HomeMy WebLinkAbout972516.tiffTO: Board of County Commissioners
64;
FROM: Lee D. Morri
, ssistant Weld County Attorney
DATE: July 21, 1997
Wcttine RE: Hirsch Dairy Conditions of Approval
COLORADO
The Board of County Commissioners approved the Hirsch
Dairy USR # 1091 subject to conditions of approval. Conditions of
Approval #'s2.A., 2.B., 2. C. and 2.D. are required to be reviewed and approved by the Board.
The environmental health staff is of the opinion that the required plans have not been yet been
completely formulated and neither the State or County Staff have been presented with final
plans to review. The applicant is submitting a timeline which will provide for completion of the
plans and review of those plans by the County Health Department by mid -September. Much of
the construction consistent with those plans will have been completed by that date as well. The
final decision is that of the Board of County Commissioners's and the staff is requesting
authorization to schedule a hearing so that the Board can make the decision.
The recommended action is that the staff be authorized to schedule a hearing for
the Board of County Commissioners after September 15, 1997 at which time the Board will
review the plans required to be submitted under the listed Conditions of Approval.
George Baxter
Dale Hall
Connie Harbert
Barb Kirkmeyer
Bill Webster
Agree Disagree
Schedule
Work Session
xc:Planning, John Pickle, Environmental Health, Clerk to the Board (PL 1059)
972516
g EXHIBIT
1452 /aqi
Atrit
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sep,' ber 29,1997
FROM: Trevor Jiricek, Health Department
•
COLORADO SUBJECT: Hirsch Dairy, Recommendation for Condition of
Approval #'s 2.A., 2.B, 2.C., and 2.D. of U.S.R. # 1091
MEMORANDUM
dTB
On Monday, September 29, 1997, our Department received an updated version of the
Hirsch Dairy, Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the Plan). The Plan is dated
September 26, 1997. This version of the Plan was updated, from a "draft" plan submitted
to the Department on Thursday, September 18, 1997, following a meeting with our
Department, the Planning Department and representatives of the Hirsch Dairy.
Condition of Approval #'s 2.A., 2.B, 2.C., and 2.D. of U.S.R. # 1091, required that a manure
and wastewater management plan, dust abatement plan, fly control plan, and an odor
abatement plan, be submitted to the Health Department for review and approval. The Plan
includes all four of these elements. A recommendation for each specific plan follows:
MANURE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN:
The Department recommends for approval of this plan with the following conditions:
1) Due to the minimal separation between groundwater and the retention pond liner
observed near MW -1, the Department recommends that the Hirsch Dairy obtain a
minimum of eight consecutive quarters of "groundwater elevation" readings in each of
the three monitoring wells surrounding the retention structure. Following each four
quarters of data accumulation, the Hirsch Dairy shall submit a report to the Health
Department demonstrating the date of measurement, well number, top of casing
elevation, depth to water, groundwater elevation, pond bottom elevation, and
separation difference.
In the event that these readings demonstrate that the groundwater elevation exceeds
that of the base of the pond liner, the facility shall develop a mitigation plan to protect
groundwater quality. The mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented
(pending review and approval) within 30 days of determining that the groundwater
elevation exceeds that of the base of the pond liner. The plan shall be submitted to
both the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) for review and approval.
Board of County Commissioners
September 29, 1997
Page 2
DUST ABATEMENT PLAN:
The Department recommends fo
r approval as submitted.
FLY ABATEMENT PLAN:
The Department recommends for
ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN:
The Department recommends for
tj\833
approval as submitted.
approval as submitted.
97251.+6
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 10, 1997
Mr. Tom Hellerich, Esq.
Doyle, Otis, Frey and Hellerich
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091 (Amended Report)
Dear Tom:
This letter report amends my November 5, 1997 and will present my technical review of
Paragon's Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for the Hirsch Dairy, submitted to the Weld
County Commissioners on September 26, 1997. My review will follow the section numbers
contained in the above referenced report.
1. Introduction
Paragon alleges that since the USR 1091 application is pending, the Hirsch Dairy is in compliance
with County regulations even though there are more then 960 animals on site, and have more than
960 animals on site since September 1995.
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrology
Paragon states the Hirsch Daily does not overlay a designated aquifer. However, the purpose and
intent of the Classification and Standards for Groundwater is to protect all groundwater of the
state. All groundwater of the state is protected pursuant to the Statewide Standards. Specifically,
5 CCR 1002 Section 41.5(C)(6) addresses aquifers not classified as being protected by interim
narrative standards or Table values 1-4 in the Classification and Standards regulation. The limited
shallow aquifer in the Eaton area is not excepted. There are numerous domestic, stock and
irrigation wells in the area that are receiving surface and subsurface water from the area of the
Hirsch Dairy land, lagoon and irrigation system. Baseline groundwater quality samples collected
in 1996 show that the concentration of nitrate -nitrogen in the alluvial aquifer underlaying Lind
Farms, Inc, the Habrock Property and Town of Severance is 2.24 mg/1.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAFLIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
97ti`.v,
Paragon Report Review
Page 2
2. Storm Water and Process Wastewater Management
Paragon states that "Land application of liquid and solid wastes and off -site storage and use of
solid manure is an important aspect of the waste -disposal process." However, the proposed plan
does not explain how much and when this solid manure will be applied and how agronomic rates
will be determined and tracked. In addition, the off -site storage of solid manure is not discussed.
While CAFO may not require this explanation, there are requirements under the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47.
2.1 Storm Water Conveyance
The applicant proposes, and has initiated construction of a retention pond east of the Smith
Lateral and south of the employee housing. Paragon sized the retention pond to capture storm
runoff from 17.6 acres above the Smith Lateral and hold 4.7 acre-feet. However, the drainage
basin above the Smith Lateral is 31 acres with a total of 8 acre-feet of generated runoff at a peak
discharge of 19 cfs for a 25 year, 24 -hour storm event. Paragon references a plan in Appendix A
of their report. This plan is, at best, a concept plan for the retention pond. There are no detailed
specifications pertaining to the sizing of the pond, in -situ compaction testing, erosion control
structures, appurtenances, grading plan and or ditch sizing and alignment. In addition, Paragon
does not state how this water will be handled. If this retention pond is to be evaporative, Section
4.8.3(C)(5)(b) requires that all "evaporative systems shall be designed to withstand a 10 -year
period of maximum recorded rainfall". Table 1 shows a 2 year water budget on the 4.7 acre-foot
capacity retention pond. As is evident from Table 1, the proposed size of the retention pond is
not adequate to detain and evaporate precipitation and generated runoff over a two year period,
let alone a ten year period. A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon stated that a
field technician would be on site during construction to conduct in -situ testing. My visit to the
site and drive along the Smith Lateral on October 9, 1997 revealed that the retention pond was
under construction but no
in -situ testing was being conducted. In addition, soil conditions were dry, thus, compaction at 95
percent standard proctor would be highly unlikely. Section 2.4.4 of Paragon's report states that
in -place density compaction testing will be performed during construction of the pond and ditch.
Paragon does not address storm water runoff from the 147 acres irrigated with process water
from the existing lagoon and proposed retention pond above the Smith Lateral. Review of the
map prepared in Appendix A shows drainage flow paths from the 147 acres and a tail water pond
located adjacent to Weld County Road (WCR) 23 approximately 1200 feet north of the
intersection of WCR 78 and 23. My understanding of the CAFO regulations is that all facilities
which come in contact with process wastewater must be designed to contain a 25 year, 24 -hour
storm event and have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'6 cm/sec. Paragon states that this facility
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:ILEAFLIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
Paragon Report Review
Page 3
is a "pass -through" facility. CAFO regulations do not define such a structure. In my opinion, this
facility must meet the criteria set forth in CAFO Section 4.8.4. The size of the tail water pond is
not discussed, nor is its specific design. Under CAFO, this pond, if it is to receive and hold
process wastewater must be sized to hold generated runoff from a 25 year, 24 hour storm totaling
38 acre-feet. Enclosed is a letter of September 30, 1997, from Derald Lang from the Water
Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health responding to an inquiry
by Mr. Jiricek (letter of September 24, 1997) regarding tail water ponds and their applicability to
CAFO. Mr. Lang states section 4.8.5(A)(2) of the regulation is "intended to cover impacts to
surface water quality from runoff due to flood irrigation practices." Furthermore, Mr. Lang's
opinion is the applicant's proposed tail water pond does not pose a significant threat to
groundwater quality based on the resident time of the process wastewater in the pond. Mr. Lang
was not advised of the shallow depth -to -water, nor the proposed pass -through operation. I do
not agree with Mr. Lang that there is "no significant threat" to groundwater or surface water
quality from the retention of process wastewater or the overflow potential of process wastewater
due to storm water runoff. The depth -to -water in this location is 5 - 6 feet, measured by Well #2
(see Figure 2), at current ground surface elevation. Excavation of this tail water pond will
eliminate the separation distance between the bottom of the pond and the groundwater surface.
Typical tail water reuse ponds are significantly deeper then 3 - 4 feet deep, which would be the
depth of this pond if a minimum separation distance of 1 - 2 feet is to be maintained. Using
Terracon's 30 inch per minute percolation rate (measured above the Smith Lateral in similar soil
characteristics for employee housing septic/leach fields), process wastewater standing in the tail
water pond for 12 hours will percolate 24 inches, thus reaching the groundwater. Given the
separation distance from the bottom of the proposed tail water pond and existing groundwater,
this pond should be lined in addition to being properly sized and constructed for containment of
storm water runoff.
However, the Weld County Zoning Ordinance also applies. Section 45.1.6 of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance requires that all drainage facilities or improvements shall be constructed to
protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water from pollution. Section 47.1.5 have
the same requirement. As the proposed tail water pond is a drainage facility that will store
process wastewater and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm water runoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4 Retention Basins
The existing lagoon has a capacity of 39.9 acre-feet with a free -board capacity of 29.9 acre-feet.
I have observed the lagoon at, or near full (29.9 acre-feet and above) over the past 18 months.
Paragon (formerly Terracon) conducted in -situ compaction tests and laboratory permeability tests
at several locations in October 1996. Several of these tests failed, thus requiring further field
compaction. Apparently 50 lineal feet of lagoon dam on the south side was re -compacted to meet
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:V.EAFILINDWaragon Review Letter Report.wpd
97251E
Paragon Report Review
Page 4
CAFO permeability criteria. However, these in -situ samples collected in October 1996 were
around the perimeter of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater. Paragon did
not collect samples from the center of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater.
An April 30, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that the northwest corner of the
lagoon would be filled to increase the distance of the lagoon from existing homes. A March 17,
1997 letter to Mr. Sainz, Terracon indicated that a coffer dam would be installed to facilitate the
draining, drying, in -situ testing and re -compaction of the west end of the pond. Neither of these
activities was conducted. Based on my observations of the construction of the lagoon under
saturated conditions, my water balance and Paragon's retesting, the lagoon still leaks and Paragon
has not demonstrated that CAFO permeability criteria has been met or exceeded consistently
throughout the lagoon. Subsequently, the lagoon is contaminating area groundwater.
Process water from the lagoon will be used on 147 acres shown on Figure 3 of Paragon's
September 26, 1997 report. Paragon estimated the daily and annual water collected by the
existing lagoon from the dairy parlor, in addition to the Storm water runoff into the lagoon and
proposed retention pond. Table 2 is my estimate of water utilization based on Paragon's water
utilization study, and includes actual measured precipitation from the Eaton area (NCWCD
weather station) and irrigation use from the lagoon reported by observant landowners, the Smith
Lateral Ditch Rider and a June 12, 1997 letter from Mr. Jiricek, to myself, in which he stated that
Mr. Rau informed him that no application from the lagoon process wastewater would occur until
installation of the tail water pond. The tail water pond is not yet constructed. I calculated
seepage from the lagoon based on inflow and outflow volumes discussed above. I estimate that
37 acre-feet of process wastewater has percolated into the underlying aquifer of the lagoon from
September 1995 through September 1997. This volume compares with the allowable CAFO
seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day, or 1.9 feet over the two years. This 1.9 feet allowable seep
over a 4.1 acre lagoon surface is 7.7 acre-feet. Thus, I estimate that the lagoon has seeped over
400 percent of the allowable seepage volume pursuant to CAFO.
Allowable seepage for this lagoon is in excess of the CAFO permissible seepage rate of 1/32 inch
per day. Over the past two years, the allowable seepage total 1.9 feet. Assuming a 30 percent
soil voids ratio, this total 1.9 feet of allowable seepage would fill the pore space in 6.33 feet of
soil. Paragon's Table 4 shows the separation distance in MW -1 was 1.09 feet in September 1997.
Thus, there is direct communication between lagoon seepage and the groundwater. Figure lA
shows an illustration of allowable seepage and measured groundwater levels. Figure 1B shows
the seepage and separation distance for the measured permeability of 9.6x10-° cm/sec reported by
Terracon in November 1996 at location #5.
Sections 45 and 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance require that all drainage facilities or
improvements shall be constructed to protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water
from pollution. The existing lagoon is a drainage facility that will store process wastewater and
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
EALEARLIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
97251.6
Paragon Report Review
Page 5
storm water runoff and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm waterrunoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4.5 Existing Retention Basin - Groundwater Monitoring Wells
In February 1997, Paragon constructed three monitoring wells around the lagoon. Table 4 of
Paragon's report summarizes depth -to -water samples from these wells from February 1997 to
present. As can be seen from Table 4, depth -to -water measurements decrease over the summer
and fall season. MW -1 on Table 4 shows the depth -to -water decreasing from 13.71 feet in the
winter to 9.63 feet in the fall. The separation distance from the bottom of the lagoon to the top of
the groundwater surface range from 5.16 feet to 1.08 feet in the fall. Clearly the water table
increases due to irrigation return flows over the growing season. Regionally, the highest water
table occurs in the late fall and early winter of each year. Paragon's report does not contain data
during this time period.
MW -3 is reported to be dry. However, a monitoring well drilled in October 1997, adjacent to
WCR 78 located due south of the lagoon (Figure 2) was 20.8 feet to bedrock with a depth -to -
water of 9.95 feet (10.85 feet of saturated alluvium). The applicants MW -3 is approximately 6
feet higher in elevation, at ground surface, then the Monitoring Well #1. If MW -3 is truly dry,
then the well was not properly constructed. This well, in addition to two others, should be re -
drilled. At a minimum, additional properly constructed wells should be located between MW -1
and MW -2 and at the southeast corner of the lagoon.
A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that water quality in addition to
depth -to -water measurements would be collected. In a October 27, 1997 telephone discussion
with Mr. Jiricek, he indicated there were no water quality sample results in the file. Given the
nature of this operation and the request by the applicant to apply large amount of nutrients water,
a comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program should be required. The negative
impact this operation is having on groundwater quality should be documented and tracked.
Paragon did not install monitoring wells in the location of the proposed east retention pond or tail
water pond adjacent to WCR 23. Nor did Paragon make any statements as to the depth -to -water
at these locations. Monitoring Well #2, Figure 2, was installed near the location of the proposed
tail water pond in mid -October and sampled. The depth -to -water was 5.25 feet below the ground
surface. At a minimum, monitoring wells should be constructed in the area of the proposed east
retention pond and tail water pond and depth -to -water measurements and water quality samples
collected by the applicant on a bi-monthly frequency.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:ILEARLIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
97251.
Paragon Report Review
Page 6
2.5 Process Water Use/Land Application
Enclosed is a letter from Agronomist Randy Ray in which he concludes at proposed expanded
animal numbers (2,000 milking cows) Mr. Hirsch needs 7 additional acres to apply lagoon effluent
to avoid the over application of nutrients. In addition, the application of dry manure during the
week of October 20, 1997 will result in over application of 15,722 pounds of nitrogen if the
lagoon effluent is applied next season,. The constant over application of thy manure and lagoon
effluent and leachate on the 147 acres the past several years results in a gross over loading of
nitrates to the aquifer system underlying the Hirsch Dairy, Lind Farms, Inc., Mr. Habrock's
property and the Town of Severance. This over application will result in the continued
mineralization of nitrates for years, thus perpetuating loading of nitrates to the aquifer.
The aquifer volume underlying Mr. Hirsch and Lind Farms, Inc. totals 446 acre-feet based on
depth -to -water measurements from Monitoring Wells #2 and #3. A drain tile sample collected in
November 1996 had a concentration of 7.59 mg/I nitrate -nitrogen. In October 1997, the drain tile
had a concentration of 12.2 mg/1. A groundwater sample collected from Lind Farms, Inc. stock
well, located approximately 200-300 feet west of the proposed tail water pond (Figure 2), had a
concentration of 2.24 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen in November 1996. For that same well in October
1997, the concentration was 4.86 mg/1. Table 3 demonstrates how nitrate concentrations
increased from 2.24 mg/I to 4.86 mg/I in the aquifer under Lind Farms, Inc. The annual
incremental nitrate increase is estimated by the loading to the aquifer from the over application of
nutrients and the volume of water in the aquifer. The incremental increase correlates well with the
observed increase in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well. Mr. Hirsch, for the past several years has
applied in excess of 25,700 pounds of nitrogen annually. This over application resulted in aquifer
loading and an increase in aquifer concentrations from 7.59 mg/I in 1996 to 12.2 mg/I in 1997,
This violates 5 CCR 1002-41.5(C)(6). The volume of water underlying Hirsch's 147 acres is 221
acre-feet at a saturated thickness of 5 feet (see Figure 2). The loading of 25,700 pounds annually
of nitrogen to this 221 acre-feet results in a concentration of 7.59 mg/1. This 7.59 mg/I in 221
acre-feet of groundwater volume equates to 4,746 pounds of nitrate -nitrogen (essentially, 221
acre-feet of water having 4,746 pounds of nitrate will have a concentration of 7.59 mg/I nitrate -
nitrogen). Thus, there appears to be a 5 to 1 nitrogen leaching to aquifer response ratio
(25,700/4,746). Table 3 below demonstrates how this continued over loading of nitrogen to the
aquifer will increase nitrate concentrations in the aquifer underlying Lind Farms, Inc., Habrock's
Property and the Town of Severance.
This increase in nitrate concentrations has been observed by a noted increase in the aquifer
concentration (as measured in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well). In November 1996, the
concentration of the aquifer was 2.24 mg/1. In November 1997, the concentration increased to
4.86 mg/1. Table 3 includes a 48,226 pound increase of nitrate contained in the 37 acre-feet of
lagoon leachate which occurred during September 1996 to September 1997 (Table 2).
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAFILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
9'7251.F
Paragon Report Review
Page 7
Table 4 contains a summary of groundwater quality samples collected over the past several years
which show increases in groundwater nitrate concentrations. Drain tile samples represent
subsurface water underlaying the Hirsch property. This water is collected via a perforated drain
tile located under the Hirsch property.
The proposed Hirsch Dairy (1) is a much to intensive use on the number of acres owned by the
applicant, and (2) has polluted, and continues to pollute shallow groundwater underlaying
surrounding land owners from the existing lagoon, the over application of process wastewater and
solid manure and improper containment of storm water runoff contaminated with manure. In
addition, the current activity is in violation of the interim narrative standards for groundwater
contained in 5 CCR 1002-41 Section 41.5. Continued overloading of the aquifer will result in
degradation of aquifer water quality and will result in conditions that will render the aquifer
useless for domestic, livestock and irrigation purposes. Past activities and approved future
activities will have a dramatic negative impact on the environment, health and welfare of the
community.
