The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991247.tiff 4 RECEIVED JAN 1 11 �� 4 LQ COUNTY ND rf CLERK TO THE BOARD Ii.a PI 13 Au 9: 23 PHONE (970) 356-4000, EXT.4217 C ' FAX: (970) 352-0242 CLERK P.O. B 758 TO THE HARD GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 COLORADO January 7, 1999 • Enviro Stock, Inc. Attn: Thomas Haren 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, CO 80233 Dear Mr. Haren: Your application for an Agricultural Service Establishment for Scott Busker, 7678 Weld County Road 17, Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621, has been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is shown as part of Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing in the legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you. In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by February 8, 1999. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Dale K. Hall, Chair DKH/eli� e1� ) �f�. L — L pp 1 ±; i+ ' do hereby request the Board of I/we,• "L�i.4.-� � �� q County Commissioners to consider th ove mentioned application. EXHIBIT 991247 0 6- use_ 1 o: Weld County Hoard of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 We are writing this letter to say we are against the proposal for the Busker Dairy Case#I ISR-1202 to increase his dairy from 870 cattle to 4,500. The reasons we are against this increase in the amount of cattle Mr. Busker wants is that right now with the 870 cattle the flies have increase,the odor is unbearable and if he is allowed to have even more cattle it will only be worse. The traffic going to and from the dairy is terrible,trucks hauling heavy loads and many cars. The trash along the roads leading to and from the dairy is very noticeable, it didn't used to he as had and the dust from all the traffic is terrible. There has even been an increase in homes being broke into and we think it all has gotten worse since the dairy's have come into this area,we have had a pickup stolen from our locked garage. We also feel that this cannot be a good thing for the environment,or for the ground water. We are also concerned about our property value dropping. 'Elie towns of Frederick and Firestone are only a mile away and moving out towards the dairy and we feel that if he wanted a dairy that was so large he should have found more acreage to accommodate the 4,500 cattle. the 120 acres he has now doesn't seem like enough for that amount of cattle. We have also heard that if this does pass and he can have that amount of cattle that the other dairy in our neighborhood on road#16 between roads#19 and#21 will try to have it passed for them also so they can increase. then we would be right in the middle of this. For the last two summers the odor is so bad we cannot have open windows or entertain outdoors. It's just awful. The winter is just as had because of the humidity. When it is wet the odor is even worse. We understand that everyone needs to make a living but being greedy is another story. Please do not pass this proposal. We have had a home here since 1979 and feel that the increase is wrong for our area. It is only going to be good for Mr.Busker. What is good for one is not always good for the others and the surrounding communities. Thank You, dewy- bonzair / $7 le 609t414--- Larry and Kim Richmeier f5w it/MO0'14, I__ 67 cr.. 0 IX al c.. O n,. = EXHIBIT F 1 use*/aoa fo: Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 We are writing this letter to say we are against the proposal for the Busker Dairy Case#IJSR-1202 to expand from 880 cattle to 4,500. The reasons we are against the proposal are that the flies and the odor from the dairy will increase and they are both very had now. The traffic going to and from the dairy is a problem,both trucks and cars. The dust is terrible and the roads are in had shape most of the time. We are concerned about the value of our property going down. We are also concerned about the agriculture and the environment. When Mr. Busker first came to this area he said it would be a small family dairy. Now he wants to change that no matter what it does to the surrounding properties and communities. Frederick and Firestone are both close by and are against the proposal. Another concern is that if Mr. Busker gets this increase than the other dairy in our area will want to increase also. It is on road#16 between roads 19#and#21. Please do not pass this proposal. Thank You, R/'�/ qBa ud dtoYe1ipiitliniti-O-1 ziker 76)3'7 toee'/� re/9 IT. et 9/ U1 C: CV T Cr:. n LL.... r'•- co O7 BCD rn w Q ::" - o _ Z .. C t- c:,. EXHIBIT LASI2#O031 t'J LD COW IP( cam, .. . .. .,,. ,. 1999 RI 21 All :3t1 CLERK January 20. 1999 TO THE E C";r'D Weld Co. Bd.of Commissioners P.O. box 758 Greeley, ('o 806.2 Concerning case r! USR- 1202- Scott Busker dairy and the approval or•iissopi oleo r1' increasing the number •,f cattle at the location east of and adjacent too U eld t 'o Rd 17 Se of Weld Co Rd 18 lri part Section 28 T7N. R 6' W of the 6th P ..W4! • (1 _ Our home is located approx J mile from the existing Busker dairy and was built in the early 1900's. We are presently affected by the dairy only on the o casiot. of excessive odor and the i resence of flies We are asking that in making your decision oh this matter that you consider the following : The location of this dairy is slightly in excess ot I mile east the town ot 1'redeI ct and Firestone. both of which are expanding to the east. The 1 sq. mile on wtucli the:le:^ sets presently has 13 homes ; the majority having been their long before the dairy I. Tice number of cattle, we assume less than 10Uo,housed in the middle al' these tine hes has been accepted and are being "lived with" allb it llot coui_t stably ii. this Atinnier months---however--- consider If you will placing 3:',o0 head ot cattle di:eett iii tli,., middle of 13 families !0,ef which were there long before the dairy and tlsci within a inik .,f thousands of hornet,. True this is all zoned agricultural land,bowevej ttarii:l±. that people live and raise families in agricultural ss.iCaz a:: well it vould e r:, to be a wise decision to not allow one of those thmilies to destroy the living conditic'as of the 12 other families,as well as the surrounding neighbors---and please again bear in mind those families were here long i.. Some,before au.. �tr,4:,. Sxbil of them iA'rii 1}°.t.a is:ielia1}le number for the amount of acres held and with adequate shelter t.>i wide,.. We do tiot believe cattle oil the Busker aci sage to be :3i lywh i e tie a leas,ii ahk. Thank you for your attention io this matter. .Tack au' etiv,Gcif: 71.18•Ard. `Tot Lupi.uii. Co. S062; EXHIBIT iliv USe#420 z 1•r^ January 20, 1999 r1„11.! 22 ! 9: ! 0 CLERK TOTFE [C/ Weld County Board of Commissioners P. 0. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80621 RE: BUSKER DAIRY To whom it may concern: We strongly protest the granting of a permit to Scott Busker for a large expansion of his dairy herd east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 17 , south of Weld County Road 18 . As the neighbor directly south of this area, we are greatly concerned with air, water, and land pollution from a larger herd . We feel this will greatly affect our quality of life, reduce the value of our property, and make resale of the property difficult . We also feel that the community as a whole should be taken into consideration and that the size of the dairy herd already in that location is enough for this area . One man ' s gain should not be at the expense of everyone else in the area . Sincerely, � re Albert W. & Violet A. Betz 8179 County Road 16 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 12 EXHIBIT WELD COUNTY January 25, 1999 1999 JAN 26 ASS 8: 52 Weld County Board of Commissioners CLERK TC1 i HG PO Box 758 7,0Ar' Greeley CO 80632 TO: Weld County Commissioners. RE: Case#USR— 1202 Name: Scott Busker For: Request to increase present dairy herd from present level to 3500 head. The following is written in protest to the request of Scott Busker for dairy herd increase. I would like the commissioners to take a good look at the monster you have created by allowing this dairy farm to even exist. The health problems that have been caused by this dairy are unbelievable. Our fly problem is so great that on September 27, 1998 I was not able to leave my residence because of the heavy concentration of flies on my exit doors. I was forced to use Diazion spray to remove the flies from our doors. The commissioners I am sure know what the health problems caused by the flies do to the people, especially to the elderly in the area, which we have in this section. The odor from this dairy is so great that we are unable to leave our windows open at night. Other problems, which are present if 3500 head of cattle are allowed, are as follows: a. Excessive heavy traffic on all roads around dairy. b. Air pollution from dairy. c. Odor problems, which now exist, will greatly increase. d. Ground water protection from run-off. e. Acreage of 125 is not enough to accommodate a dairy of this size. This was also a great concern of the Board of planning and Zoning especially Arlan Marrs who is a dairy fanner. f Overall decrease in property value, which on record nationally is 30% decrease in overall value. We wish the Board to consider the concerns of the adjacent property owners who have resided in this area years before this small dairy was approved and wants to be a large corporate dairy. I wish to thank you in advance of your decision for your efforts in this matter. A Greatly Concerne County Resident, Wead cJoeir:e.eaton -7625 WCR 19 , Ft Lupton, CO 80621 '= EXHIBIT IU tar Z STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - � Animal Industry Division �o,-- - 700 Kipling Street,Suite 4000 t7, x o� Lakewood,Colorado 80215-5894 _ o LI Telephone(303)239-4161 . .�' FAX(303)239-4164 •rB7 . Weld County Planning Dent. — Roy Rumor Guvernu,- JAN 0 7 thomas A. Kuud, 1999 Com,nissloner January 5, 19991 O -40 Joe Heaton .1 7625 WCR 19 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Sir: C This is in regards to the information you have requested for Busker Dairy, 7678 WCR 17,Ft.Lupton, CO. The information you have requsted,number of dairy head last checked for diseases and date of last inspection is information that this office cannot provide you with. If you have any concerns relative to number of livestock allowed by the county at any particular time,I recommend that you contact the Weld County Planning and Zoning. If I may assist you in any other way,do not hesitate to contact me at(303) 239-4161. Thank you. Since ely, _ Lydi' odriguez Program Assistant Cc: Busker Dairy Weld County Zoning Jim Williams, VMO EXHIBIT LSt ,2oz WELD COUNTY I.999 r 28 rI 9: 00 Board of County Commissioners CLERK Weld County Centennial Center TO ,r 9n 'I r',, 915 10th Street,Third Floor Greeley,CO Re: Busker Dairy Special Review Permit Docket No. 99-06 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are neighbors of the Busker Dairy and are writing in opposition to their request for a Special Review Permit. You will find that all the neighbors are opposed to this request,and we hope you will give strong consideration to our views. Please don't assume approval should be given to the Buskers simply because they filed the necessary paperwork. The impact on neighbors and the surrounding towns should certainly weigh heavily against their request. One property owner's interest should not be put above another's,and certainly not above so many others. Keep in mind that the Buskers'property lies within the Firestone growth area,and Firestone disapproved of the proposal. The Frederick town limits are only Ys mile away. The Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and these towns should bear considerable weight and with Firestone's disapproval you may be in violation of that Agreement should you approve Buskers'request. I understand that Weld County is proud of its strong agricultural economy. There are many places within the County where the impact on neighbors wouldn't be as grave as where the Buskers chose to build. They have been here just 4'A years and certainly should have considered putting their operation further from established neighborhoods. We have been accommodating and willing to live with the current operation,but the intense use being proposed is beyond the capacity of this neighborhood to absorb. We shouldn't have to accept the reduction in property values and the reduction in the quality of life,which are certain effects of the proposed Special Review Permit. There is a reason that what the Buskers are requesting is currently illegal,because that kind of use has serious consequences and impacts on surrounding property,on roads,on the environment,and on county services. Approval should not be given as a matter of course,and we hope it won't be given at all. It would seem reasonable that with so much opposition to their request,that the benefit to one does not outweigh the detriment to many. Our right to peaceable enjoyment of our property should take preference over the Buskers'request. In addition,we believe the Buskers have not been operating in compliance with Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. The opening statement is"Anyone feeding livestock shall be responsible to use best management practices." Scott Busker has admitted to us that there is more he could do to prevent flies,lessen odors,and generally relieve the negative impacts on the neighbors. He has chosen not to take any of these steps. Section 47.2.2 requires"Suitable natural,sanitary,chemical and scientific controls shall be provided for rodent and insect control." Every neighbor will tell you that the Dairy has not controlled its flies. Why should we expect him to act differently in the future? We don't. The County road grader could also relate how runoff from the dairy has washed out Road 17. We have seen this first hand. He could also confirm the need for additional grading because of the truck traffic. At what point does the County require the Buskers to pave the road? The adverse impacts are more wide spread than just to adjoining property owners. County services including law enforcement,health department inspections,and road maintenance will need to be increased. There are many suitable locations in Weld County for large dairy operations. Our neighborhood is not one of them. Please give strong consideration to all the neighbors'wishes and deny the Buskers request. S' 1�y e (( EXHIBIT ��" �� L- VC (1 Brett and Kate Cary K 7772 WCR 16 test /.ZO L Pt:tusien;tti N O t RECEIVED 02/02/99 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS January 26 , 1999 Weld County Commissioners P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Co . 