices. (BMPs) for its site specific conditions. BMPs iwill include but not be limited to: • Construction of ditches and grading to divert stormwater from uncontaminated areas away from confinement, manure storage and process wastewater areas. • Installation of buried conduit for process wastewater. • Installation of concrete walkways and feeding areas to facilitate manure collection from feeding areas. ti • Periodic manure collection. I • Utilize process-water recycling to flush walkways. j I I 9624t1 I Hirsch Dairy: Monthly Dairy Cow Total Provided by Dairy Herd Improvement Association October, 1996(DHIA) Date Adults Breeding Juveniles Per Weld County Per Confined Animal Feeding Dry/Milking Trucked off Heifers/Calves Total Head Regulations,Animal Units: (varies) Dry/Milking,Breed= 1.4 AU; Calves/Heifers=0.7 AU Sep-95 616 46 113 776 1005 Oct-95 654 48 120 823 1067 Nov-95 663 49 122 834 1082 Dec-95 663 49 122 834 1082 Jan-96 666 49 122 838 1087 Feb-96 653 48 120 821 1066 Mar-96 657 49 121 826 1072 I Apr-96 666 49 122 838 1087 May-96 820 61 151 1031 1338 Jun-96 831 61 163 1046 1356 Jul-96 835 62 163 1050 1363 Aug-96 858 63 168 1079 1400 Sep-96 865 77 169 1101 1430 I Mr . Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12, 1995 Page 2 Comment 1: "On page 1, your plan states that you will have trailers for your employees. However, the plan does not indicate how many trailers and how many employees your are going to house. Any human wastewater will have to be disposed of in an approved septic system; however, if the septic system is greater than 2,000 gallons per day, you will need to apply for and obtain a site approval for this system. " Response: There are four (4) trailers on site. Mr. Hirsch indicated that there are 10 employees living on site. Mr. Hirsch indicated that the septic system was inspected and approved for use by Weld County officials. The system reportedly exceeded the county requirements. Comment 2 : "On page 2, last paragraph, the study reads: "The depth to water is described as being (5) to 20 feet below the surface and may disappear seasonally" . The study does not provide any information as to the depth of the containment pond. Based on your own location map, it appears that the containment pond will be built in the lowest part of your property. Is this location going to be in a portion of your property that has high ground water? We would like you to clarify this item. " Response: Based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Empire Laboratories, Inc. of Fort Collins, Colorado dated December 3 , 1994 , groundwater was encountered in five (5) borings at the western portionmof the site at depths ranging from 10 to 12. 5 feet below the surface at the time of drilling. Groundwater was observed in three (3) of these borings at depths ranging from 7 to 9 feet below ground surface 22 days after drilling. The containment pond was built in the western portion of the site but further south and west and topographically higher than the borings. It is possible that the north-western portion of the pond may be above relatively high groundwater. The elevation of the bottom of the pond was apparently raised when soft conditions were discovered during construction. Mr. Hirsch explained that during construction, the excavators were not able to dig deep enough at the original location because the subsurface became "mushy" . For this reason the pond was apparently cut less than five (5) feet into the land surface and taller side embankments were constructed to contain water. The area of the pond was increased to maintain adequate storage capacity. Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 3 During the site visit, the pond appeared to be approximately 14 feet deep vertically from the crest of the berm to the bottom of the pond, with approximate 3 : 1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes. The pond is approximately triangular in shape with legs of approximately 525 feet and 755 feet along the crest. Based on these approximate measurements, the capacity of the pond was estimated to be approximately 46 acre-feet. Terracon's original recommendation for capacity was approximately 10. 1 acre-feet. At the time of the site visit the pond was mostly dry. Comment 3 : "The second paragraph, on page 3 , says that "The proposed dairy does not appear to be located in the 100 year flood plain Section 4 .8. 6 (4) (d) , of the CAFOC Regulations, clearly states that "Process wastewater retention structures shall not be located within a mapped 100 year flood plain as designated and approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) . . . . " If you have not been able to obtain any information from the CWCB regarding this item, instruct your consultant to make a more clear determination as to whether or not any of your process wastewater containment structures are going to be situated in the 100 year flood plain. " Response: In December 1994, the CWCB was contacted regarding a designation for the subject site. For an immediate response, the CWCB referred Terracon to Flood Insurance Services (FIS) of Adams County. Based on the FIS response, the Hirsch Dairy is not within a 100 year flood plain. A copy of the FIS response is attached to this letter. Comment 4: "In the same paragraph, the study says: "The proposed dairy does not appear to be overlaying a designated aquifer as described in Classification and Water Quality Standards for Groundwater 3 . 12.0, 5 CCR 1002-8". The referenced ground water regulations were amended on December 27, 1993 . The amended ground water regulations do include all state aquifers; therefore, there are groundwater classifications and numerical standards, that you cannot adversely impact, for the underlying aquifer upon which you are building your dairy operation. " Response: The dairy appears to be operating in general accordance with the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan, it is not anticipated that the dairy will significantly impact the underlying aquifer. v°6a' .*i.1. Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 4 Comment 5: "Page 3 , the paragraph regarding Grading and Drainage, state that "Water from the corrals on the east side of the site will be directed through a pipe under the irrigation canal to the retention basin . " It is our understanding that, just previous to directing the wastewater into the pipe and under the canal, this wastewater will be conveyed through an earthen canal to the pipe. The exfiltration in this canal "shall be limited to the maximum extent practicable through the use of very low permeability earthen materials and proper compaction or through the use of synthetic conveyance materials" as stated in the CAFO regulations. Also, the inverted siphon (pipe under the canal) should be designed to carry peak flows expected at times when the applicable design storm event occurs. " Response: Based on the recent site visit, it appears runoff water from the eastern corral is directed to the adjoining alfalfa field, south of the corrals by sheetflow. Mr. Hirsch indicated that if this is not acceptable, then the flow could be redirected via a pipe under the concrete irrigation canal to the main pond. The pipe would be designed for the maximum design storm event and the upgradient area of runoff. The runoff would be conveyed by natural grading through the corrals, and by compacted earth or concrete ditches, if applicable, outside of the corrals. Comment 6: "Third paragraph, page 4, Section 2. 2 Process Wastewater Conveyance System. This paragraph does not provide information regarding estimated runoff and process wastewater flows. The regulation requires you to have this information available any time we perform a site inspection. Also, the study states that wastewater will flow by gravity to the manure separator, and subsequently to the retention pond. We would like to have information regarding performance efficiencies, and treatment capacity for the manure separator. We believe that you will have some solids accumulation in your wastewater retention pond. Therefore, we recommend that additional capacity be provided in the containment pond for solids accumulation. " Response: In Section 4.8 .5 (A) (5) (b) of the CAFOC regulations, it is stated that "The operator shall maintain copies of the agronomic analyses which are being relied upon for the purpose of limiting land application rates of manure and process wastewater. Copies of such analyses shall be available for inspection at the facility and records Shall be maintained for a. minimum of three years. " $6211a1 Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 6 The efficiency of the separator is not known, but appears to separate relatively large solids effectively. Mr. Hirsch indicated that a small pile of manure solids, of approximately two (2) to three (3) cubic yards, had taken three (3) weeks to accumulate. A small settling basin was built at the inlet of the new pond to accumulate finer solids. A ramp was built along side of the settling basin to accommodate removal of small solids with a backhoe. Comment 7: "In the same paragraph the study says: "Solids collected from the separator will be stockpiled with the semi-dry solids near the retention basin. " The study does not mention if these wet solids are going to be placed on an impervious pad. We recommend that you provide one with additional drainage in the event of liquid waste running off outside from the pad. This waste should be directed back to the containment pond. " Response: The manure solids are stored on a concrete pad topographically upgradient of the settling basin and pond. The pad is sloped such that free liquids drain into the pond. The CAFOC regulation does not appear to require concrete pads. Other manure stockpiles will be placed in areas such that runoff will be directed into the containment pond. Comment 8 : "Second paragraph, page 5 says: "the waste retention basin will be an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements . . . . " Also, the study mentions that: "Three (3) permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the proposed area. " We would like to know what method, to test permeability, was used. A description of the method used will help us make a better assessment if your containment facilities will meet the 1 x 10-4cm/sec seepage rate specified in the above referenced regulations. " Response: The method used to test permeability was described in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The falling head permeability test method was performed using on-site soil samples compacted to 95 percent of standard proctor density (ASTM D-698) . As explained on page 5 of the MWMP, the permeability of these soils ranged from 2 .7 X 10"8 to 3 . 0 X 10-' cm/sec which exceeded the requirement of 1 X 104 cm/sec. An undisturbed soil sample also tested by the falling head method has a permeability rate of 3 .0 X 10-' cm/sec 96nr Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12, 1995 Page 6: The efficiency of the separator is not known, but appears to separate relatively large solids effectively. Mr. Hirsch indicated that a small pile of manure solids, of approximately two (2) to three (3) cubic yards, had taken three (3) weeks to accumulate. A small settling basin was built at the inlet of the new pond to accumulate finer solids. A ramp was built along side of the settling basin to accommodate removal of small solids with a backhoe. Comment 7: "In the same paragraph the study says: "Solids collected from the separator will be stockpiled with the semi-dry solids near the retention basin . " The study does not mention if these wet solids are going to be placed on an impervious pad. We recommend that you provide one with additional drainage in the event of liquid waste running off outside from the pad. This waste should be directed back to the containment pond. " Response: The manure solids are stored on a concrete pad topographically upgradient of the settling basin and pond. The pad is sloped such that free liquids drain into the pond. The CAFOC regulation does not appear to require concrete pads. Other manure stockpiles will be placed in areas such that runoff will be directed into the containment pond. Comment ' 8 : : "Second paragraph, page 5 says: "the waste retention basin will be an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements . . . . " Also, the study mentions that: "Three (3) permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the proposed area . " We would like to know what method, to test permeability, was used. A description of the method used will help us make a better assessment if your containment facilities will meet the 1 x 10 cm/sec seepage rate specified in the above referenced regulations. " Response: The method used to test permeability was described in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The falling head permeability test method was performed using on-site soil samples compacted to 95 percent of standard proctor density (ASTM D-698) . As explained on page 5 of the MWMP, the permeability of these soils ranged from 2 .7 X 10'' to 3 . 0 X 10-' cm/sec which exceeded the requirement of 1 X 104 cm/sec. An undisturbed soil sample also tested by the falling head method has a permeability rate of 3 .0 X 104 cm/sec Mr . Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 7 which exceeded the requirement. As a safety factor, it was recommended that soil in the pond be compacted to 95 percent standard proctor. Mr. Hirsch indicated that the soils were compacted during construction. In situ-compaction tests were apparently not performed during construction. Comment 9 : "Page 6 , Section 2.4 Liquid and Solid Waste Disposal, states that the liquid and solids wastes generated by your operation will be disposed of by land application. Paragraph two, same page, gives you two alternatives for land application. The first one references "Manure Spreadsheets " from Texas Agricultural Extension Service. However, the regulations are very specific about the disposal options available to animal feeding operators. Thus, you have three land application disposal alternatives, and they are explained in detail in Sections 4 . 8 . 5 (A) (5) (a) , (b) and (c) , of the above referenced regulations. If you decide to land apply, liquid and/or solid wastewater over land, abased on a site- specific agronomic analysis. As specified in Section 4 . 8 .5 (A) (5) (b) , you shall maintain records for a minimum of three years. " Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 6, the CAFOC regulations state that a site specific agronomic analyses is required when additional commercial fertilizers are used. If additional fertilizers are not used, then an agronomic analyses is not required. The alternatives given in the MWMP were intended as suggestions for application rates to compare available acreage with the amount of plant available nitrogen (PAN) produced during the operation of the dairy. These rates were intended to be used in lieu of the addition of commercial fertilizer. It was believed that utilizing the manure spreadsheets would be equivalent to using the CAFOC appendices to estimate application rates. As discussed in the response to Comment 6, if supplemental commercial fertilizer is applied, Terracon recommends a site-specific agronomic analyses be performed at the site. Comment 10: "The study does not specify the use of flow metering devices. We would like to know how you intend to determine quantities of liquid wastewater generated by your operation?" Response: The quantities of process wastewater. were originally estimated to be approximately 2, 000 gallons per day based on discussions with Mr. Hirsch as described in the response to Comment 6. This amount plus the amount generated by the design storm event were the basis 962411 Tenacoc Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 8 for the tial size of the re tention odevicese be g used. Process o not appear to require that flow metering wastewater is generated in the milking barn and is supplied from the municipal water system. ie Copies requ water rebbills gwwiilllabe be available if more exact quantities are application, the quantities will be estimated based on the irrigation pump capacity and the time of its operation. Comment 11: "A back flow preventative device is required regulations in by the the event that you will use additional well water during land application of wastewater. " Response: Additional irrigation water will be obtained from an irrigation ditch. Addipipe with pr itch ll not ocess wastewater. either the N1domesti share a common p P irrigation wells exist at the site. Comment 12: "Your plan does not have any information about groundwater depth, flow direction and quality. We suggest you obtain this information to evaluate the need for a groundwater monitoring system. " Response:asedconitol gndwater depth is presented in the InformationG regarding groundwater Report and in the response to Comment 2 . Based on topographic conditions, groundwater is estimated to flow in a westerly direction across the site. As discussed in the MWMP, groundwater may seasonally disappear. Section 4 .8 .8 of the CAFOC regulation states that: "Existing concentrated animal feeding operations which are and 4in compliance. 5 shall not be the provisions of Sections 4 . 8 .3 , 4 .8 . 4, ex8 t as provided required to conduct water quality monitoring P under Subsection 4.8 . 5 (A) (5) (c) . " The Hirsch dairy does not appear to need groundwater monitoring based on the following reasons: a ears to be in • Based on the site visit, the Hirsch Dairy PP general compliance with the provisions of 4 .8 .3 - SURFACE WATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: • The dairy appears to be operated as a no-discharge ' facility, which includes manure and process wastewater 262'1"_1 Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12 , 1995 Page 9 collection, storage and land application facilities under the general performance requirements of Section 4 . 8 . 3 (A) . • The Dairy appears to meet the design criteria for new facilities within the constraints of Section 4 . 8 . 3 (B) and will reportedly meet the operation and maintenance requirements of Section 4 .8. 3 (C) • The Hirsch Dairy appears to be in general compliance with the provision of 4 . 8 . 4 - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS: • The dairy appears to meet the requirements for manure and process waste water retention and conveyance structures as evidenced by the observed permeability of both non- compacted and compacted soil samples collected from the site and through the use of concrete materials and impermeable PVC piping materials. • The Hirsch Dairy appears to be in general compliance with the provisions of 4 . 