Sincerely,
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lind
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAF\LIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
97251.6
lagoon water balance2.123
u
02)
C
0 61 col
aE
un
t. 00 %./D 00 ‘D ch V D\ er D\ .-r \D v) t. \D M of et eun O et Ch D\ D\ et
N O O O O het h et eel- min et M M M M M 0 et O N vi vi vt h v1 h n n Mr 00 vi l-: O O O C O O C M vi of ri [V
N N M M M M M M M M M 7 el- v) vl
et C\ n N M .vr N00 O O et D\ eh N M VD .fir �Nr CO O O er M 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N
O O O O C O C C O O O O C O O C C C C O O C O O C
M '. h D\ h O 01 M N eF4n.. M v1 D\ v7 O D\ M N et et O N 0 0 0 O N N N M M N O O O O N N N M M N
k _ O O O O O O O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R Pr
1/40 N N 'r 00 M wn h D1 N N O M N N l- M M et v1 et en eV t? 0 0 0 0 0 v1 O N O N N O O O O O O O CO CO M O 00 O In
v) C O O O O N O vzt v1 M O C O O C O N 7 OG C
O N VD 00 n 00 et 00 D\ N O v1 en
n D\ n O M 00 O �D O O ..� et N M 'r M .ter �-r V) 00 N N O er M M O h m et M 00 (� N vl 00 In
N O O C O O ^-� O N N M �--� .r 0 0 0000.-4 t r Sri O M C
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a M a a a a a r -
a a
Oz°Q w C sdv10ZAtiw e'er ° o ,f)
�C�titi�v�
0 L
F
S
o4 2
m
'$ 3
iv
a
a
10
M
4i
O
r
0)
0 O
97251
C v
L
00
t�
O O O O O O O O O O m o w w ., O C ,n b ,n O I Q w O
O O O O O O O O O O w O 0 O• _ Q 0_ ... r O1 0 m P N
0666666666406 666
m In O w N In N O O, O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D, P P P P D` T a P 4• 4• N N 10 T O 4 Q .� N 6 P U P 0 P 6 U P T U T 'n
^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M y NQ ON
66
000
000
in in 0
'1.'1- 00
M MO
O 80
n 00
N
CC O Q
N ^' M m N O O O h N b N N N O N 1O N 0 O� Q w 0 ON
'O O -� O O N N b M 10 M N O N O N N N N M 1O 060666600666666066
M o N 0 w_ N w Q w 01 N O vn O1 M 1O O m w O 0 N 0 --� m M 0 v1 w N N Q m M O m m n V1 w M
N N O O O O O- O N M '+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (r� O Nj p
M NQ ^ 0 N M NN00gWm00 M N N b O N M Nm 00 M M NN
0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ O-+ •0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 -• O• --t ^• -s O•
u
v d L i
Q0^ m m 0 0 O m N 0 m M .r 0 0 0 O M N Q ”0
N -� O O O O N N N M M N ^ O O O O N N N M M N
Oy 6666666666666666666606666
W
04
O
v 3
zPe
^ N O Q Q O M O to 0 10 O b Q N 0 D` ym h r` N N N N •-. N N v1 h h b M Q Q N M M Q Q Q m m
Na r m o 0 Q O� W 0 0W M 0 b b- � O$� N N VQi m r
N O M a m P w 00 w N v1 w M OQ M M M Q M M M 0 0 0 C Q Q Q Q 'V Q C Q Q Q Q Q Q
10 Q M M 1O m N C 0^ y1 w v1 O O O O CO 0 00 N w N N w m `O C C 'n m O N M m of C O O O O M M Q P a\ N N m 0 0 0 C C C C b w w w w w w w w w N N N N N N N N N
a Q Q w a P P T o O1 b b V b 1O 1D o N n h n g q T Q
Q 01 g 1 Q Q 01 Q O\ P
Cl-
OzA7.O1dL 3 eS0 `{i m u a am 3 p C'
d 5 W �'dti�''>^�drA'
a
N
m
N
O
N
rn
0
9'7251
lagoon water balance2.123
Table 3
Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
ial Aquifer Loading
Nitrogen Land Application
Incremental Cummluative
Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate
Year Loading Recieved * Increase Increase
(lbs) (lbs) (mg/i) 0118/1)
1996 2.24
1997 15700 3140 2.59 4.83
1998 73926 14785 12.19 17.02
1999 73926 14785 12.19 29.22
2000 73926 14785 12.19 41.41
2001 73926 14785 12.19 53.61
2002 73926 14785 12.19 65.80
2003 73926 14785 12.19 78.00
* Based on 5 to 1 reduction from root zone leaching to aquifer
11/07/97,07:44:34 AM
Aquifer Leach Table.123
97251.8
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Quality
Sample Nitrate Depth
Location Date (mg/1) (feet)
MW#1 10/30/97 8.47 9.95
MW#2 10/30/97 9.36 5.25
MW#3 10/30/97 9.88 3.00
Drain Tile 10/06/96 7.59
Drain Tile 10/30/97 12.20
Stock Well 10/06/96 2.24
Stock Well 10/30/97 4.86
11/06/97,02:17:49 PM
water quality summary table.123
97251P
W
w
H
'"A0
si 0
O1
la
woo
x�
I
L
C
a)
E
0
73 N
as
is
L
m t
(Oh —
F
97251.g
a�
co mai
'-' ad
is A O
Di 14
94 O
x�
I
I
a�
as
s
Cn
9'7?'�
15
22
:99/
J�14969
_• 4`25
940
!New Windsor
Oil Hold
4936
494/
14
Well
I mkt
18
P -
STUDY .t fj�
986
�r�-� • �� 5002 _
It It
Nik4narnMalt4 to
jKsu, s
4956 -
5025
4936
4949
US (O3.1
t_tra 1.LGI,SASgi G
_ Rou(a rd
f X4904
5 =_ 4900; 3b ti9Pl.. I I Ce 7 G a „.
�8• 4904
a
CD
0
gn 'o
YSeverance
l•
(I)
Baldridge
Lake
851
Schneider
Lake
Angel
4893 •
4,0
c
0
4900
972516
WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
19703564966 P.01
i
OCT-27-1997 1.5:19
Posl-ir Fax Note
re 4c' Lfq
Co
7671
Phojte
I#ot
pages
From 'PPM �i�l(/k!
Co.
Date
'Phone #
Fax 330— LIM
Fax #
September 24, 1997
)EPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517 16TH AVENUE COURT
GREELEY, CO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586
HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635
COMMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639
FAX (970) 356-4966
Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Enviro
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Dear Derald:
As you are aware, our County Commissioners have
Hirsch Dairy, manure and waste water management
with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Conti
However, due to a "gray area" in the CAFO Regula
complete our review. Specifically, it is not apparel
would capture and temporarily store process waste
methods, are required to be lined.
Due to this "gray area" we are requesting that your taff provide an interpretation in
regard to this requirement. As you know, Section .8.4 of the CAFO Regulations
requires that retention structures constructed after ugust 30, 1992, have evidence that a
liner has been constructed and meets a specified p eability. However, it does not
indicate if tailwater ponds must be lined.
ent
requested that our staff review the
plan (the Hirsch Plan) for compliance
Si Regulations (5 CCR 1002-81).
ions we are finding it difficult to
whether tailwater ponds which
water, applied through flood irrigation
The Hirsch Plan is proposing an unlined tailwater ond. This pond will capture and
temporarily hold process waste water which has ben land applied through flood
irrigation practices. According to the Hirsch Plan, y captured process waste water will
be imnjediately pumped back into the facility's prirpary retention structure.
I am in receipt of a letter dated December 20, 1996, to Victor Sainz from Dave Rau and
Brick Smith of Terracon Environmental, Inc, which is a summary of a meeting in which
you attended. This letter indicates that tailwater ponds are not required to meet lining
requirements. The letter indicates that you have received a copy of this letter. However,
subsequent conversations with you lead me to believe that evidence of a liner is required
by the CAFO Regulations.
9'72`-,'! !
OCT-27-1997 15:19
WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 19703564966 P.02
1i t
Derald Lang!
Water Quality Control Division
September 24, 1997
Page 2
It is apparent that there is not a consensus on the inte
CAFO Regulations and that additional review of this
scheduled to present our review to our County Co
1997. Therefore, we would request that your written
Tuesday,) September 30, 1997.
We trulyappreciate your assistance in this matter. I
not hesitate to call me at (970) 353-0635, extension:
Sincerely,
Trevor Jiricek
Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
tj1830
cc: John Pickle, Weld County Health Department
Dave Holm, Water Quality Control Division
Lee orrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
Dav Rau, Paragon Consulting Group
Viet r Sainz, Water Quality Control Division
gpretation of this portion of the
hem is warranted. We are
iissioners on Wednesday, October 1,
interpretation be faxed to us by
you have any questions, please do
232.
972:71 F
OCT-27-1997 15:20 WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
19703564966 P.03
STAT
OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Pas) Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of
430 OS+e yt"te'1A. S. tabonion and Radiation seMes Div.. n I
Denver, Cddoaraaddoo 802 6-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. i
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220.6928
Located M Glendale, Colorado (3031692.3090
I
hap://www.cdphestafr.caus
PP
a
September 30, 1997
Weld County Health Department
1517 16th Avenue Court
Greeley,i CO 80631
Attn: Trevor Jiricek
Re: CAFO Regulations Question on Tai
-' Dear Trevor:
This letter is in response to your
wherein lyou requested an interprets
concerning the need to seal tatiwat
statingthat this is a somewhat "gr
CAFO regulations. Understanding;the d
will hopefully aid in applying the r
The section of the regulation (;
tailwater ponds installation is in
surface I water quality from rUn-of
practices. Thus, the need to seal
when the regulation was developed for
common practice with flood irritati
land application disposal plan incorp
of a cited loop system; then the pot
quality 'would need to considered.
From the description in the Hirsch P
potential for groundwater quality i
that the resident time of any proces
is minimal. Under this situation I
this tailwater pond because the poi
other t ilwater ponds in use with fld
surrounding area.
foredo
ColoradoPubricitem
of and Environment
,57757575-71
144(
�
water Ponds.
etter of September 24, 1997
on of the CAFO regulations
ponds. You are right in
y area" in interrupting the
velopment of the regulations
lation to the Hirsch Plan.
1.5(A)(2)) which addresses
fended to cover impacts to
due to flood irrigation
ese ponds was not an issue
he use of tailwater ponds is
However, should a feedlot
rate a tailwater pond as part
ntial impacts to groundwater
an it would appear that the
pacts will be very small in
water in the tailwater pond
ould not see a need to seal
antial impact is not unlike
d irrigation practiced in the
9r7a r1 gq
OCT-27-1997 15:20
WELD COUNTY HERLTH DEPT
19703564966 P.04
question
Should you have any further
,3561.
.Sincerely,
all'tinge PE
please call me at 303/692 -
cc: Johh Pickle, Weld County H alth apartment
Dave Rau, Paragon Consulting Gro,p
Dave Holm, WQCD
Victor Sainz, WQCD
972516,
Hirsch Dairy Nitrogen Balance
Prepared by
Randy W. Ray, Agronomist
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Leaf Engineering
Route 1, Box 75
Merino, CO 80741
Forrest:
October 28, 1997
I have reviewed the nutrient management plan for the Hirsch Dairy near Severance,
CO. Based on my knowledge and expertise in nutrient management plans and overall
water quality monitoring, I have made some conclusions regarding the report preformed
by Paragon Consulting Group. Below is a table (Table 1) containing information for the
effluent application at the Hirsch Dairy.
Table 1.
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Current Facility (766 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
(gal) (Ibs) (lbs) (lbs/acl (ac) (ac)
4,598,674 18,395 11,957 154 77.64 68.56
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Proposed Facility (1,380 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
(gall (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs/ac) (ac) (ac)
9,096,193 36,385 23,650 154 153.57 7.37
972516
Page 2
Table 1 indicates that only 78 acres are required for application of effluent and runoff
nutrients from the current dairy. This will allow the Hirsch Dairy to apply dry manure to
the additional 68 acres. This additional application of dry manure must be closely
monitored to prevent over application of nitrogen.
Considering the proposed expansion of the dairy, Hirsch Dairy is going to need
additional acres to apply this effluent. From calculations, an additional 7 acres is
needed to keep the nitrogen application at or under agronomic rates.
There will be an annual variation in precipitation runoff volumes, but not a dramatic
change in net nitrogen load since the majority of the water in the lagoon consists of
dairy process water. The nutrient value for the calculations were taken from the BMP's
for Agriculture, published by Colorado State University. A value of 4 Ibs/1000 gallons of
nitrogen was used in this table.
I was advised that on the week of October 20, Hirsch Dairy applied feedlot manure to
the 146 acres. I am assuming a typical application rate of 20 ton per acre, and using
the BMP Guide for nutrient content. Table 2 shows the effects on the nutrient balance
with consideration of the effluent applied as irrigation water.
Table 2.
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Current Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
(T/acl (Ibs/Tl fibs) _ I (Ibs) (Ibs)
20 9 26,280 22,515 11,957 15,722
972516
Page 3
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Proposed Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
Mara QUM (Ibs1 (Ibs)(Ibs) fibs)
20 9 26,280 22,515 23,650 27,415
The concern is evident in Table 2. The Hirsch lagoon is currently nearly full of effluent,
and the dry manure applied this fall already exceeds crop nutrient demand, without
including possible soil nitrogen contents, and additional irrigation water (Smith Lateral)
nutrient content.
From my calculations, Hirsch Dairy will exceed agronomic nitrogen application rates for
the 1998 growing season (15,722 Ibs), under current conditions (766 milking cows).
The proposed facility will have a huge effect on the nitrogen balance if dry manure is
applied to all 146 acres. The over application of nitrogen will be 27,415 Ibs, nearly
doubling the effect on the current facility.
Another concern is the constant application of organic nitrogen, which will continue to
mineralize in the soil over a period of several years. As an example, only 30% of the
first year applied organic nitrogen will be mineralized. This leads to a building effect
where the mineralized nitrogen builds to a point where little or no effluent or dry manure
can be applied and maintain agronomic application rates. Phosphorus and other
minerals may be of concern at this site where a large concentration of animals are
located.
9'725'.6
ti t LO
—o �
LC3 '5 2 k ca
ok!
$/®§J
/
c To
>< {�
up
0
OD
CO
LO
CN
I/]) 22
#f
22
i$/ ai
)/\5 Cr
a]/ Z
eft —
2;2 }§§* 7]
§ co gu/\
I- J in
x c
w To Rig to C (
/�
CO
)
/§
S E
o 7
'- > ) (
Q2E Z
0ru > co(
0 a) e
-o
C
0. \k
ca tv)
OS
1.0
\
{
CO 0
J/
i§ Z/�k \�
��
rt) -®,�
LO
fl ! !7]) \CD
co
a
2
OR Z
"2 ID niiT /el
k �3/e
o.
A 03
/co
w 11 ]7 { 03
r
{§
e$( in
z 03
lx > @ (
co
§ co § ) z
k
0_2
>
Dry Feedlot Manure Applied @20 T/acre 10/21-10/23
97231.5
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 10, 1997
Mr. Tom Hellerich, Esq.
Doyle, Otis, Frey and Hellerich
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is a supplement to my analysis of the Hirsch Dairy Use By Special Review (USR) 1091
currently pending before Weld County. Please note that I revised this letter report to reflect an
error I made in my estimate of 4,823 pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate which should have been
48,226 pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate. This letter report is my review of the applicant's
Manure and Wastewater Management Plan prepared by the applicant's consultant Paragon on
September 26, 1997. In my review I noted numerous inconsistences with the applicant's plan and
non-compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (CAFO) 5
CCR 1002-19 and Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47. In particular, I found that
the current dairy operation is polluting area shallow groundwater.
Table 1, enclosed, shows my prediction of how shallow alluvial groundwater is being loaded with
nitrate -nitrogen, which I correlated directly to current over application of manure process
wastewater and dry manure and lagoon leachate on 147 acres owed by the Hirsch Dairy and is
subject to the pending USR 1091. The predicted increase in nitrate -nitrogen was developed from
nitrate samples collected from a drain tile underlaying and draining subsurface water under the
147 acres. In November 1996, nitrate concentrations from the drain tile were 7.59 mg/1 nitrate -
nitrogen. This 7.59 mg/1 nitrate is representative of the nitrate concentration of 221 acre-feet of
groundwater underlaying the 147 acres. I estimated that in 1996 the applicant over applied
15,700 pounds of nitrogen from the land application of process wastewater and dry manure. This
over application resulted in an observed aquifer response of 7.59 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen. Over the
1997 growing season I estimated that there was an over application of 25,700 pounds of nitrogen
from the land application of process wastewater and dry manure. In addition, the lagoon had
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAFLIND\Nitrate Loading Lettetwpd
Hirsch Dairy Pollution
Page 2
seepage of 37 acre-feet resulting in 48,000 pounds of nitrogen leached directly into the aquifer (4
pounds nitrogen per 1000 process wastewater). Drain tile samples collected in October 1997
contained 12.2 mg/I nitrate -nitrogen. Continued loading of nitrogen into the aquifer underlaying
the 147 acres will result in dramatic increases nitrate concentrations, as shown in Table 1.
This shallow aquifer primarily exists from the deep percolation from the 147 acres. Annually, the
percolation is drained completely from the aquifer underlaying the Hirsch 147, resulting in a
virtually dry aquifer over part of the year. Thus, measured nitrate concentrations via the drain tile
underlaying the Hirsch 147 provides a direct measurement of the aquifer response to this nitrogen
over loading.
The groundwater underlaying the Hirsch property drains into an aquifer that stores groundwater
year around. This aquifer has been defined from the installation of irrigation, stock and domestic
wells located in a line as shown on Figure 2 of my letter report. This aquifer receives all of the
groundwater underflow from the Hirsch property. A stock well, as shown on Figure 2 of my
letter report, sampled in November of 1996 had a nitrate concentration of 2.24 mg/I. Samples
collected in October 1997 show a concentration of 4.86 mg/I nitrate -nitrogen, as shown in Table
2. The location of this stock well is such that it receives all of the groundwater underfiow from
the Hirsch Dairy, thus the noted increase in nitrate concentrations.
As shown in Table 1, estimated nitrate concentrations will continue to increase over the next 5
years resulting in concentrations well above Table Values contained in 5 CCR 1002-41. While
this aquifer is not specifically classified, it is protected pursuant to 5 CCR 1002-41.6.C.b., Interim
Narrative Standards and is subject to protection at the 2.24 mg/I interim standard. Finally, this
activity is in violation of Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47 because (1) the east
retention pond has not been adequately designed and constructed to contain process wastewater
and storm water runoff required, (2) the existing lagoon exceeds the CAFO allowable seepage
rate and is polluting area groundwater, (3) the proposed tail water pond has not been designed to
meet CAFO criteria for storm water runoff detention and seepage requirements, (4) land
application of nutrients are being grossly over applied and will continue to be grossly over applied
(based on the applicants disregard of his consultants recommendations and County and State
requirements) and is polluting area groundwater and (5) the December 16, 1997 Resolutions and
Conditions of Approval, page 3, ¶ 2. (A) 1. and 2.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
EALEARLDIDNitraia Loading Ltttar.wpd
372515
Hirsch Dairy Pollution
Page 3
The ongoing activities are violations of CAFO in that this is not a "no -discharge" facility, thus the
appropriate groundwater discharge permits must be applied for the lagoon seepage and resulting
seep for the east retention pond.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lind
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAFILINDwitrate Loading Letter.wpd
372: 1
Table 1
Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
ial Aquifer Loading
Nitrogen Land Application
Incremental Cummluative
Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate
Year Loading Recieved * Increase Increase
(Ibs) (lbs) (mg/I) (mgn)
1996 2.24
1997 15700 3140 2.59 4.83
1998 73926 14785 12.19 17.02
1999 73926 14785 12.19 29.22
2000 73926 14785 12.19 41.41
2001 73926 14785 12.19 53.61
2002 73926 14785 12.19 65.80
2003 73926 14785 . 12.19 78.00
* Based on 5 to 1 reduction from root zone leaching to aquifer
11/07/97,07:54:55 AM
Aquifer Leach Table.123
972516
Table 2
Summary of Groundwater Quality
Sample Nitrate Depth
Location Date (mg/1) (feet)
MW#1 10/30/97 8.47 9.95
MW/42 10/30/97 9.36 5.25
MW#3 10/30/97 9.88 3.00
Drain Tile 10/06/96 7.59
Drain Tile 10/30/97 12.20
Stock Well 10/06/96 2.24
Stock Well 10/30/97 4.86
11/07/97,07:55:17 AM water quality summary table.123
9721.6
QUESTIONS FOR TODD AND STAFF
1. In comparing the 1996 Plan as submitted by the applicant, which formed the foundation for
the approval by the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing in December of 1996, as
compared to the Plan now submitted, and in particular, the manure and wastewater
management plan prepared by Paragon, are there significant differences, to require a new
hearing and notice to all agencies? In particular, major changes in the plans include; 1) the
removal and offsite storage of the manure piles, 2) the increased traffic created by the
trucking of the manure, 3) the new lagoon which was not in the original plan submitted, and
the fact that it is now on the property line, and is within 300 feet of the Cabala's residence,
and is even closer to the Town of Severance, 4) and the application of the effluent now is by
surface application as opposed to the sprinkler application.
Has the staff, considering all of these major changes, conducted an investigation of the impact
on the compatibility with the Town and the neighbors and with existing users, pursuant to
24.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, is it compatible with the future development, pursuant to
24.4.2.4 considering the Town of Severance now lies across Road 78 from the Dairy, and has
the staff re-evaluated the affect on the health, safety and welfare of the residence, pursuant
to 24.4.2.7?
372:51
QUESTIONS FOR TREVOR AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
Has the Weld County Health Department approved a manure handling and disposal plan,
pursuant to 45.1.2?
Has the Weld County Health Department approved a method for scraping, grading and
cleaning for the site pursuant to 45.1.5 and 47.1.4?
Has the Weld County Health Department approved the drainage facilities and plans to
protect adjacent bodies of water from pollution, pursuant to 45.1.6 and pursuant to the
Resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners?
Has the Weld County Health Department provided for the protection of adjacent bodies of
water from pollution, pursuant to 47.1.5 and consistent with the Resolution adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners?
Has the Weld County Health Department approved the manure storage sites to determine
they have a water -tight surface to prohibit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into
the ground, pursuant to 47.1.1 and the prior Resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners?
6. Has the Weld County Health Department approved the feedbunks, water tanks, feeding tanks,
feeding devices and aprons, pursuant to 47.1.3 and the prior Resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners?