80632 Dear Commissioners , I am writing regarding USR #1202 for Busker Dairy. I have resided at this location since my husbands and my retirement from farming in 1971. Scott Busker came here and began milking in 1995 . We operated a dairy before our retirement and I observed his dairy. Beginning 1997 he lost control of his lagoons and waste was in the borrow ditches . Then he dug some more holes for the waste . The flys have been horrible these last two years . He doesn' t handle the manure well, either. Rows and rows of it always stacked and stinking. That is where the flys are coming from more than the pens . If he isn' t doing it right now, what will happen in he gets the 4, 500 head. That number of dairy cattle can' t be handled in a healthy way for the animals or people, in my opinion. Please deny his application. r i 21 Pte` ` C f u.t., ' Irene Schutt 7707 WCR #19 Ft. Lupton, Co . 80621 i4 EXHIBIT fi A7 A L(St /o70 aZ .••ten m a x� CL W V I— i (f) W a CD T'N'awoca Qv0N3d $ (-) N CC 1Q ho I S (n c::::' cn N 040S IZ £9\t�95,00.005 0Z'£f£l I/0 1,00.00S 4 I a o En a a it xid 8 280' E 4 o xi. C o '+fig s' �gg .r o 0 00 �' �% S 11111\ c V N O O O t 'J�Ir ,, o. o w' C \ .,may} 0 0 L- O O �� \ v 6 8 (/� p 0 0 0 m ii a �y�7�` \ SO O O QQ P R"H"' '� W o'eF \ �O O OQ O Q C .TS 43 '\ i:Y w 80 0 0 ° t i E +� E.`4 o Ty L-,--_, o �i N O O O Q c4 z. y7y¢ Ab • L c $y W" ObOC O O v i 6 Y S %'S W O O 0 0 0 '� wA It c = O O O O O q 8 '_ aC O O O O q 4 g° O O O ▪dWi,� 1. 0 0 O O O t ms` ��= _„ 0 4 a ow tilge 4°4 o s IP m 4-' �� 4' 1R _ h lag 1F. is 14 41 og o s d-gi 2o$ oo dad �:,� _$ = ,ost a v a a �r so ^ p,G Vr rz Sg $ g r `2 % 'eg S '4 O t 5 �o $1' ta —8 p f I r p % �p� app g� 44 a a Goa,� �� ;� moo • r Goof l/ Gpa,r, I0 Oho f ft • a'4p 0 in g r Li Pood /Juno) PIaM egig -a LL r 1 t• L O • C d 1.1 O 1IC..,t OLY x = 5 a a 01/29/1999 09:20 3034574609 COLO LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 01 §4111990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Northg/enn, Colorado 80233 VIRO Phone(303) 457-4322 Fax(303)457-4609 T0CK,1,,4, Date: 1/29/99 8:50 AM To: Barb K rkmeyer _--1 —. Weld County Commissioners �� Fax: 970-352-0242 A Frogs: Tomas Harem I /— A EnviroStock,Inc. Pages: 6 Subject: Firestone Resoletioa This resolution passed unanimously last night at the Firestone town meeting. TILLS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDM,DUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT PROM DISCLOSURE. 4f the reader of this message It not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you an hereby notified that any disreminmion• distribution, or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited Ifyou have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail. Thank you. Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Midway" EXHIBIT 01/29/1999 09:20 3034574609 CDLD LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 02 vti L4dsi Mvv� ORDINANCE NO. 4114. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING THE MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TOWN OF FIRESTONE, COLORADO OR WITHIN ONE MILE BEYOND THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE TOWN. WHEREAS, C.R. S. §31-15-501 (1) (d) authorizes the governing bodies of municipalities to direct the location and regulate the management and construction of slaughterhouses, packing houses, renderies, tallow candleries, bone factories, soap factories, tanneries, and dairies within the limits of the municipality or within one mile beyond the municipal limits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to such authority, the Town desires to enact certain regulations regarding the location, management and construction of such businesses within the Town limits and within one mile beyond the Town limits; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that such regulations are necessary and appropriate to avoid and mitigate the potential adverse impacts such business may have upon the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that such regulations are in the best interests of the Town and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FIRESTONE, COLORADO: Section 1. Title 5 of the Firestone Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 5. 44 to read as follows: Chapter 5. 44 ANJMAL INDUSTRIES Sections: 5.44 .010 Permit--Required. 5.44 ,020 Definitions . 5.44 .030 Application for permit . 5.44 .040 Issuance of permit. 5.44 .050 Revocation of permit . 5.44 .060 Miscellaneous requirements. 5,21.4..019 Perm• t----Required. A. No person shall locate or manage any slaughterhouse, packing house, rendery, tallow candlery, bone factory, soap factory, tannery, or dairy within the limits of the Town or within one mile beyond the municipal limits of the Town without 1 01/29/1999 09:20 3034574609 COLO LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 03 first obtaining annually a management permit in compliance with the provision of this Chapter. 5.44.Q20 Definitions. A. For purposes of this Chapter only, the following words shall have the following meanings: A. "Animal Unit" means a term and number used to establish an equivalency for various species of livestock. The maximum number of any combination of Livestock and their equivalents which may be managed within a premises subject to this Chapter is as specified in Section 5.44.050. B. "Dairy" means an establishment for the primary production and subsequent sale or distribution of milk and/or milk products. C. "Livestock" means cattle, bison, mules, burros, llamas, ostriches, elk, horses, swine, sheep, goats, poultry, rabbits. D. "Lot" means the basic development unit, an area with fixed boundaries, used or intended to be used by one building and its accessory use (s) , structure (s) and/or building (s) . A Lot shall not be divided by any public highway, street, or alley. 5.44 .020 Application for permit. A. Application for the permit referred to in Section 5.44 .010 shall be made on forms provided by the Town Clerk for that purpose, and shall be accompanied by a permit fee of /Op $150.00. B. The applicant shall furnish the following information on the application: 1 . The name, business address and telephone number of the applicant; 2. The address and legal description of the premises for which the application for a permit is being made, together with a copy of the deed, lease or other acceptable proof of ownership and/or possession of such premises; 3. Where applicable, the types and numbers of animals and animal units which will be kept on the premises; and 4 . Such other information as reasonably requested by the Town Clerk. 5-44_030 Issuance or Denial 9f permit. A. Upon receipt of a complete application, proof that the annual permit fee has been paid, and proof that the application complies with all requirements of this Chapter and with auk h�-, ttx-lc „Q other applicable laws, the Town Clerk shall issue and deliver to the applicant the permit requested. If the 2 01/29/1999 09:20 3034574609 COLO LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 04 Town Clerk denies a permit under this; Chapter, the Town Clerk shall in writing notify the applicant of the specific reasons for denial. Should the applicant object to the denial, an appeal to the Town Board of Trustees must be filed in writing with the Town Clerk within :30 days of transmittal of notice of denial. The Board shall affirm or reverse the disapproval after notice and hearing. 5.44.040 5yspenaion or revocation ofrmit. A permit may be suspended or revoked for the reasons and in the manner stated in Chapter 5. 04 of this title. 5.44.050 Miscellaneous requirements. A. In addition to any other requirements of this Code, an application for a permit under this Chapter shall be granted only upon a showing that the premises will be managed in compliance with the following requirements: 1. The premises are in compliance with all applicable building, subdivision, and zoning regulations of the Town for any premises located within the Town. 2 . For any premises located outside of the Town but within one mile of the Town limits, the number of Animal Units on the premises for which the permit is requested shall not exceed: four (4) Animal Units per acre or portion thereof, if the premises is located in the Weld County Agricultural zone district; one (1) Animal Unit per acre, not to exceed eight (8) Animal Units per Lot if the premises are located in the Weld County Estate zone district; or two (2) Animal Units per Lot if the premises are located in the Weld County Low Density Residential zone district. Animal Units in each zone district shall be calculated as follows: WELL COUNTY E_ {ESTATE) DISTRICT r'umber of Animals Animal Unit Equivalent Cattle 1 1 Horse 1 1 Swine 1 1 Llama 1 1 Mule 1 1 Burro 1 1 Sheep 2 .5 Goat 2 . 5 Poultry 25 .04 Rabbit 25 .04 3 01/29/1999 09:20 3034574609 COLO LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 05 WELD COUNTY_,A (A .RICULTUR,,1 DISTRICT Number of Animals Animal .Anit Equiyajent Cattle 1 1 Bison 1 1 Mule 1 1 Burro 1 1 Llama 1 1 Ostrich 1 1 Elk 1 1 Horse 1 1 Swine 5 .2 Sheep 10 .1 Goat 10 .1 Poultry 50 .02 Rabbit 50 .02 WELD COUNTY R-1 (LOW-D,$NSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT Number of Animals Animal Unit Equivalent Cattle 1 1 Horse 1 1 Swine 2 .5 Sheep 5 .2 Goat 5 .2 Poultry 50 . 02 Rabbit 50 .02 3. For any premises located within the Town, the maximum amount of Livestock permitted shall be pursuant to the Firestone Development Regulations. 4. The requirements of subsection A.2 of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the issuance of a permit for any premises which, on the effective date of this ordinance, have obtained a final and legally unassailable approval from Weld County to maintain on the premises animal units in excess of the maximum amounts set forth in subsection A.2. A permit may be issued for such premises only if the animal units proposed for such premises do not exceed the amounts finally and unassailably approved as of the effective date of this ordinance. S. Management of the premises shall be in accordance with minimum management requirements, as adopted by the Town Board from time to time by resolution. Such minimum mana ement requirements shall be on file with the Town Clerk, and available to interested persons upon request. LJt4b15 4 01/.'3/1999 09:20 3034574609 COLO LIVESTOCK ASSN PAGE 06 ',action 2. If any portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Board of Trustees hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each part hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part be declared invalid. Section 3. Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than $999. 00 or by imprisonment not to exceed 1 year or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted by any such person shall be a separate offense. Section 4. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 5. he Board of Trustees herewith finds, determines, and dec. ares that this ordinance is necessary to the immediate preservatir,a of the public health and safety in order to prevent and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of location and intense operation of the businesses regulated hereunder within the Town or within one idle of the Town limits. This ordinance shall be effective upon ad, ption and approval by the Mayor if approved by three-fourths of the members of the Town Board. INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this day of 1999. TOWN OF FIRESTONE, COLORADO Rick Patterson Mayor Attest: T.L. Peterson Town Clerk 012099/1735tsjlic:Firaaton\Susiness.ord 5 r r r r r CD r r CD r r r r r r r r a it it v r c a) 04 cOc) M c 1O Ol LO 01 CI V Mc) OD M M LID c) r) N VVVvvv OV V. vs. et OI at re CvN p " O 1 CIDco pppp oppppp� 44 I() OD CON Cn OD OD OD OD Cn 41 COCON 41 LO N A ^ C„ rN NNN C") r. N a . O O O If) K1 C) O O O O O O 41 U O O O y) CO aDmaD OD CO CO 00 N N N N N O N N O N N N N N N N N ^ P V a O 43 OD CO " CD N E0 ^ (.j F) a y ��pp !! yy� ��}} ��pp V' it nr 0 0 0 0 N Zt to C Q a a a a a N O a N O O a O a a a O N N N a V V CO c N. Q Q N M m 0 a co CI CI v O CI CD N M N CI CI M CI CI CI CI 01 CI A OOOM C) MCI CI o , v c v, v � v, v, r� vv, vv; v, vvv, e) rr � wCAmrn co co Ni CI + C + Q u o) Q Co til.