8 . 5 - BENEFICIAL USE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE AND PROCESS WASTEWATER - CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS: • The dairy will reportedly land apply manure and process wastewater. If commercial fertilizer will also be used Terracon recommends that the dairy perform an agronomic analyses to comply with 4.8 . 5 (5) and revise the land application plan in accordance with 4.8 .5 (5) . Recommendation 1: "If a compacted clay liner is used for the lagoon system. The Division requires that a soil test be performed to determine the thickness of the liner (12 inches minimum) and the clay content in the soil-clay mixture. We recommend that the compaction of the liner mixture be at 95 percent standard proctor as specified by the American Society of Testing and Materials, D 698091 standards. Also, that a permeability test be performed using the method(s) described in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, E. M. 1110-2-1906, November 30, 1970. " "If a synthetic liner is going to be used, manufacturer recommendations and specifications should be followed during its installation. Also, before filling the containment facility with wastewater, a leaking test should be performed to insure that the liner was not punctured during installation. " 962 -t1 Mr. Jake Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy Terracon Project Number 43935049 January 12, 1995 Page 11 Recommendation 5: "A monthly water mass balance should be calculated for the lagoon system. The water mass balance should include: influent flow, rainfall, snowfall evaporation and land application rates. If possible, local values should be used for the calculations. If local values are not available, regional values can be used. The calculation and logging of a water mass balance will help you control, if the integrity of your impoundment structure has been compromised. Response: It does not appear that a water mass balance is required under the provisions of the CAFOC regulation. This recommendation is likely beyond the scope of operation for the dairy. If you have any questions regarding the responses or recommendations in this letter or if you need assistance with the special use permit, please do not hesitate to contact us. In general, the dairy appears to be a well managed, state-of-the-art operation. It has been a pleasure to be of service to the Hirsch Dairy on this project. Very truly yours, TERRRACON $NVIRONMENTAL, INC. 9 Brick Smith, P.E. Colored q Number 29894 Daviimod M. Rau, P.E. Colorado Number 26138 BS/DMR:lsbl enc. CDPHE letter Flood Insurance Service Certification 962'!-' 1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ' 1517 16 AVENUE COURT GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 O ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635 • COMMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639 COLORADO FAX (970) 356-4966 August 31, 1995 Legal Action No. : 95-056 Certified Letter No. ; Z 208 762 007 Mr. Jacob Hirsch 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Dear Mr. Hirsch: In response to a complaint, on August 28, 1995, a representative of the Environmental Protection Division of the Weld County Health Department conducted an investigation of your feedlot and associated structures located at 11283 Weld County Road 78, Eaton, Colorado. This inspection revealed that the facility does not have adequate tail water containment facilities. It was observed that process water used for irrigating was discharging off property into the barrow ditch, across Weld County Road 78 and traveling south down Weld County Road 23. This discharge is considered a violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations (5 CCR 1002-19) . In accordance with these Regulations please submit the facility's manure and waste water management plan and a specific plan of correction for this violation within 5 days of receipt of this document. Failure to submit these plans for review may result in a hearing before the Weld County Health Officer or further action by the Water Quality Control Commission of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Sincerely, rTh Charlotte Davis :4 Trevor Ji icek, Supervisor �" '. Consumer Health Program Supervisor Environmental Protection Services CD/hd-1365 cc: John Pickle, M.S.E.H. , Director, Weld County Health Department Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Health Victor Sainz, Colorado Department of Health Pat Persichino, Weld County Planning Department .952'111 NELD O LN, ' HEAL` JtPAR-MENT r' LABORATORY ( 1517 16TH AVENUE COURT GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 LAB NO. WATER QUALITY DATA Date of Sample: REMARKS: ttAt' n Oes gnation � 7 �VCR ^� II�r-78- O61-6-1- • )16\rrt t/C �3 + year month day �J�� (Town, County, etc. : of c O [per �LS Da /►. ,1-Tn_ (Q� rl e•— IVia ✓ � ee. la/id Time of Sam le: 1�J (Aa.c.w-�C � " Collet r: 4- :z.jo f/fl j t Station Code Serial : jALAL° ba.7ui au.) &%d-�-/.a-c-r- 2A- Date sample received meld e - 41-61./ILL-g- 355*G` at laboratory: year month ay) S a dzi,o ' (j c_.& 2.3 Received by: �{ QC TIME: 1 6 s I o > _ lax_4V'o.nTh tio c- i)-5 T_ -TTOTAL SOLIDS (m G (mg /T)�oF�— � 9I1 ( Y�P,NIOE (m �) Pi pH (Standard Units) VOLATILE SOLIDS (mg/I) SELENIUM (ug/I ) I ii DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/I) TOTAL COLIFORM (per IOOmI ) SULFATE (mg/I ) • 1 CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/I) FECAL COLIFORM (per 100m1 ) TOTAL HARDNESS as CaCO3(mq/1 ) A 4(14 > , 0000, TURBIDITY (ftu) AMMONIA as N. (mg/I ) CALCIUM as CaCO (mg/1 ) • )t- ,5141 . CONDUCTIVITY (micromhos) NITRITE as N. (mg/I ) MAGNESIUM as Mg (mq/1 BOO (mg/1 ) NITRATE as N. (mg/1 ) SODIUM (mg/1 ) _ 1 COO (mg/1) KJELDAHL NITROGEN (mg/1 ) ARSENIC (ug/I ) 1 COLOR (units) + TOTAL PHOSPHORUS as P (mg/I ) CADMIUM (ug/I ) 1 1 OIL G GREASE (mg/1) MBAS (mg/1 ) COPPER (ug/I) _ : r _ : SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (ml/1) BORON (ug/I ) CHROMIUM. HEX. (uq/I ) * 4 DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/1 ) CHLORIDES (mg/1 ) IRON (uo/I) 1 : • SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/I ) FLUORIDE (me/I ) LEAD (uq/ I ) y- li ig a ( a. • 1 Lab. Water Qual . 303 State Health Department Water Quality Control 4170-092 962411 - - -_- • I00'd CI8I 'ON X'd/X.L TV-80 $6/LO/60 IsEpt-ate _ hCr L�n.y`Jr ir TERRACON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 475 WEST 115Th AVENUE, SUITE F NORTHGLENN, COLORADO 80234 FAX COVER SHEET _ cam September 7, 1995 -ma 9:27 AM TO: Mr. Todd Hodges PHONa 970 353-6100C3558 FAX: 970 352-6312 FROM: BRICK SMRIi, P.E PHONe (303)452-0880 FAX: (303)452-3401 Ra Response letter Number of pages including cover sheet: I ciI Message: Per our conversation this morning, I have attached a copy of a response letter prepared for Mr. Hirsch. The original will follow by mail. A copy of this letter and the original Manure. and Wastewater management plan will also be subsubmitted me TrevorJiricek at Weld County Health DepartmentPlease call if you have any question • 962411 taco!, NN3ZWN NOOVIREL LOOS csr COSS; r;:80 $6/LO/60 Z00'd CTBT 'ON X8/X1 I6:80 $6/L0/60 • • I . 1lerracon aiwnoN meraw INC. 475 Wait Daft Awns-Sake F mm 4 Colorado dozes pm)402-WW Fac(3Dp)452.-34D1 John F.Hat well.Pa. David M.Rau.P.S. ThonasA?2sp &tic SZIIa.1 PE. Gaay V.Woodman.As 1. January 12, 1995 • Mr. Jake Hirsch Hirsch Dairy 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 • RE: Response to Colorado Department of Health Comments Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Hirsch Dairy 11283 Weld County Road 78 • Eaton, Colorado Project Number 43935O49 • Dear Mr. Hirsch: The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments and recommendations made by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) in a letter dated March 10,. 1994 relative to the above-referenced plan. The CDH is now known as the Colorado Department of Public Wealth and Environment (CDPHE) . A copy of the CDPHE letter is included as' an attachment to this letter. For financing pw.p.CS. the Hirsch Dairy is in the process of obtaining a special use t such that the dairy could potentially operate with 1,200 to ,50 ows J however, we understand that it is not the ultimate intent of the Hirsch Dairy to actually expand the operation. The original capacity of the 'dsiry was 850 cows, which did not require a special use permit under Weld County regulations. Terracon Environmental, Inc. (Terracon) personnel visited the site on December 8, 1994 to observe current sits conditions and performed a brief interview with Mr. Hirsch. At the time of the site visit, the dairy had been operational for approximately five (5) weeks and 470 dairy cows were on site. Terracon's responses to the CDPHE comments are based on the _ _ - ion that the Hirsch Dairy may at some point expand t 1 • . cows and on Terracon's interpretation of the confined Animal Pe ;ng Operations and Control (CAPOC) regulation in 5 Code of Colorado Regulations 1002- ' 19 effective August 30, 1992. The CPDHE comments and recommendations are repeated herein and are followed by Terracon's response. Was Sm.T.i,raeaa Compsier.SC. cars- _a&sins ail&m i= AfJtd/s S AS:ensa ■ Cando s Idaho I Meloe ■ Iowa a &anima s AIT naaola ) i$ BlAdnalrla s Monad& 1 Naada s Clroma ■ Ass sr 1 'Nfoaa9 QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE-1966 • 962411 Z00® Y'a-t N >worm= tort tun COc$ St:90 $6/L0/00 ;k Atilt DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (*' t '\T�fi 1517 16 AVENUE COURT GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 C ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635 COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639 1J October 13, 1995 FAX (970) 356-4966 Jake Hirsch Hirsch Dairy • 11283 WCR 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Dear Mr. Hirsch: The Environmental Protection Division (the Division) of the Weld County Health Department has reviewed your Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (project number 43935049) . As you recall, this plan was submitted at the request of the Division after our staff observed a discharge of manure and process wastewater from your facility. This wastewater had been land applied on your property.and then flowed off to adjacent property. This violated the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations (5 CCR 1002-19) , Section 4.8.3 (A) and (B) . Review of your Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the Plan) revealed that the plan does not directly address control of runoff from the land application of manure and process wastewater. Your plan does state that the facility will operate as a No-Discharge facility. A discharge of this type indicates that you are not complying with the Regulations nor the Plan. Therefore, the Division requests that within ten (10) days you submit an update to the Plan which • includes provisions for containing runoff from the land application of manure and process wastewater. Please be advised that future similar violations may result in enforcement action in accordance with the Regulations. If you have any questions, please call me at (970) 353-0635. Sincerely, • Trevor iricek Supervisor Environmental Protection Services tj \245 cc: Victor Sainz, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Todd Hodges, W.C. Planning Department 962411 . -C:11 I //51 0 At n a if 2 HIRSCH DAIRY 11283 WELD COUNTY ROAD 78 EATON, CO 80615 PHONE: 970-686-5380 Trevor Jiricek Weld County Health Department 1517 16th Avenue Court Greeley, Co. 80631 Dear Mr . Jiricek: Responding to your letter regarding discharge violation : To avoid a re-occurance of waste water runnoff, we will closely monitor the application of wastewater on the land. We will take any steps necessary to control the runoff to adjacent properties. Tan you, iL �1 ake Hirsch Owner • JH: aml MCIprr7 -'r" r� ,? - NOV 01 195 r Ci;._ 962411 August 1, 1996 To: Hirsch Dairy File From: Trevor Jiricek Re: Complaint by Ken Lind Today, August 1, 1996, at approx. 11:45 a.m. I reed a complaint from Ken Lind concerning the Hirsch Dairy. Mr. Lind alleged that the Dairy was applying process waste water from their lagoon onto a field and allowing the water to discharge into a irrigation ditch located west of the field. He also alleged that the facility was also irrigating the on the eastern side of this field, thus allowing the irrigation water to commingle with the process water and discharge off-site. Charlotte Davis and I investigated this complaint. We arrived to the Hirsch Dairy at approx. 12:30 p.m. We observed that there was a pump in the wastewater lagoon, however, it was not operating. We also observed the alleged discharge point to State waters on the west side of the field. A discharge was observed, however, it did not appear to be contaminated with process waste water, nor did it have a manure odor. We decided not to collect fecal and BOD samples because the water did not appear contaminated and the pump was not discharging waste water from the lagoon. We then contacted Mr. Hirsch and advised him that we reed a complaint. Mr. Hirsch advised us that he had land applied waste water in the evening of July 31, 1996 and this morning for about an hour during each application. He also indicated that he took care to ensure a discharge did not occur. Mr. Hirsch did show us that he was irrigating on the eastern edge of the field. On this date, we did not observe a discharge to State water or off-site of process waste water. I advised Mr. Lind to call us when Mr. Hirsch is discharging so they we can verify the discharge with photographs and laboratory analysis. In addition, Mr. Hirsch advised us that he has only 600 head of dairy cattle on site, thus he is cosidered an animal feeding operation, rather than a concentrated feeding operation. 962411 ce 51.1z Lic us c90-0 rt;?CrlA Intuit“4,4b1,1 11 kir - j %ajry u> U. ti+1 " tuAk °.3 45, & SJe Z oA fUk C > n . WLAI 4‘ fil.AcCictittyl-1/41‘i L.P /-4 P 1. Fitot 11�/A-etl (6, L A 1 ~` bkstta cw c, his✓ _ Ccw(_ c ,kk ..ta te.. _ (O9.6 962411 +n/n+ /DR +lt 1F 24:IIC4d 233353 IttlhAkAID Utl`�VLri �' I IMr.Jacob Hirsch/Manure and Wastewater Management Plan Terracon Project Number 43935049 1 September 30,1996 Page 7 IThe sum of the runoff volume and the process water volume was approximately 34.3 acre- feet which is greater than the current pond capacity of 31.6 acre feet with free-board. I Terracon has estimated that the pond can be enlarged to the required capacity by adding 0.61 feet of soil to the top of the berms around the pond. Based on the current capacity of the pond, Terracon estimated that a total of 1,774 cows can be placed at the dairy Iwithout raising the berms around the pond. The waste retention basin is an earthen structure intended to meet WQCC requirements in Section 4.8.4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulation. Three (3) permeability tests were performed on recompacted soil samples collected from the Iproposed pond area. The permeability of the samples that were compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D698 Standard Proctor ranged from approximately 2.7 x 104 to 3.0 x 10-7 cm/sec which exceeds the CDH requirement of 1 x 104 cm/sec (1/32 inch per day). Based on this Iinformation, a synthetic lining system does not appear to be required at the site. Although compaction density testing was not performed during construction of the retention basin, Ithe pond was reportedly compacted through wheel rolling of the equipment used to construct the pond. Terracon has performed some preliminary testing along the berms and bottom of the pond. The majority of the test have passed 95 % compaction. For those tests which did not pass 95 % compaction, permeability tests are being performed. If the permeability does not meet the CAFOC requirement of 1/32 inch per day, Terracon recommends that the pond be recompacted to meet that requirement. 2.5 Liquid Waste Disposal Based on the estimated volume of process waste water less evaporation, the amount of process water generated on an annual basis for a 2,000 cow operation is estimated to be approximately 10,774,378 gallons. (Note: this is twice the 180-day storage capacity Idescribed in Section 2.4.) The following land application calculations are made based on Appendices D and E from the CAFOC regulation: Crop nitrogen uptake for 200 bushel/acre corn: • 1 200 bushel/acre X56 lb./bushel = 11,200 lb. grain/acre. 11,200 lb. x 1.61% Nitrogen = 180 lb. nitrogen/acre required. Nitrogen in dairy lagoon water = 4 lb. Nitrogen/1,000 gallon. 180 lb. Nitrogen/Acre/4 lb. Nitrogen/1,000 gallons = 45,000 gallons/acre. 10,744,378 gallons/45,000 gallons = 239 acres. I 962411 oonl, lcalu,Depa� „,_, IBC `,, , • MEMORANDUM Suring lin Since 1933 TO: Victor Sainz, C.D.P.H.E. DATE: Nc vernber 4 96 FROM: Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Health Departme, SUBJECT: Hirsch Dairy, Animal Units As we recently discussed, please find enclosed a copy of the report describing animal units at the Hirsch Dairy. This report NA as provided to our Division on October 14, 1996, by Jake Hirsch's consultant Terracon Environmental, Inc. This report indicates that the facility has operated with animal units in excess of 1,000 units since :it least September 1995. If you have any questions, please call me at(970) 353-0635, extension 2232. tj\494 • 962411 I I Hirsch Dairy: Monthly Dairy Cow Total Provided by Dairy Herd Improvement Association October, 1996(DHIA) I Date Adults Breeding Juveniles Per Weld County Per Confined Animal Feeding Dry/Milking Trucked off Heifers/Calves Total Head Regulations,Animal Units: I (varies) Dry/Milking,Breed= 1.4 AU; Calves/Heifers=0.7 AU Sep-95 616 46 113 776 1005 Oct-95 654 48 120 823 1067 Nov-95 663 49 122 834 1082 Dec-95 663 49 122 834 1082 Jan-96 666 49 122 838 1087 Feb-96 653 48 120 821 1066 Mar-96 657 49 121 826 1072 1 Apr-96 666 49 122 838 1087 May-96 820 61 151 1031 1338 Jun-96 831 61 163 1046 1356 Jul-96 835 62 163 1050 1363 Aug-96 858 63 168 1079 1400 Sep-96 865 77 169 1101 1430 962411 -J 2 .tr . coo I mrnt aas , mmo m m : I - 00. 0 m > <<i>3-nc..pzpm C A o $ma !hic 9 ..a* - A t ' w- ft s xi- _ p 5 • 0 ,74 p IDs' C r. ..