7. Considering there is no detail submitted by the applicant, what is the sizing of the tailwater
pond, including the depth, and the depth to groundwater for the tailwater pond as projected
to be installed?
What is the depth to groundwater of the new lagoon submitted in the new proposal? What
protections have been made to assure that the groundwater is not being and will not be
contaminated?
What sizing of the tailwater pond is necessary to hold runoff when irrigation effluent is being
applied?
10. Has the tailwater pond been adequately sized to provide for containing runoff water, and in
particular, has the tailwater pond been sized to retain the runoff water should a rain storm
happen during the time the effluent is being applied?
11. There is no provisions in the manure and wastewater management plan which provides for
manure storage in summer and winter months. Where is this going to be stored? Who will
be storing it? Will this be on impermeable pads? Has this been approved by the Weld County
972r1
Health Department pursuant to 47.1.1 and the prior Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners.
12. Section 31.2 provides that in the uses allowed by right in the A District, uses within the A
District shall be subject to the additional requirements contained in Section 40, Supplemental
District Regulations and Section 50 Overlay Districts.
13. The plan states that ditches have been constructed along the north and west sides of the
property of the applicant, to capture and deliver the tailwaters to the tailwater pond. In
actuality no such ditches have been constructed, nor do they exist. Has the County approved
such a plan, and if so, what is the deadline for installation of the ditches?
14. The Dairy has been in violation of the number of animal units since September of 1996, and
discharge has occurred from the facility. What protections have been established pursuant
to Sections 45 and 47 to avoid pollution of the water and to preserve the water quality?
15. The plan, as submitted, stated that testing of the new lagoon area, and the ditches and storage
areas would occur. No information has been provided, however, as to any such testing, or
whether such testing, in fact, occurred. For the existing lagoon, the original proposed lagoon,
monitoring wells have been spaced too far apart. Additional monitoring wells should be
required, and water samples to test the quality of the water should be required, pursuant to
47.1.7.
;3'1^. .4.
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
Mr. John Pickle, Director
Environmental Protection Services
Weld County Health Department
1517 15 Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear John:
November 10, 1997
As you are probably aware, I represent landowners adjacent to the Hirsch Dairy. On November
5, 1997 in a hearing before the County Commissioners, your staff recommended approval of the
above referenced USR. Furthermore, your staff indicated that the applicant's plan was technically
sound and thus met all applicable CAFO regulations and Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections
45 and 47. You are also not doubt aware, that I have taken strong issue with your staffs
evaluation and recommendation.
Of particular concern is the proposed east lagoon or retention pond, which is actually constructed
in a location other then indicated in the applicant's September 26, 1997 report. I personally
observed construction of this pond and it is my opinion that it is a violation of CAFO and Weld
County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47. The applicant's consultant indicted in the
September 26, 1997 Manure and Wastewater Management Report, that in -situ sampling would be
conducted with respect to compaction and permeability testing. On November 5, 1997 neither
the applicant nor your staff indicated that this had been accomplished. Appendix D of the
September 26, 1997 report contains boring logs from various locations above the Smith Lateral.
It is important to note that all of these logs were at depths less then 5 feet, with exception of log
#7 were groundwater was noted at 11.5 feet. Also, boring log #2 did was at a depth of 5 feet
with no accompanying falling head permeability tests (Appendix E). Thus, this lagoon was placed
in a location were soil characteristics were unknown by Paragon, the State, your staff and Mr.
Hirsch.
This lagoon has already been constructed and was excavated to a depth which may have exposed
groundwater, as shown in copies of photographs taken by Mr. Cabala on November 6, 1997,
LEAF ENGINEERQ G
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:ILEARLIND1Pi°kl° lagoon lata.wpd
9'7251.6
Pickle Letter
Page 2
from Mr. Cabala's land. Your staff informed the County Commissioners that this did not pose
any contamination potential to local shallow groundwater. I personally observed the construction
of this lagoon and noted that there were no personnel present to ensure that the optimum soil
moisture and compaction was occurring, and depth -to -groundwater measurements were taken,
which was indicated by the applicant's consultants would be monitored and documented. Please
provide me with all technical documentation and on -site visit information that your staff relied on
to ensure the integrity of the east lagoon to assure construction in accordance with submitted
plans and to recommend its approval.
I have not seen any data which indicates the lagoon has been constructed to meet the 1x10'5
cm/sec CAFO permeability standard. In addition, since this lagoon may have intercepted
groundwater, it should be constructed with a synthetic liner since a compacted clay liner will fail
under negative hydrostatic pressure from an elevated groundwater table.
If allowed to fill with process wastewater, it will pollute the shallow groundwater aquifer
underlaying the lagoon and adjacent landowners. Mr. Rauh, located immediately to the south and
east of this facility, owns a domestic well that will be contaminated. There are other irrigation,
domestic and livestock wells in the immediate vicinity of this lagoon.
Enclosed you will find a letter from Mr. Chilson, Mr. Hirsch's attorney, in which he indicates that
this lagoon will be located directly over Mr. Rauh's irrigation supply line from the Smith Lateral.
This location was not approved by Mr. Rauh, and during the construction of this facility, the 14
inch vitrified clay tile was intentionally destroyed. This location was not the location identified in
the Paragon report and approved by your staff. The current location of this lagoon is less then
400 feet from Mr. Cabala's residence. Was your staff informed of the existing Rauh pipeline and
the change in location of the lagoon?
I appreciate your prompt response regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Forrest Leal; P.E.
Enclosure
cc: Torn Hellerich
Ken Lind
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAFLIND\Pickle Lagoon Ldter.wpd
,.,.,o, ,:pax -7
372:x1 g
JOHN H. CHILSON
Attorney At Law
6610 Chokecherry Drive
Loveland, Colorado 80537
303-667-3214
October 9, 1997
Dan and Wendy Rauh
11570 Weld Co. Road 78
Eaton, CO 80615
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rauh;
My client, Hirsch Dairy, is in the process of con-
structing a holding pond as part of its drainage control
plan. The location of this pond is partially on an ease-
ment serving your property with a pipeline.
In order to protect your pipeline and not interfere
with the working purpose of your easement, Hirsch Dairy
has hired engineers to design a bypass around the hold-
ing pond which will maintain the same gradient and flow
capacity. A copy of this design drawing is enclosed with
this letter. Should you have any specific questions about
the engineering design or the functional operation of your
line after bypass installation, please contact Mr. Dave
Rau at the engineering firm shown on the enclosed design
drawing.
Hirsch Dairy fully recognizes your easement and has
no intention of interfering with it. If any problems
arise in the future with the operation of this bypass,
Hirsch Dairy will correct the same.
Truly yours,
John H. Chilson
cc: Hirsch Dairy
9'7251
97?r.;1g
Oct. 1,1997
Dear Weld County Commissioners•
In 1974 we purchased our farm because we felt it
would be a healthy environment in which to raise our
children. We both worked other jobs in order to finance
our dream and like many of our neighbors raised a small
herd of cattle and crops.
At that time, we were bordered on the west, south
and east by farms and the north by a 5,000 head sheep
feedlot. This feedlot was expanded to 20,000 head in 1987.
This expansion had a detrimental effect on our lives due to
a tremendous increase in dust, odor and flies.
In 1993, Mr. Hirsch purchased the farm contiguous
to us on the west, northwest. He approached us with his
dairy plan, hoping to gain our approval. He stated the
dairy entrance would be from county road 23, a paved road
which would eliminate most of the dust problem and road
damage caused by large trucks. If he had actually followed
his plan, then we would not have heavy traffic, dust and a
washboard for a road. If the entrance were on county road
23, our tax dollars would not be paying for widening the
road and repairing the culvert.
Mr. Hirsch assured us the fly population would be
controlled as well as the dust pollution from his 850 head
of cattle. If that were the case, why do we fill a fly
trap once a week? On a dry windy day there is so much dust
that you can't even see the dairy.
He spoke with us about employee housing. There
were supposed to be three trailers (not four) located out
of our view. Instead, they are right next to our fence
about 500 feet from our house, where his employees have
been known to hang their laundry and throw beer bottles
into our pasture.
As far as we can tell, the plan he presented to us
is not anything like he said it would be. It appears he has
total disregard for his neighbors. Otherwise, why would he
construct a lagoon 600 feet from Mr. Lind"s home when he
told us it would be centrally located on his property so it
wouldn't be offensive to his neighbors? Now we understand
Mr. Hirsch has proposed a second lagoon 600 feet from our
home!
46c1;
Presently, the dust,odor and flies are oftentimes
unbearable. What will it be like with three times the
cattle, three times the traffic, three times the amount of
dust and three times the odor? What will it be like with a
lagoon practically in our backyard with the prevailing
winds out of the west? This is not our idea of lakefront
property.
Please take into account the well-being of our
community, not just a corporation. We are no longer just a
farming community like we were when we moved here twenty-
three years ago. We are a rapidly growing area that is no
longer sparsely Populated. If you allow this expansion,
not only will our and our neighbor's property values
plummet, we will be living in a very unhealthy environment.
Not only will we have a 20,000 head sheeplot bordering us
on the north, we will have a 2,000 head dairy bordering us
on the west!
It is obvious that majority of people in this area
are against expansion judging from the signed petition and
the large number of people who attended the last meeting
to oppose it. If the overwhelming majority of people in the
area are against this (with the exception of the dairy
employees), how can you allow this travesty to continue?
Yakxr t r ly,
,
am and Jack Cabala
Cabala
11529 WCR #78
Eaton, CO 80615
•
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Patti Shwayder, ExecutNe Director
Dedicated w protecting and Improving the health and environment of the people o(Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denier, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone 0031 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928
Located in Glendale, Colorado 0 031 692-3 090
hap://wtiw.cdphe.rtate.co.u,
October 28, 1997
Jacob Hirsch. Owner/Operator
11283 Weld County Road 78
Eaton, Colorado 80615
Colorado Department
of and i Public
tot�t
REF: Mich Dairy, Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations, Manure and Wastewater
Mostaganem Plan, Weld County.
Dear Mr Hirsch:
This letter is to inform you that the Technical Services Unit, Water Quality Control Division (the Division), has
reviewed your Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (the Plan), submitted September 26, 1997. The Plan,
as submitted, conforms with the Confined Animal Feeding Operoflons Control Regulations 4.8.0 (5 CCR 100219)
as amended.
However, we have the following comments:
1. The Division will require 45 days notice time before manure is stockpiled on site, to review soil
compaction information and drainage patterns.
2. For future compliance inspections, we recommend you maintain in your files the private agreements with
landowners where manure will be applied.
3. The Division would like to review the agronomic analysts, mentioned in the Plan, before any process
wastewater is land applied on your property.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (303)692-3564, or Derald Lang at (303) 692-3561
Sincerely,
FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
ictor nz P.
Distric Engineer
Technical Services Unit
sc. Paragon Consulting Group. Inc. - Ann: Dave M. Rau
tat Engineering - Ann. Porten Leaf
Weld County Health Depanntm - Ann: Trevor 3iricck
Permit, and Enforcement - Ann: Phil Hegeman
Technical Swvissa Unit - Ann: Derald Lang
Environmental Redaction Agency. Region VIII
M3-3 Film
EXHIBIT
I er
372.171
tf`
'b S m c+ p3 to /+ I-} O c+ IV c7 cr :f <: F'• N• H c+ r+ I! C] c+ 1'• :>7 10 r:l
r1 Q, J O 'o ;y c+ c+ 9 :Y q IV P 1: (D 1.'• to C+ <1 y' . m (n ]' a ,n b I-'
.. ry o '1 CD 0 to S CD ra :1 O r
O c' N 't1 p. ,T• •; I r ,. I . rJ II'
;7 m (D I -b H 'i Di- 90 ,), O, m m :' rn b I 1 tt• ' r
H H N• O 03 H 0 Sn C" yi 0 F7 1'. H .0 (0 ':) '1 I-' rr, O 0 m :,I
!.) m c1 O O P CD (; to :;
;J• ' Ii m N IH N tT c) ci c i 1t 1; 1:1 'T lb 't O 1-•':1 O\ P :.
m U H
11 1-'• (D /'• CY o O, 1 o t0 m ... <+ 1-'- 1-r• Cl, Id (1\ N• c+ r-]
is m fn P c+ ti 11 m i( « 'T 1:11
e' ' b fD c+ (n "<' 'T rn I 1' .- O, Ii.
:pa F 7 P m m. ti I :i 's r) •+ m ;t, 0 rr c) t^ m (D cD c+ r) r1
P+ n {ND + n. o p.
I o-i n, (D O o Co 1 i ,i rn o m o •
c ) tr. I ' to Q•, <+ (D It c+ O
0 :Y 1'• :1 Cnt!: b Ii '4 h7 ';1 ''b n, fn q C hJ 11.9 01 1.' .T
3. N C], n, :P.S ) cY :m1 0, I1 iv rD t' O {.: N I-9. m ;), G+ c+ c' .t :5. 1�. N 1r 't
IT p, co Ire,, 0' F. C.. C; :'+ ,. '� m I -t ?) I-' 0. .0 c.n 'T O t.' O CO :y .. rF
I H U n . a) Ii r 1-, r 1 r,; <+ !? ':) I J. 1-"ct M l.: :if
rD 1 ct (o In
I c+ i'! r,^ 1'. O '), I-, q'• ti` '' (7' O C1 ICS I b IN -1. I.. c+ p, .1 cr) :: r I a
�+ to 'J' P r rD (0 co • to 1 o m (.1 a' `s )t ar 1 '1) .f
O H. d T c+ m e< i %L 9 '-J (0 ED r) 'T r0 rn fP c• I'• I- m co
C) rb r♦ Q O N• CD v 'n O 1J..L r n, O I,1 Iq Fl. r,) '1
C) N• 1 1-'• :L o O n, m- I ra _ i t.,
H O U 'Ci H Ib )-y t1 (D '1 Ip 1. ' b CL H. <Yl p, m 1 I S:I ch IJ Ft r: 'J Ci ft)
''b P c1 T o V. F- .. .. �,
J CO R+ n <+ H. t r G] ti 0` ft, I J F'• ) O r\) 11 :D 1D 'J ( I O C; O (D
1 to c1 'b CL )b C; O ( S• o C).'T
O I-' N•O H .„ t' {). c+S'' P 1' l'iO N m
n i0 0 r 1J ,i I I+) l: CJ N I-4 (Y I' ,i P O ,f I'• •.
Ii a) co e4 P c+ 'd O, m c' ail
.. m O (D I) 'y, %' c1 P • + '' <r IS '31 O.
o H c1 'd 1-' co i1 •b 0 m C) Ii ti ':f o (D 1-. 'd b 0 c-; (D N..
3 o m< r r ' b m CL o �': o 'U C].)c1 ., w. 'n '1
7• µ O O ID 1. U '1 {+� J Pan, H • 0 e t:! c- H ' a h C O cY I'- '1 r1 H Y O. I
<D I-1
n .. r5 <+ H (L m .r IJ•<Lr 1,. q m rD O f,l C] 'J y
S F P CI.
I '4 n C 1 'S c+ t^ m ::a .❑'c1 i o (y {- U m
c NI
' d 4 ii m O ,t ty O O ,L 1 .3 -• m <} (J O 0. CL it. V+ �i. t. In 0 (•h P. O tD
�1 t ' m (D f C,, c+ �1l O '
�. c1 .. O m •'! ' c+ m 7 rD O O CJ Iy 11 <+ r1 rD P n i 'i ❑. )1 �; �
m T o O I -b El fD ;s c+ c m 'T t1 r) rn m b-' H c r �Y 0' C <,
•,• o p (D Id 10 O N• I b i% to c+ c+ 9 m I'• ]. o 10 t0
;S '4 (+... O iy O 9, r;Y Ix is c+ c+ !L tf o r0 '11 r) J
r1 tb J < .. (NJI c+ i (D t1 0 1i IJ. a' !. N'• (0 :1 1O 1-'., iy i
p, CD O •• r+ t3 '- m 1-" 'J i] m m o ra -I 9 rn 1'• O (0 Of
F'• I b O '-b 1_.• cr ID (l. '�+ ti c+'d c+ P .Y m !1 O C; m '-1 :1' )
-
i ''b U m 'd !0 '4 -' I-'• rt ' b + I+ P N• rP r'• O O, r.0 n 1-'• C,
,, m D , a, co H 'a O U. I' 4 a m m' O c o ;J, m ti' b i (D �I C'
1 n r] c+ N• J '- o M m n, <+ O L1 '! .} 1b o 1 :Y o
r c1 O P (b ! t
i m p�� �% rC o I -q rd m m O c+ P' -. c' ' b (J Li
I N ii O d ',Pi '.1x O .L D <+ F� i hJ IT O a1 m c+ (DI
r) to t] :], -'
(D ' t1 O c+ H 0 Ct ' Y 1-'• I -' ' 1 +I IV r.'• )T q, m o H m N 1! H ] r
i H •i e m r CD cr N• t� o H LI H tS rn !-'1 �IJ
O P cC i ? l- -I O I's 9 ( -I 0. 1_I c' cF L1 'i1 t(`
�, m 1 7 P '1 O {= + tD `'i r) '1 i-'•'rJ ti o m 'b m c1 T n, 4• 'a �
µ rr00 is tS m c -r P I'• c+ ti o :1 ' ' (D : '''
r.. H 10 A f m c o Ds m LA m ,L <+ rD '(�' '.1 r+' o c♦ H 'L U\` 'S
r q. C+ c+ SD `S ec, (n r+ k+ U' I,. is C' N• -J
+ O m CA C: H.
U1 (n Cr P Ci <.Y r I ... 1,. m tY I.) o c+ y ;is FD u7 0 )1
o C] m i o 0. ,0
'-b (1.7):
m m 'T :7 1 c 0
-r 19 Co ']' n F• P J' e1 y (O '1 I -r. (D ED m O 1.,. (L E.) 'I
,`1 N CL O IJ :1 O (D a .q G m O U Ii P o C1 r: '�? (,, '
la ,,7, ''b )-' rY K 'c) I) '(1 14 \)1 to to I-' 91 'CS O M CD f0] I'. •
q 'd :Y ,-b [: (D 1-' (C Cr' Lt m H C) rb ]: IJ 1,..4 f r+ tb i ,0
o ▪ H I1 P N O 9 rn o U t+ o o r c+.• o O r+ o 4 0, a I'- O ('; 1-'
;y .; 1-1.'d 0 (b t(1 1-b i0 r IT I' m c''' 11 'U V • C' n' y
a, O O id P N• ED It '1 ,.t E m '1 m !y
�; . 1.,. I, IJ• O rn P. H <+ N Y W m G;
U) P N• IT i1 ,y Cl. C1 FF t) n �' U at [D O ',7' m ID C/ ro tb 1,-
" .; H 1.I. O ' b , C], c ri C r a, •t,• + • 117 In I b •• :1 ;:;
iI, c I I.'t (L I+ ' b c+ .J r1 c :J r i]1 :1' c
r�- cc; r m (4 ,. o '.L :,. m m t: (:L ('• Cy o 1+ R'I
• D'1 0 i I '1. O rn U m n (D l)1 .' Iy In CL I -I I I ' b
•.71 O f C' 1 c+ :Y r1 : r� I1 O ,1 v : `4 H. (n :S I:)
._) cD O N F' 0.i I c r �y (D c. '1 •.e ' 4 7! c1 f+ 4 rY (. P. r V. :). I,1 .i
.r R G '! o -), 'T O m m H o C 4. {n to Y m ID rn .)' 'i
-, '� Is m ,J CD 1-'• cr :1 If c+ J-+ (r 't en
N• +''S 1.r. nj Cl
Fri
t0 Y (D rn o r,+ I'• 4.1 P, • I'• '
.3 b c) n. C7 m ro (A r. '� `;' 1 c1 H m IJ FD .S r+ U ti P :J t 'D
ii, 0E) it : :J Ct PI
V• .Y .161) ] O 111 1 :y' .J Ii
• rO- c+ a t4 m o r, , '! Li r.1 t) m ' b O P' n. rn I %n `4 a. ' )' _ i a
,1 '+ U '1 CD m "C o 'i O 1' (n m CD c+ rara - 1.,• c+ 6
O 4 . r H. H •F H. 'J a 'T P : o ID O� :,1 I'.
