The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About952352.tiffSeptember 12, 1995 Weld County Department of Planning P.O. Box 459 1402 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Moark Hatcheries, LLC - Use by Special Review for Commercial Egg Production Facility Dear Sir or Madam: SE- 1 5 .0‘a.'‘) C J U u l u I would like to express my concern over and objection to the possible approval of the above - referenced egg production/processing facility. Having reviewed a number of the details of the proposal, I do not agree that this facility will be an "improvement to" or "compatible with" the surrounding community. The applicant has indicated that the total number of individuals employed by this facility will be from 21 - 48 yet they only indicate 12 employee vehicles per day using the road. If my calculations serve me correctly, using the minimum number of employees they indicate (21), and if at least 3/4s of these people must travel to and from work (assuming 1/4 will remain on the presmises), a total of at least 16 vehicles will be commuting which does not equate to the 12 vehicles they have assumed, using the county road for access. As the plant grows, it is obvious that more that 12 employee vehicles will be accessing the site. This does not include visitors, buyers, drivers, marketing personnel, etc. They have also indicated five semi tractor -trailers will be accessing the site daily --I find it very difficult to believe that as the plant grows only five semis a day will be traveling to the facility. How many trucks will it take to haul the eggs produced from the plant, to haul debris and trash away, to disburse and haul away the droppings of the chickens, to supply feed for 1.4 million hens? I do not believe the traffic pattern will be increased by only 12 to 25 vehicles a day as indicated by the applicant. I am also concerned about the increase in pests such as flies, gnats, even mice, etc. A feedlot expanded only slightly approximately one mile south of this site being recommended. The increase in flies experienced on our home place was substantial. To progress from a situation where few flies were evident to a situation where flies were bothersome to the point the children 952352 September 12, 1995 Page two could not play outside without being bitten was unacceptable. Spraying for the flies only delayed them for two weeks maximum. And now you want to add to the problem by allowing an additional egg production Weld County Department of Planning Services farm which can only increase the problem substantially. I do not see any indication of controls for pests nor do I believe it will be controlled to assure no increase in pest population. These pests may also be carriers of diseases --I would not wish to be exposed to additional risk. Roggen sits in a slight pocket. With the amount of dust and other fine particles that will be disbursed into the air, I do not believe that this area will be free of a "country smog problem" during the winter months with cold air settling in and an inversion holding it within the area. How will this be dealt with? What will be done to control the odor from this facility? We all know the odor from a small chicken coop can be very potent --multiply that by thousands and it becomes a big problem. If a feedlot only a mile south of this project was denied expansion due to concerns of contamination of ground and water sources, why is this project being considered? It is in the same close proximity that the feedlot is located with the same concerns for clean soil and water. Roggen is only a mile and a half away; the leeching of contaminants will reach more quickly from the proposed location to Roggen than from the feedlot to Roggen. Neither project should be allowed from a contaminant perspective given the high concentration of animals in a small space and the production of manure in the small space provided. Land values would obviously decrease for any property located within three to five miles of such a facility. We should not be required to suffer through the loss of property value for the benefit of one, the community is not realizing an equal exchange in appreciation given the loss they will see from the facility being erected. Finally, the local fire department does not have the equipment nor the facility to support such a complex. It is a volunteer department and I do not believe that a fire which may occur in such a facility would be controllable given the resources available. Kindly consider your decision carefully. A small community will be greatly affected by your decision and we ask you to take its welfare into account. Please deny this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, Renee' Crumb Shareholder of 5M Ranch L// o '� SEP 1 3 199)1 E,Ll L a, UU .r ?i Lci,L LEA ,fi 1'. �7z1 ✓ /�� J F U%%��a�.�yu /.0 /( / ., .h, t4-4 2h�"e 1. /4-- €r_ cs /-4 t 4 44,% � / / _=. mot ,A .i�l„ca r /'g � 2 �A. i/ CI A -o ---j- T. , -, /c a l r,�, . e. 2i(6z71 v' .off ftzt < 7--1/-01-24/4e 4/. / (o-ye.4_,) Dim- OX/!�J `—f `%li,o yo/iii: /(7/, 4 dAc _Z--. / 2 2 - r -, r W.TV SEP 1. 4 1995 Pi) PAEcEriL 7/C-1-tt C71 -c-07 /1.224e-71 /yD6 7C/7' `tel>-1 .-, 4 - Z-- F--_ r/a-jam - ..� 4 `"z`.-`"i a— tiairc q___,_40,,,,,,,,, a_a_a_a , d, -----,L_"--,__—_,____,..„,,,, A .---- -- dea-,`---} a---,----) -,-'� -I. -- -7 c:D c__ i ,,a<_e___ en, --r- 4-er).,i ,.__ / --rr :-?2.tt,713--n-CL----L---- C_ ;-ma-e -c___ vec-cc e —'—?O i2- G° ,-.<-<__ o-ns _ _ 7 rte. —fit o2-.. . -c . %'/2 4 -e -t , ---' -- .. iczr_z_4 _ lEteaap tic frs, cs>/“_r_a__ -n•�-� VP C �" '�' e� .� �� a-- ('7 `Q-rN-t-_ / `- — •� 6�` `'�..� -� � /- ge-t__ -� •-F•756c-c. 19e&' - -- � - a _ 444)It c_A-c.ezt -c> A� �• �� n _ st; ctie q /3 -95 radzP/ ui Ataziair (kaita Az a gristly ocias- 1/1 GeV- be - a' 4° Q5J'3 4)C 73 1 D�1 1j /�'d U ✓ zt aft Szat 2) I- - Ci V l2 U df ��1 do -- rdeti4._ ,L.,._ did z- i “- e '-&; '1Q a yri a%h V(94 / Sr Dn- d Czi� f/, IJL SEP 1 4 1995 9_/3 -95 jJMOet(%)/44 a&' {. t✓� ,ZiA h at lLnat joyntfrd a Q5f3 Cr)C/P 73 X34 AT(' - A} aim f D /E' 7t, Az)n6 G /21' ( j/2 2 4Lz4iZ1/W- v C n) A " 4.414. 4ak 410 LC-tt EXHIBIT I ac 1 C'Pv rani `-)\ SEP 1 4 1995 9_/3 -95 /61 t jV124 ,, ada Afrzzat Q 4 zML neci 0 ,ifAhoc ias- an //e,4670/ 95J3 4) f 23 /6"-r4_ J96_5 --oz �� cl BZ�'21{.-/ �t /., i is . (777 J m 714 die% 7s d L % - ,Cdctia_ 1, a/Le-wiz' t/`A'w`4 M7rfr St to, , ill SEP 1- 4 1995 L7P DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION WE ARE A NEW OWNER IN ROGGEN, WE OWN THE PRAIRIE LODGE MOIEL OUR TENENTS ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS TOWN AND WE WOULD LOSE ALL OF THEM IF THE CHICKEN PEOPLE MOVED IN . NONE OF US WOULD BEABLE TO LIVE HERE., SOME IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE BREATHING PROBLEMS, WE ARE JUST A SMALL TOWN. THE ENVIROMENT CERTINALY WILL BE HARMED WE ALL HAVE WELLS IT WOULD POLUTE ALL OF OUR GROUND WATER. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS VENTURE. - SINCEREL NORMA AND MARVIN MILLER 103 FRONT ST ROGGEN CO 90652 Sett A51/4 E - An Q.s erort O W11en- t11 Ca to x%ctra, o.pFoc t TAe. Ch ;cam flesssAl elvrst y r ap ts429 scot Cica (AJQA0 COwnfitd 12asve) / 1 Ga maltSOLAth orr --ova r �f botte het lar,d Kate en id NA 11-e, wf • / 1-d ,, ne a tig F• --CefaleAn oif -Kt C �5 slayd. /5 (Ll l can e) to be, 1301+, -+ co ).l 1 C a sicia% otur co ateAr, C t,U e, cure, Qv) ) - � w.11 u, )fh cowl SimeA/5.4'-1-. w , / S± )n our h Siottenn.r. c) C,sk 9 rs - c,� VOtU f keJQ /, . a h. -1-Y`, � 5 r(sni- 4, if J SEP 1 4 1995 DEMI eat EXHIBIT a5 7 it 'icE.I,7ti( tl 0472 AalzL Pza Y:C.1 eifteL41,uuteili. _act c. R cam_, w, , LO -4 . ji4 (A t SeC)Ji Sid` VL . A 4u -O , c&- jwa fL c,LL ilo 4- %-A/t.w- EXHIBIT SEP 1 4 1995 vv�8`u legA)iC mac;-reno-a-zoea.� o7aizeni - ��- . 77)any a6L-9 Sto) .�. oratra Sept. 13, 1995 Shani Eastin, Planner Weld County Department of Planning 1400 North 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Madam: We are writing in regard to the Corporation that has purchased -- according to our informant ---the Jim Groves Farm on the west side of Weld County Road 73, on the east side is our property. If this chicken operation materializes as the purchaser hopes it will, then the persons living in a 15 mile radius could be at a great risk healthwise. Wind can takes germs and odors many miles. Having raised chickens on a small scale of 100 to 200 chickens and butchering them, most farmers involved know the smell of burning flesh and feathers; multiply 100 by 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 and it is easy to understand the feelings of the people living in the area. As Colorado has a lot of breeze how are people going to avoid the odor? I'm sure the company has answer for thatbutis it foolproof? What will happen to individuals that have trouble breathing? What effect will the odor have on their lives after the chickens arrive? HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL YOUR DECISION BENEFIT? HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF IT? Please weigh all of the aspects of the chicken operation before making a decision. Is it possible that BIG BUSINESS is more interested in making money at the expense of the communities' health? Respectfully& // Edward and Edith Shelton 10560 WCR# 752 Roggen, CO 80652 u II SEN 1 5 gr September 12, 1995 4220 E. 94th Ave.#F Thornton, CO. 80229 Weld County Planning Tommission Centennial Building P.O.Box 459 Greeley, CO. 80631 Regarding: Moark Hatchries,LLC outside of Roggen, CO. Weld County Commissioners, I am a property owner who's property is located in the proximity of the proposed project. I OBJECT STRONGLY to the placement of the industry in this agricultural area for several reasons. The contamination of ground water in the next few years as water has become a rcmmodity we must all take of. Pollution from the plant due to the fact the area is in a large A roble' bowl and the po'i� _. tinr will cat i n . This will be a �3- P on days when we have a temperature inversion. from the processing will add to the other The smell problems and will add to the fly problem. Chicken_ Hatchr.es is a commercial industry with all of it's s ells. prnble_mc,an_d noises, which T feel is not conducive to the agriculatural use of the land. The large buildings will stick nut like ke an eye sore in a rural area. Traffic will increase to a commercial_ level on WCR 73 which I do not feel is structured for such use. The fertilizer pellets are of little ad.Tantage to the surrounding farming community_ ALL of the above problems will devalue thr properties around the project and I don't feel it will he of an advantage to the FARMING community qt frfc tc; 4°N.itAr Sincerely, 303 -{i,`)0 - j 1c( a Karin Kerns Concerned Propeyrty, Owner sEP y 5 :jyrl` !,11,224, E. -e-'9I T', SEP P 1. 5 1995 et e e„?�,e ..4 LLLA-4J 4-47C —� 76; 7 O,c;t4 {/1_,_{,cryevt 41. ° j,era4— tU „to; ASL,-La U ?ct3 SZ-rHzjic j—tQa CS • nom ..-�- • , c eaz- tc-9) J.) Az 'SCI 1l H.:ttrt il•f r. _r I Ia:u JCL ILL., IfTlL ,' I 1-L.Inu Lam. IlfL �. ._�• cf ULc L(l) ti LL��al,c .1 i:itiv, IL I `•1 -I )C;t Yb, C' rJ I,L it•.lS/ cf HCCfc1,=,1. T'{'11' �i11 f ci `. r. C ()Co v: 1/41 fl'L t _,; ,,s,!L; coil _ .i 71 :i;) r6)I>L`__o \fit. IL CG11G C,r •fi' f'if I1L, Lr ,r, 2, _eft ‘4-Llti tr, IL , -• l L y ^I [i L'. IY• �Il i Li. CIG) T�I.C. It(11.r_5- I'- hLr ".IIL`I)LC, I r, I r• cr III, , -� . 1 /-1 Lt.' Li di: LtJL 11 a, )L1 4/LC fact 4{, ; 4-I,. r,Ipr,in 1 .' f A: ,S Udt t. IE,L;,tUL•1, UI) I- c11 L'', L - nix._ A. -C, ./1ctc:C.,-. Il n[:4[d /)4,)‘/..: Vr L•,C'J "ICi CNdI r/19, it v . ��C.CC.11,� L1 'ft. Lr,.JLe /I) C -Si I/-- _-f)/. i-eiu: L.I 14f n, p�L f 11. _ r I F 11.._,r - �. „ I _ • ^C<-iLit_I i f ,,ri- �;_ 7 C"l..Ni N111] I-1 .,1 I 1-nl�. Lu�1t_� i�'II� 'I {Li,_) - - T L._I, - `il/ir cJI�. CLILdfIi4, b ,-,I1G ILL' el ‘I it ILA SEP 15 ).995 [f; EXHIBIT I t31 E U-01 //m() 1_1-i �_u7__ LJ tH /I , 1Na� ryr- -1- ct a Wu, fi n- cLco c„, _ rte, w e -1\11Cmac. 0 ' - c.aiO cQ => Lirvm LA,457 ,A,cx� ru n cE) (: 3c) 7- SEP 1 5 1.99`) EXHIBIT I 3Q U5 1 -I /r5 l d Tf rL.4314 iv'ti- $c (To DO iv j l-}14,0, vt; lj c 1-F 'cK F c / 0DR Do Wool- D T p s- o f ills /{ RA. 1-• ri rn?fq=Ty SEP 1 5 1995 ! u EXHIBIT I 33 R 3b3- 84P4- 5-8511? 6957 S JAMES S R 77 I..-t"-- ROGGEN, CO 806j2 i 5 1995 SEP L77. AA . 3rL 1, : 1- _ 1.0 -cam- aw ad be7 fat,t a _444;22 i(2e_ az-L, _ a (iocee c -t �.. t:.zi "-Leo} - G 71 y p6 L /9,74 4 VELD COON i r U. _.. 1 SEP 1 5 1995 �11:I8 X22 9t-- / 17156, 612"c ell'tt ft a QL thecc, 7/12"._ 9 -111— 95 , s Qc mcsaYil -._-1 l..s:t:1 At+ir- _ X3.,1."_'SL*7-^-`•, 1.-. l'\.c7C43). _ULc,`It ha . vst -_ �u $ac .4 _ cr.Arwz. P+ csret-, lc��lc •a. �'�.- _ M C�` ..._�•.�c: *v,-sv�n ,. Csn 0-0-1/4-5.2;s4-4;e3Cr-cc . C -I -SC . cjr ke`tc.. i. cx,,-A _. Lo-e_Ci•-•Q c raTh cos' -. c' ,c ,.�,• _�..?�*�.�.__.. 1.vc?.tc,44.,,.�, . c -,mot:, OW) t -,., `c. 0. ,.�e .,,,_.cL' �r�;..r,�l.tiku-.-Ui LL>--S-C 42.Qc -.._. __-r' �C,--�..,s..t_ f. cvtc. _Cn'�nr _ _ - ern 'vt�ux-�'7. ) rrn-SC . C5 ?C?'�Q, \y2j '�,Ll-�.sl _t !rip to_1istur 7 - 'C' ._-...( Si__ -tom'... 1 -�L £,o r?. ..rn“L3 `Cell p033?- a„�+g.... -L: C\ , kV`fib, l _. C�,+S_ pz�,Ar,-C.. 6.. � O—k-'tl•? ... '.r -2J .. c�{`` of st,ni : r'r� _ g _ }V.. ,12J 9P cis - _ uvy cJ sns c i hs t u c� c a ci _tom �,' a c` a' � tran ca• c� M �e , mu d r, _x) Q L. O -w- o C, cl, .. _ SL, 4 i 4. ,,.e dcx ) F �c i 4Q-Q...Jr, JM CI -.r, . k A Q 11Jncn�-Q _... - .C.J fah_ -`, SEP 1 5 1995 L - 1 I� aU iz; EXHIBIT el 56 gp. ;.19 ,ti1'5 5 Weld County Lepartment of Planning 1400 North 17 Ave. Greeley, Co. 80631 Sirs: I and my wife have :,een informed, that the Groves Cattel stanch, has been sold. And the new owners are intending to build a chicken complax on this property. Just4of the SoCo, Gas Plant. We haven't hard if it is to be a ficility for raising broilers or laying hens. We are oppose to either kind of a ficility that close to our home. Which is aproximately three tc four miles from us. Unless the waste from this kind of pperation is really controlled, we will be botherd with odors and flys . We also heard that thier plans are to incenerate the waste. This can make a very unpleasant odor within a five to ten miles. Depending on wind direction. That we are oppose too as we know the odors can be very strong for everyone in the community. Sincerely Gerald E.Sigg Alberta J Sigg 7224 W.C.Rd. 77 Roggen, Co. 80652 Linda A. Shoeneman 8672 WCR 73 Roggen, Colorado 80652 Weld County Planning Commission Centennial Building Greeley Co. 80631 Dear Weld County Planning Commission: In regard to the Special Use Permit being requested by Moark Egg Production Facility. First of all, a Mr. Osborne and his wife visited our ranch in late August to tell us about the proposed facility. They said the facility would house about 3 hundred thousand chickens. Mrs. Osborne also told me that they do not live near their facility in Missouri, in fact they live 25 miles from the facility. This plan should be rejected because it offers no specific time frame for completion of all phases and the information offered is vague at best. If the market for the eggs is so great in larger cities, why are they not locating closer to one of the larger municipalities ? A better place would be the Kersey area --close to Greeley. When the Hog Farm in Kersey went in , the whole plan was to be state of the art and yet the problem of nitrates in the ground water continues'.This company promises state of the art equipment --How, specifically, are you going to monitor the facility in case it has problems? Secondly, Moark hatcheries does not know the nature of this community and I am going to explain it to you. The information they have furnished to you by way of their attorney is very vague and one sided at best. WELD COUNTY PLANNING S EP .i 8 '1995 fl1EcEIv1 Example: In Moark's letter and interrogatory dated August 25, 1995. " It will be a long time before sufficient waste materials justify pelletizing." If Moark has been in business for 35 years, they must have a more specific time frame in mind and if they don't perhaps they haven't thought the whole facility through very completely. Also in Paragraph 2 the attorney's letter says " the town of Roggen and the surrounding agricultural community will benefit." The "town of Roggen" has 3 elevator employees and 1 grain trucker living in it --the balance of the population (about 100) live there because the like the clean air, low traffic, quiet lifestyle. They like agriculture in the form pa . / ioanannisek PENGAO-Bayonne. N.J. K IIIIMMEMMO of cattle pastures, grain fields, etc. not industry like the proposed Egg Plant. They , as well