- 040 47 d MGMMOM 4) V a N a-laaaaaaaa s mmW VWN++ rOmPmOO � m ,_ = O Q �� a t p _ A__ Cy q 10 m s ... Oay Ch Os W C4,+ N NN N NN O W a P W,+ N+O N 4 St 3 au s O » m 11.a$11 l°. z3 g a mu -. a(�apW W WOa000000 �j= a • z mCaV OG W OVN W NNV a s's a a .. • a a it : a . S • is v se c —= >o, . C.. • • 962411 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer,Covemor p•Cp Patti Shwayder,Executive Director M Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Ts 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building ••'• -a e • Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue • •tan• Phone(303)692.2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 • (303)691.4700 Colorado Department of Public Health October 22, 1996 - and Environment Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 REF: Hirsch Dairy, Field Inspection, Weld County. Dear Mr Hirsch: This letter is to follow up our September 26 meeting. Attendees: Jacob Hirsch, Hirsch Dairy, David Rau, Ten-aeon Environmental, Inc.; Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Health Department; and Victor Sainz, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. As you know the inspection was prompted because we have received a complaint from the Smith Lateral Irrigation Company regarding illegal discharges from your containment facilities into neighboring properties. Also,we have received copy of the August 31, 1996, letter the Weld County Health Department sent you regarding the discharge of process wastewater into the barrow ditch across Weld Ccounty Road 28. We would like to reiterate that wastewater discharges without a permit are illegal and they are a violation of the Colorado Clean Water Act and the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. Also, during the • inspection we did not find evidence of wastewater or manure contamination of the Smith Later ditch,however, the manure drying pile did not have a runoff containment berm to direct runoff to your containment lagoon. We recommend you provide one immediately or relocate the pile to the south of its present location. At this time we thank you for your cooperation during our meeting and site inspection. If you have any questions or comments, please call.me at(303) 692-3564 Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 2 P.E. •!strict Engineer Field Support Section Kent US.1W! war.Fart•.CO IOW rata a.ia.a.hr al Edmava Dona Lai.Kris r•.n t h' Twee lira Wea Car ti.io Damn c___. &hanks Awn.Ina vat • MS4 Ka. • • • 962411 OeS`. a X996 _ � Memorandum To: Todd Hodges, W.C. Planning Department CC: Lee Morrison, W.C. Attorneys Office From: Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Health Department Date: July 24, 1996 Subject: USR-1091, Hirsch Dairy The Environmental Protection Division (the Division) has reviewed the application materials for USR-1091, submitted by Hirsch Dairy. The Division recommends that this case be continued until the facility has demonstrated that it can comply with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations (the Regulations ). The request is based upon the fact the Division is not convinced that the Dairy can dispose of all manure and waste water generated on the site. The Division has found chat the submitted materials are inadequate and are in need of supplementation. The primary deficiency lies in the facility's manure and waste water management plan. Thc Division has the following concerns: 1) The plan was written for a dairy of 850 head of cattle. Mr. Hirsch is proposing to increase the capacity to 2.000 head. An increase in the total number of cattle results in an increase in the amount of manure and waste water which the facility must be able co dispose. According to the submitted materials Mr. Hirsch has 198 acres. The facility's manure and waste water management plan also states that all manure and waste water will be applied to this same 198 acres. Using the Regulations we have computed application rates, which indicate that Mr. Hirsch does not have adequate area for land application of all of the manure which the facility will generate. These calculations are attached. Keep in mind that these calculations do not account for nutrients available in waste water application. 2) The current manure and waste water management plan uses incorrect values to determine land application rates. Application rates must be determined in accordance with Section 4.3.S(A)(5) of the Regulations. 3) The current manure and waste water management plan does not adequately demonstrate that the on-site waste water retention structure 962411 Todd Hodges Hirsch Dairy • July 22, 1996 Page 2 • was constructed to a permeability not to exceed 1/32"/day. In accordance with Section 4.8.4 of the Regulations, "the operator shall • have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting the requirements...was constructed". 4) The manure and waste water management plan does not indicate the amount of acreage available for liquid waste disposal. Mr. Hirsch informed me on July 11, 1996, that land application of liquid waste occurs on only 3 to 4 acres of corn and on only 10 acres of wheat, because the facility did not have the means to pump a farther distance. The manure and waste water management plan must demonstrate that adequate acreage is available for this application. A demonstration of the conveyance structures should be a part of this. The manure and waste water management plan must be revised to address these items, among others. We believe that this demonstration is pertinent in order to continue with this hearing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at extension 2232. tj\407 962411 Todd Hodges Hirsch Dairy July 22, 1996 Page 3 Hirsch Dairy Land Application Calculations Estimated manure production (Appendix E): 2,000 head X 15.0 ton/year = 30,000 ton/year of manure Proposed land application rate per acre, Hirsch Dairy: 30,000 ton/year/ 198 acres = 151 ton/acre/year Minimum acreage need for disposal using table values in the Regulations: We are assuming that crop yield for Hirsch Dairy is 200 bushels/acre/yr of corn. 200 bushel corn/acre X 1.35 lb nitrogen/bushel = 270 lb nitrogen/acre Total NI in manure = 9 lb nitrogen/ton (appendix E) 270 lb nitrogen/acre/9 lb nitrogen/ton = 30 ton manure/acre/year • 30.000 ton/year of manure/30 to manure/acre/year = 1,000 acres minimum nee :cd Maximum loading rate using appendices D and E: Crop nitrogen uptake rate for 200 bushel/acre of corn 200 busheVacre X 56 lb/bushel = 11200 lb of grain/acre 11,200 lb X 1.61% nitrogen = 180 lb. nitrogen/aae required dairy manure contains 9 lb nitrogen/ton 180 lb nitrogen/acre/ 9 lb nitrogen/ton = 20 ton manure/acre 30,000 ton/year of manure/ 20 ton manure/acre = 1.500 acres • 962411 I 4 . 1 . 9 Conserving the value of property; 4 .1. 10 Encouraging the most appropriate use of land. " Further, a legal lot in the Agricultural District must have a minimum size of 80 acres which, clearly expresses an intent to foster agricultural business within the agricultural zone. Section 31 of the Ordinance deals with the Agricultural District and states that agriculture is considered a valuable resource to be protected from adverse impacts and is to be protected as an "essential feature" of Weld County. It further states : "The A District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agni cul tural_ac timities._and ac tivi ties..selated._to-agriculture and agricultural production without interference of other I incompatible land uses . The A District is also intended to provide areas for the conduct of Uses by Special Review which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than Uses Allowed by Right . " By this specific intent, the zoning Ordinance recognizes the rightfulness of Applicant ' s dairy in the A zone and its expansion under the special review process . Under Section 24, Uses by Special Review, the County must lengage in a lengthy and detailed process to determine that the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, minimizes the conversion of farmland and complies with a variety of specific } standards . Applicant ' s dairy went through this process when it } was originally permitted and was found to conform to, and comply with, all of the criteria and standards set forth in Section 24 . Thus, it has previously been determined that a sizable dairy Ioperation in this location is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant ' s request for an expansion in size and number of animals, now under consideration, benefits Ifrom a presumption that the type of use sought is permitted in this location. 3 . HOW IS THIS USE COMPATIBLE WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS STATED IN THE WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? IF YES, HOW? This proposal is compatible with the provision of the Comprehensive Plan related to Economic Growth (p. 88) , Open Space (p. 82) , preservation of farm land and existing land use (p . 14) and the provisions of Future Land Use (p . 16) which describe a policy of allocating urban development patterns to existing Iexpansion areas which contain adequate infrastructures therefor. Also, see paragraph 1 above. I4 . WHAT TYPE OF USES SURROUND THIS SITE? IS THIS REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES? This proposal is situated in an agricultural area of irrigated farming, coupled with large feedlot operations . 1 Immediately east is a very large sheep feeding operation. Approximately 4 tenths of a mile northwest is a sizable cattle feeding setup. Applicant ' s site is substantially devoted to irrigated cropland. The dairy, as expanded, by the permit being sought, will not expand into county productive fields, but rather will involve land which has already been taken out of production. 2 962411 IL . ( Therefore, the site will remain as compatible with existing land uses in the area as it is today. While there are two smaller parcels to the ,south, the predominant acreage of these parcels is 1 also agriculture. Since no current farmland will be converted under this request and since the area occupied by the expansion of the diary is already a part of the dairy site, there will be no impact on the compatibility of this site with the surrounding areas . 5 . IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED WITH A - FLOOD HAZARD ZONE, GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONE, OR AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE - AND DOES IT MEET THESE S PEC:AL..REQUIREMENTS? It is not located in any of these zones . 1 6 . WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONSERVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land will be taken out of production. 7 . HOW WILL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BE PROTECTED? Health, safety and welfare is already protected by the requirements for the original special use permit which this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue 1 to apply, together with all requirements of the county health department . The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use. 1 8 . WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR? Irrigated farm and a dairy. 9 . HOW CLOSE IS THIS SITE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES? The closest residential structure is situated approximately 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site. 10 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SITE AND WHAT HOURS 1 WILL THEY WORK? Twelve people will be employed fulltime on rotating hours, which averages one employee per 50 cos .as Milking is done in shifts and continues 24 hours per day at the present time, and this will continue when the dairy is expanded. 11. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THIS SITE? This is not a commercial enterprise which the public will access for goods or services . The only people using the site will be employees, management, feed deliveries, and milk Itransport trucks . .2 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY ANIMALS, IF ANY, WILL BE ON THIS SITE? This is a dairy operation for feeder?? Holsteins . The expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our ooeration. Calves are maintained, on the property until weaned and marketable. The number of calves will vary from time to time . Bulls are not maintained on the premises . nA 1 3 962411 ( Therefore, the site will remain as compatible with existing land uses in the area as it is today. While there are two smaller parcels to the ,s.outh, the predominant acreage of these parcels is also agriculture. Since no current farmland will be converted under this request and since the area occupied by the expansion of the diary is already a part of the dairy site, there will be no { impact on the compatibility of this site with the surrounding ( areas . 5 . IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED WITH A - FLOOD HAZARD ZONE, GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONE, OR AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE - AND DOES IT MEET THESE S PECIAL..RSQUSHEMEN S? It is not located in any of these zones . ! 6 . WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONSERVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land will be taken out of production. 7 . HOW WILL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BE PROTECTED? Health, safety and welfare is already protected by the requirements for the original special use permit which this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue Ito apply, together with all requirements of the county health department. The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use. 1 8 . WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR? Irrigated farm and a dairy. 19 . HOW CLOSE IS THIS SITE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRULluttES? The closest residential structure is situated approximately 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site. 10 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SITE AND WHAT HOURS 1 WILL THEY WORK? Twelve people will be employed fulltime on rotating hours, which averages one employee per 50 cows . Milking is done in shifts 1 and continues 24 hours per day at the present time, and this will I continue when the dairy is expanded. ( 11. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THIS SITE? This is not a commercial enterprise which the public will access for goods or services . The only people using the site will be employees, management, feed deliveries, and milk transport trucks . 12 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY ANIMALS, IF. ANY, WILL BE ON THIS SITE? This is a dairy operation for feeder?? Holsteins . The expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our I operation. Calves are maintained on the property until weaned and marketable. The number of calves will vary from time to time. Bulls are not maintained on the premises . 3 962411 1 • 1 Therefore, the site will remain as compatible with existing land uses in the area as it is today. While there are two smaller parcels to the ,south, the predominant acreage of these parcels is 1 also agriculture. Since no current farmland will be converted under this request and since the area occupied by the expansion of the diary is already a part of the dairy site, there will be no f impact on the compatibility of this site with the surrounding ( areas . 5 . IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED WITH A - FLOOD HAZARD ZONE, GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONE, OR AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE - AND DOES IT MEET THESE SPECIAL-REQUIREMENTS? It is not located in any of these zones . 16 . WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONSERVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? 1 As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land will be taken out of production. 1 7 . HOW WILL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BE PROTECTED? Health, safety and welfare is already protected by the requirements for the original special use permit which this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue Ito apply, together with all requirements of the county health department . The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use. f 1 8 . WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR? Irrigated farm and a dairy. 19 . HOW CLOSE IS THIS SITE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES? The closest residential structure is situated approximately 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site . 10 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SITE AND WHAT HOURS 1 WILL THEY WORK? Twelve people will be employed fulltime on rotating hours, which averages *me employee per 50 coin . Milking is done in shifts 1 and continues 24 hours per day at the present time, and this will continue when the dairy is expanded. 1 11 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THIS SITE? This is not a commercial enterprise which the public will access for goods or services . The only people using the site 1 will be employees, management, feed deliveries, and milk transport trucks . 12 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY ANIMALS, IF ANY, WILL BE ON THIS SITE? j This is a dairy operation for feeder?? Holsteins . The I expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our operation. Calves are maintained on the property until weaned and Imarketable . The number of calves will vary from time to time. Bulls are not maintained on the premises . 962411 3 s t . 1 Therefore, the site will remain as compatible with existing land uses in the area as it is today. While there are two smaller parcels to the south, the predominant acreage of these parcels is 1 also agriculture. Since no current farmland will be converted under this request and since the area occupied by the expansion of th airy site,{ imppactaon the acompatibility of this lready a part of the dsi a with thee re will be no diry is surrounding { areas. 5 . IS THIS H A - RD ZONE,1 HAZARD ONE, PORPAIRPORT OVERLAY ERTY LOCATED TZONE - AND DDOESAIT GEOLOGIC MEET THESE S P ECIAL•.RsQUIRSMENTS? It is not located in any of these zones . 16 . WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONSERVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land 1 will be taken out of production. 17 . HOW WILL PUBLIC FrATTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BE PROTECTED? Health, safety and welfare is already protected by the requirements for the original special use permit which this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue ito apply, together with all requirements of the county health department . The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use . 