O. $, ;n to co Ri •� rr IJ is i d G I'• a ' t.Y I. :1 '1
I,. ra 1'- r.. Ir tf 1.`• ED Cl O IJ. 0 o. i -' c0. ti
CL P 1).co- `t1 +
rf
Cc:
X
W
O
tT
itlasliill!IMfaltsirrant' 1 'mMgnn11orafVI BourneM1aiintunesanrtnmetteR1M+1ornigNIFillint.Tnrn, w uveltiNusztttrag
herein bo•and hereby is adjudged'nenior to ell ren:ar.voirn
whose!i.It1et1•:cji.tohes arelooftod,abovo the:hondente of
the )(aernt and ldottol Mlii race, hotweern• tlio let day of
December and. the fi.ret day of March following and. at
ru.oh Other times an water: -in not needed for di.root, i.rri—
getion amid. mount o:r. fiew;to continua up. to•the sto—
rage capacity of nieirace.ntta• rrnnervoir, whether maid floc;
of sixty cubic feet per mound flail flow con4itnntiy
during nald perloe'through raid Macon and Mattel Hill
.raon, or not. •
That: certain rreservoir known an the Wood rouer.—
voiar belonging to reservoir. ointment. Ho. 20, The Weed
reservoir and Ditch Company, having been found in manner
a. orcneld to be a reservoir located on neon. 5 end 6
and sec. 32 in twp. 7, north range 66 went in Weld
County, (;Olorado, tined for tho irrigation of lends onct
taking i.tn supply of rater. front the Cache la. return
river by means of the Lorimer end Weld. canal and from
seepage and fiend waters that Dome clown the dzaw lit
tre reservoir is nituate, which said draw oxtenln
beyond. the Lorimer end Weld canal, le entitled to two
appropriations of rater for the purpose of filling usid
reservoir and to priority Ho. 41 by oonstructlon thereof
once to the amount of water herninefter mentioned for
the benefit of the party or parties lawfully entitled
thereto; ft in hereby adjudged and decreed that said
reservoir be allowed to have stored in it; from mid daehe
In Poudre river by memo of the Lorimer and Weld oanal
and the feeder ocnetruiteri therefrom; else' Prom the
»Otte•••::0:...
..Our...:....:a:'..r+.!5•,.e,n..q,: rr..n 1itt ?'•1'�:..a -... :?i�}Cr,�'.' .-. ......-
972 1
It
and from the seepage and flood wagers that oome down
the draw in W.hidh' thl, reflOtoir'lio situate, and for the
be;:eflt of the party or parties aforesaid under and in
virtue of nnid apprepr.intien tby' dontrr.t.otirn pri.orlty
No+. g1, . so' nl.oh water ae . in?. neeeeanry to -fill said re-
sorvoir•t,o a depth nf.2,0 feet'.from the'bbno Of the, out -
lot tube and a onpaoi.ty' of; 1!0, 000; 000 ouliio feet, whic],
app rop;'ie.t i.on of aster for paid storage. Purposes took
effect on and nni.d prio.r,ity thereof da.tnn from tho 22nd
day of. December, 1893. .
And further maid Wood redervnir in e.,titlod
by approprintlon to priority No.'7/. by i.noreanod nto--
rarc and henefi.ni.ni app]i.ontion of Rater and thereby
to the quantity of rater hereinafter montlonen for the
vno and benefit; of thei party or parties lohfuliy entitled
thereto; It le hereby'adjudged and. decreed that said
reservoir be allowed
to have stored in it, from said
acumen of supply abovr, mentioned by reanon of said
first enlargement and for the benefit of the party or
Part. ire: aforonai_,t under and in virtue of said opnropr. i-.
ation by nnlargomont'No. 7/, no much water an in neoe-•
nrrnry: to fill naid renervoi.r to an additional depth of
5 .feet, or a total depth` of. 75 feet from the' bane of the
outlet,. tube and n capacity of 110,000,000-oubia feet
which appropriation of water for aaid additional eterade
took effect on andsaid ptieritiv. therenf'dgte*k.froM
the 15th day of October, : 1903: t
Provided however;. that: no water Ahail be
taken or•divertod from-naidt_caohe'ifir:'Poudre river
into the canal and feeder 'for nt.orare in said renerroi.r
Other than a'ld, except i.h virtue of the ownernhip
by• said vlai.mant, hin hoirn and. a:3ni.gnn, of oapit,al
nt nok in t hn La.rimer and. Wr.1d Trri grit i.nn Company.
e4
97kr?.F
o
CD 4
4 IL
O m
Ii (']
C)
O P
• F
R°
U
(T
Rick f
CA tc-
IV y,
J
01
m•
t/1
CD
CD
13
cn
0
m
t,
fl
P•
Io1
I_•
O
O
P.
t1
O
0
4
m
0
in
m
1�
O
It
I.
o.
UO
N•ci
cr
o a
f1
:-I m
O m
• m
O
'I
0
O
Co.
CD(D
CD
m
I
O
:I
114.14
y i nJ-r m; i i, l .0,
o c]
9 P
D 'l1
Vj •,1 0
--1 ID P.
• CD r
c+
I -I
IJ)
(T
.4
J
w
` Jl •if D. 71.•
{1. O C] It•-rI
1 •• 1•, I �n I I ;,
Ca P. co • ti p
(f DI '1
I•. (r •'10
.1 m 'I O 0 iL
O. '- C.. Co C
III J cm 1 11.
0 m (J C1 CD 1'•
cc; O (,
Cj r 1-' in
o N c
11 `;p O (I O
1,.:1 m m 0
J
co-
IEl ;U
U 0 o C (n i (r (a I.1•
:D :] p' :(LtY
O t,• 0 r'.
I" CD I'•:.•• O
VI
,. 11 {:
I0.•C .11 O O
C, N• '1 41
(r 1y O
(1 I'Dv •. o
•o ,iO.
:., cc '44
(T
n
n
I-1
cn
I�
to
0
1a Cl (O
m ( CA
ct
h IU Y
i. F 4
(Ti (I m
•
000'00C`0tt
(V
(A
CA
coo
Ioo
6061 `9Z 'z°0
(A •
O
3691 `ZZ '°aQ
1 cf to
CD N O
cI N
CD De
r) 0 c 11
m et
•
I
8
rro
f
l: •' I
(ACV
O1 CA
CA 01
col
Cs N
(0
NON
1 0
a'0
IA CA
w (D
1a la
(O (D
IO
cis to
C7
Zco' J0 4
Ocpa D O cr F••(...
f° ID m (ono oS.
N I.•. I J
FD p O ,O r'F+•p
19if-a
zrF'~
po w
((DD P• W .P u C �
co r,. co C pr„'
D,O 73
5--,w O1 t.1
tD r ul m O 0
O nPc `P' ii t a
P. •
c -I co • 4 t U O. o d �Y]
co (D CD G U .7
✓11 N I- laid Wx CO
D O
o Om I
F.. Fa •'.1 0Fr' m v
C OI ( w
V.
• COmm
O _-- I-1 (D
0
ii
1
WOOD RESERVOIR
FINDINGS
1. The allegations of fact in the claim herein filed for said
reservoir are supported by the evidence.
2. The name of the claimant is The Eaton Investment Company, and its
post office address Is Eaton, Colorado.
3. The name of the reservoir for which this water right is claimed
is WOOD RESERVOIR.
4. The location, sources of supply, date of commencement of work and
enlargement, area, capacity and purpose of said reservoir, is as set forth
in statements of claim heretofore filed therefor and in the findings
relating thereto, and in the decree heretofore entered hereicase Numbered
1591 in thin Court whereby it was determined that said reservoir was
entitled to a decree for storage to a depth of 20 feet above the base of
its outlet tube, and 120,000,000 cubic feet of water, with priority No 30,
as of date December 22, 1892, and for additional storage to a depth of
25 feet above the base of its outlet tube and 140,000,000 cubic feet of
water (including priority No. 30) with priority No. 54 as of date October 15,
1903.
That annually ever since the date of said later appropriation, when-
ever water was available, said reservoir was filled with water to said
capacity in accordance with said decree and priorities, and said water was
beneficially applied within reasonable time for irrigation of approximately
1500 acres of land of the stockholders of said claimant.
That on and after said date there was unappropriated water in said
sources of supply of said reservoir, and in subsequent years whenever such
water has been available said reservoir has been filled and water withdrawn
therefrom within a reasonable time for beneficial use in the irrigation of
said lands during the same season. During the same season from such
2b'.
InIpti ;frirg• tr. On,
VJYk. 1 Y..0• T.nii•w 4.101.110.9.0.6.9.1%••.• s.. ..u-..
97 rr
wi4 1,400N.«f,k.+hra1!awr rJq1 444
u\ i yf. '.n . tl 1 ifN..^r
w. ',�nt.�af1♦ J. .y.
inlets,to thb 1tr11 amount of the unappropriated waters available and
capable of diversion into said reservoir. The highest amount of such
water so stored under said refilling right equalled the full capacity
of said reservoir above its 12 foot contour, to wit: 62,000,000 cubic
feet, or 1377.42 acre feel, of water.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Said reservoir is entitled by law and in equity to a decree
awarding it a further appropriation of water by refilling, annually,
after it has been filled once in'accordence with its decreed priorities
numbered 30 and 54, by farther storage under right to refill from un-
appropriated waters and beneficial anrlicatien and use of water, to wit,
1377.42 acre feet of water, for the benefit or the parties entitled
thereto, for irrigation, as of date December 31., 1916, and Reservoir
Refill Priority No. _/3G f�
in former decrees.
hut inferior and junior to awards
DECREE
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, AOJNP0!;D AND DECREED, that, ;'.COD
Rr3ERV0TR, located in sections 5 and 6, T. 6 N., and 32, T. 7 N.,
Range 66 W. of the Gth P. M., he and It is hereby awarded an annual
refilling priority for irrigation purposes, for use of the party or
parties entitled thereto from its present sources, for the storage
therein of the amount or 1377.42 acre feet of water, with Reservoir
Refill Priority No. /730‘ , as or date December 31, 191.6, tut
junior and inferior t.o the latest reservoir priority, as of date June 1S,
1925, awarded in the last prior water adjudication decree in Water Cis-
trict No. 3.
e.a
972;1.,
•
Cl7• • lliM ',ilk... f,” mawdi+�`�i. r{i+iiw" .
t ; ,.:,
+,•t RIkWi '!Cttlink4mb•
,, 't' . •r • 4, , ! 41,- iiliera ti
FINDINGS
1. The allegations of fact in the claim herein filed for said reservoir
are supported by the evidence.
2. The name of the claimant Is The Eaton Investment Company, and its
posts office address Is Eaton, Colorado.
3. The name of the reservoir for which this water right is claimed in
ANGEL �IJIKE,I��1
ii. A general description of said reservoir, as set forth in the claim
therefor, is as follows: Angel Lake is a reservoir in a natural depression
with a dam about 16 feet in height and 700 feet in length, running along the
south line of the Southeast Quarter (SE)) of Section Thirty-one (31), in
Township Seven (7) North, Range Sixty-six (66) West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, in Weld County, Colorado. It is situated in said southeast quarter
of Section 31. and covers an area of approximately 150 acres of land.
Its source of supply is Roullard Draw, the natural run-off, seepage
and percolating waters from all intersecting draws and depressions and the
drainage area to the north and west, including the waters of that certain
seepage or drain ditch known as Daisy Drain Ditch. It is also filled in
part from the "Eaton Ditch" of The Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company
through an Inlet ditch 1n the South part of said Section 31 fran the canal
of Roullard Lateral Company. The run-off, seepage and percolating under-
ground waters collecting and flowing into Raid reservoir are not naturally
tributary to any natural stream.
.it
Said inlet ditch originates in a concrete structure in the South-
east Quarter (SE ) of said Section 31 in said Roullard Lateral, which is
22 feet long, 6# feet wide, 3i feet deep with a two foot tile running there-
from 99 feet to a settling basin, thence by means of an open ditch Oi feet
-1-
266
r-..,....• •-
..
972! -;lc
u,, ♦• .1 r: e.'. u, .. ., :..p • roves rn.w
I.
:w w.....yr�..ib.•Li.i....�-ra...�rL-
extending approximately a quarter of a mile to the vest edge of said reservoir.
its outlet is a ditch extending from its southerly boundary in
said SE4 of said Section 3L. It has a capacity of 18,500,000 cubic feet at
a gate height of 20.17 feet, and has been filled annually to its capacity.
Raid reservoir covers an area of 80 acres at high water line.
5. Said reservoir is located on land owned by claimant allirrigated
from ditches taking water from the Cache la Poudre River, supplemented by
water from its reservoirs, and said land Is located within Water District
No. 3, Water Division 1 of the State of Colorado.
6. The appropriation for Bald reservoir wan initiated by construction
and use of said reservoir and its inlet and outlet ditch in the year 1899,
since when it has been continuously used for the irrigation of 1490 acres
of land belonging to The Eaton Investment Company, and members of the Eaton
family, its predecessors in title.
The amount of water claimed for said reservoir by original appro-
priation and beneficial use is 18,500,000 cubic feet of water and a storage
depth of 20.17 feet on its gauge rod an presently located, or 424.7 acre
feet.
All of said water so appropriated has been and will be used bene-
ficially for the irrigation of approximately 1490 acres of land in Sections
numbered Five (5), Eight (8) and Nine (9), in Township Six (6) North, Range
Sixty-six (66) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Weld County,
Colorado, owned by said claimant.
i Claimant, since March 31, 1900, from the sources above described,
as often as such waters were available has refilled said reservoir, appro-
priated and beneficially used said waters for the irrigation of said lands
of its stockholders lying under and irrigated from said lake. Claimant
in addition to a first annual filling
claims under said appropriation and water right/sufficient water to fill
as a second filling said reservoir to a depth of 20.17 feet on its gauge
2'6'7
'^'n,... 'MFG--usasnae:ar.......
. ��. I...
ale .tth ". 'M
1-.Okmpi'In .w..u•...ro w.U4'm HAh1.04A0
.i
t
t •
u..
L ..1 a
with n priority ante of March 31, 1900.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Claimant to entitled by appropriation and use by lax and in equity to
n decree permitting it to capture, collect, store, divert and use by and
through snid reservoir, run-off, waste, seepage and underground percolat-
ing water and water from said "Eaton Pitch", for the irrigation of 11(90
noes of land, the amount of water required to fill said reservoir to a
depth of 20.17 feet, or h2h7 acre feet of water, with Reservoir Priority
No./2a/ an of date December 31, 1099, and to ansecond filling in like
amount with Reservoir Refilling Priority No. /34,6 as of date March 31.
1900.
DECREE
THEREFORE,. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the party or
parties entitled to ANGEL LAKE, which covers So acres of land in the South-
east quarter (SEe) of Section Thirty-one (31), in Township Seven (7) North,
Range Sixty-six (66) Went of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Weld County,
Colorado, be and they are hereby permitted to capture, collect, store,
divert and use the river, run-off, seepage, drainage and underground and
other waters described in Raid claim and findings herein, through and by
means of the said reservoir and equipment, annually, the amount of water
necessary to fill said reservoir to a depth of 20.17 feet, to wit 424.7
acre feet of water, with a priority date of December 31, 1899, and Reservoir
Priority No. /36 /Q/
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that said party or
parties shall be permitted to refill said reservoir annually, when water
is available from said sources, after same has once been filled, to the
same amount and capacity with priority date of March 31, 1900, and Reservoir
Refill Priority No. /0‘,(9.
Roth of said priorities, however, are junior and inferior to the latest
reservoir priority, an of date June In, 1925, awarded in the last prior water
adjudication in Water District No. 3.
-3-
r
z58
TT- T19 -fl
xwp4� IN)r`a l.I S. *.Jd..'_... .t
�. .o... .y � . .,..�"n-.wrr. .,. ,rrr-mu.
•
•
.. .. . ._ . .. . .... .. 1..'.w.vio r?s• ,t--,-
.� u!... l.n'ui
•
COLORADO
June 14, 1984
Alvin Steinmark
Attorney at Law
1424 Eighth Avenue
P. 0. Box 1955
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Mr. Steinmark:
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORN
PHONE (303) 350-000. EXT -
PO. BOx
GREELEY. COLORADO 3C.
This letter is in response to your letter of May 29, 1984, to Dr. Wooley, and
is to advise you that your assumption that the Weld County Health Department
is no longer interested in the matter regarding the Woods Lake inlet ditch is
quite incorrect. The Weld County Health Department cannot and will not
abdicate its statutory responsibilities regarding the health and welfare of
the citizens of Weld County in general and water quality in particular.
Therefore, you should not consider this matter to be closed.
I would remind you that the Health Department in addition to its duties, has
also attempted to act as a mediator between the parties in this matter. It is
unfortunate that the lack of the engineering information and Mr. Dickson's
family business forced cancellation of prior meetings. The long delayed
report from Mr. Gutterson's engineer should be available this week. The
Department would still like to work toward an agreement between the parties
rather than proceed by means of an enforcement action for nuisance, water
pollution, or illegal dumping of solid wastes.
A copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Dickson along with a request 'y
this copy that he contact me following receipt of the report, to set up
another meeting. It is still hopeful that an agreement can be made to resolve
the interests of the Department and the Guttersons and Mr. Rotharmel.
cc: 'Chuck Dickson
George Vargulich
Dr. Ralph Wooley
Sineflely,
Lee D. Morrison Assistant County Attorney
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hilirose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 5, 1997
Mr. Tom Hellerich, Esq.
Doyle, Otis, Frey and Hellerich
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear Tom:
This letter report will present my technical review of Paragon's Manure and Wastewater
Management Plan for the Hirsch Dairy, submitted to the Weld County Commissioners on
September 26, 1997. My review will follow the section numbers contained in the above
referenced report.
1. Introduction
Paragon alleges that since the USR 1091 application is pending, the Hirsch Dairy is in compliance
with County regulations even though there are more then 960 animals on site, and have more than
960 animals on site since September 1995.
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrology
Paragon states the Hirsch Dairy does not overlay a designated aquifer. However, the purpose and
intent of the Classification and Standards for Groundwater is to protect all groundwater of the
state. All groundwater of the state is protected pursuant to the Statewide Standards. Specifically,
5 CCR 1002 Section 41.5(C)(6) addresses aquifers not classified as being protected by interim
narrative standards or Table values 1-4 in the Classification and Standards regulation. The limited
shallow aquifer in the Eaton area is not excepted. There are numerous domestic, stock and
irrigation wells in the area that are receiving surface and subsurface water from the area of the
Hirsch Dairy land, lagoon and irrigation system. Baseline groundwater quality samples collected
in 1996 show that the concentration of nitrate -nitrogen in the alluvial aquifer underlaying Lind
Farms, Inc, the Habrock Property and Town of Severance is 2.24 mg/1.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\L.EAF\LIND\Paragon Review Letter Reportwpd
972r'
Paragon Report Review
Page 2
2. Storm Water and Process Wastewater Management
Paragon states that "Land application of liquid and solid wastes and off -site storage and use of
solid manure is an important aspect of the waste -disposal process." However, the proposed plan
does not explain how much and when this solid manure will be applied and how agronomic rates
will be determined and tracked. In addition, the off -site storage of solid manure is not discussed.
While CAFO may not require this explanation, there are requirements under the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47.
2.1 Storm Water Conveyance
The applicant proposes, and has initiated construction of a retention pond east of the Smith
Lateral and south of the employee housing. Paragon sized the retention pond to capture storm
runoff from 17.6 acres above the Smith Lateral and hold 4.7 acre-feet. However, the drainage
basin above the Smith Lateral is 31 acres with a total of 8 acre-feet of generated runoff at a peak
discharge of 19 cfs for a 25 year, 24 -hour storm event. Paragon references a plan in Appendix A
of their report. This plan is, at best, a concept plan for the retention pond. There are no detailed
specifications pertaining to the sizing of the pond, in -situ compaction testing, erosion control
structures, appurtenances, grading plan and or ditch sizing and alignment. In addition, Paragon
does not state how this water will be handled. If this retention pond is to be evaporative, Section
4.8.3(C)(5)(b) requires that all "evaporative systems shall be designed to withstand a 10 -year
period of maximum recorded rainfall". Table 1 shows a 2 year water budget on the 4.7 acre-foot
capacity retention pond. As is evident from Table 1, the proposed size of the retention pond is
not adequate to detain and evaporate precipitation and generated runoff over a two year period,
let alone a ten year period. A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon stated that a
field technician would be on site during construction to conduct in -situ testing. My visit to the
site and drive along the Smith Lateral on October 9, 1997 revealed that the retention pond was
under construction but no
in -situ testing was being conducted. In addition, soil conditions were dry, thus, compaction at 95
percent standard proctor would be highly unlikely. Section 2.4.4 of Paragon's report states that
in -place density compaction testing will be performed during construction of the pond and ditch.