� a p0 pO p00000, Q0 § 0000 p000 3 00000 � �+ �f) 1C1 Uf) tnn 1 CD O O CO �f1 O LID N IQ U) �n IO � 0 N N C'4 r S- A... YCO CID COm a) r CNO aNm CNO CNOCNOCD CND CO ODG n g n CO as a N ID to Q Y _. Q " N y to — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I" C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �" L. y 3NNNNNNNC4Nn Ul NNN UD NNNNN -0 W CO O CD D a •- w y , 0 = I-- ^O o O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N Ul LID N N M Ul N NC`CO��' CC.1C'I N N N N N N N N CO N N N N J r N CI Mt OD CD Or NC') et In CO r CO CD Or NCIit r r N N N N N lk I a r i ietcaitme is ins r t• I. II 0 fl) — � itAi� k \ - a oct � } � 2k \ } ; / k } a7 § a ` aeC a@ k § \ �to \ kk �\ \ § k ae ° ° SLk0 a = � 2ku � .04� k � � � k § jk \ k k7kk E T— � w « < � nr C. \ \ / 7 co To- # $ O. , . _ 13 / 8 - 17 0 - a - S■ f2 � 2 k < < < 2 8888 �k \ k0 . � � co 2 � w# wm \ w 0 7 a 0 0 q a OO1OO < OOOO 15 &� qmQ & � BQ § &q % ® ) 0 § , ® 4 $ � 4 � 4 E c _ $ 5 / $ 4) _ RSS / e � cc § _dal Et : ! : E ■ 8 < , Cu Cu �� la a � � �d k � � t . 2 § Iaaa ■ � a E � 0o0 � o cco � C O c O § C c c ■ 2a - n °ra & - - © � 2 tO re 0 � k § � f 3 8kkk ao » � g � ] f , � f2201 ei ] k § Eoro 2 « � « 2 - O . 0 V to leii I 2 m 1 USR 1 Recorded Exemption 1 Recorded Exemption — Turkey Farm 1 Subdivision Exemption 1 USR 1 Accessory to Farm 3 USR's — Poultry/Egg /Mobile Home 1 Accessory to the Farm Processing 20 21 21 22 29 28 28 27 9 Recorded 3 Recorded Exemptions Exemptions 1 Mobile Home 1 USR /Accessory to Farm 4 Accessory to the Farm 8 Recorded Exemptions 2 USR's for dog kennels 29 28 28 27 32 33 33 34 1 Recorded Exemption 5 USR's — Boulder Valley 1 USR Poultry Farms 1 Recorded Exemption - Suckla Farms 6 USR's — Hamilton Farms 2 Zonings / Accessory Dwellings 2/1 IX!!ltlIT I S January 28, 1999 0O SOS Weld County Board of Commissioners 0 os P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 2 !XN Attn: Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer , A �. We farm in your representation district and are very concerned about the Busker Dairy Expansion, U. S .R. #1202 , which will be heard before your council February 3, 1999 . We reside on the section the dairy is located on. We are also ajoining property owners to him. We and all the other surrounding property owners are very concerned with this proposed expansion. It is not in the best interests of agriculture for this to go forward with the number in the application. 4, 500 head on 125 acres of flat sandy ground is not realistic even with the best of engineering. To compare, the Bella Dairy expansion outside of Platteville was for 5,000 on 240 acres of south facing rolling slopes . A much better environment for this type of facility. Please review the testimony of the December 15 , 1998 Weld County Planning Commission meeting. The questions asked by Planning Coimuissioner Arlan Marrs echo the concerns of ourselves . Since Commissioner Marrs is also a dairy farmer I think they lend great insight into this application. I hope you will concur his examination of this application. We are not opposed to some expansion of Busker Dairy. We simply feel it should be realistic for the site. Scott Busker began his dairy fall of 1994. He did so with the endorsement of the surrounding property owners since he represented he planned a small family dairy with housing for his wife and himself and an estimated two employees . That has since not been the case. Scott has only been here for slightly more than 4 years and severely misrepresented his intentions for us previously residing property owners , most of whom have been here for quite some time. We have resided here for 16 years and some of the owners have been here since the ' 60 ' s or 70 ' s . The most severe of the limitation for the Busker site is the fact that his parcel is nearly flat and his lagoons are birmed, not dug and lined, thus impeding normal drainage. His barn wash goes to the lagoon with force but normal site drainage is impaired. Busker Dairy has also had poor manure management practices in the past. In addition to the odor and fly problems which he has ineffectively managed, he has also been cited for importing manure from off-site . Please see attached copy of my letter to Planning. His application also specifies a "new retention pond" . (PG. 7 of application, copy attached. ) There is no provision for the upgrade of the 6 existing lagoons , which must be upgraded due to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission' s revised Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (CAFR) dated August 30 , 1992. Since Page 2 of 2 Mr. Busker did not own the property at that time and there were no existing lagoons on the property at that time, he is not "Grandfathered" into compliance. As you know these regulations are required for all livestock confinement facilities of over 1, 000 head. We propose that a reasonable figure for an appropriate number of dairy cattle for this site be determined and when that figure is determined, the issue of manure management , odor control , dust abatement , etc. then be engineered. This would be similar to the Hirsch Dairy resolution from a previous commission meeting. It would be unfair to expect the applicant to engineer before approval , but with a specific number in place the engineering could go forward for presentation at a later_ date before the Commissioners . It would also be unreasonable for surrounding property owners to approve a number of cattle unrealistic for the site. We feel. Planning Commissioner Marrs ' suggestion of 2 , 000 head is the maximum number realistic for this site. We request that this application be denied and a reasonable number of head be determined for this facility. The "Right to Farm" allows 4 head per acre and requires no Use by Special Review. This number of head is simply industrial with cows involved. Also the CAFR specifies that a mature dairy cow is 1 .4 animal units. Please share our concerns with the other Cominissioners . Sincerely, -' fl jCCh90. • . tfreac.t/ea 7z-C Gilbert C. Evans Diana L. Evans 7987 WCR #19 FT.. LUPTON, CO . 80621 (303) 833-4720 ATTCH: CAFR Pg. 7 of App. Copy Planning Letter Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2.,,I4-1.98 Retention Facilities Busker Dairy's stormwater and wastewatermanagement ons for therol neces aturesliatidillilibli ry retention capacity were based on the generation of process wastewater and the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for northeastern Colorado. The retention facilities are maintained to contain the following volumes: 1. Runoff volume from open lot surfaces, plus 2. Runoff volume from areas between open lot`s volumees and of wet a rnuretliontfacility, a ii lily, plus the 3. Process generated wastewater including (1) and flush water that entnre the retention facility and (2) other water such as drinking facility. Stormwater runoff calculations for a 25-year, 24-hour storm indicate a required capacity of approximately 17 acre-feet is necessary for the facility. Total existing and planned stormwater and wastewater retention capacity A wa errs flush system approximately cycles process tewater production at waterfrom the ponds is Busker n Dairy is minimal. used in the mincing center. There are no freestall barns and associated flush systems. Busker dairy does not use parlor sprinklers, showers for livestock or udder washes. Animal waterers use valves to control water flow. The only additional fresh water introduced into the system is used to flush the piping system in the milking center and the parlor hose wash. Hose wash consists of approximately 15 gpm for 60 minutes following each of three shifts..P er year. center process water usage is approximately 3,000 gallons per day or 3.4 acre-feetPeriods occur during summer months when little or no water is present in the majority of the ponds. Water will be pumped at agronomic rates from the storage pond onto farmground in the spring, summer and fall,as necessary. The_primary application area consists-of_ approximately 80 acres of flood-irrigated farmground. Stormwater generation calculations are in Appendix D. _ tithe liner construction and permeability will be verified by a registered professional engineer. r.D The rt results o will belic Health forwarded to the Weld County Health Department, and Environment, and incorporated within this plan. Rejention Facility Dewatering As outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, process wastewater shall not be distributed on agricultural lands in a manner that adversely affects the quality of water of the state by causing exceedences of applicable water quality standards, numerical protection levels or impairment of existing beneficial uses. When irrigation disposal of process wastewater is employed,the irrigation application rate shall not exceed the estimated soil infiltration rate. For flood irrigation,tailwater facilities shall be provided.'Serving Environments!Needs of the Livestock industry' 7 October 27 , 1993 Weld County, Colorado Department of Planning Services 1400 North 17th Ave. page 1 of 2 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn : Julie Chester , Planner Ref : Busker Dairy - USR #1202 Dear Commissioners : My husband and I have farmed at this location since 1983 and strongly object to the expansion of Busker Daley. The dairy is on land that is not only extremely sandy but has practically no slope since it was mechanically leveled for more efficient irrigation. This makes for poor drainage of the pens . Busker Dairy has been a poor neighbor at best . The flies this summer were so bad that on cool nights the white siding of our house would be covered with flies seeking warmth, There is also all night pen cleaning with not only the constant noise of the machinery but also the back-up beepers sounding off. The dairy uses the lagoon water to wash the barn alley and the stench can be so nauseating we have to close windows even on the nicest of evenings . We also wonder where . is the 80 acre parcel they propose to irrigate. The headgates for irrigating his land have been removed and irrigating with straight lagoon water can cause overapplicat:ion and increased salinity. Uneven distribution can increase co].lition potential and precipitation and evaporation must also be considered. This is also only a seasonal option due not only to crop production but also freezing which limits or prevents winter application. ,Julie assured me that the applicants representative , Tom Haren with EnviroStock would provide us with the expansion map (Planning was unable to duplicate the map with readable print) . I contacted Tom on October 19th requesting this information and he assured me he would provide this information and be glad to answer any questions . We have yet to receive the information or hear from Mr. Haren. This leaves us with more questions than answers and bewilderment with the lack of cooperati( The application states that the intent is to compost the manure and remove from the property for sale. The applicant has been composting manure for quite some time and has been cited by the Health Department for receiving wastes other.• than those generated on . si.te. Scott acknowledged- only 6 roads when in fact there were approximately 3 loads per hour for several weeks . We feel the applicant has been less than forthright in the past and we question his future actions based on past experience. It is also not taken into account on the application the increased truck traffic removing this compost from the site . Our experience has been that there is significant semi traffic due to this composting practice. We would also like the compost to be turned more often to reduce maturity of fly larve. Turning the compost several tim a week would siginificantly reduce the flies . This is the practice use by MorningFresh Farms and makes for happy neighbors . MorningFresh is located near Platteville .and has composted for years . �....