18 . WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR? Irrigated farm and a dairy. 19 . HOW CLOSE IS THIS SITE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES? The closest residential structure is situated approximately 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site . 10 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SITE AND WHAT HOURS I WILL THEY WORK? Twelve people will be employed fulltime on rotating hours, which averages nne employee per 50 cows . Milking is done in shifts j and continues 24 hours pet day at the present time, and this will I continue when the dairy is expanded. 11 . HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THIS SITE? This is not a commercial enterprise which the public will access for goods or services. The only people using the site will be employees, management, feed deliveries, and milk transport trucks . .2 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY ANIMALS, IF ANY, WILL BE ON THIS SITE? t This is a dairy operation for feeder?? Holsteins. The 4 expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our I operation. Calves are maintained on the property until weaned and marketable. The number of calves will vary from time to time . Bulls are not maintained on the premises . 3 • 962411 1 I Therefore, the site will remain as compatible with existing land • uses in the area as it is today. While there are two smaller parcels to the ;south, the predominant acreage of these parcels is 1 also agriculture. Since no current farmland will be converted under this request and since the area occupied by the expansion of the diary is already a part of the dairy site, there will be no impact on the compatibility of this site with the surrounding j areas .1 5 . IS THIS RD ZONE,HAZARD ZONE,PORPAIRPORT OVERLAY ONE -ERTY LOCATED WITH A - FT AND DDOESH HIT MEET THESE �IC SPECIAL-REQUIREMENTS? 1 It is not located in any of these zones . 6 . WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONSERVE PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? As stated above, no additional productive agricultural land I will be taken out of production. 17 . HOW WILL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE ELFA E BE PROTECTED? by`the? Health, safety and welfare is already p requirements for the original special use permit which this dairy was originally established. These conditions will continue to apply, together with all requirements of the county health department. The expanded use will have no more impact on public health, safety and welfare than the existing permitted use. IS . WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR? Irrigated farm and a dairy. 19 . HOW CLOSE IS THIS SITE TO • ' RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES?. The closest residential structure is situated approximately l 200 yards from the dairy improvements and approximately 100 yards from the boundary line of this site. 10 . HOW MANY PEOPLE• WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SITE AND WHAT HOURS I WILL THEY WORK? Twelve people will be employed fulltime on rotating hours, which averages axle employee per 50 con . Milking is done in shifts Iand continues 24 hours pet day at the present time, and this will continue when the dairy is expanded. 111. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THIS SITE? This is not a commercial enterprise which the public will accesfemployees, management, feed deliveries,using site andmilk will be Itransport trucks . _2 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY ANIMALS, IF ANY, WILL BE ON THIS SITE? 1 1 This is a dairy operation for feeder?? Holsteins. The expansion applied for will take place gradually over the next 10 years as we improve our genetics and work new cows into our Ioperation. Calves are maintained on the property until weaned and marketable . The number of calves will vary from time to time. Bulls are not maintained on the premises .I . 962411 3 I 13 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OPERATING AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED ON SITE? f i i 14 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY STRUCTURES WILL BE ERECTED (BUILT) ON THIS SITE? Two free-stall metal barns will be constructed for the expansion, plus additional corral fencing. I 15 . WHAT KIND (TYPE, SIZE, WEIGHT) OF VEHICLES WILL ACCESS THIS SITE -AND .HOW-O•F:SEN? Other than employee vehicls, the site is accessed once a day by a milk tanker transport 50 feet in length and approximately (. 1 70 , 000 pounds in weight when full. Feed commodities are delivered to the site once or twice a week by semi-load, the size and weight 1 of which will vary, but possibly average 50, 000-70, 000 pounds in weight and 40-60 feet in length. 16 . WILL THIS SITE USE A SEPTIC SYSTEM OR PUBLIC. SEWER FACILITIES? This site uses a septic system with a retention pond and settling system with manure separator. I17 . ARE YOU PROPOSING STORAGE OR STOCK PILE OF WASTES ON THIS SITE? IF SO, WHAT IS THE SIZE AND TYPE PROPOSED? Manure is stockpiled awaiting delivery to area farmers . We also utilize manure on our fields . Approximately 1 acre used for storage . I18 . HOW OFTEN WILL DEBRIS, JUNK, OR WASTE BE DISPOSED OF? BY WHAT MEANS? A weekly trash-hauling service is used. We do not Iaccumulate debris or junk. 19 . HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO CONSTRUCT THIS SITE AND WHEN WILL CONSTRUCTION BEGIN? The construction of the facilities necessary to expand the dairy to a 2, 000 head operation will occur over approximately 10 years . Initially, one additional free-stall housing unit for cows will be constructed within one year after the special use permit is approved. Five additional free-stall housing units will be constructed one at a time as the milking herd grows and as necessary to accommodate them. There will be no expansion to the existing milking barn, hospital pen, calf sheds, loafing barns , commodity sheds or other fixtures . 20 . EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLANS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE . The landscaping and erosion control measures already established under the existing special use permit will be adequate to accommodate this proposed expansion. The expansion consists 1 only of adding free-stall housing units for cows and will occur on land already set aside for this purpose . These additional units will not extend into agricultural land nor will they expand the site-line dimensions of the dairy as seen from the county roads . 962411 4 1 1 13 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OPERATING AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED ON SITE? 14 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY STRUCTURES WILL BE ERECTED (BUILT) ON 1 THIS SITE? Two free-stall metal barns will be constructed for the expansion, plus additional corral fencing. 115 . WHAT KIND (TYPE, SIZE, WEIGHT) OF VEHICLES WILL ACCESS THIS SITE -AND•.HOW •OFCZN? Other than employee vehicls, the site is accessed once a day 1 by a milk tanker transport 50 feet in length and approximately 70 , 000 pounds in weight when full. Feed commodities are delivered to the site once or twice a week by semi-load, the size and weight 1 of which will vary, but possibly average 50, 000-70, 000 pounds I in weight and 40-60 feet in length. 16 . WILL THIS SITE USE A SEPTIC SYSTEM OR PUBLIC SEWER FACILITIES? This site uses a septic system with a retention pond and settling system with manure separator. 17 . ARE YOU PROPOSING STORAGE OR STOCK PILE OF WASTES ON THIS S_TE? IF SO, WHAT IS THE SIZE AND TYPE PROPOSED? Manure is stockpiled awaiting delivery to area farmers . We also utilize manure on our fields . Approximately 1 acre used for storage. 118 . HOW OFTEN WILL DEBRIS, JUNK, OR WASTE BE DISPOSED OF? BY WHAT MEANS? i A weekly trash-hauling service is used. We do not accumulate debris or junk. 19 . HOW LONG WILL IT TAIL TO CONSTRUCT THIS SITE AND WHEN WILL CONSTRUCTION BEGIN? The construction of the facilities necessary to expand the dairy to a 2, 000 head operation will occur over approximately 10 1 years . Initially, one additional free-stall housing unit for cows J will be constructed within one year after the special use permit is approved. Five additional free-stall housing units will be I constructed one at a time as the milking herd grows and as f necessary to accommodate them. There will be no expansion to the existing milking barn, hospital pen, calf sheds, loafing barns, commodity sheds or other fixtures . 20 . EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLANS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE. The landscaping and erosion control measures already established under the existing special use permit will be adequate to accommodate this proposed expansion. The expansion consists Ionly of adding free-stall housing units, for cows and will occur on land already set aside for this purpose . These additional units will not extend into agricultural land nor will they expand the t site-line dimensions of the dairy as seen from the county roads . 4 962411 1 • { { 13 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OPERATING AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED ON SITE? 14 . WHAT TYPE AND HOW MANY STRUCTURES WILL BE ERELf4J (BUILT) ON ! THIS SITE? Two free-stall metal barns will be constructed for the expansion, plus additional corral fencing. 115 . WHAT KIND (TYPE, SIZE, WEIGHT) OF VEHICLES WILL ACCESS THIS SITE -AND..30W -0.F N? Other than employee vehicls, the site is accessed once a day , by a milk tanker transport 50 feet in length and approximately 70, 000 pounds in weight when full. Feed commodities are delivered to the site once or twice a week by semi-load, the size and weight 1 of which will vary, but possibly average 50, 000-70, 000 pounds 1 in weight and 40-60 feet in length. 16 . WILL THIS SITE USE A SEPTIC SYSTEM OR PUBLIC SEWER I FACILITIES? This site uses a septic system with a retention pond and ! settling system with manure separator. 17 . ARE YOU PROPOSING STORAGE OR STOCK PILE OF WASTES ON THIS S:TE? IF SO, WHAT IS TEE SIZE AND TYPE PROPOSED? Manure is stockpiled awaiting delivery to area farmers . We 1 also utilize manure on our fields . .elds . Approximately 1 acre used for storage . 1 18 . HOW OFTEN WILL DEBRIS, JUNK, OR WASTE BE DISPOSED OF? BY WHAT MEANS? A weekly trash-hauling service is used. We do not accumulate debris or junk. 19 . HOW LONG WILL It TAIL TO CONSTRUCT THIS SITE AND WHEN WILL ' I CONSTRUCTION BEGIN? The construction of the facilities necessary to expand the dairy to a 2, 000 head operation will occur over approximately 10 years . Initially, one additional free-stall housing unit for cows will be constructed within one year after the special use permit is approved. Five additional free-stall housing units will be Iconstructed one at a time as the milking herd grows and as necessary to accommodate them. There will be no expansion to the existing milking barn, hospital pen, calf sheds, loafing barns, } commodity sheds or other fixtures . 20 . EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLANS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE. The landscaping and erosion control measures already t established under the existing special use permit will be adequate to accommodate this proposed expansion. The expansion consists 1 only of adding free-stall housing units for cows and will occur on ( land already sec aside for this purpose . These additional units .k will not extend into agricultural land nor will they expand the 1 site-line dimensions of the dairy as seen from the county roads . 4 962411 • ?5 . HOW ILL STORM WATER DRAINAGE BE HANDLED ON THIS SITE? On-site drainage is directed into a lagoon designed no the t handle a 25-year rain. water from this lagoon is then pump fields for irrigation. Storm water drainage will not be accelerated or increased as a result of the permit applied for. The drainage system was designed and constructed in the manner approved by the County Commissioners under the original Construction permi.r. • • 962411 6 1 r 1 i II I 5 I APPROXIMATE I CROPLAND . L0CATON OF AREA PROPERTY ,‘ BOUNDARY III I DIRT ROAD •N• I AND RRIGATION 'II COMMOOITES S CANAL • \ AREA I DAPY CONFINEMENT ' ' • • •. • AND OPERATIONAL S' AREA ( . . .•.'I 3 NI PIPE LNE .,.1• °.., UNDER .'• . 1 DITCH CZI .1C 1\ 1--- 1 APPROXIMATE \ - O LOCATION OF OM I MANURE/WATER �� ••I h ., K SEPARATOR \ \ • -.- / / h I �J . --m- . . • ww •• . TRAILERS 11 ` • • l.•`• . . •'.CORRA S.'.'.•. . . \ . . . 0 I 250' X 300' (I/H. . . .V I LAGOON . • • - IRRIGATION •• I� . DITCH I BURIED PIPING • • • •• ••••F' I BURIED BARN\ •• CORRALS •- I {3 O I I DAIRY CONFINEMENT �O AND OPERATIONAL AREA .•• —. - I--\....._ __ r:9r \€.5•42_, COUNTY ROAD 78 UN Cio a.q 0 ,0o st10 si-cP ac9�o ®0 lin = 600 ft FIGURE 3 SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC DIAGRAM HIRSCH DAIRY, SEVERANCE, COLORADO PROJECT NUMBER 43935049 DRAWN:DECEMBER.1993 DRAWN BY: PJH(49SLD) 962411 j 1 ferracon it li / i u: d c 1 ; _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . _ _ _ _ 7 a I i ,i 44 Rif I I MI II Jilt cie tl Oi I It • ! III / , li 0 iri II di i , bi iLr I . , \-) 1 IT , l TI& . -•� b --� �f p( P , x, 91 / / la P / ® it f itl _ �/ II I�000bbbo , I I ' y' II i i t! I- - - - - - !..2 = - - - - - - - ij. e 962411 { I , .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , , . . . .. . • . . • .. .. , ! .....____. — • -• s ` __ -- • ______ \ ORIFLRA 1 _ ____._ �...---_-.1 _____.=--- • • . rearnce.ms.- I___________ . .. I- : I - _ •� � � • w..,........- `.a , I ae' ..1E &V +11.... �.r. y�.cw 1 ..nw«..w.�n..�+�Me..1.wMMy3l₹ + Ni ?i� {r .�K''f V}`•:' ry 1 .. .. •ti' r r�, ..p.• ''b',-� • .w.+ + ,`', •. ."�«wM....w«.MNq a•i' L 1,-,i�.,.sri "A4:1" ."::';',: .a, /� x . yr Y .. ,` •.n ww..w."......nr�.w,.N ��' Il •! 7. ,.:�..:1•; '.: .2 J: / ,„e..n..wu.esa...wewM► .'ty•`�1 4,1..\:,,,,,,,,L,-,•,.�'..r' ''°ra .•. ..• �.. '+` ; _ ti:c♦l..RK:-.r. l\, • M... .�..wwre.Vew.M.(•• i..7.„;„ ,..•7 :v......,.-.!...:,,w Y • I vrr.« - .arn.;7►wr�. • '� -+w-mss• a'1 Z04..If`i '. .-4� -rr'+,l�j..� .p y 'f '‘' et 7 ..�.....yb.►v.•.• w.r.i.• T ^40�'� tt'ayr -ea.e., 1 ..r�...r•aerar .v.' �+rw.�ar .. .. � a^*!!'•�`�•�' ,� �r ss•�-r.-'..r-sr .�sr..s -.+re-...�' ^.r rrr.�wr.. -+u.-••�s�+�y . s N•?u _►�� `i•.. 1T �� lltSt.�cs e?s�. `r..aae++a mo ' - s_ati` *... .. a. •srsrss^. _t^—mss x 0 ..0 . .. a�.i.•�Y./w.11�O• 'Ae.. _..A,+++r..! , 1.'` -•Y , '� • r' �l'.141 1 vsno.wM•. �aygy./w. - '^=r�•alp. II q.L' Y`'I E ! 3 w ineeoar`."ri.rr.roeoc.... • .l�•'. . - •w.s..T rev.. v • tfe*�.�_ Yr„/i...'+'sue•". ..:r-�-rsse "11 t•'• _a"1'e+ �'rlr�,�p�' {,Fjc'�' 7j�"^'*v ta.,� ,.. s.r a,ers t., sir.'^-eu . .��r•,+� '. *`� '� • y.T• •• • - .. . ,. .ms`s.1)1,—.i k. _ .. _ . 1\� t'• w „ YT 1 t i l ., grl L-t— I —r _--r----'---� \ fir® ._ -- — eft%fT �AR11[ \INtR .—.—r/ :wirer 1 —. -i_..., 11 AVISPOMDINDOCIPENTLOVNWORLTO 411.111424:11 ' Q sr I 1�y 1 r 11ZDrID' l IIIMKOW PA Al/�e/ � rr{emu._ . . ��. . r.. • . ...•.1 , .A seem Mre MO Et1 PVCIPIII1•00 COLL,LVrON *LOT 1.N4270 l � .'" ".1, ".rale;11 " '--COWL manse wasp- %umI ....r:.:. :.. ,.... .a...: 241 N ‘ \ TAIL WATER / POND APPROXIMATE \ LOCATION OF CROPLAN� PROPER AREA BOUNDARY MANURE SMITH STORAGE AREA LATERAL IRRIGATION COMMODITIES CANAL / , STORAGE AREA DAIRY CONFINEMENTI O�"�O GIRT AND OPERATIONAL !��-,� DRAINAGE AREA / x' - DITCH PROPOSED ? S CULVERT (çr; pip UNDER SMITH LATERAL Ic o 0 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF O MANURE/WATER O� SEPA ATOR 4O r TRAILERS F- Z ORRALS D DRAINAGE 1/ \� CULVERT 0 LAGOON / - _f/ SSESMITH , ETTLING �I:%i BARN LATERAL BASIN • -IRRIGATION BURIED PIPING I , DITCH FROM BARN ORRALS Nsp DAIRY CONFINEMENT Ip • AND OPERATIONAL AR� �\ il —. 1 CO\lIUNTY ROAD 78 \\`` La o \ \ke son z 9 96'p 9,p 9dp 9p 0 600 / \ \ \ \ .enmmua 30J2 1 is = B00 ft FIGURE a SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC DIAGRAM HIRSCH DAIRY, SEVERANCE, COLORADO PROJECT NUMBER 43935049 • DRAWN: SEPTEMBER.1996 DRAWN BY: MSE(495L0) 962411 lrerracon_ , SEF-24-199E 15:52 HAMMOND, CLRRk S. WHITE 9706699380 P.05 In September , 1996 Hirsch Dairy Severance, Colorado Dear Mr. Hirsch: I farm land in the area of your dairy. The purpose of letter is to express my commitment to taking manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I farm approximately 117O ' acres . On an annual basis, I will haul 2.^1, O tons of manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I will provide the hauling at my expense . My address is : mI.y6 \cS 'O fc�Aan CO g0O.5-- My farm is located approximately / miles from your dairy. Sincerely, t EXHIBIT ilaRe-49 ( 962411 SEP-24-1996 15:52 HRMMONP. CLARK E. WHITE 9706699380 P.05 September , 1996 E i Hirsch Dairy severance, Colorado Dear mr. Hirsch: I farm land in the area of your dairy. The purpose of letter is to express my commitment to taking manure from your dairy for use on my farm. T farm approximately 90 acres . On an annual basis, I will haul Z0&a 0 tons of manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I will provide the hauling at my expense . eS 1. «,I gc) my&Li Sa; ( 5 My address is : / 3 My farm is located approximately a2 miles from your dairy. Sincerely, 4 962411 SEP-24-1996 15:52 HAMM0ND. CLARK & WHITE 9706599380 P.05 �k September , 1996 • Hirsch Dairy severance, Colorado Dear Mr. Hirsch: I farm land in the area of your dairy. The purpose of letter is to express my commitment to taking manure from your dairy for • use on my farm. I farm approximately LC0O acres . On an annual basis, I will hauljr'h20 tons of manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I wi l provide the hauling at my expense . My address is : / 0 8. 