Paragon does not address storm water runoff from the 147 acres irrigated with process water
from the existing lagoon and proposed retention pond above the Smith Lateral. Review of the
map prepared in Appendix A shows drainage flow paths from the 147 acres and a tail water pond
located adjacent to Weld County Road (WCR) 23 approximately 1200 feet north of the
intersection of WCR 78 and 23. My understanding of the CAFO regulations is that all facilities
which come in contact with process wastewater must be designed to contain a 25 year, 24 -hour
storm event and have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. Paragon states that this facility
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
EALEAF\LINIARaragon Review Letter Report.wpd
Paragon Report Review
Page 3
is a "pass -through" facility. CAFO regulations do not define such a structure. In my opinion, this
facility must meet the criteria set forth in CAFO Section 4.8.4. The size of the tail water pond is
not discussed, nor is its specific design. Under CAFO, this pond, if it is to receive and hold
process wastewater must be sized to hold generated runoff from a 25 year, 24 hour storm totaling
38 acre-feet. Enclosed is a letter of September 30, 1997, from Derald Lang from the Water
Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health responding to an inquiry
by Mr. Jiricek (letter of September 24, 1997) regarding tail water ponds and their applicability to
CAFO. Mr. Lang states section 4.8.5(A)(2) of the regulation is "intended to cover impacts to
surface water quality from runoff due to flood irrigation practices." Furthermore, Mr. Lang's
opinion is the applicant's proposed tail water pond does not pose a significant threat to
groundwater quality based on the resident time of the process wastewater in the pond. Mr. Lang
was not advised of the shallow depth -to -water, nor the proposed pass -through operation. I do
not agree with Mr. Lang that there is "no significant threat" to groundwater or surface water
quality from the retention of process wastewater or the overflow potential of process wastewater
due to storm water runoff. The depth -to -water in this location is 5 - 6 feet, measured by Well #2
(see Figure 2), at current ground surface elevation. Excavation of this tail water pond will
eliminate the separation distance between the bottom of the pond and the groundwater surface.
Typical tail water reuse ponds are significantly deeper then 3 - 4 feet deep, which would be the
depth of this pond if a minimum separation distance of 1 - 2 feet is to be maintained. Using
Terracon's 30 inch per minute percolation rate (measured above the Smith Lateral in similar soil
characteristics for employee housing septic/leach fields), process wastewater standing in the tail
water pond for 12 hours will percolate 24 inches, thus reaching the groundwater. Given the
separation distance from the bottom of the proposed tail water pond and existing groundwater,
this pond should be lined in addition to being properly sized and constructed for containment of
storm water runoff.
However, the Weld County Zoning Ordinance also applies. Section 45.1.6 of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance requires that all drainage facilities or improvements shall be constructed to
protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water from pollution. Section 47.1.5 have
the same requirement. As the proposed tail water pond is a drainage facility that will store
process wastewater and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm water runoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4 Retention Basins
The existing lagoon has a capacity of 39.9 acre-feet with a free -board capacity of 29.9 acre-feet.
I have observed the lagoon at, or near full (29.9 acre-feet and above) over the past 18 months.
Paragon (formerly Terracon) conducted in -situ compaction tests and laboratory permeability tests
at several locations in October 1996. Several of these tests failed, thus requiring further field
compaction. Apparently 50 lineal feet of lagoon dam on the south side was re -compacted to meet
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:ILEAFILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
Paragon Report Review
Page 4
CAFO permeability criteria. However, these in -situ samples collected in October 1996 were
around the perimeter of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater. Paragon did
not collect samples from the center of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater.
An April 30, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that the northwest corner of the
lagoon would be filled to increase the distance of the lagoon from existing homes. A March 17,
1997 letter to Mr. Sainz, Terracon indicated that a coffer dam would be installed to facilitate the
draining, drying, in -situ testing and re -compaction of the west end of the pond. Neither of these
activities was conducted. Based on my observations of the construction of the lagoon under
saturated conditions, my water balance and Paragon's retesting, the lagoon still leaks and Paragon
has not demonstrated that CAFO permeability criteria has been met or exceeded consistently
throughout the lagoon. Subsequently, the lagoon is contaminating area groundwater.
Process water from the lagoon will be used on 147 acres shown on Figure 3 of Paragon's
September 26, 1997 report. Paragon estimated the daily and annual water collected by the
existing lagoon from the dairy parlor, in addition to the Storm water runoff into the lagoon and
proposed retention pond. Table 2 is my estimate of water utilization based on Paragon's water
utilization study, and includes actual measured precipitation from the Eaton area (NCWCD
weather station) and irrigation use from the lagoon reported by observant landowners, the Smith
Lateral Ditch Rider and a June 12, 1997 letter from Mr. Jiricek, to myself, in which he stated that
Mr. Rau informed him that no application from the lagoon process wastewater would occur until
installation of the tail water pond. The tail water pond is not yet constructed. I calculated
seepage from the lagoon based on inflow and outflow volumes discussed above. I estimate that
37 acre-feet of process wastewater has percolated into the underlying aquifer of the lagoon from
September 1995 through September 1997. This volume compares with the allowable CAFO
seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day, or 1.9 feet over the two years. This 1.9 feet allowable seep
over a 4.1 acre lagoon surface is 7.7 acre-feet. Thus, I estimate that the lagoon has seeped over
400 percent of the allowable seepage volume pursuant to CAFO.
Allowable seepage for this lagoon is in excess of the CAFO permissible seepage rate of 1/32 inch
per day. Over the past two years, the allowable seepage total 1.9 feet. Assuming a 30 percent
soil voids ratio, this total 1.9 feet of allowable seepage would fill the pore space in 6.33 feet of
soil. Paragon's Table 4 shows the separation distance in MW -1 was 1.09 feet in September 1997.
Thus, there is direct communication between lagoon seepage and the groundwater. Figure lA
shows an illustration of allowable seepage and measured groundwater levels. Figure 1B shows
the seepage and separation distance for the measured permeability of 9.6x104 cm/sec reported by
Terracon in November 1996 at location #5.
Sections 45 and 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance require that all drainage facilities or
improvements shall be constructed to protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water
from pollution. The existing lagoon is a drainage facility that will store process wastewater and
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:U.EAFLIND\Paragon Review Letter Reportwpd
972x1 g
Paragon Report Review
Page 5
storm water runoff and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm waterrunoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4.5 Existing Retention Basin - Groundwater Monitoring Wells
In February 1997, Paragon constructed three monitoring wells around the lagoon. Table 4 of
Paragon's report summarizes depth -to -water samples from these wells from February 1997 to
present. As can be seen from Table 4, depth -to -water measurements decrease over the summer
and fall season. MW -1 on Table 4 shows the depth -to -water decreasing from 13.71 feet in the
winter to 9.63 feet in the fall. The separation distance from the bottom of the lagoon to the top of
the groundwater surface range from 5.16 feet to 1.08 feet in the fall. Clearly the water table
increases due to irrigation return flows over the growing season. Regionally, the highest water
table occurs in the late fall and early winter of each year. Paragon's report does not contain data
during this time period.
MW -3 is reported to be dry. However, a monitoring well drilled in October 1997, adjacent to
WCR 78 located due south of the lagoon (Figure 2) was 20.8 feet to bedrock with a depth -to -
water of 9.95 feet (10.85 feet of saturated alluvium). The applicants MW -3 is approximately 6
feet higher in elevation, at ground surface, then the Monitoring Well#1. If MW -3 is truly dry,
then the well was not properly constructed. This well, in addition to two others, should be re -
drilled. At a minimum, additional properly constructed wells should be located between MW -1
and MW -2 and at the southeast corner of the lagoon.
A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that water quality in addition to
depth -to -water measurements would be collected. In a October 27, 1997 telephone discussion
with Mr. Jiricek, he indicated there were no water quality sample results in the file. Given the
nature of this operation and the request by the applicant to apply large amount of nutrients water,
a comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program should be required. The negative
impact this operation is having on groundwater quality should be documented and tracked.
Paragon did not install monitoring wells in the location of the proposed east retention pond or tail
water pond adjacent to WCR 23. Nor did Paragon make any statements as to the depth -to -water
at these locations. Monitoring Well #2, Figure 2, was installed near the location of the proposed
tail water pond in mid -October and sampled. The depth -to -water was 5.25 feet below the ground
surface. At a minimum, monitoring wells should be constructed in the area of the proposed east
retention pond and tail water pond and depth -to -water measurements and water quality samples
collected by the applicant on a bi-monthly frequency.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics 0 Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAF\LIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
Paragon Report Review
Page 6
2.5 Process Water Use/Land Application
Enclosed is a letter from Agronomist Randy Ray in which he concludes at proposed expanded
animal numbers (2,000 milking cows) Mr. Hirsch needs 7 additional acres to apply lagoon effluent
to avoid the over application of nutrients. In addition, the application of dry manure during the
week of October 20, 1997 will result in over application of 15,722 pounds of nitrogen if the
lagoon effluent is applied next season,. The constant over application of dry manure and lagoon
effluent and leachate on the 147 acres the past several years results in a gross over loading of
nitrates to the aquifer system underlying the Hirsch Dairy, Lind Farms, Inc., Mr. Habrock's
property and the Town of Severance. This over application will result in the continued
mineralization of nitrates for years, thus perpetuating loading of nitrates to the aquifer.
The aquifer volume underlying Mr. Hirsch and Lind Farms, Inc. totals 446 acre-feet based on
depth -to -water measurements from Monitoring Wells #2 and #3. A drain tile sample collected in
November 1996 had a concentration of 7.59 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen. In October 1997, the drain tile
had a concentration of 12.2 mg/1. A groundwater sample collected from Lind Farms, Inc. stock
well, located approximately 200-300 feet west of the proposed tail water pond (Figure 2), had a
concentration of 2.24 mg/I nitrate -nitrogen in November 1996. For that same well in October
1997, the concentration was 4.86 mg/I. Table 3 demonstrates how nitrate concentrations
increased from 2.24 mg/I to 4.86 mg/1 in the aquifer under Lind Farms, Inc. The annual
incremental nitrate increase is estimated by the loading to the aquifer from the over application of
nutrients and the volume of water in the aquifer. The incremental increase correlates well with the
observed increase in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well. Mr. Hirsch, for the past several years has
applied in excess of 25,700 pounds of nitrogen annually. This over application resulted in aquifer
loading and an increase in aquifer concentrations from 7.59 mg/1 in 1996 to 12.2 mg/I in 1997.
This violates 5 CCR 1002-41.5(C)(6). The volume of water underlying Hirsch's 147 acres is 221
acre-feet at a saturated thickness of 5 feet (see Figure 2). The loading of 25,700 pounds annually
of nitrogen to this 221 acre-feet results in a concentration of 7.59 mg/I. This 7.59 mg/I in 221
acre-feet of groundwater volume equates to 4,746 pounds of nitrate -nitrogen (essentially, 221
acre-feet of water having 4,746 pounds of nitrate will have a concentration of 7.59 mg/I nitrate -
nitrogen). Thus, there appears to be a 5 to 1 nitrogen leaching to aquifer response ratio
(25,700/4,746). Table 3 below demonstrates how this continued over loading of nitrogen to the
aquifer will increase nitrate concentrations in the aquifer underlying Lind Farms, Inc., Habrock's
Property and the Town of Severance.
This increase in nitrate concentrations has been observed by a noted increase in the aquifer
concentration (as measured in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well). In November 1996, the
concentration of the aquifer was 2.24 mg/1. In November 1997, the concentration increased to
4.86 mg/I. Table 3 includes a 4,823 pound increase of nitrate contained in the 37 acre-feet of
lagoon leachate which occurred during September 1996 to September 1997 (Table 2).
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEA\LlNDWaragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972r1
Paragon Report Review
Page 7
Table 4 contains a summary of groundwater quality samples collected over the past several years
which show increases in groundwater nitrate concentrations.
Drain tile samples represent subsurface water underlaying the Hirsch property. This water is
collected via a perforated drain tile located under the Hirsch property.
The proposed Hirsch Dairy (1) is a much to intensive use on the number of acres owned by the
applicant, and (2) has polluted, and continues to pollute shallow groundwater underlaying
surrounding land owners from the existing lagoon, the over application of process wastewater and
solid manure and improper containment of storm water runoff contaminated with manure. In
addition, the current activity is in violation of the interim narrative standards for groundwater
contained in 5 CCR 1002-41 Section 41.5. Continued overloading of the aquifer will result in
degradation of aquifer water quality and will result in conditions that will render the aquifer
useless for domestic, livestock and irrigation purposes. Past activities and approved future
activities will have a dramatic negative impact on the environment, health and welfare of the
community.
Sincerely,
LE
EKING
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lind
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEANILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report wpd
? 9 2/+ .
/wae
lagoon water balance2.123
Q0 CS
> R
W "
^-� en 00 n 00 o 00 hD c O\ et D\ en un n v, en et vl O et O\ O\ o V'
N O O O O un 7 h 7 7 M et et un M M M M O 7 Ch O\ vl O N
In h vl h v1 h n N: 06 00 Vt r-:6 C do C C C M b h [V r1/4410
^ N N M M M M M M M M M et et on h
et n N^ M oD .�. CA 00 O O et ON [� N M \O un el CO O O eh M O
O O O O O O N N O O O O O O ^ N N
ee
O O O O O O O O o O O O O O C O O O C O O O C O O
U
N
ad C 7^ .. M^ h Ol ken O O\ M N a en^ M h ON h0 ON M N et 7O
x N ^O O O O N N N M M N ^ O O O O N N N M M N
e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 666 0 0 0 0 0
s. ita
0i W
`O ee N N CO M VD M un un O\ N N O M N N t- M M et un <n O O O O O on O N O N N O O O O O O O 00 O M co 00 O Val N
vi O O O 0 0 N O 1/445 vi ri nj M O O 666 0 N 7 0C O n O
M O N^ 00 .. h 00 et CO O\ N O v1 on n O\ b t. O M 00 O VO n 7 N M CD M^^ h 00 N N O 7 M M O V'1 M 7 Moo (� t` vl 00 en
^
N O O C O C O N N eV ^^ C O C C O OM O eV C
in in v+ v %o v vo D
o% O1 0% ON O1 O\ O1 O1 a a a P a oN a a a\ a q
L
00 off' _C= >c UawiCu eCC
tO)C4 �,r�,gd titidv:OZAti� °�
W
le
C
d
CS a
00 Cm
a
es
it
C
C• 3
C
C
L DL
4
CI;
a
• e
a m
U a
C e • m
00 v
12.1
R .c
aA
O O O O O O O O O O f1MC O O O0. = O b n b g O M q n
vcNo .v froMo
e
P N O 00 N N N O P e O M 0 0 0 0 0 Q P O g Q Q Q o r N
• r e M Q N r M 0 P N P en P P P P OO�� Q.
N U C v1 �O r 66644-666666666666666
^+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O MMa et
ON
0
r 000
coo 8 88
s xE ON
N
p
O
.42
Q e e b
O N
v
t=
00
a0
Pic
M e O
N N^ N e e N 0 0 0 N N b N N N O N b N N P e 00 0
b O -+ O 0 1� N b M b M N O N O r N M
N 00000 N 0 M O O O 0 0 O M Q 00 0 00 O
VD in
M O N 00 _^ r oo 4 N N O C M M r P b n O M 00 O �p r O
a N 0 C 0 0 0 -+ O N M O N M e M 00 r r M
^O C OOOC ^ MoMO
NMN^ O N M N 00 00 tM+� N ONrn M
P �O Q .-. o N rn N e 00 v� N O
C G O C C O G -+ O -+ N M O 00 M M P
^� O O O G O O C p^^^ O
CO
Q M 0 N P N O t+1 N e .� M Vl pp.. Vt O M N Q "0
N O O O O N N N M M N -+ O O O O N N N M M N
a 6666666666666666666006600
a=
vgig 0
..
a
9
N O Q Q O M O M O O b P e P P e r N P N N N e.
N N N N N N N N N b N e Q Q e N M M e e M M
bM vrf a O Ob}0 e 000 a0 0000 b h W M b b b^ r O Vi O. N N vqf M
P U O O vMi P P W O N O W r01� 00 00 p0 Q M M M Q Q M M M e e N N N Q Q V Q Q v, Y Q Q Q e y Q
e M M b M l� b N en M W '0 0 0 0 0 N n N MN 0 N N n
C 00 00® m 00® 00
Q a Q a O. T a O. Q �p b b b b b b N N r N 1� r
T* g q q q q a q q q q q a," q q
a w
e
a
lagoon water balance2.123
i
a
N
N
vi
N
O
9'%M;«? n
Table 3
Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
ial Aquifer Loading
Nitrogen Land Application
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Nitrate
Loading
(lbs)
15700
25748
25748
25748
25748
25748
25748
Nitrate
Recieved
(lbs)
3140
5150
5150
5150
5150
5150
5150
Incremental
Nitrate
Increase
On8/0
2.59
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
* Based on 5 to 1 reduction from root zone leaching to aquifer
11/04/97,04:28:11 PM
Cummluative
Nitrate
Increase
(mg/1)
2.24
4.83
9.08
13.32
17.57
21.82
26.07
30.31
Aquifer Leach Table.123
97251.
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Quality
Sample Nitrate Depth
Location Date (mg/1) (feet)
MW#1 10/30/97 8.47 9.95
MW#2 10/30/97 9.36 5.25
MW#3 10/30/97 9.88 3.00
Drain Tile 10/06/96 7.59
Drain Tile 10/30/97 12.20
Stock Well 10/06/96 2.24
Stock Well 10/30/97 4.86
11/04/97,04:26:44 PM
water quality summary table.123
Gradient Flow
cc
a
4)
m
x min
et *ri
as 0
m A 0
0
wrl • O
1
of
Cu
97 tent'
4993
Well
5025 •
,,I
\(LJ sJ t I
„x
(zzs A:F i
•
Sroc111iRSu+)
° `I1
�� way, ��` ICal .dPJ °III
Loop Lake
II I
II
II
II
1i 4925
494/
h
9 •
14
4958
J.
4940
!New Windsor
OII Fall
6
ty)
496/
arm. 5002 • • ;
5/03
II I
cP
11 I
• �\1 5� _
t‘.
`aKoUAiingfv -rt-12-
AQ.u,ntZi fl'. DY 1DR•SA
3` 49,1
1"• oMP7bQ19J (v
4986
5025
4956 -'
4904 _
49361
rn
4944 •
I-4 R.sci,14-71),a I zy
U& RI cost
Roala IN
•114904
/n
e1 i ; Ji: Severance
•
rc.
Ba(dridge
Lake
BM•
•
4574
Schneider
Lake
Aug,'
Lady
4893 6900
0
OCT-27-1997 15:19
WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
19703564966 P.01
i
Pospir Fax Note
To i
Co
7671
Le
Dab
From
Co.
Nom* Moe*
M
Faxja 7P— 1J7a
it
C LOR DO
September 24, 1997
Fax*
Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Enviro
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver,' Colorado 80222-1530
Dear Derald:
IEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517 16TH AVENUE COURT
GREELEY, CO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586
HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635
MMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639
FAX (970) 356-4966
ent
As you are aware, our County Commissioners have requested that our staff review the
Hirsch Dairy, manure and waste water managemen plan (the Hirsch Plan) for compliance
with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Con 1 Regulations (5 CCR 1002-81).
However, due to a "gray area" in the CAFO Regula 'tins we are finding it difficult to
complete our review. Specifically, it is not appar whether tailwater ponds which
would capture and temporarily store process waste water, applied through flood irrigation
methods, are required to be lined.
Due to this "gray area" we are requesting that your ff provide an interpretation in
regard to this requirement. As you know, Section .8.4 of the CAFO Regulations
requires that retention structures constructed after ugust 30, 1992, have evidence that a
liner has been constructed and meets a specified p eability. However, it does not
indicate if tailwater ponds must be lined.
The Hirsch Plan is proposing an unlined tailwater pond. This pond will capture and
temporarily hold process waste water which has be an land applied through flood
irrigation practices. According to the Hirsch Plan, any captured process waste water will
be imnjediately pumped back into the facility's prirpary retention structure.
I am in receipt of a letter dated December 20, 1996, to Victor Sainz from Dave Rau and
Brick Smith of Tetragon Environmental, Inc, whit 1 is a summary of a meeting in which
you attended. This letter indicates that tailwater ponds are not required to meet lining
requirements. The letter indicates that you have received a copy of this letter. However,
subsequent conversations with you lead me to bell ve that evidence of a liner is required
by the CAFO Regulations.
972r,1! ,5..
OCT-27-1997 15:19
WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 19703564966 P.02
Derald Lang:..
Water Quality Control Division
September 24, 1997
Page 2
It is apparent that there is not a consensus oa the i
CAFO Regulations and that additional review of thi
scheduled to present our review to our County Co.
1997. Therefore, we would request that your mitt
Tuesday) September 30, 1997.
We truly;appreciate your assistance in this matter.
not hesitate to call me at (970) 353-0635, extension
Sincerely,
Trevor Jiiicek
Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
tj1830
cc: John Pickle Weld County Health Department
Dave) Holm, Water Quality Control Division
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
Dave Rau, Paragon Consulting Group
Victor Sainz, Water Quality Control Division
retation of this portion of the
item is warranted We are
ssioners on Wednesday, October 1,
interpretation be faxed to us by
you have any questions, please do
232.
972'5"
OCT-27-1997 15:20 WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
19703564966 P.03
S ZA
OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Pee! Shwayder, Executive Direemr
Derkaetd to end improving the health and environment of the people of
5. 100l aad Radatibn SeMc6
Da+var Le ade 61530 Bf 001a,ry Blvd.