��- .. t,l. L. Busker Dairy USR #1202 application The Busker Dairy also is within the "Smart Growth" Int Agreement planning area of the Town of Firestone. Thiseagreem ntewasl reached after long negotiation and discussion by the Weld County Commissioners and the Town of. Firestone. I hope the intent of the agreement and the wishes if the Town of Firestone are foremost in the consideration of this application. Sincerely, Gilbert C. Evans Diana L. Evans 7937 WCR #19 Ft . Lupton, Co. 80621 Colo ctifg Cooperative Extension ` p; Colorado State University.Fort Collins.Colorado 80523 University AGricuinraiColorado Confined Animal Feeding Regulations: Engineering Who Must Comply by News — Lloyd Walker Extension Agricultural Engineer The Colorado Water Quality Control capacity of 1000 or more "animal units" defines a Commission revised the Confined Animal Feeding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Animal units Operations Control Regulation (CAFR) effective August is a measure of the manure generating capacity of a 30, 1992. The overall goal of the CAFR is to protect species. Thus 1000 animal units are equivalent to 1000 waters of the state from potential impact due to confined horses or cattle, 700 dairy cows, 5000 sheep or hogs or animal feeding operations. This summary of CAFR 100,000 chickens. compliance criteria is meant to be an overview and present key elements in determining who must comply A confined animal feeding operation also may be with the regulations. Further details or a copy of the defined as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CAFR can be obtained by contacting Derald Lang at the irrespective of the number of animals fed if it creates a Colorado Department of Health (303/692-3561). direct discharge to waters of the state by meeting any of the following criteria: • The basic definition of a confined animal feeding operation as recognized by CAFR is as follows: "a • Pollutants (manure and process wastewater) are facility where livestock are fed in confinement for at discharged into waters of the state, either directly or least 45 days per year and crop or forage growth is not through manmade conveyance systems (i.e., ditches). maintained in the area of confinement." If at any time For example, a facility immediately upgradient of a during the period of animal confinement, through a stream or irrigation ditch. combination of grazing,trampling or manure deposition, no vegetative cover is evident in the confined area, this • Animals come into direct contact with waters of the would constitute a lack of maintenance of crop or forage state (i.e., a stream or ditch running through the growth. facility). If a confined animal feeding operation is • The facility is in a location which could reasonably determined to fall under the CAFR due to the basic be expected to adversely affect a hydrologically definition outlined above, a further determination must sensitive area. Hydrologically sensitive areas are be made as to whether it is an Animal Feeding Operation delineated by the Colorado Department of Health as or a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. An part of a ground water protection plan for a basin. Animal Feeding Operation is defined only by the basic A facility within a hydrologically sensitive area is definition. A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation individually assessed to determine if it is a is defined by intensity of use or if the site creates a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Presently, direct discharge to waters of the state (including ground no such areas are established; however, water). Intensity of use refers to the average working characteristics of hydrologically sensitive areas capacity of a facility which is the sum of the end of include: month occupancy rates divided by the number of months during a calendar year the facility conducts animal (A) Significant Ground Water Recharge Occurs. feeding operations. Feeding an average working Key factors in determining significant r nhralo Starr Ilniversity and I1 S Department of Agriculture rnnryTnfing Cooperative Extension programs arc available to all without discrimination. groundwater recharge include distance between CAFR. Requirements are related to the overall purpose the site and a point of water use, land slope, of CAFR, namely: depth to water table, soil depth and type, subsoil material type and aquifer material. These criteria are evaluated according to a rating • Ensure that Animal Feeding Operations protect system developed by the Soil Conservation waters of the state through proper application of best Service. In general, significant groundwater management practices (BMP's) based on existing recharge areas are those where a facility is physical conditions and constraints at the facility site. located near a point of water use such as a well; Such BMP's address diverting runoff from location is a flat, poorly drained site; there is a uncontaminated areas, decreasing open lot surface shallow water table; there is thin, coarse area, decreasing water volume used, decreasing textured topsoil low in organic matter; subsoil is wastewater discharges and solid manure transport to permeable due to coarse texture or fractures; the watercourses, and protecting ground water. aquifer is permeable due to coarse texture or fractures. • Ensure that there shall be no discharge of manure or process wastewater from Concentrated Animal (B) Protected Areas around Existing or Future Feeding Operations to the waters of the state. This Public Drinking Water Supplies. A public is achieved by installation and operation of adequate drinking water supply is defined as one that manure and process wastewater collection, storage serves 15 taps or 25 people daily at least 60 days and land application facilities. Under certain per year. To minimize risk of contamination of circumstances, a Manure and Process Wastewater wells used for public drinking water supplies, Management Plan shall be submitted to the Colorado protected areas may be defined by the criteria Department of Health. developed by the Colorado Department of Health Wellhead Protection Program. • Encourage beneficial use of manure and process Generally, such an area would extend to a 2'/ wastewater from Concentrated Animal Feeding mile radius from a public drinking water supply. Operations. In general, this requires such products However, criteria listed in (A) above, gradient are applied to agricultural lands owned or managed location of a facility relative to the water supply, by the facility owner/operator at agronomic rates so and hydrologic or topographic factors could that nutrients are utilized by crops grown on the land. modify the extent of the protected area. A confined animal feeding operation classified as a (C) Water Bodies Classified as Class I Recreation or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation has much more Class 1 Aquatic Life. Generally, these are stringent requirements than an Animal Feeding pristine mountain rivers and streams supporting Operation. If the reason for the more stringent a cold water fishery. classification is based on a direct discharge to waters of the state, physical or management improvements may Evaluation of the above criteria for determining if a allow for a change of classification. Such improvements confined animal feeding operation poses a direct may include berming, diversions, modifying fencing or pollution threat to waters of the state must be done on a changing location of the facility. The goal of the case by case basis by the Colorado Department of improvements would be to divert water from flowing Health. However, by using the above criteria, an across the facility, prevent direct runoff into individual assessment can be made to determine the watercourses or fence animals out of them. likelihood of falling under regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding operations. Once a facility has been classified as either an Animal Feeding Operation or a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, it must meet the appropriate requirements of 12/92 Colo c lialp Cooperative Extension ` Y Colorado State University,Fort Collins,Colorado 80523 University .AGricultural • Colorado Confined Animal EringFeeding Regulations: Animal Feeding Operation Requirements _ . o t News by Lloyd Walker Extension Agricultural Engineer The Colorado Water Quality Control • Divert Runoff from Uncontaminated Areas. CDivert water passing across the site by ditches or Operations ommi Control Regulationd re Confined Afefectimal Feugustg berms located immediately upgradient. Divert 30, goalof the CAFR isi to August roof runoff passing across the site through the waters of The overall goal tithe is to protect installation of gutters and downspouts on of the state from potential impact due to confined s buildin Direct the collected roof drainage animal feeding operations. A significant element of g CAFR is the definition of an Animal Feeding Operation, away from the site through buried conduits. namely one in which an average working capacity of Where practical, animal confinement areas are fewer than 1000 animal units are fed for at least 45 days roofed. per year, crop or forage growth is not maintained in the Decrease O en Lot Surface Area. An area area of confinement and there is no direct discharge to • pen waters of the state. By this definition, a wide variety of which is too large for the number of animals confined animal feeding operations may be regulated by served is reduced. A smaller area may serve CAFR including small farmer feedlots, winter calving more animals if it has improved surfacing, and manure is collected frequently. Roofing can corrals and small acreages maintaining as little as one decrease the o en lot surface area. animal. This summary of Animal Feeding Operation P requirements is meant to be an overview and present key Decrease Water Volume. Repair or concepts. Further details or a copy of the CAFR can be • waterers and W water Volusysteme. to adjust ut obtained by contacting Derald Lang at the Colorado waste.e Water used for flushing minimize ctws is Department of Health (303/692-3561). minimized and recycled, if practical. Regarding Animal Feeding Operations, the purpose of CAFR is to protect waters of the state • Decrease Wastewater Discharges to through proper application of Best Management Practices Watercourses. Collect wastewater from the site (BMP's) based on existing physical conditions and and apply it to land at proper agronomic rates or constraints at the facility site. The objective of the allow it to evaporate. Locate structures for BMP's is to minimize the water pollution potential from retaining wastewater above a mapped 100-year an Animal Feeding Operation, primarily by reducing the flood plain unless floodproofing measures are volume of pollutants (manure and wastewater) leaving provided. Any potential pollutant shall not be the site. To achieve this objective, Animal Feeding deposited in such locations that storm water Operations shall utilize the following BMP's as runoff or normal high stream flows would carry appropriate: such material into waters of the state. _ __________........,..k.,...all without discrimination. • Minimize Solid Manure Transport to Watercourses. Provide adequate manure storage capacity. Locate manure stockpiles away from watercourses and above a mapped 100-year flood plain unless floodproofing measures are provided. Filtering devices such as grassed strips, filter fencing or straw bales shall be placed around the down gradient side of a facility to separate eroded soil and manure from field runoff. Remove settleable solids in a wastewater stream by slowing the velocity of the stream for an adequate period of time. This can be accomplished through the use of settling basins, terraces, diversions or other methods. Apply solid manure to suitable agricultural land at agronomic rates, so that nutrients are utilized by the crop. Land subject to excessive erosion or saturated soil shall not receive manure applications. • Protect Ground Water. Locate manure and wastewater management facilities downgradient and at least 150 feet from a water supply well. Establish a sufficient buffer area around water wells located in fields where manure and wastewater are being applied. BMP's chosen from those above or other suitable practices shall be applied to an Animal Feeding Operation according to the circumstances at a particular site. Owners/operators of Animal Feeding Operations should incorporate appropriate BMP's into their facility management plan-as time and resources allow. Final determination of BMP's required for a facility lies with the Colorado Department of Health. An important consideration in implementing BMP's is to maintain a facility's status as an Animal Feeding Operation rather than be classed as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, which has more stringent compliance requirements (i.e., providing storm runoff retention). A confined feeding operation may be classified as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation if it creates a direct discharge to waters of the state. Implementation of appropriate BMP's listed above 12/92 may eliminate that direct discharge. Co1oco Cooperative Extension Colorado State University,Fort Collins,Colorado 80523 • University AGriculturai Colorado Confined Animal Engineering Feeding Regulations: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Requirements rP by . News Walker Lloyd Walker Extension Agricultural Engineer The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission constructed prior to April 1974 and operated revised the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control continuously must have the capacity to retain manure, Regulation (CAFR) effective August 30, 1992. The process wastewater and storm runoff from a 10 year 24- overall goal of the CAFR is to protect waters of the state hour storm. Newer facilities, old facilities inactive for from potential impact due to confined animal feeding more than three consecutive years and old facilities operations. According to CAFR, a Concentrated Animal which increase their animal capacity by one-third must Feeding Operation is one in which either an average be designed to a 25 year 24-hour storm runoff standard. working capacity of more than 1000 animal units are fed Retention facilities shall be located above a mapped 100 for at least 45 days per year and crop or forage growth year floodplain unless proper floodproofing measures are is not maintained in the area of confinement, or fewer provided. animals are fed under the same circumstances but there is a direct discharge to waters of the state. This Ground water protection is achieved by summary of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation constructing retention facilities with low permeability requirements is meant to be an overview and present key materials and properly maintaining them. Retention concepts. Further details or a copy of the CAFR can be facilities collecting manure and process wastewater must obtained by contacting Derald Lang at the Colorado maintain a seepage rate of less than 1/32 inch per day. Department of Health (303/692-3561). Retention facilities collecting only open lot storm runoff water must maintain a seepage rate of less than 1/4 inch CAFR recognizes that a Concentrated Animal per day. Such seepage rates can be