as us , chose to live here because of the quality of life ----which this company is about to destroy. Considering all of the letters of complaint, which you no doubt have received, does this company, his attorney, or even your office "know" what this agricultural community values? The mentioned "feedlot" has only 3000 head of animals and for the last 3 years, has NO animals all summer long. QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 ---in the Weld Co. Comprehensive plan, "without interference of incompatible residential, commercial and industrial land uses" Those of us complaining either own operating farms OR LIVE IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED residential area...ie the town of Roggen. It appears as though Moark Egg Facility is the one who is incompatible with an already existing Agriculture Community who has no intention of becoming "residential". Regarding question 6: At present the "surrounding land" ie. land surrounding the 227 acres of the egg facility is all dryland pasture except the sprinkler, which is only 135 acres, more or less. For at least the last 50 years the land has always been in pasture and might even be highly erodible land , unsuitable for crop production --you would have to check the county maps. If they break out this land, and the land erodes with the west winds, our home and ranch headquarters will be in a direct path. What then ? QUESTION 7: Regarding public health --I am plagued by bronchial problems and cherish the clean air we breath. I understand the air pollution levels for agricultural facilities are substantially less than for municipalities. This whole community sits in a valley with high borders on all 4 sides. When winter comes with the temperature inversions, all of the dust, odor, and pollution will be "trapped" right here.... This facility will TAKE AWAY our clean air NOT enhance it. QUESTION 9: The answer to this question is blatantly uninformed. There are many many farms and adjoining farmsteads within.a 2 mile radius of this facility that WILL be affected in one way or another. ( not to mention the whole town of Roggen ). The picture Moark paints is very different from the way it really is. Have any of you been out here to enjoy the beauty?? We do live in a lovely AGRICULTURAL AREA and we want it to stay that way. This facility is more similar to a commercial or industrial facility NOT SIMILAR to what is already here. WELD COUNTY PLANNii SEP i 8 1997 P 4)71 Guts. of .. /'float / cia, &n&. and i n /%eltJy ,e e=c4:eSu e))161.4cicio 64- moo --e orwt/ ltc,0t, _ c) . G<*d_w pc-Lc-az - 61/4-U, l k � Gc het, erg . �L� dam/ oh -c- A..eo.<dun cc, - 3 A2c orec-, Voter GCndct t, ° t uctt zkref -1- 046;z6 Uz Di /, ov nu.izte 3, cdolr eo-Ca - Daty ,dckto-e de:zu.d ./z /l a- 6;oe deno,_} ot-/ e �C „,d fi �c/ d ar >/-titcc-, G ewe,✓ /ucG c 54 £ it 41? diw- �2�JT.Gr�C�k ✓ �u>vY�✓� A.? G:/lpa-2dey,2a_, `�,,ctetv o,✓ tt2c t eoa_cI 7j - 7-Acc,6 .Cv er- rti /v, 6. R 73 r4 (� a'J � , dem (Or 7.t l � ®) l&r,� �.ar, / 44-La,� an oC (J�� tJ1c psi e�j ee-eo rporif/C 6ir%'l o i- 7truzlcd � 4 U /A .-odeir R)-(6„„„ w Q. oomma d irnlic.4o '144di Mlc,,Ev L icintitzot,W441644 a 4v a iz,U /72olor.(c- -.4c v f) o D L �l�Yn,cn G0Y»mu� -kcod, Z7 �v� /La/ 6j,1 Lu vta Gemce�lii-- If ) �vyC dad /Oh /S-_ - aii,i-e,;-L f- .a �.at �1�� Vc (✓rte &r✓ CJ Mf rp, L- ..r�c� 0 . T7 -/n '2-`r G "� zf Lj T n �ra yec, ,Y c ,t_, 33aK w,C.C Ili September 15, 1995 Weld County Department of Planning Services P.O. Box 459 1402 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Moark Hatcheries, LLC Dear Sir: You continually state your position of compliance with the program. You may be compatible with the agriculture status, but you certainly do not comply with the living standards as to the contamination and smell you will be portioning out to the surrounding community. It is hard to believe and individual would come into the vicinity of a small town and surrounding community that was established around 1900 and set up a business that would surely change the living and lifestyle indefinitely. You are directly located on the water table that runs into Roggen, Colorado. The irrigation wells testify to this. The pollution of the air with odor and flies will directly affect the health and living standards of Roggen and surrounding community day and night, from point of operation on. Your point of being compatible with agriculture may meet some of the fundamentals, but you are missing the basic, most important, long factors of water contamination and air pollution. You do have options. Any responsible individual would give concern and consideration to the need of a more compatible location by moving it back to a more distant area since ground (land), is available as you well know. We all have a right as humans to live a good healthy life which includes good water and clean air. This project would seriously affect these essential qualities. Sincerely, Martin Shoeneman President 5M Ranch MS/sas EXHIBIT AFL Ies 0 i+at-7016144±Snre:4,; (/ c v pzed.ce Fait Lat ,ciatfitcrin44) /ciptc4f,ztiodiov c2 1 fir 1O C, le 73 • t J -� ' 2e v t9 /J a=7: rite_ Scut tenzaka 7 .ct.P44- isq e rrek _ ad 4113 -�-t vs4 .20-44St J. o- . S z- seedal ,�-2teQ . .16 cc o2 ¢ 4/4� tratils24_7( cr., a I. t,.ta A;c f0. p s 5 4r �' c2 a. Lod Creek Flood / I^ A P te-Alt cil Io ..51o1evive k/; f ove4 p U-il rntt.nclL;.r ct,4 €' ctp 8. fa at -2a- ( to �NP.-tN CC.55 3 . &'roct.tict tta) 9 ✓ ceetic .mi rtq,7% I lost CY-eel SS ;17 '5 q Closed 6cus;'• 4. ereadeey &,q'ce of 'Vice. c Pd+v / q�en- �- nso ,oa,`des ,Souvc e- of /Vcder 4 r ��,✓✓%�%2U d�"Q s q� /re.P e✓'ctfa. € 'i2v'e1:5/'dn.5 /4J, // 'hey Da -51) l� Odd ,t ct n J L t�ce : 5 *e e -con 41,st n 'hey 5 /j - a ce0 ti41k; cwt/ {,a 1 e and cart<E1t/ra. 71.Q Melly +4;5- w i ll de ✓.`s e 1 e tI2 e S'a cvou nd " -enstif,taftest t 3q 2&- cua icn _ 4 yt/ _t` at,d -e- a -4a 1 -or • a .eltee aloi? /01,4444 ,r .fie-raia554( September 15, 1995 TO: Shani Eastin, Current Planner FROM: Michael J. Shoeneman, 5M Corporation Shareholder RE: USR-1092 Moark Hatcheries, LLC Dear Ms. Eastin: As a shareholder and board member of the 5M Corporation I would like to oppose Moark Hatcheries, LLC. I feel that these hatcheries would be detrimental to the existing community. The surrounding community consists of small farms and ranches. I feel this hatchery is too large for the community as a whole. The problems that we also face with this large operation stem from ground water pollution due to its size, and air pollution from such a large quantity of chickens. I know of two facilities in Boulder County that have been closed down due to the abundant fragrance in over a two mile radius. The size of these facilities I would guesstimate to be less than half the size of the current proposal. I believe that such an operation with its polluting factors depreciates the value of our property which is located three quarters of a mile from the planned facility. As per the memorandum from Don Carroll, he states there is a commercial cattle feed lot located south of his property. That operation was also proposed to be a large operation, but as due to the reasons as stated above, the community got together and opposed this. The result was a much smaller operation that fits into the community. I also notice from the memorandum that Moark expects to obtain feed and services from the surrounding community. I am somewhat skeptical of this due to the fact that I have seen other large facilities of this type promise the same items and then within a short period of time go to outside suppliers to by in bulk form because it is cheaper....thus not supporting the community. For the above reasons I am apposed to this facility. Respectfully submitted, v2 ""t' /j x611` Michael J. Shoeneman MJS/sas SEp _': EXHIBIT g y3j / 1 Y. Shani EastAn Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Sept 13, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 We are opposed to the proposal to allow, ultimately, a 1.8 MILLION chicken and egg processing factory on Road #73 on just 220 + acres. Our farm and farm residence is 2.6 miles SW of the proposed site. There are 8 more farm families and owners within a 3/4 mile radius of my house. ( The proposal did not accurately represent density near the site) A year ago we bought our 240 acre irrigated farm. One of the primary reasons we bought here, instead of other productive areas, was the zoning regulations that prevent development and supposedly promoted agriculture. This chicken factory is only "agriculture" in that is involves chickens. In every other aspect, it is a major factory that produces major pollution in the air and water, as well as population density that is well beyond the intent of the Zoning regulations. There is an application for 7 homes, evidently on one well, on the permitted site. Added pressure on schools, resulting funding problems, and decaying education quality are but a few of the problems associated with the housing development on the property. The application is vague as to future management of sewage, water management and air pollution. Due to federal exemptions, the sewage holding ponds evidently will not have to be lined. They will sit only feet above the Lost Creek Basin aquifer. That aquifer is already at maximum levels of nitrates and any additional nitrates entering from this huge chicken factory and its residues will flow directly into the Roggin wells. The Manure will be dried in long windrows. Flys, mosquitoes, and other bugs will flourish. As a comparison, the 900,000 chicken factory near Hudson hauls its manure away each day to eliminate the air pollution, bug and pest problems. The future proposed process in manure treatment is vague. Manure treatment was a horrible problem near Keensburg in the recent past at a chicken facility. A problem that evidently shut down the operaton. We do not want that repeated. Prospect Valley is geographically a bowl and, particularly in the winter, the air pollution will probably fill the whole valley. Many of you live in Greeley and I'm sure I do not have to elaborate on that issue. SEPt a EXHIBIT I 4/477 Ei-i jay The same potential could exist for the aquifer nitrate pollution. Lost Creek is a product of the same bowl geography and is a closed basin. My wife visited a chicken facility near Pierce today that Moark owns. It is a mess, with junk around the buildings, a terrible smell downwind, and generally poor conditions. I would strongly suggest the Planning Board and Commission members visit this facility. The mana°ger said there were only about 40,000 chickens being kept there, a far cry from the 1.8 million proposed. It is easy to be an absentee owner that promises the moon. The reality is that the same absentee owner's property, currently in operation on a tiny scale, tells the tale about his "quality operation". My wife and I have also researched a very good One Million chicken operation East of Plattville, Morningfresh. We almost bought a farm a mile NE of Morningfresh and did not because of the air pollution. Momingfresh is the state of the art of Chicken factories and it still produces constant air pollution that occasionally "brings tears to your eyes in the winter" (the owners wife). The potential owner has contracted to buy 2600+ acres. What's next? If you read the zoning language, I don't believe it intended to have an absentee owner buy large quantities of land to qualify for enough water and animal units to consolidate those rights into a very high density factory operation that will damage the delicate environmental and living balance that exists today in Prospect Valley. Help us all preserve this very special valley in Colorado. A valley that truly is a bread basket for Colorado, as well as being a wonderful place to live, farm, and raise families. Moark's 1.8 MILLION CHICKEN AND FERTILIZER FACTORY PROPOSAL in and of itself violates the principles intended in the zoning language for the county. Please don't let the technicality of the word "agriculture" cover up a major factory operation that can bypass environmental laws on the same technicality. This will set a precedent for the future that could turn this area into an extension of Commerce City. This is not just a chicken farm! Many of us have invested heavily in this area because of what it is and what seemed to be the intent of the County to preserve. We are not absentee owners and we have enhanced and preserved the land values in the Valley. If you do not preserve the nature of this valley we will leave and more will not follow. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Wood and Barbara Eppelsheimer c` AMY ^:st 09/18/1995 15:07 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMEP PAGE 01 COVER PAGE === TO: € e' 3 FAX: 7 f 0 - iCz. -03 / z_ FROM: EPPELSHEIMER FAX: 303-732-4643 TEL: 303-732-4643 PAGE[S] TO FOLLOW COMMENT: FINalliagew (Pc asLti ',cs7-4,u/J D(10/JT Ocei< CeTre2 / C c_ 5R /tic ii77 O/t (6 t t" 7--e 0.c —co arse SEp 09/18/95 14:08 TX/RX NO.1915 6cc EXHIBIT I 4/45 P.001 ■ 09/18/1995 15:07 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMER PAGE 02 Sept 13, 1995 33500 WCR#16 Keenesburs, Co- 80643 Shad Bastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave_ Greeley, Colo 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept-, and County Commissioners, We are opposed to the proposal to allow, ultimately, a 1.8 MILLION chicken and egg processing factory on Road #73 on just 220 + acres. Our farm and fans residence is 2.6 miles SW of the proposed site. There are 8 more farm families and owners within s 3/4 mile radius of my house ( The proposal did not accurately represent density near the site) A year ago we bought our 240 acre irrigated tltrm. One of the primary reasons we bought here, instead of other productive areas, was the zoning regulations that prevent development and, we thought, promoted agriculture on the scale that it is currently being practiced in the Valley. We thought the tight Ag directed zoning would protect this type of farm environment. We did not know that the Special Review meant that any large commercial factory that bought enough land could come in and be approved under the umbrella of the word "agriculture". We do not believe that was the original intent of the commission. This chicken factory is only "agriculture" in that is involves chickens. In every other aspect, it is a large food and fertilizer factory that produces major pollution in the air and water, as well as population density that is well beyond the intent of the Zoning regulations. There is an application for 7 homes, evidently on one well, on the permitted site. The application is vague as to future management of sewage, water management and air pollution. Example, according to federal exemptions, the sewage holding ponds evidently will not have to be lined. They will sit only feet above the Lost Creek Basin aquifer. That aquifer is thready at maximum levels of nitrates and any additional nitrates entering from this huge chicken factory and its residues will flow directly into the Roggen wells_ TheManure will be dried in long windrows. Flies, mosquitoes, bugs, and vermin will flourish. As a comparison, the 900,000 chicken factory near Hudson hauls its manure away each day to eliminate the air pollution, bug and pest problems and Morningfresh near Plattville uses outdoor manure composting at a minimum. The future proposed process in manure treatment is vague. Manure treatment was a horrible problem near Keensburg in the recent past at a chicken facility. That problem eventually shut down the operaton. 