Phalle (303) 692- Denver OD 802204928
Located In Glendale, ado 003) 692.3090
http://www.cdpheaste.co.us
0
September 30, 1997
Weld County Health Department
1517 16th Avenue Court
Greeley,! CO 80631
Attn: Trevor Jiricek
Re: CAFO Regulations Question on Tai
flDeaf Trewo=:
This letter is in response to your
whereinlyou requested an interpreta.
concerning the need to seal ta3.lwat
stating ;that this is a somewhat "gr
CAFO regulations. Understandingthe d
will hopefully aid in applying the r
The section of the regulation ('
tailwater ponds installation is in
surface water quality from riun-of
practices. Thus, the need to Seal
when the regulation was developed for
common practice with flood irrigati
land application disposal plan incorp
of a closed loop system; then the pot
qualitylwould need to considered.
From the description in the Hirsch P
potential for groundwater quality i
that the resident time of any proces
is minimal. Under this situation I
this tailwater pond because tYe po
other t ilwater ponds in use with fld
surrounding area.
do
Cd 1pentroDeper�m
andFnvboommt
ri-0577P5-71!
1991 1
water Ponds.
etter of September 24, 1997
on of the CAFO regulations
ponds. You are right in
y area" in interrupting the
evelopment of the regulations
lation to the Hirsch Plan.
1.5(A)(2)) which addresses
:ended to cover impacts to
due to flood irrigation
ese ponds was not an issue
he use of tailwater ponds is
However, should a feedlot
rate a tailwater pond as part
ntial impacts to groundwater
an it would appear that the
acts will be very small in
water in the tailwater pond
ould not see a need to seal
ntial impact is not unlike
irrigation practiced in the
972516
OCT-27-1997 15:20
WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
19703564966 P.04
se
'Should you have any further guesltions} please call me at 303/692-
3561.
.Sincerely,
tticl Liing, PE
cc: Johh Pickle, Weld County Health epartment
Dave Rau, Paragon Consulting Gro.p
Dave Holm, WQCD
Vjck.0r Saint, WQCD
3725Z.S
Hirsch Dairy Nitrogen Balance
Prepared by
Randy W. Ray, Agronomist
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Leaf Engineering
Route 1, Box 75
Merino, CO 80741
Forrest:
October 28, 1997
I have reviewed the nutrient management plan for the Hirsch Dairy near Severance,
CO. Based on my knowledge and expertise in nutrient management plans and overall
water quality monitoring, I have made some conclusions regarding the report preformed
by Paragon Consulting Group. Below is a table (Table 1) containing information for the
effluent application at the Hirsch Dairy.
Table 1.
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Current Facility (766 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
(gal) (Ibs) (Ibsl llbs/ac) Jac1 (ac)
4,598,674 18,395 11,957 154 77.64 68.56
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Proposed Facility (1,380 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
(gal (Ibs) (Ibsl (lbs/ac) (acl (ac)
9,096,193 36,385 23,650 154 153.57 7.37
97251.E
Page 2
Table 1 indicates that only 78 acres are required for application of effluent and runoff
nutrients from the current dairy. This will allow the Hirsch Dairy to apply dry manure to
the additional 68 acres. This additional application of dry manure must be closely
monitored to prevent over application of nitrogen.
Considering the proposed expansion of the dairy, Hirsch Dairy is going to need
additional acres to apply this effluent. From calculations, an additional 7 acres is
needed to keep the nitrogen application at or under agronomic rates.
There will be an annual variation in precipitation runoff volumes, but not a dramatic
change in net nitrogen load since the majority of the water in the lagoon consists of
dairy process water. The nutrient value for the calculations were taken from the BMP's
for Agriculture, published by Colorado State University. A value of 4 Ibs/1000 gallons of
nitrogen was used in this table.
I was advised that on the week of October 20, Hirsch Dairy applied feedlot manure to
the 146 acres. I am assuming a typical application rate of 20 ton per acre, and using
the BMP Guide for nutrient content. Table 2 shows the effects on the nutrient balance
with consideration of the effluent applied as irrigation water.
Table 2.
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Current Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
(T/ac) (Ibs/Tl (Ibs1 (Ibs) (lbs) fibs)
20 9 26,280 22,515 11,957 15,722
972516
Page 3
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Proposed Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
IT/acl Ilbs/T) flbs1 (Ibs) (Ibs) IIbs1
20 9 26,280 22,515 23,650 27,415
The concern is evident in Table 2. The Hirsch lagoon is currently nearly full of effluent,
and the dry manure applied this fall already exceeds crop nutrient demand, without
including possible soil nitrogen contents, and additional irrigation water (Smith Lateral)
nutrient content.
From my calculations, Hirsch Dairy will exceed agronomic nitrogen application rates for
the 1998 growing season (15,722 Ibs), under current conditions (766 milking cows).
The proposed facility will have a huge effect on the nitrogen balance if dry manure is
applied to all 146 acres. The over application of nitrogen will be 27,415 Ibs, nearly
doubling the effect on the current facility.
Another concern is the constant application of organic nitrogen, which will continue to
mineralize in the soil over a period of several years. As an example, only 30% of the.
first year applied organic nitrogen will be mineralized. This leads to a building effect
where the mineralized nitrogen builds to a point where little or no effluent or dry manure
can be applied and maintain agronomic application rates. Phosphorus and other
minerals may be of concern at this site where a large concentration of animals are
located.
97251 c
)
mocid
J/2\J k[
E.92oS 2CO
mr
oa ow ®§
C
I/]§ q
z =
$§]y 703
mm
Z •5 -
mE • Tit
15m= (73o
- 9.4-
f}
m�
0-c
'2
|t2
I0C
§0
2• 2k!
) -It .?
0
E
a
.
>< ow
OZawc
oRw
cc
7772
� k\
0«|
w>>
CM
CO Cc)
W• M
05
CO
Too
Dry Feedlot Manure Applied X20 T/acre 10/21-10/23
D
• e _
O 07E2 Li
$a2]
• c• m m
E aE2
3 J i-alu
z
/wo
2;;=
N-
A
co
2 N
0 Co
�\ \
k
K
DOYLE, OTIS, FREY & HELLERICH, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1CHARD N. DOYLE
HENRY C. FREY
THOMAS E. HELLERICH
FRED L. OTIS
G. BRENT LOAN
ELLEN S. MINNIG
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80634
The Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear County Commissioners:
(970) 330-6700
November 11, 1997
RE: Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
DENVER METRO
(303)659-7576
FAX
(970) 330-2969
Pursuant to your request, I am submitting in writing the questions I posed to staff, to the
Health Department, and to the Board of County Commissioners at the most recent hearing.
These questions are submitted in writing pursuant to the request of the Board.
In addition, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the correspondence and the supplemental
report I have received from Leaf Engineering, Mr. Forrest Leaf, concerning his analysis and review
of the manure and wastewater management plan submitted by Hirsch Dairy on September 26, 1997.
As you will note in the report and in Mr. Leafs correspondence to me, Mr. Leaf acknowledge an
error in the calculation of the pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate. The correct poundage was 48,226
pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate which resulted in even greater nitrate concentration.
As Mr. Leaf notes in his report and his correspondence to me dated November 10, 1997, the
Dairy is currently polluting the area groundwater, and there has been an over -application of the
processed wastewater and dry manure. In addition, there has been a seepage from the existing
lagoon, resulting in an additional 48,000 pounds of nitrogen leached into the aquifer, based upon
actual water samplings.
I am also enclosing a copy of Mr. Leafs letter to Mr. John Pickle, Director of Environmental
Protection Services of the Weld County Health Department, expressing the concerns relating to the
east lagoon which is constructed in a location different than proposed by the applicant, and not as
submitted in the report of Paragon to the County.
0,e. t -It_ i)( , 0 0
972516
Please accept the questions I have submitted, Mr. Leafs letter of November 10, 1997, and
Mr. Leafs amended report dated November 10, 1997, and Mr. Leaf's letter to John Pickle as part
of the record in the above USR application.
TEH:cjm
Enc.
pc: Weld County Health Department
Todd Hodges
Very yours,
-a f k
THOMAS E. HELLERICH
Attorney at Law
97251r
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 10, 1997
Mr. Tom Hellerich, Esq.
Doyle, Otis, Frey and Hellerich
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is a supplement to my analysis of the Hirsch Dairy Use By Special Review (USR) 1091
currently pending before Weld County. Please note that 1 revised this letter report to reflect an
error I made in my estimate of 4,823 pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate which should have been
48,226 pounds of nitrogen lagoon leachate. This letter report is my review of the applicant's
Manure and Wastewater Management Plan prepared by the applicant's consultant Paragon on
September 26, 1997. In my review I noted numerous inconsistences with the applicant's plan and
non-compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation (CAFO) 5
CCR 1002-19 and Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47. In particular, I found that
the current dairy operation is polluting area shallow groundwater.
Table 1, enclosed, shows my prediction of how shallow alluvial groundwater is being loaded with
nitrate -nitrogen, which I correlated directly to current over application of manure process
wastewater and dry manure and lagoon leachate on 147 acres owed by the Hirsch Dairy and is
subject to the pending USR 1091. The predicted increase in nitrate -nitrogen was developed from
nitrate samples collected from a drain tile underlaying and draining subsurface water under the
147 acres. In November 1996, nitrate concentrations from the drain tile were 7.59 mg/I nitrate -
nitrogen. This 7.59 mg/1 nitrate is representative of the nitrate concentration of 221 acre-feet of
groundwater underlaying the 147 acres. I estimated that in 1996 the applicant over applied
15,700 pounds of nitrogen from the land application of process wastewater and dry manure. This
over application resulted in an observed aquifer response of 7.59 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen. Over the
1997 growing season I estimated that there was an over application of 25,700 pounds of nitrogen
from the land application of process wastewater and dry manure. In addition, the lagoon had
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:'LEAFLIND\Nitrate Loading l etter.wpd
972516
Hirsch Dairy Pollution
Page 2
seepage of 37 acre-feet resulting in 48,000 pounds of nitrogen leached directly into the aquifer (4
pounds nitrogen per 1000 process wastewater). Drain tile samples collected in October 1997
contained 12.2 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen. Continued loading of nitrogen into the aquifer underlaying
the 147 acres will result in dramatic increases nitrate concentrations, as shown in Table 1.
This shallow aquifer primarily exists from the deep percolation from the 147 acres. Annually, the
percolation is drained completely from the aquifer underlaying the flinch 147, resulting in a
virtually dry aquifer over part of the year. Thus, measured nitrate concentrations via the drain tile
underlaying the Hirsch 147 provides a direct measurement of the aquifer response to this nitrogen
over loading.
The groundwater underlaying the Hirsch property drains into an aquifer that stores groundwater
year around. This aquifer has been defined from the installation of irrigation, stock and domestic
wells located in a line as shown on Figure 2 of my letter report. This aquifer receives all of the
groundwater underflow from the Hirsch property. A stock well, as shown on Figure 2 of my
letter report, sampled in November of 1996 had a nitrate concentration of 2.24 mg/l. Samples
collected in October 1997 show a concentration of 4.86 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen, as shown in Table
2. The location of :his stock well is such that it receives all of the groundwater underflow from
the Hirsch Dairy, thus the noted increase in nitrate concentrations.
As shown in Table 1, estimated nitrate concentrations will continue to increase over the next 5
years resulting in concentrations well above Table Values contained in 5 CCR 1002-41. While
this aquifer is not specifically classified, it is protected pursuant to 5 CCR 1002-41.6.C.b., Interim
Narrative Standards and is subject to protection at the 2.24 mg/I interim standard. Finally, this
activity is in violation of Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47 because (1) the east
retention pond has not been adequately designed and constructed to contain process wastewater
and storm water runoff required, (2) the existing lagoon exceeds the CAFO allowable seepage
rate and is polluting area groundwater, (3) the proposed tail water pond has not been designed to
meet CAFO criteria for storm water runoff detention and seepage requirements, (4) land
application of nutrients are being grossly over applied and will continue to be grossly over applied
(based on the applicants disregard of his consultants recommendations and County and State
requirements) and is polluting area groundwater and (5) the December 16, 1997 Resolutions and
Conditions of Approval, page 3, ¶ 2. (A) 1. and 2.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E.`.LEAFIL ND\Nitrau Loamg Lauar.wpd
972516
Hirsch Dairy Pollution
Page 3
The ongoing activities are violations of CAFO in that this is not a "no -discharge" facility, thus the
appropriate groundwater discharge permits must be applied for the lagoon seepage and resulting
seep for the east retention pond.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lind
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\L,EAFLIND\Nitrate Loading Letter. wpd
972516
Table 1
Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
ial Aquifer Loading
Nitrogen Land Application
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Nitrate
Loading
(lbs)
15700
73926
73926
73926
73 926
73926
73926
Nitrate
Recieved *
(lbs)
3140
14785
14785
14785
14785
14785
14785 -
Incremental
Nitrate
Increase
(mg/I)
2.59
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.19
* Based on 5 to 1 reduction from root zone leaching to aquifer
11/07/97,07:54:55 AM
Cummluative
Nitrate
Increase
(mg/1)
2.24
4.83
17.02
29.22
41.41
53.61
65.80
78.00
Aquifer Leach Table.123
972516
Table 2
Summary of Groundwater Quality
Sample Nitrate Depth
Location Date (mg/1) (feet)
MW# 1 10/30/97 8.47 9.95
MW#2 I0/30/97 9.36 5.25
MW#3 10/30/97 9.88 3.00
Drain Tile 10/06/96 7.59
Drain Tile 10/30/97 12.20
Stock Well 10/06/96 2.24
Stock Well 10/30/97 4.86
11/07/97,07:55:17 AM
water quality summary table.123
972516
QUESTIONS FOR TODD AND STAFF
1. In comparing the 1996 Plan as submitted by the applicant, which formed the foundation for
the approval by the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing in December of 1996, as
compared to the Plan now submitted, and in particular, the manure and wastewater
management plan prepared by Paragon, are there significant differences, to require a new
hearing and notice to all agencies? In particular, major changes in the plans include; 1) the
removal and offsite storage of the manure piles, 2) the increased traffic created by the
trucking of the manure, 3) the new lagoon which was not in the original plan submitted, and
the fact that it is now on the property line, and is within 300 feet of the Cabala's residence,
and is even closer to the Town of Severance, 4) and the application of the effluent now is by
surface application as opposed to the sprinlder application.
2. Has the stag, considering all of these major changes, conducted an investigation of the impact
on the compatibility with the Town and the neighbors and with existing users, pursuant to
24.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, is it compatible with the future development, pursuant to
24.4.2.4 considering the Town of Severance now lies across Road 78 from the Dairy, and has
the staff re-evaluated the affect on the health, safety and welfare of the residence, pursuant
to 24.4.2.7?
972516
QUESTIONS FOR TREVOR AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
1. Has the Weld County Health Department approved a manure handling and disposal plan,
pursuant to 45.1.2?
2. Has the Weld County Health Department approved a method for scraping, grading and
cleaning for the site pursuant to 45.1.5 and 47.1.4?
3. Has the Weld County Health Department approved the drainage facilities and plans to
protect adjacent bodies of water from pollution, pursuant to 45.1.6 and pursuant to the
Resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners?
4. Has the Weld County Health Department provided for the protection of adjacent bodies of
water from pollution, pursuant to 47.1.5 and consistent with the Resolution adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners?
5. Has the Weld County Health Department approved the manure storage sites to determine
they have a water -tight surface to prohibit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into
the ground, pursuant to 47.1.1 and the prior Resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners?
6. Has the Weld County Health Department approved the feedbunks, water tanks, feeding tanks,
feeding devices and aprons, pursuant to 47.1.3 and the prior Resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners?
7. Considering there is no detail submitted by the applicant, what is the sizing of the tailwater
pond, including the depth, and the depth to groundwater for the tailwater pond as projected
to be installed?
8. What is the depth to groundwater of the new lagoon submitted in the new proposal? What
protections have been made to assure that the groundwater is not being and will not be
contaminated?
9. What sizing of the tailwater pond is necessary to hold runoff when irrigation effluent is being
applied?
10. Has the tailwater pond been adequately sized to provide for containing runoff water, and in
particular, has the tailwater pond been sized to retain the runoff water should a rain storm
happen during the time the effluent is being applied?
11. There is no provisions in the manure and wastewater management plan which provides for
manure storage in summer and winter months. Where is this going to be stored? Who will
be storing it? Will this be on impermeable pads? Has this been approved by the Weld County
972516
Health Department pursuant to 47.1.1 and the prior Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners.
12. Section 31.2 provides that in the uses allowed by right in the A District, uses within the A
District shall be subject to the additional requirements contained in Section 40, Supplemental
District Regulations and Section 50 Overlay Districts.
13. The plan states that ditches have been constructed along the north and west sides of the
property of the applicant, to capture and deliver the tailwaters to the tailwater pond. In
actuality no such ditches have been constructed, nor do they exist. Has the County approved
such a plan, and if so, what is the deadline for installation of the ditches?
14. The Dairy has been in violation of the number of animal units since September of 1996, and
discharge has occurred from the facility. What protections have been established pursuant
to Sections 45 and 47 to avoid pollution of the water and to preserve the water quality?
15. The plan, as submitted, stated that testing of the new lagoon area and the ditches and storage
areas would occur. No information has been provided, however, as to any such testing, or
whether such testing, in fact, occurred. For the existing lagoon, the original proposed lagoon,
monitoring wells have been spaced too far apart. Additional monitoring wells should be
required, and water samples to test the quality of the water should be required, pursuant to
47.1.7.
972516
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
Mr. John Pickle, Director
Environmental Protection Services
Weld County Health Department
1517 15 Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear John:
November 10, 1997
As you are probably aware, I represent landowners adjacent to the Hirsch Dairy. On November
5, 1997 in a hearing before the County Commissioners, your staff recommended approval of the
above referenced USR. Furthermore, your staff indicated that the applicant's plan was technically
sound and thus met all applicable CAFO regulations and Weld County Zoning Ordinance Sections
45 and 47. You are also not doubt aware, that I have taken strong issue with your staff's
evaluation and recommendation.
Of particular concern is the proposed east lagoon or retention pond, which is actually constructed
in a location other then indicated in the applicant's September 26, 1997 report. I personally
observed construction of this pond and it is my opinion that it is a violation of CAFO and Weld
County Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47. The applicant's consultant indicted in the
September 26, 1997 Manure and Wastewater Management Report, that in -situ sampling would be
conducted with respect to compaction and permeability testing. On November 5, 1997 neither
the applicant nor your staff indicated that this had been accomplished. Appendix D of the
September 26, 1997 report contains boring logs from various locations above the Smith Lateral.
It is important to note that all of these logs were at depths less then 5 feet, with exception of log
#7 were groundwater was noted at 11.5 feet. Also, boring log #2 did was at a depth of 5 feet
with no accompanying falling head permeability tests (Appendix E). Thus, this lagoon was placed
in a location were soil characteristics were unknown by Paragon, the State, your staff and Mr.
Hirsch.
This lagoon has already been constructed and was excavated to a depth which may have exposed
groundwater, as shown in copies of photographs taken by Mr. Cabala on November 6, 1997,
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:1LEAPLIND&Pi°k!° Lagoon fanc.wpd
97251G
Pickle Letter
Page 2
from Mr. Cabala's land. Your staff informed the County Commissioners that this did not pose
any contamination potential to local shallow groundwater. I personally observed the construction
of this lagoon and noted that there were no personnel present to ensure that the optimum soil
moisture and compaction was occurring, and depth -to -groundwater measurements were taken,
which was indicated by the applicant's consultants would be monitored and documented. Please
provide me with all technical documentation and on -site visit information that your staff relied on
to ensure the integrity of the east lagoon to assure construction in accordance with submitted
plans and to recommend its approval.
I have not seen any data which indicates the lagoon has been constructed to meet the 1x10'5
cm/sec CAFO permeability standard. In addition, since this lagoon may have intercepted
groundwater, it should be constructed with a synthetic liner since a compacted clay liner will fail
under negative hydrostatic pressure from an elevated groundwater table.
If allowed to fill with process wastewater, it will pollute the shallow groundwater aquifer
underlaying the lagoon and adjacent landowners. Mr. Rauh, located immediately to the south and
east of this facility, owns a domestic well that will be contaminated. There are other irrigation,
domestic and livestock wells in the immediate vicinity of this lagoon.
Enclosed you will find a letter from Mr. Chilson, Mr. Hirsch's attorney, in which he indicates that
this lagoon will be located directly over Mr. Rauh's irrigation supply line from the Smith Lateral.
This location was not approved by Mr. Rauh, and during the construction of this facility, the 14
inch vitrified clay tile was intentionally destroyed. This location was not the location identified in
the Paragon report and approved by your staff. The current location of this lagoon is less then
400 feet from Mr. Cabala's residence. Was your staff informed of the existing Rauh pipeline and
the change in location of the lagoon?
I appreciate your prompt response regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
LE RING
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Enclosure
cc: Tom Hellerich
Ken Lind
LW ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEARLIND\Pickle Lagoon Lett°r.wpd
972516
972516
JOHN H_ CH1t.SON
Attorney At Law
6610 Chakecnerry urive
Loveland, Colorado 80537
303-667-3214
October 9, 1997
Dan and Wendy Rauh
11570 Weld Co. Road 78
Eaton, CO 80615
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rauh;
My client, Hirsch Dairy, is in the process of con-
structing a holding pond as part of its drainage control
plan. The location of this pond is partially on an ease-
ment serving your property with a pipeline.