achieved by Feeding Operation has the potential for significant constructing retention structures of synthetic pollution impact to the waters of the state, and therefore, manufactured products (i.e., impermeable liners), or has delineated very specific requirements for such an suitable soils which are compacted to a minimum 12 operation. The primary purpose of these requirements inch thickness. Earthen retention structures in existence is to ensure that such a facility discharges no manure or as of August 30, 1992, are exempt from documenting process wastewater to waters of the state, except for compliance with seepage requirements unless it is specified storm events as explained below. In addition, determined by the Colorado Department of Health that those products are beneficially utilized on agricultural the seepage requirement is being exceeded. land. The no discharge requirement is part of the existing regulation, the beneficial use of by-products is Retention facilities must be properly operated and new. maintained in order to ensure adequate capacity exists to retain flows from design storm events. Dewatering of These requirements apply to both surface and such facilities must be accomplished through either ground water protection. All manure and process irrigation of agricultural land within 15 days of a storm wastewater, including storm water runoff, must be event whenever 50 percent of the design storage capacity collected and stored in a retention facility which has is exceeded or evaporation from a properly sized limited seepage rates to ground water. Facilities evaporation system. Sediment shall be removed from Colorado State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.Cooperative Extension programs arc available to all without discrimination. retention structures as needed to maintain design determined by the type of crop and the established capacity yield goal. Calculations are then made to determine appropriate manure, wastewater and supplemental Manure and process wastewater produced at a fertilizer needs. Management and site factors as well facility can be disposed of on site in two ways: it may as commonly accepted mineralization rates can be be treated and discharged to state waters according to used to modify manure and process wastewater provisions outlined in a required Colorado Discharge application rates. For further explanation of this Permit System permit, or applied to agricultural land at method, contact your local Cooperative Extension prescribed rates. It should be noted that these two Office and request Bulletin 552A entitled "Utilization options apply only to such products disposed of on land of Animal Manure as Fertilizer." Operators using owned or managed by a facility owner/operator. this method must keep copies of all agronomic Disposal of such products on land under other ownership analyses for a period of three years, and upon (provided that individual does not operate a Concentrated request, make them available for review. Animal Feeding Operation) is not regulated by CAFR. • Method 3. This method is used by operators Spreading manure and process wastewater on applying manure or process wastewater in amounts agricultural land is the most practical, cost effective exceeding the agronomic rates determined by Method alternative. When land application is performed while 2 and on a continuous or near continuous basis. The the ground is frozen, saturated or during a rainfall event, Colorado Department of Health will monitor users of no discharge to waters of the state shall result. If this method very closely due to the increased irrigation is used to dispose of effluent, application rates potential for water pollution A Manure and Process are not to exceed the estimated rate of soil infiltration. Wastewater Management Plan is required. Elements When surface irrigation is used for application, tailwater of the plan include: (1) an agronomic analysis as ponds must be provided. If sprinkler irrigation is used specified in Method 2; (2) analysis and for application, a backflow prevention device or method documentation of nitrogen removal through other must be installed. Sprinkler systems in compliance with physical, chemical or biological processes (i.e., the Colorado Chemigation Act shall be deemed in volatilization, denitrification, etc.) and (3) if deemed compliance with this requirement. necessary, a monitoring plan including deep soil tests and ground water sampling. In general, it is the The land application rate for manure and process responsibility of the operator to demonstrate to the wastewater is established by CAFR according to one of satisfaction of the Colorado Department of Health three methods employed: that land application rates will not result in water quality problems. • Method 1. This method is the most conservative and involves the least cost and minimum management. It All new, reactivated or expanded Concentrated requires that manure and process wastewater be the Animal Feeding Operations shall submit to the Colorado only source of nutrients for the crop grown. Department of Health a Manure and Process Wastewater Commercial or other supplemental fertilizers are not Management Plan. In addition, any existing facilities allowed. Crop nitrogen uptake rates are determined determined by the Colorado Department of Health to be from a table attached to CAFR. Nitrogen content of out of compliance with CAFR shall also submit a manure and wastewater is determined from another plan.This plan requires information demonstrating the attached table. The land application rate is facility's ability to comply with CAFR. Such determined by a nitrogen balance under the information includes a description of the site, drainage assumption that the total nitrogen applied from schematic and description of the manure and wastewater manure and wastewater is taken up by the plant in handling, retention and disposal facilities, and operation. one growing season. This approach will obviously result in a very light application rate; however, it is a simple,.straightforward, low cost method. • Method 2. This method is comparable to widely practiced nutrient management programs of farmers. Available nitrogen from manure and process wastewater, irrigation water, residual solid nutrients and soil organic matter are determined by site specific agronomic analysis. Crop nitrogen needs are 12/92 I START 1 Do you confine livestock in an area where no crop or forage growth is No sustained? Yes Regulations do no End apply i A Is livestock confined for a total of 45 days or more in any 12 No month period? (�(� Yes C CFA Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations r Flow Chart Do you average 1000"Animal 0 Units"or more within the No confined area? 1 r Your operation is Can animals come into designated a"Concentrated direct contact with State Animal Feeding Operation" ® waters? subject to mandatory No requirements r Can measures be taken to Can pollutants enter State waters reduce or eliminate potential - Yes through natural drainage ways or No impact on State Waters? man-made devices? II Yes No Your operation is designated a "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation"subject to Is the facility located where it could mandatory requirements adversely affect a"hydrologically Have protective measures been sensitive area"? taken? Do they work? Yes No Yes No V /Your operation is designated an "Animal Feeding Operation" subject to voluntary Best Management Practice/uationisdesignateda ncentrated Animal Feedingeration"subject to mandatory — requirements Your operation is designated an "Animal Feeding Operation" subject to voluntary Best Management Practices STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 4210 East 11th Avenue tans Denver,Colorado 80220 .e 8 Phone(303) 331-4525 "I NOTICE OF FINAL ADOPTION PURSUANT to the provisions of sections 24-4-103(5) and 24-4-103(11) , C.R.S. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after a public hearing on Harch 2 and 3, 1992, and complying with the provisions of 24- 4-103(3), 25-8-401(1) , and 25-8-402(1) , C.R.S., amended on July 6, 1992, pursuant to 25-8-202(7) , 25-8-205, 25-8-206, and 25-8-308, C.R.S. , and Section 2.1.3 of the "Procedural Rules" the regulation entitled: "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002- 19) . Providing for various amendments to the existing control regulation. Also, pursuant to 24-4-103(8) (b) , C.R.S. , this amended regulation was submitted to the Attorney General for review and was found to be within the authority of the Water Quality Control Commission to promulgate, and further that there are no apparent constitutional deficiencies in its form or substance. Furthermore, the c Statutory Authonded rity,lon and Purpoincorporates e a inscompliancel Statement of Basis,with 24-4-103(4) , C.R.S. � This amended regulation will be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services within twenty (20) days after the date of the Attorney General's Opinion, pursuant to 24-4-103(8) (d) , C.R.S. , and to the Secretary of State in time for ion in the 24-4-103(5)A and (11) (d) , Cuglscatand will becomeo lorado Register pursuant to effective August 30, 1992. A copy of said amended regulation is attached and made a part of this notice.* Dated this 16th day of July, 1992, at Denver, Colorado. WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Pi(� /i,'hirg Ha la L. Bib rstine, Staff Assistant "A copy of this regulation is available at a charge of $5.00 pursuant to 24-4-103(9) , C.R.S. feedlt.fa aire-9-\ 2 LOA...-e..0 a COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH water Quality Control Commission - _ As Adopted: April 16, 1974 Effective: _ August 1, 1974 Format Changed: May 4, 1976 Amended: July 6, 1992 Effective: August 30, 1992 CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS CONTROL REGULATION Materials incorporated by reference in this regulation are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, 4210 E. 11th Avenue, Room 320, Denver, Colorado. The regulation incorporates the materials as they exist at the date of the promulgation of this regulation and does not include later amendments to or editions of the incorporated materials. 4.8. 0 AUTHORITY Section 25-8-205, C.R.S. 1973 , as amended. 4 .8. 1 PURPOSE The purposes of this control regulation are: (1) to insure that there shall be no discharge of manure or process wastewater from concentrated animal feeding operations into waters of the state. (2) to encourage that these materials be retained and utilized beneficially on agricultural 'land in a manner which does not cause exceedances of applicable standards or harm to existing or classified uses of state waters. (3) to insure that animal feeding operations which do not meet any of the criteria which define concentrated animal feeding operations, nevertheless protect surface water, ground water and soil resources through proper application of "best management practices" based upon existing physical conditions and constraints at the facility site. (4) this regulation is not intended to address public health nuisance conditions or land use controls such as zoning requirements. 1 • 4 .8.2 MUNITIONS (1) "ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION" An "animal feeding operation" is a confined animal or poultry growing operation (facility) for meat, milk or egg production or stabling wherein livestock are fed at the place of confinement for 45 days or longer in any 12 month period and crop or forage growth is not maintained in the area of confinement, and the facility does not meet one of the criteria for a concentrated animal feeding operation. (2) "ANIMAL UNIT" • "Animal Unit" means a unit of measurement used to determine the animal capacity of an animal-feeding operation containing two or more species of animals. The animal unit capacity of an operation is determined by multiplying the number of animals of each species by the appropriate equivalency factor from Table 1, and summing the resulting totals for all animal species contained in the operation. TABLE I Animal Unit Equivalency Factors Animal Species Equivalency Factor Slaughter and feed cattle 1. 0 Mature dairy cattle 1. 4 Swine, butcher and breeding (over 55 lbs. ) 0.2 Sheep or lambs 1. 0 Horses 0. 02 Turkeys 0. 