09/18/95 14:08 TX/RX NO.1915 P.002 09/18/1995 15:07 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMER PAGE 03 2. Prospect Valley is geographically a bowl and, particularly in the winter, the air pollution will fill the whole valley. Many of you live in Greeley and I'm sure I do not have to elaborate on that issue_ Lost Creek Basin is a product of the same bowl geography and is a dosed basin. The nitrate water pollution could pollute the northern basin of the aquifer. My wife visited a chicken facility near Pierce today that Moark owns. It is in poor condition, with junk around the buildings and a terrible smell downwind. A worker said there were only about 40,000 chickens being kept there, afar cry from the 1.E million proposed. We are in the process of getting files of the major complaints from the Grand Junction Moark operation. Files to document a conversation with Perry Buda, Mesa County Air Quality Dept regarding the undesirable effects to the community surrounding Grande Mesa Eggs. It is easy to be an absentee owner that promises the moon. The reality is that the same absentee owner's property, currently in operation on a tiny scale near Pierce and a 600,000/700,000 chicken operation near Grand Junction. tells the tale about his "quality operation". My wife and I have also have past experience with Morningfresh, a million chicken operation east of Plattville. We almost bought a farm a mile NE of Morningfresh and did not because of the air pollution. Morningfresh is a state of the art of chicken and fertilizer factory and it still produces constant air pollution. Pollution that "only brings tears to your eyes in the winter once in awhile" (the past farm owners wife)- Also, Morningftesh does very little outdoor composting as compared to Moark's application. Under paragraph 2, Section D of the Preliminary Recommendation states "Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety_ and welfare of the neighborhood and County". t have not seen the detail in the application that will guarantee that protection. Detail that include news of an undisclosed silent partner, large gaps in sewage and water management detail, type of process detail, timing of expansion, etc. I also doubt that you are staffed to carry out such a function. The magnitude of the operation with vast open manure piles, the daily volume of dead chickens, and the operational realities of Moarks current operations, already in the state of Colorado, do not point to a manageable situation. The potential owner has contracted to buy 2600+ acres. What's nett? Was it discussed? 09/18/95 14:08 TX/RX NO.1915 P.003 • 09/18/1995 15:13 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMER PAGE 02 3. I don't believe the intent of the zoning language intended to have an absentee owner buy large quantities of land to qualify for enough water and animal units to consolidate those rights into a very high density industrial operation that will damage the delicate environmental and living balance that exists today in Prospect Valley. Help us all preserve this very special valley in Colorado. A valley that truly is a bread basket for Colorado, as well as being a wonderful place to live, farm, and raise families. Moark's I .S MILLION CHICKEN AND FERTILIZER FACTORY PROPOSAL is in every a sense a commercial factory operation. It is factory that will damage the surrounding environment for those of us already farming and living in the area and potentially turn this valley soley into an agriculture commercial factory district. Don't let the technicality of the word "agriculture" cover up a major factory operation that can bypass environmental laws on the same technicality. This will set a precedent for the future that could turn this area into an extension of Commerce City. This is not just a chicken farm! Many of us have invested heavily in this area because of what it is and what seemed to be the intent of the County to preserve We are not absenteehe ownerss and we othe ave valley as ed the land values in the Valley. We want to preserve a farm family agriculture area, not an industrial complex. Sincerely, Wood and Barb aS'a Ennelsheimer 09/18/95 14:14 c TX/RX NO.1916 P.002 • cp- 6:-.7 ' a- c --.L 7 / . 1 ri it kie,v 1O0"4t,. lam- 4411 Le- , . Adoeif //u ,/ and ccc,2a enioevuLd toAS GUoSd 4- A mb 1 ac- e, ...� l-c�' /VC 4 ec��Xrleacd .c /u�- / CV4k a- jaatz)1 and (pa} ied413a uhJ CLth2 anzd-, `% -tintazi..1.-Lec-hri)ela-tr4D;;&l� - ic.�� J --, - % zdwc% Laiea bth, • kin) SEP P 2 3 1995 EXHIBIT 1 4/,7 L 2 /r r Sept 13, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keansburg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and Countytnissioners, We are opposed to the proposal to a08w,lilkimately, a 1.8 MILLION *ken and egg processing factory on Road #73 on*tltt 220 t acres. Our f and f residence is 2.6 miles SW of the proposed site. The are 8 tore farm famn _ ens within a 3/4 mile radius of my house. ( The proposal did net accur j remotest density neat the site) A year ago we bought our 240 acre liitgeted *rm. One of the *nary reasons vie bought here, instead of other productive are, WM the zoning reguladMls that prevent development and, we thought, primbd altictrhtempeiarrsellie that it is currently practiced in the Valley. We though the bight Ag ditaMadashzg would protect this of farm environment. We did not Muria tint the Special Review meant that any cart commercial factory that bought earAJ lied could come in and be approved under the umbrella of the word "agriculture', We do not believe that was the original intent of the commission. This chicken factory is only "egs1pMhure" in that is involves chickens. In every other aspect, it is a large food and liggiker fltctory that produces major llution in the air and water, as well as populationpopulationlhoelty that is well beyond the i nn ameZoning regulations. There is an apptodea thr 7 homes, evidently oeonne well, on the permitted site. The application is vague inure management of sewage, water management and air pollution. Example, to Meal exemptions, the setalge holding poniM evidently will not have to be lined. III* will sit only feet above the Loot Cawlt Basin aquifer. That aquifer is already at maliimat levels of nitrates and any additional nitrates entering from this huge chicken facts Jed its residues will flow directly into the Roggen wens. The Manure will be daiiitong windrows. Flies, mosquitoes, bugs, and vermin will flourish. As a compa*bthe 900,000 chicken factory near Hudson hauls its manure away each day to ea6 s the air pollution, bug and pest problems and Morn ingfresh near Plattville uses outdoMmanure composting eta tnnt�ntp. The future proposed greet in manure treatment is vague. Manure treatment was a horrible problem near Keansburg in the recent past at a chicken facility. That problem eventually shut down the pperaton. Prospect Valley is geographically a bowl and, particularly in the winter, the air pollution will fill the whole valley. Many of you live in Greeley and I'm sure I do not have to elaborate on that issue. Lost Creek Basin is a product of the same bowl geography and is a closed basin. The nitrate water pollution could pollute the northern basin of the aquifer. My wife visited a chicken facility near Pierce today that Moark owns. It is in poor condition, with junk around the buildings and a terrible smell downwind. A worker said there were only about 40,000 chickens being kept there, a far cry from the 1.8 million proposed. We are in the process of getting files of the major complaints from the Grand Junction Moark operation. Files to document a conversation with Perry Buda, Mesa County Air Quality Dept. regarding the undesireable effects to the community surrounding Grande Mesa Eggs. It is easy to be an absentee owner that promises the moon. The reality is that the same absentee owner's property, currently in operation on a tiny scale near Pierce and a 600,000/700,000 chicken operation near Grand Junction, tells the tale about his "quality operation". My wife and I have also have past experience with Morningfresh, a million chicken operation east of Plattville. We almost bought a farm a mile NE of Momingfresh and did not because of the air pollution. Momingfresh is a state of the art of chicken and fertilizer factory and it still produces constant air pollution. Pollution that "only brings tears to your eyes in the winter once in awhile" (the past farm owners wife). Also, Morningfresh does very little outdoor composting as compared to Moark's application. Under paragraph 2, Section D of the Preliminary Recommendation states "Special Review Permit Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and County". I have not seen the detail in the application that will guarantee that protection. Detail that include news of an undisclosed silent partner, large gaps in sewage and water management detail, type of process detail, timing of expansion, etc. I also doubt that you are staffed to carry out such a function. The magnitude of the operation with vast open manure piles, the daily volume of dead chickens, and the operational realities of Moarks current operations, already in the state of Colorado, do not point to a manageable situation. The potential owner has contracted to buy 2600+ acres. What's next? Was it discussed? I don't believe the intent of the zoning langisage intended to have an absentee owner buy large quantities of land to qualify for enough water and animal units to consolidate those rights into a very high density industrial operation that will damage the delicate environmental and living balance that exists today in Prospect Valley. Help us all preserve this very special valley in Colorado. A valley that truly is a bread basket for Colorado, as well as being a wonderful place to live, farm, and raise families. Moark's 1.8 MILLION CHICKEN AND FERTILIZER FACTORY PROPOSAL is in every a sense a commercial factory operation. It is factory that will damage the surrounding environment for those of us already farming and living in the area and potentially turn this valley soley into an agriculture commercial factory district. Don't let the technicality of the word "agriculture" cover up a major factory operation that can bypass environmental laws on the same technicality. This will set a precedent for the future that could turn this area into an extension of Commerce City. This is not just a chicken farm! Many of us have invested heavily in this area because of what it is and what seemed to be the intent of the County to preserve. We are not absentee owners and we have enhanced the land values in the Valley. We want to preserve the current nature of the valley as a farm family agriculture area, not an industrial complex. Sincerely, Wood and Barbara Eppelsheimer (JHudson Pullet Farm P.O. Box 449 • Hudson, Colorado 80642 303-536-4298 Shani Eastin Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Shani: My name is Terry Osborne and I live on the Hudson Pullet Farm property at 19166 Hwy. 52, two and one half miles west of Hudson. I am part of the Moark management group and have lived on, and managed this farm for over five years. We have eighty acres and raise over one half million pullets per year. Since this is the only farm in Weld County that Moark has been in charge of the management for more than one year, and since there have been some questions raised about Moark building chicken houses near Roggen, I asked my neighbors, who have property within one half mile of this farm if they would write down comments about living close to our poultry farm. Enclosed are the letters that I have received so far. I am also enclosing a letter from Sara Teter of the Weld County Health Department showing that we have not had any complaints for the last five years. If you have any questions please call me at (303)-536-4298. Sincerely Terry Osborne Manager Hudson Pullet Farm (00t1}; Wilk September 18, 1995 Terry Osborn Hudson Pullet Farm P.O. Box 449 Hudson, CO 8O642 Dear Mr. Osborn: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1517 16 AVENUE COURT GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION (97O) 353.0586 HEALTH PROTECTION (97O) 353-0635 COMMUNITY HEALTH (97O) 353-0639 FAX (97O) 356.4966 We have conducted a quick review of our complaint log for the last five years. This review has indicated that there have been no complaints received about your facility, located at 19166 Hwy 52, Hudson. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (970) 353-O635 extension 2247. Sincerely, Sara Teter Environmental Protection Specialist Post -A" Fax Note 7671 Date c-i_ 74 _Cis (pages► 1 //�� To ernJ VSiii^ J rmm C1 -.F -c. Te(€v .£.'Jelc( caJDePL 11...1x.,,. -T 4 f/ (`^T'V°. G '�,4.7(r (41,7711{ legiii Peen B Phone tt `S 3-C(7`'S Fax # 534 44-4G7 Fax r EXHIBIT \50 Ll i TOTAL F. Sam Bickler 18288 W.C.R. 12 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 To Whom it may concern: My name is Sam Bickler and I live at 18288 WCR 12. My property is one half mile from the Hudson Pullet Farm property. I have lived here for 5 years and just completed building a new home on my property. The people at Hudson Pullet Farm have been good and helpful neighbors. I have no complaints about their farm. Sincerely Sam Bickler 1 e EXHIBIT i September 19,1995 To Whom It May Concern: For the past twenty - one years Leonard and I have lived at 5524 W.C. Rd. 37, which is on the corner of Weld County Road 37 & Hwy 52,exactly one mile to the west of the Hudson Pulett farm. We have never experienced any odors from the operation and have never had any trouble with flies. If you have any questions may feel free to give us a call at 536-0845. Thank You. Leonard Thomason Sheila Thomason '= EXHIBIT ScR k use-io pia Tc WWcn1 iT ALAI COAict 1: ' 6cAS LU1CN AA -12 / AISeD oh) A-fy CORA16--kir 8 ihsairSS GOCs}T/okl /gra? HL6Hcony # S"2. �,,,e N6}Ue eel .4 Lave . /A/ OUR PL-X'Soti4L_-- Awo Le -64C 4P/9694-494. Cr OP OUR f/ rw r&ADeD 1?UA',4t Mrs/Pe,vcr. 4i y "-TAT-Welk 4' 4107-Hek r9yjLiP L/ /PAR/E-; AR'tcSe" 1-MI4r 3&'S' ,4A) /ArtEGRAG PART' OF THE PtRSo J4L. PRIDE WC NAJUK SSotuk /A/ OUR HonlE � PART ciNDIAJ LAJJD. WE WAVE •ce'vti wciG,fec"RS come Go 7NJQCccFlovr rile Y6 +es to Mite- ALWAYS S1X'fVftD 'To DO Cok PA+Pr To be 6042A ,vt76HBotes Wirt Ott Folks, .N'D we' VV,¢ve deYAJ PLe*SED wirN MtSr 4)04 Soon Ai /vstsoee6 % HAUe i°L'Desoi,'.ALLY B 73/Recall &)S,4irs 7- ,4-A)stscYioM'S 'Y4UE reimt' K/vOw CreRgY TAcic/e Osec' P( Mmit ) o/ TNEffUDSoAJ Pates F4,c4t/ %H AUL.., CAST- of Dia 640A7e y AUS) .QFSS NOWT/0 Nor CAiCY Ake- 7N&cSi GeiL 4C3 !•/ A/c 4 UPS 7J4ND(N 6 Peol'LG a Or Vitt MA/A1 M!N' 74,f -/A /too aLY7Q it, &isiLie-SS l.Ufrri P,P//J' �/ Cct-94. UAsSS.. &zje /e- ire" is T/i6%J2 OPeR-' 4170(1) WAS Le -SS 77%4A/ cL,+FN Ae0PeRGY A14/4)YAnue.P7 k1C G.-'G'cco �L 7we- e%'ks? , ceNSOfb k)At/oLJ. RC: RCWARU K'. Ai2Ttsc September 19, 1995 To Whom it May Concern: Terry of DeKalb Farms has asked for our opinion regarding his skill and ability pertaining to his business operation. This letter serves as our personal opinion. The farm and property are always clean and sanitary. We feel Terry is extremely knowledgeable in his business but more importantly he is well liked and is willing to help others. We feel this characteristic is more of a value to our community than his vast knowledge of farming. For these reasons, we know Terry would be an asset to any community. We feel fortunate to count Terry as a neighbor. *cerely, Ty and Tara Dreiling v co Sept. 13, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Cob 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. fcc c eiry Colo r. EXHIBIT 55 I l_ts2 -iaga 1 Srp2� Q S,y3pt0�W 1995 SC? Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Cob 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Conunissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely, 303- 53 Vg-- L dz Pt. ek6 // / Sic A90594_ 4)6 rL ri. EXHIBIT 57 gU S2 —/09a? 1 Sept; 13, 1995 p�c��350Q`WCR #16 KeenesJlurg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Cob 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time forserious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely, 503-P/9- 53v/S grA l -r-rn-7 S/ � S r� �o of a S�� - 1 1995 Sept. 13, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely, &d Iglitetdo 60 6 - 549 5/- 7-19 JO6S-7 (363 ,'y 53 -sic EXHIBIT I d ti USE - /O% WELD COUNTY 1995 SE? 29 al IC: 00 CLERK TO THE BOARD Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Cob 80631 Sept. 13, 1995 33500 WCR 416 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Dear Shani Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely, (- ! /42.j /14 09 /45 c.c. WELD COUiToc 1995 SE? 29 Al 9: 56 CLERIC TO THE BOARD Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo 80631 Sept. 13, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely,. EXHIBIT loo LIS,q -/a9d /0GjHZ-)£ i,t ac WELD COUi'TY COMMISSIONERS 1995 SEP 29 Mt I0. 