7 ti/c( 2 ' (2� an i My farm is located approximately //.L miles from your dairy. Sincerely, • • • f Cr 962411 5'a°-2 - 272 SEP-24-1996 15:52 HAMMONP, CLARK & WHITE 970669938O P.05 6 September , 1996 F' z Hirsch Dairy Severance, Colorado Dear Mr. Hirsch: z farm land in the area of your dairy. The purpose of letter is to express my commitment to taking manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I fa approximately /b? acres . On an annual basis, I will haul/ tons of manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I will provide the hauling at my expense . My address is : My farm is located approximately 6 ' �les from your dairy. sincerely, ;16/A22. - //1//412--- �r ,�u. 962411 1 SEP-24-1996 15:52 HAMM0ND, CLARK € WHITE 9705599380 P.05 ti September , 1996 Hirsch Dairy Severance, Colorado Dear Mr. Hirsch: I farm land in the area of your dairy. The purpose of letter is to express my commitment to taking manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I farm appr ximately 4 .5 acres . On an annual basis, I will haulafidi tons of manure from your dairy for use on my farm. I will provide the hauling at my expense . My address is : / My farm is located approximately /AIL miles from your dairy. Sincerely, • I 962411 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF COLORADO'S DAIRY INDUSTRY By Norman L. Dalstedl Dr.Norman L. Delisted Professor and Extension Farm/ Ranch Management Economist University Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics E X H I B I T Fort Collins,Colorado 80523-1172 Office: (970)491-5627 FAX: (970)491-2067 to U.SA 9 962411 INTRODUCTION There are approximately 245 commercial dairy farms in the State of Colorado. The dairy cattle on these farms produced 1.55 billion pounds of milk for sale in 1995. Milk ranked fourth in the state behind livestock, crops and vegetables in terms of value of farm output with 1995 total sales of$207.6 million. (3) Consequently,the dairy industry represents an important agricultural sector in the State of Colorado. Colorado is not considered a"dairy state" like Wisconsin, California, New York, or Minnesota. Colorado ranks twenty fifth out of 50 states in terms of total milk produced. However, in 1995 Colorado ranked fourth nationally in annual production per cow at 18,687 pounds. Total number of milk cows has grown from 77,000 head in 1990 to approximately 84,000 head in 1996 -- a 9.1 percent increase. This suggests that Colorado may have production advantages over more northerly states where longer and more severe winters result in higher production costs such as feed, labor, housing, etc. Also, a potential marketing advantage could be that Colorado's Front Range population represents a considerable concentration of consumers of milk and milk products. The dairy industry in Colorado, as in all parts of the United States, is continually undergoing changes. Dairy farmers feel the impact of these changes in the costs and returns of their businesses. Recent and important changes and developments in Colorado's dairy industry include: i) significant increases in feed costs as the result of the late spring and early frost of 1995; ii) the bolstering of demand for calcium-rich milk and milk products due to consumer concern over osteoporosis, iii)trade liberalization and possible elimination of producer subsidies as have been proposed by the U.S. in the GATT negotiations, iv) elimination of government support payments by the year 2000 and, v)the introduction of bovine somatotropin(bST) into the industry. BST is a naturally occurring hormone which now can be biotechnologically produced and which, when injected into lactating cows, has increased milk production 10 to 20 percent in research trials. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the commercial use of bST. Individual dairymen are forced to react to these technological and macroeconomic changes. Colorado's dairy farms are part of a very efficient and competitive industry. Dairy producers must be able to compete with not only their neighbors but with producers in other milk producing areas such as California, Michigan, and other large milk producing states. As a consequence of remaining competitive,many dairy operations must expand their operations to take advantage of the cost efficient technology available today. Dairy operations have high investments in cows, facilities, and land. Investment costs can range from $2000 to $5000 per cow. Such investments benefit the local economies greatly. 'Norman L. Dalsted is a Professor and Extension Farm/Ranch Economist in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colorado. 962411 Dairy operations employ workers, buy goods and services locally both production inputs as well as normal consumer items. Dairies pay wages, hire local contractors, and custom services, utilize veterinary, nutritional, and technical services available in the local community. In fact the multiplier effect of dairy income is purported to be between 2.5 and 3.0. Simply stated each dollar received by a dairy generates $2.50 to $3.00 of local business sales volume. In the case of Mr. Jake Hirsch dairy, it is critical to the long run viability of his business that he be allowed to expand his dairy operation to take advantage of the economies of size available to him. Another, to remain cost competitive Mr. Herst by expanding the size of the dairy will allow him to become more profitable. If the price of Grade A, Class I milk is $13.00/cwt. and his cost per cwt. is $11.50 at the current size of his operation and he desires to increase the profitability of the business he must lower costs. How can that be done? Remember, that there are two types of costs-- 1) operating costs (feed, fuel, labor, veterinary, etc.) and 2) fixed costs. Operating costs tend to be fairly consistent on a per cow basis. However, if Mr. Hirsch or any business person can increase size and spread those fixed costs over more units of output, i.e., cwt. of milk the profit margin would improve. This is what Mr. Hirsch desires to do. He would like to become more efficient and more profitable. This objective can be achieved by expanding his milk cow numbers. When he becomes more profitable the dairy business buys more goods and services, hires more workers, pays more taxes, and generally enhances the local economy with the extra dollars received by the business. Further if he doesn't expand, or incorporate the latest technology due to lack of financial resources the business will eventually be terminated due to competition from more cost efficient operations. That is one of the reasons the number of dairies in Colorado has declined from 1800 in 1970 to approximately 250 dairies today. The dairy industry continues to be one of the most competitive industries in today's agriculture. 962411 TABLE 1: NUMBER OF MILK COWS,PRODUCTION PER COW AND TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION, GROSS INCOME AND INCOME PER COW 1987-1995 Total Milk Number of Production Per Production Gross Gross Income Year Cows Cow(lbs) (millions lbs1 Income per Cow 1987 77,000 15,481 1.192 $158,322,000 $2,056 1988 74,000 16,581 1.227 161,777,000 2,186 1989 76,000 16,803 1.227 186,293,000 2,451 1990 77,000 17,182 1.323 189,637,000 2,463 1991 77,000 17,338 1.335 168,119,000 2,183 1992 80,000 17,700 1.416 191,616,000 2,395 1993 80,000 18,175 1.454 191,324,000 2,392 1994 81,000 19,173 1.553 215,870,000 2,600 1995 83,000 18,687 1.551 207,605,000 2,501 Source: Colorado Agricultural Statistics, Colorado Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Lakewood, Colorado. July 1996,page 102-103. 962411 PERCENT OF FARM INCOME,BY COMMODITY GROUP FOR 1987-1997 Oil All other Livestock Crops2 Dairy Crops Vegetables Nuts Crops3 Year 1987 67.5 27.6 4.9 N/A 6.1 0.4 4.2 1988 67.5 28.1 4.4 N/A 5.7 0.4 3.6 1989 62.1 33.3 4.6 N/A 8.7 0.3 3.7 1990 68.4 27.1 4.5 N/A 7.7 0.3 3.5 1991 66.1 29.3 4.6 0.2 6.0 0.3 3.9 1992 67.9 27.1 5.0 0.2 5.2 0.5 3.9 1993 66.8 28.7 4.5 0.3 7.9 0.5 3.6 1994 63.7 31.0 5.3 0.3 7.5 0.5 3.8 'Meat animals including cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry and eggs, honey, wool, and aquaculture and other livestock (excludes dairy). 2Food and Feed Gains 3A11 other crops include sugarbeets, other seeds, other field crops, greenhouse and nursery. Source: Colorado Agricultural Statistics, op. cit. Selected Years. 962411 1995 COSTS AND RETURNS FOR DAIRY OPERATIONS IN NORTHERN COLORADO Returns per Cow Milk sales $2,994.00 Other income' 216.00 TOTAL $3,210.00 Operating Costs: Labor 410.00 Feed 1,423.00 Repairs 90.00 Marketing/transport 164.00 Breeding/Veterinary 174.00 Supplies 118.00 Fuel, oil 30.00 Utilities 66.00 Interest 113.00 Other livestock expenses 97.00 Professional/legal 18.00 TOTAL $2,703.00 Property/ownership costs Taxes 8.00 Insurance 17.00 Rent/depreciation 204.00 Other 27.00 TOTAL $256.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $2,959.00 Net Income $251.00 acull cow sales, calf sales, miscellaneous income 962411 '_" EXHIBIT K /04( COUNTY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. The plat shall be delivered to the Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office within 15 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Prior to recording the plat: a) The facility shall demonstrate compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control (CAFO) Regulation. This shall be demonstrated by submitting a comprehensive manure run-off and process waste water handling plan, for a 2,000 head dairy,to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Demonstration that all manure stockpile areas and wastewater collection, conveyance, and retention facilities are adequately constructed and sized to handle a twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event. This shall be conducted by a Registered Professional Engineer. (2) Demonstration that any waste water retention structure constructed after August 30, 1992, has been constructed with a lining material which does not exceed a seepage rate of 1/32"/day(1x10-6 cm/sec). This shall be conducted by a Registered Professional Engineer. (3) Demonstration that the facility has the ability to manage and land apply manure and waste water at agronomic rates in accordance with the CAFO Regulations. (4) Demonstration that adequate measures are in place to prevent any discharges except those which are allowed by the CAFO Regulations. (5) The schedule at which manure and waste water will be removed and applied to the land. (6) Other necessary measures which are required in order to comply with the CAFO Regulations. b) A dust abatement plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. The facility shall have sufficient equipment available to implement dust control as required by the Weld County Health Department. c) A fly control plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. 3. Prior to recording the plat: a. If applicable, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services evidence that an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit for the facility has been applied for. 962411 Planning Staff Recommendation USR-1091, Hirsch Dairy Page 2 b. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services evidence that any existing septic system(s)which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Health Department has had an I.S.D.S. Evaluation done. In the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations. c. The operator shall submit and have approved by the Weld County Public Works Department a road improvements plan for the installation of a culvert on Weld County Road 78 for the Smith lateral. 4. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 962411 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Hirsch Dairy USR-1091 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit is for a maximum 2000 head dairy operation(livestock confinement operation) in the A (Agricultural) zone district as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. 4. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 5. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. 6. No permanent disposal of solid wastes, as defined in the regulations pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2), shall be permitted at this site. 7. The facility shall maintain compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations (5 CCR 1002-19) and , Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. 8. The applicant or operator shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff. 9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the industrial limit of 80 db(A), measured according to Section 25-12-102, C.R.S. 10. Any required NPSES Permit shall be maintained in compliance with the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. 11. All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance, as amended. 12. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. 13. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 14. The facility shall not discharge to surface or groundwater with exception to what is allowed by the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. 15. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 962411 Development Standards Hirsch Dairy, USR-1091 Page 2 16. The facility shall be operated in accordance,at all times,with the approved dust abatement plan. 17. The facility shall maintain records on-site, available for inspection during business hours, at all times, which demonstrates the following: a. That the wastewater collection, storage, and land application facilities are adequately constructed, and sized to handle a twenty-five year,twenty-four hour storm. These shall include construction as-built, engineered drawings, etc. b. The schedule in which manure will be removed and applied to land. This should also include any agreements between the facility and other parties concerning the removal of manure off-site for land application,treatment or disposal. c. The method in which wastewater and/or manure will be applied to land, including the procedure which will be used to insure that agronomic rates are not exceeded. d. Other measures which are in place to insure that the facility is operating as a "No- discharge"facility. e. The liner for all process wastewater retention structures has been constructed of low permeability materials so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1/32"/day (1x10-6 cm/sec). 18. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County regulations. 19. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 962411 rues\ `1fe{y(,..t^.�r�-•a ... s. . - e.. ... S F_ .M.• , 9 t O) t•j . I • o Q1 a[ •'}' - . a 'lit 4 it li - . _ Ata • tr— S' 1 ~ + it I t. (.jJ L KL L lr 1 r ) t ..4t} to ..... .. •t' 1 — u,, au ,fNwuM¢9968N3d .. ./ t"....1.".7.,/' , '+y aid — j ; "mot .1..*., . "' .ti -Tot-'� ,moo f'z,,S` `.. . t s> r'x Li �� • �, ! ' P r t ate. X3.0. +� \ ��D �' ark r ...re.- ';%#-;- +J Rw , ,x; 'St . .•lti r - ` 'r • , mow. I CYy h t ms�s�,w t�.f,rye - ahv -• F:11.....• tti� w.. • ` r..i. n....s.�a > '.b. '-Y'wr f. • i.� —,li el m' — a-r^ V .per' :.. T �y�� _ • illVica ��w\.�.T — i LIND FARMS, INC. 38241 WCR 32 Eaton, CO 80615 December 10, 1996 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR 1091 (Hirsch Dairy) Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: We have been provided copies of two USR maps, the first of which is dated January 10, 1995 and the second dated September 28, 1995. Both of these maps have been submitted as part of the above referenced USR application. Both plans identify the locations of four corrals identified as "future corral". These four corrals are proposed to be constructed over an existing irrigation pipeline which is identified on both maps as "buried pipeline". Please be advised that this buried pipeline is used for purposes of delivery of irrigation water from the Smith Lateral (located East of the future corrals) to a structure identified on the maps as a "standpipe" along County Road 23. The buried pipeline and the land both above and on either side of the pipeline needed for necessary use, maintenance and/or repairs constitutes an easement owned by Lind Farms, Inc. upon the subject property. The applicant has not requested permission from Lind Farms, Inc. to place structures upon this easement. Lind Farms, Inc. expressly denies any permission to the applicant to construct any type of structures over and above this pipeline. The construction of fences and corrals above the pipeline substantially interferes with maintenance, repair and/or replacement of this pipeline. Due to this substantial interference, Lind Farms, Inc. does not consent to place such structures above the pipeline. Due to the substantial interference it is my opinion that the Board of County Commissioners cannot approve a plan which causes unreasonable interference to an easement without the permission or consent of the easement holder. Very truly yours, Lind Farms, Inc. - By H. F. Lin , Pre i t r EXHI IT e � rX h i 13d-V 962411 a ® ;pct DOYLE, OTIS, FREY & HELLERICH, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICw.RD N.DOYLE West Greeley Law Center DENVER METRO MEMRV C.FRO. 1812 56th AVENUE (303)668-7676 TMOIJAs E HELLERICH GREELEY,COLORADO 80634 FRED 1.0115 FAX (970)3308700 (970)330-2969 INTRONV V.N6LLO December 12, 1996 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Hirsch DairyApplication USR#1091 Dear Members of the Board: On behalf of the surrounding neighbors that I represent in opposition to the above application, I am submitting the following information to supplement their packet of information, and to provide you with current information concerning the continuing violations by Mr. Hirsch. Accordingly, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the letters forwarded to Mr. Hirsch, dated November 24, 1996, and December 2, 1996, from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. As you will note in the December 2, 1996,letter the Department acknowledges that Mr.Hirsch has misrepresented information to the Department, and the Department has determined that Mr. Hirsch's actions constitute a ""flagrant violation" of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation. You will also note that the Department has determined that the waste management plan as submitted through November 13, 1996, does not provide suitable evidence that the containment pond was built according to the regulations and is in "significant noncompliance". Please note in the November 24, 1996, letter that Mr. Hirsch never forwarded to the Department the response of Terracon to the inquiry letter submitted by the Water Quality Control Division, dated March 10, 1994. Your continued review and consideration of these matters is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, THOMAS E. HELLERICH Attorney at Law TEH:cjm Enc. EXHIBIT 962411 I , i ski Gc(( -• - L-1 i AIT1 mw-1 11177LO I C']M I.II.4O4 •CQ OC 7T 17(T STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer,Governor Patti Shwayder,Executive Director ,Of • Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building • : t;_4 • • Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue ' " • Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 trc.le (303)691-4700 Colorado Department Health December 2, 1996 of Public Environment Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 CERTIN 1ED: tO�eq c9-2 e. REF: Hirsch Dairy, Weld County. Dear Mr. Hirsch: This letter is to notify you that upon further review of the evidence submitted by Terracon Environmental, Inc., to the Weld County Health Department, in relation to your application for a special use permit, the Water Quality Control Division (the Division) finds the Hirsch Dairy in violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (the regulation) 4.8.0 (5 CCR 100219) as amended. Also, during Victor Sainz's site inspection on September 26, 1996 you misrepresented information related to the number of animal units being housed in your dairy. According to the information submitted to the Weld County Health Department, by Terracon, you have been operating a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation since September of 1995, without the provision of adequate run-off and process wastewater containment facilities, this constitutes a flagrant violation of the regulation. In addition, we bring to your attention that Section 4.8.4 (A) (1) of the regulations requires that "Compacted or in-situ earthen materials shall consist of suitable soils which meet the seepage rate of this section and shall have a minimum compacted thickness of 12";" The Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the plan), dated November 13, 1996, you submitted for our review; does not provide suitable evidence that your containment pond was built to meet the 1x10' cm/sec seepage rate specified in Section 4.8.4 (A) of the regulation. Or, that during construction in-situ materials were compacted to the minimum thickness of 12 inches. Therefore, the Division finds the Hirsch Dairy to be in significant noncompliance of the regulation, and has determined that you take the following action: 1. Reline the containment pond to meet the requirements of Section 4.8.4 (A), and provide written evidence by your consultant or contractor that an appropriate liner is in place. 