02 Chickens broiler or layer * Young stock, less than 50% of adult weight, reduces the above equivalency factor by 1/2 . (3) "AVERAGE WORKING CAPACITY " "Average working capacity" is the average occupancy of the animal feeding operation on a year-round basis defined as the sum of the end-of-month occupancy rates divided by the number of months during a calendar year the facility conducts animal feeding operations. (4) "CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS" "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" , means a concentrated, confined animal or poultry growing operation (facility) for meat, milk or egg production 2 or stabling, in pens or houses wherein the animals or poultry are fed at the place of confinement for 45 days or longer in any 12 month period and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in the area of confinement. Two or more animal-feeding operations under common ownership or management are deemed to be a single animal-feeding operation if they are adjacent or utilize a common area or system for manure disposal. "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Average Working Capacity, of 1,000 or more animal units as defined in this regulation, or (b) Case-by-case designation under one of the following criteria: • i) Pollutants are discharged into waters of the state through a manmade ditch, flushing system or other similar manmade device; or ii) Pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the state which originate outside of the facility and pass over, across or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the animals confined in the operation; or (c) The animal feeding operation is in a location which reasonably could be expected to adversely affect a hydrologically sensitive area. (5) "DIRECTOR" "Director" refers to the Director of the Water Quality Control Division. (6) "EXPANDED FACILITY" An "Expanded Facility" is a concentrated animal feeding operation which is increased in physical area or average working capacity by one third of the existing capacity on or after the effective date of this amendment. (7) "HOUSED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION" "Housed animal feeding operation" is an operation with totally roofed buildings with open or enclosed sides 3 wherein livestock or poultry are housed on solid concrete or dirt floors, slotted (partially open) floors over pits or manure collection areas in pens, stalls or cages, with or without bedding materials and mechanical ventilation. For the purposes of this subchapter, the term housed lot includes the terms slotted floor building, barn, stable, or house, for livestock or poultry, as these terms are commonly used in the agriculture industry. (8) "HYDROLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA" "Hydrologically Sensitive Area" includes: Areas where significant groundwater recharge occurs or where contamination from animal feeding operations could impact existing drinking water withdrawals, classified uses, or reasonably likely future public drinking water system withdrawals,- areas where animal feeding operations could impair water bodies subject to antidegradation review or classified for Class 1 Recreation or Class 1 Aquatic Life. (9) "MAN-MADE DRAINAGE SYSTEM" "Kan-made drainage system" means a drainage ditch, flushing system, or other drainage device which was constructed by man and is used for the purpose of transporting wastes. (1 0) "MANURE" "Manure" is defined as feces, urine, litter, bedding, or feed waste from animal feeding operations. (11) "NEW FACILITY" A "new facility" is an operation which was constructed on or after August 30, 1992 . (12) "NO DISCHARGE" The term "no-discharge" shall be defined as no- discharge of manure or process wastewater to waters of the state except in the event of an applicable design storm event specified in section in 4. 8 .3 (b) . (13) "OPEN ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION" "Open animal feeding operation" consists of pens or similar confinement areas with dirt, concrete, or other paved or hard surfaces wherein animals or poultry are substantially or entirely exposed to the outside 4 environment except for small portions of the total confinement area affording protection by windbreaks or small shed-type shade areas. For the purposes of this regulation, the term open animal feeding operation is synonymous with the terms yard, pasture lot, ,didirt tellot, and dry lot, for livestock or poultry, as are commonly used in the agricultural industry. (14) "OPERATOR" "Operator" means any individual, partnership or corporation, or association doing business in this state. (15) "PROCESS WASTEWATER" "Process wastewater" means any process-generated wastewater and any precipitation (rain or snow) which comes into contact with any manure or any other raw material or intermediate or final material or product used in or resulting from the production of animals or poultry or their direct products (e.g. , milk, eggs) . (16) "PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM" "Public Drinking Water System" means a system for the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least u25 5ippersons daily at least 60 days out of the y_P . A drinking system includes both community and non- community systems. (17) "REACTIVATED FACILITY" A "Reactivated Facility" is a concentrated animal feeding operation which has been in a non-operating status for three consecutive years and is reactivated on or after August 30, 1992 . (18) "RECONSTRUCTED FACILITY" • A "Reconstructed Facility" is a concentrated animal feeding operation which is reconstructed on or after August 30, 1992 , due to damage from a flood, fire, dilapidation or reconfiguration of the facility. (19) "SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE" "Significant groundwater recharge" is defined as high or very high seepage rates as determined using the methods described in SCS NENTC-Engineering Geology 5 Technical Note No. 5 attached as Appendix A or other authoritative document as approved by the Division. (20) "TEN YEAR TWENTY-FOUR HOUR STORM" AND "TWENTY FIVE-YEAR TWENTY-FOUR HOUR STORM" "Ten year twenty-four-hour storm" and "twenty-five year twenty-four-hour storm" mean a storm of a 24-hour duration which yields a total precipitation of a. magnitude which has a probability of recurring once every ten or twenty-five years, respectively, as shown in Appendix B. (21) "VADOSE ZONE" "VADOSE ZONE" means the zone between the land surface and the water table. It includes the area beneath the root zone, intermediate zone, and -capillary fringe. Saturated bodies, such as perched ground water, may exist in the vadose zone, also called zone of aeration and unsaturated zone. (22) "WATERS OF THE STATE" "Waters of the State" means any and all surface and subsurface waters which are contained in or flow in or through this state, except waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water withdrawn for use until use and treatment have been completed. 4 . 8 .3 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (A) General Performance Requirements Concentrated animal feeding operations are required to be operated as no-discharge facilities. Compliance with the no-discharge provision can only be achieved by installation and operation of adequate manure and process wastewater collection, storage and land application facilities. (1.) Open concentrated animal feeding operations shall control all manure and process wastewater including flows from the animal areas and all other flows from an applicable storm event. Control of manure and process wastewater from open concentrated animal feeding operations may be accomplished through use of retention basins, terraces, or other runoff control methods. In 6 addition, diversions of uncontaminated surface drainage prior to contact with the concentrated animal feeding operation or manure storage areas maybe required by the Division in order to prevent water pollution. (2) Housed concentrated animal feeding operations shall control manure and process wastewater produced in the periods conf finement. enclosures between P ods of disposal. from Control of manure and process wastewater ns may to housed animal feeding op be accomplished through use of earthen henhstorage structures (such as lagoons or basins) , formed storage tanks (such as other concrete, steel, or wood tanks) , or control methods. Sufficient capacity shall be provided in the control structures to store all manure and process wastewater between periods of disposal. Additional capacity shall be provided if precipitation r sources thed manureand fprocess rom ewastewater c an enter control structures. • (E) Design Criteria (1) An operator of an existing concentrated n imal74 feeding operation constructed prior to Ap riI 16,and operated continuously process wastewater ormstormwatere shall t runoff from manure, p result of the fecualttoor state excesswaters ofexcept amount the result storms t ten-year 24-hour storm. The 10 year resulting fstorm rm a d applies to all 24-hour event design criterion kes, berms, stormwater diversion structures (e.g. ditches) asll as nure and process wastewater structures. (a) Any discharge to state waters shall be as the result of excess flow or overflow beyond the properly designed and constructed retention onure or capability or hydraulic cap Y of process wastewater control structures. or discharge shall not result from dewalowering of the process wastewater level or solids storage level below the design retention capability of the control structures. (b) A concentrated animal feeding operation which changes ownershiP or increasesaverage capacity shallnot dischargemanureanworking d process 7 • wastewater or storm run-off water from the feeding operation to state waters except as the result of storms in excess of a 25-Year 24-Hour storm event. (2) An operator of a concentrated animal feeding operation constructed after April 16, 1974 , or constructed earlier, but inactive for longer than three consecutive years after that date, shall design, construct and operate control structures as necessary to retain and dispose without discharge all manure and process wastewater produced by the facility and all storm run-off which enters the facility as the result of precipitation equal to or less than the amount resulting from a twenty-five-year twenty-four-hour storm. ' (3) Runoff volume from the concentrated animal feeding operation surface shall be determined from soil cover complex curve number 90 for unpaved lots, or soil cover complex curve number 97 for paved lots, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A. ) Soil Conservation Service and as depicted in Appendix C. The director may approve the use of a different soil cover complex curve number on a case-by- case basis. (C) Operation and Maintenance Requirements (1) Manure and Process Wastewater Removal: Accumulations of manure and process wastewater shall be removed from the control retention structures as necessary to prevent overflow or discharge from the structures. Manure and process wastewater stored in earthen storage structures (lagoons or earthen storage basins) shall be removed from the structures as necessary to maintain a minimum of two feet of freeboard in the structure, unless a greater level of freeboard is required to maintain the structural integrity of the structure or to prevent overflow. (2) To ensure that adequate capacity exists in the control structures to retain all manure and process wastewater produced during periods when land application or disposal operations cannot be conducted (due to inclement weather conditions, lack of available land disposal areas, or other factors) , manure and process wastewater shall be removed from the control structures as necessary prior to these periods. • (3) Off-site drainage diversion: When animal confinement areas and manure stockpiles must be isolated from outside surface drainage by ditches, pipes, dikes, berms, terraces or other such structures, these diversion structures shall be maintained to carry peak flows expected at times when the applicable design storm event occurs. All manure stockpile areas shall constructed and be maintained so as to retain all rainfall which comes in contact with the stockpiles. (4) Adequate equipment shall be available on site or provided for in a written agreement for the removal of accumulations of manure and process wastewater as required for compliance with the provisions of this section. (5) Process wastewater retention structures shall be equipped with either irrigation or evaporation systems capable of dewatering the. retention structures. (a) For irrigation disposal systems, except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, whenever 50% of the design runoff storage capacity is exceeded by accumulated runoff, sediment, manure, or process-generated wastewater, the retention structure shall be dewatered to a level that restores the full runoff storage capacity and the dewatering process shall be completed within a 15-day period. If the irrigation system is not capable of dewatering the retention structures as required herein, sufficient additional storage capacity shall be provided in lieu of dewatering capabilities upon written approval of the director, and under such terms and conditions as the director may specify. • (b) Evaporation systems shall be designed to withstand a 10-year period of maximum recorded rainfall, as determined by a water budget analysis process which includes manure and process wastewater loading during that period and provides sufficient freeboard to retain all rainfall and rainfall runoff from the applicable design storm event without overflow. 9 4 . 8 .4 GROUND WATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - CONCENTRATEQ ANIM_ EDING OPERATIONS (A) Manure and Process Wastewater Retention Structures Except as provided in subsection 4.8.4 (B) and (C) , below, all process wastewater retention structures shall be constructed of compacted or in-situ earthen materials or other very low permeability materials, and shall be maintained, so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1/32."/day (1 X 10-6 cm/sec. ) . The operator shall have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting the requirements of this subsection 4.8.4 (A) was constructed. (1) 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" ; (2) Very low permeability materials include flexible membrane linings, asphalt sealed fabric liners, and bentonite sealants. Installation of very low permeability materials shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's installation specifications; (3) Alternative methods of lining, other than those described in subsections (1) and (2) above, require prior written approval of the Director. (B) Retention structures which collect storm water runoff from open animal feeding operations and no other waters except, if any, water which has not come into contact with manure or process wastewater, such as boiler cooling water or flow-through livestock drinking water, shall be constructed of a material and maintained so as not to exceed a seepage rate of 1/4" per day (1 X 10-5 cm/sec. ) , provided that the retention structure is dewatered so that the full runoff storage capacity is restored within 15 days of the storm event, consistent with the provisions of Section 4 . 