07 CLERK TO THE BOARD Sept. 18, 1995 33500 WCR #16 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 Shani Eastin Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo 80631 Dear Shani, Planning Dept., and County Commissioners, Due to the error in area notification, the Planning Department meeting, to be held on Tuesday Sept. 19, was postponed to Oct. 3rd. Though many people had taken off work to attend, I think prompt efforts by Shani Eastin and members of the landowners in the valley prevented a number of people from attending a meeting canceled at the last minute. The final hearing to be held by the County Commissioners is scheduled for Oct. 4th.. It is not appropriate to only give the Commission members a single night to assimilate a great deal of information about a project of this size. A project of this scope, one that will impact so many people in the valley, deserves adequate time for serious reflection. The members of the land owners in the Prospect Valley and the residents of Roggen are requesting a delay to a more normal time of two weeks between the Planning Commission hearings and the final County Commission hearing. We are requesting that either the Planning Commission hearing be moved forward or the County Commission hearing date be moved back to guarantee a full and fair consideration to the addition of this very intense chicken and fertilizer production facility within the Prospect Valley. Sincerely, re.: PL;,L} cA;.Berv: LindaA. Shoeneman 8672 W.C.R. 73 Roggen, Colorado 80652 Dear Weld Co. Commissioners, WELD COUNTY t5 SEP 29 Aft !0: 041 CLERK TO THE POA^jj September 25, 1995 I am writing concerning the MOARK Hatcheries USR-1092 permit on your agenda for October 4, 1995. I am vehemently opposed to this operation being granted a permit. 1. The owner ,or part owner, of this operation was at our home this summer and visited with us. He told us about the operation and asked a lot of questions. At that time he told us the operation would involve only 400 thousand chickens and gave no mention of a dehydrator. 2. He is going to be an absentee owner who, by the way, lives 25 miles away from the Egg farm in Arkansas --related to me by his wife. This is totally different than a cattle feeder or dairyman who at least lives near or in the same town as his operation. If there are any problems an owner who lives locally can not only be located but stands to bear a lot of heat if his operation does not comply with health rules. 3. Contrary to the county generated interrogatory his attorney responded to, the numbers of farm (operating farm) people who will be affected will be more like 65 not just us and one rental house. 4. We have lived her 20 years and hope to see our kids raise cattle out here. This outfit IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. How would you like to live in the ammonia stench we are threatened with? Contrary to some of the feedlot problems around the Greeley area, we and our neighbors were here first. 5. This same operation has a violation file wilthe Mesa County Health Dept. several inches thick and we will be bringing some of the documents with us on hearing day. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon you as keepers of the Weld County "Quality of Life" group, that you check these out for yourselves BEFORE THE HEARING. THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR CLEANUP FOR 8 --COUNT THEM -8-YEARS. 6. We are a totally agriculture family and are not opposed to high quality operations, all these people offer is promises, with a poor track record. We've head this song and dance before !! 7. Just because he can demonstrate a good operation on paper doesn't mean a thing to the guy who has to put up with a 136z6; fiC IpL) mess until the county can force him to comply --I reiterate - this outfit does not have a very good track record and I urge you to vote NO . • Cesar/ 9V/Ark_ Cc -4 e//,pg e7 12 yirre,t'3 I1oyf(L,t &dogtGsL Dear S"MAT 17/C0-5 e do n-%xr fee-.., ? T!e frof es el? Q/?'c,`v er- H/crs7— Se 4I./ foyge r. �r,s F s sTi// ee /VI c, do/a c c ?d Lir/4 kv/7Ae e/ean cliff Pea,/ eh/c.4Cn$ /i/ctore !ti'ua/cri I5 jaciS5/6-/C To 5/`!C el-% Col 9G He/en Sc%c//ci?G-<, @tea iA,, iat/A r SEP 2 8 199 AA en, oei�zcarnacvz ATTORNEY AT LAW 813 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 550 LOUISVILLE, COLORADO 80027 TELEPHONE (303) 608-4080 TELEFAX (303) 665-4425 September 27, 1995 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION L u Lee D. Morrison Assistant Weld County Attorney 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Lee: ALAN O. HILL Associate SEP 2 8 1995 Re: Docket No. USR-1092, Moark Hatcheries, LLC I represent several parties who are property owners in the vicinity of the referenced application and who are strongly opposed to the project at the subject location. My clients presently include Joel and Linda Shoeneman and Woody and Barbara Eppelsheimer, but my representation will probably be extended to several families. I am writing at this time to express my clients' objection to the County proceeding with a proposed Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 1995. The basis for this objection is that the County is not following its own procedures with respect to notice and sign posting. In particular, several witnesses are prepared to testify that signs advising of the hearing were not posted until Monday, September 25, 1995. The County procedure requires at least ten (10) days notice by posting. To proceed on these facts would be improper, would put the applicant at risk and may be the basis for legal action. Since the defects are easily remedied, we request the County do so at this time. We also object to the County scheduling the Planning Commission and County Commissioner hearings on consecutive days on the basis that it is unrealistic and does not provide a fair opportunity for public input. This application is highly Stephen T. Williamson Lee D. Morrison September 27, 1995 Page 2 controversial. We anticipate a large number of speakers in opposition and substantial technical issues. Based on other similar matters, we doubt the Planning Commission hearing can be completed in less that one full day. Even assuming the Planning Commission hearing proceeds as scheduled and is completed on that day, it is not realistic for the applicant, objectors, and the staff to assimilate all of the information over night and present it to the County Commissioners the next morning. This is a very large project with significant environmental impacts. It deserves due deliberation. In summary, we request that the Planning Commission hearing be rescheduled with proper notice and posting and that the County Commissioners' hearing, if it is to be scheduled at all at this time, be scheduled at least two weeks following a decision by the Planning Commission. Very trul,yours, cc: Shani L. Eastin Weld County Planning Dept. Joel Shoeneman Woody Eppelsheimer Dan Schellenberg 5955 WCR 79 Roggen, CO 80652 Dear Ms. Easton, This letter is in concern to the approval of the proposed chicken ranch south of Roggen. I feel that this will cause a major odor problem. This is a very nice community, and we would like to keep it that way I am always reading about the big problem Greeley has with its odor, why create more. I realize that the county needs revenue, but please not at this expense. Please consider this very seriously, and vote to keep the smell out of Weld County. Sincerely, L. Dan Schellenber- olrnlit%sI3 rimOplk'1Icouh/ . a MS S i a -a -WS -a err: -MEW-nr -Sara- GREELEY/WELD September 28, 1995 Weld County Department of Planning Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, oNNan 0 CT 2 191. ni 1 I On behalf of the Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership (EDAP) Board of Directors, I would like to offer our support of Moark Productions, Inc. in their efforts to establish a fully integrated egg processing operation south of Roggen. It's our understanding that this facility would provide fresh eggs to the Colorado, Phoenix, and possibly California markets, and upon final build out, could house up to 1.9 million birds at a total investment of $10 million. The facility will start out employing approximately 20 full-time employees and will reach 50 at build out. Employee wages will range from $6.50 to $10.00/hour plus a full benefits package. Moark is committed to being a good corporate neighbor, and have plans to purchase supplies, such as grain, from local farmers whenever possible. Moark ownership and management are committed to running a safe, state-of-the- art operation, and we feel this facility will be a benefit to the immediate area and Weld County as a whole. The rural, sparsely populated area south of Roggen is almost exclusively comprised of ag production, making it a logical location for an operation such as this. When coupled with the operational conditions imposed by the Weld County Health and Planning Departments to enforce high quality management practices, we believe the location is a good one. Weld County is one of the most important agriculturally diverse counties in the entire country, partially because we have welcomed quality ag producers and have shown our commitment to the industry by working to ensure a good business climate. Agricultural production is an invaluable economic engine fueling our county economy. The proposed Moark operation would further strengthen and enhance this economy. Therefore, we encourage your support of this project. Sincerely, h John Dent, Chairman Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership Enclosure: EDAP Board of Directors List GREELEY/WELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT ION PARTNERSHI? INC. 822 Seventh Street, Suite 550, Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 3564565 • Fax (970) 352-2436 EXHIBIT CO /ice US 2 -/U9.1 1995 EDAP Board of Directors • John Dent, Chairman Attorney at Law P.O. Box 333 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 857-4667 Fax 857-2467 Board Term: 1994-1996 County Appointee • Julianne Haefell, Vice Chair 2008 18th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 353-2008 Fax 356-0107 Board Term: 1993-1995 EDAP Appointee • Tom Larkin, Treasurer Kodak of Colorado 9952 Eastman Park Drive Windsor, CO 80551-1038 686-4585 Fax 686-4193 Board Term: 1994-1996 EDAP Appointee • Mike Gelle, Past Chairman Century 21 Geile & Assoc. 918 11th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 352-8838 Fax 352-2610 Board Term: 1994-1996 City Appointee Updated 7/95 • Royce Clark First National Bank 4290 W. 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 352-0077 Fax 356-0730 Board Term: 1995-1997 EDAP Appointee • Don Hoff Attorney at Law 1025 9th Avenue. Suite 309 Greeley, CO 80631 356-6767 Fax 353-7504 Board Term: 1993-1995 City Appointee • Diana Laws Aims Community College 260 So. College Avenue Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 352-4664 Fax 352-5443 Board Term: 1995-1997 County Appointee • Ann Bailey State Farm Regional Office 3001 8th Avenue Greeley, CO 80638 351-5458 Fax 351-5470 Board Term: 1995-1997 City Appointee • Bill Webster Weld County Commissioner P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 356-4000 x4200 Fax 352-0242 Board Term: 1995 County Appointee Ex -Officio Members: • Lyle Butler President Greeley/Weld Chamber 1407 8th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 352-3566 Fax 352-3572 • Paul Grattet City Manager City of Greeley 1000 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 350-9775 Fax 350-9736 • Don Warden Finance Director Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 356-4000 x4218 Fax 352-0242 • Kyle Carter UNC Research Corp. Grad School Greeley, CO 80639 351-0529 Res. Corp. Fax 351-6519 351-2831 Grad. Sch. 351-0529 Res. Corp. Fax 351-2371 • Dick Wood Dean of Cont. Education Aims Community College P.O. Box 69 Greeley, CO 80632 330-8008 x222 Fax 339-6673 • John Pacheco Superintendent School District 6 811 15th Street Greeley, CO 80631 352-1543 x160 Fax 353-2624 NEOSHO ter ffwIet hat uty NEOSHO AREA ChamtQt 06 Commerce 308 W. SPRING STREET / P.O. BOX 605 / PHONE (417) 451-1925 ! NEOSHO. MISSOURI 64850 September 26, 1995 Weld County Department. of Planning P. O. Box 459 1402 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80032 Dear Sir or Madam: It has come to my attention that MOARK productions is in the process of expanding in your area. T would like to express our total support for this company. While this is a corporation, the Osborne Family has been a part of our community since 1966. Hollis Osborne is a man with an impeccable reputation in our community. We are a community of 9,250, set in the foothills of the Ozarks with an outstanding quality of life which has been maintained through a cooperative effort by our city, and businesses and industries working together. MOARK has operations that virtually border our city limits, and let me assure you that their operation, because of the manner in which they are operated has not changed our quality of life. We, as a community, could not ask for a better neighbor. All of their operations are kept in immaculate condition and are a pleasant sight. I have enclosed a copy of a recent newspaper article where the Chamber of Commerce recognized MOARK as our Agri Industry of the Year. We are very proud of this firm and look forward to many more years of a productive and cooperative relationship. I would l i-ke to also mention that they are a supporter of our community and schools. Whenever there is a need or cause, we could not ask for a better neighbor than the Osborne family and MOARK Productions. Ga row, Executive Vice President. and Economic Development Director GG/jao coulaY t OCT 2199 ;1 Neosho Daily News photo by Rob Viehman AGRIBUSINESS OF THE YEAR - Moark Farm Operations Manager Bill Hulsey, left, accepts the Neosho Area Chamber of Commerce's Agribusiness of the Year award by Gene Hilgenberg during an awards ceremony at the Newton County Fair Saturday evening. Moark named 'Agribusiness of the Year' Moark Productions Inc. was named Agribusiness of the Year by the Neosho Area Chamber of Commerce dur- ing awards ceremonies at the 28th Annual Newton County Fair Saturday night. This was the first annual presentation of the award. which is designed to honor those businesses that have demonstrated outstanding leadership in the promotion and advancement of agribusiness in Newton and McDonald counties. The award is open to any business in the two -county area, whether from the private or pub- lic sector. Nominees were judged only on ag-related t—_ activities, not general civic accomplishments. Nominations for the award had to be submitted by the chamber by June 5. The Agriculture Committee, headed by Gene Hilgenberg, selected the winner. Scott Wade, of B&D Produce, nominated Moark for the award. His description of the nominee's achieve- ments were as follows: "In 1994 the Kraft Egg Plant sold and shut down. Moark reopened it, putting people back to work and keeping a business open in our community." Hilgenberg presented the award to Bill Hulsey, farm operations manager for Moark. As manager of the nearby Hudson Pullet Farm (a part of the Moark Operation), our company has always been concerned with cleanliness and sanitation. These things are important to a healthy environment for our chickens and therefore happier, more productive hens. This is also important to the relationship that we have with the community. Realizing that the agricultural community will have to live in close proximity to more people moving out to the country for what they call the rural life, and realizing that our rural ways may not be all that they expected, we are committed to a neighbor friendly program. Issues: 1. Odor. The gases that cause odor in animal waste are not harmful to humans, but can be a problem if not kept under control. Odor occurs when manure is not dry. There is even more odor if the manure stays wet and turns anaerobic. Anaerobic bacteria are what we call "stink bugs" because they are what cause the stink in wet manure. 2. Flies. Flies are drawn and will breed in raw, wet manure bothering both humans and animals. 3. Nitrogen Leaching. 4. Carcass Disposal. EXHIBIT u s64:k 92, SOLUTIONS 1. Odor: Keep the manure dry from the start. New belt system in the layer houses starts drying the manure as soon as it is deposited. This dry manure then comes off the belts into a holding shed where it is either spread on the fields, outdoor composted or sent to a building for further processing. Our farm and others in Colorado have recently put in this type of building, all having good results. From this holding shed we have several choices. A. We can take the manure straight to the fields to be spread, for crop production purposes, when the farmers are in the field and the manure can be worked into the ground. B. Outdoor Composting We can add a carbon source such as recycled paper or cardboard products, sawdust, straw, and wood chips. These materials would start the compost process which use "odor eaters". These odor eaters are aerobic bacteria which takes our manure and added carbon source to make organic compost. C. We can move the manure into a processing building, where we can continue drying by turning the manure several times. Making pellets out of either the dry manure or the compost also helps decrease odor and makes distribution and application easier. 