In order to protect your pipeline and not interfere
with the working purpose of your easement, Hirsch Dairy
has hired engineers to design a bypass around the hold-
ing pond which will maintain the same gradient and flow
capacity. A copy of this design drawing is enclosed with
this letter. Should you have any specific questions about
the engineering design or the functional operation of your
line after bypass installation, please contact Mr. Dave
Rau at the engineering firm shown on the enclosed design
drawing.
Hirsch Dairy fully recognizes your easement and has
no intention of interfering with it. If any problers
arise in the future with the operation of this bypass,
Hirsch Dairy will correct the same.
Truly yours,
John H. Chilson
cc: Hirsch Dairy
972516
972516
PARAGON
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 10, 1997
Mr. Tom Hellerich, Esq.
Doyle, Otis, Frey and Hellerich
West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091 (Amended Report)
Dear Tom:
This letter report amends my November 5, 1997 and will present my technical review of
Paragon's Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for the Hirsch Dairy, submitted to the Weld
County Commissioners on September 26, 1997. My review will follow the section numbers
contained in the above referenced report.
1. introduction
Paragon alleges that since the USR 1091 application is pending, the Hirsch Dairy is in compliance
with County regulations even though there are more then 960 animals on site, and have more than
960 animals on site since September 1995.
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrology
Paragon states the Hirsch Dairy does not overlay a designated aquifer. However, the purpose and
intent of the Classification and Standards for Groundwater is to protect all groundwater of the
state. All groundwater of the state is protected pursuant to the Statewide Standards. Specifically,
5 CCR 1002 Section 41.5(C)(6) addresses aquifers not classified as being protected by interim
narrative standards or Table values 1-4 in the Classification and Standards regulation. The limited
shallow aquifer in the Eaton area is not excepted. There are numerous domestic, stock and
irrigation wells in the area that are receiving surface and subsurface water from the area of the
Hirsch Dairy land, lagoon and irrigation system. Baseline groundwater quality samples collected
in 1996 show that the concentration of nitrate -nitrogen in the alluvial aquifer underlaying Lind
Farms, Inc, the Habrock Property and Town of Severance is 2.24 mg/I.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
£:\L£AF\LIND.Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 2
2. Storm Water and Process Wastewater Management
Paragon states that "Land application of liquid and solid wastes and off -site storage and use of
solid manure is an important aspect of the waste -disposal process." However, the proposed plan
does not explain how much and when this solid manure will be applied and how agronomic rates
will be determined and tracked. In addition, the off -site storage of solid manure is not discussed.
While CAFO may not require this explanation, there are requirements under the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance Sections 45 and 47.
2.1 Storm Water Conveyance
The applicant proposes, and has initiated construction of a retention pond east of the Smith
Lateral and south of the employee housing. Paragon sized the retention pond to capture storm
runoff from 17.6 acres above the Smith Lateral and hold 4.7 acre-feet. However, the drainage
basin above the Smith Lateral is 31 acres with a total of 8 acre-feet of generated runoff at a peak
discharge of 19 cfs for a 25 year, 24 -hour storm event. Paragon references a plan in Appendix A
of their report. This plan is, at best, a concept plan for the retention pond. There are no detailed
specifications pertaining to the sizing of the pond, in -situ compaction testing, erosion control
structures, appurtenances, grading plan and or ditch sizing and alignment. In addition, Paragon
does not state how this water will be handled. If this retention pond is to be evaporative, Section
4.8.3(C)(5)(b) requires that all "evaporative systems shall be designed to withstand a 10 -year
period of maximum recorded rainfall". Table 1 shows a 2 year water budget on the 4.7 acre-foot
capacity retention pond. As is evident from Table 1, the proposed size of the retention pond is
not adequate to detain and evaporate precipitation and generated runoff over a two year period,
let alone a ten year period. A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon stated that a
field technician would be on site during construction to conduct in -situ testing. My visit to the
site and drive along the Smith Lateral on October 9, 1997 revealed that the retention pond was
under construction but no
in -situ testing was being conducted. In addition, soil conditions were dry, thus, compaction at 95
percent standard proctor would be highly unlikely. Section 2.4.4 of Paragon's report states that
in -place density compaction testing will be performed during construction of the pond and ditch.
Paragon does not address storm water runoff from the 147 acres irrigated with process water
from the existing lagoon and proposed retention pond above the Smith Lateral. Review of the
map prepared in Appendix A shows drainage flow paths from the 147 acres and a tail water pond
located adjacent to Weld County Road (WCR) 23 approximately 1200 feet north of the
intersection of WCR 78 and 23. My understanding of the CAFO regulations is that all facilities
which come in contact with process wastewater must be designed to contain a 25 year, 24 -hour
storm event and have a maximum permeability of 1 x lean/sec. Paragon states that this facility
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:1LEARLIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 3
is a "pass -through" facility. CAFO regulations do not define such a structure. In my opinion, this
facility must meet the criteria set forth in CAFO Section 4.8.4. The size of the tail water pond is
not discussed, nor is its specific design. Under CAFO, this pond, if it is to receive and hold
process wastewater must be sized to hold generated runoff from a 25 year, 24 hour storm totaling
38 acre-feet. Enclosed is a letter of September 30, 1997, from Derald Lang from the Water
Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health responding to an inquiry
by Mr. Jiricek (letter of September 24, 1997) regarding tail water ponds and their applicability to
CAFO. Mr. Lang states section 4.8.5(A)(2) of the regulation is "intended to cover impacts to
surface water quality from runoff due to flood irrigation practices." Furthermore, Mr. Lang's
opinion is the applicant's proposed tail water pond does not pose a significant threat to
groundwater quality based on the resident time of the process wastewater in the pond. Mr. Lang
was not advised of the shallow depth -to -water, nor the proposed pass -through operation. I do
not agree with Mr. Lang that there is "no significant threat" to groundwater or surface water
quality from the retention of process wastewater or the overflow potential of process wastewater
due to storm water runoff. The depth -to -water in this location is 5 - 6 feet, measured by Well #2
(see Figure 2), at current ground surface elevation. Excavation of this tail water pond will
eliminate the separation distance between the bottom of the pond and the groundwater surface.
Typical tail water reuse ponds are significantly deeper then 3 - 4 feet deep, which would be the
depth of this pond if a minimum separation distance of 1 - 2 feet is to be maintained. Using
Terracon's 30 inch per minute percolation rate (measured above the Smith Lateral in similar soil
characteristics for employee housing septic/leach fields), process wastewater standing in the tail
water pond for 12 hours will percolate 24 inches, thus reaching the groundwater. Given the
separation distance from the bottom of the proposed tail water pond and existing groundwater,
this pond should be lined in addition to being properly sized and constructed for containment of
storm water runoff.
However, the Weld County Zoning Ordinance also applies. Section 45.1.6 of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance requires that all drainage facilities or improvements shall be constructed to
protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water from pollution. Section 47.1.5 have
the same requirement. As the proposed tail water pond is a drainage facility that will store
process wastewater and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm water runoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4 Retention Basins
The existing lagoon has a capacity of 39.9 acre-feet with a free -board capacity of 29.9 acre-feet.
I have observed the lagoon at, or near full (29.9 acre-feet and above) over the past 18 months.
Paragon (formerly Terracon) conducted in -situ compaction tests and laboratory permeability tests
at several locations in October 1996. Several of these tests failed, thus requiring further field
compaction. Apparently 50 lineal feet of lagoon dam on the south side was re -compacted to meet
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E: 'LEAFILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 4
CAFO permeability criteria. However, these in -situ samples collected in October 1996 were
around the perimeter of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater. Paragon did •
not collect samples from the center of the lagoon since the lagoon was full of process wastewater.
An April 30, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that the northwest corner of the
lagoon would be filled to increase the distance of the lagoon from existing homes. A March 17,
1997 letter to Mr. Sainz, Terracon indicated that a coffer dam would be installed to facilitate the
draining, drying, in -situ testing and re -compaction of the west end of the pond. Neither of these
activities was conducted. Based on my observations of the construction of the lagoon under
saturated conditions, my water balance and Paragon's retesting, the lagoon still leaks and Paragon
has not demonstrated that CAFO permeability criteria has been met or exceeded consistently
throughout the lagoon. Subsequently, the lagoon is contaminating area groundwater.
Process water from the lagoon will be used on 147 acres shown on Figure 3 of Paragon's
September 26, 1997 report. Paragon estimated the daily and annual water collected by the
existing lagoon from the dairy parlor, in addition to the Storm water runoff into the lagoon and
proposed retention pond. Table 2 is my estimate of water utilization based on Paragon's water
utilization study, and includes actual measured precipitation from the Eaton area (NCWCD
weather station) and irrigation use from the lagoon reported by observant landowners, the Smith
Lateral Ditch Rider and a June 12, 1997 letter from Mr. Jiricek, to myself, in which he stated that
Mr. Rau informed him that no application from the lagoon process wastewater would occur until
installation of the tail water pond. The tail water pond is not yet constructed. I calculated
seepage from the lagoon based on inflow and outflow volumes discussed above. I estimate that
37 acre-feet of process wastewater has percolated into the underlying aquifer of the lagoon from
September 1995 through September 1997. This volume compares with the allowable CAFO
seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day, or 1.9 feet over the two years. This 1.9 feet allowable seep
over a 4.1 acre lagoon surface is 7.7 acre-feet. Thus, I estimate that the lagoon has seeped over
400 percent of the allowable seepage volume pursuant to CAFO.
Allowable seepage for this lagoon is in excess of the CAFO permissible seepage rate of 1/32 inch
per day. Over the past two years, the allowable seepage total 1.9 feet. Assuming a 30 percent
soil voids ratio, this total 1.9 feet of allowable seepage would fill the pore space in 6.33 feet of
soil. Paragon's Table 4 shows the separation distance in MW -1 was 1.09 feet in September 1997.
Thus, there is direct communication between lagoon seepage and the groundwater. Figure 1 A
shows an illustration of allowable seepage and measured groundwater levels. Figure I B shows
the seepage and separation distance for the measured permeability of 9.6x1O cm/sec reported by
Terracon in November 1996 at location #5.
Sections 45 and 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance require that all drainage facilities or
improvements shall be constructed to protect any adjacent river, streams or other bodies of water
from pollution. The existing lagoon is a drainage facility that will store process wastewater and
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:\LEAF'LIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.v.pd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 5
storm water runoff and must be designed to contain this process wastewater and contaminated
storm waterrunoff under the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.4.5 Existing Retention Basin - Groundwater Monitoring Wells
In February 1997, Paragon constructed three monitoring wells around the lagoon. Table 4 of
Paragon's report summarizes depth -to -water samples from these wells from February 1997 to
present. As can be seen from Table 4, depth -to -water measurements decrease over the summer
and fall season. MW -1 on Table 4 shows the depth -to -water decreasing from 13.71 feet in the
winter to 9.63 feet in the fall. The separation distance from the bottom of the lagoon to the top of
the groundwater surface range from 5.16 feet to 1.08 feet in the fall. Clearly the water table
increases due to irrigation return flows over the growing season. Regionally, the highest water
table occurs in the late fall and early winter of each year. Paragon's report does not contain data
during this time period.
MW -3 is reported to be dry. However, a monitoring well drilled in October 1997, adjacent to
WCR 78 located due south of the lagoon (Figure 2) was 20.8 feet to bedrock with a depth -to -
water of 9.95 feet (10.85 feet of saturated alluvium). The applicants MW -3 is approximately 6
feet higher in elevation, at ground surface, then the Monitoring Well #1. If MW -3 is truly dry,
then the well was not properly constructed. This well, in addition to two others, should be re -
drilled. At a minimum, additional properly constructed wells should be located between MW -1
and MW -2 and at the southeast corner of the lagoon.
A March 17, 1997 letter to Victor Sainz from Terracon indicated that water quality in addition to
depth -to -water measurements would be collected. In a October 27, 1997 telephone discussion
with Mr. Jiricek, he indicated there were no water quality sample results in the file. Given the
nature of this operation and the request by the applicant to apply large amount of nutrients water,
a comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program should be required. The negative
impact this operation is having on groundwater quality should be documented and tracked.
Paragon did not install monitoring wells in the location of the proposed east retention pond or tail
water pond adjacent to WCR 23. Nor did Paragon make any statements as to the depth -to -water
at these locations. Monitoring Well #2, Figure 2, was installed near the location of the proposed
tail water pond in mid -October and sampled. The depth -to -water was 5.25 feet below the ground
surface. At a minimum, monitoring wells should be constructed in the area of the proposed east
retention pond and tail water pond and depth -to -water measurements and water quality samples
collected by the applicant on a bi-monthly frequency.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:'LEAFILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 6
23 Process Water Use/Land Application
Enclosed is a letter from Agronomist Randy Ray in which he concludes at proposed expanded
animal numbers (2,000 milking cows) Mr. Hirsch needs 7 additional acres to apply lagoon effluent
to avoid the over application of nutrients. In addition, the application of dry manure during the
week of October 20, 1997 will result in over application of 15,722 pounds of nitrogen if the
lagoon effluent is applied next season,. The constant over application of dry manure and lagoon
effluent and leachate on the 147 acres the past several years results in a gross over loading of
nitrates to the aquifer system underlying the Hirsch Dairy, Lind Farms, Inc., Mr. Habrock's
property and the Town of Severance. This over application will result in the continued
mineralization of nitrates for years, thus perpetuating loading of nitrates to the aquifer.
The aquifer volume underlying Mr. Hirsch and Lind Farms, Inc. totals 446 acre-feet based on
depth -to -water measurements from Monitoring Wells #2 and #3. A drain tile sample collected in
November 1996 had a concentration of 7.59 mg/I nitrate -nitrogen. In October 1997, the drain tile
had a concentration of 12.2 mg/I. A groundwater sample collected from Lind Farms, Inc. stock
well, located approximately 200-300 feet west of the proposed tail water pond (Figure 2), had a
concentration of 2.24 mg/1 nitrate -nitrogen in November 1996. For that same well in October
1997, the concentration was 4.86 mg/I. Table 3 demonstrates how nitrate concentrations
increased from 2.24 mg/I to 4.86 mg/1 in the aquifer under Lind Farms, Inc. The annual
incremental nitrate increase is estimated by the loading to the aquifer from the over application of
nutrients and the volume of water in the aquifer. The incremental increase correlates well with the
observed increase in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well. Mr. Hirsch, for the past several years has
applied in excess of 25,700 pounds of nitrogen annually. This over application resulted in aquifer
loading and an increase in aquifer concentrations from 7.59 mg/1 in 1996 to 12.2 mg/1 in 1997.
This violates 5 CCR 1002-41.5(C)(6). The volume of water underlying Hirsch's 147 acres is 221
acre-feet at a saturated thickness of 5 feet (see Figure 2). The loading of 25,700 pounds annually
of nitrogen to this 221 acre-feet results in a concentration of 7.59 mg/l. This 7.59 mg/I in 221
acre-feet of groundwater volume equates to 4,746 pounds of nitrate -nitrogen (essentially, 221
acre-feet of water having 4,746 pounds of nitrate will have a concentration of 7.59 mg/I nitrate -
nitrogen). Thus, there appears to be a 5 to 1 nitrogen leaching to aquifer response ratio
(25,700/4,746). Table 3 below demonstrates how this continued over loading of nitrogen to the
aquifer will increase nitrate concentrations in the aquifer underlying Lind Farms, Inc., Habrock's
Property and the Town of Severance.
This increase in nitrate concentrations has been observed by a noted increase in the aquifer
concentration (as measured in the Lind Farms, Inc. stock well). In November 1996, the
concentration of the aquifer was 2.24 mg/I. In November 1997, the concentration increased to
4.86 mg/1. Table 3 includes a 48,226 pound increase of nitrate contained in the 37 acre-feet of
lagoon leachate which occurred during September 1996 to September 1997 (Table 2).
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:',LEAR IND1Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
Paragon Report Review
Page 7
Table 4 contains a summary of groundwater quality samples collected over the past several years
which show increases in groundwater nitrate concentrations. Drain tile samples represent
subsurface water underlaying the Hirsch property. This water is collected via a perforated drain
tile located under the Hirsch property.
The proposed Hirsch Dairy (1) is a much to intensive use on the number of acres owned by the
applicant, and (2) has polluted, and continues to pollute shallow groundwater underlaying
surrounding land owners from the existing lagoon, the over application of process wastewater and
solid manure and improper containment of storm water runoff contaminated with manure. In
addition, the current activity is in violation of the interim narrative standards for groundwater
contained in 5 CCR 1002-41 Section 41.5. Continued overloading of the aquifer will result in
degradation of aquifer water quality and will result in conditions that will render the aquifer
useless for domestic, livestock and irrigation purposes. Past activities and approved future
activities will have a dramatic negative impact on the environment, health and welfare of the
community.
Sincerely,
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lind
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ° Water Quality
E:ILEAFILIND\Paragon Review Letter Report.wpd
972516
lagoon water balance2.123
Cr O
> i
:z W
MIN
'v
-- el 00 N oo NO 00 \D Ch et CN et ON ... un N ND on et +n O et cs a C1
N O O O O on et 41et et wn el'et rn on on en m C Cs --• O, h.- C N
v1 u-; v:n ' N N r+1 00 v N C O O O O C O r^, V^ v- et N rV
•,• N N rn on rn rn rn rn r; rn en et et h un
et Oh N N .+ rn %.p 41 N 00 O O Tr O\ N N .--r M ND vn 00 O O et en O
0 0 0 0 0 0 ee rr e. N N .--r O O O O G O -- N N
ee
O O O O O O O O C O C O O O C C C O O O O 6 0 0
N om- r C v) ON h O CN rn N et rn -- h v1 O OK M N et et O
G O O N N r1 rn N -� O O O CD N N N rn en
O O O C C G 666 666 O 0 0 0 0 G 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N oo rn r; u; v; CN N N C rn N N N r1 rn et in Tr ,n N
r1 0 0 0 CD O r, C N C N N C. O C C O .Y O 0C O rn CD 0C C V,
O p O C O N C rs O O O C C O N 0G O N O
M O N ND 00 .-+ N 00 et 00 C\ N CO v1 on N O� N C M 00 O N C et N rn rn -1 on 00 N N O et rn fn c) len rn et r1 00 0C M
6 O O C J --• O N N rl -. ••: 0 0 0 0 0 0 •- r'i O r1
a a Os CviNo O V No No V 1C N N n N N n N N N
@N a Ch cs erN Ch C1 C1 O\ Q� Ch
r 1 r 1 r 1 I r r r
C C L .. i. = DD Oftw Y ' L'adets '� V h i1 L' Op
- w 4tXti"a4 n0Zto a L C fmIgQZn'5Qvi
R
B 6-
F4 ,• o
ti 8
N t;
0 2
0 R
P4
ci*
* *
11/04197, 04:31:01 PM
972516
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M O 00 00 -+ 0 b H b Ui O h Q 00 0
O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 E- Q b- Ni P O M a n
O O O O O O O O O Q O N O ' Ni Q P O M 0
a M O CC N, N O P 7 O M 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O Q M
y r. M Q OC n M n a N a- P P 0 P a P a a P a a a P NN
N
c� O Q c — n a o0 0 CC O P CC a 0' C' ci ai 0 a '^
N 00 — ^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C
N N N ON
M Q f
C 66”
Q
v V
a
G 0 0 0 0 00
R n 000 ON 0 0 0
0 0
O x C N
O m
L v
=Q Q x CO Q o
O Q Q on
t
a �0 O
M M O b ✓t
v1 N— vC M Q N O O O Un N V N N N O N CO N Un P Q 00 0
`D O^ 0 ^ O N N CO M V M N O N O N [� N N M
vC 6 0 0 0 6 N O CO vi n N m 0 0 0 6 O 0 M, Q o0 O 00 O
ON
Q O N W" n O0 00 N O h U, N a .c N O M CO O
G , M N N o Qm vl M Q M W n N W M
tsNM 6 O 6 0- 0 N N M-^ 0 0 0 0 0 0-- M O M O
1 .v
c
n Ni vl ^ Q" n N Q M N N Mi U, - Q- N N Q W wt N N
a ^ O N M 0 o0 " M M V' -< O N M O CO - M M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0- O_ -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- O- -� -- 0
< v1 '-' M- O O M N ^^ M- v1 a v1 O M N Q y O
N- - 0 0 0 0 N N N M M N N ^ 0 0 0 0 N N N M M N
G 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 66
4
^ N O Q O M O M O O CO a 0 a P n N P T 't n Q -
y 0 'N N N N- N N vi v-, vC •p w1 Q Q Q Q N N M M Q M Q M m
Si" ' �
M M M Q W a n 00 N vl N O 00 O 00 00 M N 00 Q M b CO- eO
OC n Q Q Q .a O 00 N O W W N e N N
vl 00 0 Vl M M Q 00 CO U, 00 M. b M M� VN O U M M a P OCC
N N 0 MO 00 P cc OO n co CD 0 CO ‘.0 Q I- O Q P N N N OO N
O P 0 P 0 O N 00 N 00 00 0 Q Q o0 b N N Q P Q
MMMQQMMMQQQCQQ Q Q Q Q
oN 00
- O Q M M U' M n V 0- U 00 vi 0 0 0 0 •C '0 00 N 00 N N OO
N Y. C VV' CCO CO O Cp CO 00 00 000 00OVO 00 00 000 000 Ni N N N N N N N N
�z�
VtbNN
T OTC a .TN q OCC A G, T C� 0 CO CO CO ON 0,T Oni P Q On1 T n P ON
T
L '� m W m Op > > b Y O i C a 4 O' Ri C ?L
C Za-�L- <Z OZ2 LAG Qa-O� <
OL
2R R
O
L
lagoon water balance2.123
11104/97, 04:29:22 PM
972516
Table 3
Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
ial Aquifer Loading
Nitrogen Land Application
Incremental Cummluative
Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate
Year Loading Recieved * Increase Increase
(lbs) (lbs) (mg/i) (mg/1)
1996 2.24
1997 15700 3140 2.59 4.83
1998 73926 14785 12,19 17.02
1999 73926 14785 12.19 29.22
2000 73926 14785 12.19 41.41
2001 73926 14785 12.19 53.61
2002 73 926 14785 12.19 65.80
2003 73 926 14785 12.19 78.00
* Based on 5 to 1 reduction from root zone leaching to aquifer
11/07/97,07:44:34 AM Aquifer Leach Table.123
972516
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Quality
Sample Nitrate Depth
Location Date (mg/i) (feet)
MW# 1 10/30/97 8.47 9.95
MW#2 10/30/97 9.36 5.25
MW#3 10/30/97 9.88 3.00
Drain Tile 10/06/96 7.59
Drain Tile 10/30/97 12.20
Stock Well 10/06/96 2.24
Stock Well 10/30/97 4.86
11/06/97,02:17:49 PM
water quality summary table.123
972516
04
U)
4rj)
0
(i) A° 0
4ro
tn
x�
1.0 co
- i
Gradient Flow
cp
a C
,W
'-
arti
972516
04
k� w
N
m U)
N A O
0
•rio
xr�
972516
9)
Field
5,03
p
_\
II
\II
o II • 11
<952.���
_ JI.