962411 2. In lieu of relining the containment pond you can install a groundwater monitoring system. This groundwater monitoring system, should be designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, will provide information on groundwater quality impacts from your containment pond. Finally, Section 4.8.5 (A) (2) reads: "... When irrigation disposal of process wastewater is employed, the irrigation application rate should not exceed the estimated soil infiltration rate. For flood irrigation, tailwater facilities shall be provided. Irrigation application rates shall be adjusted to avoid significant ponding of concentrated runoff in surface depressions or seasonal drainage ways. " However, on August 28, 1995 Ms. Charlotte Davis, from the Weld County Health Department, observed wastewater flowing from your property under WCR 23 unto your westerly neighbor's property. Also, future land application of wastewater, similar to the conditions observed on 8/28/95, will constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act (discharging to state waters without a permit), and will be subject to enforcement action by the Division. You have 15 days from the date of this letter to respond to the Division as to what action you are going to take to bring your facility into compliance with the regulation. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Victor Sainz at (303) 692-3564 Sincerely, J. David Holm, Director Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado. 80222 JDH/VHS • cc: Trevor Jircek.Supervisor.Weld County Health Department,Greeley.CO 80632 Robert Shu'Lle.Section Chief,Permits and Enforcement.CHPH&E Derald Lang. Unit Leader. Field Services.CDPH&E Victor H.Saint, District Engineer.CDPH&E \Environmental Protection Agency,Region VIII Kenneth Lind. Lind, Lawrence&Ottenholr MS-3 File 962411 STATE OF COLORADO Rey Korner,Governor Patti 3hwayder,Executive['Peeler 4:7;:; Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the pimple orCole,ade 4300 Cherry Creek Dr,S. toboromry BONN : -d' Denver,Colorado 80222.1330 4210 E.11th Avenue Phone Doi)692.2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 f303)691-4700Colorad pep, November 24, 1996and Environment bent Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 REF: Hirsch Dairy, Weld County. - Dcar Mr. Hirsch: The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has received a letter (11/20/96) from Mr. Kenneth Lind in which he alleges that your consulting engineer, Terracon Consultants, Inc,, sent us a response to our comment letter made on March 10, 1994. This letter of response to our comments was dated January 12, 1995. Therefore, the Division respectfully requests that you send us a copy of this letter at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 692.3564 Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION p (• . Distribt •. aitizE Engineer Field Support Section cc: John Pickle, Director, Weld County Health Department, Greeley, CO 80631 left Stoll, Environmental Director, Weld County Health Department, Greeley, CO 80611 Trevor ltrieek. Supervisor, Weld County Health Department, Greeley, CO 80632 Robert Shtdde, Section Chlef, Permits and Enforcement, CHIPHIcE Derck Lang, Unit Leader, Field Services. CDPHRE Victor H. Saint, District Engineer, CDPH&E Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII ---,Kenneth Lin MS-3 File 962411 T.J .__ . N71A1T1 MH7 117-17>4 ) IC7M WH)P,RR 9F„ 21 ]3Q ' ' mEmoRAnDum Cto Weld County Board of County Commission December 12,'106 COLORADO Trevor Jiricek, Health De artme To "L FromP Subject: Hirsch Dairy Update We received a copy of the attached letter, dated December 2, 1996, on December 11, 1996. The letter is a notice of"significant noncompliance" addressed to Mr. Jacob Hirsch from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The letter cites Mr. Hirsch for operating a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation without adequate run-off and process wastewater containment facilities and includes information I recall being presented by Mr. Hellerich at the hearing. In addition, the letter requires that action be taken to mitigate the violation. This includes re-lining the retention pond or installing a groundwater monitoring system. I think it is important to note that the State is requesting a plan of correction and not requiring that the facility shutdown. It should be noted that this item of"significant noncompliance" is addressed in the proposed U.S.R. as condition of approval #2. This condition requires that the facility demonstrate that the retention facility be constructed with a lining material which does not allow seepage in excess of the allowed rate. Our Division has also conducted a preliminary review of the facility's Manure and Wastewater Plan, dated November 13, 1996. We have numerous concerns and comments regarding the plan. However, we believe that all of our concerns can be addressed and the plan amended so that the facility can comply with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulation ("CAFO Regulations"). Our concerns and comments regarding the plan are as follows: 1) Page 3, Section 1.3, estimates the distance between the pond bottom and the surface of groundwater. The estimate was made assuming that "the elevation of the corn field to the north of the pond is approximately the same as the original surface elevation before the pond was constructed." The elevation can vary. Due to the depth to groundwater (5.8 to 9 feet below existing grade) observed in borings 25 through 29 further data is required to demonstrate that there is adequate separation between the pond and the groundwater surface. 2) Page 3, Section 2.1, discusses grading and drainage on the site. However, a detailed drainage map is not provided. A detailed drainage map indicating elevations, flow patterns, surface grades, conveyance structure, must be provided. 3) Page 4, Section 2.1, discusses the drainage from the east side of the site. It states that EXHIBIT 962411 (A 5 0qr Weld County Board of County Commissioners Hirsch Dairy December 12, 1996 Page 2 water will be directed through a pipe across the irrigation canal to the retention basin. The permeability of conveyance structures is not specified in the CAFO Regulations, however, we would recommend that it does not exceed 1 X 10-6 cm/sec. In addition, the facility may need to enter into an agreement with the ditch company prior to crossing the ditch. 4) Page 5, Section 2.3, discusses manure production at the site. The plan estimates that cow manure is 80 %moisture (based on conversations with Dr. Jerry Olsen, D.V.M.) and based on this assumption that 5,580 tons of dry manure per year will be produced. The plan states that this is in general accordance with Appendix E of the CAFO regulations. However, the CAFO regulations state that cow manure is 48 % moisture. This calculates to a total dry manure production of 14,508 tons per year. The amount of manure production is considerably different depending upon the method used. The facility should provide a specific source or study which supports Dr. Olsen's figures. In lieu of this, the facility must amend the plan to address the disposal practices and procedures for the additional manure. In addition, this section estimates that waste water per cow generated at the site. Part of the facility's assumption is based on a 7.44 gallon/day per cow loss due to evaporation. The facility should provide justification as the process in determining this loss to evaporation and subsequent sizing of the retention pond. 5) Page 6 and 7, Section 2.4, discusses the existing retention basin and its storage capabilities. The facility estimated that it required a 180-day process-water storage volume of 7,761,600 gallons, but since evaporation will occur only 1\2 of the 180-day volume is used. The facility cut the storage volume in half. However, the purpose of the regulations is to store process water over the winter months in which significantly less evaporation would occur. The 50% reduction in required storage should be reviewed. Based on estimated retention capacity, the facility can have approximately 1,774 cows on-site before it is required to expand the retention facility. This number may need to be reviewed in light of our previous comments and concern about the storage capacity. 6) Page 7, Section 2.4.1, discusses the retention basin density and permeability testing. This section indicates that the pond currently does not meet the permeability specification provided in the CAFO regulation. This must be addressed if the facility operates as a concentrated animal feeding operation as defined in the CAFO regulations. 7) Page 9, Section 2.5, discusses liquid waste disposal. According to the plan, the facility has enough land (165 acres) to manage effluent from 1,572 cows. The plan indicates that 962411 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Hirsch Dairy December 12, 1996 Page 3 the current retention structure can contain the effluent from 1,744 cows. The application is for a 2,000 cow operation. The alternatives proposed in the plan include increasing on- site storage or hauling the water off-site for treatment or land application. In either case an amendment to the plan must be submitted. However, if the facility chooses to haul off the waste, the facility should provide the location of the proposed disposal and any agreements securing the availability of the site for disposal and maintain records of off site disposal . 8) Page 10, Section 2.6, discusses solid waste disposal. This section indicates that all of the manure generated on the site will be hauled off. The facility should provide any agreements with landowners who accept the manure and maintain records of where the manure has been hauled. 9) Page 11, Section 3.1, discusses the dry manure storage. It states that "drainage from the manure storage sites will be directed to the basin via ditches." It does not state to which specification the ditch or conveyance structure will be built. The ditch or conveyance structure which handles water which has come into contact with manure must be constructed to handle a 25-year, 24-hour storm event as stated in Section 2.1 of the plan. Also, we would recommend that the ditch or conveyance structure be constructed with a permeability less than or equal to 1 X 10-6 cm/sec. In summary, the facility is currently operating in "significant noncompliance" with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulation. The Division believes that if the above concerns, and any additional concerns found upon further review of the plan, are adequately addressed, and the operation complies with the plan, the facility can operate in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations. tj\520 cc: Lee Morrison Todd Hodges John Pickle 962411 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer,Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director .tea_d.r •.'(., Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado „%•\�b 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building `v,�r Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue `?is 76 a' Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 — (303)691-4700 Colorado Department of Public Health December 2, 1996 and Environment Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 CERTIFIED: <3 O 7"7 REF: Hirsch Dairy, Weld County. Dear Mr. Hirsch: This letter is to notify you that upon further review of the evidence submitted by Terracon Environmental, Inc., to the Weld County Health Department, in relation to your application for a special use permit, the Water Quality Control Division (the Division) finds the Hirsch Dairy in violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (the regulation) 4.8.0 (5 CCR 100219) as amended. Also, during Victor Sainz's site inspection on September 26, 1996 you misrepresented information related to the number of animal units being housed in your dairy. According to the information submitted to the Weld County Health Department, by Terracon, you have been operating a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation since September of 1995, without the provision of adequate run-off and process wastewater containment facilities, this constitutes a flagrant violation of the regulation. In addition, we bring to your attention that Section 4.8.4 (A) (1) of the regulations requires that "Compacted or in:situ earthen materials shall consist of suitable soils which meet the seepage rate of this section and shall have a minimum compacted thickness of 12";" The Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the plan), dated November 13, 1996, you submitted for our review; does not provide suitable evidence that your containment pond was built to meet the 1x10-6 cm/sec seepage rate specified in Section 4.8.4 (A) of the regulation. Or, that during construction in-situ materials were compacted to the minimum thickness of 12 inches. Therefore, the Division finds the Hirsch Dairy to be in significant noncompliance of the regulation, and has determined that you take the following action: 1. Reline the containment pond to meet the requirements of Section 4.8.4 (A), and provide written evidence by your consultant or contractor that an appropriate liner is in place. 962411 2. In lieu of relining the containment pond you can install a groundwater monitoring system. This groundwater monitoring system, should be designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, will provide information on groundwater quality impacts from your containment pond. Finally, Section 4.8.5 (A) (2) reads: "... When irrigation disposal of process wastewater is employed, the irrigation application rate should not exceed the estimated soil infiltration rate. For flood irrigation, tailwater facilities shall be provided. Irrigation application rates shall be adjusted to avoid significant ponding of concentrated runoff in surface depressions or seasonal drainage ways. " However, on August 28, 1995 Ms. Charlotte Davis, from the Weld County Health Department, observed wastewater flowing from your property under WCR 23 unto your westerly neighbor's property. Also, future land application of wastewater, similar to the conditions observed on 8/28/95, will constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act (discharging to state waters without a permit), and will be subject to enforcement action by the Division. You have 15 days from the date of this letter to respond to the Division as to what action you are going to take to bring your facility into compliance with the regulation. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Victor Sainz at (303) 692-3564 Sincerely, J. David Holm, Director Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222 JDH/VHS cc: Trevor lirieek, Supervisor,Weld County Health Department,Greeley,CO 80632 Robert Shukle.Section Chief,Permits and Enforcement,CHPH&E Derald Lang. Unit Leader, Field Services.CDPH&E Victor H. Sainz, District Engineer,CDPH&E \Environmental Protection Agency.Region VIII Kenneth Lind, Lind. Lawrence&Ottenhoff MS-3 File 962411 _ STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer,Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director • �, Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment ache people o/Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.5. laboratory Building ;'? Denver,Colorado 80222.1530 4210 E.11th Avenue Phone(303)692.2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 (303)691-4700 Colorado Department of Public Health November 24, 1996 and Environment Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 REF: Hirsch Dairy, Weld County. Dear Mr. Hirsch: The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has received a letter (11/20/96) from Mr. Kenneth Lind in which he alleges that your consulting engineer, Terracon Consultants, Inc., sent us a response to our comment letter made on March 10, 1994. This letter of response to our comments was dated January 12, 1995. Therefore, the Division respectfully requests that you send us a copy of this letter at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 692-3564 Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION District Engineer Field Support Section cc: John Pickle, Director, Weld County Health Department, Greeley, CO 80631 Jeff Stoll, Environmental Director, Weld County Health Department, Greeley, CO 80631 Trevor Jir9eek, Supervisor, Weld County Health Department,Greeley, CO 80632 Robert Shukle, Section Chief, Permits and Enforcement, CHPH&E Derald Lang, Unit Leader, Field Services, CDPH&E Victor H. Sainz, District Engineer,CDPH&E Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII ---,Kenneth Kenneth Lin MS-3 File EXHIBIT Il� lc�S 962411 _ STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer,Governor . Patti Shwayder,Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado «P :ya\@ 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building a C- Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue Phone(303)692.2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 (303)691-4700 Colorado Dcparonent of jiublip Health December 2, 1996 and Environment Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator 11283 Weld County Road 78 Eaton, Colorado 80615 CERTIFIED: 07 c2.674 (D 97 e REF: .Fiirsch Dairy, Weld County. Dear Mr. Hirsch: This letter is to notify you that upon further review of the evidence submitted by Terracon Environmental, Inc., to the Weld County Health Department, in relation to your application for a special use permit, the Water Quality Control Division (the Division) finds the Hirsch Dairy in violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (the regulation) 4.8.0 (5 CCR 100219) as amended. Also, during Victor Sainz's site inspection on September 26, 1996 you misrepresented information related to the number of animal units being housed in your dairy. According to the information submitted to the Weld County Health Department, by Terracon, you have been operating a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation since September of 1995, without the provision of adequate run-off and process wastewater containment facilities, this constitutes a flagrant violation of the regulation. • In addition, we bring to your attention that Section 4.8.4 (A) (1) of the regulations requires that "Compacted or in-situ earthen materials shall consist of suitable soils which meet the seepage rate of this section and shall have a minimum compacted thickness of 12";" The Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the plan), dated November 13, 1996, you submitted for our review; does not provide suitable evidence that your containment pond was built to meet the 1x10' cm/sec seepage rate specified in Section 4.8.4 (A) of the regulation. O1-, that during construction in-situ materials were compacted to the minimum thickness of 12 inches. Therefore, the Division finds the Hirsch Dairy to be in significant noncompliance of the regulation, and has determined that you take the following action: 1. Reline the containment pond to meet the requirements of Section 4.8.4 (A), and provide written evidence by your consultant or contractor that an appropriate liner is in place. EXHIBIT Lc e 6241 1 2. In lieu of relining the containment pond you can install a groundwater monitoring system. This groundwater monitoring system, should be designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, will provide information on groundwater quality impacts from your containment pond. Finally, Section 4.8.5 (A) (2) reads, "... When irrigation disposal of process wastewater is employed, the irrigation application 'ate should not exceed the estimated soil infiltration rare. For flood irrigation, tailwater faciliti s shall be provided. Irrigation application rates shall be adjusted to avoid significant ponding f concentrated runoff in surface depressions or seasonal drainage ways. " However, on Aug st 28, 1995 Ms. Charlotte Davis, from the Weld County Health Department, observed wastew ter flowing from your property under WCR 23 unto your westerly neighbor's property. Also future land application of wastewater, similar to the conditions observed on 8/28/95, will onstitute a violation of the Clean Water Act (discharging to state waters without a permit), and will be subject to enforcement action by the Division. You have 15 days from the date of this letter to respond to the Division as to what action you are going to take to bring your faciliti into compliance with the regulation. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Victor Sainz at (303) 692-3564 Sincerely, J. David Holm, Director Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado.80222 JDH/VHS ce; Trevor Jirieek.Supervisor.Weld County Health Department,Greeley,CO 80632 Robert Shukle.Section Chief,Permits and Enforcement.CHPH&E Derald Lang. Unit Leader.Held Services,CDPH&E _ Victor H. Sainz,District Engineer.CDPH&E \Environmental Protection Agency.Region Vlll Kenneth Lind. Lind.Lawrence&Ottenhoff MS-3 File 962411 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO HIRSCH DAIRY APPLICATION Case No. USR-1091 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being over the age of eighteen (18) years and property owners in the vicinity of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, object and oppose the expansion of Hirsch Daily. NAME ADDRESS DATE TOHN LAvNt /( i /innIvcR 761 - ,/ lg.-//- 2y �n /o999 mica. 71,21. f 1�} aJ �4 pure✓ LU.a saSe... , Co 8'osso ITI -4 i 5o? it---c--/F.2 3 yb 1/ - 2 9Sa 0 . .A-*V er0 Walse,2, /,/, c-1%boa, 17, 7-:J/7,s % 91/ c /7 - ,9C a„_,,r. 9530 /` c-dvfb - vi - > d 1 ct& r/o/7�x 41 t &f o //-�V-,t io-t- /iii 17UiC?Rorb l/ - 2V - 96 tl 1, / ih %1,570 M MD G. /i/n ll a frt,QWA Skik J/57Uf,Uf1kofc /1 may_9 ,,,, (61-) -71,12, 4( /.. af 7 70 O o'Ven a 5.0._,/t& / -i H EXH 962411 cP s: °ys PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO HIRSCH DAIRY APPLICATION Case No. USR-1091 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being over the age of eighteen (18) years and property owners in the vicinity of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, object and oppose the expansion of Hirsch Daily. NAME ADDRESS DATE 6 r -zeL " 3770 /??-3,/� s..-e_c • .2 - am!% /157 7 I Pi fr_t,ek. 7/.4e 'Pic i„7('ct Co /Op(' 962411 • PETITION TO: PLANNING COMMISSION OF WELD COUNTY AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY SUBJECT: USR 1091 (Hirsch Dairy) Dear Board Members : We, the undersigned, strongly object to and oppose the application of Hirsch Dairy to increase the dairy operation to 2, 000 head. Due to the substantial problems with this dairy; the failure to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood; and the fact that the increase creates too intense of a use and density in this area, we respectfully request that you deny this application. Signature Printed Name Address and Phone Number �� `�cQ/c/ r/,%4. /Y //flo i✓cR 7{r en -7.201 12,,. ai-f--c {?n-n C4413 4 C.ia /1.52-5 Uc 12 7 ' i6 a-93 /7 - t, ( £4L --- C< (*MP /16.29 to cc* 78- c -PI, _. Ninaity 2 L RI d en u.A //S> Wcc 7,1 , , In -7 / aaer r_ ///'vi /Ojai✓ /22'/.� t tlQf 71 616° .5.32_. ), -\ Robb n�aD✓eriMan M376 (VC 7R 6S)6 -.47,21,1 1i . tat/ Gil/ aCderman 12370 WO la' /0% -2219 ;- —4)-nA l 5�au 1 o`x--t 3'�s o i w Cxr_n* 4t sv- ≥Ca l n't `cam l'" /1iL/7'/4 +fy Pe.r3hy13 /1r.ii .7 `f 6Xe: fi77K , L w- PR. 7(;,4�- Inch ,tp,,,,w1 3711wc.ft27 4s 7�? 1 �✓A t k(o5k y 37c -/Wc R2-7 f_5`F 253 1 �6 j ,`9 'w , A, Q1 E I�er If.5-261 WCr� 71- ‘ 676 -0,-)1/7 / 611, ��.�'Lv, . 1 )AJ 0/2„,i.*?ki� l zG i One 7i tl Sal ze (It 962411 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO HIRSCH DAIRY APPLICATION Case No. USR-1091 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being over the age of eighteen (18) years and property owners in the vicinity of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, object and oppose the expansion of Hirsch Daily. NAME ADDRESS //�� DATE 1. 4 ash A5,9 1impf x ob6/s- 9'-42 9'6 2 na9 ule,Pds eg/A "b/� 3. ? /0//S Gveg 7/ f 444Le, :, / / / (d ev)-0 9 ?-9� 4. / 2 /6,044- uI«z 74' 5. //5,14i Cl' Corn v, WUircP2otx wf rile.', L`o 'de�lc 9- ,v) 6. /757-4 [(2072-, 76 Q(6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 962411 Vi t ?arrest. A. Leaf 2545 West 18th Street Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 101/156-9821 Experience: February 1990 to Present: Water Resources Engineer for the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Groundwater Management Subdlatricc. Duties include continued development and adminiatratlon of Substitute Supply Plan for the augmentation of Central' s member irrigation wells, review engineering of cases filed In Division No. 1 Water Court and opposed by Cancral pertaining to the transfer, exchange, change of use, substitution, and augmentation of water within the South Platte Basin, design of a water quality monitoring program of ground and surface waters within Central's District and Subdistrict boundaries, perpetration of engineering reports for tha change of use of Central's water rients to augmentation, design and installation of numerous water measurement structures and inlet and outlet structures, and project coordinator for the acquisition of a $400,000 grant from EPA Region VZlZ for a Suacainable Agricultural Demonstration Project in Weld County. November 1987 to February 1990: Program Manager for the Illinois and Wisconsin PuoiLc Wacar System Supervision Program, U.S. _PA Region V. Duties included the oversight of two state agencies responsible for ensuring that public water systems complied with the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act amendmenta, adminiatration of annual grants, review of annual state program plans, review of state drinking water rules and coordination of enforcement cctivities. June 1987 to November 1987: Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. Duciea included preparation of several ?Lood Znaurance Studies using NEC-1 and HEC-2 hydrologic and Hydraulic computer models, modelling of the Zllinoia Waterway to determine the increased diversion capacity and it' s effect on barge traffic, and surveying of cross sections of rivers and streams. June 1986 to June 1897: Hydrologic Stream ?Low Forecaster, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Diutrlet. Duties included development and integration of scream flow routing routines and COES sacallite telemetry_clLmacological data into a. scream flow forecasting computer model, stream hydrographer, design of weirs and flumes, and construction and maintenance of COES sacaLlite telemetry stations. Education: Bachelor of Science La Civil Engineering, May 1986 Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Associate tngineerinq Degree, June 1984 Northeastern Junior College Sterling, Colorado 40751 Engineer in 'raining, May 1986 Colorado State University' , , • • (j, EXHIBIT (36 /�� 962411 / clones?. USR 109,' ?/0q/ Exhibit EE 962411 U I- C) 0 .t d t, •- G 0) 0 z 0) K., VO 44 ao c v u N Q .= N Q C Ca N �, C N I O O - v) cl. 0 O� o O N b ecti- `� O sue, tu - s. CID 0 . o E O L.. O 0.) O cd ,s obl� 0 A 5 -> E 6 o M c 15 •- cd 3 N Cl) a E -a v a 0 o a. w cd cd Cl, C/p , >1 - Z 5 ^G c o A E o �' a v/ Z 4=.4 t , . o z H Ii Z ft Z 2 o w u 0 i «3 i Q J C%) N rn ct M in a 962411 3 q o § o 04 § I. \ 2 ,21 i § c i § } 0 O 0 § / z t c O •2 .2 g \ ? z U / 7 § me = 7 2 •§ \ Oct CD E'l . 2 2 v0 _ ® § g `) o % t o rA \ Cl) 2 � §ct § k % -to 6 U § A ttit o o Oct et A \ '2 C " ' 2 2 / / z = 7) o / 2 § o 'C , — z x 0.§ d § tiz k w 0 ° o z .§ ) 7 / = g 1... % E 44 0 o w i � I / I al k \ 962411 . . . . _ . \ TAIL WATER POND • APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPERTY • CROPLANI BOUNDARY ). AREA MANURE /STORAGE AREA SMITH LATERAL COMMODITIES IRRIGATION •— COMMODITIES L CANAL STORAGE \ -----"C.,„ AREA „pp1t`� � DAIRY CONFINEMENT /'�/�� , DIRT AND OPERATIONAL-- / '', \ ORAUd A.GE AREA l DITCH CV PROPOSED �~ - CULVERT I ,..lb UNDER SMITH 1 /- 1 ) LATERAL \ Q Q 0 U O APPROXIMATE CC LOCATION OF c•—j MANURE/WATER r° SEPARATOR / r , \\\y /- TRAILERS I-- I ��\ z �1 CORRALS D DRAINAGE , • —CULVERT Q LAGOON • _ _ - _ 1 R SMITH SETTLING - BARN LATERAL BASIN �� IRRIGATION DITCH BURIED PI PIN \ FROM BARN CORRALS NI 1 SO DAIRY CONFINEMENT t / �0 AND OPERATIONAL AREA COUNTY ROAD 73 ---\--1 \ \ sea) �(5 �o� x`90 `�00 0 600 0 0 O� fr. \ \ IrSil APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 in = 600 ft • FIGURE 3 SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC DIAGRAM • HIRSCH DAIRY, SEVERANCE, COLORADO PROJECT NUMBER 43935049 DRAWN: SEPTEMBER.1996 DRAWN BY: MSE(49SLD) lierracon , 962411 _ o Q f /.73 . i S O z z .\ co § g / .2 — . at C et o 0) '§ A C % t 7 % A Ell i: / `\ ® N o -2 sill d o \ _ t 7 en a) ° .M E § ) ° I. 2 2 4-4 ( 4-4 Ct: 44 - k k CA 2 2 S t i ' •' `& C:1 k Cr k o } ■ § o 7 ° c' / d II? O % ° 2 z oti 0 % . _ - ( _ o o d o ct « / z 2 O k # \ - 9 = d = 1 = ° \ t Ct W U N / d / 962411 0 0 47.1.6 All runpff retention and containment fa 'es shall,rnget end be maintained in apggtddnee with the State Health f art�mgnt's G44iicignes of:E iptnent F rilit The prf g� ,,pyyrne}r s l resppnsible for ny'a ffitionsl requirements issued by,t CoJoracto Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, or the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.7 Groundwater monitoring wells conet(µcteri to Weld County Health Department standards may be requited to ey*QMe impacts on the groundwater table. The number,place tleltt, &kn mppikcrlpg of walls shall be le determined by the Weld County Health Department, if required. 47.1.8 USES on the property shill comply with the noise standards enumerated in P25-12-101 C.R.S., as amended. 47.1.9 USES on the property shall comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. 0 47.1.10 All associated liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. The method of disposal shall be approved by the Weld 0 County Health Department. 47.1.11 Fugitive dust shall be confined on the property as approved by the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.12 All animals shall be cared for in a humane and sanitary manner as approved by the Colorado State University's Extension Agent and the Weld County Health Department. 48 Domestic Sewage Sludae Reaulationg 48.1 intent and Minkel:ON ill 48.1.1 The intent of the Domestic Sewage Sludge Permit procedure is to ensure that the quality of waste discharged on land in Weld County for beneficial uses is applied in a manner which will protect and promote the health,safety, 0 convenience, and general welfare of the present and future residents of WELD COUNTY. 48.1.2 Commencing April 1, 1990, a Domestic Sewage Sludge Permit shall be I required for the discharge or disposal of domestic sewage sludge in the unincorporated areas of Weld County. 48.1.3 Any contiguous parcel, or any number of noncontiguous parcels which are owned by the same individual or group of individuals may be permitted under one Domestic Sewage Sludge Permit. However, the required evaluations, analysis results, and tees shall be submitted for each 160 acres or fraction P thereof. 48.1.4 Sludge disposal sites and facilities that have been Issued a Certificate of 0 Designation are exempted from the provisions of Section 48 of this Ordinance. 40-38 P 962411 46.4. The Board of County Commissioners delegates the authe4rjy,, to issug a zoning permit for a MANUFACTURED HQME, which otherwise requires,the rpval pf the Board of County Commissioners through a public,hearing process,to the Department of Planning Services upon the_determination by the Department that: 46.4.1 The applicant is in compliance with the criteria identified in the Ordinance for the specific category of zoning permit that is being applied for. 46.4.2 The applicant has submitted a petition cogtglning the s)pnatures of at least 70% of the people owning property within 5QQ feet of the property that the MANUFACTURED HOME le proposed to be located op. The petition shall Indicate that the surrounding properly owners vjrho have signed the petition have no objections to the Issuance of the zoning permit for the MANUFACTURED HOME. 46.4.3 If the applicant is unable to obtain a petition in favor of the issuance of a zoning permit for a MANUFACTURED HOME with at least 70% of the people's signatures owning property within 500 feet of the property that the MANUFACTURED HOME is proposed to be located on,the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the zoning permit for the MANUFACTURED HOME in a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. 47 Livestock Feeding Performance Standards 47.1 Anyone feeding LIVESTOCK in the unincorporated areas of Weld County shall comply with the performance standards enumerated below. 47.1.1 The property owner shall remove, handle, and stockpile all manure in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies,insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground as approved by the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.2 Suitable chemical and scientific controls shall be provided for rodent and Insect control as approved by the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.3 Feed bunks,water tanks, feeding devices, and associated aprons shall be approved by the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.4 Adequate mechanical means for scraping, grading and cleaning of the property shall be provided at all times. The method of scraping, grading, and cleaning of the property shall be approved by the Weld County Health Department. 47.1.5 Drainage facilities or improvements shall be constructed to protect any ADJACENT rivers, streams or other bodies of water from pollution as approved by the Weld County Health Department. 40-37 962411 1 3 e 4 L O .. H /'1 4-, W 2 v .. S V Vi4 W N OC I v 41 1 4 0o b 4 3 0 V > N II 04 L O , ^ E 1 v QQ V' d U. 17 n N O h .a I V w 9 O O 1+ O' 0 00 11 •• gC i E ≥ .°�' > .S o 0 o Is d V > la a m N 1 •C `^t 44 �' •PM )••• ..2 8 et = O 7 n . = ref .-. >* gc w 0.,t.. i...../ C t o > o O $ U II w w am lA V .0 ,+ O .+ VI .C > a+ �1 F ,w a c d "_ E i • • '0 di � u d F U 0 — J v=i ° w 4.4 a�i X N C {a 44 14.4 •.. u - e PzO 7 I G O E $4 N. •V I ., ..+ v o V ..._. F V N$4 V C o0 F .. •• •• 0 .4 w V II .. n i. 7 O 4+ I 0. .. VI VI O• '-' E .] i U a.+ 7 44 Oki)Oki) .••. a U td U V C C It 0. 0. >. ..I ..I .. O. O' W v v .....• CO O ^ O N U' 11 LU O 44 N' 44••••I ii•dx. rd J 7 00 0. m7 Cr,V N '� .00 L of 1 4.7 O w 0 U 74 1 a C O .C 'O O 0. I' M61 N a o C7M 0 46). n v d M I .C k •e i a .-~, • N .74 C it O I V Na n u n a F V Z _ 7 0. ge V V V II 0. M II CO V 41 F 0. Z 0' oo N 0 •O n N N VI ,d U of ed 2 .+ >. U M of V C •.Ei O .0 U 'O •.i •••IU N .C ...1 *+ ti Et N O 4.) 5 5 ♦ H V VI en A V b V VI U' ..i W 0 W ♦ ♦ ♦ W W -0 C J .-+ N M in ♦•.4 I 24 962411 d0 0.I 1 V Q (u • - N 00 CO u 2 Z J le< N 1 F j co t La 8 U J 0 Iii 2 Q 6 0 3 3 a J O c ow N I U C t O o m N r W in to ti to c O a U m B a d co o ta 0 o I CV Y I E S3 z > > • a c CV 7 C Z S a= O o 8 r E O O O }off c) U O el 0 (00 cco 0 CO CO b (.0 9 M N a> O O N N O o) C o 'O) O O CO V ' 0 0 N C )`a 0 C N6 O N a0 as d .CMa G co N N c .o 0 o d a _ d v a o a) m o t ° y v m O CZ a0i y o 0 o) m �$ L LTJ v LL. C c d 7 co d a) 3 ra > " c N a N L x c 0 0 0 0 0 0 y aJ L d y _01 O N a s Li r2 (A co 2 0 0 J it m O a ••. N -- Cl O 962411 ( ) 3 p t j i U \ 4 § 4 ; 2 § k E \ . - ` ` | \ 2 A � � � - � > 0 / \ « \ \k f ! i. ) § / ) o = § � N. E to 0 f )12 ) § P. N E � .