2. Flies: When the Odor eater bacteria start working in compost they heat the compost up to around 110 degrees. This heat makes it inhospitable to flies. Flies will also not breed in manure that is dry. 3. Nitrogen Leaching: Nitrogen is what crops need to grow. Chemical nitrogen is added many times to help the growing process. There are guidelines that are used in chemical application. These same guidelines should be used when using natural nitrogen from manure. Manure or compost also have the added benefit of an abundance of organic matter which helps build soil. This organic matter also helps keep the nitrogen from leaching out before the plant is ready to use it. 4. Carcass Disposal: The same odor eater bacteria that makes compost also will compost carcasses. This makes a good carbon source for compost. Summary: We pledge to work very closely with the various county agencies and county staffs in all areas of our operation. JGIanuke Wow Chatri Beef System Egg Room pocatity Bcu€tings compost Raw ifilamare Shed recessing Pattat is'w o o 3 1. 51ieed spreading or outdoor compost. 2. 9ndoor drying. 3. Organic €awn bet tieizer Potting mix Vegetabee berti€izer 0CT 03 '95 08:06 E 303 849 5532 TO; P01 To: Nancy Cervi Box 26, Road 386 Roggen, CO 80652 303-849.5532 Shanie Eastin Weld County Developmental Planning FROM: Nancy Cervi DATE: October 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Moark Hatcheries - Proposal As a concerned resident of Roggen, Colorado, I oppose the construction of a poultry processing plant by Moark Hatcheries. We have a beautiful, clean, quiet, safe, odor free community. If a poultry processing plant vas to be constructed south of Roggen I as very concerned our community and surrounding area would be devastated. 10/03/95 10:00 TX/RX NO.2063 P.001 P.� u c L tk EXHIBIT hisqlO9 2 i Mrs. Ronald D. Fischer. Sr 1984 K Road r..uice, -CO1 81521 9°i8-9082 - Home 47,4 A. "*r Mesa County Health Dep.. tmen*_. P.O. Bee 20000-5033 5033 Grand Junction. Co. x115f:22-5077.7 r Attention: Michael D. r�u1del I. fi. .....-:tor Dear s. y ic'e7 e have been told tha.i. 5rend Mesa Fees throw out the dead chi.ek ns with the manure and they pile all of this in a corner about a ce.e7e-iee :,f a mile from c,._ r' -..'scut 1/2 mile from 20 Road. The sIVOOMMUNDONMPIOMMTRUOMIner gccgL It also has tc, be health ha. _ard. The flies that thin generates has to be unhealthy. The problem with the flies causes everyone around the :er-e a to have spray and this cant be good environmentally. It is really too bad that Grand Mesa Eggs isn't required to r, ;.- all of their manure out and dump it in the desert somewhere. They sell it to the farmers but the cost is way to high so they can't sel :': all of it. We were led to believe that there wouldn't be any oc:oe from them when they first wanted to • set up this operation. Well evidently we were lied t. e. If anyone has ever smelled something dead just multiple that smell with the smell of chicken ffanurer it. is unimagknablc . This odor has• been noticed as far west as Holly Park, and as far east as 23 road when tt:e wind is right. It also goes north and south quite a ways. Too bad something can't be done about tis. Take a wiff next time you are in the vicinity between 20 and 21 Road on K road, around 5 and 6 F.M. you will see what I'm talking about especially in the summer- time, S]ncerely yours, (! (� � ��'-� • � 1 . S A , Mrs. Ronald D. Fischer, SEP 13 '95 13:42 P•22 COMPLAINT STATUS REPORT Complaint Location: Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc. 1133 21 Road Grand Junction, CO Nature of Complaint: Odor and Flies Submitted By: Dana A. Black, Sanitarian I Date: February 4, 1994 BACKGROUND: Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., is owned in partnership by Olson Farms of Beverly Hills, California and Missouri -Ark Hatchery of Neosho, Missouri. The Grand Mesa Eggs complex is located at 1133 21 Road, Grand Junction, Colorado and is under the general management of Mr. Dan Hudgens. The prime enterprise of G.M.E., Inc. is the production of fresh whole eggs for distribution to local markets and western Colorado food wholesalers and retailers, ie. City Market and Sam's Club, etc. There are twc secondary enterprises, marketing/disposal of poultry manure and cash crop farming, both of which are directly connected and inter -dependent to the production of eggs in the specialized, intensified management system employed by G.M.E. Inc. The corporation farms approximately 400 acres of irrigated crop land which is used indirectly to off -set feed cost of the layer operation. The acreage also serves as a disposal site for poultry manure which in applied in quantities to displace equivalent increment applications of commercial fertilizer for plant growth and optimizing crop yields. The poultry manure enterprise involves the marketing/disposal of waste to local area crop farms which include small vegetable truck farms, orchards, animal forage farms and row crop farms. Approximately 1% of manure waste produced is marketed as a livestock feed additive. Contruction of the complex was initiated in 1986 and completed in 1987. SEP 18 '95 14:14 P.24 et Clei 715 February 15, 1994 Pf?'SURVEY PROTOCOL page 2 of Complaints generated over the laet eevOW flarb are primarily related to odop. During 1993,' an Increase in complaints concerning exce6'stVa-fly populations precipitated further evaluation by this Department. No historic data exists concerning fly populations in this area and recent evidence is limited to residential complaints and personal experience of Department representatives. The origin of fly complaints is centered at the intersection of 20 and R roads with a 1/4 mile radius. In January of 1994, the Mesa County Health Department initiated a dialogue with Grand Mesa Eggs Inc., specifically related to control of odor and fly breeding sources. Progress in this matter has been limited to assessing current management practices and options available within the industry. Purpose: The primary purpose of this survey is to determine fly populations in the area of complaint origin and within the area of influence of the Grand Mesa Eggs complex. "The premise being, that fly populations in these areas are, to a;''great extent, influenced by proximity to -the Grand Mesa Eggs complex. Data obtained from'. the survey can then be used to evaluate`; the efficacy of current and future improvements to management practices which deal with the collection, stockpiling, processing and disposal of poultry' manure and animal carcasses. The intent 'of such improvemtents is to significantly reduce or eliminate od r and potential fly breedin media sources. dew -tv.c S. ‘4154 Val wx: wwv givz,u6 url✓ , Cr,ernwa7 7% t04.4 tits Sk4w 4 � 00n Gob Pbr Sift ”P)_l a iMM 5'.� Odors can deleterious to air quality with aesthe �s as wela. public health impact. In either case; mal-odorsp"a€i stg when assessing environmental health concerns. Fat ti.o kuipOseaof. thio purvey, odors will be ,wt,ed.Whether confined to G.M.E. Inc. property or carried off the property by changing wind currents, odor from poultry manure is a significant attractant to`f�ies. Odors will be noted as either prehept or not present. In accordance with information provided by Colorado'' State University Cooperative Extension; aer_vice, the predominent'fly species are expected to be blow fl•ies,.(calliphoridae), houseflies, (Muses domestics) and face flies,r(l1unca autumnalis) The,::'survey will not be concerned with differentiation by species of the general fly population. Rn� Ooa!zuvswc �'�'� I. AppowL. Znas or melshm e y. Osego crossvisor,coot 3. N"! Gx.✓ It worntte tenon, as. 76^p', 4hwr� , 74.44+✓P -.- --- ?441)17(,4 nien SEP 19 '95 13:44 P.24 )1c^ t` k 1 - Grand Mesa Eggs Complaint Status Report Page 3 Department concerns at this time revolve around the premise that, due to waste management practices employed by Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., the naturally occurring fly populations in the area are enhanced in number, to a degree which results a public health nuisance. Dialogue with Grand Mesa Eggs management is focused on the efficacy of current and future improvements to management practices which deal with the collection, stockpiling, processing and disposal of poultry manure and animal carcasses. The intent of adopting improved management practices would be to significantly reduce or eliminate-mel-odor and the fly breeding media sources. Odors can be deleterious to air quality with aesthetic as well as public health impact. In either case, mal-odors are of significance when assessing environmental health concerns. Whether confined to G.M.E. Inc. property or carried off the property by changing wind currents, odor from poultry manure is a significant attractant to flies. Information provided by Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service, indicates that the predominant fly species in Colorado are expected to be blow flies,(Calliphoridae), house flies, (Musca domestics) and face flies, (Musca autumnalis). In July of 1992, Mr. Perry Buda, Mesa County Health Department, Air Pollution Specialist, conducted an air quality study of the area surrounding Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc. The "Fruita Area Odor Study" defined plumes of detected poultry related odors transported by predominant air currents. See the attached maps marked as Fruita Study # 1 and Fruita Study # 2. According to Mr. Buda, the location of the surrounding mountain topography causes air currents on the valley floor to fluctuate resulting in the plumes as shown on the maps. The plumes have three dominant directions, northwest, 'southeast and southwest. The latter being the dominant direction. The location of Adobe Creek drainage may also affect air currents and the transport of odors. Predominant wind currents -are of significance to the fly populations for at least two reasons. Number one, the odor transported_by_wiN,d gurel2,tirt. ,t, a,,At. loo .'C$ be extremely strong fliers and therefore wind currents will influence their range of flight. SEP 18 '35 13:43 F.23 Grand Mesa Eggs Complaint Status Report Page 2 Nature of Complaints: Over the past several years, numerous complaints from residents in the surrounding area have been recorded by the Department. The complaints primarily concern mal-odor and increased fly populations. It is acknowledged here that the potential for odors and fly breeding media sources are inherent to the intensified management of any livestock specie. Furthermore, the concentration of 485,000 laying hens in 8 houses, combined with the accumulation of animal waste in ktftera to Tit-act-to350 tons per week and the as"soCitted death loss of approximately 300 hens per week, will naturally correlate with intensified emissions of mal-odors and the increased potential for fly breeding media sources. It is further acknowledged that agricultural uses in the general area, will provide background sources for mal-odors and potential fly breeding, which are not directly related to the Grand Mesa Eggs complex. The land area immediately surrounding the facility, (1/2 mile radius), is open farm land with few dwellings, most which are homesteads tied to large tracts in the range of 40 acres or more. To the west and southwest and within a 1 mile radius of the facility, the density of single family dwellings dramatically increases. Many of the smaller parcels are in the 1/2 acre to 10 acre range and many of the residents are engaged in some form of livestock rearing, be it horses, sheep or cattle. A small cattle feedlot with an estimated capacity of 150+ animals is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of 20 and K roads. Complaints generated over the last seven years are primarily related to odor. During 1993, an increase in complaints concerning excessive and invasive fly populations precipitated further evaluation by this Department. No historic data exists concerning fly populations in this area and recent evidence is limited to residential complaints and personal experience of Department representatives. The origin of fly complaints is centered at the intersection of 20 and K roads with a 1/4 mile radius. In January of 1994, the Mesa County Health Department initiated a dialogue with Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., specifically related to control of odor and fly breeding sources. Progress in this matter has been limited to assessing current management practices and options available within the industry. Grand Mesa Eggs Complaint Status Report Department concern -s at this time revolve around the premise that, due to waste management practices employed by Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc., the naturally occurring fly populations in the area may be enhanced in number, to a degree which may result in a public health nuisance. Dialogue with Grand Mesa Eggsmanagementis focused on the efficacy of current and future improvements to management practices which deal with the collection, stockpiling, processing and disposal of poultry manure and animal carcasses. The intent of adopting improved management practices would be to significantly reduce or eliminate mal-odor and the fly breeding media sources. Odors- can be deleterious to air quality with aesthetics - well as public health impact. In either case, mal-odors are of significance when assessing environmental health concerns. Whether confined to G.M.E. Inc. property or carried off the property by changing wind currents, odor from poultry manure is a significant attractant to flies. Information provided by Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service, indicates that the predominant fly species in Colorado are expected to be blow flies, (Calliphoridae), house flies, (Musca domestica) and face flies (Musca autumnalis). In July of 1992, Mr. Perry Buda, Mesa County Health Department, Air Pollution Specialist, conducted an air quality study -of the area surrounding Grand Mesa Eggs, Inc. The "Fruita Area Odor Study" defined plumes of detected poultry related odors transported by predominant air currents. See the attached maps marked as Fruita Study #1 and Fruita Study #2. According to Mr. Buda, the location of the surrounding mountain topography causes air currents on the valley floor to fluctuate resulting in the plumes as shown in the maps. The plumes have three dominant directions: northwest, southeast, and southwest; the latter being the dominant direction. The location of Adobe Creek drainage may also affect air currents and the transport of odors. Predominant wind currents are of significance to the fly populations for at least two reasons. Number one, the odor transported by wind currents act as attractant and number tow, flies of the species noted above are not known to be extremely strong fliers and, therefore, wind currents will influence their range of flight. P.19 SEEP'' 18 '95 9(/14:09 ( qr._ a MEMO To: From; Philip J. Romeo, Sanitarian II Date: May 4, 1990 Re: Grand Mesa Eggs, 1133 21 Road, Fruita, Colorado Inspections were made of the property noted above on April 25 and April 30, 1990 to determine compliance with the Mesa County Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Regulations and Section 25-1- 612, Dead Animals, C.R.S., 1973. On April 25, it was noted that what appeared to be sewage effluent was standing on the surface of the ground above the system's leaching area. There was no evidence that effluent was entering any waters of the State, i.e. surface waters. This condition, however, is in violation of the Regulations. The dead chicken and broken egg disposal site revealed that, exropt for two or three chicken carcasses. all remains were properly buried. The inspection made on April 30 revealed that the condition of the leaching was the same as. noted .-.on April 25. The dead chicJden and broken egg disposal site revealed recent improper burial, ho,lityMeilitith many exposed carcasses. Darleen Mc$issen, the area Sanitarian, and I met with Ernie Greenwood, the corporation's representative who will be working at this location for about a month, on April 30, He requested a week to ten days to try to solve the problems at both sites. Darleen will make inspections approximately every three days to determine if compliance has been met. Notices of Violation will be sent to the company at the end of the week or ten days if there has been no correction. Darleen will continue to monitor the property and will work through the correction procedure regarding the failing sewage disposal system (plan review, permit issuance, inspections). If the sewage disposal system begins to drain into the irrigation or drainage systems or other surface waters, the State Health Department's Water Quality Control Division will be contacted. At this time there are no regulations enforceable by this Department regarding odors. Doralyn Genova, County Commissioner (DG-GME) SEP 18 '95 14:10 P.20 Investigation Information' (Record all contacts and reinspect as needed.) sj5 �D 9/:i t.,' n n.