8 . 5. (C) Earthen retention structures in existence as of August 30, 1992, shall be exempt from the requirement to have available suitable evidence that a completed lining meeting the requirements of subsection 4 . 8.4 (A) has been constructed. Whenever the Director makes a determination that seepage of nutrients or other pollutants from manure or process wastewater into ground water occurs at a rate greater than allowed in this section, the Director may require compliance with the provisions of subsections (A) (1) , (2) , or (3) of this section. 10 (D) Manure and Process Wastewater Conveyance Structures: (1) Manure and process wastewater conveyance structures shall be designed and constructed to prevent exceedances of applicable water quality standards or impairment of existing or classified beneficial uses. (2) Infiltration of process wastewater 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. OF MANURE AND PROCESS 4. 8 . 5 BENEFICIAL STEWATER - CONCENTRATED AND DISPOSAL ANIMAL EED NG OPERATIONS (A) If land application is utilized for disposal of manure or process wastewater, the following requirements shall apply: (1) Manure and process wastewater shall not be distributed on agricultural lands in a manner that adversely affects the quality of waters of the state by causing exceedances of applicable water quality standards, numerical protection levels or impairment of existing beneficial uses. (2) 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. (3) There shall be no discharge to waters of the state resulting from land application activities when the ground is frozen, saturated or during rainfall events. 4) Sprinkler type land application systems shall be equipped with a backflow prevention device or an air gap between the irrigation well pump at the water source and the point of injection of the process wastewater. This equipment shall prevent process wastewater from being pumped, drained or siphoned into the irrigation water source if fresh water is being applied along with the wastewater. Any system which is in compliance with the requirements of the Colorado Chemigation Act Section 35, 11-101 et. sea. C.R.S. (Supp. 1990) , shall be deemed in compliance with this requirement. 11 (5) The land application rate' for manure and process wastewater shall be limited by the operator as set forth in 4.8. 5 (A) (5) (a) , (b) , or (c) , below. Subsections (a) and (b) pertain to seasonal land application activities based on sound agronomic practices. Subsection (c) pertains to more continuous and intensive land application activities based on a combination of crop uptake and land treatment techniques. (a) Operators may avoid the cost and effort associated with a site-specific agronomic analysis as described in subsection (b) below if no supplemental or commercial fertilizers are utilized in addition to the manure and process wastewater generated by the facility, and if the proper land application rate is based on the applicable data presented in Appendices D and E. Crop nitrogen uptake rates shall be computed as shown in Appendix D based on the specified crop yields. In addition, the operator shall rely on the table values for total nitrogen content in manure and process wastewater as shown in Appendix E in computing the proper application rate. The operator shall limit application based on the assumption that all of the total nitrogen applied from manure and process wastewater is plant available during the year following the manure application. (b) Operators may apply manure and process wastewater on a year to year basis at rates greater than allowed in subsection (a) above based on a site-specific agronomic analysis that includes, all plant available nutrient inputs from manure/process wastewater, irrigation water, legumes, residual soil nutrients, and soil organic matter, based upon site specific soil, water and manure/process wastewater analyses. These data, plus the yield goal for the crop to be grown, will be used to calculate appropriate manure/process wastewater and supplemental fertilizer nutrient additions. Management factors such as manure handling, application method, tillage, irrigation regime, cropping and grazing patterns and site factors such as soil texture, slope, and aspect will be used to modify the manure/process wastewater application rates. 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 12 available for inspection at the facility and records shall be maintained for a minimum of three years. (c) Operations which land apply manure or process wastewater in an amount exceeding the agronomic rates determined under subsection (5) (b) or on continuous or near continuous basis must comply with this subsection (5) (c) . (i) No later than 180 days following August 30, 1992 for existing facilities and prior to land application for new facilities or facilities planning to calculate their land application rate pursuant to this subsection (c) , the operator shall submit for the Division's approval, a land application plan designed to demonstrate that said rate will not result in exceedances of applicable water quality standards or numerical protection levels established pursuant to subsection 4 .8. 5 (A) (5) (c) (iv) . The required land application plan must include, at a minimum: (I) The site-specific agronomic analysis required in subsection 4 .8 .5(A) (5) (b) , (II) An analysis, based on site-specific conditions, documenting the expected removal of nitrogen and other nutrients or pollutants, beyond thatoccurs h as a result of plant uptake,which g physical, chemical and biological mechanisms such as volatilization, oxidation, adsorption, cation exchange, and denitrification; and (III) If deemed necessary by the Director, a monitoring plan designed to demonstrate that land application practices will not result in exceedances of applicable water quality standards or numerical protection levels. This monitoring plan may include such procedures as deep soil tests below the root zone, and water quality monitoring in the vadose and saturated zones of groundwater at the site. (ii) The Division shall review the land application plan described in subsection 13 4.8.5(A) (5) (c) (i) to determine whether the plan is adequate to demonstrate that the proposed land application rate will not result in exceedances of applicable water quality standards or numerical protection levels. The Division may grant an interim authorization for land application at a rate calculated pursuant to this subsection (c) in cases where it cannot make a determination as to whether exceedances of water quality standards or numerical protection levels will result, provided a monitoring plan as described in subsection 4.8.5 (A) (5) (c) (i) c)(i) (III) is implemented by the operator. operator shall submit all monitoring data to the Division. The Division may require the operator to update or modify the land application plan as necessary to address conditions revealed upon implementation of the monitoring plan. (iii) The operator may be required to demonstrate that land application practices at the facility are resulting guinity exceedances of applicable water standards or numerical protection levels at a point of compliance established by the Division in accordance with section 3 . 11. 6 (D) C 10 Basic 8 . SIfntheos for site monitoring data Water CCR 1002-8) . obtained through the operator's implementation of the monitoring plan approved by the Division pursuant to subsection 4.8.5 (A) (5) (c) (ii) , or obtained otherwise, reveals that nutrients or other pollutants are leaching into the vadose zone beneath or downgradient from any application site, the Division may require the operator to monitor the ground water at a point prior to the point of compliance. Where a modeled attenuation of pollutants in the vadose zone or in the ground water has been used as a basis for determining ir ngthat applicable water quality standards numerical protection levels will be met at the point of compliance, the Division may require detection wells or other monitoring along one or more lines parallel with the flow path in order to demonstrate that the predicted attenuation is taking place. Absent such demonstration, the Division may require the operator to alter the land application rate to ensure that no leaching 14 of nutrients or other pollutants into the vadose zone or ground water takes place. (iv) Applicable water quality standards for purposes of this regulation includes ground water quality standards adopted by the Commission. Where applicable ground water quality standards have not been adopted by the Commission, the Division will establish numerical protection levels based on the existing and any reasonably probable future beneficial uses of ground water, as outlined in section 3.11.5 (b) of the Basic standards for Ground Water (5 CCR 1002-8) , which need to be protected in the vicinity of the discharge. (v) The Division's determination of a numeric protection level pursuant to subsection 4 .8 . 5 (A) (5) (c) (iv) above, will not be deemed to constitute a ground water quality classification or standard, and will not be binding on any persons other than the operator in question. If the operator or any other interested person disagrees with the numeric protection level determination made by the Division, the operator or the interested person may petition the Commission to adopt site-specific classification and standards. Ar. determination made by the Commission during the hearing process would then become binding on the Division and the operator. At the request of the operator or interested person, the Commission will consider such a hearing to be mandatory and de novo. (vi) Operators which land apply manure and process wastewater at a rate provided in this subsection 4 .8.5 (A) (5) (c) shall be required to submit a manure and process wastewater management plan described in section 4.8.7 , which shall include the land application plan required under this subsection 4 .8 .5 (A) (5) (c) . (6) Other process wastewater disposal methods: If the operator proposes to use innovative methods of disposal prior written approval from the director must first be obtained. 15 • (B) Treatment and Discharge: If treatment other than land application is utilized prior to discharge to state waters a CDPS permit shall be required for the operation. 4 . 8. 6 ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be utilized by animal feeding operations, as appropriate based upon existing physical conditions, and site constraints. Best management practices means, for purposes of this regulation, activities, procedures, or practices necessary for the reduction of impacts from animal feeding operations, as described in 4 .8.6. The following practices to decrease runoff volume from animal feeding operations are BMPs within the meaning of this regulation: (1) Operators of animal feeding operations shall divert runoff from uncontaminated areas away from animal confinement areas and manure and process wastewater control facilities to the maximum extent practicable through: (a) Construction of ditches, terraces or other waterways; (b) Installation of gutters, downspouts and buried conduits to divert roof drainage; (c) Construction of roofed areas over animal confinement areas everywhere it is practicable. (2) Practices to decrease open lot surface area: (a) Where practicable, operators of animal feeding operations shall: (i) Reduce lot size; (ii) Improve lot surfacing to support increased animal density; (iii) Provide roofed area to the maximum extent practicable. _ (iv) Collect manure frequently; and (v) Eliminate animal confinement areas and manure and process wastewater control facilities in areas 16 that slope in directions such that wastewater/rainfall cannot be collected. (3) Practices to decrease water volume: (a) operators of animal feeding operations shall repair or adjust waterers and water systems to minimize water wastage. (b) Operators of animal feeding operations shall use lowest practical racticalea namounts of water for manure and process (c) Water used to flush manure from paved surfaces or housed confinement areas shall be recycled if practical and applicable. (4) Practices to decrease wastewater discharges to watercourses: (a) Operators of animal feeding operations shall collect and allow wastewater to evaporate. (b) Operators of animal feeding operations shall collect and evenly apply wastewater to land at proper agronomic rates. (c) Operators shall not deposit such material which might pollute waters of the state in such locations that storm water run-off or normally expected high stream flow will carry such material into the waters of the state. (d) Process wastewater retention structures eshall not be located within a mapped 100 year flood plain as designated and approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCS) unless proper flood proofing measures (structures) are designed and constructed. (5) Practices to minimize solid manure transport to watercourses: (a) Manure stockpiles shall be located loawaway ylfrom o as watercourses and above the 100 year fdesignated and approved by CWCBussadequate flood proofing structures are provided. (b) Operators of animal feeding operations shall rage caacitY provide manure based on. 17 • (c) Settleable solids shall be removed by the use of solids-setting basins, terraces, diversions, or other solid removal methods. Construction of solids-settling facilities shall not be required where the division determines existing site conditions provide adequate settleable solids removal. (d) Removal of settleable manure and process wastewater solids shall be considered adequate when the velocity of waste flows has been reduced to less than 0.5 foot per second for a minimum of five minutes. Sufficient capacity shall be provided in the solids-settling facilities to store settled solids between periods of manure and process wastewater disposal. (e) Operators of animal feeding operations shall apply solid manure to suitable agricultural land at appropriate times and rates through the following practices: (i) Adjustment of timing and rate of applications to crop needs, in assuming usual nutrient losses, expected precipitation and soil conditions; (ii) Avoidance of applications on saturated soils; and (iii) Avoidance of land subject to excessive erosion. (f) Operators of animal feeding operations shall use edge-of-field, grassed strips filter fences or straw bales to separate eroded soil and manure particles from the field runoff. (g) Off-site areas for manure shall b ap applied lied in a manner consistent with paragraphs ( ) (4) of this section. (6) Practices to Protect Groundwater. (a) Operators of animal feeding operations shall locate manure and process wastewater management facilities hydrologically downgradient and a minimum horizontal distance of 150 feet from all water supply wells. (b) When applying manure and process wastewater to land, operators of animal feeding operations shall utilize a buffer area around water wells 18 sufficient to prevent the possibility of waste transport to groundwater via the well or well casing. 