- St ; ` \ « a5 ) \ f = o , © # § ] f / CI Co ) ) \ k c al t. • O. fa) - - - kk \ ; « 3 = % ) \ k { k \ 6003 - g .6 .6 « m000b ! § ( 962411 --) f 2 o V / § .§ / } . 4 7,1V § ( g ° ct O § <1.9 k _ V 2 0 '§ u k U ct E ° § / 0 I c / - § E O' 9 2 b § % 7 . . '4 7 4 k ' 0. Q ° 0 § ± / d '§ { / ILI)it \ u �§ q o `§ r. 1 \ 7 o .CA � § \ o { 'a- \ ct \ k §to ct \ - \ \ Cl? s 0 \ § 7 / z D = w4 / ;To cil U j \ 962411 e &rr 1 ?Aire trs.so.nr.:rfdP tszsca i/ w /i / I I II / / 300 v^..- _�..��: �s ;+off / I I?.*.icoAri01.1 P I-re....,,-J -: I 1 • Jo AZT �,.- Os, Ne. • ' e¢ogbs,i0 \ J 949'91-ZS ' fROo,e-P Mae.]La. \ 195989119 4 9791'9 . . 'f ja!S . _ 44;20744;207IS- . : _..Ff:. 1 fti-eise.iii el \ 1 I 9 i Jo °L4 do.23 1 1 L __ __J 1.1 iv. 21._ - - -9 T �s.�. a orb I • }JO.t 1-4.ZS re of caged. I . If �0. u� tL�VI� Ioe o .�7 IJJss I ' I��T At 115 9 / P� " '� ct / P047 / /e• / / / a ' - - � / 61 "LP c o_14 I r =0A2 76 Empire Laboratories, Inc. A Division of The Inman Carnpanies, Inc. 962411 3 L - 8 O 0 z 00 o a) a o 0 cn v .4 N 0 H E Q ti ti C O ,O 00 IJII >1 L O O kr) o I A .. cn c p .0 O cad O N `O Y Lcid ` O x O "L7 O C 404 rd a) • = '? O ' Z— � S y ;-, a..) O : iU w W L U 0 O W z ct - z i 74 '" N .b w J I .fl I I w I4 I a a 962411 J u a. O 8 o o z a. g � --- '> 3 0 a >.. 0 0 cn Cr in O C) u - 0 F�Cie + co O Q I 'b i N CN v• � 0 cz . C. 7."..,1 'J ---i a., OO 4..)g 4a ch 0 O O o co A ct 'n .. kn O E C E O 0 Ca i.111 O O OA O O i O s.. 2+ - O Oz C� O O cip — C C Ds) ces cn �+cn rc O L1. . .. ..O00 W i Z t-- 71- 5 z t. -c. N 00 W v, — t t c tr., t O a J 962411 E cZ 8 i O 0 • z rd g� . U ccr d a+ +O O ° 2 •CO s-0 U O +a O bA v O U 6) czt N E b o a) ^O 1-0 01 c.4. 64 t "t ::3 0 F�CA ta. Oa bp u - t u. c 3 ° .= �ca ° - N A z o t '� G � e) 3 s. o °' t t t N sd ct �i 7 aittl an �' w r `� � -c z Q O o bA z , 0 r .y 2 °' ° 4 • w a 2 Z Q W w -et I I i t I 962411 V § i % ` CV 2 I eil 7 ...• q o el t M .g = 7 . OMNI v bp k 2 § at u ,§ R o • & - \ . \$ 'i I n o t •\ ) m tia / = c 2 2 ' 2 e \ \ . . \• k \ t 0 .i Eli g ° ° _ u m H 9 o » _ u. @ / 7. C c . u / '§ t rS \ / % § § ° ° 7 ' / / In - E cc « E t ( \ `E \ Q V E / \ \ \ 6 — w 0 Ct % , 0 ct / ) k k k cr _ en 00 Q 2 §rd 0 § a M M d > k `_ t S % Q 7:3 d � W J . ct . / a 962411 ) r N U cp N l> CT) (0 w N ^ c4 4 co 6 6 6 r ` Cll '5 � E E E c " cr R U $ c r NI' CO .— 6cco p a) rNM ( M 1 w C 0 top , O • p w 0 9 ¢ V Z U N5. to C C r 03 C 0 00) "0 O N N~-- ' C'4 8 .J 'D p D m C w > N cO a0 � OOOO Ts Q p0 w o o w Z mce d n CO Z V V > N C) V) CD U) 00 Cn J J co p) hr r CO OOC) _ R V 112 CO C N NN co CV co Wf�0 S) CO O r r N N N r E Z J p N p r LL r 0 M � Cn CON. CO I- V >- t0 m J 962411 , / 7 _ `/ k = f 00 . \ I « 2 2 . # 0 d 44 C) ( Z 2 • / t 3 _ \ § cti g � � 00 \ § 2 2 \ m 7 d 0 Q k k 7 © J 2 t - & § t o H . -C / C1 g k 0 � \ \ k 0 t d Cl) § b \ .-.4, = % © © - i `§ 2 sr \ § et / / \ 9 f Q •/ f § / 5 0* § ° o w § R E \ = w § ° 7 Cti ti © } e q a 2 • ® \ 2 Z ° 7 § r2 4""= = E 2 / § d .§ q 7 / 2 2 u .2 / .k . § o 2 k ct •t . / ) o \ . ' m 2 k i § . `0 u 0 U / 962411 Ji ri 1 4 T'ANTS RN,INC. 7)jl,irelaxaio ow rm ash e.r.r.sow I opus a• ..•••017•34614W a V.�y p s � _. , 4s i i d ;�.,sa�g3jsrdRLe1sx'°xy. '- . ':3 G' Gr.��i ..,» '`w `y yM LIENT NAME: r ;Igo MC . ... • e O RV*NO 1 li ESt91! G910Mi9 80615 Samnlecl 23;$9,06•1 : PROJECT NAME&LOCATION Hirsch Dairy Holding PondiMing'EMINIMITESIMEXHinailEIN Weld County Road 23 and 78 N.of Severance,Colorado MAXIMUM UNIT WEIGHT 114.5 ISM PROJECT NO.: 430'36049 1 : SOURCE MATERIAL: Pond liner In-place sample OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT 14.0 X .1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Sandy lean clay RAMMER: M,aQHANIS<AL X MANUAL m. MATERIAL DESIGNATION: CL LIQUID LIMIT Not Performed : TEST METHOD: A PLASTIC LIMIT Not Performed TEST PROCEDURE: ASTM 0608 PLASTI.4ITY INDEX Not Performed SAMPLE PREPARATION: Wet REVIEWED ER:- - Mike L.Walker SIEVE ANALYSIS ZERO AIR VOIDS FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 2.68 Sieve Size I %Passing — f+ 81' .LAS C kV$ ^^+�-ZEA4 ASR VAIDS'i latttiSOACOORSIESMUNNIN:iliBiaNni6" 117 I .. �I 4„ 116 - . , � 3„ 116I II I 2„ 114 I 1-1/2" 113 1" o 112 3/4" i 111 1/2" 110 - 3/8" 108 I No. 4 108 No. 10 107 - No. 20 1og I No. 40 106 No. 80 104 - I No. 100 103 I No.200 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 WATER CONTENT,X Ti mma,.. 962411 .� .2 . ( 7 to o 2 a z \ / ( k. � § 4 . al 0§ ` E ca g j C (2 2 •'\ O t . & Cr' 0Ch 0 q � N ' C m k \ ° 7 0 - @ a 2 v 0 / 5t:st 't at O � 0 k ' 2 / \ .23 t J ( 3rA = 0 O § C § § O oetZ t . C ` / / / b 0 k 0 z 2 t 0 # \ 0 § Cc .\ C / \ r Cl 2 / u ± _ » U cu 0 2 2 /to 0 / 0 Z -IS brj o pp o o ) 2 < W 2 d . z 2 \ 962411 V t • O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 O j MO 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o W V O m cam_ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 r N m E c 4 rr N 47. 43 0 0 rn ,- LOvco0 Nov0W 0 3 m Moir r �i V' o I� Ci C) � NNC) C) V V N CD -m, W C IT N (0 O O C) 6644 6 O pOp o S O 6 0- I22 a o O 3 V C) C) O <p c O0 .4 m m a ow !sa 04- r3 — yy p mm C (0r u o ) W V CON MMoul O MD C •8C (VNrrOONC) W V' C) NN l0+) mt. m Oct m m J a N O m U W W h V m C) W W W W W W W O) � 3 O. r W W V C) C) OV ONC) r N 2 •V r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N r r r r Cr m m --.. U a O a o W OV o NC) W I- orr W N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o N Luc c 6666666666666 6 o W' m a v V O rmr0O00mC) NV N r r O O O O N N N C) (h N C) m^ 6666666666666 N C W N V N W I- O O N W O r (0 N O H O NMMMMNC) f W 0N- nn 0 40 ,I ___ rrrrrrrrrrrrr m m o m a3 Mh.. COM00NMMMrrMN 0 _m N O N N N W r W O O W O W V N m (.4 V r W N r r O C O V V C) m y 0 W I- W C) OW O00h W MO I- O O m N V 1•c� 0 C) O C C) U) I- W 0 ja » C) V V V V C v V 0 0 0 0 0 N T > •6 W V C) C) O C) N- W O OWN 0 r00000M0NMM00 0• m CO (0 CO 000 W W CO CO CO CO W U ov m Z4 W a C) C) o 0000 W CO (OW CO W W W W 0 O W O O m O O O O O O O) O O i 1 i i i C ti M M '' 0000 ° 6- 05 = 000 n F- 0 N) r 962411 V o O O O O O O O a O tO 0 a) mrn 000000000) 044: r-- a) W mw E 00000000 . 0 .- O a m m u3 a I-1 or in r "too V N or) O o O Q m 0 or NCO00 N... Noo op t-- 0 Oco t• C) n Orr r N CCV Cr) OD Cr) N O O r r N WW CO 'Sr f�') f0 W O Ci r ea to E LO O N 0 4! w- Ooi 6 2m N 6 r 1 0 O O O N w fo to O O CO m 0 0 C — cot�i) 3 cor `ano. on). 0orcDOMMCOOD 0 a- 7 0 NNr r OONfo6 of thNN M N_O m CO a ❑ O m t m 0N- V O to CO CO CO CO CD O CD 0 " 3 IS w- GO O 'tt Co) OD 'Cr V) N� for N = y •V r O O O O O O r N r r r r Ti to m .C—i co• a 0 n' to co u) v O N CI CO N- O r r CO r O 00000000 rr0 fit 0000co6000000 6 m > m aW V CCVr r OOO0N NN CCr) V CCVV t7 . a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N co -,- Ill --- CV a CV VD N. N )ON POLO T.. CON N C CO CV CD C) MM N OD Cy) 0OO r- r- 00 co CD . m 2 O 9 m a N- T E 5*. O r- o fh t0 NM0 N Cr) CV 0 9 CO N O N N N CO r CO In D 0 CO in CO Q m m m 0 `p m N N.- O 0 0 V < CD V m 0 aD N. OJ t`� l a0Oh W MO N. OV CI 0C) N V"7Oe� f0 V C) tO 12 Pr) O > m V) 'V < < V1 er < et NN In 6 i N 2 C. v) o co 0 tD < m C) to fh n VDOr N f00 N CO CD C• CD D CO CD DfOCO CV CV N Zv ° 2 rn a m 0 0 an 0 in on t0 cDf0 (DO co co CO CO (). 0 O 0 00 O coact) 00) 000 I t ) ' 0 °) rn 000000 n >+ c — o)a m m m m m m m m > > > m F- _EL 0 MOZo -) u -3 ') ¢ tn co N 962411 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART and switch 35 grass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, should be grown at least 50 percent of the time. Contour and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade ditches and corrugations can be used in irrigating close the site as range condition becomes poorer. grown crops and pasture. Furrows, contour furrows, and Management of vegetation on this soil should be based cross slope furrows are suitable for row crops. Sprinkler on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produe- irrigation is also desirable. Keeping tillage to a minimum tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. and utilizing crop residue help to control erosion. Main- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tailing fertility is important. Crops respond to applica- grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested tions of phosphorus and nitrogen. wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected The potential native vegetation on this site is should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue be seeded into a clean, firm stubble, or it can be drilled grama. Needleandthread, switehgrass, sideoats grama, into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential proven most successful. production ranges from 2,200 Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally ble years to 1,800 pounds per acre in ears. As range suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in condition deteriorates, the sandluestem,nfavorable ysad reedgrass, establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- and switchgrass decrease, and blue grama, sand dropseed, tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation the site as range condition becomes poorer. may be needed at the time of planting and during dry Management of vegetation on this soil should be based periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- grams, blue grams, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested an peashrub. wheat Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. should meet the seasonal requirements s are suitable for seeding. of livestock.e s It can Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be game species can be attracted by establishing areas for drilled into a furl prepared seedbed. Seeding early in nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed spring has proven most successful nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in agriculture. establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of has resulted in urbanization of much of this Otero soil. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation This soil has excellent potential for urban and recrea- may be needed at the time of planting and during dry tional development. The only limiting feature is the periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival moderately rapid permeability in the substratum, which are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa causes a hazard of ground water contamination from pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The sewage lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Capability subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; an peashrub. Sandy Plains range site. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. 52—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,700 to game species can be attracted by establishing areas for 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans have loam and clay loam underlying material. Also in- for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive eluded are small areas of soils that have sandstone and agriculture. shale within a depth of 60 inches. Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area Typically the surface layer of this Otero soil is brown has resulted in urbanization of much of this Otero soil. sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The underlying material The soil has excellent potential for urban and recreational to a depth of 60 inches is pale brown calcareous fine development sandy loam. „ '_ "7W''c aY< ff ."'' 1 fr' ,+ " Available water capacity is � �w ^ x�BS�ar��4eF"�, , moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or t ell. a ability more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is subclass Me irrigated, VIe nonirrigated;Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow v Sandy pPlains low. range site. This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It 53—Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes. This is a is suited to the crops commonly grown in the area. deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,700 to Perennial grasses and alfalfa or close growing crops 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian EXHIBIT __ 962411 . -, ►T EXHIBIT(4.cu lk 113 � t�tJIS4P7Ws2 C aitq L\ u`( ( co Tir PROJECT NUMBER 43935049 O6&1- ( it-q 6t4, 7 _ AAA lierracon 962411 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 21 . No waste of any type including but not limited to dirt , manure, waste water, straw and bedding shall be permitted to enter the Smith Lateral Ditch located upon the subject property. In the event any such waste enters the ditch, the applicant shall notify the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department of Planning Services . Additionally, the applicant is required to immediately remove any such waste or material from the ditch . EXHIBIT Z EXHIBIT HIRSCH DAIRY, USR i 91: ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Lagoon must be reconstructed or Hirsch Dairy obtain a Groundwater Discharge Permit from the Water Quality Control Commission. Lagoon must be reconstructed and the waste water lagoon must be designed by a Professional Engineer and reviewed by an independent Professional Engineer and relocated to a location that is 2,000 feet from any non-landowner residence. Plans and specifications, prepared by a Professional Engineer, must be submitted to the Weld County Planning Staff and an independent Engineer for review and approval. The lagoon must be constructed using a synthetic liner which is less than 10.6 cm/sec permeability. Once the lagoon is installed, monitoring wells must be installed and seepage tests must be conducted. In the event of seepage, Hirsch Dairy will be required to obtain a Groundwater Discharge Permit. Flail 2. Applicant shall provide a comprehensive drainagenwhich shows how all 25 year - 24 hour storm runoff will be intercepted and conveyed into a detention pond. Storm runoff from manure storage areas and open lots must be segregated and detained in facility separate from storm runoff generated from other lands. This comprehensive drainage plan must include plans and specifications which includes all components of the drainage plan included, but not limited to, construction drawings, hydraulic capacities, etc. The comprehensive drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by an independent Professional Engineer. 3. Applicant must submit detailed irrigation system design which show how waste water from the lagoon will be applied to all 145 irrigated acres. This should include how all tail water will be detained and seepage prevented. This plan must be reviewed and approved by an independent Professional Engineer. 4. Applicant must submit a detailed manure handling and disposal plan which provides for measures to ensure that manure being applied to applicants land is at or below agronomic rates established by the CFAO regulations. This plan must be reviewed and approved by an independent Agronomist. This plan must also include the following: (1) The schedule in which manure will be removed and applied to land. (2) Demonstration that all process waste water structures are constructed of a material and maintained so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day (1 x 10.6 cm/sec). 1 962411 (3) Other measures which are in place to ensure that the facility is operating as a "No-discharge" facility as defined in the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. (5CCR 1002-19). 5. Within 10 days after the end of every calendar quarter, applicant shall provide to the Weld County Department of Planning Services and the Weld County Department of Health, a complete and accurate listing of all livestock on the subject property including the type of livestock and number. This information shall include, but not be limited to, the number of adult livestock and the number of calves or juvenile livestock (less than 50% of adult weight). This information shall be based upon the types and numbers on hand at the end of every month while this USR is active. 6. Pursuant to the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 960 animal units shall be permitted on site until: (1) The applicant is in full compliance with all Federal and State statutes and regulations applicable to operation of this activity; (2) Compliance with all conditions of approval and development standards adopted for this USR; (3) All facilities and structures must first be designed, constructed and be ready for operation. Facilities and structures include, but are not limited to, the process water and waste water lagoon, monitoring wells, tail water pond(s), complete irrigation system; (4) During construction of any structure or facility, in-situ testing in accordance with generally accepted engineering techniques must be performed to insure compliance with all approved design criteria, plans and specifications. 7. No improvement, facility or structure shall be constructed upon, over or through any existing easement on the subject property unless the holder or owner of the easement provides written consent. 8. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The surface beneath the manure storage and composting areas shall be of materials which are protective of State waters. These areas shall be constructed to minimize seepage or percolation of manure contaminated water. In no event shall the facility impact or degrade waters of the State in violation of the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations (5CCR 1002-19). 2 962411 9. An odor abatement plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Health Department for review and approval. A copy of the abatement plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The odor abatement plan shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Health Department in the event odor levels detected off site of the facility meet or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution threshold or, in the judgment of the Weld County Health Office, there exists an odor condition requiring abatement. 3 962411 I .aY - . tr. .. II . � - ---•- an x L.L. I. w War # in • - '- - Ilk ii,, , .V • t4_ ` Allet . aniumpew . ab as 1 i et:4, . fr. . . . . .41 " i •1. 1 I .i.... ,. ._ ___ : 1 ' 40- ia. T .-- .,4: . 44 1 •L 7'.• - i -1 . 1 .-:I. . J.:b. - -".Ilillit-•' 42,11,1 1 • \ li a gib r ii s ' C. Pli i age.? . . . , , --__ - r. _ .-" tea•losi IPA \ i — -- I • ‘ ' # , • • • • ...:.N., . 41..I.E. � i ,alliillikl :440. i + . or ~ ,\ 4010 • Ilk r _i..Ir 1 . 4 404 A .11\ 4... ele.1 ., cm k ire Hello