#6 n -,.,,c. ,,' '%Lnezdy; n.O tInnt etehts >, f�4o art 44' .10,, .41/ Asian, • Lrgtni, 772thi: 1.; -1A-,;1/' 71Z )' ra /el v2r's.y>/ � i }ZLj�C - `. po yter_ Runoff from sew {e:system', 5/21/90 = IKs ected both .si�teS.knth Steve DeFe ag... is small and a stained aya tit any dtitcbes, Burial site has 2 or,S,ete0.4 carcasses (from:,,previous:trench l:exposed: ve xhere is an odor and solf. ley present. No evidence of trucks p Oep'elsewfiere.on property, just. behind_tho}f�C, Its 5/25/90 Spoke.witfi "B ent�`, athe sate; `Mr., Hudoens and Mr. reen't re not able to be. reached 7d14'.' t about toe complaint re t InspeCeted both sites if :,.'0ry parking„ f ,t;,,L ry. fiis time .r'yrent. on the north sid#4;tr •� ' fence to . view the'::ac list:). ,durugoff, r A ditch ;and`a hole (8t w , a{+,t�long and 4-5' deep) has k: .? t of ;tl14 ce. runs :into: the hole Hole a ,gs�present, odor, bad, water running "' ea•y{stream. B; . t res . r r y. • rZspeC- • -1' 5/21190 --,Call from tan iiu 1 ,,t uno f from the diitcfe$ s te.trench and.:he se. records from 11/122/86 peed ,Address: Date:_ _ ai,j2n ens f" He -s ated fjol a was due about 7 tvPig o cogeerns {h'vater table dye to dapt, s'. drain t;) Mtxllerl T '' 11APJ1 n tha: r;mmndicater 1,1P -at 6'. Also addressed'q' eep' - ,nosal r off ce up'l;;ai,nt. SEP 10 '95 14:11 P.21 :Investigation information: (Record all contacts and reinspect a5 needed.) ,Mr. Hudgeons stated that. the manepr:hauler5 are reminded, not to park on the roadway, only by.tbe back (westtof tbe_bufldtug. , Ke said trucks. 'are .tube empty::and clean, and are to be.parked_by the manure sheds. He;did try to contact Mr. try concerning tti2sftuation. 5/29/90 - Reported pit area to Steve.Refeyter.__He said that would,, not constitute an'approved_.repa.ir,.Yeri:fied,that no, permits had been issued, and said to wait until the NOV date was due (6/18/90)( /[d�r47 �il�lA //fs,_ ![ F /i4..,l LrlF!`. _ /(/�� 7�t1/ 2 / /e -i 'ICJ / /!/%1?7 arid, I L, .nz,„ " /t/�' .S•ln T._K 4/i y%%/l_Sli(///fbal, C A 6.7-90 - Site inspected. Large hole is full of runoff from septic system, eggs:. and flies present at that site. 0tdor noted downwind from large ole. .Virtually no runoffwater in the trench. ..Five new holes have been excavated at the site. See a tached drawing. Standing water -in 411 five holes.. Fl.ies_and.,odor present at each hole. Tank has also been exposed (water present). Disposal site inspected and is 6-7-90 in accetable -Callfrom ViiickicGould'933-20oRoadrregarding chickeodo.or flies. n manure. 6-7-90 - Call. from Gordon Ashurst 858-O357..regar..ding chicken loanUre on:..1911,.Road. 6.7-90 is call Dan'Hudnens at Grand Mesa. ggs Rajas_ coid'ehirken manure to Harold Raff. • They had ordered 4 loads but only :.took. 2 leads. Mr. Raff's number is 858-3715. Mr. Hudgerc is to inspert the field At Mr ,Achgrct,etatad that there are dead chicken parts in the manure::and the•odor is.ot-dead animals. _6-7-90 Call ,t0 Mrs. Raff. They '°lan t'o mark (stir) in the Manure and then irrigate the stela. The field is in pasture ;o'_i'ir.,woy,ld-be impossible, tp diSc.�it in. _Her husband works out .pf town and iwit-.be ab)e to do the work fnr,at leact 4R hours. 6-,8-90 ,- Call from.Maxi;ne,atState.Health. 8ill. Vidman'245-3,120 Complaining about a pile -Of manure nn thr'FactrcidP at,i8 K Rriert 6-8-90 Call to Dan'Hud ens. He is<aware of,.the..stockpilingof.manure. He said the odor from the pile s o ld die T a ip a°counie days 1f'not_ they have a, product that .can :be sprayed in,.the 0ii1e to held caiRQflauge the 0dgr_ . _Also, ;he, -did°"Walk'the fie1d"on•-19-1121Road Tlirocday. hf 6.109-M- -"One Obirken wing was noted in the field,. %, 6-8-90:- Received attached letter from Grand-Mesa'Eaas addreSSina the Proper maintenance of the disposal site, Alsg. maniiro truck, operators!`.,4Xg,initructed to Addres iu rem.Qve any chicken uarts`the'y'sep prior So Spreading' chicken manure. Date: -/-9, Sanitarian: .c0f-Xr2Tc7t/asi... Complaint ij__, SEP 18 '95 14:03 P.12 MESA COUNTY RE.ALTi DEPARTMENT 515 Patterson Road Grand Junction,, Colorado 81501 COMPLAINT RECORD All complaints must be recorded. Refer unrelated complaints to proper departments and inform complainant. Phone Address of Complaint`` Occupant/Establishment. Owner Address Description of house or business and location information: Complainant Address Wit � Phone' 964 REPORTED'DY: CTelephon / Letter / In Person PREVIOU§-'COMPLAINT ON No Naturof \S Complaint: Q� r LC n\ \` ]iQ 7i�� a151 C_d � •�GX�9 is `c`S�,+ • .4\i11\ t9i` `hit\1.n[ jI�YY+QNN.a�.i� SaC c1 --Ss.n.\-a ;42 Investigation IWation• cord all age (Z;✓P..D., contacts and reinspect as needed.) ifat,. d n wr 4 nerd) fM4 f Q w: Gf lso OAart ` d<'/.A ° Rsxi. .Conclusion: _ 6 Date:;. -'Sanitarian: -This complaint has been referred to: Date:.. Sanitarian: (Form #10/82) Date _ By.. Complaint C. SEP 18 '95 13:50 MESA COUNTY HEALTN:DEPARTMENT 515 Patterson Road. Grand Junction, Colorado 8150E All complaints must be recorded. Refer unrelated complaints 'to ,proper departments and inform ;'eomplainant/ Address of• complaint.,,;'S 1 c/ 3� o/L Occupant/Establishment. J�� /ja t Owner Address (/" Description of house or. business and location information: REPORTED BY: elephone�/ Letter /In Person Address //4,x-021 fenesel. Investigation information: -(Record all contacts and reinspect as needed„); • 'PREVIOUS C0MPLAINTil0N?P'ILE „22 x/gyie!sv . P.30 .. /- % p.c(c,.1 tcni.i :)rrlC ,p,jS. l7E .Srlin ' hh1r,'t.r1NF.U:;.x.cii!, APi is - FnTr�tZry4 ) _1 NE 117Atuur6 Al 1'ss-R1 '�y5 'Mt e rii�• obeli? C'AA) _2F i4asr-nnjr • 4- . s t.11A rzocK.7 ziur✓z 4A>> •.s tjna)6- ) lO,VT Or.' 7`Ht '17m. 5%{trr -/i.c 1.11-7e,,A41; 1;�gry�,( c Apr ' I ri'yati y A '-Mn14"` 4S E-xPe.RIGAJ Ti-1ee P2o.2r&, ing?r 5?7y,i, fltS 1 SiT�n.o j t j ✓ %7fe' �Jt��r7 ? nr,i-ke,. to/ ,�J .uqT j 5 � ;Cabe,. i! Z:E t'L $7 ft#t S/aaf.C APr j) ?e,c, t,e,4'?'_tyL n 4 4Jfria /49'1-' joitiTtt 1 -'7.Q EAsS,D Esf of mime- cobuRfE$ akit jl 7i/,S ell:6 ° .. 7'Kr .711E- , ., : ,..• Conclusion: /O;;; let 4O)r 14l/ it„ a.: q N a Date: Sanitarian l.' This complaint has been referred to: Date: Sanitarian: _ "ate Yo7 �%l Pt. complaint .i 4c54 f , (Form '110/82) !1 SEP 18 '95 14:04 P.13 Onnt 1rtc : ann roinSflart�W Charles J. Wolfe 1080 - 20 Road Fruita, CO 81521 858-3758 - Home 248-6191- Work u October 27, 1993 Mesa County Health Department P.O. Box 20000-5033 Grand Junction, CO 81502-5033 Attention: Michael D. Aduddell, Director COMPLAINT: The encroachment of odors and flies from Grand Mesa Egg Inc Dear Dr. Aduddell: On April 12, 1993 I purchased a home located at 1080 - 20 Road. On or about the third -week in April, 1993, my wife and I started noticing a very pungent odor in the air at varying times during the day and evening. In addition, we had extreme fly infestation problems in the area. I started asking questions of neighbors, Mesa County Health Department, and the Mesa County Planning and Zoning Department and have come to the conclusion that Grand Mesa Egg, Inc. is responsible for both of these issues. I have come to Grand Junction after seventeen years of country living in southeast Idaho, so this is not a case of "city person" not accustomed to country air. IMETBVatratraw ETTEMEZEfelfie?t'ie�°icatfEi ith Sites: Over time some percentage of any population could become tolerant of the odor; however, the flies generated from their manure pile are in such numbers that entry into your own home on some days allows several hundred flies to enter with you. Meal time is very pathetic in that the family members must compete with the flies for food. It is inhumane to allow my family pets out of doors because of the constant torment imposed on them. I am a mid -level manager at my place of employment. As part of my job, I am expected to entertain a variety of guests, so I bought a home in the country with a full-size swimming pool with this in mind. The pool cannot be used as any source of enjoyment, and entertainment activities are out of the question due to the embarrassment that I would suffer, both emotionally and professionally. I have been told by members of your Mesa County Health Department October 27, 1993 Page 2 staff that this problem with Grand Mesa Egg has been ongoing for several years and all efforts have failed to place basic humanitarian controls on their manuie treatment operations. Candid conversations with several county and city representatives have Se this community is attemjitfh 111radii& new residents to the area, we would probably be successful in selling the house; however, it would be indecent. This company was allowed into the community as an economic development prospect,to bring additional, reasonable paying jobs to the valley with no economic losses imposed on the public. Regrettably, we received one more sweatshop and a substantial downgrade of life in the area. Few area residents would have an issue with the existence of the chicken farm if it were producing its intended products: eggs, chicken parts and chickens for resale; however,OlgliMISIMEMOSATZEMMOMEZI Catfal, « �'rtbe'm `�86$�erafiogn''%av Malllradfll Was Grand Mesa Egg required to ,have an environmental impact or assessment performed? I would like your office to become actively involved in this issue. Require Grand Mesa Egg to relocate their manure operation t.o an area that would not subject residents to this fly infestation problem and associated odor. Controlling odors and flies from chicken manure is not a new technology. Other cities and counties are using methodologies that minimize these effects. Why can't we? Before I take any further action related to this issue, I would like a formal response from your office. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 248-6191 or 858-3758 after 5:00 p.m. Thank you for your help. Charles J. Wolfe "WELLNESS IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT" /1H1 sa County Health Department 515 Patterson Road P.O. Box 20,000-5033 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5033 Administration :303) 244-1743 Environmental Health 303) 244-1750 Vurcing 3 244-1759 Animal Control Center 362 28 Road P.O. Box 20,000-5002 3rand Junction, Colorado 31502-5002 ;303) 244-1892 June 14, 1990 Mr. Frank Fry 1164 21 Road Fruita, CO 81521 Re: Grand Mesa Egg Company Dear Mr. Fry: The Mesa County Health Department has been actively: involved in efforts to alleviate citizen complaints at the Grand Mesa Egg Company facility. Although our authority does not extend to all complaint areas, we have attempted to offer recommendations where we lack regulatory authority. The areas which we have clear authority, the individual sewage disposal system for the egg washing operation and the dead chicken burial operation are being constantly mon- itored for compliance. Overall odor problems, the storage and handling of manure, application of manure as commercial fertilizer, and property trespass issues are beyond the scope of our regulations. We therefore, recommend that citizens in the affected area of the plant contact those agencies under which potential regulatory involvement would be found. Regarding the storage, handling and use of chicken manure it is recommended that you contact the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Mr. Jerry Mc Donough, telephone number 243-9373, may be able to assist you in that regard. Odor is addressed under the Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Stationary Sources Section. Mr. John Clouse, telephone number 331-8576, is the head of the section in the main office in Denver. Property trepass would be under review by the Mesa County Sheriff's Department, telephone number 244- 3521. 16 We hope that this information will be of value to you in the event of future complaints. We will be perform ing surveillance on those operations which fall under our jurisdiction. If you have any questions concerning this matter, feel free to contact this office at tele- phone number 244-1745. Sincerely; /2,4: Steven L. DeFeyter Environmental Health Supervisor cc: Steven Ausmus, Mesa County Administration 4 Accu-Labs Research, Inc. 1,663 Table Mountain Drive Golden. Colorado 80403-1650 .03)277.9514 FAX (303) 277.9512 Date: 07/19/95 Page 1 Mr Glenn Teets Teets Residence POB 142 Roggen, CO 80652 ALR Designation: Client Designation: Sample Location: Location II: Date/Time Collected REPORT OF ANALYSIS Lab Job Number: 003018 TEE001 Date Samples Received: 06/29/95 95-A9837 FOE 142 06/29/95 6:00 Coliform, Total (#/100mL) < 1 Nitrate plus Nitrite (mg/L) 9.5 /O NOTES: When present, *** indicates that the analyte in question was not requested for that sample. Scheduled sample disposal/return date: August 18, 1995. .:,._'LC/ Susan J. Barker Inorganic Chemistry Supervisor An Environmental Laboratory Specializing in: Organic Chemistry • Metals Analysis • Inorganic Chemistry • Radiochemistry • Spark Source Mass Spectrometry 47) 0 W J O Qom, � • • tn eC ll� E- cp C N LLI • • asai Lis W • _ az MOARK SCOPE OF MANURE AND CARCASS MANAGEMENT AT PROPOSED ROGGIN SITE ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND HENS. (1,400,000) FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PULLETTS ( 400,000) 1/4 LB/DAY MANURE ADULT HENS (STATE VETERINARIAN) 1/8 LB/DAY PULLET HENS (ESTIMATED) DEATH RATE AVERAGE: 1% PER MONTH (STATE VETERINARIAN) 1.4 Million Hens X .25 lbs/day X 7 days = 2,450,000/lbs. week 400,000 Pulletts X .125 lbs/day X 7 days = 50,000/lbs. week TOTAL MANURE WEEKLY = 2,500,000 POUNDS CHICKEN POPULATION: 1,8000,000 x 1% =18,000 DEAD/MO. TOTAL DEAD PER DAY = 600 TOTAL DEAD PER WEEK= 4200 • United States Agricultural Department of Marketing Agriculture Service POULTRY DIVISION GRADING BRANCH MODESTO REGION September 29, 1995 Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Shani Eastin, Current Planner P.O. Box 459 1402 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Ms. Eastin, We are responding to a request from Mr. Paul Osborne, Moark Productions, asking that we write a letter explaining our relationship with their company. Presently, USDA, AMS, Poultry Grading Branch, has a grading contract with this company at Boulder Valley Poultry Inc., Boulder, Colorado. This contract covers the grading and processing of eggs at this facility and includes certain sanitation and wholesomeness requirements. A shell egg processing plant that elects to enter into a contractual agreement with the Poultry Grading Branch for the purpose of having a resident grader on premises must adhere to certain established guidelines. These guidelines cover the quality of the eggs packaged bearing the USDA shield as well as requirements for equipment, facilities, chemical compounds, labeling, and insecticides and rodenticides. These requirements are part of the duties and responsibilities of the resident USDA Grader monitoring them on a daily basis. When a shell egg plant wishes to establish official resident USDA Grading Service a plant survey is completed covering buildings and premises, grading and packing rooms, adequacy of candling room equipment, cooler room equipment, labeling, shell egg cleaning operation, shell egg treating equipment, disposition of inedible product, supply rooms, and lavatory and toilet facilities. The items covered on this survey must be satisfactory prior to the plant starting an official resident grading program. fl COUN IYpH. OCT 3 1995 17, n A 1' Be Resourceful. Recycle! EXHIBIT vSv, ki, L Page 2 In plants operating under the resident grading program, plant management is responsible for producing shell eggs under sanitary conditions. Additionally, management must assure that adequate plant sanitation is maintained through thorough cleaning of equipment prior to the start of and during each operating shift. All buildings, rooms, equipment, or other facilities must be sanitarily maintained and in good repair. The resident grader conducts a sanitation inspection of the plant before or immediately upon start up of the operations and official certification of product is allowed only when critical sanitation items are found satisfactory. Boulder Valley Poultry Inc., like all other shell egg processing plants in the United States with Official Resident USDA Grading service must adhere to these requirements. Our contract with this firm calls for a full-time USDA grader five days a week for eight hours per day. The Poultry Grading Branch has had a long standing relationship with the plant owners. We presently have resident grading service in several plants they operate. I'm also attaching a page from our regulations, 7 CFR Part 56, Regulations Governing The Grading Of Shell Eggs and United States Standards, Graded and Weight Classes For Shell Eggs. Section 56.75 outlines the facility requirements. I hope I have been able to provide some insight into our role in providing shell egg grading service. As you can see plants using this service must meet established standards and are monitored by the resident USDA grader on a daily basis. If I can answer further questions pertaining to our shell egg grading service, please contact me at (209) 522-5251. Sincerely, /�,�'tkl�..