HomeMy WebLinkAbout960851.tiff 01/26/1996 10:19 303-732-4643 EPPELSHE IMER PAGE 01
1.''-_',_9 C,-C
' "" 113 .11 V. ^ 1 04/25/96
33500 WCR #16
CLEF; Keenesburg, Co. 80643
TO THE. Y,
Mrs. Barbara Kirkmeyer
Weld County Commissioners
Greely, C:c. 80631
Dear Mrs. Kirkmeyer;
Thank you for inviting us to attend a meeting with you, Jeff Stoll, and Terry
Osborne to discuss the progress of the planning for the Moark Special Use
Application.
We were disappointed that Terry Osborne refused to attend and Moark was
represen'ed only by the Moark attorney, Fred Otis. Mr. Otis did not appear
knowledgable in the areas of technical development that we met to discuss.
As you know my wife, myself, and the Shoenemans, acting as
representatives of the area residents, have been actively working with Mr. Stoll
to help lc cate alternatives in current technology and procedures to help insure
the environmental quality in the Moark project.
To recap the meeting, it appears a system of composting has been chosen
to manage the fly, odor, and containment problems facing Moark. We
understand the Sun Drying Process for the raw manure will not be approved
because it's a procedure that can produce serious odor and fly problems.
According to our own information, properly managed composting seems a
good alternative to the Momingfresh gas drying system and still retains similar
environmental qualities to Morningfresh. We are happy to see the progress
being mode in these areas.
However, we are concerned about two other issues. First, examining the
situation of Mr. Osborne being the "farmer land owner" surrounding the permit
site highlights a potential for a serious environmental impact that to dale has •
not been rorsolved.
Magri: must follow guidelines of the State and County in the permit area;
but, there are no restrictions to the amounts of manure or compost that can be
spread outside the permit area boundary. Technically, this means raw manure
could be stacked or spread in any amount on surrounding property (including
the Osborne property). and bypass current permit area regulations.
•
960851
Ctc: theCC 1 O9 i Pt- Nil-
edAPR 26 ' 96 9: 10 303 732 4643 PRGE . 001
/oil topLice`7
04/26/1996 10:19 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMER PAGE 02
Moarl.'s. application requests exemption from subsoil manure incorporation
for grass areas. That request is a proper request to not disturb grass areas with
disking. However, the unique combination of circumstances, including Mr.
Osborne owning the adjoining 2,400+ acres of grassland , means approval of
the request would allow the unregulated dumping of manure on land adjoining
the application site.
In addition to the obvious odor, fly and vermin problems of dumping raw
manure in volume, much of Mr. Osbome's land is a highly permeable, sandy soil
above We lost Creek Aquifer (a closed basin). Lost Creek water tables come
very clos3 to the surface in that area. Ground water pollution would again be
the issue, as it is in the Kersey Hog Farm.
Surface flooding is a problem In that location as well. Unregulated spreading
or dumping in the flood areas surrounding the permit site would carry the
manure into Roggin during those floods.
We are certainly not suggesting that Moark plans to use this loophole.
However business often changes hands and it may be out of their control in the
future. l,nfortunately, the potential for serious environmental damage does
exist and we feel that potential should be eliminated.
We ore formally requesting that the agronomic rates of manure application
that apply to Moark's permit site also apply to any application of manure from
the Moarr 4acility on any off site location. This should be a no cost solution to the
potential of serious environmental effects in the future.
Our second concern is the 48 hour time limit from spreading raw manure to
disking the manure under the surface. I believe during the hearings it was said
the farmer should be in the field and ready to disk right after the application of
manure. 48 hours of manure exposure to air allows the putrefaction of the
manure with extreme odors developing. Immediate incorporation of the
manure into the soil will prevent those excessive odors.
Our fiat recommendation would be similar to the procedure used by many
municipa ities spreading sewer sludge. Most of their sludge is bladed into the soil
in the first application.
At the least, we are requesting a procedure for surface spreading of raw
manure that requires same day disking.
If surface spreading of raw manure is approved, we request that the
spreader truck be covered during transit of manure to the fields. If you refer to
the Eastern Washington history we Submitted during the hearings, they found
that trucks not enclosed evolved into a major health hazard. The manure that
blew out of the trucks coated the roads, then was carried by cars and trucks all
over the county and into homes.
Requiring covered trucks, from the beginning, would be an inexpensive
method to prevent the same thing in our area.
APR 26 ' 96 9: 11 303 732 4643 PRGE . 002
04/26/1996 10:19 303-732-4643 EPPELS-EIMER PAGE 03
During this meeting, Mr. Otis referred several times to procedures that were
not required in the past. I don't think a chicken/egg facility of this size and
quantity of manure production has been approved in this county for some time.
Developing regulatory requirements to reflect current standards and
technology for this application would be beneficial to the future business and
residential development of Weld County.
Everyt ling we discussed are current technologies and practices that have
been successfully Implemented In other areas of the country. It would seem to
be a prudent choice. for the future development of the county, to approve a
more odvcncei approach to manure management than decades old past
precedent suggests.
Thank you for your time and consideration, we would appreciate a response
to this letler.
Sincere) ,
c a ia1O414Ate:ntrzci
Wood and Bar era Eppelsheimer
cc: Jeff Stoll
Weld County Director of Environmental Health
PPR 26 ' 96 9: 12 303 732 4643 PRGE . 003
Hello