4 .8 .7 MANURE AND PROCESS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS All new, reactivated, reconstructed or expanded concentrated animal feeding operations and existing concentrated animal feeding operations which have been determined by the Director to be in significant noncompliance with these regulations shall submit a manure and process wastewater management plan to the Division. The Division will provide comments on the adequacy of the plan within 45 days of receipt of such submittal, except for the land application plan portion, if required, the review of which is governed by subsection 4.8.5(A) (5) (c) . This plan, shall include details demonstrating the facilities' adequacy to comply with these regulations. The plan, at a minimum, shall include the following: legal owner, local contact, legal description of the site, surface area of the site along with a drainage schematic, the design animal unit capacity, storm water and wastewater conveyance facilities, manure and process wastewater containment and treatment facilities, and information on the manure and process wastewater disposal sites. The Division may require additional information characterizing the manure and process wastewater if deemed necessary to insure protection of state waters. Process wastewater retention structures or manure 00- stockpiles shall not be located within a mapped year floodplain as designated and approved by CWCB unless proper flood proofing measures (structures) are designed and constructed. Facility designs as required under this section shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer, the USDA Soil Conservation Service or qualified Agricultural Extension Service Agent or other individual with demonstrated expertise in the design of such facilities. 4 .8 .8 MINITORING Existing concentrated animal feeding operations which are in compliance with the provisions of sections 4 . 8 .3 , 4 .8.4 , and 4.8.5 shall not be required to conduct water quality monitoring except as provided under subsection 4.8.5 (A) (5) (c) . The Division may request the Commission to require an operator rof concentrated animal feeding operation to perform site- specific water quality monitoring whenever the Division determines that the facility poses a significant potential risk to beneficial uses of state waters. In making a determination of whether monitoring should be 19 required pursuant to this control regulation, the Commission may consider .factors which include but are not limited to: the size of the operation, the economic impact of the proposed monitoring activities, whether there is suspected contamination of state waters attributable to the facility, whether early detection of groundwater contamination is essential to protect valuable drinking water sources, and whether there has been a significant failure on the part of the operator to comply with this regulation and such significant noncompliance indicates there is a high probability that applicable water quality standards or numerical protection levels may be violated. FEEDLOT.99 • 20 FRBRUARY 3 , 1999 BUSKER DAIRY COMPARISON OF AERIALS OCTOBER 14, 1997 APRIL 22, 1998 4 lagoons 6 lagoons *Lagoons not engineered nor built plus seep with permits 14 rows manure 35 rows manure *Stores for only 870 head and/or storage storage 100-125 head per pen by his testimon: ' before planning 12-15-98 i 57 calf huts 65 calf huts • 6 trailers 7 trailers *Is 7th trailer now legal since he no longer lives in it? I believe he has ZPMH permits for 6 mobile homes plus his residence. According to Scott ' s testimony before the Weld County Commissioners on August 16 , 1995 in his application for ZPMH ,#1969 , 70 , 71, &72 , he bagan milking November of 1994. He purchased the property June of 1994. Comparison of Current Operation and Request Current Requested 9 Pens 15 Pens Pens would have to contain 233 head to accomodate 3, 500 head milking herd. 7 Trailers 15 Trailers Including his previous residence. / 6 Lagoons Unknown # of lagoons can' t be determined until engineered as required by Confined Animal Feeding Regulations (CAFR) of Aug. 1992 . CURRENT LAGOONS CANNOT BE CRANDFATHERED 125 acres 125 acres Can this site accomodate the proposed 3500? 4, 900 animal units (at the 1 . 4 CAFR ratio) CAFR designates a mature dairy cow as 1. 4 head due to the increased volume of waste due to production. EXHIBIT iz. i1i1 1111eux • ,g,1,-te-k. 1'' , O-,-,r-vv), . •' ' f __ _ .V.1%.. i 'J... {'per ti , ,.., 5,- 44‘,,,.....„.....,,,,, Re s., ,..,,,/,,.: .- ,....5.l ♦ 2 J, t� I s: „..".''',..,,t--i J8.g a +N.. :.r f F 1,' '''. '' ' '' ''t''') ACIlk." '' '''''"40';'..W. '.. mil, .1/4 If //'• .. ' .1—.: • . \\\ • :' -•' I , -, :- - IF., ,( 7...4::',.;:;,•.,si, ,.......,_,I. a, .0,i • : ,'.I. \.1.. : ''' '''','"':- :::',...:414 ' ; -.. L,.,,,,,....;:4 . . ( 40 i •-,,.. ,,,,‘.. , . ., , , • .:4.1:44t,t . .. -t�X .� .�t: :u. kt', a ,'.S•T R. m ♦..K•'41 r ti yy�.�� jy� Kl'i 5 n 0 }f, o �_ ..+tl:;: II . , -,.,,-;,.„:„...4a,.-, ,- i .fir 4 fq }lit-_ xf J III - I ...:«- 'y.it v H t{, Vii° _ _.. -' . ,- c,, ,'.,:, ,,,.•!,.„, ,.,,,,,,.,,,, .:, , .hYfiad 0 l:a 4 ____ rl .� dNMd0 r ii' I NM ■ --- - .. ay. .4. p SP. 1 t= . - -..-44400411W"'"':-., *AMP { 1 k. ki L� �t" F 4 ��` ••'•• f," ,«i�.- v .~` 3/ MST .p �woAs � ,wts c+tee 'T�► . 7+';':. a+4+�+'n' 'm+�s.. ua. v �k yp4 1 , - hdi a yy i f "-V yYS ..1 A �^. � A+.yam,II Y'11. S k - •. C ,.. 1 'S{513, : o'''' 0..4 :, i 91g'.1-', ,,--..,,,, . , . I i •,.gill • dr .. r � ` ., ,s is 1 i:,-.,, / .-, -a 3 .r _ t , .,„., .,-.',.,-;1'04jf- ,,- s', ' '"..`, .-...., .,''!',-..'We Aar*,, awl.r. ,•,,',,-;;,-,,-,:,:,,,' : i • . C C , ' FI 2N!1 pawl Se',Wil 1/ ..12 .1 : i r fXMIRiT CL RESOLUTION P 7-oz- RE: APPROVE MOBILE HOME PERMITS#1969,#1970,#1971,AND#1972-BUSKER WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County,Colorado, and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on the 16th day of August, 1995, considered the request of Busker Dairy, Go Scott and Susan Busker, 7678 Weld County Road 17, Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621, for four accessory structures to farm, and WHEREAS, said structures are to be occupied in an A (Agricultural) Zone District on a parcel of land being more particularly described as follows: Located in Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS,at said hearing on August 16, 1995,the Board deemed it advisable to continue said matter to August 30, 1995,and WHEREAS, at said hearing on August 30, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners, having heard the testimony, finds that said request should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a building permit for each mobile home prior to locating the mobile home on the property. 2. Prior to the occupancy of the mobile homes,the mobile homes shall be connected to an approved septic system and a legal water supply. 3. The mobile homes shall not be occupied until such time that the applicant has complied with Conditions 1 and 2 above. 4. Access to the mobile homes shall be by the existing access. 5. The mobile homes as accessories to farm are temporary. The mobile homes shall be removed upon cessation of use of mobile homes as accessories to farm. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the request of Busker Dairy for permission to place four accessory structures to farm on the above described parcel of land,which was found to be in compliance with Section 43 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, be, and hereby is, granted subject to the hereinabove listed conditions. 951830 C'C /2J ,ozzfi 'er PL0992 To: Board of County Commissioners Date: August 16, 1995 ZPMH-1969, 1970, 1971, & 1972 Applicant: Busker Dairy This request is for 4 mobile homes to be used as accessories to the farm. Legal Description of Parcel: Located in the SW/4 of Section 28, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location: East and adjacent to Weld County Road 17; approximately 1600' north of Weld County Road 16. The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the request be approved for the following reasons: WILL WILL NOT X Be compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. X Be compatible with the surrounding area. • X Be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood. X Adversely affect the immediate area. X _ Be adequately served by water and sewage disposal facilities. Adversely affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County. COMMENTS: The Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The applicant applying for a building permit for each mobile home prior to locating the mobile home on the property. 2. Prior to the occupancy of the mobile home' the mobile home,.shall be connected to an approved septic system and a legal water supply. 3. The mobile home shall not be occupied until such time that the applicant has complied with Conditions 1 and 2 above. 4. Access to the mobil homes shall be by the existing access. Todd A. Hodges Cu nt Planner Orkte Lbltl°i. S" Weld County Comprehensive Plan 1. "It is important that Weld County representatives and officials recognize their role in reducing the conflicts between agricultural uses and residential, commercial, and industrial uses." (Page 2-2 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan) 2. A. Policy 2 states that agricultural businesses and industries will be encouraged to locate in areas that minimize the removal of prime agricultural land from production. 3. When growth at the municipality/county level is not coordinated, problems such as incompatible adjacent land uses and inconsistent engineering standards occur. (Page 3-1 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan) 4. "When a municipality and the County enter into an urban growth boundary agreement, the County agrees to abide by the municipality's vision for future development in the area." (The first sentence of page 3-2 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan) a. Paragraph 4.3(g) of Weld County's IGA with Firestone states, "To the extent legally possibly pursuant to the Plan and the County's land use regulations as described in Section 3.2, the County will deny proposals for Non-Urban Development in the Urban Growth Area." 5. UGB.Goal 1 states that Weld County will assist each municipality in establishing an intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreement. 6. UGB.Goal 2 states that the "County will concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing municipalities . . . and maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation between future urban and non-urban uses." 7. UGB.Goal 3 states that the County and municipalities should coordinate land use planning in urban growth boundary areas, including development policies and standards, etc. $94 2/315i .,ELI.,- (,L.)A I L6c:, (ES L) C '•: '` , 1� ! D AJ ' A r G t? p 6c, 4 �c.7 Fr, Cowi..)5 Y I'w 4m RY-A nit- l'i i u t C ,.s i',4 1,t .0 f/r.d pt-, .,,.p L,c,, I, -,-j'r1. ,. , rly.. ""17 ,, ,� /)( ))�;)Yy — P iii,'- ,P7 , r1 1 1, f 1 L lir t 1 i ! LU.'4 E.—tom" N 27v/C. l ikr. , - _ • '17, OM Pr,-,< (15 so I hs P rt1/4 A a) z, ( -P--•\ Lr7 wS /✓IJ P. 1 NJ66 j f wTAIC.&. / 22. — 7. % DM ft p m - 37, (Di/ i-52.)'9 ) = /0 lbs Jr r i 7)1 ter Roc-i'S Sy0vcn do cne-) )FC✓E 1,r/t_`>.k- uC�,5 InJ bJ It;\_.)1%0 G^ `HI t: Cr ,/ te' ,c ( 7/(; it / ..7 /91/ 0990402E TA" st , A 6t2/1 Fi n 4:14- ry OP,2A? 7 ri �i, .Z ,9k 1 6r, t/-evc-,=' l f�C.�' /61.4/V #612,E-PG,vir,.J 70'S 4. , 6..L GG 10O,4-k- Sictir€tiA,,/-y wCCG. /eccjQ .calk i;t/-7�,/I / qFr l hD ( ibect-eZ__. i I if f wR CEarlF..,c'% / Hello