-.,ate✓ Gerald Brockman Regional Director cc: Osborne Attachment sede any previously issued certificate for the product involved and shall clearly identify the number and date of the superseded certificate. The issu- ance of the appeal certificate may be withheld until any previously issued certificate and all copies have been re- turned when such action is deemed necessary to protect the interest of the Government. When the appeal grader assigns a different grade to the lot, the existing grade mark shall be changed or obliterated as necessary. When the appeal grader assigns a dif- ferent class or quantity designation to the lot, the labeling shall be corrected. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS k 56.75 Applicability of facility and oper- ating requirements. The provisions of k 56.76 shall be ap- plicable to any grading service that is provided on a resident basis. (b) Grading room requirements. The grading room shall be adequately darkened to make possible accurate quality determination of the candled appearance of eggs. (1) There shall be no crossbeams of light, and light reflection from can- dling lights shall be kept at a mini- mum. (2) Candling benches shall be con- structed so as to permit cleaning and provide ample shelf space for conven- ient placement of the different grades to be packed. (3) The candling lights shall be capa- ble of delivering reasonably uniform intensity of light at the candling aper- ture to facilitate accurate quality de- terminations; and the light shall pro- vide ample case light for detection of stained and dirty shells and the condi- tion of the packing materials. In oper- ations utilizing mechanical grading equipment, adequate light shall be provided to facilitate necessary quality determinations, including the detec- tion and removal of stained and dirty shells and the condition of the packing material. (4) Individual egg scales shall be pro- shift. Remedial measures shall be vided to check accuracy of weight taken to prevent excess foaming classing. during the egg washing operation. (5) Weighing equipment, whether (5) Replacement water shall be k 56.76 Minimum facility and operating manual or automatic, shall be kept added continuously to the wash water requirements for shell egg grading and reasonably clean and shall be capable of washers to maintain a continuous packing plants. of ready adjustment. overflow. Rinse water, chlorine, or quaternary sanitizing rinse may be used as part of the replacement water, provided, they are compatible with the washing compound. Iodine sanitizing rinse may not be used as part of the replacement water. (6) Only potable water may be used to wash eggs. Each official plant shall submit certification to the national office stating that their water supply is potable. An analysis of the iron con- tent of the water supply, stated in parts per million, is also required. When the iron content exceeds 2 parts (a) General requirements for build- (6> Adequate ventilation shall be ings and plant facilities. (I) Buildings provided. shall be of sound construction so as to (c) Cooler room requirements. (1) trance or insofar inas of vermin. the en- Cooler rooms shall have refrigeration trance harboring of vermin. facilities capable of reducing within 24 (2) Grading and packing rooms shall hours and holding the maximum be of sufficient size to permit installs- volume of eggs handled to 60° F. or tion of necessary equipment and the below. Accurate thermometers shall be conduct of grading and packing in a a provided. sanitary manner. These rooms shall be (2) Cooler rooms shall be free from kept reasonably clean during grading' objectionable odors and from mold, and packing - operations and shall be and shall be maintained in a sanitary thoroughly cleaned at the end of each condition. operating day. II shall be d toilet ac - the oil is removed. It is preferable to filter and heat treat processing oil and clean processing equipment daily when in use. (5) Adequate coverage and protec- tion against dust and dirt shall be pro- vided when the equipment is not in use. (e) Shell egg cleaning operations. (1) Shell egg cleaning equipment shall be, kept in good repair and shall be cleaned after each day's use or more frequently, if necessary. (2) The temperature of the wash water shall be maintained at 90° F. or higher, and shall be at least 20° F. warmer than the temperature of the eggs to be washed. These tempera- tures shall be maintained throughout the cleaning cycle. (3) An approved cleaning compound shall be used in the wash water. (The use of metered equipment for dispens- ing the compound into solution is rec- ommended-) (4) Wash water shall be changed ap- proximately every 4 hours or more often if needed to maintain sanitary conditions, and at the end of each (3) Adequate lavatory an (3) All she egg coolers Per million, equipment shall be pro- commodations shall be provided. equipped with a hygrometer or pm ta- vided to the excess Toilet and locker rooms shall be main- ble equipment such as a psychrometer tent.tocorrect of testing shall iron be con- tained - in a clean and sanitary condi- shall be available to determine the rel- tent. Fre Frequencyby the Administrator. nWhen tion. Hot and cold running water shall ative humidity. Humidifying eq'u ip- the water source is changed, new tests be provided. Rooms shall be ventilated ment capable of maintaining a relative are water so to the outside of the building. Signs humidity which will minimize shr. �k- (7) Waste water from the egg wash - shall be posted in the rest rooms in- ad. ge shall be provided. ing operation shall be piped directly to (d) Shell egg protecting operatics. drai. strutting employees to wash their' hands before returning to work. (4) A separate refuse room or a des- ignated area for the accumulation of trash must be provided in plants which do not have a system for the daily removal or destruction of such trash. (5) Wood benches, platforms, etc., in areas which are subjected to moisture and which develop odors shall be re- placed with equipment of metal con- (3) Processing oil that has been pre- mits the water to drain away or other struction. Wood walls or partitions viously used and which has become methods which may be approved by which develop odors shall be replaced contaminated shall be filtered and the Administrator. The temperature with materials impervious to moisture. heat treated at 180° F. for 3 minutes of the water shall be the same as pre - Newly constructed plants should be prior to use. scribed in this section. equipped with metal benches, plat- (4) Shell egg processing equipment (10) Washed eggs shall be spray forms. etc., in areas which are subject- shall be washed, rinsed, and treated rinsed with warm water containing an ed to moisture. with a bactericidal agent each time approved sanitizer of not less than 50 Shell egg protecting (on processing) (8) The washing and drying oper- operations shall be conducted in a ation shall be continuous and shall be manner to avoid contamination of t ie completed as rapidly as possible. Eggs product and maximize conservation of shall not be allowed to stand or soak its quality. in water. Immersion -type washers (1) Eggs with excess moisture on the shall not be used. shell shall not be shell protected. (9) Prewetting shell eggs prior to (2) Oil having any off odor, or that washing may be accomplished by is obviously contaminated, shall not be spraying a continuous flow of water used in shell egg protection. over the eggs in a manner which per - 9 p/m nor more than 200 p/m of availa- ble chlorine or its equivalent. (11) Test kits shall be provided and used to determine the strength of the sanitizing solution. (12) During any rest period, eggs shall be removed from the washing and rinsing area of the egg washer and from the scanning area whenever there is a buildup of heat. (13) Washed eggs shall be reason- ably dry before cartoning or casing. (14) When steam or vapors originate from the washing operation, they shall be continuously and directly re- moved to the outside of the building. (f) Requirements for eggs which are to be marked with official U.S. identi- fication mark. (1) Shell eggs held in the official plant shall be placed under refrigeration of 60° F. or lower promptly after packaging. Officially identified shell eggs with an internal temperature of 70° F. or higher when shipped from the official plant should be transported at a temperature of 60° F. or less. (2) Every reasonable precaution shall be exercised to prevent "sweat- ing" of eggs. (3) Eggs which are to be officially identified with consumer grademarks shall be packaged only in new or good used cases and packing materials. Cases and packing materials must be reasonably clean, free of mold, musti- ness and off odors and must be of suf- ficient strength and durability to ade- quately protect the eggs during normal distribution. (g) The following substances used in the plant shall be approved and han- dled in accordance with the manufac- turer's instructions: Pesticides, insecti- cides, rodenticides, cleaning com- pounds, destaining compounds, foam control compounds, sanitizers, and inks and oils coming into contact with the product. Subpart C —United States Standards, Grades, and Weight CI for Shell Eggs UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL SHELL EGGS § 56.200 Application. (a) The United States standards for quality of individual shell eggs con- tained in this subpart are applicable only to eggs that are the product of the domesticated chicken hen and are in the shell. (b) Interior egg quality specifica- tions for these standards are based on the apparent condition of the interior contents of the egg as it is twirled before the candling light. Any type or make of candling light may be used that will enable the particular grader to make consistently accurate determi- nation of the interior quality of shell eggs. It is desirable to break out an oc- casional egg and by determining the Haugh unit value of the broken -out egg, compare the broken -out and can- dled appearance, thereby aiding in cor- relating candled and broken -out ap- pearance. § 56.77 Health and hygiene of personnel. (a) No person known to be affected by a communicable or infectious dis- ease shall be permitted to come in con- tact with the product. (b) Plant personnel coming into con- tact with the product shall wear clean clothing. Subpart B —[Reserved] § 56.201 AA Quality. The shell must be clean, unbroken, and practically normal. The air cell must not exceed )6 inch in depth, may show unlimited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white must be clear and firm so that the yolk is only slightly defined when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk must be practically free from ap- parent defects. § 56.202 A Quality. The shell must be clean, unbroken, and practically normal. The air cell must not exceed %6 inch in depth, may show unlimited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white must be clear and at least reasonably firm so that the yolk outline is only fairly well defined when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk must be practically free from apparent defects. over fib inch in depth, may show un- limited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white may be weak and watery so that the yolk outline is plainly visible when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk may appear, dark, enlarged, and flat- tened, and may show clearly visible germ development but no blood due to such development. It may show other serious defects that do not render the egg inedible. Small blood spots or meat spots (aggregating not more than 36 inch in diameter) may be present. § 56.203 B Quality. The shell must be unbroken, may be abnormal, and may have slightly stained areas. Moderately stained areas are permitted if they do not cover more than lz of the shell surface if localized, or $6 of the shell surface if scattered. Eggs having shells with prominent stains or adhering dirt are not permitted. The air cell may be 10 § 56.205 Dirty. An individual egg that has an unbro- ken shell with adhering dirt or foreign material, prominent stains, or moder- ate stains covering more than 362 of the shell surface if localized, or 3 6 of the shell surface if scattered. § 56.206 Check. An individual egg that has a broken shell or crack in the shell but with its shell membranes intact and its con- tents do not leak. A "check" is consid- ered to be lower in quality than a "dirty." § 56.208 Terms descriptive of the shell. (a) Clean. A shell that is free from foreign material and from stains or discolorations that are readily visible. An egg may be considered clean if it has only very small specks, stains, or cage marks, if such specks, stains, or cage marks are not of sufficient number or intensity to detract from the generally clean a^Dearance of the egg. Eggs that show traces of process- ing oil on the shell are considered clean unless otherwise soiled. (b) Dirty. A shell that is unbroken and that has dirt or foreign material adhering to its surface, which has prominent stains, or moderate stains covering more than K: of the shell sur- face if localized, or V,,6 of the shell sur- face if scattered. (c) Practically normal (AA or A qual- ity). A shell that approximates the usual shape and that is sound and is free from thin spots. Ridges and rough areas that do not materially affect the shape and strength of the shell are permitted. (d) Abormal (B quality). A shell that may be somewhat unusual or decided- ly misshapen or faulty in soundness or strength or that may show pro- nounced ridges or thin spots. p/m nor more than 200 p/m of availa- ble chlorine or its equivalent. (11) Test kits shall be provided and used to determine the strength of the sanitizing solution. (12) During any rest period, eggs shall be removed from the washing and rinsing area of the egg washer and from the scanning area whenever there is a buildup of heat. (13) Washed eggs shall be reason- ably dry before cartoning or casing. (14) When steam or vapors originate from the washing operation, they shall be continuously and directly re- moved to the outside of the building. (f) Requirements for eggs which are to be marked with official U.S. identi- fication mark. (1) Shell eggs held in the official plant shall be placed under refrigeration of 60° F. or lower promptly after packaging. Officially identified shell eggs with an internal temperature of 70° F. or higher when shipped from the official plant should be transported at a temperature of 60° F. or less. (2) Every reasonable precaution shall be exercised to prevent "sweat- ing" of eggs. (3) Eggs which are to be officially identified with consumer grademarks shall be packaged only in new or good used cases and packing materials. Cases and packing materials must be reasonably clean, free of mold, musti- ness and off odors and must be of suf- ficient strength and durability to ade- quately protect the eggs during normal distribution. (g) The following substances used in the plant shall be approved and han- dled in accordance with the manufac- turer's instructions: Pesticides, insecti- cides, rodenticides, cleaning com- pounds, destaining compounds, foam control compounds, sanitizers, and inks and oils coming into contact with the product. § 56.77 Health and hygiene of personnel. (a) No person known to be affected by a communicable or infectious dis- ease shall be permitted to come in con- tact with the product. (b) Plant personnel coming into con- tact with the product shall wear clear. clothing. Subpart B —[Reserved] Subpart C —United States Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for Shell Eggs UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL SHELL EGGS § 56.200 Application. (a) The United States standards for quality of individual shell eggs con- tained in this subpart are applicable only to eggs that are the product of the domesticated chicken hen and are in the shell. (b) Interior egg quality specifica- tions for these standards are based on the apparent condition of the interior contents of the egg as it is twirled before the candling light. Any type or make of candling light may be used that will enable the particular grader to make consistently accurate determi- nation of the interior quality of shell eggs. It is desirable to break out an oc- casional egg and by determining the Haugh unit value of the broken -out egg, compare the broken -out and can- dled appearance, thereby aiding in cor- relating candled and broken -out ap- pearance. § 56.201 AA Quality. The shell must be clean, unbroken, and practically normal. The air cell must not exceed 3f inch in depth, may show unlimited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white must be clear and firm so that the yolk is only slightly defined when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk must be practically free from ap- parent defects. 