4969
I<94p
5025
1F1Rt
tr
(C7 D •
Lt.. LS •
Ssotic 111R.Su+) ,.)
wsa.• .1 (zzi,�)°°��
• — �;v1
' Loop Lake ••� � �� —�
u
Ill "—` " 5002 • •
•
y *1 N‘h
4,10NarT02414 fo
WCU,S
3325 'd�<9
Hew Windsor
4936
494/
'—e
m
503/
i1
7Z.oc..uN p>in>Z
A2uw -it, STu Dr .t t&
986
5025
•
4949
VSR toil
L�r�F EkJ, G1 >zi G
• _ !: Severance
•
4574
BaldriddeLake
P01119 B1 __..
Sr ?Bpi
La its
•
A )hgcl
Lake
4900
9/2516..
OCT-27-1057 :5:15
WELD COUNTY HERLTH DEPT
Post -h' Fax Note 7671
Phone #
Date
# o1
pages
11
From fit.Pbr L jiiCIV'(:
Co.
Phone*
Fax Wib�..
COLOR DO
September 24, 1997
Fax #
C
1970 564966 P.01
IEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517 16TH AVENUE COURT
GREELEY, CO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586
HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635
)MMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639
FAX (970) 356-4966
Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver„Colorado 80222-1530
Dear Derald:
As you are aware, our County Commissioners have requested that our staff review the
Hirsch Dairy, manure and waste water manegemen plan (the Hirsch Plan) for compliance
with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulations (5 CCR 1002-81).
However, due to a "gray area" in the CAFO Regula 'ons we are finding it difficult to
complete our review. Specifically, it is not apparea_ whether tailwater ponds which
would capture and temporarily store process waste ter, applied through flood irrigation
methods, are required to be lined.
Due to this "gray area" we are requesting that your staff provide an interpretation in
regard to this requirement. As you know, Section 4.8.4 of the CAFO Regulations
requires that retention structures constructed after August 30, 1992, have evidence that a
liner has been constructed and meets a specified pecaieability. However, it does not
indicate if tailwater ponds must be lined.
The Hirsch Plan is proposing an unlined tailwater ond. This pond will capture and
temporarily hold process waste water which has be n land applied through flood
irrigation practices. According to the Hirsch Plan. y captured process waste water will
be immediately pumped back into the facility's primary retention structure.
I am in receipt of a letter dated December 20, 199 to Victor Sainz from Dave Rau and
Brick Smith of Terracon Environmental, Inc, whit is a summary of a meeting in which
you attended. This letter indicates that tailwater ponds are not required to meet lining
requirements. The letter indicates that you have received a copy of this letter. However,
subsequent conversations with you lead me to believe that evidence of a liner is required
by the CAFO Regulations.
I
1
972516
-7 re.+J�=750 F. ;2.G
Derald Lang:
Water Quality Control Division
September 24, 1997
Page 2
It is apparent that there is not a consensus on the inte
CAFO Regulations and that additional review of this
scheduled to present our review to our County Co,t�
1997. Therefore, we would request that your written
Tuesday,' September 30, 1997.
We truly; appreciate your assistance in this matter. I
not hesitate to call me at (970) 353-0635. extension
Sincerely,
Trevor Ji icek
Supervisor
Environmental Protection Services
tj1830
cc: IohnPickle, Weld County Health Department
Dave Holm, Water Quality Control Division
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
Dave Rau, Paragon Consulting Group
Victor Sainz, Water Quality Control Division
retation of this portion of the
item is warranted. We are
ssioners on Wednesday, October 1,
interpretation be faxed to us by
you have any questions, please do
232.
972516
RoyRomer. Governor'
Pali Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of treat
4300 °.a, Creek Di.9. taborxory and Radiation Seniees Divion I
Denver, Colorado 30t46-1530 8700 Lon, Blvd. 1
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver 00 80220.6928
(303) 692.3090
STAT OF COLORADO
Located in Glendale, Colorado
http:/Mww.cdphesra fe,:.vs
d
September 30, 1997
Weld County Health Department
1517 16th Avenue Court
Greeley,, CO 80631
Attn: Trevor Jiricek
Re: CAFO Regulations Question on Tai
'ibear Trevor:
This letter is in response to your
wherein jyou requested an interpreta
concerning the need to seal taiiwat
stating Hthat this is a somewhat "gr,
CAFO regulations. Understanding the d
will hopefully aid in applying the r
The section of the regulation (
tailwater ponds installation is in
surface; water quality from run -of
practices. Thus, the need to seal
when the' regulation was developed for
common practice with flood irrieatia
land application disposal plan incorp.
of a closed loop system; then thie pot
qualityiwould need to considered.
From the description in the Hirsch P
potential for groundwater quality i
that the resident time of any proces
is minimal. Under this situation I
this tdiwater pond because the po
other tailwater ponds in use with fl
surrounding area.
•
Colorado imt
af Polak
and m
water Ponds.
etter of September 24, 1997
on of the CAFO regulations
ponds. You are right in
y area" in interrupting the
velopment of the regulations
lation to the Hirsch Plan.
1.5(A)(2)) which addresses
ended to cover impacts to
due to flood irrigation
ese ponds was not an issue
he use of tailwater ponds is
However, should a feedlot
rate a tailwater pond as part
ntial impacts to groundwater
an it would appear that the
pacts will be very small in
water in the tailwater pond
ould not see a need to seal
ntial impact is not unlike
d irrigation practiced in the
972516
aL )• )'— -t . . JG
Should you have
;3561.
Sincerely,
bald Itng, PE
cc: Johh Pickle, Weld County H alth apartment
Dave Rau, Paragon Consulting Gro p
Dave Holm, WQCD
Victor Saint, WQCD
any further questions k please call me at 303/692-
972516
1
Hirsch Dairy Nitrogen Balance
Prepared by
Randy W. Ray, Agronomist
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Leaf Engineering
Route 1, Box 75
Merino, CO 80741
Forrest:
October 28, 1997
I have reviewed the nutrient management plan for the Hirsch Dairy near Severance,
CO. Based on my knowledge and expertise in nutrient management plans and overall
water quality monitoring, I have made some conclusions regarding the report preformed
by Paragon Consulting Group. Below is a table (Table 1) containing information for the
effluent application at the Hirsch Dairy.
Table 1.
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Current Facility (766 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
(sue (Ibsl (Ibsl (lbs/ac) 1ac.1 (ac)
4,598,674 18,395 11,957 154 77.64 68.56
Hirsch Dairy Effluent Balance
Proposed Facility (1,380 Milking Cows)
Total Nitrogen Net Crop Acres Req. Additional
Water Content Nitrogen Nitrogen Agronomic Acres for
Volume Effluent Load Demand Rate Application
Lac jlbsl (Ibsl (Ibs/ac.) (ac) _WI
9,096,193 36,385 23,650 154 153.57 7.37
972516
Page 2
Table 1 indicates that only 78 acres are required for application of effluent and runoff
nutrients from the current dairy. This will allow the Hirsch Dairy to apply dry manure to
the additional 68 acres. This additional application of dry manure must be closely
monitored to prevent over application of nitrogen.
Considering the proposed expansion of the dairy, Hirsch Dairy is going to need
additional acres to apply this effluent. From calculations, an additional 7 acres is
needed to keep the nitrogen application at or under agronomic rates.
There will be an annual variation in precipitation runoff volumes, but not a dramatic
change in net nitrogen load since the majority of the water in the lagoon consists of
dairy process water. The nutrient value for the calculations were taken from the BMP's
for Agriculture, published by Colorado State University. A value of 4 Ibs/1000 gallons of
nitrogen was used in this table.
I was advised that on the week of October 20, Hirsch Dairy applied feedlot manure to
the 146 acres. I am assuming a typical application rate of 20 ton per acre, and using
the BMP Guide for nutrient content. Table 2 shows the effects on the nutrient balance
with consideration of the effluent applied as irrigation water.
Table 2.
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Current Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
T/ac abs/T,) (Ibs) (Ibsa Ibs ibs
20 9 26,280 22,515 11,957 15,722
972516
Page 3
Manure Application and the Effect
on Effluent Application
Hirsch Dairy
Proposed Facility
Effluent
Application Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Net Excess
Rate Content Content Allowable Nitrogen Nitrogen
(T/ac) (Ibsrr) (lbs) (Ibs) (lbs) (lbs)
20 9 26,280 22,515 23,650 27,415
The concern is evident in Table 2. The Hirsch lagoon is currently nearly full of effluent,
and the dry manure applied this fall already exceeds crop nutrient demand, without
including possible soil nitrogen contents, and additional irrigation water (Smith Lateral)
nutrient content.
From my calculations, Hirsch Dairy will exceed agronomic nitrogen application rates for
the 1998 growing season (15,722 lbs), under current conditions (766 milking cows).
The proposed facility will have a huge effect on the nitrogen balance if dry manure is
applied to all 146 acres. The over application of nitrogen will be 27,415 lbs, nearly
doubling the effect on the current facility.
Another concern is the constant application of organic nitrogen, which will continue to
mineralize in the soil over a period of several years. As an example, only 30% of the
first year applied organic nitrogen will be mineralized. This leads to a building effect
where the mineralized nitrogen builds to a point where little or no effluent or dry manure
can be applied and maintain agronomic application rates. Phosphorus and other
minerals may be of concern at this site where a large concentration of animals are
located.
972516
co a) C 5
O • w z o 0
< OZ
U_
cn0 E
.- • O O C (0
< NW 2X
U
a)�
E.��. o 0
T5 a> Q M 2 x
Q
C 0
(1 0 C
O CO CO
L O E
U +
2 C
N C
O a M
III() Z20(13
rna)
Y_
m C
et 11) 13 C tD CD Cr) N w
M.alg 22°M
M o z
ClZ�'
C
C
R (A w
7 U. O
W7 J
Z
N
X C
(aia
0 0 o
H +-
z
c
o
0 C 7
M (O _
>
z
U W
M a,
(D
0 •
(0
ti
N.
O
O
— U,
N
0
0
N Na)
L
O 41
O)
7.v CO
v �
• M
OD
M 0)0
U) O
.O nr
_ 0 C'
M 0 E . 6
}--?M O 0) Ch
> ~- 0
w a) 0
O a; E u)
C M 3 m (p
rx > > v.
N
'7
0 a r
v a E y N
U co 7 M N
d > > II1N
co
o z
c
z
W
C
0
• O 0 j
z
C
.
z
C
0
0 .M 0
O M
C
• 00 co
• 0
2z
>
To `w E
o co
0
q
N
N
0
O 0
.0l0
U
MN
M LO
N-
0
(O
N
N
(n
. M
M
M O
OQ
a u)
o w? E in
C (-0 7 (o O)
> rn(0
N
0
a)D E
U ((pp
M M (n
d �> 2-45 -'(CO
Dry Feedlot Manure Applied @20 T/acre 10/21-10/23
a .E C)0(U
O • C
4 ~
O f▪ 5 E o ,
M I-- U Z te -1
17)
w 0 C U
C C a m
a .0 0)
oo°oA
I- U UZJ
�'a
0 O w M
a - n
E 00 O �J �.
(iJ J a(13
C
a)
W
'O
CO
0
C
d
U
O
ti
M
OD
N.
N
C 0
(C O
p) 7 7 M
O 2W C l3l O
►- >�� (o
z
N
`)
0
N
M y
X
O
O
O
ai
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
97216
WELD CQc f LE, OTIS, FREY & HELLERICH, LLC
RICHARD N. DOYLE
HENRY C. FREY
THOMAS E. HELLERICH
FRED L. OTIS
G. BRENT LOAN
ELLEN S. MINNIG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1997 KW 17 CM 2: 22 West Greeley Law Center
1812 56th AVENUE
CLERK GREELEY, COLORADO 80634
TO THE P','` ;` (970)330.6700
November 17, 1997
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Hirsch Dairy USR 1091
Dear County Commissioners:
DENVER METRO
(303)659-7576
FAX
(970) 330-2969
HAND DELIVER
I am enclosing herewith a copy of a letter from Forrest Leaf, dated November 17, 1997,
with regard to the above -captioned matter. Please include this as a part of the record in USR
1091.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS E. HELLERICH
Attorney at Law
TEH:cjm
Enc.
pc: Via Fax: Todd Hodges
do , Pt, C A 972516
14 EXHIBIT
jr.
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hilirose, CO 80733
(970) 590-1787
LEAF ENGINEERING
November 17, 1997
Mr. John Pickle, Director
Environmental Protection Services
Weld County Health Department
1517 15 Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Hirsch Dairy, USR 1091
Dear John:
This letter is to follow up on my letter of November 10, 1997 and to summarize my concerns with
regards to the applicant's proposed Mature Management Plan, your staff's review of this plan and
the issues that I have identified with this plan and your staffs approval of this plan.
The applicant was directed to meet the requirements of the County Commissioners December 16,
1996 Resolutions and Development Standards. Subsequently, the applicant's consultant,
Paragon, prepared a September 26, 1997 report entitled "Manure and Wastewater Management
Plan for the Hirsch Dairy". This plan is the basis of my review, in addition to observations I have
made at the USR location. It is important to note, that I observed construction activities and land
application activities on the subject USR site directly related to the USR requirements prior to
submission of this proposed plan on September 26, 1997. It is obvious that even though this plan
has not been approved by the County, the applicant and County staff have willfully allowed this
expansion to proceed. It was the express intent of the County Commissioners, that public input
would be part of the review process prior to the approval of this plan, either officially by the
Commissioners or indirectly by your staff and the County Planning staff. Your staffs actions
approving such activities prior to the approval of this USR is viewed as a willful and wanton act
which contradicts the December 16, 1997 Board Resolutions and Development Standards.
Of greater concern is the fact that the applicant has and continues to provide false and inaccurate
information to your staff but your staff never does an independent review of the applicant's or its
consultant's proposed plan. Below are a few brief ieueat examples from the September 26, 1997
"Manure and Wastewater Management Plan".
'LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ° Hydraulics ° Water Resources ' Water Quality
EAIEAFLMMAIe Pon I.efrwpd
;372516
Pickle Letter
Page 2
1. In a letter dated March 17, 1996 from Terracon to Victor Sainz (copy to WC13D), the
applicant was to take water quality samples. In the Septeber 26, 1997 plan, no mention of
this testing is made. Considering the demonstrated shallow aquifer and ongoing pollution
of this resource by the applicant's existing lagoon and land application practices (as shown
in my amended letter of November 10, 1997) it is inconceivable that your staff could
forget to require this quality monitoring, let alone state to the Commissioners, at the
November 5, 1997 hearing, that they informed the Commissioners the applicant's plan met
all December 16, 1997 Resolutions and Development Standards.
2. Section 2.2 of the plan, page 5 states that "unconsumed process tail water will be captured
by drainage/diversion ditches which have been installed along the north and west
boundaries of the property and will be directed to the proposed tail water pond sump
system." In fact no such ditches have been installed In addition, pursuant to the
December 16, 1997 Resolution 2.A.(2), there is no design criteria to show how these
ditches will meet the 1 x 10' cm/sec for all waste water retention structures.
3. Page 11 of the September 26, 1997 plan, states that in -place compaction tests in the
location of the proposed east retention pond will be conducted to ensure 1 x 10' cm/sec
CAFO permeability standard is met. Please refer to the December 16, 1996 Resolution
2.(A) which requires (in addition to CAFO requriements) that all wastewater retention
facilities and wastewater collection and conveyance structures be designed for a 25
year, 24 hour storm event with permeability of 1 x 10' cm/sec. The applicant has not
demonstrated that this criteria has been met for the retention pond and conveyance
ditches. Your staff informed the Commissioners that the plan was adequate on November
5, 1997, even though no required in -place samples were presented to your staff or the
Commissioners. In addition in my opinion, this facility has not been designed to capture
and detain generated storm water runoff for the 31 acre basin, it is not in the location as
indicated in the September 26, 1997 plan, and was purposely located over an easement
without Mr. Rauh's permission, thus destroying the pipeline. Finally, this structure does
not meet the criteria for evaporative systems required by CAFO 4.8.3(C)(5)(B).
Of particular concern is the gross deception presented by the applicant concerning the east
retention pond. The applicant submitted to your staff Figure 4 and Figure 3 showing
details of this facility. This was submitted on September 26, 1997. However, prior to
October 9, 1997 the applicant, his attorney and engineers already knew that the lagoon
would not be constructed as presented to your staff, the state and the Commissioners.
Enclosed is a copy of an October 9, 1997 letter and lagoon plan Why didn't the applicant
disclose to your staff and the state the "new plan" in early October'? Why didn't the
applicant disclose the "as constructed" pond at the November 5, 1997 hearing? If your
staff had conducted a site inspection they would have known the east pond was
•
LEAF ENGMEERI NG
Hydrology • Hydraulics • Water Resources ° Water Quality
F.: \ LEAFUNISPickle Plan 1n4
972516
Pickle Letter
Page 3
constructed without a permit and not as proposed. Your staff apparently had knowledge
of the construction of this pond because of the applicant's application on October 10,
1997 for a building permit. Why didn't your staff disclose the new location, configuration
and the fact this facility existed to the Commissioners on November 5, 19977
4. Section 2.5 and 2.6 discuss that site specific agronomic analyses will be performed before
applying solid manure. In fact, no agronomic analyses, or information of any kind, has
been performed and provided to your staff However, the applicant has applied an
estimated 30 tons per acre of dry manure during the week of October 20, 1997 and again
on November 7, 1997. Obviously, the over application of manure continues to get worse
and is being willfully allowed by your staff.
5. The applicant's proposed tail water pond, also part of the October 10, 1997 building
permit application, does not meet the requirements of the December 16, 1997 Resolution
at 2.(A.)(2) in that it will not be designed to detain a 25 year, 24 hour storm event and
meet the permeability standard of 1 x 104 cm/sec. While the state may not require that
this facility met the standards set forth in 4.8.3 of CAFO, (see enclosed letter from Derald
Lang) it is apparent that this is required of the applicant by the County pursuant to the
Resolution at 2.(A.X2).
John, I have raised numerous concerns and questions of the applicant's and your staffs
preparation review and presentation of this USR plan. This letter identifies only some of the
inadequacies of the applicant's September 26, 1997 plan. Until these issues, and others, are
properly reviewed a recommendation of' approval is grossly negligent.
Sincerely,
LE
cc: Tom Hellerich
Ken Lind
Enclosures
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology • Hydraulics • Water Resources • Water Quality
muntuxquorisk PI® rime vpd
972516
P L 1059
NOVEMBER 19, 1997,
HEARING DATE
EXHIBITS
M, O, Q, U, V, AND W
PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL FILE
972516
Hello