56.202 A Quality. The shell must be clean, unbroken. and practically normal. The air cell must not exceed 4, inch in depth, may show unlimited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white must be clear and at least reasonably firm so that the yolk outline is only fairly well defined when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk must be practically free from apparent defects. § 56.203 B Quality. The shell must be unbroken, may be abnormal, and may have slightly stained areas. Moderately stained areas are permitted if they do not cover more than �/ 3, of the shell surface if localized, or i6 of the shell surface if scattered. Eggs having shells with prominent stains or adhering dirt are not permitted. The air cell may be 10 over Ne inch in depth, may show un- limited movement, and may be free or bubbly. The white may be weak and watery so that the yolk outline is plainly visible when the egg is twirled before the candling light. The yolk may appear, dark, enlarged, and flat- tened, and may show clearly visible germ development but no blood due to such development. It may show other serious defects that do not render the egg inedible. Small blood spots or meat spots (aggregating not more than 4 inch in diameter) may be present. § 56.205 Dirty. An individual egg that has an unbro- ken shell with adhering dirt or foreign material, prominent stains, or moder- ate stains covering more than 42 of the shell surface if localized, or 46 of the shell surface if scattered. § 56.206 Check. An individual egg that has a broken shell or crack in the shell but with its shell membranes intact and its con- tents do not leak. A "check" is consid- ered to be lower in quality than a "dirty." § 56.208 Terms descriptive of the shell. (a) Clean. A shell that is free from foreign material and from stains or discolorations that are readily visible. An egg may be considered clean if it has only very small specks, stains, or cage marks, if such specks, stains, or cage marks are not of sufficient number or intensity to detract from the generally clean c^oearance of the egg. Eggs that show traces of process- ing oil on the shell are considered clean unless otherwise soiled. (b) Dirty. A shell that is unbroken and that has dirt or foreign material adhering to its surface, which has prominent stains, or moderate stains covering more than 42 of the shell sur- face if localized, or ys of the shell sur- face if scattered. (c) Practically normal (Ali or A qual- ity). A shell that approximates the usual shape and that is sound and is free from thin spots. Ridges and rough areas that do not materially affect the shape and strength of the shell are permitted. (d) Abormal (B quality). A shell that may be somewhat unusual or decided- ly misshapen or faulty in soundness or strength or that may show pro- nounced ridges or thin spots. .10/03/1995 08:44 303-732-4643 EPPELSHEIMER PAGE 01 pear anei pt No0Q( PLUMBING AND PIPINGonu4 k P.O. BOX 806 , EVERGREEN. CO 80431e ` Lie ?Laker 2, /yys 574-8789 Weld ot,Pitt) PM nn,nt) and ('CM//7"y CcmOr) .s5 /on e's Wt-. c', ,.'i a (n.rrn ct 1' 3.1988 trW/n' ('nun 1-c) Road /6 /7 I!^i s'J�1 C'.Grlf s %"err'^/ Lea �CPhf2 t✓t) (Pt C)5pE'C. /' YG.!%'.1 Q h ci 'Ale <.tre- e al-no/date/Li e/L/ t'p/ cP5eccl 7� o Th)e.} proposed e: c t s i 9 olan f i 5C& lb of iTLiApL'I7 Colorado or'he& i 1"" of Ot.t' let, n-), Nc.'. bt:).eve the odc,.s, sme-l15, excess, ve water 4A SO ).i, d fr.)e•ctl I7ollu1/on wotcld n-icathis prole( t- t c'or c hc. /cam for On Qreq which _// 6 prime a c1r,c:.tllcn .t.) in-/ 1t-(hfe resider -117a/ 9fou.hal. We c /`.o fee/ -fin* I+ Lvott/d neq Ve!c-) „))r,o'2t' 11,E !+e4a/, hi Of life at our fhrrr, and Me 5 C.1 1 I. t C.t / > cl , r, <) '1- a r kn 5 pie u5c, C'ottn 1 -he creek. cts as opposcol /o S,'nee.r-'e /cf 10/03/95 07:45 11) , S prey c [..._ EXHIBIT s. 72 t. ti,e04, /09? , i TX/RX N0.2051 P.001 • From: David 0. Bone I a: Ms. Shani Lashio Dale: II r2 ens lime. 14 59:16 Page 1 of October 02, 1995 Ms. Shani Easton Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Office rHA 7 /U.JJL.UJ IL Greeley, Colorado FAX 970.352.6312 Ms. Easton, This intent of this letter is to express our extreme concern regarding the application for a Special Use Permit for a commercial egg production facility by Moark Hatcheries. As we understand, the planning department has issued a preliminary recommendation this application be approved. We strongly urge the planning commission to reconsider this recommendation until a full investigation of the environmental impact of the proposed operation can be performed. The stockpile of manure and stirred compost will create serious air quality and water runoff pollution. This type of open decomposition is additionally a breeding area for flies and other pests. We can see no healthy result from this operation to either the individuals residing in the area or to the balanced environment in the Keenesburg-Roggen area. Again, this project should not be considered for approval prior to a very serious examination of the process, methods, and history of the petitioner, as well as an in depth study of the environmental issues. Sincerely, David O. Bone Patricia A. Bone 33313 Weld County Road 16 Keenesburg, CO 80643 14 EXHIBIT 0 k9.L. 10/3/95 I am Elfie Doman, lived in Roggen town for 18 years. My late husband, Don, was plant engineer for Ralston Purina for 39 years. This gave this city raised and born woman a deep knowledge of what agriculture is all about. I have a healthy admiration for our farmers. I also was a motivational researcher and have done studies for Ford Foundation, Columbia University among others including the Surgeon General of the United States for whom I did a three state study. It is with this background that I approach the situation facing us in Roggen- not just the town, but the whole area with a mail route of 65 miles. With Mr. Osborn having stated the final number of 1,440,000 laying hens , plus 440,000 growing pullets-- that is nearly 2,000,000 chickens - more than the population of metro Denver. I refer you to Mr. Osborn's own letter of August 24th , 1995. "Dear Shan', this letter is intended to supply the additional information you requested regarding the referenced application." "First, you wanted more information regarding pellets. Please be advised that it will be a long time before the applicant has sufficient waste material to justify pelletizing. The plan at the present , besides spreading on fields, is to simply sun dry and /or compost the chicken manure. The compost manure would be in triangle shaped windrows, three to four feet high and rounded at the top. Each windrow would be a maximum of 150-180 feet long. The temperature of the windrow would be monitored and carbon base would be added to aid in decomposition. There would be approximately 6-10 windrows each in a different week of decomposition. The sun drying would be in drying beds 60 feet by 200 feet in size with thin layers added for drying. The bed would be stirred occasionally to facilitate total drying. ( we all know the more we stir the more it stinks.) The composted and sun dried material will be sold as organic soil builder. When it is justified by sufficient waste material and economics a gas dryer will be added and the chicken manure will be processed into pellets for plant food. Second, you wanted to know what the applicant will do with any deceased birds. Any deceased birds will be added to the compost process. It is my understanding that this is the generally accepted method of disposing of deceased birds." Having built a frame work to my approach to the problem I am just paving the way for others to follow. My own approach is to air quality. I wonder if any of the planners and County EXHIBIT 6 L6a), ICi9. Commissioners really know how Roggen is situated? The whole Roggen and Prospect Valley lies in a downward slope from the Wiggins hill area to the east -a rise to the south and north where the sandhills makes themselves known. Roggen town is at the lowest point in the down -flowing land. We are actually in a little bowl. I might state at this point that to those passing by Roggen it might appear to be a pimple in the landscape. It none the less has a small but healthy population ---a church, a landmark prarie church by the way, in the early days supported by the Painter family, who's daughter, Kathleen Painter Littler, was greatly influential in the building of Centennial Village in Greeley. We have a Stuckey's , a cafe, two motels, a postoffice, Roggen Telephone Co -Op, and a thriving Co - Op Grain Elevator with a highly respected manager, Terry Seelhoff. There will be many others speaking so I want to address the thing of most importance to me, the environment. Does this planning commission and the County Commissioners know the flow of land and the position Roggen town is placed in ? We fit in a low bowl. In the winter when the inversion of air sits over us like a lid we can be under that lid for days. How will all the stench, particles, etc. etc. of an egg "factory" be dispersed away from us? Especially during the stirring days. How does the future prospect of a drying plant affect this condition. A drying plant sounds quite innocuous "a cooker" would be a more accurate terminology. At 83 I am the second oldest person in our little town. There is still some wisdom left in this old head. Has a topographical study ever been done of this low lying area? I would ask the Commissioners to think about that. In closing do you know what I smell? I smell the stench of a dying community and the stench of a rotting hand clutching money. Elfie Dornan -71 600 , ■ • 4) "*PIW-741:1-t..\U IIIAmtk 41 ‘ii*Abli41111.-_%1LIK t iimATtr, ,141 My—% [RR1r fraktoWI'IVor j:L141 0,0 fi ▪ p— • O• J W •�N awoAe89t ad ihmlnumemarlir 5500 IN immutmvas.rNI ftuiria _21.41Wir keg arimpfat miaow IIli! VE IFILA IL mom _Ala. 1 asirtiMPIDIMMIL4-50k11 __I,r______ .. 1 1 kik:L.111i" — k Dalt ur,..a....- ,.._ 5.\h 1K* Aibikentenn.arrm1174* 44,,,, FillymAProreqp,.,1- -----\iw4 mil. 91 NBAimpr2 11416-miti IIMPA------inger"....iftellatiOna':t Irr%IwatiE PP -4 „Ili '1' riplVr _A, ABILWal ErainfiEwerirrA _ pPIIPAIF mos�.66)._ maritips 1-0711P/A kliptrillige FM Alk ri4 ti d, 043 WW ok ti k t� Q o Oku Qoo gae( oNt �Qo fk Iv kq V i h � ui \r, te N Jz �oQ I.co k . . , &: s �w2 w m { • \ : »�. } « ' «: » ` \ . . \ . - % ,. wa\ OCT--X33-55 WED 1f',.1> o_ 33301 124 i F. 01 (303) 887-3054 Morgan County Quality Water District P.O. BOX 1218 FORT MOROAN, COLORADO 80701 October 2, 1995 Weld County Planning Commission 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen and ladies: The Morgan County Quality Water District requests that you disapprove the chicken operation proposed to be built on 227 acres in the SE1/4, S13, T2W, R63W, Weld County, Colorado. The facility will be located in the Lost Creek groundwater basin. I am sure your staff has made you aware that the Lost Creek Water is one of the few remaining sources of good quality drinking water in the area, or perhaps all of Weld County. The Lost Creek water table is very shallow and is situated in an aquifer consisting of sands that are very vulnerable to contamination. The Morgan County Quality Water District is a supplier of water to users in Morgan and Washington Counties. The District service area encompasses an area of approximately 500 square miles. The supply for the District is from shallow wells located in the Hay Gulch basin, which adjoins the Lost Creek basin.There is evidence that water from the Lost Creek basin may commingle with water from the Hay Gulch basin just north of Roggen, Colorado. It is our opinion that both present and possible future supplies of the District would be placed in jeopardy approval of the proposed facility. We realizee'of course, that plans for the proposed operation would include measures to mitigate groundwater contamination, however, such measures have proven unsuccessful in the past. In summary, we have no objection to the proposed facility in general, but feel strongly that it should not be situated over shallow groundwater of very good quality used for domestic supplies. DIRECTORS Paul L McDill. President Terry Covell', V. President Harold E. Hansen, Secretary/Treasurer Larry C. Johnson. Director Larry J. Chrisensen, Director Weld County Department. of Planing Services 1400 N 17th Av Greeley Co 80631 Attn: Shani Eastin 1--2-95 We are concerned aboutthe purchase of the Groves cattle ranch located south of Roggen for the purpose of a enormous chicken farm. The effect of the manure on the shallow ground water and also the effect of a manure cooker on the environment top the list. A very complete environmental study of all the products produced by this operation should be done with members of the community to be informed of the impactthis place will have. A projectof this size should be outin the middle of nowhere where its effects are minimal. Bruce Klausner 7528 WCR 79 Roggen Co 80652 OCT 3 EXHIBIT w ustL-��i2 Lk - M -CARTY AND ASS OCIA's ES (303) 688-8489 — Fax (303) 688-2561 —NG"1"\"••••4 5354 Jackson Creek Road — Sedalia, CO 80135 Rich Cooper June 30, 1995 Office of the State Engineer (IA Colorado Division of Water Resources 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 4)121‘) Dear Mr. Cooper: This is a letter of explanation on the application for a commercial well permit to be located 3 in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 13, Township 2N, Range 63W (see map) and my involvement. Jimmie L. & Iris I. Groves are the owners of the above described property and have dedicated all of Section 13 to the application of a well and water rights appropriation from the state of Colorado. They also own the surrounding land (as shown by the map) for a total of 2,640 acres M/L. Egg processing and poultry producing facilities have been planned for construction on the SE 1/4 of Section 13d all of the section is to be dedicated to the mastetplalt. (ONLY 722 7V7UN cc -7-ms - cue Ptut2&2 ; 7 The entire 2,640 acres M/L is now under contract for sale subject to the approval and issuance of the commercial well permit. The buyers, Osborne-Moark Hatcheries, would accept transfer of ownership of this well from Groves at the date and time of approval from the State Division of Water Resources. This would then close the contract and transfer the funds along with the deeds as provided in the above mentioned contract of sale. Since we are somewhat pressed for time we are in hopes that we can get a decision on or before the closing date of August 18, 1995. It is also very important that adequate water is available on this section of property in order to obtain a change of use permit from the county. This poultry project has some outstanding benefits to the local community, the county and the state of Colorado. I have been appointed by both buyers and sellers to help work out these two programs. It is my responsibility to see that this permit is applied for and approved as soon as possible and therefore I would appreciate it if you would keep me informed of the progress through letters, phone calls and Faxes from your office. Thanks for your consideration and help in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. Sierely yours, cc: Jimmie & Iris Groves and Osborne-Moark Hatcheries Hello